Backgammon, Pascal, Sklanskyanity

[David Sklansky]

There is actually a connection between those three subjects.

Pascal's wager, I believe, is basically the idea that you should believe in the Christian God because even if there is only a small chance that he exists, you are getting essentially "infinite odds" since it will get you into heaven. Flaws in this idea include the fact that other religions might believe that such a belief guarantees that you DON'T get into heaven (since you are blasphemous) and the concept that if your belief is based on Pascal's argument, you don't truly believe. You can't make yourself believe if you don't.

But there is a somewhat altered version of Pascal's wager (The Sklansky-Pascal Wager) that doesn't have these flaws. The idea comes up all the time if you play bridge or backgammon. In those games you are frequently faced with situations where you cannot possibly win UNLESS something else is true. That something else may be quite unlikely. Your opponent will throw double sixes on his next roll. East is holding no spade. But those facts alone are not enough to win. It is also necessary that you play the situation correctly. Which means play the UNDER THE ASSUMPTION that he will roll double sixes or that East has no spade.

If you don't play that strategy you have no chance at all. However that doesn't mean that you should somehow persuade yourself that your assumptions are likely to be correct. It does no good to be inaccurate with your probability assessments if it flies in the face of evidence and math. Play optimistally while realizing that you were lucky if things turn out OK.

When I defined the basics of Sklanskyanity I mentioned that God wants his conscious evolved creations to "be happy". (Of course that was an oversimplification. I really should have said that he was concerned with their overall well being as a group.) Someone questioned the logical basis for this. I didn't answer at the time but my answer is simply that I assumed it to be true. Not a farfetched assumption if there is God. And without it there is no religion. Meanwhile if God wants to improve Man's overall well being, one way to do this is to be the third party in Prisoner Dillema situations who punishes non cooperaters. In other words make it worthwile to follow the Golden Rule.

So lets's change Pascal's wager thusly:

It is plus EV to ASSUME that there is a God who in some way will make it infinitely better if you follow the Golden Rule than if you don't. (Only if you believe that the chances of such a God existing is zero does this not work.)
Notice that this revised Sklansky- Pascal Wager eliminates the two earlier flaws mentioned. No reasonable person believes that DISOBEYING the Golden Rule may actually be a way into heaven. (As opposed to some religions that might believe that disbelieving in Christ is neccesary for salvation.) Secondly, anybody can ASSUME that God exists without actually believing that there is a high probability that he does. Any non zero probability in their mind suffices.

[Joe826]

But your new interpretation still doesn't escape the criticisms of Pascal's wager as it was. The obvious thing to do would be to say that perhaps God is actually an evil God, and he rewards us in the after life for doing everything we can to break the Golden Rule. Obviously such a scenario is far-fetched, but it's at least conceivable, so there is a slight chance that this is actually the case (no matter how infintesimal).

If we are arguing on the merits of Pascal's wager alone, we can't know which one of these two antithetical beliefs to accept, since they both have the same after-life implications. Of course, we could extend this example and make it even more hairy by talking about those other religions that could very well cast you into eternal damnation even if you do following the Golden Rule.

I just don't see how you escape this.

[David Sklansky]

The difference between your criticisms and the original ones have to do with reasonableness. Your technically correct argument is unreasonable. The original ones aren't.

[Joe826]

As far as I understand, reasonability isn't a part of Pascal's wager, and you've made it a part of yours. Ok.

I'm still not sure I totally understand, though. You've said that in order for there to be a God, it MUST be the case that he would have us follow the Golden Rule, so we ought to follow the Golden Rule JUST IN CASE God actually exists, so we'll be saved or what have you.

You've done nothing to defend your basic premise regarding the Golden Rule, other then to say that most normal people would think that should be the case. That's not really a sound argument.

Additionally, if we're going to make wagers on what's reasonable, it seems that accepting one of the world's religions with at least some historical evidence (like we know Christ did exist, etc.) would be much more reasonable than simply believing that we should follow the Golden Rule and we'll be ok. We have no evidence for this, outside of what you think God should be.

[reubenf]

In a world of rational beings, no such justification is needed for the Golden Rule because it is rational. The Golden Rule is only irrational in a world of irrational beings.

[mosquito]

The other problem is you can substitute anything
"reasonable" for "Golden Rule" in your argument.

While the point of the argument is taken, it has
effectively zero value. You are only pushing your
particular cause, in this case the "Golden Rule".

[jjacky]

very nice thoughts, david, but i want to stress, that the necessary assumptions are very strong:

1. the probability that god exists is not zero
2. god lays infinite odds
3. the probability that disobeying the golden rule may be a way into heaven is zero

i thought about this problem pretty hard (before you put it in this forum) and i came to another conclusion that you did.

in my opinion, there is absolutely no possibility to test the existence of god or his will under the assumption that a god exists, nor any possibility to figure out gods will in any other way. that leads me to the conclusion, that the possibility that god exists is zero OR the probability that disobeying the golden rule may be a way into heaven is NOT zero. with my assumptions your reasoning does not lead to the conclusion you have stated in your post.

i want to mention that i follow the "Golden Rule" anyway (or at least i try to do so in most situations), but i am unable to think out a religious or philosophical reasoning to do so that appears to be proper to me (and i didn't lead or heard about one neither). moreover i am not positive that anyone will ever do so without more or less dubious assumptions.


i hope (but doubt) that i was able to express my thoughts in an understandable way with my limited knowledge of the enlish language.

[d10]

Under this new wager, you still lose out if there is a God who maintains that the only way to heaven is through faith, a situation that most Christians believe to be true. Pascal's wager seems to assume that if there is a God, it is most likely that he will use this standard. The only difference with the Sklansky-Pascal wager is that it uses the beliefs of Sklanskyism as opposed to Christianity. I understand your reasoning for believing that it's unlikely there is a God, but assuming the chance that a God does exist, are you saying you would rather be a follower of your own beliefs than those of an established religion? I realize that believing in Christianity might not be correct, but if God does exist, I believe that it's most likely to be correct than any other religion.

I do notice that you removed any references to getting into heaven with your wager, so it's hard to argue against. I mean I'm sure it is +EV to be a good person if there is a God, if that's all you're trying to say. But I still think it is probably more +EV to believe in an established religion with thousands of years of history, even given the fact that believing in one religion may conflict with another.

[jjacky]

[ QUOTE ]
You've done nothing to defend your basic premise regarding the Golden Rule, other then to say that most normal people would think that should be the case. That's not really a sound argument.

[/ QUOTE ]

i think thats the major flaw in the theory.

[BluffTHIS!]

[ QUOTE ]
The other problem is you can substitute anything
"reasonable" for "Golden Rule" in your argument.

While the point of the argument is taken, it has
effectively zero value. You are only pushing your
particular cause, in this case the "Golden Rule".

[/ QUOTE ]

This is the logical crux of the matter, in that you have predetermined a particular standard that appeals to you. Furthermore, although you phrase your wager with the word "assume", this is effectively the same thing as saying "believe without proof" which is the same thing as FAITH to those of us who are Christian believers.

[OtisTheMarsupial]

I hear you.
I have oft thought this same sort of idea.

Now, please don't anyone take this the wrong way. This is not an anti-god post. Please if you read this, read the whole thing.

Basically, for me, the notion of god is so preposterous that I can't even bring myself to contemplate it. To me, it's like wondering if there are aliens and then worrying that if there aren't aliens does that mean my life is worthless? Thinking about the probability of a god is just silly and completely counter-intuitive to me.

I don't 'wonder' about the existence of a thing; I know when something exists. I know that the notebook I type this on exists, I know that the chair I sit on exists, I even know intangibles such as love exist because I just KNOW it, I feel it, I cannot deny it.

While I do not wonder about god, I do wonder about ethics and all things normative. I'm constantly curious about what is *right and just*.

So, in that respect, I often wonder if my moral being is inherently good, bad or neutral. I wonder if the universe is favored toward me or against me. I wonder if other humans are inherently good or neutral.

Thus I've grappled with a Pascal's wager type problem involving the foundations of my belief and how to act, that is, how to be a moral character.

And I've come to the conclusion, practically the same way Sklansky has here, by simply assuming as my foundation premises (act as if and it will be), that:

It is possible that I and other humans can be happy.
It is likely, more than merely possible, that I and other humans should be happy.

Given these premises, the Golden Rule offers one of the best current method of obtaining happiness for myself and others.
But I'd go one step further and that is to include a moral obligation to participate in the cessasion of wrongdoing by others.

[goofball]

[ QUOTE ]
It is plus EV to ASSUME that there is a God who in some way will make it infinitely better if you follow the Golden Rule than if you don't. (Only if you believe that the chances of such a God existing is zero does this not work.)
Notice that this revised Sklansky- Pascal Wager eliminates the two earlier flaws mentioned. No reasonable person believes that DISOBEYING the Golden Rule may actually be a way into heaven. (As opposed to some religions that might believe that disbelieving in Christ is neccesary for salvation.) Secondly, anybody can ASSUME that God exists without actually believing that there is a high probability that he does. Any non zero probability in their mind suffices.

[/ QUOTE ]

I read this post and I'm reminded of something said by Albert Einstein, noted Physicist. He said:

"A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death."

Talking about EV considerations with respect to the golden rule is useless in my opinion. Anyone who follows that rule solely for EV considerations is certainly not following it's spirit, and really, not following the rule at all. To discuss a rule based on selflessness and kindness in terms of EV and potential self benefit is borders on nonsensical and is at the least somewhat of an oxymoron. Talking about the EV of following the golden rule is like talking about the EV of giving to chairty, or giving a present to a child. You do it because you want to, you do it because it makes you happy, you do it because it fits with your principles, you do it because you think someone needs to. Your only EV drived is happinessEV from being a good person, from making someone else happy, and from improving the lot of humanity. You rarely consider the material benefits because they rarely exist. I'm aware that charitable contributions are tax-deductible and that giving presents to your child could have very very long term $EV (they lov eyou and support you in their old age), but both are not worth considering in EV terms. Also, I know that plenty of times presents do have a substantial EV consideration (societal, usually), but obviosuly siatuations exist that don't.

The reasons to follow the golden rule are stated by Einstein. Social ties, sympathy, and generally being a good person, no religous EV considerations SHOULD be necesary. It is my opinon that a huge flaw in religion is that it puts humans on such a reward/punishment system, like we're rats in an experiment. Some of the very worst parts of religion stem from that and that alone. We're told a huge number of obscure rules to follow, and then fight about which ones actually have to be followed. Immesurable is the evil done by people following what they believed to be technically the rules (the inquisition and the crusades come to mind but are by no means the sole examples). Even more pain can be attributed to disagreements about what the rules are (almost every major religuos conflict in history). Human beings are creatures that tend to live up to exactly the bar set for them. Religions that set the bar so low cripple their followers in both moral and intellectual development. I believe a god that would exist would give us more credit than "be good or you go to bed without heaven."


Entirely outside anything I've already said is an objection that essentially boils down to 'god is smart.' If we assume a god exists who created us, and we assume he's interested in our general well being, essentially he's going to see right through you. If he wants you to follow the golden rule he wants you to follow both the letter and the spirit of the rule. He's going to know those who are doing it for EV reasons and those who are geniunly good people. If he truly does care about these things and installs a reward punishment system related to it, I can't possibly see him rewarding people who follow the golden rule for the sole purpose of being rewarded.

You will never find someone more commited to the beauty of science and mathematics. They apply to basically everything, you can even talk about EV considerations of the golden rule interms of happinessEV/karmaEV. People who are kind of others and try to help people out are generally happier. They don't hold grudges, aren't generally grumpy etc etc. But heavenEV and afterlifeEV are dead ends, intellectually and practically.

[Cerril]

My whole argument has generally been along the same lines - to the point where I was surprised to see you proposing it it (and wondered if maybe you'd read some of my comments in the Psych forum in the religion debates awhile ago). But of course your -anity isn't the same after all, it's a comment with regard to probability.

The suggestion I advanced (regarding God, not regarding morality, which is where most of my philosophy lies) was that while a God who commands certain things may exist, I would not worship one who was not benevolent and good. Such a God would not punish us for our behavior no matter what, but would wish for us all to be as happy as possible, in an absolute sense, both here and in whatever afterlife may exist. On the other hand, a very powerful, all knowing being who wished for nothing but our happiness would certainly be the sort of being I wouldn't mind being grateful to (rather than, say, resentful). For that matter, a capricious or cruel God... one who had power but wanted to see us hurt, there's little point in worshiping such a being.

Point is, if I end up living my life as if I owed a great debt to a being who only wants me and everyone around me to be happy, the end result is that I work very hard at my own happiness, overall and not just from moment to moment. In the end, I will probably -be- happier from being more thoughtful about my actions, and I have found also more considerate. And the idea is the same as Sklansky's Wager regarding the Golden Rule (though with consequences that apply to all decisions, not just the treatment of others).

[Jacob_Gilliam]

One sees god less through their religion and more through their own eyes. If one sees god as loving, then he is so. If one sees god as vengeful, then he is so. Our religious beliefs are more of a reflection of who we are than what god (if he does exist) is. Therefore whether Pascal's wager or the golden rule are applicable would vary from person to person, for there is not one god, but rather one god for each person.

[Cerril]

Yeah, but Pascal certainly didn't see it that way. He was referring to a very specific God - the Catholic one. In fact, his dichotomy is flawed entirely because there might be other Gods that exist that might damn the one following a Catholic (or even Christian) belief.

Both beliefs share the aspect (in theory) in that following a certain set of actions can't have negative consequences, while not following them can, even if they are incredibly unlikely.

[Cerril]

Those aren't so much reasons (Einstein's) as hopes. What I mean by that is that either you are the sort of person who is made happier by behaving 'well' or you aren't, and learning to enjoy something like that isn't really the sort of thing someone will willingly be trained in.

On the other hand, your argument touches on the idea that just about anyone will be happier by doing these things, whether they believe it or not, as long as they have the right mindset (regarding a willingness to 'plan ahead' and look at the larger consequences of their actions), which takes a lot of supporting but is usually more right than not given the way most people behave.

[Jacob_Gilliam]

Yes Pascal's theory is flawed, but playing devil's advocate here, his theory might still be +EV so to speak. By accepting Pascal's god you are inevitably alienating other religions, which would put you on the outs with their specific god. But as most major religions require that you accept their god in order for admission to the big show in the afterlife, it would be best to choose one and hope that your decision is correct since you will alienate the other gods (or the one true god) regardless of what you do and the slight possibility that pascal is correct makes this decision +EV in poker terms.
Oh well, in the end I guess it's best not to worry about such things, although this is more interesting than discussing how to play overcards on the flop for the 100th time. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[West]

[ QUOTE ]
Additionally, if we're going to make wagers on what's reasonable, it seems that accepting one of the world's religions with at least some historical evidence (like we know Christ did exist, etc.) would be much more reasonable than simply believing that we should follow the Golden Rule and we'll be ok.

[/ QUOTE ]

I definitely disagree with this...

[West]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm still not sure I totally understand, though. You've said that in order for there to be a God, it MUST be the case that he would have us follow the Golden Rule, so we ought to follow the Golden Rule JUST IN CASE God actually exists, so we'll be saved or what have you.


[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think he is saying that it "MUST" be the case that he would have us follow the golden rule. He is saying that it is far more reasonable to assume that he would have us follow the golden rule than otherwise. And since following the golden rule ultimately results in things being "infinitely better" for you if such a god exists, then it is "+EV" to do so.

[wildwood]

"There are thousands of religions, and if one of them is right, all the rest are wrong." quote from my ancient history college professor

[Zeno]

Sklanskyanity would not suffice as a religion to the vast majority (or would only appeal to a slim minority) of people on the planet and for some very practical reasons.

To wit:

1. There is no sacred book or text (or one has not been put forth yet anyway).
And you need one with some long history behind it to give it the proper aura and clout.

2. It lacks sufficient appeal to supernatural authority and has no earthy hierarchal structure.

3. There is a complete lack of ritual, worship, special days and/or years and other important celebrations.

4. No appeal to revelation is to be found.

5. The paucity of argumentum ad ignorantiam is conspicuous.

6. Blood sacrifices are not mentioned

5. Creeds are not yet established to be ritually mouthed incessantly in holy temples, all lead by those that know the intricacies of the espoused doctrine.

7. Logic and reason appear to dictate the one base creed, or to put it another way – it requires that you think, at least somewhat, for yourself.

8. A war, or at least some torture and killing, has yet to be fought over Sklanskyanity.

I invite others to add to the above at their leisure.

-Zeno, Infidel.

[David Sklansky]

Most of you guys are analyzing this with too fine a toothcomb. The main thing to understand is that if you believe that IF there is a God he wants us to behave a certain way, it is not necesaary that we believe that the existence of God is certain, or even probable, to make it a good bet to behave that way. The argument only falls apart if you believe one of the requirements God has of us is to be certain of his existence rather than to just assume it, as we do in some backgammon or bridge situations.

[PairTheBoard]

The belief that if there is a diety he must be a good diety rather than an evil one, is more a matter of faith than of reasonableness. You could cite a lot of evidence in making the case for an Evil Diety. Human beings don't seem to do this though. They consistently choose to ignore such evidence in favor of faith that God must be Good.

PairTheBoard

[PairTheBoard]

[ QUOTE ]
Most of you guys are analyzing this with too fine a toothcomb. The main thing to understand is that if you believe that IF there is a God he wants us to behave a certain way, it is not necesaary that we believe that the existence of God is certain, or even probable, to make it a good bet to behave that way. The argument only falls apart if you believe one of the requirements God has of us is to be certain of his existence rather than to just assume it, as we do in some backgammon or bridge situations.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok. I think I buy that. I wonder if that's an innovation. It sounds like a strange blend of superstition, logic, and probabilities though. Sort of like, just in case stepping on this crack might break my mother's back I think I'll avoid it.

But if that's what convinces you to lead a good life then I've to to think it's a good thing.

PairTheBoard

[Pete H]

[ QUOTE ]
Pascal's wager, I believe, is basically the idea that you should believe in the Christian God because even if there is only a small chance that he exists, you are getting essentially "infinite odds" since it will get you into heaven. Flaws in this idea include the fact that other religions might believe that such a belief guarantees that you DON'T get into heaven (since you are blasphemous) and the concept that if your belief is based on Pascal's argument, you don't truly believe. You can't make yourself believe if you don't.

[/ QUOTE ]

Biggest flaw is that by giving the infinite odds anything you think is god's will is +EV to follow.

If you think that killing as many people as you can will get you to heaven, that's worth betting.
You might also lose if that really wasn't god's will and you'll go to hell, but that's the same with every assumption as we don't have any way to know what god's will really is or is there any.

I think it would be the same if I'd spend eternity in hell or in heaven.
Without happiness there can't be pain and vice versa.
Christians I've spoken with try to explain that the happiness in heaven is unimaginable. Can't be 100% sure that they are wrong, but still my biggest fear is to live forever.

So in my opinion I don't achieve anything by following god's assumed will, as it doesn't matter (if there's no reward/punishment) or it'll lead me to place that is hell to me.

Not wagering at all is +EV in this life if I want to do anything that's against god's will and wouldn't do it if I followed the rules.

[EightStuda]

It is my oppinion that David Sklanksy is a tool. I'm tired of your long-winded usless mind-benders. If you are as smart as you think you are why do you limit yourself to such a hack-forum?

-Dimitri

[reubenf]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm tired of your long-winded usless mind-benders.

[/ QUOTE ]

Quick, obvious solution: Don't read them.

[David Sklansky]

"Biggest flaw is that by giving the infinite odds anything you think is god's will is +EV to follow."

Changing infinity to one to a googleplex to one solves a lot of these problems. Specifically it solves the problem of choosing between two contradictory theories as to God's wishes.

[goofball]

you mean 10 to the googleplex?

[David Sklansky]

"The belief that if there is a diety he must be a good diety rather than an evil one, is more a matter of faith than of reasonableness. You could cite a lot of evidence in making the case for an Evil Diety. Human beings don't seem to do this though. They consistently choose to ignore such evidence in favor of faith that God must be Good."

PairTheBoard

People sometimes take my posts too literally. What I was really tying to say had little to do with Pascal's wager. The main point was that for those who think there might be a God who punishes misdeeds, (especially if nothing good is done to make up for those misdeeds) there need not be something sinful about living your life as if there is such a god, even while you doubt his existence.

The fact that such an attitude would fix most of the problems with Pascal's wager was really mainly an afterthought.

[HentaiGaijin]

My favorite version of the eschaton mythos:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technological_singularity

[PairTheBoard]

David Sklansky -
"The main point was that for those who think there might be a God who punishes misdeeds, (especially if nothing good is done to make up for those misdeeds) there need not be something sinful about living your life as if there is such a god, even while you doubt his existence."

Ok. I see your point. To apply to Pascal's wager I assume the punishment and reward are super big, like hell and heaven? The problem with this for me is that even if I Knew such a God existed I would refuse to believe in him and insist on a better one.

PairTheBoard

[imported_anacardo]

[ QUOTE ]
It is my oppinion that David Sklanksy is a tool. I'm tired of your long-winded usless mind-benders. If you are as smart as you think you are why do you limit yourself to such a hack-forum?

-Dimitri

[/ QUOTE ]

He gives lessons, you know, or at least he used to.

Reasonable rates.

Why do you suppose this man's time, w/ regard to your poker game, isn't worth money?

[Cerril]

The interesting difference between the two is the result and the assumptions.

With Pascal's wager, he doesn't require that behaving according to his religion will have any benefits during this life. In fact, the nature of the Wager suggests that acting in that manner will be less beneficial than acting purely according to self interest (otherwise the wager would be unnecessary). However, behaving as if his God does exist will grant you a 100% chance of getting into heaven (and reaping that infinite reward).

Sklansky's Wager, on the other hand, doesn't promise that you'll go to heaven if God exists. The chance of getting into heaven in that case is much smaller (most organized religions don't end with that one requirement, no matter what many people like to believe). Of course, an infinite reward divided twice is just as infinite as it was divided once in Pascal's Wager.

An interesting line that can be drawn from this is to find other traits of 'reasonable' religions that don't contradict other ones, if there are any, and to continue to restrict your actions along those lines.

[xniNja]

I don't see why even if we assume there is a God, that we can't also assume that he has no predetermined wishes (or Golden Rules) for our behavior; that he has created us merely to explore the infinite possibilities in the collision of atoms and takes no preference towards "good" or "evil" as we have defined it. I would go further to agree with a previous post that the argument not only isn't sound, but more of a rhetorical handcuff.

-xN

[David Sklansky]

"I don't see why even if we assume there is a God, that we can't also assume that he has no predetermined wishes (or Golden Rules) for our behavior; that he has created us merely to explore the infinite possibilities in the collision of atoms and takes no preference towards "good" or "evil" as we have defined it. I would go further to agree with a previous post that the argument not only isn't sound, but more of a rhetorical handcuff."

Go back to the backgammon example.

[jjacky]

and your god is better? a god that christs killed for?

[PairTheBoard]

I don't think you're following. I was referring to a Sklansky/Pascal god who meted out infinite punishment such as hell. I would rebel against any such god, including a Christian one.

PairTheBoard

[Phogster]

Wow, great link. I had a feeling that by following these lame discussions, someone would have something new to say.

[backdoorghost]

David Sklanksy responds, [ QUOTE ]
"Go back to the backgammon example."

[/ QUOTE ]

The example does not hold.

Backgammon has a known goal- to win.

The wishes of the probalilistic entity are not known or certain.


On a general point about these types of discussions, there seems to be an assumption that the techniques such as mathematics, physics, and/or logic will answer all questions. This does not necessarly have to be true. (Consider said entity may have designed it as such.)

However, the answer to some of these questions likely does lie somewhere that I have not seen these posts go- biology.
Therein contains some of the reasons people believe what they believe, think how they do. Think about it.

I have a lot more on this if you are interested.

-the ghost.

[xniNja]

Backgammon is a pure game, in the sense that it has a definite creator, definite rules, and definite purpose. One could fathomably argue that the laws of Physics and "rules" of mathematics or logic are similar to the "game" of life, but nobody, save a few of the above evangelical Christians will agree that such a degree of definition- of the game of life, necessarily exists in reality. The mere fact the "game" exists, cannot inherently imply any such meaning or purpose and also makes no such implication to the rules that we perceive governs it. The simple truth that most people disagree about what is "right" or "wrong" in a variety of moral, logical, or even mathematical circumstance should lean the mind toward accepting the possibility of no singular, definite truth.

-NM

-xN

[theBruiser500]

David, good theory, my favorite is the title it gets "Sklansky-Pascal Wager". Goodluck, hope you win a nobel prize.

[PLOlover]

DS - [ QUOTE ]
Most of you guys are analyzing this with too fine a toothcomb. The main thing to understand is that if you believe that IF there is a God he wants us to behave a certain way, it is not necesaary that we believe that the existence of God is certain, or even probable, to make it a good bet to behave that way. The argument only falls apart if you believe one of the requirements God has of us is to be certain of his existence rather than to just assume it, as we do in some backgammon or bridge situations.


[/ QUOTE ]


... Later on in thread ... [ QUOTE ]
David Sklanksy responds,
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Go back to the backgammon example."


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



The example does not hold.

Backgammon has a known goal- to win.

The wishes of the probalilistic entity are not known or certain.


On a general point about these types of discussions, there seems to be an assumption that the techniques such as mathematics, physics, and/or logic will answer all questions. This does not necessarly have to be true. (Consider said entity may have designed it as such.)

However, the answer to some of these questions likely does lie somewhere that I have not seen these posts go- biology.
Therein contains some of the reasons people believe what they believe, think how they do. Think about it.

I have a lot more on this if you are interested.

-the ghost.


[/ QUOTE ]

My two plus two cents:

The "homosexuals" of the 1970's or those with a tendency or those who found guys hot or whatever, but who didn't act on that belief out of respect for their Judeo-Christian-Islamic values because they "assumed" the bible to be true, well, they didn't get AIDS, now did they? In fact they probably had a very nice life.

Now does it matter to them whether the Bible is literally true or not?

Or does the difference between getting AIDS and dying, and having a family living a good life, does that matter?

Honestly , most of these guys probably DON'T believe in god, even though they follow the law (of god).

Another example is blood transfusions, and another great one (cited by President Eisenhower's physician) is the prohibition against eating fat. Every educated athiest will simultaneuously tell you high fat diet is bad for you and that the bible is dead wrong and stupid.

Life does have a goal - to live well! , and flop the nuts with redraw(s). (footnoted)


(footnote) -
30:15 See, I have set before thee this day life and good, and death and evil;

30:16 In that I command thee this day to love the LORD thy God, to walk in his ways, and to keep his commandments and his statutes and his judgments, that thou mayest live and multiply: and the LORD thy God shall bless thee in the land whither thou goest to possess it.

30:17 But if thine heart turn away, so that thou wilt not hear, but shalt be drawn away, and worship other gods, and serve them;

30:18 I denounce unto you this day, that ye shall surely perish, and that ye shall not prolong your days upon the land, whither thou passest over Jordan to go to possess it.

30:19 I call heaven and earth to record this day against you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing: therefore choose life, that both thou and thy seed may live:

30:20 That thou mayest love the LORD thy God, and that thou mayest obey his voice, and that thou mayest cleave unto him: for he is thy life, and the length of thy days: that thou mayest dwell in the land which the LORD sware unto thy fathers, to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob, to give them.

30:21 And while you're at it, remember to have a redraw when you flop the nuts that thous bankroll mayest multiply: and the LORD thy God shall bless thee.

-- The Big Guy (TBG)