Total Posts:32|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

philosophically what's wrong with Pascal's wa

truthseeker613
Posts: 464
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/3/2011 10:58:56 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
philosophically what's wrong with Pascal's wager
http://www.nydailynews.com...

royalpaladin: I'd rather support people who kill spies than a nation that organizes assassination squads (Kidon) to illegally enter into other nations and kill anybody who is not a Zionist. Who knows when they'll kill me for the crime of not supporting Israel?

Koopin: LOL! I just imagine Royal sitting in here apartment at night, when suddenly she hears a man outside speaking Hebrew as sh
CosmicAlfonzo
Posts: 5,955
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/3/2011 11:27:10 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
Argument ad pussium.
Official "High Priest of Secular Affairs and Transient Distributor of Sonic Apple Seeds relating to the Reptilian Division of Paperwork Immoliation" of The FREEDO Bureaucracy, a DDO branch of the Erisian Front, a subdivision of the Discordian Back, a Limb of the Illuminatian Cosmic Utensil Corp
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/3/2011 11:32:11 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/3/2011 11:27:10 AM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
Argument ad pussium.

This
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/3/2011 11:34:42 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/3/2011 11:27:10 AM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
Argument ad pussium.

you wish that you could add pussycats together.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/3/2011 11:37:17 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/3/2011 10:58:56 AM, truthseeker613 wrote:
philosophically what's wrong with Pascal's wager

If you argue that God exists because of the wager, that is a logical fallacy. If you argue that one should act as if God exists based on the pros and cons of all different outcomes, that is logically sound (it is how we make all decisions of which we don't know the outcomes to).

However, I must argue that pending how you view God, he may not accept such a view. If you believe in God only for the sake of heavan, but not because you actually believe, do you think he will still save you?
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Meatros
Posts: 1,075
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/3/2011 11:56:04 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/3/2011 10:58:56 AM, truthseeker613 wrote:
philosophically what's wrong with Pascal's wager

To put it another way:

Nothing is wrong with Pascal's wager, it gives one good reason to believe in Ahura Mazda.
Kinesis
Posts: 3,667
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/3/2011 12:22:42 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/3/2011 10:58:56 AM, truthseeker613 wrote:
philosophically what's wrong with Pascal's wager

Don't begin with the assumption that something is wrong and look for evidence or argumentation to support your preconceived beliefs; the only way to arrive at a belief rationally is to begin with agnosticism and research the subject to the best of your ability, then come to a conclusion that still may be revised in the future pending further information.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/3/2011 12:35:15 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/3/2011 12:22:42 PM, Kinesis wrote:
At 5/3/2011 10:58:56 AM, truthseeker613 wrote:
philosophically what's wrong with Pascal's wager

Don't begin with the assumption that something is wrong and look for evidence or argumentation to support your preconceived beliefs; the only way to arrive at a belief rationally is to begin with agnosticism and research the subject to the best of your ability, then come to a conclusion that still may be revised in the future pending further information.

If I say that I am male, would you believe me? If you take root in agnosticism and only changed when proof is given, you cannot believe I am a man (as I have provided no proof, pictures on the internet could be anyone). Typically, most people don't have a problem with believing what people claim as their gender because they naturally use pascal's wager (waying the pros and cons for believing different ways, of which no belief is also weighed) and simply see no risk in accepting to claim, and so no reason to not believe it (while doubting it can cause conflict).
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
badger
Posts: 11,793
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/3/2011 12:44:17 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
oh i was thinking of a different thing :)

what'd be wrong with pascal's wager would be other possible hells of other possible wankers of gods?
signature
Kinesis
Posts: 3,667
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/3/2011 12:45:26 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/3/2011 12:35:15 PM, OreEle wrote:
If I say that I am male, would you believe me?

Yes.

If you take root in agnosticism and only changed when proof is given, you cannot believe I am a man (as I have provided no proof, pictures on the internet could be anyone).

I didn't say proof - there's no point demanding such a high burden on something that doesn't affect me in any significant way. Your word itself is all the evidence I require, unless I have reason to think you might be lying.

Typically, most people don't have a problem with believing what people claim as their gender because they naturally use pascal's wager (waying the pros and cons for believing different ways, of which no belief is also weighed) and simply see no risk in accepting to claim, and so no reason to not believe it (while doubting it can cause conflict).

Variants of pascal's wager can be formulated for different problems than God's existence, but pascal's wager can only be used when there is a utility involved - for example, if I tell you that unless you believe I am a woman, you will be banished to the furthest reaches of hell and remain there forever.

People accept claims about something as simple as gender because there's usually no reason for people to lie about gender, and generally people tell the truth when there's no reason for them not too.

However, if, for instance, you gave me the details of your bank account I would be highly skeptical of the details because you would have good reason not to divulge those details to me.
Kinesis
Posts: 3,667
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/3/2011 12:48:12 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/3/2011 12:44:17 PM, badger wrote:
oh i was thinking of a different thing :)

what'd be wrong with pascal's wager would be other possible hells of other possible wankers of gods?

Yup. What if, for example, there's a militant anti-religious God who hates people who believe religious stuff and only sends atheists and agnostics to heaven, while theists are consigned to hell? Pascal's wager can cut both ways.
truthseeker613
Posts: 464
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/3/2011 12:55:13 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/3/2011 11:37:17 AM, OreEle wrote:
At 5/3/2011 10:58:56 AM, truthseeker613 wrote:
philosophically what's wrong with Pascal's wager

If you argue that God exists because of the wager, that is a logical fallacy. If you argue that one should act as if God exists based on the pros and cons of all different outcomes, that is logically sound (it is how we make all decisions of which we don't know the outcomes to).

However, I must argue that pending how you view God, he may not accept such a view. If you believe in God only for the sake of heavan, but not because you actually believe, do you think he will still save you?

thank you for providing the 1st rational response I agree with your 1st point.
regarding your 2nd point I have to think about it.
http://www.nydailynews.com...

royalpaladin: I'd rather support people who kill spies than a nation that organizes assassination squads (Kidon) to illegally enter into other nations and kill anybody who is not a Zionist. Who knows when they'll kill me for the crime of not supporting Israel?

Koopin: LOL! I just imagine Royal sitting in here apartment at night, when suddenly she hears a man outside speaking Hebrew as sh
m93samman
Posts: 2,685
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/3/2011 12:58:43 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
I like how badger is just talking to himself on the side.
: At 4/15/2011 5:29:37 PM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
: Pascal's wager is for poosies.
:
: I mean that sincerly, because it's basically an argument from poooosie.
:
: I'm pretty sure that's like a fallacy.. Argument ad Pussium or something like that.
truthseeker613
Posts: 464
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/3/2011 1:01:23 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
regarding the 2nd point according to some religions that's ok.
http://www.nydailynews.com...

royalpaladin: I'd rather support people who kill spies than a nation that organizes assassination squads (Kidon) to illegally enter into other nations and kill anybody who is not a Zionist. Who knows when they'll kill me for the crime of not supporting Israel?

Koopin: LOL! I just imagine Royal sitting in here apartment at night, when suddenly she hears a man outside speaking Hebrew as sh
Kinesis
Posts: 3,667
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/3/2011 1:15:09 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/3/2011 12:58:43 PM, m93samman wrote:
I like how badger is just talking to himself on the side.

Hey, I responded to him!
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/3/2011 1:31:54 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/3/2011 10:58:56 AM, truthseeker613 wrote:
philosophically what's wrong with Pascal's wager

Well for starters, it's not philosophical.

It's a classic case of an ad baculum fallacy. You better agree with this proposition or else I'll torch you.

Of course Pascals actual argument is indeed much more philosophical than the simplified version, that is that given a range of options to choose from, which option best serves your self interest and most beneficial to you and which options don't have a consequence for not choosing them.

However, this is completely worthless, hence why the simplified version suffices and the whole thing just utterly fails.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/3/2011 1:35:31 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/3/2011 12:45:26 PM, Kinesis wrote:
At 5/3/2011 12:35:15 PM, OreEle wrote:
If I say that I am male, would you believe me?

Yes.

If you take root in agnosticism and only changed when proof is given, you cannot believe I am a man (as I have provided no proof, pictures on the internet could be anyone).

I didn't say proof - there's no point demanding such a high burden on something that doesn't affect me in any significant way. Your word itself is all the evidence I require, unless I have reason to think you might be lying.

Typically, most people don't have a problem with believing what people claim as their gender because they naturally use pascal's wager (waying the pros and cons for believing different ways, of which no belief is also weighed) and simply see no risk in accepting to claim, and so no reason to not believe it (while doubting it can cause conflict).

Variants of pascal's wager can be formulated for different problems than God's existence, but pascal's wager can only be used when there is a utility involved - for example, if I tell you that unless you believe I am a woman, you will be banished to the furthest reaches of hell and remain there forever.

People accept claims about something as simple as gender because there's usually no reason for people to lie about gender, and generally people tell the truth when there's no reason for them not too.

Or more realistically, support our government or be tossed into a concentration camp (see germany in the late 30's). The thing is, that it is only a logically fallacy if you believe that it is logically accurate, rather than buying it to because it is logically benefitial.


However, if, for instance, you gave me the details of your bank account I would be highly skeptical of the details because you would have good reason not to divulge those details to me.

the amount of pennies in my back account is equal to my IQ.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
baggins
Posts: 855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/4/2011 10:54:31 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
Pascal's wager is perfectly valid against strong atheism. (i.e. people who do not have faith themselves and try to prevent others). Actually acting against faith in God without having clear proof to the contrary - is very likely to displease God. And if there is no God, life is not really having any purpose. In that case preaching atheism is meaningless and sadistic.

On other hand - it is not a strong basis for faith. So theists should use it only against strong atheist - as a last resort.
The Holy Quran 29:19-20

See they not how Allah originates creation, then repeats it: truly that is easy for Allah.

Say: "Travel through the earth and see how Allah did originate creation; so will Allah produce a later creation: for Allah has power over all things.
vardas0antras
Posts: 983
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/4/2011 2:22:14 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/3/2011 10:58:56 AM, truthseeker613 wrote:
philosophically what's wrong with Pascal's wager

There's nothing wrong with it! It's no different from other ludicrous arguments! You monsters, how would you like to be told that there's something "wrong" with you?!!? Not a lot? I thought so.
"When he awoke in a tomb three days later he would actually have believed that he rose from the dead" FREEDO about the resurrection of Jesus Christ
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/4/2011 2:31:24 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
1. The wager creates a 4 square diagram based on whether you believe in God and whether God exists. This is flawed because there are literally countless Gods that could exist and that you could believe in.

2. It leaves out the possibility that God does not judge people based on whether they believe in him or not.

3. It's a major cop-out.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/4/2011 2:38:11 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/4/2011 2:31:24 PM, FREEDO wrote:
1. The wager creates a 4 square diagram based on whether you believe in God and whether God exists. This is flawed because there are literally countless Gods that could exist and that you could believe in.

You use it for each god individually. Claiming that it is hard is not an excuse that it is not just.


2. It leaves out the possibility that God does not judge people based on whether they believe in him or not.

No it doesn't. It only leaves that out if you do it wrong. That is why you are suppose to accurately consider both sides. If you mis-understand a side, that is a fault with you, not the wager.


3. It's a major cop-out.

It a natural brain function.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Thaddeus
Posts: 6,985
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/5/2011 9:06:59 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/3/2011 12:35:15 PM, OreEle wrote:
At 5/3/2011 12:22:42 PM, Kinesis wrote:
At 5/3/2011 10:58:56 AM, truthseeker613 wrote:
philosophically what's wrong with Pascal's wager

Don't begin with the assumption that something is wrong and look for evidence or argumentation to support your preconceived beliefs; the only way to arrive at a belief rationally is to begin with agnosticism and research the subject to the best of your ability, then come to a conclusion that still may be revised in the future pending further information.

If I say that I am male, would you believe me?

No
Meatros
Posts: 1,075
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/5/2011 9:31:23 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/4/2011 2:38:11 PM, OreEle wrote:
At 5/4/2011 2:31:24 PM, FREEDO wrote:
1. The wager creates a 4 square diagram based on whether you believe in God and whether God exists. This is flawed because there are literally countless Gods that could exist and that you could believe in.

You use it for each god individually. Claiming that it is hard is not an excuse that it is not just.

Um, what do you mean?

Seems to me that it creates, at best, a 1 in 10,000 chance of picking the right God (10,000 seems to be a low-ball number of the amount of possible gods out there).
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/6/2011 6:06:04 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
So how would Pascal deal with the bogeyman.

If no bogey men exists, and I sleep with a shotgun under my pillow, then I have lost nothing.

If bogey men exists, and I sleep with a shotgun under my pillow, then I have gained better protection from bogey men.

Conclusion: Sleep with shotgun under pillow to fight against bogey men who may or may not exist.
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
Thaddeus
Posts: 6,985
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/6/2011 6:09:05 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/6/2011 6:06:04 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
So how would Pascal deal with the bogeyman.

If no bogey men exists, and I sleep with a shotgun under my pillow, then I have lost nothing.

If bogey men exists, and I sleep with a shotgun under my pillow, then I have gained better protection from bogey men.

Conclusion: Sleep with shotgun under pillow to fight against bogey men who may or may not exist.

Pascal's wager relies on infinite reward/punishment. The bogeyman does not provide this. Besides, who doesn't sleep with a shotgun under their pillow? Even my younger brother does, and he's ten!