Week 5 Questions–2nd Hour
OK, time to move away from the question of the last two weeks. Thank you for all teachers that responded and gave us your opinions. So, here we go with this week…
Question #1…Blaise Pascal was a French philospher who came up with an proposition called Pascal’s wager. Find a site other than Wikipedia and summarize Pascal’s wager in your own words. No copying and pasting here.
Then explain whether you believe Pascal’s wager is appropriate to apply to our belief in God–if we follow Pascal’s wager are we truly beliving in God?
Does it work better for global warming and its implications assuming GW cannot be proven?
Can it be used equally for both or is it better applied to one vs the other.
Question 2…Define electrolysis–in the chemistry sense–not in hair removal. 
17 comments Mr. Holt | Honors Chemistry (4th and 5th)
Pascal’s Wager” is the name given to an argument due to Blaise Pascal for believing, or for at least taking steps to believe, in God. Pascal apparently presents at least three such arguments, each of which might be called a ‘wager’ — it is only the final of these that is traditionally referred to as “Pascal’s Wager”. We find in it the extraordinary confluence of several important strands of thought: the justification of theism; probability theory and decision theory, used here for almost the first time in history; pragmatism; voluntarism (the thesis that belief is a matter of the will); and the use of the concept of infinity.
No i do not believe this is a great way to follow about are believes of God. The way alot of people learn from God and start to believe in him is learning about him or going to church.
It could work alot better for global warming just beacause of all the theorys that this thing uses, could be like the theorys we use about is there really global warming happening.
Overall if i had to use this toward one of them i owuld have to use it towards the global warming one.
I want to agree with kevins comment. I have the same thoughts about the question as he does. If something exists or is a fact then it’s a fact. You can’t change it whether you belive it or not.
Question 1.
Pascal’s Wager is the aguement of steps taken to believe in God.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/pascal-wager/
I found Pascal’s wager on the encyclopedia of philosophy. Pascal’s wager is a name given to a arguement, for believing or coming closer with God. Pascal represents three arguements that represent wager. There are three things to believe in his philosophy, impossible, irrational,immoral, and nonsense.
I do not think we have to believe in Wager plan. It’s either side of the arguement. You can do whatever it takes you, to believe in God.
In a way it does reflect towards Globl Warming. How it’s proven, is by taking a chance. You do not have to fully believe in Gw,but you need to take a rational thought of the problem.
Both of these can be equally, because it’s what you believe. You can believe in the wager philosophy. It’s your choice. I think that both of these questions are alike. You have to use your own thinking to imagine, if it’s true, or not true.
Question #1
Pascal’s Wager was created by Blaise Pascal, who was a French Philospher. It was created for the argument to deal with belief in God. The argument was If you mistaken the belief in God, then you would lose nothing. On the other hand if you believe in God correctly, then you would gain everything. On the other side, if you correctly do not believe in God, then you lose nothing. But if you mistaken the belief of no God, then you lose everything.
Forgot some of the question to number one, so here it all is
Question #1
Pascal’s Wager was created by Blaise Pascal, who was a French Philospher. It was created for the argument to deal with belief in God. The argument was If you mistaken the belief in God, then you would lose nothing. On the other hand if you believe in God correctly, then you would gain everything. On the other side, if you correctly do not believe in God, then you lose nothing. But if you mistaken the belief of no God, then you lose everything.
I believe that Pascal’s Wager is not appropriate to apply to our belief in God because how do you know if you are correctly believeing in God. Or how do you know if you are mistaken the belief of God.
No it does not work better for Global Warming. It is used for one VS the other
Pascal Wager means that you believe in God or are doing things to become closer to him. I do not think that you need to use the Pascal Wager theory because it is your choice if you want to believe in God or not. For Global Warming, the same rule applys as believing in God. It is your own choice to believe in Global Warming, noone can make you believe in it or not. It would obviously work better with believing in God because that’s the whole meaning of Pascal’s Wager.
Question #1
Basically it states that if u believe in God, you gain everything. And if you disbelieve in him you lose everything. And if you disbelieve him in the wrong way you gain total damanation. And i don’t believe if we believe in Pascal’s wager then we are not truly believing in God. And it does work for Global Warming.
Question # 2
Electrolysis is used to remove rust. I think that is what you mean in the question.
Question 1
Pascals Wager is a argument stated if you believe in God, there will not be any arm. If you do not believe in God, then you will face eternal damnation.
I do think that Wager philosophy is true about God. If you believe in God, you will gain a good relationship towards God. If you do not believe in God, you will keep on fallen deeper and deeper into the hole. That’s what I think about Wagers statement.
No is does not reflect on gw, because gw is not caused, by not believing God. It’s the worlds fault, by not taking care of the environment.
I think Wagers philosophy fits better with believing in God. Not Global Warming.
I agree with Will
I think that if we do not beieve in wagers statement, then we are not believing in God. That’s all false. You can believe in God, in any way you want to. Not the wager statement.
Pascal’s Wager basically says that if there is a chance that God doesnt exist, humans should keep living as if there is one because there is nothing to lose.
So this is pretty funny, that Pascal’s Wager came up this week.
I remember a while ago I aked my grandma a question about religion.
I said, “What if we found out that God didnt exist when we died?”
she just looked at me and said:
“Well, at least you were good, and worked hard for something.”
This is a theory that I kind of agree on because although I beileve that humans should live life with a purpose, I don’t beileve that it should always be a religious purpose.
I don’t think that it is appropriate to apply Pascal’s wager to our belief in God because it is not an accurate example of faith.
When you have faith in something, you have to whole-heartedly beileve it and rely on it, and Pascal’s Wager presents a sense of doubt into the whole “faith-cake.”
When I think about Pascal’s Wager I think of some guy saying
“You know, I really don’t know if eating ice-cream is bad for you–but just in case, let’s not do it anyway.”
It definatley works for global warming, cause although we don’t truly know what we are doing to our planet, it can’t hurt to try to prevent it.
Okay, so Pascal’s Wager says that if you believe in God, you will gain everything. If you don’t, you lose everything. If you believed in Him by accident, you will be damned to hell.
I have trouble believing that it’s even possible to believe anything by accident. I don’t see how you can “erroneously believe in God”. So I don’t really think it is correctly applied to our belief in God.
i agree with cody boukamp, because he seemed to put Pascal’s Wager into a short amount of words that was still easy to understand.
I would have have to agree with Cody Kempen because i agree that you cant erroneously believe in God either. This is a great answear by the Cody Kempen
I’d like to agree with Cody K. too. Like he and T.J. said how can you Accidentally believe in God. If you believe in God it’s because that’s what you think about it being true. you don’t just believe in God one day just… yeah see it’s not even POSSIBLE!
and with Global warming it doesn’t HURT to help it even if it’s not real.
Pascal’s wager says if you erroneously believe in God, you lose nothing, whereas if you correctly believe in God, you gain everything. But if you correctly disbelieve in God, you gain nothing, whereas if you erroneously disbelieve in God, you lose everything. OK how do you correctly or erroneously believe or disbelieve in God. If you believe in God or not it’s intensional and you know your doing it. although some people live in houses or something where they never even HEAR about God and that’s not their fault. so this is a hard question to answer. just think about that though. now I’m not even sure about Cody’s. It MAY be erroneously???