Pascal's wager...

[Learner]

What? Still have not answered the question.
How do I know which set of virtues allow me to lead 'a virtuous life.' Just because Pascal framed the wager does not mean he guessed the right religion.
Even if The Wager itself were valid, there are still many possible choices. Pascal picking one of them us not evidrnce that he picked correctly.

If you were to take part in Pascals wager then you would have take his word for it. If you're unsure and have doubts, then the Pascal's wager is just not for you.

Jeez, you are bad at this.

Which faith do i use to determine sins and virtues?

I have Christain relatives who will not do business with any man who won't drink with them. They insist that wine is a sacrament exactly because in vino veritas, so you know no godly man will fear alcohol loosening his lips. They tie it into Jesus thru the wedding miracle and the Last Supper.
I also have Mormon relatives who will not touch alcohol, ever. Because God said not to.

So, who is right? How would The Wager help me pick who is right?

If you're unsure and have doubts, then Pascal's wager is just not for you. (You'd be "pretending" otherwise)

 

[Keith&Co.]

Um, whether it's science or philosophy, the wager is still a false dichotomy, thus the conclusion is fer shitses.

Its not aimed at those who already believe,

That is exactly who it is aimed at, because thatwho benefits from it. It works as a rationalization, but not as a path to new knowledge.

Learner, I am an atheist. When someone mentions God, i think of the Catholic God, the Mormon God, Islam's, Judaism's, Odin, Zeus, Ki, Hecate, Ishtar, Bath, Minerva, the Invisible Pink unicorn, Cthulhu, The Bastard, Lolth, Arioch, and a zillion others.
The Wager only works for someone who only thinks of one GOD, without hesitation or a request for amplification.

and its not a preached doctrine that's for sure.

Preachers also don't EVER mention the verses about the woman whose lovers were hung like mules. So, big whoop on the selective silence, there.

Oddly enough, It may have its uses, as sort of a stepping stone to the "full" conversion of faith, "eventually" for some.

May? I think that's wishful thinking on your part.

I have known many Xians who offered me the Wager, formally or informally, as a reason to convert, but have yet to find anyone who converted becauseof it.

 

[Keith&Co.]

If you were to take part in Pascals wager then you would have take his word for it.

And that would be the problem. When we ask for evidence, we get this wager, or we get a name.

If you're unsure and have doubts, then Pascal's wager is just not for you.

EXACTLY!!!
It does not work UNTIL after you believe.
But if you already believe, then it is surplus to needs.

 

[Learner]

That is exactly who it is aimed at, because thatwho benefits from it. It works as a rationalization, but not as a path to new knowledge.

Learner, I am an atheist. When someone mentions God, i think of the Catholic God, the Mormon God, Islam's, Judaism's, Odin, Zeus, Ki, Hecate, Ishtar, Bath, Minerva, the Invisible Pink unicorn, Cthulhu, The Bastard, Lolth, Arioch, and a zillion others.
The Wager only works for someone who only thinks of one GOD, without hesitation or a request for amplification.

You are right ...it wouldn't make sense if they weren't believers of some kind. I should have said in the previous post , not aimed at Christians imho.

Preachers also don't EVER mention the verses about the woman whose lovers were hung like mules. So, big whoop on the selective silence, there.

They'd more likely mention the part about mules than they would about Pascals wager which is not in the bible.

I have known many Xians who offered me the Wager, formally or informally, as a reason to convert, but have yet to find anyone who converted becauseof it.

You wouldn't even partially believe in it , in the first place to convert, but you may be right in saying no one has. (People become Christians differently)

Then in regards to your previous post, this then... seems to become ... useless ( really laughing as I've typed this hahaha and I'm tired)

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

"BELIEVE" = thinking (fearing) that it might be the truth.

Pascal's Wager is the dumbest argument ever. How do you "make" yourself believe? Faking your belief out of fear of being on the wrong side of the argument. Any omnipotent being would see through that.

No, there's nothing to "see through" here. The phrase "Faking your belief out of fear of being on the wrong side" is a contradiction.

If you "fear" being wrong, then you genuinely believe (maybe with some doubt). I.e., you think it might be true, so your belief is not fake. At least you genuinely consider it a possibility, so you're not "faking" your recognition that it's a possibility.

This is probably the meaning of the Jesus quote "Your faith has saved you."

I.e., their "faith" (belief) was recognizing it as a possibility, and was a belief of hoping it was true. E.g., true that he had power to heal them.

So this is a reasonable belief, based on evidence, but still involving doubt because of the uncertainty. And it's logical to have both the "fear" as well as the hope that it's true, and thus to "believe."

This is a rational belief, leaving open the possibility that it might be true or that it might not be true. If it is true, but one incorrectly rules it out as a possibility, then there might be a bad result from this incorrect disbelief.

And we don't know for sure that it is or is not true. (But there is some evidence that it's true.)

 

[DBT]

If you are not convinced that something you are told to believe is true - there being insufficient evidence to convince you - how then do you convince yourself that this something that you are told to believe is in fact true?

 

[Learner]

If you are not convinced that something you are told to believe is true - there being insufficient evidence to convince you - how then do you convince yourself that this something that you are told to believe is in fact true?

Would you think it was possible from your quote? You would still remain as an unbeliever!

 

[DBT]

If you are not convinced that something you are told to believe is true - there being insufficient evidence to convince you - how then do you convince yourself that this something that you are told to believe is in fact true?

Would you think it was possible from your quote? You would still remain as an unbeliever!

Isn't that what Pascals Wager entails? To believe in the existence of God in order to benefit from that belief. So if you are already convinced in the existence of God (never mind the correct god), the Wager does not apply to you. It applies to non believers. Which means people who are not convinced in the existence of a God....hence my question; how are you to convince yourself in the truth of something of which you are not convinced?

 

[Learner]

Isn't that what Pascals Wager entails? To believe in the existence of God in order to benefit from that belief. So if you are already convinced in the existence of God (never mind the correct god), the Wager does not apply to you. It applies to non believers. Which means people who are not convinced in the existence of a God....hence my question; how are you to convince yourself in the truth of something of which you are not convinced?

I never really knew in-depth the context of Pascal's wager and never entered into other discussions with this topic. As in your previous post, the logic of this didn't make sense in which I think there is at least , some agreement, as you also by asking the question, say the same thing.

So then one should ask, " Why would Pascal make such a wager in this context , especially someone of his intellectual calibre? And how did you (plural) overlook his interllectual credibility and come to the conclusion logically that this was the context he mean't and make it the argument ???

It turns out ... (as the name suggests), Its a wager folks!

The gist in context is to do with some probability maths thingy (for lack of articulation) Placing your bets ... He wasn't suggesting proof of God or that one can believe by conversion when you're not convinced (and how would that be possible?) , or that someone could be able to fake it, as Lumpens points out the contradiction, this is why NO preachers preach it!

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

It turns out ... (as the name suggests), Its a wager folks!

The gist in context is to do with some probability maths thingy (for lack of articulation) Placing your bets ... He wasn't suggesting proof of God or that one can believe by conversion when you're not convinced (and how would that be possible?) , or that someone could be able to fake it, as Lumpens points out the contradiction, this is why NO preachers preach it!

The opposite of a wager is a certainty. To whom, then, is Pascal's Wager directed?

 

[Kharakov]

Like the billions of theists who spend hours and hours on their knees talking to a deity who isn't there.

The deity is there though- it's a natural part of the empathic response social network in their brains. It's pathological, but it does respond- it responds like your peers do in a simulated conversation or action sequence in your brain.

Theists can speak to a responsive God (that is created through social constructs and experience of natural limits). This God is refined over the years into something that they believe is taking care of them, because ultimately they imagine that a God would care for conscious beings like we care for other conscious beings our selves. The social networks of humans caring for one another? These reinforce the theist's false God belief.


The deity of the theist exists. It just protects the theist from awareness that it is that which exists but doesn't exist outside of their brain.... in its ultimate incarnation in their brain.

Fortran's wager: remove section of a theists brain and see if they are still a complete being, since they have a soul. See if they make up scenario in which their brain has to be whole to integrate with their soul in order to defend both their true form (nature) and their false idealized form (soul protected by and raised by God).


They won't take it. They always lie to themselves and others, while behaving as if nature is the end all be all, because it is. Theists just love to lie.

 

[Learner]

The opposite of a wager is a certainty. To whom, then, is Pascal's Wager directed?

In context to wager, ANYONE in general.

EDIT: or to other philsophers!

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

What? Still have not answered the question.
How do I know which set of virtues allow me to lead 'a virtuous life.' Just because Pascal framed the wager does not mean he guessed the right religion.
Even if The Wager itself were valid, there are still many possible choices. Pascal picking one of them us not evidrnce that he picked correctly.

At one point of his life, Pascal had an intense mystical experience of some sort that convinced him that he had direct knowledge of God's existence.

Wikipedia
On 23 November 1654, between 10:30 and 12:30 at night, Pascal had an intense religious vision and immediately recorded the experience in a brief note to himself which began: "Fire. God of Abraham, God of Isaac, God of Jacob, not of the philosophers and the scholars..." and concluded by quoting Psalm 119:16: "I will not forget thy word. Amen." He seems to have carefully sewn this document into his coat and always transferred it when he changed clothes; a servant discovered it only by chance after his death.

His wager is found in his "Pensees", a work that was unfinished at his death. It was meant as an apology, defense, of Christianity. Pascal was intensely religious, so we know what he thought about this wager.

 

[Kharakov]

What? Still have not answered the question.
How do I know which set of virtues allow me to lead 'a virtuous life.' Just because Pascal framed the wager does not mean he guessed the right religion.
Even if The Wager itself were valid, there are still many possible choices. Pascal picking one of them us not evidrnce that he picked correctly.

At one point of his life, Pascal had an intense mystical experience of some sort that convinced him that he had direct knowledge of God's existence.

Makes me wonder how long the church (or maybe just governments) has been dosing thinkers to make them think God exists? Slip some cubensis in that atheist's tea, and arrange a few events to happen.

 

[Learner]

His wager is found in his "Pensees", a work that was unfinished at his death. It was meant as an apology, defense, of Christianity. Pascal was intensely religious, so we know what he thought about this wager.

I don't think you can defend Christianity by using the wager. (Edit: nor was it mean't to be imo). Which is reflective of the theists (me among them) on this thread, who have in large, been defending Pascal not so much defending Christianity.

(I'm getting that book)

 

[abaddon]

If you are not convinced that something you are told to believe is true - there being insufficient evidence to convince you - how then do you convince yourself that this something that you are told to believe is in fact true?

Would you think it was possible from your quote? You would still remain as an unbeliever!

Isn't that what Pascals Wager entails? To believe in the existence of God in order to benefit from that belief. So if you are already convinced in the existence of God (never mind the correct god), the Wager does not apply to you. It applies to non believers. Which means people who are not convinced in the existence of a God....hence my question; how are you to convince yourself in the truth of something of which you are not convinced?

I don't think Pascal's Wager is a stand-alone argument to fully convince anyone God exists. It's leverage for a Maybe, it's pushing for a baby step toward theism not immediately into theism.

Pondering a Maybe is the point. If God and the afterlife are even just a tiny bit likely, then you're playing with hellfire to stay an all-out "denier" of God.

The assumption is probability of God (and hell and heaven) is greater than zero. Maybe there's no evidence that convinces you, but there's no evidence that has made you entirely convinced against? If so then maybe you can find your way to the "open-mindedness" of agnosticism, a step closer to theism? From there, there's a chance for your "spiritual growth" from just wanting to avoid hell into being a more faithful Christian. As a "close-minded" godless atheist, there's no chance of this for you.

But is God's probability greater than zero? I'm unconvinced of God not just by lack of evidence for God, but because there's good evidence against God. So maybe theists should establish that the probability of God is greater than zero first before acting gung-ho for this wager.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

Google "Baye's Theorum and God". People have been using Baye's Theorum to demonstrate God's existence for years now. Some theologians think Baye's Theorum can demonstrate God's existence is highly probable.

 

[abaddon]

Google "Baye's Theorum and God". People have been using Baye's Theorum to demonstrate God's existence for years now. Some theologians think Baye's Theorum van demonstrate God's existence is highly probable.

Ok... And, so? They've demonstrated an actual probability? "Some theologians think" means nothing.

 

[Keith&Co.]

It was meant as an apology, defense, of Christianity.

I don't think you can defend Christianity by using the wager.

Dude, that's tge only thing you can do with it. It justifies belief from the point of view of a believer.

(Edit: nor was it mean't to be imo).

And your evidence for Pascal's intentions would be...?
Also, "mean't?"
WTF is 'mea not?'

Which is reflective of the theists (me among them) on this thread, who have in large, been defending Pascal not so much defending Christianity.

Learner, YOU have tried to USE Pascal TO defend the wager. That is a logical fallacy, which is reflective, yes, since the Wager is a fallacy.

And could you show where Pascal is under attack? Because if he is not, then he does not need a defense. So defending him would either be a strawman, or an attempt to use his reputation (fallaciously) in the argument that is going on here.

 

[skepticalbip]

Google "Baye's Theorum and God". People have been using Baye's Theorum to demonstrate God's existence for years now. Some theologians think Baye's Theorum van demonstrate God's existence is highly probable.

That seems to be fairly good (if not damned good) evidence that 'some theologians' know diddly-squat about data analysis.