Talk:Pascal's wager/Archive1

This is an archive page, last updated 20 August 2024. Please do not make edits to this page.

Archives for this talk page:  , (new)(back)

Pascal's Wager

Isnt the argument against it slightly contradictory? If you "choose one out of infinite possible varieties," and the "chance of worshiping him and not a nonexistent entity instead is one out of infinity," the chance cannot also be zero. Rangeley 10:36, 31 August 2007 (CDT)

Maths isn't my strong point so I'm not sure. No doubt the more numerate amongst us will comment. But I've got a different objection to this one. Are there really an infinite number of gods to chose from? I'd be hard pressed to name 50. Even if we include the entire history of mankind and supposed that every single individual created a new concept of god there still wouldn't be an infinite number of them.--Bob_M (talk) 10:49, 31 August 2007 (CDT)

The infinite possibilities would also include those not yet thought of. Rangeley 11:14, 31 August 2007 (CDT)

Well, if we include imaginary entities that have not yet been imagined then I suppose you are right - though I can't help feeling there may be just a touch of special pleading in there somewhere. :-) --Bob_M (talk) 12:11, 31 August 2007 (CDT)

I guess its best not to belive in god because i dont like a god that will condemn me to hell if i don't believe in him. That sounds more like Satan. Elassint Throw things at me 15:36, 31 October 2007 (EDT)

The one out of infinity thing resolves to zero under some mathematical conventions that are used so certain problems can be solved. While it is a useful convention, it can also be proven untrue in some constructs. Knowing what construct one is operating under is important to whether or not one uses the convention. (Example of "proving" it - the limit as x approaches inifinity of 1/x is zero, but that's only one way to analyze or solve for 1/infinity). In this construct, I don't think it is valid to use the convention, so "one out of infinity" just resolves to "really bad odds", not "zero". human 14:32, 12 February 2008 (EST)

Odd sentence

This sentence seems to keep coming back: (please accept this example for argument sake since the Christian God is the same as the Islamic God)? It doesn't seem to add a lot to the article. Could the bunches of numbers who want it please turn up here to talk about it? Thanks.--Bob^{bing up} 16:43, 12 January 2008 (EST)

Sounds like Dr. Doolittle, to be honest. --מְתֻרְגְּמָן ^{שְׁלֹום}

Could be, but as the same person also carried out some spelling corrections on a post of Elassint's I think there is another possibility.--Bob^{bing up} 16:59, 12 January 2008 (EST)

I think User:71.62.227.44 is Dr. D, but i am not. --75.89.115.231 17:03, 12 January 2008 (EST)

Criticism section

Having also read the Talk above, I'd say that the Criticism section should be modified. First of all, even if there were an infinite number of Gods, not every one has the same probability. I'd say that the most popular Gods would have a finite, albeit small, probability of existing. Let's say the Catholic God wins all with 0.2 % probability of existing. Under Pascal's Wager, I'd be compelled to believe in that God. Second, the infinite number of possible Gods should be grouped into taxonomic groups, representing more or less the same God. If the real God were Allah instead of the Catholic God mentioned above, there's a good chance I will see neither Christian angels nor Muslim virgins, but I'd be quite confident on a Protestant God understanding my heresy.

Instead, the points in the Assumptions section are valid, and I wouldn't suggest to anybody to embrace a religion based on Pascal's Wager. Editor at CP^{Bring TK back} 09:19, 12 February 2008 (EST)

I'm not sure how you arrive at the conclusion that not every god has the same possibility of existing. Could you elaborate? User:PalMD

It's implicit in the wager, that it's up to you to suppose absolute or relative probabilities. Strictly, we can say nothing about these probabilities. But as well as it's possible that there are infinite equiprobable gods, it's also possible that one god is much more probable than another. Given that both cases are possible, the best solution is to apply the wager. For that, use history of religions, science, experience, feelings, to bet on a good horse God. For example, it could be argued that the probability of a god of being narcisistic with vanity is more than 50 %. In that case, it's a good guess that god gives some hints of its existence, and as such should be chosen from the revealed ones. Editor at CP^{Bring TK back} 10:17, 12 February 2008 (EST)

The problem is that in this world, none of the gods actually shows up to show up to tell us anything. We have no objective data to work on.75.62.26.190 10:25, 12 February 2008 (EST)

That's why it's called a wager. --AKjeldsen^Godspeed! 10:33, 12 February 2008 (EST)

If any god did show up the whole thing would become academic or do I mean trivial? Oh no, It's that already. Susan^Miouw 10:36, 12 February 2008 (EST)

It absolutely would, Susan! I mean, where is the challenge in believing in something that is obvious to everyone? Nowhere at all, of course; that would be entirely trivial. But to face and defeat a multitude of soul-wracking doubts on a daily basis in order to be able to believe in something for which there is no objective proof whatsoever - to so to speak float freely above the Kierkegaardian 70,000 fathoms of water with no reassurances whatsoever, and yet dare to have faith and be happy about it - now there's a challenge worthy of a human being. You should try it sometime. ;-) --AKjeldsen^Godspeed! 10:59, 12 February 2008 (EST)

undent Now there's a thing worthy of Alice: can one try to believe? Or try to have faith?Susan^Miouw 11:13, 12 February 2008 (EST)

Depends, but I don't see why not. It's certainly something that requires some kind of an active action or decision on the part of the would-be believer. Whether that's enough is another question, of course, but I guess one will never know unless one tries. --AKjeldsen^Godspeed! 14:17, 12 February 2008 (EST)

Dis iz teh funny section E @ CP! "Let's say the Catholic God wins all with 0.2 % probability of existing" - leaving 99.8% odds that one is still wrong! Anyway, after reading your first comment above, I became convinced that one should firmly believe in an unknown and perhaps infinite number of gods. I think then as long as one puts YHWH first, one should fair pretty well at the denouement. Of course, one is also screwed if there are gods one has not imagined yet that require specific spells naming them for salvation. Delicious! human 14:28, 12 February 2008 (EST)

Well people play lotto et co. every week, knowing that they are at a disadvantage, with much less probability of winning prize N.1, which is, arguably?, worth less than a fully paid, all included, unlimited stay in Heaven. I admit though, that it is much more difficult to choose the right god than bying a lotto ticket. It's an art to choose a god, that is probable, offers a good Heaven (endlessly playing the same tune with a harp is not so tempting, is it?), and is similar enough to other gods, in case of picking the wrong one. Editor at CP^{Bring TK back} 14:49, 12 February 2008 (EST)

Addendum: you may be right, an undefined god may be the best solution, depending on the actual god. Generic prayers now and then, some good actions, some less good actions, being careful not to offend any god - better omophobia than a crusade - and a place in heaven is guaranteed. Editor at CP^{Bring TK back} 14:52, 12 February 2008 (EST)

I suspect it is "probable" that if any super-powerful entity exists that preserves our consciousness after death, they also don't really care about the details of our miserable lives here on earth, and thus we all go to "heaven". Which could be hell for some people ;) human 15:42, 12 February 2008 (EST)

AKj and Susan - give Hell Is the Absence of God by Ted Chiang a read (won the Hugo and Nebula awards for Best Novelette in 2002). At one point, this story was published to the web for free on a micropayment site (now costs $1.25) though you can still find copies of it floating around to read. Its an odd story, and by no means do I suggest that this is proof of any deities existence, but rather read it as a story about the challenge in believing in something that is obvious to everyone. --Shagie 14:34, 12 February 2008 (EST)

Couldn't it be that the multiple gods are different perceptions of the same God? Just a thought ^{— Unsigned, by: 68.197.173.216 / talk / contribs}

Given that they are all equally improbable - why not? In fact, I've always maintained that the Flying Spaghetti Monster was simply an incarnation of the Invisible Purple Unicorn. However I've received threatening letters from both religions for suggesting this so I always post under a pseudonym. --Bob^{bing up} 15:39, 30 October 2008 (EDT)

"Belief" vs. "System of belief"

All right. So the contentious phrase is: "[That belief is costless] is untrue, as any person who subscribes to a particular religion must attend its ceremonies and follow its rules, no matter how archaic or silly." Human further says: "It's not about "belief in God" as an abstract, it is about ascribing to a system of belief (which is what the Wager is about)"

I disagree on a number of levels. There is nothing in the Wager itself which leads to anything other than "living as if God exists" or however it is that Pascal puts it - or indeed, pretty much faith "as an abstract". Pascal himself certainly believed that such belief would necessarily lead to Catholic Christianity, because that was what he saw as the correct religion, but you can't deduce that from the wager itself. Here as always, it's important to distinguish between faith in itself and the institutional structures that surround it, such as ceremonies, dogma, canon law and so forth.

Indeed - and this may come as a surprise to some - even religious believers are occasionally able to make up their own minds about "archaic or silly" rules without necessarily being less religious for that. I find the level of generalization quite surprising (or perhaps not).

Finally, another point - I understand that the Wager apparently "relies on several logical fallacies". Keeping in mind that the Wager is not meant as a proof for the existence of God at all, but rather as a suggestion to what one should do in the absence of reliable evidence, perhaps the article at least should mention what these particular fallacies are? They have names, you know. --AKjeldsen^{Cum dissensie} 12:51, 5 January 2009 (EST)

I think a bigger point is being missed; the argument doesn't work on the premise that belief (or system of belief) is costless, but that it is finite. NightFlare 13:06, 5 January 2009 (EST)

Good point. Hadn't thought of that, actually. --AKjeldsen^{Cum dissensie} 17:17, 5 January 2009 (EST)

I would like to second a couple AKjeldsen's points. Pascal is not seeking to prove the existence of any god, what he is saying, is that as "a betting man" the odds are on the side of belief. Pascal was a Catholic in a Catholic country. Unlike "born-again" type religions, in Catholicism a mere belief that God exists does not get you into heaven. Belief is proved by acts. Therefore believing in God (for Pascal) means living as if God exists, and living as if God exists is more than just performing archaic rituals.

Now I don't want to get into an acts versus faith debate here. I have an opinion on whether acts alone, done in the absence of the knowledge of God, and therefore without rejecting God, is fine. I don't think that one can truly believe in God if one's actions don't reflect that belief. Further, I don't think that hypocritical performance without belief is going to get you anywhere. The crux of the problem was really corruption and its justification by the Church. If anything, belief to Pascal was more about how one lives, rather than belief in itself, than it is today in Catholicism.

Thus, to Pascal, belief in God is coterminous with actions done in furtherance of that belief. I too doubt that Pascal was accepting the performance of all the rites and rituals of the Catholic Church as necessary (the wager wasn't whether to act as if Catholicism was right), but even if he was, the most important part of belief for Catholicism/Christianity (and therefore the most important guide to one's actions) is to love God, and love your fellow humans. Most of the major religions provide the same moral guide to behavior. Further the view of many religions is that you are going to have to account for your actions at some point: during your lifetime, at your death, or in your next life, and that if you haven't behaved according to that moral guide, there will be negative consequences.

This could be risky if you pick the wrong religion, but only if living that belief would cause you to violate the major tenets of that religion or offend its god(s). But, lo and behold, except for certain rituals, most of the world's religions advocate the same types of actions; "be good" or "don't sin" may be too simplistic a formulation, but there is a lot of overlap: don't kill (unnecessarily), don't steal, perform your family and civic duties, have some regard for others, do charity, etc. -- basically, don't act as if the only thing that counts is looking out for number one in a material sense.

Was Hinduism known to Pascal? Certainly he was aware of some pantheistic religions which required specific actions directed to different gods, different sacrifices, etc. Thus Pascal was taking a risk that in the end he would not have performed actions required by these religions. For whatever reason he didn't think that changed the odds significantly or that the costs weren't high.

In religions that believe in reincarnation, the cost for bad behavior is having to make up for these in the next life and losing some ground in your quest to end the cycle of rebirth.

Also, remember that if you pick the wrong religion, in the worst case scenario, you're presumably no worse off than if you had chosen not to believe at all.

So, what have you lost if you were wrong and there was no god at all? You've lost the opportunity to "eat, drink and be merry" 24/7. You've lost a couple of hours every sabbath or every day when you've engaged in worship. You've performed some needless rituals. We can come up with a lot of opportunity costs but as Nightflare points out above, whatever the costs, they were finite. Death is forever. Ileanadu 12:49, 28 January 2009 (EST)

This argument from Ileanadu, in its various forms, has always interested me:

This could be risky if you pick the wrong religion, but only if living that belief would cause you to violate the major tenets of that religion or offend its god(s). But, lo and behold, except for certain rituals, most of the world's religions advocate the same types of actions; "be good" or "don't sin" may be too simplistic a formulation, but there is a lot of overlap: don't kill (unnecessarily), don't steal, perform your family and civic duties, have some regard for others, do charity, etc. -- basically, don't act as if the only thing that counts is looking out for number one in a material sense.

Isn't it just better to "be good" and do the various things listed without any thought towards religion? This is something that has always somewhat angered me about religious people. My thought is - would these people be horribly monstrous otherwise were it not for a religion that they subscribe to? --Edgerunner⁷⁶_{Save me Jebus!} 13:08, 28 January 2009 (EST)

something to say

I just want to say that you will eventually find out that God exists or not when you die or maybe you'll never figure it out. Is it possible that there will be future proof of the existence of God besides holy religious books?

Just curious, anybody here a believer that doesn't know if God exist for sure or not? Cause I'm one and I'm really not sure if Go exists for or not.

Everyone has their own opinions....^{— Unsigned, by: Fairoozhaider / talk / contribs}

I'm not a believer myself (agnostic, actually, but leaning towards atheism) so I'm technically undecided. I would argue that it is almost impossible to prove or disprove the existence of a God. It is, however, very easy to disprove the God described in the "holy books" of almost any religion. You may be interested in this.

Anyway, this probably isn't the best place for this discussion. You might want to try the Saloon.

Also, please sign your posts with 4 tildes (~~~~). Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 23:16, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

(EC) A future proof of God is theoretically possible (though I can't envision what kind of proof would be conclusive on this), but the point of this wager is about choosing the best course of action when we don't know for certain one way or the other. If you believe in God without certainty, then what are your reasons for doing so? Something like the ones here, or more complicated? Wèàšèìòìď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 23:18, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually read pascal

... and you'll realise that he's probably suggesting this with tongue-in-cheek. If you read his writings on religion you'll quickly realise that he is bemused by contemporary religious groups (which are basically at war over extremely arcane points of bible interpretation) 122.106.116.89 (talk) 05:11, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

This has less to with Pascal and more to do with his wager. Whether he suggested it with tongue-in-cheek or not, it is repeated as though it is serious by theists. - π 05:13, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Having 'actually read Pascal' (and a great deal more about the history of probability in the 17th century), it is most certainly not tongue-in-cheek. It was written during one of Pascal's religious moments, some years after Pascal and Fermat 'invented' probability theory. A great source on this entire ordeal is Ian Hacking's The Emergence of Probability (1975), especially chapter 7 "The Roanez Circle" and chapter 8 "The Great Decision". So there's that... But, in the end, it really doesn't matter what Pascal's intentions were, seeing as people still use the argument today. Such ignorance is, by all accounts, inexcusable.--131.174.208.144 (talk) 14:50, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Attribution

A common misconception is that, as it currently stands (as an argument with the conclusion that people should believe in God), Pascal advocated this. Pascal originally submitted this to demonstrate, rather, that since theism is more desirable in relation to eschatological consequences, atheists must have some overriding willingness not to believe in God.^{[citation needed]}

Besides some confuddled wording, this is likely true, I'm just not sure what to cite for it. Wikipedia's section on context explains it but cites an awkward paragraph. Pascal certainly doesn't seem to advocate it as a theological argument, only an argument about reason; perhaps with a little decision theory thrown in. ^postate 10:38, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

"isn't anything times 0, 0?"

Annony editor asks "isn't anything times zero = zero, even infinity? undefined crops up in division rather than multiplication. " Can someone answer this for him or her? --En attendant Godot 16:56, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

wp:Indeterminate form ADK^{...I'll yank your catamite!} 17:04, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

In ^*R, 0*ω=0. So, at least sometimes, zero times infinity does indeed equal zero. It all depends on what one means by "infinity". (((Zack Martin)))^™ 10:03, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Short answer: infinity times 0 is undefined and requires the knowledge of how these particular limits were obtained. For example, $\lim _{x\rightarrow \infty }x^{2}\cdot e^{-x}$ and $\lim _{x\rightarrow \infty }\Gamma (x)\cdot e^{-x}$ are both $0\cdot \infty$ type indeterminate forms, but the first limit is 0 while the second limit is ∞. Of course, since Pascal's Wager presents an infinity without specifying what limit achieves it, it's simply undefined. - LucidFox (talk) 10:29, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

But why define multiplication of infinities in terms of limits? Why not take ∞ as an infinite hyperreal, say ω? No invocation of limits required, and 0*ω=0. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 10:33, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

If you're willing to invoke non-standard calculus rather than the mainstream, limit-based calculus, then sure. It's a matter of definition and preference. - LucidFox (talk) 11:14, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

"It's a matter of definition and preference" - so, the real answer to zero times infinity is "it depends on what definitions you choose", or in other words both zero and undefined are correct answers. So, those people who go around saying "zero times infinity is zero" is wrong, are actually wrong themselves, because they are ignorant of the variety of different mathematical systems (e.g. standard vs non-standard analysis). (((Zack Martin)))^™ 11:21, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Incorrect. Within hyperreal numbers, there are infinitely many infinite numbers, which give different results when multiplied by zero. Furthermore, for any given finite real number x, one can find such an infinite hyperreal number y that $y\cdot 0=x$. - LucidFox (talk) 12:18, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, there are infinitely many infinite hyperreals. We can take any of them as ∞. But as to your claim that multiplication by zero doesn't always give zero, how about a cite? Give me an example. Solve the following: $y\cdot 0=1$. Furthermore, since 0*x=0 is true for the reals, it would follow per the transfer principle it is true for the hyperreals too. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 21:19, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Okay, sorry — upon re-reading the definitions, you're right, and multiplying any infinite hyperreal by the zero yields zero. However, in terms of limits, it corresponds to multiplying an unbounded growing function by the constant zero: the limit will be zero, but it is only one of many possible limits of products. For any infinite number, there is an infinitesimal number such that their product will yield any desired standard number. - LucidFox (talk) 03:21, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

I am not quite sure what you mean by the zero - is there meant to be more than one? Not in real numbers, nor in hyperreal numbers.

Personally, I think all this talk of limits is a distraction. The question is about multiplying two numbers together, zero and infinity. Now, the problem is, there is not one infinity, or type of infinity, but many; and for some of those infinities multiplication is not very useful anyway. But, if by infinity we mean an infinite hyperreal, or an infinite superreal, or an infinite surreal, then multiplication by zero makes sense, and in all those cases it is zero. The question was not posed in terms of the limits of functions, so why bring them in? No functions have been defined to take the limit of, you just see ∞ and assume the limit of a function is being taken.

For any infinite number, there is an infinitesimal number such that their product will yield any desired standard number - not any desired standard number, any desired standard number other than zero. There is no a*b, where a is infinite and b is infinitesimal, such that a*b=0. If a*b=0, then either a=0 or b=0 or both. (At least for the hyperreals - for some other number systems, like dual or split complex numbers, it isn't true.) (((Zack Martin)))^™ 09:52, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

The new wager

Hmmm... -- Seth Peck (talk) 16:36, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Deletion of the 'Limitations on Immortality' sub-category

Granted my writing style isn't the best but I don't quite see why this section was deleted out. My contention is threefold.

1.) Pascal's Wager assumes that your soul is immortal. As in, it can never ever be destroyed. If your soul could cease to exist then it's not really an infinite gain (or loss) metric.

2.) Pascal's Wager further assumes that the vector in which you experience your afterlife is the only portion of your existence that is or can be immortal; every other part of your self must eventually break down and immortality is otherwise impossible to achieve. Because if you never actually die then the metric breaks down.

3.) Believing one AND two at the same time, while not logically impossible, is so incredibly specific and self-serving that it's unbelievable. Notice that it's impossible to give assumptions or evidence that strengthens one sub-section without weakening the other except by invoking special pleading. The parody of this Morton's fork is summed up in A very specific level of tired.

Solved by adding "God is real and the soul cannot be destroyed" to one of the conditions in Pascal's Wager more explicitly. They're effectively the same thing anyway. You're simply trying to refute one unfalsifiable assertion with another. ^gnostic 19:07, 22 October 2012 (UTC)}

That's only partway there. It's not just "God is real and the soul cannot be destroyed" but also there is no other way to achieve immortality. Pre-afterlife immortality breaks Pascal's Wager just as surely as soul destruction. I think that if an unspoken premise requires three cases of special pleading (especially if two of the premises damn near contradict each other) then it deserves some extra pontification.

Also, call me crazy, but I was under the assumption that if your argument relies on two premises that are contradictory it doesn't even matter if some, all, or none of the premises are unfalsifiable. The argument as-stands is automatically wrong until you get rid of one of the premises or add another one that removes the contradiction. Which you can't really do with Pascal's Wager since the original stakeholder hasn't for centuries been, you know, alive. Dr. Swordopolis (talk) 02:54, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

This really doesn't affect Pascal's Wager. All it suggests is that you have two possible outcomes. a) The existence of Christian God and all premises associated with it are true and b) other. The collective odds of either are irrelevant because the risk management and game theory aspects of it. ^{d hominem} 10:58, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Deletion of the criticism of reversal argument and Christian criticism of the argument

@Sam I am new to this wiki. I found a peace of Christian argumentation that seems not to go outside of common logic and gnoseology. And also, a common opinion that Pascal's wager is accepted by Christians is wrong. Please explain the deletion. ^{— Unsigned, by: MaxFerby / talk / contribs}

From what I read, I'm guessing Sam undid your edit because your writing is close to indecipherable. Theory of Practice "Seneca Falls and Selma and Stonewall" 01:25, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't quite understand what you define as "close to indecipherable". Should I put it to sections to make it more visual? As to me, the argumentation is no more complex than that being used through the whole article. MaxFerby (talk) 01:40, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

superman quote

I added that a while ago, because IMHO it captures all of the absurdities of Pascal's Wager in one nice package. I did not originally attribute it to Pascal IIRC. Someone added that later. Can I add it back in without a source?

I'm adding it back. EnlightenmentLiberal (talk) 22:16, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Not even wrong?

In Pascal's own writings, where he mentions the Wager, he acknowledges its flaws but says that when so much is at stake, it doesn't matter how unlikely the chance of God existing actually is; you should still accept the Wager. Does this even warrant refutation, or is it not even wrong? --Brendan Rizzo 2013-02-26 19:33 UTC

If we accept the premise that the payoff is infinitely valuable and the probability nonzero, then his claim seems plausible. Phiwum (talk) 20:46, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

The problem still is that there is no reason to assign higher probability to a god that rewards gullibility vs a god that punishes gullibility. That's where the wager completely breaks down. Too many inconsistent gods with inconsistent demands for rewards. EnlightenmentLiberal (talk) 22:16, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Well, he also said that a god of a religion that has many followers is more likely to exist than a god that an atheist completely made up for the sake of argument, since there is at least the possibility that revelation is correct. I don't think any "serious" deities do what the criticism suggests: punish those who have blind faith and reward skepticism. Does that affect this in any way? No matter how much I think it over, it seems fishy to me.Brendan Rizzo 2013-02-27 17:31 UTC

I wonder if formerly popular gods used to be more likely to exist than they are today. Minoreditor (talk) 17:12, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Not the whole story?

I've notices the wager isn't the only bit of pascal's arguments for god. if you look through pansees, then he gives arguments that seem to be pretty complex for my liking. I looked up refutations and found none.--Pensees (talk) 02:59, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

probability theory and game theory

The intro states: "Pascal's wager is an argument based on probability theory and game theory ..."

Is this really true? Surely it's based on an attempt to clutch at some straw in order to try to justify something which a person already believes in. It certainly didn't grow out of "probability theory and game theory" - it seems to me that these have just been co-opted after the event in order to try to give the idea some legitimacy. --Bob^{"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that."} 18:30, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Horseshoe theory

What about the statement that horseshoes are lucky #whether or not one believes in the concept#.

There are various components to Pascal's wager - do 'you' believe in God existing, do you believe in 'the existence of this/these specific God(s); do you belong to a religion/or 'a specific religion', try and be ethical/follow a specific system of ethics.

If all that is needed is the statement 'I believe something unexplained caused the big bang and the creation of the universe as it is - and I will call that something God/the creative spirit' then most people could be honest believers, and you can gain whether or not there is a God.

If you make the statement, and decide that it should be combined with an ethical system/living in conjunction with the (religious) norms of society because that is the way things are/you can get on with other people better (by recognizing their needs) then you gain in the present, and may gain in the future (if God exists).

And making a wager on such incomplete information #is unfair# (and if we are created in God's ;mage then 'God must be fair (whether or not a dice-player). 82.44.143.26 (talk) 18:30, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Miscellaneous older comments

I'm laying 5:2 odds that any wager you place with Pascal will go to his next drinking/drugging spree. ~~ CЯacke® 17:26, 9 July 2007 (CDT)

Recently, the Catholic church chose to abolish Limbo. Limbo was the supposed place where the souls of unbaptised babies and good people who never heard of God went to. In the new cosmology, such being will go directly to heaven and, presumably, collect $200 if they pass Go. My question is this, "Did the Pope just argue, quite eloquently, for the utter abolition of the Christian church?" Think about it, if everyone who has never heard of God or Jesus gets into heaven on a pass, shouldn't the church be more concerned with the salvation of the greatest number of souls rather than its own monopoly on faith? Wouldn't they serve God better by removing all knowledge of the church and its teachings from human memory?

Good question, except it did not abolish Limbo. --AKjeldsen^Godspeed! 15:34, 7 August 2007 (CDT)

"And what if we picked the wrong religion? Every week, we're just making God madder and madder!" - Homer Simpson, Homer the Heretic Garble 21:21, 23 August 2007 (CDT)

The quote at the top

Where's it from? ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 14:38, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Further (hidden) mathematical assumptions

I'd like to point to http://atheism.wikia.com/wiki/Pascal's_Wager , which I partly wrote and from which I'm putting forward the following:

1) As mentioned above, the probabilties for believing in various Gods are critical here. As it stands, the formulation of the argument is insufficient as it doesn't mention these. This could be left as-is, and another "Assumption" added that says the argument assumes a finite probability for the Christian God's existence, and an infinitely small one for others.

2) Another assumption made is that a rational agent should maximize the average utility. I argue in the above that he should really follow the typical utility, which is not really affected by low-probability events.

3) The 'guillability problem' should be emphasized, too - the same argument could be used to sell snake oil, or any other 'conclusion', clearly indicating that it is not an argument that should convince a rational agent. ^{— Unsigned, by: YR / talk / contribs}

Anti-Gods

Just wanted to point out this part is wrong or poorly phrased:

"If one is willing to accept that an infinite number of deities exist, then Pascal's Wager leads to a very interesting conclusion. [...] Of the infinite set of gods that can possibly exist, there necessarily is a god that fits any and every system of rewarding/punishing people in the afterlife. This is because, in the infinite set of gods, every possible attribute of a god must occur."

This is not the logical conclusion of the assumption of an infinite number of gods at all. For example, There is an infinite amount of natural numbers (0/1 to infinity), yet there are numbers which are not natural ones (decimals, negative numbers, non-rational numbers). There could be an infinite number of gods with only one attribute differing between them, e.g. God A doesn't care about bananas while god B likes them a little and so on, since there is an infinite amount of nuances of how much someone likes bananas. However all gods could be equal in all the other (or a select few) attributes, like all of them requiring exclusiveness or belief in them for a reward. As shown in the example of natural numbers, there does not have to be an opposite/negative of each god even with the premise of an infinite amount of gods existing. --134.76.63.1 (talk) 14:57, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

People aren't natural numbers. That's like comparing goats and quasars. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 16:19, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

I disagree. The argument as it is currently in the article contains a logical fallacity, illustrated by the counterexample with the set of natural numbers. It only requires a single logical mistake to make an argument completely invalid, so this is critical and needs fixing. Currently, with such a blatant logical fallacy, I consider the argument to be on the same level as the arguments in favor of Pascal's wager, that is, they sound nice at first but break down on a closer look. --91.64.196.237 (talk) 11:01, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Don't know what the issue is. Even if we rephrased the argument to make it sound more fuzzy the point would still stand in my opinion. Pascal's argument itself is binary/natural so it can also be easily refuted with a "natural" sounding counter-argument if you want to wrap it into more mathematically rigid conditions. ∈ NameThatNobodyTakes (✎) 11:22, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘This section is actually an embarrassment of mathematical errors. First, a minor error: "α" is the symbol for alpha, not infinity (which is ∞). Second, the author(s) do not understand the mathematics of infinity and make three types of major errors:

1. Infinity minus infinity is not definitively zero, but is undefined.
2. Zero times infinity is also undefined (not something else as is implied).
3. Half of infinity is also infinity (not something else as is implied).

This is likely going to result in deletion of this section forthwith. Bongolian (talk) 07:03, 26 August 2019 (UTC) Bongolian (talk) 07:20, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Evil, Children Death, Faith and Actions

So I have some responses for that three subchapters of the Evil chapter.

The moral case for dead children

Response: WTF? No, there is no reason to "kill your children while young (especially since children today are much more likely to become atheists), rather than risk them leaving the Christian faith.". First of all, if you kill your children in order to "save" him from atheism, to stop him from becoming an atheist, which is slightly improbable to happen, as Christianity is growing in Asian countries, which have most of the atheist worldwide and as atheism is declining worldwide (http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/global-study-atheists-decline-only-18-world-population-2020), you are going straight to Hell; the Churches( Catholic, Orthodox, Protestant) supports the family, not the death of it! They condemn the killers and offer to help them save their soul; what is the logic in killing your children, if you know that 1. You go to Hell if you don`t repent. 2. Even if you repent, you are never going to see him very soon, 3. Instead of killing him, you could have growth him so that he develops a critical thinking, and either you discuss with him religion and "save" him, if he becomes an atheist, or later in life he discusses religion with you and can convince you that is better to be an atheist, so he "saves" you, and you can still keep your faith in Jesus Christ, even if you are an atheist, because you follow his teachings even if you don`t consider him a God and you still can keep the traditions of the Churches and their teachings about love, human condition etc. even if you don`t believe(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_atheism.) In both cases, you get saved( if you don`t just read a paragraph from Rationalwiki about Pascal`s Wager and decide it`s time to listen to what appears like an argument).

Total self-interest

Response: You are pointing a interpretation that concerns only the actions of the believer that affect only himself. However, if a believer cares about "maximizing their "own" gains" then they would consider collaboration as a strategy and, by maximizing the gains of every person, it`s gains maximize even greater. This is called Nash Equilibrium. "A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another." John 13:34.

"More troubling than this are occasions where you might theoretically be called upon to hurt someone else to advance your worship of the superior entity. This forms a flip side to the argument that Pascal's Wager emphasizes belief over worthiness in that it suggests that outright evil people can gain reward and avoid punishment simply through belief. In the Old Testament there are numerous instances when worshipers had to kill and hurt others as commanded by God. In fact, there are occasions in which God was extremely displeased that they didn't take the abuse of fellow humans far enough. Even with the Pascal's Wager metric in place, one could argue that it's more moral to resist these commands for the sake of others even if it results in an infinite loss for you."

Response: Nope. In Christianity, Jesus replaced that strategy to maximize your gains "be called upon to hurt someone else to advance your worship of the superior entity" with loving each other, understanding others and helping them too in order to maximize your gain."A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another." John 13:34. Also, considering Tomas of Aquinas philosophy regarding hell- that it isn`t a physique space that makes you suffer, but rather that sufferance in Hell comes from your bad behaviors in life- it has no logic to kill others, because you are just building your future Hell. God did an update of his laws around 2000 years ago. I recommend you his updated app.

"Again, it can be demonstrated on Earth that bad people who do bad things can still profess belief—Pascal therefore suggests they are worthy of infinite gain, and atheists cheekily suggest that being around those people in heaven isn't selling the whole belief thing to them very well. "

Response: Again, no. Bad people who do bad things and repent and change and have faith go to heaven. Bad people that don`t repent and have faith are lying themselves. Faith and doing good cannot exclude one another. That`s at least what James said. " What good is it, my brothers, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can that faith save him? 15 If a brother or sister is poorly clothed and lacking in daily food, 16 and one of you says to them, “Go in peace, be warmed and filled,” without giving them the things needed for the body, what good[a] is that? 17 So also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead." James 2:14-26 ESV.

Problem of evil

Response: " If, as Pascal's Wager must assume, God is willing to punish good people simply for a lack of belief this would preclude God being "good" by any sense that we understand the concept of "good" — and "good" is a necessary property of God". Nope, it isn`t the case. God is not only willing to help the good people escape the evil, but he isn`t punishing the good people simply for their lack of belief. There are many paragraphs and chapters in the Bible that regard the necessary relation between having faith and doing good, so you are neither going to Heaven if you were immoral but you had faith- because that faith is false, Jameshttps://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=James+1&version=NIV, Parable of the growing seed https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_Growing_Seed etc. - not if you were good and had no faith, because "faith" was always understood as a complex of qualities- having faith in God requires humility, lack of arrogance, not building an idol from your work or your personality( this can enter too in "lack of arrogance") etc. So God sees the one that does good as someone that has faith and follows the way of Jesus, strangely even if it comes from another religion, because they repeat the good Jesus and it`s followers did and the one that has faith in Jesus as someone that does good, because faith requires doing good( or true faith requires doing good, and this expression isn`t a "No true Scotsman" fallacy because it doesn`t assume the existence of an unique case in which someone has faith and still is falling to accomplish God`s new laws of loving one another- which is part of the faith in him). To get my case stronger, I quote Jesus:"I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." John 14:6. So if the theology show`s that there is no difference between true faith/ faith( take it how you want in order to avoid "No true Scotsman"), then Pascal`s Wager can "be focused on spreading good around the world" and it isn`t "favourable to disbelieve".^{— Unsigned, by: Denicula / talk / contribs}

On talk pages, please sign your comments using four tildes (~~~~) or by clicking on the sign button: on the toolbar above the edit panel. You can also indent successive talk page comments using one more colon (:) for each line. Thank you. You didn't appear to address the biggest problem with Pascal's wager, why your god (I presume you're not an atheist) as opposed to any other god? Christopher (talk) 08:56, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

The idea is that my God is the same with Christian God, the Buddhist God etc. but we all look at them different. So they are not opposed. My God is the same with another God. So the things that opposes are the religions- but not even them. Buddhism, Islam, Christianity hold same views over saving your soul, which is the important part in Pascal Wager. They all converge over love, not over fanatism. Thy currently all condemn fanatics and approve love. So the idea is that the scenario with more Gods or more views of God`s contradicting themselves isn`t working in this view. And if you are a Christian and say this story, and you are asked: "Why do you keep this view over God" you can anytime motivate it by your preferences of culture and mediation ways to meet God without being acused that your faith is evil because is personal.--Denicula (talk) 09:12, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Since you started with some statistics, the Global Index of Religion and Atheism (p. 12) suggests that atheism rose globally from 4% in 2005 to 7% in 2012. Wikipedia explains why it can be difficult to measure: some people don't want the label, the size of a country affects the global statistics, etc. Anyway, non-religious people are currently a minority, but that doesn't say anything about the validity of religious systems.

When you say "you can still keep your faith in Jesus Christ, even if you are an atheist", maybe you don't really understand what atheism is. I reject your statement "Faith and doing good cannot exclude one another" because it is provably false. I do not advocate harming children (or anyone in general), and, in my opinion, the idea of an eternal afterlife makes life seem worthless (what is 80 years compared to 10,000? 1,000,000?).

There is no Buddhist god because "Frankly, in Buddhism, God has nothing to do". And then there are polytheistic religions, animism, witchcraft, and so on. Defining religion is not trivial, and trying to shoehorn various religious traditions into your personal belief system seems overly optimistic, and probably offensive to religious people who reject monotheism.

Ultimately, the wager itself is irrelevant since one cannot choose to be a believer, and I reject your claim that acting is equivalent to believing (a robot can "do good", will it go to robot heaven?). I agree that the language used on this website may sound a bit callous sometimes, but it is possible that you may have some misconceptions about atheism. --Cmonk (talk) 12:31, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

What means "faith"? If you consider Jesus Christ the truth, the way etc. you believe actively in him and his view over the world. Faith and doing good can`t exclude one another because having faith would include using your time to follow the Teacher who initiated this faith( Jesus). James argued in the Bible that faith can`t exist without actions, but actions can exist without faith, as you showed. However, the Wager implies having faith, and by James, having faith means having good actions. So, by this, there is no possibility to have faith and do bad. In fact, fanatics have no true faith. They just fit the faith in the Bed of Procust( a character that cut either the head, either the feet of the victims in order to fit them in a small bed). Acting may not be 100% equivalent to believing, but believing must be completed by acting.

It doesn`t matter if there is or isn`t a Buddhist God( although https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brahm%C4%81_(Buddhism)....). They also have Heaven and Hell, and the wager can still work without the first part. Also, the first part, that with the Problem of Evil and Children, works to all religions, and this is what I was counter-arguing, with the assumption there is an infinity of opposing God`s, which is a false presumption and there is a current of ideas that says every religion shows it`s view over a monotheistic God, even the polytheistic ones( there is always a Zeus or some boss that sums the powers and attributes of others).

No, the robot has no consciousness, so it cannot go to Heaven. Indeed, it doesn`t even require going somewhere after being deactivated, because it was never born( it`s just a set of reactions to stimuli copied from the model it human creator made for him). I agree that on this matter there is a longer discussion, but it doesn`t affect the Wager.

In conclusion, the language of this site is somehow insulting, but the presumptions that Christians are turned on egocentrism and killing others is appealing and has nothing to do with the teaching of Jesus, who promoted love, care and interest in another`s salvation, not death. The idea that a Christian would kill somebody to save it`s in an obvious contradiction with the fundamental teaching that you have to love and change somebody`s life and give him the chance to repent in this life in order to save him. That paragraph that accuses Christians of a tendency in killing others can work on mentally ill Christians or mentally ill atheist that are anyway going to kill or hurt somebody( if they don`t cure) no matter in what Church they were baptized. Also, by the link between faith and good, altruistic actions underlined by James in his epistle works out the impossibility of a faith without action, egocentric actions. Also, the time of a lifespan doesn`t matter- the love you spread matters. Look for example at mother Theresa( although she was accused to be a fanatic by CH, which is a pretty exaggerated conclusion over her mistakes). She helped so many( even if CH said she could help more, and CH helped no one, as I know). Her example fits the AA Wager, and Pascal`s Wager, but along with other examples of good people from other religions it shows there is a point where all religions met and look the same, and where there is no difference or contradiction, like in the example with that diagram.

There is the example of Job, who understood things wrong. He was good, but he did everything only to save him, and he let his children do everything they wanted and no good at all just because he thank he would save them with some sacrifices. In the end, God taken everything away from him not to see if his faith can become good( it wasn`t in the first place), but to show him and to the Devil what true faith is: loving God, till the end. At the end, he got everything back. If he would choose to die, and his example is another counter-argument to children-death argument, he would loose everything.

And one last question: Is a fault to help others because you were inspired by Jesus Christ and you see Jesus in others? Is a fault to love and cure the needy because you want to meet God through your love of them? There is a difference between the poet that writes inspired by the muse and the poet that writes in order to spent a night with the muse.--Denicula (talk) 08:49, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

The way I understand your first paragraph, it seems that you are saying that "faith implies good", in other words "faith cannot exclude good". Atheist organisations providing community service are evidence that "good can exclude faith", which is why I said earlier that it is false to claim "Faith and doing good cannot exclude one another".

There is no Buddhist god in the sense of a monotheist god, like was explained in my link. Your Wikipedia link states that Brahma is a deva (one of many) and "is never depicted in early Buddhist texts as a creator god". Whatever Brahma is, it is not equivalent to the Chritian deity. In addition, even if you want to call the various realms heaven and hell, "In Buddhist thought, this rebirth does not involve any soul, because of its doctrine of anattā (Sanskrit: anātman, no-self doctrine) which rejects the concepts of a permanent self or an unchanging, eternal soul, as it is called in Hinduism and Christianity. According to Buddhism there ultimately is no such thing as a self in any being or any essence in any thing." (source)

Anyway, my point is that you are assuming that all religions can map to Christianity, but (a) that is just your opinion and needs to be justified (in order to justify "there is always a Zeus or some boss that sums the powers and attributes of others", you need to list all possible religions and show that to be true, or at least cite a research paper that does that); (b) wouldn't you feel offended if an animist claimed that your religion is just an an imitation of theirs? I recognize that there are similarities between religions, but I don't see why Christianity should be the model for everything else.

I agree that occasionally "the language of this site is somewhat insulting", because there are multiple contributors with various personalities, and the colloquial language used by skeptics contains many pejorative terms. I do not condone that, but I think there is a trend toward rectifying this situation.

In addition to the language issue, please keep in mind that RationalWiki is not an encyclopedia and does not claim to be neutral. The opinion given in the main page merely exposes inconsistencies, there is no "paragraph that accuses Christians of a tendency in killing". The paragraph "Total self-interest" merely claims to reference the bible. The paragraph "The moral case for dead children" exposes a moral conundrum that would (hypothetical) result from a strict application of the wager under some special conditions. If there is a specific sentence that makes the accusation that you claim, please explain so that we can take the appropriate actions.

Your reason for helping others doesn't matter much. The main issue that an atheist could have with your point of view is your previous insinuation (unless I misunderstood) that faith is required to be or do good, which is false. And the wager really has no value here: helping others is simply the right thing to do, with or without religion. --Cmonk (talk) 10:20, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

"If you ask most Christians whether children who die when they are very young will go to heaven, they will say yes. SO IT WOULD BE THE MOST REASONABLE to kill your children while young (especially since children today are much more likely to become atheists), rather than risk them leaving the Christian faith." I hope you see there is no cause-effect link between the idea a being without any fault is going to Heaven, held by Christians, and the reason to kill every being that has no fault so it doesn`t became an ATHEIST and goes to hell. First, 1. There is no fault in becoming an atheist. The Wager doesn`t apply for a life of faith, but mere to your final faith or your final(before death) lack of faith. Also, you can be an atheist Christian, and you can leave that child alive that you can convince it to become theist without killing him. 2. By killing him, you go to hell, if you repent, you have to regret your action, and if you justify your action, you can`t fully repent, so you anyway go to hell. If you kill him and, let`s say, repent and go anyway to Heaven, you just made your way to Heaven harder, and you have no certitude that that child would go to hell if he becomes an atheist, as it can change it`s belief trough life and you don`t know when is he going to end his life( if you don`t kill it) and in what state, so it`s not the MOST REASONABLE THING TO DO. 3. There is no link of cause-effect between your love of him and his purity and how he keeps his innocence through life and his death, done in order to "save" him. There are also more reasonable ways to save him and in no way the innocence of the children combined with the wager results in the necessity of killing him.

My reason for helping others truly matters. If they ask me why I am doing this, I can convince them to do like me. My insinuation that faith requires doing good is based on the example of Job, on what James said in his epistle and on what Jesus Christ said. They prove the contrary of your insinuation that is false to say faith requires doing good by their examples or the bad examples they show and by the correlation between what you do and what you think and your state of mind: you have to prove to yourself what you think in order to verify it, and you do this by actions. That`s one point of view. Also, there is the fact that faith without actions produces fanatics, Pharisees, hypocrisy, which is shown all along the New Testament. Also, "helping others is simply the right thing to do, with or without religion" is pretty much contradicted by history: Nazis had no regret for what they did. They thank is the right thing to do to kill jews, they believed is the best way to help others. Communist did the same when killing the ones that are against the regime, the Pharisees thank it`s the only way to kill Jesus, one person, in order to save the jews( Caiafa told it). If you could ask any genocide-maker that lived through history why they did what they did, they would justify it using "the right thing to do":"It was what I believed, with or without religion, that is the right way to do". Religion underline a method to help the others; the fact there are atheist that do good doesn`t imply faith do not require actions. There are atheist that steal or murder just because they are powerful or intelligent enough to escape the legal consequences of their actions, and they don`t do good, and they fear no one. There are two cases: atheist killers that understand the possibility of going to hell and repent, and start doing good without faith and atheist killers that start having faith, but realize it`s not enough. Are good actions requiring faith? Sometimes, I would say, is too hard to decide between two actions and you would need a communion with God or his advice. So good actions require sometimes faith and the contact with God( I would say faith requires always the contact with God), but faith always requires doing good. It`s the way you`re sure you don`t lie yourself( I can tell myself "I believe in God" but when I am about to make a choice inspired by my faith, let`s say to do good because Jesus told me so and I say "Nah, another time", can I call me anything else than a liar?).

About Christianity and other religions, you understood me wrong: I never suggested other religions are imitations after Christianity( I never suggested I am a Christian. Just check my previous comments), but the contrary: they are unique views of the same God. Every religion watches upon the same God or the features of the same God they divide into more little God. As I know, there is a greater God in Buddhism, some kind of God of one thousand things, but anyway, if Buddhism is greately atheistic, I cane use my view only on monotheistic and polytheistic religions. So there is this one interpretation of the commandment saying you are forbidden to make another Gods and you have only a God: that it says, by the fact you have only one God, that in fact every God from another religion is just the same God you have, but dressed by man with another clothes. Maybe it fails for polytheism... anyway, that counter argument with multi-gods assumes they are opposed and they require you to reject others, which, as I said, isn`t the case. And it`s not even the case for not respecting others way of salvation. And with the fact they are opposed, on this I hold the position that looking upon religions that exist now, they do not contradict one another in the matter of saving yourself. They all say: have faith, do good, OK, then we meet 70 years from now( :) ). So that counter-argument doesn`t looks, in this view, less valid than the more aggressive view held by Jews for example, and it`s even held by the Churches, as I said, Churches that try to make dialogue one with another - Pope Francis made a call for prayer last year, in January, so that there is understanding between Judaism-Islam-Buddhism-Christianity.-. Even Buddhism has it`s fanatics, but they are less known by us- just an example:https://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/03/opinion/sri-lankas-violent-buddhists.html?_r=0.

I hope you understood me. Pascal Wager shouldn`t create fanatism, but should make a path for rational believing( it sounds a little self-contradicting, until you hear of Christian Meditation, hesychasm)--Denicula (talk) 12:27, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Before I address the rest: I did not say a word, or try to imply anything, regarding fanaticism, you are talking to yourself here, please stop doing that.

The specific paragraph looks to me like a restricted version of "kill everyone so that only the killer goes to hell". That being said, I did not contribute to the main page and I don't feel comfortable with the subject of harming children. I suggest you create a new section on this talk page for this specific paragraph and ask/wait for another opinion.

"If they ask me why I am doing this, I can convince them to do like me." You are assuming that people need a reason to do good. Even if that were true, baiting people with unverifiable claims about a hypothetical afterlife doesn't seem very honest to me.

"They prove the contrary of your insinuation that is false to say faith requires doing good": I did not say that, please re-read my sentence carefully. "My insinuation that faith requires doing good etc.": I did not say anything against that, please re-read my sentence carefully. If you really think I said what you claim, please quote me properly so that I can understand my mistake.

I apologize if I misunderstood your religious affiliation (you wrote so much, I can't find it). For the rest, I lost the plot, and the expression "rational believing" doesn't make sense to me. --Cmonk (talk) 13:21, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

I spotted a few mentions of Jesus in there so probably a Christian? Christopher (talk) 13:40, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

I don't know, (s)he said "I never suggested I am a Christian. Just check my previous comments". What do you think about their point regarding "The moral case for dead children"? --Cmonk (talk) 13:58, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

"The main issue that an atheist could have with your point of view is your previous insinuation (unless I misunderstood) that faith is required to be or do good, which is false."[Cmonk] Also, I don`t recommend( and I am glad you don`t do it) "baiting people with unverifiable claims about a hypothetical afterlife doesn't seem very honest to me". I just talk about Jesus`s impact on people and his model.--Denicula (talk) 18:34, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

So are you saying that Christians who follow the teachings of Jesus are better than us godless heathen pagan pinko commie atheists or not? Christopher (talk) 18:40, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Christopher, NO.--Denicula (talk) 19:02, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

So what are you saying? Christopher (talk) 19:10, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘@Denicula You are confusing me here. You quoted me saying that you insinuated "faith is required to be or do good". Did you or did you not mean that at some point in this discussion? If you didn't, then I misunderstood. If you did, what I am saying is "faith is required to be or do good" is false; in other words, I am saying that "faith is not required/needed to be or do good". Could you please address this in an short but unambiguous way?

Regarding Jesus and his "model": some historians question the existence or influence of Jesus (I don't have an opinion), and, as I understand, what he may or may not have said or done comes from second hand accounts at best. But none of that is relevant to the wager which is about an unproven unseen unknowable magical being, and has nothing to do with Jesus unless you are arguing that Jesus is actually this magical being, which is still dishonest. --Cmonk (talk) 21:58, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

In order to prove there cannot be faith without( edit: I was referring at good actions) action:1. I cited James and Jesus on this matter. 2. I discussed the case of faith without actions, like fanatism, and I shown their supposed faith is not truly faith and is criticized by Jesus, 3. I also brought the importance of good actions,of implication and of respecting the laws of Jesus in order to check you own "faith"/what you think, and to complete it with what you do.

Secondly, the matter of Jesus`s existence is quite solved in terms that there are events in Jesus`s life that are strongly accepted to be real events, which imply his existence, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baptism_of_Jesus and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crucifixion_of_Jesus, and there are some writers that mention him, and he is as mentioned as other great figures in history, and there was a censorship on eachings in his time, and there are vestiges of Christianity destroyed in that time, and it is accepted any myth has a core of truth, and the guys that don`t think he existed offer some strange, strange alternatives( R.Carrier says that the apostles smoke some weed and danced mumba while speaking with Jesus who was a beast made of stars in their vision. WTF...), and the written word had another status than this today, being considered somehow eternal and sacred even by greeks.

Jesus is the one with the Christian God, this is why I mention him.

It is also mysterious how artifacts regarding Christianity disappear or are stolen, like one of the ossuaries in the Talpiot Tomb or like a version of the ark of the covenant and the mystery or interest in destroying or keeping out of public sight these artifacts.--Denicula (talk) 05:15, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

"In order to prove there cannot be faith without action": this doesn't answer what I asked. Please read carefully what I wrote (the first paragraph of my previous message, from "You quoted..." to "...unambiguous way?") and try to stay on topic, otherwise it looks like you are avoiding the question. (edit: this whole conversation has been off-topic for a while now, so let's just wrap it up) --Cmonk (talk) 06:04, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

What I said referred to good actions; all that points, 1,2,3, referred to good actions( I believed it is obvious, as 2 and the previous arguments dealing it referred to the bad example of the fanatics, who had faith but didn`t what was good, pretty much walking over the rules of their own religion). In this conversation I hoped there is going to be made a change on that section on evil with that problems and on the section with multi-gods(I offered a view in which the gods do not contradict one another by reinterpreting the commands that demand this war between religions in a way that considers complementarity and dialogue, thus solving the multi-gods problem. Also, I shown this view has a correspondence with reality, referring to the greatest religions and their projects on dialogue and complementarity, like, for example, Pope Francis call for peace between religions. I don`t consider utile to take all death or minor religions and shown they do not contradict. Indeed, without that demand that "you should have one God, which is me interpreted just in one violent, fundamentalist way, the problem is solved.). I hope I made myself clear.--Denicula (talk) 07:52, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

You still haven't solved the multiple gods problem. Nearly all religions are very clear that they're the One True Religion™. Christopher (talk) 08:00, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

They use an interpretation on that commandment about God in order to say they all hold the truth. If you just compare them, you can also accept elements from one another and keep the basic faith of your religion. So if they all orbit around the same god but present him different, you don`t have to jump from a religion to another, until you compare and verify them. And the wager worked by assuming they all hold the truth and another god. As they all have in fact the same god.... and what I said before, is just your ration that dictates what to choose. This reduces to theology and does not affect the wager, as in any religion X, in his eyes you, the religious X, are well understood and forgiven. So, basically, they all hold a truth but not the complete truth, which reduces to revelation, meditation or ration.--Denicula (talk) 08:16, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

You're not really answering the "question", fundamentalist Muslims (for example) insist everyone who isn't a Muslim is going to hell, why is your religion where everybody is saved or something (presumably not including Hitler) more likely to be true than Islam? Christopher (talk) 08:25, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘I would tell them:" Ok, my God is equivalent to Allah and is Allah for you, X for me. Problem solved! And about the way I worship him, I also show him my respect as you do, and I behave as you behave, and I do think he`s going far madder on me if I kill people or enslave others than if I pray in the day of 2 instead in the day of 3, or at hour 2 instead at 3 etc. But I still have the ways to respect you do and it is the way I choose to honor him.". If they tell me I am not worshiping him well, I would say is just another way I show my humbleness on him and is like another language, different from that of them, but that says the same thing.--Denicula (talk) 08:31, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

According to the Qur'an, if you do that you'll burn in hell. Why are you right and they're wrong? Christopher

(talk) 08:40, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Please tell me why the Qur`an tells I burn in hell if I harm no one and just serve Allah(or what they consider Allah and I consider both Allah and Jehovah?--Denicula (talk) 09:29, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Because it was written by ignorant savages and you're not serving allah just a god that's similar to allah. Christopher (talk) 09:35, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Off, I am "serving" in a sense I am applying his law in my life. The hole idea was they are the same god, but with two names. Just the names of the gods and the way others perceive them hold similarities; muslims consider Jehovah of the jews to be Allah and Jesus his prophet, not Allah part of a trinity; Christians responded to them that the trinity is part of Allah and the Christians hold esteem over mulsims, hm:" The Church regards with esteem also the Moslems. They adore the one God, living and subsisting in Himself; merciful and all- powerful, the Creator of heaven and earth, who has spoken to men; they take pains to submit wholeheartedly to even His inscrutable decrees, just as Abraham, with whom the faith of Islam takes pleasure in linking itself, submitted to God. Though they do not acknowledge Jesus as God, they revere Him as a prophet. They also honor Mary, His virgin Mother; at times they even call on her with devotion. In addition, they await the day of judgment when God will render their deserts to all those who have been raised up from the dead. Finally, they value the moral life and worship God especially through prayer, almsgiving and fasting. "Pope Paul VI, October28, 1965, Holy See.--Denicula (talk) 09:41, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Have you ever eaten pork? Drank alcohol? Christopher (talk) 09:44, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Never drank alcohol. I eat pork 10, 11 times a year. Also, I can repent from this: Holy Qur`an, Chapter 3, Surah Ali Imraan verse 135-136:"Allah likes such good people very much, who,  if ever they commit a base deed or wrong their own soul by the commission of a sin,  remember Allah instantly,  and ask for forgiveness from Him for their shortcomings.  For who,  but Allah, can forgive sins?   (And Allah loves those) who do not knowingly persist in the wrongs they did.   These will be rewarded with forgiveness from Allah,  and with Gardens beneath which canals flow,  and they will reside therein forever!   How excellent is the reward of those who do good deeds!". Is this truly the most important?--Denicula (talk) 09:53, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

You could repent, according to some Muslims. There will be many Muslims who ignore that verse, why is your religion more likely than what they believe? Because their beliefs aren't backed up completely by some 1000 year old book "written" by an illiterate pedophile? Christopher (talk) 10:03, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘Since the problem of evil is, centrally, a question of moral seriousness, please allow me to insert the following points:

Silly video title aside — everyone needs to consider the gravity of what is being said here. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 10:20, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

We're not really discussing the problem of evil, it just happens to be the bottom sub section. Christopher (talk) 10:25, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Oh, based on what I've read in this thread, the points made in the video apply powerfully Watch it! Reverend Black Percy (talk) 10:37, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

I discussed the problem of evil in the sense it`s evil to follow a faith mutilated so that you do not evolve and just follow your deeds. Also, as a response to Christopher`s previous questions, I believe the moment religious people start cherry picking verses in order they ignore the priorities of the message their prophet transmits and just fulfill some deeds, we can`t talk of Muslims, Christians, etc. A belief based 100% on a book is better than one based only in 99%, 95% or lesser and with a selection made by a suspicious sect ruler.--Denicula (talk) 10:35, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

The problem of evil has a well defined meaning. I think that a belief based on 100% of any holy book would be awful (and impossible when they contradict each other) just Google the bible and slavery, or the Qur'an and homosexuality. Christopher (talk) 10:45, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

No need to Google it. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 11:04, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Forgot we had that article, shouldn't we have a similar article for the Qur'an? I'll put it on the to do list. Christopher (talk) 11:20, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

We certainly should! Good idea Reverend Black Percy (talk) 13:21, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

What would've been better is if I wrote the article, I've never read the Qur'an though. Christopher (talk) 13:33, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

I've trouble understanding the wage but at least I've quite clear that Sci-Fi writers have no sense of scale eternity is a whole lotta more than what certain people say, and the article has nailed that part as well as the implications. --Panzerfaust (talk) 22:47, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Pascal's wager (Expanded version)

I don't know how Fair Use works, but do you think this expanded version is worth of being added?. --Panzerfaust (talk) 13:46, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

It is on wikimedia commons as one Aokegbile's own work (shared under CC4.0). Assuming that action was valid fair use isn't an issue.

Edit: it is a different size to the version to which you linked, which would affect attribution details though. Couldn't figure out which actual blog the linked version is from.

Edit2: Never mind, looks like it was originally from theofrak. Daev (talk) 16:23, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

OK, I'll see if I can adapt it for this site one of these days (sorry for not logging in). 80.38.38.134 (talk) 17:09, 26 November 2017 (UTC)