Chapter
23 - The 50% Probability Principle
The previous chapters discussed the invalidity of the Christian concept of a creator. The concept has been refuted through several topics and through the presented main evidence - The Book of Revelation. The current chapter will then be evaluating and providing evidence for two options:
(1) The possibility of a neutral creator.
or
(2) The possibility of the absence
of a creator. In other words, no creator.
St. Thomas Aquinas' presentation on a possible Creator, the quinque viae, will also be evaluated briefly through evidence. Then St. Augustine of Hippo's free-will argument will also be discussed and evaluated. Blaise Pascal's wager will be presented with an alternative theory.
The evidence from the Bible and the
Book of Revelation will be given first. The reason for the evidence from these
sources is to suggest that the supposed writers of the Bible are considered
natural writers despite the seemingly "religious" overtones.
Therefore; as natural writers, deriving their source of inspiration from a
natural source rather than from a supernatural source, it would be reasonable
to use these sources. Therefore, the Bible is an example and source of social
evolution rather than deriving from a supernatural source. Furthermore, it
would suggest that these said sources contain both errors and facts. In other
words, the sources mentioned are imperfect or fallible rather than absolutely
perfect or infallible. The prime question is: Revelation over Reason or Reason
over Revelation? I prefer the later as the proper conclusion.
Examples below from the Bible itself:
Isaiah 45:7 - "I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things".
Deuteronomy 32:39 - "See now that I, even I, am he, and there is no god with me: I kill, and I make alive; I wound, and I heal: neither is there any that can deliver out of my hand".
Revelation 6:8 - "And I looked and behold a pale horse: and his name that sat on him was Death, and Hell followed with him. And power was given unto them over the fourth part of the earth, to kill with sword, and with hunger, and with death, and with the beasts of the earth".
Evidence from Thomas Aquinas' Summa Theologica The Five Ways :
1. The Argument of the Unmoved Mover
Prima autem et
manifestior via est, quæ sumitur ex parte motus. Certum est enim, et sensu constat,
aliqua moveri in hoc mundo. Omne autem quod movetur, ab alio movetur. Nihil
enim movetur, nisi secundum quod est in potentia ad illud ad quod movetur,
movet autem aliquid secundum quod est actu. Movere enim nihil aliud est quam
educere aliquid de potentia in actum, de potentia autem non potest aliquid
reduci in actum, nisi per aliquod ens in actu, sicut calidum in actu, ut ignis,
facit lignum, quod est calidum in potentia, esse actu calidum, et per hoc movet
et alterat ipsum. Non autem est possibile ut idem sit simul in actu et potentia
secundum idem, sed solum secundum diversa, quod enim est calidum in actu, non
potest simul esse calidum in potentia, sed est simul frigidum in potentia.
Impossibile est ergo quod, secundum idem et eodem modo, aliquid sit movens et
motum, vel quod moveat seipsum. Omne ergo quod movetur, oportet ab alio moveri.
Si ergo id a quo movetur, moveatur, oportet et ipsum ab alio moveri et illud ab
alio. Hic autem non est procedere in infinitum, quia sic non esset aliquod primum
movens; et per consequens nec aliquod aliud movens, quia moventia secunda non
movent nisi per hoc quod sunt mota a primo movente, sicut baculus non movet
nisi per hoc quod est motus a manu. Ergo necesse est devenire ad aliquod primum
movens, quod a nullo movetur, et hoc omnes intelligunt Deum.
[The
first and more manifest way is the argument from motion. It is certain,
and evident to our senses, that in the world some things are in motion. Now
whatever is in motion is put in motion by another, for nothing can be in motion
except it is in potentiality to that towards which it is in motion; whereas a
thing moves inasmuch as it is in act. For motion is nothing else than the
reduction of something from potentiality to actuality. But nothing can be
reduced from potentiality to actuality, except by something in a state of
actuality. Thus that which is actually hot, as fire, makes wood, which is
potentially hot, to be actually hot, and thereby moves and changes it. Now
it is not possible that the same thing should be at once in actuality and
potentiality in the same respect, but only in different respects. For what is
actually hot cannot simultaneously be potentially hot; but it is simultaneously
potentially cold. It is therefore impossible that in the same respect and in
the same way a thing should be both mover and moved, i.e. that it should move
itself. Therefore, whatever is in motion must be put in motion by another.
If that by which it is put in motion be itself put in motion, then this also
must needs be put in motion by another, and that by another again. But this
cannot go on to infinity, because then there would be no first mover, and,
consequently, no other mover; seeing that subsequent movers move only inasmuch
as they are put in motion by the first mover; as the staff moves only because
it is put in motion by the hand. Therefore it is necessary to arrive at a first
mover, put in motion by no other; and this everyone understands to be God.]
Evidence against the Unmoved Mover theory: The Sol star or sun is both mover and moved. The behaviour of the galaxy creates the conditions of its composition and creation. There also different types of galaxies with stars in them. Galaxies also collide with each other and some are not spiral types. Galaxies are also moving in several directions. Is it possible that the movement of galaxies are infinite rather than originating from one Unmoved Mover? If there was one "bang" is it possible that chemical conditions created the bang rather than a mover? The formation of ice is a prime example where chemical conditions changes water into ice by simply lowering the temperature in a controlled environment. All of the previous information was gathered years after the statement by Thomas Aquinas which is an example of social evolution. No object moves itself unless it has free-will or guided by another object but this would mean that the Unmoved Mover has been identified in possessing a quality of the created: free-will. For instance, "the fire and wood" analogy mentioned by Thomas Aquinas. These objects has no free-will but it is guided by another agent - the sentient human being. The question arises: Objects which contain free-will derived from objects without free-will? For example, earlier chemicals evolved into human beings on Earth. The variable of "free-will"(from natural evolution) refutes the Unmoved Mover theory. Finally, thinking robots or artificial life-forms are made from computer chips which does not contain "free-will".
2. The Argument of the First Cause
Secunda via est
ex ratione causæ efficientis. Invenimus enim in istis sensibilibus esse ordinem
causarum efficientium, nec tamen invenitur, nec est possibile, quod aliquid sit
causa efficiens sui ipsius; quia sic esset prius seipso, quod est impossibile.
Non autem est possibile quod in causis efficientibus procedatur in infinitum.
Quia in omnibus causis efficientibus ordinatis, primum est causa medii, et
medium est causa ultimi, sive media sint plura sive unum tantum, remota autem
causa, removetur effectus, ergo, si non fuerit primum in causis efficientibus,
non erit ultimum nec medium. Sed si procedatur in infinitum in causis
efficientibus, non erit prima causa efficiens, et sic non erit nec effectus
ultimus, nec causæ efficientes mediæ, quod patet esse falsum. Ergo est necesse
ponere aliquam causam efficientem primam, quam omnes Deum nominant.
[The
second way is from the nature of the efficient cause. In the world of sense we
find there is an order of efficient causes. There is no case known (neither is
it, indeed, possible) in which a thing is found to be the efficient cause of
itself; for so it would be prior to itself, which is impossible. Now in efficient
causes it is not possible to go on to infinity, because in all
efficient causes following in order, the first is the cause of the intermediate
cause, and the intermediate is the cause of the ultimate cause, whether the
intermediate cause be several, or only one. Now to take away the cause is
to take away the effect. Therefore, if there be no first cause
among efficient causes, there will be no ultimate, nor any intermediate cause.
But if in efficient causes it is possible to go on to infinity, there will be
no first efficient cause, neither will there be an ultimate effect, nor any
intermediate efficient causes; all of which is plainly false. Therefore it is
necessary to admit a first efficient cause, to which everyone gives the name of
God.]
Evidence against the First Cause theory: There is no first cause, there is just cause and effect. The cycle of the four seasons on Earth is a prime example of the very highly probable and natural conclusion of an infinite cause and effect. The supposition of "Hell" and "Heaven", if believed, validates the idea of an infinite cause and effect. In other words, the belief of predestination and value of the afterlife validates infinite cause and effect. Finally, there is no first cause through natural and supposed supernatural examples. Even though; by natural means, it could be deducted that there was a "big bang" for the universe, the said event could not validate the existence of a creator. The suggestion of the term - First - would suggest a creator which could not be proven and therefore it is just "cause and effect".
3. The Argument from Contingency
Tertia via est
sumpta ex possibili et necessario, quæ talis est. Invenimus enim in rebus
quædam quæ sunt possibilia esse et non esse, cum quædam inveniantur generari et
corrumpi, et per consequens possibilia esse et non esse. Impossibile est autem
omnia quæ sunt, talia esse, quia quod possibile est non esse, quandoque non
est. Si igitur omnia sunt possibilia non esse, aliquando nihil fuit in rebus.
Sed si hoc est verum, etiam nunc nihil esset, quia quod non est, non incipit
esse nisi per aliquid quod est; si igitur nihil fuit ens, impossibile fuit quod
aliquid inciperet esse, et sic modo nihil esset, quod patet esse falsum. Non
ergo omnia entia sunt possibilia, sed oportet aliquid esse necessarium in
rebus. Omne autem necessarium vel habet causam suæ necessitatis aliunde, vel
non habet. Non est autem possibile quod procedatur in infinitum in necessariis
quæ habent causam suæ necessitatis, sicut nec in causis efficientibus, ut
probatum est. Ergo necesse est ponere aliquid quod sit per se necessarium, non
habens causam necessitatis aliunde, sed quod est causa necessitatis aliis, quod
omnes dicunt Deum.
[The
third way is taken from possibility and necessity, and runs thus. We
find in nature things that are possible to be and not to be, since they are
found to be generated, and to corrupt, and consequently, they are possible to
be and not to be. But it is impossible for these always to exist, for that
which is possible not to be at some time is not. Therefore, if everything is
possible not to be, then at one time there could have been nothing in
existence. Now if this were true, even now there would be nothing in existence,
because that which does not exist only begins to exist by something already
existing. Therefore, if at one time nothing was in existence, it would have been
impossible for anything to have begun to exist; and thus even now nothing would
be in existence – which is absurd. Therefore, not all beings are merely
possible, but there must exist something the existence of which is necessary. But
every necessary thing either has its necessity caused by another, or not.
Now it is impossible to go on to infinity in necessary things which have their
necessity caused by another, as has been already proved in regard to efficient
causes. Therefore we cannot but postulate the existence of some being having of
itself its own necessity, and not receiving it from another, but rather causing
in others their necessity. This all men speak of as God.]
Evidence against the Contingency theory: St. Anselm of Canterbury in his treatise, Cur Deus Homo or Why God became Man, offered his opinion on this subject. He presented the 'Greatest Conceivable Being' or GCB theory. The GCB theory is to suggest that when a person imagines a being that being is neither created nor destroyed then this being is God or the creator. Gaunilo, his opposing contemporary of the era, offered an interesting rebuttal: Imagine the 'Greatest Conceivable Island'. The obvious becomes tantamount to a natural "sin": the imagination could be wrong or theories are flawed. In other words, just because an object is imagined does not make it a fact or true. Therefore, the 'Greatest Conceivable Being' develops into a relativistic opinion or an absurdity rather than an absolute fact. The alternative theory is to present that the origin of "free-will" derives from natural reactions rather than from 'divine' predestination. For example, the creation of the universe from an unthinking group of chemicals into a group of reacting molecules forced by natural pressure and gravity. Then these natural molecules developed into bacteria which developed naturally into other life-forms. In other words; the factor of "free-will", deriving from a natural source, refutes the GCB theory and the argument from Contigency. Let me interject a possible hypothesis: In the early phases of the universe only thinking molecules possibly existed and then sentient thinking gaseous life-forms developed before any other type of sentient thinking life-forms existed later and elsewhere. The previous interjection proves that GCB and the contingency theory, which derived from the mind or a priori, are not proven theories therefore flawed.
4.The Argument from Degree
Quarta via
sumitur ex gradibus qui in rebus inveniuntur. Invenitur enim in rebus aliquid
magis et minus bonum, et verum, et nobile, et sic de aliis hujusmodi. Sed magis
et minus dicuntur de diversis secundum quod appropinquant diversimode ad
aliquid quod maxime est, sicut magis calidum est, quod magis appropinquat
maxime calido. Est igitur aliquid quod est verissimum, et optimum, et
nobilissimum, et per consequens maxime ens, nam quæ sunt maxime vera, sunt
maxime entia, ut dicitur II Metaphys. Quod autem dicitur maxime tale
in aliquo genere, est causa omnium quæ sunt illius generis, sicut ignis, qui
est maxime calidus, est causa omnium calidorum, ut in eodem libro dicitur. Ergo
est aliquid quod omnibus entibus est causa esse, et bonitatis, et cujuslibet
perfectionis, et hoc dicimus Deum.
[The
fourth way is taken from the gradation to be found in things. Among beings
there are some more and some less good, true, noble and the like. But “more”
and “less” are predicated of different things, according as they resemble in
their different ways something which is the maximum, as a thing is said to be
hotter according as it more nearly resembles that which is hottest; so that
there is something which is truest, something best, something noblest and,
consequently, something which is uttermost being; for those things that are
greatest in truth are greatest in being, as it is written in Metaph. ii.. Now
the maximum in any genus is the cause of all in that genus; as fire, which
is the maximum heat, is the cause of all hot things. Therefore there
must also be something which is to all beings the cause of their being, goodness,
and every other perfection; and this we call God.]
Evidence against the Degree theory: There is neither "good" nor "evil" concerning the increase of temperature because it derives from chemical reactions which do not contain free-will. The source of "good" and "evil"; in summary, derive from social evolution, social constructs and therefore natural free-will. The previous supposition will be elaborated further in later chapters. The designations of "good" and "evil" both derive from free-will or free choice from naturally thinking and sentient beings. Therefore, "good" and "evil" derive from the reactions of others(agents) as they observe and react to actions from an acting agent.
5.The Teleological Argument
Quinta via
sumitur ex gubernatione rerum. Videmus enim quod aliqua quæ cognitione carent,
scilicet corpora naturalia, operantur propter finem, quod apparet ex hoc quod
semper aut frequentius eodem modo operantur, ut consequantur id quod est
optimum; unde patet quod non a casu, sed ex intentione perveniunt ad finem. Ea
autem quæ non habent cognitionem, non tendunt in finem nisi directa ab aliquo
cognoscente et intelligente, sicut sagitta a sagittante. Ergo est aliquid
intelligens, a quo omnes res naturales ordinantur ad finem, et hoc dicimus
Deum.
[The
fifth way is taken from the governance of the world. We see that things
which lack intelligence, such as natural bodies, act for an end, and this is
evident from their acting always, or nearly always, in the same way, so as to
obtain the best result. Hence it is plain that not fortuitously, but
designedly, do they achieve their end. Now whatever lacks intelligence cannot
move towards an end, unless it be directed by some being endowed with knowledge
and intelligence; as the arrow is shot to its mark by the archer. Therefore
some intelligent being exists by whom all natural things are directed to their
end; and this being we call God.]
Evidence against the Teleological argument: The reacting agents define what is "good" and "evil" therefore creating the limits and range of a sole acting agent. All the previous agents behave under a socially evolved contract or agreed evolved laws. For example; the court system, especially in the U.S., is an example of trial and error therefore enacting precedence. The collective decision by a group of individuals(reacting agents), a jury, is enacted and agreed upon. These reacting agents decides if the past acts of an individual(acting agent) is justified or unjustified. Chemicals also have laws to follow based on the natural environment or the natural laws of the universe. The existence of natural laws is a moot point on the existence of a creator or God.
St. Augustine's Fixed Cause Fallacy:
The argument presented above by
Thomas Aquinas started from the observations of St.Augustine. The core
of the argument could be seen by St. Augustine of Hippo through his attempted
refutation against Cicero. Augusine says:
" But when Cicero denies that
the order of all causes is completely fixed and perfectly known to God's
foreknowledge we execrate his opinion even more than do the Stoics
"(Source: City of God, Book 5 - Chapter 9).
Then Augustine continues in the
following chapter - concerning God's universal providence:
" he has not left them without
a harmony of their constituent parts, a kind of peace. "(Source: City
of God, Book 5 - Chapter 11).
The evidence above explains two
things:
(1) Thomas Aquinas five ways or
argument derive from the previous observation given by St. Augustine many years
earlier. The Five Ways were written between A.D.1265- A.D.1274 and St.
Augustine wrote his treatise, City of God, between A.D. 413 - A.D. 430.
In the presented timeline, it is clearly observed there was definitely
strong influence passed on to the next scholar because of the terms and phrases used which
were later borrowed.
(2) The order of the fallacy could
be traced back to John, the writer of the Book of Revelation, and also these
errors could be traced to the Old Testament canon or texts. The Stoics, the religious Roman
believers of various Gods, also were exposed by Cicero to believe in a similar
fallacy. Through the reaction of St.Augustine, the fallacy of a fixed cause
could be presented.
Where is the absurdity?
St. Augustine's thesis is Free-will
or free choice is fixed by the Christian God. The anti-thesis: the rational
option, is the supposition and the belief that Free-will or free choice is
unfixed.
St. Augustine of Hippo presents his
thesis summarized in one statement: " Hence we are in no way compelled
either to preserve God's prescience by abolishing our free will, or to
safeguard our free will by denying (blasphemously) the divine foreknowledge
"(Source: City of God, Book 5 - Chapter 10).
The previous thesis statement above
was an accumulation of the observation from the previous chapter in St.Augustine's
book. The previous chapter, chapter 9 of the same Book 5, is titled: God's
foreknowledge and man's free will; a criticism of Cicero. In other words,
Augustine was presenting the absurd rationale: fixed cause means fixed effect.
Therefore, attempting to validate the existence of predestination or his
concept of Christian "destiny". Furthermore; according to Augustine,
and later elaborated by St. Thomas Aquinas, the belief of "First
Cause" equates to predestination or fixed effect.
The problem of the previous fallacy
is the existence of "free-will" conjoined with the two destinations
for "souls": Heaven and Hell. Then the continuation of actions and
reactions, by "souls", in the so-called afterlife. The core of the
fallacy is "First" Cause deriving from so-called fixed cause.
The list and statements by St.
Augustine of Hippo, within the previous stated chapter of his book, with a rebuttal:
1 ) " If the order of events is
determined, so is the causal order; for nothing can happen unless preceded by an
efficient cause. If the causal order is fixed, determining all events,
then all events, he concludes, are ordered by destiny. If this is true, nothing
depends on us and there is no such thing as free will". REBUTTAL: Cicero's
observation and conclusion, in the previous statement paraphrased by Augustine
in his book, is valid. Cicero's negation of "foreknowledge" was
proven but Augustine later calls it "absurd". Therefore; as an early
naturalist and materialist, Cicero discredited not only the Christian belief
system but also the beliefs of the Stoics. The problem of Augustine is that he
uses a logical fallacy to counter Cicero's argument.
2 ) " If we choose
foreknowledge, free will is annihilated; if we choose free will, prescience is
abolished". REBUTTAL: Cicero is correct but Augustine continues with his
presentation but it has already been proven that efficient cause is unfixed.
The error of Augustine is the use of Free-will with 'cause and effect' to prove
the existence of God or the Christian God.
3 ) " if there is free will,
everything does not happen by fate; if everything does not happen by fate,
there is not a fixed order of all causes; if there is not a fixed
order of all causes, there is not a fixed order of events for the
divine prescience, for these events cannot take place unless preceded by efficient
causes; if there is not a fixed order for God's prescience,
everything does not happen as he has foreknown them as due to happen. Thus, he
concludes, if everything does not happen as foreknown by God, then there is in
him no foreknowledge of all the future". REBUTTAL: The problem by
Augustine is the usage of the term "fixed" but the end result of
"predestination"(not destiny), expressed within Augustine's belief
system, negates the idea of a rational unfixed cause and effect. This is the
reason why I mentioned earlier that the term "first" cause is invalid
in Thomas Aquinas' second argument concerning First Cause. Therefore, it is
possible to separate a neutral creator with an unfixed cause. Simply,
"cause and effect" or causality is a natural process and it does not
prove nor disprove a creator. However; the previous presentation, in volumes,
disproves the idea of a Christian creator or the idea of a "fixed"
cause which results in a "fixed" effect (For example, Heaven and Hell
for "souls"). Also, the validity of Paul's and John's predictions or
so-called prophecies were proven flawed.
4 ) " God knows all things
before they happen and that we do by our free will everything that we feel and
know would not happen without our volition. We do not say that everything is
fated; in fact we deny that anything happens by destiny. For we have shown that
the notion of destiny, in the accepted sense, referring to
conjunction of stars at the time of conception or birth, has no validity, since
it asserts something which has no reality. It is not that we deny a causal
order where the will of God prevails; but we do not describe it by the word
'fate', unless perhaps if we understand fate to be derived from fari(speak),
that is from the act of speaking". REBUTTAL: Augustine continues in the
frame of thought concerning the flawed - fixed cause and fixed effect. In other
words, attempting to verify or justify predestination. Nevertheless, Augustine
attempts to separate the fate understood by the Stoics and the "fate"
or predestination believed by the Christians but he still fails to
differentiate the two.
5 ) " Now if there is for God a
fixed order of all causes, it does not follow that nothing depends on
our free choice. Our wills themselves are in the order of causes, which is, for
God, fixed, and is contained in his foreknowledge, since human
acts of will are the causes of human activities. Therefore he who had
prescience of the causes of all events certainly could not be ignorant of our
decisions, which he foreknows as the causes of our actions". REBUTTAL:
Augustine again presents his theory - Fixed (First) Cause --> Fixed Effect
(Predestination). Foreknowledge makes everyone's actions, free-will or free
choice, linear to a predestined result(predestination) from a fixed effect. The
previous linear thinking leads to the obvious model - First Cause --> First
Effect. In reality, our actions and free-will or free choice is non-linear
therefore leading to several effects. The proper theory is therefore presented
- First Cause --> Several (Multiple) Effects. Or rather 'cause and effect'
or causality which is empirically known through the behavior of a probable 'big
bang' of the universe. The previous observation also refutes Thomas Aquinas'
earlier idea of an Unmoved Mover because it could not be proven. Which leads to
the 50% probability principle: The possibility of a neutral creator or the
possibility concerning the absence of a creator(no creator).
The rest of the chapter located
within St. Augustine's book repeats his position and subjects which were
already discussed. Augustine goes to introduce the idea of supernatural causes
with natural causes which are irrelevant to the foregone conclusion.
Therefore, our actions or free-will
could not prove nor disprove the existence of a creator. Furthermore, our
actions or free-will should be to enjoin good and forbid evil. The error by St.
Augustine was to defend the religion of Christianity by utilizing these natural
reactions to discredit the arguments by the "pagan" Romans. The
capture and destruction of Rome by Alaric in A.D. 410 was then illogically seen
by the populace as an "omen", hence, the debate between Roman
Christians and Roman Pagans which compelled Augustine to compose the book and
argument (A.D. 413 - A.D. 430). The actual title of the book is Concerning
the City of God against the Pagans or in Latin - De Civitate Dei
contra Paganos.
The above is proof St. Augustine of
Hippo, despite his true insights in some subjects, was still holding on to the
fallacy of predestination (or "fate" or "destiny") and
several flawed superstitions in connection with "predestination". The
reason is because of his usage of "free-will" and "cause and
effect" to prove the existence of a creator. The root of this fallacy
started out in his belief of the Book of Revelation written by John. The
confirmation concerning the flawed concept of predestination is stated through
the term - "Alpha and Omega" (Revelation 1:8,1:11,21:6, and 22:13).
Furthermore, contained in the verses of Revelation 1:11 and 22:13 it has
"...first and the last..." which is a confirmation of the fallacy of
predestination or "fate".
There once lived a fanatic in
France, by the name of Blaise Pascal (1623-1662), who wrote Pensees
which details how to force non-Christians into becoming Christians. The proof
through the life of Blaise Pascal proves that one could be fanatical and a
genius simultaneously. The book of Pensees contains a formula or a wager
or bet concerning the predestination of "souls". However; the said
book also proves that our free-will is not part of the predestination of any
creator because why control the environment and variables of the life of a
disbeliever, to force them to believe, if predestination exist? Well, Blaise
Pascal is not perfect.
The reason for his genius lays in
the fact that he developed a theory or a formula which is commonly in use
today. Blaise Pascal developed four formulas: Pascal's wager, Pascal's
triangle, Pascal's law, and Pascal's theorem. There are three formulas which
could be used to disprove the previous problem of predestination. The
mathematical and geometric formula of Pascal's theorem is not relevant in any
form to the presentation and will not be used. Therefore, the previous life of
Blaise Pascal proves that even through the writing and mental illness of a
fanatical "religious" individual, natural laws could still be
calculated. The previous rationale of why the Bible still contains natural
truths in the midst of the flawed writings of a supposedly supernatural deity.
The workings of Pascal's law
describes that a change of pressure in any part of a liquid within a
container(controlled environment) equally redistributes to the rest of the
liquid. The previous proves that David Hume's dictum of - one could not derive
an 'ought' from an 'is' - especially true if anyone uses Pascal's law to prove
St.Augustine's and Aquinas' fixed (first) cause. The error is the controlled
environment of such equal redistribution of nature. For example, our actions
and reactions are not under a controlled environment of predestination. The
supposed absurdity within Pascal's Pensees proves social control to
change someone's belief system, especially in the natural environment of free
choice or free-will, to be futile and even foolish.
The next formula of interest is
Pascal's triangle which describes the order of numbers. The top of the triangle
would be a "1" which is k = 0. This could be represented, for
the presented argument, as our own actions. The numbers below,"1",
are "1+1" the visible reactions and therefore the next row below is
developed: "1+2+1". If this goes on, the value of ( 1 ) would still
be expressed on both sides of the triangle. The imagination develops a flawed
theory: The final destination of both ( 1 ), on the side of the triangle, leads
to either "heaven" or "hell". The problem with the previous
flawed theory would be the existence and the destinations of various numbers
located between the value of both ( 1 ) on the side of the triangle. Therefore,
through example or rather the analogy of Pascal's triangle, the proof of 'First
Cause to Multiple Effects' is proven. Therefore, the theory presented by St.
Augustine of Hippo, of 'Fixed Cause' is refuted.
The conclusion is given: no fixed
cause and no fixed effect or no predestination. Therefore, the refutation of
predestination negates the existence of "heaven" and
"hell". In other words, there is no "heaven" and there is
no "hell". Furthermore, there are no angels and there are no demons.
The concept of "Original Sin" disappears as this is also connected
with the ceremonies of the original Jewish priests of the Temple/Tabernacle
structures. The story of 'Adam and Eve' is now a work of fiction by the writers
of the Old Testament. Finally; our actions have been freed from
"omen(s)","fate", and "destiny". Furthermore, the
terms of "blessing(s)" and "curse(s)" no longer exist. All
the said previous terms are connected with the previous fictional works and
superstitions.
The presentation of Pascal's wager
is now given. I will present my point of view to the wager and later explain why. The alternative terms will be discussed and why they were not used. I prefer using my point of view because it is the view of a reasonable reacting agent rather than the view of the acting agent(Blaise Pascal). The former view will be shown to be the reasonable view and the later the irrational one. The whole contents of the text are given with a proposed summary.
The dialectical convergence is now shown between the proposed 50% probability
and the said wager:
"Who then will blame Christians for not being able to give a reason for
their belief, since they profess a
religion for which they cannot give
a reason? They declare, in
expounding it to the world, that it is a
foolishness, stultitiam; [28] and
then you complain that they do not
prove it! If they proved it, they
would not keep their word; it is in
lacking proofs that they are not
lacking in sense. "Yes, but although
this excuses those who offer it as
such and takes away from them the
blame of putting it forward without
reason, it does not excuse those
who receive it." Let us then
examine this point, and say, "God is, or
He is not." But to which side
shall we incline? Reason can decide
nothing here. There is an infinite chaos which separated us. A game
is
being played at the extremity of
this infinite distance where heads or
tails will turn up.
What will you wager? According to reason, you can
do neither the one thing nor the
other; according to reason, you can
defend neither of the propositions.
Do not, then, reprove for error
those who have made a choice; for you
know nothing about it. "No, but
I blame them for having made, not this
choice, but a choice; for again both
he who chooses heads and he who
chooses tails are equally at fault,
they are both in the wrong. The
true course is not to wager at
all."
Yes; but you must wager. It is not optional. You are embarked. Which
will you choose then? Let us see.
Since you must choose, let us see
which interests you least. You have
two things to lose, the true and
the good; and two things to stake,
your reason and your will, your
knowledge and your happiness; and
your nature has two things to shun,
error and misery. Your reason is no
more shocked in choosing one rather
than the other, since you must of
necessity choose. This is one point
settled. But your happiness? Let us
weigh the gain and the loss in
wagering that God is. Let us
estimate these two chances. If you gain,
you gain all; if you lose, you lose
nothing. Wager, then, without
hesitation that He is. "That is
very fine. Yes, I must wager; but I may
perhaps wager too much." Let us
see. Since there is an equal risk of
gain and of loss, if you had only to
gain two lives, instead of one,
you might still wager. But if there
were three lives to gain, you would
have to play (since you are under
the necessity of playing), and you
would be imprudent, when you are
forced to play, not to chance your
life to gain three at a game where
there is an equal risk of loss and
gain. But there is an eternity of
life and happiness. And this being
so, if there were an infinity of
chances, of which one only would be
for you, you would still be right in
wagering one to win two, and you
would act stupidly, being obliged to
play, by refusing to stake one
life against three at a game in
which out of an infinity of chances
there is one for you, if there were
an infinity of an infinitely happy
life to gain. But there is here an infinity of an infinitely happy life
to gain, a chance of gain against a
finite number of chances of loss,
and what you stake is finite. It is
all divided; where-ever the
infinite is and there is not an
infinity of chances of loss against
that of gain, there is no time to
hesitate, you must give all. And
thus, when one is forced to play, he
must renounce reason to preserve
his life, rather than risk it for
infinite gain, as likely to happen as
the loss of nothingness. "
(SOURCE: Pensees; Section 3: Of the Necessity of the Wager, Point 233 - 7th through 9th paragraphs)
The proposed summary of Pascal's wager:
* If God exist and I believe =
Infinite Gain ("Heaven")
* If God exist and I don't believe =
Infinite Loss ("Hell")
* If God does not exist and I
believe = Reason Lost
* If God does not exist and I don't
believe = Reason Gained
All the previous evidence guides any sane individual to the conclusion that the God of Augustine does not exist along with the 'Fixed Cause' fallacy or predestination. I added "Reason" rather than "Temporal" or "Material" because there's evidence within Pensees that Blaise Pascal also attacked Rene Descartes' usage of the term "Reason". Blaise Pascal is criticizing, early, cartesian rationalism which states reason alone guarantees knowledge. The problem of both Blaise Pascal and Rene Descartes is the foundation of a flawed belief system in which is used to conclude their theories. Of course, we have the words of Blaise Pascal himself: the individual "must renounce reason" to preserve one's life.
What is the rationale derived from reason to explain our actions? The given theory of Pascal's triangle will be borrowed again in the next presentation. The proposed theory is given and presented as 'Probability wager':
* If no neutral creator do good
works = Positive charge into society
* If no neutral creator no good
works = Negative charge into society
* If neutral creator exist do good
works = Positive charge into society
* If neutral creator exist no good
works = Negative charge into society
The above is true among all individuals despite their various belief system or the lack of a belief system. The 'utility' of our action does not in any way proves or disproves the existence of a neutral creator it simply verifies our existence as contributors to society. The above 'Probability wager' leaves the question unanswered concerning a deity or creator and concentrates on the behavior of individuals - the end result of our actions. The flip of the coin (50% result), referenced and hinted by Blaise Pascal in Pensees, is left alone and the importance of the end result of any actions towards every individual is concentrated on.
The subject concerning "positive" and "negative" charge into society, by each individual in society, is discussed in the following chapter. The proceeding chapter discusses the highly probable origin of "positive" and "negative" charges and their results. The role of the acting agent and the various reacting agents, within society, have been proven through Pascal's triangle and the consequent 'Probability Wager'.
No comments:
Post a Comment