As with the original Pascal's wager, this argument does not take into account the possibility of other gods, other gods that will likely be rather annoyed by the fact that you spent your life worshiping the wrong one, especially when you might have only been doing it as a form of security as opposed to real devotion.'

Atheism is no more dangerous than any religion if there does happen to be a god in the end of it all.

I'm reminded of an old saying:

You can't polish a turd, no matter how hard you try.

I'll take my chances.

(February 27, 2013 at 1:07 pm)Cthulhu Dreaming Wrote: I'm reminded of an old saying:

You can't polish a turd, no matter how hard you try.

"How do you know he's a king..."

Pascal's wager ignores the fact that the one true God (Atheos the wise) only allows non-believers into Heaven.

What if the one true god's condition for sending someone to hell is because you have worshiped it?

It seems to me that this line of thinking only works if you have a specific god already in mind.

(February 27, 2013 at 4:44 am)Muslim Scholar Wrote: Religion is a unique matter to humans
It isn't all based on proofs but on something inside your heart (Islam calls it Fitra or instinct)

How to make a superstitious pigeon.

http://io9.com/5746904/how-pigeons-get-t...erstitious

Religions are just refined superstitions.

Let's try to polish this turd and see what happens.

Pascal's Wager presents an argument that is oversimplified to the point of uselessness.

Let's look at it from an Expected Value (EV) point of view. The EV of accepting could be expressed like this:

EV = (P(g) * V(reward)) + ((1 - P(g)) * (-V(l))

where

P(g) = the probability that god exists
V(reward) = value of the reward earned from belief
V(l) = cost of being wrong, or the value of living one's life without incorrect belief.

(i.e. P(g) of the time, we win V(reward), otherwise we lose V(l))

As Pascal asserts that if one wagers and there is no god, one has lost nothing (e.g. V(l) is always zero, and the equation can be simplified to P(g) * V(reward). Pascal, in my view, is wrong to assert that.

As we have discussed ad nauseum in numerous threads here, Pascal ignores other relevant factors (possibly a result of presupposing that there's only one god, and it's his). The probability of winning the wager is NOT simply the probability that there is a god - presumably, one much choose the correct god, one's belief must be sufficiently sincere, and one must worship correctly:

EV = (F(ce) * V(reward)) + ((1 - F(ce)) * (-V(l))

F(ce) is "Cthulhu's Equation" -

F(ce) = P(a) * ( 1 / N ) * P(s) * P(p)

P(a) = the probability that any god exists.
N = the number of possible gods
P(s) = the probability that one's belief is sufficiently sincere to merit reward
P(p) = the "piety factor" - the probability that one's worship is sufficiently pious to merit reward

Many Christians and Muslims would probably argue that V(reward) = infinity, V(l) = 0, P(a) = 1.0, N = 1, P(s) = 1.0, and P(p) = 1.0. YMMV.

Where's my Nobel Prize?

This new learning amazes me, Sir Bedivere. Explain again how sheep's bladders may be employed to prevent earthquakes....

(February 27, 2013 at 2:33 pm)Cthulhu Dreaming Wrote: As Pascal asserts that if one wagers and there is no god, one has lost nothing (e.g. V(l) is always zero, and the equation can be simplified to P(g) * V(reward). Pascal, in my view, is wrong to assert that.

Pascal ignores other relevant factors (possibly a result of presupposing that there's only one god, and it's his). The probability of winning the wager is NOT simply the probability that there is a god - presumably, one much choose the correct god, one's belief must be sufficiently sincere, and one must worship correctly:

EV = (F(ce) * V(reward)) + ((1 - F(ce)) * (-V(l))

Actually it doesn't matter at all, you make many other factors and put probabilities for them
Your life will worth nothing near the end of your life i.e. =0
The probability of God (any God) will always be greater than 0

---

(February 27, 2013 at 1:38 pm)Faith No More Wrote: What if the one true god's condition for sending someone to hell is because you have worshiped it?

Even that it will only reduce the probability of worshiping that God
It has no effect on the conclusion

Quote:It seems to me that this line of thinking only works if you have a specific god already in mind.

This will be the next stage, we can eliminate impossible Gods
and wage for only possible/logical Gods

---

(February 27, 2013 at 1:07 pm)Psykhronic Wrote: I'll take my chances.

This is exactly what am I talking about
Taking your chances means waging for a religion

---

(February 27, 2013 at 1:03 pm)Mister Agenda Wrote: Surely the value of a person's life must be considered in its entirety?

Then it has no value at all, you will be dead so your life worth nothing (if there is no God)

Quote:That doesn't make sense, does it? How much longer I have to live can't have an effect on the probability of the numerator in your equation.

If the formula to be written correctly, it is a limit as your life goes to Zero not an equation! (I don't have a math editor to write it accurately)

Limit as L-->0
P(G)/L = Infinity

where L is your remaining life

---

(February 27, 2013 at 7:15 am)FallentoReason Wrote: You're assuming our emotions are accurate. Prove it.

The proof will come in another thread
This thread is about statistics

I was just pointing that not all people convert to a religion because of a mathematical proof, many people follow their emotions