The Fruit of Pascals Wager

[catholicray]

Part 1

First thank you to everyone who has contributed to this conversation. Communication is a wonderful part of life and I have enjoyed every moment ours. Thank you for challenging me as well. I love when someone demands that I think! I would ask no less of anyone whose thinking I oppose.

Rebuttal

I took the time to google a refutation of Pascals Wager and thus far every objection offered on this thread copies what we can study without emotion. First, I assure you that these objections do not refute Pascals Wager (or at least Pascals Wager as I understand it). Just as logic allows us to conclude that the first Christians could not practice Sola Scriptura and accept the writings of the New Testament as infallible (you do not want to go here with me I’ve been contemplating and defending this logic for two years with a good Protestant friend of mine), Pascals Wager allows us to discern correct conclusions.

Before I offer a rebuttal to the objections that allegedly refute Pascals Wager I would like to provide some parameters for clarification. When dealing with logic we ought to ask ourselves, “What can we know?”

I believe the following demonstrates what we can know:

If (hell does not exist < absolute) = hell is possible

There is no evidence available today that concludes absolutely that hell does not exist. Therefore, the conclusion that hell is possible is thus far correct.

If (God does not exist < absolute) = the existence of a God is possible

“ ” the existence of a God is possible

Is there any evidence that a God exists who promises hell ([eternal punishment/loss = conceptual] given the limits of language, but essentially eternal worse thing you can imagine, because that is what hell is.) for failing to worship (I think we can agree the term worship includes the fact of doing more than just believing.) him?

Yes, this evidence is forthcoming from several groups/religions.

Follow this thought through and it serves to allow us to conclude that:

There is a possibility that a God exists that punishes with eternal (worse thing you can imagine) hellfire if we fail to worship him. Why is this so important? It is important because Pascals Wager (as I understand it) is true simply because the possibility of hell as a punishment for not worshipping a God exists. All the alleged refutations do not begin to attack the logic where it counts which is the possibility of infinite loss (and I mean mathematically infinite).

God is possible, Hell is possible, and it is possible a God exists that will judge you with hell if you fail to worship. (Oh, but the probability of such a thing!)

 

[catholicray]

Part 2

Probability

All I’m saying is that Pascal’s Wager is an example of a fallacious appeal to consequences. It’s certainly not a probability equation.

No, you’ve danced over the problem, handwaving the whole way. In fact, the Wager produces no probability at all. I can’t calculate a hypothesis or P score on it. It really says “there some chance, unknown as it may be, that God exists, and if He does, believing him gives you some chance of salvation.”

Pascals Wager does not attempt to examine or come to any conclusion about the probability of the existence of any God. It uses probability rather than concludes it. Even so Pascal uses probability in a way that is definite. Allow me to explain.

hellfire = -∞

The statement hell does not exist is given a probability value of (∞ - 1)

Likewise, the statement that a God does not exist who will punish with eternal hellfire for not worshipping him is given a probability value of (∞ - 1)

The math cannot be fairer for the atheist. This gives the atheist the best possible odds without contradicting our earlier conclusions.

Logic dictates that the probability that a God does not exist who will punish with eternal hellfire for not worshipping him can not be greater than (∞ - 1)

Pascals Wager does not need the odds to be any better to be true. The wager is as follows:

The odds are (∞ - 1) you will not lose but… if you lose the consequence is (-∞) and Pascal asks us to calculate if it is rational to gamble.

Why can we say that it is not rationale?

Because your loss is mathematically absolute, and your odds are not.

 

[catholicray]

Pascal also made the incorrect statement that you would lose nothing from believing if you are wrong. This is not true either.
While this may be true it doesn’t hurt the conclusion. Why?
Because Pascals conclusion is really based on what you stand to lose.
Remember if you lose Pascals Wager your loss is absolute or (-∞)
Let’s assume that the life of a believer is total loss. Variable x = number of years lived. Therefore, the loss for belief is (-x)
Wait let’s use something more definitive. Let us say that a life of belief is total loss and a man lives for 10,000 years and God doesn’t offer you eternal life. So, gambling on God nets you an absolute value of -10,000.
Pascal says rightly that you should gamble on the definite -10,000. Why? Because accepting a loss of -10,000 is more reasonable mathematically than risking absolute loss (-∞). In other words, you don’t play with fire.

 

[catholicray]

Part 3

Possibility

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.

This focuses on the reward system but the logic you can not refute is based on what you stand to lose not what you stand to gain. I included it because it suggests infinite Gods.

No, maybe “God” prefers that you hate humans and kill them to avoid “hell” Pascal’s only basis for knowing is following preaching’s of a religion he is familiar with. In order to “choose” God, you need to know the basis on what it means to be “chosen.” If you are going by what the ancient “Christians” say, well, your evidence is just a “he says, she says” scenario.

I would have to write a book to thoroughly deal with your suggestion here so please understand the following is a summary which limits my explanation. If you don’t like my summary, you’ll have to wait until I feel like writing the book.

Infinite possible Gods…

Do you mean infinite possible variations of God (Singular) or are you suggesting that Infinite Gods can exist at the same time?

If the latter, then you have made a logical error. Logic dictates there can be only one God? Why? Because God must be all powerful. In a situation with multiple gods, the God who has power over the others is God. Also, God can not be caused otherwise what caused God is greater than God logically. This and Occam’s razor leads us back to a single infinite point.

So, what we are really dealing with are infinite possible variations of God. In this case I would say that absence of evidence is not evidence. Your suggesting Gods exist for which the value of the lack of evidence that you have for their existence is absolute or (∞).

Therefore, I would argue there is no need to account for possible Gods to which there exists zero evidence for their existence. I could say more on this issue, but I will leave it here for now.

 

[catholicray]

Part 4

Rapid Fire

I have tried to respond explicitly to the objections on this thread. There are however other objections to Pascals Wager.

Pulls out the Gatling gun

Avoiding the wrong hell problem

Because of the multitude of possible religions, if any faith is as likely as the other, the probability of the christian being right is P=1/n where n is the number of possible faiths. If we assume that there is an infinite number of possible gods (i.e. ideas of gods), the probability of you being right is infinitely small.

Because Pascal’s wager fails to tell us which god is likely to be the right one, you have a great probability that you picked the wrong religion and go to some other religion’s version of hell. This is referred to as the “avoiding the wrong hell problem”

Pascals Wager is based on eternal hell which is what the God of Abraham promises to infidels. If the consequence is not eternal hell or absolute loss (-∞) then your gamble is no longer irrational.

As far as I know the God of Abraham is the only God who promises absolute loss to non-believers. This means it is only irrational to gamble against the God of Abraham the great I AM. Unless you are aware of another current God who does so.

Worse hells and greater heavens

Pascal’s wager is the product of the gain from a certain belief and the probability that it is the correct one (in Pascal’s reasoning 50-50, but as mentioned above the probability is much less.) such as Win=Gain*P. This leads us to the conclusion that we should pick the religion with the worst hell and the greatest heaven. In that case we should chose to worship the Invisible Pink Unicorns (IPU) because they have an infinite bad hell and an infinitely wonderful heaven, unless, of course we can show that the probability of the existence of an IPU is exactly zero, i.e. you can prove for certainty that they don’t exist. If it is only close to zero, we still have infinite gain/loss since infinity times any positive value is still infinity.

The logic here is as good as the logic that would lead you to believe in the Invisible Pink Unicorns in the first place. To get to the point this suggests that there is something worse than absolute loss (-∞). This is a repetition of the old school yard trick of infinity times infinity. Yes Huh! Nuh uh! Not to mention all the illogical leaps necessary to assert this in the first place.

 

[catholicray]

Atheist alternatives

The argument is based on the false assumption that atheists don’t gain anything after they die. Most atheists don’t believe that they do, but there are other possibilities than just going to heaven vs ceasing to exist, such as progression to a better plane, or hanging around as ghosts. Neither of those require the existence of gods to be possibilities.

This is another variation of attacking the logic of Pascals Wager by focusing on the reward potential. This does not address the conclusions we draw based on the loss potential. That is where you need to refute Pascal not on the reward. Therefore, I said at the beginning that both sides seem to miss the point. If you review this thread both sides argue about the reward potential which is unnecessary.

Theists Being Punished for Their Sins

I don’t think there is an agenda in Christianity that you are being rewarded for mere worshipping god. I think it is far more common among theists to believe that god rewards you for what you really are. In other words, God won’t reward you for helping people if you do it only to please God, but he will if you do it out of compassion. Therefore, it is quite likely that false people, who only worship god because they fear hell, or because they think it is the bet that gives the most gain, will go to hell. So, believing in god and being a bad person will be as bad as being an atheist, if not worse because God mightn’t like being surrounded for eternity by cringing hypocrites.

This is a good one, but I think the validity of this argument is based on the conclusion of debate that follows when you ask, “Can you worship God without loving Him”? and “Can you worship God without following his commands?” My stance is that this is an illogical form of worship.

I’m going to end here for now because I have already written too much. Read carefully. Good Luck

Oh and P.S. You can find almost verbatim what people are posting on this thread here:

http://www.update.uu.se/~fbendz/nogod/pascal.htm

To which I say come on guys think with your own mind.

 

[LateCatholic]

Not at all - in fact, that IS the argument. Pascal’s wager isn’t about Theism vs Atheism. It’s about believing in Catholicism versus any other belief system.

Well, if you are being technical, you are correct. But this entire discussion is based on the original posters interpretation of Pascal’s Wager. So you really need to address the original poster’s understanding.

That being said, pascal’s Wager makes no sense unless you consider it in the context of a religion which posits infinite reward. Further, Pascal wrote extensively on how Catholicism (Christianity) is the only rational choice to believe in. To be fair, if you don’t acknowledge the wager’s specific implication is Christianity versus Atheism, you need to read more of Pascal’s writings yourself. No person who understands the wager would deny this.

My example of a ‘super-reward’ and ‘super-torment’ trumping Catholicism’s is not meant to belittle Christianity, it is just to show Pascal’s wager is invalid.

I question now your understanding. Pascal’s Wager is celebrated as an early instance of probability and game theory. I am not cherry picking anything. The clear and forthright statement of the wager is that give a choice you MUST make, Pascal says the following:

Given a probability X,

1. If X, Wager nothing, gain nothing/lose nothing
2. If X, Wager a FINITE amount, gain an INFINITE amount
3. If not X, wager nothing, gain nothing/lose nothing
4. If not X, wager a finite amount, gain nothing/lose a finite amount

Pascal’s point is that, regardless of the probability of X, you should always choose to wager the finite amount because an infinite reward for an infinite amount of time always beats the loss of a finite quantity. There are several things wrong with this.

First, the wager assumes that “infinite reward” and “infinite time” are real. I can simply deny that either infinite reward or even infinite time exist. The wager immediately collapses, and there is nothing you can do about it unless you can show an infinite reward or infinite time is real.

Second, the wager collapses unless you can guarantee that X>0. In other words, why doesn’t the wager apply to invisible pink unicorns? Clearly, if I declare that you will gain an infinite reward if you believe in invisible pink unicorns, according to the wager, you should. The reason why you don’t is because the probability that invisible pink unicorns exist is effectively zero.

An I’m just talking about problems regarding game theory and probability. The reason this thread is truly ridiculous is Pascal himself said that the wager is invalid when applied to matters of faith.

 

[LateCatholic]

This does not address the conclusions we draw based on the loss potential. That is where you need to refute Pascal not on the reward. Therefore, I said at the beginning that both sides seem to miss the point. If you review this thread both sides argue about the reward potential which is unnecessary.

pascal’s wager does not include a loss. I know the original poster does, which is fine to discuss. But the original does not. But - the wager IS based on the reward potential. The reward MUST be infinite. The logic fails if the reward is finite.

I don’t think there is an agenda in Christianity that you are being rewarded for mere worshipping god. I think it is far more common among theists to believe that god rewards you for what you really are. In other words, God won’t reward you for helping people if you do it only to please God, but he will if you do it out of compassion. Therefore, it is quite likely that false people, who only worship god because they fear hell, or because they think it is the bet that gives the most gain, will go to hell. So, believing in god and being a bad person will be as bad as being an atheist, if not worse because God mightn’t like being surrounded for eternity by cringing hypocrites.

This is a good one, but I think the validity of this argument is based on the conclusion of debate that follows when you ask, “Can you worship God without loving Him”? and “Can you worship God without following his commands?” My stance is that this is an illogical form of worship.

This is the essence of Pascal’s intent. He believed his wager was logically valid - but he wanted to show that you CANNOT use it to justify faith in God. I think his intent was more or less what you are saying - logic alone is insufficient to gain salvation.

 

[catholicray]

This does not address the conclusions we draw based on the loss potential. That is where you need to refute Pascal not on the reward. Therefore, I said at the beginning that both sides seem to miss the point. If you review this thread both sides argue about the reward potential which is unnecessary.

I will admit that I have not read Pascals Wager. It was during debate with a friend of mine who is an atheist that I was told my rationale is nothing more than Pascals Wager. So……. I guess that would be an awfully big problem.
Would you care to refute my conclusions anyways?

 

[LateCatholic]

Would you care to refute my conclusions anyways?

Your recent posts seem to be against the validity of Pascal’s Wager. What is your position?
It is also OK to include infinite punishment in the discussion, it is just that the original does not.
pascal’s Wager has many problems both from a game theory and probability standpoint, but also from a theological perspective.

 

[LateCatholic]

As far as I know the God of Abraham is the only God who promises absolute loss to non-believers. This means it is only irrational to gamble against the God of Abraham the great I AM. Unless you are aware of another current God who does so.

I addressed this. You just admitted the invalidity of the argument. First - the God of Abraham does not promise absolute loss to non-believers. There are human beings who CLAIM to speak on this God’s behalf. Second, the original wager does not posit any penalty. It is risk nothing/gain nothing. Risk something/gain infinity. Third, you just admitted it is invalid. Whether all we need to do is define one or more alternate religions that claim an infinite reward. I already did this earlier in this thread.

The logic here is as good as the logic that would lead you to believe in the Invisible Pink Unicorns. To get to the point this suggests that there is something worse than absolute loss (-∞).

Are you supporting the wager? You are repeating many of my arguments and destroying the wager. I’m asking - I lose track of who believes what in these threads. So, you are dead on in most of your points - Pascal’s Wager is invalid. However, you are wrong about infinity. There ARE multiple levels of infinity. Read Cantor. So, for example, earlier I proposed a religion where your belief in MY God has a greater reward/penalty than Christianity. Specifically, in my religion, an incorrect choice not only send you to infinite torment, but you also damn all your loved one’s as well. Same with the right choice - you get infinite reward AND all your loved one’s do too. Clearly, my reward/penalty system trumps that of Christianity.

There are many, many problems with Pascal’s Wager.

 

[catholicray]

 

[IWantGod]

There is a possibility that a God exists that punishes with eternal (worse thing you can imagine) hellfire if we fail to worship him.

There is also a possibility that there is a God who does not. There is also a possibility that Islam is the true religion and if i bet for Christianity i could lose my soul. Anybody can make a threat that if you don’t believe what i believe you could lose something, but that in itself is not a justified reason to believe unless the threat is made evident using reason or providing evidence.

 

[catholicray]

I addressed this. You just admitted the invalidity of the argument. First - the God of Abraham does not promise absolute loss to non-believers. There are human beings who CLAIM to speak on this God’s behalf. Second, the original wager does not posit any penalty. It is risk nothing/gain nothing. Risk something/gain infinity. Third, you just admitted it is invalid. Whether all we need to do is define one or more alternate religions that claim an infinite reward. I already did this earlier in this thread.

Refined: Absolute loss to those who fail to worship.

Are you supporting the wager? You are repeating many of my arguments and destroying the wager. I’m asking - I lose track of who believes what in these threads. So, you are dead on in most of your points - Pascal’s Wager is invalid. However, you are wrong about infinity. There ARE multiple levels of infinity. Read Cantor. So, for example, earlier I proposed a religion where your belief in MY God has a greater reward/penalty than Christianity. Specifically, in my religion, an incorrect choice not only send you to infinite torment, but you also damn all your loved one’s as well. Same with the right choice - you get infinite reward AND all your loved one’s do too. Clearly, my reward/penalty system trumps that of Christianity.

Please feel free to link to Cantor.
I disagree with the logic here as follows:
If (∞ + x) is possible then (∞ =/= ∞)
or if (-∞ - x) is possible then (∞ =/= ∞)

I think we have an issue here with translating language concepts into numbers.

 

[Gorgias]

Well, if you are being technical, you are correct. But this entire discussion is based on the original posters interpretation of Pascal’s Wager. So you really need to address the original poster’s understanding.

Fair enough. But, if his understanding is in error (and, at least in part, I challenged some of what he claimed), then we address that misunderstanding, rather than simply assent to it and move on.

That being said, pascal’s Wager makes no sense unless you consider it in the context of a religion which posits infinite reward.

Since that’s the context he’s writing about, umm… duh!

To be fair, if you don’t acknowledge the wager’s specific implication is Christianity versus Atheism, you need to read more of Pascal’s writings yourself.

I would challenge this notion. The Pensees talks about both, but the Wager has nothing to do with Atheism per se.

First, the wager assumes that “infinite reward” and “infinite time” are real. I can simply deny that either infinite reward or even infinite time exist. The wager immediately collapses

No. You’re simply in case #3 and case #4 of your list (if you’re correct). The Wager takes this into account.

(By the way, I would assert that #1 and #3 aren’t part of the Wager – Pascal asserts that you’ve already ante’d up simply by virtue of being alive. So, you’re still reading something into the text that isn’t there.)

Second, the wager collapses unless you can guarantee that X>0.

Your quantity ‘X’ isn’t a number; it’s “eternal life”. As such, you’re table already covers all possibilities (X and ~X). There’s no “collapse” here; he’s got both cases covered. Again, you’re trying to make the Wager say something that it’s not asserting.

The reason this thread is truly ridiculous is Pascal himself said that the wager is invalid when applied to matters of faith.

Fascinating! I’ve never heard that claim made before. Can you provide a citation for it?

I will admit that I have not read Pascals Wager.

Google “Pascal Pensees”. It’s not a long read.

First - the God of Abraham does not promise absolute loss to non-believers.

“Absolute” loss? What’s that?

And, I think you’ve just claimed that there are no non-believers in hell. Are you sure you want to make that claim?

Specifically, in my religion, an incorrect choice not only send you to infinite torment, but you also damn all your loved one’s as well.

Wait – you present as ‘Catholic’. What’s “your religion”, then, anyway? (And besides which, who wants a religion that condemns others based on your choice???) Or are you merely talking about the thought experiment which you posed?

 

[catholicray]

There is also a possibility that there is a God who does not. There is also a possibility that Islam is the true religion and if i bet for Christianity i could lose my soul. Anybody can make a threat that if you don’t believe what i believe you could lose something, but that in itself is not a justified reason to believe unless the threat is made evident using reason or providing evidence.

If you read the whole line of thought, what you have said here just doesn’t matter. You couldn’t have read the whole thought because my conclusion is that it is irrational to gamble against the God of Abraham. The God of Abraham just so happens to be the God of Islam. Now of course there are differences between Catholicism and Islam and Protestant (They follow the God of Abraham too), but that is a topic for another discussion.

Although I don’t think Pascal argues it this way. I have to go read his take on it now.

 

[Gorgias]

Anybody can make a threat that if you don’t believe what i believe you could lose something, but that in itself is not a justified reason to believe unless the threat is made evident using reason or providing evidence.

And that’s precisely what Pascal does in his Pensees, which is where we find the Wager. Read it for yourself: the Wager is a small part of his essay. He spends the majority of his time in that essay defending Christianity over against other faith traditions (as well as atheism).

A critique of the Wager that asserts “well, you could say that about this religion and that faith tradition, so the Wager is invalid” or “the wager doesn’t work because it needs to defend its premises” demonstrates that the person making this claim has never really read the Pensees.

 

[JapaneseKappa]

If (God does not exist < absolute) = the existence of a God is possible

“ ” the existence of a God is possible

That’s not what we need for the argument to work. We need it to be possible for specifically the Judeo-Christian to be possible, because “just any old God” doesn’t get us the eternal reward/punishments we need for the rest of the argument.

So if we can prove that the probability of the Judeo-Christian God existing is 0, then we immediately escape the wager. How would we do that? Pretty simple, actually, we just need to find a logical contradiction in the definition of the Judeo-Christian God. There are a number of obvious candidates for such contradictions, such as the incarnation, the doctrine of the trinity, and the existence of hell vs God’s claimed benevolence.

So for me, I can escape the wager by simply denying the possibility of the Judeo-Christian God’s existence on the basis that the doctrine of the trinity is logically self-contradictory.

 

[catholicray]

Please feel free to link to Cantor.
I disagree with the logic here as follows:
If (∞ + x) is possible then (∞ =/= ∞)
or if (-∞ - x) is possible then (∞ =/= ∞)

I think we have an issue here with translating language concepts into numbers.

Had a chance to read Cantor (still haven’t read Pascal ). I agree with Cantor that there are an infinite infinities. At the same time I disagree with @LateCatholic that there is a value greater than infinity.

Now maybe I misunderstand Cantor. As far as I can tell his conclusion is based on the numbers and number sets that can be found between each whole number.

Where I think Cantor is wrong is that when he observes whole numbers this way, he fails to account for the value of the whole number relative to the number set he is observing.

What do I mean? Well, I would say that when you are only observing whole numbers then on a number line 1 - 10, the value of 1 is 1.

However if you are observing a subset of the number 1, then the value of 1 is relative to that subset. For example if you are observing the subset of tenths between 0 and 1 then I would argue that 1 has a value of 10 relative to the subset of tenths.

I would argue therefore, that we can say that one of the values of the number 1 relative to its subset is ∞

The same rule can be applied to numbers that are less than 1 where 1/10 when observed on the 1/100 subset would have a value of 100 relative to the subset observed. scratches brain I might have fudged there but hopefully you get the point.

I also believe that each one of the infinite values is contained in the space between 0 and 1. Therefore depending on how your observing the space between 0 and 1 you could say that the final value of 1 is a value of infinite infinities.

This is why I conclude that there is not a value greater than ∞ You see that symbol is a simplification of something we can not express nor comprehend. If we follow my previous pattern of thought, do you know just how many infinities are contained between 0 and ∞

Cantor thought it was 1 he was right
and depending on how you are measuring the space he was infinitely wrong.

Just my opinion.

 

[catholicray]

That’s not what we need for the argument to work. We need it to be possible for specifically the Judeo-Christian to be possible, because “just any old God” doesn’t get us the eternal reward/punishments we need for the rest of the argument.

So if we can prove that the probability of the Judeo-Christian God existing is 0, then we immediately escape the wager. How would we do that? Pretty simple, actually, we just need to find a logical contradiction in the definition of the Judeo-Christian God. There are a number of obvious candidates for such contradictions, such as the incarnation, the doctrine of the trinity, and the existence of hell vs God’s claimed benevolence.

So for me, I can escape the wager by simply denying the possibility of the Judeo-Christian God’s existence on the basis that the doctrine of the trinity is logically self-contradictory.

Go ahead the Trinity is a simplification of something we can’t actually express nor comprehend. It’s a symbol of the truth.

If you read books about the Trinity you’ll understand that the more you explain it, the more you can explain it.

The truth is you can’t handle the truth.
My logic (which you did not read all the way through) still stands and your reasoning fails to be careful.