Talk:Pascal's Wager

(Difference between revisions)
Jump to: navigation, search
(Add the die analogy?)
 
(Evil/unconventional god)
Line 1: Line 1:
 
Do you think it might help to mention the idea of "if you roll a die, what are the chances of a 6 or a not-6?" which seemed to be a good way to get the point across that the argument is unbalanced?  Obviously this would need to be inserted at the correct point and explained a little more eruditely than what I've just described. [[User:Blu Matt|Blu Matt]] 17:50, 31 July 2006 (MST)
 
Do you think it might help to mention the idea of "if you roll a die, what are the chances of a 6 or a not-6?" which seemed to be a good way to get the point across that the argument is unbalanced?  Obviously this would need to be inserted at the correct point and explained a little more eruditely than what I've just described. [[User:Blu Matt|Blu Matt]] 17:50, 31 July 2006 (MST)
 +
 +
== Evil/unconventional god ==
 +
 +
Is there a need to mention the possibility of a god who rewards unbelievers and punishes believers? Such a god would be consistent with the fall-back response of theologians "we cannot understand the ways of god", so it is feasible that such a god would want to reward atheists. This god would not need to be malevolant, merely inactive (mirroring deism with regards to creation), and wanting to reward those who take a rational approach to their beliefs.
 +
 +
The new table would thus be the following
 +
 +
{| border="1" cellpadding="8" cellspacing="0" style="margin:1em 2em;"
 +
! Table of Payoffs
 +
! Believe in God
 +
! Don't believe in God
 +
|- align="center"
 +
! align="left" | God doesn't exist
 +
| 0
 +
| 0
 +
|- align="center"
 +
! align="left" | Legalistic religious god exists
 +
| +∞ (heaven)
 +
| −∞ (hell)
 +
|- align="center"
 +
! align="left" | Anti-conventional god exists
 +
| −∞ (heaven)
 +
| +∞ (hell)
 +
|}
 +
 +
The mere possibility of such a god makes the expected outcomes for each column undefined, but more importantly, equal.

Revision as of 21:34, 11 September 2009

Do you think it might help to mention the idea of "if you roll a die, what are the chances of a 6 or a not-6?" which seemed to be a good way to get the point across that the argument is unbalanced? Obviously this would need to be inserted at the correct point and explained a little more eruditely than what I've just described. Blu Matt 17:50, 31 July 2006 (MST)

Evil/unconventional god

Is there a need to mention the possibility of a god who rewards unbelievers and punishes believers? Such a god would be consistent with the fall-back response of theologians "we cannot understand the ways of god", so it is feasible that such a god would want to reward atheists. This god would not need to be malevolant, merely inactive (mirroring deism with regards to creation), and wanting to reward those who take a rational approach to their beliefs.

The new table would thus be the following

Table of Payoffs Believe in God Don't believe in God
God doesn't exist 0 0
Legalistic religious god exists +∞ (heaven) −∞ (hell)
Anti-conventional god exists −∞ (heaven) +∞ (hell)

The mere possibility of such a god makes the expected outcomes for each column undefined, but more importantly, equal.

Personal tools
Namespaces
Variants
Actions
wiki navigation
IronChariots.Org
Toolbox