From: merlyn@digibd.com (Merlyn LeRoy)
Subject: Re: bug in FAQ file
Organization: DigiBoard Incorporated, Eden Prairie, MN
Date: Sat, 03 Oct 1992 15:09:41 GMT

morgan@sitka.triumf.ca (Morgan Burke) writes:
>In article <1992Sep29.135632.23800@digibd.com>, merlyn@digibd.com (Merlyn LeRoy) writes:
>|> >>You are "creating" information with your assumptions.
>|> 
>|> >So?  That's what assumptions are for.
>|> 
>|> Baloney.

>Good point.   You've convinced me.   :-}

>Out of curiousity, what do _you_ think assumptions are for?

Assumptions are statements taken as true; no information is "created".

>|> >When it is impossible to derive
>|> >or observe to obtain information, you assume instead.  You have a
>|> >problem with this?
>|> 
>|> Oh, yes, especially, when you draw unwarranted conclusions.

>It is unwarranted that I can avoid a pit bull by avoiding the area that
>the pit bull frequents?

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.

>Do you believe a more warranted conclusion would
>be that pit bulls have the power to telepathically project viciousness to 
>great distances?

No, but neither are YOUR additional assumptions warranted.

>|> >Here we go again!  Does anybody around here follow a thread before
>|> >leaping into it?  The assumption is that Christian tradition tells us
>|> >what there is to know about the Christian God.
>|> 
>|> But Pascal's Wager does not assume the Christian god, it is about god(s)
>|> in general.

>Here are the first two statements of Pascal's wager, as given in the FAQ:
>  1. One does not know whether God exists.
>  2. Not believing in God is bad for one's eternal soul if God does exist.

>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; 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)?

>Attempts to refute his
>argument by redefining his terms are dishonest.

I'd say you are defining his terms too narrowly.

>|> >One more time, for everybody still paying attention:  religious lore
>|> >is our source of information about various gods.
>|> 
>|> It is *a* source; I can also toss off information about god(s).
>|> Show that "religious lore" is more accurate than plain rambling.

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

>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.

>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?

>|> >The fact that lore X contradicts lore Y, and we have no means of
>|> >deciding which is right is irrelevant.  All we have to know is that
>|> >god X is described by lore X, and god Y by lore Y.  If god Y exists,
>|> >then lore Y decribes him/her/it, and contradictory lores are
>|> >evidently wrong.
>|> 
>|> This is more pure baloney.  Couldn't the lore be WRONG!?
>|> Or *must* it be accurate!?

>Yes it must.  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 --

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?

All this is irrelevent to Pascal's wager anyway.

---
Merlyn LeRoy
Xref: sparky alt.atheism:18198 sci.skeptic:17151 talk.origins:12247