Skip to content
Carmelics
TopicsThinkersChangesContributorsLoading account…

    Carmelics

    A reasoning platform. Break down any belief into clear reasons, explore both sides, and weigh the evidence honestly.

    Navigate

    • Topics
    • Search
    • Recent Changes
    • Contribute
    • How It Works
    • Glossary
    • Thinkers
    • Contributors
    • About
    • Statistics
    • Terms
    • Privacy

    Database

    Statements
    —
    Perspectives
    —
    Topics
    —

    Press ? for keyboard shortcuts

    LoyalLoyalJusticeJustice
    Made withinDC&Austin
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Pascal's Wager contains an internal contradiction — Carmelics
    Home/Natural Theology
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Pascal's Wager contains an internal contradiction

    Natural Theology
    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.
    0 reasons for
    1 reason against

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.The argument can be read as assuming no probability is assigned to God's existence (decision under uncertainty)
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.A later passage assumes a positive probability is assigned to God's existence
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.These two assumptions are mutually contradictory
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Sign in or register to share your perspective on this statement.

    Topics

    Natural Theology

    Related

    A later passage assumes a positive probability is assigned to God's existence

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Strongest counterpoint
    Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.
    The argument can be read as assuming no probability is assigned to God's existen...
    These two assumptions are mutually contradictory

    Similar

    The Kochen-Specker theorem derives this contradiction78%God is not a contradictory entity and therefore cannot internally rule...77%There is no contradiction involved in denying that God exists.73%Oderberg is mistaken when he tries to establish the uniqueness of the ...72%

    Source

    AI-extracted1/3 agreementValid
    SEP: pascal-wager
    View source passageHide passage
    Without any assumption about your probability assignment to God’s existence, the argument is invalid. Rationality does not require you to wager for God if you assign probability 0 to God existing, as a strict atheist might. And Pascal does not explicitly rule this possibility out until a later passage, when he assumes that you assign positive probability to God’s existence; yet this argument is presented as if it is self-contained. His claim that “[r]eason can decide nothing here” may suggest th
    Extraction notes

    Validity: Extracted via Max plan + API grounding/validity checks

    Details

    Type
    claim
    Perspectives
    1 (0 for, 1 against)
    Edits
    1 edit