# Pascal's Wager **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [November 29, 2010, 8:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pascals-wager/562323 "2010-11-29T20:50:21Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 11
**Author:** ![CurtC](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ce73a5/32.png) [@CurtC](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CurtC)\ **Post date:** [December 7, 2010, 10:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pascals-wager/562323/201 "2010-12-07T22:09:48Z")
> [@abele\_derer](#): > > Is there zero evidence for mormonism, for example? I can’t imagine how you can take such a position. Joseph Smith’s tesimony is evidence. Yes, it is fallible. Yes, the odds of him being a liar are high. But to say that his testimony, one man’s testimony, is ZERO evidence? That is simply not true. I told you before that I made up 1000 gods who wouldn’t tolerate your worshiping Yahweh. You responded that there was zero evidence for these gods. So my question is, which way do you want it to be? Is Joseph Smith’s testimony considered “evidence”? If so, then you have to accept mine. If mine isn’t evidence, you can’t count Joseph Smith’s, or anyone else’s. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [December 7, 2010, 10:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pascals-wager/562323/202 "2010-12-07T22:24:37Z")
> [@Fantome](#): > > Can you just answer his questions instead of dragging this out so he can ask you again? Do you really not get his point? I’m not saying it’s a good one, but actually responding to it instead of focusing on one part of it would help. I’m bring this up because I’ve witnessed you do this sort of thing repeatedly lately. > > In case you’re not sure, he’s asking you why you accept certain scientific facts as facts even though you haven’t done experiments to provide evidence that these facts are indeed facts and you accept that the scientific community isn’t pulling the wool over your eyes for things he’s assuming you accept as true whether it be the existence of black holes or some other thing you accept based solely on what the scientific community tells you is true. Sorry for the run on sentence. 😃 What I accept is neither here nor there. The point is that the actual evidence for black holes is not testimonial. I personally don’t have anything to do with it, so it’s not relevant whether I personally can replicate the research. The scientific community does not regard nmere claims as scientific evidence, and testimony is not part of the actual evidence for black holes. Yes, I have some trust in the scientific process and in peer review (though not a religous faith). There is no such comparable process for religious claims. ---
**Author:** ![Fantome](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/e9c0ed/32.png) [@Fantome](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fantome)\ **Post date:** [December 7, 2010, 10:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pascals-wager/562323/203 "2010-12-07T22:34:43Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > What I accept is neither here nor there. The point is that the actual evidence for black holes is not testimonial. I personally don’t have anything to do with it, so it’s not relevant whether I personally can replicate the research. The scientific community does not regard nmere claims as scientific evidence, and testimony is not part of the actual evidence for black holes. > > Yes, I have some trust in the scientific process and in peer review (though not a religous faith). There is no such comparable process for religious claims. You told **abele derer** that testimony does not count as evidence. He wants to know why you accept the testimony of the scientific community regarding things which your only evidence is their testimony, e.g., black holes. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [December 7, 2010, 10:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pascals-wager/562323/204 "2010-12-07T22:37:25Z")
> [@Fantome](#): > > You told **abele derer** that testimony does not count as evidence. He wants to know why you accept the testimony of the scientific community regarding things which your only evidence is their testimony, e.g., black holes. And it has been explained that it is not their _testimony_ that is being accepted-it is their _research_, that has been verified by others, that has been accepted. ---
**Author:** ![Fantome](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/e9c0ed/32.png) [@Fantome](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fantome)\ **Post date:** [December 7, 2010, 10:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pascals-wager/562323/205 "2010-12-07T22:43:21Z")
> [@CurtC](#): > > I told you before that I made up 1000 gods who wouldn’t tolerate your worshiping Yahweh. You responded that there was zero evidence for these gods. > > So my question is, which way do you want it to be? Is Joseph Smith’s testimony considered “evidence”? If so, then you have to accept mine. If mine isn’t evidence, you can’t count Joseph Smith’s, or anyone else’s. See the first paragraph of post #183. > [@Czarcasm](#): > > And it has been explained that it is not their _testimony_ that is being accepted-it is their _research_, that has been verified by others, that has been accepted. I’ll quote what **abele derer** ’s response to **Dio** was with the questions he wants him to answer: > [@](#): > > 1. Diogenes: Scientific evidence is based on testimonial evidence as well. For example, unless you yourself have done scientific experiments, how do you know that evolution or black holes, for example, are real facts? Yes, scientific experiments were supposedly done to prove those things. But how do you know that the entire scientific world hasn’t been lying to us about those experiments? Because we have testimonial evidence (we don’t assume that people always lie) that there is scientific evidence for black holes. So, of course, I agree with your point that testimonial evidence may be weak; and weak evidence for something as absurd as angels and gods is weak. Still, it is evidence. If not, then we have no evidence for anything at all. ---
**Author:** ![fuzzypickles](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/9d8465/32.png) [@fuzzypickles](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/fuzzypickles)\ **Post date:** [December 8, 2010, 1:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pascals-wager/562323/206 "2010-12-08T01:31:15Z")
> [@abele\_derer](#): > > 1. **The fact that there is zero evidence for the truth of any of the religions**. Here, I agree that if there was zero evidence for the truth of any of the religions, then the Wager doesn’t make sense. However, Mr. Skeptic, are you really sure that there is zero evidence for religion? Oh, there’s plenty of evidence for God. Problem is, 99.999% of this evidence is entirely _subjective_ evidence. That’s not science. That’s like claiming green is a prettier color than blue, just because you feel that way. > [@abele\_derer](#): > > …if you were merely 99% sure that Christianity is false, would you go to church? I stopped going to church once I was no longer 100% certain that Jesus Christ existed. FTR, I fully expected to return to the flock, once my “prodigal son” period ended. It didn’t work out that way – instead, to my shock and disappointment, I discovered that everything I’d been told about Jesus Christ during my entire childhood was, in fact, a lie. It wasn’t the last time that happened, either. > [@Marley23](#): > > I’m perfectly chill. I’m just giving you an official warning. If I weren’t chill I could have warned you repeatedly or banned you during the Kuzari discussion, when you did this over and over again. If you don’t do this anymore, you’ll be fine. /highfive **Marley** 😃 ---
**Author:** ![Princhester](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3e96dc/32.png) [@Princhester](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Princhester)\ **Post date:** [December 8, 2010, 1:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pascals-wager/562323/207 "2010-12-08T01:52:03Z")
It amazes me the way you atheists (of which I am one, I should add) permit yourselves to be hijacked by this thing about there being “no evidence” for any gods. There is truckloads of completely subjective, contradictory, unreliable, unrepeatable evidence for gods. By all means assert that there is no objective evidence for any gods, there is no scientific evidence for any gods, there is (in short) no convincing evidence for any gods and I will be right there asserting with you. But getting hung up in a silly argument as a consequence of a pig headed insistence on asserting that there is _no_ evidence without qualifying precisely what you mean by “evidence” is just making yourselves your own worst enemies in the debate. ---
**Author:** ![smileybastard](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b3f665/32.png) [@smileybastard](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/smileybastard)\ **Post date:** [December 8, 2010, 2:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pascals-wager/562323/208 "2010-12-08T02:00:23Z")
> [@Princhester](#): > > It amazes me the way you atheists (of which I am one, I should add) permit yourselves to be hijacked by this thing about there being “no evidence” for any gods. > > There is truckloads of completely subjective, contradictory, unreliable, unrepeatable evidence for gods. > > By all means assert that there is no objective evidence for any gods, there is no scientific evidence for any gods, there is (in short) no convincing evidence for any gods and I will be right there asserting with you. > > But getting hung up in a silly argument as a consequence of a pig headed insistence on asserting that there is _no_ evidence without qualifying precisely what you mean by “evidence” is just making yourselves your own worst enemies in the debate. Good point. ---
**Author:** ![Snarky\_Kong](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a183cd/32.png) [@Snarky\_Kong](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snarky_Kong)\ **Post date:** [December 8, 2010, 3:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pascals-wager/562323/209 "2010-12-08T03:14:07Z")
> [@Princhester](#): > > It amazes me the way you atheists (of which I am one, I should add) permit yourselves to be hijacked by this thing about there being “no evidence” for any gods. > > There is truckloads of completely subjective, contradictory, unreliable, unrepeatable evidence for gods. > > By all means assert that there is no objective evidence for any gods, there is no scientific evidence for any gods, there is (in short) no convincing evidence for any gods and I will be right there asserting with you. > > But getting hung up in a silly argument as a consequence of a pig headed insistence on asserting that there is _no_ evidence without qualifying precisely what you mean by “evidence” is just making yourselves your own worst enemies in the debate. No it’s not. Because, as has been pointed out, even if completely subjective and unreliable evidence is acceptable, there is that exact same evidence for gods that negate the wager. It’s broken anyway you want to look at it. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [December 8, 2010, 3:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pascals-wager/562323/210 "2010-12-08T03:16:33Z")
Well, at least we don’t have a six page thread about the quinquae viae. ---
**Author:** ![Princhester](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3e96dc/32.png) [@Princhester](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Princhester)\ **Post date:** [December 8, 2010, 3:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pascals-wager/562323/211 "2010-12-08T03:58:44Z")
> [@Snarky\_Kong](#): > > No it’s not. Because, as has been pointed out, even if completely subjective and unreliable evidence is acceptable, there is that exact same evidence for gods that negate the wager. > > It’s broken anyway you want to look at it. You say the wager is broken either way but conclude that getting hung up in a silly argument as a consequence of a pig headed insistence on asserting that there is no evidence without qualifying precisely what you mean by “evidence” _isn’t_ just making yourselves your own worst enemies in the debate? I’m confused. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [December 8, 2010, 4:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pascals-wager/562323/212 "2010-12-08T04:13:17Z")
> [@Fantome](#): > > You told **abele derer** that testimony does not count as evidence. He wants to know why you accept the testimony of the scientific community regarding things which your only evidence is their testimony, e.g., black holes. The scientific community does not give testimony, it tests evidence. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [December 8, 2010, 4:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pascals-wager/562323/213 "2010-12-08T04:14:42Z")
> [@Princhester](#): > > There is truckloads of completely subjective, contradictory, unreliable, unrepeatable evidence for gods. I disagree that we even have this. ---
**Author:** ![smileybastard](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b3f665/32.png) [@smileybastard](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/smileybastard)\ **Post date:** [December 8, 2010, 4:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pascals-wager/562323/214 "2010-12-08T04:19:25Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > I disagree that we even have this. Oh we have that for sure. All it takes is for someone to feel the presence that they take to be their god or an angel etc. ---
**Author:** ![Fantome](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/e9c0ed/32.png) [@Fantome](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fantome)\ **Post date:** [December 8, 2010, 4:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pascals-wager/562323/215 "2010-12-08T04:24:24Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > The scientific community does not give testimony, it tests evidence. Why not stop pretending that answers the questions **abele derer** asked you that I re-posted for you and answer the questions directly? ---
**Author:** ![Princhester](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3e96dc/32.png) [@Princhester](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Princhester)\ **Post date:** [December 8, 2010, 4:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pascals-wager/562323/216 "2010-12-08T04:54:00Z")
> [@smileybastard](#): > > Oh we have that for sure. All it takes is for someone to feel the presence that they take to be their god or an angel etc. Exactly. > [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > I disagree that we even have this. I’m sorry, there is nothing more I can do to help you. ---
**Author:** ![fuzzypickles](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/9d8465/32.png) [@fuzzypickles](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/fuzzypickles)\ **Post date:** [December 8, 2010, 5:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pascals-wager/562323/217 "2010-12-08T05:46:05Z")
> [@smileybastard](#): > > Oh we have that for sure. All it takes is for someone to feel the presence that they take to be their god or an angel etc. I’ve felt the presence of God, many times. Most often, it’s just before the drugs wear off. That’s not off topic, either – many religious rituals involve the use of mind-altering chemicals, including Catholic communion. > [@Princhester](#): > > > [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > > > I disagree that we even have this. > > I’m sorry, there is nothing more I can do to help you. Welcome to Enlightenment, my brother. 🆒 ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [December 8, 2010, 7:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pascals-wager/562323/218 "2010-12-08T07:57:44Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > I > The evidence for black holes is not testimonial. The research and evidence is all available for peer review, critique and replication. Nothing in science relies on taking anybody’s word for anything. Reproducibility is far more important than peer review, which is a coarse filter, more or less coarse depending on the quality of the journal and how many pages they have to fill. I’ve read thousands of reviews, and I can tell you stories … ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [December 8, 2010, 3:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pascals-wager/562323/219 "2010-12-08T15:47:23Z")
> [@Princhester](#): > > I’m sorry, there is nothing more I can do to help you. Help me with what? The kind of thing you were referring to is not scientific evidence. It can’t even be fairly characterized as “bad evidence.” It’s _no_ evidence. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [December 8, 2010, 3:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pascals-wager/562323/220 "2010-12-08T15:49:32Z")
> [@Fantome](#): > > Why not stop pretending that answers the questions **abele derer** asked you that I re-posted for you and answer the questions directly? The question misstates the issue. The evidence for black holes is not merely “testimonial.” The question is based on a false assumption. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pascals-wager/562323.md?page=10) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pascals-wager/562323.md?page=12)