Prayer, Pascal, and the Anthropic Principle (page 4)

JosephAlward

Little Toe,

I believe in the "Big Bang," but scientists cannot rule out the possibility that the primordial energy from which the Bang arose was a collapsed universe. I was talking about a never-ending cycle of expansions and collapses of a universe which always existed. A universe which always existed--in one form or the other--seems no less probable than a god which has always existed and which created the universe.

Another theory I favor has our universe arise from one of the many black holes created in its parent universe, that parent having arisen in a similar fashion. Each universe spawns a number of black holes in the manner of fractals; each universe inherits the physics of its parent, with some variation; in some of these new universes, formation of matter, and therefore, life, is possible; in others, it's not.

Joseph F. Alward
"Skeptical Views of Christianity and the Bible"

* http://members.aol.com/jalw/joseph_alward.html

dedalus

Stocwach is not seriously engaged with the issues. To take just one of them -- Pascal's Wager -- we have a few people raising valid points about the problematic nature of the assumptions behind it. Stocwach has not answered them in any serious manner at all -- he merely avoided the matter with some blather about the Bible being the oldest manuscript, when he (allegedly) knew that it wasn't, simultaneously accusing REM of a debauched lifestyle. What kind of argumentation is that?

Stocwach is probably a troll and in any event he isn't worth responding to on these issues, since he is obviously not really interested in them.

Dedalus

LittleToe

Joseph:

...scientists cannot rule out the possibility that the primordial energy from which the Bang arose was a collapsed universe.

Just as they cannot rule out the possibility that God exists.

...seems no less probable than a god which has always existed and which created the universe.

No more probable, either, I would imagine. Hence if your belief is true, then there is likely an equal probability that God is true.

Since we are philosophizing, let me just throw another suggestion into the melting pot, following through on your comments.
Suppose a full cycle universe evolved a being that attained such a state as to transcend the end of it's own universe, and have an influence on the creation of the next, or the next, or the next.
Since that being proceeded to give an immature universe a leg up, so to speak, and informed the first intelligent creation of it's existance; would it not have grounds to be righteously miffed at the conduct of it's offspring?

Therefore, I would suggest, there are reasonable grounds to refrain from criticising Pascal for his view.

funkyderek

Since we are philosophizing, let me just throw another suggestion into the melting pot, following through on your comments.
Suppose a full cycle universe evolved a being that attained such a state as to transcend the end of it's own universe, and have an influence on the creation of the next, or the next, or the next.
Since that being proceeded to give an immature universe a leg up, so to speak, and informed the first intelligent creation of it's existance; would it not have grounds to be righteously miffed at the conduct of it's offspring?

Suppose that same being was unspeakably evil. What if all humanity's suffering is a direct result of this sadistic creature? What if he plans to torture everyone for all eternity, regardless of how they live their lives? What if he'll only torture those who worship the god of the bible? Or those who don't? Or black people? Or women? Or any arbitrary group of his choosing? The problem with Pascal's wager is that it doesn't cover all the bases. It covers one possibility from an infinite selection and therefore without a solid reason to choose that gamble over any other, there's a vanishingly small chance of it being correct.

--
"Theology is never any help; it is searching in a dark cellar at midnight for a black cat that isn't there. Theologians can persuade themselves of anything." -Robert A. Heinlein

LittleToe

ROFL - Nice one Derek!!!
No sarcasm meant by that, as your comment has genuinely tickled me

The flaw, as I see it, is that if that being is unspeakably evil then we are all stuffed!
If that being is benevolent, and is the author of the bible, etc., then you've covered that base.
As I see it Pascal was a gambling man and felt that his choice was the one with the highest probability of success.

Whilst the chance of success may seem to be vanishingly small, when compared to the other alternatives it will probably still stand as the largest of the slices on the pie chart.

SixofNine

The God of the bible is not benevolent, by any stretch of any reasonable imagination.

It is an insult to intelligence to say He is.

thewiz

I thought the basic premise of the Anthropic principle was, "that the universe brought concious beings into existence, so that something would know that it [the universe] existed." THerefore If consciuos beings did not exist then the universe wouldnd't exist either.

Kind of like the chicken and the egg..., if a tree falls in the forest..., what is the sound of one hand clapping, can God make a rock so big..., and Einsteins classic, which I believe is based on the uncertainty principle of quantum mechanics, "...do you mean to tell me that the moon only exists when I look at it?", etc.

Therefore, according to this premise an infinite variety of universes can exist ALL at the same time. It just depends at what moment in time you are looking at it.

It is a philospohical question that drives theoretical empirical proofs.

forgive me for any speling errrors. I don't want to be discredited.

thewiz

Joseph

Regarding prayer...

Are you saying that the prayers that Jesus prayed in behalf of his disciples was of no value? They had no value because they were not around to hear them?

Or do you even believe that Jesus existed?

If you don't believe in the bible and/or are a decontructionist, what makes you think that anyone will believe all the bullshit that society puts out in the form of pulications today, will not have the same import on individuals 2000 years from now. Someone might say that Joseph never existed, he/she/it was a made up mythical character?

That being the case, will those people be speaking the truth? I don't think so. For in fact, whoever you really are, you are a real living person in time/history.

Prayer, Pascal, and the Anthropic Principle

Share this