A Refutation of Pascal's Wager

[fiat_knox]

Pascal's Wager is supposedly a claim laid by some people that, towards the end of his life, Blaise Pascal converted to Christianity, and applied spurious logic thus:

Either God exists or he doesn't. Now you can choose to believe that he exists or that he does not.

Assuming that God exists, and you believe in him, you will go to Heaven when you die. Assuming that God exists and you do not believe in him, you will go to Hell when you die. So by believing in God, you are hedging your bets.

Something like that. This spurious logic does not address the question of what happens if you believe in God and God does not exist; or what if you did not believe in God, and God's non-existence vindicated this position.

Hence my refutation of the argument posited above.

Just follow the logic through. Assertions come first, followed by conditional statements. As a result of the conditions in the statements being proven one way or the other, some of the assertions may be made false or irrelevant.

1. We (human beings) exist.
2. God exists.
3. God does not exist.
4. Humans die.
5. God created us as an act of Divine Will.
6. We came into being through some impersonal agency intrinsic to the universe.
7. The afterlife exists as a place of joy, and it lasts forever.
8. Hell exists as a place of suffering, and it lasts forever.
9. After we die, our conscious beings go to the afterlife and experience joy forever.
10. After we die, our conscious beings go to Hell and suffer forever.
11. After we die, our conscious beings cease and life is extinct. Our bodies decay and the matter of which our bodies are made returns to various geological cycles, until the Sun dies and the Earth itself becomes extinct.
12. God will send your conscious being to the afterlife as an act of Divine Will.
13. God will send your conscious being to Hell as an act of Divine Will.

14. 12 and 13 are mutually exclusive: if 12 is true, then 13 is false. If 13 is true, then 12 is false.
15. Only through believing in 2 without proof, by being grateful to God for the gift of life, and by accepting the Church as your intercessor and accepting the life’s purpose the Church assigns you (namely your obligation to worship and pay the Church money throughout your life), will 12 be true; otherwise, 13 will be true.
16. The Church holds the key to the Divine Will.

17. 2 and 3 are mutually exclusive: if 2 is true, then 3 is false; if 3 is true, then 2 is false.
18. 5 is true if and only if 2 is true.
19. 6 is true if 3 is true.
20. 5 and 6 are mutually exclusive and dependent; and one or the other is true depending upon whether 2 or 3 are true respectively.
21. 7, 8, 9 and 10 are true if and only if 2 is true.
22. 12 through 16 are relevant (and true) if and only if 2 is true.

23. 1 is true whether or not 5 is true or 6 is true.
24. 4 is true whether or not 5 is true or 6 is true.
25. 1 and 4 are true whether or not 2 or 3 are true.
26. 1 and 4 are true whether or not 6 and 11 are true.
27. 11 is true if 3, 4 and 6 are true.
28. If 11 is true, then 2 is irrelevant.
29. If 2 is irrelevant, then 5, 7 through 10 and 12 through 16 are not only false, but irrelevant.

30. Proof of 4 and 11 can be found in any mortuary, cemetery and battlefield.
31. Therefore 2 is false, and all assertions dependent upon 2 are either false or irrelevant.

QED.

Please. Poke holes in my logic. Unlike some religions, my words are up for debate.

ETA: Edited to correct the numbering of the items.

ETA: Finally located that damned book I have been hunting down to confirm the thing. It is, in fact, Pascal's Wager. Now corrected throughout this post.

But the logic still stands, until a better mind than mine can come up with something better. Or at least more interesting.

Comments

[johncoxon.livejournal.com]

I'm sorry, but where did the '2 is false' actually come from? I've read through, and I agree with everything up until that, rather overbearing statement. You have proven that 2 is irrelevant multiple times, but none of those statements say 'if x is true/false, then 2 is false' so you haven't done anything to prove 2 untrue.

Secondly, this is not a refutation of Laplace's Wager. He is still correct in that if you choose to believe in God and there is a God, you will go to Heaven, and since you have proven the existence of God is irrelevant, that means that your belief in the non-existence of God is also irrelevant, and if it's irrelevant, that means that it's more logical to hold belief in the existence of God, since that gives you a statistically higher chance of entering Heaven, if it does exist.

(Besides, psychological studies have shown that being religious and believing in an afterlife makes people happier and likely to live longer, so scientifically speaking, a belief in God is more rational than a belief in no God, even if you would be coming at it from an extremely cynical POV!)

[innocent-man.livejournal.com]

(Besides, psychological studies have shown that being religious and believing in an afterlife makes people happier and likely to live longer, so scientifically speaking, a belief in God is more rational than a belief in no God, even if you would be coming at it from an extremely cynical POV!),

Citation needed.

[johncoxon.livejournal.com]

I've read it a couple of times, but one of the places a quick Google turned up was this link (http://www.newscientist.com/channel/being-human/mg18925361.100) (you may need a subscription to see the story).

[cdave]

Working backwards.

34 depends on 33
33 asserts 4 and depends 11 being true, hence on 30
30 depends on 3, 4 and 6
but 33 asserts 4 is true
also, by 21 if 4 is true 6 is true
therefore
30 depends only on 3
but 19 asserts that 3 and 2 are mutually exclusive.
30 depends on 2 being false
33 depends on 2 being false
34 depends on 2 being false

Which is what 34 is stating.

Looks like circular reasoning from here.

Re: "spurious logic"
It makes sense to me.

Belief + God = Heaven
No Belief + God = Hell
Belief + No God = No Afterlife
No Belief + No God = No Afterlife

Given that you cannot control the existence or otherwise of God, your only choices are to believe or not.

Belief = Heaven or No Afterlife
No Belief = Hell or No Afterlife

Belief or No Belief

[fiat-knox.livejournal.com]

Either way, Heaven becomes no more than a 25% probability, Hell no more than a 25% probability, and non-existence and the return to the carbon cycle much more likely than either, or equal in probability to the likelihood of both afterlives' probabilities combined.

Either way, bet on the swiftest horse.

Re: Belief or No Belief

[johncoxon.livejournal.com]

Yes, but this is not logical, since the return to the carbon cycle happens 100% of the time, not 50%, thus making your assertion that it is 'equal in probability to the likelihood of both afterlives' probabilities combined' blatantly illogical and untrue.

Re: Belief or No Belief

[cdave]

Now you're asserting that all 4 options are equally likely, without any basis.

So let's take that as given.

But you're not looking at the risk to reward benefits, which is odd for a betting man.

[cdave]

This worked before the renumbering.

Renumbering

[fiat-knox.livejournal.com]

Sorry for the crap original numbering. Caffeine deficiency and two hours' sleep will do that to the concentration.

[johncoxon.livejournal.com]

Yes, I agree with this.

[cdave]

That said, I'm only arguing a counter point to the original post.
Sharply honed by this debate on the Join Me forums.

(Join us!)

My actual view point is that God, as defined, can neither be proved nor disproved, so the whole thing is irrelevant. Atheists, and Theists are wrong. Long live the Agnostics.

[johncoxon.livejournal.com]

I am aware that I cannot prove or disprove the existence of anything like the God that is claimed by Christianity, and I am aware that such a belief is thoroughly illogical. I hold that belief regardless of the irrationality of the belief and wish atheists were similarly self-aware when it came to admitting their viewpoints are irrational!

[cdave]

Good for you. I don't have a problem with believers at all.

I agree with your sentiments about atheists.

[innocent-man.livejournal.com]

Look! There's a purple unicorn behind you!

You can't disprove it. Oh, sure, you can't see it, but that's because it's invisible. Also, you can't feel it, because it's too quick for you. You can't hear it because its special fur muffles all sound it makes.

You can't prove it doesn't exist, therefore it not existing is exactly as rational as it existing.

Can you see what a total load of BS that is? If so, then you understand a smidgen of the frustration that I (and other atheists, I'm sure) feel when you make statements like the above.

[johncoxon.livejournal.com]

Show me an experiment that disproves the existence of God, and I'll believe you, old chap. I'm a scientist, and I don't make overbearing assumptions about life without evidence to back them up. If you can't handle your irrationality, that's your lookout - I am perfectly at home with mine. :)

[innocent-man.livejournal.com]

If you're a scientist, you should know that it's the person who makes the assertion that bears the burden of proof. I'm not making an assertion. The person who says "God exists" is, and it is then up to them to prove it.

[johncoxon.livejournal.com]

It is usually people who want to prove to me that I am wrong who start conversations on the subject (for instance, this LJ entry) and it is usually them who can't prove to me that I am wrong. I am irrational - I know this. I cannot prove that God exists, and thus a belief that he does is deeply illogical. But your beliefs are equally illogical, and because neither of us will ever convince the other that he is right (this being the nature of belief) this conversation is absolutely pointless. It will be the next time you have it with a theist, and the time after that, and the time after that. Just what are you trying to achieve by picking fights that you have no chance of winning?

Oh, and re:the icon - citation needed. :)

[mayphoenix.livejournal.com]

Whenever someone says, "You don't believe in God? You're going to HELL!" I respond, "Only someone who BELIEVES in God can go to a place CREATED by God. Because I don't believe in God, how can I go to a place I don't believe exists?" After all, how could you drive a car if no one invented the wheel?

I don't know why but I find it sad that someone would convert to Christianity on their death bed, especially after years of speaking out against the Church or religion in general. It's almost as if he negated everything he ever preached, because in the 11th hour he doubted himself. And that's the kicker, isn't it? Religion and Faith are two very separate creatures. Everyone has faith in SOMEthing, whether it's himself or an image of some supreme being. Religion is man-made, along with all the rituals and rules that come with the individual club.

Bottom line, there's no guarantees, no promises, no pot of gold at the end of the rainbow if you're a good boy and brush your teeth every day. You can get on a plane tomorrow and it can crash into a building. Did GOD just punish you for doing something wrong? Because you MUST have done something bad to die so horribly! Yeah, right. It's all BULLSHIT. Just a tool to keep people paranoid, afraid. To control the masses.

And I'm sorry, but I have a problem with a Church that tells people they can't practice birth control so the country gets overpopulated and kids are starving to death in the streets...and yet, ONE FUCKING RUBY from that pointy hat on the leader's head could buy enough food to feed HUNDREDS of nations.

As the icon says, BELIEVE IN YOURSELF. Nothing else is certain outside of your own existence because the universe is constantly changing. People make unpredictable choices that change the world in a myriad of ways every day and eventually affect everyone else (the ripples in the pond) which causes everyone to react and adjust accordingly. But you never know what's going to happen or how you'll be affected until it reaches you and YOU have to make a decision. That's just how it works.