Bugmaster comments on Open Thread, May 1-14, 2013 - Less Wrong

3 Post author: whpearson 01 May 2013 10:28PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (648)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: Bugmaster 09 May 2013 09:37:55PM 0 points [-]

Many people would disagree that atheism is the null hypothesis... and in those circles people honestly believe they've been personally contacted by God.

In this case, "there are no gods" is still the null hypothesis, but (from the perspective of those people) it has been falsified by overwhelming evidence. Some kind of overwhelming evidence coming directly from a deity would convince me, as well; but, so far, I haven't see any (which is why I haven't mentioned it in my post, above).

Many won't even accept that there is a possibility, and I think this is just as dangerous as blind faith.

I can't speak for other atheists, but I personally think that it is entirely possible that certain gods exist. For example, I see no reason why the Trimurti (Brahma/Vishnu/Shiva) could not exist in some way. Of course, the probability of their existence is so vanishingly small that it's not worth thinking about, but still, it's possible.

Comment author: [deleted] 09 May 2013 10:31:40PM 0 points [-]

I appreciate that you try to keep the possibility open, but I think it's kind of silly to say that there is a possibility, just a vanishingly small one. Mathematically, there's no sense in saying that an infinitesmal is actually any greater than 0 expect for technical reasons—so perhaps you technically believe that the Trimurti could exist, but for all intents and purposes the probability is 0.

Comment author: drethelin 09 May 2013 10:50:49PM 1 point [-]

If you're ruling out infinitesimals then yes, I don't think there's any chance any chance the gods worshipped by humans exist.

Comment author: [deleted] 09 May 2013 11:13:50PM 2 points [-]

A chance of 0 or effectively 0 is not conducive to a rational analysis of the situation. And I don't think there's enough evidence out there for a probability that small.

Comment author: Bugmaster 10 May 2013 12:11:56AM 6 points [-]

A chance of 0 or effectively 0 is not conducive to a rational analysis of the situation.

Why not ? What probability would you put on the proposition that the following things exist ?

  • Tolkien-style Elves
  • Keebler Elves
  • Vishnu, the Preserver
  • Warhammer-style Orcs
  • Thor, the Thunderer
  • Chernobog/Bielobog, the Slavic gods of fortune (bad/good respectively)
  • Unicorns

I honestly do believe that all of these things could, potentially, exist.

Comment author: [deleted] 10 May 2013 10:38:29AM 1 point [-]

If I really thought about it, I would have to say that there's quite a good chance that somewhere through all the universes there's some creature resembling a Keebler elf.

Comment author: Bugmaster 11 May 2013 04:40:15PM 2 points [-]

All right, so does this mean that living your life as though Keebler Elves did not exist at all would be irrational ? After all, there's a small probability that they do exist...

Comment author: [deleted] 11 May 2013 08:48:20PM 0 points [-]

I never called anyone irrational for not believing in elves. I only said that a perfectly rational person would keep the possibility open.

Please stop exaggerating my arguments (and those of, for instance, the Book of Mormon) in order to make them easier to dismiss. It's an elementary logical fallacy which I'm finding quite a lot of here.

Comment author: Bugmaster 13 May 2013 11:27:21PM 2 points [-]

I never called anyone irrational for not believing in elves.

You kinda did:

A chance of 0 or effectively 0 is not conducive to a rational analysis of the situation.

In my own personal assessment, the probability of Keebler Elves existing is about the same as the probability of any major deities existing -- which is why I don't spend a lot of time worrying about it. My assessment is not dogmatic, though; if I met a Keebler Elf in person, or saw some reputable photographic evidence of one, or something like that, then I'd adjust the probability upward.

Comment author: Prismattic 13 May 2013 11:58:55PM 0 points [-]

I'd assign a higher probability to Keebler Elves than to an interventionist diety. Keebler Elves don't have issues with theodicy.

Comment author: drethelin 10 May 2013 03:03:57AM 2 points [-]

What probability do you actually think I should assign? More or less than to me winning the lottery if I buy a ticket? Is winning the lottery an infinitesimally small chance or should I actually consider it?