New thought about Pascal's Wager

[SinaloaPaisa]

And some people don't believe your religion has any merit or evidence and Pascal's wager is not going to have any impact, on folks who truly don't believe something.

What they believe is irrelevant. Just because someone believes something doesn't make it so.

 

[AHH who-stole-my-name]

It's more along the lines of you should actually believe instead of just claiming to believe.

The problem lies in the fact that the wager is a false dichotomy. There are more potential gods than what Pascal accounted for. This means that you could easily believe in the "wrong" god. So by itself the wager is useless.

I understand that. Thank you. My argument is that beliefs are not a jacket you put on when your cold and lonely and you take off when the situation becomes too heated. Belief is an all or nothing issue. There are no 1/2 measures.

 

[bhsmte]

What they believe is irrelevant. Just because someone believes something doesn't make it so.

Kind of the whole point.

 

[SinaloaPaisa]

I understand that. Thank you. My argument is that beliefs are not a jacket you put on when your cold and lonely and you take off when the situation becomes too heated. Belief is an all or nothing issue. There are no 1/2 measures.

Hence the need for true belief. 1/2 belief won't cut it.

 

[AHH who-stole-my-name]

Thats all nice and dandy but that doesn't really do anything to PW and who is screwed if there is a God or not.

It's not a wager. It's a scheme

 

[SinaloaPaisa]

Kind of the whole point.

So we agree lol

 

[SinaloaPaisa]

It's not a wager. It's a scheme

You can call it what you like

 

[ToddNotTodd]

Depends on the circumstances. It is certainly possible. Just like it is certainly possible the number of pieces of evidence does have a bearing on probability. Evidence can be equal and not equal.

You apparently didn't look up black swans...

If you want to be taken seriously here you really do need to have the basics down.

 

[AHH who-stole-my-name]

Hence the need for true belief. 1/2 belief won't cut it.

Yes, but true faith doesn't come from cajoling

 

[SinaloaPaisa]

You apparently didn't look up black swans...

If you want to be taken seriously here you really do need to have the basics down.

Cant refute it? Ok I understand.

 

[AHH who-stole-my-name]

You can call it what you like

It doesn't matter what we call it. It matter what God calls it.

 

[SinaloaPaisa]

Yes, but true faith doesn't come from cajoling

You sure about that? You would be surprised what the mind can do with the right conditioning.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

Cant refute it? Ok I understand.

You didn't say anything intelligible to refute.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

Hence the need for true belief. 1/2 belief won't cut it.

If belief is the state of accepting something as true, then belief is binary. There couldn't be a thing as half belief.

 

[SinaloaPaisa]

You didn't say anything intelligible to refute.

Because I simply stated facts. Pieces of evidence an be of equal merit and they can be of different merit.

 

[SinaloaPaisa]

If belief is the state of accepting something as true, then belief is binary. There couldn't be a thing as half belief.

What ever you want to call it. To keep things simple id just use fake belief and true belief.

 

[AHH who-stole-my-name]

You sure about that? You would be surprised what the mind can do with the right conditioning.

We are not talking the mind here. If it does come from the heart and permeate the soul than God will know the difference. You can brainwash all you want to, but there is a difference between coming to God open minded and openhearted and coming to God with an empty everything because what was placed there was placed there without the persons permission.

 

[Black Dog]

Ok so now what? Do you want to compare that with Christianity? Is so make your list for every point to validate said religion or people. I will do the same with Christianity. Lets see who has more.

We've already been through this. The number of "points" about a religion say nothing about the probability of the religion. You would have to attach a probability value to each point first, along with a proof that each probability is accurate. You haven't done this.

you are saying proof, i am saying evidence. if we had proof we wouldn't be on this forum having this discussion now.

No, I have been very clear for numerous posts now. You need to prove your evidence affects the probability. Otherwise I can say my shoe is evidence that Yahweh doesn't exist, and you would have to accept that as evidence. So you need to attach a probability that each piece of evidence is true, along with a proof that each probability is accurate. You haven't done this.

If you are going to talk about probabilities, you need to show the math. Otherwise your "probabilities" are unproven assertions, and have no meaning.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

Because I simply stated facts. Pieces of evidence an be of equal merit and they can be of different merit.

Which has nothing to do with quantity, which was my objection to what you said.

 

[Black Dog]

Thats all nice and dandy but that doesn't really do anything to PW and who is screwed if there is a God or not.

As I said, if there is a God that actually exists and it is not Yahweh, and that God hates Christians and tortures them for eternity, but grants everyone else any and all wishes their heart desires, then it is better to not be a Christian. And AFAIK, and as far as you have been able to prove, this God is just as likely as Yahweh.

Pascal, not unexpectedly, omitted the third option: There is another God. So his wager is easily shown to be fallacious, which I have done.