Spirituality
25 Dec 12
13 Jan 13
Originally posted by apathistBut you're wrong; God reveals himself to those who seek Him. He gives us free will to approach Him or not.....if we approach Him in sincere prayer, He will reveal Himself. He states this as much in the Bible; however, we must be the initiator and come in faith, which is very hard to do, especially if we have been brainwashed into believing He doesn't exist in the first place.
This is a serious question. Why, in your opinion, does God base our afterlife on our beliefs, when He refuses to make himself known? He's all-powerful and so could easily let modern society know He is God, but He doesn't!
If God is, and He needs mindless slaves, then it starts to make sense.
Originally posted by AgergYou went wrong by assuming Pascal spoke of any and all possible gods. If he used the word "God" with a capital G, then he was speaking of a specific god. Which one was Pascal speaking of? Once you figure that out, all the other gods are removed from the equation.
This isn't so much meant to be an interesting thread topic more than it is intended to be a reminder for theists who don't know one of the essential problems with Pascals wager. I'll proceed by assuming the logic is valid...
Either God exists or he doesn't (so a fifty fifty chance then)
Then
If I'm a Christian we have:
P(Bible God) = 1/2
If I'm a Musli robabilities of events in a sample space is equal to 1
So where did I go wrong? 😕
13 Jan 13
Originally posted by apathistGod does not refuse to make Himself known. But when someone is wearing a blindfold and has their hands over their ears, it just follows that God's existence might go undetected. I know it's not that simple and I'm not trying to make light of your question -- but that is what believers see from our vantage point.
This is a serious question. Why, in your opinion, does God base our afterlife on our beliefs, when He refuses to make himself known?
13 Jan 13
Originally posted by sumydidYou just got that completely wrong (hint: how many people from different religions will refer to their god with a capital G?)
You went wrong by assuming Pascal spoke of any and all possible gods. If he used the word "God" with a capital G, then he was speaking of a specific god. Which one was Pascal speaking of? Once you figure that out, all the other gods are removed from the equation.
and at any rate, whether he's purposely referring to one particular god or not his argument is broken because he only considers the consequences and rewards associated with that one particular god instead of all of them
13 Jan 13
Originally posted by AgergYou write, "Perhaps some god that exists just doesn't give a damn either way about the things it creates (or allows to be created) - perhaps it isn't all powerful (why should it be? why can't it merely be sufficiently powerful enough to construct a universe!?)."
Cheers..been travelling up and down the UK, and operating on half sleep (if I'm lucky) for the last three months - glad it's all over!
I wouldn't say he was trying to be sneaky as such, though like the great mathematician Euler (whose supposed proof of God's existence to Diderot: "(a+b^n)/n = x", hence God exists - reply!" still makes me chuckle) I think he ...[text shortened]... e? why can't it merely be sufficiently powerful enough to construct a universe!?).
Most people would not question that a being, who can construct a universe as well as create living things, is all powerful as described in the Holy Bible. The fact that there can not be more than ONE all powerful being is a fact that only requires common sense to understand. Therefore, there can be only ONE that can truly be called GOD! That ONE is called the TRINITY by Christians because we believe that ONE GOD consists of three persons - the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. This is a concept that reqiures more that common sense to understand and is revealed through special revelation.
😏
HalleluYah !!! Praise the Lord! Glory be to GOD! Holy! Holy! Holy!
14 Jan 13
Originally posted by AgergYour equation requires that Pascal was considering all possible gods. I think that's a false assumption.
You just got that completely wrong (hint: how many people from different religions will refer to [b]their god with a capital G?)
and at any rate, whether he's purposely referring to one particular god or not his argument is broken because he only considers the consequences and rewards associated with that one particular god instead of all of them[/b]
Originally posted by sumydidActually I didn't require or assume that, indeed my argument in the OP actually relies on the assumption Pascal was thinking of only one god! I was merely taking his flawed reasoning and showing how maths suddenly doesn't work anymore when we apply it also to a Jew and a Muslims conception of the ONLY "G"od (since from their perspective your god is incorrect). I don't have to stop with those gods either.
Your equation requires that Pascal was considering all possible gods. I think that's a false assumption.
14 Jan 13
Originally posted by AgergThe Jews have been temporarily blinded spiritually and the the Muslims are both spiritually blinded and deceived by Satan the devil. You on the other hand have never had any spiritual sight. 😏
Actually I didn't require or assume that, indeed my argument in the OP actually relies on the assumption Pascal was thinking of only one god! I was merely taking his flawed reasoning and showing how maths suddenly doesn't work anymore when we apply it also to a Jew and a Muslims conception of the ONLY "G"od (since from their perspective your god is incorrect). I don't have to stop with those gods either.
- Joined
- 29 Dec 08
- Moves
- 6788
14 Jan 13
Originally posted by sumydidThat can be conceded. I think he's saying that NOT considering all possible gods* is what is fatal to PW. But I won't speak for him.
Your equation requires that Pascal was considering all possible gods. I think that's a false assumption.
* Let us say gods are conceivable entities who are able to visit infinite gain or loss on us depending on how we bet on their existence. Their having that capability is crucial to the bet.
15 Jan 13
1 edit
Originally posted by Agerg
This isn't so much meant to be an interesting thread topic more than it is intended to be a reminder for theists who don't know one of the essential problems with Pascals wager. I'll proceed by assuming the logic is valid...
😕
Either God exists or he doesn't (so a fifty fifty chance then)
Then If I'm a Christian we have: P(Bible God) = 1/2 If I'm a Muslim we have: P(Quran God) = 1/2 If I'm a complete and total **** we have: P(Dasa God) = 1/2
Now since each of the above type of person exists then from an objective standpoint it makes sense to sum these probabilities.
But the sum of these probabilities is 3/2 > 1 which completely defies the fundamental definition of probability that the sum over all probabilities of events in a sample space is equal to 1
So where did I go wrong?
I don't think this argument has yet been properly sorted out. I have read all of the thread. (I do not think this argument is at all the same as or similar to Pascal's Wager by the way)
For the sake of argument, it may as well be decided that any god or just God has a 50:50 chance of existing or not existing.
If there is just one God, then each faith refers to that one God by a different name. Certainly, Islam refers precisely to the same God as that of the Jews and the Christians for example. So if there is only one God, and there is a 50:50 chance He exists, then you cannot add together the scores of the different faiths in the way you suggest. Consider if this was just a toss of a coin. The chances of heads or tails would be identical (50:50) no matter how many different people tossed a coin.
Alternatively, if you are a polytheist, then the existence of any one god does not rule out that of any other god. If you look into the thinking of the Greeks and the Romans, they routinely added new gods into their pantheon, or otherwise they identified that one god in their culture was identical with a god of another name in a different culture. Either way, the 50s do not get added up. No matter how many believers in how many gods you want to add into your list, the odds remain the same at 50:50 (in the arbitrary decision rule adopted for this argument) and never increase or reduce.
As you cannot carry out the addition you propose, then your initial argument fails.
15 Jan 13
Originally posted by AgergGoing from claiming there is no god to claiming there are many gods is nonsensical in the extreme.
Actually I didn't require or assume that, indeed my argument in the OP actually relies on the assumption Pascal was thinking of only one god! I was merely taking his flawed reasoning and showing how maths suddenly doesn't work anymore when we apply it also to a Jew and a Muslims conception of the ONLY "G"od (since from their perspective your god is incorrect). I don't have to stop with those gods either.
15 Jan 13
3 edits
Originally posted by finneganI'll spend more time in this later perhaps but for now I argue, contrary to your position, that these gods *are* distinct elements from the same sample space - god of the bible *is* different from god of the quran. What I was trying to point out, is that if we assume a fifty chance of any particular god (which seemed to be implied by his analysis of reward and penalty for winning/losing respectively) then the maths fails catastrophically.
[quote]Either God exists or he doesn't (so a fifty fifty chance then)
Then If I'm a Christian we have: P(Bible God) = 1/2 If I'm a Muslim we have: P(Quran God) = 1/2 If I'm a complete and total **** we have: P(Dasa God) = 1/2
Now since each of the above type of person exists then from an objective standpoint [b]it makes sense to sum these probabiliti ...[text shortened]...
As you cannot carry out the addition you propose, then your initial argument fails.[/b]
If we are talking about any arbitrary god - we can draw no conclusions whatsoever as to the consequences of choosing "incorrectly".
15 Jan 13
1 edit
Originally posted by SuzianneWell that's because I can think in hypothetical terms - it's a useful skill. You cannot wrap your head around the notion that there are, in theory, infinitely many different formulations of god; indeed you can only imagine there exists only one entity that qualifies for the title "God".
Going from claiming there is no god to claiming there are many gods is nonsensical in the extreme.
Consequently if I am going to try and show an argument is incorrect it makes sense to assume the premises of an argument and show what madness is entailed from that assumption. (and so alluding to many gods is anything but nonsensical in the extreme).
However, in spite of all this, I still know with absolute confidence that your god does not exist.
17 Jan 13
Originally posted by AgergThe question about your use of probability is more interesting than the question about the existence or otherwise of one or more gods. Pascal did far more for probability theory than he did for religion. As the victim of a rather extreme (Jansenist I think) Catholic sect, his theology was decidedly dodgy and away from the mainstream. In addition, I don't actually believe as a historical fact that he regarded his gamble as a convincing one in any objective sense, rather he seems to have found it an attractive way to think, because he enjoyed probability theory. I can't see Pascal taking your line and I can't see him making the catastrophic mistake which you imply.
I'll spend more time in this later perhaps but for now I argue, contrary to your position, that these gods *are* distinct elements from the same sample space - god of the bible *is* different from god of the quran. What I was trying to point out, is that if we assume a fifty chance of any particular god (which seemed to be implied by his analysis of reward and ...[text shortened]... god - we can draw no conclusions whatsoever as to the consequences of choosing "incorrectly".