I thought this was quite funny when I noticed it. Could the Christian God be necessarily petty? It started with pascals wager and I think it might necessitate that the Christian God (or any of similar nature as contested in the argument) is Petty.
Note: "believes that ~P" or "does not believe that P" are swappable depending on Gnosticism or Agnosticism.
1. God may exist (P) or may not exist (~P)
2. If P and a person(x) believes that P, x receives infinite reward. If ~P and x believes that P, belief that P is of little or no consequence.
3. If P and x believes that ~P, x receives infinite punishment. If ~P and x does not believe that ~P, belief that ~P it is of little or no consequence.
4. It is better to receive infinite reward or suffer no consequence that it is to receive infinite punishment or suffer no consequence.
Therefore:
5. The probability of P and the reward for belief that P is greater than the consequence of belief that P while ~P and belief that ~P necessarily.
6. It is better to believe that P than believe that ~P (From 5)
7. If one action is better than another it is irrational to do the worse action
Therefore:
8. It is rational to believe that P and irrational to believe that ~P.
I added 5 from the normal argument because it's the first response from anyone who knows it, without 5 it fails to account for the probability of a god not existing being so low (or zero) that the consequences of disbelief are actually probabilistically better than belief (necessarily in the case that the probability is zero) though premise 1 assumes a probability It's snuck into the argument, so it's best to point it out. I've also tried to fix up the argument as much as possible.
You may have noticed this is an argument for God and not for the Christian God, that is because I can use the flaw that I am about to point out to create a parallel argument, which better illustrates the problem with using the "Christian god". Even if we accept 5) and we have no reason to, there is a serious problem with getting from 1 -2.
A God existing does not necessitate that he cares at all that you believe in him. For this argument to account for that we need to introduce another premise:
2(new). God cares about whether or not you believe in him.
But is this god omni? To a god who is infinite in all "logically possible" ways a finite action, the choice to believe, is necessarily of infinitely little consequence. Your belief in god to this being is the very definition of petty.
Petty:
1. of little or no importance or consequence: petty grievances..
2. of lesser or secondary importance, merit, etc.; minor: petty considerations.
We can justifiably rephrase 2 as "God is petty"
We can thereby say that any god who has these characteristics is "petty".
Keeping this in mind I will examine the Christian specific pascals wager from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (keep in mind it hasn't got premise 5 from my argument, it makes no difference to my argument though) Replacing Christian God with Petty God does absolutely nothing to affect the meaning of the argument.
(1) It is possible that the God exists and it is possible that the Christian God does not exist.
1. It is possible that the God exists and he is petty.
(2) If one believes in the Christian God (Petty God) then if he exists then one receives an infinitely great reward and if he does not exist then one loses little or nothing.
(3) If one does not believe in the Christian God (Petty God) then if he exists then one receives an infinitely great punishment and if he does not exist then one gains little or nothing.
(4) It is better to either receive an infinitely great reward or lose little or nothing than it is to either receive an infinitely great punishment or gain little or nothing.
Therefore:
(5) It is better to believe in the Christian God (Petty God) than it is not to believe in the Christian God (Petty God).
(6) If one course of action is better than another then it is rational to follow that course of action and irrational to follow the other.
Therefore:
(7) It is rational to believe in the Christian God (Petty God) and irrational not to believe in the Christian God (Petty God).
If the argument necessitates that this god is Petty, which it does by definition of the word Petty (I think it's safe to say anyway), then any God who requires infinite punishment or reward for finite actions is necessarily petty.
Note: "believes that ~P" or "does not believe that P" are swappable depending on Gnosticism or Agnosticism.
1. God may exist (P) or may not exist (~P)
2. If P and a person(x) believes that P, x receives infinite reward. If ~P and x believes that P, belief that P is of little or no consequence.
3. If P and x believes that ~P, x receives infinite punishment. If ~P and x does not believe that ~P, belief that ~P it is of little or no consequence.
4. It is better to receive infinite reward or suffer no consequence that it is to receive infinite punishment or suffer no consequence.
Therefore:
5. The probability of P and the reward for belief that P is greater than the consequence of belief that P while ~P and belief that ~P necessarily.
6. It is better to believe that P than believe that ~P (From 5)
7. If one action is better than another it is irrational to do the worse action
Therefore:
8. It is rational to believe that P and irrational to believe that ~P.
I added 5 from the normal argument because it's the first response from anyone who knows it, without 5 it fails to account for the probability of a god not existing being so low (or zero) that the consequences of disbelief are actually probabilistically better than belief (necessarily in the case that the probability is zero) though premise 1 assumes a probability It's snuck into the argument, so it's best to point it out. I've also tried to fix up the argument as much as possible.
You may have noticed this is an argument for God and not for the Christian God, that is because I can use the flaw that I am about to point out to create a parallel argument, which better illustrates the problem with using the "Christian god". Even if we accept 5) and we have no reason to, there is a serious problem with getting from 1 -2.
A God existing does not necessitate that he cares at all that you believe in him. For this argument to account for that we need to introduce another premise:
2(new). God cares about whether or not you believe in him.
But is this god omni? To a god who is infinite in all "logically possible" ways a finite action, the choice to believe, is necessarily of infinitely little consequence. Your belief in god to this being is the very definition of petty.
Petty:
1. of little or no importance or consequence: petty grievances..
2. of lesser or secondary importance, merit, etc.; minor: petty considerations.
We can justifiably rephrase 2 as "God is petty"
We can thereby say that any god who has these characteristics is "petty".
Keeping this in mind I will examine the Christian specific pascals wager from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (keep in mind it hasn't got premise 5 from my argument, it makes no difference to my argument though) Replacing Christian God with Petty God does absolutely nothing to affect the meaning of the argument.
(1) It is possible that the God exists and it is possible that the Christian God does not exist.
1. It is possible that the God exists and he is petty.
(2) If one believes in the Christian God (Petty God) then if he exists then one receives an infinitely great reward and if he does not exist then one loses little or nothing.
(3) If one does not believe in the Christian God (Petty God) then if he exists then one receives an infinitely great punishment and if he does not exist then one gains little or nothing.
(4) It is better to either receive an infinitely great reward or lose little or nothing than it is to either receive an infinitely great punishment or gain little or nothing.
Therefore:
(5) It is better to believe in the Christian God (Petty God) than it is not to believe in the Christian God (Petty God).
(6) If one course of action is better than another then it is rational to follow that course of action and irrational to follow the other.
Therefore:
(7) It is rational to believe in the Christian God (Petty God) and irrational not to believe in the Christian God (Petty God).
If the argument necessitates that this god is Petty, which it does by definition of the word Petty (I think it's safe to say anyway), then any God who requires infinite punishment or reward for finite actions is necessarily petty.
.
