From: merlyn@digibd.com (Merlyn LeRoy)
Subject: Re: bug in FAQ file
Organization: DigiBoard Incorporated, Eden Prairie, MN
Date: Fri, 09 Oct 1992 02:55:15 GMT

morgan@sitka.triumf.ca (Morgan Burke) writes:
>> merlyn@digibd.com (Merlyn LeRoy) writes:
>>Assumptions are statements taken as true; no information is "created".

>Where does the information content of the statement come from, then?
>Or are you claiming that assumptions have no information content?

No, I said no information is "created" by these assumptions.

>>It is unwarranted, given MERELY THE ASSUMPTION THAT A PIT BULL EXISTS,
>>to also assume you know where it frequents, how to avoid being attacked by
>>it, etc.

>There you go, redefining others' terms again.  It really is a bad
>habit that you should try and shake.

>The assumption in question was not THAT A PIT BULL EXISTS, it
>was that MY NEIGHBOUR'S PIT BULL IS IN EITHER THE HOUSE OR THE YARD.
>Maybe you should find the original post and read it again.  So, yes,
>I do know where it frequents, and it is intuitively obvious how I can
>avoid being attacked by it.

You are ALSO assuming HOW TO AVOID THE DAMN MUTT!
You are ASSUMING that you can AVOID the DAMN MUTT by not ENTERING THE
GODDAM YARD, but THIS IS NOT PART OF YOUR ORIGINAL ASSUMPTION AND MAY
NOT BE TRUE!  Yet you assert this as a fact, even though it is a further
assumption of yours.

>>>Note the capital 'G', the use of "eternal soul", and the implication that
>>>unbelievers are punished.  Note also Pascal's cultural background.  He was
>>>obviously talking about the Judeo-Christian God.
>>
>>You mean the Judeo-Christian-Islamic-Greco-mumble God;

>I would accept that Pascal was talking about the Islamic God, if he
>came from a Muslim country and premise (1) read: "One does not know
>whether Allah exists."  However, you can interpret the wager in an
>Islamic context if you like, since Allah and God share most of the
>qualities important to the wager.

>Greco-mumble God?  What exactly is a Greco God?  Zeus?  Sorry, the
>ancient Greeks were mortals, and were not concerned for the welfare of
>their "eternal souls".

But Pascal's wager only says whether it is advantagous to believe in a god,
not whether your soul is in danger, or even exists.  If you don't believe
in Zeus, he may lob a lightning bolt in your direction; better believe in
Zeus, then.  Pascal's wager applies to Zeus easily.

>>his argument applies
>>to many gods that get peeved if you don't believe in it.  If he were merely
>>arguing about the Christian god, why wouldn't he mention belief in Jesus,
>>(which is also essential)?

>1) Jesus == God.

Sorry, Pascal didn't put this as part of his wager. Thanks for proving my
point.

>2) Following the teachings of Jesus (or Mohammed) is a consequence of
>   accepting the wager, and is not part of the wager itself.
>3) The wager does not address the issue of the Messiah, only that of the
>   Deity.
>4) Numerous closely related religions all agree on who God is and what
>   He did, but disagree on who the Messiah is.

No, they don't.  How many kids does he have?  Will he let you into heaven
based on your works?  Does god disapprove of eating pork?

>5) The truth of Jesus's teachings depend on the existence of God;  before
>   it can be established whether it is in one's best interests to follow
>   Jesus, one should first decide whether it is in one's best interests to
>   believe in God.

Which god!?

>There are certainly other reasons.  Take your pick.

All your samples are lousy.

>>>Note that God is capitalized, and is thus a proper noun, referring 
>>>to not just any god, but a specific God.
>>
>>No, it doesn't.  It applies to the god of the Jews (who has no children),
>>the god of the Christians (who has a son), the god of the Muslims (no
>>children again, but more prophets),

>These gods are all variants of each other, to the extent that there is
>significant amounts of overlap in the mythologies of each of these
>religions.  To some extent, they are the same God (witness the identity
>of the creation myths and significant personalities such as Moses in these
>various religions).

Thanks for proving my point; before, you were saying Pascal was talking
about the christian god; now, you're saying it could be these other gods.

>>the God of Spinoza (who is not humanoid), etc.

>I find it strange that you do not capitalize the Judeo-Christian-Islamic
>"god", a being with a definite identity and personality for whom the term
>is used as a personal name, and yet you do capitalize Spinoza's god, who
>has no name or possibly even individuality.  This indicates to me that you
>are a sloppy reader, sloppy typist, or sloppy thinker.  Whichever it is,
>further discussion on this topic seems kind of pointless.

I notice you focused on whether I used god or God, and ignored my point.
Typical.  I can name other gods where there is no disadvantage in believing,
and possible disadvantage in failing to believe, just like Pascal's wager
says.  For some reason, you insist that Pascal is only talking about the
christian god.

>>>Let me replace Him with Thor, just
>>>for now.  I claim that Norse mythology is the only reliable source of 
>>>knowledge about Thor, and it says that he is the god of thunder.  You claim 
>>>that I am full of shit, Thor might be the Fijian goddess of meat pies.
>>
>>Let's replace "Thor" with "God of thunder" and you'll get different opinions.
>>You seem to think your Christian god has sole rights to the name "God" [TM].
>>Sorry, nope.

>(1)  That would be "god of thunder", not "God of thunder".  This is a
>difficult concept for you, isn't it?

>(2)  *My* Christian God?  Where did you get the idea that I'm talking
>about *my* anything?  This is *Pascal's* God we're talking about, Merlyn!

It's *YOUR* assumption that, Pascal, referring to "God", is talking about
the christian god.  *I* am arguing that Pascal was *NOT* referring to
the christian god specifically.

>(3)  The Judeo-Christian deity does have a pretty strong claim to the
>*name* "God" (different from the classification of "god").

Oops, "judeo-christian" god?  You mean the Jews' god (who has no children)
and the christians' god (who has a son)?

>Most gods do
>have names.  It's not my fault that Christians like to name theirs "God"
>instead of something a little more distinctive.  It's sort of like naming
>your pet "Dog".  While the neighbour's pet is also a dog, its name is
>"Fido".  Both are dogs, but only one has the name "Dog".  It is certainly
>possible that someone else will also have a pet named "Dog", in which case
>we must judge from the context which is being referred to.  As long as the
>reference is to "Dog" and not "dog", however, we know that a specific pet
>is being referenced, and not all possible dogs.  (Then again, maybe its all
>a clever mind-trick that causes Christians to involuntarily reject all
>other gods without thought.)

>(4)  It would be nice if there were more to distinguish "god" from
>"God" than the case of a single letter.  I suppose we could use "YHVH"
>or "Jehovah" instead, but that's a bit pedantic.

Sorry, Pascal didn't talk about YHVH.  It's still your burden to prove
Pascal was talking about the christian god specifically.

>Most people
>understand the reference after it is pointed out to them.  Most people
>don't pause at every second line of the Bible, thinking:  "There they go
>mentioning God again!  Which god do they mean this time?  Is it the same
>god as in the last verse?  This whole religion thing is sooooo confusing!"

>(5)  What *should* I assume a Christian is talking about when he starts
>spouting off about capital-G God?

Depends on the context.

>>>Attempting to claim that Thor was the Figian goddess of meat pies will not
>>>go over very well with scholars in comparative religions, archaeology, 
>>>history, or various other fields, all of whom value accuracy.  At best you 
>>>would be laughed at, at worst, dragged off by the men in white coats.
>>
>>And which of us is being laughed at in alt.atheism?

>Not sure, but the evasiveness of your question is pretty funny.

Your patheic hypothetical question wasn't worth a better answer.  You are
claiming that "God" in Pascal's wager refers to the christian god.

>>>If god Y is defined by lore Y, then the existence of 
>>>god Y means lore Y is accurate.
>>
>>This is such a boneheaded assertion --
>>

>"boneheaded assertion"?  Your arguments are getting more lucid by
>the day, Merlyn.  The use of "--" in place of rational discourse is
>especially effective.

Never saw a dash before?

>>What if lore Y is accurate, except an event described as happening at
>>9:07 EST is corrected (by Lore Y's God's pronouncement) as actually
>>happening at 9:08 EST (the witness's watch was slow)?  Does this mean
>>the God of Lore Y doesn't exist, or just that the lore isn't 100%
>>accurate?

>If that is the only discrepancy in a volume of lore the size of
>Christianity's, I would personally describe the lore as pretty damned
>accurate.  Your sudden insistence on "100% accuracy" in place of what
>was simply "accuracy" a paragraph earlier is yet another example of you
>re-defining terms on the fly.  It's getting annoying, frankly.

You're the one trying to "define" God in Pascal's wager as the christian
god.  Prove this point, or I will just re-ask the question and delete
all this irrelevant verbiage.  It's pointless.

---
Merlyn LeRoy
Newsgroups: alt.atheism