Pascal's Wager

[ QUOTE ]
What is Zeus going to do to me when I choose to worship the wrong God?

Am I better off or worse off than someone who didn't choose to worship a god at all?

[/ QUOTE ]

We should examine all deities and after-life-judges to see which has the most +EV (best reward if belived in, worst punishment if not), and then believe in that one. From what I know, the Christian God is pretty high on the list...

[jthegreat]

[ QUOTE ]
While I understand you can learn these without attending Church, how can you say this is a waste of time?


[/ QUOTE ]

Because you can learn moral philosophy without attending church and not have it polluted by all the religious trappings.

[bearly]

it is not a wager....................b

[bearly]

ok, does anyone see why it is not a wager?

[ QUOTE ]
We should examine all deities and after-life-judges to see which has the most +EV (best reward if belived in, worst punishment if not), and then believe in that one. From what I know, the Christian God is pretty high on the list...

[/ QUOTE ]

Now, I'm no expert on all religions, but it seems as if christianity has the worst punishment. I might stand corrected on that, but it's probably up there on the 'worst punishment' list. Islam is probably number one on the best reward. Eternal bliss AND virgins.

[ZeeJustin]

[ QUOTE ]
As long as there's a chance of an infinite upside then there's an infinite upside.

[/ QUOTE ]

If there is a chance of an infinite downside (hell), this is not true.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
As long as there's a chance of an infinite upside then there's an infinite upside.

[/ QUOTE ]

If there is a chance of an infinite downside (hell), this is not true.

[/ QUOTE ]

The upside is what you can get when you win. If there's a non-infintesimal chance of winning an infinite amount then there a chance of winning an infinite amount. Hence the upside is infinite.

Maybe we mean something different by upside.

My first post was that the problem with the wager is there is also an infinite downside. i think this is the easiest refutation as argueing that there is an infintesimal chance of an infinite upside, that makes the upside finite, is tough.

chez

[SonofJen]

The main objection, philosophically speaking, is that the argument is circular. The payoffs already assume a god exists but the wager asks whether or not a god exists.

[Malachii]

[ QUOTE ]
The payoffs already assume a god exists but the wager asks whether or not god exists.

[/ QUOTE ]
My understanding is that Pascal wasn't interested in if there's a God or not - merely proving that belief in God is positive expected value.

[ReadyEddie]

Coincidentally I'm writing a paper on this for my philosophy class.

I dont agree with the wager, for reasons already stated here, basically:
- belief isnt the only prerequisiste for the "payoff"
- if the wager is followed this is not true belief, and you wont get paid off unless God isn't omnicient
- the wager assumes that you are picking the right God

I think the logic of the wager parallels to some extent the logic of the christians that are believers out of fear.

so im proof reading my paper and i actually caught myself using "positive expected value" in it. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]