05 Dec 13
1 edit
Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Primarily because--- despite protestations otherwise--- there are assumptions assayed to the wager which are not part of it.
For instance, Pascal wasn't making an appeal to salvific belief in God as it related to any one belief. His argument was directed primarily at Reason's rejection of God. Reason could frame the consideration in such a fashion tha ...[text shortened]... in relation to the reward, and concluded, quite accurately, the reward far outstripped the risk.
Primarily because--- despite protestations otherwise--- there are assumptions assayed to the wager which are not part of it.
Oh, come on. That wouldn't show that inspection of Pascal's inner affective and intentional states is needed to assess validity or soundness of his argument. What you're saying is simply that you think the argument as it is has been misrepresented. Are you saying that you think the restatement of his argument in the Stanford Encyclopedia essay, for instance, is not a faithful rendering of his argument? If so, state to us how the argument should be amended. Regardless, at the end of the day, validity/soundness should be assessed on the basis of the argument itself, not on the basis of Pascal's "intentions".
For your easy reference, here is how the essay breaks the argument down. Please state whether or not you agree with this restatement. If not, tell us how it should be amended.
Let us now gather together all of these points into a single argument. We can think of Pascal's Wager as having three premises: the first concerns the decision matrix of rewards, the second concerns the probability that you should give to God's existence, and the third is a maxim about rational decision-making. Specifically:
1. Either God exists or God does not exist, and you can either wager for God or wager against God. The utilities of the relevant possible outcomes are as follows, where f1, f2, and f3 are numbers whose values are not specified beyond the requirement that they be finite:
[In table form, they assign (wager for God & God exists) = Infinity; (wager for God & God does not exist) = f1; (wager against God & God exists) = f2; (wager against God & God exists) = f3]
2. Rationality requires the probability that you assign to God existing to be positive, and not infinitesimal.
3. Rationality requires you to perform the act of maximum expected utility (when there is one).
4. Conclusion 1. Rationality requires you to wager for God.
5. Conclusion 2. You should wager for God.
05 Dec 13
Originally posted by googlefudgeFirstly, it doesn't hold if P(G) which you omitted is less than or equal to zero.
Well that's not as neat as my formulation of the argument.
But it appears to be correct, I can't see any errors.
And yes. In Pascals argument T does indeed win, and it does
look like a no briner.
The problem is that the argument, as pointed out, is unsound.
Firstly, it doesn't hold if P(G) which you omitted is less than or equal to zero.
I ...[text shortened]... ment for all those who would agree with me that Q (or even H-) is better
than, or equal to H+.
Yeah, I didn't include it because it seemed superfluous: when we say "if G or ~G," we're pretty much conceding His existence or lack thereof.
It also assumes that ~T will suffer H- if G ... which is an assumption.
True. There is an assumption that H+ can only be obtained by T. Perhaps a more helpful line could be inserted:
"If T or ~T, then H+"
And, along with other projections onto the Wager, I consider these some of the problems with our current perspective of the same. Certainly, it must first be established that H+ is only obtainable by T in exclusion to ~T.
What if G doesn't give a rat's ass about the perspective of T or ~T, and plans on H+ for both?
What if our perspectives have literally zero to do with our outcomes?
Seems problematic, I agree.
But I think we go back to square one: whether our perspectives have no influence on the final outcome or not, forget the assumptions and go with the best outcome, namely, H+... whether it exists or not. Even by adding the further clarification, the T always wins, even if he didn't need to be T.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
05 Dec 13
Originally posted by FreakyKBH
[b]Firstly, it doesn't hold if P(G) which you omitted is less than or equal to zero.
Yeah, I didn't include it because it seemed superfluous: when we say "if G or ~G," we're pretty much conceding His existence or lack thereof.
It also assumes that ~T will suffer H- if G ... which is an assumption.
True. There is an assumption that H+ can o ...[text shortened]... t. Even by adding the further clarification, the T always wins, even if he didn't need to be T.[/b]
Yeah, I didn't include it because it seemed superfluous: when we say "if G or ~G,"
we're pretty much conceding His existence or lack thereof.
Actually no. Admitting the logical possibility of X. Does not entail believing that P(X) > 0
But I think we go back to square one: whether our perspectives have no influence
on the final outcome or not, forget the assumptions and go with the best outcome, namely,
H+... whether it exists or not. Even by adding the further clarification, the T always wins,
even if he didn't need to be T.
Well, that's the thing. Once you realise that the argument is incomplete, there are
options it has omitted, then there are more than a few situations where T doesn't
win.
And you are missing the point I made that not everyone (including me) sees H+ as a win.
Without which the entire argument crumbles.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
05 Dec 13
Originally posted by LemonJelloThe only line I agree with is 3.Primarily because--- despite protestations otherwise--- there are assumptions assayed to the wager which are not part of it.
Oh, come on. That wouldn't show that inspection of Pascal's inner affective and intentional states is needed to assess validity or soundness of his argument. What you're saying is simply that you think the argume ...[text shortened]... ationality requires you to wager for God.
5. Conclusion 2. You should wager for God.
[/quote]
All the others are wrong.
Originally posted by googlefudgeAnd you are missing the point I made that not everyone (including me) sees H+ as a win.Yeah, I didn't include it because it seemed superfluous: when we say "if G or ~G,"
we're pretty much conceding His existence or lack thereof.
Actually no. Admitting the logical possibility of X. Does not entail believing that P(X) > 0
[quote]But I think we go back to square one: whether our perspectives have no influence
on the f ...[text shortened]... that not everyone (including me) sees H+ as a win.
Without which the entire argument crumbles.
"He will wipe every tear from their eyes.
There won't be death anymore.
There won't be any grief, crying, or pain, because the first things have disappeared."
I can't think of a single person on the planet who would object to such things.
Not even you.
- Joined
- 16 Jan 07
- Moves
- 95105
05 Dec 13
not sure whos's got bbc4 on here, but i hope you guys just watched the documentary about logic. excellent documentary, a nice change from watching brian cox sitting on the side of mountains talking about how 'brilliant' cern is (although cern is brilliant, to be fair).
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
05 Dec 13
Originally posted by stellspalfieWatched it on the iPlayer.
not sure whos's got bbc4 on here, but i hope you guys just watched the documentary about logic. excellent documentary, a nice change from watching brian cox sitting on the side of mountains talking about how 'brilliant' cern is (although cern is brilliant, to be fair).
Wasn't bad documentary, could have happily watched it as a series with much more detail.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
05 Dec 13
Originally posted by FreakyKBHThat is purely a lack of imagination on your part.
[b]And you are missing the point I made that not everyone (including me) sees H+ as a win.
"He will wipe every tear from their eyes.
There won't be death anymore.
There won't be any grief, crying, or pain, because the first things have disappeared."
I can't think of a single person on the planet who would object to such things.
Not even you.[/b]
Their are many people for whom the Christian idea of eternal heaven is an anathema.
And I am one of them.
- Joined
- 16 Jan 07
- Moves
- 95105
05 Dec 13
Originally posted by googlefudgethey tend to gloss over the details just in case they send amateur thinkers like myself into meltdown. my missus got so confused at one point she literally just shut down like a overheated computer and went to sleep.
Watched it on the iPlayer.
Wasn't bad documentary, could have happily watched it as a series with much more detail.
- Joined
- 16 Jan 07
- Moves
- 95105
05 Dec 13
Originally posted by FreakyKBHis this saying that there will be no grief,crying and pain because death has been removed? if not, how are grief, crying and pain going to be removed? especially as god will not be removing freewill.
[b]And you are missing the point I made that not everyone (including me) sees H+ as a win.
"He will wipe every tear from their eyes.
There won't be death anymore.
There won't be any grief, crying, or pain, because the first things have disappeared."
I can't think of a single person on the planet who would object to such things.
Not even you.[/b]
Originally posted by stellspalfieFree will does not equal necessity to sin.
is this saying that there will be no grief,crying and pain because death has been removed? if not, how are grief, crying and pain going to be removed? especially as god will not be removing freewill.
The Lord Jesus Christ proved that it is possible to live without sin.
Obviously, He was not burdened by a sin nature which acts as an inside agent conspiring against our better paths, but that wasn't the point, since as a man, it was possible for Him to sin. Among other things, His purpose was to show us the path to living a life in complete harmony with God.
06 Dec 13
qOriginally posted by googlefudgeWell, I gave you a quote which describes how a majority of believers view heaven. Which part of that are you objecting to, and why?
That is purely a lack of imagination on your part.
Their are many people for whom the Christian idea of eternal heaven is an anathema.
And I am one of them.
- Joined
- 16 Jan 07
- Moves
- 95105
06 Dec 13
Originally posted by FreakyKBHfree will may not always produce sin........but what stops it from possibly producing sin? there is no sin in heaven, but nothing has changed. if a perfect being like satan, adam and eve can sin then what is better about the humans in heaven that means they will never sin?
Free will does not equal necessity to sin.
The Lord Jesus Christ proved that it is possible to live without sin.
Obviously, He was not burdened by a sin nature which acts as an inside agent conspiring against our better paths, but that wasn't the point, since as a man, it was possible for Him to sin. Among other things, His purpose was to show us the path to living a life in complete harmony with God.
