Thread: Response to Pascal's Wager

Makes sense.
Not to mention the big error of Pascal's wager. The fact that you don't consider all the other gods (including the ones that haven't been made up). The atheist and christian can argue about the wager only to die and land in Hades or some other afterlife.

Originally Posted by Bonsay

Makes sense.
Not to mention the big error of Pascal's wager. The fact that you don't consider all the other gods (including the ones that haven't been made up). The atheist and christian can argue about the wager only to die and land in Hades or some other afterlife.

True.

I suppose what is also up for debate is the plausibility for all these Gods. The question that seems to be proposed by these 'wagers' is which one is the safest.

Amazing how we can isolate the most enourmous forms of debate into simple sentences.

~

The fact that none of the gods are based on facts (from my point of view), makes all the other ones just as plausable. Is an idea in my head any less real then the ones of millions of others? Not to mention that I very rarely see two people believing the same thing. One christian mastrubates, the other one hates "fags" etc. etc. Even if we only look into one group of christians we should still find differences, if they know it or not. It will be so untill we make telekinesis possible. Only then will we know what the other person realy means/thinks.

(Sorry for talking about christians as an example, everything I said can be attached to everyone.)

Originally Posted by Bonsay

The fact that none of the gods are based on facts (from my point of view), makes all the other ones just as plausable. Is an idea in my head any less real then the ones of millions of others? Not to mention that I very rarely see two people believing the same thing. One christian mastrubates, the other one hates "fags" etc. etc. Even if we only look into one group of christians we should still find differences, if they know it or not. It will be so untill we make telekinesis possible. Only then will we know what the other person realy means/thinks.

(Sorry for talking about christians as an example, everything I said can be attached to everyone.)

Yeah I think plausibility can be gauged in this aspect. Taking human intervention and manipulation into consideration as a noise affect on the plausibility of the Gods probable truth, we could gauge plausibility factors.

It would be analgous to a baseketball shot:
- Are you more likely to get it into the net, not in the net, off the backboard, off the pole, off the ceiling, off the bleachers, off someones head, explode, implode, turn green, etc.

Which are most plausible can easily be gauged in the above, I think the same can relatively be said about Gods. (ie. Zeus, flying spaghetti monster, flying teapot, boogeyman, etc.)

Get what I mean..??
~

But who here has the right to say what's plausible or not. We can laugh at the sphagetti monster, but why should we? Is a humanoid god more plausible then a pasta god?

We can talk like that about the basketball aswell. It may seem turning it green is impossible. What if it's the other way around? What if it's impossible to get it into the net and we were just lucky all this time. If we want to be objective we have to do it everywhere. Which makes everything possible. That's the problem... if we want to talk about plausibility we have to be subjective, which shortens our list of gods from "infinite" back to historical religions list. Because nobody want's to have a pot god.

I can't be subjective about that. I believe a pot-god is as plausible as anything else.

Originally Posted by Bonsay

But who here has the right to say what's plausible or not. We can laugh at the sphagetti monster, but why should we? Is a humanoid god more plausible then a pasta god?

Right, my point is that we can deduce Gods such as analgous Gods created by people like L. Ron Hubbard. We could also prove from an evolutionary standpoint the memes propogated by people to reinforce beliefs.

Example 1:
- Xenu is an alien that droppped us all off on Earth, etc. etc.
- It is very likely that, being a science fiction writer, this man entirely made this up. Considering the financial benefit and exaggerations afterwards, we can deduce the severe bias and manipulation of this belief system.

Example 2:
- God is a big male in the sky. Or, heaven is in the skies.
- We know that there is more beyond the sky, so this idea is wrong.

See what I mean?

~

OK yes I see what you mean.

But how does this help with the pascal problem?

A lot of Christians seem to use this as a smug, 'clinching' argument to make you join their religion. 'What do you have to lose', they say, 'if there is a God then he will reward you, if there isn't, what have you lost?!'.

Well personally, I think if the true God really does appreciate that kind of brown nosing then he can shove the pearly gates up his fucking ass, I'm staying as far away from that schitz as is humanly or indeed spiritually possible.

^^ agreed.

Originally Posted by O'nus

- If you believe in a monotheistic God, you believe that everything has been planned out for you, life has been pre-arranged, an entity knows everything about you, etc.
- Essentially, you relinquish personal responsibility - your credibility for all your actions.

Just one thing to point out --

Not all monotheistic religions are like this. I'm not sure about Christianity, but Judaism(Monotheistic) stresses free will. You are responsible for your actions, God cannot compel you to do something.

Seems like a waste of time, since anyone who needs to see this won't read it and probably won't understand even if they did.

Originally Posted by Grod

Just one thing to point out --

Not all monotheistic religions are like this. I'm not sure about Christianity, but Judaism(Monotheistic) stresses free will. You are responsible for your actions, God cannot compel you to do something.

Precisely why I emphasized on responding to that type of God as Pascal's wager functions on that type of deterrant God.

~

So essentially the Christian God?

Originally Posted by Grod

So essentially the Christian God?

It would seem to be the one being addressed. However, it applies to any sort of God that would punish those that do not believe in it or follow their doctrines.

~

Heh, then basically all of them.

My biggest beef with Pascal's wager is that it makes the assumption that belief is a choice. Like you say, "oh, if those are the odds, then I guess I'll start believing starting..... now"

Originally Posted by Replicon

My biggest beef with Pascal's wager is that it makes the assumption that belief is a choice. Like you say, "oh, if those are the odds, then I guess I'll start believing starting..... now"

How is it not a choice?

~

Originally Posted by O'nus

How is it not a choice?

~

Well, it depends on how you look at it. If you see an apple sitting on your desk, and you walk over, touch it, taste it, do you not believe there is an apple there? You can't exactly choose whether or not you believe an apple is in front of you. I mean, you can act it out, but deep inside, you believe there's an apple there.

Likewise, if someone who, deep inside, doesn't really believe in any god, sees Pascal's Wager and says, "hmm, with those odds, I *might as well* believe"... they'll play the role, but deep inside, they don't believe. That's also why there's a huge difference between people who identify with a religion because they were told all their lives, and those who have come to their faiths on their own, based on some kind of inner reflection. The latter group have much more substance to bring to the table.

Originally Posted by Replicon

Well, it depends on how you look at it. If you see an apple sitting on your desk, and you walk over, touch it, taste it, do you not believe there is an apple there? You can't exactly choose whether or not you believe an apple is in front of you. I mean, you can act it out, but deep inside, you believe there's an apple there.

I am not sure I understand this allegory.

If I believe there is an apply, it means I can view one and associate it with a word for it. A round red thing that is edible = apple, and so I interact with it on that basis.

Can you elaborate this one, if necessary?

Likewise, if someone who, deep inside, doesn't really believe in any god, sees Pascal's Wager and says, "hmm, with those odds, I *might as well* believe"... they'll play the role, but deep inside, they don't believe. That's also why there's a huge difference between people who identify with a religion because they were told all their lives, and those who have come to their faiths on their own, based on some kind of inner reflection. The latter group have much more substance to bring to the table.

That is precisely my response to the wager. Did you see my atheist response to it..?

~

Originally Posted by O'nus

I am not sure I understand this allegory.

If I believe there is an apply, it means I can view one and associate it with a word for it. A round red thing that is edible = apple, and so I interact with it on that basis.

Can you elaborate this one, if necessary?

It's not that complicated. Just go to the balcony and decide not to believe in gravity, then jump.

Even if I decide not to believe in gravity, deep down I'll still believe in it and a little voice will keep me from jumping.

Even if I decide to believe in a god, deep down inside I'll still be an atheist, since there is no proof for a god.

That's why I think belief isn't a choice. Although, you can choose to brainwash yourself.

Oh I get it.

Also, what is that path of reasoning suggesting? That we ought to give plausibility to every probable thing in every situation? Including the highly unlikely incidence of you spontaneoulsy combusting at each moment? Does that mean you should be worried?

I think I find the logic interesting and very implausible.

~

When i was reading this i couldn't help to think about this. O'nus wouldn't you say that the time you spend showing people how atheist think and how christianity is wrong is equivilant to the time a christian would spend in church? Atheist always say that going to church would be awaste of time because there is no God. Wouldn't it be a waste of time to argue against christianity because there is no God?

I think im missing a major point here and im nto quite getting it.

Thats just a couple of questions i have that are semi-linked to the wager.

Originally Posted by O'nus

Oh I get it.

Also, what is that path of reasoning suggesting? That we ought to give plausibility to every probable thing in every situation? Including the highly unlikely incidence of you spontaneoulsy combusting at each moment? Does that mean you should be worried?

I think I find the logic interesting and very implausible.

~

Well yes, in theory (if you were talking about my posts). But I don't live by my philosophy. It's just my belief, if you want to call it that. If nothing can be proven then, for the moment, everything is possible. I find the logic useless, but it's the only truth I could come up with.

We can't possibly consider every implausible circumstance, which is why the human brain must rely on heuristics and pattern-matching. I was just getting at the idea that what you believe comes not just from a conscious choice, but is really the result of the mental process that handles input over time.

That's not to say it's 100% external, of course. How your brain processes information is definitely affected by what you already believe (and what you'd LIKE to believe). So, Pascal's wager can be used as a reaffirming device, but it should never be used as a tool to argue in a religious debate.