Pascals Wager

Originally posted by apathist
For clarity. I assume capital 'G' God refers specifically to the Abrahamic diety. Small 'g' god refers to any god (including God).

That is correct - and the distinction there is why I acknowledge my 50/50 error.

Originally posted by Agerg
That is correct - and the distinction there is why I acknowledge my 50/50 error.

Yes. But I got confused when you said

heads up ~> God exists,
tails up ~> no god exists (little g!)

I don't see where you get that. If heads up means God exists, then tails up should mean God doesn't exist. Each flip would be about one particular god.

Originally posted by apathist
Yes. But I got confused when you said

heads up ~> God exists,
tails up ~> no god exists (little g!)

I don't see where you get that. If heads up means God exists, then tails up should mean God doesn't exist. Each flip would be about one particular god.

it is good that you are unable to see where I got that, as I said earlier I no longer agree with my mapping - it is wrong!!!...I suppose what gave rise to it is the common assumption on the part of theists that there exists only one god (as opposed to infinitely many of them). Accordingly when I hear this argument, I sense that they are ascribing a 50/50 chance to God existing or not, and with the knowledge that their god is one of many gods that could otherwise exist (assuming at least one exists of course!) lurking in the background of my thoughts I habitually dwell too much on the theists assumption that there is only one god - namely "G"od.

Having realised the error in my thinking (even ff I haven't fully accounted for where this error came from), that mistake will not be made in the future.



------------------------------------------
For any theists reading this btw, the wager is still utter garbage, just my means of showing it was imprecise.

Originally posted by Agerg

it is good that you are unable to see where I got that, as I said earlier I no longer agree with my mapping - it is wrong!!!...I suppose what gave rise to it is the common assumption on the part of theists that there exists only one god (as opposed to infinitely many of them). Accordingly when I hear this argument, I sense that they are ascribing a 50/50 ...[text shortened]... ts reading this btw, the wager is still utter garbage, just my means of showing it was imprecise.

www.eternal_address.long
hello, hello, mister ag...
>sorry, unable to confirm.

click.v

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
www.eternal_address.long
hello, hello, mister ag...
>sorry, unable to confirm.

click.v

what in blazes are you dribbling on about now!?

Originally posted by Agerg
what in blazes are you dribbling on about now!?

(Smile... Serious conversation's impossible)

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
(Smile... Serious conversation's impossible)

Grampy - make a list of all the people who you think respect you, respect your intelligence, and are interested in what you have to say.
After you have included in this list every person who has ever joined this website please remove me from that list

Serious conversation is no more possible with you than it is possible with RBHILL, josephw, RJHinds, or Dasa

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
(Smile... Serious conversation's impossible)

You implied that he won't exist in Heaven. When directly asked for your meaning, you choose instead to imply he is unable to converse intelligently.

You don't address any of the points or questions in the thread. You make implications and refuse to clarify. I'm apparently one of the few people around here who hasn't decided you are worth ignoring, but you're losing me, Bobby. Have you been drinking?

Originally posted by Agerg

Grampy - make a list of all the people who [b]you think respect you, respect your intelligence, and are interested in what you have to say.
After you have included in this list every person who has ever joined this website please remove me from that list

Serious conversation is no more possible with you than it is possible with RBHILL, josephw, RJHinds, or Dasa[/b]

Subjective peer respect tends to be self serving and, as such, is worthless.
-

Originally posted by apathist

You implied that he won't exist in Heaven. When directly asked for your meaning, you choose instead to imply he is unable to converse intelligently. You don't address any of the points or questions in the thread. You make implications and refuse to clarify. I'm apparently one of the few people around here who hasn't decided you are worth ignoring, but you're losing me, Bobby. Have you been drinking?

"a) You implied that he won't exist in Heaven. When directly asked for your meaning, you choose instead to imply he is unable to converse intelligently. You don't address any of the points or questions in the thread. You make implications and refuse to clarify. I'm apparently one of the few people around here who hasn't decided you are worth ignoring, but you're losing me, Bobby. b) Have you been drinking?"

...............................

a) Who?; b) No. (high on life and maybe a few frosty cold ones on a red hot day in August); c) ?

Postscript: Apathist, my intent has never been to lose you.

I think you're overthinking it. Pascal's Wager is a simplistic cop-out, like most simplistic religious ideas.

Originally posted by shiloh
I think you're overthinking it. Pascal's Wager is a simplistic cop-out, like most simplistic religious ideas.

Even a numbnuts troll can't miss it. That is the point exactly. 😏

Originally posted by Agerg
For any theists reading this btw, the wager is still utter garbage, just my means of showing it was imprecise.

Theists also believe the wager is utter garbage, but not for the same reasons you do. Obviously.

The wager also assumes a God who would be fooled by some yokel "pretending" to believe.

The belief has to be written on your heart, meaning it has to be a true belief. True beliefs also tend to result in actions fitting those beliefs. Just declaring you believe and then living the rest of your life as if you didn't won't cut it.

"Pretend" belief is bogus, and God knows your heart and won't be fooled by pretense. Ergo, the wager is nonsense.

Originally posted by Suzianne
Theists also believe the wager is utter garbage, but not for the same reasons you do. Obviously.

The wager also assumes a God who would be fooled by some yokel "pretending" to believe.

The belief has to be written on your heart, meaning it has to be a true belief. True beliefs also tend to result in
actions fitting those beliefs. Just declaring y ...[text shortened]... , and God knows your heart and won't be fooled by pretence. Ergo, the wager is nonsense.

SOME theists think it's utter garbage.

I say this because WE (atheists) did not bring this up.

We don't shoot down this argument just for the sake of it.
We shoot it down because theists keep bringing it up.

Just sayin.

Originally posted by Suzianne...
The wager also assumes a God who would be fooled by some yokel "pretending" to believe.

The belief has to be written on your heart, meaning it has to be a true belief. ...

What is the difference between 'belief' and 'true belief'? You seem to deny human free will. I choose what to believe in, and I believe lots of others do also. Pascal broke ground with his wager in that regard:

Stanford
We find in it the extraordinary confluence of several important strands of thought: the justification of theism; probability theory and decision theory, used here for almost the first time in history; pragmatism; voluntarism (the thesis that belief is a matter of the will); and the use of the concept of infinity.

You do not choose what to believe in? Your beliefs are forced upon you?