Winning Pascal's Wager
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
14-12-2013, 09:22 AM
RE: Winning Pascal's Wager
(14-12-2013 08:36 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  I'm sorry if I took your statement the wrong way.
I appreciate the apology and I forgive you (this is not meant to be a snarky remark).

(14-12-2013 08:36 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  What do you think the purpose(s) of the thread to be?
As far as I can tell, Paleophyte created this thread with the intention of showing that God's nature, provided that he exists, is irrelevant to whether or not we should worship him.

I think his point of view can be summarized as follows:

If God is just, then worship is not required to receive salvation.
If God is unjust, then he does not deserve to be worshiped.

(14-12-2013 08:36 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  I see one purpose was to express amusement in Pascal's demise....I'm a little saddened that you actually "liked" that sick post.
I think he was amused by the fact that Pascal's religious beliefs were partly responsible for his demise, not by his demise itself.

"Pascal's ascetic lifestyle derived from a belief that it was natural and necessary for a person to suffer. In 1659, Pascal fell seriously ill. During his last years, he frequently tried to reject the ministrations of his doctors, saying, "Sickness is the natural state of Christians.""
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blaise_Pasc..._and_death

[Image: 7oDSbD4.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-12-2013, 10:08 AM
RE: Winning Pascal's Wager
Either there is a god or there is not.
If there is no god, nothing to worry about. Just live your life and be happy.

If there is a god, it is aware of us or it's not
If it's not, nothing to worry about. Just live your life and be happy.

If there is a god and it's aware of us, it either cares or doesn't care.
If it doesn't care, nothing to worry about. Just live your life and be happy.

If there is a god and it cares, it's either has power to effect a change in the world or it doesn't
If it doesn't have the power to effect change, nothing to worry about. Just live your life and be happy.

If there is a god and it cares and has the power to effect change in the world, it either is changing the world in a positive way or it's not.

When we look at the world, we see that it's not.

If it's not changing the world in a positive way, then it either doesn't have the power or doesn't care or doesn't exist.
Either way, nothing to worry about. Just live your life and be happy.

Insanity - doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Rahn127's post
14-12-2013, 01:12 PM
RE: Winning Pascal's Wager
Offtopic


I lost my soul in an ill conceived air hockey match to my best friend. If I won I would have gotten five bucks. (Seemed like a good bet!)Dodgy

I have tried purchasing it back from her for triple the cash but she says she misplaced it. (I really think she is using it for evil purposes!)Unsure

Onward, my faithful steed!
[Image: ezgif-save_zps4d93a674.gif?t=1395781443]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-12-2013, 04:16 PM
RE: Winning Pascal's Wager
Wow. This thread took off while I was napping. Thanks to everybody who tended it while I was indulging in the luxury of sleep.

(14-12-2013 09:22 AM)Vosur Wrote:  If God is just, then worship is not required to receive salvation.
If God is unjust, then he does not deserve to be worshiped.
An of course, if god does not exist then the whole point is moot.

(14-12-2013 09:22 AM)Vosur Wrote:  
(14-12-2013 08:36 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  I see one purpose was to express amusement in Pascal's demise....I'm a little saddened that you actually "liked" that sick post.
I think he was amused by the fact that Pascal's religious beliefs were partly responsible for his demise, not by his demise itself.
For the record, I was not deriving any pleasure from Pascal's sickness and suffering in the last years of his life. That's a pretty horrible way to check out. The part that I found ironic was that what is widely considered one of the fallacies of the Wager, that religious belief has no cost, may have been responsible for his death. On the other hand, given the state of 17th century "medicine", Pascal's decision to turn the "doctors" away may have been the smart choice.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Paleophyte's post
14-12-2013, 04:29 PM
RE: Winning Pascal's Wager
(14-12-2013 06:35 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  Pascal's default position was his religious belief. The wager was about rejecting his default position.....not an argument to convince others his religion is true or a method of obtaining the truth.

Thanks for pointing that out Heywood. I was previously unaware that Pascal had not intended his Wager for the purposes that centuries of christian apologists have been (ab)using it for. I apparently owe him an apology. Please view the OP as a critique of the debased version of the Wager that has been used to try and convince atheists that they should bet on the smart money rather than an attack on what was Blaise Pascal's personal philosophy.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Paleophyte's post
14-12-2013, 07:30 PM
RE: Winning Pascal's Wager
Now it's getting more difficult to decide if you people are mildly trolling or if you really believe that one man's personal philosophy matters to anyone else.

I hate to jump into another analogy, but this one randomly came to mind:

If a scientist constructs an experiment with the assumption that the human eye can see infrared light the same way it sees visible white light, his conclusions are going to be scewed no matter how the experiment turns out. Because in objective reality, humans cannot see infrared light with their naked eye.

Some of you are arguing that the ability to see infrared wavelengths should be taken into consideration just because the experiment was designed around that assumption. Even though it is (for all intents and purposes) wrong. So what's going on here?

THIS USER IS NO LONGER ACTIVE. THANK YOU, AND HAVE A GREAT DAY! http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...a-few-days
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-12-2013, 08:01 PM
RE: Winning Pascal's Wager
(14-12-2013 07:30 PM)Cephalotus Wrote:  Now it's getting more difficult to decide if you people are mildly trolling or if you really believe that one man's personal philosophy matters to anyone else.
I don't think that it should matter to anyone but Pascal, but there's no disputing that it does matter to others, namely theists who think that it ought to be used as an argument in debates about religion.

[Image: 7oDSbD4.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Vosur's post
14-12-2013, 10:37 PM
RE: Winning Pascal's Wager
(14-12-2013 06:35 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  Its possible God exists and planted fossil evidence to test our faith thus the belief that fossils prove dinosaurs must have actually existed is false. You can discredit anything you want by adding in additional assumptions.
I've seen you make this argument in a few threads, and it concerns me. I worry that your rationality is slipping. You seem stuck on the false dichotomy fallacy where two positions are argued, but if a third is introduced you claim that new assumptions are being introduced. The question is, do the probabilities of the available options add to one or do they not? There is every possibility that a God exists but either has no interest in humanity or harbours malicious intent towards humanity. To question the assumption that any God who exists must be a good God is not to introduce a new assumption but to question an existing implicit or explicit assumption.

In fact, any God that send most of his beloved children to eternal hellfire by definition harbours malicious intent, so if Pascal's God does exist he is objectively malicious. He was unwarranted in assuming that his God is truthful or that his God would reward him in death. At least one additional alternative should have been included in his calculation.

Give me your argument in the form of a published paper, and then we can start to talk.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like Hafnof's post
15-12-2013, 03:30 AM
RE: Winning Pascal's Wager
(14-12-2013 08:01 PM)Vosur Wrote:  
(14-12-2013 07:30 PM)Cephalotus Wrote:  Now it's getting more difficult to decide if you people are mildly trolling or if you really believe that one man's personal philosophy matters to anyone else.
I don't think that it should matter to anyone but Pascal, but there's no disputing that it does matter to others, namely theists who think that it ought to be used as an argument in debates about religion.

That's because to many theists it matters to them so they incorrectly think it will or should matter to everyone else. Atheists make the same kind of "error" me thinks. An atheists thinks it important to consider every religion in the wager. The theists doesn't see the point of that because he has already rejected those and to him it is simply a question about rejecting his current religion or holding on to it.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-12-2013, 08:23 AM
RE: Winning Pascal's Wager
(15-12-2013 03:30 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  That's because to many theists it matters to them so they incorrectly think it will or should matter to everyone else. Atheists make the same kind of "error" me thinks. An atheists thinks it important to consider every religion in the wager. The theists doesn't see the point of that because he has already rejected those and to him it is simply a question about rejecting his current religion or holding on to it.

It isn't an error, it's a matter of doing a thorough job. The false dichotomy is "Either my god or not my god." It's false because the second term consists of a vast number of possibilities. If you don't consider them then how can you possibly evaluate what you might be rejecting your current religion in favor of?

Consider the following:

Either Thor, God of Thunder or not.
Either Thor, God of Thunder or Bonko, God of Clowns or Zeus, God of Lightning, or Yaweh, or Jesus, or Allah, or Atheism, or...

The False Dichotomy doesn't tell you anything about what you're comparing Thor to so it's impossible to make an informed choice. Hard to know where the smart money is in that case.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Paleophyte's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: