The Fruit of Pascals Wager

[catholicray]

Pascal’s wager makes no sense. What if there is a God who brings everyone to internal bliss except those who believe in the God of Abraham? Pascal’s wager is based on the idea that there is only one possible God. In fact there are infinite possible Gods. So you don’t know how to place your bet.

What if there is a God who brings everyone to eternal bliss except those who believe in the God of Abraham?
A. Said God has not revealed said will to us so our culpability is mute. Said God would actually be a monster for punishing men then.
B. Pascals Wager is based on the evidences provided (or rather there is no such God as the one that you suggested that we are aware of.)
C. An infinite number of Gods can be refuted with a good argument on the logic of authority amongst infinite Gods and a discussion of whom preceded whom. I don’t have the time here but basically the God with the most authority who existed first would actually be God.

 

[0Scarlett_nidiyilii]

I would think that Pascals Wager, if used at all, should be only a first, primitive, baby step on the spiritual journey.

 

[Gorgias]

It also accepts the possibility that none of these exist.

Actually, it doesn’t. Rather, it says, “if this is what you believe, then this is your expected value.” Subtle, but important, difference.

The loser gets nothing, but loses nothing. You take my decision on who wins on faith alone. Are you in? Pascal’s Wager says you should be.

Not exactly. Pascal says that you’re ‘in’ by virtue of being alive. That’s the ante; you’ve already ‘paid’, by virtue of being alive.

LateCatholic:

If you don’t believe in my God, not only will you suffer infinite, eternal torment, so will all your loved ones.

Pascal expresses his wager in terms of Catholic belief. It’s an argument for belief against unbelief.

Trying to turn it into an argument for a particular belief system against (n-1) belief systems misses the point of the argument. Worse, using a one-religion-against-many approach is logically unsound: it would be like disproving the statement “milk is good for you” with the claim “yeah, but what about chocolate milk? strawberry milk? goat’s milk? yak milk? See… you’re wrong!”

LateCatholic:

Lip service is not enough for salvation. I’m sure even those that have come to despise me on these forums will agree with this.

LOL! (Who despises you?)

Pascal isn’t claiming that lip service suffices. Rather, he’s quoting the Nike tagline: Just do it. His claim is that, if you want to believe, but are having difficulties, then just start the practice of Catholicism (prayers, Mass, etc), and you will attain to faith. If you think Pascal is saying “meh… you don’t have to believe; just fake it”, then you’re misreading the Pensées…

LateCatholic:

Pascal doesn’t say, for instance, you must believe in God AND give 10% of all your money to your local Church. Salvation requires more than what Pascal says it does. He’s a snake oil salesman.

Nah, hardly. Belief in God – in the context of the Church – includes all of the practices of the Church (tithing isn’t one of them, by the way; that’s an OT standard, not a NT one). I think your “snake oil” statement comes from your misunderstanding of his “just do it” assertion, but perhaps you simply mean “since Pascal doesn’t reiterate all of the catechism of Trent, he’s a liar!” That would be just plain silly, so I hope it’s not what you mean.

LateCatholic:

The point is that there is NOTHING in Pascal’s Wager that in any way prevents it from being used by another religion.

Agreed. But, doing so would be making a different argument. If it proceeds from Pascal’s Wager, it would have to take the terms of the Wager into account. Simply lining up n religions and making n parallel arguments doesn’t cut it.

LateCatholic:

Pascal’s Wager has been refuted for centuries.

Yeah, yeah, yeah. So has the existence of Christ. Doesn’t mean that the refutations have merit.

 

[fhansen]

There’s no real faith in “accepting” or “believing” in a God that the wager doesn’t even acknowledge exists. The wager already assumes a background, a certain degree of knowledge about the Christian faith that at the very least makes it more appealing and reasonable to begin with than, say, belief in a flying spaghetti monster.

But even at that the motivating factor for “believing” would be nothing more than the fear that some popular story/myth might be true. God would be an idiot to be pleased by such “faith”. In fact, there is no faith in it, no hope, no love.

 

[tafan2]

Everytime I read a thread on Pascal’s Wager, I am struck by one thought, almost everyone who criticizes it obviously has never read it. He addresses all if the common criticisms. Most of them in Pensee 233 (I think that’s the right number). A few in other pensees, eg multiple religions).

 

[tafan2]

Maybe you overstated a little it compared to Pascal, but in general that was his point: a first step. Although he did seem to assume one had educated himself about the faith to some extent. But who knows, maybe that Pensee was the intended first chapter to his book.

 

[catholicray]

Actually, it doesn’t. Rather, it says, “if this is what you believe, then this is your expected value.” Subtle, but important, difference.

Well said sir. I meant to say that it takes into account the possibility that none of these exist. Certainly there was no acceptance on Pascal’s part that this was the case. Thank you for the correction.

 

[catholicray]

Pascals Wager accounts for this too.
I’m just kidding. However I disagree with you. If the logic is correct then correct conclusions can be drawn. Your statement supposes no one is capable of drawing correct conclusions.

I would argue that unless you can prove that correct conclusions are not obtainable your statement is false. The problem in my opinion is not the logic or the conclusions but rather that in many cases the objections to the conclusion are based on a false understanding of the logic.

Your argument boils down to this:
Because people reasonably disagree no conclusions are absolute. It is now your burden of proof to show that each disagreement is indeed reasonable.

My evidence to the contrary is the existence of God. There are only two possibilities here either he exists or he does not. Regardless the correct conclusion does indeed exist and it is possible for us to express it. Furthermore the correct conclusion, whichever it may be, is indeed absolute.

 

[STT]

Already accounted for.

It is is not accounted. You give up something which you are sure is true, your life, for something which you are not sure about, life after death. You need to see the life from an atheist view too.

 

[catholicray]

It is is not accounted. You give up something which you are sure is true, your life, for something which you are not sure about, life after death. You need to see the life from an atheist view too.

It is accounted for because you give up what you will ultimately have no choice but to give up anyways. You can keep your life your whole life but death, which you are sure is true, is inevitable.

So you can give up your life willingly or death will take it forcefully. Sorry if that is not so clear.

 

[niceatheist]

I have a hard time imagining anyone taking it seriously. There’s something decidedly cold and calculating about deciding to believe in God for the sole reason that there’s a gambler’s chance that if you don’t, and He does exist, you’re going to Hell. That you could be saved by betting they God exists, and God accepting that as sufficient reason to grant you salvation doesn’t exactly seem to match the Christian ethos.

 

[STT]

This is true, because life isn’t just about being alive. It’s about believing what you want, and dreaming what you want, and hoping, and loving, and making mistakes, and falling down, and rising up. It’s about fighting the good fight. That’s what life is. Don’t expect me to sacrifice even one iota of this for the promise of eternal salvation. Because in my heart, I’m a fighter, and I will believe what my heart tells me to believe, and nothing less…no matter the reward or the cost.

Yeah.

 

[catholicray]

Since this is your evidence to the contrary, let’s begin here. Remember, we’re dealing with what’s possible for you to know, not with what’s actually true. Pascal’s Wager is based upon what a reasonable person can “KNOW” to be true. My assertion is that absent a knowledge of what’s absolutely true, the possible and logical explanations for what’s true are ambiguous. You assert that there are only two possibilities, either God exists, or He doesn’t. So already you’ve introduced ambiguity to the equation. But the ambiguity grows exponentially, because on each side of the equation there’s even more uncertainty. If God exists, then which God, and what attributes does He possess? However, if God doesn’t exist, then where did everything come from? And has it always existed, or does it have a beginning?

The question isn’t, does the absolute truth exist, because indeed it must. The question’s not about what’s true, it’s about what’s knowable. And when it comes to what’s knowable, it will never be absolute, beyond the simple assertion that I am.

Reasonable people, can reasonably disagree. But the odd thing is…that if they’re truly reasonable, then they should recognize this fact. They should realize that beyond the simplest of knowledge, everything else is uncertain.

The question is…why don’t they? Why do so many “ reasonable ” people wrongly believe that they MUST be right?

“Pascals Wager is based on what a reasonable person can know to be true. My assertion is that absent a knowledge of what is absolutely true the possible and logical explanations for what is true are ambiguous.”

Pascals Wager considers the possible outcomes necessary to support the conclusion (i.e. hell, nothing, eternal joy). Logic dictates that gambling in this situation given losing results in infinite loss is always irrational regardless of how good your odds are. It is only reasonable to gamble at this point if you can be 100% sure that you will win.

What in the world is ambiguous about that conclusion?

 

[STT]

Since this is your evidence to the contrary, let’s begin here. Remember, we’re dealing with what’s possible for you to know, not with what’s actually true. Pascal’s Wager is based upon what a reasonable person can “KNOW” to be true. My assertion is that absent a knowledge of what’s absolutely true, the possible and logical explanations for what’s true are ambiguous. You assert that there are only two possibilities, either God exists, or He doesn’t. So already you’ve introduced ambiguity to the equation. But the ambiguity grows exponentially, because on each side of the equation there’s even more uncertainty. If God exists, then which God, and what attributes does He possess? However, if God doesn’t exist, then where did everything come from? And has it always existed, or does it have a beginning?

The question isn’t, does the absolute truth exist, because indeed it must. The question’s not about what’s true, it’s about what’s knowable. And when it comes to what’s knowable, it will never be absolute, beyond the simple assertion that I am.

Reasonable people, can reasonably disagree. But the odd thing is…that if they’re truly reasonable, then they should recognize this fact. They should realize that beyond the simplest of knowledge, everything else is uncertain.

The question is…why don’t they? Why do so many “ reasonable ” people wrongly believe that they MUST be right?

Yeah. God is true or not. Which God? Etc.

 

[catholicray]

I have a hard time imagining anyone taking it seriously. There’s something decidedly cold and calculating about deciding to believe in God for the sole reason that there’s a gambler’s chance that if you don’t, and He does exist, you’re going to Hell. That you could be saved by betting they God exists, and God accepting that as sufficient reason to grant you salvation doesn’t exactly seem to match the Christian ethos.

Oh you don’t like the cold calculation of Pascals Wager huh? I’m just giving you a hard time but allow me to quote Scripture.

[Luke 14:28-30] For which of you desiring to build a tower does not first sit down and count the cost, whether he has enough to complete it? Otherwise when he has laid a foundation and is not able to finish, all who see it begin to mock him, saying, “this man began to build and was not able to finish.”

We are encouraged to calculate the cost of following Christ. Pascals Wager is the result of such a calculation.

 

[niceatheist]

There really is no meaningful way to calculate the cost. It’s not even an informed gamble.

 

[catholicray]

One thing I’ve learned, is that you can’t make people see what they don’t want to see, and there’s no fault in that, because they’re human. They have a right to believe what they want to believe. And understand that this is true for them, and for you. But respect them, because they’re doing what they’re supposed to do.

Gotta go.

So you claim something is ambiguous, assert your own conclusion is valid without clearing up any ambiguity about that (not that I asked you to), and your response to my question to discover what you really find ambiguous about Pascals Wager is to state ambiguously that people won’t see what they don’t want to see ( it’s an ambiguous statement because the person not seeing what they don’t want to see could be you).

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

 

[catholicray]

There really is no meaningful way to calculate the cost. It’s not even an informed gamble.

Oh really? Let’s put it in different terms. You are given a coin flip. Heads you suffer for eternity, never mind God for a second. Tails can be whatever you want it to be. Should you gamble? Pascals Wager says no.

Let’s try again your given a million to flip. If they all land on heads all of them you suffer for all of eternity. If just one lands on tails you get whatever you want. Should you gamble? Pascals Wager says you should not.

Why? Because as long as there is a chance that your gamble will earn you infinite suffering no matter how small the chance then the gamble is irrational. It’s that simple.

 

[STT]

You need to be truly lover. A true lover doesn’t gamble on God/Love. That is the only message of Jesus.

 

[catholicray]

You give up something which you are sure is true, your life,

This is why some people are terrible with logic. They try to calculate emotions into their understanding. While these emotional sentiments may be true they have nothing to do with nor any bearing on the logic presented.

Like: 1 + 1 = 2
“No because you need to love the numbers”

I’m going to take a nap now.