| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"" |
| Date: |
23 May 2007 02:30:11 AM |
| Object: |
Pascal's wager redefined |
Hello,
I have been thinking about Pascal's wager, something that I have
accepted in the past (in a modified form), but which I am now starting
to realise I have approached with some preconceived ideas about God
(for example, that he is necessarily just). This is my new version of
Pascal's wager. Please let me know if you see any illogical steps or
inconsistencies.
If God exists, He either:
=B7 desires a specific response from me; or
=B7 doesn't require any response from me.
If God requires a specific response from me, I can either:
=B7 respond to Him in the way he desires; or
=B7 not respond to Him in the way he desires.
After I die, there is a chance that God could either:
=B7 punish me; or
=B7 not punish me.
Possibilities:
=B7 God requires a specific response from me, which I satisfy. God
does not punish me.
=B7 God requires a specific response from me, which I satisfy. God
decides to punish me anyway.
=B7 God does not require any response from me, and doesn't punish me,
for whatever reason.
=B7 God does not require any response from me, and decides to punish
me, for whatever reason.
(Even if God does require a certain response from me, there is not
necessarily any
guarantee that if I provide that response, He will not decide to
punish me anyway)
If God does not exist, or if God cannot punish me after I die, then:
=B7 my response to God is irrelevant.
Therefore it would seem that if we don't know anything for sure about
God, we cannot say whether following him will benefit us or not in the
afterlife.
Any thoughts would be appreciated.
Thanks.
.
|
|
| User: "Llanzlan Klazmon the 15th" |
|
| Title: Re: Pascal's wager redefined |
23 May 2007 07:01:26 PM |
|
|
wrote in
news:1179905411.534287.54910@q66g2000hsg.googlegroups.com:
Hello,
I have been thinking about Pascal's wager, something that I have
accepted in the past (in a modified form), but which I am now starting
to realise I have approached with some preconceived ideas about God
(for example, that he is necessarily just). This is my new version of
Pascal's wager. Please let me know if you see any illogical steps or
inconsistencies.
If God exists, He either:
· desires a specific response from me; or
· doesn't require any response from me.
If God requires a specific response from me, I can either:
· respond to Him in the way he desires; or
· not respond to Him in the way he desires.
After I die, there is a chance that God could either:
· punish me; or
· not punish me.
Possibilities:
· God requires a specific response from me, which I satisfy.
God
does not punish me.
· God requires a specific response from me, which I satisfy.
God
decides to punish me anyway.
· God does not require any response from me, and doesn't punish
me,
for whatever reason.
· God does not require any response from me, and decides to
punish
me, for whatever reason.
(Even if God does require a certain response from me, there is not
necessarily any
guarantee that if I provide that response, He will not decide to
punish me anyway)
If God does not exist, or if God cannot punish me after I die, then:
· my response to God is irrelevant.
Therefore it would seem that if we don't know anything for sure about
God, we cannot say whether following him will benefit us or not in the
afterlife.
Any thoughts would be appreciated.
Thanks.
From the get go is that you are not accounting for the possibilty of
multiple gods. Or the single god punishes believers of wrong gods, or the
single god punishes believers for being too stupid to use their brains. The
main problem with the wager is that it is assuming its' conclusion.
Klazmon
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Pascal's wager redefined |
24 May 2007 01:45:59 AM |
|
|
On 24 May 2007 12:01:26 +1200, Llanzlan Klazmon the 15th
<Klazmon@llurdiaxorb.govt> wrote:
hbarrett@gmx.net wrote in
news:1179905411.534287.54910@q66g2000hsg.googlegroups.com:
Hello,
I have been thinking about Pascal's wager, something that I have
accepted in the past (in a modified form), but which I am now starting
to realise I have approached with some preconceived ideas about God
(for example, that he is necessarily just). This is my new version of
Pascal's wager. Please let me know if you see any illogical steps or
inconsistencies.
If God exists, He either:
· desires a specific response from me; or
· doesn't require any response from me.
If God requires a specific response from me, I can either:
· respond to Him in the way he desires; or
· not respond to Him in the way he desires.
After I die, there is a chance that God could either:
· punish me; or
· not punish me.
Possibilities:
· God requires a specific response from me, which I satisfy.
God
does not punish me.
· God requires a specific response from me, which I satisfy.
God
decides to punish me anyway.
· God does not require any response from me, and doesn't punish
me,
for whatever reason.
· God does not require any response from me, and decides to
punish
me, for whatever reason.
(Even if God does require a certain response from me, there is not
necessarily any
guarantee that if I provide that response, He will not decide to
punish me anyway)
If God does not exist, or if God cannot punish me after I die, then:
· my response to God is irrelevant.
Therefore it would seem that if we don't know anything for sure about
God, we cannot say whether following him will benefit us or not in the
afterlife.
Any thoughts would be appreciated.
Thanks.
From the get go is that you are not accounting for the possibilty of
multiple gods. Or the single god punishes believers of wrong gods, or the
single god punishes believers for being too stupid to use their brains. The
main problem with the wager is that it is assuming its' conclusion.
Klazmon
Ping: Duke to "Dumbass Demonstration" you are needed in the
auditorium. For our convenience and for the sake of the class please
refer to yourself only as "Sample Alpha"
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Uncle Vic" |
|
| Title: Re: Pascal's wager redefined |
23 May 2007 11:37:11 AM |
|
|
wrote:
Any thoughts would be appreciated.
Thanks.
Which god?
--
UV
.
|
|
|
| User: "Matt Silberstein" |
|
| Title: Re: Pascal's wager redefined |
23 May 2007 12:09:04 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 23 May 2007 09:37:11 -0700, in alt.atheism , Uncle Vic
<address@withheld.com> in
<MradnSr19Koq8MnbnZ2dnUVZ_tPinZ2d@inreach.com> wrote:
hbarrett@gmx.net wrote:
Any thoughts would be appreciated.
Thanks.
Which god?
Does a witch god weigh as much as a duck god?
--
Matt Silberstein
Do something today about the Darfur Genocide
http://www.beawitness.org
http://www.darfurgenocide.org
http://www.savedarfur.org
"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Pascal's wager redefined |
24 May 2007 01:41:17 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 23 May 2007 17:09:04 GMT, Matt Silberstein
<RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
On Wed, 23 May 2007 09:37:11 -0700, in alt.atheism , Uncle Vic
<address@withheld.com> in
<MradnSr19Koq8MnbnZ2dnUVZ_tPinZ2d@inreach.com> wrote:
hbarrett@gmx.net wrote:
Any thoughts would be appreciated.
Thanks.
Which god?
Does a witch god weigh as much as a duck god?
What about a henway?
Ping: Robyn! You are needed in the EAC auditorium!
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: Pascal's wager redefined |
24 May 2007 02:58:52 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 24 May 2007 01:41:17 -0500,
wrote:
- Refer: <ooca53di3tcncgvf0h7hipqra6rb8bkhas@4ax.com>
On Wed, 23 May 2007 17:09:04 GMT, Matt Silberstein
<RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
On Wed, 23 May 2007 09:37:11 -0700, in alt.atheism , Uncle Vic
<address@withheld.com> in
<MradnSr19Koq8MnbnZ2dnUVZ_tPinZ2d@inreach.com> wrote:
hbarrett@gmx.net wrote:
Any thoughts would be appreciated.
Thanks.
Which god?
Does a witch god weigh as much as a duck god?
What about a henway?
Ping: Robyn! You are needed in the EAC auditorium!
What are you doing with that kindling?
--
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Pascal's wager redefined |
24 May 2007 09:08:07 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 24 May 2007 17:28:52 +0930, Michael Gray
<mikegray@newsguy.com> wrote:
On Thu, 24 May 2007 01:41:17 -0500,
wrote:
- Refer: <ooca53di3tcncgvf0h7hipqra6rb8bkhas@4ax.com>
On Wed, 23 May 2007 17:09:04 GMT, Matt Silberstein
<RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
On Wed, 23 May 2007 09:37:11 -0700, in alt.atheism , Uncle Vic
<address@withheld.com> in
<MradnSr19Koq8MnbnZ2dnUVZ_tPinZ2d@inreach.com> wrote:
hbarrett@gmx.net wrote:
Any thoughts would be appreciated.
Thanks.
Which god?
Does a witch god weigh as much as a duck god?
What about a henway?
Ping: Robyn! You are needed in the EAC auditorium!
What are you doing with that kindling?
Preparing to give Robyn a warm welcome, of course.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: Pascal's wager redefined |
23 May 2007 06:45:48 AM |
|
|
On 23 May 2007 00:30:11 -0700, wrote:
- Refer: <1179905411.534287.54910@q66g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>
Hello,
I have been thinking about Pascal's wager, something that I have
accepted in the past (in a modified form), but which I am now starting
to realise I have approached with some preconceived ideas about God
:
Hold it right there.
Why the singular noun?
--
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "William Wingstedt" |
|
| Title: Re: Pascal's wager redefined |
03 Jun 2007 09:15:20 PM |
|
|
On 23 May 2007 00:30:11 -0700, wrote:
Hello,
I have been thinking about Pascal's wager, something that I have
accepted in the past (in a modified form), but which I am now starting
to realise I have approached with some preconceived ideas about God
(for example, that he is necessarily just). This is my new version of
Pascal's wager. Please let me know if you see any illogical steps or
inconsistencies.
If God exists
oops...that seems to be a problem right off the bat...
, He either:
=B7 desires a specific response from me; or
=B7 doesn't require any response from me.
Desire (the feeling that accompanies an unsatisfied state) is the rock
god creates that is too heavy for it to lift. A god is omni-satisfied
and has no desires. In order for a god to desire, it must forfeit it's
god-dom and then it is no longer a god. From there, there is no going
back, otherwise you'd have not-gods willing themselves into gods
constantly and I don't see a lot of that happening. As a matter of
fact, I don't see any gods around...
Similarly, what manner of god is it that requires things? A god has no
need for requirements.
If God requires a specific response from me, I can either:
=B7 respond to Him in the way he desires; or
=B7 not respond to Him in the way he desires.
A god cannot desire and is therefore not a god.
After I die, there is a chance that God could either:
=B7 punish me; or
=B7 not punish me.
After you die, you will not be. You will only exist as a memory in
those living that knew you or may occasionally flicker in some
recorded account of your life.
Possibilities:
=B7 God requires a specific response from me, which I satisfy. God
does not punish me.
=B7 God requires a specific response from me, which I satisfy. God
decides to punish me anyway.
=B7 God does not require any response from me, and doesn't punish me,
for whatever reason.
=B7 God does not require any response from me, and decides to punish
me, for whatever reason.
(Even if God does require a certain response from me, there is not
necessarily any
guarantee that if I provide that response, He will not decide to
punish me anyway)
If God does not exist, or if God cannot punish me after I die, then:
=B7 my response to God is irrelevant.
Therefore it would seem that if we don't know anything for sure about
God, we cannot say whether following him will benefit us or not in the
afterlife.
Any thoughts would be appreciated.
Thanks.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "satyr" |
|
| Title: Re: Pascal's wager redefined |
23 May 2007 08:04:10 PM |
|
|
On 23 May 2007 00:30:11 -0700, wrote:
Hello,
I have been thinking about Pascal's wager, something that I have
accepted in the past (in a modified form), but which I am now starting
to realise I have approached with some preconceived ideas about God
(for example, that he is necessarily just). This is my new version of
Pascal's wager. Please let me know if you see any illogical steps or
inconsistencies.
If God exists, He either:
· desires a specific response from me; or
· doesn't require any response from me.
If God requires a specific response from me, I can either:
· respond to Him in the way he desires; or
· not respond to Him in the way he desires.
After I die, there is a chance that God could either:
· punish me; or
· not punish me.
Possibilities:
· God requires a specific response from me, which I satisfy. God
does not punish me.
· God requires a specific response from me, which I satisfy. God
decides to punish me anyway.
· God does not require any response from me, and doesn't punish me,
for whatever reason.
· God does not require any response from me, and decides to punish
me, for whatever reason.
(Even if God does require a certain response from me, there is not
necessarily any
guarantee that if I provide that response, He will not decide to
punish me anyway)
If God does not exist, or if God cannot punish me after I die, then:
· my response to God is irrelevant.
Therefore it would seem that if we don't know anything for sure about
God, we cannot say whether following him will benefit us or not in the
afterlife.
Any thoughts would be appreciated.
Thanks.
Actually, this reasoning still gives an advantage (though no
guarantee) to someone who "follows God." The real problem with
Pascal's Wager is that there is no way to know what God wants. He may
only want you not to be a sycophant who tries to guess what God wants
just to curry favor with him.
--
satyr #1953
Chairman, EAC Church Taxation Subcommittee
Director, Gideon Bible Alternative Fuel Project
Supervisor, EAC Fossil Casting Lab
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Pascal's wager redefined |
23 May 2007 06:39:40 PM |
|
|
On 23 May 2007 00:30:11 -0700, wrote:
Please let me know if you see any illogical steps or inconsistencies.
The same one as always - you assume either the Christian god or no
god.
You haven't accounted for a) a god who punishes Christians because
they're Christians, b) a god who punishes people for being stupid
enough to believe in him despite all the evidence that he doesn't
exist, c) a god who punishes people just because he's a Sadist, etc.,
ad about 10,000.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Andy W" |
|
| Title: Re: Pascal's wager redefined |
23 May 2007 05:45:09 PM |
|
|
On 23 May, 08:30, wrote:
Hello,
I have been thinking about Pascal's wager, something that I have
accepted in the past (in a modified form), but which I am now starting
to realise I have approached with some preconceived ideas about God
(for example, that he is necessarily just). This is my new version of
Pascal's wager. Please let me know if you see any illogical steps or
inconsistencies.
If God exists, He either:
=B7 desires a specific response from me; or
=B7 doesn't require any response from me.
If God requires a specific response from me, I can either:
=B7 respond to Him in the way he desires; or
=B7 not respond to Him in the way he desires.
After I die, there is a chance that God could either:
=B7 punish me; or
=B7 not punish me.
Possibilities:
=B7 God requires a specific response from me, which I satisf=
y=2E God
does not punish me.
=B7 God requires a specific response from me, which I satisf=
y=2E God
decides to punish me anyway.
=B7 God does not require any response from me, and doesn't p=
unish me,
for whatever reason.
=B7 God does not require any response from me, and decides t=
o punish
me, for whatever reason.
(Even if God does require a certain response from me, there is not
necessarily any
guarantee that if I provide that response, He will not decide to
punish me anyway)
If God does not exist, or if God cannot punish me after I die, then:
=B7 my response to God is irrelevant.
Therefore it would seem that if we don't know anything for sure about
God, we cannot say whether following him will benefit us or not in the
afterlife.
Any thoughts would be appreciated.
Thanks.
I don't quite see what point you are trying to make here. Are you
trying to show why PW doesn't work? Come up with a better version that
does? Your conclusion seems to be that your modified version doesn't
lead to any firm conclusions, so how is it useful?
Andy
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
