A Return To Pascals Wager

[Svartalf]

I lay it thick, but I prefer it when things are painfully clear.

[Cormac]

I lay it thick, but I prefer it when things are painfully clear.

Please, would you be so good as to repeat that good sir? I can't quite grasp your meaning.

[Collector1337]

Why is believing, but being wrong a negative outcome?

Wel, your argument is predicated upon the god being benevolent, and not punitive.

So, why would non-belief result in a negative outcome?

Because that's not the point of Pascal's Wager.

The point is that only belief or non-belief matters. Not following a certain religion or picking the "correct" god.

It eliminates all other variables and boils it down to belief or non-belief.

In other words, even for a non-punitive god, at least as far as Pascal's Wager is concerned, belief still matters... it's the only thing that matters.

Not so. There are some belief systems where non-believers and those of other faiths are judged on their actions.

In fact, think of any combination of belief, actions, exclusivity, whether or not to wank, etc. and there is a religion tailor-made for you somewhere!

Besides, why is heaven such a positive result - spending eternity singing praises to teh lawd sounds like my idea of hell! Throw me in with the gamblers, drknards and whores anytime!

This is a complete dodge.

Why are you still talking about religion? Yes, of course some belief systems judge this and that, but I'm not talking about that, so it makes no sense why you are. I'm talking about Pascal's Wager.

"Whether or not to wank."

Again, still talking about religion. I'm talking about the wager. Why do you keep changing the subject? Why can't you differentiate between the wager and religion? It's not hard.

At least in your last line, you are finally at least talking a little about the wager, but still not really. We're not talking about how lame or boring heaven is, or how awesome hell is because that's apparently where all the whores are according to you.

None of that has anything to do with what we're talking about. You whole post is a complete deflection.

[Collector1337]

Why is believing, but being wrong a negative outcome?

Wel, your argument is predicated upon the god being benevolent, and not punitive.

So, why would non-belief result in a negative outcome?

Because that's not the point of Pascal's Wager.

The point is that only belief or non-belief matters. Not following a certain religion or picking the "correct" god.

It eliminates all other variables and boils it down to belief or non-belief.

In other words, even for a non-punitive god, at least as far as Pascal's Wager is concerned, belief still matters... it's the only thing that matters.

Pascal's wager requires a punitive god,

No it doesn't.

because without it, it wouldn't matter at all whether somone believed or not.

Yes it would. That's the point of Pascal's Wager.

You have to be able to differentiate between the actions or "sins" that a punitive god would punish you for (this is religion) and a non-punitive god who's only "judgement" is whether you believe or not... hence Pascal's Wager. "Judgement" based on PURE belief or non-belief, that's it.

The wager is all about limiting your risk of eternal damnation.

It's not really about "limiting" anything. It's heaven or hell. Not "limiting" or maximizing one or the other.

Why would a non-punitive god punish you for not believing in it/him/her?

Maybe all he wants is for you to believe he exists, and that's the only thing there is any "judgement" about.

[Collector1337]

And why would a benevolent, non punitive deity, punish you for worshipping the wrong god by mistake of for worshipping it the wrong way?

It's as if you didn't read any of this thread.

I can't believe we're still on the "wrong god" bullshit.

Do I really have to walk you through this, or can you just read the last couple pages of this thread?

[Collector1337]

And why would a benevolent, non punitive deity, punish you for worshipping the wrong god by mistake of for worshipping it the wrong way?

Precisely the point.

For Pascal's wager to have any meaning, the god has to be punitive.

No, it's not the point. That argument is bullshit and god does not have to be punitive.

It seems as if many of you are so stuck in your thinking, you can't get out of it. You're stuck "thinking inside the box" as it were.

[Xamonas Chegwé]

And why would a benevolent, non punitive deity, punish you for worshipping the wrong god by mistake of for worshipping it the wrong way?

Precisely the point.

For Pascal's wager to have any meaning, the god has to be punitive.

No, it's not the point. That argument is bullshit and god does not have to be punitive.

It seems as if many of you are so stuck in your thinking, you can't get out of it. You're stuck "thinking inside the box" as it were.

It looks like it's you that's doing that. You have narrowed down the wager to a single (personally chosen) case where there is a god that only want you to believe. That was NOT the initial premise of the wager, which was based on 17th century Catholicism!

[rainbow]

You can believe in god without considering yourself part of a specific religion.

Also depending if you believe god exists, that he must also be a punitive god, which isn't necessarily true.

Perhaps if god exists, then he is aware of how influenced by culture humans are, and he would also be aware that religion is more a product of culture, than the belief in the existence of god.

So, if god exists, he's aware that he's the only one, so the specific religion isn't really relevant (because that's a product of human culture), but the belief in his existence is.

So you say. However, the vast majority of believers in religion in the world would disagree. So why are you right and they are all so wrong? Serious question. Take your time.

It is possible that the vast majority of believers in religion might not be entirely correct.

So how is their disagreement relevant?

[Svartalf]

a) the wager presuppose that at least one of them is perfectly correct
b) One of the wager's problems is of course determining which one it is, an obstacle that Pascal bypassed by presupposing that Catholicism was it. (but what if the proddies, or worse, the muhammedans are the ones that have it? You still go to hell)

[Cormac]

Homer gets it.

[Collector1337]

And why would a benevolent, non punitive deity, punish you for worshipping the wrong god by mistake of for worshipping it the wrong way?

Precisely the point.

For Pascal's wager to have any meaning, the god has to be punitive.

No, it's not the point. That argument is bullshit and god does not have to be punitive.

It seems as if many of you are so stuck in your thinking, you can't get out of it. You're stuck "thinking inside the box" as it were.

It looks like it's you that's doing that. You have narrowed down the wager to a single (personally chosen) case where there is a god that only want you to believe. That was NOT the initial premise of the wager, which was based on 17th century Catholicism!

I'm asking you to take the wager at face value. I'm asking you to ignore religion for a second, which apparently no one can do. I'm not talking about following a religion. I'm talking about the mere belief of god's existence. Pretend for a second that's all it takes. What's the harm?

I'm setting a goal post, and instead of answering the question where the goal post is, it immediately gets moved with the idiotic "wrong god" argument.

Pascal's Wager is literally freshman year of college, Philosophy 101 shit here, and the so-called rationalists can't entertain the simplest, freshman philosophical discussion?

What a fucking joke.

Believing in the existence of god doesn't stop you from jerking off or anything else your little heart desires. Following a specific religion does.

[Collector1337]

Homer gets it.

You must be a big fan of the Simpsons to know that Homer is definitely the brightest guy on the show.

[Cormac]

And why would a benevolent, non punitive deity, punish you for worshipping the wrong god by mistake of for worshipping it the wrong way?

Precisely the point.

For Pascal's wager to have any meaning, the god has to be punitive.

No, it's not the point. That argument is bullshit and god does not have to be punitive.

It seems as if many of you are so stuck in your thinking, you can't get out of it. You're stuck "thinking inside the box" as it were.

Pascal's issue was how to minimise risk.

No consequence if you die without believing if there is no god.

Consequence if you die without believing and god exists.

What is the consequence?

Why would there be consequences if god is not punitive?

[Cormac]

Homer gets it.

You must be a big fan of the Simpsons to know that Homer is definitely the brightest guy on the show.

Homer is a natural philosopher. A diamond in the rough.

[Xamonas Chegwé]

And why would a benevolent, non punitive deity, punish you for worshipping the wrong god by mistake of for worshipping it the wrong way?

Precisely the point.

For Pascal's wager to have any meaning, the god has to be punitive.

No, it's not the point. That argument is bullshit and god does not have to be punitive.

It seems as if many of you are so stuck in your thinking, you can't get out of it. You're stuck "thinking inside the box" as it were.

It looks like it's you that's doing that. You have narrowed down the wager to a single (personally chosen) case where there is a god that only want you to believe. That was NOT the initial premise of the wager, which was based on 17th century Catholicism!

I'm asking you to take the wager at face value. I'm asking you to ignore religion for a second, which apparently no one can do. I'm not talking about following a religion. I'm talking about the mere belief of god's existence. Pretend for a second that's all it takes. What's the harm?

I'm setting a goal post, and instead of answering the question where the goal post is, it immediately gets moved with the idiotic "wrong god" argument.

Pascal's Wager is literally freshman year of college, Philosophy 101 shit here, and the so-called rationalists can't entertain the simplest, freshman philosophical discussion?

What a fucking joke.

Believing in the existence of god doesn't stop you from jerking off or anything else your little heart desires. Following a specific religion does.

Can one choose to believe? One can certainly choose to adhere to religious tenets and such, but you are suggesting actually choosing to believe based on a philosophical argument that there may be something to gain. Can you do that? I doubt I could.