New thought about Pascal's Wager

[Dmitri Martila]

I am not crazy - thus, my mind is true to Buddha."

The man Buddha was atheist, isn't it? The modern Buddhism is not the atheism anymore, isn't it?

The use of mind on eastern philosophy can be devastating: If all is illusion, then this sentence we seeing is not illusion. We came to contradiction, thus, all around can not be illusion. Proof ends.

Then if you now try to defeat this obvious Truth, then you, who have gotten this knowledge from me, is violating and raping own mind. This way the false religions arise: dumb rape of the minds.
God Jesus says: and they did NOT THINK, until the flood came and killed them all (Matthew 24:39 synodal)

 

[Dmitri Martila]

The nature of most world religions is that they are mostly grounded in allegedly external (outside-of-one's self) absolutes (e.g. deity supposedly did this in the external world, supposedly transmitted that holy text in the external world

Here you have confusing fault: "external (outside-of-one's self)", which without our intervention will cause many theists to fall and go to hell. It sounds like "external (outside-of-the Religion itself)", but it is only master illusion. Serious work devil is conducting. You are demoniacal, aren't you?

 

[Eudaimonist]

The use of mind on eastern philosophy can be devastating: If all is illusion, then this sentence we seeing is not illusion. We came to contradiction, thus, all around can not be illusion. Proof ends.

That is a completely childish understanding of Buddhism. I recommend that you reserve the word "proof" only for cases where you actually do the hard work of investigating something and presenting its ideas and arguments charitably.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[createdtoworship]

That's a very binary way of looking at it.

If the Muslims have it right, then Christians have it worse for worshipping a competing god as opposed to the atheists who were just unfamiliar with the "true god's word".

In other words, if various other gods exist, atheists might not have a fire at all, whereas the Christians might have a raging inferno to deal with.

That's another of the basic failings of Pascal's Wager.

well it comes back to either or thinking.

not both/and thinking.

see you are treating both/as equal in truth value.

where I believe for the most part that one cancels the other,

both are either wrong,
or one is right,

but both cannot be right.

it's either or thinking,

I gather that from the fact that there are concepts that contradict between the two,

the Bible and the quran.

both books are not true100% if they contradict.

even aside from defending either one's validity.

 

[createdtoworship]

This completely misses the point by assuming that Christianity is the only religion that could possibly be true. If we are both wrong and the Muslims are correct, then we both have "damages" to contend with, right?

never said that.

pascal was a christian however,

and logically his view would come from a world view that he caters to,

so that is not a strike against him.


because you and I do the same all the time.

for example....

evolution is true because it is a fact.

that begs the question as to the thing in question.

or God is not real because he is false.

that assumes the thing in question with no further evidence.

so simply to say that because pascal viewed the christian view as valid says nothing regarding why he thought so.

so his wager is valid because,

he is saying basically,

"I admit I may be wrong, but at least I wont' burn if I am wrong."

his wager was that it was likely to fear into belief, due to fear of flames,

than the opposite, which was to shy away from faith due to the same facts


hence the Gospel succeeds in a fear tactic, due to the fact that many will believe simply out of fear of Hell.

which is why I in fact first believed, and later, was convinced of numerous other facts about the Bibles authenticy, but the seed of faith was planted,

 

[createdtoworship]

It is only self-evident to those that already believe.

I like your signature,

I help out financially with the discovery institute, when possible.

I do so simply because of the "teach the controversy curriculum"

if you have questions between ID and BC, let me know.

Intelligent design is not Biblical Creationism.

but BC incorporates some aspects of ID.

like gravity incorporates mass.

but is not mass.

Mass is the critical aspect of gravity just as ID is critical to BC, but BC is not critical to ID,

but that again is not on topic here in this forum,

I simply saw your signature, which in iteself commits numerous fallacy and error logically speaking,

but this again is not the place for that,

message me if you wish to know more about it

thanks.

 

[KCfromNC]

Just to clarify what Pascal meant, he was saying that Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, Paganism, etc., were deficient, and that only Christianity was sufficient. (see article by Kreeft, below):

http://www.ignatiusinsight.com/features2008/pkreeft_pascaltoday_feb08.asp

I don't see how anyone can say that when Christianity doesn't even offer an escape from the cycle of continual death and rebirth that we're all stuck in. In other words, it is just as "deficient" in answering made up problems from other religions are other religions are in addressing problems fabricated by Christian theology.

 

[ananda]

The man Buddha was atheist, isn't it? The modern Buddhism is not the atheism anymore, isn't it?

Buddha in Early Buddhism taught that there were many gods, but also that the gods are finite. Some of these gods delusionally believe themselves to be infinite and eternal, due to their immense lifespans. I do not practice modern (e.g. Mahayana, Vajryana) Buddhism.

The use of mind on eastern philosophy can be devastating: If all is illusion, then this sentence we seeing is not illusion. We came to contradiction, thus, all around can not be illusion. Proof ends.

Then if you now try to defeat this obvious Truth, then you, who have gotten this knowledge from me, is violating and raping own mind. This way the false religions arise: dumb rape of the minds.
God Jesus says: and they did NOT THINK, until the flood came and killed them all (Matthew 24:39 synodal)

I do not recall early Buddhism teaching that "all is illusion". Citation, please?

 

[ecco]

ecco said: ↑

Ah Ha. Now we know that only Christians of the Eastern Orthodox sect go to heaven.
How very, very arrogant.​

To be fair, I've never heard one Christian claim that everybody get's to go to heaven. They all exclude someone, what would be the point of joining the club otherwise.

They all exclude almost every group other than their own very small group. The all share the arrogance equally.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I don't see how anyone can say that when Christianity doesn't even offer an escape from the cycle of continual death and rebirth that we're all stuck in. In other words, it is just as "deficient" in answering made up problems from other religions are other religions are in addressing problems fabricated by Christian theology.

As I said in a previous post, "Whether we agree with his [Pascal's] assessments of those other religions can be questioned ..." I don't disagree with you that it is difficult to assess a comparative quality between various world religions, but acknowledging that a degree of difficulty exists in evaluating world religions isn't the same as asserting that it is impossible to discern some significant or relevant differences.

Regardless of what you and I think on the Comparison of Religions Issue, I'm not going to get into that here since this thread is focused on what Pascal thought in relation to his Wager (and its misrepresentations), and I surmise that to begin exploring world religions apart from Pascal's thought will take us quickly into 'apologetics' territory.

Peace
2PhiloVoid

 

[Joshua260]

Lol!! No, Pascal’s Wager is not debunked or out of date!! Those who say so are either intentionally misrepresenting Pascal or clearly do not understand the argument.

The Wager needs to be taken within the context of the Pensees.

Thus, it is better stated:

Given that it is just as reasonable to believe that God exists as not, it is better to believe that God exists and be wrong than *not* to believe that God exists and be wrong.

 

[createdtoworship]

pascals wager is fairly valid as it relates to the logic behind it.

if there were a fire that all humans would inevitably go through, you would buy fire insurance from an insurance broker of any personality, language etc.

it doesn't matter if you don't speak the language of Christ,

the fire insurance he brings is universal.

take it or leave it.

that was what he was saying,

we can choose to point out the nit picky behaviours of christians or the church, but ultimately the person holding the fire insurance is the person of value to us.

pascal knew this,

he knew that we can be wrong about alot of things, and religiouns certainly are most of the time.

Christ with his non religioun, brings a policy of life that even though you die yet shall you then live!!!

haleluliah!



and so pascals thoughts follow this same vein.

if we are wrong thats okay, the fire never existed then.

but if are right, and the fire's do exist, we have saved ourself from innumerable torments.

simply buy buying the policy that only Christ can have, and having faith that the person holding the deed of warranty is sure to his word.

 

[createdtoworship]

I don't see how anyone can say that when Christianity doesn't even offer an escape from the cycle of continual death and rebirth that we're all stuck in. In other words, it is just as "deficient" in answering made up problems from other religions are other religions are in addressing problems fabricated by Christian theology.

first of all christianity does offer an excape from death, both physical and spiritutal:

a newish translation called the EMTV the majority text translation says this succinclty:

"50 Now this I say, brothers, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; nor can corruption inherit incorruption. 51 Behold, I tell you a mystery: We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed— 52 in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed. 53 For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality. 54 So when this corruptible should put on incorruption, and this mortal should put on immortality, then will come to pass the word which was written: "Death is swallowed up in victory." 55 "O Death, where is your sting? O Hades, where is your victory?" 56 Now the sting of death is sin, and the power of sin is the law. 57 But thanks be to God, who gives us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ. 58 So then, my beloved brothers, be steadfast, immovable, always abounding in the work of the Lord, knowing that your labor is not in vain in the Lord. "

1Cor 15:50-58 EMTV translation

http://www.majoritytext.com/

 

[bhsmte]

pascals wager is fairly valid as it relates to the logic behind it.

if there were a fire that all humans would inevitably go through, you would buy fire insurance from an insurance broker of any personality, language etc.

it doesn't matter if you don't speak the language of Christ,

the fire insurance he brings is universal.

take it or leave it.

that was what he was saying,

we can choose to point out the nit picky behaviours of christians or the church, but ultimately the person holding the fire insurance is the person of value to us.

pascal knew this,

he knew that we can be wrong about alot of things, and religiouns certainly are most of the time.

Christ with his non religioun, brings a policy of life that even though you die yet shall you then live!!!

haleluliah!



and so pascals thoughts follow this same vein.

if we are wrong thats okay, the fire never existed then.

but if are right, and the fire's do exist, we have saved ourself from innumerable torments.

simply buy buying the policy that only Christ can have, and having faith that the person holding the deed of warranty is sure to his word.

I will leave it.

I can't force myself to believe in something, I don't believe to be true. I don't roll that way.

 

[Davian]

I like your signature,

I help out financially with the discovery institute, when possible.

I do so simply because of the "teach the controversy curriculum"

if you have questions between ID and BC, let me know.

Intelligent design is not Biblical Creationism.

but BC incorporates some aspects of ID.

like gravity incorporates mass.

but is not mass.

Mass is the critical aspect of gravity just as ID is critical to BC, but BC is not critical to ID,

but that again is not on topic here in this forum,

I simply saw your signature, which in iteself commits numerous fallacy and error logically speaking,

but this again is not the place for that,

message me if you wish to know more about it

thanks.

Do you have experience in committing numerous fallacies and errors in logically speaking? But as you say, that is off-topic, and you should message me.

 

[Dmitri Martila]

it is better to believe that God exists

So its better to be in Paradise, than in hell. Can you prove this statement? In first step define the word "better". The better is the God's preference of one thing and rejecting the other. So, we already need God to decide what is better. You simply suggesting to atheist simply get to be theist. That is starting point here. They can not hear us, the army of evil spirits is blocking their common sense.

 

[Eudaimonist]

They can not hear us, the army of evil spirits is blocking their common sense.

So says the man without common sense.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Dmitri Martila]

So says the man without common sense.

Man without brain is saying, what you have departed from the common sense. This is PARADOX. How one can solve this? Just by ignorance to forget (and get to know the hell)?

 

[ecco]

[QUOTE="Joshua260, post: 68747214, member: 318224"Given that it is just as reasonable to believe that God exists as not,[/QUOTE]

1. It is not just as reasonable at all.
2. Which god?

 

[bhsmte]

So its better to be in Paradise, than in hell. Can you prove this statement? In first step define the word "better". The better is the God's preference of one thing and rejecting the other. So, we already need God to decide what is better. You simply suggesting to atheist simply get to be theist. That is starting point here. They can not hear us, the army of evil spirits is blocking their common sense.

What army of evil spirits?

Can you demonstrate these evil spirits exist?