A Conversation for Pascal's Wager
Logic is as logic does
WiLL Started conversation Jul 29, 2000
I'm not sure how long you studied logic, but your flow misses several very important points (as well as about thirty teeny little ones). I myself have not studied Socratian logic long, but even the untrained eye sees a few problems. Even if: then: statements don't solve the problem. Uncertainty begins after all of the assumptions are made.
[assume omnipotence of (if existing) God]
[assume existance of an individuals' eternal soul]
[assume that there is only one God]
1. One does not know if God exists.
2. If he does, then disbelief is bad for your (assumed existing) eternal soul
2a. If someting "bad" happens to your eternal soul, and if you are not forgiven, you are damned.
2b. If something "bad" happens to your eternal soul, and you are forgiven, you are saved.
3. If he does not exist, your (assumed existing) eternal soul is inconcequential.
As you see, we stop all true continuation of logic at 1.
Your logic (and mine) is based on assumptions too numerous to mention. It also does not follow a truly "logical" pattern, or even a crudely constructed flowchart.
Matters of faith cannot be rationalized. If it could, religion would have become universal (so to speak) or completely stamped out.
Logic and mathematics cannot explain all of the mysteries of the universe. If it did, quantum theorey (for example) would be a lot simpler. Evolution (for another example) would have all of its missing links.
Some matters of faith are only that: faith.
Logic is as logic does
Martin Harper Posted Aug 22, 2000
> "[assume that there is only one God]"
I believe I pointed that out when I mentioned the "avoiding the wrong hell" problem.
> "[assume omnipotence of (if existing) God]"
That assumption is never made - a god can be bad for you without being omnipotent.
> "[assume existance of an individuals' eternal soul]"
You are correct here - I should reformulate statement/assumption (2) to read "believing in God is bad for one, if God exists". I'll go away and fix it. That way no assumption as to the existance or otherwise of eternal souls is made.
There are many, many problems with Pascal's Wager as a reason to believe in God, I have mentioned a few... 
> "Matters of faith cannot be rationalized. If it could, religion would have become universal (so to speak) or completely stamped out."
Well, it would if people were completely rational, but we both know this is far from the truth.
> "Logic and mathematics cannot explain all of the mysteries of the universe."
Or, indeed, any of them. Science, on the other hand...
Logic is as logic does
WiLL Posted Aug 30, 2000
Hah! Science has yet to explain most of the mysteries of nature except at the most basic levels. We have only discovered enough about our own universe to realize that we are barely beginning to scratch the surface.
But that is another debate for another time...
Logic is as logic does
Martin Harper Posted Aug 31, 2000
Science *has* not - but I didn't say it had. Just that it could...
Logic is as logic does
Martin Harper Posted Sep 20, 2000
Hi WiLL - just thought I'd ping this conversation to put it at the top of your list again... I've made quite a few changes to the layout of this entry - focusing more on the assumptions behind the logic than the logic itself... I was wondering, as someone who'd seen it both before and after, what you thought...
Key: Complain about this post
Logic is as logic does
More Conversations for Pascal's Wager
Write an Entry
"The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy is a wholly remarkable book. It has been compiled and recompiled many times and under many different editorships. It contains contributions from countless numbers of travellers and researchers."