If Belief in God is +EV

[Mempho]

, actually ifinately +EV, and all you have to do to be saved is to pray for salvation with sincerity, why don't more people do it?

They could do it in their own homes with noone watching or knowing about the act....therefore, there would be no embarassment. They could stand up and continue on with whatever they were doing at the time since that is not a prerequisite for requesting salvation.

If they don't believe in God anyway, why would this simple request change things. They could simply open their minds and choose to believe in God long enough to pray sincerely.

If God does not exist, nothing about their life will change anyway, correct?

If God does exist, and starts to create wonderous things in the requestor's life, he or she has just made more than all of the money in the world.

It seems to me that if one can't lose, then a person's refusal says something else entirely....What does it say?

***EDIT*** Apparently, Pascal's Wager is covered everyday. I did not intend to make a repetitive post here, so, my apologies***

[chezlaw]

cos its not +ev as discussed many times.

chez

[Trantor]

[ QUOTE ]
, actually ifinately +EV, and all you have to do to be saved is to pray for salvation with sincerity, why don't more people do it?

[/ QUOTE ]
Easy peasy....cos you can't choose what you believe in. Try and believe the moon is made of cheese for 5 mins..you can't do it. If i give you £5 to do it and so it is +ev to do it...you still can't do it. And that is why.

[purnell]

[ QUOTE ]
actually ifinately +EV, and all you have to do to be saved is to pray for salvation with sincerity, why don't more people do it?


[/ QUOTE ]

It's becase honest people can't "pray with sincerity" to a god in which they do not believe.

edit: damn, you guys are quick.

[Aytumious]

[ QUOTE ]
cos its not +ev as discussed many times.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

A variation of Pascal's Wager seems to pop up nearly every day in here.

They keep thinking if they slightly rephrase it we might finally 'get' it.

[Mempho]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
cos its not +ev as discussed many times.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

A variation of Pascal's Wager seems to pop up nearly every day in here.

[/ QUOTE ]

My greatest apologies. I normally post about poker on the other boards but I got sucked in here today. I did not mean to make a repetitive post.

[Aytumious]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
cos its not +ev as discussed many times.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

A variation of Pascal's Wager seems to pop up nearly every day in here.

[/ QUOTE ]

My greatest apologies. I normally post about poker on the other boards but I got sucked in here today. I did not mean to make a repetitive post.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not a problem really. I just find it interesting that the same argument is brought up nearly every day by theists when it is not even a very good argument to begin with.

[Lestat]

What if YOU chose the wrong religion and it turns out Allah is the God you should be praying to? So every night after you're finished praying to the Christian God, you better throw in some prayers to Allah just to be safe. While you're at it, there are other religions and Gods you might as well hedge your bets with.

There are very good reasons not to get bogged down in unfounded beliefs.

[Mempho]

[ QUOTE ]
What if YOU chose the wrong religion and it turns out Allah is the God you should be praying to? So every night after you're finished praying to your Christian God, you better throw in some prayers to Allah just to be safe. While you're at it, there are other religions and Gods you might as well hedge your bets with.

There are very good reasons not to get bogged down in unfounded beliefs.

[/ QUOTE ]

Lestat, the only problem is that most religions require you to follow their religion exclusively. One of the Ten Commandments forbode this under the law, so this would not be possible.

[maurile]

Can we put a refutation of Pascal's wager in a FAQ for this forum?

[Lestat]

Two sarcasms don't make a right. /images/graemlins/laugh.gif

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
cos its not +ev as discussed many times.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

A variation of Pascal's Wager seems to pop up nearly every day in here.

[/ QUOTE ]

My greatest apologies. I normally post about poker on the other boards but I got sucked in here today. I did not mean to make a repetitive post.

[/ QUOTE ]

No problem, it does come up. A stronger argument is that practising christianity is +ev, it's basically the same but avoids the easy put down that you can't chose your beliefs.

Still not +ev though /images/graemlins/wink.gif

chez

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
What if YOU chose the wrong religion and it turns out Allah is the God you should be praying to? So every night after you're finished praying to the Christian God, you better throw in some prayers to Allah just to be safe. While you're at it, there are other religions and Gods you might as well hedge your bets with.

There are very good reasons not to get bogged down in unfounded beliefs.

[/ QUOTE ]

Isn't Allah going to punish you the same whether or not you are a christian, all that matters is you're not Islamic.

So unless you're thinking of converting, the fact that allah might be the true god is irrelevent to Pascals wager.

chez

[David Sklansky]

"Isn't Allah going to punish you the same whether or not you are a christian, all that matters is you're not Islamic.

So unless you're thinking of converting, the fact that allah might be the true god is irrelevent to Pascals wager."

chez

Oh my God! Do you realize that you just parrotted the point I made to you elsewhere as to why "you can't help what you believe" is the stronger anti Pascal argument?

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
"Isn't Allah going to punish you the same whether or not you are a christian, all that matters is you're not Islamic.

So unless you're thinking of converting, the fact that allah might be the true god is irrelevent to Pascals wager."

chez

Oh my God! Do you realize that you just parrotted the point I made to you elsewhere as to why "you can't help what you believe" is the stronger anti Pascal argument?

[/ QUOTE ]
Sometimes I wonder?! /images/graemlins/confused.gif Weak as the 'you can't help what you believe argument is' it at least offers an implausible refutation of Pascals wager. The allah argument makes no difference one way or the other. Surely you must realise that?

If there wasn't an argument that showed there is an infinite downside of taking the bet that is a result of taking the bet, then Pascals wager would be +ev for just about everyone.

chez

[KeysrSoze]

Hmm, "You can't help what you believe" is a nice logical and philosophical answer, but what floats my boat is picturing in my mind with glee the people who make their "can't lose! +EV!" choice then get to the Pearly Gates and meet the Baal/Set/Pazuzu triumvirate in charge. I guess I'm just vindictive that way.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
Hmm, "You can't help what you believe" is a nice logical and philosophical answer

[/ QUOTE ]
Trouble is its not correct. Suppose someone doesn't believe the alleged double slit effect. If they want to believe it then they can take steps that are likely to lead to a change in their belief (especially if the effect is real)

I've given in another thread an explanation as to why its a very weak refutation of Pascals wager, I'd be very happy if anyone can explain where I've gone wrong. here (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=&Number=3757449&page=2&view=colla psed&sb=5&o=&fpart=1)