K

Do any proponents of Pascal's Wager find the following reasoning convincing?


If I'm wrong and vampires don't exists, then I have lost nothing except wearing a ring of garlic around my neck.

However, if you're wrong, then you may be attacked by a vampire and forced to walk this earth as an undead preying upon other helpless human victims.


Kind of makes you want to start wearing a garlic necklace, doesn't it?

Zadok001

:notworthy :notworthy :notworthy

Cute, very cute. Not sure if that works, but it's cute.

Theli

Not really...
Perhaps the vampires are drawn to the galic, and will attack anyone who wares it. It's not less likely than your example.
So... once again it's better to follow reason than fear.

fishbulb

By the tame token, 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.

But, just as there are no vampire myths that hold that vampires are attracted to garlic, there are no god myths that hold that God is repulsed by those who forsake the rational minds he gave them. Pascal's wager is based on the assumption that either one particular myth about God is true, or every myth and possible myth is false, at least with respect to one's fate after death.

K

Theli:

Or perhaps no vampires exist, but one of the half a gazillion other evil supernatural creatures does. And maybe that creature loves garlic. That's one of the reasons I used this (strictly tongue-in-cheek) example. It works (and falls on its face) very much like Pascal's Wager does. I think fishbulb said it best.

Theli

Excalcy, if god exists he obviously has done alot to hide himself for us. It would be more likely for him to hate people who preach of his existence.
Pascal's Wager is a great example of special pleading, that's for sure.

7thangel

Good thing Pascal doesn't think like you are. Pascal is not thinking of mere garlic and vampires, I now see the reason why you misunderstood him.

In any case, whether believing or unbelieving of something we are ignorant of, we, for a certain, lose some will because of our decisions. But Pascal is referring to life when he speak about gaining and losing.

And should I wear a garlic necklace? I also don't know if tomorrow I die, should I also make myself merry, and drink a lot, and look for women around? Hmmmnnn.....fortunately I still have my brain intact.

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.

Theli

It doesn't matter. If his wager is to be considered reasonable then K's wager must also be.
To not do so is special pleading.

K

7thangel:

But that brain may be cursed with an overpowering need to drink human blood for all eternity if you don't wear your garlic .