Pascal's Wager

Pascal's Wager:
The wager has two possibilities,

You believe in God.
You do not believe in God.

Assuming God does exist
If you believed: you go to heaven and your gain is infinite.
If you didn't believe: You go to hell and your loss if infinite.

Assuming God does not exist
If you believed: your loss (the investment in your mistaken belief) is finite and therefore negligible. Plus, you'd never know you were wrong.
If you didn't believe: your gain is finite and therefore negligible.

Pascal hoped to have demonstrated that the only prudent course of action is to believe in God. However, is basing your "faith" on this reasoning wrong? Would God accept it? Also, has this gambit made you reconsider your position on God? Maybe it is best just too, play it safe.

Such model assumes a position of God within a religion, and not a ''unversal'' god, which may exist independent of all religions and institutions.

In that sence, thus, I does not really change my stance from what has been said.

Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
Pascal's Wager:
The wager has two possibilities,

You believe in God.
You do not believe in God.

[b]Assuming God does exist
If you believed: you go to heaven and your gain is infinite.
If you didn't believe: You go to hell and your loss if infinite.

Assuming God does not exist
If you believed: your loss (the investment in your mistaken belief) is finite and therefore negligible. Plus, you'd never know you were wrong.
If you didn't believe: your gain is finite and therefore negligible.

Pascal hoped to have demonstrated that the only prudent course of action is to believe in God. However, is basing your "faith" on this reasoning wrong? Would God accept it? Also, has this gambit made you reconsider your position on God? Maybe it is best just too, play it safe. [/B]

Do not waist your life hedging your bets. There are more understandings of God then the two above.

What if God is the universe, and heaven only a state of mind?

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Do not waist your life hedging your bets. There are more understandings of God then the two above.

What if God is the universe, and heaven only a state of mind?

This wager was formed at a time when the only concept of God was the monotheistic all power God that the bible describes...but the wager can apply to Islam and Jews also. However, your points are valid.

Only when two choices are equal in probability, it makes sense to go with the allegedly safe bet. However, if the choice of a god is revealed to be a great deal less likely than the choice of no god, then god ceases to be the safe bet. Or, if both are equally likely, then neither is actually a safe bet.

Pascal assumes that we already know which god we should believe in. If you happen to follow the right religion, you may indeed go to heaven and avoid hell. However, if you choose the wrong religion, you’ ll still go to hell. If you pick no religion then the true god might not mind that people don’ t bother believing in it when they use rational reasons. Thus, not picking at all might be the safest bet. You just cannot know.

Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
Pascal's Wager:
The wager has two possibilities,

You believe in God.
You do not believe in God.

[b]Assuming God does exist
If you believed: you go to heaven and your gain is infinite.
If you didn't believe: You go to hell and your loss if infinite.

Assuming God does not exist
If you believed: your loss (the investment in your mistaken belief) is finite and therefore negligible. Plus, you'd never know you were wrong.
If you didn't believe: your gain is finite and therefore negligible.

Pascal hoped to have demonstrated that the only prudent course of action is to believe in God. However, is basing your "faith" on this reasoning wrong? Would God accept it? Also, has this gambit made you reconsider your position on God? Maybe it is best just too, play it safe. [/B]

You could spend eterninty analyzing the way that Renaissance and Enlightenment scientists and thinkers tried to justify god. Sorry, but none of the one that I've seen have real validity.

Leaving the definition of "God" open for the moment, I prefer my kinder, gentler version...

You might as well believe, because if you're wrong you'll never know it. Period.

Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
Pascal's Wager:
The wager has two possibilities,

You believe in God.
You do not believe in God.

[b]Assuming God does exist
If you believed: you go to heaven and your gain is infinite.
If you didn't believe: You go to hell and your loss if infinite.

Assuming God does not exist
If you believed: your loss (the investment in your mistaken belief) is finite and therefore negligible. Plus, you'd never know you were wrong.
If you didn't believe: your gain is finite and therefore negligible.

Pascal hoped to have demonstrated that the only prudent course of action is to believe in God. However, is basing your "faith" on this reasoning wrong? Would God accept it? Also, has this gambit made you reconsider your position on God? Maybe it is best just too, play it safe. [/B]

Tough question. I mean Pascal was obviously right - following God is the most logical and prudent course of action. I don't think the intent behind it is evil or wrong per say, it's just presents following God from a more logical perspective.

To the more rationale minded person, this presentation of God might actually work quite well. To the emotive minded people it probably wouldn't. I consider myself more on the emotive side as opposed to the logical one - so a simple "follow me and be saved" or "if you don't follow me and you will die" approach wouldn't work that well in the long term. At some point I'd ask questions like "why should I follow you? or "Do you really love me?" or questions similar to that.

So I think at some point as logical as Pascal's theory may sound, many like myself need to have an additional element to continue with their walk and faith. Specifically a more emotive, intimate, and a personal aspect of God needs to be presented before them. For me and many others, that more emotive aspect of God primarily represents Christ and the cross, although I'm sure it varies between other individuals and their personal life experiences with God.

You believe in Cuthulu
You do not believe in Cuthulu
I'll make the addendum that Cuthulu requires you to sacrifice babies.

Assuming Cuthulu does exist
If you believed and killed babies: you go to heaven and your gain is infinite.
If you didn't believe and didn't kill babies: You go to hell and your loss if infinite.

Assuming Cuthulu does not exist
If you believed and killed babies: your loss (the investment in your mistaken belief) is finite and therefore negligible. Plus, you'd
If you didn't believe and didn't kill babies: your gain is finite and therefore negligible

And that is why Pascal's Wager doesn't work. Because you can put anything in place of "god" it isn't any different. It can be used to prove that any belief no matter how insane is the best descision.

If we spend too much time worrying about what happens in the next life (if there is indeed one), we lose the life we're in. And that, my friends, is not a good thing

Originally posted by Strangelove
If we spend too much time worrying about what happens in the next life (if there is indeed one), we lose the life we're in. And that, my friends, is not a good thing

Point taken, but one must devote some thought into it. Otherwise, you don't know why you do what you do.

Originally posted by chithappens
Point taken, but one must devote some thought into it. Otherwise, you don't know why you do what you do.

Didn't say spend your entire life. No one walks around all damn day debating on metaphysical issues. I said put some sort of time understanding why you do the things you do. Even if you are an atheist, you will consider some reason to respect or not respect someone's autonomy. Some attribute that to religion, others don't but I don't feel like giving a good example. Just roll with me on this one.

I agree with you to some degree but no one should just disregard it all and let whatever happens, happen. I have no proofs of the soul; not sure I believe in it, but that doesn't mean I'll never consider certain things at all. I'll come back to it in time, but I'm not going to say "**** it" cause I don't know with certainty. That's a cop out no better than just believing in something simply because you fear damnation forever and a disrespect to self.

Originally posted by Strangelove
....no, you really don't. I prefer to live in the present, not spend my whole life worrying about what comes next. It's a gigantic waste of time. What ever happens, happens

Obsessing over the future not good. Not caring about the future, not good either. Solution, plan the course for life day by day -- more than that is too much for anyone to really handle. I mean, according to scriptures - even God takes things one day at a time.

Forget his wager... I choose to be sacrificed by the Aztecs; then i get to be reborn as a butterfly. Top that christianity!

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
You believe in Cuthulu
You do not believe in Cuthulu
I'll make the addendum that Cuthulu requires you to sacrifice babies.

[b]Assuming Cuthulu does exist
If you believed and killed babies: you go to heaven and your gain is infinite.
If you didn't believe and didn't kill babies: You go to hell and your loss if infinite.

Assuming Cuthulu does not exist
If you believed and killed babies: your loss (the investment in your mistaken belief) is finite and therefore negligible. Plus, you'd
If you didn't believe and didn't kill babies: your gain is finite and therefore negligible

And that is why Pascal's Wager doesn't work. Because you can put anything in place of "god" it isn't any different. It can be used to prove that any belief no matter how insane is the best descision. [/B]

It works on a simple-logic child-like level. It's essentially like telling your kid if they obey you they'll get rewarded, and if they disobey they'll get punished. It's a rather simple premise - and works on some, particularly the naive. Problem being is that it can be used to mislead people who are very naive into doing such evil things as you've mentioned above. And logically of course, whether the intent of the teacher is good or evil, at some point most individuals lose some of that naivety, and start asking the "why" questions.

That's when the teacher has to go into full detail about why your actions are right and good one's, as well as allow those they are teaching to decide for themselves what's right and good.(at least that's what a loving teacher would do.)

Originally posted by chithappens
Didn't say spend your entire life. No one walks around all damn day debating on metaphysical issues. I said put some sort of time understanding why you do the things you do. Even if you are an atheist, you will consider some reason to respect or not respect someone's autonomy. Some attribute that to religion, others don't but I don't feel like giving a good example. Just roll with me on this one.

I agree with you to some degree but no one should just disregard it all and let whatever happens, happen. I have no proofs of the soul; not sure I believe in it, but that doesn't mean I'll never consider certain things at all. I'll come back to it in time, but I'm not going to say "**** it" cause I don't know with certainty. That's a cop out no better than just believing in something simply because you fear damnation forever and a disrespect to self.

Originally posted by Thundar
Obsessing over the future not good. Not caring about the future, not good either. Solution, plan the course for life day by day -- more than that is too much for anyone to really handle. I mean, according to scriptures - even God takes things one day at a time.

Originally posted by Strangelove
What I mean when I say thinking about it is a waste of time is concerned solely with whatever happens after this life. I do in fact plan for my life in terms of what career I want, spouse, children, etc. But I prefer to let whatever happens after I die happen. I can't control it, so why worry? I choose to not really believe in anything. And according to Dante, if I stick with that, and there is a God, I'll just end up in the first circle of Hell, which isn't all that bad, the way he puts it.

Agreed. 😎 I thought that was what you meant but just wanted to be sure.

Mindship's Wager (whereas "God" is defined more along the lines of the perennial philosophy):

If God exists, then in death...
Theists will know they were right.
Atheists will be blissfully surprised.

If God does not exist, then in death...
Theists will never know they were wrong.
Atheists will never know they were right.