Johnny Skeptic

Message to rhutchin: Consider the following from Pascal's 'Pensees'.

“There is, indeed, an infinite distance between the certainty of winning and the certainty of losing, but the proportion between the uncertainty of winning and the certainty of what is being risked is in proportion to the chances of winning or losing. And hence if there are as many chances on one side as on the other you are playing for EVEN ODDS [emphasis mine], [NOT probabilities in favor of the Bible being true as most Christians believe, which puts you in a distinct minority among Christians]. And in that case the certainty of what you are risking is equal to the uncertainty of what you may win; it is by no means infinitely distant from it. Thus our argument carries infinite weight, when the stakes are finite in a game where there are EVEN CHANCES [emphasis mine] [even chances are most certainly NOT what Jesus and the disciples talked about] of winning and losing and an infinite prize to be won.�

To accept Pascal’s Wager would be the same thing as believing that if a coin is tossed the odds are greater that it will land on heads than on tails when you know that such is not the case. Such a notion is illogical, irrational, unreasonable, and based soley upon self-interest.

Although Pascal was not aware of it, his arguments were not really based upon “even chances.� Rather, they were based upon his own self-interest. Consider the following hypothetical scenario: A powerful being showed up on earth during Pascal’s lifetime. The being claimed to be the creator of the universe. He appeared to have what Christians believe are supernatural powers. He said that he eventually planned to send everyone to hell. He then left the earth and did not return during Pascal’s lifetime. Now then, rhutchin, you can rest assured that out of Pascal’s own self-interest, he would have bet that the powerful being was an imposter in spite of the fact that he has seen the powerful being’s supernatural powers firsthand, although he most certainly did not see Jesus’ supernatural powers firsthand.

So you would choose belief no matter how minimal the odds, right?

I sent this post to a friend of mine who is a local college professor. He has an IQ of 173. He scored 1560 on the SAT, including 800 in the verbal section. He has two master's degrees, one in philosophy, and one in humanities. He said "Now you've got it! As I said last week, Pascal's wager DOES NOT DEAL WITH PROBABILITIES! This rhutchin fellow really does not know what he is talking about."

Sauron

This is simply not true. There is no default scenario that requires a person to believe something.

And please do not confuse "belief" that my car will run tomorrow with "belief" in a deity. The latter is faith, the former is not.

Wiploc

But what if it's betting no god that gets you tortured for eternity? Then there is everything to gain by not believing stupid stuff, and everything to lose by believing it.

crc

enemigo

No it doesn't. You have not proven that there are any zero potential options. The only way for there to be a zero potential option is if it is impossible for a god to exist who would simultaneously reward that option and punish all other options. You can't prove that such a god doesn't exist anymore than I can prove that YHWH doesn't exist. Therefore there are no zero potential options.


Here you are equivocating again. Do you not understand that "believing that not believing in God provides escape from eternal torment," is not the same as accepting that it is possible that not believing in God could provide a means of escape? The former is a belief, the latter is not a belief position in any comparable sense. If it is possible for nonbelief to provide escape, then it is not a "zero potential option."

Believing that nonbelief has the same potential as belief, is not the same as choosing to stick with nonbelief because you actually think that your nonbelief is facilitating an escape from an actual, existing threat of eternal torment.


I hold that it is possible for any possible position to provide escape, because I can't prove otherwise. Can you?


Furthermore,can you prove with absolute certainty that there aren't multiple simultaneously existing gods, each threatening you with eternal torment if you don't fulfill their requirements, where the fulfillment of one god's requirements wouldn't provide escape from the threat posed by another god?

If one is to adopt your uncertainty principle, then polytheism would be the obvious result. Polytheism is the most beneficial choice because if you choose to believe in only one god, you are still at risk of every other one of those other possible threats. So the more potential gods you appease, the less risk you take. And reducing risk is what this is all about, right?

rhutchin

As originally conceived, the Wager posed two options, A and ~A, where A was belief in God and ~A was nonbelief in God. The purpose for believing in God was to escape eternal torment with the ~A position providing no escape from eternal torment. I suspect there is a proof to the effect that for any given A, ~A exists but I do not know where it might be found.

If it is possible for both God Y and God Z to exist where only one can exist, then either one or the other can be true. That does not exclude other options that might be hypothesized including the negatives of the two gods. The inability of a person to prove that a position does not exist does not mean that it cannot exist.

There is no equivocation here. We have the situation where it is proposed that X can provide escape from eternal torment, where X can be (1) belief in God, (2) nonbelief that facilitates escape from an actual, existing threat of eternal torment, or (3) any other belief, conviction, hunch, etc that one then chooses to act upon. If a person thinks, accepts, or whatever terminology you want to use, that nonbelief in God will provide escape from eternal torment and that person acts on that position as if it were true, then he has expressed a belief in that position that he does not express toward any other position. It, then, becomes part of his belief system.

That’s fine. However, one can always hypothesize the negative of that position, i.e., it is possible for no possible position to provide escape from eternal torment. The Wager would lead a person to pursue those options that he "believes" offer some positive non-zero potential for him to escape eternal torment.

Even if were possible that there could be multiple simultaneously existing gods (as in Greek mythology), it is likely that one would dominate. However, ultimately the person must determine the validity of any god on the basis of the information that is available to him.

Only if polytheism is a tenable position. In the case of the Biblical god, the one who professes to believe in Him must reject all other gods.

Johnny Skeptic

Message to rhutchin: Consider the following from Pascal's 'Pensees'.

“There is, indeed, an infinite distance between the certainty of winning and the certainty of losing, but the proportion between the uncertainty of winning and the certainty of what is being risked is in proportion to the chances of winning or losing. And hence if there are as many chances on one side as on the other you are playing for EVEN ODDS [emphasis mine], [NOT probabilities in favor of the Bible being true as most Christians believe, which puts you in a distinct minority among Christians]. And in that case the certainty of what you are risking is equal to the uncertainty of what you may win; it is by no means infinitely distant from it. Thus our argument carries infinite weight, when the stakes are finite in a game where there are EVEN CHANCES [emphasis mine] [even chances are most certainly NOT what Jesus and the disciples talked about] of winning and losing and an infinite prize to be won.�

To accept Pascal’s Wager would be the same thing as believing that if a coin is tossed the odds are greater that it will land on heads than on tails when you know that such is not the case. Such a notion is illogical, irrational, unreasonable, and based soley upon self-interest.

Although Pascal was not aware of it, his arguments were not really based upon “even chances.� Rather, they were based upon his own self-interest. Consider the following hypothetical scenario: A powerful being showed up on earth during Pascal’s lifetime. The being claimed to be the creator of the universe. He appeared to have what Christians believe are supernatural powers. He said that he eventually planned to send everyone to hell. He then left the earth and did not return during Pascal’s lifetime. Now then, rhutchin, you can rest assured that out of Pascal’s own self-interest, he would have bet that the powerful being was an imposter in spite of the fact that he has seen the powerful being’s supernatural powers firsthand, although he most certainly did not see Jesus’ supernatural powers firsthand.

So you would choose belief no matter how minimal the odds, right?

I sent this post to a friend of mine who is a local college professor. He has an IQ of 173. He scored 1560 on the SAT, including 800 in the verbal section. He has two master's degrees, one in philosophy, and one in humanities. He said "Now you've got it! As I said last week, Pascal's Wager DOES NOT DEAL WITH PROBABILITIES! This rhutchin fellow really does not know what he is talking about."

enemigo

But I'm not arguing for believing that nonbelief "will." I'm arguing that it potentially could, given the proper circumstances, and that it therefore is not a "zero potential option."

But I'm not acting that on the position that nonbelief is actually allowing me to escape. I'm saying that since the potential for belief to provide escape can't be shown to be greater than the potential for nonbelief to provide escape, that no meaningful risk analysis can take place, and therefore I am stuck in my initial state of nonbelief, neither affirming nor denying the actual existence of any gods. Again, this is not because I am choosing to believe that I'm actually escaping eternal torment, but because of the failure of risk analysis to be able to provide any meaningful assessment of risk.


But given my premise that every possible position holds non-zero potential, then what good is the Wager? It doesn't narrow the choices at all. You're saying that all it can tell me is that I must pursue every possible position.


Prove it.


I agree.


Well if I am to make a proper risk analysis, don't I need to know which positions are tenable first? Prove that polytheism is untenable, otherwise you must appease as many gods as you can.

rhutchin

The key conclusion that Pascal makes is this, "Thus our argument carries infinite weight, when the stakes are finite in a game where there are EVEN CHANCES of winning and losing and an infinite prize to be won."

Here is Pascal's argument leading up to this statement. He is using the picture of betting to illustrate his point.

Let's suppose a person offers you a $1 million lottery ticket for free that has a 50% chance of being the winner. Would you accept it? Of course you would. Now suppose you had to pay for that ticket. What price would you be willing to pay? In theory, you would be willing to pay up to $500,000 for a ticket with a 50% chance of winning. Instead of $1 million, let's now make the prize an infinite reward. How much would you then be willing to pay. In theory, you would pay an infinite price. Thus, Pascal's epiphany and declaration, "Thus our argument carries infinite weight,... If a person is willing to pay an infinite price to gain an infinite reward where the chances are 50% that he will win, how much more should he be willing to pay a finite price for an infinite prize (regardless of the chances of winning).

So, Pascal concludes, a person who is only required to give up some finite amount to gain an infinite prize would clearly pay that price and bet on the infinite prize.


If your friend has said, "Pascal's wager DOES NOT DEAL WITH PROBABILITIES!" and this is my position also (meaning that I agree with him), how does he then conclude that, "This rhutchin fellow really does not know what he is talking about." I don't understand his reasoning. You seem to be advocating that the Wager deals with probabilities which your friend is telling you is a bogus position.

rhutchin

You have the same information that I have. You have the Bible making the argument for the Biblical god plus whatever documents exist for Zeus or other gods and other options. Assume all are tenable and do your own evalaution to discover which you think is the right option to choose. If you determine to follow the Biblical god, then you are required to appease only Him.

enemigo

Oh... so you are going to send Mageth and I the money?