Pascal's Wager

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
There are everal possible arguments.
1) The chance that god exists could be infinitesmal.
2) There is not necessarily an infinite upside to believing in god (this could be for several reasons. Perhaps you believe in the wrong god. Perhaps you won't necessarily get into heaven. Perhaps you worship the correct god and still go to hell anyway).

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
2) There is not necessarily an infinite upside to believing in god (this could be for several reasons. Perhaps you believe in the wrong god. Perhaps you won't necessarily get into heaven. Perhaps you worship the correct god and still go to hell anyway).

[/ QUOTE ]

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

(ignoring the possibilty of the chance being infinitesmal which is your other point).

chez

[r3vbr]

god can punish infinitly someone who believes in gods..

maybe god wants people to not think about god..
if someone mentions god/religion it makes him mad

maybe his divine plan for us is to see us develop our technology, or see how fast we can develop our logic/reasoning into understanding the universe
maybe he sees religious people as distractions to improving our technology (wich they are) and he will punish every one of them on eternal flame...

therefore everyone who every touched a bible goes to hell and everyone who's a egocentric, logical, rational, atheist, will recieve god's sympathy and approval, and be rewarded.

im not saying this is true, its one of the infinite possibilities of god. and just as likely as any other explanation

[Superfluous Man]

[ QUOTE ]
Does anyone have arguments against Pascal's Wager?

[/ QUOTE ]
Denis Diderot had a good one: " Any Imam could just as well reason the same way."

[BluffTHIS!]

As a Catholic, like Pascal, I believe that the wager is an arguement/proposition that is mostly sound but there are some rational criticisms although some seem highly speculative or manipulative of religious doctrine (a human saying what a god should do based upon their own human understanding for example and not on revelation) and which I would reject. Some of these are:

1) The wager posits an infinite reward that is not appropriate to man who is a finite creature capable only of understanding and enjoying finite rewards and punishments;

2) There should be more choices in the wager. For example God "should" reward differently depending upon varying degrees of belief or unbelief;

3) The wager implicitly posits the Christian God and its conception of Him being true when the wager could logically be applied to any mono or poly-theistic religion;

4) Taking such a wager does not really constitute true belief and would be unlikely to be rewarded even if Christianity is true.

[Azazoth]

Not only is this not a ridiculous idea, it's the basis of many H.P. Lovecraft stories. Worship an ancient, dark God, and get devoured when he rises.

[RJT]

Kid,

[ QUOTE ]
2) Plus, discarding reason during your lifetime in favor of theist myths may also be viewed as a real loss in that you only had one life -- just this one chance -- to use your brain to its fullest but you chose to fill it with silly beliefs.

[/ QUOTE ]

Please define what the opportunity cost is here?

RJT

[BluffTHIS!]

[ QUOTE ]
Please define what the opportunity cost is here?


[/ QUOTE ]

David would say that it is that you are not expending the thought and activity you put into your faith into finding a cure for some disease, a way to redirect hurricanes, or some other scientific activity of benefit to mankind, since he seems to feel that faith and such endeavours are mutually exclusive for the most part.

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?

[RJT]

Right. And even he were correct that they are mutually exclusive and if I were atheist - -I’d seriously look into KKF’s idea - not the no tax thing, rather the hanging in Thailand for a spell idea first.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Please define what the opportunity cost is here?


[/ QUOTE ]

David would say that it is that you are not expending the thought and activity you put into your faith into finding a cure for some disease, a way to redirect hurricanes, or some other scientific activity of benefit to mankind, since he seems to feel that faith and such endeavours are mutually exclusive for the most part.

[/ QUOTE ]

I guess part of the thought and activity of faith is attending Church. When you attend Church, you listen to the Bible. Important lessons and values are taught throughout the Bible. While I understand you can learn these without attending Church, how can you say this is a waste of time?