Talk:Pascal's Wager

(Difference between revisions)
Jump to: navigation, search
(Evil/unconventional god)
Line 27: Line 27:
 
The mere possibility of such a god makes the expected outcomes for each column undefined, but more importantly, equal.
 
The mere possibility of such a god makes the expected outcomes for each column undefined, but more importantly, equal.
 
[[User:Gary|Gary]] 21:35, 11 September 2009 (CDT)
 
[[User:Gary|Gary]] 21:35, 11 September 2009 (CDT)
 +
 +
==Momergil's rewording==
 +
I guess its really up to the IronChariots administrators like Dcljr, but I'm not sure i agree with your rewording. Despite being in the form of a wager, the argument still consists of premises, and leads to a conclusion. And it can be expressed in a syllogism. For instance (and bear with me, i'm sure it could be worded better.
 +
 +
::p1. payoff is good, punishment is bad.
 +
::p2. if god is real you receive infinite punishment for disbelief or infinite payoff for belief
 +
::::a. if you believe you go to heaven for eternity.
 +
::::b. if you do not believe you go to hell for eternity.
 +
::p3. if god is not real you don't really loose or gain anything.

Revision as of 07:28, 8 December 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 −∞ (hell) +∞ (heaven)

The mere possibility of such a god makes the expected outcomes for each column undefined, but more importantly, equal. Gary 21:35, 11 September 2009 (CDT)

Momergil's rewording

I guess its really up to the IronChariots administrators like Dcljr, but I'm not sure i agree with your rewording. Despite being in the form of a wager, the argument still consists of premises, and leads to a conclusion. And it can be expressed in a syllogism. For instance (and bear with me, i'm sure it could be worded better.

p1. payoff is good, punishment is bad.
p2. if god is real you receive infinite punishment for disbelief or infinite payoff for belief
a. if you believe you go to heaven for eternity.
b. if you do not believe you go to hell for eternity.
p3. if god is not real you don't really loose or gain anything.
Personal tools
Namespaces
Variants
Actions
wiki navigation
IronChariots.Org
Toolbox