Pascal's Wager Infinite Possibilities Rebuttal

Pascal

Pascal's Wager One Rebuttal

Pascal's Wager is an argument that asserts that one should believe in God, even if God's existence cannot be proved or disproved through reason.

Whether or not you believe in God, you should live your life with love, kindness, compassion, mercy and tolerance while trying to make the world a better place. If there is no God, you have lost nothing and will have made a positive impact on those around you. If there is a benevolent God reviewing your life, you will be judged on your actions and not just on your ability to blindly believe when there is a significant lack of evidence of his/her existence.

     There are infinitely many possibilities that could completely change the expected value of the wager. Here are a few examples:

    Pascal's wager argues that you should believe in one of an infinite number of poential Gods, with no way of knowing which is true, and damnation if you guess wrong. There could exist a god that punishes only Christians and rewards everyone else.

There exists a god that punishes people who believe in him based on probabilities (such as Pascal's Wager). Lacking specific evidence about the nature of the true religious faith, there are an infinite number of possible requirements for going to heaven and avoiding hell.

There exists a god who punishes everyone who is not an atheist, and rewards atheists for not believing in him.

For Pascal's Wager to really hold up logically, one has to show that the Christian god is more likely than any of the infinite other possibilities. There is no a priori reason to expect that. The reason that Pascal's Wager sounds so convincing at first is that the Christian paradigm was common among Pascal's peers (and still is many places), hence the Christian god seemed plausible whereas other possibilities were not considered equally plausible.

                                                            Pascal's Wager vs Atheist

TJump Destroyed In Philosophy Debate About Platonism

Tjump gets destroyed in philosophy debate with Godless. Tjump gets exposed for being confused about what Platonism is and says language does not exist. Godless has to teach Tom Jump that Platonism holds that abstract objects exist.

Modern Day Debate Full video: https://youtu.be/vHaKlPDxElI

What Is Platonism? Video: https://youtu.be/NkgfBCmAXMo

Platonism in Metaphysics:
Platonism is the view that there exist such things as abstract objects — where an abstract object is an object that does not exist in space or time and which is therefore entirely non-physical and non-mental.



Tjump Wiki Page



Godless Discord Server

TJump Moral Theory

TJump just came into the Enlightenment Discord server to debate his odd moral theory that the imposition of will is immoral and descriptive. He asserts that morality is objective. Tjump calls himself a Moral Objectivist and defines immoral as whatever is an involuntary imposition on one's will. Which he admit entails if a rock imposes on your will then the rock is immoral.

Tom's position on morality being objective caught the attention of Philosophy Alex Malpass who wrote a blog post about him.e

What’s strange though is that Tom Jump does believe that morality can exist in an empty room. That somehow objective morality can be a trait of physical matter in some way shape or form. He believes moral laws exist in the same way that gravity is a law. Tjump claimed he was quoting out the Stanford Encyclopedia of philosophy but no philosophers hold his position.

Jump thinks that morality is objective, in a similar way to physical laws. Objective in this context means that it exists independently of any minds. We take physical laws, like the law of gravitation, to obtain in the universe just as much whether there are any minds present or not. If a moral law is objective, then it too would obtain just as well without any minds in existence.

His idea is that objective morality is defined in relation to the notion of involuntary impositions.

So this entails: S: if action phi is F then phi is immoral’. Suppose that F is filled out by some mental characteristic, eg, contrary to desires, and that S is considered an ordinary conditional statement, eg, S is not a counterfactual. In that case, S might be true even if there are no minds. At worlds where there are no minds, S is trivially true. At worlds where there are minds, S is true if actions contrary to desires are immoral.

This definition of immorality involves voluntariness, which in turn involves rationality, which itself involves the notion of beliefs about immorality, and the whole thing becomes a circle. We were offered a definition of immorality which in turn used the notion of immorality.

I wonder if Tom Jump would argue in favour of suing ones own biological mother for not having aborted the individual as a fetus because of the subjective experience of having a miserable life or life at all, because his biological mother him "into this universe where many things occur which we do not will nor consent to.

Alex Malpass Article On TJump

TJump Wiki Page