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
    The argument from expectation for believing in God succee... — Carmelics
    Home/Natural Theology
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    The argument from expectation for believing in God succeeds regardless of the specific probability assigned to God's existence

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.The expected value calculation holds as long as the probability of God's existence is non-zero and finite (non-infinitesimal)
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.A non-zero finite probability of an infinite gain outweighs any finite number of chances of finite loss
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.When multiple religions each promise infinite reward exclusively to their adherents, the expected value calculation becomes indeterminate across infinitely many competing hypotheses.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Pascal's wager implicitly assumes a two-option decision matrix, but the 'many gods objection' (Diderot, 1746) reveals this as a false dichotomy that undermines the probability-independence claim.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.William James and subsequent doxastic voluntarists argue that genuine belief cannot be produced by pragmatic calculation alone, making the wager's action-recommendation practically incoherent.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If the mechanism for producing belief is unavailable to rational agents on command, then the expected value argument succeeds formally but fails to prescribe any achievable epistemic state.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

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

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Strongest counterpoint
    Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.

    Topics

    Natural Theology

    Related

    A non-zero finite probability of an infinite gain outweighs any finite number of...If the mechanism for producing belief is unavailable to rational agents on comma...Pascal's wager implicitly assumes a two-option decision matrix, but the 'many go...The expected value calculation holds as long as the probability of God's existen...
    +2 moreShow less
    When multiple religions each promise infinite reward exclusively to their adhere...William James and subsequent doxastic voluntarists argue that genuine belief can...

    Similar

    Pascal's Wager presupposes that one should have a probability for God'...81%The argument can be read as assuming no probability is assigned to God...79%The expected value calculation holds as long as the probability of God...77%A later passage assumes a positive probability is assigned to God's ex...77%

    Source

    AI-extracted1/3 agreementValid
    SEP: pascal-wager
    View source passageHide passage
    Pascal’s guiding insight is that the argument from expectation goes through equally well whatever your probability for God’s existence is, provided that it is non-zero and finite (non-infinitesimal)—“a chance of gain against a finite number of chances of loss”.[4]
    Extraction notes

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

    Details

    Type
    claim
    Perspectives
    3 (1 for, 2 against)
    Edits
    1 edit