# Pascals Wager

Agerg
Spirituality 25 Dec '12 00:18
1. Agerg
The 'edit'or
25 Dec '12 00:182 edits
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? ðŸ˜•
2. 25 Dec '12 00:25
Originally posted by Agerg
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? ðŸ˜•
"I'll proceed by assuming the logic is valid..."

I see you are getting into the Christmas spirit and are being generous in this thread.
3. 25 Dec '12 05:341 edit
Originally posted by Agerg
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? ðŸ˜•
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 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.
4. ChessPraxis
Cowboy From Hell
25 Dec '12 05:45
Originally posted by Agerg
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? ðŸ˜•
50%+50%+50%=150% certain God exists. Adds up fine.
5. Grampy Bobby
25 Dec '12 06:481 edit
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.
6. SwissGambit
Caninus Interruptus
25 Dec '12 06:53
Originally posted by Agerg
Either God exists or he doesn't (so a fifty fifty chance then) <---------------
...
So where did I go wrong? ðŸ˜•
<--------------- There.
7. Grampy Bobby
25 Dec '12 06:581 edit
Originally posted by SwissGambit

<--------------- There.
Gotta love it, SG, 3-D in a virtual world!

Postscript: Ever notice the difference [<?>]
in the length and ink consumption of short
posts such as yours vs the long of it long?
-
8. Agerg
The 'edit'or
25 Dec '12 11:16
Originally posted by SwissGambit
<--------------- There.
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"
A Game is being played... where heads or tails will turn up.
According to reason, you can defend either of the propositions ....
9. Agerg
The 'edit'or
25 Dec '12 11:235 edits
Originally posted by divegeester
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.
I 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):

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
10. Grampy Bobby
25 Dec '12 11:25
Originally posted by Agerg
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]
".... you can defend either of the propositions."

-
11. Agerg
The 'edit'or
25 Dec '12 11:303 edits
Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
".... you can defend either of the propositions."

-
and for the other 50 bazillion propositions you don't think of, the consequences for me are undefined
12. 25 Dec '12 13:441 edit
Originally posted by Agerg
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? ðŸ˜•
"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.
13. Grampy Bobby
25 Dec '12 13:50
Originally posted by Agerg

and for the other 50 bazillion propositions you don't think of, the consequences for me are undefined
One matters, the others don't. Without the least divine viewpoint,
there's no contemplation of or concentration on absolute truth.
-
14. Grampy Bobby
25 Dec '12 13:551 edit
Originally posted by josephw
"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.
Nailed it, Joseph. Hopefully, it'll register on the foreheads of the and posers and the glib.

(Nice to see you're back.)
-
15. Agerg
The 'edit'or
25 Dec '12 13:59
Originally posted by josephw
[b]"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.[/b]
ðŸ˜´