Guest guest Posted March 15, 2002 Report Share Posted March 15, 2002 Supposition 3. has obvious deficiencies--- since to hold any beliefs, i.e., belief in God, the big bang theory or the Trinity, whether they are true or false requires at least mental energy, re-direction of energy away from belief towards "systems" that have a track record of benefit is a worthy endeavor. no? be well james , MikeSuesserott@t... wrote: > Many "proofs" for the existence of God were invented during the times of the > Christian scholasticists. One such "proof" was offered by the famous > mathematician and philosopher, Blaise Pascal (1623-1662). > > Pascal argued that a rational person ought to believe in the existence of > God because of mathematical probability considerations. Though we may not > know for sure whether God exists, we can consider our belief (or lack of it) > as a bet on God's existence, the outcome of which can be computed as > follows. > > Let the probability that God does not exist be p; > the probability for God's existence will, therefore, be 1 - p. > > We have, then, these possibilities: > > 1. if we believe in God, and God does not exist, we will have passed up some > worldly pleasures as a consequence of our mistaken belief in Him, at a cost > represented by -c (a negative quantity because it is akin to an > expenditure). > 2. if we believe in God, and God does exist, we receive a heavenly reward r. > 3. if we do not believe in God, and God does not exist, we have neither > gained nor lost; the outcome is 0. > 4. if we do not believe in God, and God does exist, there may be some > punishment meted out to us, perhaps some time to serve in hell. Let us > denote these costs as -h (negative again, for the same reason as above). In > case there is no punishment for not believing, h will equal 0. > > Now we can set up the equations for the outcomes of our bet: > > If we believe in God, the outcome is the probability-weighted sum of cases 1 > and 2: > p.(-c) + (1-p).r > > If we do not believe in God, the outcome is the probability- weighted sum of > cases 3 and 4: > p.0 + (1-p).(-h) > > But since the quantity r will, by definition, be infinite, the outcome of > the first equation will always be greater than that of the second equation, > no matter what probability we assign to p for the existence of God. > Therefore, the only rational strategy that we have for our bet is to believe > in God. > > It is interesting to note that Pascal did not need to make any assumptions > on the finiteness of h because of the negative sign of that quantity. > > Michael Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 17, 2002 Report Share Posted March 17, 2002 Hi James, sorry, but I am not sure I understand your meaning here. Could you specify which quantity you propose to introduce into Pascal's "calculation"? Best, Michael > -----Ursprungliche Nachricht----- > Von: d_agenda2000 [d_agenda2000] > Gesendet: Saturday, March 16, 2002 00:06 > An: > Betreff: Re: Blaise Pascal's Bet on God > > > > Supposition 3. has obvious deficiencies--- since to hold any beliefs, > i.e., belief in God, the big bang theory or the Trinity, whether they > are true or false requires at least mental energy, re-direction of > energy away from belief towards "systems" that have a track record of > benefit is a worthy endeavor. no? > > be well > james > > > > > > , MikeSuesserott@t... wrote: > > Many "proofs" for the existence of God were invented during the > times of the > > Christian scholasticists. One such "proof" was offered by the famous > > mathematician and philosopher, Blaise Pascal (1623-1662). > > > > Pascal argued that a rational person ought to believe in the > existence of > > God because of mathematical probability considerations. Though we > may not > > know for sure whether God exists, we can consider our belief (or > lack of it) > > as a bet on God's existence, the outcome of which can be computed as > > follows. > > > > Let the probability that God does not exist be p; > > the probability for God's existence will, therefore, be 1 - p. > > > > We have, then, these possibilities: > > > > 1. if we believe in God, and God does not exist, we will have > passed up some > > worldly pleasures as a consequence of our mistaken belief in Him, > at a cost > > represented by -c (a negative quantity because it is akin to an > > expenditure). > > 2. if we believe in God, and God does exist, we receive a heavenly > reward r. > > 3. if we do not believe in God, and God does not exist, we have > neither > > gained nor lost; the outcome is 0. > > 4. if we do not believe in God, and God does exist, there may be > some > > punishment meted out to us, perhaps some time to serve in hell. Let > us > > denote these costs as -h (negative again, for the same reason as > above). In > > case there is no punishment for not believing, h will equal 0. > > > > Now we can set up the equations for the outcomes of our bet: > > > > If we believe in God, the outcome is the probability-weighted sum > of cases 1 > > and 2: > > p.(-c) + (1-p).r > > > > If we do not believe in God, the outcome is the probability- > weighted sum of > > cases 3 and 4: > > p.0 + (1-p).(-h) > > > > But since the quantity r will, by definition, be infinite, the > outcome of > > the first equation will always be greater than that of the second > equation, > > no matter what probability we assign to p for the existence of God. > > Therefore, the only rational strategy that we have for our bet is > to believe > > in God. > > > > It is interesting to note that Pascal did not need to make any > assumptions > > on the finiteness of h because of the negative sign of that > quantity. > > > > Michael > > > > /join > > > > > > All paths go somewhere. No path goes nowhere. Paths, places, > sights, perceptions, and indeed all experiences arise from and > exist in and subside back into the Space of Awareness. Like waves > rising are not different than the ocean, all things arising from > Awareness are of the nature of Awareness. Awareness does not come > and go but is always Present. It is Home. Home is where the Heart > Is. Jnanis know the Heart to be the Finality of Eternal Being. A > true devotee relishes in the Truth of Self-Knowledge, > spontaneously arising from within into It Self. Welcome all to > a. > > > > Your use of is subject to > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 17, 2002 Report Share Posted March 17, 2002 What's "a (rational) person"? And what is "we"? If the reality of such things is assumed then the reality of another thing called God is something that can be debated. If it isn't assumed, the question doesn't occur. andrew > > , MikeSuesserott@t... wrote: > > > Many "proofs" for the existence of God were invented during the > > times of the > > > Christian scholasticists. One such "proof" was offered by the famous > > > mathematician and philosopher, Blaise Pascal (1623-1662). > > > > > > Pascal argued that a rational person ought to believe in the > > existence of > > > God because of mathematical probability considerations. Though we > > may not > > > know for sure whether God exists, we can consider our belief (or > > lack of it) > > > as a bet on God's existence, the outcome of which can be computed as > > > follows. > > > > > > Let the probability that God does not exist be p; > > > the probability for God's existence will, therefore, be 1 - p. > > > > > > We have, then, these possibilities: > > > > > > 1. if we believe in God, and God does not exist, we will have > > passed up some > > > worldly pleasures as a consequence of our mistaken belief in Him, > > at a cost > > > represented by -c (a negative quantity because it is akin to an > > > expenditure). > > > 2. if we believe in God, and God does exist, we receive a heavenly > > reward r. > > > 3. if we do not believe in God, and God does not exist, we have > > neither > > > gained nor lost; the outcome is 0. > > > 4. if we do not believe in God, and God does exist, there may be > > some > > > punishment meted out to us, perhaps some time to serve in hell. Let > > us > > > denote these costs as -h (negative again, for the same reason as > > above). In > > > case there is no punishment for not believing, h will equal 0. > > > > > > Now we can set up the equations for the outcomes of our bet: > > > > > > If we believe in God, the outcome is the probability-weighted sum > > of cases 1 > > > and 2: > > > p.(-c) + (1-p).r > > > > > > If we do not believe in God, the outcome is the probability- > > weighted sum of > > > cases 3 and 4: > > > p.0 + (1-p).(-h) > > > > > > But since the quantity r will, by definition, be infinite, the > > outcome of > > > the first equation will always be greater than that of the second > > equation, > > > no matter what probability we assign to p for the existence of God. > > > Therefore, the only rational strategy that we have for our bet is > > to believe > > > in God. > > > > > > It is interesting to note that Pascal did not need to make any > > assumptions > > > on the finiteness of h because of the negative sign of that > > quantity. > > > > > > Michael > > > > > > > > /join > > > > > > > > > > > > All paths go somewhere. No path goes nowhere. Paths, places, > > sights, perceptions, and indeed all experiences arise from and > > exist in and subside back into the Space of Awareness. Like waves > > rising are not different than the ocean, all things arising from > > Awareness are of the nature of Awareness. Awareness does not come > > and go but is always Present. It is Home. Home is where the Heart > > Is. Jnanis know the Heart to be the Finality of Eternal Being. A > > true devotee relishes in the Truth of Self-Knowledge, > > spontaneously arising from within into It Self. Welcome all to > > a. > > > > > > > > Your use of is subject to > > > > > > > /join > > > > > > All paths go somewhere. No path goes nowhere. Paths, places, sights, perceptions, and indeed all experiences arise from and exist in and subside back into the Space of Awareness. Like waves rising are not different than the ocean, all things arising from Awareness are of the nature of Awareness. Awareness does not come and go but is always Present. It is Home. Home is where the Heart Is. Jnanis know the Heart to be the Finality of Eternal Being. A true devotee relishes in the Truth of Self-Knowledge, spontaneously arising from within into It Self. Welcome all to a. > > > > Your use of is subject to Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 17, 2002 Report Share Posted March 17, 2002 OK, without my doing the Math, I wanted to make the point that proposition 3 "if we do not believe in God, and God does not exist, we have neither gained nor lost; the outcome is 0." ....is questionable. Belief requires some mental energy and it is associated with actions. We make up our minds to believe in God, become religious (in many cases) and attend services. Now the Atheist, having made up their mind not to believe in God, participated in "godless" activities... hasn't he gained by expending his energies appropriately...if indeed proposition (3)"God does not exist" has any probability? That is, why according to Pascal, nonbelief is a Lose-Lose proposition = 0. just asking, james , MikeSuesserott@t... wrote: > Hi James, > > sorry, but I am not sure I understand your meaning here. Could you specify > which quantity you propose to introduce into Pascal's "calculation"? > > Best, > > Michael > > > > -----Ursprungliche Nachricht----- > > Von: d_agenda2000 [d_agenda2000] > > Gesendet: Saturday, March 16, 2002 00:06 > > An: > > Betreff: Re: Blaise Pascal's Bet on God > > > > > > > > Supposition 3. has obvious deficiencies--- since to hold any beliefs, > > i.e., belief in God, the big bang theory or the Trinity, whether they > > are true or false requires at least mental energy, re-direction of > > energy away from belief towards "systems" that have a track record of > > benefit is a worthy endeavor. no? > > > > be well > > james > > > > > > > > > > > > , MikeSuesserott@t... wrote: > > > Many "proofs" for the existence of God were invented during the > > times of the > > > Christian scholasticists. One such "proof" was offered by the famous > > > mathematician and philosopher, Blaise Pascal (1623-1662). > > > > > > Pascal argued that a rational person ought to believe in the > > existence of > > > God because of mathematical probability considerations. Though we > > may not > > > know for sure whether God exists, we can consider our belief (or > > lack of it) > > > as a bet on God's existence, the outcome of which can be computed as > > > follows. > > > > > > Let the probability that God does not exist be p; > > > the probability for God's existence will, therefore, be 1 - p. > > > > > > We have, then, these possibilities: > > > > > > 1. if we believe in God, and God does not exist, we will have > > passed up some > > > worldly pleasures as a consequence of our mistaken belief in Him, > > at a cost > > > represented by -c (a negative quantity because it is akin to an > > > expenditure). > > > 2. if we believe in God, and God does exist, we receive a heavenly > > reward r. > > > 3. if we do not believe in God, and God does not exist, we have > > neither > > > gained nor lost; the outcome is 0. > > > 4. if we do not believe in God, and God does exist, there may be > > some > > > punishment meted out to us, perhaps some time to serve in hell. Let > > us > > > denote these costs as -h (negative again, for the same reason as > > above). In > > > case there is no punishment for not believing, h will equal 0. > > > > > > Now we can set up the equations for the outcomes of our bet: > > > > > > If we believe in God, the outcome is the probability-weighted sum > > of cases 1 > > > and 2: > > > p.(-c) + (1-p).r > > > > > > If we do not believe in God, the outcome is the probability- > > weighted sum of > > > cases 3 and 4: > > > p.0 + (1-p).(-h) > > > > > > But since the quantity r will, by definition, be infinite, the > > outcome of > > > the first equation will always be greater than that of the second > > equation, > > > no matter what probability we assign to p for the existence of God. > > > Therefore, the only rational strategy that we have for our bet is > > to believe > > > in God. > > > > > > It is interesting to note that Pascal did not need to make any > > assumptions > > > on the finiteness of h because of the negative sign of that > > quantity. > > > > > > Michael > > > > > > > > /join > > > > > > > > > > > > All paths go somewhere. No path goes nowhere. Paths, places, > > sights, perceptions, and indeed all experiences arise from and > > exist in and subside back into the Space of Awareness. Like waves > > rising are not different than the ocean, all things arising from > > Awareness are of the nature of Awareness. Awareness does not come > > and go but is always Present. It is Home. Home is where the Heart > > Is. Jnanis know the Heart to be the Finality of Eternal Being. A > > true devotee relishes in the Truth of Self-Knowledge, > > spontaneously arising from within into It Self. Welcome all to > > a. > > > > > > > > Your use of is subject to > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 18, 2002 Report Share Posted March 18, 2002 Hi James -- To lose, there has to be someone existing to whom something can be added, and something subtracted. Reality that is unsplit, undivided energy, can't be added to or subtracted from. If I know undivided energy as being, then my knowing and being are the same thing. What need do I now have for a belief, either pro-god, anti-god, or undecided about god? "What is" doesn't depend on my belief for or against something. The realm of beliefs is the realm of configured ideas, which can be debated, one exchanged for another, one modified, and so on. Energy unsplit isn't a realm or belief, it is all that is. There is no debate, nothing to exchange, no agency which will modify "this." The peace that passes understanding isn't derived from speculations about what to believe and what not to believe, although such discussions may well be entertaining. A belief takes time to be applied, and the results of the belief are then assessed. Knowing=being is timeless, there are no results to be assessed, and therefore belief doesn't apply. This is not at all a lose/lose situation. As this transcends loss, it can't be characterized as a win/win situation either. Gain and loss don't pertain. Love, Dan > OK, > without my doing the Math, I wanted to make the point that > proposition 3 > > "if we do not believe in God, and God does not exist, we have neither > gained nor lost; the outcome is 0." ....is questionable. > Belief requires some mental energy and it is associated with > actions. We make up our minds to believe in God, become religious (in > many cases) and attend services. > Now the Atheist, having made up their mind not to believe in God, > participated in "godless" activities... hasn't he gained by expending > his energies appropriately...if indeed proposition (3)"God does not > exist" has any probability? That is, why according to Pascal, > nonbelief is a Lose-Lose proposition = 0. > > just asking, > james > > > > > > , MikeSuesserott@t... wrote: > > Hi James, > > > > sorry, but I am not sure I understand your meaning here. Could you > specify > > which quantity you propose to introduce into Pascal's "calculation"? > > > > Best, > > > > Michael > > > > > > > -----Ursprungliche Nachricht----- > > > Von: d_agenda2000 [d_agenda2000] > > > Gesendet: Saturday, March 16, 2002 00:06 > > > An: > > > Betreff: Re: Blaise Pascal's Bet on God > > > > > > > > > > > > Supposition 3. has obvious deficiencies--- since to hold any > beliefs, > > > i.e., belief in God, the big bang theory or the Trinity, whether > they > > > are true or false requires at least mental energy, re-direction of > > > energy away from belief towards "systems" that have a track > record of > > > benefit is a worthy endeavor. no? > > > > > > be well > > > james > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > , MikeSuesserott@t... wrote: > > > > Many "proofs" for the existence of God were invented during the > > > times of the > > > > Christian scholasticists. One such "proof" was offered by the > famous > > > > mathematician and philosopher, Blaise Pascal (1623-1662). > > > > > > > > Pascal argued that a rational person ought to believe in the > > > existence of > > > > God because of mathematical probability considerations. Though > we > > > may not > > > > know for sure whether God exists, we can consider our belief (or > > > lack of it) > > > > as a bet on God's existence, the outcome of which can be > computed as > > > > follows. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.