Pascal's Wager and Faith

[Qoeleth]

I’m afraid that doesn’t hold much water, firstly we’d have to start from the conclusion (assume god exists and created the universe), then we can get to some evidence that he exists. If we don’t start from that assumption then the evidence vanishes… Surely you can see that makes no sense.*

The cosmological argument is a decent argument for saying that something happened first. The problem is that “something” is no more likely to be a god than a quantum fluctuation or a little green pixie.*

Ok, I’m telling you seriously that today someone will sneak up behind you with a knife and attempt to stab you. Now are you going to spend all day looking over your shoulder every few minutes? Bear in mind that I’ll tell you the same thing tomorrow, and the next day, and the next…

If there was a large probability, like 10% of a SPECIFIC god existing, then yes, we could use pascals wager. Unfortunately I have (in the absence of any evidence) no way of differentiating between the odds of Allah, or Baal, or Thor, or Quetzalcoatl. So we should either behave as if they all exist, or none of them.*

To select one and say it works for this one but none of the others is special pleading based on the religion you happen to already hold. In other words the religion for which you already find the evidence compelling. In other words the wager works ONLY if you find the evidence compelling and therefore do not need the wager.

If you seriously, seriously told me there was someone with a knife- but you are only ironically “seriously” telling me. I agree, with your point about many Gods- but my point is that all God(s) more ore less say the same thing- act with justice, compassion, unselfishness, don’t steal, don’t murder, etc., basically be decent, and don’t be a bastard. So, if you do these things, you are keeping Allah/God/YHWH/Jah, Jesus, Baal, Buddha, Krishna, Odin, Zeus, all pretty much happy.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Qoeleth

Denotationally, yes, but connotationally, ‘deulsion’ might be needlessly forceful. It is possible to have mistaken views, which are not, however, unreasonable. If Christianity turned out to be completely wrong about God, etc., it would still be a reasonable error, and therefore, I would not use the word delusional.

No, delusional is the right word. If I believe that Christ is God, and the atheist says that is impossible because there is no God, then the atheist must regard the Christian as delusional (seeing something that isn’t there).

**Similarly, I would not describe an atheist as delusional, since their veiws could also be quite reasonable. **

How is atheism reasonable?

“Fools say in their hearts, ‘There is no God.’” Psalms 14:1

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Candide
**
Unfortunately I have (in the absence of any evidence) no way of differentiating between the odds of Allah, or Baal, or Thor, or Quetzalcoatl. So we should either behave as if they all exist, or none of them.**

Well, since you have already made up your mind there is no god, why would any of these gods appeal to you at all?

It is only when you seriously consider that one of them may be the true God, that you have an obligation to find out which one. If you sit on the fence and say, “I may pick the wrong one, so I better not pick any,” then you have offended every god, including the one who is true God.

As Pascal pointed out, playing the shell game isn’t going to get you out of choosing.

 

[Candide_West]

Candide:

So, it appears that you wish to start, despite your initial confession.*

? I’m confused, start what? What initial confession? Am I missing some of this conversation?

That’s your first argument, then? It would seem that, according to you, God should not be Infinite, or eternal. It would seem that you want God to be visible, that you want God to be a bigger version of us, perhaps, but still finite. And, should he be wearing a big, white lab coat too? I wonder how such a being would create a universe, not to mention a ‘multiverse’!

??? Again no idea what you are talking about. I haven’t mentioned multiverse theory. Or God being a bigger version of us. That would be a bit weird. All I’ve done is to state that by my use of the term evidence you can’t have evidence against a god existing because you can always just posit an undetectable god. Easy.*

Which one, or ones, might that/they be?

God bless,
jd

??? As I said, all the things people put forwards as evidence for the existence of various gods ie “the universe”.*

 

[Candide_West]

Candide

How can a thing not correct be anything but false? And if it is false, how can it not be a delusion?

Because the word delusion means more than just incorrect. Consider, this morning I couldn’t find my keys, I thought I left them on the kitchen work top. Turns out they were on the coffee table. So, was I suffering from a “key location delusion” or was I just wrong?

If you want to use the term delusion in that manner then you make it meaningless and worthless, because we’re all “delusional” virtually every day.

 

[JDaniel]

? I’m confused, start what? What initial confession? Am I missing some of this conversation?

??? Again no idea what you are talking about. I haven’t mentioned multiverse theory. Or God being a bigger version of us. That would be a bit weird. All I’ve done is to state that by my use of the term evidence you can’t have evidence against a god existing because you can always just posit an undetectable god. Easy.*

??? As I said, all the things people put forwards as evidence for the existence of various gods ie “the universe”.*

Candide:

If you can’t - or don’t want to - re-read my previous posts, I’m good with that.

Bye.

God bless,
jd

 

[Candide_West]

There is indeed evidence for a God, and atheists choose to ignore it. *

Well, as I said, it depends what you mean by “evidence”. Some people use the term so loosely that anything and everything is evidence for god. I use the term more rigorously and I have found nothing for god which meets the criteria. In any case though, anything related to evidence is off topic.*

Your definition of agnostic and atheist is one I’ve never seen and is not in accord with the dictionary definition.

? How do you know? I haven’t given them. Besides, different dictionaries give different definitions.*

For your interest here is how I use the terms.

Atheist - someone who doesn’t believe in any gods.

Agnostic - someone who believes it isn’t possible to know with certainty whether any gods exist.*

I think you’ll find this aligns well with most definitions. Obviously as I said that means you can be an agnostic atheist or an agnostic theist.*

 

[Candide_West]

If you seriously, seriously told me there was someone with a knife- but you are only ironically “seriously” telling me.

Ok, I’m seriously, seriously telling you that someone is going to sneak up behind you to stab you today. This is all besides the point anyway, all that is needed for the hypothetical to work is that you are aware that it’s theoretically possible and acknowledge that there is no evidence either for or against the chap being there.*

Again, do you keep looking or not? Pascals wager would clearly say that you should.*

*I agree, with your point about many Gods- but my point is that all God(s) more ore less say the same thing- act with justice, compassion, unselfishness, don’t steal, don’t murder, etc., basically be decent, and don’t be a bastard. So, if you do these things, you are keeping Allah/God/YHWH/Jah, Jesus, Baal, Buddha, Krishna, Odin, Zeus, all pretty much happy.

No worries then. I do all that without needing to believe in any gods at all. So I’ve safely hedged my bet, and done it without risking causing offence by worshipping the wrong (potentially jealous) god.*

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Candide

**Because the word delusion means more than just incorrect. Consider, this morning I couldn’t find my keys, I thought I left them on the kitchen work top. Turns out they were on the coffee table. So, was I suffering from a “key location delusion” or was I just wrong? **

To have a faulty memory is not to be delusional in the sense that an atheist must think a Christian is deluded (or even has delusions of heavenly grandeur)!

*So I’ve safely hedged my bet, and done it without risking causing offence by worshipping the wrong (potentially jealous) god. **

You haven’t hedged your bet at all. All you’ve done is to risk offending every possible god. So when the true God gets through with you, it will be because you offended the true God as well as all the false ones.

 

[Candide_West]

Candide

Well, since you have already made up your mind there is no god, why would any of these gods appeal to you at all?

Nope, you got it backwards. These gods (indeed all gods) fail to appeal to me due to the lack of any evidence for them. Hence I do not believe in any of them.

It is only when you seriously consider that one of them may be the true God, that you have an obligation to find out which one. If you sit on the fence and say, “I may pick the wrong one, so I better not pick any,” then you have offended every god, including the one who is true God.*

Nope, I have no reason to believe that any gods which happen to exist would be offended by non-belief based on lack of evidence. I’d say in fact that it would be more sensible for a supernatural being (knowing I’d been given no evidence) to reward me for using the intellect he gave me, maintaining my intellectual integrity and thus not believing.

As Pascal pointed out, playing the shell game isn’t going to get you out of choosing.

There is no choice here except to pretend or not. I choose honesty.*

 

[Candide_West]

Candide:

If you can’t - or don’t want to - re-read my previous posts, I’m good with that.

*Bye.

God bless,
jd

No, you misunderstood. In fact I have been back over your posts. As far as I can tell the conversation can be summarised as follows:

Candide: by my use of the term evidence there is none for or against the god hypothesis.

Jd: how about we start a thread where I present a piece of evidence for god and you present one against, and we discuss.*

Candide: I don’t have any evidence against god to present, as I said in my last post.

Jd: so you’ve presented your first evidence against god which is that you don’t want him to be infinite.

Candide: that wouldn’t be evidence against the existence of a god. As I said, I don’t think you can have evidence against the existence of god.

Jd: re-read my posts.*

Please let me know if you think I’ve misunderstood something here.*

 

[Candide_West]

Candide

To have a faulty memory is not to be delusional in the sense that an atheist must think a Christian is deluded (or even has delusions of heavenly grandeur)!

Exactly, atheists need not believe Christians to be deluded in order to believe they are incorrect. It’s rather too obvious to really need stating but there you go.*

You haven’t hedged your bet at all. All you’ve done is to risk offending every possible god. So when the true God gets through with you, it will be because you offended the true God as well as all the false ones.

I’m afraid you rather missed the point, it would have been clear if you’d read what I was replying to. Qoeleth said:

I agree, with your point about many Gods- but my point is that all God(s) more ore less say the same thing- act with justice, compassion, unselfishness, don’t steal, don’t murder, etc., basically be decent, and don’t be a bastard. So, if you do these things, you are keeping Allah/God/YHWH/Jah, Jesus, Baal, Buddha, Krishna, Odin, Zeus, all pretty much happy.

Obviously my point was that since I do all those things anyway I already meet the requirements for keeping all those gods “pretty much happy”. And as its perfectly possible to hypothesise the existence of a jealous god (like Yahweh) who would presumably be more annoyed with worshipping false idols than not worshipping at all, I’ve saved myself from that risk at least.

 

[Eleve]

Here’s the explanation given in the link:

snip

OK. I’ve gone back, I’ve reread, and I don’t see how, even if the minimax regret rule is decisive, this avoids the many-gods objection. The problem is that, if the many-gods objection stands up, then the table itself is set up wrong. It is not true, for example, that the worst-case scenario for someone who believes in God would be for God to not exist. Rather, the worst-case scenario is that some sort of vengeful other God exists. In that case, the regret for believing in the wrong God is massive.

Your table assumes that the only two live options, both in terms of states of affairs and in terms of what you might choose to believe, are that the Christian God exists and that no God exists. Ditch that assumption and you no longer have an accurate analysis.

 

[Anselm33]

OK. I’ve gone back, I’ve reread, and I don’t see how, even if the minimax regret rule is decisive, this avoids the many-gods objection. The problem is that, if the many-gods objection stands up, then the table itself is set up wrong. It is not true, for example, that the worst-case scenario for someone who believes in God would be for God to not exist. Rather, the worst-case scenario is that some sort of vengeful other God exists. In that case, the regret for believing in the wrong God is massive.

Your table assumes that the only two live options, both in terms of states of affairs and in terms of what you might choose to believe, are that the Christian God exists and that no God exists. Ditch that assumption and you no longer have an accurate analysis.

There’s a simple answer to your objection–in the dogma/doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church, salvation is not restricted to those in the Church. It’s a complicated and controversial matter, and a full discussion would not be possible in a short post.

 

[Mijoy2]

I submit we all live, to varying degrees, according to Pascal’s Wager. Few admit it.

 

[empther]

I submit we all live, to varying degrees, according to Pascal’s Wager. Few admit it.

I’ve never had the slightest shadow of a doubt that God exists.

As a boy I simply believed what I was told. Now, fifty years later, I know all the arguments, pro and con. It’s no contest. God Is.

 

[JDaniel]

No, you misunderstood. In fact I have been back over your posts. As far as I can tell the conversation can be summarised as follows:

Candide: by my use of the term evidence there is none for or against the god hypothesis.

Jd: how about we start a thread where I present a piece of evidence for god and you present one against, and we discuss.*

Candide: I don’t have any evidence against god to present, as I said in my last post.

Jd: so you’ve presented your first evidence against god which is that you don’t want him to be infinite.

Candide: that wouldn’t be evidence against the existence of a god. As I said, I don’t think you can have evidence against the existence of god.

Jd: re-read my posts.*

Please let me know if you think I’ve misunderstood something here.*

Candide:

And this

All I’ve done is to state that by my use of the term evidence you can’t have evidence against a god existing because you can always just posit an undetectable god.

is not an argument?

God bless,
jd

 

[Eleve]

There’s a simple answer to your objection–in the dogma/doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church, salvation is not restricted to those in the Church. It’s a complicated and controversial matter, and a full discussion would not be possible in a short post.

That in no way protects me if I become Catholic and it turns out that the Muslims were right. If anything, this is a reason to latch on to the least forgiving God.

 

[Qoeleth]

Ok, I’m seriously, seriously telling you that someone is going to sneak up behind you to stab you today. This is all besides the point anyway, all that is needed for the hypothetical to work is that you are aware that it’s theoretically possible and acknowledge that there is no evidence either for or against the chap being there.*

Again, do you keep looking or not? Pascals wager would clearly say that you should.*

No worries then. I do all that without needing to believe in any gods at all. So I’ve safely hedged my bet, and done it without risking causing offence by worshipping the wrong (potentially jealous) god.*

It says, I don’t know how many times in the Bible, the Koran, etc., “Each will be rewarded according to their deeds.” Judgment according to belief would be simply unfair- it would come down to which part of the world you live in, or which era you live in. If I was born in Arabia, I would certainly be a Muslim. If you are good, there is some kind of reward, if you are bad, there is some kind of punishment. Maybe the punishment for being bad is nothing more than the state of being bad, and the unhappiness that brings

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Candide
**
There is no choice here except to pretend or not. I choose honesty.* **

There’s nothing honest about being an atheist when you have no proof whatever there is no God. Honesty has nothing to do with it. You have issues with God, like all children have issues with their parents. The honest children are the ones who fess up to those issues and get beyond them back into a loving relationship with Dad.

**And as its perfectly possible to hypothesise the existence of a jealous god (like Yahweh) who would presumably be more annoyed with worshipping false idols than not worshipping at all, I’ve saved myself from that risk at least. **

It’s presumptuous of you to say you know the mind of God, whether he is more annoyed by people who believe in false gods as opposed to those who refuse to believe in any gods. How would you know that? Why would making a mistake about choosing the wrong god be more fatal than refusing to worship the right one?

By the way, which God would be for you in the running against Jesus Christ?

Would it be Zeus? Athena? Apollo? Hera? Any of the above? And what criteria would you be using to eliminate Jesus in favor of any of the others?