Wayne Delia

Indeed! This makes his argument all the more ridiculous. "You must give in to the uncertainty of eternal torment and seek to avoid it. But your counter-argument is no good, because it's uncertain."

WMD

Mageth

I can't speak for you, but I simply lack belief in god(s). Absolutely no "faith" is required for me to do so. There is insufficient evidence to support belief in god(s), therefore I lack belief in god(s). In addition, the arguments for God's existence are all seriously flawed. Overall, the "case for God" is too weak to rationally support belief in God. Therefore, I lack belief in God. This takes no faith whatsoever. In light of the weakness of the case for God, it would take faith to believe in God. However, it takes none to lack belief in God.

And trying to scare me into believing in God based on some ancient superstition, a superstition which has even less going for it than the notion of God's existence, is pointless. Again, your argument is no different than the hellfire-and-brimstone sermons I heard when I was a kid. It's an emotional argument, and an irrational argument. I base my (lack of) belief on rationality.

BTW, and again, you may be *right* in that there is a God but *wrong* about what that God is like. Again, it is possible that God would not subject people to eternal torment. If that is so, you are incurring risk in believing that He would. The rational position for you to take, assuming you "by faith" believe in God, is to not believe that God would subject people to eternal torment.

Wayne Delia

Pascal is wrong about infinity in a very obvious way.

The Wager specifically asserts "Let us weigh the gain and the loss in wagering that God is... If you gain, you gain all; if you lose, you lose nothing. Wager, then, without hesitation that He is."

What Pascal is referring to by "if you lose" is that the Wager is lost; that is, the proposition that "God is" (that God exists) turns out to be wrong.

There are actual tangible and intangible costs associated with believing. One of those you've pointed out involves paying tithes, or ten percent of pre-tax income. Whether God exists or not is irrelevant; these costs are still in effect.

Where Pascal makes his mathematical mistake is in the case that the Wager is lost; that God does not exist. In that case, there is no infinite reward, nothing which would tend toward infinity to make the relative cost "reduce to zero." So, all we are left with is the costs of believing in the failed proposition that God exists, and the associated costs involved in that failed belief.

You indicated the costs include a tenth of your income for the duration of your belief; unless you are permanently unemployed, that is certainly not a case of "you lose nothing."

Other intangible losses include wasted time, energy, and intellectual integrity - "believing something you know ain't true" (Mark Twain).

While I am professionally trained in mathematics, I make no claim to be superior in mathematical ability to Pascal - yet I know enough to point out a very obvious error he made. It is not the case that "you lose nothing" when the Wager is lost.

WMD

Barefoot Bree

The biggest loss of all, WMD, is simple happiness, lost to a life lived in fear. The fear of eternal torment which keeps believers from enjoying life to the fullest is one of the foulest mental tricks ever devised by mankind.

rhutchin

Only until one chooses which god to serve. Once that choice has been made, one would have as much assurance of escaping eternal torment as that god is claimed to provide. Those who have made no choice either live in fear or denial.

rhutchin

The losses you describe are finite and only could be exposed if God does not exist. If God does exist, then the losses are as nothing compared to the infinite gain. The problem is that one does not know the outcome until they die and then it is too late to do anything.

Following your logic, a person would not save money for retirement or buy life insurance because of the lost income that they cannot spend today.

Mageth

I do not live in fear of superstitions; I do not fear the superstition that you do.

To act as you wish us to act, to fear the superstition and thus act on it, one first has to believe the superstition is to be taken seriously. Taking superstitions seriously, acting on superstitions, is irrational.

That's the nice thing about the rational approach to superstition; you don't have to live in fear of the superstition, or to act irrationally in response to the superstition.

There is a heapin' mound of uncertainty implied in that statement.

This points directly to the problem of choosing from among the uncountable possible gods, if one "chooses to believe" in a god. Your "assurance of escaping eternal torment" is very thin indeed. You've chosen a slot on the roulette wheel; your chances are the same as anyone else's.

Further, you've "chosen to believe" in a God that will subject people to eternal torment before you evaluate the possible Gods. You're incurring risk in doing so. If you want to avoid risk, believing in a God that would do no such thing might well be the better option. There's certainly uncertainty there.

And again, I have just as much assurance of escaping eternal torment in my unbelief as you do in your belief. Maybe more, since you're running the risk of believing in a God that would subject people to eternal torment, which may damn you.

Wow.

I live in neither fear nor denial. I do not fear superstitions. I do not "deny" whatever it is you think I deny.

rhutchin

You believe that--
1. There is insufficient evidence to support belief in God.
2. The arguments for God's existence are all seriously flawed.
3. The "case for God" is too weak to rationally support belief in God.

All these depend on your intellect and reasoning ability for their validity. You are a man of great faith.

rhutchin

You are a man of greater faith than I had supposed earlier. You must be a very religious man.

Mageth

Again, you're assuming a God for which eternal "loss" or eternal "gain" are to be obtained according to what one believes about that God.

And again, you're ignoring the possibility that believing in a God that would allow or subject people to eternal suffering based on whether or not they believed in it may cause you "infinite loss" or deny you "infinite gain".

And ignoring the possibility that telling people that God will subject them to "eternal loss" or eternal torment for lack of belief in said God may cause you "infinite loss" or deny you "infinite gain". It is possible that God considers that act the worst sort of "sin".

And ignoring the possiblity of the possible God that may reward unbelief.

And ignoring the possibility that your choice of one particular God from among the countless possible Gods may cause you "infinite loss" because you've happened to choose the wrong God.

If that is a problem for me, then it is also a problem for you.

If I must face uncertainty, then so much you.

Your position provides you no more assurance than mine.