Examining Pascal's Wager

Argue for and against Christianity

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
User avatar
Paul of Tarsus
Banned
Banned
Posts: 688
Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2020 8:42 pm
Has thanked: 4 times
Been thanked: 150 times

Examining Pascal's Wager

Post #1

Post by Paul of Tarsus »

(My treatment of Pascal's Wager will be a bit technical in this OP, but please bear with me because my examination of Pascal's Wager should be informative.)

According to Wikipedia:
Pascal's wager is an argument in philosophy presented by the seventeenth-century French philosopher, theologian, mathematician and physicist, Blaise Pascal (1623–1662).[1] It posits that humans bet with their lives that God either exists or does not.

Pascal argues that a rational person should live as though God exists and seek to believe in God. If God does not actually exist, such a person will have only a finite loss (some pleasures, luxury, etc.), whereas if God does exist, he stands to receive infinite gains (as represented by eternity in Heaven) and avoid infinite losses (eternity in Hell).
What decision should we make regarding the existence of God, and what are the potential consequences of that decision?

To answer this question, we should start with the "null hypothesis" (so named because of it's negation, "not.")

H0: God does not exist.

Note that this null hypothesis can be true or false, and we can reject it or fail to reject it. A summary of the four combinations of these possibilities are the following:

We reject the null hypothesis (we believe in God) and
A. The null hypothesis is true in saying God does not exist, and we make a "Type I" error.
B. The null hypothesis is false in saying God does not exist, and we make a "Type B correct decision."

We fail to reject the null hypothesis (we don't believe in God) and
C. The null hypothesis is true in saying God does not exist, and we make a "Type A correct decision."
D. The null hypothesis is false in saying God does not exist, and we make a "Type II" error.

So if theists err because God doesn't exist, then they commit a Type I error. If atheists err (God does exist), then they commit a Type II error.

Which of these two errors has more serious consequences? As pascal points out in his wager, the gains of believing in God are infinite while the gains of doubt are finite. So if we doubt God's existence, then we better make darn sure we are right. If we believe in God, on the other hand, then the probability of being wrong need not be so low. So contrary to Pascal, I won't tell anybody that it's better to believe in God or not; it's just best to make sure you are making the correct decision whether you believe in God or not. Atheists appear to need to make sure that the probability of being wrong is lower than the theist's probability of being wrong.

User avatar
Paul of Tarsus
Banned
Banned
Posts: 688
Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2020 8:42 pm
Has thanked: 4 times
Been thanked: 150 times

Re: Examining Pascal's Wager

Post #201

Post by Paul of Tarsus »

Tcg wrote: Tue Mar 09, 2021 9:51 pm Uh, no. NASA is not looking for intelligent life life on Mars...
Uh, no, I never said that NASA was looking for intelligent life on Mars! Here's what I did say:
Paul of Tarsus wrote: Tue Mar 09, 2021 6:08 pmJust ask NASA if life might exist on Mars. They're looking for life on Mars as we speak.
Why did you insert the word "intelligent" into what I said and then falsely claim that it was what I posted? That's blatant misrepresentation. Did you think I wouldn't notice?

I've seen this kind of thing when Christians argue their case. For example, it is common for creationists to deliberately misquote what some scientists say about evolution. Apparently the creationists see fit to do what they can to save society from evolutionists, and that includes playing fast and loose with the truth. Some atheists appear to be no different sacrificing truth at times to save a "greater truth," their truth that there is no God.

User avatar
Tcg
Savant
Posts: 8488
Joined: Tue Nov 21, 2017 5:01 am
Location: Third Stone
Has thanked: 2141 times
Been thanked: 2293 times

Re: Examining Pascal's Wager

Post #202

Post by Tcg »

Paul of Tarsus wrote: Wed Mar 10, 2021 12:23 pm
Tcg wrote: Tue Mar 09, 2021 9:51 pm Uh, no. NASA is not looking for intelligent life life on Mars...
Uh, no, I never said that NASA was looking for intelligent life on Mars! Here's what I did say:
Your response was to DrNoGods who referred to "inteligent life." YOU changed the subject to "life."
Paul of Tarsus wrote: Tue Mar 09, 2021 6:08 pmJust ask NASA if life might exist on Mars. They're looking for life on Mars as we speak.
Why did you insert the word "intelligent" into what I said and then falsely claim that it was what I posted? That's blatant misrepresentation. Did you think I wouldn't notice?
Did you think your change from "intelligent life" to "life" would go unnoticed? I noticed it and corrected it to the actual subject at hand.

Of course the real issue is that NASA is not looking for life of any kind on Mars, but rather evidence that life once existed on Mars. Given that fact, your reference to NASAs efforts on Mars does not support your claim no matter what kind of life is under consideration.


Tcg
To be clear: Atheism is not a disbelief in gods or a denial of gods; it is a lack of belief in gods.

- American Atheists


Not believing isn't the same as believing not.

- wiploc


I must assume that knowing is better than not knowing, venturing than not venturing; and that magic and illusion, however rich, however alluring, ultimately weaken the human spirit.

- Irvin D. Yalom

User avatar
Paul of Tarsus
Banned
Banned
Posts: 688
Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2020 8:42 pm
Has thanked: 4 times
Been thanked: 150 times

Re: Examining Pascal's Wager

Post #203

Post by Paul of Tarsus »

Tcg wrote: Wed Mar 10, 2021 12:56 pm
Paul of Tarsus wrote: Wed Mar 10, 2021 12:23 pm
Tcg wrote: Tue Mar 09, 2021 9:51 pm Uh, no. NASA is not looking for intelligent life life on Mars...
Uh, no, I never said that NASA was looking for intelligent life on Mars! Here's what I did say:
Your response was to DrNoGods who referred to "inteligent life." YOU changed the subject to "life."
That's irrelevant to your falsely claiming that I said that NASA is looking for intelligent life on Mars.

Sorry, Tcg, but you play fast and loose with the truth.

User avatar
Tcg
Savant
Posts: 8488
Joined: Tue Nov 21, 2017 5:01 am
Location: Third Stone
Has thanked: 2141 times
Been thanked: 2293 times

Re: Examining Pascal's Wager

Post #204

Post by Tcg »

Paul of Tarsus wrote: Wed Mar 10, 2021 1:10 pm
Tcg wrote: Wed Mar 10, 2021 12:56 pm
Paul of Tarsus wrote: Wed Mar 10, 2021 12:23 pm
Tcg wrote: Tue Mar 09, 2021 9:51 pm Uh, no. NASA is not looking for intelligent life life on Mars...
Uh, no, I never said that NASA was looking for intelligent life on Mars! Here's what I did say:
Your response was to DrNoGods who referred to "inteligent life." YOU changed the subject to "life."
That's irrelevant to your falsely claiming that I said that NASA is looking for intelligent life on Mars.

Sorry, Tcg, but you play fast and loose with the truth.
I never claimed that you said NASA is looking for intelligent life on Mars. I stated that fact that NASA is not looking for intelligent life on Mars and as I documented further, NASA is not looking for life of any kind on Mars. Your rather odd accusation is both unfounded and untrue and in no way changes the facts I have presented.


Tcg
To be clear: Atheism is not a disbelief in gods or a denial of gods; it is a lack of belief in gods.

- American Atheists


Not believing isn't the same as believing not.

- wiploc


I must assume that knowing is better than not knowing, venturing than not venturing; and that magic and illusion, however rich, however alluring, ultimately weaken the human spirit.

- Irvin D. Yalom

User avatar
Paul of Tarsus
Banned
Banned
Posts: 688
Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2020 8:42 pm
Has thanked: 4 times
Been thanked: 150 times

Re: Examining Pascal's Wager

Post #205

Post by Paul of Tarsus »

Tcg wrote: Wed Mar 10, 2021 1:15 pm...NASA is not looking for life of any kind on Mars.
So now you're doing it to NASA.

Mars 2020 Mission Contributions to NASA's Mars Exploration Program Science Goal
Goal 1: Determine whether life ever existed on Mars
The mission of the Mars 2020 Perseverance rover focuses on surface-based studies of the Martian environment, seeking preserved signs of biosignatures in rock samples that formed in ancient Martian environments with conditions that might have been favorable to microbial life.

It is the first rover mission designed to seek signs of past microbial life. Earlier rovers first focused on and confirmed that Mars once had habitable conditions.
'nough said.

User avatar
Tcg
Savant
Posts: 8488
Joined: Tue Nov 21, 2017 5:01 am
Location: Third Stone
Has thanked: 2141 times
Been thanked: 2293 times

Re: Examining Pascal's Wager

Post #206

Post by Tcg »

Paul of Tarsus wrote: Wed Mar 10, 2021 2:01 pm
Tcg wrote: Wed Mar 10, 2021 1:15 pm...NASA is not looking for life of any kind on Mars.
So now you're doing it to NASA.

Mars 2020 Mission Contributions to NASA's Mars Exploration Program Science Goal
Goal 1: Determine whether life ever existed on Mars
The mission of the Mars 2020 Perseverance rover focuses on surface-based studies of the Martian environment, seeking preserved signs of biosignatures in rock samples that formed in ancient Martian environments with conditions that might have been favorable to microbial life.

It is the first rover mission designed to seek signs of past microbial life. Earlier rovers first focused on and confirmed that Mars once had habitable conditions.
'nough said.
"It is the first rover mission designed to seek signs of past microbial life."

Yes, not present life.


Tcg
To be clear: Atheism is not a disbelief in gods or a denial of gods; it is a lack of belief in gods.

- American Atheists


Not believing isn't the same as believing not.

- wiploc


I must assume that knowing is better than not knowing, venturing than not venturing; and that magic and illusion, however rich, however alluring, ultimately weaken the human spirit.

- Irvin D. Yalom

User avatar
DrNoGods
Prodigy
Posts: 2716
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2017 2:18 pm
Location: Nevada
Has thanked: 593 times
Been thanked: 1642 times

Re: Examining Pascal's Wager

Post #207

Post by DrNoGods »

[Replying to Paul of Tarsus in post #197]
We don't know that! Just ask NASA if life might exist on Mars. They're looking for life on Mars as we speak.

Of course you might email NASA and explain to them your amazing knowledge. It might save a lot of tax revenue.
You missed the word "intelligent", as has been pointed out in other posts, and the fact that evidence of past life is what is being looked for, not evidence of present life and certainly not intelligent life. Swing and a miss on that one, and another attempt to misrepresent things to suit your own argument. And I don't need to contact NASA ... I worked at a NASA center (JPL) for 15 years and designed and built two sensors for the Mars Polar Lander (MVACS) during 1995-1999. We got the lander to Mars and a software bug caused it to crash (we lost the orbiter for that mission as well). I'm very familiar with what NASA has done (and is doing) at Mars, and was involved in another instrument on the Curiosity rover that has performed well since its landing, and am still involved. They know my phone number and email addresses, but I don't think I could save them any tax dollars.
Is that a reason to think the cosmos isn't designed? The last time I checked, a lot of things are designed that are not necessarily analogous to works of art.
Missed the point. You (as brunumb has also pointed out several times) are using things known to be designed by humans such as paintings and sculptures and suggesting that these are somehow analogous to the cosmos and its designer, or support the idea that the cosmos is designed. Not the case.
More amazing logic. We cannot know what evidence for God is unless we already know he exists. Is this the kind of reasoning that resulted in your becoming an atheist?
Where did you get that "logic", since it didn't come from my post? Here is what I actually said: "If any god ever invented by humans is ever shown to actually exist then you would have a point." And you translate that as "We cannot know what evidence for God is unless we already know he exists." The statements don't have even roughly similar meanings. I became an atheist after being immersed in Christianity from birth to 18, getting an education and meeting people of other religions and deciding to study religion in more depth in my late 20s (not just Christianity, but many religions). That is when I became convinced that gods are not really real, humans don't really have afterlives, and most likely all of the gods humans ever invented were simply made up entities. Add the lack of any physical evidence for the existence of gods, and you have someone who lacks the belief that gods exist (ie. an atheist).
Allow me to conclude with an amazing image of an apparent design, the bacterial flagellum. It looks much like something we humans would have designed, but humans did not design it. Do you conclude that it cannot be designed because we don't know who or what designed it?
We have a working theory for how live diversifies and changes on this planet (evolution), so we can examine bacteria and other organisms in that context and look at their ancestors and progeny, etc. Then we can form educated hypotheses on how flagella may have evolved, just like we do with thousands of other features found in plants and animals. In this example we do have additional information on how flagella came about without needing to postulate an intelligent designer. So no ... I would not conclude that it cannot be designed because we don't know who designed it, but rather would conclude that it was not designed because we know enough about how evolution works to make a better guess that it evolved to serve a purpose for the organism.
In human affairs the sources of success are ever to be found in the fountains of quick resolve and swift stroke; and it seems to be a law, inflexible and inexorable, that he who will not risk cannot win.
John Paul Jones, 1779

The man who does not read has no advantage over the man who cannot read.
Mark Twain

User avatar
Paul of Tarsus
Banned
Banned
Posts: 688
Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2020 8:42 pm
Has thanked: 4 times
Been thanked: 150 times

Re: Examining Pascal's Wager

Post #208

Post by Paul of Tarsus »

brunumb wrote: Mon Mar 08, 2021 11:44 pm
Paul of Tarsus wrote: Mon Mar 08, 2021 8:05 pm What I was trying to do is demonstrate by using a hypothetical scenario that your argument is not logical. We do not necessarily need a designer to know that something is designed. If you don't like ET or God, then let's say we find a statue. We can see that the statue is designed, and we know it is designed without ever discovering the sculptor.
We only know that the things you have chosen had a designer because you have chosen things that we already know were designed. In the absence of any precedents or information that can be used for comparison, how do you determine that something unique has been designed?
Maybe that's all you know, but many of us can discern design without having direct knowledge of a designer. Clues that something is designed include purpose and organized structure. DNA, for example, has both traits, and it is not designed by people, of course.
What features distinguish between a designed cosmos and a naturally occurring cosmos?
Life in general I think is a compelling characteristic of the universe that hints at design in the universe. A universe that is not designed would perhaps lack life or anything coparable to life.
brunumb wrote: Tue Mar 09, 2021 6:15 pm
Paul of Tarsus wrote: Tue Mar 09, 2021 6:08 pm Moreover, contrary to this opinion of yours, many people do conclude that a "cosmic designer" exists. They are as sure as you are that paintings have designers that the cosmos also has a designer.
In other words, the apparent design of the cosmos is nothing more than opinion , regardless of how many people hold that opinion, and is not evidence for the existence of a designer.
First, you really should have respect for other people's opinions especially when you want them to respect your opinions. Your opinions are as easy to dismiss as any other person's opinions. To respect the views of others is helpful in having a civil, constructive debate.

Second, religious experiences are evidence for God. You can judge these experiences as weak evidence, but they are evidence nevertheless and are not just "opinion," whatever that might mean.
brunumb wrote: Tue Mar 09, 2021 6:23 pmThat image is not of a bacterial flagellum. It looks designed because it is a diagrammatic representation which is a human construct.
I laughed when I read this comment. Is it supposed to be a joke? "That's not a bacterial flagellum--it's just a picture of one"? You evidently don't trust diagrams.

User avatar
Paul of Tarsus
Banned
Banned
Posts: 688
Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2020 8:42 pm
Has thanked: 4 times
Been thanked: 150 times

Re: Examining Pascal's Wager

Post #209

Post by Paul of Tarsus »

Tcg wrote: Wed Mar 10, 2021 2:04 pm
Paul of Tarsus wrote: Wed Mar 10, 2021 2:01 pm
Tcg wrote: Wed Mar 10, 2021 1:15 pm...NASA is not looking for life of any kind on Mars.
So now you're doing it to NASA.

Mars 2020 Mission Contributions to NASA's Mars Exploration Program Science Goal
Goal 1: Determine whether life ever existed on Mars
The mission of the Mars 2020 Perseverance rover focuses on surface-based studies of the Martian environment, seeking preserved signs of biosignatures in rock samples that formed in ancient Martian environments with conditions that might have been favorable to microbial life.

It is the first rover mission designed to seek signs of past microbial life. Earlier rovers first focused on and confirmed that Mars once had habitable conditions.
'nough said.
"It is the first rover mission designed to seek signs of past microbial life."

Yes, not present life.


Tcg
You did it again! I didn't say "present life." You stuck the word "present" into what I said.

Is this how new atheists are born?

User avatar
brunumb
Savant
Posts: 5993
Joined: Thu Nov 02, 2017 4:20 am
Location: Melbourne
Has thanked: 6608 times
Been thanked: 3209 times

Re: Examining Pascal's Wager

Post #210

Post by brunumb »

Paul of Tarsus wrote: Wed Mar 10, 2021 6:09 pm First, you really should have respect for other people's opinions especially when you want them to respect your opinions. Your opinions are as easy to dismiss as any other person's opinions. To respect the views of others is helpful in having a civil, constructive debate.
That's all very well, but opinions are not evidence and should not be presented as such.
George Orwell:: “The further a society drifts from the truth, the more it will hate those who speak it.”
Voltaire: "Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities."
Gender ideology is anti-science, anti truth.

Post Reply