God is in one of three boxes, if I show you one option is false, do you switch?

[Tinker Grey]

The major premise of the Monty Hall problem is that there is a prize to be had.

 

[bhsmte]

The major premise of the Monty Hall problem is that there is a prize to be had.

Valid point.

 

[variant]

I hid God.

If it were possible to hide God why would it be done?

Why make a game of this at all?

Why is the game more important than the people? It seems like the action of a sociopath.

 

[PsychoSarah]

As I said, a believer will entertain such a possibility, for a time.

I myself have played the game many times and I find God to be particularly reliable.

I think the mistake you may (only may) be making, is that luck is the only test for faith in God - that is not what I am saying.

I am saying if there is no God, there would be no reason to consider yourself lucky and/or no reason to try to enhance your chances of luck where God is involved, either way you would lose.

Belief isn't about personal choice, but rather more a matter of perception. I certainly didn't choose to be an atheist.

 

[Gottservant]

No, I am making a honest point. My point is not foolish merely because it seems extreme to you.


eudaimonia,

Mark

No one is asking you to make an "honest point" about a game, that is disingenuous.

God is the one mastering the game, not you.

 

[Gottservant]

You cannot lose what does not exist.

That's just it.

By playing the game for God, your luck increases for everything to which God might be considered associated.

If you don't play the game, your luck arbitrarily may or may not decrease for everything to which God might be considered associated.

The bias is definitely in favour of playing the game in favour of God.

 

[Gottservant]

The major premise of the Monty Hall problem is that there is a prize to be had.

God does not interfere with you discovering the meaning of probability, simply because "he does not exist".

If anything, whether directly or by the controversy surrounding it, it enhances the probability that you will not only remember it, but benefit from it.

Furthermore, since it is counter-intuitive, it is not only good, but it is needed.

Lastly, not to force you to play a game you don't understand, but saying God doesn't exist, doesn't negate the fact that your overall luck will be affected by how you play the game (if you play it).

 

[Gottservant]

If it were possible to hide God why would it be done?

Why make a game of this at all?

Why is the game more important than the people? It seems like the action of a sociopath.

By hiding God, I demonstrate that He has a meaningful connection with probability.

The counter-intuitive nature of the problem, elucidates that there is the need for at least something, that will remind you to take advantage of luck.

The game is not more important than the people, it is sufficient for people that have good or bad luck, anything more is your fantasy (possibly about sociopaths).

 

[Gottservant]

Belief isn't about personal choice, but rather more a matter of perception. I certainly didn't choose to be an atheist.

I'm sorry but if you want me to pity you, you are going about it the wrong way.

Saying your were born atheist, is foolish, as everybody knows that you are born with instinct and instinct does not dictate belief even at the best of times, with the one exception of life-threatening panic and that is not the state you are in, not right now, I would assume.

No you might have rushed into atheism thinking it was some kind of answer, but at some point you decided to stay that way (that is a choice).

 

[variant]

By hiding God, I demonstrate that He has a meaningful connection with probability.

The counter-intuitive nature of the problem, elucidates that there is the need for at least something, that will remind you to take advantage of luck.

The game is not more important than the people, it is sufficient for people that have good or bad luck, anything more is your fantasy (possibly about sociopaths).

God is in fact not apparent, as is anything that has to do with probability rather than actuality.

You've admitted to the "game" here so you have to defend it.

Why would you or God or any other entity be playing a game here?

 

[Gottservant]

God is in fact not apparent, as is anything that has to do with probability rather than actuality.

You've admitted to the "game" here so you have to defend it.

Why would you or God or any other entity be playing a game here?

I didn't just "admit" to the game, I created it.

As I said, it shows a relevant connection between God and probability.

The only real objection that has been made so far, is that in place of God you could have anything, but that is dodging the question: I am not asking you to place your trust in God on the basis of probability (though you certainly can) I am asking you to assess the difficulty of maintaining a lucky streak on the basis of your objection or neutrality to God.

If indeed you can maintain a lucky streak while believing in God, why would you not associate that lucky streak with God.

What is absurd is that this whole time you are objecting that God could be anything, you are missing out on opportunities to play the game - I would like to know how you justify that?

 

[madaz]

As I said, a believer will entertain such a possibility, for a time.

I myself have played the game many times and I find God to be particularly reliable.

I think the mistake you may (only may) be making, is that luck is the only test for faith in God - that is not what I am saying.

I am saying if there is no God, there would be no reason to consider yourself lucky and/or no reason to try to enhance your chances of luck where God is involved, either way you would lose.

There is no god, so therefore nothing to lose.

 

[Gottservant]

A better question would be: how do you know that what you think is God, is actually God, because it is behind door B?

 

[variant]

As I said, it shows a relevant connection between God and probability.

As I just said if god is a probability we don't know that it exists in actuality.

Why would God or any other being count on "luck" when dealing with an audience that it wanted to help?

Introducing probability doesn't help the idea of a benevolent God here, it hurts.

 

[Gottservant]

There is no god, so therefore nothing to lose.

In other words, even if one day the prize was something else, you wouldn't care for even a second?

And what do you say if behind door number B is pascal's wager?

 

[variant]

A better question would be: how do you know that what you think is God, is actually God, because it is behind door B?

I don't know anything about God.

 

[Gottservant]

As I just said if god is a probability we don't know that it exists in actuality.

Why would God or any other being count on "luck" when dealing with an audience that it wanted to help?

Introducing probability doesn't help the idea of a benevolent God here, it hurts.

Probability and actuality are temporal expressions of the same thing.

You are effectively saying "but I was playing the game in the past, how do I know it applies to the present?"

God is not averse to luck, any more than Wisdom is averse to "light".

I continue to maintain that you are trying to determine for God, what He thinks as if that is somehow a substitute for an actual relationship with Him.

 

[variant]

Probability and actuality are temporal expressions of the same thing.

No, they aren't. I am male and not female for instance.

Some actualities preclude others.

 

[Gottservant]

I don't know anything about God.

Except when it suits you to argue with people, that can show there is a relationship to God not given by the world.

I'm not saying that to criticize you, it is just a fact that you may or may not like.

 

[variant]

Except when it suits you to argue with people, that can show there is a relationship to God not given by the world.

I'm not saying that to criticize you, it is just a fact that you may or may not like.

I have not claimed any knowledge of God. You are simply incorrect.