# 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:** 6
**Author:** ![abele\_derer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/6bbea6/32.png) [@abele\_derer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/abele_derer)\ **Post date:** [December 3, 2010, 12:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pascals-wager/562323/101 "2010-12-03T00:40:49Z")
Regarding the verse in Psalms: “A wicked man says in his heart: there is no god,” the Hebrew word used is ‘Naval,’ which is equivalent to the word “disgusting.” So, I should have more accurately have translated “A disgusting man says in his heart: there is no god.” ---
**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 3, 2010, 12:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pascals-wager/562323/102 "2010-12-03T00:42:08Z")
> [@abele\_derer](#): > > All the posts have had the same thesis: there is no evidence for religion, not a shred of evidence for religion. Then, you asked me to “bring it on.” > > I am stunned at the close-mindedness! Are we living on the same planet? Do you honestly believe that there isn’t a shred of evidence, for example, for Mormonism?! Of course there is evidence for Mormonism. It is the word of one man: Joseph Smith. Is one man’s word evidence? Of course it is! If I say “I had eggs for breakfast,” you would surely at least suspect that I had eggs for breakfast. So of course it is evidence. > > The issue, however, is that for something as uncommon as miracles people feel entitled to demand stronger evidence than one man’s testimony. And I don’t blame them. But, honestly, how can you claim that there is not a shred of evidence for religion? I am sorry for losing my cool, but I am simply stunned at what I have been reading. Someone needs to look up the definition of “evidence”, it seems. ---
**Author:** ![smileybastard](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b3f665/32.png) [@smileybastard](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/smileybastard)\ **Post date:** [December 3, 2010, 12:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pascals-wager/562323/103 "2010-12-03T00:51:29Z")
> [@abele\_derer](#): > > All the posts have had the same thesis: there is no evidence for religion, not a shred of evidence for religion. Then, you asked me to “bring it on.” > [@abele\_derer](#): > > I am stunned at the close-mindedness! Are we living on the same planet? Do you honestly believe that there isn’t a shred of evidence, for example, for Mormonism?! Of course there is evidence for Mormonism. It is the word of one man: Joseph Smith. Is one man’s word evidence? Of course it is! If I say “I had eggs for breakfast,” you would surely at least suspect that I had eggs for breakfast. So of course it is evidence. I guess you define evidence differently than everyone else. While in the most technical sense you are correct you are simply arguing semantics instead of debating. There is man I once knew who was absolutely certain I was John Lennon. Is that really evidence that John Lennon is alive and in fact I am he? And this man is alive so he is a live witness. As for your eggs. Well I have seen people have eggs for breakfast. In fact I myself have done so, so I realize this is something that does occur. That gives plausibility to your claim. If you said on the other hand you ate T-Rex eggs for breakfast I would not really call it evidence. I know technically it is, but we both know that it would be laughed out of a science review or a court of law. > [@abele\_derer](#): > > The issue, however, is that for something as uncommon as miracles people feel entitled to demand stronger evidence than one man’s testimony. And I don’t blame them. But, honestly, how can you claim that there is not a shred of evidence for religion? I am sorry for losing my cool, but I am simply stunned at what I have been reading. Miracles which you have not demonstrated can be attributed to many things. Some people call the sun rise a miracle and many call the birth of a child a miracle. Even if we could not explain it (say like people 2,000 years ago) it does not become evidence of anything other than a sunrise or child birth. Simply because we don’t know why it happened is not evidence of a deity. ---
**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 3, 2010, 12:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pascals-wager/562323/104 "2010-12-03T00:53:32Z")
**abele derer** I am one person. I have direct personal knowledge of a god that will torture eternally and supremely horribly any person that believe’s in a god. So, according to Pascal’s wager you shouldn’t believe in a god, right? ---
**Author:** ![Thudlow\_Boink](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/thudlow_boink/32/320_2.png) [@Thudlow\_Boink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Thudlow_Boink)\ **Post date:** [December 3, 2010, 1:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pascals-wager/562323/105 "2010-12-03T01:00:40Z")
> [@abele\_derer](#): > > All the posts have had the same thesis: there is no evidence for religion, not a shred of evidence for religion. Then, you asked me to “bring it on.” > > I am stunned at the close-mindedness! Are we living on the same planet? Do you honestly believe that there isn’t a shred of evidence, for example, for Mormonism?! Of course there is evidence for Mormonism. It is the word of one man: Joseph Smith. Is one man’s word evidence? Of course it is! If I say “I had eggs for breakfast,” you would surely at least suspect that I had eggs for breakfast. So of course it is evidence. > > The issue, however, is that for something as uncommon as miracles people feel entitled to demand stronger evidence than one man’s testimony. And I don’t blame them. But, honestly, how can you claim that there is not a shred of evidence for religion? I am sorry for losing my cool, but I am simply stunned at what I have been reading. I’m on your side on this matter. As I said in another [recent thread](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=13168198&postcount=176) [QUOTE=Thudlow Boink] I don’t think it’s accurate to say there’s no evidence for the existence of God (or for many another religious doctrine). I think there’s lots of evidence, but the evidence has more than one possible explanation. (For example, the fact that the world in which we live exists can be taken as evidence that Someone created it; but that’s not the only possible explanation.) [/QUOTE] > [@Czarcasm](#): > > Someone needs to look up the definition of “evidence”, it seems. Okay, good idea. Here’s the [dictionary definition](http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/evidence) I found: > [@](#): > > ev·i·dence > –noun > > 1. that which tends to prove or disprove something; ground for belief; proof. > 2. something that makes plain or clear; an indication or sign: His flushed look was visible evidence of his fever. > 3. Law . data presented to a court or jury in proof of the facts in issue and which may include the testimony of witnesses, records, documents, or objects. Many people have spoken, and many books have been written, about what the speakers take to be grounds for belief in God. Many religious people would be willing to give their testimony of their experience with God. You may well find such evidence unconvincing, but that is not the same as there not being any. When I go beyond the dictionary, and look up “evidence” in more detailed sources such as Wikipedia or the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (whose article is headed with the quotation “And when we try to define ‘evidence’ … we find it very difficult”), it becomes more complex. For those who claim that there is zero evidence for God (or some other religious belief), I would like to know in what sense you are using the word “evidence.” ---
**Author:** ![smileybastard](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b3f665/32.png) [@smileybastard](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/smileybastard)\ **Post date:** [December 3, 2010, 4:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pascals-wager/562323/106 "2010-12-03T04:28:45Z")
> [@Thudlow\_Boink](#): > > Here’s the [dictionary definition](http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/evidence) I found:Many people have spoken, and many books have been written, about what the speakers take to be grounds for belief in God. Many religious people would be willing to give their testimony of their experience with God. You may well find such evidence unconvincing, but that is not the same as there not being any. Many people have many experiences and they interpret them many ways. Much of it is contradictory and it is used to support many things. I could also claim that I look out at the wealth of evidence of ancient creatures and claim it as evidence of no gos, but that is not evidence of it, but merely of ancient creatures. Is astrology evidence? Many believe it is true, does that make it evidence? > [@Thudlow\_Boink](#): > > When I go beyond the dictionary, and look up “evidence” in more detailed sources such as Wikipedia or the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (whose article is headed with the quotation “And when we try to define ‘evidence’ … we find it very difficult”), it becomes more complex. For those who claim that there is zero evidence for God (or some other religious belief), I would like to know in what sense you are using the word “evidence.” Well I for one basically think of evidence in terms of science or a court. Some practical assessment of evidence. If a million people have various dreams and spiritual encounters that I was a person who committed murder it would mean nothing in a court of law, because it is not actual evidence in any real sense. It is interpretations of various events that may or may not have any bearing on the real world. We can say there is some phenomena here but evidence I am a murderer? Hardly. ---
**Author:** ![Musicat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/musicat/32/20189_2.png) [@Musicat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Musicat)\ **Post date:** [December 3, 2010, 5:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pascals-wager/562323/107 "2010-12-03T05:58:06Z")
> [@abele\_derer](#): > > If I say “I had eggs for breakfast,” you would surely at least suspect that I had eggs for breakfast. So of course it is evidence. Eggs exist. People have them for breakfast frequently. Not an extraordinary claim. Boring, even. Now for evidence that a God exists, we need just a tad more substance, ya dig? ---
**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 3, 2010, 6:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pascals-wager/562323/108 "2010-12-03T06:27:32Z")
> [@Thudlow\_Boink](#): > > Here’s the [dictionary definition](http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/evidence) I found:Many people have spoken, and many books have been written, about what the speakers take to be grounds for belief in God. Many religious people would be willing to give their testimony of their experience with God. You may well find such evidence unconvincing, but that is not the same as there not being any. If you were to examine those testimonies, would you say that they are all giving the same description of God? ---
**Author:** ![fuzzypickles](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/9d8465/32.png) [@fuzzypickles](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/fuzzypickles)\ **Post date:** [December 3, 2010, 6:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pascals-wager/562323/109 "2010-12-03T06:49:48Z")
> [@Musicat](#): > > Now for evidence that a God exists, we need just a tad more substance, ya dig? Evidence for God? That’s going to be a problem, since God refuses to provide evidence that He exists. Simply put: Proof denies faith, and without faith, God is nothing. ([Cite.](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dcncPpQ8loA)) ---
**Author:** ![abele\_derer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/6bbea6/32.png) [@abele\_derer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/abele_derer)\ **Post date:** [December 3, 2010, 2:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pascals-wager/562323/110 "2010-12-03T14:21:41Z")
> [@Musicat](#): > > Eggs exist. People have them for breakfast frequently. Not an extraordinary claim. Boring, even. > > Now for evidence that a God exists, we need just a tad more substance, ya dig? Yes, but your argument is horridly circular. You claim “God is extraordinary.” But what makes something inherently “extraordinary,” if not the fact that there is no evidence for the existence of the “thing” under question. However, you can’t use the lack of evidence for a certain “thing” to therefore absolutely discount any new evidence that is presented. Yes, you may claim the evidence is insufficient to convince you. But you simply can’t claim “there is no evidence.” Eyewitness testimony is one of the most common forms of evidence, of course. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [December 3, 2010, 2:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pascals-wager/562323/111 "2010-12-03T14:31:37Z")
> [@abele\_derer](#): > > Yes, but your argument is horridly circular. You claim “God is extraordinary.” But what makes something inherently “extraordinary,” if not the fact that there is no evidence for the existence of the “thing” under question. The fact that the claims made about the thing in question are extreme. That it drastically violates the laws of physics in multiple ways the way God is claimed to, for example. In other words, claiming without providing evidence that I have a brother is not an extraordinary claim. Claiming that my brother can teleport and throw green lightning is an extraordinary claim. ---
**Author:** ![abele\_derer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/6bbea6/32.png) [@abele\_derer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/abele_derer)\ **Post date:** [December 3, 2010, 2:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pascals-wager/562323/112 "2010-12-03T14:40:09Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > The fact that the claims made about the thing in question are extreme. That it drastically violates the laws of physics in multiple ways the way God is claimed to, for example. > > In other words, claiming without providing evidence that I have a brother is not an extraordinary claim. Claiming that my brother can teleport and throw green lightning is an extraordinary claim. Magnets also violate a law of physics: gravity. God is just one of the laws of physics, a force which has free-will to act intelligently. Yes, we need to provide evidence for this new law of physics - God. And, yes, you may demand that I provide strong evidence for this new law. But, you simply can’t claim that any evidence I provide is “ZERO” evidence for this new law of physics. ---
**Author:** ![abele\_derer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/6bbea6/32.png) [@abele\_derer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/abele_derer)\ **Post date:** [December 3, 2010, 2:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pascals-wager/562323/113 "2010-12-03T14:43:40Z")
The main reason I distrust reports of miracles is: 1) The possibility of hallucination; 2) The fact that the reporter may lie in order to achieve fame or fortune; so there is an element of bias. Still, I dare not claim that all reports of miracles are ZERO evidence. (BTW, it is for this very reason that I find the Kuzari argument to be devastatingly compelling, since hallucination and bias are not applicable to the argument). ---
**Author:** ![CurtC](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ce73a5/32.png) [@CurtC](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CurtC)\ **Post date:** [December 3, 2010, 2:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pascals-wager/562323/114 "2010-12-03T14:57:10Z")
> [@abele\_derer](#): > > Curt C: There mere fact that you claimed that there are 1,000 gods (that hate idolatry more than atheism) doesn’t mean that you have 1,000 times more EVIDENCE than does Christianity. Are you serious? Yes, I’m serious. Every one of my gods has just as much evidence as Yahweh/Jesus. That’s because I can make up some stuff about any one of them and write it down on paper, just like people did 2000 years ago. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [December 3, 2010, 2:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pascals-wager/562323/115 "2010-12-03T14:59:56Z")
> [@abele\_derer](#): > > Magnets also violate a law of physics: gravity. That’s not true at all. Magnets don’t violate gravity, they just provide their own pull. If it happens to be stronger, the magnet wins. > [@abele\_derer](#): > > God is just one of the laws of physics, a force which has free-will to act intelligently. That doesn’t make any sense. A force is a simple effect, not a thinking unified being. And even if such a thing was possible it would still be far less powerful that God as typically portrayed. > [@abele\_derer](#): > > Yes, we need to provide evidence for this new law of physics - God. And, yes, you may demand that I provide strong evidence for this new law. But, you simply can’t claim that any evidence I provide is “ZERO” evidence for this new law of physics. Yes, I can claim that. There’s no evidence that such a thing is even possible. Much less true. And no, unsupported claims of impossibilities from people is not evidence. ---
**Author:** ![Ramanujan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/51bf81/32.png) [@Ramanujan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ramanujan)\ **Post date:** [December 3, 2010, 3:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pascals-wager/562323/116 "2010-12-03T15:18:55Z")
> [@abele\_derer](#): > > Yes, but your argument is horridly circular. so is pascal’s. the fact that this has gone from a debate on the validity of his wager to a debate on the validity of one of its premises demonstrates that rather vividly, don’t you think? ---
**Author:** ![abele\_derer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/6bbea6/32.png) [@abele\_derer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/abele_derer)\ **Post date:** [December 3, 2010, 3:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pascals-wager/562323/117 "2010-12-03T15:22:47Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > That’s not true at all. Magnets don’t violate gravity, they just provide their own pull. If it happens to be stronger, the magnet wins. > > That doesn’t make any sense. A force is a simple effect, not a thinking unified being. And even if such a thing was possible it would still be far less powerful that God as typically portrayed. > > Yes, I can claim that. There’s no evidence that such a thing is even possible. Much less true. And no, unsupported claims of impossibilities from people is not evidence. First, of course not all forces of physics are exactly alike. That’s why we have many forces of physics. The one we are providing evidence for - a minute amount of evidence - is one which is an intelligent force of physics. Merely pointing out that it is different to all other forces of physics can equally applied to all the other forces as well. Second, are you really claiming that one man’s testimony is “no evidence.”? Third, if you call reports of miracles to be “claims of impossibilities” you will have to prove that miracles are impossible. At most, all you can claim is that you don’t have ENOUGH evidence FOR miracles. ---
**Author:** ![abele\_derer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/6bbea6/32.png) [@abele\_derer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/abele_derer)\ **Post date:** [December 3, 2010, 3:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pascals-wager/562323/118 "2010-12-03T15:26:09Z")
> [@Ramanujan](#): > > so is pascal’s. the fact that this has gone from a debate on the validity of his wager to a debate on the validity of one of its premises demonstrates that rather vividly, don’t you think? I have yet to see any sort of flaw in Pascal’s Wager that I find even remotely compelling. Ramanujan, what would you claim is the greatest flaw in the wager? ---
**Author:** ![FinnAgain](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/finnagain/32/12500_2.png) [@FinnAgain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FinnAgain)\ **Post date:** [December 3, 2010, 3:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pascals-wager/562323/119 "2010-12-03T15:28:55Z")
Just like the fact that there’s no proof an event actually happened, we don’t have first hand accounts merely someone writing hundreds of years later claiming that there were first hand accounts, and the claims made are falsified by all archeological evidence wasn’t enough of a reason for you to believe that an argument wasn’t “devastatingly compelling”. Pascal’s wager is so full of logical holes that it makes a great sieve: it sifts out True Believers. ---
**Author:** ![abele\_derer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/6bbea6/32.png) [@abele\_derer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/abele_derer)\ **Post date:** [December 3, 2010, 3:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pascals-wager/562323/120 "2010-12-03T15:34:51Z")
Fin: My Kuzari evidence wasn’t from first hand accounts. It was from nationally-commemorated history. Merely claiming that we don’t have a difference form of evidence - first-hand accounts - is as illogical as arguing that sinai didn’t happen since we don’t have video evidence. Regarding your invoking of archeology, archeology can’t prove a negative. Furthermore, most archeologists argue that the sojourn in the desert didn’t take place since “so many people couldn’t have survived in the wilderness.” That’s called a circular argument. Second, archeologists are often biblically ignorant. They claim that they haven’t found a shard of pottery in Kadesh-Barnea. Little to they notice that the major biblical commentators all claim that the Jews were never in Kadesh-Barnea. Sorry for going back to Kuzari. My mistake. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pascals-wager/562323.md?page=5) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pascals-wager/562323.md?page=7)