Pascal's Wager Argument

[Ranklyfrank]

The process of knowledge is useful. However, it totally frustrates me when objective reasoning is not understood as being applicable to objective reality of existence. Nonetheless, thank you for your explanation regarding subject/object knowledge of God. By the way, I don’t ever call God a THAT.

Blessings,
granny

Isaiah 55: 6-9

“Objective reality” means that you perceive reality as an object. Inherent in that is that there is a discreet “you” viewing a discreet “it.” Existence is objective in its exterior aspects that are quantifiable, and subjective in its interior as the feeling nature and its interpretive elements. God cannot therefore be solely an object because that would imply quantifiable.The external aspect of God, manifestation, is in its commonality measurable as described by the sciences. The internal Meaning of the is interpretive and can be manifest as Music, Art. Dance, etc.

“I AM THAT I AM”: The Nature of God is Self reflexive Subject manifest as Creation, the dynamic of which we call the Trinity for lack of better words.

 

[Ranklyfrank]

Just curious, but which would be your favourite synonym, or that most closely resembling your understanding?

My favorite is the one that applies to the facet one might be considering for educational purposes. So: Life, Truth, Love, Mind, Soul, Spirit, Principle, Light, God.

 

[LogisticsBranch]

RanklyFrank said on the previous page:

So while science as we use it technologically is "wide,’ the method of inquiry is scientifically “deep.”

A current exposition of that whole idea is available here as a short lecture:

youtube.com/watch?v=9wX_W1BB_0M&feature=player_embedded

Ken Wilbur speaking about science in that video makes me chuckle. I’ll pass on Ken Wilbur and this video. He most defintately doesn’t know what science is and I’m not impressed by what else he has to say. The American Association for the Advancement for Science states:

*What science is
Science is a process through which to understand the natural world. It explains physical occurrences though observations and logical inferences from those observations. These inferences are then tested against new observations. Our ancestors discovered much about nature though trial and error. They observed that particular effects consistently arise from particular causes. For example, they learned that water flows downhill and that cooked food is often easier to chew. The desire to understand drove humans to seek more knowledge and to join separate insights into more general explanations of how things function. Over time, certain methods were recognized to produce dependable insights and have become the form of practice we now call science.

Levels of scientific knowledge
Science begins with data gathered through observations of the natural world. Observations that have been confirmed again and again are referred to as facts (e.g. the Sun is 93 million miles from Earth). Yet some facts remain conditional due to the potential for discovering new evidence. Hypotheses are tentative proposals used to explain data and are tested through further observations or experiments. Hypotheses may be falsified by conflicting data or supported by consistent data, but an hypothesis can never be absolutely confirmed or proved.

A scientific theory is an explanation of how nature works that encompasses many tested hypotheses. A theory explains diverse observations, presents testable predictions and has not been contradicted by reliable evidence. At the same time, scientific theories are not “provable” in the sense that mathematicians use the word. Developing reliable theories is a main goal of science.

When new findings occur, they are presented to the scientific community who judges the reliability of the findings and their significance for hypotheses and theories. Skepticism is the main approach scientists take toward evaluating each other’s work. They often repeat each other’s experiments to see if they get the same results and will conduct new experiments to challenge the new ideas. Even well-documented theories may produce observations that are not easily explained by the theory. These observations may stimulate the proposal of new hypotheses and new tests, which often result in modifying the original theory or in abandoning it in favor of another perhaps newer theory.*aaas.org/spp/dser/images_Doser/Publications/evol_dialogue_study_guide.pdf

Touchstone;7596924:

Christianity is problematic in my view on many key points because it doesn’t even provide the basis for being tested and found “invalid”. It doesn’t stick its neck out far enough intellectually to be classified as invalid.

Biased remark as far as I am concerned dear Touchstone. You may like to read from the American Association for the Advancement of Science’s Study Guide wherein it states on page 7,“The religious context in which Darwin was working and the ways in which Christians sought knowledge. Science was commonly used as a way to try to understand God. Some Christians believed that seeking scientific knowledge was a means of giving praise to God.”
aaas.org/spp/dser/images_Doser/Publications/evol_dialogue_study_guide.pdf

I don’t think that statement by the AAAS is invalid though it appears to me to invalidate your statement.

 

[grannymh]

I’d say that if God, angels, heaven etc are as some people imagine them to be then you are quite right in that the scientific method is not appropriate to test the propositions. So I am interested to know whether you think that any method is appropriate to test the propositions, and if so what is the method(s) and how do we use it to test the truth of the propositions and to distinguish between true propositions (ie those that correspond to external reality) and illusion? I’m not being tricksy - I’m genuinely interested to know whether there is an appropriate test method, or whether these propositions are inherently untestable.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

Regarding appropriate methods to test propositions …
…if so what is the method(s) and how do we use it to test the truth of the propositions and to distinguish between true propositions (ie those that correspond to external reality) and illusion? from post 345.

First, I will eliminate the heaven proposition since as a child I believed that heaven would be filled with ice cream cones. (I am not making that up.) As for angels, I am sure they exist though I must drive them crazy or at least test their patience to the limit. (I am definitely not making that up.) I don’t have any method for testing angles’ reality besides a personal gratitude for their activity.

As for God, presently I consider Him a transcendent Pure Spirit without restrictions.
God being a Spirit would require that the appropriate test method would be spiritual. So immediately the proverbial natural science microscope is ruled out. Ruling out an illusion could be easy if the illusion originates and thus resides within a person without external reality. However, as we learn from the Greek and Roman sets of gods, spiritual god-illusions often slip into external reality with their own temples and their own protocol for practicing their main talents, such as war, love, etc.

In my humble opinion, the only method left is one which comes from a direct spiritual relationship with God as the Pure Spirit. Relationship meets the requirement for external reality because it involves two myself and someone other than myself. This relationship becomes spiritual because the someone other than myself is purely spiritual.

I am well aware that this proposed method will be tossed in the circular file because it depends on circular reasoning. Furthermore, it depends on the Catholic definition of a human person. Science does not address the Catholic position on human nature because it cannot be sequenced like DNA. In other words, human nature, itself, is an unique unification of the spiritual and material worlds; therefore, the human person has the means of knowing the existence of our Spiritual Creator, God.

Is the means the same as the method one is asking about? Kind of! We are in the Image of God because of our created soul which is not restricted to material time and place nor does it decompose along with our anatomy. Our soul naturally seeks its soul-mate God. This is where circular reasoning takes over. Our understanding of our soul’s existence leads to the recognition of the existence of a Spiritual Creator. Our belief in a Spiritual Creator makes the existence of our soul understandable. This circle of truth eliminates the need for scientific evidence. Circular reasoning regarding the spiritual does work because natural science assumptions have been ruled out

Of course, everyone will immediately say that this method is untestable. Of course, if one is not willing to test it, it will be untestable. Of course, someone could test it and find it doesn’t personally work because of natural science or material evidence standards. However, time and place are limits pertaining to the material world which do not necessarily apply to human souls and definitely not to the transcendent Pure Spirit.

Blessings,
granny

*Genesis 1:1 *

 

[Ranklyfrank]

Ken Wilbur speaking about science in that video makes me chuckle. I’ll pass on Ken Wilbur and this video. He most defintately doesn’t know what science is and I’m not impressed by what else he has to say.

Yes, and I always chuckle and am unimpressed when I see your lengthy quotations as I ask myself “Isn’t it interesting that even the loonys on here actual have their own thoughts about things and this person just quotes and quotes and quotes to the point I have to wonder if she understands anything she cuts and pastes, let alone what someone is actually saying?” LB, maybe you do; but if you can’t say it in your own words you are just a third party mouthpiece and I have no respect nor time for you, even less than for the people I absolutely disagree with.

 

[LogisticsBranch]

Yes, and I always chuckle and am unimpressed when I see your lengthy quotations as I ask myself “Isn’t it interesting that even the loonys on here actual have their own thoughts about things and this person just quotes and quotes and quotes to the point I have to wonder if she understands anything she cuts and pastes, let alone what someone is actually saying?” LB, maybe you do; but if you can’t say it in your own words you are just a third party mouthpiece and I have no respect nor time for you, even less than for the people I absolutely disagree with.

So your video has been rebuked by the link (url) from the American Association for the Advancement for Science and you accuse me of using that source which provides information that does so. Anyone like you can spin a yarn as I’ve noticed with topics that I have been on with you. And you still haven’t answered my question from one particular topic yet continued to ask me another question there. Rule of thumb, it’s commonplace to rebuke a statement(s) made by a person(s) by using valuable resources such as quotes via links(url) from reputable and valuable sources that can rebuke claims. Attacking me for doing so only shows your ignorance in this matter. If you have no respect for me for doing such that is your problem not mine. (No skin off my back.) I support science and my religion and will continue to use whatever I please to support the two if I choose to do so. I’m a science researcher. I use my skills in obtaining reputable sources to debunk claims that are untrue. And I look forward to you not replying to me in the future. Bye the way, I spend hours upon hours searching for those valuable and reputable resources. My time is spent wisely as can be noted in my previous message and other messages throughout Catholic Answers on other topics.

 

[LogisticsBranch]

I’m bringing to everyone’s attention my message 213:

Hi Charlemagne. First off, I’m not an atheist. As you know already from my previous messages to this topic, I don’t agree with Pascal’s wager or with what you have stated.

B. Sury from the Indian Statistical Institute, Bangalore has written about Pascal. Here is an excerpt from the pdf.

“Pascal wrote the philosophical work Pensées towards the end of his life. This is a collection of his thoughts on human suffering and faith in God which he began in late 1656 and continued to work on during 1657 and 1658. This work contains ‘Pascal’s wager’ which claims to prove that belief in God is rational with the following argument: “Let us weigh the gain and the loss in wagering that God is. Let us consider the two possibilities. If you gain, you gain all; if you lose, you lose nothing. Hesitate not, then, to wager that He is.” In the seventh chapter of Pensées, he tries to apply his probability theory to argue that it is worthwhile to be religious. He argues that, as the value of eternal happiness must be infinite, then, even if the probability of a religious life ensuring eternal happiness be very small, still the expectation (which is measured by the product of the two) must be of sufficient magnitude to make it worthwhile to be religious! Pascal died at the age of 39 in intense pain after a malignant growth in his stomach spread to the brain.”
ias.ac.in/resonance/Jan2004/pdf/Jan2004AIB.pdf

It appears to me that Pascal began to think of God when he was in physical pain. I wouldn’t consider that to be a logical reason to believe in God. Physical pain can distort a person’s mind.

I support these three quotes from the LETTER OF HIS HOLINESS JOHN PAUL II TO REVEREND GEORGE V. COYNE, S.J., DIRECTOR OF THE VATICAN OBSERVATORY on June 1, 1988:

1. “The unity we perceive in creation on the basis of our faith in Jesus Christ as Lord of the universe, and the correlative unity for which we strive in our human communities, seems to be reflected and even reinforced in what contemporary science is revealing to us. As we behold the incredible development of scientific research we detect an underlying movement towards the discovery of levels of law and process which unify created reality and which at the same time have given rise to the vast diversity of structures and organisms which constitute the physical and biological, and even the psychological and sociological, worlds.”
2. “Both the Church and the scientific community are faced with such inescapable alternatives. We shall make our choices much better of we live in a collaborative interaction in which we are called continually to be more. Only a dynamic relationship between theology and science can reveal those limits which support the integrity of either discipline, so that theology does not profess a pseudo-science and science does not become an unconscious theology. Our knowledge of each other can lead us to be more authentically ourselves.”
3. “The Church does not propose that science should become religion or religion science.”

Pope John Paul II was against about pseudo-science and so am I. Therefore, I don’t accept Intelligent Design as a Theory of Information by William A. Dembski, BLAISE PASCAL FELLOW IN PROBABILITY, CENTER FOR THE RENEWAL OF SCIENCE AND CULTURE DISCOVERY INSTITUTE. I’m not a proponent of the Intelligent Design Movement.

Also, my message 128:

Hello In Spiration. It appears to me what Alec is referring to is the five senses. It’s pretty common knowledge that every pre-school child is taught *Sense of Touch *, Sense of Taste, Sense of Smell, Sense of Sight, and Sense of Sound. It’s part of the physical sciences. The website is from the National Science Teachers Association: preschoolrainbow.org/5senses.htm. It doesn’t have anything to do with a belief system. Henceforth, I disagree with Blaise Pascal pense #67: The vanity of the sciences.-- Physical science will not console me for the ignorance of morality in the time of affliction. But the science of ethics will always console me for the ignorance of the physical sciences. oregonstate.edu/instruct/phl302/texts/pascal/pensees-a.html

 

[grannymh]

I’m bringing to everyone’s attention my message 213:

I support these three quotes from the LETTER OF HIS HOLINESS JOHN PAUL II TO REVEREND GEORGE V. COYNE, S.J., DIRECTOR OF THE VATICAN OBSERVATORY on June 1, 1988:

1. “The unity we perceive in creation on the basis of our faith in Jesus Christ as Lord of the universe, and the correlative unity for which we strive in our human communities, seems to be reflected and even reinforced in what contemporary science is revealing to us. As we behold the incredible development of scientific research we detect an underlying movement towards the discovery of levels of law and process which unify created reality and which at the same time have given rise to the vast diversity of structures and organisms which constitute the physical and biological, and even the psychological and sociological, worlds.”
2. “Both the Church and the scientific community are faced with such inescapable alternatives. We shall make our choices much better of we live in a collaborative interaction in which we are called continually to be more. Only a dynamic relationship between theology and science can reveal those limits which support the integrity of either discipline, so that theology does not profess a pseudo-science and science does not become an unconscious theology. Our knowledge of each other can lead us to be more authentically ourselves.”
3. “The Church does not propose that science should become religion or religion science.”

Thank you for your kindness.

Question regarding quote 2. above.

What specifically are the “inescapable alternatives” listed in the letter?

Blessings,
granny

The quest for truth is worthy of the adventures of the journey.

 

[Betterave]

For those who don’t know what a fallacious ad hominem argument is, here is a very good example:

*It appears to me that Pascal began to think of God when he was in physical pain. I wouldn’t consider that to be a logical reason to believe in God. Physical pain can distort a person’s mind. *

 

[LogisticsBranch]

As for God, presently I consider Him a transcendent Pure Spirit without restrictions.
God being a Spirit would require that the appropriate test method would be spiritual. So immediately the proverbial natural science microscope is ruled out. Ruling out an illusion could be easy if the illusion originates and thus resides within a person without external reality. However, as we learn from the Greek and Roman sets of gods, spiritual god-illusions often slip into external reality with their own temples and their own protocol for practicing their main talents, such as war, love, etc.

Let’s be honest here. You have in the past on other topics implyed “Catholics” can’t accept certain scientific explanations (The Theory of Evolution) due to you thinking Adam and Eve are missing from scientific text. Henceforth, it is obvious that it is you who desires to teach pseudo-science in science classroom whereas the Pope has stated he doesn’t support pseduo-science and that religion and science are separate. Are you a proponent of the Intelligent Design Movement?

In my humble opinion, the only method left is one which comes from a direct spiritual relationship with God as the Pure Spirit. Relationship meets the requirement for external reality because it involves two myself and someone other than myself. This relationship becomes spiritual because the someone other than myself is purely spiritual.

I’m not “purely” spiritual. I don’t consider God as just ‘Pure Spirit’.

I am well aware that this proposed method will be tossed in the circular file because it depends on circular reasoning. Furthermore, it depends on the Catholic definition of a human person. Science does not address the Catholic position on human nature because it cannot be sequenced like DNA. In other words, human nature, itself, is an unique unification of the spiritual and material worlds; therefore, the human person has the means of knowing the existence of our Spiritual Creator, God.

A human doesn’t necessarily have to be a Catholic. As I’ve said long ago on another topic where you harrassed me because the usage of the term “human nature” as you used it wasn’t a scientific one. We are homo sapiens. Your definition of “human nature” isn’t a scientific one.

Is the means the same as the method one is asking about? Kind of! We are in the Image of God because of our created soul which is not restricted to material time and place nor does it decompose along with our anatomy. Our soul naturally seeks its soul-mate God. This is where circular reasoning takes over. Our understanding of our soul’s existence leads to the recognition of the existence of a Spiritual Creator. Our belief in a Spiritual Creator makes the existence of our soul understandable. This circle of truth eliminates the need for scientific evidence. Circular reasoning regarding the spiritual does work because natural science assumptions have been ruled out

God is love. We should represent the image of God as being that of love. Sometimes for me it’s tough love that I am compelled to use to protect my own interests on this forum.

Of course, everyone will immediately say that this method is untestable. Of course, if one is not willing to test it, it will be untestable. Of course, someone could test it and find it doesn’t personally work because of natural science or material evidence standards. However, time and place are limits pertaining to the material world which do not necessarily apply to human souls and definitely not to the transcendent Pure Spirit.

My mind oftentimes produces soulful and spiritual reflections. Some spirtual reflections that enable soulfullnes pertain to music, art, and poetry.

What specifically are the “inescapable alternatives” listed in the letter?

I don’t see any “inescapable alternatives” that are present in my contribution as presented in
LETTER OF HIS HOLINESS JOHN PAUL II TO REVEREND GEORGE V. COYNE, S.J., DIRECTOR OF THE VATICAN OBSERVATORY on June 1, 1988.

For those who don’t know what a fallacious ad hominem argument is, here is a very good example:

*It appears to me that Pascal began to think of God when he was in physical pain. I wouldn’t consider that to be a logical reason to believe in God. Physical pain can distort a person’s mind. *

Yeah and it was you, Betterave, who continued to treat with with disrespect on another topic that has now been closed. FYI, scientifically speaking, physical pain can cause a person to hallucinate. I sure don’t think that is a good reason to believe in God.

 

[Betterave]

Yeah and it was you, Betterave, who continued to treat with with disrespect on another topic that has now been closed. FYI, scientifically speaking, physical pain can cause a person to hallucinate. I sure don’t think that is a good reason to believe in God.

FYI, fallacious ad hominem arguments don’t deserve respect, and as a result most of your comments to me (including the one here) don’t deserve respect.

“P believed X and was in physical pain; therefore P believed X because he was in physical pain” is still a thoroughly fallacious argument - your irrelevant “scientifically speaking” remarks about stuff that is merely obvious doesn’t change that in the least.

 

[LogisticsBranch]

FYI, fallacious ad hominem arguments don’t deserve respect, and as a result most of your comments to me (including the one here) don’t deserve respect.

“P believed X and was in physical pain; therefore P believed X because he was in physical pain” is still a thoroughly fallacious argument - your irrelevant “scientifically speaking” remarks about stuff that is merely obvious doesn’t change that in the least.

Betterave, you obviously know little about science. I don’t expect you to be telling the truth. Science helps philosophy and religion so saith a Pope. Futhermore, you and InSpriation proved to me how you treat women ( I’m a woman) which was evident on the closed topic, Feminist “Philosophy”
(forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=530819).
I hope kind readers will notice Betterave’s continued style is exposed on that topic too.
I’ll move onto another topic now.

 

[Betterave]

Betterave, you obviously know little about science. I don’t expect you to be telling the truth. Science helps philosophy and religion so saith a Pope. Futhermore, you and InSpriation proved to me how you treat women ( I’m a woman) which was evident on the closed topic, Feminist “Philosophy”
(forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=530819).
I hope kind readers will notice Betterave’s continued style is exposed on that topic too.
I’ll move onto another topic now.

More false, fallacious, groundless *ad hominem *nonsense, some truly irrational brain farts - and, still, none of it deserving of respect. Lord have mercy.

 

[Mystic_Banana]

More false, fallacious, groundless *ad hominem *nonsense, some truly irrational brain farts - and, still, none of it deserving of respect. Lord have mercy.

Oh, dear. can’t we all just get along? Come on everyone! :grouphug:

 

[grannymh]

Oh, dear. can’t we all just get along? Come on everyone! :grouphug:

:grouphug:

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Touchstone

*Christianity is problematic in my view on many key points because it doesn’t even provide the basis for being tested and found “invalid”. It doesn’t stick its neck out far enough intellectually to be classified as invalid. *

Atheism doesn’t stick its neck out at all. There is literally no way to prove that God does not exist.

Pascal’s argument in the end comes down to this:

The atheist believes it is not rational to live as though God exists. The theist does not believe it is rational to live as though God does not exist.

Now answer this:** if God does exist**, which is more rational: to live as though He does not exist; or to live as though He does exist?

 

[Ranklyfrank]

Now answer this:** if God does exist**, which is more rational: to live as though He does not exist; or to live as though He does exist?

First it would behoove us to discover if this alleged God is a “Person” or something else.

 

[davidv]

First it would behoove us to discover if this alleged God is a “Person” or something else.

Why does it matter?

 

[Ranklyfrank]

Why does it matter?

It would seem to have bearing on a number of things. As far as I can tell those who practice from an understanding of an impersonal God have a Universal ethic that is more basic to any religion than religions generally are to one another. Their dynamic is utterly simple and fits the Great Commandment, the Golden Rules, the Law of Reciprocity and the dictum to Know Thyself, all of which have been around since mankind, or at least way before Christianity. That Way even fits the Identity statements of Jesus and the OT and has a longer and more experientially reliable pedigree due to its simplicity. It has been re-discovered independently in all times, all places, and whether the core of it is spontaneously arrived at or arrived at by the recommended repeatable method, there is no argument between its proponents, only attempts at explications to those who haven’t been there yet with the caveat that the map is not the territory.

At the same time, those who believe to some extent or another in a personal God have a lot of explaining to do. It’s kind of like the impersonal God idea is a ramjet at full speed and economy compared to a rather poor reciprocating engine using a low grade fuel. All sorts of attachments and devices have to be stuck on the to make it work even if it is a superb example of its kind. Stories have to be told about all the factors surrounding it and why your model and not someone else’s is THE model, and whose is from the True Manufacturer. And then you have to convince all those people who don’t have one or have a different one that they ought to be driving your make and model. Fights break out. A lot of energy is wasted arguing about the attachments and the manufacturer and the stories of who got where how fast and by what invisible means of support. And if something goes wrong, then there’s another meshugena and you go to someone who allegedly is better at reading the manual than you are and they most often say that “It says here it works, so something is wrong with the way you are driving. Don’t be ungrateful to those who gave you this manual even though it was published, sort of, thousands of years ago and we’re still trying to figure it out.” And yet it is claimed that the map is the territory.

I could say more, but I’m sure you get the idea.

 

[PRmerger]

It would seem to have bearing on a number of things. As far as I can tell those who practice from an understanding of an impersonal God have a Universal ethic that is more basic to any religion than religions generally are to one another.

This is true indeed.

However, **the only reason to believe in a Personal God, a God who became Incarnate, is because it’s true. **Not because it makes someone act morally. Not because it makes someone happy. (For does not belief in Santa Claus make someone act morally and make him happy?)