New thought about Pascal's Wager

[SinaloaPaisa]

I understand it's not meant to include a third option. But the basis of the wager is how best to save your soul from eternal damnation, so to exclude one of the possibilities was short sighted of Pascal.

But that is not really the case because you can use Pascals Wager to measure all the outcomes.

Its like a tennis tournament. Two people face off at a time. The best one advances. There is no reason why you can not do that with Pascals Wager. Unless your simply lazy.

What if the God that really exists is non-Christian, hates anyone that worships the "false God of Christianity", and will torture Christians for all eternity. In other words, he is similar to Yahweh that way. But this God that really exists thinks Atheism is awesome, and insists that Atheists get everything and anything their little hearts desire. So believing in Christianity carries harsh penalties, but being an Atheist garnishes great rewards.

Well, put him up in a face off. See who wins.

Another thing people have to realize is, just making up random crazy stuff is that really valid. The whole point is using widely followed and accepted beliefs that have some remote merit.

 

[SinaloaPaisa]

I just did. You might want to look up "false dichotomy".

Stating x and explaining are two different things.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

Stating x and explaining are two different things.

This is the "Philosophy" forum. Not the "teach other people about Philosophy" forum.

But I'll give you a hint. There's an infinite number of possible gods...

 

[Black Dog]

But that is not really the case because you can use Pascals Wager to measure all the outcomes.

Its like a tennis tournament. Two people face off at a time. The best one advances. There is no reason why you can not do that with Pascals Wager. Unless your simply lazy.



Well, put him up in a face off. See who wins.

Another thing people have to realize is, just making up random crazy stuff is that really valid. The whole point is using widely followed and accepted beliefs that have some remote merit.

As I pointed out, there is a third option, that Pascal's option does not cover. It has nothing to do with being "simply lazy." I even gave a third option that Pascal Wager doesn't cover.

LOL, you can't dismiss a valid option as "random crazy stuff", and expect anyone to take your argument seriously. Let's start from square one, please present proof that the following God cannot exist (that it is "random crazy stuff"):

What if the God that really exists is non-Christian, hates anyone that worships the "false God of Christianity", and will torture Christians for all eternity. In other words, he is similar to Yahweh that way. But this God that really exists thinks Atheism is awesome, and insists that Atheists get everything and anything their little hearts desire. So believing in Christianity carries harsh penalties, but being an Atheist garnishes great rewards.

 

[SinaloaPaisa]

As I pointed out, there is a third option, that Pascal's option does not cover. It has nothing to do with being "simply lazy." I even gave a third option that Pascal Wager doesn't cover.

We can do Pascals wager for the 3rd option

1) Atheists - enter hypothetical outcome
2) Christianity - enter hypothetical outcome
3) X Religion / God - enter hypothetical outcome

All Pascal's Wager is, is comparing possible outcomes and determining which one is better / less risk.

You are making this more complicated than it actually is.

LOL, you can't dismiss a valid option as "random crazy stuff", and expect anyone to take your argument seriously. Let's start from square one, please present proof that the following God cannot exist:

What if the God that really exists is non-Christian, hates anyone that worships the "false God of Christianity", and will torture Christians for all eternity. In other words, he is similar to Yahweh that way. But this God that really exists thinks Atheism is awesome, and insists that Atheists get everything and anything their little hearts desire. So believing in Christianity carries harsh penalties, but being an Atheist garnishes great rewards.

One can only present evidence as to the validity of a deity being real. For example, if I wanted to present evidence for the validity of the Christian God I could point to historical facts, number of believers, etc.

I doubt your non Christian God will have much evidence supporting its validity.

Notice Pascal's Wager used 2 prominent widely followed thought processes. He did that for a reason.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

I doubt your non Christian God will have much evidence supporting its validity.

Pssst...

There's an infinite number of god concepts that wouldn't involve that god giving evidence of its existence. So a lack of evidence means nothing, and your point is... pointless...

 

[Freodin]

It is a given Pascal's Wager is hypothetical. You are gonna laugh at something we all know from the beginning? You ok buddy?

So it is hypothetical? And in the context of this hypothetical situation, reality doesn't matter?

It is just, only, exclusively a case of "in that special situation where there are these two given options, which are set and not debatable... which ones give the better rewards?"

Just that?

Well, then... I can't argue against that. It is philosophically valid.


It is also completely useless. We might just as well discuss of how to react when faced with a purple people eater, would it be better to grow a third arm or whistle "God save the Queen!". Philosophically valid, but completely useless.


You don't seem to accept that though. You want to include only "widely followed and accepted beliefs that have some remote merit."

But that is where we close the circle: Pascal's Wager doesn't deal with "widely followed" or "accepted" or "have some remote merit". It only and exclusively deals with reward and loss.

If you did have something that had "some remote merit", Pascal's Wager would be unnecessary. We could deal with these merits - we could deal with truth and facts. But we don't have these, so we have to bet on unknowable outcomes.

To counter Pascal's Wager one would need to show how it is not valid. For example, if it were true one could not fake belief and change to true belief then that would destroy Pascal's Wager.

You keep repeating that, but you are wrong here. This simply doesn't follow.
You could be able to "fake belief" - but given Christian theology, that wouldn't fool God. Pascal's Wager does not work with faked belief.
And you could "change to true belief"... but you still cannot do that voluntarily based on a preferred outcome. Pascal's Wager doesn't do anything - for or against - a change of belief.

You can argue that it is "valid" until the cows come home... it is useless. Useless as an apologetic tool, useless to spread the true faith, useless to give advice on how to act in real life.

 

[SinaloaPaisa]

Pssst...

There's an infinite number of god concepts that wouldn't involve that god giving evidence of its existence. So a lack of evidence means nothing, and your point is... pointless...

Not quite.

The whole point is researching religions and determining the validity of said religions and the possible outcomes of the religions with the most validity.

Basically what are the most probable options we have. Within this options, which one is the best / least risky.

 

[Black Dog]

We can do Pascals wager for the 3rd option

1) Atheists - enter hypothetical outcome
2) Christianity - enter hypothetical outcome
3) X Religion / God - enter hypothetical outcome

All Pascal's Wager is, is comparing possible outcomes and determining which one is better / less risk.

You are making this more complicated than it actually is.

How are you going to assess the risk, when you have no idea what God(s) exist? (Or if you do, present evidence)

One can only present evidence as to the validity of a deity being real. For example, if I wanted to present evidence for the validity of the Christian God I could point to historical facts, number of believers, etc.

None of that is proof that the Christian God exists. The number of people believing something has nothing to do with its veracity. Lots of people believe Santa Claus exists. There are plenty of "Historical Facts" written. Someone even wrote about a personal experience when they saw their mother kissing Santa Claus. Do you think Santa is more likely to exist?

I doubt your non Christian God will have much evidence supporting its validity.

Notice Pascal's Wager used 2 prominent widely followed thought processes. He did that for a reason.

I can't produce proof to support that God's existence. Just like you can't produce proof that the Christian God exists. According to Pascal, we are looking at IF a God exists, and IF the God I described exists, it is much better to be an atheist.

 

[Black Dog]

Not quite.

The whole point is researching religions and determining the validity of said religions and the possible outcomes of the religions with the most validity.

Basically what are the most probable options we have. Within this options, which one is the best / least risky.

There is no proof that any religion is valid. If there was, I wouldn't be an atheist, I would be a believer. You can't talk about probabilities unless you know the probabilities of the factors involved. You don't know these, so you can't say one religion is more probable than another.

If we go by the number of possible Gods, which is (almost?) infinite, and only one God can exist, then we can say that the probability that the Jesus God is the correct one approaches zero.

 

[SinaloaPaisa]

So it is hypothetical? And in the context of this hypothetical situation, reality doesn't matter?

It is just, only, exclusively a case of "in that special situation where there are these two given options, which are set and not debatable... which ones give the better rewards?"

Just that?

Well, then... I can't argue against that. It is philosophically valid.

I know you can't argue it.

It is also completely useless. We might just as well discuss of how to react when faced with a purple people eater, would it be better to grow a third arm or whistle "God save the Queen!". Philosophically valid, but completely useless.


You don't seem to accept that though. You want to include only "widely followed and accepted beliefs that have some remote merit."

But that is where we close the circle: Pascal's Wager doesn't deal with "widely followed" or "accepted" or "have some remote merit". It only and exclusively deals with reward and loss.

Sure, but it was under the assumption one did their homework first. As I said, there is a reason Pascal used Atheism and Christianity. If not, it would be a complete mess and not very enlightening.

If you did have something that had "some remote merit", Pascal's Wager would be unnecessary. We could deal with these merits - we could deal with truth and facts. But we don't have these, so we have to bet on unknowable outcomes.

Not quite. Christianity and Atheism have merit. Merit /= undeniable truth. Simply evidence to support a theory.

You keep repeating that, but you are wrong here. This simply doesn't follow.
You could be able to "fake belief" - but given Christian theology, that wouldn't fool God. Pascal's Wager does not work with faked belief.
And you could "change to true belief"... but you still cannot do that voluntarily based on a preferred outcome. Pascal's Wager doesn't do anything - for or against - a change of belief.

You can not fake belief and get to heaven. So you are agreeing with me.

And yes, you need more than simply getting true belief solely due to a preferred outcome.

However, one can gain true belief as a result (spark) of a preferred outcome. I have already illustrated this in this thread.

You can argue that it is "valid" until the cows come home... it is useless. Useless as an apologetic tool, useless to spread the true faith, useless to give advice on how to act in real life.

Likewise

 

[SinaloaPaisa]

There is no proof that any religion is valid. If there was, I wouldn't be an atheist, I would be a believer.

Who said proof? Pretty sure I said evidence.

 

[SinaloaPaisa]

How are you going to assess the risk, when you have no idea what God(s) exist? (Or if you do, present evidence)

Go to google, type in list of Gods or deities. Proceed from there.

None of that is proof that the Christian God exists. The number of people believing something has nothing to do with its veracity. Lots of people believe Santa Claus exists. There are plenty of "Historical Facts" written. Someone even wrote about a personal experience when they saw their mother kissing Santa Claus. Do you think Santa is more likely to exist?

No one said anything about proof or there needing to be proof. Proof would make Pascals Wager void and useless.

One can however present evidence or logic to support their belief or religion.

I can't produce proof to support that God's existence. Just like you can't produce proof that the Christian God exists. According to Pascal, we are looking at IF a God exists, and IF the God I described exists, it is much better to be an atheist.

Wrong

 

[Black Dog]

Who said proof? Pretty sure I said evidence.

Your evidence is meaningless when it comes to deciding probability or veracity. I wrote about a God, therefore there is a written account of that God, same as the Christian God. The number of people who believe a claim has no affect on the claim's veracity.

 

[SinaloaPaisa]

Your evidence is meaningless. I wrote about a God, therefore there is a written account of that God, same as the Christian God. The number of people who believe a claim has no affect on the claim's veracity.

But...

evidence is not meaningless when assessing the validity or probability of a religion or deity.

However, you are more than welcome to disagree.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

Not quite.

The whole point is researching religions and determining the validity of said religions and the possible outcomes of the religions with the most validity.

Basically what are the most probable options we have. Within this options, which one is the best / least risky.

No no no, you're still not getting it.

You have no way of knowing if any of the infinite gods that don't provide evidence of their existence don't exist. Therefore, they're equally valid and each one goes in the "chart":

Row 1. No god exists
Row 2. God concept 1 exists
Row 3. God concept 2 exists
.
.
.

Ad infinitum.

The Christian god is just another row in the chart. Picking that god is no more a "safe bet" than any of the infinite gods that don't provide evidence of existence.

Face it. Pascal was an idiot regarding this. He apparently didn't realize he was creating a false dichotomy...

 

[Black Dog]

Go to google, type in list of Gods or deities. Proceed from there.

So only God's that have been envisioned by man can possibly exist? That makes no sense.

No one said anything about proof or there needing to be proof. Proof would make Pascals Wager void and useless.

Right, we are talking about probabilities. And the probabilities are that among the (almost?) infinite number of possible Gods that the Christian God is the one and only approaches zero.

One can however present evidence or logic to support their belief or religion.

There is no evidence that Jesus exists that doesn't also exist for many other Gods and Myths. There is a book, but there is a book for Santa, Spiderman, and Zeus. Again, the number of people who believe a claim has nothing to do with it's veracity. What other evidences can you offer?

 

[Black Dog]

But...

evidence is not meaningless when assessing the validity or probability of a religion or deity.

However, you are more than welcome to disagree.

Your "evidence" says absolutely nothing about the probability or validity that The Jesus God exists. If you think it does, please explain.

 

[SinaloaPaisa]

No no no, you're still not getting it.

You have no way of knowing if any of the infinite gods that don't provide evidence of their existence don't exist. Therefore, they're equally valid and each one goes in the "chart":

Who said they don't exist? No one said that.

Maybe you are not getting it?

Row 1. No god exists
Row 2. God concept 1 exists
Row 3. God concept 2 exists
.
.
.

Ad infinitum.

The Christian god is just another row in the chart. Picking that god is no more a "safe bet" than any of the infinite gods that don't provide evidence of existence.

Wrong. Unless of course you are gonna try and prove evidence and logic have no bearing on validity.

Face it. Pascal was an idiot regarding this. He apparently didn't realize he was creating a false dichotomy...

False Dichotomy doesn't invalidate Pascals Wager.

 

[SinaloaPaisa]

Your "evidence" says absolutely nothing about the probability or validity that The Jesus God exists. If you think it does, please explain.

Do you know how evidence works?

Jesus - historical records pointing to him being a factual figure.

The Buggy Monster - 3 year old girl said she saw him under the bed

Which one is more probable?