Hobbes' Choice wrote:You are leaving out the most important part of the logic, and focusing on the irrelevant part.
What? The “irrelevant” part that you’re both making category errors in replacing God with an elf? Or that the wager is not optional? Those are the parts I’ve focused on, and they are most certainly relevant.
Hobbes' Choice wrote:For a start wagering is optional. Pascal is making a false rule here.
Incorrect. Given the parameters* Pascal lays out, your mortal soul is on the line. Even choosing not to make the wager is a choice insofar as only positive belief belief in God saves you from eternal damnation if God exists. Insofar as the wager rests on your not having sufficient reason to choose the two options, you’re committed to the wager. Agnosticism *in this case* still constitutes a wager.
*Showing these parameters fail might well serve to refute the wager, but neither you nor “raw thoughts” have done so. You could refute the wager on a whole host of grounds, but substituting elves/Thor for God, or saying one need not make the wager if the specific set of parameters exists, are not part of them.
Hobbes' Choice wrote:If you accept God you loose everything; your life, choice, enjoyment, freedom.
And even if you accept God exists then there is no guarantee of salvation from this God. Just accepting there is a God is guarantee of nothing.
Question-begging.
Hobbes' Choice wrote:QED the wager is rubbish.
You've misused "QED" here.
----------------
raw_thought wrote:Perhaps you are unfamiliar with all the refutations of Pascal's wager. Simply put, it applies to any proposition.
I think you misunderstand what an actual refutation is. The way you're going about it, order to refute the wager, you must follow the same formula. Any deviation from the formula and you are refuting something else. If the formula calls for "x" (say, "Watts") and you replace it with "y" (say, "Volts"), you're not refuting the first formula.
raw_thought wrote:1. If you believe in Thor and Thor exists you will recieve infinte reward.
Pascal: "We know then the existence and nature of the finite, because we also are finite and have extension. We know the existence of the infinite and are ignorant of its nature, because it has extension like us, but not limits like us. But we know neither the existence nor the nature of God, because He has neither extension nor limits. ... If there is a God, He is infinitely incomprehensible, since, having neither parts nor limits, He has no affinity to us. We are then incapable of knowing either what He is or if He is."
We know the existence and nature of Thor (a key piece of which is that Thor is unable to provide us with infinite reward).* Since we're capable of knowing at least
what Thor is and probably
if he is, we're not dealing with Pascal's Wager, but some other wager. Pascal is not speaking of a being we can know and comprehend—a being about which we can reason and come to probabilistic statements concerning its existence/nature. He is proposing a wager about something completely beyond our comprehension. Replacing "God" with "Thor" is a category error. You can't refute Pascal's Wager by making a category error.
This is part of what I meant when I said you and Hobbes don't understand the wager. I am certainly not saying you can't refute the wager, but you're going to have to offer much stronger alternatives to do so. Thor or an elf simply do not pass muster. That, or you attack the wager on other grounds, say by showing that God as Pascal presents “Him” can be shown (not) to exist.
raw_thought wrote:2. If 1 is true, you should believe in Thor.
On the very "definition" of who Thor is, it's not, so I shouldn’t believe in Thor. See? Pascal’s Wager makes it clear that reason can not help us decide. In this case, Reason (an understanding of who Thor is and what his powers are) can, so your wager fails. NOW, perhaps you want to attack Pascal on this point too. Reason can help us understand the nature of God, etc, so the wager fails. That might well work, though you’re still debating something of a hypothetical, which requires more of a logical disproof than deductive reasoning, etc.
PS This "infinite reward" might still not be enough to convince me to believe in Thor. By not replacing God with a being of equal supremacy, you've not managed to work God out of the equation. As such, Thor's "infinite reward" might not outweigh the punishment of an eternity in hell. "Good Lord, these flames burn, but at least I have Thor’s gift for all eternity." This isn't "gods" against "no gods" but "God" against "no God." The Big-G God, as defined by Pascal, is of an entirely different category than Thor or elves, to the point that there’s no other being that could possibly give you
reason not to believe. (You really need to read the
Pensées. You clearly don't understand full scope of Pascal's argument.)
raw_thought wrote:3. If 1 is false nothing bad will happen to you.
Fair enough. This part is in keeping with what Pascal would say.
raw_thought wrote:4. Therefore it is in your best interest to believe in Thor.
Not if, as I've laid out above, God exists as well. In Pascal's Wager, there is no "greater-than-God" to which I might, in my best interests, appeal.
raw_thought wrote:4 Believing in a proposition for utilitarian reasons is to put self interest above truth.
Incorrect. Pascal is stating that reason does not help you discern which is the "true" state of things concerning God’s existence. Pascal is saying that
if you cannot know the truth—“Let us then examine this point, and say, ‘God is, or He is not.’ But to which side shall we incline? Reason can decide nothing here.”—making a decision on utilitarian grounds is entirely rational. And he’s right! But if you
could know the truth, utilitarianism would be the wrong move and you would go with what’s true.
raw_thought wrote:There are many brilliant people that have made silly arguments. Lamark, Philipp Lenard ( the nobel laureate that used silly arguments against Einstein)....etc
Fair enough. I retract my hyperbole. You missed the point anyway.
---------------
These have been better responses, but they still betray a lack of understand concerning Pascal's Wager. You're both putting your own interpretations of God in and then trying to refute the wager. If you're going to refute the wager, you have work with something that has the same properties of God (which would then be, well, God, so you'd be right back at the beginning). You would certainly be within your rights to say there is no wager because Pascal's wrong about God, but that obviously wouldn't be refuting the wager, merely showing it to be a hypothetical that doesn't apply to our situation (which is really the more fruitful path). Insofar as Pascal starts with “If there is a God” and lays out various characteristics, the response “But there is not a God…” or “There is a God but with these other characteristics, ends the argument before you even get to the wager. But if you get to wager, you have to play by the rules he's set in refuting it, and you're going to find that's much harder than simply inserting "Deity X" and "infinite reward" in place of "God" and "your immortal soul."
So, to wrap up: you cannot refute Pascal’s Wager by substituting something that is not comparable to God and then saying “Ha! You don’t believe in that thing-that’s-not-comparable-to-God so the wager fails!” Insofar as the wager is a logical proposition, you have to show the wager fails on logical grounds, and you’ve not done that. You can point out that Pascal’s Wager is not
applicable because Pascal is wrong about God, but to
refute it requires a lot more than you’ve done here.
This has been fun. Do yourselves a favor and read Section III of the
Pensées so you know what it is you’re arguing against. You might also read the secondary literature so you’re aware of the
actual arguments people use to refute PW. These are the types of arguments freshman bring to the table, and a good philosophy prof will set them straight.
I’m off to debating more interesting topics and more informed interlocutors. Maybe someone else will pick this up and run with it if you two want to keep at it.