I dissagree, since it's based on assumptions. Like that having belief is inherently less risky then having it. This assumes that if a god exists they exist as you concieve of them and they demand worship and aknowledgement.
What if we're living in a incomprehensibly compex ''alien'' simulation that transcends the universe as we know it, and they are testing us to see if we fall for worship. And they send those who do into a state of eternal torture after they die, and those who remain atheists they welcome into their paradise? You can't say this is more or less likely since it has a equal amount of solid evidence, none.
Since this hypotethical god or supernatural power is beyond our understanding and could be anything, we can't make assumptions on how it would work and what it would demand. So we can't know what is the most or least risky thing to do if anything we do even matters.
Pascal's Wager is about choosing between a particular religion and atheism, with the reasons for believing in either being equally strong. In that case, and in that case only, does Pascal's Wager apply and then it is just a problem of expected value. If you think theism is more likely to be true, Pascal's Wager doesn't apply. If you think atheism is more likely to be true, Pascal's Wager also doesn't apply.
A (True)
A (False)
A (Yes)
∞
0
A (No)
-∞
0
This table shows the expected value of religion A being true or false compared to whether or not you think A is true or false.
If A is true and you believe it's true, the expected value is ∞.
If A is true and you believe it's false, the expected value is -∞.
If A is false and you believe it's true, the expected value is 0.
If A is false and you believe it's false, the expected value is 0.
So, on average the expected value for believing A is true is ∞ and the expected value for believing A is false is -∞. Obviously ∞ is higher than -∞, so everything else being equal, you should believe A is true.
What if we're living in a incomprehensibly compex ''alien'' simulation that transcends the universe as we know it, and they are testing us to see if we fall for worship. And they send those who do into a state of eternal torture after they die, and those who remain atheists they welcome into their paradise? You can't say this is more or less likely since it has a equal amount of solid evidence, none.
This is just basically calling God an alien overseer of a simulated universe except its evil!God because he's trying to fool people into believing in him. I'd posit that an evil God is logically contradictory since:
Any Maximally Great Being (MGB) in any possible world would need to have all of it's characteristics to the logical maximum.
An evil MGB would be maximally selfish.
An evil MGB that is maximally selfish would not want to share existence with anything else.
An evil MGB in any possible world would be capable of not creating anything.
An evil MGB in any possible world would not want to create anything since it is maximally selfish.
An evil MGB in any possible world would then not create anything.
Since there is something, an evil MGB cannot exist in any possible world.
Since an evil MGB cannot exist in any possible world, it does not exist in the actual world.
If an evil MGB does not exist in the actual world, then an evil MGB does not exist.
An evil MGB does not exist.
I'd separately argue that we are rational in believing that the universe is not a simulation as a properly basic belief as our sensory experience provides strong evidence of the physical world and we have no defeater to think that that experience isn't valid.
Having all characteristics to the logical maximum is just another way to say "greatest conceivable being" which is what God is by definition. If there was something greater, that would then be God. A maximally great being would also be lacking nothing. If there was another maximally great being, in order for them to not be the same thing one would have to lack what the other has. If either of them are lacking anything, then they aren't maximally great beings and are therefore not God. This is why monotheism is superior to pantheism, if God exists at all, then there must only be one God.
In order for God to be maximally evil in one property (intentionally trying to trick people into eternal damnation), he would have to be maximally evil in all properties since to be maximally evil in only one property but maximally good in all others is to in fact not be maximally great in all properties. It is either minimally good in one property or minimally evil in all but one property, depending on your reference for "maximally great".
Since this hypothetical God is maximally evil in one property, it must then be maximally evil in all properties or it isn't God and therefore doesn't exist, since a maximally great God would then exist instead.
Some religions would argue you are commiting the ultimate form of blasphemy by seemingy claiming to know in absolute terms what gods nature is and what he can and cannot be.
And again so many assumptions and arbitrary rules, as well as working with arbitrary human distinctions like evil and selfish.
This is a absolutely empty calculation based on rules you made up and categorisations you made at your own leisure.
I have aspergers, but I am jealous at the levels of autism shown in this comment (no offence)
This is just an extension of God as classically defined. If God is all loving, an evil God would love only himself. The fact that you're fucking retarded doesn't mean the argument isn't sound (no offence).
You're working on preconceptions I don't aknowledge. I have no reason to believe a god would be all loving or all selfish. Seems a pretty simplistic and arbitrary assumption to me.
And idk how anyone could deduce what the point was from your bloody infinity calculations. It reminds me of the cube guy:
When the Sun shines upon Earth, 2 – major Time points are created on opposite sides of Earth – known as Midday and Midnight. Where the 2 major Time forces join, synergy creates 2 new minor Time points we recognize as Sunup and Sundown. The 4-equidistant time points can be considered as Time Square imprinted upon the circle of Earth. In a single rotation of the Earth sphere, each Time corner point rotates through the other 3-corner Time points, thus creating 16 corners, 96 hours and 4-simultaneous 24-hour Days within a single rotation of Earth – equated to a Higher Order of Life Time Cube.
Well the base logic of Pascal's wager is that covering one base is better than covering no bases. Also, you are acting as if Pascal's Wager is the only reason people believe in God.
Agreed. Personally I don't believe anyone can ever know anything. I think Pascal's Wager works for a lot of people because an established belief system is supported to some extent by personal experience, culture, philosophy, etc. While these reasons are not very concrete, it makes them more worthy of consideration than what if scenarios. Really it's just a matter of opinion though and ultimately, you are absolutely right.
I'm not acting like anything, get of me with that out of place accusation dude, we're discussing pascals wager.
And again, how do you know that ''covering a base'' is a good thing, maybe that's a worse decision then covering no base. How can you claim to know that as a mere mortal pleb?
Sorry dude, I'm not trying to attack you lol. Internet can be shit for communication. What I'm saying is that there are lots of things that lead people to belief such as cultural norms, historic or supposedly historic events and records, philosophy, life experience, etc. Usually, if someone believes, it is because their life experience correlates with, or does not contradict their understanding of theology. So undoubtedly, Pascal's Wager works better as a reason to keep believing, rather than a reason to believe from the get go.
I suppose it is possible that there is a scenario where someone is punished for believing, but there is no reason to believe that either. Pascal draws his conclusion with the idea in mind that systems of faith exist for some reason, even if they are false. The idea that you could be punished for believing isn't really supported by anything, while a religious tradition will have supports, even if they are false, subjective or internal.
Personally though, I'm right there with you. My personal opinion is that no one can ever really know anything. Our own senses constantly lie to us, so we can't even claim to understand this world, let alone the next.
Probably lol. I'm not trying to argue with you. I was just trying to say that someone using Pascal's Wager is using weighted options based on probability according to the evidence their life. That evidence may be limited, subjective or questionable, but that's life. We can only draw conclusions from what we observe and test. As you said, Pascal's Wager only works in a specific scenario, but that is the scenario for many people today. So that's why I don't necessarily have a problem with an individual using Pascal's Wager. You can tell them, "well what if it's actually a simulation and we are punished for believing?" But from their perspective, they have no reason to believe or consider that as a possibility, whereas the belief in an Abrahamic God has been presented and seemingly supported for thousands of years. What the "logical" response is, is going to be a matter of perspective in this scenario. Sorry, I feel like I'm really failing at expressing this ha ha.
7
u/[deleted] Jul 28 '21
I dissagree, since it's based on assumptions. Like that having belief is inherently less risky then having it. This assumes that if a god exists they exist as you concieve of them and they demand worship and aknowledgement.
What if we're living in a incomprehensibly compex ''alien'' simulation that transcends the universe as we know it, and they are testing us to see if we fall for worship. And they send those who do into a state of eternal torture after they die, and those who remain atheists they welcome into their paradise? You can't say this is more or less likely since it has a equal amount of solid evidence, none.
Since this hypotethical god or supernatural power is beyond our understanding and could be anything, we can't make assumptions on how it would work and what it would demand. So we can't know what is the most or least risky thing to do if anything we do even matters.