Pascal's Wager

[LegionnaireX]

A question for atheists:

Why not follow Pascal's wager?

I understand that many atheists are not religious because they strive to live only by logic. But isn't that just as artificial and essentially meaningless as living by religious faith? If there is no supreme being or afterlife it really does not matter if one lives their life 100% by logic or 100% by religious faith.

If God does not exist than all of the universe is without purpose. All people, no matter what way they live their lives will end up dead and gone. If God exists, only good things will come for those who have religious faith.

Most modern religions teach people to live moral and good lives. There is nothing to lose from having religious faith, but there is the possibility of a big loss for not having religious faith.

So why not follow Pascal's wager?

[Marie Louise von Preussen]

Ah, so hard to write it all over again. I remember how that issue was thoroughly discussed and debunked...

BTW here is a site that explains it better on why Pascal's Wager is another of countless fallacies. Read it, and take your own conclusions.

[Ummon]

Nice link. No value whatsoever in terms of argumentations, but the graphics were cool.

[Marie Louise von Preussen]

Nice link. No value whatsoever in terms of argumentations, but the graphics were cool.

Emptyness of argument is a bliss when trying to sound smart.

[Ummon]

Are you addressing yourself? The problem with the link is that the proposed probability suggested for the existence of God is not correct. Nor is it determinable as the author proposes. Such probability might infact be 1 for what we know.

Therefore, nulling the whole argument.

[Marie Louise von Preussen]

Are you addressing yourself?

What a predictable answer, really!

The problem with the link is that the proposed probability suggested for the existence of God is not correct. Nor is it determinable as the author proposes. Such probability might infact be 1 for what we know.

The probability of God is as high as the probability of everything else undetermined and unproven, ergo, fairies.

How did you reach "1" is mystery to me. How can you prove that God is not a mythological being like any others ever devised or to be devised by man, is mystery. Therefore, the argument for Pascal's wager falls apart due to lack of probability.

[Ummon]

That part is exactly the part which is mistaken. You are postulating that you know the probability distribution, but you don't. Infact, it might be the case that the probability of God is not the same as that of fairies and unicorns.

The answer was predictable, because it is true.

[Marie Louise von Preussen]

The probability of God is as high and evident as the existance of Unicorns and Zeus, Ummon, because all of them have nil evidence of being sentient and independent transcedental beings. How do you arrive at the conclusion that God has not the same probability as anything whose existance wasn't concretely attested is probably dubious and fallacious, having the same credibility as claiming that Artemis couldn't avoid having the temple burnt because she was giving birth to Alexander the Great.

By the time you come with a verified method of investigating the metaphysical and discovering the Abrahamic God, you can try to write a thesis and convince mainstream science and us of it. But you probably never will.

[Ummon]

Self-proclaimed correctness is useless in debate. The fact is that, as I already did in the past, we can prove that what you state is false.

Being X the set of all metaphysical, unrefutable items potentially correlated with the origin of the universe.

Being N (nothing) a member of the set X.

Being G (God) a member of the set X.

Assuming that one of the said metaphysical items is really correlated with the origin of the universe.

The probability is distributed as such:

- Infinite items with 0 probability
- One item with a probaility of 1

Therefore, the probability distribution is not homogeneous for all metaphysical items.

Thus making the argument you propose, moot.

[Marie Louise von Preussen]

Self-proclaimed correctness is useless in debate. The fact is that, as I already did in the past, we can prove that what you state is false.

Being X the set of all metaphysical, unrefutable items potentially correlated with the origin of the universe.

Being N (nothing) a member of the set X.

Being G (God) a member of the set X.

Assuming that one of the said metaphysical items is really correlated with the origin of the universe.

The probability is distributed as such:

- Infinite items with 0 probability
- One item with a probaility of 1

Therefore, the probability distribution is not homogeneous for all metaphysical items.

Thus making the argument you propose, moot.

Ummon, your argument still lacks plausibility and is arbitrary. First of all: Atheism does not claim that the Universe spawned from "nothing", second, the assignment of God as the second probability can easily be traded with any unattested fairy tale bogus humanity has ever heard of for an equal result. Ergo, an arbitrary choice based on personal faith.

You misunderstand the point of my rebuttal to Pascal's Wager. Given that the existance of God is as unlikely as that of all other metaphysical unattested items in X, you cannot arbitrarily select one of them to increase probabilities. That would only be possible if you can attest the existance of God, and since we cannot attest that as much as we can attest that fairies were the single reason behind the creation of the world, it is still extremely unlikely to the point of irrelevance to believe in either God or fairies as a "safe bet".

Pascal's Wager is irrelevant to scientific research by all means, which instead seeks concrete causes for the origin of things and has been succesful in this endeavour up to the origins of the present Universe. Unless you can prove that God caused everything to exist to a likeness acceptable to Science, he will not be more plausible than any other metaphysical object no matter how fallaciously you try to sort them out of others arbitrarily just to prove your particular religious faith.

Besides, the moral arguments against religion are complex and a compelling reason not to make the bet as unlikely as it is.

The number of deities you can invent is irrelevant.

The number of possibilities is immense, each one of them of equal probability for being unattested.

It is reasonable to assume that a deity who is going to grant you eternal life in exchange for following instructions gives you the means to follow them. Therefore only revealed religions count.

No.

[Event Horizon]

Self-proclaimed correctness is useless in debate. The fact is that, as I already did in the past, we can prove that what you state is false.

Being X the set of all metaphysical, unrefutable items potentially correlated with the origin of the universe.

Being N (nothing) a member of the set X.

Being G (God) a member of the set X.

Assuming that one of the said metaphysical items is really correlated with the origin of the universe.

The probability is distributed as such:

- Infinite items with 0 probability
- One item with a probaility of 1

Therefore, the probability distribution is not homogeneous for all metaphysical items.

Thus making the argument you propose, moot.

What a hoot. The subjects are undefined, the premise unproven and the arguement repeatedly fallacious.

It is astonishing that anyone could think such shallowness could ever pass for any kind of intellectual endeavour. Best to call it out for what it is, self indulgent faith promoting ego stroking irrelevance.

I live in hope and prayer for serious philosophical arguementation on these boards. It is no wonder I am an athiest.

[Ummagumma]

So why not follow Pascal's wager?

Because Odin/Thor/Catholic Interpretation/Protestant Interpretation/Allah/Vishnu/etc., etc. will only be more offended by me following the wrong one.
That, and that I've never been any good at faking things like this. If I were to pretend to believe in some supernatural nonsense of any flavour, I'd soon go totally insane.

[BNS]

Why should I bother to enslave my mind to your concept of "God"? When I see it's existence as a very minuscule possibility. I might as well also worship Zeus just in case...

[Garrigan]

A question for atheists:

Why not follow Pascal's wager?

Because it is pathetically stupid.

Point 1). No supreme deity would be tricked by someone who faked faith as they believed it was the "Safe" option. Surely a God would prefer that you stood up for what you believed rather than putting up a facade of belief? You cant fake faith, if you dont believe in god, you dont believe in god. You cant suddenly see that god is "Safer" and start believing.

2). Which God to pick? There are literally thousands of deities, and thousands more ways to worship each one. How do you pick the correct method and deity? Surely if you decide the the Roman Catholic Faith is the best one, and the Lord Almighty turns out to be Baal, you're gonna have it just as bad as the atheist? Seriously, how are you going to choose the correct god?

Most modern religions teach people to live moral and good lives. There is nothing to lose from having religious faith, but there is the possibility of a big loss for not having religious faith.

Au contraire. I believe there is a lot to loose from having faith. Especially if its a more restrictive one. You can waste hours of time doing something that in the end is pointless. You can have who you can marry and be friends with restricted, you can cause irritional dislike in other purely because you're not of the same faith. There is plenty to loose by following a faith.

[Manco]

Pascal's wager would only work with two choices a. Unfortunately we have thousands of god-concepts, hell, I could probably think of a hundred new ones by myself, and thus it's flawed.

So if we actually use Pascal's wager then, the smart money is on 'no god(s)', because you have the choice between 'no god'-'a god' which are both supposedly 50-50. Unfortunately if you choose the second option, you than have to decide which god and since we have a possibly limitless number of god-concepts, the chance for each concept to be true is practically zero.

Therefore according to Pascal's own wager, 'no god' is more likely, even considering the possible afterlife and benefits of believing in the right god(s).

[Ummon]

I have waited a bit for the second part to consolidate as well.

From a subjective probability PoV, the argument is false too.

On one side you have:

1) infinite benefit
2) no loss - because infact, the argument that following a religion is a loss can be counterbalanced by several practical benefits, including some to your health both physical and psychological, and the social benefits of being part of a community, etc.

On the other:

3) a big probability of making the wrong choice.

But obviously, a small chance of gaining an infinite reward is better than no chance of gaining an infinite reward. Since you are in a losing position whether you pick the wrong choice or you keep not believing, you better believe.

So the argument keeps being moot. Although everyone is, obviously, free to do as he wishes, to desire being sincere, etc.

[Manco]

I have waited a bit for the second part to consolidate as well.

From a subjective probability PoV, the argument is false too.

On one side you have:

1) infinite benefit
2) no loss - because infact, the argument that following a religion is a loss can be counterbalanced by several practical benefits, including some to your health both physical and psychological, and the social benefits of being part of a community, etc.

On the other:

3) a big probability of making the wrong choice.

1) you mean an infinitesimally small chance for infinite benefit. Besides whether the benefit is infinite or not, has no influence on the probabilities.

2)granted, losses and benefits of this kind are impossible to calculate

3) a 50% chance of being wrong is still better than an infinitesimally large chance to being wrong (which actually means it is wrong)

But obviously, a small chance of gaining an infinite reward is better than no chance of gaining an infinite reward. Since you are in a losing position whether you pick the wrong choice or you keep not believing, you better believe.

So the argument keeps being moot. Although everyone is, obviously, free to do as he wishes, to desire being sincere, etc.

No, you're just positing Pascal's wager again, actually you're even skipping it and immediately giving the answer that suits you. But that answer is logically and mathematically the wrong one.
Pascal's wager favours atheism, not theism despite it's original goal.

[Ummon]

No, the chance is not infinitesimally small. Because you see, many Gods do not offer a paradise (you exclude them), others are indifferent to worship (you exclude them), etc.

You are left with a reasonable number of choices, some of them being equivalent. For example, if you pick Islam, the best idea is becoming a Christian. Infact, if Islam is true, Christians and Jews get saved as well. So you are saved both if Christians are right, and if muslims are.

Etc.

We might thus consider your other points absurd. Your chance of being wrong is not 50%. You ignore it, and it might even be 1, as well.

Given that being wrong to you is the same in both instances, but being right gains you eternal life, your choice is simple: you go where you might be right in believing.

[/End faith supermarket]

[Manco]

No, the chance is not infinitesimally small. Because you see, many Gods do not offer a paradise (you exclude them), others are indifferent to worship (you exclude them), etc.

You are left with a reasonable number of choices, some of them being equivalent. For example, if you pick Islam, the best idea is becoming a Christian. Infact, if Islam is true, Christians and Jews get saved as well. So you are saved both if Christians are right, and if muslims are.

It's still infinitesimally small, I can imagine and invent a thousand deities with an afterlife added to the religion right now. They are all equally valid as the classic abrahamic ones. Most religions have an afterlife anyway, so it wouldn't have that a drastic of an effect.
Actually you're not changing the chances for your own position:
-'No god' is 50%.
-'a god or gods' is 50%, of which an infinite amount (those without afterlife, or those indifferent to worship) are irrelevant and an infinite amount is relevant. The chances we have a relevant one is already infinitesimally small (due to both having an infinite amount of possibilitie)s, but then we still have an infinite amount of possibilities, resulting in the chance for a 'relevant god or gods' to be, guess what?, infinitesimally small.

We might thus consider your other points absurd. Your chance of being wrong is not 50%. You ignore it, and it might even be 1, as well.

Oh come on. This is about probability, sure the correct answer could be that atheism is 100% wrong, but the chances are 50%. Probability isn't about finding the correct answer, but the probable answer.

Given that being wrong to you is the same in both instances, but being right gains you eternal life, your choice is simple: you go where you might be right in believing.

No, the chance there's no god is 50% according to Pascal's wager. The chance for any one or more gods is infinitesimally small.

Therefore atheism is the probable solution.

[Ummon]

The number of deities you can invent is irrelevant.

It is reasonable to assume that a deity who is going to grant you eternal life in exchange for following instructions gives you the means to follow them. Therefore only revealed religions count.

Atheism being one of the inifinite possibilites you mention, the chance for it to be wrong are undetermined, but if you are going to consider all items with equal probability (which we said is wrong) they are near 1. Though still, they remain unknown.

If you modify one half of the wager, you must modify the other half accordingly.