tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28755195.post7468416354117604557..comments2023-09-25T04:26:51.568-06:00Comments on The Barefoot Bum: Worst. Apologetic. Ever.Larry Hamelinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08788697573946266404noreply@blogger.comBlogger30125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28755195.post-71439474378094664452015-08-18T13:00:55.377-06:002015-08-18T13:00:55.377-06:00I agree that infinitely good or bad reward in puni...I agree that infinitely good or bad reward in punishment isn't coherent but thats the way pascals argument tends to be phrased. Just replace "infinite" punishment/reward with same punishments/rewards. In my experience with religious people the reward/punishment tends to be "what you can imagine" and not a rather specific one.also. I missed the crux of Ron's pointnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28755195.post-54912670327546303742015-08-18T04:40:31.769-06:002015-08-18T04:40:31.769-06:00Sadly, blogger offers no facility for editing comm...Sadly, blogger offers no facility for editing comments, not even for me.Larry Hamelinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08788697573946266404noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28755195.post-22358265302500600902015-08-18T02:22:05.398-06:002015-08-18T02:22:05.398-06:00Quite sure the old anonymous comment was me now. T...Quite sure the old anonymous comment was me now. Tried to resist, but <br />1.) math being abstract doesn't negate its usefulness in understanding or framing a subject. For instance, in Ron's car example there doesn't fail to be two cars just because the cars are not abstract. Stating that there are two formula 1 cars would be a categorization error. Not math abuse.<br />2.) I don't even mention multiplying infinities. <br />3.) Theories in math don't mean the same thing as in science or in common usage.<br />4.) It should bee obvious the pink shoelace example isn't used as a depiction of the basis of religions that you listed . It should be clear the examples used because those basis don't help to establish their verisimilitude of belief(s) or the after death utility so why not use something "meaningless" (to who? you?).<br />5.) While behavior, actions, and beliefs (the state of belief) are not abstract the reward/punishment criterion (as well as afterlife, god(s), souls, and other supernatural aspects of religions) are entirely hypothetical (non-scientific use of hypothetical) , so talk of probabilities or number of hypothetical outcomes is limited by what you can frame. Does god like people that ingest 7*10^27 atoms per month? How about 8*10^28? How about 9*10^30. atoms how about (9+x)*10^(30+x) per month/year. It can be framed as infinitely easily in (maybe) an infinite number of ways precisely because the subject is entirely hypothetical even when using commonly accepted religions (including atheistic ones). What does a hypothetical being want anyway?. Religious afterlife propositions lacks any restraints that are Germain to "truth", what is real, or empiricism. The absurdity of the utility argument is better highlighted by there being an entirely contrary hypothetical to each hypothetical. I'm just harping on the first two conditionals.compulsory posting/ also alsonoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28755195.post-5214505340399777762015-08-18T00:55:13.153-06:002015-08-18T00:55:13.153-06:00"meaningless" is the only quote that is ..."meaningless" is the only quote that is somewhat facetious. Religious "meaning" comes is given by the religious (and non-religious) and isn't in and of itself support for the factuality or truth of the claim. last edit. I'm having a hard time stopping. If you delete this would you just delete all of my comments? alsonoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28755195.post-47614456179189296572015-08-18T00:41:31.782-06:002015-08-18T00:41:31.782-06:00also...I'm very tired (not quite functioning p...also...I'm very tired (not quite functioning properly)and just realized I'm being inconsiderate to the host. Apologies. alsonoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28755195.post-43609592157774304472015-08-18T00:37:57.877-06:002015-08-18T00:37:57.877-06:00I haven't read this article (not blog) for the...I haven't read this article (not blog) for the first time in years is what I should have said. I have read the more recent articles on this blog (great blog) in the past few years. I just didn't revisit this one. An edit for commenter function would be really nice. Is there one for people using a "hard" id? If so I think I'll use mine if/when I comment again. alsonoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28755195.post-8059483814324190192015-08-18T00:28:20.882-06:002015-08-18T00:28:20.882-06:00also "anti-whatever wager nullifies pascals w...also "anti-whatever wager nullifies pascals wager" editalsonoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28755195.post-71755080104287808692015-08-18T00:22:26.114-06:002015-08-18T00:22:26.114-06:00also "verisimuilitude of actual religions in....also "verisimuilitude of actual religions in..."Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28755195.post-20372898784102192742015-08-18T00:18:16.900-06:002015-08-18T00:18:16.900-06:00It's late. I mistyped. 'The point is, is t...It's late. I mistyped. 'The point is, is that single criteria you come up with off the top of your head are as well supported as actual religious criteria.'Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28755195.post-77661582894695007272015-08-18T00:12:48.485-06:002015-08-18T00:12:48.485-06:00Weird. I was reading through this blog for the fir...Weird. I was reading through this blog for the first time in years. I think I may have been who Ron was responding to, but I'm not sure. The point is, is that "meaningless" criteria are as well supported philosophically and empirically as anything that can be simply made up.Better supported actually because "predictability", "system", and "ethical rules" rules of actual religions are simply additional unsupported assumptions. It's obvious that religions don't propose "meaningless" but simpler and more plausible rewards and instead propose stories and codified behavior that add "meaning". So what? Doesn't show any verisimilitude of religions in comparison to "meaningless" alternatives. That there are potentially infinite sets of requirements for rewards is Germain to the wager- not potentially infinite variation of rewards mind you. That the anti-christian/muslim/raelean/atheist/theist nullifies the wager even if all the other issues with it are ignored is the point. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28755195.post-6174014012716007982011-05-22T14:08:31.770-06:002011-05-22T14:08:31.770-06:00To play (ahem) devil's advocate:
I'm not ...To play (ahem) devil's advocate:<br /><br />I'm not understanding the premise that reward or punishment is infinite - infinite in duration, sure, but it seems you are saying infinite in variation. Not the same thing.<br /><br />Nor are the "Good bet" possibilities infinite in variation. The base assumption here is that there is some coherent, predictable belief system that adheres to some kind of ethical rules and is predictable - that is, as far as I can tell, the basis of every religion (even the non-theistic ones): conform to particular behaviors and beliefs, get this rather specific reward. Not an infinite variety of meaningless alternatives (pink shoelaces), not an infinite variety of rewards. <br /><br />Finally, I smell math abuse, a common danger of trying to apply mathematical operators to symbolic logic. If I manage to use the term infinite to two different things, that doesn't mean I can multiply them together - because math is abstract, and the things you're referring to aren't. That's why math, like evolution, is a theory - its algorithms. One plus one equals two, but one Cadillac plus one Subaru does not equal two Formula 1 cars (unless, perhaps, in heaven, which does tend to support your infinite variation reward scenario argument, I suppose). <br /><br />Note this isn't an endorsement of Pascal's Wager. I think it largely a moral argument, not a philosophical one (and certainly not one well expressed by symbolic logic), and as a moral argument a cowardly one. It also fails in theistic grounds, as pointed out. <br /><br />But I see in this argument what some call leaps of logic, a term I have other problems with but I've ranted enough for one Sabbath ;)Ronhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01686169295833277728noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28755195.post-67754076816398614052011-05-18T18:42:48.252-06:002011-05-18T18:42:48.252-06:00I was scanning. Maybe I missed this. However, do...I was scanning. Maybe I missed this. However, don't forget that the criteria for infinite reward and infinite punishment itself has infinite possibilities, with each possibility as good as the next. Only Christians go to hell, only theist go to hell, an ironic god, heaven and hell criteria without a god, people wearing pink shoe laces are punished, etc. It seems impossible to determine what is a "good bet" pending evidence or further argumentation. All hypothetical criteria have equal supporting evidence. No hypothetical does better under Occam's Razor as far as I can tell.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28755195.post-82004546924792125462008-01-25T20:27:00.000-07:002008-01-25T20:27:00.000-07:00Samuel SkinnerHey! We argue with nuts because we d...Samuel Skinner<BR/>Hey! We argue with nuts because we don't realize how crazy they are. Then when we understand we ask how anyone could believe such c@#p.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28755195.post-87494754291538987182007-07-25T05:09:00.000-06:002007-07-25T05:09:00.000-06:00Indeed. As has been pointed out ad nauseam, what ...Indeed. As has been pointed out ad nauseam, what kind of scheister is God if he welcomes to Heaven those who believe in Him because the belief is cheap and the reward infinite?zilchhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01695741977946935771noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28755195.post-19517988250744127342007-07-25T03:47:00.000-06:002007-07-25T03:47:00.000-06:00anticant: Yes. At the end of the day, that's proba...anticant: Yes. At the end of the day, that's probably the Wager's worst feature.Larry Hamelinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08788697573946266404noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28755195.post-64331002871009137642007-07-25T02:39:00.000-06:002007-07-25T02:39:00.000-06:00Whatever the logical status of Pascal's wager, it'...Whatever the logical status of Pascal's wager, it's an IGNOBLE reason for believing in God.anticanthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18135207107619114891noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28755195.post-54910302168677232812007-07-24T15:12:00.000-06:002007-07-24T15:12:00.000-06:00BTW, contrast Anon's post with my own post a while...BTW, contrast Anon's post with my own post a while back directed at Mr. Elliott and you will see the difference between infantile vitriol and self-deprecating satire. You may use it as a reference in future cases.<BR/><BR/>Thanks.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28755195.post-37823711962307579382007-07-24T15:10:00.000-06:002007-07-24T15:10:00.000-06:00It's your fault bum. You fed the troll.I often wo...It's your fault bum. You fed the troll.<BR/><BR/>I often wonder what possesses people to argue with crazy folk. Gotta spend the time some way, I guess. Best of luck to you, Bum!<BR/><BR/>Anonymous' post may be translated as: "I forfeit."Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28755195.post-82386132149606447332007-07-24T12:45:00.000-06:002007-07-24T12:45:00.000-06:00Also, I suspect that if Perezoso/Phritz actually c...Also, I suspect that if Perezoso/Phritz actually contacts Blogger with the complaint that "the bad blogger was <I>mean</I> to me," the only response is likely to be a brief chuckle as some intern puts the message into the crank file.Larry Hamelinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08788697573946266404noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28755195.post-32643316014547213252007-07-24T12:40:00.000-06:002007-07-24T12:40:00.000-06:00The best I can get for Phritz's critique is that "...The best I can get for Phritz's critique is that "Pascal's Wager isn't an argument, it's a decision matrix." I don't think that's any better a critique than saying, "The argument from design isn't an argument, it's just a string of words."<BR/><BR/>While it's unclear whether Pascal himself really intended the Wager to be an argument is a matter of scholarly controversy, or so I've been told. However, I've had any number of conversations—even with relatively "sophisticated" theists such as Kenneth—where Pascal's Wager was in fact used as an argument to at least <I>believe</I> in a God.<BR/><BR/>I also specifically address Phritz's assertion that the <I>conditional</I> is "true" in some sense. So I really don't know where I've been deficient in responding to his criticism, unless he has any more actual points buried in his incompetent invective.Larry Hamelinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08788697573946266404noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28755195.post-62566878505809935842007-07-24T12:22:00.000-06:002007-07-24T12:22:00.000-06:00Um, wow? I'd point anyone from Blogger in the gen...Um, wow? <BR/><BR/>I'd point anyone from Blogger in the general direction of this thread to see who was being more abusive in the whole exchange.<BR/><BR/>Phritz was at least interesting for a while before he devolved to personal attacks and name-calling. I think if he'd rather calmly explained why he felt you weren't addressing his critiques, instead of being rude, he could have contributed something. But this whole series of comments was unbe-fucking-lievable. What an ass.James F. Elliotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16747033407956667363noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28755195.post-28693129032133597272007-07-24T11:35:00.000-06:002007-07-24T11:35:00.000-06:00I'm going to have your cheap ass shut down.I'm sha...<I>I'm going to have your cheap ass shut down.</I><BR/><BR/>I'm shaking in my boots.Larry Hamelinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08788697573946266404noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28755195.post-2355894530745297562007-07-24T11:30:00.000-06:002007-07-24T11:30:00.000-06:00Fuck you, fag. You're full of shit. A liar, a cras...Fuck you, fag. You're full of shit. A liar, a crass monolingual knave, a manipulator, an irrationalist, one step from Bukharin. I'm going to have your cheap ass shut down. Buh bye.<BR/><BR/><BR/>Got dat? Buh bye. Fuck you bitch.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28755195.post-87044991802496335322007-07-24T11:26:00.000-06:002007-07-24T11:26:00.000-06:00Phritz: That someone points out your mistakes bore...<B>Phritz:</B> <I>That someone points out your mistakes bores you?</I><BR/><BR/>You've already pointed out what you consider* the "mistake". Several times. Repeated assertion does change the truth or falsity of a criticism.<BR/><BR/>Go get yourself a girlfriend, or at least a better hobby than posting inane blather on my blog: Sexually molesting farm animals might be up your alley.<BR/><BR/><BR/>*<I>In the loosest sense of "consider" that might apply to such simple nervous systems as sponges.</I>Larry Hamelinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08788697573946266404noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28755195.post-41954022861080014172007-07-24T11:20:00.000-06:002007-07-24T11:20:00.000-06:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com