Pascal's Wager again

[Zzyzx]

.
In one of the threads a member indicated that philosophical arguments, including Pascal's Wager, rule out the possibility of God not existing.

Blaise Pascal actually wrote (but did not publish) "If you gain, you gain all. If you lose, you lose nothing. Wager then, without hesitation, that He exists."

He did NOT use this as an argument that God exists. Instead, his argument is that whether God exists or not one should "bet" on existence. Betting is not argument for existence " but a gamble on what is (admittedly to Pascal) unknown.

I maintain that his proposal is faulty even in that:

1) The wager assumes a singular god (to bet on or against) when thousands of gods have been proposed, some of whom are said to require exclusive right to be worshiped and condemn worshipers of competing gods. Thus, it cannot be determined which of the proposed gods to worship. In other words, first pick one of the gods (with less than 1/10 percent chance of being right), then decide whether to bet for or against. Or, repeat this thousands of times . . .

2) There is no assurance that any god requires belief (or betting) by humans " and could require exactly the opposite " (disapproval of gullibility or naivete). Who knows such thing beyond speculation and opinion (ancient or modern)?

3) "Lose nothing" is incorrect unless ALL that is required by the god is betting / wagering that it exists (without "putting up" or "anteing" anything at all). In fact, however, some (at least) of the gods are said to require "true belief" (much more than just a bet) and most religions add all sorts of conditions to be followed by worshipers.


The argument may sound compelling in church when assumptions are made about which god to believe exists and what the god requires of believers.

Question for debate: Is the argument compelling or convincing in debate?

[Psalm139]

.
In one of the threads a member indicated that philosophical arguments, including Pascal's Wager, rule out the possibility of God not existing.

Blaise Pascal actually wrote (but did not publish) "If you gain, you gain all. If you lose, you lose nothing. Wager then, without hesitation, that He exists."

He did NOT use this as an argument that God exists. Instead, his argument is that whether God exists or not one should "bet" on existence. Betting is not argument for existence " but a gamble on what is (admittedly to Pascal) unknown.

I maintain that his proposal is faulty even in that:

1) The wager assumes a singular god (to bet on or against) when thousands of gods have been proposed, some of whom are said to require exclusive right to be worshiped and condemn worshipers of competing gods. Thus, it cannot be determined which of the proposed gods to worship. In other words, first pick one of the gods (with less than 1/10 percent chance of being right), then decide whether to bet for or against. Or, repeat this thousands of times . . .

2) There is no assurance that any god requires belief (or betting) by humans " and could require exactly the opposite " (disapproval of gullibility or naivete). Who knows such thing beyond speculation and opinion (ancient or modern)?

3) "Lose nothing" is incorrect unless ALL that is required by the god is betting / wagering that it exists (without "putting up" or "anteing" anything at all). In fact, however, some (at least) of the gods are said to require "true belief" (much more than just a bet) and most religions add all sorts of conditions to be followed by worshipers.


The argument may sound compelling in church when assumptions are made about which god to believe exists and what the god requires of believers.

Question for debate: Is the argument compelling or convincing in debate?

True prophets, saints and believers don't have to use Pascal's Wager idea. They already know God exists.

[bjs]

The second point could be interesting and worthy of more time than I currently have. However, points one and three from the opening post seem to misunderstand the Wager.

Pascal was a mathematician, so his wager was based on mathematics. In math any finite number divided by an infinite number equals zero.

For the sake of the argument lets pretend that Zs statement in point one that we have less than 1/10 percent chance of being right is accurate. Mathematically, 1/10 of a percent of a chance at infinite gain is infinitely greater than a zero percent chance. In math any chance at infinity is infinitely greater than no chance.

For point three, if we accept the most rigorous of conditions and wager everything we have in this life that would be a finite wager on our part. That finite number might be very high, but it would still be finite. The possible gain would be infinite. Any finite number divided by an infinite number is zero. So on these two points Pascals mathematical wager is entirely correct.

[Zzyzx]

.
[Replying to post 3 by bjs]

After all that is digested --

1) Is Pascal's Wager a proof or evidence that gods exist?

2) Does it identify which "god" among thousands should be worshiped (or believed in or whatever)?

3) Does it provide any evidence that the proposed results of the wager are anything more than hypothetical or imaginary?


Notice that the OP challenges a claim that "Pascal's Wager, rule out the possibility of God not existing."

[JoeyKnothead]

From the OP:

1) The wager assumes a singular god (to bet on or against) when thousands of gods have been proposed, some of whom are said to require exclusive right to be worshiped and condemn worshipers of competing gods.

If a successful wager's to be found in a god happy with my carryin's on, I can't help him a bit.

I reject any religious busy-body who dares try to tell me they know their god's "plan(tm)".

Unless, of course, they could show it was the case.

2) There is no assurance that any god requires belief (or betting) by humans " and could require exactly the opposite " (disapproval of gullibility or naivete). Who knows such thing beyond speculation and opinion (ancient or modern)?

'Parently Psalm139.

3) "Lose nothing" is incorrect unless ALL that is required by the god is betting / wagering that it exists (without "putting up" or "anteing" anything at all).

Or where those who think the wager's valid, and they set to votin' them on who of us has rights, and who don't.

Conclusions?

I presume anyone who'd even hesitantly consider the wager valid to not be respondent to any refutation I may be able to present on the matter. As we note I'm responsible for explaining myself such that folks know that's what I'm a-tryin' to do.

The argument may sound compelling in church when assumptions are made about which god to believe exists and what the god requires of believers.

Even if they get it right on this'n, that whole thinkin' a dead dude hopped up and rode him a talking donkey, well they lost me once I cleared fourth grade.

Question for debate: Is the argument compelling or convincing in debate?

'Bout as convincing as me tryin' to tell the pretty thing I didn't go in her kitchen and steal me a handful of cookies, when there I sit, a-spewin' the crumbs like a fire plug.

[Psalm139]

From the OP:

1) The wager assumes a singular god (to bet on or against) when thousands of gods have been proposed, some of whom are said to require exclusive right to be worshiped and condemn worshipers of competing gods.

If a successful wager's to be found in a god happy with my carryin's on, I can't help him a bit.

I reject any religious busy-body who dares try to tell me they know their god's "plan(tm)".

Unless, of course, they could show it was the case.

2) There is no assurance that any god requires belief (or betting) by humans " and could require exactly the opposite " (disapproval of gullibility or naivete). Who knows such thing beyond speculation and opinion (ancient or modern)?

'Parently Psalm139.

You got that right my friend.

3) "Lose nothing" is incorrect unless ALL that is required by the god is betting / wagering that it exists (without "putting up" or "anteing" anything at all).

Or where those who think the wager's valid, and they set to votin' them on who of us has rights, and who don't.

Conclusions?

I presume anyone who'd even hesitantly consider the wager valid to not be respondent to any refutation I may be able to present on the matter. As we note I'm responsible for explaining myself such that folks know that's what I'm a-tryin' to do.

The argument may sound compelling in church when assumptions are made about which god to believe exists and what the god requires of believers.

Even if they get it right on this'n, that whole thinkin' a dead dude hopped up and rode him a talking donkey, well they lost me once I cleared fourth grade.

Question for debate: Is the argument compelling or convincing in debate?

'Bout as convincing as me tryin' to tell the pretty thing I didn't go in her kitchen and steal me a handful of cookies, when there I sit, a-spewin' the crumbs like a fire plug.

[ttruscott]

.
[Replying to post 3 by bjs]

After all that is digested --

1) Is Pascal's Wager a proof or evidence that gods exist?

No.

2) Does it identify which "god" among thousands should be worshiped (or believed in or whatever)?

No, it does not identify the false from the true.

3) Does it provide any evidence that the proposed results of the wager are anything more than hypothetical or imaginary?

Notice that the OP challenges a claim that "Pascal's Wager, rule out the possibility of God not existing."

No sir.


To make the wager you must accept the possibility of GOD is as claimed, only one and the others are false. To separate between them one listen's to them and then decides which system of thought or allegiance to whom will give us the greater happiness.

But since YHWH claims that a rejection of HIM will end in eternal hell, HE is the one that we must deal with, all the rest are moot and indistinguishable.

The wager is a method to deal with an individual, not the proof of that person. It says that the best and most productive way to deal with someone who may or may not have the power of hell, would be to accept HIM as your god which has no down side and you miss hell by HIS promise. IF HE has no such power what have you lost? But if HIS power over hell is real and you scorn HIM, you will lose everything.

From the pov of our Pre-Existence:
imCo, I think this happened for many people in sheol when we had to make up our minds about our eternal relationship with the Trinity who called themselves YHWH and claimed to be our creator.

Understanding the evolution of my own thoughts of this matter, I am pretty sure I was one who said, "Sure, I'll accept your Deity without proof if you accept that I'm doing it only to get your promise of election to heaven by salvation from all sin to escape hell." Also it is apparent to me that this was acceptable because I'm pretty sure that at first opportunity I went my own way and became a self made sinner by my free will.

Some (holy angels) bowed to HIS deity and never wavered and some (demonic reprobate) scorned HIS warnings about self creating themselves as eternally evil, fit only to be banished from polite society for eternity as self aggrandizing and manipulative lies and others, like me, (the good but sinful seed, the sheep gone astray, the prodigal son, the sinful elect etc) got the promise to feel free to then rebel and go our own way.

Pascal, under the current favourite delusion that we are created at conception, did not understand that this opportunity was long past and described what had already happened in sheol, not what might happen on earth.

Peace, Ted

[bjs]

.
[Replying to post 3 by bjs]

After all that is digested --

1) Is Pascal's Wager a proof or evidence that gods exist?

2) Does it identify which "god" among thousands should be worshiped (or believed in or whatever)?

The Wager does neither of these things. Pascal begins by giving the agnostic every possible advantage. In other works he comments on the evidence for God. In his Wager he sets aside all the evidence for any specific God or for theism in general.

The idea of the Wager is to begin from the assumption that we cannot establish that there is or is not a God. With that assumption made, what do we do now? We have to make a choice. Even the act of not choosing is itself a kind of choice. We can take a theistic worldview with any of the variations within that category, or we can take a non-theistic worldview with any of the variations within that category. Pascal then considers the various possible outcomes from each hypothesis. He then concludes that, mathematically speaking, any form of theism is infinitely more beneficial than any form of non-theism.

The Wager is not an effort to prove the existence of God. Instead, it assumes that agnosticism is correct and then considers what the wisest actions are based on that assumption.

3) Does it provide any evidence that the proposed results of the wager are anything more than hypothetical or imaginary?

Of course not. The very concept of a wager is that the outcome is unknown. That is also the nature of a hypothesis. It is not until the bet is made, not until the experiment is complete, that we know if the wager was wise or the hypothesis accurate.

Notice that the OP challenges a claim that "Pascal's Wager, rule out the possibility of God not existing."

If your goal was to demonstrate that this statement is false then you are correct. My goal was to give a more accurate explanation of what the Wager says.

[atheist buddy]

For the sake of the argument lets pretend that Zs statement in point one that we have less than 1/10 percent chance of being right is accurate. Mathematically, 1/10 of a percent of a chance at infinite gain is infinitely greater than a zero percent chance. In math any chance at infinity is infinitely greater than no chance.

Well, mathematically isn't a 3/10 of one percent chance at infinite gain three times better than a 1/10 of 1 percent chance?

By that logic, wouldn't it make sense to believe in three gods instead of 1?

I am going to start believing in Thor, Odin and Zeus.

By the mathematical argument you make, I'm three times more likely to land me some infinite reward this way, than any monotheist. Right?


I'm really curious. How long can somebody keep making such absurd arguments without getting tired of them and stop believing in fairy tales?

[Zzyzx]

.

But since YHWH claims that a rejection of HIM will end in eternal hell, HE is the one that we must deal with, all the rest are moot and indistinguishable.

Let's put this all in perspective:

1) There is no assurance that Yhwh said anything at all. We have ONLY writings by humans, subject to human failings, that CLAIM to know that Yhwh said something. That is very different from having word from the source because it introduces the likelihood of error, misunderstanding, and fraud.

2) Even if one of the proposed "gods" is to have said something about eternal hell, there is no assurance that "god" was truthful and accurate.

3) The thousands of other proposed "gods" CANNOT be dismissed because someone says that their favorite god said that it is the only one "we must deal with." Any other of the thousands of other proposed "gods" can be supposed to have said something similar.

Has someone investigated what all other gods are supposed to have said? If some of the others are claimed to have said "I'm the one you have to deal with", are they to be given the same consideration? If not, why not?

Would it not be rather naive to argue "My god is real because I believe it is real and my religious leaders and literature say it is real. All those people who think their god is real because they think it is real and because their religious leaders and literature say it is real are WRONG because I am right. So there. And stop asking for evidence because there isn't any if you won't accept my religious literature as authoritative."