From: morgan@sitka.triumf.ca (Morgan Burke)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: bug in FAQ file
Date: 9 Oct 1992 19:56:28 GMT
Organization: TRIUMF, Vancouver BC
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: sitka.triumf.ca

>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.

I'll ask the question again:  where does the information content of
the assumptions come from?

>>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.
>
>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.

I honestly fail to understand your objection here.  The pit bull is
in either the house or the yard.  I am in neither location.  Therefore
I cannot be attacked by the pit bull.  No assumptions, just straight
forward deduction.

>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.

Wrong, Merlyn.  In the words of the FAQ, Pascal's wager says:
"One does not know whether God exists."  (*Not* whether 'a god' exists.)
It also says:  "Not believing in God is bad for one's eternal soul if
God does exist."  How many times must this be pointed out to you?

These statements obviously limit interpretations of God to those
involving a diety who rewards the eternal souls of the faithful,
and punishes the rest.  Pascal came from a cultural context in which
just such a God dominated the religious thinking.  Perhaps you would
like to explain why it is unreasonable to conclude that Pascal was
referring to this God?

[red herring debate about the role of Jesus in Pascal's Wager
 deleted for brevity]

>>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.

Pascal *was* talking about the Christian god.  However, the assumptions
he makes about this god would also be valid in a Jewish or Muslim context.
In fact it would be valid in the context of any god that rewarded the
eternal souls of the faithful, and punished the rest.

>I notice you focused on whether I used god or God, and ignored my point.
>Typical.

Your point was that "God" does not refer to a specific deity, but
to various deities.  I did not ignore this point, but in fact addressed
it at length.  (Remember, the stuff about the dogs named "Fido" and "Dog"?)

I am also curious why you think ignoring points is "typical" of me.
I've haven't ignored a single point of yours yet.  (Witness the absurd
length of this post.)

>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.

So what?  That's the oldest objection in the book to Pascal's wager,
and you'll get no debate from me.  It's boring and beside the point.

>For some reason, you insist that Pascal is only talking about the
>christian god.

For some reason, you think he is not.

>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.

Justify that statement in light of the following statements from 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.
Be sure to explain the following points:
  -- Why "God" is capitalized.
  -- Why Pascal assumes he has an eternal soul.
  -- Why Pascal assumes his eternal soul is in jeopardy if he does not
     believe.
  -- Why Pascal would believe in a god other than the one implicitly
     accepted by his culture, without explicitly stating so.

>>(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)?

I've got news for you Merlyn.  It's the same God (remember, Jesus was
a Jew).  Bifurcation of religious tradition does not remove the fact
that the various incarnations of this deity are all descended from a
common mythological figure.

>>(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.

Neither does the Pope.  I guess it's stupid of me to assume the Pope
is talking about the Biblical God?

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

Heh, heh.  Maybe there is hope for you after all.

>>>>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?

The dash I can deal with.  It's the absence of compelling argument
that it signifies that I have trouble with.

>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.

I must have done this a half dozen times already.  But for you, Merlyn,
I'll give it one more go.  The following text is excerpted from the
summary of this thread that was posted last week.  I guess you missed it.

"Objections regarding the injection of Christian interpretations of God
are irrelevant.  Pascal's cultural bias, the use of capital-G God, and
the mention of "eternal soul" in the argument obviously imply a
Judeo-Christian context to this debate."

-- Morgan Burke (morgan@reg.triumf.ca)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism