Pascal's Wager Revisited

Originally posted by twhitehead
I am remaining objective. It appears you threw in Pascal's Wager as a bait to draw in readers to your real purpose which was something altogether different. Is this correct, or will you refuse to answer as usual?

[b]Note: Please clarify your concluding sentence: "I guess I shouldn't have expected more from a self confessed troll."
You have confess ...[text shortened]... o trolling in another thread. I should not really expect you to be any different in this thread.[/b]

Originally posted by twhitehead
"I am remaining objective..."

You're in the minority. Thanks.

Originally posted by Agerg
in a game where there are **equal** risks of gain and of loss

The wager is not a fifty fifty proposition!


Suppose I bet on one sovereign god and it then turns out there's actually 23 of them, one of which who hates anyone that believes in the god you are referring to - and will torture them for all eternity!??

I'd be in a bit of a pickle then wouldn't I?

"The wager is not a fifty fifty proposition!" Agerg, what percentages would you assign to the "risks of gain and of loss"?

Originally posted by JS357
This is because what is moral is moral regardless of whether God exists and regardless of whether we believe God exists.

Yes, but what we should do, is not equivalent to what is moral. If God exists, then acting immorally, might be what we should do.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Yes, but what we should do, is not equivalent to what is moral. If God exists, then acting immorally, might be what we should do.

I would contend that 'acting morally' IS what you SHOULD do regardless.

If however your goal is to get to heaven and acting immorally is how you
achieve that then to achieve your goal you need to act immorally.
But that's still not what you should do.

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
Just as bank robbers rob banks because that's where the money is... emotionally immature trolls [with minimal focus on issues or ideas, only on nit picking personal attacks] disrupt serious threads because that's where the attention is...

Unfortunately, by way of your own self-admittedly "trollish" behaviour, you have spent years here smearing those who ask inconvenient questions, who point out incoherence and contradictions in what you say, and who disagree and dissent generally, as "trolls". How many hundreds and hundreds of on-topic and point blank responses to your posts have been deflected in this way over the years?

Here is a question I have asked you point blank with regard to your take on Pascal's Wager on innumerable occasions and I cannot recall you ever answering it ~ although I can recall being called a troll by you for asking questions like this many times:

Do you think that people can somehow choose to believe something that they simply do not believe? You keep talking about it being a choice to believe in the supernatural things you happen to believe in, but if one just doesn't think the things you believe in are real, how can they possibly choose to believe them by somehow setting their actual and very real disbelief aside?

Originally posted by twhitehead
Based on her earlier comment, I would guess that she faults your methods because they are ineffective at best and counter productive at worst. You have converted more theists to atheism on this forum than anyone else.

Another hater of redneck truth, I see. 😏

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
"The wager is not a fifty fifty proposition!" Agerg, what percentages would you assign to the "risks of gain and of loss"?

The probability that your god exists over the infinitely many other, and equally likely potential gods is for all intents and purposes zero.

As for the expectation, it would have the characteristics of the dirac-delta function.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Yes, but what we should do, is not equivalent to what is moral. If God exists, then acting immorally, might be what we should do.

From a logical perspective, your statement "If God exists, then acting immorally, might be what we should do." does not itself rule out "If God doesn't exist, then acting immorally, might be what we should do."

Do you mean to say that God's existence might change what we should do? This would be a direct disagreement with what I suggest. That's OK, but I would then ask for a reason.

Originally posted by Agerg
The probability that your god exists over the infinitely many other, and equally likely potential gods is for all intents and purposes zero.

As for the expectation, it would have the characteristics of the dirac-delta function.

Although one could have an argument at this point over whether or not there are an infinitely
large number of functionally distinct possible god concepts.

However it's not necessary to postulate infinite gods to get around the infinity they place
in the gains column for believing in the right god. [or the infinity loss for failing to believe]
Due to the subset of god space occupied by gods that reward atheists or good works and
not belief.

I'm not saying that god space isn't infinite... Just that I'm not sure that I am prepared to
accept it as axiomatic, I would need a convincing argument to settle either way.

I realise that I have claimed it infinite before... However I have changed my mind over whether
that claim is justified.

Originally posted by googlefudge
Although one could have an argument at this point over whether or not there are an infinitely
large number of functionally distinct possible god concepts.

However it's not necessary to postulate infinite gods to get around the infinity they place
in the gains column for believing in the right god. [or the infinity loss for failing to believe]
Due ...[text shortened]... med it infinite before... However I have changed my mind over whether
that claim is justified.

Well it would appear to me that for any two gods G1 and G2, if G1 grants eternal happiness only to creatures of type C1 whilst G2 grants eternal happiness only to creatures of type C2 then these two gods are functionally distinct. So at the very least we have as many functionally distinct gods as there are different possible creatures. Now this might seem like a counting problem - how many possible ways are there of arranging all particles of matter in the universe in such way that a single life endowed creature results? If we fix the amount of potential matter then this is certainly finite, but on the other hand if we imagine a god who can increase the amount of matter at will then for any set of distinct creatures already accounted for, this god can always come up with another!
As such this surely points towards an infinite subset of functionally distinct gods!

Originally posted by Agerg
The probability that your god exists over the infinitely many other, and equally likely potential gods is for all intents and purposes zero.

As for the expectation, it would have the characteristics of the dirac-delta function.

Wouldn't the eternal existence of a sovereign God by definition preclude the existence of another sovereign God?

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
Wouldn't the eternal existence of a sovereign God by definition preclude the existence of another sovereign God?

There's a whiff of circular logic here. I wonder to what degree your "definition" relies on such logic. But will you expand upon what you've said and negate my suspicions? It remains to be seen.

Originally posted by googlefudge
I would contend that 'acting morally' IS what you SHOULD do regardless.

Why? Are you just asserting it because you feel that way intuitively?

Let me also add another possibility: Acting morally for someone who believes in God may actually appear immoral to those that do not believe in God. Killing a child to send them to heaven quicker and with less suffering, may be the moral thing to do.

Originally posted by JS357
Do you mean to say that God's existence might change what we should do?

Yes.

This would be a direct disagreement with what I suggest. That's OK, but I would then ask for a reason.
What we 'should do' depends on what universe we live in surely? So significantly changing that universe may potentially significantly change what we 'should do'.

Now here is one for you: why should we act morally?

Originally posted by twhitehead
Yes.

[b]This would be a direct disagreement with what I suggest. That's OK, but I would then ask for a reason.
What we 'should do' depends on what universe we live in surely? So significantly changing that universe may potentially significantly change what we 'should do'.

Now here is one for you: why should we act morally?[/b]

It depends on the individual. I believe the reasons for an individual to act morally within a society can vary, from self-interest reward/punishment to duty, and a successful society will find a way to motivate its members in terms of their reasons, to act in accordance with its moral standards.