Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Count Lucanor]

[...] it is better to bet on the existence of God than to bet against the existence of God. If we are wrong, we lose nothing.

We would not lose nothing by believing in the existence of Quetzalcoatl, the serpent dog, right? Or Marduk, right? Why not then?

If we are right, we stand to gain everything.

What exactly are we gaining by just believing in its existence?

We are talking about God, not dogs.

Typos aside, there are dog characters in some religious narratives. If I were Pascal, I wouldn't rule those out either, just in case.

You don't just gain by believing. True faith should bring a host of gains not only for the individual but for the world at large.
Most of all for the individual the gain is a life of hope and reward at the end of life. For the world faith unites people in a conviction that God cares and has given us the means by which we can care for ourselves and each other.

Wait a minute, there's nothing of that in Pascal's argument for belief in the existence of God, this is all added by you out of nowhere. You are then asking for extending Pascal's argument not only to belief in the existence of some god, but to belief in any religious doctrine, of which there are many, I must say. One could possibly believe there is a god and not give a dime for it. One could believe this god is a malevolent, capricious, revengeful figure (as described in so called "sacred scriptures"), so no, there's nothing obvious about gaining something as Pascal argues.

Atheism cannot offer that conviction of caring and hope. Atheism is just the denial of God. Aside from the freedom to deny, it is concerned with nothing else. Every atheist is a law unto himself, and with the rise of modern atheism we have seen plenty of evidence of how that will turn out.

Religion might offer fantasies and illusions as comforting mechanism to deal with real life problems, but in the end, given those are fantasies and illusions, religion cannot deliver any solution. It's just an escape drug. Atheism, OTOH, does not sell anything anyway, it is not a doctrine in itself, it is only about remaining skeptic before the huge loads of baloney coming from religious preachers, nothing else.

[Charlemagne]

[...] it is better to bet on the existence of God than to bet against the existence of God. If we are wrong, we lose nothing.

We would not lose nothing by believing in the existence of Quetzalcoatl, the serpent dog, right? Or Marduk, right? Why not then?

If we are right, we stand to gain everything.

What exactly are we gaining by just believing in its existence?

We are talking about God, not dogs.

Typos aside, there are dog characters in some religious narratives. If I were Pascal, I wouldn't rule those out either, just in case.

You don't just gain by believing. True faith should bring a host of gains not only for the individual but for the world at large.
Most of all for the individual the gain is a life of hope and reward at the end of life. For the world faith unites people in a conviction that God cares and has given us the means by which we can care for ourselves and each other.

Wait a minute, there's nothing of that in Pascal's argument for belief in the existence of God, this is all added by you out of nowhere. You are then asking for extending Pascal's argument not only to belief in the existence of some god, but to belief in any religious doctrine, of which there are many, I must say. One could possibly believe there is a god and not give a dime for it. One could believe this god is a malevolent, capricious, revengeful figure (as described in so called "sacred scriptures"), so no, there's nothing obvious about gaining something as Pascal argues.

Atheism cannot offer that conviction of caring and hope. Atheism is just the denial of God. Aside from the freedom to deny, it is concerned with nothing else. Every atheist is a law unto himself, and with the rise of modern atheism we have seen plenty of evidence of how that will turn out.

Religion might offer fantasies and illusions as comforting mechanism to deal with real life problems, but in the end, given those are fantasies and illusions, religion cannot deliver any solution. It's just an escape drug. Atheism, OTOH, does not sell anything anyway, it is not a doctrine in itself, it is only about remaining skeptic before the huge loads of baloney coming from religious preachers, nothing else.

Remarks like that only show your ignorance of Pascal. You clearly have not read Pensees, in which the wager argument is found. You cannot isolate the wager from the rest of that book, where he makes the case why the wager opens the door to much more than a wager.

"Once your soul has been enlarged by a truth, it can never return to its original size." Blaise Pascal

[Count Lucanor]

We would not lose nothing by believing in the existence of Quetzalcoatl, the serpent dog, right? Or Marduk, right? Why not then?

What exactly are we gaining by just believing in its existence?

We are talking about God, not dogs.

Typos aside, there are dog characters in some religious narratives. If I were Pascal, I wouldn't rule those out either, just in case.

You don't just gain by believing. True faith should bring a host of gains not only for the individual but for the world at large.
Most of all for the individual the gain is a life of hope and reward at the end of life. For the world faith unites people in a conviction that God cares and has given us the means by which we can care for ourselves and each other.

Wait a minute, there's nothing of that in Pascal's argument for belief in the existence of God, this is all added by you out of nowhere. You are then asking for extending Pascal's argument not only to belief in the existence of some god, but to belief in any religious doctrine, of which there are many, I must say. One could possibly believe there is a god and not give a dime for it. One could believe this god is a malevolent, capricious, revengeful figure (as described in so called "sacred scriptures"), so no, there's nothing obvious about gaining something as Pascal argues.

Atheism cannot offer that conviction of caring and hope. Atheism is just the denial of God. Aside from the freedom to deny, it is concerned with nothing else. Every atheist is a law unto himself, and with the rise of modern atheism we have seen plenty of evidence of how that will turn out.

Religion might offer fantasies and illusions as comforting mechanism to deal with real life problems, but in the end, given those are fantasies and illusions, religion cannot deliver any solution. It's just an escape drug. Atheism, OTOH, does not sell anything anyway, it is not a doctrine in itself, it is only about remaining skeptic before the huge loads of baloney coming from religious preachers, nothing else.

Remarks like that only show your ignorance of Pascal. You clearly have not read Pensees, in which the wager argument is found. You cannot isolate the wager from the rest of that book, where he makes the case why the wager opens the door to much more than a wager.

"Once your soul has been enlarged by a truth, it can never return to its original size." Blaise Pascal

I was hoping (my mistake) that you were taking Pascal's argument in its pure philosophical form, free from its proselytizing applications. As it turns out, you're just preaching in favor of the religious doctrines of a Catholic theologian defending his faith-based beliefs. If, as you say, you have to take the argument along with the full theological work (which quotes from the Bible and advocates for the Church's faith dogmas), then that implies the Virgin Mary, the original sin, Noah's ark, the Pope being God's direct appointee on Earth, and all of that nonsense, which we are to take supposedly as obvious. The point of the wager will be that you'd rather believe all of this than not. If you don't think that makes the argument even weaker than it already was, I do.

BTW, I have always known what Pensees was all about. All I needed to know was in the first few pages, after which further reading would have been a complete waste of my time.

[Charlemagne]

We are talking about God, not dogs.

Typos aside, there are dog characters in some religious narratives. If I were Pascal, I wouldn't rule those out either, just in case.

You don't just gain by believing. True faith should bring a host of gains not only for the individual but for the world at large.
Most of all for the individual the gain is a life of hope and reward at the end of life. For the world faith unites people in a conviction that God cares and has given us the means by which we can care for ourselves and each other.

Wait a minute, there's nothing of that in Pascal's argument for belief in the existence of God, this is all added by you out of nowhere. You are then asking for extending Pascal's argument not only to belief in the existence of some god, but to belief in any religious doctrine, of which there are many, I must say. One could possibly believe there is a god and not give a dime for it. One could believe this god is a malevolent, capricious, revengeful figure (as described in so called "sacred scriptures"), so no, there's nothing obvious about gaining something as Pascal argues.

Atheism cannot offer that conviction of caring and hope. Atheism is just the denial of God. Aside from the freedom to deny, it is concerned with nothing else. Every atheist is a law unto himself, and with the rise of modern atheism we have seen plenty of evidence of how that will turn out.

Religion might offer fantasies and illusions as comforting mechanism to deal with real life problems, but in the end, given those are fantasies and illusions, religion cannot deliver any solution. It's just an escape drug. Atheism, OTOH, does not sell anything anyway, it is not a doctrine in itself, it is only about remaining skeptic before the huge loads of baloney coming from religious preachers, nothing else.

Remarks like that only show your ignorance of Pascal. You clearly have not read Pensees, in which the wager argument is found. You cannot isolate the wager from the rest of that book, where he makes the case why the wager opens the door to much more than a wager.

"Once your soul has been enlarged by a truth, it can never return to its original size." Blaise Pascal

I was hoping (my mistake) that you were taking Pascal's argument in its pure philosophical form, free from its proselytizing applications. As it turns out, you're just preaching in favor of the religious doctrines of a Catholic theologian defending his faith-based beliefs. If, as you say, you have to take the argument along with the full theological work (which quotes from the Bible and advocates for the Church's faith dogmas), then that implies the Virgin Mary, the original sin, Noah's ark, the Pope being God's direct appointee on Earth, and all of that nonsense, which we are to take supposedly as obvious. The point of the wager will be that you'd rather believe all of this than not. If you don't think that makes the argument even weaker than it already was, I do.

BTW, I have always known what Pensees was all about. All I needed to know was in the first few pages, after which further reading would have been a complete waste of my time.

With such a blatant contradiction as this under your belt, I see no reason to continue with you.

In essence what you are saying is that Catholics cannot be allowed in this forum to defend the wager argument.

Then why should atheists be allowed to defend atheism?

[Count Lucanor]

In essence what you are saying is that Catholics cannot be allowed in this forum to defend the wager argument.

Then why should atheists be allowed to defend atheism?

No, that's not what I said. Remember I was the one dealing with the argument in its plain philosophical form. You are the one implying the argument comes with its full Catholic package. So it is exactly the other way around: you have put yourself the burden of defending the Catholic doctrines and that's why when I asked what there was to gain or to lose, you came up with a bunch of Catholic doctrines. Catholicism is an easy target, so go on...who is stopping you?

[LuckyR]

Blaise Pascal was a famous 17th century mathematician, physicist, inventor, philosopher, and theologian.

He is remembered for his Wager Argument for believing in God. He argued that, in the absence of proof positive that God does or does not exist, it is better to bet on the existence of God than to bet against the existence of God. If we are wrong, we lose nothing. If we are right, we stand to gain everything. It is an argument designed for the atheist to consider, not the person who already believes. It is the single argument that the skeptic Bertrand Russell did not attack in any published statements that I can find.

Your thoughts?

This logic makes no sense in the case of omniscient gods, since an omniscient god (or a reasonably experienced carnival cold reader) would know or be able to ascertain that the atheist who claims to "believe" doesn't really believe.

As to gods that are a little slow (who might be fooled by this chicanery), I actually feel a little bad for them that they lose their cool over whether puny humans "worship" them or not. You have to wonder: why they aren't hanging around with the other gods? Why are they wasting their time worrying about humans? I mean what would you think about someone who hung out all day with a lot of earthworms and actually felt bad if they ignored him?

[Charlemagne]

Blaise Pascal was a famous 17th century mathematician, physicist, inventor, philosopher, and theologian.

He is remembered for his Wager Argument for believing in God. He argued that, in the absence of proof positive that God does or does not exist, it is better to bet on the existence of God than to bet against the existence of God. If we are wrong, we lose nothing. If we are right, we stand to gain everything. It is an argument designed for the atheist to consider, not the person who already believes. It is the single argument that the skeptic Bertrand Russell did not attack in any published statements that I can find.

Your thoughts?

This logic makes no sense in the case of omniscient gods, since an omniscient god (or a reasonably experienced carnival cold reader) would know or be able to ascertain that the atheist who claims to "believe" doesn't really believe.

As to gods that are a little slow (who might be fooled by this chicanery), I actually feel a little bad for them that they lose their cool over whether puny humans "worship" them or not. You have to wonder: why they aren't hanging around with the other gods? Why are they wasting their time worrying about humans? I mean what would you think about someone who hung out all day with a lot of earthworms and actually felt bad if they ignored him?

Humans are not earthworms. This would be the attitude of someone who doesn't like humans.

[Charlemagne]

In essence what you are saying is that Catholics cannot be allowed in this forum to defend the wager argument.

Then why should atheists be allowed to defend atheism?

No, that's not what I said. Remember I was the one dealing with the argument in its plain philosophical form. You are the one implying the argument comes with its full Catholic package. So it is exactly the other way around: you have put yourself the burden of defending the Catholic doctrines and that's why when I asked what there was to gain or to lose, you came up with a bunch of Catholic doctrines. Catholicism is an easy target, so go on...who is stopping you?

Well now, here's the rub. Once the philosophical argument is addressed, the argument does not stop, so far as Pascal is concerned. Having stepped through the door of faith, there is yet quite a distance to go with God. Pascal has the right to pursue that goal, and so do I. This is what makes faith rich in its possibilities, whereas atheism is a dead end and denies all possibilities beyond six feet of dirt.

[LuckyR]

Blaise Pascal was a famous 17th century mathematician, physicist, inventor, philosopher, and theologian.

He is remembered for his Wager Argument for believing in God. He argued that, in the absence of proof positive that God does or does not exist, it is better to bet on the existence of God than to bet against the existence of God. If we are wrong, we lose nothing. If we are right, we stand to gain everything. It is an argument designed for the atheist to consider, not the person who already believes. It is the single argument that the skeptic Bertrand Russell did not attack in any published statements that I can find.

Your thoughts?

This logic makes no sense in the case of omniscient gods, since an omniscient god (or a reasonably experienced carnival cold reader) would know or be able to ascertain that the atheist who claims to "believe" doesn't really believe.

As to gods that are a little slow (who might be fooled by this chicanery), I actually feel a little bad for them that they lose their cool over whether puny humans "worship" them or not. You have to wonder: why they aren't hanging around with the other gods? Why are they wasting their time worrying about humans? I mean what would you think about someone who hung out all day with a lot of earthworms and actually felt bad if they ignored him?

Humans are not earthworms. This would be the attitude of someone who doesn't like humans.

So by your estimation God is to humans as humans are to what?

[Charlemagne]

Blaise Pascal was a famous 17th century mathematician, physicist, inventor, philosopher, and theologian.

He is remembered for his Wager Argument for believing in God. He argued that, in the absence of proof positive that God does or does not exist, it is better to bet on the existence of God than to bet against the existence of God. If we are wrong, we lose nothing. If we are right, we stand to gain everything. It is an argument designed for the atheist to consider, not the person who already believes. It is the single argument that the skeptic Bertrand Russell did not attack in any published statements that I can find.

Your thoughts?

This logic makes no sense in the case of omniscient gods, since an omniscient god (or a reasonably experienced carnival cold reader) would know or be able to ascertain that the atheist who claims to "believe" doesn't really believe.

As to gods that are a little slow (who might be fooled by this chicanery), I actually feel a little bad for them that they lose their cool over whether puny humans "worship" them or not. You have to wonder: why they aren't hanging around with the other gods? Why are they wasting their time worrying about humans? I mean what would you think about someone who hung out all day with a lot of earthworms and actually felt bad if they ignored him?

Humans are not earthworms. This would be the attitude of someone who doesn't like humans.

So by your estimation God is to humans as humans are to what?

Please remember, this thread is not about earthworms.

It is about Pascal's argument that the atheist is foolish to throw away his chances on the gamble (not the certainty) that there is no God.

[Count Lucanor]

Well now, here's the rub. Once the philosophical argument is addressed, the argument does not stop, so far as Pascal is concerned. Having stepped through the door of faith, there is yet quite a distance to go with God. Pascal has the right to pursue that goal, and so do I. This is what makes faith rich in its possibilities, whereas atheism is a dead end and denies all possibilities beyond six feet of dirt.

Sure, but you have made it very clear that the issue necessarily involves believing in the existence, not of any god, but of THAT particular god, and the atheist, in order to change his mind, must accept the whole package from the narrative of faith, that is, the god of the Bible and the Catholic Church. So, following your own logic, an atheist must believe all of these things, among many others:

• There's an almighty, infinitely perfect god, that yet backtracks on his own decisions and gets fooled by humans.

• This god has anthropomorphic features, has will, mind and emotions (such as jealousy and revenge feelings), which play a part in his decisions and actions.

• This god revealed himself and made a covenant with a few illiterate shepherds in the Middle East, and a as result of that, all of humanity has been submitted against its own will to comply with the rules devised by a few clerics, otherwise, the non-compliant sons of this god will burn for eternity in a lake of fire.

• Since this infinitely perfect god could not solve his own mess, first he wiped out humanity with a flood (which he later regreted), then sent his loyal followers to battle and kill the infidels, including innocent children, and then he impregnated a young girl with his spirit and had a flesh and bone son, for the sole purpose of killing him later, so that this would erase an original defficiency in the design of humans (being himself the author), even though the sacrifice itself will not work unless you submit to the desires of some clerics.

And so, as the logic of Pascal's wager goes, whovever does not believe in these things, is being foolish. I don't know about you, but I'm not falling for this hoax.

Now, looking forward to the obvious escape to this mess, I must warn you that coming up with some explanation of the type: "...you don't have to believe literally in all of these things, only that there is some god", will instantly defeat your Pascal's wager argument. So I'm expecting something better.

[Charlemagne]

Well now, here's the rub. Once the philosophical argument is addressed, the argument does not stop, so far as Pascal is concerned. Having stepped through the door of faith, there is yet quite a distance to go with God. Pascal has the right to pursue that goal, and so do I. This is what makes faith rich in its possibilities, whereas atheism is a dead end and denies all possibilities beyond six feet of dirt.

Sure, but you have made it very clear that the issue necessarily involves believing in the existence, not of any god, but of THAT particular god, and the atheist, in order to change his mind, must accept the whole package from the narrative of faith, that is, the god of the Bible and the Catholic Church. So, following your own logic, an atheist must believe all of these things, among many others:

• There's an almighty, infinitely perfect god, that yet backtracks on his own decisions and gets fooled by humans.

• This god has anthropomorphic features, has will, mind and emotions (such as jealousy and revenge feelings), which play a part in his decisions and actions.

• This god revealed himself and made a covenant with a few illiterate shepherds in the Middle East, and a as result of that, all of humanity has been submitted against its own will to comply with the rules devised by a few clerics, otherwise, the non-compliant sons of this god will burn for eternity in a lake of fire.

• Since this infinitely perfect god could not solve his own mess, first he wiped out humanity with a flood (which he later regreted), then sent his loyal followers to battle and kill the infidels, including innocent children, and then he impregnated a young girl with his spirit and had a flesh and bone son, for the sole purpose of killing him later, so that this would erase an original defficiency in the design of humans (being himself the author), even though the sacrifice itself will not work unless you submit to the desires of some clerics.

And so, as the logic of Pascal's wager goes, whovever does not believe in these things, is being foolish. I don't know about you, but I'm not falling for this hoax.

Now, looking forward to the obvious escape to this mess, I must warn you that coming up with some explanation of the type: "...you don't have to believe literally in all of these things, only that there is some god", will instantly defeat your Pascal's wager argument. So I'm expecting something better.

You have to do better than this.

The choice of which God to believe in is a choice everyone has to make. Even the atheist Jean Paul Sartre had to make it, and he naturally chose the God of Abraham as he lay dying. What other God in the history of the world so fully satisfies our need to find a God who creates not only the entire universe, but also loves his creation with a love unparalleled by any other of the gods people have worshipped? One can shop around for gods worthy of worship, but I ask you to find me one more worthy than the God of Abraham. Tell me why you would find that god more worthy, a god who offers more solace and sense than the God of Abraham.

[gad-fly]

If we are wrong, we lose nothing. If we are right, we stand to gain everything.

Pascal's argument is fallacious. There is no free lunch even in the 17th century, since belief in God would impose a price, not like saying I believe, period. What price? ask the believers. If not, how about believing whatever you are told?

Say you are spending a Dollar to buy a lottery ticket. The reward: several million Dollars. The price is negligible, but nevertheless, some price. Would you go ahead? Good for you.

[Count Lucanor]

You have to do better than this.

Seems to be enough so far. I mean, you have put the doctrines of the Catholic Church, from one of its theologians, on the table. Do you really think it's going to be hard?

The choice of which God to believe in is a choice everyone has to make.

Sure, but you already made your choice and this thread is exactly about that choice. I gave you the chance to avoid it, but you're now full on board with the Christian god and the Catholic Church. That's the faith you had been talking about when I asked what we would be gaining or losing, remember?

Even the atheist Jean Paul Sartre had to make it, and he naturally chose the God of Abraham as he lay dying.

Even if Sartre supposed deathbed conversion was true, which is doubtful, I'd rather take more seriously his well-known, documented intellectual stances on the subject, than a dubious story about his confessions as a senile patient dying.

What other God in the history of the world so fully satisfies our need to find a God who creates not only the entire universe, but also loves his creation with a love unparalleled by any other of the gods people have worshipped?

How can this god have unparalleled love for his creation and still mess it up so hard and even destroy it? This god endorses slavery and murder of innocent children for his cause.

One can shop around for gods worthy of worship, but I ask you to find me one more worthy than the God of Abraham. Tell me why you would find that god more worthy, a god who offers more solace and sense than the God of Abraham.

Yeah, I have heard that this is the ultimate god, the best that there can be. And yet, I see him being quite mediocre, imperfect, morally deviated, pretty much fitting the description you would get from a bunch of illiterate shepherds and superstitious clerics. I could easily choose a better god from the thousands available, but it makes more sense not to take even one of them seriously.

In any case, you have now confessed you're an atheist in relation to all the other gods. By pure faith. Talkng about Pascal's wager, you must admit you could be wrong and wasting your entire life worshiping the wrong deity. That seems like a terrible bet. A non-denominational, non-local, all-encompassing deity would have worked better for you.

[LuckyR]

This logic makes no sense in the case of omniscient gods, since an omniscient god (or a reasonably experienced carnival cold reader) would know or be able to ascertain that the atheist who claims to "believe" doesn't really believe.

As to gods that are a little slow (who might be fooled by this chicanery), I actually feel a little bad for them that they lose their cool over whether puny humans "worship" them or not. You have to wonder: why they aren't hanging around with the other gods? Why are they wasting their time worrying about humans? I mean what would you think about someone who hung out all day with a lot of earthworms and actually felt bad if they ignored him?

Humans are not earthworms. This would be the attitude of someone who doesn't like humans.

So by your estimation God is to humans as humans are to what?

Please remember, this thread is not about earthworms.

It is about Pascal's argument that the atheist is foolish to throw away his chances on the gamble (not the certainty) that there is no God.

OK, then address my first paragraph, not the second.