RE: Pascal's Wager

Collarspace Discussion Forums

Home Login Search

RE: Pascal's Wager

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: Pascal's Wager

Page: << < prev 4 5 6 7 [8]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: Pascal's Wager - 12/27/2010 9:04:09 PM

tazzygirl

Posts: 37833
Joined: 10/12/2007
Status: offline

There was only one point... not surprising you missed it.

_____________________________

Telling me to take Midol wont help your butthurt.
RIP, my demon-child 5-16-11
Duchess of Dissent 1
Dont judge me because I sin differently than you.
If you want it sugar coated, dont ask me what i think! It would violate TOS.

(in reply to lickenforyou)

Profile

Post #: 141

RE: Pascal's Wager - 12/28/2010 7:17:15 AM

GotSteel

Posts: 5871
Joined: 2/19/2008
Status: offline

Sorry that I haven't had time for this thread over holidays. Hopefully I'll be able to be a little better about being able to respond now.

(in reply to GotSteel)

Profile

Post #: 142

RE: Pascal's Wager - 12/28/2010 9:10:29 AM

GotSteel

Posts: 5871
Joined: 2/19/2008
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: NorthernGent

quote:

ORIGINAL: GotSteel

Pascal's Wager was touched on in a thread recently and I thought deserved a thread of its own. Now I'm not looking for yet another thread where everyone who isn't buying Pascal's Wager explains all the issues with it (been there done that). I'd like to hear from those who think it's a valid proof.

What do you mean: 'valid proof'?

Proof n. 2. a. The validation of a proposition by application of specified rules, as of induction or deduction, to assumptions, axioms, and sequentially derived conclusions. http://www.thefreedictionary.com/proof

I was asking whether as a proof it was valid or flawed. You seemed to be having some trouble understanding what I was saying so I rephased it for you:

quote:

ORIGINAL: GotSteel
Is it a valid argument for the rationality of belief in god or is it flawed?

quote:

ORIGINAL: NorthernGent
Can you tell me of any event that couldn't possibly occur (based on your 'valid proof')? It's possible that someone will walk on water in the future - you couldn't possibly disprove this.

What valid proof?

quote:

ORIGINAL: NorthernGent
At no point did Pascal attempt to offer proof that god existed; nor did he claim that reason was a substitute for faith.

He simply proposed decision theory - including the consideration of risk and reward (surely you understand this is a rational argument?) as a means of converting the waverers - and maintained that this reasoned approach was simply clearing a path toward faith as opposed to the reason for believing in and of itself.

Is his "rational argument" valid or is it flawed?

(in reply to NorthernGent)

Profile

Post #: 143

RE: Pascal's Wager - 12/28/2010 9:26:21 AM

GotSteel

Posts: 5871
Joined: 2/19/2008
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: NorthernGent
And as for your insistence that reason is the only useful standard when judging human affairs and beliefs.....well....reason is not an objective standard and it arises out of the community's experiences....which means it can only ever be the majority's view at any given point in time as opposed to some objective standard where you can measure right and wrong...true and false. And whereupon you grasp this...you'll see that reason is only ever as good as our limited knowledge of the world....you can't reason that which you don't know.

By all means attribute a position to me that is different from my actual position and then argue against it badly.

(in reply to NorthernGent)

Profile

Post #: 144

RE: Pascal's Wager - 12/28/2010 9:16:31 PM

GotSteel

Posts: 5871
Joined: 2/19/2008
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata
If someone objects that belief in God is rational, they can be challenged to articulate a rational process that leads to belief in God as its outcome. The attempt must invariably fail. Otherwise, it would not be rational to be an atheist.

I certainly can't disagree with that.

(in reply to Kirata)

Profile

Post #: 145

RE: Pascal's Wager - 12/28/2010 9:21:29 PM

GotSteel

Posts: 5871
Joined: 2/19/2008
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: lickenforyou
Great, let’s start there. I concede that point, survival is a drive and is always present.. However, a drive is not an emotion.

Actually I'd call it instinct.

(in reply to lickenforyou)

Profile

Post #: 146

RE: Pascal's Wager - 12/29/2010 12:07:49 PM

willbeurdaddy

Posts: 11894
Joined: 4/8/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: GotSteel

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata
If someone objects that belief in God is rational, they can be challenged to articulate a rational process that leads to belief in God as its outcome. The attempt must invariably fail. Otherwise, it would not be rational to be an atheist.

I certainly can't disagree with that.

Rational thought processes can lead to different conclusions depending on the veracity and weights assigned to the inputs to the process. E.g. it is not irrational to believe in AGW if you believe that the data presented is both truthful and significant enough in depth and breadth to draw a conclusion. AGW skeptics have doubts about both.

_____________________________

Hear the lark
and harken
to the barking of the dogfox,
gone to ground.

(in reply to GotSteel)

Profile

Post #: 147

RE: Pascal's Wager - 12/30/2010 10:59:06 AM

GotSteel

Posts: 5871
Joined: 2/19/2008
Status: offline

There's a saying among programmers: garbage in, garbage out.

It's demonstrable that even the best minds throughout history are capable of reasoning to incorrect conclusions because of faulty or incomplete data.

(in reply to willbeurdaddy)

Profile

Post #: 148