Why Pascal's Wager Sucks

Susan
Susan's picture
Posts: 3561
Joined: 2006-02-12
User is offlineOffline
Why Pascal's Wager Sucks

A friend forwarded a message received from a xian attempting to use Pascal's Wager. The reply is classic.

 

The message:

Quote:

Someday, you'll understand. I feel sorry for you. Just promise me one thing, IF you were to hypothetically end up burning in hell or something, don't curse the religious for not saving you int time. Just consider that if my beliefs are wrong, so what, I'm worm food or whatever, no big loss. But if you're wrong, you're screwed. But you still have tons of chances to get it. Believe it or not, God loves you and when you meet your maker, you'll remember this and regret not taking it seriously. Good luck on your road of life, maybe our paths will cross someday.

My friend's reply:

Quote:


Hey, Bud! Thanks for your thoughts. When you sent your notice of pity, it would have been a lot more helpful had you mentioned which God I should avoid being screwed by.

There’s Allah whom the Muslim vehemently deny is triune; who say that Jesus is just a prophet, who say your Bible has been corrupted and so on. They give evidence from ancient history, science, archeology, Greek and Hebrew, Christian scholars, the early church fathers and the Bible itself to support their claim.

www.answering-christianity.com
www.muslim-responses.com
http://www.islam-guide.com

Or, how about the Jews. They say that Jesus at best was a good (if not problematic) Jewish Rabbi, but not the Messiah and certainly not God. They give evidence from ancient history, science, archeology, Greek and Hebrew, Christian scholars, the early church fathers and the Bible itself to support their claim.

www.jewsforjudaism.org
www.messiahtruth.com

Or, how about the Mormons who say that there are a multitude of gods and we can become one through acts like believing in their holy books and that Joseph Smith was a prophet of God. They give evidence from ancient history, science, archeology, Greek and Hebrew, Christian scholars, the early church fathers and the Bible itself to support their claim.

www.farms.byu.edu
www.fairlds.org

Or, how about the Jehovah’s witnesses who deny the trinity also. They say that Jesus was just a man and that the holy spirit is Jehovah’s active force. They say he is not omnipresent, that we are annihilated and not condemned to Hell and that Jesus has already come secretly. They give evidence from ancient history, science, archeology, Greek and Hebrew, Christian scholars, the early church fathers and the Bible itself to support their claim.

www.elihubooks.com
www.jehovah.to/index.htm

Even the Roman Catholic Church, who while saying they have the same God as you, say also that you can by God’s grace (through the sacraments and other good works) earn salvation. They believe such go to Purgatory when they die and one should do nearly every act of worship toward Mary that you do to Jesus, just don’t call it worship. They give evidence from ancient history, science, archeology, Greek and Hebrew, Christian scholars, the early church fathers and the Bible itself to support their claim.

www.catholic.com
www.catholicapologetics.org
www.envoymagazine.com

It seems partner that “god” has “left you without a witness.” Anyway you slice it, you are just as screwed as I am! But don’t worry! Look at these passages:

Deuteronomy 20:10-17 "When you draw near a city to fight against it, offer terms of peace to it. And if its answer to you is peace and it opens to you, then all the people who are found in it shall do forced labour for you and shall serve you. But if it makes no peace with you, but makes war against you, then you shall besiege it; and when the Lord your God gives it into your hand you shall put all its male to the sword, but the women and the little ones, the cattle, and everything else in the city, all its spoil, you shall take as booty for yourself; and you shall enjoy the spoil of your enemy, which the Lord God has given to you. Thus you shall do to all the cities which are far from you, which are not cities of the nations here. In the cities of these people that the Lord your God gives you an inheritance, you shall save alive nothing that breathes but you shall utterly destroy them, the Hittites and the Amoriotes, the Canaanites and the Jebusites, as the Lord your God has commanded."

Deuteronomy 7:2 "and when the Lord your God gives then [the enemies] over to you, and you defeat them; then you must utterly destroy them; you shall make no covenant with them, and show no mercy to them..."

Numbers 31:7, 17 They warred against Midian, as the Lord commanded Moses, and slew every male…[Moses said to them] "... Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman who has known a man by lying with him..."

I Samuel 15:1-3 And Samuel said to Saul, "The LORD sent me to anoint you king over his people Israel; now therefore hearken to the words of the LORD. Thus says the LORD of hosts, `I will punish what Am'alek did to Israel in opposing them on the way, when they came up out of Egypt. Now go and smite Am'alek, and utterly destroy all that they have; do not spare them, but kill both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass.'"

II Kings 2:23-24 He [Elisha] went up from there to Bethel; and while he was going up on the way, some small boys came out of the city and jeered at him, saying, "Go up, you baldhead! Go up, you baldhead!" And he turned around and when he saw them, he cursed them in the name of the Lord. And two she-bears came out from the woods and tore forty-two of the boys.

Looks like we didn’t have to worry about God being all that loving after all.

 

I hope that the Pascal Wagerer felt that bitch slap!

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.


Sodium Pentothal
Sodium Pentothal's picture
Posts: 134
Joined: 2007-05-13
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:

Vastet wrote:
Gavagai wrote:
As a general objection against Pascalian wagering, one may point out that humans can’t simply choose to believe in God at will, no matter how much Pascal’s wager convinces them that they should do so. But this objection is notoriously off-target, since Pascal does not argue that one should believe in God at will, but rather that one should place oneself in circumstances that will conduce over time to belief in God. At this point the objector can say that humans simply can't engage in such behavior modification, but this is prima facie implausible; we modify our behavior all the time -- even in ways that would seriously alter our doxastic habits -- when certain circumstances in life call for it. So, someone who is convinced by some version of the wager can regularly perform certain behaviors that will conduce to her belief in God.
The idea that behaviour is directly related to belief is ludicrous. I believe a lot of things I don't follow, and vice versa. Just because I can pretend to believe in a god does not follow that pretending will lead to believing.
I don't think that's what Gavagai is saying. I think what he's saying that if one realizes the gravity of his decision (choosing disbelief in a god), then he'll take steps to help him truly believe, e.g. immerse himself in a environment that promotes and preaches XYZ god. I think this possibility is neither illogical or improbable, and also why I happen to also think this objection does not work.

Vastet wrote:
Gavagai wrote:
Another popular objection is the many gods objection. According to a weak version of this objection, Pascalian wagering is rendered useless by the variety of religions on the scene today. Which God is it in whom we should believe? However, this weak version is not fatal to the wager, given that the wager still works for those who are only seriously considering Christianity and atheism as live epistemic options, say.
No it doesn't. It doesn't work logically no matter how you want to apply it. Instituting a false dichotomy doesn't help your argument, it hinders it further.
Firstly, I don't think Gavagai's dichotomy is the issue here. I think he might just be saying that IF Pascal's Wager proves that there is AT LEAST a god, as already believed by theists (I'm not going to go into polytheists), then it reasonably follows that one of these gods can be logically proven to be the one true god. Secondly, I don't think it was a false dichotomy because Gavagai qualified the dichotomy as a hypothetical axiom with the words, "given" and "only." In fact, this just also happens to be why I think this objection doesn't as well. What this objection DOES accomplish though is illustrate how Pascal's Wager can not be used to prove specific gods (e.g. as most popularly used for, the Christian god), as opposed to the existence of a non-specified god (IF, and a big hypothetical "if," Pascal's Wager is logically sound, then we can consider Pascal's Wager an intellectually, as opposed to ethically, approved gateway into specific religions).

 

I agree with Gavagai that at least some of the popularly known objections do not work. That's why I personally use other objections, and particularly those that attack Pascal's Wager on a more fundamental level.

"If I don't think something can be explained conventionally, it must be magic. And magic comes from God!" -everyday religious person


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13234
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Sodium Pentothal wrote: I

Sodium Pentothal wrote:
I don't think that's what Gavagai is saying. I think what he's saying that if one realizes the gravity of his decision (choosing disbelief in a god), then he'll take steps to help him truly believe, e.g. immerse himself in a environment that promotes and preaches XYZ god. I think this possibility is neither illogical or improbable, and also why I happen to also think this objection does not work.

If one believes, then one believes. What's the difference between believing and truly believing?

Sodium Pentothal wrote:
Firstly, I don't think Gavagai's dichotomy is the issue here.

Which is why I mentioned it second.

Sodium Pentothal wrote:
I think he might just be saying that IF Pascal's Wager proves that there is AT LEAST a god, as already believed by theists (I'm not going to go into polytheists), then it reasonably follows that one of these gods can be logically proven to be the one true god.

Pascals wager does NOT prove that there is a god, so the rest is irrelevant.

Sodium Pentothal wrote:
Secondly, I don't think it was a false dichotomy because Gavagai qualified the dichotomy as a hypothetical axiom with the words,

Which is why I mentioned that he instituted it, not applied it. You are skirting a strawman.

Sodium Pentothal wrote:
and In fact, this just also happens to be why I think this objection doesn't as well. What this objection DOES accomplish though is illustrate how Pascal's Wager can not be used to prove specific gods (e.g. as most popularly used for, the Christian god), as opposed to the existence of a non-specified god

It cannot prove ANY god, gods, or billion gods, or half god, or anything. PERIOD. It is a fallacious and fundamentally flawed argument with 0 value. ZERO.

Sodium Pentothal wrote:
(IF, and a big hypothetical Pascal's Wager is logically sound, then we can consider Pascal's Wager an intellectually, as opposed to ethically, approved gateway into specific religions).

It is not logically sound. It has been demonstrated so since it's creation. It was demonstrated by it's very creator. You have NO argument.

Sodium Pentothal wrote:
I agree with Gavagai that at least some of the popularly known objections do not work. That's why I personally use other objections, and particularly those that attack Pascal's Wager on a more fundamental level.

You are as wrong as he is.

Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Sodium Pentothal
Sodium Pentothal's picture
Posts: 134
Joined: 2007-05-13
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:

Vastet wrote:
Sodium Pentothal wrote:
I don't think that's what Gavagai is saying. I think what he's saying that if one realizes the gravity of his decision (choosing disbelief in a god), then he'll take steps to help him truly believe, e.g. immerse himself in a environment that promotes and preaches XYZ god. I think this possibility is neither illogical or improbable, and also why I happen to also think this objection does not work.
If one believes, then one believes. What's the difference between believing and truly believing?

That's not my argument. I'm arguing that if one wants to believe in something, one could "immerse himself in a environment that promotes and preaches XYZ god." Such environments include religious courses, church, etc. Over time, one could accept and adopt their views and REALIZE (whether with sound/unsound logic, or rational/irrational emotions) that this religion is true, thus finally believing.

Vastet wrote:
Sodium Pentothal wrote:
Firstly, I don't think Gavagai's dichotomy is the issue here.
Which is why I mentioned it second.

I don't understand what you mean by "second." But it does sound like you are agreeing that it's not the issue, to which I say that the way you worded your retort to Gavagai sounds otherwise, especially with how you immediately suffix, and subsequently seemingly qualify, the objection, "It doesn't work logically no matter how you want to apply it," with "Instituting a false dichotomy doesn't help your argument, it hinders it further." Explaining how a false dichotomy hinders your argument is also strongly suggestive.

Vastet wrote:
Sodium Pentothal wrote:
I think he might just be saying that IF Pascal's Wager proves that there is AT LEAST a god, as already believed by theists (I'm not going to go into polytheists), then it reasonably follows that one of these gods can be logically proven to be the one true god.
Pascals wager does NOT prove that there is a god, so the rest is irrelevant.

I don't agree with this line of reasoning. That sounds like an unchecked and unbalanced intellectual carte blanche for all objectors of Pascal's Wager. If I say that Pascal's Wager doesn't work because Pascal was a post-operative transexual, does that mean I'm right simply because Pascal's Wager has already been disproven? Gavagian and I are not arguing whether Pascal's Wager "proves that there is a god;" we're arguing the cogency of specific objections.

Vastet wrote:
Sodium Pentothal wrote:
Secondly, I don't think it was a false dichotomy because Gavagai qualified the dichotomy as a hypothetical axiom with the words,
Which is why I mentioned that he instituted it, not applied it. You are skirting a strawman.

I don't think it's a strawman because your syntax seems to suggest you're making an issue of it (as I've explained in my second retort in this post). In other words, why bring it up if it's not an issue?

Vastet wrote:
Sodium Pentothal wrote:
and In fact, this just also happens to be why I think this objection doesn't as well. What this objection DOES accomplish though is illustrate how Pascal's Wager can not be used to prove specific gods (e.g. as most popularly used for, the Christian god), as opposed to the existence of a non-specified god
It cannot prove ANY god, gods, or billion gods, or half god, or anything. PERIOD. It is a fallacious and fundamentally flawed argument with 0 value. ZERO.

Again, I agree that Pascal's Wager is fundamentally flawed, but for OTHER reasons. As I said above, "Gavagian and I are not arguing whether Pascal's Wager 'proves that there is a god;' we're arguing the cogency of specific objections."

Vastet wrote:
Sodium Pentothal wrote:
(IF, and a big hypothetical Pascal's Wager is logically sound, then we can consider Pascal's Wager an intellectually, as opposed to ethically, approved gateway into specific religions).
It is not logically sound. It has been demonstrated so since it's creation. It was demonstrated by it's very creator. You have NO argument.

See above reply.

Vastet wrote:
Sodium Pentothal wrote:
I agree with Gavagai that at least some of the popularly known objections do not work. That's why I personally use other objections, and particularly those that attack Pascal's Wager on a more fundamental level.
You are as wrong as he is.

So you're disagreeing "that at least some of the popularly known objections do not work?" I find it hard to believe that you could be so confident that every popularly known objection works.

"If I don't think something can be explained conventionally, it must be magic. And magic comes from God!" -everyday religious person


Gavagai
Theist
Gavagai's picture
Posts: 183
Joined: 2006-04-17
User is offlineOffline
Sodium, thank you for

Sodium, thank you for actually taking the time to understand my post and clearing it up for Vestat.


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13234
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Sodium Pentothal

Sodium Pentothal wrote:

Vastet wrote:
Sodium Pentothal wrote:
I don't think that's what Gavagai is saying. I think what he's saying that if one realizes the gravity of his decision (choosing disbelief in a god), then he'll take steps to help him truly believe, e.g. immerse himself in a environment that promotes and preaches XYZ god. I think this possibility is neither illogical or improbable, and also why I happen to also think this objection does not work.
If one believes, then one believes. What's the difference between believing and truly believing?

That's not my argument. I'm arguing that if one wants to believe in something, one could "immerse himself in a environment that promotes and preaches XYZ god." Such environments include religious courses, church, etc. Over time, one could accept and adopt their views and REALIZE (whether with sound/unsound logic, or rational/irrational emotions) that this religion is true, thus finally believing.

Ludicrous. I don't care how many churches I go to or priests I talk to. They won't convince me by their mere presence that they are right.

Sodium Pentothal wrote:

Vastet wrote:
Sodium Pentothal wrote:
Firstly, I don't think Gavagai's dichotomy is the issue here.
Which is why I mentioned it second.

I don't understand what you mean by "second."

It's very simple. I said FIRST, and I quote:

Quote:
No it doesn't. It doesn't work logically no matter how you want to apply it.

Then I said, SECOND,

Quote:
a false dichotomy doesn't help your argument, it hinders it further.

Get it?

Sodium Pentothal wrote:

But it does sound like you are agreeing that it's not the issue, to which I say that the way you worded your retort to Gavagai sounds otherwise, especially with how you immediately suffix, and subsequently seemingly qualify, the objection, "
It doesn't work logically no matter how you want to apply it," with "Instituting a false dichotomy doesn't help your argument, it hinders it further." Explaining how a false dichotomy hinders your argument is also strongly suggestive.

And to your insult of my sentence structure I reply you need reading comprehension lessons. It's very simple and obvious english that I wrote in two seperate and distinct sentences. Don't blame your poor inferences on me.

Sodium Pentothal wrote:

I don't agree with this line of reasoning.

I don't care. Fact is fact.

Sodium Pentothal wrote:
That sounds like an unchecked and unbalanced intellectual carte blanche for all objectors of Pascal's Wager. If I say that Pascal's Wager doesn't work because Pascal was a post-operative transexual, does that mean I'm right simply because Pascal's Wager has already been disproven?

What kind of stupid comment is this? I'm not saying the wager is faulty because Pascal was whatever the fuck. GET THIS THROUGH YOUR THICK SKULL: PASCAL HIMSELF SAID HIS ARGUMENT WAS FLAWED.

I will not discuss this further with someone who hasn't the slightest idea what they're talking about.

Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Sodium Pentothal
Sodium Pentothal's picture
Posts: 134
Joined: 2007-05-13
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:

Vastet wrote:
Sodium Pentothal wrote:

Vastet wrote:
Sodium Pentothal wrote:
I don't think that's what Gavagai is saying. I think what he's saying that if one realizes the gravity of his decision (choosing disbelief in a god), then he'll take steps to help him truly believe, e.g. immerse himself in a environment that promotes and preaches XYZ god. I think this possibility is neither illogical or improbable, and also why I happen to also think this objection does not work.
If one believes, then one believes. What's the difference between believing and truly believing?

That's not my argument. I'm arguing that if one wants to believe in something, one could "immerse himself in a environment that promotes and preaches XYZ god." Such environments include religious courses, church, etc. Over time, one could accept and adopt their views and REALIZE (whether with sound/unsound logic, or rational/irrational emotions) that this religion is true, thus finally believing.

Ludicrous. I don't care how many churches I go to or priests I talk to. They won't convince me by their mere presence that they are right.

Your personal convictions do not account for everyone person on this planet. The fact remains that at least some people can come to belief through (mis)education and environment, e.g. terrorists, impressionable children, and even more simply, theists.

Vastet wrote:
Sodium Pentothal wrote:

Vastet wrote:
Sodium Pentothal wrote:
Firstly, I don't think Gavagai's dichotomy is the issue here.
Which is why I mentioned it second.
I don't understand what you mean by "second."
It's very simple. I said FIRST, and I quote:
Quote:
No it doesn't. It doesn't work logically no matter how you want to apply it.
Then I said, SECOND,
Quote:
a false dichotomy doesn't help your argument, it hinders it further.
Get it?

I'm not going to argue about grammatical syntax, seeing that it's moot in comparison to, and as I've said before and still remains tellingly unaddressed, the very simple fact that you had to bring it up in a critical manner. If it wasn't an issue, then why criticize it? Criticism reveals intent.

Vastet wrote:
Sodium Pentothal wrote:
But it does sound like you are agreeing that it's not the issue, to which I say that the way you worded your retort to Gavagai sounds otherwise, especially with how you immediately suffix, and subsequently seemingly qualify, the objection, "It doesn't work logically no matter how you want to apply it," with "Instituting a false dichotomy doesn't help your argument, it hinders it further." Explaining how a false dichotomy hinders your argument is also strongly suggestive.

And to your insult of my sentence structure I reply you need reading comprehension lessons. It's very simple and obvious english that I wrote in two seperate and distinct sentences. Don't blame your poor inferences on me.

See above reply.

Vastet wrote:
Sodium Pentothal wrote:
I don't agree with this line of reasoning.
I don't care. Fact is fact.
Sodium Pentothal wrote:
That sounds like an unchecked and unbalanced intellectual carte blanche for all objectors of Pascal's Wager. If I say that Pascal's Wager doesn't work because Pascal was a post-operative transexual, does that mean I'm right simply because Pascal's Wager has already been disproven?
What kind of stupid comment is this? I'm not saying the wager is faulty because Pascal was whatever the fuck. GET THIS THROUGH YOUR THICK SKULL: PASCAL HIMSELF SAID HIS ARGUMENT WAS FLAWED. I will not discuss this further with someone who hasn't the slightest idea what they're talking about.

This sounds like a strawman. Never did I try to reword your claim as an ad hominem against Pascal. You also seem to continually not understand that we're NOT arguing whether Pascal's Wager was flawed; we're ONLY arguing about the cogency of certain objections (I wonder if I should install a counter on how many times this needs to be repeated). When you examine a specific objection, all other objections are not considered. What you are doing is that you are ASSSUMING. You ASSUME that since Pascal's Wager is false, then it follows that ALL human-conceived objections, regardless of how unsound they are (e.g. Pascal being a post-operative transexual), must be true. Makes sense? I don't know how to make it any more obvious than it is. You seem to be getting lost and confused; admittedly, it's not the lightest of thinking.

 

P.S. Ranting and raving about your frustration does not help your case.

"If I don't think something can be explained conventionally, it must be magic. And magic comes from God!" -everyday religious person


Gavagai
Theist
Gavagai's picture
Posts: 183
Joined: 2006-04-17
User is offlineOffline
Sodium, I was looking

Sodium,

I was looking through my copy of Pensees and nowhere have I found a place where Pascal say his wager is "flawed". He does admit that certain versions of the wager are subject to objections -- but then he goes on to modify them, eventually settling on a version he thinks is successful.  Looks like he doesn't reject it, contrary to what Vestat would like us to believe. So you might consider asking Vastet to provide textual evidence for his claim; perhaps he'd be willing to quote the portion of Pensees where Pascal explicitly rejects his own wager.

Cheers,

Gavagai

Rude, offensive, irrational jackass.


Sodium Pentothal
Sodium Pentothal's picture
Posts: 134
Joined: 2007-05-13
User is offlineOffline
Thanks Gavagai. While we

Thanks Gavagai. While we may disagree on whether "god" exists, we seem to see eye-to-eye intellectually. Smiling

Whether Pascal actually says his wager is "flawed" is definitely interesting, but I'm not going to open up another totally different can of worms, since whether the wager is flawed has no bearing whatsoever on individual objections' cogency. Additionally, I don't need to seek anymore proof that the wager is flawed because I already agree it is. I also don't think Pascal's confidence (or lack of) in his wager is an accurate barometer of truth, e.g. what if Pascal was wrong in thinking his wager was flawed? Hence why whether Pascal actually says his wager is "flawed" is totally irrelevant, but nonetheless of great historical interest.  In other words, in the context of our debate, it's a red herring.

"If I don't think something can be explained conventionally, it must be magic. And magic comes from God!" -everyday religious person


Gavagai
Theist
Gavagai's picture
Posts: 183
Joined: 2006-04-17
User is offlineOffline
Point taken.

Point taken.


nonbobblehead
Theist
Posts: 128
Joined: 2007-05-18
User is offlineOffline
There were plenty of Pascal

There were plenty of Pascal wagerers mentioned throughout the Bible.

You can start with the Israelites at the foot of Mount Sinai. You can read the writings of the Apostles as well.

 You are either a committed believer, or you are a liar about your being a believer. Pascal's offer of "saying you are a believer" in hopes of not being seperated from God throughout a timeless state called eternity, is simply stupid. It runs counter to the teachings of the Biblical writers and certainly runs counter to Jesus and His teachings recorded in the New Testament.

0 x 0 = Atheism. Something from nothing? Ahhh no.
And Karl, religion is not the opiate of the people, opium is. Visit any modern city in the western world and see.


lgnsttefrst
Posts: 44
Joined: 2007-06-07
User is offlineOffline
As a Christian (non

As a Christian (non denominational) I find "the wager" to be fairly assinine. Correct me if Im wrong but don't most religions urge their followers to believe with all their heart/mind/soul. It seems to me that saying to yourself "oh crap, these guys might be right so Id better believe in that, just in case im wrong" is insincere and not in the true definition of "having faith". Its as stupid to me as believing you need to put money into an offeretory plate to acheive salvation.


Manuverse
Posts: 1
Joined: 2007-06-29
User is offlineOffline
Pascals wager is totally

Pascals wager is totally illogical for two reasons:

1) If you are believing in a God just to avoid hell you are not truly believing in God and will go to hell anyways.

 2) Lets just say there is a God, whats to say that the Christian God is the real God and that being Christian is going to gain one salvation?

 You are right. Pascals wager does suck.


Susan
Susan's picture
Posts: 3561
Joined: 2006-02-12
User is offlineOffline
Manuverse wrote: You are

Manuverse wrote:

You are right. Pascals wager does suck.

Yes, my friend is quite wise.

By the way, welcome Manuverse!

When you get a minute, we'd love it if you'd hop over to General Conversation, Introductions and Humor and introduce yourself. 

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.


Sodium Pentothal
Sodium Pentothal's picture
Posts: 134
Joined: 2007-05-13
User is offlineOffline
Manuverse wrote: Pascals

Manuverse wrote:

Pascals wager is totally illogical for two reasons:

1) If you are believing in a God just to avoid hell you are not truly believing in God and will go to hell anyways.

2) Lets just say there is a God, whats to say that the Christian God is the real God and that being Christian is going to gain one salvation?

You are right. Pascals wager does suck.

Yes, PW is illogical, but those 2 reasons are not why.  In fact, I would even gather to say that those 2 reasons are illogical as well.  Please see Gavagai's and my posts earlier in this thread.

"If I don't think something can be explained conventionally, it must be magic. And magic comes from God!" -everyday religious person


Lhill
Theist
Posts: 5
Joined: 2007-05-14
User is offlineOffline
Islam is no real choice,

Islam is no real choice, since even if it were true, believing doesnt get you anywhere. Believing in Allah if he existed will not get you into heaven. What will get you into heaven is Martyrdom, it is the only sure fire way. If that God existed then believing in him would be the least of your worries.

Pascal's wager rests on whether a moral and righteous God exists, if one does, then Pascal's wager is indeed not diminished because there are many choices.

 If no God exists, or if an amoral (which in reality would be immoral) God existed then you would have a point.

 


Froggy618157725
Theist
Froggy618157725's picture
Posts: 55
Joined: 2007-07-12
User is offlineOffline
Manuverse wrote: Pascals

Manuverse wrote:

Pascals wager is totally illogical for two reasons:

1) If you are believing in a God just to avoid hell you are not truly believing in God and will go to hell anyways.

2) Lets just say there is a God, whats to say that the Christian God is the real God and that being Christian is going to gain one salvation?

You are right. Pascals wager does suck.

The first point is not entirely true. It is possible to hold contradictory beliefs of something being both true and false if you manage to refuse to see the distinction. The mind does not need to adhere to the rules of logic. Like Orwellian doublethink. You can come to truly believe lies that you know you made. To back that up, I recall reading about a psycological study on job satisfaction where people were given some sort of task they hated, and were paid to say they enjoyed it. One group was paid an insignificant amount of money, and another was given more. After some amount of time, they were given a survey about their actual thoughts. The people who recieved the significant amounts of money said they hated the job, while some of the ones that were hardly paid said they liked it. The reason the article presented had to do with some rationalization where they repeated a lie without any real reason, which they eventually believed. I'd link to the article, but I read it a while ago in some magazine. Scientific American, I think. It was interesting.

The second point and conclusion are pretty much dead on, though Eye-wink

The sentence below is false.
The sentence above is true.
This sentence doesn't care.


fall_child
Theist
Posts: 4
Joined: 2007-07-22
User is offlineOffline
ouch! P.W. just got owned!

ouch! P.W. just got owned!


robakerson
robakerson's picture
Posts: 94
Joined: 2007-08-07
User is offlineOffline
That's why Pascal's premise

That's why Pascal's premise doesn't work.
It's important to note that Pascal was a gambler and his 'wager'
is merely saying that it is in your rational self-interest to believe in god.
In pure game-theory fashion, he shows four possibilities:
You believe in god, and are right: infinite reward. (heaven)
You believe in god, and are wrong: 0
You don't believe in god, and are right:0
you don't believe in god, and are wrong: infinite punishment. (hell)

He thinks he shows the belief in god to be rationally in your own self interest by showing that all outcomes of "you believe in god" equal or supercede all outcomes of "you don't believe in god".

In Pascal's betting fashion:
even if there is a 00.00001% chance of god existing, he believes to show that it is worth it to take that chance.
You can't lose by believing in god.
Right?

Where his argument fails is that he could be wrong about the outcomes.

Under "you believe in god, and are wrong":
you could believe in god A (the abrahamic god, for instance),
and in reality,
god B (could be anything) exists who punishes infinitely (i.e., hell) believers of god A.
Even worse: atheists could be unpunished by god B. (limbo/heaven.)
Meaning the outcomes could be completely different than those he has set up.

Now we really do have to have the discussion of chance, and also a discussion of the nature of "god" (and how one knows this nature at all).
Because:
If there is any chance that hypothetical god B exists, who punishes believers in god A infinitely, then the wager is unbalanced.
Ergo, it is not necessarily always in your best interest to believe in god A.

Doublethink means the power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them.
George Orwell.


Presuppositionalist
Theist
Presuppositionalist's picture
Posts: 344
Joined: 2007-05-21
User is offlineOffline
Susan wrote: A friend

Susan wrote:

A friend forwarded a message received from a xian attempting to use Pascal's Wager. The reply is classic.

 

The message:

Quote:

Someday, you'll understand. I feel sorry for you. Just promise me one thing, IF you were to hypothetically end up burning in hell or something, don't curse the religious for not saving you int time. Just consider that if my beliefs are wrong, so what, I'm worm food or whatever, no big loss. But if you're wrong, you're screwed. But you still have tons of chances to get it. Believe it or not, God loves you and when you meet your maker, you'll remember this and regret not taking it seriously. Good luck on your road of life, maybe our paths will cross someday.

My friend's reply:

Quote:


Hey, Bud! Thanks for your thoughts. When you sent your notice of pity, it would have been a lot more helpful had you mentioned which God I should avoid being screwed by.

There’s Allah whom the Muslim vehemently deny is triune; who say that Jesus is just a prophet, who say your Bible has been corrupted and so on. They give evidence from ancient history, science, archeology, Greek and Hebrew, Christian scholars, the early church fathers and the Bible itself to support their claim.

www.answering-christianity.com
www.muslim-responses.com
http://www.islam-guide.com

Or, how about the Jews. They say that Jesus at best was a good (if not problematic) Jewish Rabbi, but not the Messiah and certainly not God. They give evidence from ancient history, science, archeology, Greek and Hebrew, Christian scholars, the early church fathers and the Bible itself to support their claim.

www.jewsforjudaism.org
www.messiahtruth.com

Or, how about the Mormons who say that there are a multitude of gods and we can become one through acts like believing in their holy books and that Joseph Smith was a prophet of God. They give evidence from ancient history, science, archeology, Greek and Hebrew, Christian scholars, the early church fathers and the Bible itself to support their claim.

www.farms.byu.edu
www.fairlds.org

Or, how about the Jehovah’s witnesses who deny the trinity also. They say that Jesus was just a man and that the holy spirit is Jehovah’s active force. They say he is not omnipresent, that we are annihilated and not condemned to Hell and that Jesus has already come secretly. They give evidence from ancient history, science, archeology, Greek and Hebrew, Christian scholars, the early church fathers and the Bible itself to support their claim.

www.elihubooks.com
www.jehovah.to/index.htm

Even the Roman Catholic Church, who while saying they have the same God as you, say also that you can by God’s grace (through the sacraments and other good works) earn salvation. They believe such go to Purgatory when they die and one should do nearly every act of worship toward Mary that you do to Jesus, just don’t call it worship. They give evidence from ancient history, science, archeology, Greek and Hebrew, Christian scholars, the early church fathers and the Bible itself to support their claim.

www.catholic.com
www.catholicapologetics.org
www.envoymagazine.com

It seems partner that “god” has “left you without a witness.” Anyway you slice it, you are just as screwed as I am! But don’t worry! Look at these passages:

Deuteronomy 20:10-17 "When you draw near a city to fight against it, offer terms of peace to it. And if its answer to you is peace and it opens to you, then all the people who are found in it shall do forced labour for you and shall serve you. But if it makes no peace with you, but makes war against you, then you shall besiege it; and when the Lord your God gives it into your hand you shall put all its male to the sword, but the women and the little ones, the cattle, and everything else in the city, all its spoil, you shall take as booty for yourself; and you shall enjoy the spoil of your enemy, which the Lord God has given to you. Thus you shall do to all the cities which are far from you, which are not cities of the nations here. In the cities of these people that the Lord your God gives you an inheritance, you shall save alive nothing that breathes but you shall utterly destroy them, the Hittites and the Amoriotes, the Canaanites and the Jebusites, as the Lord your God has commanded."

Deuteronomy 7:2 "and when the Lord your God gives then [the enemies] over to you, and you defeat them; then you must utterly destroy them; you shall make no covenant with them, and show no mercy to them..."

Numbers 31:7, 17 They warred against Midian, as the Lord commanded Moses, and slew every male…[Moses said to them] "... Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman who has known a man by lying with him..."

I Samuel 15:1-3 And Samuel said to Saul, "The LORD sent me to anoint you king over his people Israel; now therefore hearken to the words of the LORD. Thus says the LORD of hosts, `I will punish what Am'alek did to Israel in opposing them on the way, when they came up out of Egypt. Now go and smite Am'alek, and utterly destroy all that they have; do not spare them, but kill both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass.'"

II Kings 2:23-24 He [Elisha] went up from there to Bethel; and while he was going up on the way, some small boys came out of the city and jeered at him, saying, "Go up, you baldhead! Go up, you baldhead!" And he turned around and when he saw them, he cursed them in the name of the Lord. And two she-bears came out from the woods and tore forty-two of the boys.

Looks like we didn’t have to worry about God being all that loving after all.

 

I hope that the Pascal Wagerer felt that bitch slap!

Yeah, that's funny. Ha ha. Funny.

Of course, the REALLY funny thing is how ALL those arguments have put destroyed. Yessir. Absolutely annihilated. I feel sorry for your friend, that he/she had to embarass himself/herself by posting such tripe. If his/her opponent had any knowledge of history or logic or anything AT ALL, your friend definitely got PWNED.

And by the way, Pascal's Wager doesn't suck. You could end up in Hell. Think. Cogito ergo sum. Descartes agreed that it follows from this that if you DON'T THINK, YOU DON'T EXIST. So think, or stop existing. You can take that one up with the genius Descartes if you doubt it. He was smarter than you.

Refutation courtesy of your neighborhood presuppositionalist. Laughing

John 3:16.

Peace.

Q: Why didn't you address (post x) that I made in response to you nine minutes ago???

A: Because I have (a) a job, (b) familial obligations, (c) social obligations, and (d) probably a lot of other atheists responded to the same post you did, since I am practically the token Christian on this site now. Be patient, please.


todangst
atheistRational VIP!
todangst's picture
Posts: 2843
Joined: 2006-03-10
User is offlineOffline
Presuppositionalist

Presuppositionalist wrote:

And by the way, Pascal's Wager doesn't suck. You could end up in Hell.

Fallacy of begging the question. You can't use the threat of 'hell' if the existence of hell is the very issue being debated.

Is there a presupper who can avoid commiting a logical fallacy in an argument? I really don't see how, seeing as presuppers must studiously avoid learing much of anything about logic... otherwise, they'd learn just why presuppositionalism is so incredibly ridiculous....

Quote:
Cogito ergo sum. Descartes agreed that it follows from this that if you DON'T THINK, YOU DON'T EXIST.

Can you cite me where in the Meditations he makes this claim?  I'm betting you can't.... because he'd never say anything this schizophrenic, even by the behest of the church....

 

"Hitler burned people like Anne Frank, for that we call him evil.
"God" burns Anne Frank eternally. For that, theists call him 'good.'


robakerson
robakerson's picture
Posts: 94
Joined: 2007-08-07
User is offlineOffline
Quote:

Quote:
And by the way, Pascal's Wager doesn't suck. You could end up in Hell. Think. Cogito ergo sum. Descartes agreed that it follows from this that if you DON'T THINK, YOU DON'T EXIST. So think, or stop existing. You can take that one up with the genius Descartes if you doubt it. He was smarter than you.


1) Pascal's Wager doesn't suck? Refute the evidence put against it instead of asserting that this opposing evidence is "false".

2) You reversed Descartes' statement. If A, then B does not entail if ~A, then ~B. "I think, therefore I am" does not entail "I dont think, therefore I am not"

3) Asserting the intelligence of a mathematician
is a) appeal to authority fallacy
and b) irrelavent to the original framework in which we are arguing

4) Whose hell?

Doublethink means the power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them.
George Orwell.


todangst
atheistRational VIP!
todangst's picture
Posts: 2843
Joined: 2006-03-10
User is offlineOffline
robakerson

robakerson wrote:
Quote:
And by the way, Pascal's Wager doesn't suck. You could end up in Hell. Think. Cogito ergo sum. Descartes agreed that it follows from this that if you DON'T THINK, YOU DON'T EXIST. So think, or stop existing. You can take that one up with the genius Descartes if you doubt it. He was smarter than you.


1) Pascal's Wager doesn't suck? Refute the evidence put against it instead of asserting that this opposing evidence is "false".

I doubt he's up to the task.

Quote:
 



2) You reversed Descartes' statement. If A, then B does not entail if ~A, then ~B. "I think, therefore I am" does not entail "I dont think, therefore I am not"

Well stated. But he won't  be able to follow, as you've used  a language that is foreign to presuppers: logic.

 

Quote:

3) Asserting the intelligence of a mathematician
is a) appeal to authority fallacy
and b) irrelavent to the original framework in which we are arguing

 

Yes. You've noted another basic informal fallacy in his post. Again, that's what presuppers are good for: a free lesson in identifying logical blunders.... which again stems from their  avoidance of learning anything at all about logic.

 

"Hitler burned people like Anne Frank, for that we call him evil.
"God" burns Anne Frank eternally. For that, theists call him 'good.'


robakerson
robakerson's picture
Posts: 94
Joined: 2007-08-07
User is offlineOffline
Quote: I doubt he's up to

Quote:
I doubt he's up to the task.
...
Well stated. But he won't  be able to follow, as you've used  a language that is foreign to presuppers: logic.


A little part of me dies inside when I realise yet another bigot is completely devoid of basic ability to reason.
Perhaps I responded in the hope that, in his/her attempt to refute me (which I don't expect to happen),  he/she will figure out at least why "if A, then B" doesn't entail "if ~A, then ~B".

Quote:
Yes. You've noted another basic informal fallacy in his post. Again, that's what presuppers are good for: a free lesson in identifying logical blunders.... which again stems from their  avoidance of learning anything at all about logic.


The worst part of all is that you and I completely demolished the whole of his/her "argument" without even referencing his/her "supporting material". The material he/she is "referencing".

The whole of the second paragraph, while contributing nothing at all, spends a lot of time making conclusions (not to mention incomplete sentences). It makes me sick.

Maybe a better post would have been a link to a website that explains basic logic quite well. I should find that website.

Doublethink means the power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them.
George Orwell.


todangst
atheistRational VIP!
todangst's picture
Posts: 2843
Joined: 2006-03-10
User is offlineOffline
robakerson wrote:

robakerson wrote:
Quote:
I doubt he's up to the task.
...
Well stated. But he won't be able to follow, as you've used a language that is foreign to presuppers: logic.


A little part of me dies inside when I realise yet another bigot is completely devoid of basic ability to reason.


Perhaps I responded in the hope that, in his/her attempt to refute me (which I don't expect to happen), he/she will figure out at least why "if A, then B" doesn't entail "if ~A, then ~B".

I doubt it. To do that, he'd have to consult an introductory text on logic. For him such a proposition is far too dangerous: any presupper who dared to actually learn logic would be forced to realize that their arguments rest upon basic misunderstanding of what logic even is... You can't find their schizophrenic rants in an actual logic textbook, which is why I enjoy asking them to cite an established source on logic to back up their nonsense.... mainly because it requires them to consider, briefly, actually reading a credible source on logic and this probably evokes a bit of anxiety in them...

The reality is that I could list my bank account on the second page of any intro to logic text without fear of anypresupper ever drawing a penny from it....

Quote:
Yes. You've noted another basic informal fallacy in his post. Again, that's what presuppers are good for: a free lesson in identifying logical blunders.... which again stems from their avoidance of learning anything at all about logic.


Quote:

The worst part of all is that you and I completely demolished the whole of his/her "argument" without even referencing his/her "supporting material". The material he/she is "referencing".

The whole of the second paragraph, while contributing nothing at all, spends a lot of time making conclusions (not to mention incomplete sentences). It makes me sick.

Well, we must give him a break - if you don't know what you're talking about, it's very hard to stay on topic.

Quote:


Maybe a better post would have been a link to a website that explains basic logic quite well. I should find that website.

I'd suggest wiki (their site on logic is not bad) but it would go over his head. My own page is written more for the layman:

http://editthis.info/logic/Main_Page

 

"Hitler burned people like Anne Frank, for that we call him evil.
"God" burns Anne Frank eternally. For that, theists call him 'good.'


jmm
Theist
jmm's picture
Posts: 837
Joined: 2007-03-03
User is offlineOffline
Todangst, I've been looking

Todangst, I've been looking at your page, and I must say that it is wonderful.  Thank you for posting it. 


todangst
atheistRational VIP!
todangst's picture
Posts: 2843
Joined: 2006-03-10
User is offlineOffline
jmm wrote: Todangst, I've

jmm wrote:
Todangst, I've been looking at your page, and I must say that it is wonderful. Thank you for posting it.

 

Thank you. I became interested in logic some years ago and decided the best way to learn the subject was to create my own version of a logic textbook.  

"Hitler burned people like Anne Frank, for that we call him evil.
"God" burns Anne Frank eternally. For that, theists call him 'good.'


robakerson
robakerson's picture
Posts: 94
Joined: 2007-08-07
User is offlineOffline
Very good site, kind

Very good site, kind sir/madam!
I'll have to remember to throw that on my bookmarks for further investigation. I'm sure I could use a refresher on the subject.
In any event, it can't hurt!

Doublethink means the power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them.
George Orwell.


todangst
atheistRational VIP!
todangst's picture
Posts: 2843
Joined: 2006-03-10
User is offlineOffline
robakerson wrote: Very good

robakerson wrote:
Very good site, kind sir/madam!
I'll have to remember to throw that on my bookmarks for further investigation. I'm sure I could use a refresher on the subject.
In any event, it can't hurt!

 (Sir)

Thanks for dealing with that mental patient in the other thread. Please feel free to continue on my behalf - I don't like treating people like that for free, the work is too draining...

"Hitler burned people like Anne Frank, for that we call him evil.
"God" burns Anne Frank eternally. For that, theists call him 'good.'


NumbAndTimeless
Posts: 9
Joined: 2007-10-28
User is offlineOffline
Pascal’s Wager is simply

Pascal’s Wager is simply a method used by Religious people to input their beliefs into other people. It’s based on false logic.

"Religion is the opium of the people" - Karl Marx.


crazytheist
Theist
crazytheist's picture
Posts: 12
Joined: 2007-10-04
User is offlineOffline
Even a theist such as

Even a theist such as myself sees that it won't work.  Jesus once said 

Quote:
"Not everyone who says to Me, `Lord, Lord,' shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven."
   (Matthew 7:21)  This in my opinion kills Pascal's Waeger. I don't think it should be used by anyone.  To see more of my opinion watch this video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E9HM4hlXJLw


Regarr
Posts: 1
Joined: 2007-12-01
User is offlineOffline
When I first heard of

When I first heard of Pascal's Wager I was a Christian, so I failed to see how silly & un-Christian it actually was. Upon further research & better understanding (and after being elightened & leaving the belief behind) I finally saw the answer.

When approached with this wager later in life, I was able to answer it this way....

If Christians use Pascal's Wager to defend their faith, then they are breaking one of Christ's greatest commandments. Matthew 22:37 says.. 'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.' Mark 12:30 agrees, but also adds "strength".

So the use of Pasgal's Wager (which is essentially a method of fear - i.e. I must believe to protect myself from the possiblity of hell) shows that the "believer" does not truly love the Lord God with all their heart, soul, mind or strength, thus making the claim invalid, as well as false. They are playing the odds, instead of possessing true belief & you know you can't gamble with the Lord.Wink


Mykey
Theist
Posts: 56
Joined: 2007-12-31
User is offlineOffline
No offence but it does not

No offence but it does not seem as if any of you are familiar with revised and recent defenses of Wager-like arguments. 

 

I am not impressed with any of the responses.


Watcher
atheist
Posts: 2326
Joined: 2007-07-10
User is offlineOffline
Mykey wrote: No offence

Mykey wrote:

No offence but it does not seem as if any of you are familiar with revised and recent defenses of Wager-like arguments. 

I am not impressed with any of the responses.

Please enlighten us.

"I am an atheist, thank God." -Oriana Fallaci


Mykey
Theist
Posts: 56
Joined: 2007-12-31
User is offlineOffline
Watcher wrote: Mykey

Watcher wrote:
Mykey wrote:

No offence but it does not seem as if any of you are familiar with revised and recent defenses of Wager-like arguments. 

I am not impressed with any of the responses.

Please enlighten us.

 

About?


deludedgod
Rational VIP!ScientistDeluded God
deludedgod's picture
Posts: 3221
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
Quote: About? What do

Quote:

About?

What do you think? About the new versions of the Wager you mentioned. You made a colossal assertion that there was a new and revised version of the argument along the same theme to which the responses already posted did not adequately address. But you did not back this up. Enlighten us, by which I mean, share with us this clever new version that you think somehow stronger than Pascal's already breathtakingly vapid and cowardly argument. By all means, I am waiting.

 

"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.

-Me

Books about atheism


Mykey
Theist
Posts: 56
Joined: 2007-12-31
User is offlineOffline
deludedgod wrote: What do

deludedgod wrote:

What do you think? About the new versions of the Wager you mentioned. You made a colossal assertion that there was a new and revised version of the argument along the same theme to which the responses already posted did not adequately address. But you did not back this up. Enlighten us, by which I mean, share with us this clever new version that you think somehow stronger than Pascal's already breathtakingly vapid and cowardly argument. By all means, I am waiting.

 

 

Just for my own curiousity, is it your contention that the Wager is not propagated by some philosophers today?

I will defend the wager in several weeks. i am occupied with another formal debate.

 

Smiling


deludedgod
Rational VIP!ScientistDeluded God
deludedgod's picture
Posts: 3221
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
Quote: Just for my own

Quote:

Just for my own curiousity, is it your contention that the Wager is not propagated by some philosophers today?

Well, that would be a complete non sequitur from my previous post, which means the question is simply a deviation from my request which has absolutely nothing to do with it, the answer to which is no.

 

"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.

-Me

Books about atheism


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
crazytheist,

crazytheist,

The bible NT does a terrible injustice to the philosophy school of the gnostic Jesus core ideas.

"Not everyone who says to Me, `Lord, Lord,' shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven."

not IN heaven , Knows heaven, .... and is one with the father simply meaning cosmos ..... like a simple buddha message of zero superstition gone wacko .... many dumb writers in the bible .....

blah blah ..... the NT sucks bad according to my atheist jesus sense ..... gnostic Jesus rocked, but the Bible sure did fuck most of it up ....  save a xian .... etc


pariahjane
pariahjane's picture
Posts: 1595
Joined: 2006-05-06
User is offlineOffline
Mykey wrote: deludedgod

Mykey wrote:
deludedgod wrote:

What do you think? About the new versions of the Wager you mentioned. You made a colossal assertion that there was a new and revised version of the argument along the same theme to which the responses already posted did not adequately address. But you did not back this up. Enlighten us, by which I mean, share with us this clever new version that you think somehow stronger than Pascal's already breathtakingly vapid and cowardly argument. By all means, I am waiting.

 

 

Just for my own curiousity, is it your contention that the Wager is not propagated by some philosophers today?

I will defend the wager in several weeks. i am occupied with another formal debate.

 

Smiling

You seem to keep throwing out arguments and then refusing to back them up.  I've seen you do this now in more than one thread.

If god takes life he's an indian giver


Mykey
Theist
Posts: 56
Joined: 2007-12-31
User is offlineOffline
pariahjane wrote: Mykey

pariahjane wrote:
Mykey wrote:
deludedgod wrote:

What do you think? About the new versions of the Wager you mentioned. You made a colossal assertion that there was a new and revised version of the argument along the same theme to which the responses already posted did not adequately address. But you did not back this up. Enlighten us, by which I mean, share with us this clever new version that you think somehow stronger than Pascal's already breathtakingly vapid and cowardly argument. By all means, I am waiting.

 

 

Just for my own curiousity, is it your contention that the Wager is not propagated by some philosophers today?

I will defend the wager in several weeks. i am occupied with another formal debate.

 

Smiling

You seem to keep throwing out arguments and then refusing to back them up.  I've seen you do this now in more than one thread.

 

 

Hi. As far as this thread goes, an argument must contain a premiss and a conclusion and I have not given a premiss and a conclusion in this thread. Hence, I have not given an argument. (until now, I suppose).

I am writing a formal debate and helping another concerning the resurrection. From this, you can imagine that my time is occupied. 

 

However, i will throw 600-700 words or so about Pascal's Wager in the formal debate and thereafter, I will post it on here. 

 

Please be patient.


Watcher
atheist
Posts: 2326
Joined: 2007-07-10
User is offlineOffline
This guy is a complete

This guy is a complete waste of time.  All he does is say things like, "That's wrong." and "I know something that proves my point." and then never delivers.

Pbbbhhhtttt.

He just wants to evade any argument and will probably consider himself a winner when everyone starts ignoring him.

"I am an atheist, thank God." -Oriana Fallaci


Mykey
Theist
Posts: 56
Joined: 2007-12-31
User is offlineOffline
Watcher wrote: This guy is

Watcher wrote:

This guy is a complete waste of time.  All he does is say things like, "That's wrong." and "I know something that proves my point." and then never delivers.

Pbbbhhhtttt.

He just wants to evade any argument and will probably consider himself a winner when everyone starts ignoring him.

 

Hi Watcher, you seemed to ignore my reasons for not offering an argument at the time being.

 

 How about we have a formal debate in the weeks to come? You can show the RRS just how weak theism is.

 

take care.


Watcher
atheist
Posts: 2326
Joined: 2007-07-10
User is offlineOffline
Mykey wrote:Hi Watcher,

Mykey wrote:

Hi Watcher, you seemed to ignore my reasons for not offering an argument at the time being.

 

 How about we have a formal debate in the weeks to come? You can show the RRS just how weak theism is.

 

take care.

No, I read your excuses for why you wouldn't back up your claims.

I've seen that tactic before.

On another forum I was debating religion and a christian made the BS statement that if you were not a christian you couldn't "understand" all that junk (christianity).

When I told him that I had been a christian for 30 years he made the same excuse "I'm really busy and can't respond yet."

He continue to respond to the thread but never got around to responding to my post.

Pretty pathetic.  It's an old tactic.  Your excuses are a cop out.

If you can't back up your claims then don't state your claims.

And I don't think I need to show RRS how pathetically weak theism is.  RRS entire purpose is to show the world how pathetically weak theism is.

All you need to do is start a thread.  Anytime.  Anywhere.

"I am an atheist, thank God." -Oriana Fallaci


Mykey
Theist
Posts: 56
Joined: 2007-12-31
User is offlineOffline
Watcher wrote:No, I read

Watcher wrote:

No, I read your excuses for why you wouldn't back up your claims.

I've seen that tactic before.

 

 

Tactic? lols.  I can show you the forum that I will be debating on, Watcher.

 

 

Quote:
If you can't back up your claims then don't state your claims. 

There is a difference between 'can't' and 'won't', at least for the time being.

 

Watcher, trust me when I say you couldnt keep up with me in a  formal debate. 

 

Quote:
And I don't think I need to show RRS how pathetically weak theism is.  RRS entire purpose is to show the world how pathetically weak theism is.

 

Whether you need to or not was not the statement.  Furthermore, there is no entailment that you ought not do something or you won't do something because you need not to do something.

 

Quote:
All you need to do is start a thread.  Anytime.  Anywhere.

 

I'll challenge you to a formal debate in a several weeks after i'm done with this other 'freethinker'.  You can watch me kick his ass on the forum and anticipate your own ass kicking.  Smiling

 

 


Watcher
atheist
Posts: 2326
Joined: 2007-07-10
User is offlineOffline
Mykey wrote: Watcher

Mykey wrote:
Watcher wrote:

No, I read your excuses for why you wouldn't back up your claims.

I've seen that tactic before.

 

 

Tactic? lols.  I can show you the forum that I will be debating on, Watcher.

 

 

Quote:
If you can't back up your claims then don't state your claims. 

There is a difference between 'can't' and 'won't', at least for the time being.

 

Watcher, trust me when I say you couldnt keep up with me in a  formal debate. 

 

Quote:
And I don't think I need to show RRS how pathetically weak theism is.  RRS entire purpose is to show the world how pathetically weak theism is.

 

Whether you need to or not was not the statement.  Furthermore, there is no entailment that you ought not do something or you won't do something because you need not to do something.

 

Quote:
All you need to do is start a thread.  Anytime.  Anywhere.

 

I'll challenge you to a formal debate in a several weeks after i'm done with this other 'freethinker'.  You can watch me kick his ass on the forum and anticipate your own ass kicking.  Smiling

*YAWN*

My dad can beat up your dad.

Shoo little fly.

Money talks, bullshit walks.

"I am an atheist, thank God." -Oriana Fallaci


Mykey
Theist
Posts: 56
Joined: 2007-12-31
User is offlineOffline
Watcher wrote:Mykey

Watcher wrote:
Mykey wrote:

Hi Watcher, you seemed to ignore my reasons for not offering an argument at the time being.

 

 How about we have a formal debate in the weeks to come? You can show the RRS just how weak theism is.

 

take care.

No, I read your excuses for why you wouldn't back up your claims.

I've seen that tactic before.

On another forum I was debating religion and a christian made the BS statement that if you were not a christian you couldn't "understand" all that junk (christianity).

When I told him that I had been a christian for 30 years he made the same excuse "I'm really busy and can't respond yet."

He continue to respond to the thread but never got around to responding to my post.

Pretty pathetic.  It's an old tactic.  Your excuses are a cop out.

If you can't back up your claims then don't state your claims.

And I don't think I need to show RRS how pathetically weak theism is.  RRS entire purpose is to show the world how pathetically weak theism is.

All you need to do is start a thread.  Anytime.  Anywhere.

 

Oh, btw, Watcher,

 

If the person you were debating simply said you couldn't understand X unless you were Y, and you respond with the statement: 'you were Y', you still have not obtained X. 

 It's a logical fallacy called affirming the consequent.  The best you got is something like a fulfillment of a necessary condition for X and not X itself.


deludedgod
Rational VIP!ScientistDeluded God
deludedgod's picture
Posts: 3221
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
Quote:

Double Post

"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.

-Me

Books about atheism


deludedgod
Rational VIP!ScientistDeluded God
deludedgod's picture
Posts: 3221
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
Quote: If the person you

Quote:

If the person you were debating simply said you couldn't understand X unless you were Y, and you respond with the statement: 'you were Y', you still have not obtained X.

Indeed. Butif Y was the only necessary precondition to understanding X, then he could have understood X by being Y, even if he was no longer Y. That was the implication his interlocutor gave. It sounded more to me like denying the antecedant:

If you are Christian, you understand X

You are not Christian

Therefore, you don't understand X

But, without the logical expression iff attached to that, it would be fallacious. As an affirming the consequent it would be reworded:

If and only if you are Christian, you can understand X

You are (were) Christian

Therefore you understand X

It doesn't matter which way we play with it because his interlocutor was making a special pleading fallacy. He hadn't established

(1) Why you could understand X if and only if you were Christian (this is the only way to change the expression to avoid DTA)

(2) Why, if (1) Christianity would be the only necessary precondition to understanding X. Ie, if not, then why does he understand it just for being Christian?

or (3)  If not (2), what other preconditions are necessary

Since he couldn't establish any of this, he was just employing special pleading to cover something vapid. 

"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.

-Me

Books about atheism


deludedgod
Rational VIP!ScientistDeluded God
deludedgod's picture
Posts: 3221
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
Quote: I'll challenge you

Quote:

I'll challenge you to a formal debate in a several weeks after i'm done with this other 'freethinker'.  You can watch me kick his ass on the forum and anticipate your own ass kicking

For some reason, I am neither quaking with terror or drooling in awe over your intellectual superiority. This is probably something to do with the fact that said superiority is illusory, and that such fear-inducing statements are those of a mouse who has managed to acquire a megaphone. We shall see if your self-proclaimed position at the apex of the intellectual totem pole is a reflection of reality, or smoke and mirrors. I'm betting on the latter. 

"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.

-Me

Books about atheism


Mykey
Theist
Posts: 56
Joined: 2007-12-31
User is offlineOffline
deludedgod

deludedgod wrote:

Quote:

If the person you were debating simply said you couldn't understand X unless you were Y, and you respond with the statement: 'you were Y', you still have not obtained X.

Indeed. Butif Y was the only necessary precondition to understanding X, then he could have understood X by being Y, even if he was no longer Y. That was the implication his interlocutor gave. It sounded more to me like denying the antecedant:

If you are Christian, you understand X

You are not Christian

Therefore, you don't understand X

But, without the logical expression iff attached to that, it would be fallacious. As an affirming the consequent it would be reworded:

If and only if you are Christian, you can understand X

You are (were) Christian

Therefore you understand X

It doesn't matter which way we play with it because his interlocutor was making a special pleading fallacy. He hadn't established

(1) Why you could understand X if and only if you were Christian (this is the only way to change the expression to avoid DTA)

(2) Why, if (1) Christianity would be the only necessary precondition to understanding X. Ie, if not, then why does he understand it just for being Christian?

or (3)  If not (2), what other preconditions are necessary

Since he couldn't establish any of this, he was just employing special pleading to cover something vapid. 

 

I don't agree that if Y was the only necessary condition for X, and Y obtained, then so would X. What you need is a sufficient condition and not merely a necessary condition.

 "But of course, as we well know, in general a necessary condition is not a sufficient condition. All sorts of conditions may be necessary for others, but do not - by themselves - suffice for, or guarantee, those others. "

http://www.sfu.ca/philosophy/swartz/conditions1.htm#section2