Comments on: Picking apart Pascal’s Wager – Part 2

By: fabian

fabian — Mon, 28 Sep 2009 09:08:44 +0000

@Windup The argument was merely an example and dosen’t change the flaw of the conclusion made in the reversed wager.

By: WindupHarlequin

WindupHarlequin — Sat, 19 Sep 2009 20:10:51 +0000

Fabian: “If for a moment we took apart the thought experiment and turned it into an argument it could read:

God is an imposter;
Ugg is the only true God;
Ugg is a God;
…Therefore Ugg is an imposter”

You are confusing the use of ‘God’ as a noun referring to the popular Western concept of a god, and ‘God’ as a general classification of omniscient/omnipotent entities. Your argument’s conclusion that ‘Ugg is an imposter’ is invalid, as the original premise was not that all God’s are imposters – merely that the Judao-Christian ‘God’ is, along with every other concept of a God who is not Ugg. Indeed, it is integral to the very argument of Pascal’s Wager that there exists a God who is not an imposter.

By: Fabian

Fabian — Fri, 21 Aug 2009 18:29:55 +0000

There is no such thing as a correct argument.
An argument is either valid or invalid.

If for a moment we took apart the thought experiment and turned it into an argument it could read:

God is an imposter;
Ugg is the only true God;
Ugg is a God;
…Therefore Ugg is an imposter

Focussing on the thought experiment, for this argument to work we must acknowledge Ugg’s existence and discard God as an imposter. In doing this premise 2 and 3 are false premises as they contradict the argument. Which leaves us with 2 premises:

1. If you don’t believe in God and Ugg does exist, then you’ll go to heaven.

4. If you do believe in God and Ugg does exist, then you’ll go to hell.

Premise 4 only really follows from the thought experiment (self-explanatory) in the first place which really only leaves us with premise 1 which is based on the assumption there is a heaven.

Hence the argument is invalid.

Neither of these premises nor does it follow from the argument that atheists come out the best. In fact the conclusion merely contradicts any form of atheism as worshipping Ugg would be required to enter ‘heaven’. An atheist would cease to be an atheist.

Fabian

By: Alex

Alex — Thu, 20 Aug 2009 17:46:23 +0000

@Fabian

His argument is actually correct, given that God and Ugg are two different gods. Ugg is the One True God, and God as stated is an impostor god.

Read it carefully.

Alex

By: Fabian

Fabian — Thu, 20 Aug 2009 13:44:13 +0000

Your argument is flawed in that it misrepresents Ugg as being different while simultaneously claiming Ugg to be a God

If Ugg is the only one true God.
Ugg is (a) God.

Your argument can then only read:

1. If you don’t believe in God and God does exist, then you’ll go to heaven.
2. If you don’t believe in God and God doesn’t exist, then you have lived a good life.
3. If you do believe in God and God doesn’t exist, then you have lived under unnecessary restrictions, and wasted the time, effort and lives of yourself and others.
4. If you do believe in God and God does exist, then you’ll go to hell.

Both argument and conclusion are intrinisically flawed.
You condradict yourself further by stating ‘atheists will come out best’ when the existence of Ugg/God requires worship. That or you are confusing your terminology of atheist with a person who is capable of worshipping/believing in a God/Ugg.

Fabian