Belief is pascals wager

Alright. I think I can see the argument you are making now, so I will do my best to address all of your points. Definition: Pascal"s Wager Pascal's Wager: an argument based on probability theory and game theory as for why one should live as if God exists, even though this cannot be proved or disproved through reason. The main idea of Pascal's Wager is that belief in God is the best choice because it had the best relative payout. Table of Outcomes ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|You Choose To Believe|--------------------------------------|You Choose Not To Believe|------ ----------------------------------------------------------------|||------------------------------------------------------------------------|||------------------------ God Exists--------------------------- Eternal Heaven: Reward of Infinity value----------------Eternal Hell: Penalty of (-Infinity) Value----------------------------------------------------------------------------------|||------------------------------------------------------------------------ |||---------------------------------------- God Does Not Exist------------Small Penalty of Error: Reward of (-x) value--------------------Small Benefit for Precision: x Value----- --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The conclusion of this argument is that a logical person should pick the the choice where there is Maximum Expected Utility (Best Outcome). When P=/=0, and P=Probability God Exists, and P=/=Negative Expected Value:E(Choose to Believe) = ((Infinity)*(p)) + ((-x) * (1-P)) = (Infinity) Expected Value:E(Choose NOT to Believe) = ((Negative Infinity)*(p)) + ((x) * (1-P)) = (Negative Infinity) The Main Point of this entire idea is to show that there is a clearly better choice when it comes to picking for maximum utility in this particular case, but this is where Pro's argument that every belief is a Pascal's Wager becomes obviously incorrect. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Main Idea: There are no discovered variables in our universe with a value that equals infinity, therefore there are no situations within our universe that have ever been a real Pascal's Wager. (http://en.wikipedia.org...) (http://bigthink.com...) (http://www.livescience.com...) --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Argument 2 Pro said " all beliefs are pacals Wager, trust and paranoia, happiness and sadness, love and hate. belief is doubt, so as a balance of doubting i must believe the opposite is true, i must disbelieve to believe and believe to disbelieve" Response: I have already shown that all beliefs are not Pascal's Wagers because there are no observable instances in our universe where infinity exists as anything other than an abstract concept. Therefore: outcomes that can actually occur will never have an Expected Utility = Infinity, and so they cannot be the variables of a Pascal's Wager." To show the relationship to be a Pascal's Wager, Pro must prove that belief in any of these pairs of opposites could result in an infinite gain or infinite loss associated with that belief, which is quite literally impossible. The Pascal's Wager is a thought experiment with a claim that is impossible to test, just like "trust and paranoia, happiness and sadness, love and hate." (http://en.wikipedia.org...) (http://bigthink.com...) (http://www.livescience.com...) --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Argument Three Pro has several contradictions in his Round 2 statement as well. Pro said: "belief is doubt", but according to Oxford Dictionary: Belief: An acceptance that a statement is true or that something exists: Doubt: Question the truth or fact of (something): Pro said "i have no beliefs, no doubt, so there is no reason, to trust or distrust" If Pro had no beliefs, we would have no debate. Pro believes that: "all beliefs are pacals Wager, trust and paranoia, happiness and sadness, love and hate. belief is doubt, so as a balance of doubting i must believe the opposite is true, i must disbelieve to believe and believe to disbelieve" --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Pro: To validate your position, you must now prove that there are physically existing variables, within our universe, with a value of infinity. You must show how the value of " trust and paranoia, happiness and sadness, love and hate" can be somehow derived from the potential for belief in them, and that it is a physical, existing, observable characteristic from which an infinite gain or infinite loss associated with that belief can be proven. Finally, you must fix the discrepancies in your argument, and explain clearly some proof for your stance. Right now all you have supporting your argument is gibberish. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The burden of proof is now on Pro. --------------------------------------------------------