04 Dec 13
Originally posted by FreakyKBH(1) If P, then Q.
[b]Again, the question at issue is the validity of his argument.
Well, I contend that you cannot understand his argument sans the background in which he presented it, minus his intended audience.
He wasn't presenting the argument to a calculator; he was speaking with specific language, with specific values to a specific group of people in a specific ...[text shortened]... you apparently do not understand what are the relevant considerations.[/b]
What have I missed?[/b]
(2) P.
(C) Therefore Q.
Is this a valid argument? Or do you need to know my internal states when I wrote it in order to answer that?
What's so special about the wager that you need to know the author's internal affective states when he wrote it in order to understand if the argument itself is valid or sound? (Of course we need to be able to faithfully interpret his words in order to assess the argument's content and structure, that goes without saying; but your claim is going further than that.)
04 Dec 13
Originally posted by LemonJelloYour three-parter is fairly simple, I concede.
(1) If P, then Q.
(2) P.
(C) Therefore Q.
Is this a valid argument? Or do you need to know my internal states when I wrote it in order to answer that?
What's so special about the wager that you need to know the author's internal affective states when he wrote it in order to understand if the argument itself is valid or sound? (Of course we need ...[text shortened]... t's content and structure, that goes without saying; but your claim is going further than that.)
Let's see you simplify Pascal's Wager and then I'll retract my stance on it.
Don't use the formulas found on Stanford.
04 Dec 13
Originally posted by FreakyKBHYou didn't answer my question: why is the wager so special, such that you can assess the validity of the argument I presented without knowing my internal affective states; but somehow this does not hold for Pascal and the wager?
Your three-parter is fairly simple, I concede.
Let's see you simplify Pascal's Wager and then I'll retract my stance on it.
Don't use the formulas found on Stanford.
Originally posted by FreakyKBHA well constructed logical argument can be understood and discussed
Well, I contend that you cannot understand his argument sans the background in which he presented it, minus his intended audience.
objectively - if you are saying Pascal's wager is to be taken subjectively
then I would say it is no argument at all - just rhetoric appealing to
human insecurities.
04 Dec 13
Originally posted by wolfgang59That's nearly laughable if it weren't so trite.
A well constructed logical argument can be understood and discussed
objectively - if you are saying Pascal's wager is to be taken subjectively
then I would say it is no argument at all - just rhetoric appealing to
human insecurities.
There is precious little in the world today that can truly lay claim to objectivity pure. Even the values we assign to our tidy little formulas are rife with subjectivity. It is nearly impossible to cleanse ourselves completely of all prejuedices.
04 Dec 13
Originally posted by LemonJelloPrimarily because--- despite protestations otherwise--- there are assumptions assayed to the wager which are not part of it.
You didn't answer my question: why is the wager so special, such that you can assess the validity of the argument I presented without knowing my internal affective states; but somehow this does not hold for Pascal and the wager?
For instance, Pascal wasn't making an appeal to salvific belief in God as it related to any one belief. His argument was directed primarily at Reason's rejection of God. Reason could frame the consideration in such a fashion that the formula reduces God's position to a zero sum. But, as anyone with even a modicum of training in logic can attest, anything in the universe could be so reduced.
To put words in his mouth, he was asking: what is the risk in relation to the reward, and concluded, quite accurately, the reward far outstripped the risk.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
04 Dec 13
1 edit
Originally posted by FreakyKBHDoesn't matter. However I was using it to signify status Quo
What is Q?
That is not however relevant.
All that matters is that H+ is better than Q which is better than H-.
EDIT: and for the rest before you ask...
G = god
T = person who believes in G (theist)
H+ = heaven
H- = Hell
P(G) = Probability of G
05 Dec 13
Originally posted by googlefudgeInteresting way of putting it.
Doesn't matter. However I was using it to signify status [b]Quo
That is not however relevant.
All that matters is that H+ is better than Q which is better than H-.
EDIT: and for the rest before you ask...
G = god
T = person who believes in G (theist)
H+ = heaven
H- = Hell
P(G) = Probability of G[/b]
Does this work?
If T and G, Then H+
If T and ~G, Then Q
If ~T and G, then H-
If ~G and ~T, Then Q
H+>H-
H+>Q
Q>H-
Therefore T
I dunno if it's completely sound or articulated with accuracy to the original intent, but it seems to be at this reading.
If I'm reading it right, T has most to gain all the way around: he literally cannot lose.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
05 Dec 13
1 edit
Originally posted by FreakyKBHWell that's not as neat as my formulation of the argument.
Interesting way of putting it.
Does this work?
If T and G, Then H+
If T and ~G, Then Q
If ~T and G, then H-
If ~G and ~T, Then Q
H+>H-
H+>Q
Q>H-
Therefore T
I dunno if it's completely sound or articulated with accuracy to the original intent, but it seems to be at this reading.
If I'm reading it right, T has most to gain all the way around: he literally cannot lose.
But it appears to be correct, I can't see any errors.
And yes. In Pascals argument T does indeed win, and it does
look like a no briner.
The problem is that the argument, as pointed out, is unsound.
Firstly, it doesn't hold if P(G) [which you omitted] is less than or equal to zero.
In other words it doesn't matter how good the reward for T is IF G exists
if the probability of G existing is equal to 0, or is negative.
It also assumes that ~T will suffer H- if G ... which is an assumption.
It assumes that the only choice is G, or ~G ... and doesn't include any
other gods...
And the list goes on.
It also assumes (and requires) that H+ be of immense or infinite benefit.
I for one contest that, as I can't abide the idea of an eternity sucking up to god.
So H+ for me actually rates lower than Q... Which in and of itself scuppers the
entire argument for all those who would agree with me that Q (or even H-) is better
than, or equal to H+.