Christianity, Sin, and Pascal's Wager

[BIG NIGE]

I have a question about Christianity that I'm sure has been asked before but I am interested in how Christians would answer.

From my understanding, the Bible states the following:

1. We are all sinners, either people who accept Jesus as their savior or nonbelievers.
2. Anyone who accepts Jesus as their savior can have their sins atoned for and thus can get into heaven.

The (strong) implication is that sinning, besides being unavoidable, is okay because if someone accepts Jesus Christ as their savior, his sins will be no longer held against himn and he can go to heaven.

Now to the first part of my qiestion: The bible sayt that things like murder, theft, homosexuality, , etc. are sins. However, even people who don't committ these acts are still sinners (although I'm not sure for what). Therefore, why is it such a big deal if you murder someone, or are a homosexual, or whatever, since not only are you merely sinning just like everyone else, but your sins can be atoned for in the same way, by accepting Jesus as your savior? Does the act of accepting Jesus as your savior require some other kind of committment that would categorically prevent you from committing such acts again? Even if it did, couldn't you just keep accepting Jesus as your savior each time you did something "bad"? I have heard of devoutly religious Christians saying things like homosexuals and "baby-killers" will go to hell. Can't they just accept Jesus as their savior like everyone else, and then go to heaven with all the "virtuous" people?

This is where Pascal's Wager comes in to play. Pascal's Wager was originally an attempt to show that you should believe in God because it is +EV in that no matter how small the chance that God exists, the gain would be infinite because you would go to heaven when you die, plus a nonbeliever might end up going to hell, which would be an infinite loss. On the other hand, if God didn't exist, the nonbeliever would have no gain and the believer would have no loss.

It seems like this concept could be easily used as justification for any overall nonreligious person to accept Jesus as his savior. No matter how small the likelihood of Jesus actually being your savior and attoning for your sins, it sure beats the alternative of eternity in fiery hell. If you're wrong, no big deal because you were nonreligious before. so either there is no afterlife, or Allah/any other god(s) do what they will with you since presumably they would consider being nonreligious as no better than being Christian.

The part about Pascal's Wager I just added on because I thought it was interesting, but all it really is is a way for someone to justify accepting Jesus as his savior. There are many people who likely require no such justification or wouldn't care, they just accept Jesus as their savior anyway. Also I know Pascal's Wager is based on a lot of assumptions like God rewarding belief and blind faith, etc, but Christianity presumes those things to be true, so no matter how small the actual likelihood of Jesus saving you, you'd be in the same boat as every other Christian, or so it seems.

That is my main question. Can you unencumber yourself of any sin no matter how bad or detestable just by accepting Jesus as your savior? And if so then how can Christians denounce anyone as being a murderer or homosexual or anything else, when everyone is a sinner and everyone's sins can be atoned for by letting Jesus save you?

[agent_fish]

It depends on what brand of Christianity you are buying. I was raised in a pentecostal church. They believed that one needed to become "perfect" (meaning no sinning) in order to get to heaven. Then again, some Christians believe even Lucifer will be saved.

I've found that if you ask ten different religious people about their beliefs, you will get ten different answers (even if they go to the same church).



Another problem with Pascal's Wager is it's not like I could choose to believe in Jesus just like that. I could say I believe in Jesus but that is not going to change what I actually think.

[Lestat]

<font color="blue">If you're wrong, no big deal because you were nonreligious before. so either there is no afterlife, or Allah/any other god(s) do what they will with you since presumably they would consider being nonreligious as no better than being Christian. </font>

You just said a mouthful, if you take the time to understand what it means.

Pascal's wager implies that every Christian should actually EXPECT damnation just on the sheer probabilities that the one true God isn't the Christian God, but one of the many other different faiths. So now, you are better off hedging by NOT committing to any one god and hope the true god (if one exists), would forgive an otherwise decent person over someone who discredited Him by worshipping a false God of a different faith.

[Peter666]

[ QUOTE ]
<font color="blue">If you're wrong, no big deal because you were nonreligious before. so either there is no afterlife, or Allah/any other god(s) do what they will with you since presumably they would consider being nonreligious as no better than being Christian. </font>

You just said a mouthful, if you take the time to understand what it means.

Pascal's wager implies that every Christian should actually EXPECT damnation just on the sheer probabilities that the one true God isn't the Christian God, but one of the many other different faiths. So now, you are better off hedging by NOT committing to any one god and hope the true god (if one exists), would forgive an otherwise decent person over someone who discredited Him by worshipping a false God of a different faith.

[/ QUOTE ]

Pascal's wager is being misrepresented as usual. Pascal gave the choice of "Living as if God exists" or "Living as if God does not exist." It is not about belief alone and it is not about other gods or religions. The choice is to either abide by the rules of the one true God or not. If you are abiding by the rules of some other god or religion, you fall into the category of people "Living as if God does not exist" even if you think you are doing the right thing.

All the arguments against Pascal's wager change his original premises and are thus false.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
<font color="blue">If you're wrong, no big deal because you were nonreligious before. so either there is no afterlife, or Allah/any other god(s) do what they will with you since presumably they would consider being nonreligious as no better than being Christian. </font>

You just said a mouthful, if you take the time to understand what it means.

Pascal's wager implies that every Christian should actually EXPECT damnation just on the sheer probabilities that the one true God isn't the Christian God, but one of the many other different faiths. So now, you are better off hedging by NOT committing to any one god and hope the true god (if one exists), would forgive an otherwise decent person over someone who discredited Him by worshipping a false God of a different faith.

[/ QUOTE ]

Pascal's wager is being misrepresented as usual. Pascal gave the choice of "Living as if God exists" or "Living as if God does not exist." It is not about belief alone and it is not about other gods or religions. The choice is to either abide by the rules of the one true God or not. If you are abiding by the rules of some other god or religion, you fall into the category of people "Living as if God does not exist" even if you think you are doing the right thing.

All the arguments against Pascal's wager change his original premises and are thus false.

[/ QUOTE ]
which one true god would that be? the one you worship or the one who expects rational beliefs only or ...

and how would you know if you are one of the ones living as if god doesn't exist?

chez

[Peter666]

"which one true god would that be? the one you worship or the one who expects rational beliefs only or ..."

The one Pascal talks about.

"and how would you know if you are one of the ones living as if god doesn't exist?"

It doesn't matter until you are offered the wager. You can then learn all about Pascal's God's rules and make your choice.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
"which one true god would that be? the one you worship or the one who expects rational beliefs only or ..."

The one Pascal talks about.

"and how would you know if you are one of the ones living as if god doesn't exist?"

It doesn't matter until you are offered the wager. You can then learn all about Pascal's God's rules and make your choice.

[/ QUOTE ]
Who do you think Pascal was offering the wager to?

chez

[BIG NIGE]

Man I knew I shouldn't have put in the part about Pascal's Wager, and that people would focus on that instead of my main question: How Christians can justify denouncing murderers, homosexuals, and other such sinners, since they admit that everyone is a sinner and that whoever accepts Jesus as their savior can be atoned for and go to heaven? Furthermore, the promise of salvation and heaven for any who seek it raises the question of what motivation there is for someone to make a conscious effort to be virtuous (according to Bible standards or any others) and to avoid sin, as Heaven is described by the Bible as basically the be-all, end-all of human existence.

I only mentioned Pascal's Wager as a means by which an otherwise nonreligious person could theorettically convince himself to embrace Jesus, but is of ancillary importance because like I said, many (less logically or philosophically inclined) people would not need any kind of justification other than the notion that Jesus can maybe atone for all of your sins. If I am misrepresenting the wager then I'm sorry because it becomes a distraction from my main point.

P.S. Agent Fish: I have a difficult time understanding the Pentecostal Church's point of view. Humans are not divine or perfect beings, and are thus it is in their nature to sin, isn't it? And just for the sake of argument, suppose you did in fact lead a "perfect" life free of sin, but then you made one minor mistake that qualified as a "sin." So you're no longer perfect and can no longer get into heaven; what are you supposed to do, give up? Committ suicide? If they say that you can atone your sin and become perfect again, that just seems like a roundabout way of saying the same thing as other branches of Christianity, that you can get into Christianity no matter your sins as long as you accept Jesus.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
Man I knew I shouldn't have put in the part about Pascal's Wager, and that people would focus on that instead of my main question: How Christians can justify denouncing murderers, homosexuals, and other such sinners, since they admit that everyone is a sinner and that whoever accepts Jesus as their savior can be atoned for and go to heaven? Furthermore, the promise of salvation for any who seek it raises the question of what motivation there is for someone to make a conscious effort to be virtuous (according to Bible standards or any others) and to avoid sin, as Heaven is described by the Bible as basically the be-all, end-all of human existence.

I only mentioned Pascal's Wager as a means by which an otherwise nonreligious person could theorettically convince himself to embrace Jesus, but is of ancillary importance because like I said, many (less logically or philosophically inclined) people would not need any kind of justification other than the notion that Jesus can maybe atone for all of your sins. If I am misrepresenting the wager then I'm sorry because it becomes a distraction from my main point.

[/ QUOTE ]
yes the less logically inclined embrace all sorts of snake oils.

being virtuous for benefits after death is a very very silly idea but may be a useful silly idea if it it tricks people into having a better life.

chez

[bunny]

I think a good christian motivation for "doing the right thing" is because that is what God wants us to do. It's true we are destined to fail since nobody is perfect - that doesnt mean we shouldnt try our best though. Personally, I think God admires the trying to be good part rather than the actually being good part (since he could have just made us incapable of sin but instead gave us the choice).

[Peter666]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
"which one true god would that be? the one you worship or the one who expects rational beliefs only or ..."

The one Pascal talks about.

"and how would you know if you are one of the ones living as if god doesn't exist?"

It doesn't matter until you are offered the wager. You can then learn all about Pascal's God's rules and make your choice.

[/ QUOTE ]
Who do you think Pascal was offering the wager to?

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

His readers most likely. The rules of the game are the same for anybody who decides to play, and all must conform to the rules.

[Peter666]

"How Christians can justify denouncing murderers, homosexuals, and other such sinners, since they admit that everyone is a sinner and that whoever accepts Jesus as their savior can be atoned for and go to heaven?"

Sins vary by degree, and the sins are what is denounced and not the sinner, who is to be pitied for the punishment they will incur.

[BIG NIGE]

[ QUOTE ]
"How Christians can justify denouncing murderers, homosexuals, and other such sinners, since they admit that everyone is a sinner and that whoever accepts Jesus as their savior can be atoned for and go to heaven?"

Sins vary by degree, and the sins are what is denounced and not the sinner, who is to be pitied for the punishment they will incur.

[/ QUOTE ]

I've seen several cases of supposedly devout Christians insisting that people who commit certain sins will go to hell, upon which terrible things will hapen to them, and they will sentenced to eternal damnation. But all you have to do is accept Jesus and this fate can be averted. How can any Christian proclaim that someone is bound for hell when that person can still be saved? Futhermore, don't such proclamations disregard Jesus' teachings: "Do not judge lest you be judged," and "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone"?

As for the varyind degrees of sins and the levels of punishment that go along with them, exactly what kind of punishment will be incurred by someone who, say, is gay, a baby-killer, committs acts of infidelity, or whatever other serious sins there are? The concept of being saved and going to heaven seems to be portrayed as the paramount goal, and that is what you should strive for above all else, to accept Jesus as your savior. Everything else appears to be of secondary importance; a virtuous nonbeliever is spurned from heaven while a believer who has committed the most vile of sins can gain acceptance. Thus, how can any Christian expect the threat of punishment to deter someone from sinning? And besides, even if it DID deter someone from sinning, it would seem to be violating the spirit of actinv virtuously by being virtuous to avoid punishment, just like peole who would accept Jesus just to avoid hell.

[Peter666]

As others have mentioned, there are many Christian denominations and sects, so the teaching varies. The big difference is between the Catholic and numerous Protestant sects. The first espouses that a good conscience and good works on earth are meritorious and can aid in obtaining salvation, while the latter teaches that belief alone does it. I don't buy Martin Luther's argument for it creates the dilemma you bring up. If I could have lots of sex with loose women, murder all my enemies and get cleared by "believing in Jesus" rather than having to be truly sorry and changing my life, I would.

As for punishment and reward, if God is all just, he will reward good actions and bad actions in the exact amount they should be in each individual case. As such, a rapist should have to suffer more for his sins than a fornicator in Hell.

As for punishment deterring sins, it is very useful. True, it is better to do good works for love of God rather than being punished, but being scared has its own virtues too. A scared person is showing humility and a sense of justice which shows respect to God, and those are commendable things.

[BIG NIGE]

I'm gonna make a new thread because now I'm more interested in people's views on salvation, there seems to be problems no matter what position you take.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
"which one true god would that be? the one you worship or the one who expects rational beliefs only or ..."

The one Pascal talks about.

"and how would you know if you are one of the ones living as if god doesn't exist?"

It doesn't matter until you are offered the wager. You can then learn all about Pascal's God's rules and make your choice.

[/ QUOTE ]
Who do you think Pascal was offering the wager to?

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

His readers most likely. The rules of the game are the same for anybody who decides to play, and all must conform to the rules.

[/ QUOTE ]
He wasn't suggesting a game. You've missed his point completely.

chez

[Lestat]

<font color="blue"> Pascal's wager is being misrepresented as usual. Pascal gave the choice of "Living as if God exists" or "Living as if God does not exist." It is not about belief alone and it is not about other gods or religions. The choice is to either abide by the rules of the one true God or not. If you are abiding by the rules of some other god or religion, you fall into the category of people "Living as if God does not exist" even if you think you are doing the right thing.

All the arguments against Pascal's wager change his original premises and are thus false.
</font>

Wrong.

If you worship the Christian God, but it is the God of Hindu that exists, not only have you lived your life as if the Hindu God didn't exist, but you have worshipped a false God and no doubt highly offended the God of Hindu! How is this not worse than had you simply spent your life as an atheist?!?!

Btw- Most atheists DO live their life as if a God could exist. They don't kill, they respect their fellow man, and have a healthy respect for the environment (creation). Much more so than many religious people do.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

That is my main question. Can you unencumber yourself of any sin no matter how bad or detestable just by accepting Jesus as your savior?


[/ QUOTE ]

Yes. But from other things you say I think you have a flawed view of what "accepting Jesus" means. If you have in mind to say "I accept Jesus" with the intention of then living a sinful life so that later you can once again "accept Jesus", and so on, you are way below the Biblical explanation of "accepting Jesus".

There are many descriptions in the New Testament of what it means. Here's one:

23And He was saying to them all, "If anyone wishes to come after Me, he must deny himself, and take up his cross daily and follow Me.

[BIG NIGE]

Yes. But from other things you say I think you have a flawed view of what "accepting Jesus" means. If you have in mind to say "I accept Jesus" with the intention of then living a sinful life so that later you can once again "accept Jesus", and so on, you are way below the Biblical explanation of "accepting Jesus".

There are many descriptions in the New Testament of what it means. Here's one:

23And He was saying to them all, "If anyone wishes to come after Me, he must deny himself, and take up his cross daily and follow Me.

[/ QUOTE ]

What does it mean to "deny yourself" and "take up your cross daly"? It seems like those requirements could be subject to very liberal interpretation.

[Peter666]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
"which one true god would that be? the one you worship or the one who expects rational beliefs only or ..."

The one Pascal talks about.

"and how would you know if you are one of the ones living as if god doesn't exist?"

It doesn't matter until you are offered the wager. You can then learn all about Pascal's God's rules and make your choice.

[/ QUOTE ]
Who do you think Pascal was offering the wager to?

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

His readers most likely. The rules of the game are the same for anybody who decides to play, and all must conform to the rules.

[/ QUOTE ]
He wasn't suggesting a game. You've missed his point completely.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

Absolutely not. You have not explained what Pascal's point is or how any third party arbitrary rules trying to criticize the wager can be valid.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
<font color="blue">If you're wrong, no big deal because you were nonreligious before. so either there is no afterlife, or Allah/any other god(s) do what they will with you since presumably they would consider being nonreligious as no better than being Christian. </font>

You just said a mouthful, if you take the time to understand what it means.

Pascal's wager implies that every Christian should actually EXPECT damnation just on the sheer probabilities that the one true God isn't the Christian God, but one of the many other different faiths. So now, you are better off hedging by NOT committing to any one god and hope the true god (if one exists), would forgive an otherwise decent person over someone who discredited Him by worshipping a false God of a different faith.

[/ QUOTE ]

Pascal's wager is being misrepresented as usual. Pascal gave the choice of "Living as if God exists" or "Living as if God does not exist." It is not about belief alone and it is not about other gods or religions. The choice is to either abide by the rules of the one true God or not. If you are abiding by the rules of some other god or religion, you fall into the category of people "Living as if God does not exist" even if you think you are doing the right thing.

All the arguments against Pascal's wager change his original premises and are thus false.

[/ QUOTE ]

Right, but the knock against the Wager is that his "God" is far too specific and narrow-minded. Pascal's biggest problem re: wagering is that he lacked imagination. In his world, there was God, and there was no God. God being the Christian God. If he had just stopped and thought for a second, about the infinite possible Gods, he'd have realized how stupid his Wager was, and that it in fact suggested exactly the opposite of what he intended.

[vhawk01]

Do us a favor, Peter, and lay out the Wager as you understand it. As a syllogism would be nice but not required.

[revots33]

Obviously had Pascal been a Muslim then his wager would have been talking about a different god. But he wasn't so I guess it makes sense that he would not factor the possibility of a different god into his wager.

But regardless, I think Pascal's main point was that living "as if" the Christian god existed would make you a better person (which in itself might be +EV in terms of gaining heaven), and might lead to genuine faith later (even more +EV).

I think a bigger flaw in Pascal's wager is the idea that, even if the Christian god IS the true god, he would reward insincere belief motivated primarily by self-interest and a desire to avoid punishment. For all we know he'd prefer we say "I don't know" and try to live a good life anyway.

[Peter666]

"infinite possible Gods" is a contradiction and metaphysical impossibility. To say Pascal is being too specific and narrow minded is like saying the rules of math are too specific and narrow minded and should be open subjective interpretation. Now that would be stupid.

[Peter666]

Keeping Pascal's historical context, we can put the wager like this:

You can either choose to live as a pious Catholic and die in the state of grace, or you can choose to live an impious life and die in the state of mortal sin.

The consequences of being a pious Catholic will result in either: eternal pleasure in Heaven, or nothing.

The consequences of being an impious soul are either: nothing, or eternal damnation.

To live an impious life will give you finite pleasure. In the worst case scenario, living a pious life will be unpleasurable (although in practice this is not true) but finite as well.

If the slightest possibility exists for attaining eternal pleasure or avoiding eternal pain, then that is the logical and best course to take.

As there is no such thing as an absolute skeptic, the slightest possibility of eternal reward and punishment are present. Thus living as a pious Catholic is the only logical alternative.

If the reward or punishment were finite and not eternal, then you could make an argument for living the impious life.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
Keeping Pascal's historical context, we can put the wager like this:

You can either choose to live as a pious Catholic and die in the state of grace, or you can choose to live an impious life and die in the state of mortal sin.

The consequences of being a pious Catholic will result in either: eternal pleasure in Heaven, or nothing.

The consequences of being an impious soul are either: nothing, or eternal damnation.

To live an impious life will give you finite pleasure. In the worst case scenario, living a pious life will be unpleasurable (although in practice this is not true) but finite as well.

If the slightest possibility exists for attaining eternal pleasure or avoiding eternal pain, then that is the logical and best course to take.

As there is no such thing as an absolute skeptic, the slightest possibility of eternal reward and punishment are present. Thus living as a pious Catholic is the only logical alternative.

If the reward or punishment were finite and not eternal, then you could make an argument for living the impious life.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok, time to start destroying these premises! The only one we really need to deal with here is "The consequences of being a pious Catholic will result in either: eternal pleasure in Heaven, or nothing. " This is of course incorrect. The consequences of that are only true if the only possible scenarios are "Catholic God" or "No God." But we would never accept that ludicrous, unsupported premise. In order to do so, we'd already have to BE Catholics, and then what point the wager?

[Lestat]

True. Catholics seem to dismiss any notion that their religion might have it wrong. Suppose for a minute that Jesus (while a good man), was JUST a man as pretty much ALL other religions believe (including Judaism, which goes from the same OT!)

Now suppose Christians DO have it right about God being a jealous God. By worshipping Jesus, they are basically spending their lives worshipping a fake. A false God. You don't think a jealous God who has nothing to do with Christianity would be just a little upset with that?

[Peter666]

"Catholic God" or "No God." is precisely what Pascal is implying, and all alternatives, even if well meaning, are false.

And of course Catholics dismiss that their religion could have it wrong. If dogma is not infallible, it is useless. Indefectability is the main quality of God's Church.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
"Catholic God" or "No God." is precisely what Pascal is implying, and all alternatives, even if well meaning, are false.

And of course Catholics dismiss that their religion could have it wrong. If dogma is not infallible, it is useless. Indefectability is the main quality of God's Church.

[/ QUOTE ]

So, its like the most impotent possible Wager? He is only speaking to Catholics....who already believe in God. What good is that wager, as I've asked before?

I guess we just assumed, with our 'alternatives,' that Pascal, while glaringly incorrect on this one issue, wasn't a big enough moron to propose an ENTIRELY useless Wager. He assumes that the Catholic God exists (and "is the only one possible" is the same as saying He exists) and then uses that to ARGUE, not even conclude, but ARGUE, that the Catholic God exists? LOL at that, I guess.

[Lestat]

But Peter, I'm sure even you will admit that it isn't just, "Catholic God", or "No God". You have to take into account all the other deities, which are believed in just as feverantly by those as intelligent as yourself.

As Vhawk points out, if you ALREADY believe in the Catholic God, then such a wager is useless, and not at all pursuasive.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
"which one true god would that be? the one you worship or the one who expects rational beliefs only or ..."

The one Pascal talks about.

"and how would you know if you are one of the ones living as if god doesn't exist?"

It doesn't matter until you are offered the wager. You can then learn all about Pascal's God's rules and make your choice.

[/ QUOTE ]
Who do you think Pascal was offering the wager to?

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

His readers most likely. The rules of the game are the same for anybody who decides to play, and all must conform to the rules.

[/ QUOTE ]
He wasn't suggesting a game. You've missed his point completely.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

Absolutely not. You have not explained what Pascal's point is or how any third party arbitrary rules trying to criticize the wager can be valid.

[/ QUOTE ]
We've been through it so often its silly. There's no 'rules' arbitary or otherwise, Pascal's wager is an attempt to show that people who don't believe in god should believe in god (or go along with it on the chance they will start believing). He lays out a payoff matrix to prove his point.

but his simply wrong because he assume that if there is a god that god won't punish you for taking the wager. This asumption has no force for the people the wager is addressed to, so the wager fails.

chez

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
"Catholic God" or "No God." is precisely what Pascal is implying, and all alternatives, even if well meaning, are false.

[/ QUOTE ]
You do pascal an injustice but if that's all the wager was then its obviously has no relevence to the real world and just becomes your 'game'. May as well play noughts and crosses.

chez

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
"Catholic God" or "No God." is precisely what Pascal is implying, and all alternatives, even if well meaning, are false.

[/ QUOTE ]
You do pascal an injustice but if that's all the wager was then its obviously has no relevence to the real world and just becomes your 'game'. May as well play noughts and crosses.

In fact the wager is stronger that you give it credit for as if 'god exists -&gt; belief in the correct god is necessary for heaven' then we should take Pascals' wager even if many gods are possible.

chez

[Peter666]

There are two errors being made. The first is that other deities come into the equation. They do not and cannot. There can only be one true deity amongst them, and that is the one that Pascal is referring to. It is taken for granted that adhering to the first proposal in the wager means that you are following the true God whoever that may be. Particular beliefs are irrelevant as you have subjected yourself to doing the only correct God's will when choosing A.

The second error is that if you already believe in God, the wager is useless. Pascal gives the options to: Live as if God exists, or not to live as if God exists. You can still believe in God and choose not to live as if he exists.

[Lestat]

<font color="blue"> It is taken for granted that adhering to the first proposal in the wager means that you are following the true God whoever that may be. </font>

But why do you not find it wrong to take that for granted? Do you deny the slightest possibility for any other God,except for the God of Abraham? Is so, this is simply very poor mathematical judgement on your part. Of course, there exists this possibility.

You can't just take for granted that you happened to hook up with the one true God who you should believe in, among all other potential gods and entities that others believe in.

Obviously, we're missing each other by a lot. I'm saying only a fool would think the god he happens to believe in, is 100% lock to be the one true god. You're saying what?....

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
<font color="blue"> It is taken for granted that adhering to the first proposal in the wager means that you are following the true God whoever that may be. </font>

But why do you not find it wrong to take that for granted? Do you deny the slightest possibility for any other God,except for the God of Abraham? Is so, this is simply very poor mathematical judgement on your part. Of course, there exists this possibility.

You can't just take for granted that you happened to hook up with the one true God who you should believe in, among all other potential gods and entities that others believe in.

Obviously, we're missing each other by a lot. I'm saying only a fool would think the god he happens to believe in, is 100% lock to be the one true god. You're saying what?....

[/ QUOTE ]
but even if the fool does believe it's a lock, its not a reason for the non-believer to take Pascal's wager - and its the non-believer that its offered to.

chez

[Lestat]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
<font color="blue"> It is taken for granted that adhering to the first proposal in the wager means that you are following the true God whoever that may be. </font>

But why do you not find it wrong to take that for granted? Do you deny the slightest possibility for any other God,except for the God of Abraham? Is so, this is simply very poor mathematical judgement on your part. Of course, there exists this possibility.

You can't just take for granted that you happened to hook up with the one true God who you should believe in, among all other potential gods and entities that others believe in.

Obviously, we're missing each other by a lot. I'm saying only a fool would think the god he happens to believe in, is 100% lock to be the one true god. You're saying what?....

[/ QUOTE ]
but even if the fool does believe it's a lock, its not a reason for the non-believer to take Pascal's wager - and its the non-believer that its offered to.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

Now I'm really lost. Isn't this what I've been saying? That it is NOT a reason for a non-believer to accept such a wager? If your offering the wager to only Catholics who already believe in God, what's the point?

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
<font color="blue"> It is taken for granted that adhering to the first proposal in the wager means that you are following the true God whoever that may be. </font>

But why do you not find it wrong to take that for granted? Do you deny the slightest possibility for any other God,except for the God of Abraham? Is so, this is simply very poor mathematical judgement on your part. Of course, there exists this possibility.

You can't just take for granted that you happened to hook up with the one true God who you should believe in, among all other potential gods and entities that others believe in.

Obviously, we're missing each other by a lot. I'm saying only a fool would think the god he happens to believe in, is 100% lock to be the one true god. You're saying what?....

[/ QUOTE ]
but even if the fool does believe it's a lock, its not a reason for the non-believer to take Pascal's wager - and its the non-believer that its offered to.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

Now I'm really lost. Isn't this what I've been saying? That it is NOT a reason for a non-believer to accept such a wager? If your offering the wager to only Catholics who already believe in God, what's the point?

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm agreeing with you but saying that even if we concede the foolish conviction it makes no difference to the wager because its from the wrong perspective.

Its liking having to decide whether to call someone who may have aces and Peter believing we shouldn't call because they do have aces. It may be true that we shouldn't call if they do have aces (which peter believes with conviction) but its completely irrelevent to us (who only believe he may have aces).

Peter renders pascal's wager true but vacuous whereas Pascal was actually onto something with a little substance even though its false.

chez

[Peter666]

Insofar as God is indefectible, so is the Faith that you are given the chance to believe in. It is vacuous only insofar as one decides to add additional elements into the equation, such as many faiths to choose from. But this was never Pascal's intention, and rendered as is, the wager is both true and with consequences that make choice A the only reasonable answer.

Pascal's point is not only to convince one that it is better to believe, but to also turn impious believers into pious ones.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
Insofar as God is indefectible, so is the Faith that you are given the chance to believe in. It is vacuous only insofar as one decides to add additional elements into the equation, such as many faiths to choose from. But this was never Pascal's intention, and rendered as is, the wager is both true and with consequences that make choice A the only reasonable answer.


[/ QUOTE ]
but it makes choice A the only reasonable answer in a vacuous 'game' rather than in any way applicable to non-believers in the real world.

Its a bit dull just to argue about what Pascal's intentions were, but whenever anyone attempt to use pascal's wager (and by god they do and they do) to persuade non-believers that its +ev to believe, they are totally wrong. Maybe Pascal isn't responsible for their mistake but all I've read (admitedly not the original French (or is it latin)) suggests he made the same mistake.

chez

[Peter666]

"but his simply wrong because he assume that if there is a god that god won't punish you for taking the wager. This asumption has no force for the people the wager is addressed to, so the wager fails."

I don't understand what you mean. The only people with the possibility for punishment are those who choose B. And everyone eventually chooses A or B by commission or in the case of B, omission as well. They don't have to be forced to do it.

[Peter666]

"but it makes choice A the only reasonable answer in a vacuous 'game' rather than in any way applicable to non-believers in the real world."

Isn't the 'game' a metaphor for the real world? That an indefectible religion exists is also claimed in the real world, so non-believers are confronted by this reality too in a practical way. They just have to figure out which one of the religions is the truly indefectible one first, and then decide to follow it or not.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
"but his simply wrong because he assume that if there is a god that god won't punish you for taking the wager. This asumption has no force for the people the wager is addressed to, so the wager fails."

I don't understand what you mean. The only people with the possibility for punishment are those who choose B. And everyone eventually chooses A or B by commission or in the case of B, omission as well. They don't have to be forced to do it.

[/ QUOTE ]
That's the fallacy, there's a possible infinite penalty for chosing A as well.

If we assume that a god exists who will infintely punish people depending on their beliefs (or lack of them) then there's the infinite risk whatever you do. If no god then it doesn't matter either way.

This removes the force (strength not coercion) of the argument which is based on the fallacious idea of only a finite loss for non-believing.

In fact, I think pascal got this bit right in that he was saying that betting on god is +ev. Its the application that's fallacious because not assuming belief in god may be the correct way to bet on god.

chez

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
"but it makes choice A the only reasonable answer in a vacuous 'game' rather than in any way applicable to non-believers in the real world."

Isn't the 'game' a metaphor for the real world? That an indefectible religion exists is also claimed in the real world, so non-believers are confronted by this reality too in a practical way. They just have to figure out which one of the religions is the truly indefectible one first, and then decide to follow it or not.

[/ QUOTE ]
or no religon.

chez

[revots33]

[ QUOTE ]
In the worst case scenario, living a pious life will be unpleasurable (although in practice this is not true)

[/ QUOTE ]

oh cmon, yes it is. /images/graemlins/wink.gif

Just kidding but I think it does bring up a valid critcism of the wager. Going to church every week, giving money to a church, feeling guilty about "sins" such as masturbation or homosexuality, not having an abortion when you really want one, etc.... these are all definite costs to belief. And when you take into account the infinitesimal chance that hell actually exists, the wager might not be as +EV as it seems.

[Justin A]

[ QUOTE ]
"but it makes choice A the only reasonable answer in a vacuous 'game' rather than in any way applicable to non-believers in the real world."

Isn't the 'game' a metaphor for the real world? That an indefectible religion exists is also claimed in the real world, so non-believers are confronted by this reality too in a practical way. They just have to figure out which one of the religions is the truly indefectible one first, and then decide to follow it or not.

[/ QUOTE ]

Let me guess, we're supposed to figure this out using faith? Also, your statement assumes that one of the religions is indefectible. It's quite possible that all the human religions have it wrong.

[Peter666]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
"but it makes choice A the only reasonable answer in a vacuous 'game' rather than in any way applicable to non-believers in the real world."

Isn't the 'game' a metaphor for the real world? That an indefectible religion exists is also claimed in the real world, so non-believers are confronted by this reality too in a practical way. They just have to figure out which one of the religions is the truly indefectible one first, and then decide to follow it or not.

[/ QUOTE ]

Let me guess, we're supposed to figure this out using faith? Also, your statement assumes that one of the religions is indefectible. It's quite possible that all the human religions have it wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

Unless you can absolutely prove that the religion that claims to be indefectible is not indefectible, than you move on to the wager. Yet I doubt that absolutely denying the indefectiblity of the religion can be done, just like it is impossible to absolutely prove God does not exist.

All you skeptics are stuck because you don't have absolute proof against the things you deny. And when you have a choice between nothing and the possibility of something, you have to go with the something or claim that you don't exist!

[Taraz]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
"but it makes choice A the only reasonable answer in a vacuous 'game' rather than in any way applicable to non-believers in the real world."

Isn't the 'game' a metaphor for the real world? That an indefectible religion exists is also claimed in the real world, so non-believers are confronted by this reality too in a practical way. They just have to figure out which one of the religions is the truly indefectible one first, and then decide to follow it or not.

[/ QUOTE ]

Let me guess, we're supposed to figure this out using faith? Also, your statement assumes that one of the religions is indefectible. It's quite possible that all the human religions have it wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

Unless you can absolutely prove that the religion that claims to be indefectible is not indefectible, than you move on to the wager. Yet I doubt that absolutely denying the indefectiblity of the religion can be done, just like it is impossible to absolutely prove God does not exist.

All you skeptics are stuck because you don't have absolute proof against the things you deny. And when you have a choice between nothing and the possibility of something, you have to go with the something or claim that you don't exist!

[/ QUOTE ]

I think one main point is that you have no way of knowing which religion to choose. If I grew up as an atheist, I cannot take Pascal's wager because I don't know which God I need to please.

[agent_fish]

[ QUOTE ]

P.S. Agent Fish: I have a difficult time understanding the Pentecostal Church's point of view. Humans are not divine or perfect beings, and are thus it is in their nature to sin, isn't it? And just for the sake of argument, suppose you did in fact lead a "perfect" life free of sin, but then you made one minor mistake that qualified as a "sin." So you're no longer perfect and can no longer get into heaven; what are you supposed to do, give up? Committ suicide? If they say that you can atone your sin and become perfect again, that just seems like a roundabout way of saying the same thing as other branches of Christianity, that you can get into Christianity no matter your sins as long as you accept Jesus.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree. Cults tend to not be logical. That's why I'm an atheist nowadays (for reasons pertaining to logic).

What they believed was that one could reach a state called an "overcomer". In that state one would no longer have the desire to sin. Of course if one sinned then he would know that he had not reached that state. They believed that one had to reach that state to become a member of Jesus's "bride" which is basically the rapture.

If one did not reach that state before the second coming of Jesus or before death, then one had a chance to be resurrected at some point in the future as long as he was trying to become perfect. Once resurrected, he would have another opportunity to reach perfection. This would occur around the time of the Second Coming of Jesus.

It was definitely an odd church. They spoke in tongues. I've spoken in tongues. I notch it up to the power of suggestion and peer pressure now. When I think back on it I remember that I was just babbling because that's what everyone else was doing. However, at the time it seemed "real".

They also tried to make you separate yourself from the outside world. Everything one did had to be church-approved. This included everything from clothing to hairstyles to the electronics one owned.

Of course, I think it's all completely ludicrous now. It's even kind of weird to talk about it.

[NoahSD]

[ QUOTE ]
<font color="blue">If you're wrong, no big deal because you were nonreligious before. so either there is no afterlife, or Allah/any other god(s) do what they will with you since presumably they would consider being nonreligious as no better than being Christian. </font>

You just said a mouthful, if you take the time to understand what it means.

Pascal's wager implies that every Christian should actually EXPECT damnation just on the sheer probabilities that the one true God isn't the Christian God, but one of the many other different faiths. So now, you are better off hedging by NOT committing to any one god and hope the true god (if one exists), would forgive an otherwise decent person over someone who discredited Him by worshipping a false God of a different faith.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's much more complicated than that. If you're objective about things, you'll realize that we have absolutely no way of determining which of the possible gods (i.e., the gods that could've created the universe as we see it) is more or less likely than the others. Therefore, we have to worry both about the god who judges us more favorably the more people we kill and the god who judges us more harshly the more people we kill.

In other words, pascal's wager leads to absolutely no conclusion.

[Peter666]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
<font color="blue">If you're wrong, no big deal because you were nonreligious before. so either there is no afterlife, or Allah/any other god(s) do what they will with you since presumably they would consider being nonreligious as no better than being Christian. </font>

You just said a mouthful, if you take the time to understand what it means.

Pascal's wager implies that every Christian should actually EXPECT damnation just on the sheer probabilities that the one true God isn't the Christian God, but one of the many other different faiths. So now, you are better off hedging by NOT committing to any one god and hope the true god (if one exists), would forgive an otherwise decent person over someone who discredited Him by worshipping a false God of a different faith.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's much more complicated than that. If you're objective about things, you'll realize that we have absolutely no way of determining which of the possible gods (i.e., the gods that could've created the universe as we see it) is more or less likely than the others. Therefore, we have to worry both about the god who judges us more favorably the more people we kill and the god who judges us more harshly the more people we kill.

In other words, pascal's wager leads to absolutely no conclusion.

[/ QUOTE ]

One can certainly compare the different religions and gods to determine which one is most likely to be the true one. And unless you have absolute evidence to counter the claim, you are compelled to act on the possibility of an indefectible religion, which leads to Pascal's positive conclusion.

[Lestat]

<font color="blue">One can certainly compare the different religions and gods to determine which one is most likely to be the true one. </font>

And which one would that be?

[GoodCallYouWin]

"And which one would that be?"

Cult of Baachus FTW?

[Peter666]

[ QUOTE ]
"And which one would that be?"

Cult of Baachus FTW?

[/ QUOTE ]

4th Reformed Cult of Bacchus of Latter Day Wiccans. Or Catholicism.

[Peter666]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
"but it makes choice A the only reasonable answer in a vacuous 'game' rather than in any way applicable to non-believers in the real world."

Isn't the 'game' a metaphor for the real world? That an indefectible religion exists is also claimed in the real world, so non-believers are confronted by this reality too in a practical way. They just have to figure out which one of the religions is the truly indefectible one first, and then decide to follow it or not.

[/ QUOTE ]

Let me guess, we're supposed to figure this out using faith? Also, your statement assumes that one of the religions is indefectible. It's quite possible that all the human religions have it wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

Unless you can absolutely prove that the religion that claims to be indefectible is not indefectible, than you move on to the wager. Yet I doubt that absolutely denying the indefectiblity of the religion can be done, just like it is impossible to absolutely prove God does not exist.

All you skeptics are stuck because you don't have absolute proof against the things you deny. And when you have a choice between nothing and the possibility of something, you have to go with the something or claim that you don't exist!

[/ QUOTE ]

I think one main point is that you have no way of knowing which religion to choose. If I grew up as an atheist, I cannot take Pascal's wager because I don't know which God I need to please.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's not so important that you take the wager. It is important to acknowledge that IF there is a true religion and God, then the logical choice would be to follow it, as shown by the wager. And that compels one to constantly seek the truth, especially those who see "nothing".

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
"but it makes choice A the only reasonable answer in a vacuous 'game' rather than in any way applicable to non-believers in the real world."

Isn't the 'game' a metaphor for the real world? That an indefectible religion exists is also claimed in the real world, so non-believers are confronted by this reality too in a practical way. They just have to figure out which one of the religions is the truly indefectible one first, and then decide to follow it or not.

[/ QUOTE ]

Let me guess, we're supposed to figure this out using faith? Also, your statement assumes that one of the religions is indefectible. It's quite possible that all the human religions have it wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

Unless you can absolutely prove that the religion that claims to be indefectible is not indefectible, than you move on to the wager. Yet I doubt that absolutely denying the indefectiblity of the religion can be done, just like it is impossible to absolutely prove God does not exist.

All you skeptics are stuck because you don't have absolute proof against the things you deny. And when you have a choice between nothing and the possibility of something, you have to go with the something or claim that you don't exist!

[/ QUOTE ]

I think one main point is that you have no way of knowing which religion to choose. If I grew up as an atheist, I cannot take Pascal's wager because I don't know which God I need to please.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's not so important that you take the wager. It is important to acknowledge that IF there is a true religion and God, then the logical choice would be to follow it, as shown by the wager. And that compels one to constantly seek the truth, especially those who see "nothing".

[/ QUOTE ]
you seem to equate being more credulous with seeking truth. but many of the more skeptical claim the reverse is true.

chez

[bills217]

[ QUOTE ]
1. We are all sinners, either people who accept Jesus as their savior or nonbelievers.

[/ QUOTE ]

The Bible states all have sinned, not all will sin in the future - there is a pretty significant difference in the two.


23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God...
-Romans 3:23


Here are some Bible verses that directly address the seriousness of sin, and some of the issues you raise:


11 ...And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more.
-John 8:11


14 But afterward Jesus found him in the Temple and told him, “Now you are well; so stop sinning, or something even worse may happen to you.”
-John 5:14


3 And we can be sure that we know him if we obey his commandments. 4 If someone claims, “I know God,” but doesn’t obey God’s commandments, that person is a liar and is not living in the truth. 5 But those who obey God’s word truly show how completely they love him. That is how we know we are living in him. 6 Those who say they live in God should live their lives as Jesus did.
-1 John 2:3-6


6No one who lives in him keeps on sinning. No one who continues to sin has either seen him or known him.

7Dear children, do not let anyone lead you astray. He who does what is right is righteous, just as he is righteous. 8He who does what is sinful is of the devil, because the devil has been sinning from the beginning. The reason the Son of God appeared was to destroy the devil's work. 9No one who is born of God will continue to sin, because God's seed remains in him; he cannot go on sinning, because he has been born of God.
-1 John 3:6-9

[bills217]

[ QUOTE ]
Can you unencumber yourself of any sin no matter how bad or detestable just by accepting Jesus as your savior?

[/ QUOTE ]

If you acknowledge that you have sinned and thus cannot earn Heaven on your own, and acknowledge that Jesus is the only way to salvation, REPENT (meaning show heartfelt remorse and discontinue any and all sin), and place your faith and trust in him, then the answer is an unequivocal yes.

For example, based on the interview Ted Bundy gave Dr. James Dobson the day before he was executed (Link (http://www.pureintimacy.org/gr/intimacy/understanding/a0000082.cfm)), I think it is entirely reasonable to believe Ted Bundy may be in Heaven (although as the Bible says and as NR has said many times, it is not our place to make such a judgment).

[Peter666]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
"but it makes choice A the only reasonable answer in a vacuous 'game' rather than in any way applicable to non-believers in the real world."

Isn't the 'game' a metaphor for the real world? That an indefectible religion exists is also claimed in the real world, so non-believers are confronted by this reality too in a practical way. They just have to figure out which one of the religions is the truly indefectible one first, and then decide to follow it or not.

[/ QUOTE ]

Let me guess, we're supposed to figure this out using faith? Also, your statement assumes that one of the religions is indefectible. It's quite possible that all the human religions have it wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

Unless you can absolutely prove that the religion that claims to be indefectible is not indefectible, than you move on to the wager. Yet I doubt that absolutely denying the indefectiblity of the religion can be done, just like it is impossible to absolutely prove God does not exist.

All you skeptics are stuck because you don't have absolute proof against the things you deny. And when you have a choice between nothing and the possibility of something, you have to go with the something or claim that you don't exist!

[/ QUOTE ]

I think one main point is that you have no way of knowing which religion to choose. If I grew up as an atheist, I cannot take Pascal's wager because I don't know which God I need to please.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's not so important that you take the wager. It is important to acknowledge that IF there is a true religion and God, then the logical choice would be to follow it, as shown by the wager. And that compels one to constantly seek the truth, especially those who see "nothing".

[/ QUOTE ]
you seem to equate being more credulous with seeking truth. but many of the more skeptical claim the reverse is true.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

Being skeptical is useful when dealing with objectively measurable parameters. But when skeptics make absolute statements about things that cannot be absolutely discernible, they are basing it on their FAITH in skepticism, which is not only credulous, but hypocritical as well.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
But when skeptics make absolute statements about things that cannot be absolutely discernible, they are basing it on their FAITH in skepticism, which is not only credulous, but hypocritical as well.


[/ QUOTE ]
I agree but what's that got to do with this thread?

chez

[David Sklansky]

[ QUOTE ]
Keeping Pascal's historical context, we can put the wager like this:

You can either choose to live as a pious Catholic and die in the state of grace, or you can choose to live an impious life and die in the state of mortal sin.

The consequences of being a pious Catholic will result in either: eternal pleasure in Heaven, or nothing.

The consequences of being an impious soul are either: nothing, or eternal damnation.

To live an impious life will give you finite pleasure. In the worst case scenario, living a pious life will be unpleasurable (although in practice this is not true) but finite as well.

If the slightest possibility exists for attaining eternal pleasure or avoiding eternal pain, then that is the logical and best course to take.

As there is no such thing as an absolute skeptic, the slightest possibility of eternal reward and punishment are present. Thus living as a pious Catholic is the only logical alternative.

If the reward or punishment were finite and not eternal, then you could make an argument for living the impious life.

[/ QUOTE ]

So Not Ready is going to hell if he doesn't become a Catholic?

[Zeno]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Keeping Pascal's historical context, we can put the wager like this:

You can either choose to live as a pious Catholic and die in the state of grace, or you can choose to live an impious life and die in the state of mortal sin.

The consequences of being a pious Catholic will result in either: eternal pleasure in Heaven, or nothing.

The consequences of being an impious soul are either: nothing, or eternal damnation.

To live an impious life will give you finite pleasure. In the worst case scenario, living a pious life will be unpleasurable (although in practice this is not true) but finite as well.

If the slightest possibility exists for attaining eternal pleasure or avoiding eternal pain, then that is the logical and best course to take.

As there is no such thing as an absolute skeptic, the slightest possibility of eternal reward and punishment are present. Thus living as a pious Catholic is the only logical alternative.

If the reward or punishment were finite and not eternal, then you could make an argument for living the impious life.

[/ QUOTE ]

So Not Ready is going to hell if he doesn't become a Catholic?

[/ QUOTE ]
That only helps his odds by a slight margin. See below for a quote from one of Peter666's most interesting if inelegant statements (from the recent artificial life thread) in response to a question I placed before this august Lord of all knowledge both good and evil about the number of catholics that will be saved:

"Casting my pearls to swine, I'll guesstimate that upon death: 66% of Catholics are damned; 33% will go to purgatory; and 1% straight to Heaven."

-Zeno

[Zeno]

[ QUOTE ]
The consequences of being an impious soul are either: nothing, or eternal damnation.


[/ QUOTE ]

A limited view not shared by Hindus or Buddhists or Taoists. You also presuppose a soul. An ancient oriental concept derived from orphism and other mystery religions that predate Christianity by hundreds of years. Since there is no soul, your whole line of reasoning collapses in on itself and is found wanting. Either go read Hilarie Belloc or Lao Tzu, would be my suggestion. In addition, your ex cathedra babblings show a marked predilection towards megalomania and are symptomatic of a mind stretched beyond its normal limits. You need to cast aside the orthodox complexities of Catholicism and embrace something more useful, like Mormonism for example.


-Zeno, The Antipope

[Peter666]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
But when skeptics make absolute statements about things that cannot be absolutely discernible, they are basing it on their FAITH in skepticism, which is not only credulous, but hypocritical as well.


[/ QUOTE ]
I agree but what's that got to do with this thread?

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

Just that skeptics accuse Pascal of making erroneous suppositions based on their own erroneous suppostions.

[Peter666]

"A limited view not shared by Hindus or Buddhists or Taoists."

For a misanthrope, you sure seem to care what others think.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
But when skeptics make absolute statements about things that cannot be absolutely discernible, they are basing it on their FAITH in skepticism, which is not only credulous, but hypocritical as well.


[/ QUOTE ]
I agree but what's that got to do with this thread?

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

Just that skeptics accuse Pascal of making erroneous suppositions based on their own erroneous suppostions.

[/ QUOTE ]
Its not accusatiions, Pascal's wager as popularly wielded is falacious. If historicaly Pascal didn't make that mistake then fine (although it seems likely he did make the same mistake, it's possible he was misunderstood). Just because its brnded with his name doesn't make it a conversation about Pascal.

This has nothing to do with skepticsm its a straight matter of logical argument.

chez

[Zeno]

[ QUOTE ]
"A limited view not shared by Hindus or Buddhists or Taoists."

For a misanthrope, you sure seem to care what others think.

[/ QUOTE ]


Knowledge is useful - something most people would agree upon - whether that means I care what other people think has nothing to do with what I stated. Nor does my misanthropy have anything to do with it.

True, I give out sage advice, but that is because I'm free with my wisdom, dispensing it out in bucketfuls to those that I know will never heed it. Thus my destiny is fulfilled and even if I die on the rack I will be at peace.

There is nothing so absurd but some philosopher has said it - Cicero

-Zeno

[todd1007]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Keeping Pascal's historical context, we can put the wager like this:

You can either choose to live as a pious Catholic and die in the state of grace, or you can choose to live an impious life and die in the state of mortal sin.

The consequences of being a pious Catholic will result in either: eternal pleasure in Heaven, or nothing.

The consequences of being an impious soul are either: nothing, or eternal damnation.

To live an impious life will give you finite pleasure. In the worst case scenario, living a pious life will be unpleasurable (although in practice this is not true) but finite as well.

If the slightest possibility exists for attaining eternal pleasure or avoiding eternal pain, then that is the logical and best course to take.

As there is no such thing as an absolute skeptic, the slightest possibility of eternal reward and punishment are present. Thus living as a pious Catholic is the only logical alternative.

If the reward or punishment were finite and not eternal, then you could make an argument for living the impious life.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok, time to start destroying these premises! The only one we really need to deal with here is "The consequences of being a pious Catholic will result in either: eternal pleasure in Heaven, or nothing. " This is of course incorrect. The consequences of that are only true if the only possible scenarios are "Catholic God" or "No God." But we would never accept that ludicrous, unsupported premise. In order to do so, we'd already have to BE Catholics, and then what point the wager?

[/ QUOTE ]

is this person high? or just unable to understand the original premise?

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
There are two errors being made. The first is that other deities come into the equation. They do not and cannot. There can only be one true deity amongst them, and that is the one that Pascal is referring to. It is taken for granted that adhering to the first proposal in the wager means that you are following the true God whoever that may be. Particular beliefs are irrelevant as you have subjected yourself to doing the only correct God's will when choosing A.

The second error is that if you already believe in God, the wager is useless. Pascal gives the options to: Live as if God exists, or not to live as if God exists. You can still believe in God and choose not to live as if he exists.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are leaving out an important part here! It doesn't matter that many different Gods exist, or if only one God exists. What matters is what that God is LIKE. So, there may be only one true God possible, but there is no reason to think he has the qualities you are assigning him. If we think that only the Catholic God could exist, that is the same as saying that we believe in the Catholic God, for the most part. We aren't trying to bring in other deities, we are taking issue with the idea that God is as you say he is. That he would reward anyone who would take the wager. We have no reason to believe this, and if we stipulate this, the wager becomes useless.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
We aren't trying to bring in other deities, we are taking issue with the idea that God is as you say he is. That he would reward anyone who would take the wager. We have no reason to believe this, and if we stipulate this, the wager becomes useless.


[/ QUOTE ]
Possible absense of reward isn't strong enough, its the possibility that if god exists he might punish those who take the wager that renders it useless.

chez

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
We aren't trying to bring in other deities, we are taking issue with the idea that God is as you say he is. That he would reward anyone who would take the wager. We have no reason to believe this, and if we stipulate this, the wager becomes useless.


[/ QUOTE ]
Possible absense of reward isn't strong enough, its the possibility that if god exists he might punish those who take the wager that renders it useless.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm told quite frequently that the greatest imaginable punishment is the absence of reward, i.e. Hell. I figured I'd leave it in those terms.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
We aren't trying to bring in other deities, we are taking issue with the idea that God is as you say he is. That he would reward anyone who would take the wager. We have no reason to believe this, and if we stipulate this, the wager becomes useless.


[/ QUOTE ]
Possible absense of reward isn't strong enough, its the possibility that if god exists he might punish those who take the wager that renders it useless.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm told quite frequently that the greatest imaginable punishment is the absence of reward, i.e. Hell. I figured I'd leave it in those terms.

[/ QUOTE ]
Yes but if not taking the wager means hell, and taking the wager possibly means hell, then you should take the wager.

The reason the wager fails is that taking the wager may change your fate from not hell to hell.

chez