"Pascal's Wager" - Understanding and Criticism

[ShoutGrace]

Briefly Summarized for those in the dark.

I just have to mention here that the wager commonly referred to as ‘Pascal’s Wager’ is actually a part of a larger and more complex work entitled ‘Pensees’ (thoughts).


“Pascal's Wager” is the name given to an argument due to Blaise Pascal for believing, or for at least taking steps to believe, in God. The name is somewhat misleading, for in a single paragraph of his Pensées, Pascal apparently presents at least three such arguments, each of which might be called a ‘wager’ — it is only the final of these that is traditionally referred to as "Pascal's Wager". We find in it the extraordinary confluence of several important strands of thought: the justification of theism; probability theory and decision theory, used here for almost the first time in history; pragmatism; voluntarism (the thesis that belief is a matter of the will); and the use of the concept of infinity.



Live a good life,
God Exists= You go to Heaven.
God Does not Exist= You lose Nothing.

Live an "evil" Life,
God Exists= You go to Hell.
God does not exist= You gain nothing.


I would actually adhere more to this definition:


Either God exists or God does not exist, and you can either wager for God or wager against God. The utilities of the relevant possible outcomes are as follows, where f1, f2, and f3 are numbers whose values are not specified beyond the requirement that they be finite:
God exists God does not exist
Wager for God ∞ f1
Wager against God f2 f3


We have a decision under risk, with probabilities assigned to the relevant ways the world could be, and utilities assigned to the relevant outcomes. The first conclusion seems straightforwardly to follow from the usual calculations of expected utility (where p is your positive, non-infinitesimal probability for God's existence):
E(wager for God) = ∞*p + f1*(1 − p) = ∞
That is, your expected utility of belief in God is infinite — as Pascal puts it, "our proposition is of infinite force". On the other hand, your expected utility of wagering against God is
E(wager against God) = f2*p + f3*(1 − p)
This is finite.



In fact, most religious belief starts as "make-believe."

It’ll be interesting to see how you are going to attempt to justify this statement.


Many people inherit their beliefs from their parents, and overtime these "pretend" beliefs become their own true beliefs.

How “many”? How can you tell? How many different families/people all over the world have you observed and studied before arriving at that conclusion? I think that an inference into these probabilities, such as the one you have made, is primarily speculation and lacking evidence. Perhaps you can provide some?

I think that intellectually guided humans are rather likely to come to believe in things for personal reasons; from firsthand experience, and conviction. If I am misinterpreting your statement please let me know.


Why do I belive in God? My parents belive in God, and I was raised in a family which believed.

I cannot be sure whether you are speaking from a hypothetical believer’s point of view or your own here; regardless, I do find the answer to the proposed question a bit shallow and weak. Whether you agree with me or not depends on who is speaking, I suppose.


His logic fails because Pascal fails to take into account the nature of God, or the possibility of multiple Gods. He does not account for the possibility that there are many Gods and they may overpower the God which Pascal belives in. .

I fail to see the force of this argument. Pascal’s wager takes into account the existence of other Gods. ‘Other Gods’ fall into the category of ‘The Christian God does not exist’. We will call this scenario (a). If scenario (a) were found to be true, the eternal reward/risk ratio is consistent with the reward/ratio of there being no God. If you were to live like an atheist in scenario (a), it would be no different than living like a devout Christian in scenario (a).


Nor does he manage to prepare for the possibility that God does not care. You live a good life, it turns out that God exists, you go to heaven? Not necessarily.

Again, Pascal here considers the Christian God. If you live the Christian life and do not ‘go to heaven’, by definition, the Christian God would not exist; your end and God’s treatment of you would be contradictory to the nature of the Christian God. Scenario (a) is in effect again.

I think that Pascal is saying that even considering the possibility of scenario (a), it is still ‘logical’ to believe in the Christian God; again, based on the eternal reward/risk aspect.

I personally find the entire exercise somewhat misappropriated, partly for a few of the reasons you mention below.



One cannot truly belive in such a God with a win-win mindset.

What a funny little world. I wholeheartedly agree with that statement, UnionJack. Logic and reason go so far; I feel that if God exists, his presence would be much more palpable than words on a page or thoughts in a mind.

I would not devote my life to something based on odds/bets. Belief in the supernatural requires much more. I don’t care how probable God’s existence is; if I prove He is either ‘probably there’ or ‘not likely there’, what have I really learned? What substance is there? Not much, in my opinion. I could only believe in God if that belief were an all pervasive, definitive phenomenon that I could be personally sure of.


If you wish to believe, then go ahead.

Why, thank you, sir, for the allowance. As long as you say it’s okay. :D


But, make sure you believe for the right reasons, or you may end up like Pascal, whom upon dying, ascended a glittering staircase, finding, at the top, the Gates to Paradise barred, and a sign reading
"No Gamblers Allowed."

I respond to this portion of your post merely with the intention of providing accurate information; a little clarity.


Shortly after his death, friends discovered that Blaise Pascal had sewn into the lining of his jacket a piece of paper upon which was written the following:
In the year of grace 1654
Monday, 23 November, Feast of St. Clement,
Pope and Martyr,
From about half past ten in the evening
Until half past midnight,
FIRE.
God of Abraham, God of Isaac, God of Jacob,
Not the God of philosophers and scholars.
Certainty, certainty, heartfelt joy, peace.
God of Jesus Christ,
God of Jesus Christ.

Pascal was a mathematician and a philosopher – a scholar – but what he was describing was not - as he said – the result of study or analysis. What he wrote was rather the description of a very intense and very real experience of God.

Pascal’s wager was not written for Pascal, a notion that the quoted selection above indicates you affirm. If you wish to discuss his reasons for developing the argument, let me know, and we can examine it in greater detail.

[Union Jack]

I'll start by reposting my original statement, to prevent further out-of-context quotation.


Pascal's Wager is inherently flawed, and should not be relied upon as a logical support for divine belief.

Briefly Summarized for those in the dark.

Live a good life,
God Exists= You go to Heaven.
God Does not Exist= You lose Nothing.

Live an "evil" Life,
God Exists= You go to Hell.
God does not exist= You gain nothing.

Now the first, and most common, aurgument against this wager is a psychological one.

People aurgue that we cannot induce belief just because we realize that to believe is in our best advantage.

This is a false aurgument. Belief can be induced by a system which promotes benefits for this belief. Example, a modern, totalitarien dictatorship. People are forced to believe certain things, if they do not, they will be killed. Psychologically, people start of pretending to belive, in order to survive. However, as time passes, this "make-believe" turns into true belief.

In fact, most religious belief starts as "make-believe." Many people inherit their beliefs from their parents, and overtime these "pretend" beliefs become their own true beliefs. Why do I belive in God? My parents belive in God, and I was raised in a family which believed.

That asside, it is obvious that Pascal's flaw is not in his psychology. Where then should we search?
His logic. Pascal's logic is flawed. I know, hard to believe, the logic seems so simple and foolproof.

His logic fails because Pascal fails to take into account the nature of God, or the possibility of multiple Gods. He does not account for the possibility that there are many Gods and they may overpower the God which Pascal belives in.

Nor does he manage to prepare for the possibility that God does not care. You live a good life, it turns out that God exists, you go to heaven? Not necessarily. What if God is the classic "watchmaker" who after creating the world, merely sits back and watches his constructs struggle out their existance. Pascal, illogically, assumes that God's existance denotes God's compassion.

An aurgument can be brought against this critique, that is, the God which Pascal belives in is not a "watchmaker" he is the God of the Bible, of Abraham, Moses, and Jesus. The Biblical God DOES care for his creations, and heaven does exist for his chosen.

But, the Biblical God of Abraham would not appreciate belief based upon a win-win wager. No, the very essence of the Old Testament God is one which demands unquestioning belief and loyalty, no matter the odds. Abraham did not embark on his quest to populate the world knowing before-hand that win or lose he would be eternally rewarded. The Biblical God demands risk, to belive in God is to risk everything. One cannot truly belive in such a God with a win-win mindset.

Thus we have proven it, the simplest, seemingly most logical wager on God's behalf has fallen to folly.

My interpretation of, "Critique of Religion and Philosophy"- Kaufmann

I am not aurguing for God's existance either way. The only point to my post is to display the folly of Pascal's wager. This holds no power over your, or my own, opinions.

If you wish to believe, then go ahead. But, make sure you believe for the right reasons, or you may end up like Pascal, whom upon dying, ascended a glittering staircase, finding, at the top, the Gates to Paradise barred, and a sign reading
"No Gamblers Allowed."

:D Cheers



I just have to mention here that the wager commonly referred to as ‘Pascal’s Wager’ is actually a part of a larger and more complex work entitled ‘Pensees’ (thoughts)...
I would actually adhere more to this definition:....

That's all well and good, but what it boils down to is that it is more BENEFICIAL to believe in God, insomuch as it provides a greater chance of reward. That is Pascal's Wager at the core.


"In fact, most religious belief starts as "make-believe." Many people inherit their beliefs from their parents, and overtime these "pretend" beliefs become their own true beliefs. Why do I belive in God? My parents belive in God, and I was raised in a family which believed."

Yes, most beliefs do start as make-believe. When were you first introduced to religion and faith? Most people are introduced to faith and belief by their parents, No? I'm not saying ALL people, but yes, a significant majority receive their faith "second-hand." So assume your parent's introduced you to God at the tender age of 5, did you fully understand everything about the faith? Did you fully comprehend what it meant to believe, and why you believed? Unless you are exceptionally gifted, I hazard to guess no, then you believe because your parents do, and they taught you too as well. This is clearly not true believe, it is make-believe, you are going through the motions, unsure of their significance.

This does not mean that belief and faith do not progress along with a person's cognitive reasoning abilities. Yes, as you get older, you become more knowledgeable of your beliefs, you discover reasons for the beliefs, and you understand their true significance, thus make-believe becomes true faith.

"Why do I belive in God? My parents belive in God, and I was raised in a family which believed."

Yes, the "I" is a hypothetical I. And yes most of the people that I encounter in the professional, scholarly, social realms of my life would answer that they share their parent's religion and were first introduced to it by them. This is not a wild speculation, it is an observation that I have made based upon my experiences so far in life, and I do not think that it is an unreasonable assumption.

Yes, I agree that humans are likely to cognate their own reasons for belief. As I said above, humans progress in understanding, and in the reasoning of faith. I am saying that many people were INTRODUCED to their faith by their parents, friends, or others. Uncertain at first, people go through the motions, unsure of their true meaning. Only through time does introspective revelation, and true belief occur.


I fail to see the force of this argument. Pascal’s wager takes into account the existence of other Gods. ‘Other Gods’ fall into the category of ‘The Christian God does not exist’.

The existance of other Gods does not necessarily negate the existance of a Christian one. What if a christian God does exist, but so do many other Gods of different faiths. What if the Gods war with each other, and the Christian God succumbs to a divine intervention of sorts. Where does your belief get you now?

In response to your next thoughts, I believe you need to rexamine the following.


An aurgument can be brought against this critique, that is, the God which Pascal belives in is not a "watchmaker" he is the God of the Bible, of Abraham, Moses, and Jesus. The Biblical God DOES care for his creations, and heaven does exist for his chosen.

But, the Biblical God of Abraham would not appreciate belief based upon a win-win wager. No, the very essence of the Old Testament God is one which demands unquestioning belief and loyalty, no matter the odds. Abraham did not embark on his quest to populate the world knowing before-hand that win or lose he would be eternally rewarded. The Biblical God demands risk, to belive in God is to risk everything. One cannot truly belive in such a God with a win-win mindset.


Again for the all-so-important clarity
"
But, the Biblical God of Abraham would not appreciate belief based upon a win-win wager. No, the very essence of the Old Testament God is one which demands unquestioning belief and loyalty, no matter the odds. Abraham did not embark on his quest to populate the world knowing before-hand that win or lose he would be eternally rewarded. The Biblical God demands risk, to belive in God is to risk everything. One cannot truly belive in such a God with a win-win mindset"

This means that even if you take Pascal's Wager to heart, live a good life, and a CHRISTIAN GOD does exist, you are not garunteed to enter heaven.

Thus Pascal's logic is flawed. To aurgue the point is foolish, the logic is flawed.


"Why, thank you, sir, for the allowance. As long as you say it’s okay. "

It's quite alright.

"I respond to this portion of your post merely with the intention of providing accurate information; a little clarity."

Very accurate, I'm sorry to fill up the boards with my unclarified rubbish. I'm quite sure that my rendition of the events is entirely phantasmic. (Great Word)

This part of my post is very important

"I am not aurguing for God's existance either way. The only point to my post is to display the folly of Pascal's wager. This holds no power over your, or my own, opinions."

I am not aurguing that God exists or does not exist. I am not attacking your beliefs.

All I am aurguing is that Pascal's Logic is flawed, and as I have clearly proven, it is.

All this means is that one man's "scientific" proof of the benefits of belief is flawed. It does not claim that other methods of attainging belief are unsound.

If anything, I am only reasserting the tired old concept, that science holds no sway over true religious belief.

Open to further questions or concerns.

[ShoutGrace]

That's all well and good, but what it boils down to is that it is more BENEFICIAL to believe in God, insomuch as it provides a greater chance of reward. That is Pascal's Wager at the core.

I disagree. Your reduction ignores the risk aspect, and in so doing drastically alters the logic and nature of the argument. ‘Pascal’s Wager’ is considerably more compex than you have made it out to be.


Yes, most beliefs do start as make-believe.

I maintain that this assertion is cardinally speculative to a crucial degree. We’ll get to it in more detail in a moment.


So assume your parent's introduced you to God at the tender age of 5

Why should I do that? Why should we even explore that tangent? I do not take issue with the assertion that a 5 year old could not fully comprehend what they believe, or why.

I take issue with your assertion that a “significant majority” of theist’s beliefs originate in “make believe”.

Your inquiry into this hypothetical 5 year olds situation and subsequent explanation of it is devoid of significance and does nothing to support you reasoning.


And yes most of the people that I encounter in the professional, scholarly, social realms of my life would answer that they share their parent's religion and were first introduced to it by them.

I cannot go about examining or testing the veracity of that statement, and I will most agreeably take your word for it.

I can, however, ask you this: What does it have to do with anything?

Are certain peoples that your encounter in certain “realms” of your life indicative of the “significant majority” of theists all around the world?

If you answer in the affirmative (as you must, seeing as how you used that statement with the intent of supporting your logic), please explain to me why you have come to that conclusion and how you can be sure of it.


This is not a wild speculation, it is an observation that I have made based upon my experiences so far in life, and I do not think that it is an unreasonable assumption.

Well, I do. I don’t see how you can assume that the observations of certain peoples that you have made in your experiences, from your perspective, in your culture, can qualify as knowledge of how other people hypothetically operate in completely different situations and cultures all around the globe. Each person’s situation is painfully different; every one is unique. I again maintain that your original statement, “In fact, most religious belief starts as ’"make-believe.’” is indeed wildly speculative and unqualified.


Yes, I agree that humans are likely to cognate their own reasons for belief.


cog•nate adj.
1. Related by blood; having a common ancestor.
2. Related in origin, as certain words in genetically related languages descended from the same ancestral root; for example, English name and Latin n men from Indo-European *n -men-.
3. Related or analogous in nature, character, or function.

n.
1. One related by blood or origin with another, especially a person sharing an ancestor with another.
2. A word related to one in another language.

I’m sorry, I haven’t found a verb construction for the word ‘cognate’. As it stands, your above statement is unintelligible to me. Perhaps you could clarify?



I am saying that many people were INTRODUCED to their faith by their parents, friends, or others.

Well, that is a monumentally different statement than the one I’ve become accustomed to. I could certainly agree with this statement.


Only through time does introspective revelation, and true belief occur.

I disagree with this. Can you provide me with working definitions of ‘introspective revelation’ and ‘true belief’, please?


The existance of other Gods does not necessarily negate the existance of a Christian one.

Philosophically speaking, no it does not. Theologically speaking, as it pertains to ‘Pascal’s Wager’, yes, it does. Pascal is referring very specifically to the Christian faith and it’s peripherals; these do not allow for the existence of other Gods, just God. Again, the existence of other Gods would render the Christian faith false, as it itself does not allow for other Gods, and certainly not any beings nearly as powerful as God himself.


What if a christian God does exist, but so do many other Gods of different faiths.

That situation would annihilate the Christian faith. This is a contradiction that needs to be recognized.


In response to your next thoughts, I believe you need to rexamine the following.

Ah, no, I think I got it the first time. :D I disagree with a few of your ideas but remember, I agreed with your conclusion.


This means that even if you take Pascal's Wager to heart, live a good life, and a CHRISTIAN GOD does exist, you are not garunteed to enter heaven.

That is true regardless of whether you admit or censure Pascal’s Wager. Living a good life in and of itself doesn’t account for anything, according to the Christian faith.

Remember, I already agreed with you on this point.


Very accurate, I'm sorry to fill up the boards with my unclarified rubbish.

It’s no problem. Just don’t let it happen again. ;)


This part of my post is very important

Fantastic. I’ve been waiting for this part.


I am not aurguing that God exists or does not exist.

It didn’t seem like you were. Did anybody say you were? Did it seem to you that you were?


I am not attacking your beliefs.

It didn’t seem like you were. Did anybody say you were? Did it seem to you that you were?

[Union Jack]

So basically you agree with my main point, that Pascal's proof for belief is illogical.
"I disagree with a few of your ideas but remember, I agreed with your conclusion."

That is the topic of this thread, and you seem to agree with me that Pascal's proof is not sufficient enough reason for true belief.

Well, as that was my only point in this, and my original post, I'll address your issue.

I gather that your main issue with my aurgument is my belief that faith is inherited from others and not entirely understood upon first inheritance?

As the main topic has been agreed upon, I will gladly move on to this sub-topic, that is whether or not faith begins as empty motions...

"If you answer in the affirmative (as you must, seeing as how you used that statement with the intent of supporting your logic), please explain to me why you have come to that conclusion and how you can be sure of it."

Yes, and I can prove this.

"We know, for instance, that children from evangelical homes are more likely to remain in that tradition, about 80 percent of kids from those homes. And in mainline Protestant traditions it's closer to 60 percent. A big part of that difference is the difference in the faith. Evangelical parents tend to have a stronger faith, which then makes their kids more likely to abide in that faith. Likewise, about 75 percent of Catholic kids would persist in the faith of their parents."


Brad Wilcox, http://www.pbs.org/wnet/religionandethics/week910/interview.html


Among Christian traditions, it is a proven fact that most people inherit their beliefs from their parents. And since we are talking about a proof of a Christian God, I believe that Christian faiths would be most relevant.


"I don’t see how you can assume that the observations of certain peoples that you have made in your experiences, from your perspective, in your culture, can qualify as knowledge of how other people hypothetically operate in completely different situations and cultures all around the globe."

Well you tend to assume that I am confined to one cultural view. I have travelled the world throughout my life, and lived all over it. I have been, not only exposed, but a part of many "foreign" ways of life, so I am speaking from true experience, not assumptions.

"I haven’t found a verb construction for the word ‘cognate’."

I believe it's totally fine to invent word usages. Cognate sounds rather good as a verb. Don't you agree?

"Only through time does introspective revelation, and true belief occur."
"I disagree with this. Can you provide me with working definitions of ‘introspective revelation’ and ‘true belief’, please?"

Introspective Revelation- Self- Discovery.
True Belief- Belief not based upon outside factors, ie family/ enviornment. But a very real, emotional, connection with the essence of your faith.

What I mean is that true belief is not instantaneous. You do not encounter a faith for the first time, be it from a friend/ family, or private study, and instantly, totally understand it. Without an understanding of a faith, there can never be true belief, without knowing fully what you belive in, the belief is hollow. Understanding does not come overnight, it may take years of study, and it does, for many people. True, understanding faith requires time to grow, for a person to self-discover and realise what this faith means to them.

I would think that you would agree with that thought.

Please post your own thoughts on this issue, up until now you have only stated that you disagree with me, and have not posted aurguments of your own.

[ShoutGrace]

I guess that before we continue, we should organize some thoughts in order to achieve greater clarity.



In fact, most religious belief starts as "make-believe."


I am saying that many people were INTRODUCED to their faith by their parents, friends, or others.


Are these two statements synonymous?



Please post your own thoughts on this issue, up until now you have only stated that you disagree with me, and have not posted aurguments of your own.


My argument is merely this: In my opinion, “Pascal’s Wager”, taken in a literal sense and without recognition of peripheral concerns, fails logically only because the essence of its methodology is in direct and irreconcilable conflict with the essence of the Christian faith; the faith that it was designed for.

[WriterAtTheSea]

...so in essence, if a man/woman is an atheist, their lack of belief has absolutely no affect on God's existence or non-existence no more than a mans refusal to sit in a chair for fear it won't hold up the weight of his frame, has no bearing on the fact that the chair would hold them up. (Perhaps I make no sense here...and given it is 2:30 am, I most likely don't.) We can choose to accept His existence or reject it, but out rejecting it will have no bearing on the reality of His existence, if in fact He really does exist. :) In spite of the controversy of belief, all of us have a free choice to accept God or reject him.

So, shout, you have some GREAT thoughts here. Might engage better after I have slept. Good night!

[ShoutGrace]

...so in essence, if a man/woman is an atheist, their lack of belief has absolutely no affect on God's existence or non-existence no more than a mans refusal to sit in a chair for fear it won't hold up the weight of his frame, has no bearing on the fact that the chair would hold them up.

I think that your first statement is undoubtedly true. In much the same manner, the belief of a theist has no effect on God's existence either.



We can choose to accept His existence or reject it, but out rejecting it will have no bearing on the reality of His existence, if in fact He really does exist.

Well, what kind of Supreme Being would he be if his existence depended on whether people believed in him or not? (Perhaps an imaginary, created one? (http://www.online-literature.com/forums/showpost.php?p=161539&postcount=29) :D)

[WriterAtTheSea]

Yes, it absolutely holds true for both and I suppose in a very objective sense; that works well for both sides, but of course in reality, ONLY one is right. He is either existent or non-existent. Time will tell... :)

[cuppajoe_9]

Another thing that Pascal fails to take into account is that Yahweh (or his self-appointed spokespersons) demands very different, and often contradictory, things of his Jewish, Christian and Muslim followers.

Yet another thing Pascal fails to realize is that I, as an atheist, could not simply start believing in God, even if I wanted to. I undertook a very long thought process that brought me to the conclusion that there is nothing to show that any god or gods exist, and I cannot un-think those thoughts without hitting myself on the head with a large rock. (Incidentally, I am not interested in debating that position on this particular thread, if nobody minds.) I could certainly claim that I believe in God, and perhaps even convince myself that I do, given enough time, but I doubt that any self-respecting god would reward such hypocritical, cross-your-fingers-behind-your-back, I-do-believe-in-Tinkerbell behavior. Perhaps somebody can back this up with some scripture.

Furthermore: the assertation that there is nothing to lose by living as though you believe in the Judeo-Christian God is false. Among the potentiall risks, depending on your particular sect and where you live, are that you could be tortured to death (ask St. Elmo), your sex life could have harmful psychological consequences (ask certain Hassidic Jews who have had to consult a sex-therapist friend of a friend of mine), you could be taken advantage of by dishonest members of whichever church you belong to, you could die without ever having been drunk, you could become closed-minded or you could be asked to die for your God. I do not list these possibilities (and they are, for the most part, narrow ones) as an attack on christianity, and I certainly don't intend to suggest that all christians (or jews or muslims) posses any of those charactaristics. I am merely suggesting that Pascal's Wager is a wager in the very real sense and that Christianity – like any other world-view, theistic or not – is not without its risks.

[WriterAtTheSea]

Cuppajoe,
There no denying... every atheist friend I have had and do have has gone through a great "thinking, struggling" process to refuse belief. Especially since it goes against mainstream thinking.The issue for me is not so much "faith," but what or who I am putting my faith in and why? I am NOT RELIGIOIUS... Cannot stand religion in truth. While I do have a very strong faith in a supreme being and even Christ, that has evolved (like you) through a long very thought out, prayerful process. I have had to remove pre-conceived ideas and mind sets (which was not easy.) You are right, that in certain cultural circles being a Judeo-Christian could prove risky, but so is drunk driving. I believe when someone asserts that there is nothing to lose by having faith, it really is in reference to everyday living. In other words, in my everyday world for me to deny the possible existence of God and refuse to seek out the possibility of Him being real, "if" he in fact is real could prove disasterous to eternity. On the other hand, if I live with faith and a code of ethics, responsibility and genuine human compassion (which Christ taught)...if wrong, I have only contributed good things to society and really lose nothing. You are presenting the "extreme" of something that does not exist in most of the world. In reality, NOTHING in life is without risk, to include walking across the street or driving your car. Everytime you get on a plane, there is risk. Even relatiionships have a certain amount of risk in the fact that you become vulnerable in them. Bottom line, God is either real or not and personally, I don't believe we will ever be able to fully prove the either or argument. I think there are simply some things we either accept or we don't and I believe He is one of them.

:)

[cuppajoe_9]

In reality, NOTHING in life is without risk, to include walking across the street or driving your car. Everytime you get on a plane, there is risk. Even relatiionships have a certain amount of risk in the fact that you become vulnerable in them.Naturally. I completely agree with you. Pascal, however, apparently does not:
Live a good life,
God Exists= You go to Heaven.
God Does not Exist= You lose Nothing.I am simply trying to point out that if one did plan to take such a cowardly stance on theistic belief, one would do well to consider that becoming a christian is not a risk-free proposition. It may be worth pointing out that for Pascal, theistic belief was as close to risk free as it is possible to get. Pascal was extremely sickly all his life, and rarely left the confines of his home. Boredom leads to tremendous advances in mathematics, it would seem.

[ShoutGrace]

Naturally. I completely agree with you. Pascal, however, apparently does not:


Live a good life, (rather, become a Christian theist)
God Exists= You go to Heaven.
God Does not Exist= You (ultimately) lose Nothing.

Surely it isn't necessary to place the word "ultimately" in there, is it?



I am simply trying to point out that if one did plan to take such a cowardly stance on theistic belief, one would do well to consider that becoming a christian is not a risk-free proposition.

As far as it concerns your physical life whilst alive, anyway. Isn't Pascal more concerned with the supposed "after life"?

If you are any kind of person, and there is no such thing as the supernatural, no Supreme Being exists, then eternity will be spent in the exact same way for one and all.

Whether you lived it up and had a fantastic, full, rich life, or starved for 10 years before dying of disease in a horrible place, makes no difference at all. Everything goes away anyway, and all existence ultimately means nothing to you. You cannot gain or lose anything.

[cuppajoe_9]

I hope I don't offend anybody, but I would consider somebody who wasted their life trying to reconcile a belief that they weren't truly convinced of in hopes of reward in an afterlife that never came to have lost quite a bit. Pascal's Wager, like so man others, is only a sure thing if you win.

[ShoutGrace]

Pascal's Wager, like so man others, is only a sure thing if you win.

Hey, I’m as against Pascal’s Wager as the next guy. :D


I hope I don't offend anybody, but I would consider somebody who wasted their life trying to reconcile a belief that they weren't truly convinced of in hopes of reward in an afterlife that never came to have lost quite a bit.

Surely, they’ve wasted their life. They’ve also been played upon, to an extent, in my opinion. What I am saying is that they lose or gain no more than the person who fulfils every single one of their desires before dying (given atheism as ultimately correct).

[cuppajoe_9]

So what you're saying is that it doesn't matter how much you enjoy your life because you're going to end up dead anyway? You seem to be confusing atheism with one of the more extreme varieties of nihilism. On the contrary, I think that, since there is no afterlife, it is very very important to enjoy the one I have.

[ShoutGrace]

So what you're saying is that it doesn't matter how much you enjoy your life because you're going to end up dead anyway? You seem to be confusing atheism with one of the more extreme varieties of nihilism.

Confound it! I just hate it when I don't know what I'm talking about, and this feeling is compounded so terribly when I am not even aware that I don't know what I'm talking about.


On the contrary, I think that, since there is no afterlife, it is very very important to enjoy the one I have.

Thats very well and good, though it's not what I'm getting at. We can all find meaning in life . . . it's easier when you're living. My only question is this: After you have died, and your conciousness ceases to be, and everything that you were and had becomes absolute nothingness, then, what difference will it make to you how you lived? Whether you enjoyed it or not?

[cuppajoe_9]

Thats very well and good, though it's not what I'm getting at. We can all find meaning in life . . . it's easier when you're living. My only question is this: After you have died, and your conciousness ceases to be, and everything that you were and had becomes absolute nothingness, then, what difference will it make to you how you lived? Whether you enjoyed it or not?
None, of course, but it sounds like a meaningless question to me. What did it matter how much you enjoyed yesterday when you woke up this morning? What difference does it make if your vacation was good when you ultimately have to return to your job? What's the point of making the most of your weekend if nothing can stop monday from arriving?

[Kurtz]

None, of course, but it sounds like a meaningless question to me. What did it matter how much you enjoyed yesterday when you woke up this morning? What difference does it make if your vacation was good when you ultimately have to return to your job? What's the point of making the most of your weekend if nothing can stop monday from arriving?


I agree that it makes no difference when it is all said and done, but I would argue that how you live is extremely important; and that things that happen in time can transcend time itself and be a direct cause of prolonged happiness. Does it matter how much I enjoyed today when tomorrow comes? Surely I am misunderstanding your question. It is not as if joys that happen one day become completely cut off after the day has passed.

Take the following: Last weekend I won a fishing tournament and received quite a bit of money, the feeling of winning has stayed with me and will continue to do so for some time. More importantly take for example the great sex I just had. I know that I will feel better tomorrow simply from reflecting back to the moment of climax.

Surely you can see the merit that certain joys in life overflow and are not merely contained by the time in which they happened (And who is to say that monday arriving is a bad thing). There are people out there who receive joy and happiness outside of the weekend and vacation. In my humble opinion it is important to find a way to enjoy the more mundane things about life. If you are living for a few days out of the week you are doing something wrong. I think people could lead happier lives if they merely allowed themselves to recognize that the everyday world is a fascinating and complex place, and that happiness lies in other places besides the weekend and vacation.

[ShoutGrace]

None, of course, but it sounds like a meaningless question to me. What did it matter how much you enjoyed yesterday when you woke up this morning?

When you wake up, you can remember what happened yesterday and bring it up in your conciousness.

When dead, you have no conciousness and cannot wake up.


What's the point of making the most of your weekend if nothing can stop monday from arriving?

Monday morning may seem bad to us, but it doesn't compare well with death.

If you have no mental process, if you literally are not, then it makes no difference to your non-self how you spent your time while you had a conciousness. Zero. None at all.

All this to say that given the multitude of ways you could spend your life, if the atheistic view is true, each one will be equally profitable, all the way across the board, from the worst to the best. It ultimately will make absolutely no difference to you how your life went. This is regarding your statements here:


I am simply trying to point out that if one did plan to take such a cowardly stance on theistic belief, one would do well to consider that becoming a christian is not a risk-free proposition.


Furthermore: the assertation that there is nothing to lose by living as though you believe in the Judeo-Christian God is false. Among the potentiall risks, depending on your particular sect and where you live, are that you could be tortured to death (ask St. Elmo), your sex life could have harmful psychological consequences (ask certain Hassidic Jews who have had to consult a sex-therapist friend of a friend of mine), you could be taken advantage of by dishonest members of whichever church you belong to, you could die without ever having been drunk, you could become closed-minded or you could be asked to die for your God. I do not list these possibilities (and they are, for the most part, narrow ones) as an attack on christianity, and I certainly don't intend to suggest that all christians (or jews or muslims) posses any of those charactaristics. I am merely suggesting that Pascal's Wager is a wager in the very real sense and that Christianity – like any other world-view, theistic or not – is not without its risks.

It is an absolutely risk free proposition. Your emotional or physical joys or travails will all be extinquished anyway. Life in its entirety is risk free, given atheism.

[cuppajoe_9]

Grace : Whether it is perfectly rational or not, I would still rather be dead after an enjoyable life than dead after an unenjoyable one.

Kurtz : I don't believe that any of the questions I asked have any validity whatsoever, and they are admittedly rather poor examples. I was simply trying to point out the problems associated with Pascal's assumption that Christianity is risk-free.

[Kurtz]

Grace : Whether it is perfectly rational or not, I would still rather be dead after an enjoyable life than dead after an unenjoyable one.

Kurtz : I don't believe that any of the questions I asked have any validity whatsoever, and they are admittedly rather poor examples. I was simply trying to point out the problems associated with Pascal's assumption that Christianity is risk-free.

Gotcha! I agree with you.

[holograph]

do you maybe think that we invented the idea that what we do matters in order to live with purpose in mind? maybe admitting life has no meaning scares us, so we invent all these "societal norms/morals" and "greater meaning" ideas in order to convince ourselves that we matter. heh kind of like a quote form my chemistry teacher: "we are all nothing, but we do matter" (since an atom is 99 percent empty space, but it is still matter, get it? :))

[Orionsbelt]

If it makes anybody feel better:

And the lord said to Adam “Who told you that you were naked?”
And Adam said “Nobody I just noticed the breeze.” Thence it was that Adam fell out of ignorance into paradise and the lord multiplied the joy of man one thousand fold saying “Behold all that I have created. Henceforth you shall be aware and it shall bring joy to heart and mind. Your children shall know the secrets of my creations and the abundant blessing that I offer to the sons of Adam.” Adam said “Great lord, my creator, I am without the ability to express what is in my heart. My companion, nor my sons can justly express our gratitude at what you have given us and posterity. We could have continued in ignorance of your work, but you have granted us deep insight into all of your blessings. May we forever be wise and guard against those who say “it is not the way of the lord” for all things are the way of God even unto death."
Then Adam asked "What shall we find at the end of our time?" And the lord said "Have I not given you enough to consider that you should already want to know more? Have a patient air. Find contentment in what is now before you." - Book of Orion Chapter 1 verse 1

Whoaaa .. traces!

[ShoutGrace]

do you maybe think that we invented the idea that what we do matters in order to live with purpose in mind? maybe admitting life has no meaning scares us, so we invent all these "societal norms/morals" and "greater meaning" ideas in order to convince ourselves that we matter.

I think that convincing myself that life has no meaning would be overwhelmingly relaxing. Doing such a thing would be anything but scary; indeed, it would relieve a person of the full gamut of potential hazards associated with existence.

Deciding that there is no greater purpose would be ulitmately placative.

[cuppajoe_9]

I think that convincing myself that life has no meaning would be overwhelmingly relaxing. Doing such a thing would be anything but scary; indeed, it would relieve a person of the full gamut of potential hazards associated with existence.

Deciding that there is no greater purpose would be ulitmately placative.The relaxation wears off once you realize that you still have to earn a living and all that crap.

[ShoutGrace]

The relaxation wears off once you realize that you still have to earn a living and all that crap.


Ah yes, the truly pressing issues of life will always remain. :D

[WriterAtTheSea]

"Tis I again... :lol:

In response to your statement Cuppa: Originally Posted by cuppajoe_9
I hope I don't offend anybody, but I would consider somebody who wasted their life trying to reconcile a belief that they weren't truly convinced of in hopes of reward in an afterlife that never came to have lost quite a bit.

I couldn't agree more with you, but in reality I cannot assume for others that they are not convinced of what they believe. In other words; to bring this back home to me...I am truly convinced and do not toil in trying to reconcile my faith. As convinced as you are that God does not exist, I am equally convinced that he does exist. I suppose a near death experience that I was miraculously healed of pretty much secured that for me... So, I am not toiling and trying to reconcile belief. It exists. If by some chance I am wrong, I still have lost nothing. ;)

[cuppajoe_9]

I certainly did not mean to imply that all christians waste their life in that manner. I would imagine that the vast majority do not. Your position in fact reinforces my main point: that Pascal's Wager is not so much a reason to become a christian as it is a reason for somebody who is already a christian to stay that way and feel that it is a 'logical bet', to use Pascal's phrase.

[Redzeppelin]

What seems to be ignored here is the fact that Pascal believed in an afterlife - one of infinite joy and pleasure and one of infinite suffering and pain. At least in Pascal's point of view, none of the "losses" a Christian could expect to experience in this life would be significant enough to outweigh the joy heaven offered. Pascal's wager has this benefit: if you have lived your life according to Biblical principles (and managed to not become some Crusading/Inquisitioning zealot) the world around you, your family and your neighbor (if you followed Christ's teachings) will have benefitted in some way. How is that a loss?

[JGL57]

Pascal's Wager seems to me to be basically a "What's in it for me?" type of conjecture.

I'm not sure how such a calculating attitude can be the basic of a healthy mindset and or any kind of beneficent religious belief.

[Redzeppelin]

Pascal's Wager seems to me to be basically a "What's in it for me?" type of conjecture.

I'm not sure how such a calculating attitude can be the basic of a healthy mindset and or any kind of beneficent religious belief.

Perhaps. But maybe Pascal's wager is less about salvation and more about the logic of having a belief in God (after all, he was a mathematician). That a belief may be logical does not necessarily mean someone will embrace it (see much of the atheism/evolution threads...)

[manyreddevils]

Pascal's Wager is largely misinterpreted, in my opinion.
Based on my impressions from the rest of the <i>Pensees</i>, Pascal himself would say that the wager is a poor basis for belief, and is not at all the final word on salvation or the Christian life. The wager, in my perception, is a sort of last-ditch attempt to jar the hardened atheist into considering the position he has taken.

Pascal is highly sympathetic to those who continue to search for truth. He believes this is the best and most honest approach, for theists as well as atheists. He has no such sympathy for those who insist they have it all figured out, know THE answer (and this includes Christians, btw).

It is to the latter sort of atheist that the wager is primarily addressed. His point isn't that Christianity is merely the safest bet, but that what the atheist is arguing for is at its core self-destructive. Essentially he's saying (I think), "So this is the answer you've decided to settle on? Enslavement of mankind to nature, surrender to despair, a life that ends at best with oblivion and at worst perdition? Wake up. There is more to be done. Surely at all cost this answer should be avoided, every possibility explored?"

Just my take on it. In reading the work of minds like these, I find that it's safest to assume that if I can see a problem with something, they probably could too, and I should look carefully to see if they've already addressed it. Typically, they have.

[JGL57]

Pascal's Wager is largely misinterpreted, in my opinion.
Based on my impressions from the rest of the <i>Pensees</i>, Pascal himself would say that the wager is a poor basis for belief, and is not at all the final word on salvation or the Christian life. The wager, in my perception, is a sort of last-ditch attempt to jar the hardened atheist into considering the position he has taken.

Pascal is highly sympathetic to those who continue to search for truth. He believes this is the best and most honest approach, for theists as well as atheists. He has no such sympathy for those who insist they have it all figured out, know THE answer (and this includes Christians, btw).

It is to the latter sort of atheist that the wager is primarily addressed. His point isn't that Christianity is merely the safest bet, but that what the atheist is arguing for is at its core self-destructive. Essentially he's saying (I think), "So this is the answer you've decided to settle on? Enslavement of mankind to nature, surrender to despair, a life that ends at best with oblivion and at worst perdition? Wake up. There is more to be done. Surely at all cost this answer should be avoided, every possibility explored?"

Just my take on it. In reading the work of minds like these, I find that it's safest to assume that if I can see a problem with something, they probably could too, and I should look carefully to see if they've already addressed it. Typically, they have.

Buddhists characterize beliefs and attitudes like Pascal's as ignorance.

I agree.

[manyreddevils]

Buddhists characterize beliefs and attitudes like Pascal's as ignorance.

I agree.

care to elaborate?
it's a fair enough statement, i just wondered what part you would consider ignorant. i may have misphrased what i was trying to say.

[atiguhya padma]

Pascal's wager does make the faith part of religious belief rather redundant doesn't it?

Pascal may well have been a mathematician, but he also burnt a great deal of his more serious work thanks to his more dubious beliefs.

A belief in God is not logical. For each time you invoke the Christian God as an answer to anything, you have to then defend a whole list of illogical assumptions such as: the origins of God; the virgin birth; the resurrection; miracles; heaven; hell; the devil; the eucharist; speaking in tongues; the contradictions in the bible; and all the other nonsense attached to the idea of the Christian God. I mean defending the idea of God is difficult enough in the 21st century, without having to defend all the other stuff with it.

[JGL57]

care to elaborate?
it's a fair enough statement, i just wondered what part you would consider ignorant. i may have misphrased what i was trying to say.

Pascal's whole argument or basic concern is posited on the assumption of a human as a permanent self. Buddhists are Nondualists and view this assumption as ignorance.

Rather than spend time elaborating, I suggest some self-education - you can google "Buddhism” or "Nondual" - or I can make some book recommendations.

[Iwillforgetthis]

I've never been convinced by Pascal's wager. As an exercise in logic it is interesting. But as a reason for believing in God, it's not convincing. As constructed by Pascal the logic is compelling, but if the possible outcomes are changed the solution changes. For instance, the possible outcomes for a non-believer, according to the Wager, are oblivion or hell, ie. No possibility of an improved existence for the non-believer. But if you consider the possibility of an improved existence for the non-believer, then the solution changes. What if being a non-believer improves one's chances for paradise? I am not a mathematician but what does that do to the wager? Of course, for that possible outcome God in the wager cannot be limited to the Christian God and the belief in God cannot be limited to the Christian belief in God and redemption.

I believe that God would prefer an atheist who came to that belief after years of heart-felt searching than a Christian who believes simply to hedge his bets. After all, Jesus said, "Know thyself". I don't recall anything in scripture advising us to hedge our bets.


Originally Posted by ShoutGrace: Pascal’s wager takes into account the existence of other Gods. ‘Other Gods’ fall into the category of ‘The Christian God does not exist’. We will call this scenario (a). If scenario (a) were found to be true, the eternal reward/risk ratio is consistent with the reward/ratio of there being no God. If you were to live like an atheist in scenario (a), it would be no different than living like a devout Christian in scenario (a).

Again, Pascal here considers the Christian God. If you live the Christian life and do not ‘go to heaven’, by definition, the Christian God would not exist; your end and God’s treatment of you would be contradictory to the nature of the Christian God. Scenario (a) is in effect again.

I think that Pascal is saying that even considering the possibility of scenario (a), it is still ‘logical’ to believe in the Christian God; again, based on the eternal reward/risk aspect.

It seems to me that you are wrong here. The possibility of other Gods changes the possible outcomes of betting against "God" (that is, the Christian God) and doesn't that change the equation?

[weepingforloman]

A belief in God is not logical. For each time you invoke the Christian God as an answer to anything, you have to then defend a whole list of illogical assumptions such as: the origins of God; the virgin birth; the resurrection; miracles; heaven; hell; the devil; the eucharist; speaking in tongues; the contradictions in the bible; and all the other nonsense attached to the idea of the Christian God. I mean defending the idea of God is difficult enough in the 21st century, without having to defend all the other stuff with it.

OK, here goes: 1.) God is the foundation of existence. He is, in fact, the only thing of which we can say "it was always there." 2.) The virgin birth was a miracle. If you have an omnipotent being, it is foolish to say that anything is outside His powers of influence (that is, anything that is not inherently impossible... like "God can make a creature with free will, and yet without free will"). 3.) See above. 4.) See above. 5.) Heaven is not illogical if God exists. 6.) Nor is Hell. 7.) The devil, admittedly, is a bit less obvious, even if you start with the assumption of God. But something is wrong with this planet, no? 8.) I'm not Catholic! Haha, I get to skip this one! 9.) I'm not Pentecostal! Haha, I get to skip this one! 10.) If there are contradictions that are not due to inadequate translation, or a lack of understanding on the part of the reader, we must assume that they are beyond human comprehension at all, given the existence of God. 11.) Specifically what "other stuff?"

[dzebra]

A belief in God is not logical. For each time you invoke the Christian God as an answer to anything, you have to then defend a whole list of illogical assumptions such as: the origins of God; the virgin birth; the resurrection; miracles; heaven; hell; the devil; the eucharist; speaking in tongues; the contradictions in the bible; and all the other nonsense attached to the idea of the Christian God. I mean defending the idea of God is difficult enough in the 21st century, without having to defend all the other stuff with it.

A belief in God is logical. Though it is impossible to prove the existence of God and some of the things God has done, there are still logical reasons to believe in God. For the existence of God to be logical, all an argument must do is work God into the equation of the universe in a way that doesn't contradict itself. Once that is done, believing in God is logical (though not proven).

An example:
The world began.
Something must have started the world.
God is that something.

Now we have an argument that doesn't prove anything, but does logically show us that God is possible. From there we can logically rid ourselves of your "illogical assumptions."

Example:
Everything we see had a beginning.
Everything we see must have started.
Something we cannot see must have started them.
God is that something.
We cannot see God, so he was not necessarily created.

Another example:
If God created everything, then he can make something from nothing.
The virgin birth in an instance of God creating something from nothing.


All of these arguments are logical. Each statement follows from the previous. No, none of them prove anything except for that is it not illogical to believe in God. Nevertheless, my conclusion is that it is completely logical to believe in God.

[Redzeppelin]

A belief in God is logical. Though it is impossible to prove the existence of God and some of the things God has done, there are still logical reasons to believe in God. For the existence of God to be logical, all an argument must do is work God into the equation of the universe in a way that doesn't contradict itself. Once that is done, believing in God is logical (though not proven).

An example:
The world began.
Something must have started the world.
God is that something.

Now we have an argument that doesn't prove anything, but does logically show us that God is possible. From there we can logically rid ourselves of your "illogical assumptions."

Example:
Everything we see had a beginning.
Everything we see must have started.
Something we cannot see must have started them.
God is that something.
We cannot see God, so he was not necessarily created.

Another example:
If God created everything, then he can make something from nothing.
The virgin birth in an instance of God creating something from nothing.


All of these arguments are logical. Each statement follows from the previous. No, none of them prove anything except for that is it not illogical to believe in God. Nevertheless, my conclusion is that it is completely logical to believe in God.

A well-stated paraphrase of Aquinas' argument. But the "logic" you speak of (which I whole-heartedly accept, by the way) falls on deaf ears of those who ascribe to Naturalism - they see "logic" as based upon what can be measured and observed. I liked your run-down, though - I'm just playing Devil's advocate in terms of how non-believers will tend to respond to your claim of "logic."

Good post.

[NikolaiI]

Well, it is beyond me to say what started the world, but I believe that is a natural occurrence. Do you mean what started the universe?

How do you know everything has a beginning?

Since you are mainly trying to comply with logic here, tell me how you are using it.

Everything we see must have started.
Something we cannot see must have started them.
God is that something.

Why does whatever started everything have to be something we cannot see? Why is God that something?

I'm not saying it's not true, but your arguments are very weak. I mean, I am a little confused. I'm not sure what the difference between logically possible and proving the existence of God. You say it's impossible to prove, but by what you give us it seems you are trying to prove that God exists. I mean your statements do not follow each other. They might be true, I mean the bible and all that might be true, but that's what we're still going on, is the bible and the assertions about God.

[NikolaiI]

About Pascal's wager; I think Dawkins' main problem with it was that it is not real belief if you believe on account of a bet like that. I disagree, I think you can choose to believe something if you think there is reason to, but then, maybe there is something to say for that. I mean believing so you will be saved. As the Bhagavad-Gita says, it is not true devotion if you are only devoted so you will receive material or spiritual gains.

About Pascal's wager, the log in Pascal's eye, so to speak, is how centered it is on Christianity. It's natural, and I presume Pascal was raised Christian, but the thing is that there are other religions, too. I mean, how can you say anything about odds? I think the wager is weak because it is all based on one idea - Christianity, and proving Christianity is correct. Pascal was very dogmatic. He didn't see other religions as possibilities because he was so dogmatic, and because he came from such a dogmatic time.

And I agree with what JGL said about our personal selves being impermanent.

[PrinceMyshkin]

A belief in God is logical. Though it is impossible to prove the existence of God and some of the things God has done, there are still logical reasons to believe in God. For the existence of God to be logical, all an argument must do is work God into the equation of the universe in a way that doesn't contradict itself. Once that is done, believing in God is logical (though not proven).

An example:
The world began.
Something must have started the world.
God is that something.

Now we have an argument that doesn't prove anything, but does logically show us that God is possible. From there we can logically rid ourselves of your "illogical assumptions."

Example:
Everything we see had a beginning.
Everything we see must have started.
Something we cannot see must have started them.
God is that something.
We cannot see God, so he was not necessarily created.

Another example:
If God created everything, then he can make something from nothing.
The virgin birth in an instance of God creating something from nothing.


All of these arguments are logical. Each statement follows from the previous. No, none of them prove anything except for that is it not illogical to believe in God. Nevertheless, my conclusion is that it is completely logical to believe in God.

May I posit one more syllogism:



We know nothing of creation before the "Big Bang"
Some of us imagine that "God" created it.
Therefore we know nothing of God

[dzebra]

How do you know everything has a beginning?



I am conjecturing based on scientific evidences. For instance, the sun is burning stuff and there is a calculable amount of stuff in the sun that it is burning and that has already been burned. It makes sense that there was a time when it had not burned any of its fuel. That was its beginning.

The universe is expanding at an accelerating rate. If we knew enough, we could maybe calculate the rate of acceleration backwards and perhaps find a place where things started.

Everything we see has signs of age, but nothing we have seen has signs of infinite age, so that's why I claim that everything we can see has a beginning. Maybe it would be better stated "everything we have seen has a beginning."






Why does whatever started everything have to be something we cannot see? Why is God that something?



Because everything we see has a beginning. I'm saying that something existed before everything that has a beginning, and that thing created everything we see. I'm calling that something God.


But those arguments are not my main point. Many different arguments could suffice to prove that belief in God is logical. A logical argument is one that has a conclusion that can be derived from its premises.

[NikolaiI]

A logical argument is a logical proof. And you're not proving anything. Just because you put one statement after another doesn't mean it is logically proven. I know that sounds harsh, but that's what you're doing.

I don't know what your reasons for believing are - intelligent design (the awe factor), cosmic feeling, religious texts, religious upbringing - but they are all equally unconvincing for me. And as for Pascal's wager, well, that is just a joke, since it relies on religious texts and upbringing.

[atiguhya padma]

A belief in God is logical. Though it is impossible to prove the existence of God and some of the things God has done, there are still logical reasons to believe in God. For the existence of God to be logical, all an argument must do is work God into the equation of the universe in a way that doesn't contradict itself. Once that is done, believing in God is logical (though not proven).

An example:
The world began.
Something must have started the world.
God is that something.

Now we have an argument that doesn't prove anything, but does logically show us that God is possible. From there we can logically rid ourselves of your "illogical assumptions."

Example:
Everything we see had a beginning.
Everything we see must have started.
Something we cannot see must have started them.
God is that something.
We cannot see God, so he was not necessarily created.

Another example:
If God created everything, then he can make something from nothing.
The virgin birth in an instance of God creating something from nothing.


All of these arguments are logical. Each statement follows from the previous. No, none of them prove anything except for that is it not illogical to believe in God. Nevertheless, my conclusion is that it is completely logical to believe in God.

Do you have evidence that the world began?
You say something must have started the world. Firstly, something is a term that refers to an item within the material world, if you disagree, give me a clearcut example of a something that exists outside the universe (I presume you mean universe when you say world?). I maintain that god is not that 'something', firstly because the notion of god appears to be wholly man-made, secondly, you cannot provide any evidence of god's existence, or at least you have failed to do so as yet. Your argument certainly does not show us that god is possible. Your next example is equally as weak. How do you know that everything we see had a beginning? How do you know that everything we see must have started?

Even if your arguments were good, which they aren't, you would only have established the following:

1) the universe needs an external environment, or boundary, within which it exists.
2) the environment within which it exists must be directly or indirectly dependent on an environment that is uncreated.

Thats very different from saying that god exists.

If god is omniscient then he must not only know all possible descriptive knowledge, but he must also know all possible experiential knowledge too. Which means he must have had the experience of being completely ignorant. Is this possible?

[PrinceMyshkin]

Do you have evidence that the world began?
You say something must have started the world. Firstly, something is a term that refers to an item within the material world, if you disagree, give me a clearcut example of a something that exists outside the universe (I presume you mean universe when you say world?). I maintain that god is not that 'something', firstly because the notion of god appears to be wholly man-made, secondly, you cannot provide any evidence of god's existence, or at least you have failed to do so as yet. Your argument certainly does not show us that god is possible. Your next example is equally as weak. How do you know that everything we see had a beginning? How do you know that everything we see must have started?

Even if your arguments were good, which they aren't, you would only have established the following:

1) the universe needs an external environment, or boundary, within which it exists.
2) the environment within which it exists must be directly or indirectly dependent on an environment that is uncreated.

Thats very different from saying that god exists.

If god is omniscient then he must not only know all possible descriptive knowledge, but he must also know all possible experiential knowledge too. Which means he must have had the experience of being completely ignorant. Is this possible?

Brilliant, wonderfully articulate response! Here's to the openness and humility that may be the only path to true knowledge!

[Redzeppelin]

May I posit one more syllogism:



We know nothing of creation before the "Big Bang"
Some of us imagine that "God" created it.
Therefore we know nothing of God

Clever but flawed logic.

1. The use of "nothing" in the syllogism is vague.

2. The first premise and the conclusion use "we" but the 2nd premise reduces that number by "some" - so how can all of "we" know "nothing of God" if only "some" of us "imagine" he created the big bang? What?

3. The syllogism is flawed because it posits the incorrect idea that a particular (theorized) event is foundational to the understanding of God. It isn't. The Bible and nature function to reveal the nature/character of God.

[PrinceMyshkin]

Clever but flawed logic.

1. The use of "nothing" in the syllogism is vague.

2. The first premise and the conclusion use "we" but the 2nd premise reduces that number by "some" - so how can all of "we" know "nothing of God" if only "some" of us "imagine" he created the big bang? What?

3. The syllogism is flawed because it posits the incorrect idea that a particular (theorized) event is foundational to the understanding of God. It isn't. The Bible and nature function to reveal the nature/character of God.

Very well, then let's try this:

The Bible tells us of the existence of God, who is unknowable to men.
The Bible was written by men.
THerefore the Bible tells us nothing of God.

[PrinceMyshkin]

Or this:

Beliefs are a construct of the human mind.
The mind cannot literally take in the whole of reality.
Therefore beliefs are at best representations of a portion of reality.

[PrinceMyshkin]

Or this:

1) He who believes what he believes will accept nothing that is external to those beliefs.

2) Beliefs contain within themselves the proof of their own believability

3) Therefore the proof of a belief is the belief in its proof which is its own proof.

[motherhubbard]

Or this:

Beliefs are a construct of the human mind.
The mind cannot literally take in the whole of reality.
Therefore beliefs are at best representations of a portion of reality.

Is that what you believe?

[PrinceMyshkin]

Is that what you believe?

Yes. If there is any part of this that is contradictory to your own understanding, I will look for it either here or in a PM, as I won't be subscribing or posting to any the religious threads.

[dzebra]

A logical argument is a logical proof. And you're not proving anything. Just because you put one statement after another doesn't mean it is logically proven. I know that sounds harsh, but that's what you're doing.

I think you are still missing my point. I am not trying to prove the existence of God. I am showing that God can be logically deduced from reasonable premises. Logic derives a conclusion from the premises. If the logic is correct and the premises are true, then the conclusion is true. If the logic is incorrect or a premise is incorrect, the conclusion may not be true. I have taken premises that may or may not be true, but could reasonably be true. From these premises, I have made inferences using logic. My examples are not proofs of God because not all of the premises have been proven to be true, but I have choses premises that are not unreasonable, so that I could show that belief in God is logical if you allow the truth of those (plausible, but unproven) premises. Reasonable, smart, logical people can believe in God.

But this tangent is getting off topic.

[weepingforloman]

Very well, then let's try this:

The Bible tells us of the existence of God, who is unknowable to men.
The Bible was written by men.
THerefore the Bible tells us nothing of God.

You forget the concept of divine inspiration. And I mean inspiration in the original sense: breathing in. God guided the writing of scripture. It is possible (I will not say definite) that God would be unknowable if He were impersonal. But He MAKES Himself known. He is a real person, in fact, He is three Persons. And He teaches us about Him. You will, of course, disagree, but the position of Christianity on the "knowability" of God is not utter bullcrap.

[Redzeppelin]

Very well, then let's try this:

The Bible tells us of the existence of God, who is unknowable to men.
The Bible was written by men.
THerefore the Bible tells us nothing of God.

Handled already by weepingforloman. I will add that the syllogism presented here is at odds with what the Bible tells us - namely, that it is an inspired document (2 Timothy 3:16 - "All scripture is given by inspiration of God and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness." KJV)


Or this:

Beliefs are a construct of the human mind.
The mind cannot literally take in the whole of reality.
Therefore beliefs are at best representations of a portion of reality.

The use of "construct" is vague: do you mean the mind constructs them, or that they are constructs contained by/related to/understood by the mind? (Like "I am a citizen of America" - does that mean America created me or that I am a denizen of this location?)

The second premise is one often used by Christian apologists against the atheist dismissal of God based on a "lack of evidence" (oops - shot yourself in the foot there, eh?)


Or this:

1) He who believes what he believes will accept nothing that is external to those beliefs.

2) Beliefs contain within themselves the proof of their own believability

3) Therefore the proof of a belief is the belief in its proof which is its own proof.

Applicable to Christianity, Naturalism, atheism, and just about any "ism" or "ity" you can come up with - so?

[NikolaiI]

I think you are still missing my point. I am not trying to prove the existence of God. I am showing that God can be logically deduced from reasonable premises. Logic derives a conclusion from the premises. If the logic is correct and the premises are true, then the conclusion is true. If the logic is incorrect or a premise is incorrect, the conclusion may not be true. I have taken premises that may or may not be true, but could reasonably be true. From these premises, I have made inferences using logic. My examples are not proofs of God because not all of the premises have been proven to be true, but I have choses premises that are not unreasonable, so that I could show that belief in God is logical if you allow the truth of those (plausible, but unproven) premises. Reasonable, smart, logical people can believe in God.

But this tangent is getting off topic.

It is, and if you haven't noticed, I keep trying to bring it back to Pascal's wager. Okay, you say you're not trying to give a proof, but is that not what a logical argument is?

[atiguhya padma]

I think you are still missing my point. I am not trying to prove the existence of God. I am showing that God can be logically deduced from reasonable premises. Logic derives a conclusion from the premises. If the logic is correct and the premises are true, then the conclusion is true. If the logic is incorrect or a premise is incorrect, the conclusion may not be true. I have taken premises that may or may not be true, but could reasonably be true. From these premises, I have made inferences using logic. My examples are not proofs of God because not all of the premises have been proven to be true, but I have choses premises that are not unreasonable, so that I could show that belief in God is logical if you allow the truth of those (plausible, but unproven) premises. Reasonable, smart, logical people can believe in God.

But this tangent is getting off topic.

Reasonable, smart, logical people who believe in god don't need to resort to false premises