A Return To Pascals Wager

[Xamonas Chegwé]

Why is that assumption safe to make?

And, why is irt any more valid than the equally valid assumption that there is no god at all?

[Collector1337]

Why is that assumption safe to make?

Why isn't it?

Religion is a cultural construct, made by humans, not god.

And, why is irt any more valid than the equally valid assumption that there is no god at all?

The assumption there is no god isn't equally valid because that's the whole point of Pascal's Wager. That's the only assumption with the negative outcome.

[Xamonas Chegwé]

Why is that assumption safe to make?

Why isn't it?

Religion is a cultural construct, made by humans, not god.

And, why is irt any more valid than the equally valid assumption that there is no god at all?

The assumption there is no god isn't equally valid because that's the whole point of Pascal's Wager. That's the only assumption with the negative outcome.

No it's not!

The possibilities versus the risk/rewards are listed here...


1. Premise: There is no god.
Accept the wager - Waste your life in fruitless obedience to a non-existent deity - outcome negative.
Reject the wager - Win an entire life free of religious concerns - outcome positive.

2. Premise: There is a god but he has no care whatever for humanity, or any species, and is not swayed in any way by religious belief, or non-belief.
Accept the wager - Waste your life in fruitless obedience to a non-caring deity - outcome negative.
Reject the wager - Win an entire life free of religious concerns - outcome positive.

3. Premise: There is a god, he has never made his presence or desires explicitly known to mankind, and all he desires from you is belief in his existence, irrespective of how you choose to manifest that belief.
Accept the wager - You do what god wants, however nobody knows the consequences of belief in him and thus - outcome indeterminate.
Reject the wager - You fail to do what god wants, however nobody knows the consequences of belief in him and thus - outcome indeterminate.

4. Premise: There is a god and he has made his presence and desires explicitly known to mankind. All he desires from you is belief in his existence, irrespective of how you choose to manifest that belief.
Accept the wager - You do what god wants and receive the promised rewards - outcome positive.
Reject the wager - You fail to do what god wants - outcome negative.

5. Premise: There is a god and he has made his presence and desires known to mankind. He has laid down very specific instructions as to how afterlife rewards may be achieved.
Accept the wager AND follow god's proscribed path - outcome positive.
Accept the wager and follow any other religious path - outcome negative.
Reject the wager - outcome negative.

[Collector1337]

Why is that assumption safe to make?

Why isn't it?

Religion is a cultural construct, made by humans, not god.

And, why is irt any more valid than the equally valid assumption that there is no god at all?

The assumption there is no god isn't equally valid because that's the whole point of Pascal's Wager. That's the only assumption with the negative outcome.

No it's not!

The possibilities versus the risk/rewards are listed here...


1. Premise: There is no god.
Accept the wager - Waste your life in fruitless obedience to a non-existent deity - outcome negative.
Reject the wager - Win an entire life free of religious concerns - outcome positive.

2. Premise: There is a god but he has no care whatever for humanity, or any species, and is not swayed in any way by religious belief, or non-belief.
Accept the wager - Waste your life in fruitless obedience to a non-caring deity - outcome negative.
Reject the wager - Win an entire life free of religious concerns - outcome positive.

3. Premise: There is a god, he has never made his presence or desires explicitly known to mankind, and all he desires from you is belief in his existence, irrespective of how you choose to manifest that belief.
Accept the wager - You do what god wants, however nobody knows the consequences of belief in him and thus - outcome indeterminate.
Reject the wager - You fail to do what god wants, however nobody knows the consequences of belief in him and thus - outcome indeterminate.

4. Premise: There is a god and he has made his presence and desires explicitly known to mankind. All he desires from you is belief in his existence, irrespective of how you choose to manifest that belief.
Accept the wager - You do what god wants and receive the promised rewards - outcome positive.
Reject the wager - You fail to do what god wants - outcome negative.

5. Premise: There is a god and he has made his presence and desires known to mankind. He has laid down very specific instructions as to how afterlife rewards may be achieved.
Accept the wager AND follow god's proscribed path - outcome positive.
Accept the wager and follow any other religious path - outcome negative.
Reject the wager - outcome negative.

Why is believing, but being wrong a negative outcome?

Believing and being wrong/non-belief and being right, are neutral outcomes.

Believing and being right, is the positive outcome.

Not believing and being wrong, is the negative outcome.

[Xamonas Chegwé]

Why is believing, but being wrong a negative outcome?

Not believing per se - but acting upon that belief in any way that is against your desires is simply wasted effort. Is it not?

[Collector1337]

Why is believing, but being wrong a negative outcome?

Not believing per se - but acting upon that belief in any way that is against your desires is simply wasted effort. Is it not?

So, um, I guess, what would you or I be doing or not doing "that is against your desires?"

[Svartalf]

Why is believing, but being wrong a negative outcome?

Not believing per se - but acting upon that belief in any way that is against your desires is simply wasted effort. Is it not?

Spurning your pleasure and natural instincts to follow a belief that brings you nothing in the end, how is that positive?

[Xamonas Chegwé]

Why is believing, but being wrong a negative outcome?

Not believing per se - but acting upon that belief in any way that is against your desires is simply wasted effort. Is it not?

So, um, I guess, what would you or I be doing or not doing "that is against your desires?"

Me? Nothing! Except what I can't avoid due to known constraints upon my liberty imposed by society, etc.

You? I can't say. Not knowing your religious views. Perhaps you bathe your head in ass's piss three times a day, or maybe you offer your tonsils to the bees on alternate Wednesdays. How do I know how you choose to manifest your beliefs? Or even if you have any?

[Collector1337]

Why is believing, but being wrong a negative outcome?

Not believing per se - but acting upon that belief in any way that is against your desires is simply wasted effort. Is it not?

Spurning your pleasure and natural instincts to follow a belief that brings you nothing in the end, how is that positive?

That's not the positive outcome, it's the neutral outcome.

Why does believing mean it affects every decision you make? Why does it keep you from doing anything?

[Cormac]

Why is believing, but being wrong a negative outcome?

Wel, your argument is predicated upon the god being benevolent, and not punitive.

So, why would non-belief result in a negative outcome?

[Collector1337]

Why is believing, but being wrong a negative outcome?

Wel, your argument is predicated upon the god being benevolent, and not punitive.

So, why would non-belief result in a negative outcome?

Because that's not the point of Pascal's Wager.

The point is that only belief or non-belief matters. Not following a certain religion or picking the "correct" god.

It eliminates all other variables and boils it down to belief or non-belief.

In other words, even for a non-punitive god, at least as far as Pascal's Wager is concerned, belief still matters... it's the only thing that matters.

[Xamonas Chegwé]

Why is believing, but being wrong a negative outcome?

Wel, your argument is predicated upon the god being benevolent, and not punitive.

So, why would non-belief result in a negative outcome?

Because that's not the point of Pascal's Wager.

The point is that only belief or non-belief matters. Not following a certain religion or picking the "correct" god.

It eliminates all other variables and boils it down to belief or non-belief.

In other words, even for a non-punitive god, at least as far as Pascal's Wager is concerned, belief still matters... it's the only thing that matters.

Not so. There are some belief systems where non-believers and those of other faiths are judged on their actions.

In fact, think of any combination of belief, actions, exclusivity, whether or not to wank, etc. and there is a religion tailor-made for you somewhere!

Besides, why is heaven such a positive result - spending eternity singing praises to teh lawd sounds like my idea of hell! Throw me in with the gamblers, drknards and whores anytime!

[Cormac]

Why is believing, but being wrong a negative outcome?

Wel, your argument is predicated upon the god being benevolent, and not punitive.

So, why would non-belief result in a negative outcome?

Because that's not the point of Pascal's Wager.

The point is that only belief or non-belief matters. Not following a certain religion or picking the "correct" god.

It eliminates all other variables and boils it down to belief or non-belief.

In other words, even for a non-punitive god, at least as far as Pascal's Wager is concerned, belief still matters... it's the only thing that matters.

Pascal's wager requires a punitive god, because without it, it wouldn't matter at all whether somone believed or not.

The wager is all about limiting your risk of eternal damnation.

Why would a non-punitive god punish you for not believing in it/him/her?

[Svartalf]

And why would a benevolent, non punitive deity, punish you for worshipping the wrong god by mistake of for worshipping it the wrong way?

[Cormac]

And why would a benevolent, non punitive deity, punish you for worshipping the wrong god by mistake of for worshipping it the wrong way?

Precisely the point.

For Pascal's wager to have any meaning, the god has to be punitive.