Pascal's Wager Argument

[PRmerger]

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.

This is an interesting analogy.

If I may so indulge: it’s quite trenchant that you used an example of some sort of rocket or engine. This, of course, prompts the question: who’s the Designer?

Christians say: we met the Designer. In fact, he’s our spouse, so we kinda have a superiority over all the other wanna-bes.

 

[Ranklyfrank]

Really? How did you meet the “Designer?”: And how did the “Designer” impart to you that information? And are you confessing and promoting bigamy? And while the Church says that, what so you say and why, and how did you come to your conclusions? And I’m guessing since you don’t refute it, the analogy stands?

 

[grannymh]

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

I agree with you. Curiosity alone would have us wondering about God being able to communicate which would be one of the indicators that He is a “Person.”
I have a bunch of ideas on this, but I am having difficulty connecting them.

On another thread, someone said that the universe being intelligible could possibly serve as a demonstration of God’s existence. Intelligible is different from “intelligent”. Intelligible in the poster’s sense meant that we could understand the universe, obviously not completely. In other words, the universe can be known bit by bit.

It seems to me that if a human can understand, at least partly, an intelligible universe, then said human also has some kind of spiritually intellect faculty which can recognize a spiritual cause for the intelligibility of the universe.

In a sense, like recognizes like, but this is not totally correct. We do not have the ability to create out of nothing. Once heard a definition for creative genius – the creative genius rearranges the ordinary.

Yet, knowledge is being shared between us ordinary folk and a supernatural being. Humans share knowledge, all kinds, with other human beings because we are persons with that capability. Humans can also act on knowledge or ignore it which distinguishes us as persons and not animals. Since the universe is intelligible and we are intelligible, maybe the common denominator is personhood but obviously not on the same level.

Can you see where I am trying to go? If the universe speaks of a divine Creator and in a sense images the power of the Creator, than we could image (verb) the “person” of God. But this does not make us gods in any way. It does indicate a relationship of Creator to the created human person. It is this sense of relationship which, in my humble opinion, demonstrates that God is a personal God.

Blessings,
granny

The universe sings of the power of its Creator.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

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

It would also behoove us to discover why God should be impersonal rather than personal. This you have not shown. The advantage of a personal God is that we want to connect with such a God and be moved in our lives by such a God. How many people desire to connect with, or desire to be moved, by an impersonal God? Might as well be no God at all.

 

[PRmerger]

Really? How did you meet the “Designer?”

I met the Designer about 3 months after my birth, when my parents introduced me to Him.

Then I met Him weekly at His House.

Then I was given the supreme privilege of becoming ONE FLESH with Him.

And how did the “Designer” impart to you that information?

He provided me with a Manual, and a Spokesman. And “energy”( read: grace) in the form of a Spirit. And 7 tangible, efficacious opportunities to be with Him.

And are you confessing and promoting bigamy?

It seems that you have an impoverished understanding of analogies. There is no one-to-one correspondence between analogs.

For example, we followers of Christ are likened to sheep. I suppose one could ask: “Well, if you’re sheep, where’s the wool that someone shaves off you to make sweaters?” But the question would only indicate an inability to grasp analogies. :sad_yes:

Yet, I understand your question. And God indeed is not a bigamist. This is a great argument for the fact that there is only One True Church–the Bride of Christ: the Catholic Church.

And I’m guessing since you don’t refute it, the analogy stands?

Yes. I have no problems with your analogy. It’s true that there are a lot of “wanna-bes”.

 

[Betterave]

Unfortunately Exodus has left us, has abandoned philosophy apparently, but this is an intelligent rejoinder, deserving a reply, so I’ll jump in:

…] But in any case, I think my point stands, and is illustrated and shored up by what you say below: Pascal’s wager entails a much more specified proposition than merely “God exists”. For its terms to be intelligible the proposition has to be “the Christian God exists and will treat belief and unbelief in these particular ways”. But then there are a multiplicity of other particular propositions and no reason to choose one over the other within the terms of the wager. The only way you can make that choice is to bring in considerations external to the wager - in other words to come to it with some preconceived notion of what sort of God you are willing to accept, on grounds that are not accessible to the true agnostic.

But is there such a thing as a “true agnostic” - i.e., someone who has no preconceived notion of what sort of God he is willing to accept?

No. Therefore such “preconceived notions” are never truly external to the wager.

I fully understand and respect your reason for believing. But my point is that you come to the wager predisposed to believe - you are not in fact wagering at all because you already believe without any influence from PW. For someone who genuinely does not see any epistemic foundation in the form of compelling evidence or logical argument for the existence of a God, never mind for the specific God you have in mind, the PW is useless because it cannot supply the very image which compels you. So it might be efficacious for a believer, but it bears no properties of right discernment for someone who is agnostic about (any) God’s existence.

I can see why it is fruitful for you, and I wonder whether you can see why it is unfruitful for me.

Pascal’s wager is useless only to someone who doesn’t grasp that the question about God 1) matters (it is momentous), 2) that the existence of God should be a live option for any intelligent, open-minded person, and 3) that the decision to believe in some God or other, or not to believe in any God, is *forced *- there is no effective way to not make a decision at all. (These three criteria are from William James’ essay “The Will to Believe.”)

 

[Ranklyfrank]

But is there such a thing as a “true agnostic” - i.e., someone who has no preconceived notion of what sort of God he is willing to accept?

No. Therefore such “preconceived notions” are never truly external to the wager.

There may not seem to be by means of limited logic, but experientially there is, as happened in my case. My understanding of God shifted from being a candle to the Sun in a flash. I had NO preconceived idea.

Pascal’s wager is useless only to someone who doesn’t grasp that the question about God 1) matters (it is momentous), 2) that the existence of God should be a live option for any intelligent, open-minded person, and 3) that the decision to believe in some God or other, or not to believe in any God, is *forced *- there is no effective way to not make a decision at all. (These three criteria are from William James’ essay “The Will to Believe.”)

1 ) How does it matter? If your arrived at notion is false, then what advantage have you gained? In fact, since you no longer question, would you not then be at a disadvantage?

1. Given either 1) or “standard” agnosticism, God is more of a live option for an agnostic than for a believer. A believer proceeds from what is essentially a closed canon while the agnostic is still open and has a more inclusive field of consideration. Though that field might look to a believer to be limited or exclusive due to his own closed mind, in fact, the agnostic might be aware of subtleties or options the believer is not. And again the idea of “how” enters in as distinct from “what” or “if.”
2. Making a decision in that sense may not be the quale in which an actual understanding of God happens, so it may be altogether irrelevant. In fact, I would say it is. God is neither a thought not an idea that can be apprehended as an intellectual or sensory object.

 

[PRmerger]

In fact, since you no longer question, would you not then be at a disadvantage?

This is an unfair indictment of Believers. We are always critically evaluating the Reasons to Believe, the Evidence, our Experiential understanding of God.

If this were not so, Catholic Apologetics would not exist, no?

 

[Ranklyfrank]

This is an unfair indictment of Believers. We are always critically evaluating the Reasons to Believe, the Evidence, our Experiential understanding of God.

If this were not so, Catholic Apologetics would not exist, no?

Maybe, but mostly no. The human mind is hard wired to act on the assumption that it is right. And Im guessing a high percentage of the folks on here, like me, grew up Catholic. And it is pretty well known that up to about 7yo, the “age of reason,” the human mind is in kind of a hypnotic trance. So while that might be useful for survival, it may not be so useful for theological accuracy. In fact, the most consistent standpoint regarding Deity is cross cultural, independent of any circumstantial factors, and is ancient.

But it seems to me that there is much more defensiveness in the attitudes here than critical evaluation or questioning. And much of the “critical evaluation” is done from premises that themselves could use a healthy dose of the same. As for “Experiential understanding,” do you mean to tell me that the basis of the Catholic comments on here are from direct 1/1contact with Deity on a conversational basis? Are all these folks advanced mystics? Or by “Experiential” do you mean your practice based on the assumptions of your faith?

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Ranklyfrank

I’ll rephrase the question I asked earlier for your benefit.

If there is a personal God (and you have no proof there isn’t), would it be rational to live as though there is no personal God?

 

[Ranklyfrank]

Ranklyfrank

I’ll rephrase the question I asked earlier for your benefit.

If there is a personal God (and you have no proof there isn’t), would it be rational to live as though there is no personal God?

Thanks. If there is a personal God? There is your answer. The necessity of posing God as an “if” reveals your ignorance of anything significant beyond faith in a story. And whether I have proof is irrelevant. It would do as much good for you as your inability to prove a personal God is to me. Maybe less so because it would only, as words, force you to take an even more adamantine stance in your paradigm. Why would I do that? You have no proof for any sort of god by reason or intellect. Neither have I and don’t need to, for or against. That isn’t where anything of significance has any value. And God is not an “if.” And neither is God a matter of belief, so the question a priori is irrelevant. Belief, in fact, as far as I can see, is one of the most excellent prophylactics against God that I can imagine. Fortunately, God’s Being is not dependent on your mental concepts regarding Deity. Pascal’s wager is a kindergarten ploy.

 

[PRmerger]

Maybe, but mostly no. The human mind is hard wired to act on the assumption that it is right. And Im guessing a high percentage of the folks on here, like me, grew up Catholic. And it is pretty well known that up to about 7yo, the “age of reason,” the human mind is in kind of a hypnotic trance. So while that might be useful for survival, it may not be so useful for theological accuracy. In fact, the most consistent standpoint regarding Deity is cross cultural, independent of any circumstantial factors, and is ancient.

There’s nothing here which is contrary to Catholicism.

In fact, as far as “theological accuracy”, we hold only a thimble-full of “accuracy” compared to the ocean of theological understanding.

But it seems to me that there is much more defensiveness in the attitudes here than critical evaluation or questioning. And much of the “critical evaluation” is done from premises that themselves could use a healthy dose of the same.

Can you give an example of “defensiveness in the attitudes here”?

As for “Experiential understanding,” do you mean to tell me that the basis of the Catholic comments on here are from direct 1/1contact with Deity on a conversational basis?** Are all these folks advanced mystics?**

I wouldn’t know.

I would, of course, proffer that mystics exist.

Do you have any evidence to the contrary?

Or by “Experiential” do you mean your practice based on the assumptions of your faith?

As with most Catholic answers, it’s both/and.

 

[PRmerger]

You have no proof for any sort of god by reason or intellect.

This is absolutely untrue, Rightlyfrank.

Proof for God’s existence by reason or intellect abounds in Christianity. From the very first centuries. See Augustine, Anselm, Aquinas, Pascal…

 

[Ranklyfrank]

This is absolutely untrue, Rightlyfrank.

Proof for God’s existence by reason or intellect abounds in Christianity. From the very first centuries. See Augustine, Anselm, Aquinas, Pascal…

Sorry. Not proofs. persuasions? Maybe. Proofs? Uh-uh. And that’s from a theist who holds at least some of those in high regard. There is NO rational “proof” of God, yet God IS. The greater cannot be contained in the lesser. those might be “serving suggestions,” but are not other than justifications for faith. And faith is not knowledge.

 

[PRmerger]

Sorry. Not proofs. persuasions? Maybe. Proofs? Uh-uh.

Do you demand proofs to this same degree for other areas in your life? That is, do you have faith that the pilot flying your aircraft is licensed? Or do you demand, prior to stepping onto the plane, that he show it to you? And if he provides the license, do you call the agency to confirm? And then do you check that his education is authentic? Did he actually graduate from Notre Dame–and if so, what was his GPA?

See what I’m getting at?

And that’s from a theist who holds at least some of those in high regard. There is NO rational “proof” of God, yet God IS. The greater cannot be contained in the lesser. those might be “serving suggestions,” but are not other than justifications for faith. And faith is not knowledge.

No arguments here.

 

[Ranklyfrank]

Do you demand proofs to this same degree for other areas in your life? That is, do you have faith that the pilot flying your aircraft is licensed? Or do you demand, prior to stepping onto the plane, that he show it to you? And if he provides the license, do you call the agency to confirm? And then do you check that his education is authentic? Did he actually graduate from Notre Dame–and if so, what was his GPA?

See what I’m getting at?

Yes I do, and relative to something as vital as one’s relationship with Deity it is spurious at best.

 

[PRmerger]

Yes I do, and relative to something as vital as one’s relationship with Deity it is spurious at best.

Do you not believe trusting your life while flying in an aircraft miles above the earth is at least mildly comparable?

Yet, from your response above, I assume you’ve never asked for proof from your pilot?

 

[grannymh]

Yes I do, and relative to something as vital as one’s relationship with Deity it is spurious at best.

The posts are flying like owls. Yes, I am reading Harry Potter.

Later tonight, if it is relatively quiet, I am interested in your comments back in post 386. “There may not seem to be by means of limited logic, but experientially there is, as happened in my case. My understanding of God shifted from being a candle to the Sun in a flash. I had NO preconceived idea.”

My understanding of experiential learning is probably different from most posters; thus I would like to know what you mean by “experientially”. If it is not personal, I would like to know what you meant by understanding God as the Sun. A priest friend loved to liken God to the sun. Even to the point of Son [Jesus Christ] as a pun.

Blessings,
granny

“Scottish Folds reflect a part of God’s love and pass that love along to us if we are blessed enough to see God’s reflection in a simple cat.” from a post by Little Soldier**

 

[Betterave]

There may not seem to be by means of limited logic, but experientially there is, as happened in my case. My understanding of God shifted from being a candle to the Sun in a flash. I had NO preconceived idea.

I’m not sure what you’re talking about here. What does your ‘candle’ refer to, if not a preconceived idea?

1 ) How does it matter? If your arrived at notion is false, then what advantage have you gained? In fact, since you no longer question, would you not then be at a disadvantage?

How it ‘matters’ is a function of how one grasps the situation.

1. Given either 1) or “standard” agnosticism, God is more of a live option for an agnostic than for a believer. A believer proceeds from what is essentially a closed canon while the agnostic is still open and has a more inclusive field of consideration. Though that field might look to a believer to be limited or exclusive due to his own closed mind, in fact, the agnostic might be aware of subtleties or options the believer is not. And again the idea of “how” enters in as distinct from “what” or “if.”

“Given either 1) or “standard” agnosticism” - what are you referring to here?

As for your characterization of the believer compared to the agnostic, that’s seems like a silly and groundless generalization.

1. Making a decision in that sense may not be the quale in which an actual understanding of God happens, so it may be altogether irrelevant. In fact, I would say it is. God is neither a thought not an idea that can be apprehended as an intellectual or sensory object.

In “that sense”? - in what sense??

It “may not be the quale in which…”?? So what?

So you would say that intellectual understanding is necessarily irrelevant to an actual understanding of God? …or what? What are you trying to say?

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Ranklyfrank

*The necessity of posing God as an “if” reveals your ignorance of anything significant beyond faith in a story. *

Not at all a question of ignorance, since you choose to be ignorant of God and choose instead to be ignorant of any way to explain why god could not possibly exist. That is why “if” is a very operative and valid word to you in this discussion. There being in your mind no way to prove that God does not exist, nor that He does exist, the only thing left to ask is: What if God does exist? Is it more rational, if God does exist, to live as though He exists, or to live as though He does not exist?

And whether I have proof is irrelevant.

Whether you have proof is very relevant. You are very good at demanding proof for the yea and denying the need to prove nay.

Are you absolutely, 100% certain there is no God, personal or otherwise? If you are, you would seem to need proof for such an absolute conviction.

“What if?” therefore remains operative and valid.

So I’ll ask it again:

What if there** is **a personal God? Then what would be the more rational choice: to live as though there is no God, or to live as though there is a God?

And this time you might try to avoid the ad hominem slurs. :tsktsk: