I am going to … there is none.
Sorry you didn’t get it. That’s OK. It’s just a fable for deists. Maybe if you pretend you’re a deist and read it again …
Sorry you didn’t get it. That’s OK. It’s just a fable for deists. Maybe if you pretend you’re a deist and read it again …
Maybe I didn’t get it ( :dough: ) but I’m sure there are those who really do get it that way.
Maybe I didn’t get it ( :dough: ) but I’m sure there are those who really do get it that way.
As I understand it, the “wager” was Pascal’s tacit capitulation to and rationalization of Enlightenment dabbling in the denial of God … i.e. “well, if we can’t know for sure, it’s safer to wager there is a God than there isn’t.” This is common in the extreme among the members of the doubting fringe in American Christianity. And that is essentially what deists do.
My rewrite of Pascal’s wager is intended to jolt vulnerable theists of any sort into considering the alternate preposterous speculation of a God that intentionally withholds all evidence of His existence … “I gave you reason, now use it or be damned!” I agree with whyYNOT that many crossing the gorge between religion and atheism are on a fragile footbridge. My wager is a gentle joke that frays the ropes on the theist side. I only posted it here, because it occasionally draws in response that it is just a deist challenge in an Objectivist disguise.
Now that Ayn Rand has finally demonstrated the efficacy of Reason to man in the 20th century, a new speculation about God has emerged as a revision of Blaise Pascal’s 17th c. thought that it is safer to “wager” that God does exist than that He doesn’t, as follows:
The existence of God cannot be established through Reason. Though all men are free to “wager” as though God does exist, they should take into account that Reason would have to be God’s crowning creation and gift to man. It endows man with the capacity to grasp everything that exists in the universe that God wants man to be able to know and the capacity to use that knowledge to perfect the life God gave him. They should consider also the distinct possibility that God would not want to be known by man, but rather would prefer to observe from afar what men can achieve on their own by means of the capacities with which He endowed them.
After all, God would not have given man Reason if he did not want man to use it in accordance with its designed function. Furthermore, any rejection of Reason, such as the arbitrary replacement of it by the Satanic anti-capacity of Mysticism to fabricate false ideas of God’s universe, or worst of all, false ideas of the nature or will of God Himself, would most certainly constitute the most damnable sin.
Thus, in that case, man would be subject to only one commandment: I am the Lord thy God, thou shalt falsify neither other gods before Me, nor the nature of Me Myself nor the nature of My creations.
Thus, in that case, there would be only one mortal sin: the rejection of God’s Reason in favor of Satan’s Mysticism.
Thus, in that case, in the end, Heaven would necessarily be occupied only by God and around Him all of the rational atheists who ever existed.
Thus, in that case, all who abused the rational minds God gave them and stubbornly clung with nothing more than Faith to religions that worshiped some allegedly revealed God would necessarily go to reside with Satan in the fires of Hell for eternity.
Thus, in that case, it would perhaps be better not to “wager” on the existence of God after all.
I think this finely written and thought out, Islander. :dough:
I say that because I wrote a more skeletal version of your essay, with the same principles, about 20 years ago - along the lines of ‘If God did exist, what would He want of His finest creation Man, etc.’
What’s interesting is that, though I knew this could not be original to me alone, it’s taken 20years for me to discover not one, but two much better versions of my article… within a month.
On another Objectivist forum recently, debating atheism, I posted my own rebuttal of Pascal’s Wager, calling it whYNOT’s Wager (facetiously), and giving an outline of my own essay - only for it to transpire that a member there, apparently a well-known published author on Atheism, George H. Smith, had a while back written an essay titled Smith’s Wager - positing the same ideas you and I had.
He graciously told me “great minds think alike” - graciously, because he is an obviously excellent
thinker, I’d have a hard time matching.
Goes to show again how these forums are a terrific place for the discovery and exchange of ideas.
As I understand it, the “wager” was Pascal’s tacit capitulation to and rationalization of Enlightenment dabbling in the denial of God … i.e. “well, if we can’t know for sure, it’s safer to wager there is a God than there isn’t.”
…
My rewrite of Pascal’s wager is intended to jolt vulnerable theists of any sort into considering the alternate preposterous speculation of a God that intentionally withholds all evidence of His existence … “I gave you reason, now use it or be damned!”.
You might enjoy this transcription (regardless of the noticeable typos) of George H. Smith’s 1976 speech, “How to Defend Atheism,” and perhaps find it helpful, especially his own counter-wager to “Pascal’s wager” which he calls “Smith’s wager,” found in the last several paragraphs of the transcription.
He’s saying God was revealed to everyone? So I’m secretly Deist?
Yes, and no. I believe he is trying to make a reason based case for the existence of God, rather than relying on “spiritual revelation” or some other such hocum. I don’t think he is suggesting that God is ‘revealed’ to a precious few in a religious, Moses/Mohammed kind of way, rather he is proposing that order in the universe is somehow empirical evidence of God. No-one is secretly a deist if they reject the logic of his argument and question the applicability of his evidence.
Science has some base requirements about what is to be considered a “theory”. Looking at the universe and then jumping to say it was created by God is something closer to an “arbitrary claim”.
Why don’t we deduce that the complex order of the universe “points toward” the “theory” that our universe actually exists in a petrie dish experiment being conducted by an alien being named Artie? I suspect you know that reason doesn’t allow for such leaps of faith. In #1 you’re asking for a leap of faith.
ok, ill give you that, however lets also say that the evidence points to everything just going *bam* existance
now don’t get me wrong I am not a deist but their arguments seem fairly reasonable
ok, ill give you that, however lets also say that the evidence points to everything just going *bam* existance
Not really. If there was no existence yet, in what did this “bam” occur?
The fact that the big bang theory points to a big explosion in the past does not imply that there was no universe before the explosion.
Rebelconservative, you are correct in your understanding, I am not proposing that “god” has any specific nature just simply that evidence suggests its existence and once said existence is assumed then certain characteristics would be much more likely than others. Of course all of this reasoning smells very strongly of Descartes.
Deism as the founders saw it, was the pure religion (although their definition of religion was not the same as ours, Deism is a sort of anti-religion). God created a great machine (the universe) with a specific end result in mind, much like an alien scientist with a petri dish. Deists like Objectivists, denounced “priestcraft” as they called it; understanding that faith is antithetical to reason. From my understanding, A Cartesian Deist was for all intents and purposes an Objectivist (although the term had not come into use by that time), the only difference is they felt that there must be a purpose for life, and so attributed it to a rational being (the only kind that they could understand).
Not really. If there was no existence yet, in what did this “bam” occur?
The fact that the big bang theory points to a big explosion in the past does not imply that there was no universe before the explosion.
didnt say I believed in said *bam*, but just trying to show that an atheist has just as little knowledge of creation as anyone else and therefore their theories are just as unlikely
What is reasonable about asserting consciousness sans reality, or existence from non-existence?
The Deists are asserting one of these two things.
-
Something existed before existence; before time, before anything at all.
-
Something already existed, and created everything else.
The first is an obvious contradiction in terms. Something was, before anything ever was.
2 is more likely. However, if it is the case that something existed eternally, why must we say that thing was the creator? Why can’t we just say the universe always existed? (I am roughly paraphrasing the great Carl Sagan in this last point.)
To me, in my experience with Deism, the deists are usually formerly religious or from religious backgrounds who are trying to clutch onto any semblance of their past. That Deists reify the virtues of reason does not mean that they actually apply those virtues to their thinking about god. While it isn’t necessarily the case t hat deists are just rationalizing their belief in a higher power, it is a high probability. Deism is an ugly thing to see on an otherwise reasonable and intelligent individual.
Actually, i know a few former atheist Deists. and furthermore the idea that something existed before everything is not necessarily the only interpretation, one is that energy (God) existed and then created matter, others range all the way to the absurd like, God was created at the end of time and then he created the beginning of time. I think Deism is essential atheism with rather then the existential assumption that there is no god, there is an assumption there is one
Sorry about the poor grammar, I am a History, not English major
one is that energy (God) existed and then created matter
What units do you measure God in - Joules? Ergs? Calories?
God was created at the end of time and then he created the beginning of time.
Acting outside of time is a contradiction. Contradictions do not exist.
What units do you measure God in - Joules? Ergs? Calories?
Acting outside of time is a contradiction. Contradictions do not exist.
Tachyons go back in time, at least according to modern science
you measure God in… Ohms, you know like the Buddhists say.
bad joke 
also I said that the time travel was absurd
Tachyons go back in time, at least according to modern science
Nothing prevents a person from asserting a contradiction. But that doesn’t make the contradiction real.
is it really a contradiction? What if time is not linear, or is simply another dimension that can be traversed. I have done quite a bit of research in quantum mechanics and into string theory. It seems that many of the basic assumptions about reality that we have made may be incorrect.
It is only a contradiction if we make the assumption that matter passing backwards through time is impossible. we do not know this as a concrete fact.
this is a bit off topic so can we drop this line of inquiry, as I do agree the time travel theory is absurd and I do not believe it to be correct, however I fell a certain obligation to defend it because it seems to have been set up as a strawman to be attacked, while avoiding the larger issue
It is only a contradiction if we make the assumption that matter passing backwards through time is impossible.
Time is an abstract concept of method - a measurement of motion. To say that something “moves” in “reverse time” is incoherent. Try to measure the motion of such an object - at one moment, you will measure it at one position. At another moment, you will measure it at another position. Nowhere in your measurement can the conclusion arise that the “motion” occurred in “negative time”. If someone tells you that a baseball “moved” from left to right in “negative time”, they would not be able to demonstrate it to you. But you could certainly show that what really happened is the baseball *moved* from right to left.
it seems to have been set up as a strawman to be attacked, while avoiding the larger issue
The point is that no matter how you define God, it will always involve a contradiction or arbitrary assertion. You offered a few different definitions, each of which has been shown to be contradictory or arbitrary.
Time is an abstract concept of method - a measurement of motion. To say that something “moves” in “reverse time” is incoherent. Try to measure the motion of such an object - at one moment, you will measure it at one position. At another moment, you will measure it at another position. Nowhere in your measurement can the conclusion arise that the “motion” occurred in “negative time”. If someone tells you that a baseball “moved” from left to right in “negative time”, they would not be able to demonstrate it to you. But you could certainly show that what really happened is the baseball *moved* from right to left.
The point is that no matter how you define God, it will always involve a contradiction or arbitrary assertion. You offered a few different definitions, each of which has been shown to be contradictory or arbitrary.
That is simply not true, you have only attacked one of the ways in which a non interventionist God could exists. There are innumerable explanations, all of which are irrelevant. the issue is not how a God exists, but if it does
Also that is your understanding of time. it would only be negative time from the perspective of moving “forward” just as moving left is “negative right”