h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

1) *shrugs* There are actually very few places in the gospels where Christ admits to being God, and those tend to be ambiguous. "I and my father are one" - well I could say that - we're one on those rare occasions when we see completely eye to eye on something. "I am the lord" - big deal - Elizabeth is a queen. Statement refers to his being given power over the earth.
It's not just the who can misinterpret the bible to suit their beliefs...

(my own personal definition of christianity is "if you think you are, you are", which works very well, I find)

1a) *shrug* but without logic I can be wrong for you and right for me perfectly happily. All you've done is pointed out that a universe without logic is illogical - no news there...

2) Ok, I think we're going round and round in circles. Maybe I can draw an analogy - no two christians believe exactly the same things - are they all worshipping different Gods?

I think the distinction that needs to be made is that there is not only a lack of evidence confirming the existence of God, but that it is virtually impossible for human beings to obtain such information. Unless God chooses to leave signs of His existence, there's no way we can check.

It's something like the scientists who claim that we have proof that the Universe is flat, or that there isn't enough mass in the Universe to reverse the Big Bang. There's actually little evidence that supports these theories, and the evidence that does exist is open to multiple interpretations. Therefore, we can say with certainty that the certainty Universe began in a Big Bang is logically unjustified. It may be the best theory currently, but there's a good chance that it's wrong... and we can't perform the observations that would prove whether the theory is correct or not.

I would agree with you that, based on the lack of conclusive evidence in favor of the existence of God, believing in such a being is logically unjustified. Religious faith is not rational. It's not even irrational --- I'd say it's more arational.

However, the statement that God (or any god) does not exist is a factual claim, whether it is true or false. To make a factual claim, proof is needed in the same way as it is required if you're going to claim that God (god) does exist.

You can rationally claim that the belief in a divinity is illogical, irrational, unsupported by evidence, and therefore is most likely incorrect. However, without proof of non-existence, you cannot rationally claim to know that God (god) does not exist.

For example --- it would be extremely strange if I claimed that there was a seven-layer chocolate cake floating in a high orbit around Neptune. I would have no evidence, no way to check to see whether there is such a cake, and no way of gaining access to this knowledge. It would also be highly unlikely for a chocolate cake to ever have gotten to Neptune in the first place. You would be quite right in dismissing my claim as ridiculous.

However, if you claim that there is no such cake, you have to be able to prove it. If you can't check whether there is or is not a cake where I say it is, then you cannot make a factual claim about the existence of the cake.

However, if you believed me, I'd conclude that you were totally off your rocker.

It's a technical issue only --- I agree with you in spirit, anyway.

[bows respectfully]

-Caledonian

*shrug* I believe that there is no God, just as I believe that tomorrow the sun will rise. How is that irrational?

1) You have a point --- however, I'd like to mention the Transfiguration as one place where it is supposedly made clear that Jesus was God.

(Personally, I have my own doubts about the "original" teachings of Christianity. Many beliefs that are assumed to be inherently Christian actually come from somewhere around the 4th century --- and then there's the entire matter of St. Paul, who is not the type of person I'd prefer to base by religious beliefs on, and yet much "Christian" doctrine is centered around what he says. There's a good chance that Christ's teachings [even assuming that he existed, which is another matter] were altered/corrupted soon after he preached them. There's also no way to be sure whether his followers understood the teaching or understood it in the light of prevailing Jewish thought [the role of women to men, for example, might be such an issue]. Maybe Jesus was claiming something totally different. Who knows?)

While your definiton may be useful in an everyday sense, I'm afraid that it's a terrible definition in the logical sense. (I'm sorry, but it is.)

1a) That is the point. Your statements are based on the assumption that it is possible to be "wrong for you and right for me". Concepts that have no objective reality --- like ethics and morals --- can be correct for one person and wrong for another. Values are another example.

However, Christianity isn't just about values or ethics. (If it were, it would be a philosophy, not a religion.) It's supposed to be about empirical reality, and that cannot be interpreted as being "right for me and wrong for you".

I suspect that Christianity is not factually correct, but I cannot prove that. Others believe that Christianity *is* factually correct, but they cannot prove that. However, Christianity is either true, or it is false. Period. (Whether the Christian philosophy is good or bad is subjective, though.)

2) Actually, that depends on the specific beliefs the Christians hold. If certain beliefs are not held in common about the nature of God, then I'd say that you are correct --- they *are* all worshipping different Gods. They all just give him the same name.

[bows respectfully]

-Caledonian

People don't use English precisely; they use one set of words to imply two different things.

If you mean that "I assume the sun will rise. It is highly probable, and is a pretty safe bet, all things considered", then I would say that is a rational position.

If you mean that "I *know*, beyond all doubt, that the sun will rise tomorrow. It is logically impossible for the sun not to rise, and there is no way in which I can be mistaken", the I'd say that is NOT a rational position.

It is possible for the sun not to rise tomorrow. It's not very likely, but it's possible.

Stating certainty when it is impossible to be certain about something is not a rational or logical thing to dol

[bows respectfully]

-Caledonian

???

If you take "I know" to mean "I know with 100% accuracy, beyond all shred of doubt, that it is logicall impossible that the following will not occur:", then you will never use the verb "I know". The fact that people *DO* use "I know" implies that by the principle of common usage that your definition of "I know" is incorrect.

Ok, maybe I can take this another way. Everyone must make certain assumptions about the world. Mine roughly go as follows.

0) Pragmatism works (basic belief). I'll state that as "don't make assumptions which screw you over".
1) The universe exists. (contrary assumption breaks 0)
2) I exist and have free will. (ditto, and ditto)
3) Logic works. (contrary assumption breaks 0, since it voids factual statements)
4) Science works. (contrary assumption breaks 0, since it voids use of evidence)

1-4 all follow from 0, so I'm stuck with one starting point, which I think is pretty neat.

I then run through Pascal's Wager, with a generic religion, assuming only that the reward for correct belief is infinite or that the penalty for incorrect belief is infinitely negative. This shows me that I should believe in any such religions, provided the probability they are right is non-zero. I then invoke Pragmatism to say that therefore any belief system which offers infinite rewards has a probability of being right of zero. (there are fiddly maths bits here to do with infinitessimals and suchlike, but they're not particularly relevant).

"I know" that Christianity is wrong to the extent that "I know" my philosophical basis for bothering to type this post is right. Disavowing Pragmatism would be an irrational (though not illogical) thing to do.

But people DO use "I know" in that way... I've heard them do it. Most people do not behave logically or rationally.

When you say "I know" in the sense that I think you mean it, it actually means "I believe that...". Beliefs can be incorrect, and if you claim that your beliefs are correct, you must have adequate proof of that.

You can show logically that believing in God is illogical and irrational. However, that does not prove that God doesn't exist... it's just a very good argument for that position.

About your five assumptions: Interesting concept... but I don't think that they work.

0) First of all, pragmatism is insufficiently defined. What constitues being "screwed over?"
1) This has to be accepted (or that SOMETHING exists, anyway). It works.
2) This is two assumptions. Also, what exactly is free will? This must be defined.
3) Requires definition of pragmatism in 0.
4) Requires definition of pragmatism in 0.

Pascal's Wager has serious problems, and in any case, I would respectfully suggest that your formulation contains some unjustified assumptions. A complete and utterly logical version of the Wager has never been attempted, even by Pascal himself.

You can believe that Christianity is wrong. There's nothing wrong with that (and I'd agree with you!). You simply can't "know" that Christianity is wrong in an absolute sense. It's a belief, and I'm sure that you have reasoning that justifies that belief. So do Christians. I think their justifications aren't correct, and that your justifications are; however, that's just my opinion. To be certain of the existence/nonexistence of God, proof is required.

[bows respectfully]

-Caledonian

Thankyou Colonel for illustrating another misunderstanding:
"Two or more" and "men".
Didn't realise their passports identified them as Persian, however.

My body clock and the new filing system don't allow prompt responses.
(Salutes & reluctantly hits the sack.)

Actually, the astrologers have always been *assumed* to be Persian, based on the fact that they had to travel through Galilee to get to Bethlehem, and they are called "astrologers from the east." It's my belief that that particular episode is spurious at best.

Okay, Cal, you want to prove a negative. How do you prove that there isn't an invisible amorphous sponge living off of dryer lint in your house? You can't see it because it's invisible. Since it is shapeless, it can flatten itself out and slip into your dryer, eating dryer lint and crapping out April freshness. Between wash loads it lives in your ventilation ducts.

According to your logic, it is impossible to prove that there is no amorphous sponge, despite a complete lack of evidence, and to assume there isn't is a crime against logic. This is your fallacy. With this sort of logic, your world is going to quickly fill up with ghosts,, goblins, leprechans, and amorphous sponges.The burden of proof is NOT upon the negative position... one assumes the negative until the POSITIVE can show evidence.

It is extremely difficult to disprove the existence of this hypothetical sponge.

However, you can't assume that it exists, since you can't prove that it does, either.

Without evidence for or against the existence of the sponge, it's best (in my humble opinion) to reserve judgment.

You CAN say that it probably doesn't exist, and it would be rational to go on living your life as if it did not exist.

[bows respectfully]

-Caledonian

You can show that a completely omnipotent god is LOGICALLY IMPOSSIBLE by application of the "can God create a stone he cannot move?" paradox. That *proves* that a completely omnipotent god is impossible. This might be untrue - that's because logic might not work - but if you'll allow me to assume logic, then that's a rocksolid proof.
(Christians generally get out of this by constraining their god to be omnipotent, up to the bounds of logic, or to say that logic is not universally true)

Pragmatism is deliberately left fairly undefined - at this stage of my belief system I'm not assuming the existance of self, nor of the universe, so making a rigid definition would be rather pointless - and language hasn't evolved to let us deal with pre-existance - it's more practical than that...

But I can show by example. I assume the universe exists, because if it does not exist then the process is irrelevant. I assume that I exist, because if I don't, then nothing really matters. I assume I have free will, because if I don't then I can't choose what to assume anyway. (We both know what free will means - I'll leave an exact definition for some other time)

Ok, I'll run through Pascal's Wager as it can be used, as follows.

1) Let us take a generic belief B, which may be assumed to be *exactly* true(A), or to be not *exactly* true (!A), and may be *exactly* true(T), or not *exactly* true(!T). It has a probability of being exactly true of P, which is unknown.
2) There are four possibilies - AT, A!T, !AT, !A!T which are mutually exclusive. Let these all have payoffs.
3) Select B, such that the payoff for AT is +infinity, and/or the payoff for !AT is -infinity.
4) Further constrain B, such that the payoffs for A!T, !A!T are finite, and that !A!T > A!T.
5) Find the way of maximising the payoff. If P=0 then you should not assume the belief. If P>0, then you should assume the belief.

6) Repeat this process for a large number of beliefs. If the beliefs fail on property 3 or 4, defer their consideration for later. You now have a large set of beliefs and you may assume or not assume any of them.
7) Observe that the set is very large, possibly infinite.
8) Observe that it is impossible to assume all beliefs, as a great number will be self-contradictory. Observe the presence of beliefs which cannot be distinguished from each other logically, yet are self-contradictory.
9) Observe that some of the beliefs in 8 will have AT=+infinity, and !AT= -infinity (examples on request).
10) Therefore any consistent set of beliefs will have an undefined payoff, since it will sum, amongst it's members, positive and negative infinities, unless a large number of P-values are zero.
11) Living in a world where the payoff of all your decisions is completely undefined fails pragmatism.
12) Living with a large number of inconsistent beliefs fails pragmatism.
13) Therefore resolve issue by setting the P-values of all such beliefs to be zero.

(there is an alternative to 6-13, running as follows)
6) Note that by adding an infinite payoff to any belief people can force you to believe it.
7) Note that believing whatever your told is unpragmatic
8) Invoke pragmatism to set P-values of all such beliefs to zero.

(anyhow - carrying on)
14) Observe that christianity has infinite payoffs if true.
15) Therefore the probability of christianity being true is zero.

There's actually no reason to assume that God's power is not limited. God might be both limited and infinite.

You are correct that the belief that God is totally unlimited is logically impossible. If you believe that God has any traits or attributes, then He also must have limits. You might imagine a God without any traits or attributes, but is that any different from a God that doesn't exist?

I'm afraid you still haven't made me understand what "pragmatism" means...

... and the concept of "free will" is actually so difficult to define that no, I do not know what you mean when you use the term. Don't believe me? Try defining it yourself...

I'm afraid that I still don't agree with your argument. There is no logical validity in assuming that anything with an infinite payoff can't happen. I'd say that an infinite payoff is logically meaningless, as is an infinite penalty.

You are also assuming that any religious beliefs must have infinite payoffs or penalties (or both), which is logically invalid.

Hold on for a moment -- let me work out the wager myself.

[bows respectfully]

-Caledonian

Yes, but limited and infinite is not omipotent.

I fail to see why the possesion of traits or attributes limits you.

Hmm... Do you understand why I take the belief that I exist?



Why should an infinite penalty/bonus be meaningless?

I'm using this logical argument, as well as a number of others, to get rid of all possible gods. After a few arguments of this sort, what's left looks distinctly ungodlike, bound up in logical chains.

What exactly is the meaning of "omnipotent"? Is is being more powerful than anything else can be? Is it having all the power that something can have? If it's impossible to have certain powers, then even God can't have them... but that doesn't necessarily stop Him from having all possible power. If "omnipotent" means having every power, even ones that are self-contradictory, then you're right --- nothing can be omnipotent, not even God.

You can't understand how having traits is a limitation?

If God is only good, then He is incapable of being evil. That's a limitation.
If God is immortal, then He is incapable of dying or ceasing to exist. That's also a limitation.

Saying that God is anything means that you are placing limits and boundaries on the nature of God. If God had no limitations, He would by necessity need to have no qualities whatsoever --- and that's the same as not existing at all.

Your definition of "pragmatism" does not seem to refer only to the assumption that you exist, but to several other concepts as well (from what I can deduce from your statements). I understand why it can be assumed that you exist, but that's not all you mean by pragmatism. Define the term, or don't use it as a standard to make judgments!

Well, in everyday terms, an infinite amount of anything is meaningless to the human mind. Infinities can be usefully used only in very limited circumstances will very well-defined laws, such as higher mathemathics. This argument is not one of those limited circumstances (we can't even agree on basic definitions). Besides, you're assuming that an infinite bonus or penalty is impossible in your argument. There's no reason why that should be... although you can say that it would make a logical evaluation of the risk/benefit ration almost impossible.

So now you know what constitues a God and what doesn't?

If you were able to get evidence for or against the truth of a specific religion, then you could make definitive statements about whether it was valid or not. Since you can't, you are limited to logical analysis, which can be incorrect if the axioms do not match reality. You have no way of verifying your axioms, and therefore you cannot make certain statements about whether a religion is correct or not.

Here's a better argument against believing in any specific religion:

Let there be an arbitrary number of possible self-consistent belief systems (n). Let there be an arbitrary reward for choosing the correct belief system (R). Let there be an arbitrary punishment for choosing the wrong belief system (P).

Assume that it is impossible to find any information about the chances of any one belief's correctness. Assume also that only one belief system is true (or that a group of related systems are true, and consider only consistent groups).

The net benefit from making any choice at random is (R/n). The net loss from making any choice at random is P(1-(1/n)). The net change in your condition from choosing one belief system is therefore R/n - P(1-(1/n)).

Let's say that we should only choose a belief system if the average gain is larger than the average loss. That means that we're only concerned with situations where R/n > P(1-(1/n)). If we multipy both sides by n and divide both sides by the absolute magnitude of the loss (P), we get R/P > n-1.

If there are two possible choices, then the choice is only fair if the reward for choosing properly is greater than the punishment for choosing incorrectly. As n increases, it's obvious that the reward must be increasingly larger compared to the punishment if the choice is going to be worthwhile. For very large values of n (n approaches infinity), R must totally outweigh P (either P is finite and R is infinite, or R is finite and P is equal to 0).

Since we don't have any evidence supporting (or attacking) any specific religion or beliefs about rewards and punishments, we must choose at random and consider all possible combinations for values of R and P. And, since we can agree that there are many more than two possible belief systems, R must be significantly larger than P, which not likely.

This means that, without evidence that points one way or another, our choice is much more likely to hurt us than help us; the "price" of playing the game is larger than the average prize if we win.

Therefore, we might decide not to choose any belief system. There might be a reward or a punishment for not choosing any system; however, not choosing is likely to be better than choosing a religion, considering all possible combinations of rewards and punishments.

Therefore, the safest bet is not to bet at all: keep your money.

Be an agnostic!

[bows respectfully]

-Caledonian

gone to http://www.h2g2.com/F43604?thread=60550&post=444759&latest=1 - carrying on there...

I'm not sure...but I suspect this is the forum with the longest entries ever!

What an extremely well compiled and argued article! I recognise a great deal of the sources, but not half!

I don't propose to argue about the dubious points, but some technical bits are wrong - I wonder how much Aramaic or ancient greek you know, as opposed to just taking the word of others. I only ask since quite a few of the translations you've used are slightly (but significantly) wrong (I must admit to having studied ancient language for far too long now).

Obviously there's no point mentioning everything, but two more technical points. Firstly, in Matthew's gospel, the astrologers aren't from Herod, or even Jewish. They came to him from the east. Yes, he directs them to Bethlehem apparently to locate and kill Jesus, but the gifts are from the astrologers - not Herod. Oh and Jesus may have been born in a manger, but that doesn't mean he hasn't gone somewhere else by the time the astrologers have reached him. I mean the only reason he was born there was because of a lack of room at the Inn - which suggests Joseph could afford to stay there and so conceivably rent a small house until Mary/Jesus was in a fit state for travelling.

To close, the John 19:26 reference to 'the disciple Jesus loved' refers to John, not Mary Magdalene. John's always referred to this way in his gospel; never by name. And don't get too excited and propose a homosexual link - in the original language the phrase is better translated as 'the one dear to Jesus'. It's just John following an old literary tradition and not deeming his name worthy to be mentioned in the same book as the one he considered to be God's son.

Welcome to the fray.

The important point about the Herod episode was that he encouraged the astrologers. Even more important is the fact that astrologers were involved at all... this practice was condemned as illegal and immoral by both Jews and Christians. I think it's time to edit that part just a bit. As for the house thing, I find it to be a stretch. If he could afford to rent a house, why did he not do so to begin with? Or did somebody suddenly vacate a house after the child was born? Did they have family there who let them stay awhile so the astrologers could find him? Too many questions, and no answers to be had.

As for John: first of all, there is no identification of this as John's work... we have only an oral tradition which wasn't written down until Iraneus did so in the second century, well after the creation of the Gospel. Secondly, there is so much inconsistency in style and detail that it cannot possibly attributed to a single author. The best example of this can be seen in the Last Supper speech, which has two endings (John 14:31, 17:26). To quote the Catholic scholarship on this, "the inconsistencies were probably produced by subsequent editing in which homogenous materials were added to a shorter original."

So basically, "the disciple whom Jesus loved" could have been anybody, and I think I've shown good reason why I suspect it to have been Mary Magdalene.

Colonel Sellers, who loves an opportunity to use Christianity's own research against them.

ABOUT THE PARADOX:

As C.S. Lewis said in one of the Chronicles of Narnia... well, in the book Aslan says it and he represents God. Well, anyway it's "Do you think I would not follow my own rules?"

"Thou shalt not kill"
vs
Exodus, involving mass death of firstborn.

I think it's fair to say that if the xtian God exists, he's not following his own rules.

(not that that's a problem - when was the last time you saw a teacher give themselves detention for speaking in class?)

The Old Testament is full of slaughters, among other things, which is what makes it such a fun read. God personally gets his hands dirty, milling about in the throng and casting heads and limbs in various directions. But the bit where the omnipotent God gets driven off the battlefield is absolutely priceless... you see, I have no reason to fear God, because I have an iron chariot.