Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Mageth · 04-17-2003, 04:01 PM

Maybe 7thangel is already one of the undead - hence his refutation of K's Wager! He doesn't want us all wearing garlic!

7thangel · 04-17-2003, 04:47 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by BRO3886
Now , as far as I understand pascal , the argument goes :

Bet on either god or not-god

If god exists then the god-bet wins a prize of a stay in the swanky resort of heaven , the not-god-bet goes to hellsville.

If not-god is true , the loser (god-bet) loses nothing and the winner (not-god-bet) wins nothing.

Therefore it is better to play-it-safe and be a god-bet.

k's arguement :

Bet on either vampire or not-vampire

If vampires exist then the garlic-wearer wins safety from vampires whilst the not-garlic-wearer risks eternal walking hell.

If vampires don't exist (not-vampire) then the garlic-wearer loses nothing (remember that we are using pascals logic where the positive bet requires no more effort than simply betting) and the not-garlic-wearer wins nothing.

Therefore it is better to play-it-safe and be a garlic-wearer.

Please expain how k has misunderstood pascals reasoning. Remember , we are looking at the reasoning , not the value of the subject at hand.

Unfortunately, reason takes values. I cannot believe in God and the vampire at the same time. I cannot hope of eternal life, and not hoping of eternal life at the same time.

What I understand is that Pascal wager was made because there is no evidence of God. Pascal "values" the existence of God over the non-existence of God.

Also, the wager is about gaining something and losing nothing, which does not fit to what K seem to imply.

K · 04-17-2003, 05:47 PM

7thangel:

Quote:

I cannot believe in God and the vampire at the same time.

But Pascal's wager is not about evaluating beliefs relative to each other. It is about protecting yourself against the existence of these supernatural entities.

You could certainly believe in God to protect yourself from Hell if God should happen to exist AND you could also wear garlic to protect yourself from vampires if they should happen to exist.

Quote:

I cannot hope of eternal life, and not hoping of eternal life at the same time.

You don't have to. But you can hope to go to Heaven AND hope you don't get bitten by a vampire. These certainly don't seem mutually exclusive to me.

Quote:

What I understand is that Pascal wager was made because there is no evidence of God. Pascal "values" the existence of God over the non-existence of God.

Why should I be convinced that my eternal soul is in danger simply because Pascal "values" the existence of God? Why should you believe that you may soon join the ranks of the undead bloodsuckers just because somebody may "value" the existence of vampires?

Quote:

Also, the wager is about gaining something and losing nothing, which does not fit to what K seem to imply.

That's a pretty small objection. Maintaining the status quo is certainly a gain relative to sinking into the abyss of vampirism (for most people I would guess). How about the peace of mind that comes from knowing you will never become a vampire?

John Page · 04-17-2003, 05:52 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by 7thangel
Also, the wager is about gaining something and losing nothing, which does not fit to what K seem to imply.

I thought it was obvious that by wearing garlic round your neck one stood a significant risk of attack by French people.

The corollary

of this extended result of K's Wager, when applied to that of Pascal, and assuming that Pascal is a Christian, is a significant risk of attack by Moslems.

Swings and roundabout on the balance sheet of life, if you ask me (which you didn't).

Cheers, John

Slavik91 · 04-17-2003, 06:42 PM

I recommend this . It should cover why the "wager" is just a sucker bet.

__________________
I am a cat eating tree

Amaranth · 04-17-2003, 07:07 PM

Quote:

I cannot believe in God and the vampire at the same time. I cannot hope of eternal life, and not hoping of eternal life at the same time.

Why can't someone believe in God and a vampire at the same time? I don't think I'd be too far off in saying numbers of people did such in the past, considering one of the typical methods of warding off vampires is a cross.

On a side note - Slavik, I demand the immediate return of my cat.

Amaranth

Stew · 04-17-2003, 07:09 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by John Page
I thought it was obvious that by wearing garlic round your neck one stood a significant risk of attack by French people.

Oooh yeah!

We may have here the first inkling of a proof that all French people are vampires...

Albert Cipriani · 04-17-2003, 07:34 PM

Fishbulb says:

Quote:

perhaps God is offended by those who believe without reason and intends to punish those who hold theological beliefs, whether or not they happen to be true, that are based on faith and dogma. So it is at least feasible that you could wind up in Hell because you were a believer, and could have escaped this fate by accepting only what could be rationally demonstrated.

If we were without history, you would be correct. And Pascal's bet would be as absurd as ya'll make it out to be. But you must deny or ignore history to treat the choice you have before you with the disdain that you do.

Does authority mean nothing to you? Or is it only selectively non-operative? Fact is, the authoritative testimony of history is on the side of God, not atheism. Only if we could be cleansed of that history should we be so open-minded as to the theological "what-ifs" you propose. -- Sincerely, Albert the Traditional Catholic

K · 04-17-2003, 07:49 PM

Albert Cipriani:

Quote:

If we were without history, you would be correct. And Pascal's bet would be as absurd as ya'll make it out to be.

Are you really implying that an absurd bet is reasonable simply because there is a history of people believing in the absurdity?Why did Pascal ignore the rich histories of all the other gods. Why do you dismiss the history associated with belief in vampires?

John Page · 04-17-2003, 08:01 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Albert Cipriani
Fact is, the authoritative testimony of history is on the side of God, not atheism.

Hi Albert!

Which god and what is your history testimony here (as if I need to ask).

Cheers, John

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

04-17-2003, 04:01 PM	#11
Mageth Contributor Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Deep in the heart of mother-lovin' Texas Posts: 29,689	Maybe 7thangel is already one of the undead - hence his refutation of K's Wager! He doesn't want us all wearing garlic!

04-17-2003, 06:42 PM	#15
Slavik91 Regular Member Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Canada Posts: 169	I recommend this . It should cover why the "wager" is just a sucker bet. __________________ I am a cat eating tree

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.