= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
ArisKatsaris comments on A sense of logic - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (269)
Next time ask your relative "What if God only saves atheists, and sends believers to hell?"
Secular Heaven
They would probably reply "Thats not what athiests say".
Well, of course, but is your relative trying to please atheists or to please God? What if he can only please God by disbelieving in Him?
After all, if an all-powerful God wanted to be believed in, he could easily make his existence self-evident. We could ask the heavens "Are you there, God?" and a booming voice from the skies could reply "Yes, I AM".
But if there exists a God that wants to be disbelieved in, the reply to "Are you there, God?" is silence -- and that's indeed confirmed by testing. This God's existence seems therefore, going by the rational evidence, more probable than the existence of a God that wants to be believed in.
Your relative is pissing off God by believing in him, despite all of God's best efforts to promote atheism in the universe.
Somehow, this discussion is beginning to remind me of this fascinating book.
That book looks like an intro to Vernor Vinge's "Applied Theology".
Then why would He make people who feel inclined to write Bibles?
Probably something parallel to the reason that, if there is a god who does want to be believed in, he apparently created people who feel inclined to write things like "The God Delusion".
(One possibility: Satan planted the Bible, the Qur'an, etc. in rebellion against God's desire to not be believed in. Ever since then, God's been doing desperate damage control by watching over torture, rape, and genocide, and not doing anything, but to little avail — people go right on believing in him, because Satan's memes are just too infectious and powerful.)
If someone removes all the fingerprints from a commonly used room that normally should have had fingerprints, that's by itself evidence that someone was there who wanted to remove the fingerprints.
Likewise if God didn't permit the existence of Bible-writers, as such conmen and fools normally should exist, that would itself be evidence that there's an entity out there with the power to so disallow them.
Wait, really? If there was no evidence of God (in the form of Bibles or fingerprints), that would be evidence that there's a God out there hiding?
Yes. If the nature of humans is such that if physics operates in a natural way then they do a certain thing with high probability and said thing is not done then it raises the probability that physics is not operating as thought.
The absence of expected evidence is evidence of interference.
You wouldn't have enough evidence to even find the hypothesis "God exists" much less "God exists and is hiding" - even people who have no concept of privileging the hypothesis would be able to point that out to you. A person in that world would look like someone in our world telling us that there's no evidence of mind-controlling reptilian shapeshifters, and there really should be.
The original point of this scenario was as a rebuttal to Pascal's Wager, specifically that the hypothesis "god exists and will send you to hell for atheism" isn't significantly more likely than "god exists and will send you to hell for believing." Even if this scenario is unlikely, it's plausible enough to illustrate that the massive utility difference implied by the believer's scenario has no logical reason to dominate over other unlikely massive utility differences.
The key word there is enough. ;)
I... I just realized... there's no evidence whatsoever of the Glowing Purple Space Cannibals, nobody's ever even postulated their existence...
Allowing a general concept of God ('creator' rather than the details of a religion's particular deity), I don't think the hypothesis is privileged. We see cause and effect relationships everywhere, and it is natural to wonder about the first cause. God-beliefs can be very complex and explain a lot more than that, but all God-beliefs seem to serve at least that purpose.
I would wonder about an intelligent species with no curiosity or speculations about their origins (and fate), especially if in other contexts they tended to have a spattering of not-fully-empirically-justified-beliefs if such were useful to explain things.
The question of first cause is probably a natural one for a species to ask. However, our concept of causality seems closely connected to our ability to intervene on the world and as you start talking about variables farther and farther away from plausible human intervention the concept gets strained. For example, I'm not sure it makes sense to say things like "The fine structure constant caused complex life." Causality may be a rather parochial concept in the scheme of things and therefore we get rather confused about it when trying to extend it's application away from the domain of potential human intervention. Hell, this might be a reason why humans have a tendency to invoke such and anthropomorphic conception of a first cause: causality may not make a lot of sense without the human-like mind element to it!
It is. It's not natural to wonder if the first cause is a complex structured intelligent being, because such complicated and internally correlated structures demand simpler preceding causes of which to be the effects, for if we try to model the structure as uncaused we have unexplained internal correlations, which is a no-no in causal graphs.
If you then start making special pleading excuses about an intelligence that you predict using a complex structured internally correlated model but which you claim to have no structure so that you can pretend it's simple even though you can't exhibit any simple computer program that does the same thing, it's really unnatural - not just physically unnatural, but epistemically unnatural.
"God as first cause" is just the latest god of the gaps. If the concept of first cause / creator is general enough to be legitimately supported by not knowing enough about the beginnings of existence then it's isomorphic to ignorance.
If it's specific enough to include concepts of believers and non-believers and the punishments and rewards due to them - as the grandparent does - then it is privileging the hypothesis to consider it.
Have I been voted down on these comments because a concept of God is a privileged hypothesis?
I would like to verify that this was the reason for the downvotes, rather than something else, and see if I couldn't persuade, or find my error.
First, all that I am packing into this concept of God is "creator". We don't know how (or if) the universe was 'caused' -- if the universe was caused by anything, wouldn't that thing be our creator? For example, theists would be disappointed if it turned out that the universe and everything created was the result of 'possibility', but wouldn't they agree, semantically, that 'possibility' was God? An impersonal, mindless God, but the source of our existence.
Ah, but it's stronger evidence that your expectation is wrong; and self-reflective priors would have 'expectation is wrong' starting more likely than 'interference from an outside agency'.
Keyword stronger. The claim you were questioning was whether there was evidence at all. I do nothing more than support the claim that it is evidence.
Probably, given roughly human-like intelligence with information roughly like what we have now. The counterfactual wasn't specific in that regard but did suggest an assumption of a particularly strong understanding of human nature.
New Testament is evidence in favour of the Christian God, but at the same time it's also evidence against Vishnu or Zeus -- indeed it may be stronger evidence against Zeus that it's good evidence for the Christian God.
I'm not therefore sure at all if it would have a positive correlation with (be evidence for) the existence of a God in general.
Does that answer the contradiction you perceived?
I'm pretty sure it's completely uncorrelated. My previous comments were to point out the flaws in your rhetoric. Deconverting people is a noble goal, but
is not the way to go about it.
Sorry, but I still don't see any flaws in my logic. As a point of fact, some people atleast can conceive superior beings as pieces of fiction; and indeed they constantly seem to do so, every culture ever imagining some being more powerful than they currently are, from Zeus to Superman.
Also, as a point of fact, some people try to pass off fictions as truths (conmen and fools, as i said).
Therefore if, given the above, and without knowing why, nobody ever in the history of civilization considered combining the above two (passing the idea of a superior being as truth) -- this is evidence in favour of something, an unknown law of nature or biology or an unknown agent, stopping this from happening.
Where is the logical flaw here? If you tried to simulate the whole of human history, using the most accurate biology possible, and religion (alone of all human charactestics) arose nowhere in your simulation, wouldn't you consider it evidence in favour of some programmer tinkering with the program in order to purposefully eliminate it?
Yeah, really, but only if it's possible to ascertain that humans are naturally religious independently of, well, watching us be naturally religious. Which seems difficult - we can look at fingerprints in other rooms, but we can't look at humans in other universes. This problem may relegate the idea to interesting-but-unprovable-land.
I read Bibles as a synecdoche for Holy Books in all their mutually contradictory multiplicity. The way that the Holy Books of competing traditions deny each other pushes many people to atheism. If He has made people who feel inclined to write Bibles and New Testaments and Korans and Books of Mormon etcetera, that is good evidence that God wants to be disbelieved in.
That's all Satan's doing.