Blaise Pascal argued that it is a better "bet" to believe in God than not to do so.

Pascal's Wager (also known as Pascal's Gambit) is Blaise Pascal's application of decision theory to the belief in God. It is one of three 'wagers' which appear in his Pensées, a collection of notes for an unfinished treatise on Christian apologetics. Pascal argues that it is always a better "bet" to believe in God, because the expected value to be gained from believing in God is always greater than the expected value resulting from non-belief. Note that this is not an argument for the existence of God, but rather one for the belief in God. Pascal specifically aimed the argument at such persons who were not convinced by traditional arguments for the existence of God. With his wager he sought to demonstrate that believing in God is more advantageous than not believing, and hoped that this would convert those who rejected previous theological arguments. Applications of this argument can be found in other religious philosophies, such as Hinduism, and especially Buddhism (see below). A well known example is the C.S. Lewis quote: "Christianity, if false, is of no importance, and if true, of infinite importance. The only thing it cannot be is moderately important." (Cont'd)

The incompleteness of his argument is the origin of the term Pascal's Flaw.
Pascal's Flaw is a state of incompleteness of an argument or its failure to arrive at its desired conclusion. Statements containing a Pascal's Flaw often arise in discussions where the offending party can no longer provide evidence to support their case.


The End of Pascal's Wager: Only Nontheists Go to Heaven (2002)


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I remember another thread somewhere in this forum, wherein someone said it is possible we believe in a god figure, for whatever that means to us personally as well as collectively, because we are afraid not to. Because to believe in nothing "out there" or "super" natural, would then infer we accept that we are alone and immaterial, amid this grand existence of all that is seen or imagined.

It's no mistake that every faith professes it's philosophy to stand as absolute. Look who it serves. Each race, who's god looks like them and prefers them over all others. (Race, relative to someone in another post claimed was the definition of the bible's allusion to "generations" of faithful) It is true I think that there are many god's because many people ascribe one word to an relative effigy. God always seems to look like "us", depending on who you talk to. Muslim, Buddhist , Jew, Christian, Pagan, etc...

I think that believing god favors one (race, faith), gives a cause to each one to strive to survive based on that philosophy that entrusts existence to flourish and survive at our behest, as fallible as we are. And yet under the guidance of something outside ourselves, that are alleged to be inferior in understanding and applying what that would entail otherwise. So as to make the god ideal a scapegoat for our own mortal faults and responsibilities, at that effort.

How many times has someone here read the retort, in a discussion of tenets of personal faith; "I didn't say it, ____________ did!" (Jesus, the bible, god, the ancient pagans, etc...)

That's why I thought to post Pascals Wager, for discussion. I would like to ask this thread not engender any scriptural references, if one would enter into the dialog. The topic is the essence of Pascals Wager, so given that share what you think, rather than the textual references that would to make you think that way.


(edit for missing text )

Nice thread . Not sure what kind of discussion you're asking for, but I thought I'd contribute this. It's kinda long, and I don't agree with it 100%, but it's relevent (the question is how relevent ).

P.S. This is a direct quote from a book (ZERO - the biography of a dangerous idea - Copyright Charles Seife, 2000), so don't write it up as my opinion. Please.

--------------------------------------------------

The Divine Wager

What is man in nature? Nothing in relation to the infinite, everything in relation to nothing, a mean between nothing and everything.
-BLAISE PASCAL, PENSEES

Pascal was a mathematician as well as a scientist. In science Pascal investigated the vacuum - the nature of the void. In mathematics Pascal helped invent a whole new branch of the field: probability theory. When Pascal combined probability theory with zero and with infinity, he found God.

Probability theory was invented to help rich aristocrats win more money with their gambling. Pascal's theory was extremely successful, but his mathematical career was not to last. On November 23, 1654, Pascal had an intense spiritual experience. Perhaps it was the old Jensenist antiscience creed that was building up in him, but for whatever the reason, Pascal's newfound devotion led him to abandon mathematics and science altogether. (He made an exception for a brief time four years later, when he was unable to sleep owing to illness. He started doing mathematics and the pain eased. Pascal believed that this was a sign that God was not displeased with his studies.) He became a theologian - but he could not escape his profane past. Even when it came to arguing about God's existence, he kept coming back to those crass gambling Frenchmen. Pascal argued that it was best to believe in God, because it was a good bet. Literally.

Just as he analyzed the value - or expectation - of a gamble, Pascal analyzed the value of accepting Christ as savior. Thanks to the mathematics of zero and infinity, Pascal concluded that one should assume that God exists.

Before considering the wager itself, it is easy to analyze a slightly different game. Imagine that there are two envelopes, marked A and B. Before you are shown the envelopes, a flip of the coin determined which envelope has money in it. If the coin toss was a heads, A has a brand-new $100 bill inside. If the coin came up with tails, B has the money - but this time, it's $1,000,000. Which envelope should you choose?

B, obviously! Its value is much greater. It is not difficult to show this using a tool from probability theory called an expectation, which is a measure of how much we expect each envelope to be worth.

Envelope A might or might not have a $100 bill in it; it has some value, because it might have money in it, but it isn't worth as much as $100, because you're not absolutely sure that it contains anything. In fact a mathematician would add up all of the possible contents of envelope A and then multiply by the probability of each outcome:

1/2 chance of winning $0
1/2 X $0 = $0
1/2 chance of winning $100
1/2 X $100 = $50
Expectation = $50

The mathematician would conclude that the expected value of the envelope is $50. At the same time, the expected value of envelope B is:

1/2 chance of winning $0
1/2 X $0 = $0
1/2 chance of winning $1,000,000
1/2 X $1,000,000 = $500,000
Expectation = $500,000

So the expected value of B is $500,000 - 10,000 times as much as the expected value of envelope A. Clearly, if you are offered a choice between the two envelopes, the smart thing to do is to choose B.

Pascal's wager is exactly like this game, except that it uses a different set of envelopes: Christian and atheist. (Actually, Pascal only analyzed the Christian case, but the atheist case is the logical extension.) For the sake of the argument, imagine for the moment that there's a 50-50 chance that God exists. (Pascal assumed that it would be the Christian God, of course.) Now, choosing the Christian envelope is equivalent to choosing to be a devout Christian. If you happen to choose this path, there are two possibilities. If you are a faithful Christian and there is no God, you just fade into nothingness when you die. But if there is a God, you go to heaven and live for eternity in bliss: infinity. So the expected value ot being a Christian is:

1/2 chance of fading into nothing
1/2 X 0 = 0
1/2 chance of going to heaven
1/2 X ∞ = ∞
Expectation = ∞

After all, half of infinity is still infinity. Thus, the value of being a Christian is infinate. Now what happens if you are an atheist? If you are correct - there is no God - you gain nothing from being right. After all, if there is no God, there is no heaven. But if you are wrong and there is a God, you go to hell for an eternity: negative infinity. So the expected value of being an atheist is:

1/2 chance of fading into nothing
1/2 X 0 = 0
1/2 chance of going to hell
1/2 X -∞ = -∞
Expectation = -∞

Negative infinity. The value is as bad as you can possibly get. The wise person would clearly choose Christianity instead of atheism.

But we made an assumption here - that there is a 50-50 chance that God exists. What happens if there is only a 1/1000 chance? The value of being a Christian would be:

999/1000 chance of fading into nothing
999/1000 X 0 =0
1/1000 chance of going to heaven
1/1000 X ∞ = ∞
Expectation = ∞

It's still the same: infinate, and the value of being an atheist is still negative infinity. It's still much better to be a Christian. If the probability is 1/10,000 or 1/1,000,000 or one in a gazillion, it comes out the same. The only exception is zero.

If there is no chance that God exists, Pascal's wager - as it came to be known - makes no sense. The expected value of being a Christian would then be 0 X ∞, and that was gibberish. Nobody was willing to say that there was zero chance that God exists. No matter what your outlook, it is always better to believe in God, thanks to the magic of zero and infinity. Certainly Pascal knew which way to wager, even though he gave up mathematics to win his bet.

--------------------------------------------------

How about this: there are some of us who believe that the whole thing is nonsense. There is another, more logical possibility. xianity is only partially true. Belief in the limited`"god" of xianity is based on many fallacies, any way. Pascal's wager can be applied to any other religion. The correct answer is: therefore be a buddhist, or jew, or wiccan. Maybe all three. Why take a chance?

Although the people reading this post probably have .0005 percent chance of converting to Christianity I will throw my two cents in anyway. Also if I might add I think its a shame these kinds of posts get few responses while "I worship Satan." gets 10 pages of responses.

I think Pascal is appealing to the practicality of belief. His flaw was not really a flaw because he was not attempting to prove GOD. He was skipping the need for proof by reason of "what do you have to loose."

There are so many directions to go with this discussion I feel like a frozen windows program.

Let me take this direction first. "GOD does not exist." there I said it.........."GOD does not exist.".........."The Christian GOD does not exist." These statements are absolutely true for many on this forum. Weather GOD really exists or not is irrelevant. For many GOD does not exist and this absolutely true for many. Since for one reason or another you cannot believe GOD in all practicality does not exist. I will illustrate.

Bad things happen to you right now so if bad things happen to you in the life here after you will just say "I'm unlucky or I need something." since you do not believe in GOD you can not blame him or entreat him to change your circumstances.

You can not pray to a GOD you don't believe in. It’s impossible therefore even if GOD exists you will never get anything from him by prayer making prayer a useless idea to you.

Since you do not believe in GOD you can not use GOD as a motivation to improve your spirituality therefore the force of religion can have no effect on your conscience. You must relly on other circumstances such as parental guidance and the strength of your conscience when you were born.

Belief effects every part of reality. Belief matters in medication, sports, relationships, personal achievement.... everything. Therefore the lack of belief limits you.

Pascal was attempting to bypass the logic blatantly to finally get to the part that matters. The practical application of belief. By saying you have nothing to loose he was hoping to motivate people to just skip the tedious steps of logic and get on with it.

One could argue that one is missing out on all the fun by following those cumbersome rules but I would argue that those things people see as so much fun are not as much fun as they would like you to believe. I've been on both sides and trust me the prudes are not missing out on anything. In fact the FUN people talk about is the very reason they feel a sense of worthlessness. I don't know how often I've heard one of my unbelieving friends (and I have allot of them) say I'm half the person I used to be. They don't believe in Christianity and they still feel a sense of decent when they do certain things. That’s because Christianity did not make those things wrong. They were wrong from the beginning of humanity.

Maybe not, I think God would hate you more if you believed out of fear. Makes me think of why i made the thread would it kill you to believe in God. It was kind of stupid.

Anyway, Gods not retarded, so he's gonna know you're believing out of fear. So if you're going to cheat. Then you should raise your kids to believe in God from the very begining. Then at least, the childs belief wont be fake.

Double post!

Then again where would god be if not for the believers? How would the faithful know what "god says" about anything, were it not for the mortal minds that contrived the scriptures. God did not write the bible, man did. And as many pray and do not see an answer to their prayers, who's to say it is not because there is nothing listening to them in the first place?! We believe we need pray, we believe we need worship, etc...

If it wasn't for the faith the ancients prescribed for us to believe, we would not see god superimposed upon our notions of reality (life) at all. Something good happens and the faithful say; "It's gods will." Something bad happens and the faithful claim it's all part of god's plan, no matter how horrific the suffering. And all because humans have been led to believe. And what do they believe?

That this life and it's challenges are better met by believing some invisible being cares and watches over us? That, from the moment we are born we are born into the sin that god damned us to because the first of our kind angered him by disobeying him!? And how exactly could they know enough to comply, Adam and Eve, given they were made as god created them to be. What would they know about disobedience at all? God told them to do one thing, and a talking snake another. How would they possess the capacity to reason, and obedience to god, as new humans?

And yet, the faithful live their lives in the midst of the conceptualization's of "sin" and "salvation", all because of that story. They must be saved from the devil god created , to ascend to the heaven where god lives. And it's all because the faithful believe the stories are true. (As with any religion). And why do they believe!? Ultimately, I believe one of the predominant factors in causing the faithful to cling to the mythologies of religion is because the religions declare one is doomed if they don't. But then again, one has to hold faith in that as well, before it matters at all. Because in order to hold faith, one must abdicate reason.

Therefore, perhaps we might consider it isn't a matter of "god isn't a retard" and would know whether or not one is truly faithful to the word of men, in believing in the god they depict in scripture. Perhaps it's a matter of ourselves taking everything we see in our life/reality, and then choosing to believe something invisible that we are told is there by centuries old text, is responsible. When, we could ascribe anything to the cause (or nothing at all, as with Atheism) and no one could gainsay it because no one knows. Faith precludes fact.

And just as an aside, with all respect to VA's observation, I don't see any thread in these particular forums (Spirit/Skept. Religion/beliefs) qualified to gain converts to religion especially or christianity particularly. This is a discussion forum and as such does not afford the proper perspective to convert anyone to anything other than dialog.

Actually, a retarded God would be one who didn't understand whether you were calling him Jesus or Shiva. The Lord of the Universe, assuming he exists, would hear all prayer, no matter what religion. An intelligent Deity would speak all languages and know every heart.

With corresponding respect I think you are minimalising even your own life. Every word you type, every picture you post, every thing you say, everything you do has power of influence. No it most likely will not be the sole source of influence over ones perspective but it is a influence none the less.

Our very presence is an influence.

As far as who told who what to believe..... If you took human children and placed them on an island and left them alone to formulate their own ideas, they would still come up with the same conclusions as we have. Yes you would need a JESUS or a Moses or a Buddha to give those conclusions a face but the same conclusions would arise. All powerful creator. Heaven and hell. Subordinate gods/angels. Natural desire in humanity to do both moral things and evil things. The common denominators of the religions shows as preexistence of things and a natural predisposition to these ideas in the human mind. Perceiving ourselves as intelligent beckons us to question why the natural universe has brought about creatures with these sorts of dispositions.

Not to mention the odd things that happen to humanity on a regular basis forcing us to define and explain what just happened. For instance, when a fiery mountain is talking to us we have a natural tendency to attempt to explain this occurrence. Or when a creature walks through our closed doors and stands above our beds railing on us and imploring us to do things commonly considered wrong we have a tendency to label both what we saw as well as the occurrence itself. When humans come close to death and continue conscious experience even after the body has stopped we as humans tend to question our idea of both death and the time in which it actually occurs.

Point is...(as you have pointed out on numerous occasions) Christianity did not bring about these ideas. These ideas are brought about through the natural existence of humanity. Christianity merely filed them in a organized fashion, much like science is doing today.

< Jesus co-exists with Evolution. (the feet) Nice closing there VA!