Talk:Pascal's Wager
(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.
