From: morgan@sitka.triumf.ca (Morgan Burke)
Subject: Re: bug in FAQ file
Organization: TRIUMF, Vancouver BC
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 17:53:27 GMT

dgraham@bmers30.bnr.ca (Douglas Graham) writes:
>>Most would accept the wager.  That decision is perfectly logical
>>and does not violate information entropy, UNLESS you also accept the
>>following premises:
>>	4)  the source of advice is unreliable
>>	5)  it is unreasonable to assume a door is in the vicinity
>
>You're off on a tangent here.  This has nothing to do with whether or not
>you have good reason to suspect that there is a door.  The certain knowledge
>that you have is about what happens if there is a door, and what happens if
>there is not.  You do *not* have this same knowledge with respect to any
>supernatural being that might exist.

Now we are going in circles.  I thought we sorted this out a week ago.
Our knowledge of supernatural beings is irrelevant to this discussion;
it is the knowledge of the consequences of our belief in one such being
that is in question.  This knowledge is close to certain if you accept
the premise:
     4')  the Bible is a reliable source of knowledge about God
Christians do, so the wager is logical.  Atheists do not, so the wager is
nonsensical.  Either way, the information theory argument is circular:
the conclusion depends on whether you already accept the existence of
God as likely.

>>>The only real inputs are that we do not know whether God exists, and
>>>that we do not know anything about this God if he exists.  Obviously,
>>>something is being violated if from that, we conclude that it is wise
>>>to believe this God exists.
>>
>>Agreed.  But the premises of the wager say that we *do* know something
>>about him if he exists.
>
>Exactly.  And that is why the argument violates information entropy.
>Where did this knowledge come from?  Please don't start talking about
>that huge body of Christian lore again.  Who cares?

Circa one billion people at last count.  I think we are getting tangled
in semantics here.  I am talking about God (a proper noun, like Atilla
the Hun), while you are talking about a god (as in "any god" or "all gods").

When I talk about God (note the capital G), I am talking about
a specific, rather well-defined God, as was Pascal.  Perhaps I should
say YHWH instead.  Various features of this well-known and well-defined
God are matters of public knowledge.  I am certainly not referring to a
generic, ill-defined god (note the lower-case g) that can be manipulated
to fit an arbitrary description of a supernatural being.  Of course I can
say nothing definite about such a god, but I'm not, and neither was
Pascal.  Your claim that information about God comes from nowhere is
simply false, when we use a rigid definition of God like Christianity
gives us.

>>In addition, as I have pointed out above and in previous postings, this
>>information entropy argument is doing exactly the same thing.  It uses
>>atheist premises to prove that it is nonsensical to follow Pascal's
>>wager.  I believe *BOTH* arguments are completely circular.
>
>What atheist premises are used?

-- That the probability of God existing is slim to none.
-- That we can no nothing of how God would behave if He exists, despite
   an extensive personality profile in the Bible.

>>-- God can only be bad to you if he exists to do so.
>>-- A non-existent God can do nothing to you (I call this the Mafia
>>   principle:  a dead witness can't testify against you)
>>
>>This logic is only bad if OTHER jealous gods exist who will punish you
>>for believing in a non-existent god.  However, that amounts to a whole
>>slew of additional premises that were not part of the original argument.
>
>Well, you're right.  The logic is certainly bad.  Atrocious in fact.

It's not.  It is actually quite good.  I have even graciously pointed
out the conditions under which the argument fails.  Rigourous to the end.

But I understand your objections.  It seems like Pascal was making an
assumption that was more like:
	-- Either the Christian God exists, or no gods exist.
This premise seems undefensible, but it must be stated if we are ever going
to put these other gods to rest.  They are not particularly relevant to
this discussion, since the FAQ makes this point in detail, and I am not
disputing it.

-- Morgan Burke (morgan@reg.triumf.ca)

Newsgroups: alt.atheism