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
    You should wager for God. — Carmelics
    Home/Natural Theology
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    You should wager for God.

    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 worst outcome associated with wagering for God (gain in earthly life) is strictly better than the best outcome associated with wagering against God (earthly life).
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.When one option's worst outcome is better than another option's best outcome, the former option strictly dominates the latter.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Under strict dominance, the dominating option should be chosen regardless of probability considerations.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Pascal assumes a binary choice, but infinitely many mutually exclusive gods with incompatible demands can each be assigned infinite expected utility.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.When multiple options each yield infinite expected utility, dominance reasoning collapses and cannot single out wagering for the Christian God specifically.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.A decision procedure that cannot discriminate among options fails as practical guidance, rendering the wager's conclusion unwarranted.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Genuine belief is not a voluntary act one can adopt on the basis of prudential self-interest, as Kant and Bernard Williams both argue.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If authentic theistic belief cannot be directly willed, then the wager's practical conclusion—'wager for God'—prescribes an action that is psychologically impossible for the sincere inquirer.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.A valid practical argument cannot oblige an agent to perform an action that is constitutively unavailable to them as a rational, sincere agent.
      ?

      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

    Connections

    1 topic

    Consequentialism3 linked

    Related

    A decision procedure that cannot discriminate among options fails as practical g...A valid practical argument cannot oblige an agent to perform an action that is c...Genuine belief is not a voluntary act one can adopt on the basis of prudential s...If authentic theistic belief cannot be directly willed, then the wager's practic...
    +5 moreShow less
    Pascal assumes a binary choice, but infinitely many mutually exclusive gods with...The worst outcome associated with wagering for God (gain in earthly life) is str...Under strict dominance, the dominating option should be chosen regardless of pro...When multiple options each yield infinite expected utility, dominance reasoning ...When one option's worst outcome is better than another option's best outcome, th...

    Similar

    An agent should wager for God outright rather than continuing to pursu...79%The gain from wagering for God is certain (not contingent on God's exi...78%Once one wagers for God there is no going back, so the terminal action...78%Pascal's Wager is not a gamble in the ordinary sense.75%

    Source

    AI-extracted1/3 agreementValid
    SEP: pascal-wager
    View source passageHide passage
    This is again a decision under uncertainty (in our technical sense)—it involves no considerations of probability. Indeed, “the wager” dissolves, twice over: utilities alone definitively settle that you should wager for God, and in any case it is not really a gamble at all, since your gain is certain! (That is my understanding of “you have wagered for something certain”; it is not God's existence itself that is “certain”.) The worst outcome associated with wagering for God (gain in earthly life)
    Extraction notes

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

    Details

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