Posted by alexandra_k on October 25, 2004, at 21:39:23
In reply to Re: an argument for existance » alexandra_k, posted by rayww on October 23, 2004, at 0:50:12
> I don't mind your philosophy ravings one bit, as long as you don't mind me coming back with one more argument for existance.
Of course not :-) I may have a go at a couple more myself.
I agree that just because you haven't seen something that doesn't mean that it doesn't exist (it might be hiding). If you have seen god, however, then this would seem to be a-posteriori (empirical) evidence that he does in fact exist.Hume said that when confronted with a miracle one should ask oneself whether it is more miraculous that the miracle occurred - or that the person be mistaken about the occurrance of a miracle. He thinks that we should believe in what is most likely, and that it is always more likely that someone be mistaken than a miracle occurring.
I suppose that when I hear people say that they have experienced god I wonder whether it is more likely that they are mistaken about the nature of their experience, or more likely that they have experienced god - and I conclude that it is more likely that they are mistaken about the nature of their experience.
> It takes faith to believe in something you have not seen for yourself.I think that not only does it take faith to believe in something you have not seen for yourself, it also takes faith to interpret ones experiences as being an experience of god as opposed to an experience of something else.
> One's reality is whatever one conjures up inside their own head. But that does not make it necessarily true.In a sense ones reality is what one interprets it as being, but there is also another sense of reality in which the 'real' is mind independent (and typically material in the sense of being made of matter). If by reality one means 'mind independent' then whatever one conjures up in ones own head may or may not correspond to mind independent reality. If it corresponds then it is true, if it does not correspond then it is false (If we accept a correspondance theory of truth).
PASCAL'S WAGER
This isn't really an argument for the existance of god, but it is an argument that it is more rational to believe in gods existance than to not believe in god's existance. It is known as 'Pascal's Wager'.
There are two things we can do - we can believe or we can not believe. There are two possible states of affairs: either god exists or he does not.
So: if we believe and god exists then let us sum the benefits (which are infinite) as +1
If we believe and god does not exist then we have gained nothing, and lost very little (let us say 0)If we do not believe and he exists - very bad -1
If we do not believe and he doesn't exist +1So after an analysis of the costs and benefits of believing as opposed to not believing we have a total of +1 for believing and 0 for not believing and thus it is more rational (and we stand to be much better off) if we believe.
Who would have thought economics and cost benefit analysis would have application for belief in god? Do ya like this one?
poster:alexandra_k
thread:402858
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faith/20040914/msgs/407219.html