Pascal's wager...

[Lion IRC]

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)

I agree. Pascals Wager isn't particularly a defence of Christianity.
It's a defence of open-mindedness and giving God (theism) the benefit of the doubt.
a) God? Yes
b) God? Maybe
c) God? No

Why would you unnecessarily lock in option c) so early?
There's plenty of time to reject God. Why rush?

Keith&Co has a problem with my use of the term "presuppositional" atheism (which Pascal's Wager addresses) but is there any other type of atheism?

You either believe there's no God as an act of faith or you have the sort of incontrovertible evidence for atheism that you demand from theists.

 

[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 van demonstrate God's existence is highly probable.

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

Well, no. It is a garbage in, garbage out sort of thing. It means assigning probablities to certain ideas, which in some cases, Baye's Theorum is not really appropriate, especially in the way theologians estimate things and their probabilities.

 

[abaddon]

Well, no. It is a garbage in, garbage out sort of thing. It means assigning probablities to certain ideas, which in some cases, Baye's Theorum is not really appropriate, especially in the way theologians estimate things and their probabilities.

Yeah, I'm not really expecting theists can ever make a case (because they've tried for ages with no success) that God's a probable entity and anyone should compromise their integrity and reasonably wager on it.

 

[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 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.

Some of them don't but abuse Baye's poor little theorum anyway. And some, should know better but.....

 

[skepticalbip]

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)

I agree. Pascals Wager isn't particularly a defence of Christianity.
It's a defence of open-mindedness and giving God (theism) the benefit of the doubt.
a) God? Yes
b) God? Maybe
c) God? No

Why would you unnecessarily lock in option c) so early?
There's plenty of time to reject God. Why rush?

Keith&Co has a problem with my use of the term "presuppositional" atheism (which Pascal's Wager addresses) but is there any other type of atheism?

You either believe there's no God as an act of faith or you have the sort of incontrovertible evidence for atheism that you demand from theists.

I generally answer such questions as, "do you believe in god", with a question, "what do you mean by god?". I am constantly surprised by how many that ask me that question have apparently never even considered exactly what they mean by god.

 

[Lion IRC]

The Nicene Creed is a pretty good definition of God.
The bible has a LOT of detail about God.
...AND atheists are frequently bragging about how they know more about religion than everyone else including bible-believing Christians.

So I'm baffled by atheists asking for definitions of what they themselves disbelieve in.

 

[220volt]

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.)

That makes no sense whateover.

 

[skepticalbip]

The Nicene Creed is a pretty good definition of God.
The bible has a LOT of detail about God.
...AND atheists are frequently bragging about how they know more about religion than everyone else including bible-believing Christians.

So I'm baffled by atheists asking for definitions of what they themselves disbelieve in.

When someone asks me if I believe in god, I have no idea what they are asking because I don't know what they think god is. Not everyone who believes in god are thinking of the same definition as you - most seem to just have some vague 'feel good' concept.

Personally, any thoughts of god are not part of my life sorta like I never think of purple unicorns as a possible answer when trying to understand or do something. The only time the idea of god enters my mind is when someone brings it up. I guess that is why I find this forum interesting - it is amazing to me to see that people apparently build their lives around such a concept.

ETA:
The Nicene Creed has a piss poor explanation of what god is "the maker of heaven and Earth,
of all things visible and invisible." says almost nothing and nowhere near the attributes, intents, or anything else usually attributed to him. The rest is pretty much only a declaration of the church credo. That is kinda like describing god like a description of someone as an accountant. 'Knowing' he created heaven and Earth or that someone is an accountant doesn't really say much about either of them.

 

[Rhea]

You either believe there's no God as an act of faith or you have the sort of incontrovertible evidence for atheism that you demand from theists.

What? No. Is that how you think about all the things you don't know? You must make a remarkable number of serious errors!

When I do not believe in something, it is simply because nothing has caused me to believe in it.
It's not "rebellion," or "rejection," or any other thing, it's simply that I cannot muster up any kind of belief because nothing convincing has happened.

Atheism is defined as a lack of belief. Not a rejection of belief, not a belief in nothing, not a rebellion against belief. It is merely and simply a lack.

For example, do you believe the rattle in my car is from a stone in the hub-cap? Yes or no? If no, is it because you are using "faith" to reject the stone hypothesis?

 

[Keith&Co.]

Keith&Co has a problem with my use of the term "presuppositional" atheism (which Pascal's Wager addresses) but is there any other type of atheism?

Up to your usual level of misreading for content.
I specifically said what my problem was with your statement.

But, yes, there is another way to become an atheist. I, for one, did not start from a pre-formed atheist stance, and then go looking for confirmation.
I was raised to believe. My search for answers about the god i believed in led me to the conclusion that everyone is talking about made-up-shit.

I believe this has been explained to you before, thus your insistence that presuppositionist atheism is the only sort is just your personal bias shining thru.
Or maybe you're just trolling, hard to be sure.

You either believe there's no God as an act of faith or

None of the above. I don't know if there is a god out there anywhere, but i see no reason to accept one or more of the thousands of stories humans tell each other when someone gets struck by lightning.

 

[Learner]

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

Well yes, the wager does coincide with the believers belief of God.

(nor was it mean't to be imo)

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

My "conclusion" for Pascal's intention is made with those little things, lets say, like: what atheists think the wager means , seen in previous posts, to which they rightly highlight the nonsensicle logic of it all ( even theists see it doesn't make sense). Also being in doubt that Pascal' would portray his wager in this way , especially as a philosopher. How could he argue the case (in that particular way) if it doesn't make logical sense at all, to anyone?

(nor was it mean't to be, imo )

Sorry about the mean't bit, I mean't wager not intended to be an apologetic, which was my opinion.

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.

I was defending Pascal's Intellectual credibility ,and in turn, making the wager , had to have had some philosophical thought put into it.

 

[Keith&Co.]

I was defending Pascal's Intellectual credibility ,and in turn, making the wager , had to have had some philosophical thought put into it.

And no one is saying "the wager fails because Pascal is an idiot." We're very specific about why it fails on its own.

So we are not making a personal attack on Pascal, which would be a fallacy. Thus there is no need for you to defend HIM.
Therefore, your attempt to defend the Wager by using Pascal himself is an argument by respect for authority fallacy.

So you're using fallacy in defense of fallacy.

That doesn't work like a double negative, though.

 

[DBT]

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.

It makes sense in relation to how belief is justified and the process conviction....the mental process of how you come to be convinced that something is true.

So, again, if Pascals Wager 'posits that humans bet with their lives that God either exists or does not'- how are you to convince yourself in the existence of God, thereby taking the ideal option, eternal life as a reward, if you are currently not convinced in the existence of a God?

How are you to achieve the required conviction?

 

[Learner]

It makes sense in relation to how belief is justified and the process conviction....the mental process of how you come to be convinced that something is true.

Sure And.. in relation to below

So, again, if Pascals Wager 'posits that humans bet with their lives that God either exists or does not'- how are you to convince yourself in the existence of God, thereby taking the ideal option, eternal life as a reward, if you are currently not convinced in the existence of a God?

How are you to achieve the required conviction?

Who says Pascal states the above or give at all the implication that an individual would actually take that option if he or she is NOT convinced? He seems to say to me, that it would be better if you did!

 

[Keith&Co.]

What? No. Is that how you think about all the things you don't know?

Lion is one of those apologists who useds 'open minded' to mean 'don't make any conclusions until you agree with mine.'

I suspect such people cannot allow that we have a working conclusion, AND remain open to new evidence, because they don't have any evvidence to give us.
Aside from piddle-poor math, incredulity, popularity, tradition, changing word definitions to serve....

 

[DBT]

Who says Pascal states the above or give at all the implication that an individual would actually take that option if he or she is NOT convinced? He seems to say to me, that it would be better if you did!

Pascals Wager;

''The Wager uses the following logic (excerpts from Pensées, part III, §233):

God is, or God is not. Reason cannot decide between the two alternatives.
A Game is being played... where heads or tails will turn up.
You must wager (it is not optional).
Let us weigh the gain and the loss in wagering that God is. Let us estimate these two chances. If you gain, you gain all; if you lose, you lose nothing.
Wager, then, without hesitation that He is. (...) There is here an infinity of an infinitely happy life to gain, a chance of gain against a finite number of chances of loss, and what you stake is finite. And so our proposition is of infinite force, when there is the finite to stake in a game where there are equal risks of gain and of loss, and the infinite to gain.
But some cannot believe. They should then 'at least learn your inability to believe...' and 'Endeavour then to convince' themselves.''

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Who says Pascal states the above or give at all the implication that an individual would actually take that option if he or she is NOT convinced? He seems to say to me, that it would be better if you did!

Pascals Wager;

''The Wager uses the following logic (excerpts from Pensées, part III, §233):

God is, or God is not. Reason cannot decide between the two alternatives.
A Game is being played... where heads or tails will turn up.
You must wager (it is not optional).
Let us weigh the gain and the loss in wagering that God is. Let us estimate these two chances. If you gain, you gain all; if you lose, you lose nothing.
Wager, then, without hesitation that He is. (...) There is here an infinity of an infinitely happy life to gain, a chance of gain against a finite number of chances of loss, and what you stake is finite. And so our proposition is of infinite force, when there is the finite to stake in a game where there are equal risks of gain and of loss, and the infinite to gain.
But some cannot believe. They should then 'at least learn your inability to believe...' and 'Endeavour then to convince' themselves.''

Well that's goofy. The premise is that reason cannot be applied to whether there are gods are not. How does one even get to that point without applying reasoning to get to that point?

Then you must wager your eternity on a binary outcome determined purely by chance.

This is mindless twaddle that appeals to folks who watch soap operas.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

It is a fact that Pascal was one of the founders of the mathematical field of statistics. And as we all know, "If you have a hammer, everything looks like a nail".

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

What if it does matter what we believe? Is it wrong for "God" to care what we believe?

Is there a great moral precept somewhere saying that it's against the rules for any decent "God" to care what humans believe? engraved on gold tablets? handed down "from on high"?

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.)

That makes no sense whatsoever.

If you have a "fear of being on the wrong side of the argument," doesn't that mean you think the other "side of the argument" might really be the truth? Why would you fear being "on the wrong side" unless this means you believe the other side might be the "right side" of the argument? meaning it might be the truth? meaning you believe it (fear that it's the truth), though with doubt?

Believing doesn't have to mean there's no doubt (or no fear of being wrong).

"Faking your belief out of fear of being on the wrong side of the argument" means you fear that this belief you're faking might actually be a true belief, and to hedge your bets, you "pretend" to have this belief because it might be the truth. I.e., you half-way do believe it already, as a possibility. And this doubting belief causes you to claim to believe it, in order to safeguard against being on the wrong side.

Why would the "omnipotent being" reject this kind of belief? You can call it "faking," but it's really based on a genuine belief (fear) of what might be the truth, or what you think (fear) might be the truth.

There is no reason why Christ-belief cannot be partly a belief from fear that it might be the truth. Belief can include doubting and hoping and fearing. It can include wanting it to be true, but also fearing that it might be true. There is no reason to condemn any kind of believing, calling it "fake" or whatever.

If one is trying to believe, no matter what drives it, there is nothing ungenuine about it, or phony. In the accounts of those healed by Jesus, in the Gospels, there is nothing to suggest that the "faith" of these ones healed was a very superior kind of faith which had to measure up to some high standard of loftiness.

(In any case, I have one more pretty jewel than you, so I must be right.)

 

[Learner]

Who says Pascal states the above or give at all the implication that an individual would actually take that option if he or she is NOT convinced? He seems to say to me, that it would be better if you did!

Pascals Wager;

''The Wager uses the following logic (excerpts from Pensées, part III, §233):

God is, or God is not. Reason cannot decide between the two alternatives.
A Game is being played... where heads or tails will turn up.
You must wager (it is not optional).
Let us weigh the gain and the loss in wagering that God is. Let us estimate these two chances. If you gain, you gain all; if you lose, you lose nothing.
Wager, then, without hesitation that He is. (...) There is here an infinity of an infinitely happy life to gain, a chance of gain against a finite number of chances of loss, and what you stake is finite. And so our proposition is of infinite force, when there is the finite to stake in a game where there are equal risks of gain and of loss, and the infinite to gain.

Here... we seem to have the context in the underlined , and the atheists kept "demanding" reasoned answers from the theists! The theists, using reason kept replying with; "you can't fake the belief, and you can't convert if you're not already convinced, which means : it couldn't have been in the context they (atheists) thought it was.

But some cannot believe. They should then 'at least learn your inability to believe...' and 'Endeavour then to convince' themselves.''

At last there is an answer , which you (plural) have been asking for, a number of times, although it is an answer from an "advisory" position, regarding the wager (philosophy) than it is , from the Chrsitian theology position (hence it's not preached).

Seriously , Good on you sport, for finding it. ( I won't get the book now)