The God-Dog Paradox

TheMadFool

In general, the epistemic default is falsehood. That is, propositions are assumed false until proven true. Of course some withold judgment and are neutral but that's just a theoretical position. When it comes down to acting on your beliefs, the neutral person can't be differentiated from the person who has assumed falsehood. For example, there's no difference in behavior between someone who doesn't believe in fairies and a person who thinks fairies might exist.

Dogs are known for their loyalty, often described as man's faithful friend. Like all general claims, this belief has exceptions. See Dog Attacks.

Of course, people do caution "don't trust animals". But that does little to damage the reputation of our furry companions, some of them becoming beloved family.

That said, when people, for instance, visit other people in their homes, they keep an eye out for dangerous pets, especially big dogs with big teeth. In this case discretion is the better part of valor. So, here it's considered wise to assume the proposition there's a big nasty dog to be true. This epistemic stance of assuming truth can mean the difference between life and death. This runs contrary to the scientific stance of assuming falsehood by default (which I described in the first paragraph).

So, it's wise to assume there's a big nasty dog round the corner because otherwise, the consequences are bad.

Now, turn the page to God. Atheists believe God doesn't exist. Agnostics don't know. Actually, even theists themselves don't know whether God truly exists or not

However, the consequences of not believing in God are horrific - eternal suffering in hell. Yet, there are people, atheists, who outright reject God. Compare this situation to the one about dogs I described above. While it was wise to assume the existence of a big nasty dog, it is considered unwise to assume there's a God. This despite the close similarity between a Dog and God.

My argument looks like Pascal's wager but it's slightly different in being a non-mathematical argument from analogy.

Isn't this a paradox? Two similar situations are handled contradictorily.

Terrapin Station

In general, the epistemic default is falsehood. — TheMadFool

I don't agree with this right off the bat. It depends on the claim, really. And it depends on things like where the claim is coming from--is it a source that one considers trustworthy, for example?--as well as one's assessment of the plausibility of the claim--is it the sort of thing that one feels is likely to be the case? Most claims that we encounter on a daily basis are claims that we assess in that manner. So I wouldn't say that the epistemic default is to not believe something.

Also, empirical claims are not provable, though they are supportable--the two are not the same idea. But most people do not require support beyond things like plausibility and an assessment of past trustworthyness for most claims that we believe in our daily lives.

However, the consequences of not believing in God are horrific - eternal suffering in hell. — TheMadFool

So, it turns out that you're writing this long, rambling thing simply to present Pascal's Wager yet again. <sigh>

The problem with Pascal's wager is that there's no reason to believe that if there is a God, anyone knows what the consequences of not believing in the God in question are.

With the dog situation, we do know the consequences of there being particular sorts of dogs. We have empirical evidence of that.

With God, there's only hearsay, but no good reason to believe any of the hearsay.

If there is a God with something like mentality, it could very well turn out that it's the sort of being who would punish those who believe in the God without good reasons to believe in the God, such as empirical evidence of the God. And that God could be executing a test that you're failing. Thus, when you pass away, your soul will be eternally punished for inadequate epistemic rigor.

Agustino

plausibility — Terrapin Station

What determines plausibility? For example, miracles are plausible to me, but they must obviously be quite rare, otherwise they wouldn't be miracles in the first place, but common occurrences.

The problem with Pascal's wager is that there's no reason to believe that if there is a God, anyone knows what the consequences of not believing in the God in question are. — Terrapin Station

Sure, but you don't know what Pascal takes "believing in God" to mean. What does it mean to believe in God according to you?

With God, there's only hearsay, but no good reason to believe any of the hearsay. — Terrapin Station

You do have empirical evidence for God within your own conscience - in the Eastern countries, non-belief in God is taken to be a form of psychosis, since people are expected to be aware of a spiritual reality in which they partake. So this consciousness that "there is no good reason to believe" is by all means not common to all of mankind - I'd go as far as saying it's not common to MOST of mankind.

Michael

In general, the epistemic default is falsehood. That is, propositions are assumed false until proven true. — TheMadFool

So I have to assume both that "TheMadFool is an only child" and "TheMadFool has at least one sibling" are false? That would be a contradiction.

However, the consequences of not believing in God are horrific - eternal suffering in hell. Yet, there are people, atheists, who outright reject God. Compare this situation to the one about dogs I described above. While it was wise to assume the existence of a big nasty dog, it is considered unwise to assume there's a God. This despite the close similarity between a Dog and God.

What if I posit that God punishes those who believe in him with eternal suffering in hell? Therefore it's wise to assume the non-existence of God.

Your argument suffers the same problem as Pascal's wager. It's a false dichotomy. There are more options than just "no God, and so no reward or punishment" and "God, and reward for belief and punishment for disbelief".

Terrapin Station

What determines plausibility? — Agustino

The individual in question's beliefs, which at least partially hinge on their experience base, as well as the sorts of things they require as support for claims, etc.

Sure, but you don't know what Pascal takes "believing in God" to mean. What does it mean to believe in God according to you? — Agustino

I'm clearly referring to believing that a God exists, and that's it.

You do have empirical evidence for God within your own conscience — Agustino

No, that would be evidence of things that my mind is doing only.

Agustino

God exists — Terrapin Station

What does that mean though?

No, that would be evidence of things that my mind is doing only. — Terrapin Station

How do you delimit what is your mind? Do you just assume that all thoughts, feelings, sensations, etc. are the product of your mind, probably in isolation from the rest of reality?

Terrapin Station

What does that mean though? — Agustino

That there's some sort of being with at least some more or less "supernatural" control over events and entities in the world, etc.

Do you just assume that all thoughts, feelings, sensations, etc. are the product of your mind, — Agustino

Yes. Because there's no evidence that thoughts, feelings, sensations, etc. per se are anything else. To believe something else I'd need to observe external-to-me thoughts, feelings, sensations, etc. But there appear to be none.

probably in isolation from the rest of reality? — Agustino

I wouldn't use the word "isolation." They simply occur in a different location than other things. That's no different than the fact that bowling, say, occurs in a different location (like bowling alleys) than other things (like beaches) (which isn't to say that it would be impossible to bowl on a beach, but then we could just pick some other location as the example). Does that mean that bowling alleys are "in isolation" from the rest of the world? I wouldn't use that word, but maybe you would, if you'd use "isolation" for anything that has a physical location that's not "everywhere"?

But don't you already know my views on this stuff? I mean, how many times do I have to type the same thing before one remembers?

Agustino

That there's some sort of being with at least some more or less "supernatural" control over events and entities in the world, etc. — Terrapin Station

That's not what Theism, including Pascal would hold.

Because there's no evidence that thoughts, feelings, sensations, etc. per se are anything else. — Terrapin Station

How could there be such evidence? :s It's a matter of interpretation, not a matter of evidence here it seems to me.

To believe something else I'd need to observe external-to-me thoughts, feelings, sensations, etc. But there appear to be none. — Terrapin Station

There appear to be none because all thoughts by default are perceived within your mind, but that doesn't tell us that your mind is their source. It's just like your eyes - just because trees are perceived with your eyes doesn't tell us that there are no trees outside your eyes.

They simply occur in a different location than other things. — Terrapin Station

What location? Thoughts have a spatial location? :s

That's no different than the fact that bowling, say, occurs in a different location (like bowling alleys) than other things (like beaches). — Terrapin Station

It is very different because bowling can be perceived by the five senses, whereas thoughts can't.

But don't you already know my views on this stuff? I mean, how many times do I have to type the same thing before one remembers? — Terrapin Station

No, because I have rarely and not in much depth discussed metaphysics with you - and I don't usually read your posts, since we generally participate in different kind of threads, so how would I be expected to know that? :s

Terrapin Station

I don't want to keep doing a bunch of different topics back and forth, so let's do one at a time and finish it, then move on..

That's not what Theism, including Pascal would hold. — Agustino

Which part would "Theism" or Pascal disagree with? That we're talking about a being?

Agustino

Which part would "Theism" or Pascal disagree with? That we're talking about a being? — Terrapin Station

Yes. God is not a being the way you and me are beings. Theism makes a distinction between the created - beings - and the Uncreated - God. If you look around you, you will see that everything in this Universe is created - there was a time when it was not. So what we know as beings are all created things. A certain rearrangement of atoms, with certain properties, etc. etc. but fundamentally created things.

Terrapin Station

↪Agustino

If you were to ask me if "being" implies "created," I would say, "No." So that doesn't amount to disagreeing with me.

Agustino

If you were to ask me if "being" implies "created," I would say, "No." So that doesn't amount to disagreeing with me. — Terrapin Station

Then how do you get your notion of being if not from the things which you see around you, which are all impermanent and created? :s

Terrapin Station

Then how do you get your notion of being if not from the things which you see around you, which are all impermanent and created? — Agustino

Say that that's how I acquire my concept of "being." That does not imply that my concept of "being" includes an implication that beings are created. To assume that it would have to would be to not understand the act of abstraction in general.

For example, we could say that we acquire our concept of "triangle" by observing shapes and angles and relations etc. that are around us. That doesn't imply that our concept of "triangle" necessarily involves non-straight lines, lines that are not one-dimensional, angles that do not add up to exactly 180 degrees, etc.--even though we don't actually observe those things.

Agustino

Say that that's how I acquire my concept of "being." That does not imply that my concept of "being" includes an implication that beings are created. To assume that it would have to would be to not understand the act of abstraction in general.

For example, we could say that we acquire our concept of "triangle" by observing shapes and angles and relations etc. that we observe. That doesn't imply that our concept of "triangle" necessarily involves non-straight lines, lines that are not one-dimensional, angles that do not add up to exactly 180 degrees, etc.--even though we don't actually observe those things. — Terrapin Station

I thought you were an empiricist but okay. How would you define a "being" then? And does your concept of being apply to God in-so-far as it pertains to real things, or in-so-far as it pertains to abstract matters of the intellect - or both?

Terrapin Station

↪Agustino

I'm primarily just using "being" to indicate that I'm not referring to, say, "everything," or "my consciousness" or something else like that. It's some sort of "independent entity" . . . it's unfortunate that when we do philosophy, we often have to pretend that we're talking to robots or retards or something like that. I'm simply trying to guard against that. Though of course, on the idea that we need to pretend that we're retards or robots or whatever, it's hard to guard against it, because it's difficult to anticipate all of the "misunderstandings" that a robot etc. would have.

And does your concept of being apply to God in-so-far as it pertains to real things, or in-so-far as it pertains to abstract matters of the intellect - or both? — Agustino

Re that, I don't really understand what you're asking.

Agustino

It's some sort of "independent entity" — Terrapin Station

I will take independent to mean separate from you. Well granted that theism generally holds that God sustains everything in existence at all moments, it seems to me that it would be wrong to think of God entirely as an "independent entity" - rather God is both within and without - both dependent and independent relative to you.

Terrapin Station

↪Agustino

If it's simply a synonym for "everything," then I'd say that a lot of the talk about it is nonsensical.

Agustino

If it's simply a synonym for "everything," then I'd say that a lot of the talk about it is nonsensical. — Terrapin Station

No, it's absolutely not, because theism isn't pantheism. But the fact that God is both external and internal is true. For example, St. Augustine writes:

"In my heart of hearts God is closer to me than I am to myself"

So you would be wrong to think of God as external, you'd be wrong to think of God as internal, and you'd be wrong to think that everything is God.

Terrapin Station

↪Agustino

In general I have almost zero interest in playing a word game where I have to guess what words are kosher to you to talk about this. And of course, almost zero interest in playing the "Let's pretend we're robots or retards" game.

Terrapin Station

No, it's absolutely not, because theism isn't pantheism. — Agustino

Right. So all that I'm saying is that I was simply not using it as a synonym for "everything."

You agree. So let's move on.

Agustino

You agree. So let's move on. — Terrapin Station

Okay, we will move on if that's all you were saying. So you agree that your terms don't imply that God is purely external of you, correct?

Terrapin Station

↪Agustino

Yes. And I don't think that laboriously going through any of this is important for anything.

Terrapin Station

↪Agustino

So re "How could there be such evidence?"--by there being thoughts, emotions, etc. (whatever the list was) that are external to me (and not simply someone else's brain functioning that way). That's straightforward enough.

Agustino

Yes. — Terrapin Station

Good. Next I have to ask you:

That there's some sort of being with at least some more or less "supernatural" control over events and entities in the world, etc. — Terrapin Station

What does "supernatural" mean? Is the fact of the mere existence of the natural world a supernatural fact? And what does control over events & entities in the world mean?

So re "How could there be such evidence?"--by there being thoughts, emotions, etc. (whatever the list was) that are external to me. That's straightforward enough. — Terrapin Station

It takes your eye to perceive an external tree. Does it take your mind to perceive an external thought?

Terrapin Station

What does "supernatural" mean? Is the fact of the mere existence of the natural world a supernatural fact? And what does control over events & entities in the world mean? — Agustino

First, "supernatural" was in quotation marks for a reason. Similarly here, the idea was simply to distinguish between a God and, say, Joe down the street, because Joe has some natural control over things in the world. For example, Joe can pick up a pen and write something on a piece of paper. Of course, I wouldn't have to guard against such misinterpretations if this (in general) didn't amount to playing the robot/retard game, because only robots or retards would think that maybe I'm referring to someone like Joe instead.

Agustino

Joe has some natural control over things in the world. For example, Joe can pick up a pen and write something on a piece of paper. — Terrapin Station

So Joe has the limited ability to alter some existing matter, by for example spilling ink on the paper. That's natural control to you. So then altering the chemical composition of water to form wine is a natural or supernatural control then, and why?

Terrapin Station

So then altering the chemical composition of water to form wine is a natural or supernatural control then, and why? — Agustino

Do we have to play the robot/retard game? Philosophy shouldn't be about pretending that we're idiots. (That wasn't a rhetorical question. I don't mind having a conversation, but seriously, why do we have to have a conversation via pretending to be morons?)

Agustino

Do we have to play the robot/retard game? — Terrapin Station

The reason I'm asking you these questions is because it appears that the distinctions you draw are somewhat arbitrary. For example, you define natural control to be what Joe can do. But why would more powerful ways of affecting matter than those accessible to Joe count as supernatural? Is it just because they're not accessible to average people or what?

Terrapin Station

For example, you define natural control to be what Joe can do. — Agustino

No I don't. Again, it's my experience that people engage in philosophcial discussion--especially on message boards and the like--by basically pretending that they're robots or retards (at least I'm hoping they're pretending). So that gets one into the habit of trying to anticipate the retard-like responses you'll receive. My "supernatural" in quotation marks was only meant to guard against an interpretation that I might be talking about Joe instead.

I don't know why I bother, because then we just have to go through this protracted nonsense instead then.

Agustino

Even your internal/external distinction with regards to thoughts is very problematic. By what criteria for example would you distinguish internal thoughts from external thoughts granted that you perceive both with your mind? Is it your control over them? Do you just say internal thoughts are those you control and direct, and external thoughts are those which come to you spontaneously as it were, which you didn't determine consciously?

Again, it's my experience that people engage in philosophcial discussion--especially on message boards and the like--by basically pretending that they're robots or retards (at least I'm hoping they're pretending). So that gets one into the habit of trying to anticipate the retard-like responses you'll receive. — Terrapin Station

They're not retard-like answers/questions at all, but if you want to be thorough in one's discussion, one needs to elucidate all such matters, even though they may be boring. Without such engagement it is impossible to reach any conclusions, and our discussions won't be productive because we'll misunderstand each other. I remember you said in a different thread you're easily entertained, but that doesn't appear to be so now.

Terrapin Station

By what criteria for example would you distinguish internal thoughts from external thoughts granted that you perceive both with your mind? — Agustino

I wouldn't use the word perceive. You don't perceive thoughts, you have thoughts--in other words, it's something your brain does.

For them to be external, and not simply something someone else's brain is doing, and to perceive them, they'd have to obtain outside of brains somehow and you'd need to perceive them, at least indirectly, via your normal perceptual senses--vision, hearing, smell, taste, touch. Those senses are the means by which you perceive anything external, again, at least indirectly.

The God-Dog Paradox

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Categories

More Discussions