AGS Steam Games

Forums → WEPR → Pascal's Wager

82 18644
camm95
offline
camm95
52 posts
Nomad

Hopefully you have all heard of the wager. It states that if the belief in the existance of God was a bet, a rational person would choose to bet on the existance of God and therefore be some sort of Theist. The wager was modeled off of Christianity, and the claim that Pascal makes is that by believing in God, an individual has nothing to lose in their own lives, and if God does exist one has everything to gain in the afterlife. I am specifically wondering what you guys think of that claim. By being a theist there is nothing to lose in this life, and everything to gain in the next. So what do you guys think?

Please entertain the thought of an afterlife and don't claim that this entire thought is crap because there is no afterlife.

Also, if you believe there are things to lose or gain in this life, please elaborate as to what they are and why.

  • 82 Replies
vesperbot
offline
vesperbot
955 posts
Nomad

should I ever? You have been hit with BoP here.

MageGrayWolf
offline
MageGrayWolf
9,462 posts
Farmer

A "NO U" answer means you have no other valid standpoints. Flushed down the drain.


First off all I have to argue against is your opinion as you yourself stated.

"Pascal's wager takes only belief in regard of a "win", while there are also deeds of a human and God's justice. So IMHO, in case the particular Jew or Muslim did a good life, strongly believing in God in whatever form he's presented, he can receive access to Heaven."

Here's another point where you say an argument against this is false and I refuted it already.

"Avorne, the main fallacy of what you have just displayed is the word "infinite". So your summary is false."

"Near infinite is quite accurate there is nothing discerning your "true God" from someone's imagination, so in terms of odd they both have equal standing."

All you are doing is arguing that your religion is true and everyone else is false and basing the odds on that. You completely ignore the possibilities of no one getting it right.
aknerd
offline
aknerd
1,416 posts
Peasant

heh. You divide heavens but add hells? Why's that?

Basic math. Say there are three religions, each equally possible, but each with different heavens and hells. So, to determine which religion is the most worthwhile, you pick a religion, then take it's heaven and divide by three (which accounts for the fact that you only have a 1/3 chance of going to that heaven). Then, you subtract the other two hells, since you have a 2/3 chance of going to hell. You can't just multiply the hells by the number of other religions, because each hell might be different.


Aknerd...exactly how are you quantifying these things

You don't. All the values will be (or near) infinity or 0. Your final result will either be very high, very low, or near zero. If you believe your religion is the only possible one, you'll get a very high score. If you believe there are many possible ones, you'll get a very low score. If you believe that no religion is accurate, you'll get a slightly below zero score. It's kind of a useless equation, really. I just make it to show how overly simple pascals wager is. And my equation is still too simple.

the bomb is the fact that an afterlife will hold a Hell of some form.


This isn't a fact.

A what-if-false, because the bomb's explosion is an equivalent of death


No, the bombs explosion was the equivalent of hell. There is the possibility that there is no hell. There is the possibility that cutting a wire (IE choosing a religion) means that you will go to hell. God might want you to be atheist. Why? I don't know. I would ask him if he was real.

Any new religion is false by default.

False, you are using an incorrect definition of "new". For instance, it could be a newly discovered religion. The religion was there all along, we just didn't know about it. All religions are "new" at the time of discovery. Therefore all religions are false?

I can discover infinite religions. Right now. Observe:

It has come to my attention that god is not called god. He is called god1. If you pray to/worship anything other than god1, you go to hell.

Similarly for god2, god3, etc. Then there are at least as many religions as there are natural numbers. And natural numbers are an infinite set. Then the set of all religions is at least infinitely large. QED.
MageGrayWolf
offline
MageGrayWolf
9,462 posts
Farmer

Similarly for god2, god3, etc. Then there are at least as many religions as there are natural numbers. And natural numbers are an infinite set. Then the set of all religions is at least infinitely large. QED.


I would argue you can even divide those natural numbers up into subsets. For instance you have the belief that you have to worship god1 well we could have two subsets both worshiping god1 but claiming that you have to worship god1 their way or you go to hell. This again can break down to near infinite numbers.
vesperbot
offline
vesperbot
955 posts
Nomad

"Near infinite is quite accurate there is nothing discerning your "true God" from someone's imagination, so in terms of odd they both have equal standing."
Well, you take a finite number and divide infinity on that. You receive infinity.
You completely ignore the possibilities of no one getting it right.
Well, this depends on what degree of "right" is used. If "right" is complete understanding, then yes, if basic level understanding, then no, we have enough personal evidences to be confident in what our tradition holds is true. We have enough saints, we have enough miracles to constantly reinforce us in our faith and letting us to know God deeper, since we can't perceive His infinity as a whole while living here. So yes, I am basing on this, but I also use logic to explain why do I believe and why Pascal's wager is a logically explainable argument.
Then, you subtract the other two hells, since you have a 2/3 chance of going to hell.
This phrase is based on a premise that a believer of one religion will appear in Hell of all other religions. This is not true with several religions, Catholicism included. You may not end up in Hell if you follow some religion and believe, just because your belief appeared false. We believe that God will judge such a person taking into account his faith into whatever image God was presented to him, and we believe that God will probably ask such a soul "Do you accept Me as God?", thus giving him a choice of life. And even taking this as first approximation, you have a result of INF-INF, which is an indetermined value. Even (INF/3)-(INF+INF) is indetermined. So your equation is still senseless.
God might want you to be atheist.
Christianity teaches this to be false, because being an atheist means denying God, and God wishes all of us to accept Him as God. I have no reason to think in other ways.
I can discover infinite religions. Right now. Observe:
You have created an infinite set of names only. And while you are naming (this means giving names to, not calling by name) whatever, you are in supreme position over this, like if you are naming objects or say children of yourself. So in case of all the entities behind these, if any, you are the one that's supreme to all of them. Therefore, these are not gods, so every of this infinite religions is false. QED
False, you are using an incorrect definition of "new". For instance, it could be a newly discovered religion. The religion was there all along, we just didn't know about it. All religions are "new" at the time of discovery. Therefore all religions are false?
This is a more interesting position indeed. But then, what is "discovery" in terms of a religion?
HahiHa
offline
HahiHa
8,256 posts
Regent

that. So far none of you had provided a disproval of this, that I could not rebuke.

Of course not; sticking to your almost fundamentalistic belief gives you the ultimate tool to disarm each and every other argument.. for you. But you are unable to look at pascal's wager from a neutral point of view, at least that's the impression I get.
MageGrayWolf
offline
MageGrayWolf
9,462 posts
Farmer

Well, this depends on what degree of "right" is used.


Right as in the one that actually exists if at all.

we have enough personal evidences to be confident in what our tradition holds is true. We have enough saints, we have enough miracles to constantly reinforce us in our faith and letting us to know God deeper, since we can't perceive His infinity as a whole while living here. So yes, I am basing on this,


Someone of a different but equally devout could say the same of their religion. Giving both equal footing. As pointed out to you many times your person evidence doesn't give any actual weight in determining it's validity. So each religion has to be taken into account and even each variation there in. It's just as possible everyone is wrong and it's something no one has thought of, an undiscovered religion. This to needs to be taken into consideration.

Your personal, bias views doesn't play any roll in reducing the odds any as you seem to be trying to do.

Christianity teaches this to be false, because being an atheist means denying God, and God wishes all of us to accept Him as God. I have no reason to think in other ways.


Yes YOUR personal belief says this, but that doesn't mean a thing in determining the possible odds here. You could be wrong.
Kasic
offline
Kasic
5,552 posts
Jester

We have enough saints, we have enough miracles to constantly reinforce us in our faith and letting us to know God deeper, since we can't perceive His infinity as a whole while living here


EVERY religion has acclaimed miracles/things ascribed to it. How you view other religions miracles is no different from how we view YOUR's. The only thing here is you're biased in what makes a religion true, what the person claiming that miracle to be believes in.
314d1
offline
314d1
3,817 posts
Nomad

Well, this depends on what degree of "right" is used. If "right" is complete understanding, then yes, if basic level understanding, then no, we have enough personal evidences to be confident in what our tradition holds is true. We have enough saints, we have enough miracles to constantly reinforce us in our faith and letting us to know God deeper, since we can't perceive His infinity as a whole while living here. So yes, I am basing on this, but I also use logic to explain why do I believe and why Pascal's wager is a logically explainable argument.


...No...I have proof that the teddy bear god existed, the saints and personal experience tells us so. But that doesn't make it real, now does it? (And do to the fact that believing in any god causes the TBG to eat you, I mean he doesn't exist)

This phrase is based on a premise that a believer of one religion will appear in Hell of all other religions. This is not true with several religions, Catholicism included. You may not end up in Hell if you follow some religion and believe, just because your belief appeared false. We believe that God will judge such a person taking into account his faith into whatever image God was presented to him, and we believe that God will probably ask such a soul "Do you accept Me as God?", thus giving him a choice of life. And even taking this as first approximation, you have a result of INF-INF, which is an indetermined value. Even (INF/3)-(INF+INF) is indetermined. So your equation is still senseless.


But that would only happen if your idea of god is correct, which defeats the entire purpose of it. There are a million other religions that have you going to hell, from TBG to Islam to Scientology to whatever else.

Christianity teaches this to be false, because being an atheist means denying God, and God wishes all of us to accept Him as God. I have no reason to think in other ways.


So? TBG teaches it to be true, and denying him makes him happy and not want to eat you. No reason to think in other ways? How about the threat of TBG eating you and torturing you forever in your stomach?

You have created an infinite set of names only. And while you are naming (this means giving names to, not calling by name) whatever, you are in supreme position over this, like if you are naming objects or say children of yourself. So in case of all the entities behind these, if any, you are the one that's supreme to all of them. Therefore, these are not gods, so every of this infinite religions is false. QED


So my TBG must be true, since I am not supreme to it?

Now may I ask you, if Pascal's Wager is correct, why don't you believe in Santa Clause? I mean, believing in him loses you nothing, but if you don't believe in him you miss out on the opportunity of magical presents every Christmas. Millions of little kids across the earth have experienced him personally. So why don't you just believe in him?
aknerd
offline
aknerd
1,416 posts
Peasant

I would argue you can even divide those natural numbers up into subsets

Religion can be infinitely discriminating. In other words, I can be specific as I want to. I can create infinite religions (a)god1, (a)god2,... etc in the same same vein as before, except ALL of these religions require you to be atheist. And, for every religion I just created, I can divide it into infinite subsets. And so on.

Therefore, these are not gods, so every of this infinite religions is false. QED

Unless I am God(1,2,3...). Or if god told me these things. Then I am merely conveying information.

This is a more interesting position indeed. But then, what is "discovery" in terms of a religion?

Like this: Say there is a planet many light years away from ours. This planet is populated with sentient beings, who have never heard of Earth or religion. But, just today, they came up with the idea of Christianity, in a way that exactly mirrors our version of Christianity. To them, Christianity is new. But it isn't, really. It's been around for a long time, and they just discovered it.

Similarly, The religion of god1 (and god2, etc) could have been practiced for thousands of years on some other planet. And, just recently, I discovered it. So it really isn't a new religion, it's just new to us.

This is not true with several religions
If you look closely at the original equation, you would see I account for this.

So your equation is still senseless.

Depends on how you try to compute it. It merely shows what I believe to be the relative pros and cons of religion, in terms of heaven/hell. Much like pascal's wager.
Kasic
offline
Kasic
5,552 posts
Jester

Like this: Say there is a planet many light years away from ours. This planet is populated with sentient beings, who have never heard of Earth or religion. But, just today, they came up with the idea of Christianity, in a way that exactly mirrors our version of Christianity. To them, Christianity is new. But it isn't, really. It's been around for a long time, and they just discovered it.


Finding other sentient life, (Or other life in general) will pretty much completely show that religion is BS, UNLESS, that other sentient life has a religion very similar/the same as one we have already.
cloudygrl25
offline
cloudygrl25
27 posts
Nomad

I recognize I'm a bit behind... What I meant by logical was conditional statements: "if p then q, if not p then not q" etc. To a logical purist, that's all that's needed.

xfirealchemistx
offline
xfirealchemistx
370 posts
Nomad

Learned about Pascal's Wager in Philosophy.
I like the idea of an afterlife personally makes it easier to accept the fact I'll have to die one day.

Avorne
offline
Avorne
3,085 posts
Nomad

Well, I think everybody LIKES the idea of some form of afterlife, but reality isn't about what we like and what we don't like but what exists and what doesn't exist.

vesperbot
offline
vesperbot
955 posts
Nomad

But that would only happen if your idea of god is correct, which defeats the entire purpose of it. There are a million other religions that have you going to hell, from TBG to Islam to Scientology to whatever else.
No, this takes all of the existing religions into account. There is infinity in at least one heaven, so there is an INF to subtract from. There is infinity in at least one hell, so there is an INF subtracted. The result is therefore INF-INF, which is undefined. Still senseless.
Now may I ask you, if Pascal's Wager is correct, why don't you believe in Santa Clause? I mean, believing in him loses you nothing, but if you don't believe in him you miss out on the opportunity of magical presents every Christmas. Millions of little kids across the earth have experienced him personally. So why don't you just believe in him?
Given that Santa Claus' origin is Saint Nicholas, who is made saint by God, I can believe in God whose saint is Saint Nicholas. However, Santa Claus is an altered image and is therefore not a saint, so I may not believe in such a character.
So my TBG must be true, since I am not supreme to it?
You have named him, so you are supreme to it, therefore TBG is not god.
Well, I think everybody LIKES the idea of some form of afterlife, but reality isn't about what we like and what we don't like but what exists and what doesn't exist.
Yes, everyone tries to find the ultimate sense of their life in hope it exists. I wonder if you have tried this.
Like this: Say there is a planet many light years away from ours. This planet is populated with sentient beings, who have never heard of Earth or religion. But, just today, they came up with the idea of Christianity, in a way that exactly mirrors our version of Christianity. To them, Christianity is new. But it isn't, really. It's been around for a long time, and they just discovered it.
Hmm. This opens a hole for infinite religions and form of religions and induces more probability playing. Also this eliminates elaboration of religions, say like when Aaron made a golden calf and said "This is the god that led you from Egypt". Since the time of the universe existing is finite, some civilization in this context should "discover" a certain religion first, and also, there should be a religion that was discovered first. What is this, and how could it then be?
Unless I am God(1,2,3...). Or if god told me these things. Then I am merely conveying information.
Well, the first is false, as you are not supreme over ME. The second is also false, since you are proclaiming more than one god, but which of them is then a god? If some powerful entity has no control over some aspect of life, this entity is not God. So, since you have proclaimed a false, whatever entity told you to do this is not God.
EVERY religion has acclaimed miracles/things ascribed to it. How you view other religions miracles is no different from how we view YOUR's. The only thing here is you're biased in what makes a religion true, what the person claiming that miracle to be believes in.
*Yawns*
I have requested more than once to provide me a bit of information of a miracle without plausible scientific explanation that is attributed to any other religion than Christianity. While you fail at this, your point is hollow.
Your personal, bias views doesn't play any roll in reducing the odds any as you seem to be trying to do.
Reducing the odds of what exactly? Of you being right? They are already at zero. Of someone being right? "Someone" is "basically right" already, there are people who live a life of helping others, and they are "basically right". Of Christianity to have better odds at being "true"? Yes I do, at least for your eyes (and I don't know exacly why am I trying to punch a hole in your "unbiased" closed mind), and see above please, you too have failed at providing me required info.
It's just as possible everyone is wrong and it's something no one has thought of, an undiscovered religion.
Giving all possible outcome equal probability is acceptable only if there is no information available for this matter. Rejecting available sources does no good to any scientist.
Showing 46-60 of 82