Pascal's Wager Revisited

Originally posted by Suzianne
But by believing, you're not being asked to "give up" anything (besides an antiquated and outdated mindset that you are the pinnacle of all that exists), so what is the risk, again? Everything? Hyperbole, much?

I am, see my previous post, you and I differ fundamentally on the value of religion to modern society. I see it as divisive and a terrible limitation on the potential of the Human race.

Originally posted by Suzianne
Loss of free will? BWAHAHAHAHA!

By choosing to believe in God, you are exercising the very free will you claim is lost. How is choosing twisted around to be the loss of free will? That is nonsensical at best.

And as I said to begin with, all the other "fears" in your post are trivial or imagined. Knowledge is not unicameral, despite what those on ...[text shortened]... ple. The only thing you have to give up in order to believe, is, by definition, your disbelief.

Ok Suzianne, to take just one of your points, how do you reconcile free will with prophecy?

Originally posted by Suzianne
But by believing, you're not being asked to "give up" anything (besides an antiquated and outdated mindset that you are the pinnacle of all that exists), so what is the risk, again? Everything? Hyperbole, much?

Actually, yes you are. You're being asked to give up your arrogance and your belief in nothing but your own opinion, your egoism and your egotism. That's hard for most atheists, who typically have nothing else to give them some feeling of self-worth.

Originally posted by Suzianne
Pascal's Wager is a fool's wager.

Believing in God is not a game to be played "just in case".

Actual, real belief and obedience is required.

Just "going through the motions" isn't going to fool God.

GB bless his merry soul, likes to occassionally trot his horse Pascal's Wager out to see if anybody wants to place a bet. (There's gotta be a racehorse with that name!)

Originally posted by Shallow Blue
Actually, yes you are. You're being asked to give up your arrogance and your belief in nothing but your own opinion, your egoism and your egotism. That's hard for most atheists, who typically have nothing else to give them some feeling of self-worth.

Poor old Shallow Blue, quite needy really , need others to give you meaning and direction?🙂 Perfect god squad material.

Originally posted by twhitehead
That's an interesting twist I have never seen added to Pascals wager. Can I take it you have placed your bets on this 'does't give a damn' god AKA Thor?

twhitehead, we're examining an obverse possibility/counterpart hypothetical. Let's do the maths with a paraphrase of Pascal's Wager. Premise or Given: We, as members of the human race, wish to "weigh the gain and the loss in wagering that God is". So, we "estimate these two chances. If you gain, you gain all; if you lose, you lose nothing".

We decide to place our wager "without hesitation that He is" = "an infinity of an infinitely happy life to gain, a chance of gain against a finite number of chances of loss, and what you [we] stake is finite". Rationale: "our proposition is of infinite force, when there is the finite to stake in a game where there are equal risks of gain and of loss, and the infinite to gain".

In context of this thread's topic which states: "What if there is a Sovereign God responsible for creation of the universe as well as the creation of human life [beings with both a temporal body and an eternal soul] Who doesn't give a damn about reconciling fallen mankind unto Himself?"... even if we 'win' the coin toss by definition we lose. I bet "He is".

http://www.rejectionofpascalswager.net/pascal.html

http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=Pascal%27s_Wager

Atheist Debates - Pascal's Wager
YouTube

http://infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/heaven.html



Problems with Pascal's wager:

Presupposes the choice is between belief in one specific god and atheism thus presenting a
false dichotomy as it misses out all other possible gods.

Assumes zero cost to belief in god. [we spend much time on these forums providing evidence
that this isn't true]

Assumes zero benefit to not belief in god. [we spend much time on these forums providing evidence
that this isn't true.]

Assumes infinite reward for belief if god is true. I wouldn't want what Christianity offers so for
me there is no offered reward.

Assumes infinite cost if not belief if god is true. Some people want a cessation of existence at
the end of their lives, and find that preferable to an infinite afterlife.

The formal version of Pascal's Wager claims a 50~50 probability of gods existence.
This is not only not true, but arguably incalculable, and the odds change the decision matrix.

Informal versions assume god can't tell you are faking belief on the basis of a bet.

Or that belief is something you can chose to change at will, also not possible.


I could go on, but as the argument is already multiply irrevocably fatally destroyed and debunked
I will leave it at that.

Originally posted by OdBod
Ok Suzianne, to take just one of your points, how do you reconcile free will with prophecy?

Prophecy WILL be resolved, by someone.

If not one person, then another.

Originally posted by Shallow Blue
Actually, yes you are. You're being asked to give up your arrogance and your belief in nothing but your own opinion, your egoism and your egotism. That's hard for most atheists, who typically have nothing else to give them some feeling of self-worth.

Yes, but I wasn't going to go there.

I've gone there before with the easy-to-imagine "and it all went downhill from there" moments following right behind.

So I kind of hid all that behind the "trivial and imagined" things one might think they have to give up. If pressed I could have gone there, but I was resisting, knowing where that usually leads. 🙂

Originally posted by googlefudge
http://www.rejectionofpascalswager.net/pascal.html

http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=Pascal%27s_Wager

Atheist Debates - Pascal's Wager
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YBCDGohZT70

http://infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/heaven.html



Problems with Pascal's wager:

Presupposes the choice is between belief in one specific ...[text shortened]... e argument is already multiply irrevocably fatally destroyed and debunked
I will leave it at that.

googlefudge, criticisms of proof and arguments will follow as part two of the original post. Thanks for the youtubes.

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
twhitehead, we're examining an obverse possibility/counterpart hypothetical. Let's do the maths with a paraphrase of Pascal's Wager. Premise or Given: We, as members of the human race, wish to "weigh the gain and the loss in wagering that God is". So, we "estimate these two chances. If you gain, you gain all; if you lose, you lose nothing".

We decid ...[text shortened]... n mankind unto Himself?"... even if we 'win' the coin toss by definition we lose. I bet "He is".

I get what you're saying with all this, Bob, but I avoid all this simply by saying that we, as Christians, aren't just "betting" that "He is", but that we "know" that "He is".

Calling it a bet indicates that we aren't sure, that we are merely playing "the odds". But we ARE sure. We DO know.

Originally posted by JS357
GB bless his merry soul, likes to occassionally trot his horse Pascal's Wager out to see if anybody wants to place a bet. (There's gotta be a racehorse with that name!)

If such a strategy actually brings people to God, I can't fault it all that much.

But I don't think it'll grab much traction among the logic-infused (or maybe "logic-confused" ) atheists around here.

PW is a great name for a racehorse.

Originally posted by OdBod
I am, see my previous post, you and I differ fundamentally on the value of religion to modern society. I see it as divisive and a terrible limitation on the potential of the Human race.

And I see it as the fulfillment of the potential of the Human race.

But I get it.

We can agree to disagree. That's what free will is all about, after all.

Originally posted by Suzianne
Prophecy WILL be resolved, by someone.

If not one person, then another. tehe

And that Suzianne is the perfect example of why religion is so destructive, it can't answer basic fundamental questions. But what is worse it creates a mind set that does not allow rational discussion, Cognitive Dissonance kicks in and crucial questions are avoided.

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
[b]Pascal's Wager Revisited

[quote]Pascal's Wager (The wager uses the following logic (excerpts from Pensées, part III, §233):

1. God is, or God is not. Reason cannot decide between the two alternatives.

2. A Game is being played... where heads or tails will turn up.

3. You must wager (it is not optional).

4. L ...[text shortened]... body and an eternal soul] Who doesn't give a damn about reconciling fallen mankind unto Himself?

Pascal was a philosopher and mathematician, so I think his wager was more of an intellectual exercise than anything else. No one needs to believe or disbelieve the existence of God in order to understand the logic behind his reasoning.

If you give up a particular sin or pleasure, and there is no God to hold you accountable, then all you've really lost is that particular enjoyment. And you will never know you had lost it because after death there would be no perceived loss... the perception of loss or gain can only happen if God exists.


But Mr Pascal, what's the point of flipping a coin if I already know the outcome?