NationStates Jolt Archive

This is a continuation of the discussion on Pascal's Wager which started on post thirteen of the To worship or not to worship? (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=481344&page=2) thread. I'm moving it here to avoid hijacking that thread.

So the question is, is Pascal's Wager a viable argument for belief in god/s? I say no but I don't like biased OPs so I'll wait until the debating starts before I argue my position.

There should be a poll in a minute.

The logic flaws are gaping in pascals ... it is almost becoming a godwins to use it

Pascal's wager is faulty because:

1) It is inherently from the perspective of a believer. Pascal automatically degrades the value of our living experience. He ignores the possibility that, were we to believe in God and devote our life to his existence, we would be wasting the only existence we have.

2) The possibility of there actually being a God and one's belief coinciding with the nature of that God are so low that the 'pot-odds' are not with betting on God's existence.

3) Belief is not something that can be wagered or chosen.

Cogito ergo God
"I think therefore God is"
Thats all i have to say.

Cogito ergo God

What is that 'langlish'?

This is a continuation of the discussion on Pascal's Wager which started on post thirteen of the To worship or not to worship? (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=481344&page=2) thread. I'm moving it here to avoid hijacking that thread.

So the question is, is Pascal's Wager a viable argument for belief in god/s? I say no but I don't like biased OPs so I'll wait until the debating starts before I argue my position.

There should be a poll in a minute.

Woah woah. The question can be interpreted in two different ways:
1. Is Pascal's argument valid? i.e. is there really more to be gained from believing in a deity?
2. Is Pascal's argument a viable argument for the belief in a deity?

For the first question, I'm not so sure, since though you might gain eternal happiness if you're right, you might also screw over the only existence you have by being a gullible moron who acts how he thinks he's supposed to act instead of how he feels.

Since the answer to the first question is as ambiguous as any other reason for belief in a deity, I'd say that the answer to the second question is a resounding "no": you can't base belief on a crapshoot, especially when the seemingly "uneven" gains might actually be even given their uneven terms.

If there is an invisible dragon in my room and I believe in it, it will take me to an eternal utopia.
If there is an invisible dragon in my room and I don't believe in it, it will eat me.

If there is not an invisible dragon in my room and I know there isn't, I will live out my life normally.
If there is not an invisible dragon in my room but I believe there is, I will live my life in constant, unjustified fear that it will eat me.

What is that 'langlish'?
Someone did not actualy know latin nor how to translate it so just randomly threw in the english

I tried to find it myself and I can only take a best guess lol

as an arguement it's crap. How is someone supposed to even acheive what it states even if they wanted to?

I was really tempted to choose the option "God doesn't aproove with gambling" because it made me grin. I chose instead to be fair to your data and said that Pascal's is not a viable argument even though I believe in God.

But kudos for your options in the poll.

Someone did not actualy know latin nor how to translate it so just randomly threw in the english

I tried to find it myself and I can only take a best guess lol

"Cogito ergo puto esse deus."
I think that's what he meant to say; I don't remember direct statement.

It's really a stupid argument that assumes only two possiblities, i.e. Christianity or nothing. It's far too simplistic as well.

"Cogito ergo puto esse deus."
I think that's what he meant to say; I don't remember direct statement.
Intresting :) thanks

If there is an invisible dragon in my room and I believe in it, it will take me to an eternal utopia.
If there is an invisible dragon in my room and I don't believe in it, it will eat me.

If there is not an invisible dragon in my room and I know there isn't, I will live out my life normally.
If there is not an invisible dragon in my room but I believe there is, I will live my life in constant, unjustified fear that it will eat me.

Aptly put.
Even though the wager is crap, I think the statistical paradox that arises out of it is quite cool, i.e. comparing results that span different lengths of time.

Intresting :) thanks

Oh psha, we both know I was trying to show off. :D

Oh psha, we both know I was trying to show off. :D
Thats ok I always like learning new things ... specialy when I had no real luck looking it up myself :)

I think your odds change if you assume, like the Romans did that (admittedly not for theological reasons), that every culture is worshipping different aspects of the same deity. Then at least you don't have the problem with the Azteks having as much chance as being correct as Christians.

I think your odds change if you assume, like the Romans did that (admittedly not for theological reasons), that every culture is worshipping different aspects of the same deity.

Argh, there's a special word for that belief. I forget what it's called though.
...I think it starts with an "h"? A cookie to anyone who can tell me what it is.

"Cogito ergo puto esse deus."
I think that's what he meant to say; I don't remember direct statement.
Oooh! Oooh! I know too! "Cogito ergo doleo". Yes, I am very, very happy. *leaves*

If there is an invisible dragon in my room and I believe in it, it will take me to an eternal utopia.
If there is an invisible dragon in my room and I don't believe in it, it will eat me.

If there is not an invisible dragon in my room and I know there isn't, I will live out my life normally.
If there is not an invisible dragon in my room but I believe there is, I will live my life in constant, unjustified fear that it will eat me.


....therefore according to the terms of Pascal's wager, if there was a finitely small (but greater than zero) probablility of the dragon's existence it would be in your best interest to believe in it.

No paradox.

Interestingly, if this dragon is capable of taking you to an eternal utopia, then it might as well be God.

However, since the existence of God is true (see Descartes), and since the properties of your magical dragon (taking you to a magical utopia if you believe in it) are incompatable with God, we can safely conclude that the probability of your magical dragon existing are zero by the following logical deduction.

Therefore, your potential gain from believing in the dragon is (infinity)x0=0
And your potential gain from not believing in the dragon is (1)x(less anxiety)=(less anxiety)
And since (some gain)>0 it is in your best intrest not to believe in the magical dragon in your room.

As I said, there is no logical paradox.

....therefore according to the terms of Pascal's wager, if there was a finitely small (but greater than zero) probablility of the dragon's existence it would be in your best interest to believe in it.

Assuming you will hold the correct belief of course. Pick the wrong cult of dragonworshippers, and you will still get eaten.
Unfortunately there seem to be 978.224.223 different cults. All of them claiming to be the only true path to the dragons blessing...

However, since the existence of God is true (see Descartes)

You do realize that Decartes failed miserably at proving God, right?

Refer to the Cartesian circle: God allows us to know what is true through clear and distinct knowledge, we know God exists because of our clear and distinct knowledge of him.

Assuming you will hold the correct belief of course. Pick the wrong cult of dragonworshippers, and you will still get eaten.
Unfortunately there seem to be 978.224.223 different cults. All of them claiming to be the only true path to the dragons blessing...

By "the dragon" I meant the specific dragon in this person's room possessing the property that if you believed in it it would take you to an eternal utopia, there are no addional requirements and therefore there are no 978.224.223 for this particular dragon, only 1.

If that were true, then it would be beneficial to believe in this dragon.

Besides 1/978.224.223*(small but non zero number) is still a (small but nonzero number) so your potential gain is still
(infinity)x(small but non-zero number)=(infinity) and therefore belief in the dragon would still be better than non-belief in the dragon, although not necessarly better than belief in a different sect with a slightly higher probability of being true.

In effect, in the chance of the dragon existing is (a small but non-zero) number, then not believing in it is the worst choice you can possibly make since the return is (some number between zero and 1)x(less anxiety)<(infinity).

/snip

However, since the existence of God is true (see Descartes)

/snip

Err, i wasn't aware that the Christian God had been indisputably confirmed. Nor that belief in said God is no longer required, as there is proof. (Recalls belief requirements to get into heaven.)

If there is an invisible dragon in my room and I believe in it, it will take me to an eternal utopia.
If there is an invisible dragon in my room and I don't believe in it, it will eat me.

If there is not an invisible dragon in my room and I know there isn't, I will live out my life normally.
If there is not an invisible dragon in my room but I believe there is, I will live my life in constant, unjustified fear that it will eat me.
Never really thought of God as an invisible dragon before...much more vivid than the imaginary guy in the sky! Nicely done.

You do realize that Decartes failed miserably at proving God, right?

Refer to the Cartesian circle: God allows us to know what is true through clear and distinct knowledge, we know God exists because of our clear and distinct knowledge of him.


At best, you've refuted only 1 of Descarte's 3 proofs of the existence of God, and that only by completely ignoring the argument.

The correct argument is actually
1) I possess an idea of God
2) Either this idea originated in myself or it originated outside of myself
3) This idea could not originate in myself
3b)by 2) and 3), this idea originated outside of myself
4) If this idea originated from something outside myself, it originated from God or something else
5) This idea could not have originated from something else
5b) By 4) and 5) this idea originated from God
6)therefore God exists

I dare you to prove that is circular.

if you wish to disagree with 1-6, I have no problem with that but please tell me which one you disagree with.

At best, you've refuted only 1 of Descarte's 3 proofs of the existence of God, and that only by completely ignoring the argument.

The correct argument is actually
1) I possess an idea of God
2) Either this idea originated in myself or it originated outside of myself
3) This idea could not originate in myself
3b)by 2) and 3), this idea originated outside of myself
4) If this idea originated from something outside myself, it originated from God or something else
5) This idea could not have originated from something else
5b) By 4) and 5) this idea originated from God
6)therefore God exists

I dare you to prove that is circular.

if you wish to disagree with 1-6, I have no problem with that but please tell me which one you disagree with.
3 is discutable, 5 is wrong.

3 is discutable, 5 is wrong.

ok. why?

....However, since the existence of God is true
Perhaps you should check out the thread Is Evil Real to see just how indefinitive this statement is. If I were not a technotard, I'd insert a link there, but I am, so I won't.
Arguing for God from probability is the very antithesis of faith. Faith is the insistence of belief in the face of staggering negativity. To claim that accepting Pascal's wager is synonomous with belief in God is a total non-sequitir. Reasoning through a cost-benefit analysis of faith/non-faith is in itself the very essence of non-faith. If one had faith, one would not require the analysis of probabilities. Since God (supposedly) rewards worshippers based on their faith, not their ability to conduct in-depth analyses of statistical probabilities, the very contemplation of Pascal's wager seems to preclude the possibility of any reward.

3 is discutable, 5 is wrong.

Debatable, you mean. French Canadian, I'm guessing?

It's actually been proven that some humans are predisposed to be spiritual. Since gods are often imagined to look and act human (with time they've grown to be as "pure" as they are powerful), it's actually pretty obvious how human of an invention they are.

At best, you've refuted only 1 of Descarte's 3 proofs of the existence of God, and that only by completely ignoring the argument.

The correct argument is actually
1) I possess an idea of God
2) Either this idea originated in myself or it originated outside of myself
3) This idea could not originate in myself
3b)by 2) and 3), this idea originated outside of myself
4) If this idea originated from something outside myself, it originated from God or something else
5) This idea could not have originated from something else
5b) By 4) and 5) this idea originated from God
6)therefore God exists

I dare you to prove that is circular.

if you wish to disagree with 1-6, I have no problem with that but please tell me which one you disagree with.

1) The idea of God is not universally possessed.
3) It is entirely possible for the reason to invent the notion of perfection by imagining the elimination of percieved imperfections. Does our concept of utopia necessitate the existence of a utopian society?
5) My exception to three applies here. We do not need to observe something perfect to form the concept of perfection.

ok. why?
An idea can generate from something else. Look into money, democracy, hell any kind of technoligical advance. 5 is wrong in assuming that the idea of God cannot be like every other idea that ever came to pass.

3 is discutable as there can be any number of way for someone to devise an all-powefull entity to explain away some things such as rain, lava, disater, etc. So I can develop the idea of God by myself without any outside help at all.

Perhaps you should check out the thread Is Evil Real to see just how indefinitive this statement is. If I were not a technotard, I'd insert a link there, but I am, so I won't.

obviously since I invoked Descartes to prove that God exists, I meant God as defined by Descartes which is not indefinitive at all.


Arguing for God from probability is the very antithesis of faith. Faith is the insistence of belief in the face of staggering negativity. To claim that accepting Pascal's wager is synonomous with belief in God is a total non-sequitir. Reasoning through a cost-benefit analysis of faith/non-faith is in itself the very essence of non-faith. If one had faith, one would not require the analysis of probabilities. Since God (supposedly) rewards worshippers based on their faith, not their ability to conduct in-depth analyses of statistical probabilities, the very contemplation of Pascal's wager seems to preclude the possibility of any reward.

A good point and one I would tend to agree with. I was merely pointing out that Pascal's Wager is logical valid although false.

An idea can generate from something else. Look into money, democracy, hell any kind of technoligical advance. 5 is wrong in assuming that the idea of God cannot be like every other idea that ever came to pass.

The argument that Descarte makes is precisely that the idea of God is unique insomuch that unlike the ideas of money, Democracy, etc. it cannot come from any source other than God so argument from analogy is invalid


3 is discutable as there can be any number of way for someone to devise an all-powefull entity to explain away some things such as rain, lava, disater, etc. So I can develop the idea of God by myself without any outside help at all.

Ok. Prove it. How can someone concieve of an all-powerful entity?

Why can an idea not originate from within oneself? This is circular logic.

I have an idea of God.
I could not have come up with this idea on my own.
Therefore the idea must have come from God.
Therefore God exists.
Therefore my idea of God is right and justified.

You begin with the premise that there is a God and then create other conditions which prove your basic premise could not be wrong. Your argument is non-falsifiable. Try this.

I have an idea of God.
I could have come up with this idea on my own.
Therefore God is not a requirement of my idea.
Therefore God need not exist.
Therefore my idea of God is wrong and nonsensical.

That's about as good an argument against God as DesCartes makes for God. They're both full of holes and gaps, and neither proves anything except what it wants to prove. Descartes sought justification, not answers.

You begin with the premise that there is a God and then create other conditions which prove your basic premise could not be wrong. Your argument is non-falsifiable.

Where?

I begin with the premise that I have a concept of God, not that there is a God.

Therefore, your potential gain from believing in the dragon is (infinity)x0=0
And your potential gain from not believing in the dragon is (1)x(less anxiety)=(less anxiety)
And since (some gain)>0 it is in your best intrest not to believe in the magical dragon in your room.

As I said, there is no logical paradox.

He was using a dragon to sardonically represent whichever deity you believe in.

It is paradoxical because it's based on two realities:

Reality 1: God(s) exist
finite time x anxiety = infinite happiness + finite anxiety > finity time x no anxiety = infinite hell + finite peace

Reality 2: God(s) don't exist
finite time x no anxiety = finite (= only = infinite) peace > finite time x anxiety = finite (= only = infinite) anxiety

The two realities are non-reconsilable.

Also, no mathematician, logician, or philosopher worth speaking to believes Descarte's "proof" of the existence of "God" is logically sound.

obviously since I invoked Descartes to prove that God exists, I meant God as defined by Descartes which is not indefinitive at all.
.
Sorry about that, I meant it is indefinitive to claim that God is "true" not what God is. My apologies. That thread is all about the nature of truth.

Ok. Prove it. How can someone concieve of an all-powerful entity?
Jerry Siegel did.

1) The idea of God is not universally possessed.

Irrelevant. 1) says that I have a concept of God, not that anyone else does.


3) It is entirely possible for the reason to invent the notion of perfection by imagining the elimination of percieved imperfections. Does our concept of utopia necessitate the existence of a utopian society?

Descarte argues that the concept of God is unique and that unlike the concept of a utopian society it cannot be imagined therefore argument by analogy is invalid


5) My exception to three applies here. We do not need to observe something perfect to form the concept of perfection.

The concept of God is not equvalent to the concept of perfection, see my answer to 3)

I accept that pascals wager works in the sense that it might slightly increase your chances of getting into heaven, should it exist, but that doesnt mean heaven actually does exist. Pascals wager is like buying a ticket for a lottery that might not ever have a draw. Sure, youve got a better chance of winning, but so what?

Where?

I begin with the premise that I have a concept of God, not that there is a God.
OK, DesCartes began from the premise that God exists, even if you didn't, rather than beginning with the question Does God exist, and sought justification from there. As you were speaking in defence of DesCartes, I spoke as though against DesCartes.

Jerry Siegel did.

Excellent! An argument from fact!

Unfortuantely, the concept of superman is not the concept of God and therefore it is an irrelevant claim.

I accept that pascals wager works in the sense that it might slightly increase your chances of getting into heaven, should it exist, but that doesnt mean heaven actually does exist. Pascals wager is like buying a ticket for a lottery that might not ever have a draw. Sure, youve got a better chance of winning, but so what?
Pascal's Wager does not increase the odds of getting into heaven, because it assumes that heaven is about statistical probability, not about belief and faith.

Hey, wait a minute! I just conceived of an all-powerful deity! Does that mean it exists?

OK, DesCartes began from the premise that God exists, even if you didn't, rather than beginning with the question Does God exist, and sought justification from there. As you were speaking in defence of DesCartes, I spoke as though against DesCartes.

In his meditations Descartes begins by proving that he has the conception of God, not that God exists. My syllogism is taken from such.

Feel free to offer your own version of Descartes syllogism as such if you disagree with mine but be prepared to back it up with quotes from Descartes if you want me to believe it is more correct than my own.

Excellent! An argument from fact!

Unfortuantely, the concept of superman is not the concept of God and therefore it is an irrelevant claim.
Actually, if I really wanted to argue about the concept of God, you don't have to do much more than point at the Sun. There's something that didn't have to imagined out of nothing and fufills many God worthy attributes.

Hey, wait a minute! I just conceived of an all-powerful deity! Does that mean it exists?

No.

In his meditations Descartes begins by proving that he has the conception of God, not that God exists. My syllogism is taken from such.

Feel free to offer your own version of Descartes syllogism as such if you disagree with mine but be prepared to back it up with quotes from Descartes if you want me to believe it is more correct than my own.
My apologies, then. It was my understanding that DesCartes attempted to demonstrate that the concept of God proves the existence of God in fact. Is that not the case?

No.
Why not?

Actually, if I really wanted to argue about the concept of God, you don't have to do much more than point at the Sun. There's something that didn't have to imagined out of nothing and fufills many God worthy attributes.

Unfortuately, the sun doesn't fulfill many of the basic requirements of Descartes' defininition of God.

If you wish to use your concept of the sun to prove that the sun exists, however, don't let me be the one to dissuade you.

Pascal's wager assumes that there are only two possible states, Christian and Atheist. How could it not be flawed?

My apologies, then. It was my understanding that DesCartes attempted to demonstrate that the concept of God proves the existence of God in fact. Is that not the case?

Yes, Descartes begins by proving that he has a concept of God.

The concept of God, however, is not the same as the existence of God any more than the concept of a Ferrari in my head right now is an actual Ferrari.

Pascal's wager assumes that there are only two possible states, Christian and Atheist. How could it not be flawed?
Even if you extrapolate, however, to read it as God/No God, it still does not permit the unbeliever into Heaven. It does just the opposite, because it denies the role of faith.

Why not?

Well, because your diety has no impressively old book, or armies of followers, therefore, it is obviously fundamentally flawed and incorrect. All praise the Flying Spaghetti Monster!

Yes, Descartes begins by proving that he has a concept of God.

The concept of God, however, is not the same as the existence of God any more than the concept of a Ferrari in my head right now is an actual Ferrari.
Was DesCartes' contention that the concept of God proves the existence of God?

Well, because your diety has no impressively old book, or armies of followers, therefore, it is obviously fundamentally flawed and incorrect. All praise the Flying Spaghetti Monster!
But I can make up a new book! It worked for everyone else when they were starting out!

Why not?

because a concept and a thing are different, silly.

Unfortuately, the sun doesn't fulfill many of the basic requirements of Descartes' defininition of God.

If you wish to use your concept of the sun to prove that the sun exists, however, don't let me be the one to dissuade you.
Sun as a God, not Sun as a star as we know it.

Was DesCartes' contention that the concept of God proves the existence of God?

actually, he starts by proving that he exists, then he proves that he has concepts, then the observes that one of those concepts is the existence of God. Finally, he uses that concept along with the syllogism I provided to prove the existence of God.

Sun as a God, not Sun as a star as we know it.

By "God" you mean the Judeo-Christian God?

By "God" you mean the Judeo-Christian God?
There could be parallels drawn to that.

actually, he starts by proving that he exists, then he proves that he has concepts, then the observes that one of those concepts is the existence of God. Finally, he uses that concept along with the syllogism I provided to prove the existence of God.
So he does contend that the concept of God proves the existence of God. Thank you. So does the concept of NoGod prove that there is NoGod?

The syllogism is flawed because it assumes that I cannot have an idea of God unless God gives me that idea. It uses the existence of God to prove the existence of God.

Irrelevant. 1) says that I have a concept of God, not that anyone else does.

Then we must assume that God exists in all forms that have been conceived by human minds.

Descarte argues that the concept of God is unique and that unlike the concept of a utopian society it cannot be imagined therefore argument by analogy is invalid

Decartes argued that the idea of perfection can only be provided by something that is perfect, the effect must be equal to the cause. It is not the concept of God that proves the existence of God to Decartes, it is the concept of perfection. Because Decartes states that cause and effect must equal in measurement, a perfect concept must have a perfect cause. So the concept of a perfect society must come from something perfect that exists. That is not true, so t can be shown that effects need not be equal in measure to their cause, especially when considering concepts.

And this is the same circular argument I referenced. We know that we have a God because we have the idea of God, we have the idea of God because there is a God.

The concept of God is not equvalent to the concept of perfection, see my answer to 3)

But it is the concept of God as being perfect that is essential to Decartes proof.

So he does contend that the concept of God proves the existence of God. Thank you. So does the concept of NoGod prove that there is NoGod?

The syllogism is flawed because it assumes that I cannot have an idea of God unless God gives me that idea. It uses the existence of God to prove the existence of God.


Here's the syllogism:
1) I possess an idea of God
2) Either this idea originated in myself or it originated outside of myself
3) This idea could not originate in myself
3b)by 2) and 3), this idea originated outside of myself
4) If this idea originated from something outside myself, it originated from God or something else
5) This idea could not have originated from something else
5b) By 4) and 5) this idea originated from God
6)therefore God exists

Which number do you disagree with?

Here's the syllogism:
1) I possess an idea of God
2) Either this idea originated in myself or it originated outside of myself
3) This idea could not originate in myself
3b)by 2) and 3), this idea originated outside of myself
4) If this idea originated from something outside myself, it originated from God or something else
5) This idea could not have originated from something else
5b) By 4) and 5) this idea originated from God
6)therefore God exists

Which number do you disagree with?
I disagree with 3(and by defaukt 3b) and 5(also5b, which leads to 6)

There is no evidence anywhere that 3 is a valid step in the syllogism.
Same goes for 5. How does DesCartes claim to indisputably prove 3 & 5?

Here's the syllogism:
1) I possess an idea of God
2) Either this idea originated in myself or it originated outside of myself
3) This idea could not originate in myself
3b)by 2) and 3), this idea originated outside of myself
4) If this idea originated from something outside myself, it originated from God or something else
5) This idea could not have originated from something else
5b) By 4) and 5) this idea originated from God
6)therefore God exists

Which number do you disagree with?
I disagree with 3(and by default 3b) and 5(also5b, which leads to 6)

There is no evidence anywhere that 3 is a valid step in the syllogism.
Same goes for 5. How does DesCartes claim to indisputably prove 3 & 5?

Here's the syllogism:
1) I possess an idea of God
2) Either this idea originated in myself or it originated outside of myself
3) This idea could not originate in myself
3b)by 2) and 3), this idea originated outside of myself
4) If this idea originated from something outside myself, it originated from God or something else
5) This idea could not have originated from something else
5b) By 4) and 5) this idea originated from God
6)therefore God exists

Which number do you disagree with?
I disagree with 3(and by default 3b) and 5(also5b, which leads to 6)

There is no evidence anywhere that 3 is a valid step in the syllogism.
Same goes for 5. How does DesCartes claim to indisputably prove 3 & 5?

Then we must assume that God exists in all forms that have been conceived by human minds.

No, only in those forms of which the concept of God necessarily proves his existence


Decartes argued that the idea of perfection can only be provided by something that is perfect, the effect must be equal to the cause. It is not the concept of God that proves the existence of God to Decartes, it is the concept of perfection. Because Decartes states that cause and effect must equal in measurement, a perfect concept must have a perfect cause. So the concept of a perfect society must come from something perfect that exists. That is not true, so t can be shown that effects need not be equal in measure to their cause, especially when considering concepts.


Okay, so you disagree with
5)The concept of God could not have been concieved by something other than God


And this is the same circular argument I referenced. We know that we have a God because we have the idea of God, we have the idea of God because there is a God.


It's no more circular than saying:
A)I see a pizza
B)There is a pizza
1)I see a Pizza therefore there is a pizza...
2)But, the only reason I see the pizza is because there is a pizza.

In 1) we use A) to prove B)
in 2) B) is the proximate cause of A)
although our proof requires A) (and therefore would not exist without B) the proximate cause of A)) this is not the same as saying we use B) to prove A)




But it is the concept of God as being perfect that is essential to Decartes proof.

ok.

I'll grant you that.

So?

Sorry...I have no idea what the hell happened there. I got booted off and my post went on repeatedly. Oopsie.

What about geometric figures? They fufill the idea of perfection.

It's no more circular than saying:
A)I see a pizza
B)There is a pizza
1)I see a Pizza therefore there is a pizza...
2)But, the only reason I see the pizza is because there is a pizza.

In 1) we use A) to prove B)
in 2) B) is the proximate cause of A)
although our proof requires A) (and therefore would not exist without B) the proximate cause of A)) this is not the same as saying we use B) to prove A)
So?
Bad analogy...we can see and therfore assume the reality of the pizza. The syllogism is attempting to prove somethign unseen.

I disagree with 3(and by default 3b) and 5(also5b, which leads to 6)

No, you disagree with 3) and 5) and 3b) and 5b) are immediate conclusions of 3) and 5) such that if you granted 3) and 5) you would also grant 3) and 5)


There is no evidence anywhere that 3 is a valid step in the syllogism.
Same goes for 5. How does DesCartes claim to indisputably prove 3 & 5?

3) is not a step in the syllogism, it is a claim.

You are correct to say that it requires proof.

Here is the outline of the proof (I'll just do 3) since 5) is similar)
3.1) All ideas come from a cause
3.2) An idea cannot originate from a cause that possesses less *complexity than the idea
3.3) The idea of God possesses infinite *complexity
3.4) I possess finite *complexity
3.5) therefore by 3.2) 3.3) and 3.4) the idea of God could not have originated from me.

Once again, please tell me which claim you disagree with

*I am using the word complexity here to describe an idea which might also be called "information" "perfection" "awesomeness" "divinity" etc.

Bad analogy...we can see and therfore assume the reality of the pizza. The syllogism is attempting to prove somethign unseen.

no, because Descartes infers the existence of God from the concept of God in much the same way in which I deduct the existance of pizza from the image of pizza in my mind.

My point was merely that A) is used to prove B) whereas B) is the proximate cause of A) so that neither the proximate causes nor the proofs are circular.

What about geometric figures? They fufill the idea of perfection.

No they don't.

Geometry is math. Math is evil. Therefore by Augustine since evil is the opposite of perfection, geometry is the opposite of perfection.

No they don't.

Geometry is math. Math is evil. Therefore by Augustine since evil is the opposite of perfection, geometry is the opposite of perfection.
I think... thats a bit of a stretch. But ok.

No, you disagree with 3) and 5) and 3b) and 5b) are immediate conclusions of 3) and 5) such that if you granted 3) and 5) you would also grant 3) and 5)



3) is not a step in the syllogism, it is a claim.

You are correct to say that it requires proof.

Here is the outline of the proof (I'll just do 3) since 5) is similar)
3.1) All ideas come from a cause
3.2) An idea cannot originate from a cause that possesses less *complexity than the idea
3.3) The idea of God possesses infinite *complexity
3.4) I possess finite *complexity
3.5) therefore by 3.2) 3.3) and 3.4) the idea of God could not have originated from me.

Once again, please tell me which claim you disagree with

*I am using the word complexity here to describe an idea which might also be called "information" "perfection" "awesomeness" "divinity" etc.

3.2 is a leap in logic I can deal with.
3.3 is just plain wrong. God is far more basic than knowing all 31 flavors of ice cream, let alone understanding vector calculus.

I think... thats a bit of a stretch. But ok.

I assumed that was sarcasm because his comment was just plain lunacy.

If he really believed it, it only proves that he's a student who's hopped up on ancient Christian philosophers he's only recently learned about and fails to understand that philosophy != fact.

Here are the basic equations involved in Pascal's Wager:

[The probable utility gained by any decision] equals [Any utility gain that occurs if that decision is coherant with reality] multiplied by [The odds that the decision is coherant with reality] subtract [Any utility loss that occurs if that decision is incoherant with reality] multiplied by [The odds that the decision is incoherant with reality]

For these equations we will assume that the odds that God exists are greater than 0 and less than 1. (That is God's existance is not completely mathematically proven or disproven.)

If I choose to act as if God does not exist:

[My probable utility gain]=[The finite utility gain in not having to obey religious morals]x[Some number between {not including} 0 and 1]-[The infinite utility loss of spending eternity in hell]x[Some number between {not including} 1 and 0]

No matter what chance I compute for God's existance (as long as that chance is not 0) my probable utility gain for acting as if God does not exist is negatively infinite.

If i choose to act as if God does exist:

[My probably utility gain]=[The infinite utility gain of spending eternity in Heaven]x[Some number between {not including} 1 and 0]-[The finite utility loss in having to obey religious morals]x[Some number between {not including} 1 and 0]

No matter what chance I compute for God's existance (as lond as that chance is not 0) my probable utility gain for acting as if God does exist is positively infinite.

Therefore, in order to maximize my probably utility, I should act as if God does exist.



Here are a couple of problems relating to Pascal's Wager:

1. If God would send a person to Hell for disbelief, then it is foolish to count on Him to give you infinite happiness.

This argument raises the point that the God invisioned in Pascal's Wager (One who is cruel enough to send people to hell for disbelief and yet still kind enough to grant other people infinite happiness in heaven) is very unlikely to exist. Nevertheless, unless you claim to have complete mathematical proof of this God's nonexistance, you should still act as if He does exist.

2. Even if I accept this argument, which God should I believe in. The truth is that there are so many different versions of God my chance of getting the right one is extremely low.

This argument raises the point that the odds of choosing the correct Diety are very low. Nevertheless, unless you can show that the chance of such an occurance is 0, you should still choose to believe in some Diety.

Here is my problem with Pascal's wager:

There is also a finite chance that somewhere in the Universe there is a group of Ultra-Radical Athiestic Aliens. The URAA goes from galaxy to galaxy searching for a planet with intelligent life. When they find such a planet, they separate its inhabitants into two groups, their fellow athiests and the despised theists. They have immense technology, and they use this technology to grant everlasting happiness to athiests and everlasting torment to theists.

The only way in which proponents of Pascal's Wager can rebut this argument is to say "Well, what are the odds of that?!" Unless they are so bold as to claim to have found complete mathematical proof of the nonexistance of the URAA, they must admit that it effectively cancels out Pascal's Wager.

Suffice it to say, I much prefer his triangle.

3.2 is a leap in logic I can deal with.
3.3 is just plain wrong. God is far more basic than knowing all 31 flavors of ice cream, let alone understanding vector calculus.

So all I have to do is define some concept of God that possess infinite complexity and I win?

I assumed that was sarcasm because his comment was just plain lunacy.

If he really believed it, it only proves that he's a student who's hopped up on ancient Christian philosophers he's only recently learned about and fails to understand that philosophy != fact.
Yeah but I took it as sarcasm. I don't really care as an agnostic. I enjoy debating God and realizing there can be no conclusion. I'm also a masochist.

In effect, in the chance of the dragon existing is (a small but non-zero) number, then not believing in it is the worst choice you can possibly make since the return is (some number between zero and 1)x(less anxiety)<(infinity).

You are quite right - my bad.
What I should have done was making the penalty for having the wrong faith worse than nonbelieving:
1. If I worship the dragon, he will take me to utopia
2. If I do not believe in the dragon, he will eat me
3. If I worship the wrong dragon, the true dragon will torment me for eternity.

Assume there are 10 000 significant cults of worshippers (the others consist of only a few followers).

Now assume the dragon exists.
Making the (rather big!) assumption one of them is actually the right one, gives me a 1 in 10 000 chance of eternal bliss, and a 9 999 in 10 000 chance of eternal damnation. Not good odds.
Not believing results in me being eaten, which is better than the eternal damnation.

Unless I place an enormous positive value on the eternal bliss and only a small negative value on the damnation, nonbelieving seems the best option.

So all I have to do is define some concept of God that possess infinite complexity and I win?

No, you have to prove that God is so infinitely complex that he can't be comprehended or thought up by man. Also, explicitly stating it like the Bible does doesn’t constitute a proof.
...then we'll talk.

This is the reasoning a lot of people seem to use, belief based on fear of punishment, but it has flaws.

1) It assumes there's only one possible God
2) It assumes God will not reward virtuous nonbelief
3) It assumes God values compliance above virtue

You are quite right - my bad.
What I should have done was making the penalty for having the wrong faith worse than nonbelieving:
1. If I worship the dragon, he will take me to utopia
2. If I do not believe in the dragon, he will eat me
3. If I worship the wrong dragon, the true dragon will torment me for eternity.

Assume there are 10 000 significant cults of worshippers (the others consist of only a few followers).

Now assume the dragon exists.
Making the (rather big!) assumption one of them is actually the right one, gives me a 1 in 10 000 chance of eternal bliss, and a 9 999 in 10 000 chance of eternal damnation. Not good odds.
Not believing results in me being eaten, which is better than the eternal damnation.

Unless I place an enormous positive value on the eternal bliss and only a small negative value on the damnation, nonbelieving seems the best option.


You're absoutely right.

No, you have to prove that God is so infinitely complex that he can't be comprehended or thought up by man.


But my proof isn't premised on the belief that God is infinitely complex, it is premised on the fact that the concept of God is infinitely complex and concludes that there exists an infinitely complex God.

Asking me to prove there is an infinitely complex God before I can even begin my proof is no less than requiring that I start with my conclusion, ie an attempt to force me to use circular reasoning.


Also, explicitly stating it like the Bible does doesn’t constitute a proof.
...then we'll talk.

Granted.

So, will you conceed that if I can define an inifinitely complex God (and not by saying "an infinitely complex God" or some similar tautology) I win?

my, my. I was only away for an hour...

Anyways,
The argument that Descarte makes is precisely that the idea of God is unique insomuch that unlike the ideas of money, Democracy, etc. it cannot come from any source other than God so argument from analogy is invalid
You then have to prove to me that the idea of god is different from other ideas. Nothing in your original posit proves this. I'm not that familiar with Descarte's ideas so you'll have to indulge me. Otherwise, I read your obejections as "sure for other ideas, but not for this one or else it would destroy my logic."



Ok. Prove it. How can someone concieve of an all-powerful entity?
I have many proof for you: every single belief system that has arisen in the primevial time when travel wasn't done in long distances. They all evolved over time into what we consider religions today. The fact that there are many religons with varying number of god prooves that many different people came up with the idea of an all-powerful entity.

my, my. I was only away for an hour...

Anyways,

You then have to prove to me that the idea of god is different from other ideas. Nothing in your original posit proves this. I'm not that familiar with Descarte's ideas so you'll have to indulge me. Otherwise, I read your obejections as "sure for other ideas, but not for this one or else it would destroy my logic."


Yes, "sure for other ideas but not for this one" is a fair summarization of my claim.

Here is Descartes definiton of God and why they could not have origninated from himself:

By 'God', I understand, a substance which is infinite, independent, supremely intelligent, supremely powerful, and which created both myself and everything else (if else there be) that exists. All these attributes are such that, the more carefully I concentrate on them, the less possible it seems that they could have originated from me alone. So, from what has been said it must be concluded that God necessarily exists.

http://oregonstate.edu/instruct/phl302/philosophers/descartes-god.html



I have many proof for you: every single belief system that has arisen in the primevial time when travel wasn't done in long distances. They all evolved over time into what we consider religions today. The fact that there are many religons with varying number of god prooves that many different people came up with the idea of an all-powerful entity.

Aha! but this merely proves that they acquired an idea of God, not that they developed it.

Descartes presupposes that people can acquire an idea of God (ie from God) but that they cannot independently develop it.

No, you disagree with 3) and 5) and 3b) and 5b) are immediate conclusions of 3) and 5) such that if you granted 3) and 5) you would also grant 3) and 5)



3) is not a step in the syllogism, it is a claim.

You are correct to say that it requires proof.

Here is the outline of the proof (I'll just do 3) since 5) is similar)
3.1) All ideas come from a cause
3.2) An idea cannot originate from a cause that possesses less *complexity than the idea
3.3) The idea of God possesses infinite *complexity
3.4) I possess finite *complexity
3.5) therefore by 3.2) 3.3) and 3.4) the idea of God could not have originated from me.

Once again, please tell me which claim you disagree with

*I am using the word complexity here to describe an idea which might also be called "information" "perfection" "awesomeness" "divinity" etc.

How then, did humans come up with the idea of Infinity itself, if the concept is so far beyond us?

The only thing I've gotten from this debate is that DesCrates was incredibly unimaginative. Also, something that might be somewhat interesting, and a concept I personally subscribe to:

Atheist's Wager
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheist%27s_Wager

I don't see god as anything near approaching infinitly complex to begin with, it isn't hard to think up something better than humanity in every way, to an unbelieveable degree.

How then, did humans come up with the idea of Infinity itself, if the concept is so far beyond us?

1,2,3...


The only thing I've gotten from this debate is that DesCrates was incredibly unimaginative.

He was also a bit egotistical if you're interested in that sort of stuff


Also, something that might be somewhat interesting, and a concept I personally subscribe to:

Atheist's Wager
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheist%27s_Wager


As the page points out, it assumes that God rewards our actions as well as the fact that we are capable of good actions in the first place.


I don't see god as anything near approaching infinitly complex to begin with, it isn't hard to think up something better than humanity in every way, to an unbelieveable degree.

Here's Descartes' version, although you may find it unimaginative:

By 'God', I understand, a substance which is infinite, independent, supremely intelligent, supremely powerful, and which created both myself and everything else (if else there be) that exists. All these attributes are such that, the more carefully I concentrate on them, the less possible it seems that they could have originated from me alone. So, from what has been said it must be concluded that God necessarily exists.

I disagree with 3(and by default 3b) and 5(also5b, which leads to 6)

There is no evidence anywhere that 3 is a valid step in the syllogism.
Same goes for 5. How does DesCartes claim to indisputably prove 3 & 5?

He makes the statement that an effect must be equal in measurement to the cause, so that a perfect effect, the concept of God, must have a perfect cause.

That part of Decartes proof is conveniently left out.

Pascal's Wager assumes exactly one possible God. If that specific God (which rewards belief and punishes disbelief) doesn't exist, then no God exists.

But that's crap. Pascal's talking about tiny probabilities because he knows he doesn't have evidence. The probability is equal that there exists a God who will reward you for having a brain and punish you for holding unjustified beliefs.

Like any lemma that fails to state its assumptions, Pascal's Wager is crap.

Ulducc, this has bothered me for a bit since reading your post: Isn't it impossible to multiply by infinity? Further, wouldn't anything multiplied by infinity, by necessity, be infinity?

Oh, and the issue is that the concept of God could easily come from within the human mind, just like the concept of Spiderman could come from within the human mind, just like the concept of a magical genie in a bottle could come from within the human mind. Further, even if it does not necessarily come from within the human mind, does not mean it necessarily comes from God. There are alternatives. It is just as logically sound to claim that this concept comes from an alien mind probe.

It's not an axiom, it's an assumption. Therefore, it should not be presented as an axiom.

He makes the statement that an effect must be equal in measurement to the cause, so that a perfect effect, the concept of God, must have a perfect cause.

That part of Decartes proof is conveniently left out.

That's part of both 3) and 5)

I laid it out in a later post when someone asked.

1,2,3...
Can you count to infinity? I sure don't know anyone who can.


As the page points out, it assumes that God rewards our actions as well as the fact that we are capable of good actions in the first place.


I know, I don't believe I would worship a non-bevolent god to begin with, so I'd end up in hell either way if he was malevolent or at least apathetic of the world.

(Edit: I fail at HTML)

No, only in those forms of which the concept of God necessarily proves his existence

Which forms would those be?

Okay, so you disagree with
5)The concept of God could not have been concieved by something other than God

Or three, I think the concept of our reasonable ability to predict. There is no perfect thing for us to observe, but we can take what we observe, subtract imperfections, and create a concept of perfection.

It's no more circular than saying:
A)I see a pizza
B)There is a pizza
1)I see a Pizza therefore there is a pizza...
2)But, the only reason I see the pizza is because there is a pizza.

No, it is like saying,

I see a pizza
Because I see a pizza, there must be a pizza,
Because there is a pizza, I must be able to see.

In your analogy, you assume sight is a truth, it has basis other than the existence of a pizza. In Decartes proof, the basis of knowledge is God, the basis of God is knowledge, he doesn't prove either independently.

ok.

I'll grant you that.

So?

So, the concept of perfection is not a gift from God.

Bad analogy...we can see and therfore assume the reality of the pizza. The syllogism is attempting to prove somethign unseen.

To use his analogy, the syllogism is proving the existence of sight with the existence of pizza, while at the sametime accepting that the existence of sight proves the existence of the pizza.

Ulducc, this has bothered me for a bit since reading your post: Isn't it impossible to multiply by infinity? Further, wouldn't anything multiplied by infinity, by necessity, be infinity?

multiplying any non-zero number by infinity is infinity. Zero times infinity is sometimes zero, sometimes finite, and sometimes infinity, but in this case it is strictly zero


Oh, and the issue is that the concept of God could easily come from within the human mind, just like the concept of Spiderman could come from within the human mind, just like the concept of a magical genie in a bottle could come from within the human mind. Further, even if it does not necessarily come from within the human mind, does not mean it necessarily comes from God. There are alternatives. It is just as logically sound to claim that this concept comes from an alien mind probe.

Descartes' argument is strictly that the concept of God could not come from within the human mind unlike the concept of spiderman and the concept of magical genie

It's not an axiom, it's an assumption. Therefore, it should not be presented as an axiom.

Sorry, I should have said postulate, not axiom.

Can you count to infinity? I sure don't know anyone who can.

No, but I can concieve of infinity.

I know, I don't believe I would worship a non-bevolent god to begin with, so I'd end up in hell either way if he was malevolent or at least apathetic of the world.

a benevolent one and one that judges us based on our actions don't necessarily mean the same thing.

Strictly speaking, they are opposite if you accept the belief that we are all basically evil, which I suppose is the same as the Catholic notion of original sin and not all that popular around here.

To use his analogy, the syllogism is proving the existence of sight with the existence of pizza, while at the sametime accepting that the existence of sight proves the existence of the pizza.

No, we're not proving the existence of sight at all.

Descartes says that "sight" is obvious. After all, I really do see it, regardless of whether or not it's actually there.

We're assuming that we see the thing and then using that to prove it's there.

Descartes' argument is strictly that the concept of God could not come from within the human mind unlike the concept of spiderman and the concept of magical genie


Now, there's where we need that proof-stuff.

Strictly speaking, they are opposite if you accept the belief that we are all basically evil, which I suppose is the same as the Catholic notion of original sin and not all that popular around here.

I was raised Catholic. Original sin isn't the same as people being evil. Please don't make me explain, I'm not skilled with it.

Which forms would those be?

Well, according to Descartes:

By 'God', I understand, a substance which is infinite, independent, supremely intelligent, supremely powerful, and which created both myself and everything else (if else there be) that exists. All these attributes are such that, the more carefully I concentrate on them, the less possible it seems that they could have originated from me alone. So, from what has been said it must be concluded that God necessarily exists.



Or three, I think the concept of our reasonable ability to predict. There is no perfect thing for us to observe, but we can take what we observe, subtract imperfections, and create a concept of perfection.

That's why I tried to use the word "complexity" rather than perfection, because it is closer to what Descartes is trying to get at, something which could not be created simply by subtracting all sorts of non-complexities.

While it is possible to concieve of, say, a perfectly crime-free society by imagining a society with crime and then imagining all the crime gone, it isn't possible to imagine a perfect society because a perfect society possesses something that no existing society possess not because it merely fails to possess certain bad things that all societies possess.



No, it is like saying,

I see a pizza
Because I see a pizza, there must be a pizza,
Because there is a pizza, I must be able to see.

In your analogy, you assume sight is a truth, it has basis other than the existence of a pizza. In Decartes proof, the basis of knowledge is God, the basis of God is knowledge, he doesn't prove either independently.


...but I really do see the pizza.

So, the concept of perfection is not a gift from God.

Then where did it come from?

So all I have to do is define some concept of God that possess infinite complexity and I win?

It is impossible, you could spend your entire life defining the infinite qualities of God and never come up with an infinitely complex concept.

Nevertheless, two concepts can be combined two create more complex concepts. I can take my truck, compare and combine it with other vehicles to come up with a more complex, more complete concept of what constitutes a perfect truck.

No, but I can concieve of infinity.
Exactly, you don't need the capability to do something to know it can be done, likewise, you don't need to be omnipotent to have the idea of omnipotence.



a benevolent one and one that judges us based on our actions don't necessarily mean the same thing.

Strictly speaking, they are opposite if you accept the belief that we are all basically evil, which I suppose is the same as the Catholic notion of original sin and not all that popular around here.

Sorry, that's my definition of a benevolent god, my mistake, I personally don't believe that a god that condemns those who choose the wrong religon can be anywhere approaching benevolent.

(Edit: I seem to really suck at HTML)

I can see how it would work, and lots of people have said the same sort of thing to me. However, I personally just can't choose to believe in something. Therefore, I can see how believing might work for some people using this rationale, but I can't believe in a god no matter how hard I try. (Hell, I've tried! Seems like I'd be happier if I believed in something great like that. Too bad it's fake!)

It is impossible, you could spend your entire life defining the infinite qualities of God and never come up with an infinitely complex concept.

I believe that was Descartes' point.

Since I could never come up with it myself, the fact that I have one means that it must have come from God.

Nevertheless, two concepts can be combined two create more complex concepts. I can take my truck, compare and combine it with other vehicles to come up with a more complex, more complete concept of what constitutes a perfect truck.

No, because your new vehicle contains no more complexity than the sum of the complexities of the original vehicles.

This is not directed at any one poster, but at the many here that are following the same line of thought. I have simply selected the most recent one to quote (sorry Ilie).

I can see how it would work, and lots of people have said the same sort of thing to me. However, I personally just can't choose to believe in something. Therefore, I can see how believing might work for some people using this rationale, but I can't believe in a god no matter how hard I try. (Hell, I've tried! Seems like I'd be happier if I believed in something great like that. Too bad it's fake!)

Have those of you that are arguing that we cannot choose what we believe considered the consequences of this argument?

If belief is something that we have or do not have independent of our will, of our freedom of choice then those of us that are atheistse were predestined to be athiests. We are athiests regardless of what we think about the subject. The same, in reverse, applies to the theists, and to the agnostics. Thus, if we cannot choose to believe, then Pascal's wager becomes irrelevant anyway. If we do not believe, and there is a benevolent God, then this God is not going to punish us for a belief state that we had no control over. (If God is not benevolent, then belief or not in such a deity is no guarantee of anything.)

Pascal's wager only becomes an issue in any way if we do control our beliefs.

This is not directed at any one poster, but at the many here that are following the same line of thought. I have simply selected the most recent one to quote (sorry Ilie).



Have those of you that are arguing that we cannot choose what we believe considered the consequences of this argument?

If belief is something that we have or do not have independent of our will, of our freedom of choice then those of us that are atheistse were predestined to be athiests. We are athiests regardless of what we think about the subject. The same, in reverse, applies to the theists, and to the agnostics. Thus, if we cannot choose to believe, then Pascal's wager becomes irrelevant anyway. If we do not believe, and there is a benevolent God, then this God is not going to punish us for a belief state that we had no control over. (If God is not benevolent, then belief or not in such a deity is no guarantee of anything.)

Pascal's wager only becomes an issue in any way if we do control our beliefs.


It's okay, quote me all you like. I guess I meant that I can't believe in something I already know is false.

I believe that was Descartes' point.

Since I could never come up with it myself, the fact that I have one means that it must have come from God.

But then wouldn't you know all of God's infinite qualities without having to do any amount of thinking?

But then wouldn't you know all of God's infinite qualities without having to do any amount of thinking?

Well, I certainly didn't think of it.

Pascal's argument is a clear false dilemma. It offers a choice between two alternatives, and presents them as having equal chance of being right. Fails on two parts; first, there is more then two choices, second, as any christian/buddhist/athiest/whateverist will tell you, they are 100% right and anything else is wrong.

It's okay, quote me all you like. I guess I meant that I can't believe in something I already know is false.

But that is a completely different matter to not having control on your beliefs. If evidence appeared that contradicted your, and my, existing belief that there is no God then could you (or I) decide to believe in God? This does not have to be evidence for God, just something that makes the existence of God a real possibility for you (or me). Something that takes us from Atheism to Agnosticism. Now for an Agnostic, is Pascal's wager sufficient to inculcate a genuine temptation toward believing in God. I consider that it may well have this effect.
The outcome is not a cold calculating and dishonest statement of belief, but a genuine belief that was in part triggered by this consideration. That seems possible to me.

Well, I certainly didn't think of it.
Something tells me to stop following this train of no-thought.

Well, according to Descartes:

The only quality of those Descartes listed that matter to him is that of infinity. That is the only quality of God that proves he exists. Am I incorrect?

That's why I tried to use the word "complexity" rather than perfection, because it is closer to what Descartes is trying to get at, something which could not be created simply by subtracting all sorts of non-complexities.

While it is possible to concieve of, say, a perfectly crime-free society by imagining a society with crime and then imagining all the crime gone, it isn't possible to imagine a perfect society because a perfect society possesses something that no existing society possess not because it merely fails to possess certain bad things that all societies possess.

And here is the problem, Descartes confuses a perfect concept with a concept that describes a perfect thing.

If we assume that it is true that we cannot form perfect concepts, that it is impossible for us to take our finite number of imperfect concepts and create sufficient reason for a perfect concept, then we can say that no person can create a perfectly complex concept of a perfect God.

However, he shifts his definitions at this point. While he shows that we cannot form perfectly complex concepts, he uses it to try and prove that we cannot form concepts of perfect entities. So, if we use his assumptions, we can still form concepts of a perfect god, but we cannot form perfect concepts of God.

He only requires that we have a concept of a perfect god for his conclusion, but his claims are far more restrictive.

This is the axis that his argument circles around:

Only God can give us perfect concepts,
The concept of God must be perfect,
We have a concept of God,
There must be a God.

So the perfect concept is contingent on God, and God is contingent on the perfect concept.

...but I really do see the pizza.

But you accept that truth based on the established truth of your sight.

If your sight were not an established truth, you could not establish the truth of the pizza with it. Since the pizza is contingent on the truth of your sight, it cannot be used to prove the truth of your sight.

Then where did it come from?

From our reason.

I believe that was Descartes' point.

Since I could never come up with it myself, the fact that I have one means that it must have come from God.

Yes, but Decartes then says that since we have a concept of a perfect God, it could not come from us. He never states that we must have an infinitely complex idea of a perfect God.

3) This idea could not originate in myself
...
5) This idea could not have originated from something else

Sure it could have. I have a conception of "power," that a certain thing can be done; thus I have a conception of omnipotence, that anything can be done. I have a conception of "knowledge," that something is known; thus I have a conception of omniscience, that everything is known. And so on. It is true that we cannot define perfection, but we don't. We describe God's "perfection" by thinking of the other traits he is usually associated with; without them thinking of a "perfect being" would not necessarily garner us anything similar.

Certainly, the idea that God could control my life if He saw fit is not something synonymous with "perfection" in my view.

Have those of you that are arguing that we cannot choose what we believe considered the consequences of this argument?

If belief is something that we have or do not have independent of our will, of our freedom of choice then those of us that are atheistse were predestined to be athiests. We are athiests regardless of what we think about the subject. The same, in reverse, applies to the theists, and to the agnostics. Thus, if we cannot choose to believe, then Pascal's wager becomes irrelevant anyway. If we do not believe, and there is a benevolent God, then this God is not going to punish us for a belief state that we had no control over. (If God is not benevolent, then belief or not in such a deity is no guarantee of anything.)

Pascal's wager only becomes an issue in any way if we do control our beliefs.

That is the entire point (at least mine) of saying that you can't choose what you believe. Wagers and odds are contingent possibility, if there is only one possibility there is no wager.

The bold part is not necessarily true, for example the punishment could be set at the creation in order to promote future order for the betterment of the whole. In essense, we cannot begin to estimate how a benevolent God would act, as our values of benevolency are inadequate.

That is the entire point (at least mine) of saying that you can't choose what you believe. Wagers and odds are contingent possibility, if there is only one possibility there is no wager.

The bold part is not necessarily true, for example the punishment could be set at the creation in order to promote future order for the betterment of the whole. In essense, we cannot begin to estimate how a benevolent God would act, as our values of benevolency are inadequate.

Do you really believe that you have no control on your beliefs (If you do then you, from your point of view, have no choice but to believe this.)

I do not understand what you mean about there only being one possibility. There are people that believe in God and there are people that do not. This is an empirical fact. Thus there are at least two outcomes with regard to the state in which one holds this belief which in turn lends itself to the possibility of wagering.

The only way of invalidating this is to argue that belief is, for each individual, predetermined. This then leads necessarily to the conclusion that you bolded in my previous post. Benevolence is the critical term here. This implies that God will not condemn anyone to damnation if it can be avoided. Now as God would inevitably be responsible for the predetermination of your belief, and God, being omnipotent, could easily have determined you to believe, then he can not damn you for non belief and be benevolent.

This can be escaped by arguing that God is benevolent but not omnipotent, in which case we are not discussing a God at all, but just some superior power that acts as a judge over us.

Do you really believe that you have no control on your beliefs (If you do then you, from your point of view, have no choice but to believe this.)

I believe that I have no control over my beliefs. I cannot take a certain set of experiences and force myself to come to a particular belief. My experiences can only lead to one belief, anything else would be a false belief.

I do not understand what you mean about there only being one possibility. There are people that believe in God and there are people that do not. This is an empirical fact. Thus there are at least two outcomes with regard to the state in which one holds this belief which in turn lends itself to the possibility of wagering.

I was referring to the perspective of the bettor. A wager requires that a person takes one or more of two or more options. When a person is precluded from other options, it is impossible for them to wager. It is like betting on a race with only one horse.

The only way of invalidating this is to argue that belief is, for each individual, predetermined. This then leads necessarily to the conclusion that you bolded in my previous post. Benevolence is the critical term here. This implies that God will not condemn anyone to damnation if it can be avoided. Now as God would inevitably be responsible for the predetermination of your belief, and God, being omnipotent, could easily have determined you to believe, then he can not damn you for non belief and be benevolent.

This can be escaped by arguing that God is benevolent but not omnipotent, in which case we are not discussing a God at all, but just some superior power that acts as a judge over us.

I was just saying that our definition of benevolence is hindered by our reason, and thus is inadequate to assign to a supreme being.

I can see how it would work, and lots of people have said the same sort of thing to me. However, I personally just can't choose to believe in something. Therefore, I can see how believing might work for some people using this rationale, but I can't believe in a god no matter how hard I try. (Hell, I've tried! Seems like I'd be happier if I believed in something great like that. Too bad it's fake!)

Pascal's wager is not about choosing to believe in something.

It says you should believe in God, but doesn't provide a means of doing so.

Pascal himself was originally an atheist, until he conceived of his Wager. A gambling man, he decided that the posibility of infinite reward was better than a certainty of no gain (not saying I agree with all this, just laying it out). Therefore, he 'forced' himself to believe in the Christian God through prayer and meditation.

So the argument is mearly that if you do believe, you have the best odds of reward after death, not that this is a 'proof' which should make one believe.

So the argument is mearly that if you do believe, you have the best odds of reward after death, not that this is a 'proof' which should make one believe.

Some folks on NS are trying to present it as a way to bring "fence sitters" to Christ or whoever.

The wager presupposes a deity that rewards so capriciously.

Its no less plausible that whatever God exists actually disapproves of worship, and wants its creations to develop independent belief systems. Its equally possible that God finds the concept of a sacrificial messiah to be deplorable, as it is essentially the idea that its okay to let someone else take the blame for what you do.

Under those conditions (or a limitless supply of potential others that are just as possible as the Judeo-Christian rendering of God), Pascal's reasoning arrives at the opposite conclusion.

This is a continuation of the discussion on Pascal's Wager which started on post thirteen of the To worship or not to worship? (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=481344&page=2) thread. I'm moving it here to avoid hijacking that thread.

So the question is, is Pascal's Wager a viable argument for belief in god/s? I say no but I don't like biased OPs so I'll wait until the debating starts before I argue my position.

There should be a poll in a minute.
In all fairness, it probably would have been appropriate to either link to the Wiki article detailing Pascal's Wager, and/or post it.

In regards to the other thread, discussing Pascal's Wager would not have been considered hijacking as it was appropriate to the thread title.

EDIT: I will move some of the points about the Wager, over to this thread.

But not everyone governs their beliefs based on what they stand to "gain" or "lose".
Most people tend to look at things with an attitude of "what is in it for me".

In fact, a follower of Pascal's Wager is the one choosing their beliefs on that basis...
I was a follower of God long before I ever heard of the Wager. I believe the Wager is strictly meant to help a fence sitter to make a decision as to whether to believe in God or not.

From what I've read of your presentation of Pascal's Wager, its dependent on a God that tortures people eternally for not believing. Not all concepts of God are like that, so Pascal's wager does not apply so broadly.
Christian, Muslim and Jewish religions believe the soul goes to Heaven. That is a goodly number of people, more than half of the world's population. The Wager itself is designed as a tool to help someone decide if they believe whether God exists or not and the possible benefits for having such a belief.

With the Wager, athiests and agnostics are simply given an opportunity to choose yea or nay. God gives us all free will. If we go to hell because we did not want to believe in Him or if we did not want to live in a Christian like manner, then we made that choice. We are given options and if we choose wrong how can we blame God?

That is the worst reason for belief in anything I have ever heard.
What is the best reason you have heard?

Belief in the interest of reward; belief to avoid the risk of punishment.
Why do you look at the negatives? Live a good life, be good to others, believe in God and enjoy an eternity of peace. What can you offer me that is better?

Any God that would even accept such belief would not merit it.
If you were going to throw open your doors for all eternity for your guests and provide for them, would you be so willing to invite those who would deny your very existence? How would you view those who lied about you and tried to keep others from accepting your invitation?

You keep trying to paint God as a punishing God. God is merciful to all who have sinned and are willing to ask for forgiveness.

Pascal's Wager offers a key to the door and all you want to do is slam it shut. What do you gain from that?

To say that a divine being is merciful is an assumption not supportable through logic. Believe it, and I'm glad you do (little scares me more than someone who really believes in Calvinist predestination, because it amounts to nihilism), but it doesn't work in the bounds of Pascal's Wager.

Also, because all experience is transient, and interpretation of experience is transient, there is an arguement through the eternal nature of the soul that the soul cannot experience anything. Therefore the afterlife is blind meaningless experienceless existence. You might go to hell, but you won't know it...

Christian, Muslim and Jewish religions believe the soul goes to Heaven. That is a goodly number of people, more than half of the world's population. The Wager itself is designed as a tool to help someone decide if they believe whether God exists or not and the possible benefits for having such a belief.

What did they call it again? Suggesting that becuase more people agree it's more likely?

Foolishness? If everyone else says that God doesn't exist, will you stop believing? If more than 50% of people believe that the world is a cube, is it?

Normally, I'm not much of a Bible quoter, but I think this is relevant since we are discussing odds:

"For many are invited, but few are chosen." - Matt 22:14

To me, it would seem that whether you believe or not, odds are you're going to wind up burning in hell anyway.

If anything, I would say that faith is a complete denial of the significance of odds and believing what you truly believe.

Most people tend to look at things with an attitude of "what is in it for me".


Yeah, very Christ-like mentality...

Don't you think your God will see through Pascal's wager?

Speaking as an individual under the influence of 101300 Pascals, I believe I have had enough. 101301 is one too many. I just can't take the pressure.

Speaking as an individual under the influence of 101300 Pascals, I believe I have had enough. 101301 is one too many. I just can't take the pressure.

Bwahaha! Well conducted I say.

What is the best reason you have heard?


A friend of mine practices an eastern spiritual discipline. NO heaven, no reward, none of your "gaining infinitely", or any other self-serving reason to believe. She acts with compassion, kindness, and discipline for its own sake, for no reward. Doesn't need somebody else to take the blame for her sins, doesn't need any "wagers". Rigorously pursuing virtue, wanting no heaven in return. That's a good reason. EDIT: I'm sure there are Christians who do something similar, but they would eschew "Pascal's Wager" with that mentality.


Why do you look at the negatives?

Why do you refuse to see all the things that illustrate the cruelty, blood, and
death in your religion?


Live a good life, be good to others, believe in God and enjoy an eternity of peace. What can you offer me that is better?

Its precisely that motivation that I find deplorable. You believe because of what is "offered" to you. If God wants souls bought and paid for with rewards for obedience and torture for disbelief, he's a dog trainer.


If you were going to throw open your doors for all eternity for your guests and provide for them, would you be so willing to invite those who would deny your very existence? How would you view those who lied about you and tried to keep others from accepting your invitation?

I would take responsibility for my creations, and never give up on them (or torture them), even when they didn't do what I wanted. That's what a loving parent is. Incidentally, you keep trying to support your axioms with premises that require the axioms to be true to begin with.


You keep trying to paint God as a punishing God. God is merciful to all who have sinned and are willing to ask for forgiveness.

Your God, if he's real according to your religion, is a definitively punishing God. His "mercy" is for people who will think and act the way you want them to think and act. There's a word for that.


Pascal's Wager offers a key to the door and all you want to do is slam it shut. What do you gain from that?

Pascal's Wager assumes certain characteristics of God, regarding how He/She/It punishes and rewards. What will you do if God isn't impressed with people who support faith through "playing the odds"?

We are given options and if we choose wrong how can we blame God?

If Shub-Niggurath is real, and I sacrifice to him, I will gain infinitely.

If Shub-Niggurath is not real, and I sacrifice to him, I gain little.

If Shub-Niggurath is not real, and I don't sacrifice to him, I lose nothing.

If Shub-Niggurath is real, and I don't sacrifice to him, I lose infinitely.

So, you should sacrifice to him.

Do you see that this line of reasoning is no different than yours?

You're so needfully clinging to your presuppositions, you don't understand that you are supporting your position with axioms that require the position to be true to begin with.

Your mentality is not dissimilar to a tribesman who shouts "God is Great!" as the totality of his argument.

Yeah, very Christ-like mentality...

Don't you think your God will see through Pascal's wager?
In all honesty, I think that God would look upon Pascal's Wager as a portal for the lost sheep. The Wager gives people a chance to explore the possibility of the existence of God and to have unconditional faith in Him. Opportunities to believe will come to everyone in various ways, and this Wager is just one of those ways. Many will pass up the various opportunities presented to them because they cannot or will not concede that there is a power greater than themselves. My belief is that they will do so at their own peril, and they won't be able to blame God for their own indecision.

If Shub-Niggurath is real, and I sacrifice to him, I will gain infinitely.

If Shub-Niggurath is not real, and I sacrifice to him, I gain little.

If Shub-Niggurath is not real, and I don't sacrifice to him, I lose nothing.

If Shub-Niggurath is real, and I don't sacrifice to him, I lose infinitely.

So, you should sacrifice to him.

Do you see that this line of reasoning is no different than yours?

You're so needfully clinging to your presuppositions, you don't understand that you are supporting your position with axioms that require the position to be true to begin with.

Your mentality is not dissimilar to a tribesman who shouts "God is Great!" as the totality of his argument.
Earlier you talked about your friend and spirituality. Perhaps you do not put much faith in that as you put no faith in God. The tribesman that feels the spirit of God in his soul is on a much higher plane than you could ever achieve as long as you hate God and try to shut Him out with your flawed logic.

You are looking for mathematical equations and axioms to disprove God. You don't want God to exist and your attempt to ridicule my beliefs has failed.

Since you don't believe in God and your time left for living is finite, why do you waste your precious time trying to convince others that God isn't real?

In all honesty, I think that God would look upon Pascal's Wager as a portal for the lost sheep. The Wager gives people a chance to explore the possibility of the existence of God and to have unconditional faith in Him. Opportunities to believe will come to everyone in various ways, and this Wager is just one of those ways. Many will pass up the various opportunities presented to them because they cannot or will not concede that there is a power greater than themselves. My belief is that they will do so at their own peril, and they won't be able to blame God for their own indecision.

Ah, a belief system that doesn't care if fallacies are used to get recruits. As if the end justifies the means.

Like a telemarketer, just get them in, get them in...

Earlier you talked about your friend and spirituality. Perhaps you do not put much faith in that as you put no faith in God. The tribesman that feels the spirit of God in his soul is on a much higher plane than you could ever achieve as long as you hate God and try to shut Him out with your flawed logic.
and you have shut out our opinions with your blind faith.
You are looking for mathematical equations and axioms to disprove God. You don't want God to exist and your attempt to ridicule my beliefs has failed.
You're trying to give us axioms and equations that fail completely, and we are regecting them. Nothing disproves God, but then again, nothing disproves the invisible gnomes that live in the crawlspace under my house. If I took Pascal's wager, I should feed the gnomes so as to avoid any unpleasantness from them. Guess whether I've started feeding them.
Since you don't believe in God and your time left for living is finite, why do you waste your precious time trying to convince others that God isn't real? Because we derive enjoyment from showing others our thinking.:p

Earlier you talked about your friend and spirituality. Perhaps you do not put much faith in that as you put no faith in God. The tribesman that feels the spirit of God in his soul is on a much higher plane than you could ever achieve as long as you hate God and try to shut Him out with your flawed logic.

I don't hate God as I don't beleive your version God exists. However, if your particular version of God existed, one would have to hate him. He orders the deaths of children (as if, because he supposedly gave them the gift of life, its okay to kill them and take it back...thats what a gift is, according to your God).

The tribeseman who shouts "God is Great" to settle an argument is an example of the taliban.

As to my flawed logic, please illustrate, and we'll discuss it.


You are looking for mathematical equations and axioms to disprove God. You don't want God to exist and your attempt to ridicule my beliefs has failed.


How do you know what I want about God? I just don't govern my beliefs with wants and rewards the way you do. As to your beliefs, you've described them in a way that I want others to see.


Since you don't believe in God and your time left for living is finite, why do you waste your precious time trying to convince others that God isn't real?

Your narrowness is so stark. Why is it that you think that, because I don't buy into your version of God, I discount any possibility of God? Why can't you understand that there are other ideas about God, or higher powers? Just because I've shown the implications of your version of God doesn't mean I think all ideas of God are as bloody and dogmatic as yours.

As it stands now, I don't believe in any God, but I'm not trying to convince anybody that God isn't real. I'm just making sure people know what they're getting into when they take the "offers" you talk so much about.

When I see the mentality of your kind of religion, and what it costs, counteracting that is not a waste of time.

Ah, a belief system that doesn't care if fallacies are used to get recruits. As if the end justifies the means.

Like a telemarketer, just get them in, get them in...
I hate it when God calls me at dinner. He is such a prick sometimes.

God: "ARE YOU MASTURBATING?! DON'T LIE TO ME, I'M OMNISCIENT!"

Me: "Uh ... no ... not at the moment ..."

God: "ARE YOU SURE? I HAVE A KITTEN ON THE CHOPPING BLOCK RIGHT NOW!!"

Ah, a belief system that doesn't care if fallacies are used to get recruits. As if the end justifies the means.

Like a telemarketer, just get them in, get them in...
I think you misunderstood? Everyone shall be given an opportunity. You get to choose which path to follow.

I've sent God many invitations to many formal fetes but He never rsvps.

I think you misunderstood? Everyone shall be given an opportunity. You get to choose which path to follow.

And by all the "infinite gains" and "god offers me this and that", don't you hear the sound of salesmanship in your own voice?

What will you do if Islam is the true religion (just as plausible as Christianity), and the veneration of Christ as part of God is heresy, punished eternally?

By Pascal's Wager, you better find Mecca...

Since you don't believe in God and your time left for living is finite, why do you waste your precious time trying to convince others that God isn't real?Excuse any bias I might inadvertantly hold within my finite mind, but as I understood it, he wasn't trying to convince others that God was not real, merely that the basis of Pascal's Wager is flawed.

Flawed in a manner that meant that it isn't an effective tool, no panacea toe the faithless or dithering. If you're relying on it to convert fence-sitters, implicit atheists and (if you harbour such ambitions) explicit atheists to your degree of surity and faith, then you ought to be aware that it won't be that effective.

Flaws in Pascal's Wager do not disprove the existence of God, for the existence of God is effectively unprovable in the first place. Your believe is a joyous thing (with certain parameters that preclude extremism and Jihads and Crusades and enforcing the more arbitrary and subjective moral codes onto people not of your faith) and I would not wish to take that from you if you took strength from it, but by all the Gods that might or might not exist, please don't try to use an inflatable mallet to drive steel bolts into concrete... It looks good, and it'll work as a flotation device, but it doesn't have the weight behind it that you seem to think it has...

Excuse any bias I might inadvertantly hold within my finite mind, but as I understood it, he wasn't trying to convince others that God was not real, merely that the basis of Pascal's Wager is flawed.

Flawed in a manner that meant that it isn't an effective tool, no panacea toe the faithless or dithering. If you're relying on it to convert fence-sitters, implicit atheists and (if you harbour such ambitions) explicit atheists to your degree of surity and faith, then you ought to be aware that it won't be that effective.

Flaws in Pascal's Wager do not disprove the existence of God, for the existence of God is effectively unprovable in the first place. Your believe is a joyous thing (with certain parameters that preclude extremism and Jihads and Crusades and enforcing the more arbitrary and subjective moral codes onto people not of your faith) and I would not wish to take that from you if you took strength from it, but by all the Gods that might or might not exist, please don't try to use an inflatable mallet to drive steel bolts into concrete... It looks good, and it'll work as a flotation device, but it doesn't have the weight behind it that you seem to think it has...

Well put. There may be a God, or Gods or Godess or body thetans or Ahura Mazda or anything else. But Pascal's Wager is hardly a reasonable means to provide an "opportunity" (as Canuck puts it) for any of them.

Hasnt anyone talked about SMith's Wager?

1) There is no god. The atheist is correct, and consequently lives a happy, fulfilling life free of mindless dogma and emotional tyranny.

2) The second possibility is the god of deism, who was said to have created the universe and then left it to run on its own. There is nothing to fear from such a god; he or she is impersonal and does not reward or punish us.

3) The third possibility is a god that is concerned with humanity. He is a fair and just god. Such a god, in his infinite goodness would never punish anyone for honest errors of reason, assuming of course that there is no moral turpitude involved. Here again we have no reason to fear such a god. In fact, if our reason is what separates us from the animals, then not to use it might be construed as the gravest of "sins." If anyone is in danger of punishment here, it is the theist, and not the atheist.

4) The last possibility concerns an unjust god. Unconcerned with justice, he will burn us whether our mistakes are honest or not. There is, after all, no greater injustice than to punish someone for an honest error of belief, and yet that is just what this fourth god, the Christian god, promises to do. He is unconcerned with issues such as honesty and intellectual integrity and, according to the Bible, will burn us eternally if we doubt his existence. No matter what kind of life we have led, this issue is central in determining where we will spend eternity. Gullibility thus becomes a virtue rather than a vice. Therefore, by definition, this fourth god is a most unprincipalled deity. Christians have always felt that they are in a better position here, but if one thinks about it, they are really in the same boat as the atheist. Why? Simply because, if this god really gets such a thrill out of creating people just to burn them, what could give him greater enjoyment than to promise the Christian eternal bliss and then turn around and burn him too? Certainly, you cannot trust the word of an unjust god when he promises you something, since he must have a sadistic streak in him to begin with.

Hasnt anyone talked about SMith's Wager?
*snip*
.

What you're describing represents a much broader range of possibilities than Pascal's Wager, and relies less on narrow presuppositions about what a God might be. So, no, I doubt many of Pascal's Wagerers have put much thought into it, other than to maybe say "Gods not like that!"

What you're describing represents a much broader range of possibilities than Pascal's Wager, and relies less on narrow presuppositions about what a God might be. So, no, I doubt many of Pascal's Wagerers have put much thought into it, other than to maybe say "Gods not like that!"
I thought with infinite qualities, God was like everything.

Here's the syllogism:
1) I possess an idea of God
2) Either this idea originated in myself or it originated outside of myself
3) This idea could not originate in myself
3b)by 2) and 3), this idea originated outside of myself
4) If this idea originated from something outside myself, it originated from God or something else
5) This idea could not have originated from something else
5b) By 4) and 5) this idea originated from God
6)therefore God exists

Which number do you disagree with?
1 depending on the definitions for "possess", "idea", and "God"
3 and 5 because the are other explainations for the genesis of the idea

(and by extensions reject the conclusions 3b, 5b, and 6)

No, you disagree with 3) and 5) and 3b) and 5b) are immediate conclusions of 3) and 5) such that if you granted 3) and 5) you would also grant 3) and 5)



3) is not a step in the syllogism, it is a claim.

You are correct to say that it requires proof.

Here is the outline of the proof (I'll just do 3) since 5) is similar)
3.1) All ideas come from a cause
3.2) An idea cannot originate from a cause that possesses less *complexity than the idea
3.3) The idea of God possesses infinite *complexity
3.4) I possess finite *complexity
3.5) therefore by 3.2) 3.3) and 3.4) the idea of God could not have originated from me.

Once again, please tell me which claim you disagree with

*I am using the word complexity here to describe an idea which might also be called "information" "perfection" "awesomeness" "divinity" etc.
Within 3 as you've flowed it down, I disagree with 3.2, 3.3, and by extension reject the conclusion 3.5

Here is my problem with Pascal's wager:

There is also a finite chance that somewhere in the Universe there is a group of Ultra-Radical Athiestic Aliens. The URAA goes from galaxy to galaxy searching for a planet with intelligent life. When they find such a planet, they separate its inhabitants into two groups, their fellow athiests and the despised theists. They have immense technology, and they use this technology to grant everlasting happiness to athiests and everlasting torment to theists.

The only way in which proponents of Pascal's Wager can rebut this argument is to say "Well, what are the odds of that?!" Unless they are so bold as to claim to have found complete mathematical proof of the nonexistance of the URAA, they must admit that it effectively cancels out Pascal's Wager.

Suffice it to say, I much prefer his triangle.
Now that's a good response to Pascal's wager.

The bold part is not necessarily true, for example the punishment could be set at the creation in order to promote future order for the betterment of the whole. In essense, we cannot begin to estimate how a benevolent God would act, as our values of benevolency are inadequate.
If my value for benevolency is not the same as the value of benevolency posessed by God, then as far as I'm concerned, God is not benevolent.
With the Wager, athiests and agnostics are simply given an opportunity to choose yea or nay. God gives us all free will. If we go to hell because we did not want to believe in Him or if we did not want to live in a Christian like manner, then we made that choice. We are given options and if we choose wrong how can we blame God?
If I end up in Hell, how can I not blame god? I got the options, sure, but was not given enough information to make an informed decision. Evidence suggests that God is unneccisary (since science keeps figuring out mechanisms that theists always chalked up to divine intervention), and a destructive concept (see the crucades). God effectively disproves his own existence to me by giving me misleading information, and then damns me for eternity for acting on that misinformation. Damn right I'd blame him.

Why do you look at the negatives?

Because the exist. Ignoring something doesn't make it go away.

Live a good life, be good to others, believe in God and enjoy an eternity of peace. What can you offer me that is better?

I offer this. Stop clinging to childish superstisions. Learn how the universe really works. Create the eternal paradise you desire through persistence and hard work here on earth. The benefit here is that with God, at least under Pascal's wager it's a matter of chance. Without relying on God, it's a matter of effort and time.

If you were going to throw open your doors for all eternity for your guests and provide for them, would you be so willing to invite those who would deny your very existence? How would you view those who lied about you and tried to keep others from accepting your invitation?

Lying implies that a person knows that their statements are false. As far as I know, no one who genuinely believed in God ever claimed He didn't exist because he wanted Heaven all to himself. The two concepts aren't the same.

You keep trying to paint God as a punishing God. God is merciful to all who have sinned and are willing to ask for forgiveness.

I point to the destruction of Sodom and Gomora, and the torture of Job.

Pascal's Wager offers a key to the door and all you want to do is slam it shut. What do you gain from that?
The moral high ground. God allows murder, rape, disease, child molestation, famine, genocide, and all sorts of nasty things to happen that we'd all be better off without. If God exists, and is omnipotent, given the existence of evil as we know it on earth, God is far from benevolent.

I don't hate God as I don't beleive your version God exists. However, if your particular version of God existed, one would have to hate him. He orders the deaths of children (as if, because he supposedly gave them the gift of life, its okay to kill them and take it back...thats what a gift is, according to your God).

The tribeseman who shouts "God is Great" to settle an argument is an example of the taliban.

As to my flawed logic, please illustrate, and we'll discuss it.

How do you know what I want about God? I just don't govern my beliefs with wants and rewards the way you do. As to your beliefs, you've described them in a way that I want others to see.

Your narrowness is so stark. Why is it that you think that, because I don't buy into your version of God, I discount any possibility of God? Why can't you understand that there are other ideas about God, or higher powers? Just because I've shown the implications of your version of God doesn't mean I think all ideas of God are as bloody and dogmatic as yours.

As it stands now, I don't believe in any God, but I'm not trying to convince anybody that God isn't real. I'm just making sure people know what they're getting into when they take the "offers" you talk so much about.

When I see the mentality of your kind of religion, and what it costs, counteracting that is not a waste of time.
You say that you don't believe that "my version" of God exists, yet you will use the Bible to vilify Him. How logical is that? How do you know what "my version" of God is?

You totally ignored the spiritual aspect of faith that I raised, and now the tribesman has become a "taliban". So people who have a deep seated spiritual belief in God are criminal extremists?

You say that you don't believe in God but you want to "make sure people know what they're getting into"..... What makes you an authority in this matter?

As far as rewards go, I receive them on a daily basis. It wasn't always like that before. I am not looking for any special rewards when I die. If I die and that is the end, so be it.

Please explain the "the mentality of my kind of religion".

I just looked at the results of the poll and I noticed that 70% of the voters are either athiest or agnostic and only 11% are thiests, which would explain the vehement reaction to anything that would offer a chance for a belief in God.

It is only about 18" from the head to the heart. I believe that it is a journey worth taking.

I just looked at the results of the poll and I noticed that 70% of the voters are either athiest or agnostic and only 11% are thiests, which would explain the vehement reaction to anything that would offer a chance for a belief in God.

It is only about 18" from the head to the heart. I believe that it is a journey worth taking.
Surgery revolts me.

I just looked at the results of the poll and I noticed that 70% of the voters are either athiest or agnostic and only 11% are thiests, which would explain the vehement reaction to anything that would offer a chance for a belief in God.

It is only about 18" from the head to the heart. I believe that it is a journey worth taking.
We are more opposed to the silly wager that does not take reality into concideration. And how this silly wager is touted as being the prove that "teh athiests bellieffs is wrong"

I just looked at the results of the poll and I noticed that 70% of the voters are either athiest or agnostic and only 11% are thiests, which would explain the vehement reaction to anything that would offer a chance for a belief in God.

Or it could be that atheists are more likely to question things (especially when they pertain to God)?

I just looked at the results of the poll and I noticed that 70% of the voters are either athiest or agnostic and only 11% are thiests, which would explain the vehement reaction to anything that would offer a chance for a belief in God.

It is only about 18" from the head to the heart. I believe that it is a journey worth taking.
You should also note that among the theists, "it doesn't work" is also the majority opinion.

You should also note that among the theists, "it doesn't work" is also the majority opinion.

Maybe thoses theists that would have said "It works" instead chose "God doesn't approve of gambling" as a more pressing concern? :p

Maybe thoses theists that would have said "It works" instead chose "God doesn't approve of gambling" as a more pressing concern? :p
It's also possible those same theists like polls.

It is only about 18" from the head to the heart. I believe that it is a journey worth taking.

Perhaps. But should this journey be undertaken with the trusty companions of false logic, shortsightedness, oversimplification and perhaps even... dare I say it.. "untruths" ? Or should it be open and honest - so that at the end of the road one can be sure the love one feels in said heart is real ?

I personally go for number two. Pascals wager therefor has no place in my journey.

You say that you don't believe that "my version" of God exists, yet you will use the Bible to vilify Him. How logical is that? How do you know what "my version" of God is?

If your religion is true, your God is vilified by his own record. Thats not my fault.

You've been describing your religious views at length. Is your preaching such an autonomic reflex for you that you no longer realize you're doing it?


You totally ignored the spiritual aspect of faith that I raised, and now the tribesman has become a "taliban". So people who have a deep seated spiritual belief in God are criminal extremists?

As usual, your assumptions are erroneous. Somebody who thinks that repeating "God is great" addresses the issue is a fanatic. I draw parallels between your devotion and that of the taliban. You may not see them, others will.


You say that you don't believe in God but you want to "make sure people know what they're getting into"..... What makes you an authority in this matter?

I've only presented my views, and not forced them on anyone. I claim no authority, and most of the points about your mindset that I want revealed were revealed by you.


As far as rewards go, I receive them on a daily basis. It wasn't always like that before. I am not looking for any special rewards when I die. If I die and that is the end, so be it.

You just described a position completely opposite to Pascal's Wager. You backpedal poorly.


Please explain the "the mentality of my kind of religion".

You do that for me.

I just looked at the results of the poll and I noticed that 70% of the voters are either athiest or agnostic and only 11% are thiests, which would explain the vehement reaction to anything that would offer a chance for a belief in God.

It is only about 18" from the head to the heart. I believe that it is a journey worth taking.

Its quite telling the way you describe the head and the heart as distinct aspects, separated by a journey. Remember, you can't be in two places at once...

What a hamhanded plea for emotional usurpation of rigorous deliberation...

Fortunately, I've met religious people on this board that don't have to resort to that kind of thing, because if I thought all religious people were like Canuck, it would be hard to support the freedom of religion.

This is a continuation of the discussion on Pascal's Wager which started on post thirteen of the To worship or not to worship? (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=481344&page=2) thread. I'm moving it here to avoid hijacking that thread.

So the question is, is Pascal's Wager a viable argument for belief in god/s? I say no but I don't like biased OPs so I'll wait until the debating starts before I argue my position.

There should be a poll in a minute.
WTF? Only 6 voted for the
"God doesn't approve of gambling!" option?
Wankers!!!

Pascal's wagar doesn't work, and Canuckhaven is basically saying that he knows that, but would like to use it anyway to try and fool agnostics into becoming christians. However, they would have to be very, very stupid agnostics to go for it. Pascal did some great work in science, but he sucked as a philosopher.

Pascal's wagar doesn't work, and Canuckhaven is basically saying that he knows that, but would like to use it anyway to try and fool agnostics into becoming christians.

If that's the case, I find it even more objectionable. When you believe in your dogma so much that you can apply fallacies to serve it, you've corrupted yourself and your beliefs.

But has Canuckhaven really shown that he knows it doesn't work?

He really hasn't contested that it is a logical fallacy, and seems to only care about how it can be used as a tool to "lead the wayward sheep back to God" as it were.

He really hasn't contested that it is a logical fallacy, and seems to only care about how it can be used as a tool to "lead the wayward sheep back to God" as it were.

But if true, what does that really reflect about that kind of character of faith?

It reflects that to him, the ends justify the means. It reminds me of one episode of south park featuring a missionary talking to a bunch of starving ethiopian kids.
"Ok children, now remember, Learn english plus accept jesus equals food!"
Except in this case it's fraud rather than extortion.

Hasnt anyone talked about SMith's Wager?

1) There is no god. The atheist is correct, and consequently lives a happy, fulfilling life free of mindless dogma and emotional tyranny.

2) The second possibility is the god of deism, who was said to have created the universe and then left it to run on its own. There is nothing to fear from such a god; he or she is impersonal and does not reward or punish us.

3) The third possibility is a god that is concerned with humanity. He is a fair and just god. Such a god, in his infinite goodness would never punish anyone for honest errors of reason, assuming of course that there is no moral turpitude involved. Here again we have no reason to fear such a god. In fact, if our reason is what separates us from the animals, then not to use it might be construed as the gravest of "sins." If anyone is in danger of punishment here, it is the theist, and not the atheist.

4) The last possibility concerns an unjust god. Unconcerned with justice, he will burn us whether our mistakes are honest or not. There is, after all, no greater injustice than to punish someone for an honest error of belief, and yet that is just what this fourth god, the Christian god, promises to do. He is unconcerned with issues such as honesty and intellectual integrity and, according to the Bible, will burn us eternally if we doubt his existence. No matter what kind of life we have led, this issue is central in determining where we will spend eternity. Gullibility thus becomes a virtue rather than a vice. Therefore, by definition, this fourth god is a most unprincipalled deity. Christians have always felt that they are in a better position here, but if one thinks about it, they are really in the same boat as the atheist. Why? Simply because, if this god really gets such a thrill out of creating people just to burn them, what could give him greater enjoyment than to promise the Christian eternal bliss and then turn around and burn him too? Certainly, you cannot trust the word of an unjust god when he promises you something, since he must have a sadistic streak in him to begin with.

I linked the Wikipedia version of this three pages back, here it is again, for good measure:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheist%27s_Wager

It is only about 18" from the head to the heart. I believe that it is a journey worth taking.
It's an even shorter trip from the brain to the uvula. What's your point?

If I end up in Hell, how can I not blame god? I got the options, sure, but was not given enough information to make an informed decision.
That is a copout. There is plenty of information, but you want an ironclad guarantee?

Evidence suggests that God is unneccisary (since science keeps figuring out mechanisms that theists always chalked up to divine intervention), and a destructive concept (see the crucades). God effectively disproves his own existence to me by giving me misleading information, and then damns me for eternity for acting on that misinformation. Damn right I'd blame him.
You are contradicting yourself. You state unequivocably that God does not exist, yet give creedence to the written word.

I offer this. Stop clinging to childish superstisions. Learn how the universe really works. Create the eternal paradise you desire through persistence and hard work here on earth.
Belief in God is a "childish superstition"? Perhaps you could put your ego to oneside as you detail your proof to non existence of God?

The moral high ground. God allows murder, rape, disease, child molestation, famine, genocide, and all sorts of nasty things to happen that we'd all be better off without. If God exists, and is omnipotent, given the existence of evil as we know it on earth, God is far from benevolent.
You want to claim moral superiority? It is an ego based agenda? You say that God doesn't exist, yet you accuse Him of a multitude of "immoral" deeds. Why don't you admit it....that God exists, but you don't like His rules.

But if true, what does that really reflect about that kind of character of faith?
What it represents, and what you fail to understand is that it is the effort of one human trying to help another human. It is as simple as that. However, you not only reject the helping hand, you want to berate and belittle those that offer assistance.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10923167&postcount=166

You want to claim moral superiority? It is an ego based agenda? You say that God doesn't exist, yet you accuse Him of a multitude of "immoral" deeds. Why don't you admit it....that God exists, but you don't like His rules.I read that as "If God existed, then he would be guilty of a multititude of immoral deeds". It's part of the setup to the Wager. He may or may not exist. Some people are pretty sure that he doesn't exist, you are pretty sure he does exist, but for the wager to mean anything you have to consider both possibilities.

This isn't the first time you've used an erroneous "There, you've admitted God exists!" style of statement. [And others have too, I hasten to add, and yet others may have overstepped the bounds on the oppsing POV, but I've had my eye on the actions of those on <---- that side of the spectrum more... than the ones ---> to that side of my position.]

Step back, a moment. You can still hold onto the ribbon you've attached to your theistic viewpoint, much as others can still hold onto the ribbon they've attached to the alternative, but step back and see. See how merely saying how "any God that exists must have such-n-such properties" does not make the person who says this a 'closet believer'.

Everybody, in fact, could do with stepping back a bit. There are no cliffs behind you, honest...

We are more opposed to the silly wager that does not take reality into concideration. And how this silly wager is touted as being the prove that "teh athiests bellieffs is wrong"
The Wager does not prove that Athieists are wrong. I have never claimed that and neither does the Wager. It is meant as a vehicle for one to explore the possibility whether God exists or not.

This is a continuation of the discussion on Pascal's Wager which started on post thirteen of the To worship or not to worship? (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=481344&page=2) thread. I'm moving it here to avoid hijacking that thread.

So the question is, is Pascal's Wager a viable argument for belief in god/s? I say no but I don't like biased OPs so I'll wait until the debating starts before I argue my position.

There should be a poll in a minute.

It's not an argument for anything, it's a cop out. It's the flipside of Voltaire's death bed pronouncement when asked by a priest whether he renounced the devil and all his works "Father, this is no time to be making enemies".

"It might be true, and whaddya lose if it isn't?"

Try free will. Self determination.

Besides, even if god did exist, i'd spit in his face for the world.

That is a copout. There is plenty of information, but you want an ironclad guarantee?

Are you going to honestly claim:
1) that there is indisputable evidence for your God?
and
2) that this evidence is seen by every human being on earth?

I call bullshit.

You are contradicting yourself. You state unequivocably that God does not exist, yet give creedence to the written word.

Actually, I do believe your God exists, friend. You seem to have me pegged as an atheist, when in fact, I actually have a belief set which includes multiple supernatural beings. Particularly, I believe that any being human beings have seriusly believed in exists or has existed, but that they only exist in so far as they are defined and understood by their believers.

I believe your God does exist, and that He's a monster.

Belief in God is a "childish superstition"? Perhaps you could put your ego to oneside as you detail your proof to non existence of God?

Sorry. You derided the beliefs of others, so I derided yours. Two wrongs may not make a right. I'm sorry.

You want to claim moral superiority? It is an ego based agenda? You say that God doesn't exist, yet you accuse Him of a multitude of "immoral" deeds. Why don't you admit it....that God exists, but you don't like His rules.
When did I claim he didn't exist. Sure, there is no benevolent omnipoent being, since:
1) If God is Benevolent He has the will to prevent evil
2) If God is Omnipotent He has the power to prevent evil
3) Evil exists
Therefore
4) God cannot be both omnipotent and benevolent

That doesn't mean the being described in the Bible can't exist. That being has commited mass acts of genocide, demanded human sacrafice, tortured his most loyal followers, and punished a race of people for the honest mistakes of their ancestors.

You can judge the moral quality of a being by his actions, and I say your God is unworthy of my worship.

What it represents, and what you fail to understand is that it is the effort of one human trying to help another human. It is as simple as that. However, you not only reject the helping hand, you want to berate and belittle those that offer assistance.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10923167&postcount=166

The more you write, the more I think Cyrian space might be right about you.

You're so fanatically convinced that your belief system is right, you'll recruit for it with fallacies and call it "help".

Only a fanatic believes that its okay to serve their cause even by fallacious means.

The Wager does not prove that Athieists are wrong. I have never claimed that and neither does the Wager. It is meant as a vehicle for one to explore the possibility whether God exists or not.

Its a vehicle that has, as its central argument, that you should influence your beliefs based on what the rewards would be if a particular belief were true.

Some people understand why that is fallacious, delplorable, and dangerous.

Something tells me to stop following this train of no-thought.
Heheheh! All disembark!

Hey, wait a minute! I just conceived of an all-powerful deity! Does that mean it exists?
Yeah, but don't expect to make anything on it - it's probably already been copyrighted and mass-produced with literature and an appropriate line of clothing and merchandise.

Cogito ergo God
"I think therefore God is"
Thats all i have to say.
You whisper tautology with a few quick fluffs of the wrist. It's your actions as complicity ... va-voom!
http://www.websmileys.com/sm/evil/105.gif

The more you write, the more I think Cyrian space might be right about you.

You're so fanatically convinced that your belief system is right, you'll recruit for it with fallacies and call it "help".

Only a fanatic believes that its okay to serve their cause even by fallacious means.
I have been down the athiest path before and all it did was leave a huge hole in my soul. My faith and belief in God helps repair the damage, on a daily basis. Your suggestion that I am a religious "fanatic" is nothing more than trolling. My "belief system" is "right" for me. It works. My spirit and faith are stronger than anything you can throw at me, and as a result, I bear no ill will towards you.

You state that my God doesn't exist, yet you villify Him with the Bible. You are the one accusing me of fallaciousness and flawed axioms, yet you use them as tenets to your argument.

BTW, in regards to our conversation about the Wager, and "whats in it for me" you stated this:

But not everyone governs their beliefs based on what they stand to "gain" or "lose".

In another thread, you stated this:

But, I think just to hedge my bets, I'm going to start trying to live my life like its all I get, like I won't exist after it. I'm going to love and work and play like this time is it, and the only relevance it has is now. (I'm not saying religous people live lackluster lives, but by definition, they don't live them as if they will cease to exist when they die, because they don't believe that).
I will stand by my original reply to you:

"Most people tend to look at things with an attitude of "what is in it for me".

I have been down the athiest path before and all it did was leave a huge hole in my soul. My faith and belief in God helps repair the damage, on a daily basis. Your suggestion that I am a religious "fanatic" is nothing more than trolling. My "belief system" is "right" for me. It works. My spirit and faith are stronger than anything you can throw at me, and as a result, I bear no ill will towards you.

Your "athiest path" isn't the "athiest path". Lots of people are athiest without the huge hole that you needed to fill with the supernatural. And if it was so bad that the "damage" is still being repaired, your problems might be more pervasive than you think.

Again, don't confuse obstinance with conviction. I realize you will now and likely always will refuse to consider anything that would take your crutch away. I understand completely that your daily-repaired "hole" is just your need for what religion gives you. I just want others to see and hear the price you've paid, which you continue to help me do.


You state that my God doesn't exist, yet you villify Him with the Bible. You are the one accusing me of fallaciousness and flawed axioms, yet you use them as tenets to your argument.

As I've said, if your God is vilified by his own record, thats not my fault. If its true, it all happened before I was born. I never made Him give orders for children to be slaughtered or for torture to be the punishment for choosing different than what he wants. If he's real, he did that all himself.


BTW, in regards to our conversation about the Wager, and "whats in it for me" you stated this:

In another thread, you stated this:


I will stand by my original reply to you:

"Most people tend to look at things with an attitude of "what is in it for me".

But my little "wager" of living vigorously for today doesn't assume anything about what God is, and its payoff is real, measurable, and instantaneous. Pascals' Wager makes enormous assumptions about what God is and how it behaves, and its payoffs are promises based on religious dogma (once you understand that morality can be achieved with or without religion). The difference is critical.

In the end, if you believe in something based on what is "in it" for you if its true, you also have to wager that God is dumb enough to think thats a good reason to believe anything.

The Wager does not prove that Athieists are wrong. I have never claimed that and neither does the Wager. It is meant as a vehicle for one to explore the possibility whether God exists or not.

No, it is meant as a vehicle to deceive people into believing.

Now, you obviously believe that believing in God is a good thing[tm]. Do you believe that the ends justify the means in this case - that using deception to make people believe is the right thing to do ?

Canuckhaven, lets say that god gave you a gun pressed against a little girl's head, and told you that if you pulled the trigger, all people on earth would become christians and be saved, but that little girl would be damned to hell forever. Would you pull the trigger? do the ends justify the means to you?

Pascals wager doesn't work because there are a multitude of possible beings or forces who theoretically might cause us harm by our disbelief in them, or grant us reward for our belief.

People are using the bible to criticize your interpretation of God because according to your religion, God did do many things in the bible. Therefore if your religion is true, the bible is true. So therefore any criticism of what God did in the bible is a direct criticism of your belief system, because you believe in a God who would do all these horrible things. (What sins did the firstborn of egypt commit that they paid for Pharoah's negligence?) It is also a criticism of your God, should he turn out to exist.

If your God existed as stated in the bible, I would have quite a few choice words with him upon meeting. Of course, I'd probably be tortured forever, but meh, I'm a masochist.

Amusingly, this appeared today :

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/comics/Rhymes_with_Orange.dtl

There are of course many problems with pascals wager, some of which have been posted here, others which can be found by looking for them on google, but the one major flaw I think is that it assumes that we want to spend eternity with God. If it turned out that God was in fact real, I certainly wouldn't want to be anyware near him.

God make us.

God wants us to believe,
then god make us believe.

God wants us free will,
then fuck off god I'm free.

If any god is in need of small animals adoring him, that God has a deep psychological problem.
If any god want me free to choose, then offer me different gods and I may be choose one.

I'm no god bu the High Priest, I've no time for your nice jokes... I've some Scriptures to finish, I'm busy Mister!

Now pray, let us free from any sadistic or demagogic god, we have enough of it with the republicans, amen.


The High Priest
Free my Willy

Your "athiest path" isn't the "athiest path". Lots of people are athiest without the huge hole that you needed to fill with the supernatural. And if it was so bad that the "damage" is still being repaired, your problems might be more pervasive than you think.

Again, don't confuse obstinance with conviction. I realize you will now and likely always will refuse to consider anything that would take your crutch away. I understand completely that your daily-repaired "hole" is just your need for what religion gives you. I just want others to see and hear the price you've paid, which you continue to help me do.
Earlier in the thread, you tried to demonstrate your compassionate side. The above comments clearly demonstrate that you are devoid of such a quality. Although you fallaciously want to use me as an example, as "representative" of Christianity, I think that you missed the point that I brought forward. The further away from God that I got, the bigger the hole in the soul, and all your soft shoe routine about "the" atheist path doesn't cut it. I know several people who have paid the price.

As I've said, if your God is vilified by his own record, thats not my fault. If its true, it all happened before I was born. I never made Him give orders for children to be slaughtered or for torture to be the punishment for choosing different than what he wants. If he's real, he did that all himself.
At first, I thought that you were presenting yourself as an atheist, but now I realize that you are actually an agnostic antagonist? Your continued emotional appeals to support your talking points are nothing short of sensationalism.

But my little "wager" of living vigorously for today doesn't assume anything about what God is, and its payoff is real, measurable, and instantaneous. Pascals' Wager makes enormous assumptions about what God is and how it behaves, and its payoffs are promises based on religious dogma (once you understand that morality can be achieved with or without religion). The difference is critical.

In the end, if you believe in something based on what is "in it" for you if its true, you also have to wager that God is dumb enough to think thats a good reason to believe anything.
"In the end", truth be known by your statements alone is that you are "in it" for "what is in it for you". The irony is that your "little wager" was indeed God related.

Earlier in the thread, you tried to demonstrate your compassionate side. The above comments clearly demonstrate that you are devoid of such a quality. Although you fallaciously want to use me as an example, as "representative" of Christianity, I think that you missed the point that I brought forward. The further away from God that I got, the bigger the hole in the soul, and all your soft shoe routine about "the" atheist path doesn't cut it. I know several people who have paid the price.


At first, I thought that you were presenting yourself as an atheist, but now I realize that you are actually an agnostic antagonist? Your continued emotional appeals to support your talking points are nothing short of sensationalism.


"In the end", truth be known by your statements alone is that you are "in it" for "what is in it for you". The irony is that your "little wager" was indeed God related.

Well, good luck with your "hole" that your "God" is filling for you, but your "hole" is part of you, not something all athiests have that needs to be cured by your dogma. Its precisely that aspect of religion as a neediness that you're describing, and what I want people to see.

My "emotional appeals" are the facts of the case, if your Bible is true. Dismissing them as sensationalism is like Ted Bundy dismissing his murders as the prosecution's "emotional appeals to support their talking points".

As to the last bit, do I live as if there is no God because it relieves me of the crutch of religion, and does that provide me benefit? Sure, but its only "god related" in the sense that its absent a God. I hope you can understand the difference.

Canuck, try this. Paraphrase for me the top three critiques of Pascal's Wager that have been described in this thread, (by others, if you don't wish to address my points). I want to see if you really understand why its regarded as a fallacy, even by most devout religious people. Then, address those critiques.

@CanuckHeaven,

It occurs to me, you might not understand why its important to establish if Pascal's Wager is a fallacy, since in the past you've answered with "I'm just trying to help people".

CanuckHeaven, since I don't believe in God, do you really think I need to "vilify" him by pointing out what he's done in the Bible? I bring up those killings because they illustrate the price of the "Pascal's Wager" mentality.

You see, if you decide its okay to use a fallacy to bring people to your version of God, you essentially say anything is okay if its what God wants.

But consider this. What if God never gave the order for those kids to have their heads bashed against the rocks? What if some human leader gave the order, and said it came from God? The only way a leader could get away with that is with people who believe "anything is okay if its what God wants".
Thus, the Pascal's Wager mentality doesn't really serve Gods purpose (whatever it might be), it serves those who use God for their purpose.

But of course, that would mean part of the Bible is false. Well, think about it. For the Bible to be false, it doesn't mean God lied, it just means somebody wrote something false, or wrote down something they were told.

Why is that impossible? God, in your religion, respects free will. He can not come down from Heaven to stop a child molester, and child molestation is worse than writing down a falsehood, isn't? So, if God can't stop child molesters, why do you think he can stop somebody from lying or mistranslating the bible? (EDIT: To be clear, I'm not accusing you or God of child molestation. I'm pointing out that if he does not stop child molesters, he certainly wouldn't stop people from mistranslations, unless he considers his literature to be more important than the sanctity of a child

But as long as there are people who think its okay to use a fallacy like "Pascal's Wager" for their God, there are people who can convince you that "god wants this or that", and get you to do anything.

That's the danger. That's why you're not "helping people" by using Pascal's Wager.

That poll doesn't work. The only fitting option for us agnostics should be 'I don't know!' :D

Even at a young age, I was aware that Pascal's Wager was some straight-up bullshit.

@CanuckHeaven,

It occurs to me, you might not understand why its important to establish if Pascal's Wager is a fallacy, since in the past you've answered with "I'm just trying to help people".

CanuckHeaven, since I don't believe in God, do you really think I need to "vilify" him by pointing out what he's done in the Bible? I bring up those killings because they illustrate the price of the "Pascal's Wager" mentality.

You see, if you decide its okay to use a fallacy to bring people to your version of God, you essentially say anything is okay if its what God wants.

But consider this. What if God never gave the order for those kids to have their heads bashed against the rocks? What if some human leader gave the order, and said it came from God? The only way a leader could get away with that is with people who believe "anything is okay if its what God wants".
Thus, the Pascal's Wager mentality doesn't really serve Gods purpose (whatever it might be), it serves those who use God for their purpose.

But of course, that would mean part of the Bible is false. Well, think about it. For the Bible to be false, it doesn't mean God lied, it just means somebody wrote something false, or wrote down something they were told.

Why is that impossible? God, in your religion, respects free will. He can not come down from Heaven to stop a child molester, and child molestation is worse than writing down a falsehood, isn't? So, if God can't stop child molesters, why do you think he can stop somebody from lying or mistranslating the bible? (EDIT: To be clear, I'm not accusing you or God of child molestation. I'm pointing out that if he does not stop child molesters, he certainly wouldn't stop people from mistranslations, unless he considers his literature to be more important than the sanctity of a child

But as long as there are people who think its okay to use a fallacy like "Pascal's Wager" for their God, there are people who can convince you that "god wants this or that", and get you to do anything.

That's the danger. That's why you're not "helping people" by using Pascal's Wager.
I noticed that you have toned it down a bit and that is a good thing, and you have touched upon something that I was going to bring forward to you. More on that later.

Ever since this debate began, you have been trying to put me in a box and slap labels all over it (tribesman, taliban, fanatic, etc.), even though I haven't thrown any religious texts at you. You keep referring to "my" religion, as if I am representative of a certain faith, which is not true because I am not a member of any religious sect, nor do I attend church. I am but one humble Christian trying to go forward the best way I know how, and yes that entails a strong belief in God.

As for Pascal's Wager, I had never heard of it until a few days ago when an atheist suggested that the Wager was a strong argument for a belief in God. I do believe that the Wager has merits for enticing someone to at least explore the concept of God, but of course that would just be a beginning. To be a true Christian one must believe heart and soul. I defend the Wager on those merits and I noticed that in the poll so far, 7 atheists and 9 agnostics voted that it works for them. The theist votes don't really mean all that much because they already believe in God. As for the overwhelming number of atheists and agnostics that have voted against the Wager, I am not surprised at all that they reject the Wager, in that many of them would reject God even if He was standing right in front of them. Many have emphatically stated that point.

In your post, you discuss the possibility of mistruths in the Bible. Suppose that some of your allegations are in fact true? Suppose some of them are there for effect? Suppose that you may be guilty of contempt prior to investigation? Suppose that you are making false judgments about God without knowing all the facts? Is the Bible indeed fact? If the Bible is indeed fact, then without question God exists. By condemning God, without knowing all the facts, are you not doing exactly what you complain of God doing to us?

As far as the injustices in this world, what are we, as brothers and sisters, doing to make this world a better, and safer place for all? Man, despite all his intellectual prowess is slowly destroying this beautiful gift to mankind. Everywhere one looks, it is easy to see the seven deadly sins.

We, as a human race could do so much better. Perhaps in our lifetime, we may indeed see Divine Intervention?

It relies on faulty logic so as far as I can see its not useful.

Ever since this debate began, you have been trying to put me in a box and slap labels all over it (tribesman, taliban, fanatic, etc.), even though I haven't thrown any religious texts at you. You keep referring to "my" religion, as if I am representative of a certain faith, which is not true because I am not a member of any religious sect, nor do I attend church. I am but one humble Christian trying to go forward the best way I know how, and yes that entails a strong belief in God.

First of all, the taliban was a comparison, and in many ways, you show yourself to be like them. Second, I have not claimed you are the member of any sect, and whether you believe it or not, your version of Christianity IS a religion, even if you are the only member. I have explained my reasoning as to why your mentality is dangerous, and you've failed to address the point at all.


As for Pascal's Wager, I had never heard of it until a few days ago when an atheist suggested that the Wager was a strong argument for a belief in God. I do believe that the Wager has merits for enticing someone to at least explore the concept of God, but of course that would just be a beginning. To be a true Christian one must believe heart and soul.

So, you aren't able to paraphrase the objections many people have presented to you about the Wager? As long as it gets people to think what you want, you won't even address its fallacies. Thats what people need to see about you.


I defend the Wager on those merits and I noticed that in the poll so far, 7 atheists and 9 agnostics voted that it works for them. The theist votes don't really mean all that much because they already believe in God. As for the overwhelming number of atheists and agnostics that have voted against the Wager, I am not surprised at all that they reject the Wager, in that many of them would reject God even if He was standing right in front of them. Many have emphatically stated that point.

You continue to reveal yourself. Their votes don't matter to you, as long as they already believe what you want. As long as it works for 16, you thinks its a success, even if its a fallacy.

Doesn't "Don't Bear False Witness" include the implication "Don't Use Fallacies"?


In your post, you discuss the possibility of mistruths in the Bible. Suppose that some of your allegations are in fact true? Suppose some of them are there for effect?

Oh please, PLEASE elaborate on this. For "effect"?


Suppose that you may be guilty of contempt prior to investigation? Suppose that you are making false judgments about God without knowing all the facts? Is the Bible indeed fact? If the Bible is indeed fact, then without question God exists.

If the Bible is fact (in a literal and unilateral sense), your God is a bloodthirsty monster and you are his accomplice and worshipper, and the Bible contains all the facts to prove that.


By condemning God, without knowing all the facts, are you not doing exactly what you complain of God doing to us?

Again, I don't believe your God does anything to us, because He isn't real. People do things to eachother, often with your God as their excuse. Your mindset of "anything, even a fallacy, is okay if its for God" is exactly what permits that.


As far as the injustices in this world, what are we, as brothers and sisters, doing to make this world a better, and safer place for all? Man, despite all his intellectual prowess is slowly destroying this beautiful gift to mankind. Everywhere one looks, it is easy to see the seven deadly sins.

We, as a human race could do so much better. Perhaps in our lifetime, we may indeed see Divine Intervention?

I'm a Kevin Spacey fan, too. Anyway...

Earlier you complained about my "emotional" "sensationalism", now you play this shellgame. Have you noticed your response completely fails to address the points?

CanuckHeaven. Can you please address the many ways in which many people on this forum have shown Pascal's Wager to be a fallacy?
At least paraphrase their points, so I know you understand their objections. Then, if you still feel Pascal's Wager is not a fallacy, please explain why and respond to their objections.

Can you at least answer this direct question: "With regards to the many flaws illustrated throughout this thread, is Pascal's Wager a fallacy (whether of the false dilemma type or various others), and if not, why?"

EDIT: Just so you know, your failure to address several points speaks as loudly as the way in which you address others, so the way you avoid the questions so blatantly also shows what I want shown.

I noticed that you have toned it down a bit and that is a good thing, and you have touched upon something that I was going to bring forward to you. More on that later.

Ever since this debate began, you have been trying to put me in a box and slap labels all over it (tribesman, taliban, fanatic, etc.), even though I haven't thrown any religious texts at you. You keep referring to "my" religion, as if I am representative of a certain faith, which is not true because I am not a member of any religious sect, nor do I attend church. I am but one humble Christian trying to go forward the best way I know how, and yes that entails a strong belief in God.

As for Pascal's Wager, I had never heard of it until a few days ago when an atheist suggested that the Wager was a strong argument for a belief in God. I do believe that the Wager has merits for enticing someone to at least explore the concept of God, but of course that would just be a beginning. To be a true Christian one must believe heart and soul. I defend the Wager on those merits and I noticed that in the poll so far, 7 atheists and 9 agnostics voted that it works for them. The theist votes don't really mean all that much because they already believe in God. As for the overwhelming number of atheists and agnostics that have voted against the Wager, I am not surprised at all that they reject the Wager, in that many of them would reject God even if He was standing right in front of them. Many have emphatically stated that point.

In your post, you discuss the possibility of mistruths in the Bible. Suppose that some of your allegations are in fact true? Suppose some of them are there for effect? Suppose that you may be guilty of contempt prior to investigation? Suppose that you are making false judgments about God without knowing all the facts? Is the Bible indeed fact? If the Bible is indeed fact, then without question God exists. By condemning God, without knowing all the facts, are you not doing exactly what you complain of God doing to us?

As far as the injustices in this world, what are we, as brothers and sisters, doing to make this world a better, and safer place for all? Man, despite all his intellectual prowess is slowly destroying this beautiful gift to mankind. Everywhere one looks, it is easy to see the seven deadly sins.

We, as a human race could do so much better. Perhaps in our lifetime, we may indeed see Divine Intervention?
I certainly hope not. If I remember correctly, the next divine intervention will be the beginning of the Apocalypse.

what about Pascals Wanger?

By Pascal's wager, god prefers liers who claim to believe over those with enough integrity to admit they can't.

The god of Pascal is not worthy of worship.

First of all, the taliban was a comparison, and in many ways, you show yourself to be like them. Second, I have not claimed you are the member of any sect, and whether you believe it or not, your version of Christianity IS a religion, even if you are the only member. I have explained my reasoning as to why your mentality is dangerous, and you've failed to address the point at all.
Yup, I am a religious "fanatic" with a "dangerous mentality". :rolleyes:
What comes next, the death penalty? You do support the death penalty?

So, you aren't able to paraphrase the objections many people have presented to you about the Wager? As long as it gets people to think what you want, you won't even address its fallacies. Thats what people need to see about you.
It is not a matter of getting people to "think what I want", it is a matter of allowing people to think for themselves and allowing them to explore all of their options. Apparently, it is you who wants people to think what you want. You don't want people to have freedom of choice? To you, God doesn't exist, but IF HE does, then He is a "bloodthirsty monster"?

Thanks for narrowing down the options for those of us with intellectually inferior reasoning skills.

You continue to reveal yourself. Their votes don't matter to you, as long as they already believe what you want. As long as it works for 16, you thinks its a success, even if its a fallacy.
Brush up on your reading comprehension, I did not say that "their votes don't matter". As far as the Wager is concerned, it wasn't designed for those who already have a belief in God. It was designed for non believers to explore the possibility of God's existence. It is fairly straightforward, and I don't know why you belabour the point, or for that matter, what you are afraid of? As far as it being about what I want, see above.

Doesn't "Don't Bear False Witness" include the implication "Don't Use Fallacies"?
Actually those are two separate ideas. However, I have noticed that you have some expertise in regards to bearing false witness.

Oh please, PLEASE elaborate on this. For "effect"?
I don't feel an inclination to do so.

I will respond to the remainder of your post later.

Yup, I am a religious "fanatic" with a "dangerous mentality". :rolleyes:
What comes next, the death penalty? You do support the death penalty?


More of your clumsy evasions. I've explained why I think you're a fanatic. You still haven't responded. No, I don't support the death penalty. The God of the Old Testament does, though. Look into it.


It is not a matter of getting people to "think what I want", it is a matter of allowing people to think for themselves and allowing them to explore all of their options. Apparently, it is you who wants people to think what you want. You don't want people to have freedom of choice? To you, God doesn't exist, but IF HE does, then He is a "bloodthirsty monster"?


Please get one thing straight. There are lots of concepts of God and not all of them are monstrous; the Biblical God of the Old Testament is. If you don't believe in that God, say so.


Thanks for narrowing down the options for those of us with intellectually inferior reasoning skills.

You apply the same false dilemma fallacy here that causes you to fall for Pascal's Wager. Again, I did not say ALL concepts of God are monstrous, just the God as described in the Old Testament, who by Christian belief is the same God of the New Testament. If you believe the Old Testament to be in error, say so.



Brush up on your reading comprehension, I did not say that "their votes don't matter".

and earlier you said:

The theist votes don't really mean all that much because they already believe in God.

I'll let readers decide for themselves how close "don't matter" and "don't really mean all that much" are. As for reading comprehension, you've been unable respond to several posts by multiple people explaining the fallacy of Pascal's Wager, so pluck the board out of your own eye.


As far as the Wager is concerned, it wasn't designed for those who already have a belief in God. It was designed for non believers to explore the possibility of God's existence. It is fairly straightforward, and I don't know why you belabour the point, or for that matter, what you are afraid of? As far as it being about what I want, see above.


Yet another evasion. I "belabour the point" because it is a fallacy, and I contend that using a fallacy to get people to your beliefs is wrong, deceptive, and fanatical.


Actually those are two separate ideas. However, I have noticed that you have some expertise in regards to bearing false witness.

Please point out a falsehood I've presented and we'll address it. (Although you don't seem to be able to address the thread topic or the many posts from people showing the fallacy of Pascal's Wager, so I suspect this another of your tangential evasions, but lets have a look at it anyway).


I don't feel an inclination to do so.


You don't feel an inclination to elaborate on a nebulous inference? You speak firmly and loudly from vagueness, and people see that, Canuck. Each of your evasions says more about you than anything I could.

I will respond to the remainder of your post later.

You didn't really respond to anything here. I understand real life concerns have to take priority, but you're spending more time on your indignance than addressing the topic.

For the benefit of those who would subscribe to your mentality, Canuck, I ask directly again:

Is Pascal's Wager not a fallacy, and why not?

Is it okay to use a fallacy to sway people to your beliefs?

And better yet, what is the word for somebody who will use a fallacy to get people to believe what they want?

(To remind you, questions about Pascal's Wager are not "belaboring the point", its the topic of the thread).

Mad props to CH for making my religion look dumber than people already think it is.

Mad props to CH for making my religion look dumber than people already think it is.

For the record, I don't think Christianity is necessarily dumb. I have met several Christians (or other religionists) on this board that I have come to respect, including Dempubliscents, Jocabia, and Bruarong. I disagree with them on much, but find them less fallacious.

I just think CanuckHeaven doesn't see that incorporating a fallacy in the interest of his religion is a corruption of faith, one that not all Christians resort to.

I didn't necessarily mean to imply that you personally thought all Christians were dumb. I was just noting that it's hard to present an intelligent, reasoned view of the Christian faith when its most vocal proponents often seem to have no clue what they're talkinga bout.

I didn't necessarily mean to imply that you personally thought all Christians were dumb. I was just noting that it's hard to present an intelligent, reasoned view of the Christian faith when its most vocal proponents often seem to have no clue what they're talkinga bout.

No, you're right. Worst part is, he doesn't seem like a bad guy at heart, he just doesn't see why its fanatical and dangerous to use a fallacy for his religion, or why the mindset of allowing that kind of thing leads to bad things.

I will respond to the remainder of your post later.

Okay.

Okay.
There really is no need to dig this up from the grave.

You have made up your mind to "hedge your bets" that there is no God and to live your life accordingly. I on the other hand believe there is a God who is loving and forgiving.

In the end, He will be the one to decide who "gambled" wisely.

what about Pascals Wanger?
I'm more curious about Pascal's Wanker ...

There really is no need to dig this up from the grave.

You have made up your mind to "hedge your bets" that there is no God and to live your life accordingly. I on the other hand believe there is a God who is loving and forgiving.

In the end, He will be the one to decide who "gambled" wisely.

"Dig this up from the grave?"

You said you would reply, I took you seriously and gave you the benefit of the doubt. I patiently waited, you clearly lied.

Your statement is no reply to my post at all, you're dodging the question, the same as you have through the entire thread.

Your words:

I will respond to the remainder of your post later.

I guess the unwise "gamble" on my part was to think you could actually follow through.

As for the "loving and forgiving" bit, your version of God ordered the slaughter of children in the Old Testament, and you've never been able to address that.

But I guess your God is "loving" in the same sense that waiting for the reply that YOU said you'd make is gravedigging.

In the end, if your God is real, I hope He can explain to you what "bearing false witness" includes.

"Dig this up from the grave?"

You said you would reply, I took you seriously and gave you the benefit of the doubt. I patiently waited, you clearly lied.

Your statement is no reply to my post at all, you're dodging the question, the same as you have through the entire thread.

Your words:

I guess the unwise "gamble" on my part was to think you could actually follow through.

As for the "loving and forgiving" bit, your version of God ordered the slaughter of children in the Old Testament, and you've never been able to address that.

But I guess your God is "loving" in the same sense that waiting for the reply that YOU said you'd make is gravedigging.

In the end, if your God is real, I hope He can explain to you what "bearing false witness" includes.
After reading your flaming and trolling post (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10939580&postcount=200), I felt there was no longer a necessity to feed your unquenchable ego.

I am sorry but your concept of my God is entirely within your head. My God dwells in my soul, where He belongs, and no amount of explaning could ever get you to grasp that reality.

You believe that there is no God, but you don't seem to have a problem berating a God. Neither one of us knows THE truth and yet you would have me believe that your truth is somehow superior to mine, and that I am somehow "dangerous" and "fanatical". That, my friend, reeks of ego.

We all have choices in life and obviously you and I have made different choices. I have embraced the spiritual realm and you have not. I have been in that abyss before and I choose not to go back. Life is good.

After reading your flaming and trolling post (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10939580&postcount=200), I felt there was no longer a necessity to feed your unquenchable ego.In defence of the author, I saw no "flame'n'troll" content.

Admitedly I read it without a personal steadfast conviction in the existence of a deity, so can't rule out that a wrong chord could be inadvertantly struck.

Don't let pure belief blind you to what is being said. Be content in your own faith, but understand why not everyone subscribes to the same principles, and how your personal image of god is open to criticism by those who have not 'seen the light'.

After reading your flaming and trolling post (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10939580&postcount=200), I felt there was no longer a necessity to feed your unquenchable ego.

Well, you told me you'd reply, and then accused me of gravedigging when I waited, so I imagine you're credibility with "flaming and trolling" accusations is roughly commensurate.

But, by all means, lets just concentrate on just the issues at hand. From this point, I will concentrate on direct questions. Please try to at least answer the main ones.


I am sorry but your concept of my God is entirely within your head. My God dwells in my soul, where He belongs, and no amount of explaning could ever get you to grasp that reality.

Because I'm so dense? Let's try.

Question I: Is your God the God as described in the Bible, including the Old Testament?


You believe that there is no God, but you don't seem to have a problem berating a God. Neither one of us knows THE truth and yet you would have me believe that your truth is somehow superior to mine, and that I am somehow "dangerous" and "fanatical". That, my friend, reeks of ego.


Question II: Do you believe the Bible is "the truth", and that the things it describes, including the actions and orders of God, actually happened?
(note: my "berating" of the biblical God is no more than pointing out what the bible says He's done. If you don't believe the Bible accurately describes your God, please say so).


We all have choices in life and obviously you and I have made different choices. I have embraced the spiritual realm and you have not. I have been in that abyss before and I choose not to go back. Life is good.

Do you see what this statement, and your use of Pascal's Wager, reveals about the character and nature of your belief? (note: just because you weren't able to make your life work without religion, doesn't mean others have that same limitation. Others are not in an "abyss" because they don't believe as you do. On ego issues, you might want to remove the plank from thine own eye).

Is getting a "good life" what religion is about? Would you still believe if it made your life worse, and if so, why is it relevant that your life is "good"?

Question III: Is Pascal's Wager a fallacy, and if not, why not? Can you paraphrase or at least address the many ways in which it has been shown to be a fallacy on this thread?

Question IV: If Pascal's Wager were established to be a fallacy (which even most religious people seem to agree has been done), do you think its okay to use a fallacy to make people believe what you want, and if so, why?

CanuckHeaven, question III is particularly vital, so please answer it if you can.

In defence of the author, I saw no "flame'n'troll" content.

Admitedly I read it without a personal steadfast conviction in the existence of a deity, so can't rule out that a wrong chord could be inadvertantly struck.

Don't let pure belief blind you to what is being said. Be content in your own faith, but understand why not everyone subscribes to the same principles, and how your personal image of god is open to criticism by those who have not 'seen the light'.

I appreciate the defense. If the mods feel I'm flaming, I'll adjust accordingly, but as it stands, I suspect Canuck is just using whatever he can to avoid answering the questions of the thread.

As to belief, its precisely an exploration of belief that I'm trying to make here. If you go back through the thread and read CanuckHeaven's posts, his religion has a great deal to do with helping him cope, helping him deal with life.

He describes his life before religion as an "abyss" and speaks of a "hole" that religion helped him fill. Its this aspect of belief as need-driven that I think people should know about.

My premise is, when people need to believe something so badly, they will believe it no matter what. And once they believe it no matter what, they will do anything, such as using fallacies to make people believe what they want.
And once its okay to use a fallacy to spread your "Holy Truth", it becomes okay to do other things...

He really hasn't contested that it is a logical fallacy, and seems to only care about how it can be used as a tool to "lead the wayward sheep back to God" as it were.

baaaaaaaaa!

Liasia']baaaaaaaaa!

Does that mean:

a) you have no problem being a sheep, as long as you get Heaven in exchange for your autonomy

b) you dismiss the whole argument, as in "bah", but emphatically, so "baaaaaaaaa!"

c) you feel that any interpretive model is ultimately synthetic, and any resultant predictive qualities, no matter how precise, only provide an appromixation for applications, but render no primal meaning as to the dynamic itself.

d) I am sexy in Wales.

Does that mean:

a) you have no problem being a sheep, as long as you get Heaven in exchange for your autonomy

b) you dismiss the whole argument, as in "bah", but emphatically, so "baaaaaaaaa!"

c) you feel that any interpretive model is ultimately synthetic, and any resultant predictive qualities, no matter how precise, only provide an appromixation for applications, but render no primal meaning as to the dynamic itself.

d) I am sexy in Wales.

No.
No
no
definately no.
It means I am a sheep (skilled in the art of typing). Duh.
*eats grass and stares at trees*

Does that mean:

a) you have no problem being a sheep, as long as you get Heaven in exchange for your autonomy

b) you dismiss the whole argument, as in "bah", but emphatically, so "baaaaaaaaa!"

c) you feel that any interpretive model is ultimately synthetic, and any resultant predictive qualities, no matter how precise, only provide an appromixation for applications, but render no primal meaning as to the dynamic itself.

d) I am sexy in Wales.I have a couple of questions about all that.
Regarding possibility A; what if one truely is a sheep? Wouldn't this mean that one has no autonomy to surrender, and thus nothing to bargain for access to heaven?
Or what if one truely is a sheep, but with enough common sense to realise that eternity is far too much time to be much fun?

Regarding possibility C; what if one's head starts spinning, because of your overuse of overly long words & ultimately obscuring, dissonant sense of eloquence?
Or what if one simply thinks that any such primal meaning is indeterminable on this side of existence, and thus feels it would be inapropriate to render judgement, beyond saying that it is entirely possible that such primal meaning is known, but simply not recognised for what it is, as such recognition would require a supernatural observer?

Reharding D; pictures, please.

I have a couple of questions about all that.
Regarding possibility A; what if one truely is a sheep? Wouldn't this mean that one has no autonomy to surrender, and thus nothing to bargain for access to heaven?
Or what if one truely is a sheep, but with enough common sense to realise that eternity is far too much time to be much fun?

Sorry, meant figuartive sheep. My bad.


Regarding possibility C; what if one's head starts spinning, because of your overuse of overly long words & ultimately obscuring, dissonant sense of eloquence?
Or what if one simply thinks that any such primal meaning is indeterminable on this side of existence, and thus feels it would be inapropriate to render judgement, beyond saying that it is entirely possible that such primal meaning is known, but simply not recognised for what it is, as such recognition would require a supernatural observer?

Reharding D; pictures, please.

Well, at least this time, I was being pretentious on purpose....and besides, if you can give a response, it obviously wasn't too long or obscuring...

Man, I hope all this doesn't give Canuck an excuse to keep dodging the thread topic...and it would be my fault...

Sorry, meant figuartive sheep. My bad.:D Well, at least this time, I was being pretentious on purpose....and besides, if you can give a response, it obviously wasn't too long or obscuring...But I'm high on painkillers right now. I doubt that I count.Man, I hope all this doesn't give Canuck an excuse to keep dodging the thread topic...and it would be my fault...I don't see how. If anything, your "point C" begged an answer that quite nicely illustrates why Pascal's Wager is a non sequitur. Somehow, I'd assume this makes it even more pertinent that CanuckHeaven answers.

Now where's the pics?

Does that mean:

a) you have no problem being a sheep, as long as you get Heaven in exchange for your autonomy

b) you dismiss the whole argument, as in "bah", but emphatically, so "baaaaaaaaa!"

c) you feel that any interpretive model is ultimately synthetic, and any resultant predictive qualities, no matter how precise, only provide an appromixation for applications, but render no primal meaning as to the dynamic itself.

d) I am sexy in Wales.It means there aren't enough smilies.
http://www.xtremeservers.co.uk/forum/images/smilies/baaa.gif

CanuckHeaven, I don't want you to have to dig too far back to get to the main topic of the thread, so I'll restate just the main questions from my last reply to you:


Question I: Is your God the God as described in the Bible, including the Old Testament?


Question II: Do you believe the Bible is "the truth", and that the things it describes, including the actions and orders of God, actually happened?
(note: my "berating" of the biblical God is no more than pointing out what the bible says He's done. If you don't believe the Bible accurately describes your God, please say so).


Question III: Is Pascal's Wager a fallacy, and if not, why not? Can you paraphrase or at least address the many ways in which it has been shown to be a fallacy on this thread?

Question IV: If Pascal's Wager were established to be a fallacy (which even most religious people seem to agree has been done), do you think its okay to use a fallacy to make people believe what you want, and if so, why?

I may not be able to reply tonight, but I will try to reply as soon as I can (barring any mass forum failure like the other night). Thanks.