Pascal's Wager Argument

[jonfawkes]

***If the Church ceased to exist, God still remains. Seems straight forward to me. ***

The Church has been defined as the Body of Christ on earth. Reject the Church and you reject the Body of Christ. Christ is God. Reject the Church and you reject God. Did he come to die for nothing, to set up a social club that men could reject with impunity?

I really don’t know how to make it any simpler than that.

“Everyone who acknowledges me before others I will acknowledge before my heavenly Father. But whoever denies me before others, I will deny before my heavenly Father.” Matthew 10:32-33

“He who believes and is baptized will be saved; he who does not believe will be condemned.” Mark 16:16

“If we have died with him we shall also live with him; if we persevere we shall also reign with him. But if we deny him he will deny us.”
2nd Timothy 2:11-12

So, you worship the Church. Interesting. BTW - All your quotes are about Jesus not the Church, which is what I’ve been saying, religion is not God.

The map is not the territory.

You’ve weirdly made me more sympathetic to atheists.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

You’ve weirdly made me more sympathetic to atheists.

I am also sympathetic to atheists.

They have a hard row to hoe, and no hoe with which to hoe it … the Church.

 

[jonfawkes]

You’ve weirdly made me more sympathetic to atheists.

I am also sympathetic to atheists.

They have a hard row to hoe, and no hoe with which to hoe it … the Church.

They aren’t seeking God, they don’t have a need for the Church.

Rejecting religion is different then Rejecting God.

 

[tonyrey]

You’ve weirdly made me more sympathetic to atheists.

I am also sympathetic to atheists.

They have a hard row to hoe, and no hoe with which to hoe it … the Church.

No believer in God should lack compassion non-believers because for them life is a cruel joke - without a Joker! In Macbeth’s words “A tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury signifying nothing…”

 

[Charlemagne_II]

jonfawkes

*They aren’t seeking God, they don’t have a need for the Church. *

As a Catholic you must hope they find God.

How else do you think they will find God if not through the Church?

Matthew 16

• He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?” Simon Peter said in reply, “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.” Jesus said to him in reply, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah. For flesh and blood 12 has not revealed this to you, but my heavenly Father. And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, 13 and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. 14 Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”*

So it would seem Jesus thinks a great deal of his Church and expects great things from it. The Church has by and large delivered the goods, with some decisive setbacks, such as the rise of atheism in the modern world. You said earlier that atheists have rejected God because they have confused God with the Church. Since God established his Church to bring atheists to Him, what do you think it is in the Church that disgusts atheists so much they would confuse the Church with god and thereby deny God along with the Church?

Try to do better than a one-liner, if you can. Thanks.

 

[jonfawkes]

jonfawkes

*They aren’t seeking God, they don’t have a need for the Church. *

As a Catholic you must hope they find God.

How else do you think they will find God if not through the Church?

Matthew 16

• He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?” Simon Peter said in reply, “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.” Jesus said to him in reply, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah. For flesh and blood 12 has not revealed this to you, but my heavenly Father. And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, 13 and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. 14 Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”*

So it would seem Jesus thinks a great deal of his Church and expects great things from it. The Church has by and large delivered the goods, with some decisive setbacks, such as the rise of atheism in the modern world. You said earlier that atheists have rejected God because they have confused God with the Church. Since God established his Church to bring atheists to Him, what do you think it is in the Church that disgusts atheists so much they would confuse the Church with god and thereby deny God along with the Church?

Try to do better than a one-liner, if you can. Thanks.

I’m not sure. I’ll try another analogy.

Have you ever been to a national park here in the states? There are set paths / hikes you can take. They are well manicured, marked, sometimes have rest stops along the way, informational signs etc. They get you to your destination, they are safe, and well directed. They have been well thought out to give you a good experience and save you from possible danger. The Church is like that. A well worn, tried and true path.

You can get to your destination not following the path, by going off trail but you risk the dangers and pitfalls, and also risk not reaching your destination, or getting injured, or maybe put others at risk who will try and save you.

Most atheists look at the path and don’t even enter the park. They don’t see the destination, so they don’t see the point of the path. The parts that they reject are the metaphors that are the guides along the path. Religion isn’t God.

You can’t use religion to entice someone to God. People get on the road that leads to the destination they want to reach. If they aren’t seeking the destination, they have no use for the road.

God is accessible to everyone, through many means, the Church is just the easiest and safest way.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

jonfawkes

**You can’t use religion to entice someone to God. People get on the road that leads to the destination they want to reach. If they aren’t seeking the destination, they have no use for the road. **

Then why did Christ found the Church?

You seem to be changing your line of reasoning, which is O.K.

A while back you said people reject God because they confuse God with religion.

Now you seem to be saying they reject God without even checking out the road to God (religion).

 

[jonfawkes]

jonfawkes

You can’t use religion to entice someone to God. People get on the road that leads to the destination they want to reach. If they aren’t seeking the destination, they have no use for the road.

Then why did Christ found the Church?

You seem to be changing your line of reasoning, which is O.K.

A while back you said people reject God because they confuse God with religion.

Now you seem to be saying they reject God without even checking out the road to God (religion).

Sorry for the confusion. You are asking me different questions, so I have different answers. The reasoning is still the same.

Atheists think there is no God, so when you show them the road, they make fun of or discount the road, because in their opinion it leads nowhere. No matter how many times you show them the road, it makes no sense to them. They don’t see God, they see the religion. They think the road is God. It’s not. Religion is metaphorical language.

Jesus founded the Church to give us a safe path to Him. The good shepherd tending to his flock. Don’t stray from the path and you will be safe.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

jonfawkes

**Jesus founded the Church to give us a safe path to Him. The good shepherd tending to his flock. Don’t stray from the path and you will be safe. **

Exactly so. Jesus founded the Church to lure men to Him by the safe path.

 

[jonfawkes]

jonfawkes

**Jesus founded the Church to give us a safe path to Him. The good shepherd tending to his flock. Don’t stray from the path and you will be safe. **

Exactly so. Jesus founded the Church to lure men to Him by the safe path.

The path is there for those who want to walk it. It’s Free Will.

We aren’t tricked into it, we don’t have to be lured. We have to choose it.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Christ is the groom. The Church is the bridegroom. He attracts us to Him through the Church.

Apparently, based on your past posts, you don’t find much that is attractive in the Church.

You position is very confusing. First you say you see why atheists are not attracted to God, because they confuse God with the Church. Then you say the Church is the safe path to God (so why wouldn’t they be attracted to the Church?) Then you say we can only get to God by free will (as if anybody here is denying that).

Whew!

 

[jonfawkes]

Christ is the groom. The Church is the bridegroom. He attracts us to Him through the Church.

Apparently, based on your past posts, you don’t find much that is attractive in the Church.

You position is very confusing. First you say you see why atheists are not attracted to God, because they confuse God with the Church. Then you say the Church is the safe path to God (so why wouldn’t they be attracted to the Church?) Then you say we can only get to God by free will (as if anybody here is denying that).

Whew!

I’m not sure why you are confused. Lets try yet another analogy

Religion is like an great exercise program. It is well thought out, and produces results. If you aren’t interested in getting fit, it doesn’t matter how great the program is.

The atheist isn’t interested in getting fit, so they don’t care about the program. It doesn’t matter how great you think it is. It doesn’t matter how great I think it is. They put down the program, because that is what is offered to them.

Fitness isn’t the program, the program leads to fitness. God isn’t religion, religion leads to God. You can’t make someone get fit. You can’t make someone find God.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

jonfawkes

You can’t make someone find God.

Clearly, that is not the issue. The issue is that the Church helps to make people morally fit by getting into the discipline of the spirit as opposed to the discipline of the body.

So what you are saying is that the atheist wants to stay morally flabby of spirit by not seeking God. If that’s what he wants, that’s his free will in action. But if he’s not jogging toward God he certainly isn’t going to win any gold medals.

If that’s what you’re saying, I agree. I’ve always thought atheism is morally flabby, and I ought to know since I was an atheist. There are, of course, differing degrees of moral flabbiness. If you have been a Catholic and turned atheist, you might be less morally flabby because, as the Jesuits used to say, you can take the boy out of the Church, but you can’t take the Church out of the boy.

Pascal would cringe to hear me quoting the Jesuits. They were his arch-enemies.

 

[jonfawkes]

jonfawkes

You can’t make someone find God.

Clearly, that is not the issue. The issue is that the Church helps to make people morally fit by getting into the discipline of the spirit as opposed to the discipline of the body.

So what you are saying is that the atheist wants to stay morally flabby of spirit by not seeking God. If that’s what he wants, that’s his free will in action. But if he’s not jogging toward God he certainly isn’t going to win any gold medals.

If that’s what you’re saying, I agree. I’ve always thought atheism is morally flabby, and I ought to know since I was an atheist. There are, of course, differing degrees of moral flabbiness. If you have been a Catholic and turned atheist, you might be less morally flabby because, as the Jesuits used to say, you can take the boy out of the Church, but you can’t take the Church out of the boy.

Pascal would cringe to hear me quoting the Jesuits. They were his arch-enemies.

from one who was Jesuit educated.

 

[Candide_West]

Hi Betterave,

Apology for the long delay in replying, i’ve been on holiday and then rather busy since i’ve been back.

First, Pascal claims that we cannot know by reason… and we’ll need to look at what he means by that.

Ok, yes, Pascal states that “What will you wager? According to reason, you can do neither the one thing nor the other” but Pascal is aiming this at non-believers so I would assume that he wants them to use their reason to make the wager. Otherwise I’m not sure what he could be seeking to appeal to.

Second, that is clearly not enough to show that nothing is being forced on you. Consider if someone says to you, “You have until 5 o’clock to invest in this company and you have a lot to gain by doing so.” You can’t say, “I don’t *know *whether it is a good investment or not, so I will exercise my epistemically-grounded prerogative to simply not make a decision” - if you haven’t said “yes” by five o’clock, then you’ve said “no.” That’s just the reality of the situation.

Hmmm, if someone told me that such and such was a good investment and i had nothing else to go on then in all probability my stance would be exactly that “I cannot tell if this is a good or bad investment” and hence take no action. All the more so if I only had their word for it that I had to make a decision before the markets closed today. In any case the hypothetical sneaky stabber still fits perfectly. Afterall if i don’t turn around before he’s crossed the room i’m dead. There’s a very definative time limit on this. As per the investment the time limit is only imposed within the assumption of the hypothesis.

Certainly he was: for starters he was pointing out that neither the rational proofs nor their refutations were in fact rationally compelling.

Agreed, that is as per my previous understanding as well, we are starting off from 50:50 odds of God is or is not. We seem to be in agreement with Pascal so far that none of the evidence is compelling. As per my previous statement my logical response to a lack of compelling evidence in either direction is “I don’t know”.

But you’ve missed the point: the wager doesn’t attempt to start from a blank slate; it starts from a slate that is full of inconclusive proofs and counter-proofs which somehow need to be resolved. And they do need to be resolved somehow, just as the decision to invest by 5 o’clock or not does. There is no such *full *slate or *forced *decision when it comes to your sneaky stabber.

The time limit we have already covered above and the sneaky stabber definately holds there. As to the full slates of discussion, proof and refutation, we have covered those already too - that is the starting point of the wager. Pascal has said that it is not compelling in either direction and it appears we agree with him. Indeed if discussions and arguments having taken place about a proposition make it more credible then having had this conversation we have started to fill those slates and thus create a stronger reason for me turning around. In any case I could write endless theorems about the possibilty of the sneaky stabber, but that doesn’t affect the logic of me assuming his presence or otherwise.

Once again I see no difference between Pascals wager and sneaky stabber or any other of the infinitude of hypotheses we could create like winning lottery tickets under any given rock. In each case the key factor is the evidence to believe the hypothesis, the consequences cannot stand alone. Pascal starts from a position that the evidence in either direction is not compelling therefore we can make no judgement of the hypothesis.

Regards

 

[Betterave]

Hi Betterave,

Apology for the long delay in replying, i’ve been on holiday and then rather busy since i’ve been back.

That was a long delay!

Ok, yes, Pascal states that “What will you wager? According to reason, you can do neither the one thing nor the other” but Pascal is aiming this at non-believers so I would assume that he wants them to use their reason to make the wager. Otherwise I’m not sure what he could be seeking to appeal to.

He wants them to use reason, yes, but also their hearts, because reason in the narrow sense has shown its own inadequacy, so it is only reasonable to see the need to go beyond reason taken in a narrow sense. Reason in the narrow sense is forced by itself to go beyond itself.

Hmmm, if someone told me that such and such was a good investment and i had nothing else to go on then in all probability my stance would be exactly that “I cannot tell if this is a good or bad investment” and hence take no action. All the more so if I only had their word for it that I had to make a decision before the markets closed today. In any case the hypothetical sneaky stabber still fits perfectly. Afterall if i don’t turn around before he’s crossed the room i’m dead. There’s a very definative time limit on this. As per the investment the time limit is only imposed within the assumption of the hypothesis.

Okay…so you get my point or not? The decision is forced on you, just as I said (and you would in all probability choose to forego the investment).

The hypothetical sneaky stabber does not fit perfectly. He is still a random hypothesis and as you have spelled out the scenario thus far, I’m pretty sure there is no reason for thinking at any given time that he is on his way across the room in accordance with some “very definitive time limit.” Isn’t that obvious? Or did I miss/forget something in your sneaky stabber scenario?

Agreed, that is as per my previous understanding as well, we are starting off from 50:50 odds of God is or is not. We seem to be in agreement with Pascal so far that none of the evidence is compelling. As per my previous statement my logical response to a lack of compelling evidence in either direction is “I don’t know”.

The fact that there are two possibilities does not mean that the odds of each one being true is 50:50. And your previous statement did not show that “I don’t know” is either ‘logical’ or even possible as a definitive response to the situation in question. Your own response to the investment scenario shows this: for you “I don’t know” became “I choose to forego this opportunity.”

The time limit we have already covered above and the sneaky stabber definately holds there. [No, it clearly doesn’t.] As to the full slates of discussion, proof and refutation, we have covered those already too - that is the starting point of the wager. Pascal has said that it is not compelling in either direction and it appears we agree with him. Indeed if discussions and arguments having taken place about a proposition make it more credible then having had this conversation we have started to fill those slates and thus create a stronger reason for me turning around. [Could you really?? I doubt it.] In any case I could write endless theorems about the possibilty of the sneaky stabber, but that doesn’t affect the logic of me assuming his presence or otherwise.

What logic??

Once again I see no difference between Pascals wager and sneaky stabber or any other of the infinitude of hypotheses we could create like winning lottery tickets under any given rock. In each case the key factor is the evidence to believe the hypothesis, the consequences cannot stand alone. Pascal starts from a position that the evidence in either direction is not compelling therefore we can make no judgement of the hypothesis.

Regards

Well hopefully my reply has made some sense so far and you now will be able to see the difference. You’re right, of course, that consequences cannot stand alone, but Pascal never claims that they do.

 

[Candide_West]

Hi betterave,

Thanks for your reply, yes it was a rather long delay, especially with the pace at which these discussions move.

He wants them to use reason, yes, but also their hearts, because reason in the narrow sense has shown its own inadequacy, so it is only reasonable to see the need to go beyond reason taken in a narrow sense. Reason in the narrow sense is forced by itself to go beyond itself.

I’m afraid I’m not sure on definitions here, could you let me know what you mean by “reason in the narrow sense” and “their hearts”. Sorry, not trying to be difficult but these terms can be misconstrued and I don’t want to reply at crossed purposes.

Okay…so you get my point or not? The decision is forced on you, just as I said (and you would in all probability choose to forego the investment).

The hypothetical sneaky stabber does not fit perfectly. He is still a random hypothesis and as you have spelled out the scenario thus far, I’m pretty sure there is no reason for thinking at any given time that he is on his way across the room in accordance with some “very definitive time limit.” Isn’t that obvious? Or did I miss/forget something in your sneaky stabber scenario?

Yes, I think I do get your point, sorry I have obviously not been clear in my reply. Your point is correct within the assumption of the hypothesis. In your investment metaphor, someone tells me “you have until 5o’clock to invest in this company and you have a lot to gain by doing so”. Ok, so that sets the time limit but I have no reason (other than that statement) to assume that the time limit is actually 5 o’clock. In the sneaky stabber scenario he’s in the room right now and I have until he’s walked across the room to turn around. Again that sets the time limit but I have no reason (other than that it is the conjectured scenario) to assume that the time limit is actually the time it takes someone to cross the room.

Hence the parallel.*

The fact that there are two possibilities does not mean that the odds of each one being true is 50:50. And your previous statement did not show that “I don’t know” is either ‘logical’ or even possible as a definitive response to the situation in question. Your own response to the investment scenario shows this: for you “I don’t know” became “I choose to forego this opportunity.”

Agreed two possibilities doesn’t necessarily equate to 50:50. In fact I think the odds are a long way from that. As I’m sure you do although probably in the opposite direction.*

To be clear as a general statement my position is, if the evidence is not compelling then my response is - I don’t know. I agree that this is not definitive, but it was never meant to be, if more evidence comes to light then that may be compelling and hence change my position. That seems appropriate to me, do you agree with this as a position in a general sense? Do you disagree in this specific case? If so is it because you consider that the time limit forces me to be definitive?

Quote:
The time limit we have already covered above and the sneaky stabber definately holds there. [No, it clearly doesn’t.] As to the full slates of discussion, proof and refutation, we have covered those already too - that is the starting point of the wager. Pascal has said that it is not compelling in either direction and it appears we agree with him. Indeed if discussions and arguments having taken place about a proposition make it more credible then having had this conversation we have started to fill those slates and thus create a stronger reason for me turning around. [Could you really?? I doubt it.] In any case I could write endless theorems about the possibilty of the sneaky stabber, but that doesn’t affect the logic of me assuming his presence or otherwise.

What logic??

Hopefully the comment about the time limit I have now covered adequately.*

As to filling those slates, the key point is that as long as none of the debates filling those slates reach an argument or evidence which is compelling. Then how much is written is irrelevant. Pascal already covered this (and all the debates which had been held) as the starting point of the wager.*

To the logic, I merely mean that the points above do not affect whether it is logical to behave as though sneaky stabber is there or not.

Well hopefully my reply has made some sense so far and you now will be able to see the difference. You’re right, of course, that consequences cannot stand alone, but Pascal never claims that they do.

I’m afraid as above that it seems to me that my sneaky stabber, your friend suggesting an investment and pascals wager are all quite similar in that whether or not we believe or act on the scenario depends on the evidence which supports the truth of the scenario.

You also said, “the consequences cannot stand alone”. Just to be clear, by this do you mean that there needs to be evidence for the postulated scenario as well as consequences?

Regards

 

[Aesculus]

Thanks all for tolerating my first post…

I’m not sure that the stabber analogy is really fair for the choice presented by Pascal… just thinking about having to constantly look over my shoulder for some possible threat is irritating.

Perhaps a better analogy is that of a path that splits into two, with a sign that points “Heaven ???” in one direction and that points “??? ?” in another. You have no choice but to go down one or the other.

Maybe the stabber analogy can still work for the argument, if you modify it to say that you are in a long, dead-end room and you can either sit with your face towards the only opening in the room, or towards the opposite wall.

Who knows, we can even add material pleasure to this stipulate that the wall has a big LED TV with very stimulating images on it while you will be relegated to reading Pensees if you choose to sit towards the door… In any case, I’ve never really liked Pascal’s Wager, seems to skeptical of anyone’s ability to actually ground their faith in any reasonable, rationalistic manner- In other words, I don’t like the insinuation that my faith cannot have any logical grounding to it beyond this decision at the fork in the trail, and that I’m fooling myself if I think otherwise.

And really, does it ever work? The few determined agnostics/atheists that I’ve tried it on have simply retorted with “that’s no reason to believe” (which, really, who can argue this point if you can really know nothing True about the Faith) or went into some crazy probablistic reasoning that watching the analogous TV was actually far better than preparing for the risk that the sneaky stabber was going to come into the room…

 

[Candide_West]

Thanks all for tolerating my first post…

Welcome, I’m very much a newbie here myself and am glad to say so far people have been very nice.*

I’m not sure that the stabber analogy is really fair for the choice presented by Pascal… just thinking about having to constantly look over my shoulder for some possible threat is irritating.*

I can appreciate that, it was really just my best attempt to create a suitable, useful metaphor. I’m sure it ought to be quite easy to invent other metaphors if they prove to be useful.

Maybe the stabber analogy can still work for the argument, if you modify it to say that you are in a long, dead-end room and you can either sit with your face towards the only opening in the room, or towards the opposite wall. *

Who knows, we can even add material pleasure to this stipulate that the wall has a big LED TV with very stimulating images on it while you will be relegated to reading Pensees if you choose to sit towards the door…

I’m not sure that this makes any significant affect to the metaphor. Really the key thing was to create a scenario which if true demands an immediate response but without any compelling reason to believe that the scenario is in fact true. I’m sure you can make up plenty of these as easily as I can.*

In any case, I’ve never really liked Pascal’s Wager, seems to skeptical of anyone’s ability to actually ground their faith in any reasonable, rationalistic manner- In other words, I don’t like the insinuation that my faith cannot have any logical grounding to it beyond this decision at the fork in the trail, and that I’m fooling myself if I think otherwise.*

Agreed, I’ve always thought it a bit of an insulting argument including back when I was Christian myself.*

And really, does it ever work? The few determined agnostics/atheists that I’ve tried it on have simply retorted with “that’s no reason to believe” (which, really, who can argue this point if you can really know nothing True about the Faith) or went into some crazy probablistic reasoning that watching the analogous TV was actually far better than preparing for the risk that the sneaky stabber was going to come into the room…

It’s rather disappointing that they simply retorted with a dismissal of the wager point blank. Seems more sensible to identify a failing of the argument and show that it fails on that basis. In any case, I agree that I do not find it to be a convincing argument for becoming Christian again.

 

[Betterave]

Hi betterave,

Thanks for your reply, yes it was a rather long delay, especially with the pace at which these discussions move.

I’m glad you made it back. The discussion devolved into a good deal of shear silliness while you were gone, but I’m glad that’s behind us now.

I’m afraid I’m not sure on definitions here, could you let me know what you mean by “reason in the narrow sense” and “their hearts”. Sorry, not trying to be difficult but these terms can be misconstrued and I don’t want to reply at crossed purposes.

Good question. I’m not too sure on definitions myself. The general idea, however, I believe, is that reason starts from certain premises and gropes its way forward to demonstrate the conclusions that follow from those premises. This kind of procedure is obviously enough useful as far as it goes; but when it comes to addressing ‘fundamental’ questions - like “do we really ‘know’ anything?” or “do we ‘know’ God?” - we are faced with insoluble debates. (Are you familiar with Kant’s antinomies of reason? I think these are similar exercises in reasoning.)

Pascal claims that the heart has reasons, however, and this might sound suspiciously fluffy or irrational, but I think it is something that we can all recognize as being true. There is necessarily a basic foundation or orientation for all formal ratiocination that must originate outside of the formal process of ratiocination itself. I think that is what Pascal is referring to. (Caveat: I haven’t read Pascal for a while, so these claims are certainly subject to correction.)

Yes, I think I do get your point, sorry I have obviously not been clear in my reply. Your point is correct within the assumption of the hypothesis. In your investment metaphor, someone tells me “you have until 5o’clock to invest in this company and you have a lot to gain by doing so”. Ok, so that sets the time limit but I have no reason (other than that statement) to assume that the time limit is actually 5 o’clock.

True, you have no other reason… but so what?

In the sneaky stabber scenario he’s in the room right now and I have until he’s walked across the room to turn around. Again that sets the time limit but I have no reason (other than that it is the conjectured scenario) to assume that the time limit is actually the time it takes someone to cross the room.

Hence the parallel.*

He’s in the room? Okay, in that case I’m pretty sure you’ve changed the sneaky stabber scenario. In this case, where he is real and is in the room, surely you ought to do something about it? Hence the parallel.

To be clear as a general statement my position is, if the evidence is not compelling then my response is - I don’t know. I agree that this is not definitive, but it was never meant to be, if more evidence comes to light then that may be compelling and hence change my position. That seems appropriate to me, do you agree with this as a position in a general sense? Do you disagree in this specific case? If so is it because you consider that the time limit forces me to be definitive?

In general, some decisions are forced and some are not. In this case the decision is forced. This is partly because of the time limit (and more generally because of the ethically charged nature of the decision), but also because the options present an exclusive dichotomy.

Hopefully the comment about the time limit I have now covered adequately.*

Hopefully it now has been covered adequately.

As to filling those slates, the key point is that as long as none of the debates filling those slates reach an argument or evidence which is compelling. Then how much is written is irrelevant. Pascal already covered this (and all the debates which had been held) as the starting point of the wager.*

But once we have looked at the full slates, the wager itself is supposed to be compelling. It is not simply an appeal to toss reason and believe; it is an attempt to appeal to the force of a deeper level of reason-giving.

To the logic, I merely mean that the points above do not affect whether it is logical to behave as though sneaky stabber is there or not.

I’m not quite sure what you’re referring to, but I think I disagree.

I’m afraid as above that it seems to me that my sneaky stabber, your friend suggesting an investment and pascals wager are all quite similar in that whether or not we believe or act on the scenario depends on the evidence which supports the truth of the scenario.

Considered at this level of abstraction, yes, they are quite similar. But I think the similarity ends at this level.