Timeline for If Pascal's wager can be applied to belief in anything, then what is the fallacy in Pascal's wager?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
14 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jul 19, 2017 at 17:54 | comment | added | Veedrac | @NanheeByrnesPhD Original Poster, aka. the question asker (Barinder Singh). | |
| Jul 19, 2017 at 15:37 | comment | added | Nanhee Byrnes PhD | Hey Shane, sorry for my stupidity, but what is OP? | |
| Jul 19, 2017 at 15:33 | comment | added | Shane | At best, this answer it saying that because the OP didn't use the best possible example in describing the situation (even though they specifically mention they don't want to limit themselves to just this example), therefore they aren't describing a fallacy at all. That's not how things work. | |
| Jul 19, 2017 at 15:24 | comment | added | Shane | Btw, OP wrote: "A similar argument to the original Wager can be used to say that it is prudent is to believe in the devil, or that black magic works, or really any unlikely belief that might have some potential benefit." Santa Claus is OBVIOUSLY something that is unlikely that might have some potential benefit. So you are choosing ignore half the question specifically so that you can write an answer that you know to be wrong. I'm seriously tempted to flag this as not an answer. | |
| Jul 19, 2017 at 15:17 | comment | added | Shane | "I need to block the intelligent criticism that you make in the first place since, if I concede the criticism, then I cannot show that the analogy by the questioner is faulty" ... I can't believe I just read that. Wow. "If I answer the question reasonably, honestly and intelligently, I wouldn't be able to give the answer I wanted, so I didn't do those things." Wow. If you have to be stupid and ignore all context to show someone is wrong, then they aren't wrong. | |
| Jul 19, 2017 at 13:32 | comment | added | Nanhee Byrnes PhD | @Veedrac. Whether the questioner makes a faulty analogy or valid analogical reasoning critically depends on relevant properties between God and Satan. Had he used Santa Claus instead of Satan, I would have judged it valid since both share goodness as the core value. I used the law to be clear that the relevant properties of God is NOT the same as those of Satan (to avoid sophistic reaction, like yours) | |
| Jul 19, 2017 at 12:52 | comment | added | Veedrac | @NanheeByrnesPhD If you can't address intelligent criticism of your argument, perhaps you shouldn't put so much faith in your argument's validity. | |
| Jul 19, 2017 at 8:09 | comment | added | gnasher729 | I believe in a different Satan, one that is cruel and vengeful to most people, but who really looks after those that believe in him. | |
| Jul 19, 2017 at 6:12 | comment | added | Nanhee Byrnes PhD | Thanks for the clarification! Now I see your point. but I need to block the intelligent criticism that you make in the first place since, if I concede the criticism, then I cannot show that the analogy by the questioner is faulty. | |
| Jul 19, 2017 at 4:51 | comment | added | Veedrac | With regards to Leibniz's law, my objection is that you say "If the questioner wants to protest that Satan and God share all the properties equally", which implies that this is reasonable or even necessary in an objection. This unreasonably strict implication is what allowed you to bring in the law. If instead you allowed for intelligent criticism, aka. "if the questioner wants to protest that Satan and God share the relevant properties similarly", your introduction of the law is shown silly. | |
| Jul 19, 2017 at 4:48 | comment | added | Veedrac | Your image is an attempt at an analogy of the original analogy, that attempts to give context to the fallacy you claim it makes. That's what I criticised in my first sentence. | |
| Jul 19, 2017 at 2:49 | comment | added | Nanhee Byrnes PhD | Please explain your claim since I cannot understand your criticism. I did not make any analogy: I explained why the question was based on faulty analogy. The questioner's analogy actually is really smart, and it took me a while to block the conclusion the questioner was making. I do not think you understand the context I was using Leibniz's law. | |
| Jul 19, 2017 at 1:53 | comment | added | Veedrac | Your analogy of his analogy is worse than the original analogy... On another topic, suggesting that Leibniz's law has anything to do with this is a major strawman, because it suggests that Pascal's argument applies exclusively to one fully specified definition of "god", yet that is evidently untrue. | |
| Jul 18, 2017 at 21:53 | history | answered | Nanhee Byrnes PhD | CC BY-SA 3.0 |