[extropy-chat] Atheists launch inquisition...

[Brett Paatsch]

Eliezer Yudkowsky wrote:

> Hal Finney wrote:
>>
>> How would you classify someone who thought it was extremely improbable
>> that any of these Gods existed?  Atheist or agnostic?  Does it make a
>> difference how improbable they judge it to be?  Is there some specific
>> probability level below which a reasonable person could not (in your
>> judgement) classify God's existence?
>
> I'd say that someone who assigns a probability of less than 1/googolplex 
> to a given classical theological deity is being overconfident.

You're too rash Eliezer. Assigning "a probability of less than" any very
very small number is not necessarily assigning a probability greater than
zero.

> Saying that said deity is internally inconsistent is not a valid defense; 
> there will be a probability that you are mistaken about what is logically 
> impossible.

If some concept is internally inconsistent (ie. logically inconsistent) 
surely
it doesn't matter which particular fallible all-too-human asserter points
it out, what matters is that anyone capable of checking logic can check
it out for themselves. And that a group of logic appreciating people will
eventually come to a very strong consensus despite a few of them making
errors in their early passes.

> Googolplex = 10^(10^100).  That's enough room to fit a pretty huge amount 
> of Kolmogorov complexity, which is what we use to quantify the prior of 
> Occam's Razor.

Who's we?   I doubt Occam could have been included in that subset. He'd
have died too soon.

>  The probability would be greater than 1/googolplex, but less than 
> 1/googol (which is *not* enough room to fit a decent amount of Kolmogorov 
> complexity - e.g. you could not encode the Bible in log2(googol) bits.)
>
> Of course, as Ben pointed out, the moral indefensibility of God has 
> nothing to do with God existing or not.  Torturing anyone who refuses to 
> worship you or slaughtering children as a lesson to their parents is 
> WRONG, period, end of story.

It is interesting that you say this. And I agree with it. But my agreement 
is
not intellectual.

Out of curiousity, given that you are someone who places some importance
in the notion of "friendliness" and who also respects clear thinking and 
logic,
on what basis other than personal preference do you assert that ANYTHING
is "WRONG"?  Are you asserting anything stronger than your emotional
agreement or something other than mere sentiment in your view?

I'm curious as to what your values are based on in your view or if you take
WRONGNESS as axiomatic.

If they are axiomatic perhaps your own notion of friendliness might not be
ultimately communicable.

Brett Paatsch