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?

[Haven]

To me it's similar to when my parents told me that if I crossed the street without looking then I would be disciplined. That's not to say that they wanted to punish me, but the threat of punishment was there in order that I would choose to do the thing that would lead to my safety. So I don't view my parents as dictators because they told me that I would punished if I didn't listen because the reason they're telling me anything is for my best interest and I trust that they know more than me. If I want to rebel then sure I'm free to run in the street but then I can't be upset if I get hit by a car because I didn't listen.

Being disciplined by a parent and being tortured for all eternity by a cosmic dictator are two different things. If your parents told you if you crossed the street without looking you'd be locked in the basement and tortured they'd rightly be arrested and imprisoned for child abuse. There's no moral justification for eternally torturing someone; and the use of this odious concept as a fear tactic in Christianity is one of the worst aspects of the religion.

[Bust Nak]

None of those religions advocate a view of everlasting condemnation and so assuming that one of them is true the only one that would lead to "infinite loss" (which I assume is equated with eternal torment) is Christianity.

Even if Christianity is the only religion that teaches eternal punishment, there are still an infinite of possible afterlife scenario that doesn't match any existing religion.

To me it's similar to when my parents told me that if I crossed the street without looking then I would be disciplined... If I want to rebel then sure I'm free to run in the street but then I can't be upset if I get hit by a car because I didn't listen.

Right, punishment by your parents is designed to teach you life lessons. What do you propose we would learn from eternal torment in hell?

[ScioVeritas]

To me it's similar to when my parents told me that if I crossed the street without looking then I would be disciplined. That's not to say that they wanted to punish me, but the threat of punishment was there in order that I would choose to do the thing that would lead to my safety. So I don't view my parents as dictators because they told me that I would punished if I didn't listen because the reason they're telling me anything is for my best interest and I trust that they know more than me. If I want to rebel then sure I'm free to run in the street but then I can't be upset if I get hit by a car because I didn't listen.

Being disciplined by a parent and being tortured for all eternity by a cosmic dictator are two different things. If your parents told you if you crossed the street without looking you'd be locked in the basement and tortured they'd rightly be arrested and imprisoned for child abuse. There's no moral justification for eternally torturing someone; and the use of this odious concept as a fear tactic in Christianity is one of the worst aspects of the religion.

It sounds like what you're saying is that the punishment needs to fit the crime? Assuming that is what you're saying then I would agree. However the difference is that your definition of being morally justified in administering punishment is different from mine and that is probably based on our differing views of how bad certain actions are. I maintain that rejecting God is the worst thing you can do and since I don't want to be accused of preaching I can't really go into more details than that. Obviously you would disagree with me there, which is your prerogative, but I'd say that it isn't supposed to be a fear tactic to elicit control but a loving action meant to save. That being said there are a lot of people in high ranking religious positions who have used it to control, but that is what people do, and just because that is what they're doing doesn't mean that the source material should automatically be disregarded.

[help3434]

Well, I don't consider the wager to be meaningful. I think it's an interesting thought experiment that is technically correct, but doesn't prove God exists. It just shows that in certain cases, belief in God will be a safer bet than disbelief.

How is it correct in any sense? All the wager does is make assumptions about what the consequence would be if God exists with no justification for that assumption.

In the way Pascal originally formalized the wager it does make sense, as I already explained. As others like Haven have pointed out, there are additional factors that need to be considered, however that doesn't make the wager incorrect, it just makes it incomplete.

It does not make sense. Pascal gave no justification for the consequence that he asserted of either belief or disbelieve if God does actually exist.

[help3434]

To clarify, for me the use of Pascal's Wager is not an argument I would use to prove the existence of any God, but an intriguing thought experiment that reinforces the idea that belief is better than non-belief if the God of the Bible is assumed to exist.

When I said listed Pascal's Wager among philosophical arguments that was a category mistake on my part.

I don't think this wager is something that applies to other religions because Christianity is the only one (as far as I know, although I could be wrong) that states there is eternal torment for those who reject the God of the Bible. (Buddhism/Hinduism both advocate for reincarnation, Judaism advocates a view that souls who don't go to Heaven are destroyed at death-ceasing to exist and Islam advocates a view that all souls will eventually go to Heaven there would just be some who went through a period of purification by fire in purgatory). None of those religions advocate a view of everlasting condemnation and so assuming that one of them is true the only one that would lead to "infinite loss" (which I assume is equated with eternal torment) is Christianity.

Well there is the religion of the magical fairy in my kitchen. The magical fairy in my kitchen says that if ScioVeritas believes that a magical fairy lives in help3434's kitchen then ScioVeritas will have an afterlife of eternal bliss, if not then an afterlife of eternal torment, Now do you find what I just said to be persuasive, or to be a ridiculous and empty threat? If the latter then how are the assertions of the supposed consequences of belief or non belief of your God any different?

[ScioVeritas]

To clarify, for me the use of Pascal's Wager is not an argument I would use to prove the existence of any God, but an intriguing thought experiment that reinforces the idea that belief is better than non-belief if the God of the Bible is assumed to exist.

When I said listed Pascal's Wager among philosophical arguments that was a category mistake on my part.

I don't think this wager is something that applies to other religions because Christianity is the only one (as far as I know, although I could be wrong) that states there is eternal torment for those who reject the God of the Bible. (Buddhism/Hinduism both advocate for reincarnation, Judaism advocates a view that souls who don't go to Heaven are destroyed at death-ceasing to exist and Islam advocates a view that all souls will eventually go to Heaven there would just be some who went through a period of purification by fire in purgatory). None of those religions advocate a view of everlasting condemnation and so assuming that one of them is true the only one that would lead to "infinite loss" (which I assume is equated with eternal torment) is Christianity.

Well there is the religion of the magical fairy in my kitchen. The magical fairy in my kitchen says that if ScioVeritas believes that a magical fairy lives in help3434's kitchen then ScioVeritas will have an afterlife of eternal bliss, if not then an afterlife of eternal torment, Now do you find what I just said to be persuasive, or to be a ridiculous and empty threat? If the latter then how are the assertions of the supposed consequences of belief or non belief of your God any different?

You're proposing that the teaching regarding Heaven/Hell in the Bible is false on the basis of it not being logical to you. This is my stance: #1) If Jesus existed and #2) If the Bible is an accurate reflection of His claims then He was either A) liar, B) Lord or C) delusional. To die for something you know is a lie isn't conducive to trying to manipulate people (which is the goal of lying) so that would be counter-productive. Granted people die for their beliefs every day but none of those people would die for something they knew was a lie. So either they were all delusional or maybe Jesus was telling the truth. Sure they could all be delusional and I could be wrong. But if I'm wrong I lose nothing - see Pascal's Wager.

[arian]

.
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.

Everyone else seems to know what he meant when he said 'God', not the ones people choose to replace Him with, but THE God. There is no 'unknown' in this sense, whether you worship the One True God, or one of the tens of thousands of made up ones, there is nothing 'unknown' of the concept 'God'.

You may not know God, or even comprehend God, but everyone knows that 'God exist' so why not just take the insurance? "If you gain, you gain all. If you lose, you lose nothing. Wager then, without hesitation, that He exists." Same like an offer for Free-car insurance, have you seen those adds? I don't know, but I'm sure there is a catch to that one, but why not? Once they start sending the bills (tithing-envelopes) then you can decide to back out.

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 . . .

It is a singular God, everyone knows that, and because of free will people make choices, and if they choose Satan as their God and call him 'science', .. hey, it's their choice. I know what he was talking about, and he assumed everyone else did too.

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)?

See, .. freedom of choice, and you are exercising it. If you say you don't know God, or any of the tens of thousands of man-made gods, we accept that and respect that, you have free will and exercising it. Now is that logical, .. that's beside the point!?

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.

Some do, and some don't. Freedom of choice. He was just saying to those who believe their car would never get stolen, or get in an accident, why not insure it anyways?
Who cares of all the conditions the insurance companies make, this one is free, so why not take the free insurance, .. right?

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

Again, who cares, .. as long as it's free. Now if you are required to make some huge payments, or obligations to keep this God, then that's different. You aught to read the contract (churches doctrines) before you sign up for anything, because some may require you to take a ride on Hailey's comet with them!

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

I say if the wager doesn't require up-front cost .. heck, take it! I mean what's there to loose? Besides, who knows, you may even save your soul!?

Now if you do find God, and are so over joyed that you want to offer your whole life including all that you have in servitude for Him, that's your choice, it shouldn't be the churches, or the religions.

[OnceConvinced]

. So either they were all delusional or maybe Jesus was telling the truth. Sure they could all be delusional and I could be wrong. But if I'm wrong I lose nothing - see Pascal's Wager.

I don't see how you can say you would lose nothing. I for one was a committed Christian for over 30 years of my life. When I think of all the time I spent in bible study, sitting in church, prayer... when I think of all the experiences I missed out on it's painful. If Christianity is nothing more than a fantasy then yes, I have lost a lot already. Just think about how much I would miss out on if I remained a Christian till the day I die.

So yes, there is a lot to lose if you are living your life based on a fantasy.

[Psalm139]

. So either they were all delusional or maybe Jesus was telling the truth. Sure they could all be delusional and I could be wrong. But if I'm wrong I lose nothing - see Pascal's Wager.

I don't see how you can say you would lose nothing. I for one was a committed Christian for over 30 years of my life. When I think of all the time I spent in bible study, sitting in church, prayer... when I think of all the experiences I missed out on it's painful. If Christianity is nothing more than a fantasy then yes, I have lost a lot already. Just think about how much I would miss out on if I remained a Christian till the day I die.

So yes, there is a lot to lose if you are living your life based on a fantasy.

Since we'll experience life for eternity, a few moments of being a Christian isn't anything to worry about. Besides, you won't remember living in this first age after your body dies in this one.

[ScioVeritas]

. So either they were all delusional or maybe Jesus was telling the truth. Sure they could all be delusional and I could be wrong. But if I'm wrong I lose nothing - see Pascal's Wager.

I don't see how you can say you would lose nothing. I for one was a committed Christian for over 30 years of my life. When I think of all the time I spent in bible study, sitting in church, prayer... when I think of all the experiences I missed out on it's painful. If Christianity is nothing more than a fantasy then yes, I have lost a lot already. Just think about how much I would miss out on if I remained a Christian till the day I die.

So yes, there is a lot to lose if you are living your life based on a fantasy.

I don't know your story so I won't presume to make any assumptions about your previous spiritual life - when it comes to "missing out" on things I can only speak from my own experience. I was not a Christian for many years and thus there was nothing that I held myself back from. If I wanted money, women, alcohol, drugs, etc, then I went out and got it. If I wanted to travel somewhere I went. If there was something I wanted to do then I did it. For me it was empty and meaningless. What I have now is much greater and if anything what I've lost is a lot of time wasted pursuing those things when I could have had the peace and joy that I have now pursuing the one thing that actually matters. So I can't relate to your situation because I don't count time in Bible study, prayer or going to church as a waste.