"Pascal's wager"

[MrTunaFace]

There is a little thing I ran across called "Pascal's wager" You guys have probably heard of it before, but I have decided to share it with you.

This isn't the exact quote:

"If God (of the Bible) does exist and you accept him, you have gained everything. If God (of the Bible) doesn't exist, you have lost nothing."

I'm a Christian and I have a little problem with this. I believe that there is one true God. I could be wrong, I won't deny it. Yes, if God doesn't exist then I have lost nothing. But, what about all of the other gods? What if they do exist?

My belief is, if there is a different God or other Gods, then I guess I will suffer the punishment. I don't think that there are any others that will throw you into a lake of fire for eternity. If I'm wrong, please tell me.

What's your take on this?

[Moridin]

Let there be n possible gods. The probability of the christian god being true is P(C) = 1/n. What happens with this probability as the number of possible gods goes towards infinity? That's right - zero. Thus P(C) = 0.

[MrTunaFace]

Let there be n possible gods. The probability of the christian god being true is P(C) = 1/n. What happens with this probability as the number of possible gods goes towards infinity? That's right - zero. Thus P(C) = 0.

Um...okay. If there is no God at all. I guess I just die right?

[Hyndis]

Um...okay. If there is no God at all. I guess I just die right?

Correct.

And if there is a god, how do you know which god it is? There are easily tens of thousands of gods worshiped by various cultures on this planet. Throw in alien civilizations, and that number could easily reach into the trillions.

The odds of you worshiping the wrong god are vastly higher than you picking the correct god to the point where its down to pure chance rather than any amount of religious devotion. What good is being the most devoted worshiper of a god that doesn't exist? It just wastes your time, money, and possibly pisses off the god that does exist.

Worst case scenario is that everyone goes to hell except the tiny, tiny portion of the population that finds the right god out of pure chance. Second worst case scenario is that everyone just dies at the end.

[MrTunaFace]

Um...okay. If there is no God at all. I guess I just die right?

Correct.

And if there is a god, how do you know which god it is? There are easily tens of thousands of gods worshiped by various cultures on this planet. Throw in alien civilizations, and that number could easily reach into the trillions.

The odds of you worshiping the wrong god are vastly higher than you picking the correct god to the point where its down to pure chance rather than any amount of religious devotion. What good is being the most devoted worshiper of a god that doesn't exist? It just wastes your time, money, and possibly pisses off the god that does exist.

Worst case scenario is that everyone goes to hell except the tiny, tiny portion of the population that finds the right god out of pure chance. Second worst case scenario is that everyone just dies at the end.

Another very, very, very wrong assumption. My life isn't a waste just because I believe in something you don't. Do you think that if someone doesn't have the same beliefs as you about God or religion or faith that they are simply wasting their life?

News flash, I have a great life and I chose to be a Christian and I chose to worship Christ and I chose to devote my life to Christ. Another shocker for you. I don't waste money. I barely go to Church, and when I do, I give only a few dollars. I donate to childrens funds and to me, it's not waste. If you think giving money to starving children is a waste, then I am shocked.

Another possible shocker, I do more than just pray and talk about Jesus and God all day (most non believers think we pray all day) I hang out with friends, visit my relatives, go to BBQ's, play backyard football, go to movies, go fishing, go bowling, I run, I exercise, I go to work, etc. I do a lot more than you might think. If you believe that is wasting time, then what is so exciting that you do? :huh:

[Hyndis]

I didn't say charity is a waste. I said worshiping something that doesn't exist is a waste.

Lets say I only spend 10 minutes a day worshiping a waffle stuck to my ceiling, proclaiming it to be god. Thats 10 minutes less per day that I have to do other things. Of course, if that time is spent vegging infront of the TV, then its a wash. No real gains there. But still, time spent devoted to something that doesn't exist is wasting that time, and thats the one major, major flaw Pascal's Wager makes.

If there was only one possible god, then such a wager would hold up. But there's not. There are tens of thousands of possible gods, nearly all of them contradictory. Worship god A, offend god B. Worship the wrong god and you might just piss off the god that actually exists, thus through religious devotion earn your spot in an extra crispy section of hell.

[MrTunaFace]

I didn't say charity is a waste. I said worshiping something that doesn't exist is a waste.

Lets say I only spend 10 minutes a day worshiping a waffle stuck to my ceiling, proclaiming it to be god. Thats 10 minutes less per day that I have to do other things. Of course, if that time is spent vegging infront of the TV, then its a wash. No real gains there. But still, time spent devoted to something that doesn't exist is wasting that time, and thats the one major, major flaw Pascal's Wager makes.

If there was only one possible god, then such a wager would hold up. But there's not. There are tens of thousands of possible gods, nearly all of them contradictory. Worship god A, offend god B. Worship the wrong god and you might just piss off the god that actually exists, thus through religious devotion earn your spot in an extra crispy section of hell.

Can you prove that you are 100% right about your assumptions about God and prove that none of them exist with non arguable facts?

Also, to you (you, not me) worshipping Christ is a waste. To me, it's how I choose to live my life and if you don't like it or agree with it, oh well. Do something about it if you have such strong feelings towards my beliefs. It's my life, not yours, and to me (me, not you) it's not a waste.

[elevator]

If there was only one possible god, then such a wager would hold up. But there's not. There are tens of thousands of possible gods, nearly all of them contradictory. Worship god A, offend god B. Worship the wrong god and you might just piss off the god that actually exists, thus through religious devotion earn your spot in an extra crispy section of hell.
I completely agree with Hyndis. Sam Harris made this exact same point in an enlightening discussion on the subject with Rabbi David Wolpe. He said: "in that case we should all expect damnation simply on statistical grounds" (emphasis mine).

[Pragmatista]

"If God (of the Bible) does exist and you accept him, you have gained everything. If God (of the Bible) doesn't exist, you have lost nothing."

(Making assumptions about your brand of Christianity), what you stand to lose is the opportunity to live a better life on earth, or to rectify the injustices that tend to accompany any religion, especially one that espouses moral absolutism. There's no free lunch.

I'm a Christian and I have a little problem with this. I believe that there is one true God. I could be wrong, I won't deny it. Yes, if God doesn't exist then I have lost nothing. But, what about all of the other gods? What if they do exist?

My belief is, if there is a different God or other Gods, then I guess I will suffer the punishment. I don't think that there are any others that will throw you into a lake of fire for eternity. If I'm wrong, please tell me.

What's your take on this?

It's hard to discuss Pascal's wager without an implied punishment, which turns it into basic thuggery:

"You join our gang, and the big boss won't have you killed. You don't join our gang, and who knows?"

[Hyndis]

Can you prove that you are 100% right about your assumptions about God and prove that none of them exist with non arguable facts?

Also, to you (you, not me) worshipping Christ is a waste. To me, it's how I choose to live my life and if you don't like it or agree with it, oh well. Do something about it if you have such strong feelings towards my beliefs. It's my life, not yours, and to me (me, not you) it's not a waste.

The burden of proof is not mine. You are the one with the positive claim. You're the one claiming Christianity is true (despite not knowing much about the Bible, as you admitted in the other thread). My position is the default position, where things do not exist unless proven. There is no sandwich on my plate unless the sandwich can prove its existence, which, ironically, the sandwich can do better than you god can. The sandwich has weight and size, it can be picked up and sampled by any number of people (but I'd prefer them not test my particular sandwich!) in any number of completely objective ways.

As such, the sandwich has passed the burden of proof hurdle. It exists to my satisfaction. Your god has not.

[Hyndis]

It's hard to discuss Pascal's wager without an implied punishment, which turns it into basic thuggery:

"You join our gang, and the big boss won't have you killed. You don't join our gang, and who knows?"

That does rather nicely sum up religion, doesn't it? :D

Do what the priests say and you get rewarded after you're dead. Don't do what the priests say and you get severely punished, both in this life and after you're dead. Notice how the carrot is in the afterlife where it doesn't actually have to exist, but the stick is in this life. Oh, and to avoid the stick, you also often have to give gold to the priests, such as 10% of your income. Or else the priests might just become unhappy, and this nice fellow from the inquisition would like to have a few words with you... :devil1:

Luckily, Christianity is barely a shadow of its former totalitarian self. The height of Christianity's power was called the dark ages for a reason.

[AtheistVirus]

Why do people in USA constantly repeat Pascal's wager, is it so hard to see how dumb and decrepit it is on so many levels?:banghead:

I would be embarrassed to even mention it..

[Hyndis]

Why do people in USA constantly repeat Pascal's wager, is it so hard to see how dumb and decrepit it is on so many levels?:banghead:

I would be embarrassed to even mention it..

Basic logic isn't in public schools. I had to go to a university to find courses in logic, and it wasn't even a requirement. It was purely an elective class in an elective education, one which I had to dish out a lot of money for the privilege of taking. And those classes were quite unpopular ones, too, with lots of empty desks.

This is why most Americans don't even know how to think properly, and why magical thinking and demagoguery are so prevalent.

#1 country in the world, eh? :banghead::banghead::banghead:

[GenesisNemesis]

There is a little thing I ran across called "Pascal's wager" You guys have probably heard of it before, but I have decided to share it with you.

This isn't the exact quote:

"If God (of the Bible) does exist and you accept him, you have gained everything. If God (of the Bible) doesn't exist, you have lost nothing."

I'm a Christian and I have a little problem with this. I believe that there is one true God. I could be wrong, I won't deny it. Yes, if God doesn't exist then I have lost nothing. But, what about all of the other gods? What if they do exist?

My belief is, if there is a different God or other Gods, then I guess I will suffer the punishment. I don't think that there are any others that will throw you into a lake of fire for eternity. If I'm wrong, please tell me.

What's your take on this?

When investigating Pascal's Wager, we have to ask ourselves this question: are we rewarded or punished for our acts after death? My response would simply be "no". The concepts of "reward" and "punishment" are human concepts, and they were generated as a means of keeping human beings under control through fear. The very fact that the concepts of reward and punishment exist is no reason why they should happen in the after life as well, however. It could very well be that we go to "heaven" regardless of our acts in this life (if we do have a soul), or it could be that we are reincarnated, or it could be that we simply die, regardless of whether or not we have a soul. There has not been any evidence for an after life, unfortunately, so Pascal's Wager is a pretty moot point.

[mrunicycler]

Why do people in USA constantly repeat Pascal's wager, is it so hard to see how dumb and decrepit it is on so many levels?:banghead:

I would be embarrassed to even mention it..

Basic logic isn't in public schools. I had to go to a university to find courses in logic, and it wasn't even a requirement. It was purely an elective class in an elective education, one which I had to dish out a lot of money for the privilege of taking. And those classes were quite unpopular ones, too, with lots of empty desks.

This is why most Americans don't even know how to think properly, and why magical thinking and demagoguery are so prevalent.

#1 country in the world, eh? :banghead::banghead::banghead:

If this was an opinion, I'd second it.

As it is, I shared your experience (though, lucky me, mom and dad paid the bills for my classes).

[mrunicycler]

I didn't say charity is a waste. I said worshiping something that doesn't exist is a waste.

Lets say I only spend 10 minutes a day worshiping a waffle stuck to my ceiling, proclaiming it to be god. Thats 10 minutes less per day that I have to do other things. Of course, if that time is spent vegging infront of the TV, then its a wash. No real gains there. But still, time spent devoted to something that doesn't exist is wasting that time, and thats the one major, major flaw Pascal's Wager makes.

If there was only one possible god, then such a wager would hold up. But there's not. There are tens of thousands of possible gods, nearly all of them contradictory. Worship god A, offend god B. Worship the wrong god and you might just piss off the god that actually exists, thus through religious devotion earn your spot in an extra crispy section of hell.

Can you prove that you are 100% right about your assumptions about God and prove that none of them exist with non arguable facts?

Also, to you (you, not me) worshipping Christ is a waste. To me, it's how I choose to live my life and if you don't like it or agree with it, oh well. Do something about it if you have such strong feelings towards my beliefs. It's my life, not yours, and to me (me, not you) it's not a waste.

Mrtuna, you shouldn't get offended when hyndis tries to answer the question your OP asked. He/she sin't trying to accuse you of wasting your life.

When you say,
Yes, if God doesn't exist then I have lost nothing.

you're wrong.

What you've lost if god doesn't exist is all the time you spent worshipping it. Atheists tend to think that, as this is the only life we have, we should try to avoid wasting any of it (though, I don't count a reasonable amount of time watching my favorite shows as a waste). :)

The question of other god(s) is a different issue than the one hyndis is trying to address.

And yes, some other god(s) do send people to a hell like place. I'm sure you've heard of Hades.

[MrTunaFace]

Can you prove that you are 100% right about your assumptions about God and prove that none of them exist with non arguable facts?

Also, to you (you, not me) worshipping Christ is a waste. To me, it's how I choose to live my life and if you don't like it or agree with it, oh well. Do something about it if you have such strong feelings towards my beliefs. It's my life, not yours, and to me (me, not you) it's not a waste.

The burden of proof is not mine. You are the one with the positive claim. You're the one claiming Christianity is true (despite not knowing much about the Bible, as you admitted in the other thread). My position is the default position, where things do not exist unless proven. There is no sandwich on my plate unless the sandwich can prove its existence, which, ironically, the sandwich can do better than you god can. The sandwich has weight and size, it can be picked up and sampled by any number of people (but I'd prefer them not test my particular sandwich!) in any number of completely objective ways.

As such, the sandwich has passed the burden of proof hurdle. It exists to my satisfaction. Your god has not.

When did I claim Christianity is true? Do you have selective reading or something?

And I care about sandwiches why? (sarcasm in case you didn't know)

[MrTunaFace]

Why do people in USA constantly repeat Pascal's wager, is it so hard to see how dumb and decrepit it is on so many levels?:banghead:

I would be embarrassed to even mention it..

I just asked for peoples opinions on it. Thanks for the rude attititude.

[MrTunaFace]

Can you prove that you are 100% right about your assumptions about God and prove that none of them exist with non arguable facts?

Also, to you (you, not me) worshipping Christ is a waste. To me, it's how I choose to live my life and if you don't like it or agree with it, oh well. Do something about it if you have such strong feelings towards my beliefs. It's my life, not yours, and to me (me, not you) it's not a waste.

Mrtuna, you shouldn't get offended when hyndis tries to answer the question your OP asked. He/she sin't trying to accuse you of wasting your life.

When you say,
Yes, if God doesn't exist then I have lost nothing.

you're wrong.

What you've lost if god doesn't exist is all the time you spent worshipping it. Atheists tend to think that, as this is the only life we have, we should try to avoid wasting any of it (though, I don't count a reasonable amount of time watching my favorite shows as a waste). :)

The question of other god(s) is a different issue than the one hyndis is trying to address.

And yes, some other god(s) do send people to a hell like place. I'm sure you've heard of Hades.

Again (I will probably have to keep repeating it) worshipping Christ isn't a waste of time for me. It's what I want to do (I WANT TO DO) Yes, it would be a waste of time for you, but not me (ME, NOT YOU)

[Hyndis]

When did I claim Christianity is true? Do you have selective reading or something?

News flash, I have a great life and I chose to be a Christian and I chose to worship Christ and I chose to devote my life to Christ.

Unless of course you have no problem devoting your life to something you think is not true, in which case that would be quite strange, though not unheard of.

And I care about sandwiches why? (sarcasm in case you didn't know)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof#Science_and_other_uses

and

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_proof

[mrunicycler]

Again (I will probably have to keep repeating it) worshipping Christ isn't a waste of time for me. It's what I want to do (I WANT TO DO) Yes, it would be a waste of time for you, but not me (ME, NOT YOU)

I'll guess you'll have to keep repeating it until you understand that worshipping something that is inherently evil, but claims itself to be good, is a waste of time.

:)

Just kidding, really. If you want to spend your life like that, it's your perogative.

[MrTunaFace]

Again (I will probably have to keep repeating it) worshipping Christ isn't a waste of time for me. It's what I want to do (I WANT TO DO) Yes, it would be a waste of time for you, but not me (ME, NOT YOU)

I'll guess you'll have to keep repeating it until you understand that worshipping something that is inherently evil, but claims itself to be good, is a waste of time.

:)

Just kidding, really. If you want to spend your life like that, it's your perogative.

I doubt you were kidding (you might have been) But thanks for understanding.

[mrunicycler]

If I say I'm kidding....

then I'm kidding.

[Riley Stone]

I don't think that there are any others that will throw you into a lake of fire for eternity. If I'm wrong, please tell me.


The reasoning here seems to be that the religion that threatens the most horrific punishment is the religion that the potential convert should bet on. However, if another religion comes along claiming to have hotter, more painful ovens than the "lake of fire" Christianity promises, then the naive, easily frightened and eager-to-be bullied "seeker" will have to bet on the new, harsher religion.

MrTunaFace seems to support the idea of turning religious belief into a lottery of sorts. However, given the egotistical nature of the biblegod, I would guess that if he did exist, he would be offended by this sort of "just in case" belief and in fact, wouldn't consider it to be genuine belief at all. Isn't this exactly the reason many Christians say that people can never leave hell once they're there? Because in that case, they would only be *claiming* to believe in order to avoid punishment? And yet, this is *exactly* what Pascal's Wager encourages people do in this life. The Christians really need to get their stories straight.

I wonder if Christians who suggest that Pascal's Wager is a good reason to be a Christian can think of other beliefs that they would suggest people adopt "just in case" such belief systems turn out to be true. For example, why not believe in alien abduction, "just in case" the people who claim to have been abducted by aliens and victimized aboard their spacecrafts did in fact experience such a terrible trauma. The believer in aliens could use the same reasoning MrTunaFace used. He could say that if he believes aliens exist, he loses nothing. However, if he fails to believe they exist, he very well may find himself strapped to an alien gurney, being violated in an unspeakable manner.

And why stop with alien abduction? Why not believe in unicorns, elves, Santa Claus, the tooth fairy, and recent sightings of Elvis---"just in case."

If you ask me, Pascal's Wager has got to be THE single most idiotic argument Christians offer as a valid reason to become a Christian, and that's saying a lot. I would think that any intelligent, well-educated Christian would be more than just a little embarrassed by fellow Christians who attempt to use this argument as a way of persuading others to believe as they do.

[mrunicycler]

I don't think that there are any others that will throw you into a lake of fire for eternity. If I'm wrong, please tell me.


The reasoning here seems to be that the religion that threatens the most horrific punishment is the religion that the potential convert should bet on. However, if another religion comes along claiming to have hotter, more painful ovens than the "lake of fire" Christianity promises, then the naive, easily frightened and eager-to-be bullied "seeker" will have to bet on the new, harsher religion.

MrTunaFace seems to support the idea of turning religious belief into a lottery of sorts. However, given the egotistical nature of the biblegod, I would guess that if he did exist, he would be offended by this sort of "just in case" belief and in fact, wouldn't consider it to be genuine belief at all. Isn't this exactly the reason many Christians say that people can never leave hell once they're there? Because in that case, they would only be *claiming* to believe in order to avoid punishment? And yet, this is *exactly* what Pascal's Wager encourages people do in this life. The Christians really need to get their stories straight.

I wonder if Christians who suggest that Pascal's Wager is a good reason to be a Christian can think of other beliefs that they would suggest people adopt "just in case" such belief systems turn out to be true. For example, why not believe in alien abduction, "just in case" the people who claim to have been abducted by aliens and victimized aboard their spacecrafts did in fact experience such a terrible trauma. The believer in aliens could use the same reasoning MrTunaFace used. He could say that if he believes aliens exist, he loses nothing. However, if he fails to believe they exist, he very well may find himself strapped to an alien gurney, being violated in an unspeakable manner.

And why stop with alien abduction? Why not believe in unicorns, elves, Santa Claus, the tooth fairy, and recent sightings of Elvis---"just in case."
If you ask me, Pascal's Wager has got to be THE single most idiotic argument Christians offer as a valid reason to become a Christian, and that's saying a lot. I would think that any intelligent, well-educated Christian would be more than just a little embarrassed by fellow Christians who attempt to use this argument as a way of persuading others to believe as they do.

My bold.

The aliens was a good analogy.

But the problem with santa, etc, is that they aren't threatening to burn you in eternel hell.

:)

[MrTunaFace]

If I say I'm kidding....

then I'm kidding.

Alright. Cool.

[MrTunaFace]

The reasoning here seems to be that the religion that threatens the most horrific punishment is the religion that the potential convert should bet on. However, if another religion comes along claiming to have hotter, more painful ovens than the "lake of fire" Christianity promises, then the naive, easily frightened and eager-to-be bullied "seeker" will have to bet on the new, harsher religion.

MrTunaFace seems to support the idea of turning religious belief into a lottery of sorts. However, given the egotistical nature of the biblegod, I would guess that if he did exist, he would be offended by this sort of "just in case" belief and in fact, wouldn't consider it to be genuine belief at all. Isn't this exactly the reason many Christians say that people can never leave hell once they're there? Because in that case, they would only be *claiming* to believe in order to avoid punishment? And yet, this is *exactly* what Pascal's Wager encourages people do in this life. The Christians really need to get their stories straight.

I wonder if Christians who suggest that Pascal's Wager is a good reason to be a Christian can think of other beliefs that they would suggest people adopt "just in case" such belief systems turn out to be true. For example, why not believe in alien abduction, "just in case" the people who claim to have been abducted by aliens and victimized aboard their spacecrafts did in fact experience such a terrible trauma. The believer in aliens could use the same reasoning MrTunaFace used. He could say that if he believes aliens exist, he loses nothing. However, if he fails to believe they exist, he very well may find himself strapped to an alien gurney, being violated in an unspeakable manner.

And why stop with alien abduction? Why not believe in unicorns, elves, Santa Claus, the tooth fairy, and recent sightings of Elvis---"just in case."
If you ask me, Pascal's Wager has got to be THE single most idiotic argument Christians offer as a valid reason to become a Christian, and that's saying a lot. I would think that any intelligent, well-educated Christian would be more than just a little embarrassed by fellow Christians who attempt to use this argument as a way of persuading others to believe as they do.

My bold.

The aliens was a good analogy.

But the problem with santa, etc, is that they aren't threatening to burn you in eternel hell.

:)

I am not repeating myself again.

[Riley Stone]

Again (I will probably have to keep repeating it) worshipping Christ isn't a waste of time for me. It's what I want to do (I WANT TO DO) Yes, it would be a waste of time for you, but not me (ME, NOT YOU)

And let us repeat this for you: As long as your little hobby isn't harming us or anyone else, we don't care what you do with your life.

If you said that you wanted to spend your entire life writing letters to Santa Claus, then I would say, "Have at it."

It's one thing to say that you want to devote your life writing to Santa, it's quite another thing to suggest that others do the same *just in case* Santa might one day respond.

[Riley Stone]

[The aliens was a good analogy.

But the problem with santa, etc, is that they aren't threatening to burn you in eternel hell.

:)

Yes, but according to Dick Smith, a man whose wife was abducted, examined, violated, and attacked by Aliens, the Alien Nation *is* threatening to take the infidel aboard an alien spacecraft and to commit unspeakably brutal acts upon his person.

Ergo, according to Pascal's Wager, it would be very unwise to dismiss Mr. Smith's testimony. In order to avoid even the possibility that he may become the next victim of the Alien Nation, the infidel should believe with all of his heart, all of his soul, all of his mind, and all of his strength, that the Alien Nation does in fact exist.

[Riley Stone]

I am not repeating myself again.

Do you promise?

[Hyndis]

I am not repeating myself again.

Do you promise?

Considering that he just got himself banned, he can't repeat himself again.

[Zimpo]

What about 'Lacsap's Wager'? It stipulates that there exists a god who judges each person on whether or not they believe in the Christian God. If you do believe in the Christian God, then you burn for eternity as punishment. If you do not believe in the Christian God, then you do not burn for all eternity.

Therefore, just in case, you better not believe in the Christian God just in case.

[Underseer]

There is a little thing I ran across called "Pascal's wager" You guys have probably heard of it before, but I have decided to share it with you.

This isn't the exact quote:

"If God (of the Bible) does exist and you accept him, you have gained everything. If God (of the Bible) doesn't exist, you have lost nothing."

I'm a Christian and I have a little problem with this. I believe that there is one true God. I could be wrong, I won't deny it. Yes, if God doesn't exist then I have lost nothing. But, what about all of the other gods? What if they do exist?

My belief is, if there is a different God or other Gods, then I guess I will suffer the punishment. I don't think that there are any others that will throw you into a lake of fire for eternity. If I'm wrong, please tell me.

What's your take on this?
It's a stupid wager. All I have to do is invent a religion with a better heaven or a worse hell than your Christianity, and by the logic of Pascal's Wager, you have to stop believing in Christianity and start believing in the religion I just made up.

If you would refuse to abandon Christianity for a religion I make up on the spot, then you have to question the value of the logic inherent in Pascal's Wager.

[+or-1]

What's your take on this?

My personal take on Pascal's Wager is this: What kind of omnipotent, omniscient being would accept someone paying lip service to a faith merely because they fear it might turn out to be right? Did Blaise Pascal really believe his god was so gullible? I've always wondered this.

BTW, you are aware it's from the 17th century, aren't you? It has been discussed, picked apart and dismissed for over 300 years.

[_Naturalist_]

The chance of picking the right faithbased worldview is incredibly small. What about an evidencebased one?

[Potoooooooo]

Do you promise?

Considering that he just got himself banned, he can't repeat himself again.

I see we have gotten rid of a certain rotten fish! Good riddens to bad rubbish!

[Gamer4Fire]

http://cectic.com/comics/082.png


So why does Mr Stinky Fish Face think this is a good argument to believe?

[Potoooooooo]

http://cectic.com/comics/082.png


So why does Mr Stinky Fish Face think this is a good argument to believe?

Thor looks pissed Ganesha looks sad and the FSM looks perplexed but YHWH looks zombified

[DBT]

''Wager, then, without hesitation, that He exists'' Blaise Pascal.

Quite an assumption, 'He' may turn out to be a 'She'...then there would be Hell to pay... :Cheeky:

[NZSkep]

http://cectic.com/comics/082.png


So why does Mr Stinky Fish Face think this is a good argument to believe?

Thor looks pissed Ganesha looks sad and the FSM looks perplexed but YHWH looks zombified

that's yahweh?

I though it was supposed to be Santa on one of his 364 days off a year :D

[Deleet]

Let there be n possible gods. The probability of the christian god being true is P(C) = 1/n. What happens with this probability as the number of possible gods goes towards infinity? That's right - zero. Thus P(C) = 0.

Um...okay. If there is no God at all. I guess I just die right?

No-god does not imply no-afterlife.

[+or-1]

The chance of picking the right faithbased worldview is incredibly small. What about an evidencebased one?

Interestingly, based on the evidence, I have chosen "none of the above." ;)

No-god does not imply no-afterlife.

In my opinion it certainly does. :huh:

[AtheistVirus]

You are wrong, afterlife indeed doesn't imply existence of god.
Can you make such logical connection to be necessary?

[Pragmatista]

Luckily, Christianity is barely a shadow of its former totalitarian self. The height of Christianity's power was called the dark ages for a reason.

While Christianity has largely renounced physical violence, we have raised the bar by recognizing psychological violence as a form of violence. Even the threat of violent punishment is recognized as a prohibited abuse of prisoners by the Geneva Convention.

This is where Christianity falls down as the "religion of peace."

[DBT]

You are wrong, afterlife indeed doesn't imply existence of god.
Can you make such logical connection to be necessary?

It'd be difficult to come up with a life after death model without a creator, but the creator need not be a 'God.'
For instance, if we happen to be living in a virtual world, the 'creator' may be a supercivilization that churns out countless universes on their quantum computer...

[anders]

You are wrong, afterlife indeed doesn't imply existence of god.
Can you make such logical connection to be necessary?

It'd be difficult to come up with a life after death model without a creator, but the creator need not be a 'God.'

Seems to be no problem for Buddhists to imagine rebirths but deny the existence of a creator.

[Deleet]

In my opinion it certainly does. :huh:

Your opinion is wrong.

You are wrong, afterlife indeed doesn't imply existence of god.
Can you make such logical connection to be necessary?

This is a misrepresentation. It was no-god implies no-afterlife. Not the other way around, either though you are correct.

[EricK]

You are wrong, afterlife indeed doesn't imply existence of god.
Can you make such logical connection to be necessary?

This is a misrepresentation. It was no-god implies no-afterlife. Not the other way around, either though you are correct.
no-god implies no-afterlife is logically equivalent to afterlife implies god

[EricK]

Has anybody been in touch with Pascal lately? I am interested to discover if he won his bet.

[Keith&Co.]

You are wrong, afterlife indeed doesn't imply existence of god.
Can you make such logical connection to be necessary?An afterlife in itself doesn't require a god.


A reward/punishment afterlife does need some sort of judge and may require a deity.

[Deleet]

This is a misrepresentation. It was no-god implies no-afterlife. Not the other way around, either though you are correct.
no-god implies no-afterlife is logically equivalent to afterlife implies god

Explain how:
(¬A→¬B) is logically equivalent to (B→A)

[EricK]

no-god implies no-afterlife is logically equivalent to afterlife implies god

Explain how:
(¬A→¬B) is logically equivalent to (B→A)
see e.g.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contraposition
or just consider an example. e.g. "If your head has been cut off then you are dead", is equivalent to "if you are not dead then your head has not been cut off".

[DBT]

It'd be difficult to come up with a life after death model without a creator, but the creator need not be a 'God.'

Seems to be no problem for Buddhists to imagine rebirths but deny the existence of a creator.

Lots of beliefs are no problem to their believers, no matter how whacky. But they need to explain how it's actually supposed to work. What is the mechanism? What is it that balances out the Karma? What is the nature of the Cosmic Beancounter?

[anders]

Seems to be no problem for Buddhists to imagine rebirths but deny the existence of a creator.

Lots of beliefs are no problem to their believers, no matter how whacky. But they need to explain how it's actually supposed to work. What is the mechanism? What is it that balances out the Karma? What is the nature of the Cosmic Beancounter?
I use lots of gadgets without knowing the mechanism behind them. And I believe in gravity, despite not knowing how it works.

The effects ("fruits") of good Karma (in English 'good acts') is probably counterweighed by the fruits of bad Karma. Fits the "balance" simile.

Do you mean that "Cosmic Beancounter" is a Buddhist term? It's new to me.

[+or-1]

Well, I didn't say that belief in a god was required for belief in an afterlife, just that in my opinion an absence of gods implies a lack of an afterlife. An afterlife is one of the trappings of religion and all religions (including Buddhism) are equally invalid in my opinion.

Also, in my opinion, a belief in karma is simply a convoluted belief in yet another god (a nameless, faceless one to be sure but still a god). I don't think that anyone who pays even moderate attention to the world around them can possibly believe it exists anyway. I certainly don't see most people having their "karmic load" balanced.

[joemailman]

Pascal's wager is obviously based upon belief being a voluntary practice of behavior. Free will is the essence of the this practice. The decision to believe or reject becomes a "free choice" and is not a direction for predictability based upon the forces of ignorance or intelligence.

[Hyndis]

Pascal's wager is obviously based upon belief being a voluntary practice of behavior. Free will is the essence of the this practice. The decision to believe or reject becomes a "free choice" and is not a direction for predictability based upon the forces of ignorance or intelligence.

Thats another flaw of Pascal's Wager. While I can voluntarily choose to go through the motions of worshipping, I cannot voluntarily choose what I believe in. I cannot simply just decide that I think Christianity is true. My brain doesn't work like that. I have to be convinced that its true.

Going through the physical motions to worship a god I think is a figment of a bronze age goat herder's imagination is not even close to being genuine faith, something which a supposedly omnipotent being would notice and most likely be offended by.

[DBT]

Lots of beliefs are no problem to their believers, no matter how whacky. But they need to explain how it's actually supposed to work. What is the mechanism? What is it that balances out the Karma? What is the nature of the Cosmic Beancounter?
I use lots of gadgets without knowing the mechanism behind them. And I believe in gravity, despite not knowing how it works.

Somebody presumably does know how the gadgets work, and it is possible to find out. (Somebody did invent them afterall)

We do not need to ''believe'' in the effects os gravity, as anyone, at anytime, can experience it. Unlike the afterlife, reincarnation, etc, gadgets and gravity are not unfalsifiable claims. The analogy is false because we can at least know something about them, and their properties.


The effects ("fruits") of good Karma (in English 'good acts') is probably counterweighed by the fruits of bad Karma. Fits the "balance" simile.

How? Balancing seemingly unrelated acts requires some sort of medium, something with the ability to judge moral acts and balance them out - keeping in mind that morality is not a physical property.


Do you mean that "Cosmic Beancounter" is a Buddhist term? It's new to me.

As I said above, for Karma to work there needs to be moral agent that is capable of judging an act that is subjective and providing the means to balance it out - perhaps over many lifetimes. That requires intelligence and logistics on a grand scale.

[breathilizer]

Pascal's Wager only works under the assumption that if a god exists, it would reward belief. It is equally as likely that a god would reward disbelief. Thus, the argument fails.

[TheRealityOfMan]

Pascal's Wager only works under the assumption that if a god exists, it would reward belief. It is equally as likely that a god would reward disbelief. Thus, the argument fails.

Exactly. If disbelief is the neutral position then it is better to take. A particular belief in God may be considered blasphemous to God because it's the wrong kind. In Islam the ULTIMATE sin is called 'sherk' - the belief that there is an equal to Allah. On the face of it this means that most Christians will be punished harder by Allah for believing that Christ is seated at his right hand than Atheists who do not believe there is an equal to Allah.

[DifferentThanMost]

Atheist's Wager

It is better to live your life as if there are no gods, and try to make the world a better place for your being in it.
If there is no God, you have lost nothing and you will be remembered fondly by those you left behind.
If there is a benevolent God, He will judge you on your merits and not just on whether or not you believe in him.
(And if God is not benevolent, he's gonna git ya whatever you do!)

Smith’s wager - George Smith

Here are the premises of my wager:

1. The existence of a god, if we are to believe in it, can only be established through reason.

2. Applying the canons of correct reasoning to theistic belief, we must reach the conclusion that theism is unfounded and must be rejected by rational people.

Now comes the question, "But what if reason is wrong in this case?", which it sometimes is. We are fallible human beings. What if it turns out that there is a Christian god and He's up there and He's going to punish us for eternity for disbelieving in Him. Here's where my wager comes in. Let's suppose you're an atheist. What are the possibilities? The first possibility is there is no god, you're right. In that case, you'll die, that'll be it, you've lost nothing, and you've lived a happy life with the correct position. Secondly, a god may exist but he may not be concerned with human affairs. He may be the god of traditional Deism. He may have started the universe going and left it to its traditional devices, in which case you will simply die, that is all there is to it, again, and you've lost nothing.

Let's suppose that God exists and He is concerned with human affairs -- He's a personal god -- but that He is a just god. He's concerned with justice. If you have a just god, he could not possibly punish an honest error of belief where there is no moral turpitude or no wrongdoing involved. If this god is a creator god and He gave us reason as the basic means of understanding our world, then He would take pride in the conscientious and scrupulous use of reason the part of His creatures, even if they committed errors from time to time, in the same way a benevolent father would take pride in the accomplishments of his son, even if the son committed errors from time to time. Therefore, if there exists a just god, we have absolutely nothing to fear from such a god. Such a god could not conceivably punish us for an honest error of belief.

Now we came to the last possibility. Suppose there exists an unjust god, specifically the god of Christianity, who doesn't give a damn about justice and who will burn us in Hell, regardless of whether we made honest mistakes or not. Such a god is necessarily unjust, for there is no more heinous injustice we could conceive of, than to punish a person for an honest error of belief, when he has tried to the best of his ability to ascertain the truth. The Christian thinks he's in a better position in case this kind of god exists. I wish to point out that he's not in any better position than we are because if you have an unjust god, the earmark of injustice is unprincipled behavior, behavior that's not predictable. If there's an unjust god and He really gets all this glee out of burning sinners and disbelievers, then what could give him more glee than to tell Christians they would be saved, only to turn around and burn them anyway, for the Hell of it, just because he enjoys it? If you've got an unjust god, what worst injustice could there be than that? It's not that far-fetched. If a god is willing to punish you simply for an honest error of belief, you can't believe He's going to keep his word when He tells you He won't punish you if you don't believe in Him because He's got to have a sadistic streak to begin with. Certainly He would get quite a bit of glee out of this behavior. Even if there exists this unjust god, then admittedly we live in a nightmarish universe, but we're in no worse position than the Christian is.

Again, if you're going to make the wager, you might as well wager on what your reason tells you, that atheism is correct, and go that route because you won't be able to do anything about an unjust god anyway, even if you accept Christianity. My wager says that you should in all cases wager on reason and accept the logical consequence, which in this case is atheism. If there's no god, you're correct; if there's an indifferent god, you won't suffer; if there's a just god, you have nothing to fear from the honest use of your reason; and if there's an unjust god, you have much to fear but so does the Christian!

[Sapho]

Pascal's Wager only works under the assumption that if a god exists, it would reward belief. It is equally as likely that a god would reward disbelief. Thus, the argument fails.

Exactly. If disbelief is the neutral position then it is better to take. A particular belief in God may be considered blasphemous to God because it's the wrong kind. In Islam the ULTIMATE sin is called 'sherk' - the belief that there is an equal to Allah. On the face of it this means that most Christians will be punished harder by Allah for believing that Christ is seated at his right hand than Atheists who do not believe there is an equal to Allah.

Ah, the homer simpson rebuttal.

[TheRealityOfMan]

doh

[GakuseiDon]

Pascal's Wager only works under the assumption that if a god exists, it would reward belief. It is equally as likely that a god would reward disbelief. Thus, the argument fails.
Actually, that is STILL Pascal's Wager, it is just another variation. Pascal's Wager is that "if I choice one path, I potentially win all and lose nothing, but if I choose a different path, then I potentially won nothing and risk all. Thus choosing the path where I potentially win all makes the better sense."

I think Pascal's Wager is sound, but the problem is working out what the choices actually are. Giving variations -- e.g. different gods, or atheism as the better choice -- is still using that logic, and doesn't actually show Pascal's Wager failing.

[GakuseiDon]

And if there is a god, how do you know which god it is? There are easily tens of thousands of gods worshiped by various cultures on this planet. Throw in alien civilizations, and that number could easily reach into the trillions.
I think a bit of common sense can be applied here. While it's possible that some gods are powerless enough to stop being worshiped or may not worry about being worshiped at all, for Pascal's Wager to have any meaning then we need to assume a God that is "godly" enough to make Itself known and not let belief in Itself die out. (I'm assuming that Gods who don't want to be worshiped probably aren't going to be too upset with people who don't worship them) Thus you are really restricted to the modern religions. So the numbers of choices aren't in the "trillions", but only a handful. Determine which one is the meanest among the lot, and that is the God that Pascal's Wager is pointing to.

[DBT]

for Pascal's Wager to have any meaning then we need to assume a God that is "godly" enough to make Itself known and not let belief in Itself die out.

If a God makes Itself known to us, then a belief in Its existence is not required as we would have knowledge of its existence. We don't have that now nor, it appears, we ever had it.