sti at pooq.com
Wed Apr 11 21:34:42 UTC 2007
John K Clark wrote:
> "Stirling Westrup" <sti at pooq.com>
>> This is just a redressing of the old argument for believing in God.
> No it is not. Every one of those arguments for God hinges on the fact that
> it is the height of morality to demand that something is true when there is
> absolutely positively nothing to show it is in fact true. I do not think
> believing in such a thing is a virtue, I think it is a vice of pornographic
> magnetite. But I could be wrong, so show me my error in my ways. I dare you
> to try.
This seems trivial. The argument you gave was there were two choices:
a) If this is correct we may survive.
b) If this is correct we won't survive.
And you then chose A) for no better reason than you liked the outcome more.
All proof was lacking. Now, it just so happens that I believe in your A) and
have (what I believe are) valid reasons for doing so. The pleasantness of that
option is not one of them though.
More information about the extropy-chat