Pascal's Wager Revisited

DT-waw · Sep 4, 2003

Surf,
You think the creator is a must in order universe to exist.
Why you dramatically change your way of reasoning by assuming that the creator doesn't need to be created?

marketsurfer · Sep 4, 2003

Quote from DT-waw:

Surf,
You think the creator is a must in order universe to exist.
Why you dramatically change your way of reasoning by assuming that the creator doesn't need to be created?

DT,

i never said the creator did not need to be created. i am starting to lean strongly toward the "deist" argument of creation, but am trying to quantify my beliefs.
http://www.deism.com/deism_defined.htm

best,

surfer

trdrmac · Sep 4, 2003

This wager does not take into account a person's actions in coordination with belief.

I don't believe in god, but do consider it my duty to help those who have less.

I don't believe that everyone I help deserves, appreciates or will use the help wisely. But I still do it.

If a god could not use judgement on a case by case basis then it would be hard to consider god omnipotent.

alfonso · Sep 4, 2003

Quote from darkhorse:

An issue I have with pascal's wager is that 'choosing' one's belief seems a dubious way to go about things; deciding to believe something implies acceptance of an artificial resting point for the sake of convenience / personal preference / saving time etc.

Ed Seykota noted that great traders don't have talent, the talent has them. I suggest the analogy applies somewhat to truth as well, if you have looked long and hard to find it

I also have issue with the notion that whether to believe or not to believe is reduced to a coin flip in the dark. There is much to be considered and much evidence to be weighed and measured, whether it is of the scientific variety or not.

Dubious or not, I would rather take conscious steps to form my beliefs rather than have them formed for me, by events and others.

With respect to the truth having you as opposed to you having the truth, the issue of God has been debated, in one way or another, from the dawn of time. I think we're at the point where we can safely say that there really can't be any new information added that would significantly swing the pendulum towards one particular position. No matter what scientific advancements are made it is a simple matter to move God back one step in the chain of events and claim "He did it", so going that route isn't going to fundamentally alter anything. Then where else to look? Haven't humans done all the looking there is to do? How many of us can honestly claim not to have a bias whilst looking? Just are we expecting to find anyway? Isn't it always going to be a personal issue and isn't any greater understand we gain going to peculiar to ourselves? Whichever way we cut it (or whichever way I, myself, have cut it) it always ends up a choice whether we want to open ourselves up to the concept of faith or not; in less words, a choice.

My contention is a simple one. A man is faced with the option of either having faith or not having it.
A man that has it and practices it, to whatever degree, gains more from life than one who does not, whilst losing nothing for his trouble. A free ride if there was ever one.

Planting a flag in the indecisiveness camp seems something of a copout, which is why I have more respect for those who take a stand than those who shrug, even if their position is at odds with mine. (And those still searching have no desire to shrug.)

I don't think you really believe that; at least not for any and all occasions. What good can come of taking a stand when there's nothing there to stand on? Why is, "I don't know", so unworthy of respect? .

alfonso · Sep 4, 2003

Quote from trdrmac:

This wager does not take into account a person's actions in coordination with belief.

That's because it (my version of it) doesn't need to.

aphexcoil · Sep 4, 2003

There is insufficient information in which to base a hypothesis, therefore one should not extrapolate further knowledge from the original problem since producing information from possible misinformation breeds even more ignorance.

Those who believe do so from conviction and not from a wager.

alfonso · Sep 4, 2003

Quote from aphexcoil:

There is insufficient information in which to base a hypothesis, therefore one should not extrapolate further knowledge from the original problem since producing information from possible misinformation breeds even more ignorance.

Those who believe do so from conviction and not from a wager.

No idea what the first sentence means.

But how many people do you know that just woke up one day with a conviction?
Aren't they usually formed over time?

Unless you want to wait for that 'once in a lifetime' event that is going to shock your ass into a conviction, then perhaps realize that all beliefs are some form of choice, or are reducible to a choice. Choose then. And choose wisely.

Doubter · Sep 4, 2003

Pascal's Wager boils it down very simply. If you do good deeds while living here on earth that is great but your reward will probably be received here on earth. The choices to believe or not to believe in God are the only ones relevant to the wager. If you do good deeds and don't believe in God then you surely must expect your rewards(however small) here in this life. The believer may expect eternal rewards but they are seperate from the entrance requirements and he probably will also receive the rewards here also.

trdrmac · Sep 4, 2003

Quote from Doubter:

Pascal's Wager boils it down very simply. If you do good deeds while living here on earth that is great but your reward will probably be received here on earth. The choices to believe or not to believe in God are the only ones relevant to the wager. If you do good deeds and don't believe in God then you surely must expect your rewards(however small) here in this life. The believer may expect eternal rewards but they are separate from the entrance requirements and he probably will also receive the rewards here also.

This of course supposes that the only reason someone has a belief structure is to get a reward. Which in my opinion is an unsound way to form a belief system.

aphexcoil · Sep 4, 2003

Quote from alfonso:

But how many people do you know that just woke up one day with a conviction?
Aren't they usually formed over time?

Unless you want to wait for that 'once in a lifetime' event that is going to shock your ass into a conviction, then perhaps realize that all beliefs are some form of choice, or are reducible to a choice. Choose then. And choose wisely.

I'd say most convictions are generated over time through experiences. Quite simply, we are merely the sum of all our experiences through life. However religion is different in that we formulate a lot of our opinions (or biases) based on how our parents brought us up.

I was raised as Lutheran but I no longer believe that Jesus Christ died for my sins. I do believe in a god, but I do not believe that this "god" is omnipotent. I also do not believe that this god has any influence over things that happen within this universe. It is very possible that god could be dead and his creation "the universe" continues today without his assistance or intervention.

Those are just merely speculative ideas and I have no proof for them. Nobody has any proof about the whereabouts of god or if he exists. We all just have our own internal belief structures that we use to get us through a world otherwise ruled by probabilities and statistics on a quantum level.