MRM

No you must add alternative scenarios right from the start, not in a "second step" otherwise your calculation is flawed -





You are wrong with 1 and 4 - in (1)you don't get killed in every case - because you may take a safe route, and the gang will miss you, even if you are not aware of the gang. Your chance to take the wrong route is 1/4 or 25 %

In case 4 you are aware of the gang, but you don't know where it's lurking. So your chance to take the wrong route is still 1/4 or 25 % - the wager don't help, your chances are exactly the same- The only diference between case 1 and 4 is that you are maybe more in panic if you are aware of the gang.

The only thing that would help would be additional information ( where is the gang lurking ) but unfortunaly you don't have it ...

And point 2 ( you believe in a gang that doesn't exists ) is maybe bad too, because you are in panic and may cause an accindent because of this, or in case of religion you may do stupid thing in order to appease a god that doesn't exists ( think of all the extremists )




Unbelieve is maybe not the problem - that is what you don't take into account.



You don't have understand the problem. If for a potential god honesty is more importen then believe, then you are screwed with the wager, because applying the wager is to some extend dishonest.

Well if a witness in a court tells things that are inconsistent and erroneous than this is indeed an evidence. An evidence that the witness is lying.

JPD

Just hilarious! Or can you genuinely not see that this thread in its entirety has been about this very thing? You seem to be under the impression that the wager has value but we don't think it has any at all. I think that you need to worry about the fact that you regard it as having value. If you are going to use it then clearly you have some important questions that you need to ask yourself, such as what on earth are you doing considering it in the first place, if your belief that you have a place as one of the elect is guaranteed? If you aren't using it then why are you trying to convince us that we should use it? If it isn't good enough for you what makes you think it should be good enough for us?

knotted paragon

We've been through this rhutchin -- 1700+ messages into this thread and I'm beginning to wonder if we might need to add yet another problem with the wager: theists can't understand the problems with the wager.

Let's try another tact, see if it helps you understand.

Pascal states that it would be better to believe in a nonexistent god than to offend one that did exist. This statement avoids three things: Does a god exist? Does a faith-rewarding god exist? And, can belief be chosen?

When a person that has no belief in the supernatural (his name is Bob) considers this statement, it is illogical since gods do not exist as other than fictional entities. A fictional entity cannot reward or harm, so further contemplation of the statement becomes hypothetical. Now, let's look at the problems I mentioned, this time from Bob's perspective.

1. The wager fails to account for foundational beliefs.

- No attempt has been made to convince Bob that his default philosophical position of non-belief in the supernatural is invalid. Indeed, Pascal asks that Bob not consider any evidence. There is no chance that Bob will change his foundational belief in reality. Bob remains an unbeliever.

2. Pascal's own premise that god is infinitely incomprehensible cripples the wager. An infinite number of equally probable theologies about god render the wager useless as a tool to choose.

- Since god is infinitely incomprehensible, Bob realizes immediately that, when the potential pool of candidate theologies is infinite, the wager does him no good in trying to sort out a theology to believe in. Bob remains an unbeliever.

3. The theological doctrine of predestination renders the wager meaningless since reward is an arbitrary choice of god.

- If Bob considers the wager in light of predestination, he realizes that nothing he might do or believe would make any difference. He is still an unbeliever.

4. Megath's Hellish Wager negates the wager a priori based on Pascal's own premise that we cannot understand god.

- One (or maybe many) of the infinite number of gods that have an equal probability of existing actually makes it unwise for Bob to listen to Pascal. Bob's default unbelief is unaffected.

So you see rhutchin, Bob has remained rational and unemotional throughout his contemplation of the wager. He remains an unbeliever simply because no evidence has been presented that might convince him to change his view of reality.

You, rhutchin, complain that the bible would have convinced Bob otherwise - that it somehow has a special meaning or message that makes it more important than other books.

But you are wrong. That's not how Bob sees it. Bob sorts books differently than you do rhutchin. He has a big stack of books and magazines that claim things happen by magic, that beings exist who can do magic, that stepping on cracks might break his mother's back. The bible is just another book in his stack of fiction, no more important than Edith Hamilton's Mythology or the Koran, or his six year old daughter's worn out copy of An Illustrated Treasury of Read-Aloud Myths and Legends.

For Bob to make a decision in real life based on a threat from Loki in an old copy of the Avengers comicbook would be irrational. Wouldn't you agree rhutchin?

Ubercat

Rhutchin KNOWS the wager is meaningless, but he thought he could get in some cheap shots, and got stuck defending it when it was shot down. :grin: Now he's like a proud and stubborn pit bull. He WON'T let go of the stick, even though he's getting poked in the eyes, and kicked in the 'nads. Endless entertainment.

-Ubercat

JPD

I was just visualising a monkey trying to retrieve a melon from a cage that has holes too small to permit both melon and hands to pass through. The monkey loves the fruit so much that it would rather die of starvation, holding on to the fruit and enjoying the spectacle, than drop it and go off to find something else to eat. But I prefer the pitbull with the stick reference.

It doesn't matter how many times one is asked to provide refutations that are already in the thread saying "Here I am, I'm a refutation, and the words now following are the refutation itself so please read them", the assertion that the wager's shortcomings have not been looked at is mind-blowingly funny. Its just staggering! A man stands in a desert 3 inches from an enourmous fruit juice emporium, with cans, bottles and fruit in juicing machines from floor to roof, and says "I haven't drunk for three days. I'll never make it now."

rhutchin

The Wager provides a means for a person to look at an issue purely for the perspective of self-interest because it focusses entirely on the individual.

So, lets look at your question -- If a human tyrant demanded you obey his will on pain of unimaginable torment, would you?

I think even you would recognise that they are many unspecified factors that could come into play here so let's simplify the decision as much as possible by specificing the following (which we can then change later and see how our decision is affected) condition.

1. Obedience to the human tyrant does not harm others. Each person is threatened with torment as any other person regardless of that person's decision.

Purely based on one's self-interest, I think the rational decision is to obey the tyrant. Do you see a rationale for a different decision (without changing condition 1)?

Do you ever allow self-interest to enter into any of the decisions that you make? What factors would you allow to divert you from acting in your self-interest?

rhutchin

Don't get diverted by what Pascal did in applying the Wager. They key point that Pascal addresses is the rationality of a person who chooses to escape an infinite punishment. Whether the person should seek to escape an infinite punishment is the issue and not how the person would go about doing so.

Focus on the basic question -- Is it rational for a person to seek to escape an infinite punishment? Pascal provides a methodology for answering the question. Is Pascal's methodology irrational and is some other methodology better?

JPD

Let's see...

There is no evidence that God exists or that God does not exist.
There is no evidence that, if God exists, eternal torment is the punishment for non-belief.
There is no evidence that there is, or isn't, an afterlife existence.
There is no evidence that any given belief or non-belief will result in any particular outcome, if any outcome at all.
There is no evidence that there is none, one, a couple, a few, many, an infinity of Gods.
There is no evidence that any of those other possible Gods has or has not the power to punish an individual for believing in another God.

The wager pretends to know something that it cannot verify so the risk analysis is worthless. It says "Hey everyone, we're uncertain about certainty/uncertainty so you know, it's not a bad idea to believe something that has absolutely no guarantee whatsoever of enabling a positive afterlife outcome. That's great isn't it?"

And you can't see why Pascal's wager is as effective as a stick of celery for fending off a rampaging elephant?

JPD

It is not rational since belief in infinite punishment is not in any way rational. Only a fool would make what they deem to be a rational decision on the basis of absolutely no information whatsoever. If you believe that it is rational then you don't understand rationality at all.

rhutchin

The arguments that have been presented have ignored the Wager and raised issues that mean nothing a far as the Wager is concerned. Those who raise such issues then claim that their refusal to address the Wager means that they have won the debate. I am not convinced.

Maybe you could actually explain the arguments in context with the Wager and avoid the rabbit trails and other irrelevancies that people keep bringing up.