Belief is pascals wager

Pro said "im talking about if i believe in god, not that i do" Response: If you do not believe in God, then you believe that god doesn't exist, or God might exist. All of these are beliefs too. You keep saying you have no beliefs, then you say a bunch of stuff you believe... And without any evidence... Even then, belief in God is not the topic of this debate, and is actually the only belief that the Pascal's Wager decision matrix applies to. All of the other examples you have given so far have been disproved. Your premise "Belief is Pascal's Wager" is still unproved. Pro said "talking about beliefs is not a we thing, i can never know if you have a belief" Response: Agreed. Really, you can't even know that I exist. You may be dreaming, or a computer simulation, etc. You choose to believe that I exist, or that your computer exists, or that Pascal's Wager exists. But this doesn't help your argument. It actually hurts it... Pro said "know is physical, and beliefs are mental" Response: Mental processes are physical. Neurons and electricity. Everything we see and hear and measure is interpreted by our brains first. The same brain which decides to "believe" or "disbelieve". Anything you say you "know" is just you believing in it. The idea that we can know anything is a belief. It can't be proven that what we experience coincides with what is real. Its just a lot healthier and much more sensible not to deny everything. Pro said "belief is nothing, i cant believe in Things only about Things kind of, i can imagine my neighbour is sleeping and believe it, where as i dont have to imagine that im reading these Words on my screen and writing them on my keyboard" Response: This doesn't prove anything or even address the topic. You're just saying that you think that stuff you see is true and stuff you don't see is "belief". What you "know" and what you "believe" have no impact on the debate. It's about whether or not Belief is Pascal's Wager. Pascal's Wager can not apply to any situation other than the existence of God. It's a specially designed decision matrix. Pro says "i cant believe in reality, and i cant know imagination" Response: I can actually see the beginning of an argument in this statement. Pro seems to be saying that "belief" is only about things we are unsure of, and that everything else is "imagination". Anything Pro sees occur is "knowing". Again, this doesn't even remotely pertain to whether or not Belief is Pascal's Wager, but at least it is somewhat coherent. In fact, you do "believe" in reality. Or you "believe" that there is no reality. Either way, you can't really "know" can you? Then again, you never met Pascal, so how do you "know" his Wager exists? How do you know "belief" exists? When you apply your reasoning to anything, it becomes nonsense. Still though, not an argument. Pro says "belief is non sense, you are right, i have to imagine it" Response: You believe that you have to believe in belief? But you also believe that believing in belief is imagining belief? And you are also arguing that belief is Pascal's Wager? So you believe that belief is a belief that you imagine that belief is a wager??? Is that what this means? Or maybe that you don't believe in belief? If your attempt at argument is based on your imagination, I don't "believe" that it will hold up. But that's not Pascal's Wager, that's just regular logic. Pro said "penguin=nature=life=animal" Response: Oh!!! I see it now. You're totally right about everything. Wait... Nope. Forgot to carry the one. Please, use more meaningless pseudo-math in your next argument. It's easier to understand than the rest of your response. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I maintain that all of my arguments stand, and that Pro has submitted none of his own, at least none that make sense. Round Five is the final round of this debate. I ask that Pro leave a detailed and logical rebuttal to my arguments so far, instead of random statements and undecipherable gibberish. My argument: Pascal's Wager only applies to a god with infinite power. The idea behind it does not apply to reasoning without infinite loss or infinite gain. Used with any other measurable variables of payout than "belief in God" and "disbelief in God" it is just a regular decision matrix. Used with any of the purposes that Pro has listed is impossible. They are unmeasurable, unproven, or unobservable, ex: trust, paranoia, love, hate. How do you define probabilistic odds for payout of "hate"? Pro has not offered any explanation. In each round I left a response to each of his statements. I suggest that Pro try to show error in my rebuttals as well, as it is his last round to reply. Thanks! ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------