Does anybody seriously believe the Pascal's Wager argument?

[Athanasius]

You seem to have missed the point of enquiry.

It's the absence of any satisfactory answers so far that persuade me not to return to Christianity. It's for the evangelist to suggest a convincing one.

And you've missed the point of my rhetoric, which suggests that your response to the missionary would be disingenuous. No one is going to convince you on your behalf. You can make demands for other people to play along (as is popular these days), but you'll always know, deep inside, what you really think and believe.

[Oscar_Kipling]

If an evangelist said to me "If I answer all your questions, will you become a Christian?", my reply would be "It depends what your answers are."

... which would be an entirely appropriate response. If you receive satisfactory answers you consider what is being offered more carefully and maybe change your thinking and your life accordingly. But if you make it clear that giving complete answers to all of your questions will just result in ever-more questions, what's the point of asking and answering the questions?

To see what happens.

There's nothing to see. If you're asking a bunch of questions having already decided you won't accept the answers it's just a waste of everybody's time. If wasting time is your goal then it might be a successful endeavor. If drawing someone into an endlessly pointless argument is the goal it might be a successful endeavor. Aside from that it's a waste of your time and theirs.

I suppose you're probably right. I personally am fascinated by what happens when an unstoppable force meets an immovable object, but you're right that most of the time absolutely nothing happens....sometimes though you learn stuff about the nature of unstoppable forces and immovable objects, sometimes you find that one or neither is unstoppable or immovable...but yeah most of the time its all sound and fury yada yada. Anyway i'll leave you alone about this.

[tango]

If an evangelist said to me "If I answer all your questions, will you become a Christian?", my reply would be "It depends what your answers are."

... which would be an entirely appropriate response. If you receive satisfactory answers you consider what is being offered more carefully and maybe change your thinking and your life accordingly. But if you make it clear that giving complete answers to all of your questions will just result in ever-more questions, what's the point of asking and answering the questions?

To see what happens.

There's nothing to see. If you're asking a bunch of questions having already decided you won't accept the answers it's just a waste of everybody's time. If wasting time is your goal then it might be a successful endeavor. If drawing someone into an endlessly pointless argument is the goal it might be a successful endeavor. Aside from that it's a waste of your time and theirs.

I suppose you're probably right. I personally am fascinated by what happens when an unstoppable force meets an immovable object, but you're right that most of the time absolutely nothing happens....sometimes though you learn stuff about the nature of unstoppable forces and immovable objects, sometimes you find that one or neither is unstoppable or immovable...but yeah most of the time its all sound and fury yada yada. Anyway i'll leave you alone about this.

It's often interesting to talk to other people with different viewpoints and opinions, whatever the subject matter, to get a better handle on what other viewpoints are out there and what supports them. It's not necessarily a bad thing to have such discussions - if anything I often find it's more interesting to talk with someone who has a different viewpoint because it challenges me to consider what flaws might exist in my own viewpoints. That said talking with someone else to understand what they believe and why is a very different beast to inviting them to convince you to change knowing all along that nothing they could possibly say will convince you to change.

If I invited you to come and visit me to see my pet unicorn, allowed you to see and pet the unicorn, verify the horn was real and the like, all as a way of convincing you that unicorns were real, and then you came and experienced that unicorns are real but still went away insistent that they were not, people might wonder why you bothered visiting in the first place. (Rhetorical situation obviously, since I don't actually have a pet unicorn but, you know...)

[Oscar_Kipling]

If an evangelist said to me "If I answer all your questions, will you become a Christian?", my reply would be "It depends what your answers are."

... which would be an entirely appropriate response. If you receive satisfactory answers you consider what is being offered more carefully and maybe change your thinking and your life accordingly. But if you make it clear that giving complete answers to all of your questions will just result in ever-more questions, what's the point of asking and answering the questions?

To see what happens.

There's nothing to see. If you're asking a bunch of questions having already decided you won't accept the answers it's just a waste of everybody's time. If wasting time is your goal then it might be a successful endeavor. If drawing someone into an endlessly pointless argument is the goal it might be a successful endeavor. Aside from that it's a waste of your time and theirs.

I suppose you're probably right. I personally am fascinated by what happens when an unstoppable force meets an immovable object, but you're right that most of the time absolutely nothing happens....sometimes though you learn stuff about the nature of unstoppable forces and immovable objects, sometimes you find that one or neither is unstoppable or immovable...but yeah most of the time its all sound and fury yada yada. Anyway i'll leave you alone about this.

It's often interesting to talk to other people with different viewpoints and opinions, whatever the subject matter, to get a better handle on what other viewpoints are out there and what supports them. It's not necessarily a bad thing to have such discussions - if anything I often find it's more interesting to talk with someone who has a different viewpoint because it challenges me to consider what flaws might exist in my own viewpoints. That said talking with someone else to understand what they believe and why is a very different beast to inviting them to convince you to change knowing all along that nothing they could possibly say will convince you to change.

If I invited you to come and visit me to see my pet unicorn, allowed you to see and pet the unicorn, verify the horn was real and the like, all as a way of convincing you that unicorns were real, and then you came and experienced that unicorns are real but still went away insistent that they were not, people might wonder why you bothered visiting in the first place. (Rhetorical situation obviously, since I don't actually have a pet unicorn but, you know...)

Sweet I guess we're still talking about this..i'm down. I think my main issue is in the idea that I could approach anything with the intent of not being convinced and then be successful in that intention no matter what happens. Look if you let me take the unicorn and run the tests of my choosing I'd be happy to share the international biology prize with you. I think the disconnect between some Christians and folks of my persuasion is that you think you have a unicorn, you think you've given me the years and years of diligent scientific research and verification that it would take a team of good scientists to say that this is a new species of horned horses, and so when I'm like "meh" you believe that I've come to this thing with a hardened heart and blinded eyes and salted tongue and ears full of bees. Consider that maybe at best what you have is drawing of a unicorn and a claim that you have the unicorn pictured and you refuse any sort of tests because the unicorn is magic and gene sequencing wouldn't work on it, and I cannot see the unicorn unless I believe the unicorn is a unicorn,  but you'll give me a book attesting to all the past magical and awesome feats of the unicorn, and you'll bring unicorn believers to give testimonials about how the unicorn came to them in a dream and healed their diabetes or whatever and you'll argue that if there wasn't a unicorn then where do rainbows come from!...then i'm like "bruh, you ain't got no unicorn" and then you go on to berate me about not coming at it with an open heart and ears and mind and whatnot. There isn't any realistic way in which God is like you having a unicorn, You do not have God in a stable somewhere, he kinda does his own thing, you cannot show me him, you cannot let me brush his hair at your whim, you cannot take me to feed him grains...nothing so tangible as any of that, but still even though you can't and you know you can't, there are bible verses about why you can't and shouldn't even try, for some reason it adds up to you that some folks are not convinced by whatever is left when you take away pretty much anything tangible, through strength of will alone because they don't want to accept all of this intangible evidence....seems sus to me.

[tango]

If an evangelist said to me "If I answer all your questions, will you become a Christian?", my reply would be "It depends what your answers are."

... which would be an entirely appropriate response. If you receive satisfactory answers you consider what is being offered more carefully and maybe change your thinking and your life accordingly. But if you make it clear that giving complete answers to all of your questions will just result in ever-more questions, what's the point of asking and answering the questions?

To see what happens.

There's nothing to see. If you're asking a bunch of questions having already decided you won't accept the answers it's just a waste of everybody's time. If wasting time is your goal then it might be a successful endeavor. If drawing someone into an endlessly pointless argument is the goal it might be a successful endeavor. Aside from that it's a waste of your time and theirs.

I suppose you're probably right. I personally am fascinated by what happens when an unstoppable force meets an immovable object, but you're right that most of the time absolutely nothing happens....sometimes though you learn stuff about the nature of unstoppable forces and immovable objects, sometimes you find that one or neither is unstoppable or immovable...but yeah most of the time its all sound and fury yada yada. Anyway i'll leave you alone about this.

It's often interesting to talk to other people with different viewpoints and opinions, whatever the subject matter, to get a better handle on what other viewpoints are out there and what supports them. It's not necessarily a bad thing to have such discussions - if anything I often find it's more interesting to talk with someone who has a different viewpoint because it challenges me to consider what flaws might exist in my own viewpoints. That said talking with someone else to understand what they believe and why is a very different beast to inviting them to convince you to change knowing all along that nothing they could possibly say will convince you to change.

If I invited you to come and visit me to see my pet unicorn, allowed you to see and pet the unicorn, verify the horn was real and the like, all as a way of convincing you that unicorns were real, and then you came and experienced that unicorns are real but still went away insistent that they were not, people might wonder why you bothered visiting in the first place. (Rhetorical situation obviously, since I don't actually have a pet unicorn but, you know...)

Sweet I guess we're still talking about this..i'm down. I think my main issue is in the idea that I could approach anything with the intent of not being convinced and then be successful in that intention no matter what happens. Look if you let me take the unicorn and run the tests of my choosing I'd be happy to share the international biology prize with you. I think the disconnect between some Christians and folks of my persuasion is that you think you have a unicorn, you think you've given me the years and years of diligent scientific research and verification that it would take a team of good scientists to say that this is a new species of horned horses, and so when I'm like "meh" you believe that I've come to this thing with a hardened heart and blinded eyes and salted tongue and ears full of bees. Consider that maybe at best what you have is drawing of a unicorn and a claim that you have the unicorn pictured and you refuse any sort of tests because the unicorn is magic and gene sequencing wouldn't work on it, and I cannot see the unicorn unless I believe the unicorn is a unicorn,  but you'll give me a book attesting to all the past magical and awesome feats of the unicorn, and you'll bring unicorn believers to give testimonials about how the unicorn came to them in a dream and healed their diabetes or whatever and you'll argue that if there wasn't a unicorn then where do rainbows come from!...then i'm like "bruh, you ain't got no unicorn" and then you go on to berate me about not coming at it with an open heart and ears and mind and whatnot. There isn't any realistic way in which God is like you having a unicorn, You do not have God in a stable somewhere, he kinda does his own thing, you cannot show me him, you cannot let me brush his hair at your whim, you cannot take me to feed him grains...nothing so tangible as any of that, but still even though you can't and you know you can't, there are bible verses about why you can't and shouldn't even try, for some reason it adds up to you that some folks are not convinced by whatever is left when you take away pretty much anything tangible, through strength of will alone because they don't want to accept all of this intangible evidence....seems sus to me.

Sure, your points about God not being like a literal physical unicorn are perfectly valid. We're rather mixing scenarios here though - if you refused to believe in unicorns and were determined that whatever I said or did wouldn't change your mind one would have to wonder why you'd accept my invitation to come and see a unicorn. If you were at least open to the possibility that unicorns might exist, and seeing one up close and personal might change your mind, there would be a purpose in your visit.

In this scenario if you came to see my unicorn and found a regular horse with an ice cream cone glued to its forehead you'd be forgiven for being less than impressed. If you saw a living breathing unicorn, horn and all, and went away muttering about how you still don't believe there's any such thing others would be forgiven for thinking you were foolish for refusing to believe what was right in front of you.

Just to clarify something, and this relates partly to your comments here and partly to a discussion I believe I had with you many years ago when you said "I don't believe there is a God" (forgive me if I'm confusing you with someone else, but I think the statement matches what you're expressing here pretty well). Do you hold an active belief that God does not exist, or do you lack an active belief that God does exist?

[Oscar_Kipling]

If an evangelist said to me "If I answer all your questions, will you become a Christian?", my reply would be "It depends what your answers are."

... which would be an entirely appropriate response. If you receive satisfactory answers you consider what is being offered more carefully and maybe change your thinking and your life accordingly. But if you make it clear that giving complete answers to all of your questions will just result in ever-more questions, what's the point of asking and answering the questions?

To see what happens.

There's nothing to see. If you're asking a bunch of questions having already decided you won't accept the answers it's just a waste of everybody's time. If wasting time is your goal then it might be a successful endeavor. If drawing someone into an endlessly pointless argument is the goal it might be a successful endeavor. Aside from that it's a waste of your time and theirs.

I suppose you're probably right. I personally am fascinated by what happens when an unstoppable force meets an immovable object, but you're right that most of the time absolutely nothing happens....sometimes though you learn stuff about the nature of unstoppable forces and immovable objects, sometimes you find that one or neither is unstoppable or immovable...but yeah most of the time its all sound and fury yada yada. Anyway i'll leave you alone about this.

It's often interesting to talk to other people with different viewpoints and opinions, whatever the subject matter, to get a better handle on what other viewpoints are out there and what supports them. It's not necessarily a bad thing to have such discussions - if anything I often find it's more interesting to talk with someone who has a different viewpoint because it challenges me to consider what flaws might exist in my own viewpoints. That said talking with someone else to understand what they believe and why is a very different beast to inviting them to convince you to change knowing all along that nothing they could possibly say will convince you to change.

If I invited you to come and visit me to see my pet unicorn, allowed you to see and pet the unicorn, verify the horn was real and the like, all as a way of convincing you that unicorns were real, and then you came and experienced that unicorns are real but still went away insistent that they were not, people might wonder why you bothered visiting in the first place. (Rhetorical situation obviously, since I don't actually have a pet unicorn but, you know...)

Sweet I guess we're still talking about this..i'm down. I think my main issue is in the idea that I could approach anything with the intent of not being convinced and then be successful in that intention no matter what happens. Look if you let me take the unicorn and run the tests of my choosing I'd be happy to share the international biology prize with you. I think the disconnect between some Christians and folks of my persuasion is that you think you have a unicorn, you think you've given me the years and years of diligent scientific research and verification that it would take a team of good scientists to say that this is a new species of horned horses, and so when I'm like "meh" you believe that I've come to this thing with a hardened heart and blinded eyes and salted tongue and ears full of bees. Consider that maybe at best what you have is drawing of a unicorn and a claim that you have the unicorn pictured and you refuse any sort of tests because the unicorn is magic and gene sequencing wouldn't work on it, and I cannot see the unicorn unless I believe the unicorn is a unicorn,  but you'll give me a book attesting to all the past magical and awesome feats of the unicorn, and you'll bring unicorn believers to give testimonials about how the unicorn came to them in a dream and healed their diabetes or whatever and you'll argue that if there wasn't a unicorn then where do rainbows come from!...then i'm like "bruh, you ain't got no unicorn" and then you go on to berate me about not coming at it with an open heart and ears and mind and whatnot. There isn't any realistic way in which God is like you having a unicorn, You do not have God in a stable somewhere, he kinda does his own thing, you cannot show me him, you cannot let me brush his hair at your whim, you cannot take me to feed him grains...nothing so tangible as any of that, but still even though you can't and you know you can't, there are bible verses about why you can't and shouldn't even try, for some reason it adds up to you that some folks are not convinced by whatever is left when you take away pretty much anything tangible, through strength of will alone because they don't want to accept all of this intangible evidence....seems sus to me.

Sure, your points about God not being like a literal physical unicorn are perfectly valid. We're rather mixing scenarios here though - if you refused to believe in unicorns and were determined that whatever I said or did wouldn't change your mind one would have to wonder why you'd accept my invitation to come and see a unicorn. If you were at least open to the possibility that unicorns might exist, and seeing one up close and personal might change your mind, there would be a purpose in your visit.

In this scenario if you came to see my unicorn and found a regular horse with an ice cream cone glued to its forehead you'd be forgiven for being less than impressed. If you saw a living breathing unicorn, horn and all, and went away muttering about how you still don't believe there's any such thing others would be forgiven for thinking you were foolish for refusing to believe what was right in front of you.

Just to clarify something, and this relates partly to your comments here and partly to a discussion I believe I had with you many years ago when you said "I don't believe there is a God" (forgive me if I'm confusing you with someone else, but I think the statement matches what you're expressing here pretty well). Do you hold an active belief that God does not exist, or do you lack an active belief that God does exist?

yikes, okay. maybe i want to watch you squirm and make excuses for why you can't show me the unicorn. I've certainly played along with a person that I was sure was lying just to see how far they were gonna dig themselves into a hole.  honestly it doesn't really matter to my assertion that I do not think that a person can guarantee that they will not be convinced no matter what, they can make that claim but idk why you would believe that. As for the unicorn, I've seen maybe 2 horses up close, it wouldn't take a whole lot to make a convincing looking unicorn to my naive eyes, this is why i'd want actual biologists, horse experts and other relevant scientists to access the unicorn and study it. Just seeing it doesnt tell me much about whether or not this is a horse with a horn adhered to its head, or if this is some sort of genetically modified horse that has grown an actual horn or if this is some new species of animal...or I guess if its magic or not. If you were salty that I wasn't willing to claim unicorns exist just because I saw what looked like a unicorn, then I think maybe your standards for unicorn identification may actually be lacking.

It is perfectly possible that we had a conversation like that and I said that, it lines up. Back then I would have cottoned to the idea that I was epistemologically required to not make a positive belief statement lest...idk the knowledge gremlins get me or whatever. I don't believe there is a God, I believe there is not a God. Please for the love of the God you believe in do not make me go on the merry-go-round of absolute knowledge, I do not know that there isn't a God, I just don't believe one exist, I believe one does not exist, God is not a thing that I believe is in the category of existing.

[IMINXTC]

God is existence.

[Oscar_Kipling]

God is existence.

Gee, what an interesting thing to say IMINXTC, why don't you tell me a little bit more about what you mean?

[RabbiKnife]

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.  The same was in the beginning with God.  All things were made by Him, and without Him was not anything made that was made."

John 1:1-3

"God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds, who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had  himself purged our sin sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high."

Hebrew 1: 1-3

Christian theology teaches indeed that God is existence.  IMINXTC is summarizing orthodox Christian teaching.

[DavidGYoung]

I disagree with the idea that the talisman analogy requires faith.

There are plenty of superstitions which are supposed to work 'whether you believe in it or not'. As a result, a complete sceptic might agree to make the gesture, carry the item or avoid walking under the appointed ladder just in case the myth is true. However, none of this is of the magnitude of 'Find this argument convincing or harm will come to you'.

The way the Pascal's Wager argument is most commonly used is this latter form. The only serious response I can see to it is 'Yes. It looks like I'm in trouble if it turns out I'm wrong. However, I don't believe I am wrong. Is there a point you are trying to make?'

[Athanasius]

I disagree with the idea that the talisman analogy requires faith.

There are plenty of superstitions which are supposed to work 'whether you believe in it or not'. As a result, a complete sceptic might agree to make the gesture, carry the item or avoid walking under the appointed ladder just in case the myth is true. However, none of this is of the magnitude of 'Find this argument convincing or harm will come to you'.

The way the Pascal's Wager argument is most commonly used is this latter form. The only serious response I can see to it is 'Yes. It looks like I'm in trouble if it turns out I'm wrong. However, I don't believe I am wrong. Is there a point you are trying to make?'

As has already been shared, this is a misuse of Pascal's wager, so the informed sceptic's serious response is to reject it outright. Or to simply shrug and say, "okay, if you say so".

Besides, this isn't the world of Alan Wake, and even in Buffy, magicks require conviction and strength of character. There are no salvific talismen, irrespective of faith, trust, or whatever.

[tango]

If an evangelist said to me "If I answer all your questions, will you become a Christian?", my reply would be "It depends what your answers are."

... which would be an entirely appropriate response. If you receive satisfactory answers you consider what is being offered more carefully and maybe change your thinking and your life accordingly. But if you make it clear that giving complete answers to all of your questions will just result in ever-more questions, what's the point of asking and answering the questions?

To see what happens.

There's nothing to see. If you're asking a bunch of questions having already decided you won't accept the answers it's just a waste of everybody's time. If wasting time is your goal then it might be a successful endeavor. If drawing someone into an endlessly pointless argument is the goal it might be a successful endeavor. Aside from that it's a waste of your time and theirs.

I suppose you're probably right. I personally am fascinated by what happens when an unstoppable force meets an immovable object, but you're right that most of the time absolutely nothing happens....sometimes though you learn stuff about the nature of unstoppable forces and immovable objects, sometimes you find that one or neither is unstoppable or immovable...but yeah most of the time its all sound and fury yada yada. Anyway i'll leave you alone about this.

It's often interesting to talk to other people with different viewpoints and opinions, whatever the subject matter, to get a better handle on what other viewpoints are out there and what supports them. It's not necessarily a bad thing to have such discussions - if anything I often find it's more interesting to talk with someone who has a different viewpoint because it challenges me to consider what flaws might exist in my own viewpoints. That said talking with someone else to understand what they believe and why is a very different beast to inviting them to convince you to change knowing all along that nothing they could possibly say will convince you to change.

If I invited you to come and visit me to see my pet unicorn, allowed you to see and pet the unicorn, verify the horn was real and the like, all as a way of convincing you that unicorns were real, and then you came and experienced that unicorns are real but still went away insistent that they were not, people might wonder why you bothered visiting in the first place. (Rhetorical situation obviously, since I don't actually have a pet unicorn but, you know...)

Sweet I guess we're still talking about this..i'm down. I think my main issue is in the idea that I could approach anything with the intent of not being convinced and then be successful in that intention no matter what happens. Look if you let me take the unicorn and run the tests of my choosing I'd be happy to share the international biology prize with you. I think the disconnect between some Christians and folks of my persuasion is that you think you have a unicorn, you think you've given me the years and years of diligent scientific research and verification that it would take a team of good scientists to say that this is a new species of horned horses, and so when I'm like "meh" you believe that I've come to this thing with a hardened heart and blinded eyes and salted tongue and ears full of bees. Consider that maybe at best what you have is drawing of a unicorn and a claim that you have the unicorn pictured and you refuse any sort of tests because the unicorn is magic and gene sequencing wouldn't work on it, and I cannot see the unicorn unless I believe the unicorn is a unicorn,  but you'll give me a book attesting to all the past magical and awesome feats of the unicorn, and you'll bring unicorn believers to give testimonials about how the unicorn came to them in a dream and healed their diabetes or whatever and you'll argue that if there wasn't a unicorn then where do rainbows come from!...then i'm like "bruh, you ain't got no unicorn" and then you go on to berate me about not coming at it with an open heart and ears and mind and whatnot. There isn't any realistic way in which God is like you having a unicorn, You do not have God in a stable somewhere, he kinda does his own thing, you cannot show me him, you cannot let me brush his hair at your whim, you cannot take me to feed him grains...nothing so tangible as any of that, but still even though you can't and you know you can't, there are bible verses about why you can't and shouldn't even try, for some reason it adds up to you that some folks are not convinced by whatever is left when you take away pretty much anything tangible, through strength of will alone because they don't want to accept all of this intangible evidence....seems sus to me.

Sure, your points about God not being like a literal physical unicorn are perfectly valid. We're rather mixing scenarios here though - if you refused to believe in unicorns and were determined that whatever I said or did wouldn't change your mind one would have to wonder why you'd accept my invitation to come and see a unicorn. If you were at least open to the possibility that unicorns might exist, and seeing one up close and personal might change your mind, there would be a purpose in your visit.

In this scenario if you came to see my unicorn and found a regular horse with an ice cream cone glued to its forehead you'd be forgiven for being less than impressed. If you saw a living breathing unicorn, horn and all, and went away muttering about how you still don't believe there's any such thing others would be forgiven for thinking you were foolish for refusing to believe what was right in front of you.

Just to clarify something, and this relates partly to your comments here and partly to a discussion I believe I had with you many years ago when you said "I don't believe there is a God" (forgive me if I'm confusing you with someone else, but I think the statement matches what you're expressing here pretty well). Do you hold an active belief that God does not exist, or do you lack an active belief that God does exist?

yikes, okay. maybe i want to watch you squirm and make excuses for why you can't show me the unicorn. I've certainly played along with a person that I was sure was lying just to see how far they were gonna dig themselves into a hole.  honestly it doesn't really matter to my assertion that I do not think that a person can guarantee that they will not be convinced no matter what, they can make that claim but idk why you would believe that. As for the unicorn, I've seen maybe 2 horses up close, it wouldn't take a whole lot to make a convincing looking unicorn to my naive eyes, this is why i'd want actual biologists, horse experts and other relevant scientists to access the unicorn and study it. Just seeing it doesnt tell me much about whether or not this is a horse with a horn adhered to its head, or if this is some sort of genetically modified horse that has grown an actual horn or if this is some new species of animal...or I guess if its magic or not. If you were salty that I wasn't willing to claim unicorns exist just because I saw what looked like a unicorn, then I think maybe your standards for unicorn identification may actually be lacking.

It's one thing to agree to see something implausible to find out whether the person making bold claims actually has anything to back them up. It's another thing entirely to come and see my unicorn, witness with your own eyes the magnificence of this glorious glowing white horse with a silver horn, to see and touch the unicorn for yourself, see for yourself that the horn is part of the animal and don't duck-taped in place or photoshopped into a crude picture, and then to walk away insisting that unicorns don't exist. You might reasonably shift your stance from "unicorns don't exist" to "it looks like they might exist, but I'd want to look more closely" even if you hadn't become convinced that what you had seen was actually a unicorn, but if you still refused to accept that you had seen what you had seen one might wonder why you bothered coming to see it.

It is perfectly possible that we had a conversation like that and I said that, it lines up. Back then I would have cottoned to the idea that I was epistemologically required to not make a positive belief statement lest...idk the knowledge gremlins get me or whatever. I don't believe there is a God, I believe there is not a God. Please for the love of the God you believe in do not make me go on the merry-go-round of absolute knowledge, I do not know that there isn't a God, I just don't believe one exist, I believe one does not exist, God is not a thing that I believe is in the category of existing.

I don't expect you to conclusively prove that God doesn't exist - you can't prove that any more than I can conclusively prove that God does exist. I was looking to find out whether you hold an active belief that God does not exist, or a more passive lack of belief that God does exist. An active belief in the non-existence of God is arguably a more decisive stance than a more passive lack of belef.

[tango]

I disagree with the idea that the talisman analogy requires faith.

There are plenty of superstitions which are supposed to work 'whether you believe in it or not'. As a result, a complete sceptic might agree to make the gesture, carry the item or avoid walking under the appointed ladder just in case the myth is true. However, none of this is of the magnitude of 'Find this argument convincing or harm will come to you'.

The way the Pascal's Wager argument is most commonly used is this latter form. The only serious response I can see to it is 'Yes. It looks like I'm in trouble if it turns out I'm wrong. However, I don't believe I am wrong. Is there a point you are trying to make?'

Most of the talismanic magick I've ever come across involved at least a modicum of faith in the talisman. Otherwise it's little more than an ornament. Why would you wear or even carry a talisman if you don't believe it has any kind of powers to change things? You could get into arguments about whether the belief of the person who infused the talisman with magick were sufficient but, absent that, you'd have an inanimate object that nobody believes had any special powers that someone is expecting to have special powers.

Things like not walking under ladders have totally secular reasons to observe them. If you walk under a ladder and the worker atop the ladder drops something it could land on you.

I guess my experience is very different to yours. I have never heard anyone using Pascal's Wager in isolation as a particular argument for anything. As has been said elsewhere in the thread it kinda sorta works when the options are "follow God" and "don't follow God". The existence of other options and other deities renders it little more than an academic exercise when it meets the real world, especially when that pesky "you shall have no gods before me" rules out the option of simply worshipping every conceivable deity out there to make sure you covered all the bases.

[Oscar_Kipling]

It's one thing to agree to see something implausible to find out whether the person making bold claims actually has anything to back them up. It's another thing entirely to come and see my unicorn, witness with your own eyes the magnificence of this glorious glowing white horse with a silver horn, to see and touch the unicorn for yourself, see for yourself that the horn is part of the animal and don't duck-taped in place or photoshopped into a crude picture, and then to walk away insisting that unicorns don't exist. You might reasonably shift your stance from "unicorns don't exist" to "it looks like they might exist, but I'd want to look more closely" even if you hadn't become convinced that what you had seen was actually a unicorn, but if you still refused to accept that you had seen what you had seen one might wonder why you bothered coming to see it.

okay can we take this out of the realm of analogy please? What is it that you could show me about God that you suspect that I might later go on to deny even though I definitely saw it? What is it exactly that is undeniable that I'd be denying? It is one thing to say I'll never be convinced no matter what, it is something else entirely to see and expirience any number of things and somehow maintain that. Denial is a thing, but i suggest that it is different from non-belief.

I don't expect you to conclusively prove that God doesn't exist - you can't prove that any more than I can conclusively prove that God does exist. I was looking to find out whether you hold an active belief that God does not exist, or a more passive lack of belief that God does exist. An active belief in the non-existence of God is arguably a more decisive stance than a more passive lack of belef.

Fine, put me in the more decisive category, what comes of that?

[RabbiKnife]

Hell