Pascals Wager Is A Terrible Argument - EssenceOfThought
2
Enjoy being online again!
Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.Create your free account
6 comments
Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.When Blaze came up with his argument it was as if Christianity was the only religion. He also assumes that you can pretend to believe and all will be find. You have lost nothing at the time of your death.
This can only be logical if the person making the wager does not believe and there is no god in the first place. Certainly and all knowing god would know you were pretending.
DenoPenno
Level 9
Aug 6, 2018
1
Does your saddle 'Blaise?' 
@pnfullifidian Apparently it does. Thanks for the spelling correction. 
When Blaze came up with his argument it was as if Christianity was the only religion. He also assumes that you can pretend to believe and all will be find. You have lost nothing at the time of your death.
This can only be logical if the person making the wager does not believe and there is no god in the first place. Certainly and all knowing god would know you were pretending.
DenoPenno
Level 9
Aug 6, 2018
0
I am agnostic:
Suppose that you have two possible actions: you believe that god exists or you believe that god does not exist, and the worst outcome associated with god exists is at least as good as the best outcome associated with god does not exist; suppose also that in at least one state of the world, god exists s outcome is strictly better than god does not exist. Let us say in that case that god exists superdominates god does not. Then rationality seems to require you to believe god exists.
or so the argument goes.
cava
Level 7
Aug 6, 2018
0
Firstly, I think you have misstated. It is that one believes a god exists or one does not believe that is necessarily the case, not that one believes that god does not exist. Also, how do you force a belief? If you do not believe, how do you nudge yourself to belief on just the wager? &, also, what god? Those are some of the reasons the argument fails.
I have a problem with anyone who presumes to know the mind of god. God, by my definition, is beyond anything rational. God is found in the irrational. In Pascal's Wager I must accept the irrational premise that I would go to hell if I do not believe in that god. His premise is that if I pretend to believe, it would keep me from eternal damnation. That concept mocks the omniscient attribute of god. I feel, if I accept the insurance policy as a protection, god will know me as a great pretender.
Omots
Level 7
Aug 6, 2018
2
Whatever you may choose, it should be between you and your deity, not between you and some definition of a god that some other group, or a book or an individual attempts to impose ... agreed? The whole point for Pascal was, it seems to me, about 'faking it 'til you make it' in accepting the Roman Catholic god, not any competing definition a deity.
@pnfullifidian It has been many years since my definition of God took shape. You are right about it being a choice. I choose to no longer waste my time contemplating a relationship with something that is irrational. That is the relationship I have. I think Pascal went from being an agnostic to being a Roman Catholic. I went from being a fundamentalist to an atheist. I went from knocking on doors to persuade people, to not interfere with a person's support system. If there is a sin, it is to define a deity.
@Omots You and I appear to have a similar journey ... may I 'steal' this excellent point?
"If there is a sin, it is to define a deity."
Peace,
PN
@pnfullifidian I am flattered. If it helps. In Mississippi, it is Peace, Love, and Chicken Grease. My gallbladder hurts just thinking about that.
The trouble is with this argument that humans always ascribe human thoughts and actions to what God would think or do. Because God is a human construct those who try to persuade us that he exists are starting from a flawed base. Surely God who is all knowing would know that we were only saying we believe in him to hedge our bets, then he would be wrathful and cast us out....after all he considers falsehood to be a sin. No matter what way you put this, Pascal’s wager is living a lie if you don’t believe in God, so must be rejected on grounds owing it to ourselves to only hold to views that we actually believe in.
,
,
Marionville
Level 10
Aug 6, 2018
1
Enjoy being online again!
Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.Create your free account
Share this post
Categories
Agnostic does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.