Pascal's wager backwards

A

aaqucnaona

This sentence is a lie
Valued Senior Member
I still often hear many theist using pascal's wager to convince me of belief in belief [not the existence of god] and I dont see how they dont realise it to be a very inadequate ploy - for one it can be used for anything, from islam to pastafarianism - thus rendering it obselete or it can go backwards -

1. God exists -

You believe - You live happily, go to heaven

You dont believe - You live happily, god forgives you [being all-loving] and go to heaven.

2. God doesn't exist -

You dont believe - Its a non-issue

You believe - If you become a martyr [abortion dr. killer, jihadist, etc], you blow your only chance to live a rich, fulfilling, long life for an idea.


See, pascal's wager cuts both ways - its just not an adequate argument for belief in belief.
 
aaqucnaona said:
I still often hear many theist using pascal's wager to convince me of belief in belief [not the existence of god] and I dont see how they dont realise it to be a very inadequate ploy - for one it can be used for anything, from islam to pastafarianism - thus rendering it obselete or it can go backwards -

1. God exists -

You believe - You live happily, go to heaven

You dont believe - You live happily, god forgives you [being all-loving] and go to heaven.

2. God doesn't exist -

You dont believe - Its a non-issue

You believe - If you become a martyr [abortion dr. killer, jihadist, etc], you blow your only chance to live a rich, fulfilling, long life for an idea.

See, pascal's wager cuts both ways - its just not an adequate argument for belief in belief.
Click to expand...

Why even talk about it? An atheist that gets succored is a fool and a theist that uses it believes all atheist are fools.
 
The atheist's wager - live a good life, be good to people, etc. If there's a benevolent god, then you get rewarded. If not, at least you were a good person.

If the god is not benevolent, doesn't offer a reason you can believe in him, and doesn't reward you for being a moral person regardless of belief, then you can't win anyway.
 
aaqucnaona said:
I still often hear many theist using pascal's wager to convince me of belief in belief [not the existence of god] and I dont see how they dont realise it to be a very inadequate ploy - for one it can be used for anything, from islam to pastafarianism - thus rendering it obselete or it can go backwards -

1. God exists -

You believe - You live happily, go to heaven

You dont believe - You live happily, god forgives you [being all-loving] and go to heaven.

2. God doesn't exist -

You dont believe - Its a non-issue

You believe - If you become a martyr [abortion dr. killer, jihadist, etc], you blow your only chance to live a rich, fulfilling, long life for an idea.


See, pascal's wager cuts both ways - its just not an adequate argument for belief in belief.
Click to expand...

You steel fight the believe in God and you look for answers om other people, The believe in God is some personal between you and God , You are to make a choice if He exist or not.
As a lattes example ( does neutrinos travel faster then the speed of light )
Some scientist believe yes other dont >
 
arauca said:
You steel fight the believe in God and you look for answers om other people, The believe in God is some personal between you and God , You are to make a choice if He exist or not.
As a lattes example ( does neutrinos travel faster then the speed of light )
Some scientist believe yes other dont >
Click to expand...

The pascal's wager is not an argument for existence of god, its an argument for belief in belief.
 
aaqucnaona said:
I still often hear many theist using pascal's wager to convince me of belief in belief [not the existence of god] and I dont see how they dont realise it to be a very inadequate ploy - for one it can be used for anything, from islam to pastafarianism - thus rendering it obselete or it can go backwards -

1. God exists -

You believe - You live happily, go to heaven

You dont believe - You live happily, god forgives you [being all-loving] and go to heaven.

2. God doesn't exist -

You dont believe - Its a non-issue

You believe - If you become a martyr [abortion dr. killer, jihadist, etc], you blow your only chance to live a rich, fulfilling, long life for an idea.


See, pascal's wager cuts both ways - its just not an adequate argument for belief in belief.
Click to expand...
Your synopsis, what to speak of the conclusions you draw from it, really has nothing to do with pascals wager.

:shrug:
 
aaqucnaona said:
The pascal's wager is not an argument for existence of god, its an argument for belief in belief.
Click to expand...

To me it's a plan to cover your ass in case you are wrong in your belief that sense there is no God you are not going to be saved anyway, but you can hedge your bets, by claiming Jesus as your lord and savior.

But it doesn't work, because if there is a God, he will know what is in your heart and if your ploy was only to cover your ass you will be busted.:D
 
KilljoyKlown said:
To me it's a plan to cover your ass in case you are wrong in your belief that sense there is no God you are not going to be saved anyway, but you can hedge your bets, by claiming Jesus as your lord and savior.

But it doesn't work, because if there is a God, he will know what is in your heart and if your ploy was only to cover your ass you will be busted.:D
Click to expand...
Once again, your comments really have nothing to do with pascals wager
 
.."God is, or He is not." But to which side shall we incline? Reason can decide nothing here. There is an infinite chaos which separated us. A game is being played at the extremity of this infinite distance where heads or tails will turn up. What will you wager? According to reason, you can do neither the one thing nor the other; according to reason, you can defend neither of the propositions.

Do not, then, reprove for error those who have made a choice; for you know nothing about it. "No, but I blame them for having made, not this choice, but a choice; for again both he who chooses heads and he who chooses tails are equally at fault, they are both in the wrong. The true course is not to wager at all."

Yes; but you must wager. It is not optional. You are embarked. Which will you choose then? Let us see. Since you must choose, let us see which interests you least. You have two things to lose, the true and the good; and two things to stake, your reason and your will, your knowledge and your happiness; and your nature has two things to shun, error and misery. Your reason is no more shocked in choosing one rather than the other, since you must of necessity choose. This is one point settled. But your happiness? Let us weigh the gain and the loss in wagering that God is. Let us estimate these two chances. If you gain, you gain all; if you lose, you lose nothing. Wager, then, without hesitation that He is.
"That is very fine. Yes, I must wager; but I may perhaps wager too much." Let us see. Since there is an equal risk of gain and of loss, if you had only to gain two lives, instead of one, you might still wager. But if there were three lives to gain, you would have to play (since you are under the necessity of playing), and you would be imprudent, when you are forced to play, not to chance your life to gain three at a game where there is an equal risk of loss and gain. But there is an eternity of life and happiness. And this being so, if there were an infinity of chances, of which one only would be for you, you would still be right in wagering one to win two, and you would act stupidly, being obliged to play, by refusing to stake one life against three at a game in which out of an infinity of chances there is one for you, if there were an infinity of an infinitely happy life to gain. But there is here an infinity of an infinitely happy life to gain, a chance of gain against a finite number of chances of loss, and what you stake is finite.[4]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascals_wager

IOW its a problem addressing the limits of reason - hence the wager
 
KilljoyKlown said:
Maybe not but that's the point It's a piss poor argument.
Click to expand...
On the contrary its a piss poor critique to volley for a lack of reason for a problem that makes it clear from the onset that reason alone will not be sufficient to solve it .... hence the wager.

Perhaps you could say that all "wager" arguments are piss poor but then it tends to be their nature to not rely on "argument" for a consequence.
:shrug:
 
KilljoyKlown said:
Maybe not but that's the point It's a piss poor argument.
Click to expand...

Most people, if not everyone wagers. Some are more aware of it than others; some more readily acknowledge that they wager.

You, too, wager.
For example, you wager that the lifestyle you've chosen will continue to lead to happiness and meaning for you.
 
KilljoyKlown said:
To me it's a plan to cover your ass in case you are wrong in your belief that sense there is no God you are not going to be saved anyway, but you can hedge your bets, by claiming Jesus as your lord and savior.

But it doesn't work, because if there is a God, he will know what is in your heart and if your ploy was only to cover your ass you will be busted.
Click to expand...

This reasoning is based on projecting a particular human sense of magnanimity on God.
And the human sense of magnanimity tends to be not particularly magnanimous at all.

IOW, you project that God will judge you by the same - harsh - standards by which you judge others, yourself and God.
You don't think very highly of God.


What is characteristic of the great theistically-inclined thinkers of the past is that they took for granted that God is incomparably more magnanimous than man, so concerns like yours didn't enter their minds.

Only a frail human would condemn a man despite knowing that the man couldn't have done other than he did.
 
arauca said:
So what is acceptable to you ? since you don't believe in believe .
Click to expand...
It was a joke. A play on words.

Beliefs can be difficult to abandon or modify. I prefer knowledge or a provisional understanding based on the evidence that is currently available.
 
gmilam said:
It was a joke. A play on words.

Beliefs can be difficult to abandon or modify. I prefer knowledge or a provisional understanding based on the evidence that is currently available.
Click to expand...
Your preference is insufficient to deal with any "wager" type argument.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top