This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Live
PTR
10.2.7
PTR
10.2.6
Beta
Reverse Pascal's Wager
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
TheMediator
Basically, here's my opinion on how Pascal's Wager should be correctly applied -
If God does not exist, then we should lead a happy life, rather than waste it on meaningless religious pursuits.
If God does exist, in terms of an omnipotent, omni-benevolent figure, we know that something that is benevolent wouldn't inflict eternal punishment on someone, so all souls would be allowed into paradise. Therefore our actions here are meaningless, and there is nothing wrong with attempting to pursue a happy life here in the mean time rather than spend it on religious devotion to this God.
Ultimately, the correct conclusion to be drawn from Pascal's Wager is that we should attempt to lead happy lives, rather devote ourselves to religion, because either we blow our one chance at life, or it doesn't matter either way.
Post by
Squishalot
The big flaw in your argument, of course, is the concept that God is an omni-benevolent figure that wouldn't inflict eternal punishment on you. That's an additional assumption that you're making that Pascal didn't use. So his argument is a more generalised version, whereas you could argue that yours only fits certain religions.
But, in any event, if we take the benevolent religions into consideration, Pascal's argument would be as follows:
Living as if God exists & an omni-benevolent God exists: +infinite
Living as if God exists & a God exists: +infinite
Living as if God exists & God doesn't exist: ?
Living as if God doesn't exist & an omni-benevolent God exists: +infinite
Living as if God doesn't exist & a God exists: ?
Living as if God doesn't exist & God doesn't exist: ?
Here, we still have a position where the likelihood of getting infinite benefit is higher by living as if God exists.
Post by
TheMediator
Alright, then, let's say that God isn't an omni-benevolent being. He could be apathetic, and not care either way. Let's say he's malevolent. Then he is going to hurt you either way. The possibilities of infinite goodness, infinite nothing, infinite evil cancel each other out, and all you're left with is how well you live your life here.
While there could be a God that rewards you for praying, there could also be a God that punishes you for blind faith and not using reason. Again positive gain is canceled out by negative.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
No matter how many variables you add on, the single sticking point remains.Living as if God exists & a God exists: +infinite
versus
Living as if God doesn't exist & a God exists: ?
Post by
Squishalot
So really, it depends on your personal assessment of what the likelihood of said Gods are. On the face of it, given the scriptures around and their teachings, 'evidence' points to there being a God that rewards you for praying.
It's worth noting that you can live a happy yet religious life. Those two things aren't mutually exclusive either.
No matter how many variables you add on, the single sticking point remains.Living as if God exists & a God exists: +infinite
versus
Living as if God doesn't exist & a God exists: ?
That's only on the basis that God will reward you for praying. If God punishes you for being blinded by faith, that offsets it.
Post by
Deepthought
No matter how many variables you add on, the single sticking point remains.Living as if God exists & a God exists: +infinite
versus
Living as if God doesn't exist & a God exists: ?
You are assuming that the "God" refered to is the "God" you worship. What you have failed to include in your post is the idea that there is a "God" but you instead worship a different, non-existing "God".
Post by
TheMediator
So really, it depends on your personal assessment of what the likelihood of said Gods are. On the face of it, given the scriptures around and their teachings, 'evidence' points to there being a God that rewards you for praying.
It is only evidence that people are hopeful if a God exists, he rewards their prayer. There isn't any evidence towards the motives of a God if one exists.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
No matter how many variables you add on, the single sticking point remains.Living as if God exists & a God exists: +infinite
versus
Living as if God doesn't exist & a God exists: ?
You are assuming that the "God" refered to is the "God" you worship. What you have failed to include in your post is the idea that there is a "God" but you instead worship a different, non-existing "God".
It has nothing to do with any specific "God." The entire thought experiement is based on the premise that you can't know anything.
Either a benevolent God exists, or a benevolent god doesn't exist. Nothing exists outside of that.
Either you live as if he exists, or you live as if he doesn't exist. Nothing exists outside of that.
Post by
152018
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
Are we using the Christian God?
...
Seriously people. Read the gorram argument -_-
Post by
Squishalot
It has nothing to do with any specific "God." The entire thought experiement is based on the premise that you can't know anything.
Either a benevolent God exists, or a benevolent god doesn't exist. Nothing exists outside of that.
Either you live as if he exists, or you live as if he doesn't exist. Nothing exists outside of that.
That's the point. There is a probability associated with a Dawkins God existing, that would reward you for not believing in religion, and punish you for believing.
...
/ignore for being off-topic.
Post by
152018
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Deepthought
It has nothing to do with any specific "God."I never said it did. My point was, that Pascal's Wager isn't a very good argument because live as if he existsdoesn't mean anything. How, exactly, do you go about living as if a God exists? For you to get your "reward of +infinite", you have to follow that standard, but there is no way to know what it is.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
It has nothing to do with any specific "God." The entire thought experiement is based on the premise that you can't know anything.
Either a benevolent God exists, or a benevolent god doesn't exist. Nothing exists outside of that.
Either you live as if he exists, or you live as if he doesn't exist. Nothing exists outside of that.
That's the point. There is a probability associated with a Dawkins God existing, that would reward you for not believing in religion, and punish you for believing.
He would fall under the category "benevolent god doesn't exist." So he's already factored in.
live as if he existsdoesn't mean anything.
Certain things can be derived from a benevolent god, first and foremost benevolence.
Those 4 conditions cover everything.
Post by
Squishalot
It has nothing to do with any specific "God." The entire thought experiement is based on the premise that you can't know anything.
Either a benevolent God exists, or a benevolent god doesn't exist. Nothing exists outside of that.
Either you live as if he exists, or you live as if he doesn't exist. Nothing exists outside of that.
That's the point. There is a probability associated with a Dawkins God existing, that would reward you for not believing in religion, and punish you for believing.
He would fall under the category "benevolent god doesn't exist." So he's already factored in.
No he's not. A Dawkins God would reward you for living as if God doesn't exist. We haven't allocated a +infinite for "living as if God doesn't exist & a benevolent god doesn't exist". A Dawkins God would exactly offset the reward/penalty for a benevolent god.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
No he's not. A Dawkins God would reward you for living as if God doesn't exist. We haven't allocated a +infinite for "living as if God doesn't exist & a benevolent god doesn't exist". A Dawkins God would exactly offset the reward/penalty for a benevolent god.
Just to clarify, when I'm using the word "benevolent" I should probably should be saying "just."
A just God rewards those who live well (morally) and punishes those who don't.
So either there is a just God or there isn't is no different than saying either X is 1 or it's not 1. There are no other possibilities. A Dawkins God could be a 3.985. That's still "not 1."
Post by
Deepthought
Certain things can be derived from a benevolent god, first and foremost benevolence.So why do I have to do anything, then? It's a self defeating argument. If a benevolent god exists, I get to go to heaven(or equivelent) no matter what. If he doesn't, I lose nothing either way. Even if he does exist, I have no reason to change my behaviour.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
Certain things can be derived from a benevolent god, first and foremost benevolence.So why do I have to do anything, then? It's a self defeating argument. If a benevolent god exists, I get to go to heaven(or equivelent) no matter what. If he doesn't, I lose nothing either way. Even if he does exist, I have no reason to change my behaviour.
I'm not using benevolence in the way you think I am. The Christian God is "benevolent" but people still go to hell.
Post by
Deepthought
I'm not using benevolence in the way you think I am.
Enlighten me.The Christian God is "benevolent" but people still go to hell.Is it wrong that I read those as air quotes?
Edit: Hey, when did we start talking about a specific "God"?
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
I'm not using benevolence in the way you think I am.
Enlighten me.
Having the disposition to do good.
The Christian God is "benevolent" but people still go to hell.Is it wrong that I read those as air quotes?
No idea what air quotes are. They're scare quotes with the purpose of distinguishing between how I'm using the word and how you just used it in the post before me..
Edit: Hey, when did we start talking about a specific "God"?
When you started using benevolence differently than me? Is my train of thought really that hard to follow.
You claim that a benevolent God send everyone to "heaven." I say no, and provide a specific counter.
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.