Forums → WEPR → Pascal's Wager

It assumes an either or scenario, where you just believe God exists just in case he does

btw, you may not have been accusing me of this, but i don't base my faith on pascal's wager.

However this doesn't take into account the existence of other religions, nor does it take into account the possibility no one has it right.

why i choose to believe christianity as opposed to other religons:

Belief however doesn't work like that, you either believe or not, just saying you believe X doesn't mean you do.

I won't deny that you have a good point here. but pascal's wager gets many atheists thinking about God. if they have trouble believing in Him, they can just go to a local church and ask the pastor about Christianity, making further descisions from there, or they can simply ask God to help them believe

i don't know why there is a link attached to the word local, you can just ignore it

Okay but with out it your post makes no sense. I could get into the flaws in that reasoning presented in that link, but not sure if that wouldn't exactly be on topic.

but pascal's wager gets many atheists thinking about God. if they have trouble believing in Him, they can just go to a local church and ask the pastor about Christianity, making further descisions from there,

I actually spend quite a bit of time reading up on religion. Over all the more I learn the less I believe. Really is using a flawed argument really the best way to get people to believe?

or they can simply ask God to help them believe

I think I would like more confirmation then a voice in my head or funny feelings.

why i choose to believe christianity as opposed to other religons:

I'll just reply to some of this.

Atheism is inadequate as a rational worldview because it cannot adequately explain the existence of the universe. The majesty and order of the universe, and the wonder and complexities of life on earth, cries out for an explanation.

Christianty doesn't explain it well at all though. There is a huge difference between the crops made by god and the crops explained by science.
God: god said there would be crops. And crops appeared.
Science: Well first the crops start of as seeds, and then they need to be watered, either by the farmer or an outside source. What happens as the seeds are watered is.... They also obtain nutrients from the ground and... from this we now know that this crop often produces more when...
You get the idea. So while he is right in saying that atheism doesn't provide answers well, so what? Atheism doesn't try to answer anything. But science does. And it does a good job at it too.

So it follows that either A) all of the major world religions are false, or B) only one religion is true. Now I will show you why I believe B), and why I believe that Christianity is that one true religion.

The problem is that he thinks that just because a lot of people believe it makes it more likly for it to be true. Just because it is a major religion, doesn't make it more likly to be true than a smaller religion.

The Bible is true scientifically. Nothing in Scripture has been invalidated by science. In fact, many scientific principles are found in the Bible.

This is also a lie. He just goes on to name a few parts of the bible he can use to back this up, but there are still pleanty where something happens that science says can't happen.

So basicly he argues that atheism isn't better at explaination then Christianty. True, but atheism isn't about explaining anything, and Christianty doesn't explain anything well. It also is not backed by science. So... yeah... not good reasons to believe. Everybody has the same shot at being right here. Which is why pascal's wager, is false.

Christianty doesn't explain it well at all though. There is a huge difference between the crops made by god and the crops explained by science.
God: god said there would be crops. And crops appeared.
Science: Well first the crops start of as seeds, and then they need to be watered, either by the farmer or an outside source. What happens as the seeds are watered is.... They also obtain nutrients from the ground and... from this we now know that this crop often produces more when...
You get the idea. So while he is right in saying that atheism doesn't provide answers well, so what? Atheism doesn't try to answer anything. But science does. And it does a good job at it too.

First of all, you talk about God, then you talk about the origin of the crops. Going into atheism, however, you are talking about the present-day science of crops, which Christians happen to have no problem with. (and when you say atheism dosen't try to answer anything, but science does, the link is talking about the resulting scientific beliefs behind atheism i.e. evolution

The problem is that he thinks that just because a lot of people believe it makes it more likly for it to be true. Just because it is a major religion, doesn't make it more likly to be true than a smaller religion.

Perhaps you would like to read the full page that explains why he believs that?

Everybody has the same shot at being right here. Which is why pascal's wager, is false.

How does this disprove pascal's wager? this is a part of it, so this dosen't exactly disprove it

the link is talking about the resulting scientific beliefs behind atheism i.e. evolution

There are no beliefs in science or atheism. Science is based on observable and testable facts, where atheism is a lack of belief in one or more god(s).

because i've been reading a little bit about it and can't seem to find anything that solidly disproves it or is bad about it, even from an atheist perspective

You really have been reading extremely, extremely little, or can't be bothered at all, because it's all out there. So I shall attempt to summarise because you obviously can't be bothered to search and read up properly.


The term ''Pascal's Wager'' is misleading, because Pascal actually listed out at least three arguments that can be termed a ''wager'', although only the last of these is termed Pascal's Wager.

The Argument from Superdominance

This one is the first argument he listed. Remember the concept of superdominance in biology class? Superdominance in genetics is the superior adaptability and higher selective value of heterozygotes as a result of monohybrid crossing (for example, Ad) as compared with both types of homozygotes (A A and ad). Superdominance may also be defined as heterosis resulting from monohybrid crossing. Read up more on sickle cell anaemia if you want to understand it, but biology here is inconsequential. Basically, it's the diagram below, except this time we juxtapose it with Pascal's first wager.




God exists God does not exist
Wager for Gain all Status quo
Wager against Misery Status quo



Wagering for God superdominates wagering against God: the worst outcome associated with wagering for God (status quo) is at least as good as the best outcome associated with wagering against God (status quo). If God exists, the result for wagering for God is definitely better than not wagering for Him. Thus, wagering for him is always better than not doing, even if He does not exist.

However, the argument is invalid without assigning a probability to God's existence, that is, the chance of God existing is not necessarily 1/2, which renders the coin toss like decision, invalid. It presupposes a probability of the existence of God to be 1/2, however, this is clearly not the case. Not everything is like a coin toss, 1/2, winning the lottery for example, is a one in a million chance. Hence, humans will rationally fail to assign His existence a probability; therefore your probability that God exists could remain undefined.

Or, we can argue that there might be zero probability of God existing, that reason alone can settle that God does not exist, perhaps by arguing that the very notion of an omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent being is contradictory. Hence, there already is zero probability of Him existing. Rationality does not require you to wager for God if you assign probability 0 to God existing.


The Argument From Expectation

This argument works much like the Super-Dominance argument, except that Pascal does not make any claim as to how happy one would be in their finite lifespan, regardless of belief, and he assumes there is a 50% chance of Godâs existence.

-If God exists and one believes in God, the result is infinitely positive.

-If God does not exist and one believes in God, the result is that one merely has a finite life of any number of potential values.

-If God exists and one does not believe in God, the result is infinitely negative.

-If God does not exist and one does not believe in God, the result is that one merely has a finite life of any number of potential values.


The best result would therefore be believing.


However, this again assumes two awful things:

(1) The probability of God's existence is 1/2. [Questioned earlier]
(2) Wagering for God brings infinite reward if God exists. [Debatable]


The Argument From Generalized Expectations: 'Pascal's Wager'


Here Pascal makes the case that if there is any chance of God's existence, then one is forced by rationality to choose to believe in God. We can think of Pascal's Wager as having three premises: the first concerns the decision matrix of rewards, the second concerns the probability that you should give to God's existence, and the third is a maxim about rational decision-making.


1) Either God exists or God does not exist, and you can either wager for God or wager against God. The utilities[satisfaction gain, or whatever you gain] of the relevant possible outcomes are as follows, where f1, f2, and f3 are numbers whose values are not specified beyond the requirement that they be finite:


God exists God does not exist
Wager for Infinite f1
Wager against f2 f3


2) Rationality requires the probability that you assign to God existing to be positive, and not infinitesimal.

3) Rationality requires you to perform the act of maximum expected utility (when there is one).

Conclusion 1. Rationality requires you to wager for God.
Conclusion 2. You should wager for God.

The point, rather, is that the prospective prize is 'an infinity of an infinitely happy life.' In short, if God exists, then wagering for God results in infinite utility. On the other hand, wagering against God has no chance for infinite utility. So, a rational person would make the wager that there is a God, because that is the only chance at 'an infinitely happy life.'


So we're done with that, now on to the objections to it. I'll only list some out of a vast pool for now.


The arguments assume that the decision diagrams above are the

same for everyone. This is clearly not the case, because no one

is identical, one person might value salvation more than the

next.

Infinite utility cannot be appreciated by a finite human being.

The table is inadequate due to its black and white classification of reward; there is only ****ation and heaven. God surely does not reward Mother Theresa the same as the average Joe on the street, who hasn't done anything bad, or good. This also raises the questions of whether your God is as magnanimous as He seems.

The tables should have more columns;there is nothing to stop other religions from applying the table to their own God. A rabbi or an Imam can use the same table to prove his own God, so which is correct? As a philosopher nicely put it; ''the church within which alone salvation is to be found is not necessarily the Church of Rome, but perhaps that of the Anabaptists or the Mormons or the Muslim Sunnis or the worshippers of Kali or of Odin''.

And maybe the most ****ing of all; what we all did is to wager because of rationality; if we accept the wagers and believe, we are doing so because of mercernary reasons. Will God allow this then?




Sources that helped majorly.

Source 1

Source 2

The Bible is true scientifically. Nothing in Scripture has been invalidated by science. In fact, many scientific principles are found in the Bible.

Really? In all my years of studying the bible I have never seen anything that had to do with science. That... I really don't know what to say about this. *sighs*

"In the beginning, there was the Word." This is five days before the creation of humans.

Let's see who was the word? God was the word. Let's see "In The begining was the word and the word was with God and the word was God."

Let's see who was the word? God was the word. Let's see "In The begining was the word and the word was with God and the word was God."

So...it didn't really say what it meant? But -you- know what it meant to say. Last time I spoke with a Christian about gods, theirs was never referred to as merely a word.

So...it didn't really say what it meant? But -you- know what it meant to say. Last time I spoke with a Christian about gods, theirs was never referred to as merely a word.

John 1:1
In the beginning was the word, and the word was with God, and the word was God.

Sod it, I knew typing in Note would make it look like crap.

Your post turned out just fine. I'm almost tempted to say thread.

Really? In all my years of studying the bible I have never seen anything that had to do with science. That... I really don't know what to say about this. *sighs*

I'm actually surprised to see you say this considering some of the science denialism I've seen from you as a result of religious beliefs.