Pascal's Wager

[Neopergoss]

Hence even accounting for the multiple possible deities and deities that punish followers the math still works out that if you happened to have believed in a rewarding deity your have a positive expected return.
(I assumed the possible versions of punishing and rewarding deities were equal)

The correct counterarguments either deals with truth being more important than self interest or belief not being generated on a whim.

Consider that there are infinite possibilities regarding what will be punished or rewarded and what the punishments and rewards will be. It is a mistake to think that just because there is a religion that believes in something it is any more likely to be true. From this perspective, the probability of each cell in the graph is infinitesimal. Multiply how good the reward is by its likelihood and you have a more realistic graph. For me, the number you get is so close to 0 for believing that not believing is the wiser choice. Let me provide an illustration:

Flying Spaghetti Monsterism can't be disproven. Maybe by following its dictates, we get to go to heaven, where there is a beer volcano and a stripper factory. Or maybe not. But I would count anyone a fool who tried worshiping spaghetti "just in case." To me, no religion is significantly likely to be any more true than that.

[OldTrees]

Hence even accounting for the multiple possible deities and deities that punish followers the math still works out that if you happened to have believed in a rewarding deity your have a positive expected return.
(I assumed the possible versions of punishing and rewarding deities were equal)

The correct counterarguments either deals with truth being more important than self interest or belief not being generated on a whim.

Consider that there are infinite possibilities regarding what will be punished or rewarded and what the punishments and rewards will be. It is a mistake to think that just because there is a religion that believes in something it is any more likely to be true. From this perspective, the probability of each cell in the graph is infinitesimal. Multiply how good the reward is by its likelihood and you have a more realistic graph. For me, the number you get is so close to 0 for believing that not believing is the wiser choice. Let me provide an illustration:

Flying Spaghetti Monsterism can't be disproven. Maybe by following its dictates, we get to go to heaven, where there is a beer volcano and a stripper factory. Or maybe not. But I would count anyone a fool who tried worshiping spaghetti "just in case." To me, no religion is significantly likely to be any more true than that.

Pascal's wager was intended to convince agnostics that theism is preferable to atheism. Hence its conclusion is that following in any rewarded path is more beneficial than following a neutral or punishing path.

With an infinite amount of possible deities the net benefit of the rewarded path shrinks but remains strictly greater than the neutral path. The argument is not an argument for believing in the Flying Spaghetti Monster rather it is an argument that you are strictly better off believing one of the deities rather than none.

If faith could be generated at a whim then pascal's wager would be significant because a strictly superior strategy is the rational choice. However faith cannot be generated at a whim.

[Pineapple]

The "proof" is based on dominance reasoning.

Example:
I must choose between two bets before flipping a coin. The two bets are:

Bet A:
If heads, I gain $100
If tails, I lose $10

Bet B:
If heads, I gain $50
If tails, I lose $20

1. A outcome of the coin-flip can only be either heads or tails.
2. If heads, Bet A is the better choice.
3. If tails, Bet A is the better choice.
4. Therefore, Bet A is the better choice regardless of the outcome of the coin-flip.

This is the reasoning used in Pascal's Wager. It's obviously deductively valid, so we shouldn't argue the reasoning. What we should argue is whether statement 3 is true, or rather whether "It is better to believe in a Christian god than to not if said Christian god does not exist" is true.
--
Damn, OldTrees ninja'd me.
Though I disagree, faith can indeed be generated upon whim.

[OldTrees]

Though I disagree, faith can indeed be generated upon whim.

Really? That would be an interesting mind trick.
Faith is answers to questions for which there is no relevant evidence and that matter enough that such opinions form premises in the worldview.

You can (for example) make yourself truly believe (not just consider or empathize with) that the Flying Spaghetti Monster exists as a deity (assuming you did not believe that before)?

[Pineapple]

From another perspective, Pascal's Wager can be used to defend the decisions of a believer.

[BluePriest]

For me (with this talk, you guys are usually above the thought I put in) I look at it not even as infinite possibilities. If there is a God, and we have to worship him for us to receive a benefit from him, he would have had to revealed himself to us in some recognizable form. Otherwise, that wouldnt be very knowledgeable on the gods part due to our inability to recognize something that isnt there (unless you are hallucinating of course).

The exact number of religions in the world is unknown. Best estimates place the number around 4200.

Therefor an infinite amount shouldnt be what is looked at, but a number around 4200.

Now what I cant figure out is if that 4200 is counting all denominations as 1 religion, or if the seperate denominations are multiple religions.

Thats just how I look at it though.

[Neopergoss]

Pascal's wager was intended to convince agnostics that theism is preferable to atheism. Hence its conclusion is that following in any rewarded path is more beneficial than following a neutral or punishing path.

With an infinite amount of possible deities the net benefit of the rewarded path shrinks but remains strictly greater than the neutral path.

As has already been pointed out, no path is truly neutral. Atheism is a rewarded path, but the rewards are not as pronounced. However, the probability of atheism being correct is so dramatically greater than any of the other paths that it is the only rational choice -- unless you really believe that Flying Spaghetti Monsterism can be a rational choice.

The argument is not an argument for believing in the Flying Spaghetti Monster rather it is an argument that you are strictly better off believing one of the deities rather than none.

Consider that for every behavior/reward -- behavior/punishment combination, there is an inverse. In other words, it's possible that the only way to avoid Hell and go to Heaven is by not believing in Christ. This is just as likely as the Christian proposition and its costs/benefits cancel the Christian ones out exactly. What dominance remains?!

If faith could be generated at a whim then pascal's wager would be significant because a strictly superior strategy is the rational choice. However faith cannot be generated at a whim.

I disagree. I would consider generating faith at a whim to be quite a foolish decision.

For me (with this talk, you guys are usually above the thought I put in) I look at it not even as infinite possibilities. If there is a God, and we have to worship him for us to receive a benefit from him, he would have had to revealed himself to us in some recognizable form. Otherwise, that wouldnt be very knowledgeable on the gods part due to our inability to recognize something that isnt there (unless you are hallucinating of course).

I maintain my position that just because a religion exists for a certain belief doesn't make it any more true. As theists are fond of saying "God works in mysterious ways." It's quite possible that he doesn't wish for us to know the truth about His existence. I mean, how can you not reconcile that concept while still reconciling all kinds of evil? So I don't buy any of what you just said. Why must we worship him to derive benefit? Perhaps the best thing to do is not to worship, because maybe he hates that kind of thing. Who are you to claim knowledge of God's will? There's no reason to assume that we are knowledgeable about the gods at all and there is good reason to believe that we have a strong disposition to believe in mystical things that aren't there (superstition, etc.).

[Pineapple]

But for Pascal's Wager, there exists only two possibilities that together encompass everything.

Possibility A: This god exists and will send you to heaven if you have faith in him.
Possibility B: The above is false.

[Neopergoss]

But for Pascal's Wager, there exists only two possibilities that together encompass everything.

Possibility A: This god exists and will send you to heaven if you have faith in him.
Possibility B: The above is false.

The problem is that "The above is false" isn't an actual cell in the table but represents every other cell. So it encompasses infinitely many possibilities. "X is false" is not a proposition about what is true.

Consider that it also encompasses
"This God exists and will send you to Hell if you have faith in that other God (from possibility A) and to heaven otherwise."

[Pineapple]

Actually, one cell and only one cell represents Possibility B. Possibility A is "Real", and Possibility B is "Not Real."

[Neopergoss]

Actually, one cell and only one cell represents Possibility B. Possibility A is "Real", and Possibility B is "Not Real."

That's not a meaningful way of constructing a table, then. See my above edit.

[Pineapple]

Sorry, I messed up my wording.
Possibility A is that the god exists.
Possibility B is that the god doesn't.

Whether you go to heaven or hell has little to do with Possibility A or Possibility B. They are two of the only two rows, or two of the only two columns.