Army Rumour Service

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Pope off

We are in a sort of agreement; Pascal’s wager may have been real in the sense that it was a philosophical construct, but that didn’t mean that the wager had any basis in reality.

You stated that the wager is “now” redundant, but it has always been redundant. That people may or may not have accepted it is another matter.

What philosophical construct has any basis in reality- whatever that is? how does one determine reality even today- everyone has their own version dependent on what their problems are in relation to the life they live. But I will wager that proportionately more people believed in the concept of Pascals wager then, than they do today. Surely that's the point- we have moved on religion is not what it was and we have latched on to other things.
 
What philosophical construct has any basis in reality- whatever that is? how does one determine reality even today- everyone has their own version dependent on what their problems are in relation to the life they live. But I will wager that proportionately more people believed in the concept of Pascals wager then, than they do today. Surely that's the point- we have moved on religion is not what it was and we have latched on to other things.

With respect, I think you are missing the point. That more people believed Pascal’s wager then rather than now isn’t in doubt. That still doesn’t alter the fact that it was redundant from the start in all but a philosophical construct. To remind you, you said “now”, but it was critiqued and seen as redundant long before you and I were born.

As an aside, part of the point of science is that is *never* says what reality is. Only those with a fundamental misunderstanding of the basics of scientific method maintain that it does.

Instead of “latched on”, which implies replaced, a great deal has been discovered and altered our views accordingly. From reading your posts I know that you pejoratively view science as a religion, but it never seems to occur to you that you use the fruits of literally hundreds of scientific discoveries to make such posts.
 
With respect, I think you are missing the point. That more people believed Pascal’s wager then rather than now isn’t in doubt. That still doesn’t alter the fact that it was redundant from the start in all but a philosophical construct. To remind you, you said “now”, but it was critiqued and seen as redundant long before you and I were born.

As an aside, part of the point of science is that is *never* says what reality is. Only those with a fundamental misunderstanding of the basics of scientific method maintain that it does.

Instead of “latched on”, which implies replaced, a great deal has been discovered and altered our views accordingly. From reading your posts I know that you pejoratively view science as a religion, but it never seems to occur to you that you use the fruits of literally hundreds of scientific discoveries to make such posts.

No, I understand that Science uses its own Benchmarks to assert what is the norm within given parameters for any particular subject. So that isn't an issue. What Scientists cannot see is they have their own forum which can be used as propaganda- take for example Global warming and that, where the Church has left off, the scientists pick up. Don't forget that a lot of what is said is highly plausible, but people latch on that plausibility and determine their actions accordingly-i.e. Government policy.It used to be the Church and the credo that influenced that. That's what I mean about Science being the new religion-That is not a pejorative viewpoint- it's merely a progression from one form of influence to another.
 
Failure to spot the difference between modern science and the hocus pocus of religion is a cerebral malfunction in the part of brain dealing with intellect.

Pascal's wager can't be made "redundant" because it is not a valid premise in the first place. A square wheel... an un-workable object. The square wheel is now redundant...:scratch:
 
I have been trying to square what you said all morning Higgs and you can't have it. If Pascal's wager is no more than a test in probability- then it is still valid. Square wheels do not roll- no probability at all.
 

cpunk

LE
Moderator
Failure to spot the difference between modern science and the hocus pocus of religion is a cerebral malfunction in the part of brain dealing with intellect.

Pascal's wager can't be made "redundant" because it is not a valid premise in the first place. A square wheel... an un-workable object. The square wheel is now redundant...:scratch:

I thought we'd banned you for Holocaust denial?
 
Re Pascal's wager, the Christian God or any other man made deity is so statistically unlikely as to be deemed an impossibility. The only possibility there is for God's existence is that there is something rather than nothing, i.e. there is a universe so presumably with cause and effect something created it. Other than that there are no signs for a Godly existence that can't be explained by nature and science, indeed the logic of 'cause and effect' might be flawed in this instance, for all we know there might not be a cause at all.

It's far more interesting when it's a mystery, rather than replacing it with a load of mythical bollocks and magic. Just because the sun goes behind the mountain doesn't mean the zog monster has eaten it. In that same sense, just because we're here doesn't mean a higher power made us.
 
I have been trying to square what you said all morning Higgs and you can't have it. If Pascal's wager is no more than a test in probability- then it is still valid. Square wheels do not roll- no probability at all.

The probability of me believing in gods are about the same as square wheels being on your car... Pascal did not work at KwikFit... a pointless wager and not a thing that can be tested. Try it... There may be goblins in your loft....right?
 

cpunk

LE
Moderator
The probability of me believing in gods are about the same as square wheels being on your car...

Balls. As a human being, the probability of you believing in gods is rather high: at least 50%.

In any case, this particular aspect of this discussion needs to be taken off to the science forum where you can disappear down your own theoretical rabbit holes to your heart's content, without boring the arse off everyone else.
 
Balls. As a human being, the probability of you believing in gods is rather high: at least 50%.

In any case, this particular aspect of this discussion needs to be taken off to the science forum where you can disappear down your own theoretical rabbit holes to your heart's content, without boring the arse off everyone else.

You are right Sir, although as an individual and a sample size of one, the outcome of any testing regarding faith
should produce a unique result surely? 100% probability of being correct perhaps.

I'm on my way...:)
 
The probability of me believing in gods are about the same as square wheels being on your car... Pascal did not work at KwikFit... a pointless wager and not a thing that can be tested. Try it... There may be goblins in your loft....right?

You didn't make the wager- therefore your view is irrelevant and in all proability Pascal could probably change my tyres in Quickfit faster than you can change my exhaust. Probability. I am not questioning your view of God or anything else I am looking at the issue that was proposed some 200 years ago as opposed to what we think now. Now I have no Goblins in my loft but suspect you have bats in your Belfry.
 

mercurydancer

LE
Book Reviewer
See bold...

Pascal’s wager has always been redundant. It presupposes that people can believe something by act of will alone. I’d like to believe that there’s a benevolent god who will grant me everlasting life surrounded by the people I love. No matter how much I *want* to believe that it doesn’t mean that I *actually* believe it. Acting and behaving as though I do will not change the fact that I don’t believe it and surely any god worthy of the name would see through my cunning ruse.

Belief can’t be forced and so the basic premise of the wager is flawed from the start. This says nothing about the inherent self-interest of such a wager (would any god want someone so self-centred?), and whether or not the right god is being “believed” in in the first place and then whether or not the interpretation of that god is correct (to be or not be circumcised, for example!).

Pascal's wager has always stated in its most basic premise that either God exists (Albeit in an incomprehensible form to humans) or he does not. He does state that the existence of God remains impossible for humans to define. My personal view is that remains so. I suspect this is where we differ. You appear to describe the god you would like, or has attributes that are defined by humans. Dawkins et al are being very clever when they say that God is a mental construct of humanity, ie a delusion.
 
Pascal's wager has always stated in its most basic premise that either God exists (Albeit in an incomprehensible form to humans) or he does not. He does state that the existence of God remains impossible for humans to define. My personal view is that remains so. I suspect this is where we differ. You appear to describe the god you would like, or has attributes that are defined by humans. Dawkins et al are being very clever when they say that God is a mental construct of humanity, ie a delusion.

My deliberately simple example of a god was primarily to illustrate the wider point, i.e. that belief can’t be forced, and not intended as a statement of the nature of any god or gods as such. The wager would remain just as redundant the other way around, i.e. to expect theists (for want of a better word) to truly believe that their god doesn’t exist by force of will alone. They may be able to talk and act as if that was the case, but I doubt if they would suddenly *genuinely* believe their god has stopped existing because, and only because, of such a wager.

As an added point, if people didn’t define god, at least a little, in their own terms there would be no point in praying. It’s no good asking a god to hear a prayer if you don’t believe that your god doesn’t have any definable attributes (such as being able to receive the prayer, for one!). My understanding is that many Christians have at least a vague belief that their God (perhaps through Jesus) is loving a loving god, and others believe that Allah is great . These are attributes that, rightly or wrongly, humans believe their god has and so serve to define that god, in at least some small way.
 

mercurydancer

LE
Book Reviewer
My deliberately simple example of a god was primarily to illustrate the wider point, i.e. that belief can’t be forced, and not intended as a statement of the nature of any god or gods as such. The wager would remain just as redundant the other way around, i.e. to expect theists (for want of a better word) to truly believe that their god doesn’t exist by force of will alone. They may be able to talk and act as if that was the case, but I doubt if they would suddenly *genuinely* believe their god has stopped existing because, and only because, of such a wager.

As an added point, if people didn’t define god, at least a little, in their own terms there would be no point in praying. It’s no good asking a god to hear a prayer if you don’t believe that your god doesn’t have any definable attributes (such as being able to receive the prayer, for one!). My understanding is that many Christians have at least a vague belief that their God (perhaps through Jesus) is loving a loving god, and others believe that Allah is great . These are attributes that, rightly or wrongly, humans believe their god has and so serve to define that god, in at least some small way.

Pascal's wager, provided that you accept the premise that God is unknowable, is impartial. By its very essence it does not decide either way. Pascal does decide, but the wager is open to anyone to decide.

If we put our stake on there being a god, then the perception of that god is always going to be faulted and a human weakness as we cannot fully perceive god. If you stake your wager on there being no god then there is no loss.
 
Pascal's wager, provided that you accept the premise that God is unknowable, is impartial. By its very essence it does not decide either way. Pascal does decide, but the wager is open to anyone to decide.

If we put our stake on there being a god, then the perception of that god is always going to be faulted and a human weakness as we cannot fully perceive god. If you stake your wager on there being no god then there is no loss.

By your argument you assume that there is a god to be denied. The key word in your post is “provided”. It’s a cop out. You are setting parameters and then extrapolating. Despite that, I assume good faith and so assume you are being true to your beliefs.

When it comes down to it we can forget Pascal’s Wager (I think we agree on that?) and can move on to more precise and documented terms. For example, do you believe that there was a global flood that wiped out all humans except those on the Ark? If not, why do so many Christians believe that’s what happened? Don’t they have just as strong a belief? Can the Old Testament be dismissed?
 
By your argument you assume that there is a god to be denied. The key word in your post is “provided”. It’s a cop out. You are setting parameters and then extrapolating. Despite that, I assume good faith and so assume you are being true to your beliefs.

When it comes down to it we can forget Pascal’s Wager (I think we agree on that?) and can move on to more precise and documented terms. For example, do you believe that there was a global flood that wiped out all humans except those on the Ark? If not, why do so many Christians believe that’s what happened? Don’t they have just as strong a belief? Can the Old Testament be dismissed?

I am not sure you will find a large percentage of Christians believe in the flood as a historical, global event. Most see it as a mix of folk memory and allegory. The OT is certainly not dismissed, but needs contextualising.
 
T

Taffd

Guest
My deliberately simple example of a god was primarily to illustrate the wider point, i.e. that belief can’t be forced, and not intended as a statement of the nature of any god or gods as such. The wager would remain just as redundant the other way around, i.e. to expect theists (for want of a better word) to truly believe that their god doesn’t exist by force of will alone. They may be able to talk and act as if that was the case, but I doubt if they would suddenly *genuinely* believe their god has stopped existing because, and only because, of such a wager.

As an added point, if people didn’t define god, at least a little, in their own terms there would be no point in praying. It’s no good asking a god to hear a prayer if you don’t believe that your god doesn’t have any definable attributes (such as being able to receive the prayer, for one!). My understanding is that many Christians have at least a vague belief that their God (perhaps through Jesus) is loving a loving god, and others believe that Allah is great . These are attributes that, rightly or wrongly, humans believe their god has and so serve to define that god, in at least some small way.

Belief can't be forced?

Is there not evidence that suggests that if you subject someone to enough physical and mental stress, they can change their beliefs?
 
T

Taffd

Guest
By your argument you assume that there is a god to be denied. The key word in your post is “provided”. It’s a cop out. You are setting parameters and then extrapolating. Despite that, I assume good faith and so assume you are being true to your beliefs.

When it comes down to it we can forget Pascal’s Wager (I think we agree on that?) and can move on to more precise and documented terms. For example, do you believe that there was a global flood that wiped out all humans except those on the Ark? If not, why do so many Christians believe that’s what happened? Don’t they have just as strong a belief? Can the Old Testament be dismissed?

Does evidence not exist that suggests that there have indeed been massive floods, floods that could have been perceived to wipe out the whole of 'their' world?
 
Does evidence not exist that suggests that there have indeed been massive floods, floods that could have been perceived to wipe out the whole of 'their' world?

This is a good point. I cannot conceive a flood higher than the highest mountains, but in the days of smaller nations, a flood that is big enough to basically destroy a local civilisation would be remembered as the flood we now read about.
 

Latest Threads

Top