Pascals Wager is a sound argument.

[Altfish]

It assumes potential one religion might be true. That's all, and it doesn't matter which one it is for the sake of argument, even if all wrong, you have to....



Nope, it talks about why sacrificing that time and pleasures, is still worth it. In fact, there are pages and pages about this from many angles. I can't do it justice, he argues this point from many angles and counter to counter arguments, and went in great detail.

And lastly, he makes no assumption that God wants you to pretend to believe in him. This is a big ignorance that is spread about it.

I didn't say 'god' wants you to pretend to believe in her.
I said that if you already have doubts and in order to comply with Pascal's Wager you go along with worshipping; she'll know you are deceiving yourself.

You keep referring to 'other evidence' that you have. So, please give us links to this evidence, so that we can read it.

 

[Link]

Care to explain?

They didn't construe the argument properly. I will do my best to construe it properly another time (probably another day). I want to see people read comprehension skills or has the Academic so called Education destroyed people ability to analyze text properly?

 

[Twilight Hue]

Most people don't read original and so misconstrue it.

All the counter arguments to it, I think he predicted it and refuted it already by counter to counter arguments in his works.

What do people think of it?

What if your wrong?

 

[Link]

I didn't say 'god' wants you to pretend to believe in her.
I said that if you already have doubts and in order to comply with Pascal's Wager you go along with worshipping; she'll know you are deceiving yourself.

You keep referring to 'other evidence' that you have. So, please give us links to this evidence, so that we can read it.

No one is saying Worship God by "pretending to Worship". It's about leaping one direction or the other. You either strive to find the truth or you bet on it not existing and hence ignore it. The former is rational for various reasons he presents. The latter not. And he goes into details of all sorts of counter arguments to what he says.

I will present it later, I said, my analysis of the original text. I want to see if people read original first. I don't think anyone so far has.

 

[Link]

What if your wrong?

Too risky I have to strive to be right.

 

[Altfish]

No one is saying Worship God by "pretending to Worship". It's about leaping one direction or the other. You either strive to find the truth or you bet on it not existing and hence ignore it. The former is rational for various reasons he presents. The latter not. And he goes into details of all sorts of counter arguments to what he says.

I will present it later, I said, my analysis of the original text. I want to see if people read original first. I don't think anyone so far has.

But, I fear it is you who are misunderstanding Pascal.
His whole argument simplified is that you might as well believe in god because the prize is heaven if it is true, and you've not lost out if it is false.

 

[Link]

But, I fear it is you who are misunderstanding Pascal.
His whole argument simplified is that you might as well believe in god because the prize is heaven if it is true, and you've not lost out if it is false.

That is way over-simplification since he has chapter(s) on how he is not asking us to pretend to believe in God nor deceive yourself into believing God with no proof.

 

[Windwalker]

They didn't construe the argument properly. I will do my best to construe it properly another time (probably another day). I want to see people read comprehension skills or has the Academic so called Education destroyed people ability to analyze text properly?

I hope you don't mean in the original language. That has nothing to do with reading comprehension skills, but knowing how to read texts in their original language.

If you mean the original text translated into a language we can read, here it is: https://www.york.ac.uk/depts/maths/histstat/pascal_wager.pdf

Again, yes, I can read it and comprehend his logic arguments. I can, and may as time permits and if I feel it's worth my energies, dissect it point for point for you. It is still fallacious. It makes many errors of assumption, not realizing the errors of its own inherent biases based upon a linear, dualistic perspective of reality as absolute reality itself. It's a masterful work of creating God out of his own mind, and arguing for that God of his mind. It's purely self-reflective. It's the art of going wrong, with a masterful logic argument about nothing at all.

 

[ChristineM]

What do people think of it?

Not a lot, it doesn't address the vast majority of scenarios.

 

[`mud]

But what if Pascal's coin lands on it's edge ?

I know.....get another coin !

 

[Link]

Not a lot, it doesn't address the vast majority of scenarios.

It addresses all scenarios actually.

 

[PureX]

The original proposition was unfortunately painted into a specifically religious landscape. And that throws a lot of people off the logic track. But let's remove that religiosity and try to consider the proposition based solely on the logic track.

The proposition asserts that:

1. God either is, or is not.

A. If God is not, nothing is gained or lost by rejecting God as a possibility.

B. But if God is, then whatever the idea of God might offer us becomes available to us when we choose to trust in that idea.​

C. (conclusion) If trusting in the idea that God is offers us nothing, then nothing is lost or gained from our trusting in that idea. However, if trusting in the idea that God is does offer us something, then there is something to be gained from our trusting that God is, and there is something to be lost by our not doing so.
​

Once we remove the religious jibber-jabber, I think the proposition becomes logically sound.

What do you all think?

 

[Link]

I hope you don't mean in the original language. That has nothing to do with reading comprehension skills, but knowing how to read texts in their original language.

If you mean the original text translated into a language we can read, here it is: https://www.york.ac.uk/depts/maths/histstat/pascal_wager.pdf

Again, yes, I can read it and comprehend his logic arguments. I can, and may as time permits and if I feel it's worth my energies, dissect it point for point for you. It is still fallacious. It makes many errors of assumption, not realizing the errors of its own inherent biases based upon a linear, dualistic perspective of reality as absolute reality itself. It's a masterful work of creating God out of his own mind, and arguing for that God of his mind. It's purely self-reflective. It's the art of going wrong, with a masterful logic argument about nothing at all.

Okay do so. Let's see the way I understand and the way you will.

 

[Link]

The original proposition was unfortunately painted into a specifically religious landscape. And that throws a lot of people off the logic track. But let's remove that religiosity and try to consider the the proposition based solely on logic track.

It basically the proposition asserts that

1. God either is, or is not.

A. If God is not, nothing is gained or lost by rejecting God as a possibility.

B. But if God is, then whatever the idea of God might offer us becomes available to us when we choose to trust in that possibility.​

C. (conclusion If trusting in the idea that God is offers us nothing, then nothing is lost or gained from our trusting that idea. However, if trusting in the idea that God is does offer us something, then there is something to be gained from trusting that God is, and there is something to be lost by not doing so.
​

Once we remove the religious jibber-jabber, I think the proposition becomes logically sound.

What do you all think?

This is not it. But your version is better then most people and I agree it's sound, but his argument is very deep, elaborate, and sound (and has more to it then what you showed).

 

[Link]

The original proposition was unfortunately painted into a specifically religious landscape.

He talked about it though with using Christianity as if let's say it's true.

Just think of it as a variable.

x = true.

But we don't know x is true. So how should we live? And starts like this.

He uses Christianity more as a variable then needing it even to be true or possibly true. It can be false, Islam false too, and this argument still works.

 

[PureX]

He talked about it though with using Christianity as if let's say it's true.

Just think of it as a variable.

x = true.

But we don't know x is true. So how should we live? And starts like this.

He uses Christianity more as a variable then needing it even to be true or possibly true. It can be false, Islam false too, and this argument still works.

Well, in the original proposition, the 'gain' and 'loss' was filled in by religious mythology. That was a mistake, because it causes people to reject the logic when they reject the religious mythology. So I removed the religious mythology leaving only the logical proposition.

 

[Link]

Well, in the original proposition, the 'gain' and 'loss' was filled in by religious mythology. That was a mistake, because it causes people to reject the logic when they reject the religious mythology. So I removed the religious mythology leaving only the logical proposition.

It's their mistake. He explained it as a variable. He didn't say only Christianity can be true. He is saying for all you know there is a religion that is true that encompasses hell and heaven. Since people use to Christianity as truth, he uses that to say this how you would act if that is the true religion.

 

[Link]

Yes, I am arguing most of western Academia has deceived you regarding this argument. He refutes their simple refutations of it in the chapters he elaborated predicting the none sense people would come up with.

 

[ChristineM]

It addresses all scenarios actually.

No it doesn't, it only gives two options, one god and that gods afterlife or no god. It does not address the many other religions and their beliefs

 

[PureX]

It's their mistake. He explained it as a variable. He didn't say only Christianity can be true. He is saying for all you know there is a religion that is true that encompasses hell and heaven. Since people use to Christianity as truth, he uses that to say this how you would act if that is the true religion.

Good point. But religions are 'hot-button' subjects. People easily fly off the handle just at the thought of it. I am not particularly keen on it, myself. But as an artist I can understand myth and artifice as representational, so the logic of the proposition wasn't lost in it for me.