Pascal's Wager

[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).

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.).

If God doesnt want us to know he exists, then we can logically assume we dont need to worship him to receive benefit. But this isnt an atheistic view since it doesnt state that god exists. All it states is that god will accept us regardless. In otherwords, it is still more beneficial to believe in SOMETHING because if this is right, so you wasted time during your life? Could you have really spent it doing something more worthwhile?

Honestly, why would god reveal itself to us if it didnt want us to worship it?

Meanwhile, if this is wrong, then you have a second chance (what you believed before) to be on gods graceful side.

Then theres the chance that there just is no god. Ok? You risked it, and were lucky, even though their were other more desireable choices. And takign any of those wouldnt have hurt at all.
this is sorta wierd me arguing this since I dont believe you should believe in God jsut because "whhy not" but im trying to go with it,

[Daytripper]

Problem is, even if you were following what was statistically the most sound, without solving the problem of belief, you don't know what you must assume. Statistics in your favour are actually all rigged...

Consider this:

God A says you MUST be an atheist.
God B says you MUST be a theist.

Both Gods will punish and reward in the same way.

Chances are 50/50

Oh, and if there is no God, chances are worse of course, sorry The atheist has the best chances, 2/3

So the statistics are pretty useless unless you have some evidence in favour of some God. Once you have compelling evidence, statistics are no longer required. Also many modern Christians do not really believe in hell. What is really supported best?

[Neopergoss]

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.

Ok, Possibility B may be divided into many different possibilities, including the possibility that the real God would punish you for believing in the fake god from Possibility A. With this in mind, Possibility B is not in any way neutral as has been suggested. In fact, this one possibility I just mentioned eliminates any dominance of possibility A.

edit: Thanks, Daytripper. That's pretty much what I've been trying to say in just a few words.

[Neopergoss]

If God doesnt want us to know he exists, then we can logically assume we dont need to worship him to receive benefit. But this isnt an atheistic view since it doesnt state that god exists. All it states is that god will accept us regardless. In otherwords, it is still more beneficial to believe in SOMETHING because if this is right, so you wasted time during your life? Could you have really spent it doing something more worthwhile?

Not only could you have spent your time doing something worthwhile, but actually false belief in gods and religions can cause people to make some pretty poor decisions. Consider Christian Science and the poor medical decisions it can lead to, or the more mainstream Catholicism and how it discourages the use of contraception.

Honestly, why would god reveal itself to us if it didnt want us to worship it?

Honestly, why would evil exist if there were an omnipotent, omniscient, benevolent God? The only explanation I've heard that is even remotely consistent is "God works in mysterious ways." Well, this explanation works for both equally well. And by the way, I would contend that no god has revealed itself.

this is sorta wierd me arguing this since I dont believe you should believe in God jsut because "whhy not" but im trying to go with it,

Appreciate your honesty.

[BluePriest]

If God doesnt want us to know he exists, then we can logically assume we dont need to worship him to receive benefit. But this isnt an atheistic view since it doesnt state that god exists. All it states is that god will accept us regardless. In otherwords, it is still more beneficial to believe in SOMETHING because if this is right, so you wasted time during your life? Could you have really spent it doing something more worthwhile?

Not only could you have spent your time doing something worthwhile, but actually false belief in gods and religions can cause people to make some pretty poor decisions. Consider Christian Science and the poor medical decisions it can lead to, or the more mainstream Catholicism and how it discourages the use of contraception.

Lets assume for a moment there is no god, no afterlife, when you die, you die. Now, what could you have been doing that is more worthwhile?

Honestly, why would god reveal itself to us if it didnt want us to worship it?

Honestly, why would evil exist if there were an omnipotent, omniscient, benevolent God? The only explanation I've heard that is even remotely consistent is "God works in mysterious ways." Well, this explanation works for both equally well. And by the way, I would contend that no god has revealed itself.

How can there be good without evil? How can you know that something is right, if there is no wrong? Although Im trying to keep my belief out of it and I almost think "why does evil exist" is going off topic, and really doesnt add anything benificiaal to the conversation, evil exists for choice. So you can chose what you want to do. God allowed evil so that you could be allowed to make a choice.

Consider this:

God A says you MUST be an atheist.
God B says you MUST be a theist.

Both Gods will punish and reward in the same way.

Chances are 50/50

Oh, and if there is no God, chances are worse of course, sorry The atheist has the best chances, 2/3

You have to logically back this though. Why would a god WANT you to be an atheist, and punish you for believing in him? god WANTING you to be an atheist doesnt make sense.

[Neopergoss]

Lets assume for a moment there is no god, no afterlife, when you die, you die. Now, what could you have been doing that is more worthwhile?

Instead of worshipping God? Well, you could do community service. Spend time with the family. I don't know...whatever's important.

How can there be good without evil? How can you know that something is right, if there is no wrong? Although Im trying to keep my belief out of it and I almost think "why does evil exist" is going off topic, and really doesnt add anything benificiaal to the conversation, evil exists for choice. So you can chose what you want to do. God allowed evil so that you could be allowed to make a choice.

I should've been more precise. Why do natural disasters kill innocent babies, orphans, etc.? Why are there tsunami's?

You have to logically back this though. Why would a god WANT you to be an atheist, and punish you for believing in him? god WANTING you to be an atheist doesnt make sense.

It makes perfect sense. Perhaps God knows we can't accurately perceive him and that any attempts would amount to blasphemy and idolatry. God may prefer to work behind the scenes, which is why he didn't provide us with any evidence of his existence. Our superstitious tendencies could be a test of disbelief (as opposed to a "test of faith"). Consider this episode of Futurama: (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godfellas)

"When you do things right, people won't be sure you've done anything at all."

Ultimately, you can explain anything away by saying "God works in mysterious ways. We puny mortals can't begin to fathom his divine understanding."

[Daytripper]

You have to logically back this though. Why would a god WANT you to be an atheist, and punish you for believing in him? god WANTING you to be an atheist doesnt make sense.

Not really. Why does an omnipotent God require worshipping? Does it help any?

If you must be difficult, it's very simple. God hears everything, and all those people praying really disturb His peace. Nothing is going to change anyway, so try to solve your own problems.

[OldTrees]

Problem is, even if you were following what was statistically the most sound, without solving the problem of belief, you don't know what you must assume. Statistics in your favour are actually all rigged...

Consider this:

God A says you MUST be an atheist.
God B says you MUST be a theist.

Both Gods will punish and reward in the same way.

Chances are 50/50

Oh, and if there is no God, chances are worse of course, sorry The atheist has the best chances, 2/3

So the statistics are pretty useless unless you have some evidence in favour of some God. Once you have compelling evidence, statistics are no longer required. Also many modern Christians do not really believe in hell. What is really supported best?

That is one lenient God B and a very strict God A. In fact they would never be believed for each commands you to believe something else than themselves. God A commands disbelief and God B's commands are compatible with a belief in a stricter conventional God.

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?!

Christ: believe only in Christ 1
God B: do not believe in Christ 2
Are Christ 1 (god) and Christ 2 (mortal) the same? No. Dominant strategy: believe in Christ 1.

PS: I have been evaluating relative values.

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 value of living your life believing what you believe is independent of the ontological nature of God. Hence it is a constant to be removed when determining the value of options.
hard Atheism (or the sum of soft atheism responses used to eliminate possibilities until only one remains) has a 50% chance (or less) of being right but the expected value of being an atheist for a blank human is less than that of Flying Spaghetti Monsterism. Hence Flying Spaghetti Monsterism is a rational choice.

Now I know that someone is going to challenge the 50%(or less) chance of hard Atheism.
I have a pane of glass. What does it look like?
Clear = no color.

[Neopergoss]

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?!

Christ: believe only in Christ 1
God B: do not believe in Christ 2
Are Christ 1 (god) and Christ 2 (mortal) the same? No. Dominant strategy: believe in Christ 1.

PS: I have been evaluating relative values.

God B isn't saying not to believe in Christ 2. He's saying not to believe Christ is God. Nevertheless, you haven't begun to consider that God could be irrational/evil and just do any old thing. It doesn't even have to make sense. There's no reason why God wouldn't choose to punish only theists and to reward atheists. You presume too much.

The value of living your life believing what you believe is independent of the ontological nature of God. Hence it is a constant to be removed when determining the value of options.
Atheism has a 50% chance (or less) of being right but the expected value of being an atheist for a blank human is less than that of Flying Spaghetti Monsterism. Hence Flying Spaghetti Monsterism is a rational choice.

Now I know that someone is going to challenge the 50%(or less) chance of Atheism.
I have a pane of glass. What does it look like?
Clear = no color.

The value of atheism is more than the value of living your life believing what you believe. Its value is being free from superstition (ie: being right). Truth is valuable because it helps us to make better decisions. If you begin to believe one superstition (there is a God), you open up the way to all kinds of irrational superstition (wearing condoms is evil, blood transfusions are evil, etc.). Even if you don't subscribe to any superstitions other than the one, by teaching it to others, you open them up to other superstitions. Moreover, atheism has a much higher than 50% chance of being right. It's closer to 100%, though admittedly not quite there.

What is a blank human? I don't know what you're trying to show with your glass analogy. I find your unsupported claim that atheism has a 50% or less chance of being true quite bold and your claim that FSMism is more rational to be extremely absurd. C'mon now, OldTrees.

[OldTrees]

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?!

Christ: believe only in Christ 1
God B: do not believe in Christ 2
Are Christ 1 (god) and Christ 2 (mortal) the same? No. Dominant strategy: believe in Christ 1.

PS: I have been evaluating relative values.

God B isn't saying not to believe in Christ 2. He's saying not to believe Christ is God. Nevertheless, you haven't begun to consider that God could be irrational/evil and just do any old thing. It doesn't even have to make sense. There's no reason why God wouldn't choose to punish only theists and to reward atheists. You presume too much.

The value of living your life believing what you believe is independent of the ontological nature of God. Hence it is a constant to be removed when determining the value of options.
Atheism has a 50% chance (or less) of being right but the expected value of being an atheist for a blank human is less than that of Flying Spaghetti Monsterism. Hence Flying Spaghetti Monsterism is a rational choice.

Now I know that someone is going to challenge the 50%(or less) chance of Atheism.
I have a pane of glass. What does it look like?
Clear = no color.

The value of atheism is more than the value of living your life believing what you believe. Its value is being free from superstition (ie: being right). Truth is valuable because it helps us to make better decisions. If you begin to believe one superstition (there is a God), you open up the way to all kinds of irrational superstition (wearing condoms is evil, blood transfusions are evil, etc.). Even if you don't subscribe to any superstitions other than the one, by teaching it to others, you open them up to other superstitions. Moreover, atheism has a much higher than 50% chance of being right. It's closer to 100%, though admittedly not quite there.

What is a blank human? I don't know what you're trying to show with your glass analogy. I find your unsupported claim that atheism has a 50% or less chance of being true quite bold and your claim that FSMism is more rational to be extremely absurd. C'mon now, OldTrees.

You are right that if we expand the definition of God to include God Z (only rewards right handed left handed people) and others equally absurd then the weighted value of all options drops to 0+the constant value.
Ok, so superstitions, that is your case for atheism being strictly more valuable is that atheist(currently referring to hard atheists) are immune or resistant to superstition as a characteristic of being hard atheists?
"Superstition is a credulous belief or notion, not based on reason or knowledge"
Hard atheism has no knowledge as a basis and the reasoning is lacking in declaring no god does exist. Therefore Hard Atheism is a superstition too. Of course superstition has a negative connotation hence you will be initially reluctant to consider this point seriously. Remember: "Absence of proof is not proof of absence."
So since none with answers has sufficient reasoning or knowledge, all are equally at risk for further irrationalities.

The Glass analogy is the proof that hard atheism has a <=50% of being correct and in fact is equally unlikely as the FSM. Simply put: There is only 1 way the universe would be in the variable of God if no God existed. (clear) There are (infinitely) many ways the universe could be in the variable of God if God existed. (all non clear colors) Therefore the chance the universe does not have a God is vanishingly small. The same argument holds for Christianity (400nm).

[Daxx]

Why are you insisting on strong atheism? That's a colossal strawman, as very few atheists are actually strong atheists. I've certainly never met one.

Furthermore, you're making a pair of logical errors in asserting that all beliefs are equally valid and then attempting to conceptually divide by infinity, without proving that is in fact reasonable.

EDIT: In fact, your glass analogy intuitively demonstrates why you're wrong. Simply because the glass could be in any one of an infinite array of infinitesimally small colour ranges does not mean that the glass cannot be clear or even that being clear is inherently unlikely. In fact, most glass is clear despite the "infinite" colourspace it could occupy.

[Neopergoss]

You are right that if we expand the definition of God to include God Z (only rewards right handed left handed people) and others equally absurd then the weighted value of all options drops to 0+the constant value.
Ok, so superstitions, that is your case for atheism being strictly more valuable is that atheist(currently referring to hard atheists) are immune or resistant to superstition as a characteristic of being hard atheists?
"Superstition is a credulous belief or notion, not based on reason or knowledge"
Hard atheism has no knowledge as a basis and the reasoning is lacking in declaring no god does exist. Therefore Hard Atheism is a superstition too. Of course superstition has a negative connotation hence you will be initially reluctant to consider this point seriously. Remember: "Absence of proof is not proof of absence."
So since none with answers has sufficient reasoning or knowledge, all are equally at risk for further irrationalities.

The Glass analogy is the proof that hard atheism has a <=50% of being correct and in fact is equally unlikely as the FSM. Simply put: There is only 1 way the universe would be in the variable of God if no God existed. (clear) There are (infinitely) many ways the universe could be in the variable of God if God existed. (all non clear colors) Therefore the chance the universe does not have a God is vanishingly small. The same argument holds for Christianity (400nm).

There is no reason to assume hard atheism. (ninja'd by Daxx!) Not really sure why you did. I said "near 100%." That's still soft atheism. I'm not saying that atheists are immune, but resistant, at least to a form of superstition. And I'm sorry, but I really don't see what colored glass has to do with this except as a way to illustrate that many possibilities exist.