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

[Gottservant]

I think you are (all) making it much harder than it needs to be.

I hid God.

I said you can find Him.

Then I showed you how to make it easy.

If you were listening, you would by now know that believing in God does not necessarily make you unlucky.

 

[Radagast]

I hid God.

I don't think you can do that.

 

[Gottservant]

I don't think you can do that.

If God can be revealed, He can be hidden.

 

[Eudaimonist]

So this is a little philo-theo thought experiment for those of you that like neuroscience. See there is this very well established science that if you are given a choice of three options, and you pick, but then you are shown one of the other options is false, it is statistically more likely that you have chosen the wrong door, based on the fact that you now have only two options to choose from - your odds increase, if you gamble in more and more limited contexts.

I'm not aware that this has been shown by neuroscience. It is the classic Monty Hall gambit, and it is more mathematical game theory than anything else.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mhlc7peGlGg

BTW, I don't gamble on God's existence. Given three doors, I would say that I don't believe that God is hiding behind any of them. All three doors hide goats. If the game show host wishes to prove otherwise, he may open all three doors.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Gottservant]

If you open all three doors, you have lost the game before you have found God.

Hardly a way to find God.

 

[PsychoSarah]

If you open all three doors, you have lost the game before you have found God.

Hardly a way to find God.

No, messing with us by making a game of our potential eternal existence is hardly a reasonable thing to do

 

[bhsmte]

Hi there,

So this is a little philo-theo thought experiment for those of you that like neuroscience. See there is this very well established science that if you are given a choice of three options, and you pick, but then you are shown one of the other options is false, it is statistically more likely that you have chosen the wrong door, based on the fact that you now have only two options to choose from - your odds increase, if you gamble in more and more limited contexts.

The thing is, what if the thing behind one of those doors is God? If you knew that it was more likely that He would be behind the other door, would you switch or does the permissiveness of God - the indifference - put you off increasing your odds all of a sudden? What if I told you that as a habit of thought, putting God off in this way, would make you unlucky in general? Still not interested? What if I told you that where God is, there is always something Christ has created, so in essence, there was no way you could lose, just by committing to increase your odds? Still really not interested?

It's just a thought. I am truly very curious to see what your initial responses will be.

Where is Monty Hall when you need him?

 

[Eudaimonist]

If you open all three doors, you have lost the game before you have found God.

Hardly a way to find God.

It's the only epistemologically valid and honest way to find God, if God exists.

And why would it be better for God to play hide and seek? Why would he be a cosmic Monty Hall instead?


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Davian]

It's the only epistemologically valid and honest way to find God, if God exists.

Indeed.

And why would it be better for God to play hide and seek? Why would he be a cosmic Monty Hall instead?

The hide-and-seek story comes about when God is not found, as part of a vast and intricate rationale for why it appears to be indistinguishable from nothing.

 

[Gottservant]

No, messing with us by making a game of our potential eternal existence is hardly a reasonable thing to do

you don't believe anyway

what has anyone got to lose?

 

[Gottservant]

It's the only epistemologically valid and honest way to find God, if God exists.

And why would it be better for God to play hide and seek? Why would he be a cosmic Monty Hall instead?


eudaimonia,

Mark

Now you are playing a game with me: you are more extreme than even a fool needs to be.

 

[PsychoSarah]

you don't believe anyway

what has anyone got to lose?

Everything of course.

 

[Davian]

you don't believe anyway

I find the god that you present here to be incoherent.

what has anyone got to lose?

Believing does not make it true. I want to believe as few untrue things as possible.

Also, Pascal's wager fails.

"Some critics argue that Pascal's Wager, for those who cannot believe, suggests feigning belief to gain eternal reward. This would be dishonest and immoral. In addition, it is absurd to think that God, being just and omniscient, would not see through this deceptive strategy on the part of the "believer", thus nullifying the benefits of the wager." wiki

 

[Gottservant]

Everything of course.

I usually make that point, after people have at least taken some bait.

 

[Gottservant]

I find the god that you present here to be incoherent.

Believing does not make it true. I want to believe as few untrue things as possible.

Also, Pascal's wager fails.

"Some critics argue that Pascal's Wager, for those who cannot believe, suggests feigning belief to gain eternal reward. This would be dishonest and immoral. In addition, it is absurd to think that God, being just and omniscient, would not see through this deceptive strategy on the part of the "believer", thus nullifying the benefits of the wager." wiki

There's nothing incoherent about it: God exists and therefore I can hide Him.

If you feel like you are missing out on something, play the game; if you feel like I am hiding the wrong thing, you are being false.

Pascal's wager only fails if you believe you can guess the standards of God, without creating them, as if it were, so to say, that you were God.

That last point, really is the problem.

I mean if I can't offer you a bit of fun, without you making a nervous complex out of it, something is definitely wrong.

I draw your attention, once again, to the game: how long will you delay increasing your odds of being lucky, because of an objection to a deity you won't prove exists, for the rest of your natural life?

 

[madaz]

I haven't read this entire thread, so forgive me if this has already been pointed out to you ol mate Gotts.

But I thought, since this is a game to you, why don't you play this game.


Why don't you choose to be a Hindu, Muslim and a Christian?

If one religion is indeed correct (which I doubt) you could increase your chances of worshipping the correct god(s) by over 50%.

Wouldnt you want to increase your odds?

 

[Gottservant]

I haven't read this entire thread, so forgive me if this has already been pointed out to you ol mate Gotts.

But I thought, since this is a game to you, why don't you play this game.


Why don't you choose to be a Hindu, Muslim and a Christian?

If one religion is indeed correct (which I doubt) you could increase your chances of worshipping the correct god(s) by over 50%.

Wouldnt you want to increase your odds?

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.

 

[Davian]

There's nothing incoherent about it: God exists and therefore I can hide Him.

Just as I can hide the invisible dragon in my garage.

If you feel like you are missing out on something, play the game; if you feel like I am hiding the wrong thing, you are being false.

No, I feel that you are hiding nothing, literally.

Pascal's wager only fails if you believe you can guess the standards of God, without creating them, as if it were, so to say, that you were God.

That last point, really is the problem.

Not my problem. Pascal's wager leaves out which flavour of God, or which god, or gods, you should believe in. Just because you have a favourite does not make it true.

I mean if I can't offer you a bit of fun, without you making a nervous complex out of it, something is definitely wrong.

You do provide amusement, for sure.

I draw your attention, once again, to the game: how long will you delay increasing your odds of being lucky, because of an objection to a deity you won't prove exists, for the rest of your natural life?

I do not believe in luck, any more than I believe that gods are more than characters in books.

 

[Davian]

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.

You cannot lose what does not exist.

 

[Eudaimonist]

Now you are playing a game with me: you are more extreme than even a fool needs to be.

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


eudaimonia,

Mark