Pascal's Wager Revisited

[stu]

sheesh... Talk about throwing down the gauntlet, alfonso.

Pascal's wager or just another is there a God chat. Or Is this the latest ET deism craze thanks to the Founding Fathers being brought into debate again? Ah.. I am too cynical.

Some guys just gotta fit in nice and snug in a little religious box, even though no one is sure what the box really is or what it really means or if it even fits. Still you gotta try the different ones 'till you find the one you like I guess. ...

Or stand outside with an open mind testing for yourself all the extraordinary claims being made. Even under the threat of devine retribution some reasoning is essential to the free thinking of this world.

I don't really think the names you mention are frightened by mention of the G word , there is no evidence of that. Georgia is a fine place.

So the structure of atheism is challenged is it? By what? an argument of infinite regress? God was once the sun then the moon, then the universe, then a string theory, then a quantum event. What does it mean if you can establish definition for sun, moon, universe, string theory, quantum, outside one of a God, but you still can't establish God anymore than an idea , by the time you get past quantum there is no where for the G word to exist anymore except of course in the realm of dragons and fairies, which I suggest is where it has always been.

Georgia on the other hand....

 

[alfonso]

Quote from electron:



Rational... perhaps if you knew a thing or two about the Godel theorem you would not be so sure that you know what rational really means.

I take it that you do know a thing or two about Godel, then? Maybe you can break it down for me.

I believe that the most logical and safest option is that of an agnostic.

Wow, that's great! Now, in the interests of advancing understanding and quality of life for all us -- assuming Godel has no problem with that -- would you care to tell us why it's the "safest option"?

And why do you need God, anyway?

I guess if push came to shove I would admit that I don't need him, in the sense that I require God for my survival as an organism, but having God there simply makes life a hell of a lot better. In the long run, isn't a better life what we are all after?

 

[alfonso]

Quote from stu:





Stu, Stu, Stu. I was kinda expecting a little better from you. But let's take a look anyway.

Or stand outside with an open mind testing for yourself all the extraordinary claims being made. Even under the threat of devine retribution some reasoning is essential to the free thinking of this world.


Hmm, I checked back through my thread, but I can't find any reference to divine retribution nor did I ever deny the virtues of free thinking. Must have me confused with someone else, the real Blaise Pascal perhaps.


So the structure of atheism is challenged is it? By what? an argument of infinite regress?

Nope, I was pointing out that attempts to use scientific explanations to refute God are barking up the wrong tree.

The challenge, or 'wager', comes in the following form: the choice is to believe in God or not to believe; there are no penalties for disbelieving; there are benefits to believing; given that choice, which is the more rational decision?

Now, please note that I am not offering this up as some kind of irrefutable proof of God's existance, nor am I even claiming everyone should just stop on a dime and become a deist. If you glance back at my original post, I asked for "your thoughts", ie I would like to discuss this further; so perhaps we can go easy on the potshots and smarminess.

 

[stu]

alfonso

Stu, Stu, Stu. I was kinda expecting a little better from you

A bit of a mean shot ..what I floored you by entering the thread so what.. your response is you expected better??

Please get over it. Every response I make doesn’t necessarily refer directly to you. I may well insert a few nuggets of thought which might serve to expand on my response, that's all.

"Now, please note that I am not offering this up as some kind of irrefutable proof of God's existence, nor am I even claiming everyone should just stop on a dime and become a deist. If you glance back at my original post, I asked for "your thoughts", ie I would like to discuss this further; so perhaps we can go easy on the potshots and smarminess.

Now hang on one minute alfonso, get off your high horse I read what you said....

"I think it's interesting that ET's most energetic atheists, like axeman, Stu, FPC and Gekko -- who throw a fit at the slightest mention of the 'G word' -- are noticably silent on this thread; and that's because it challenges the entire superstructure of atheism, that's it's "the most rational" philosophical postion to hold."

There is potshot and smarminess enough in your post so please drop the hypocrisy.

I started my response and finished it in a light hearted way, only someone who wanted to misinterpret would accuse me of potshots and smarminess. It just doesn't wash.

I do not make my responses to suit you or your temperament. I always try to be civil and address the main points as much as I can. I am as willing as the next guy to discuss and those were "my thoughts". Because they may have hit home on an exposed nerve , is not my fault and doesn't deserve discussion if you are going to rely on being unreasonable as the crux for your remarks.

The challenge, or'wager', comes in the following form: the choice is to believe in God or not to believe; there are no penalties for disbelieving; there are benefits to believing; given that choice, which is the more rational decision?

Pascal's wager doesn't stand up to scrutiny. Just my "thoughts" alfonso, so take it easy...Pascal sets his conditional wager into some meaningless wonderland with the preconditions "If God then God IS incomprehensible". It doesn't support religious belief in a God it only suggests the notion that anything whatsoever which is unknown, you might as well say exists or it is true, because you have nothing to lose.... .Only deductive reasoning I think. So you may as well believe in Satan...you have nothing to lose??

Hey.. keep it friendly!

 

[Cutten]

Alfonso - replace the word "Deity" with "Little Green Men", keeping all the rewards the same, then tell me would you come to the same conclusion? If not, why not?

P.S. my objection is that there are definite drawbacks - such as mild insanity - to "forcing" yourself into a belief that you do not really think is true.

 

[alfonso]

Quote from Cutten:

Alfonso - replace the word "Deity" with "Little Green Men", keeping all the rewards the same, then tell me would you come to the same conclusion? If not, why not?

P.S. my objection is that there are definite drawbacks - such as mild insanity - to "forcing" yourself into a belief that you do not really think is true.

A decent objection. However, based on my own experiences and the reported experiences of others, I believe I have a good (or good enough, to me) reason to think I have some sort of relationship with this 'force' or 'entity' that is commonly referred to as 'God'; ie, this thing (to me) exists. And it doesn't resemble "little green men" (nor anything else, for that matter, unicorns, dwarves, tooth fairies or any other standard objection from the atheist grab bag.)

Secondly, your "PS" shows me you probably don't have a very solid grasp of how belief systems are formed, else I doubt you'd use the word 'forced' to describe my position, because it is far from it.
Look, I'm under no illusions that a die hard atheist would look at this "argument" (I didn't really intend it as such) and feel compelled to change his mind based on it, but for the more reasonable person, who leans towards atheism, but accepts that the question of God is essentially unanswerable, in the way we might believe we have an 'answer' for photosynthesis, for example, who might look at it, and simply be more prepared to open the door towards theism.