Spirituality
25 Dec 12
This isn't so much meant to be an interesting thread topic more than it is intended to be a reminder for theists who don't know one of the essential problems with Pascals wager. I'll proceed by assuming the logic is valid...
Either God exists or he doesn't (so a fifty fifty chance then)
Then
If I'm a Christian we have:
P(Bible God) = 1/2
If I'm a Muslim we have:
P(Quran God) = 1/2
If I'm a complete and total **** we have:
P(Dasa God) = 1/2
Now since each of the above type of person exists then from an objective standpoint it makes sense to sum these probabilities.
But the sum of these probabilities is 3/2 > 1 which completely defies the fundamental definition of probability that the sum over all probabilities of events in a sample space is equal to 1
So where did I go wrong? 😕
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
25 Dec 12
Originally posted by Agerg"I'll proceed by assuming the logic is valid..."
This isn't so much meant to be an interesting thread topic more than it is intended to be a reminder for theists who don't know one of the essential problems with Pascals wager. I'll proceed by assuming the logic is valid...
Either God exists or he doesn't (so a fifty fifty chance then)
Then
If I'm a Christian we have:
P(Bible God) = 1/2
If I'm a Musli ...[text shortened]... robabilities of events in a sample space is equal to 1
So where did I go wrong? 😕
I see you are getting into the Christmas spirit and are being generous in this thread.
25 Dec 12
1 edit
Originally posted by AgergThe initial logic is valid; either god exists or [it] doesn't. You are looking at it the wrong way in order to make the point (i.e. slightly facetiously).
This isn't so much meant to be an interesting thread topic more than it is intended to be a reminder for theists who don't know one of the essential problems with Pascals wager. I'll proceed by assuming the logic is valid...
Either God exists or he doesn't (so a fifty fifty chance then)
Then
If I'm a Christian we have:
P(Bible God) = 1/2
If I'm a Musli robabilities of events in a sample space is equal to 1
So where did I go wrong? 😕
The premise of the wager is incorrect; to state that if god exists that "I have everything to gain"; this is wrong because it assumes there is no cost involved in deciding that god exists - there is a cost(s).
Therefore Pascal's wager is is incorrect not because of mathematical accounting but because it fails to take into consideration all the information.
25 Dec 12
Originally posted by Agerg50%+50%+50%=150% certain God exists. Adds up fine.
This isn't so much meant to be an interesting thread topic more than it is intended to be a reminder for theists who don't know one of the essential problems with Pascals wager. I'll proceed by assuming the logic is valid...
Either God exists or he doesn't (so a fifty fifty chance then)
Then
If I'm a Christian we have:
P(Bible God) = 1/2
If I'm a Musli ...[text shortened]... robabilities of events in a sample space is equal to 1
So where did I go wrong? 😕
Only relevant issue is authenicity, not synthetic mathematical equations and probabilities. You'll know if and or you meet Him. Your mouth will close. Your eyes and ears will open. And your legs will tremble in the awestruck presence of the one, the only logos who has been and still is and shall forever be the unique person of the universe who revealed Himself to man.
25 Dec 12
Originally posted by SwissGambitCorrect (though I was hoping a theist would beat you to it), for what its worth, I say my error was not due to an incorrect interpretation of the wager:
<--------------- There.
"God is, or He is not"
A Game is being played... where heads or tails will turn up.
According to reason, you can defend either of the propositions ....
25 Dec 12
5 edits
Originally posted by divegeesterI disagree that the initial logic is valid, indeed the logic is completely and utterly broken when we read the next line about how we're playing a game where either heads or tails will turn up (i.e. 50/50 chance)! This thread was motivated by grampy bringing up this old chestnut again, and he ignored my response - which was (almost - snipped a little):
The initial logic is valid; either god exists or [it] doesn't. You are looking at it the wrong way in order to make the point (i.e. slightly facetiously).
The premise of the wager is incorrect; to state that if god exists that "I have everything to gain"; this is wrong because it assumes there is no cost involved in deciding that god exists - there i mathematical accounting but because it fails to take into consideration all the information.
Pascals wager fails (as I'm sure many have told you at earlier points) with the following:
His wager carries with it the assumption there is a fifty fifty chance "G"od exists.
Actually it would be vastly more accurate to assume there is a fifty fifty chance *at least* one *sort of* god exists*** (where that god or gods may be wildly different to anything you imagine it/them to be; and furthermore, even proving that this is a valid assumption would be difficult).
--------------------------------
***For example, If you turn over a random card (excluding jokers etc...) there is a fifty fifty chance it is black, not a fifty fifty chance it is the jack of spades!
supposing of course, for the pedants amongst you, that they are a full set of conventional playing cards, undamaged, and that the faces of the cards are initially facing downwards!
Since there is an infinite number of possible gods that could exist (and we humans will collectively, even if we thought of a new god every second, only dream up a finite number of these) then when Pascal said:
"God is, or He is not"
A Game is being played... where heads or tails will turn up....
he should have said something like
"God is, or He is not"
A Game is being played with an infinite sided dice... where 6 will or will not be rolled.
and if we then work through the rest of his argument, then given your analysis of what its missing we see it is completely and utterly unconvincing
25 Dec 12
Originally posted by Agerg".... you can defend either of the propositions."
Correct (though I was hoping a theist would beat you to it), for what its worth, I say my error was not due to an incorrect interpretation of the wager:
"God is, or He is not"
[b]A Game is being played... where heads or tails will turn up.
According to reason, you can defend either of the propositions ....[/b]
One to your heart's content and one to your peril.
-
Originally posted by Agerg"So where did I go wrong?"
This isn't so much meant to be an interesting thread topic more than it is intended to be a reminder for theists who don't know one of the essential problems with Pascals wager. I'll proceed by assuming the logic is valid...
Either God exists or he doesn't (so a fifty fifty chance then)
Then
If I'm a Christian we have:
P(Bible God) = 1/2
If I'm a Musli robabilities of events in a sample space is equal to 1
So where did I go wrong? 😕
It doesn't matter WHERE you went wrong, only that you acknowledge that you did.
It's not a 50/50 proposition. Either God exists - 100%, or God doesn't exist - 100%.
One is either 100% right, or 100% wrong.
Originally posted by josephwNailed it, Joseph. Hopefully, it'll register on the foreheads of the and posers and the glib.
"So where did I go wrong?"
It doesn't matter WHERE you went wrong, only that you acknowledge that you did.
It's not a 50/50 proposition. Either God exists - 100%, or God doesn't exist - 100%.
One is either 100% right, or 100% wrong.
(Nice to see you're back.)
-