New thought about Pascal's Wager

[Archaeopteryx]

...and yet, atheists continue to claim that Pascal's argument is unsound.

It's a bad argument.

 

[Joshua260]

The arguments (and evidences) are not proofs. Do you agree? But they are proofs. So we have PARADOX. Solution: we call proofs "arguments", because to any sentence like "2+2=4" the demoniacal atheists say: "nonsense", "your logic fails". It is pure madness. But we know line of reason, thus, they are proofs.

Here is the definition I found for proof:
"evidence or argument establishing or helping to establish a fact or the truth of a statement"
...or as you say "a line of reason".
So I agree that arguments and evidences are proofs, but what Pascal was addressing was evidence that would *compel* one to accept the truth of God's existence, and that is usually the standard that I find atheists hold to. They are determined not to acknowledge that God exists unless compelled to do so. But that is not the way of God and incidentally Pascal addresses that subject also in the Pensees.

 

[Joshua260]

It's a bad argument.

An assertive claim without backup.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

I can't help it if you can't understand it. Maybe you should actually read the Pensees before copying and pasting short excerpts from it found on websites and then making uninformed conclusions about Pascal's argument.

Perhaps he should take a leaf out of your book and copy-and-paste from WLC, without attribution?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

An assertive claim without backup.

You don't know why it's a bad argument?

 

[Joshua260]

Claiming it [reasonable to believe that God exists]does not make it so.

So you have apparently not read the Pensees. Again, Pascal backed this claim up in his writings.

The burden of defining what is meant by "God" and establishing the belief in such a thing as "reasonable" lies with the religionist.

Godin Christianity and other monotheistic religions) the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being.

Reasonable:being in accordance with reason

Reason: the power of the mind to think, understand, and form judgments by a process of logic

Why not start by defining it, and establish that belief in it is more reasonable than, say, astrology?

Again, Pascal addressed this in his Pensees.

I do not see how one places trust in what appears to be, by every objective measure, fictional. Do you send letters to Santa, in hope of getting free stuff at Christmas?

I'm not sure you know what objective means then.

Objectiveof a person or their judgment) not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts

Many unbelievers (by definition hostile to the Gospel) have considered various objective evidences and often reluctantly come to believe in the existence of God. By the way, ever heard of Anthony Flew?

 

[Joshua260]

Perhaps he should take a leaf out of your book and copy-and-paste from WLC, without attribution?

Great example of an ad hominem.

"(of an argument or reaction) directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining"

 

[Joshua260]

You don't know why it's a bad argument?

I have never seen a successful refutation of it. Only baseless assertions to that effect.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Great example of an ad hominem.

"(of an argument or reaction) directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining"

You think it is acceptable to present another person's work as if it is your own?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Many unbelievers (by definition hostile to the Gospel) have considered various objective evidences and often reluctantly come to believe in the existence of God. By the way, ever heard of Anthony Flew?

To my knowledge, Flew became a deist, not a Christian. Is that considered a victory for Christian apologetics?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

I have never seen a successful refutation of it. Only baseless assertions to that effect.

I have yet to see a successful defence of it, but you're welcome to try.

 

[Joshua260]

That's [Pascal is saying that reason cannot prove that God exists beyond all doubt.] an unreasonable standard for belief of lack thereof.

We live everyday with things we believe about and yet not know empirically.

Joshua260 said:"A good case could be made showing how Christianity has brought more good into this world than Atheism."
Which says nothing about what the wager is about - betting on a particular God because you want an eternal afterlife to be real.

True. Pascal was referring to the rewards in heaven. However, the case can be made for the contributions of Christianity (as opposed to atheism) in this life. Such was the point C.S. Lewis made.

Also, number 2 is either false or undecidable. You have to assume a whole lot to pretend that the odds of the Christian god existing are 50-50.

Not necessarily. Bayes' theorem shows that the probability of something being true can be heavily biased by qualitative evidence that can "override" other considerations.

 

[Joshua260]

To my knowledge, Flew became a deist, not a Christian. Is that considered a victory for Christian apologetics?

Flew came to believe in God as a result of considering the objective evidence of the fine-tuning of the universe, so if anything, it's certainly not a "victory" for atheists.

 

[Joshua260]

I have yet to see a successful defence of it, but you're welcome to try.

You're the one who made the counter-claim that Pascal argument was a bad one, so the onus is on you at this point.

 

[Joshua260]

You think it is acceptable to present another person's work as if it is your own?

ad hominem attacks seem to be a favorite tactic of yours.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Flew came to believe in God as a result of considering the objective evidence of the fine-tuning of the universe, so if anything, it's certainly not a "victory" for atheists.

Atheists aren't claiming victory; apologists are, even though Flew never converted to Christianity.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

ad hominem attacks seem to be a favorite tactic of yours.

You didn't answer my question. Do you think it is acceptable to present someone else's work as if it is your own?

 

[Davian]

So you have apparently not read the Pensees. Again, Pascal backed this claim up in his writings.

Are you the arbiter of constitutes "reasonable to believe"?

Godin Christianity and other monotheistic religions)

So there is a "God" for each of these religions?

the creator and ruler of the universe

Untestable and unfalsifiable religious claims. This is useless as a definition.

and source of all moral authority;

Is the the same "God" that allows for any action, just as long as you believe?

the supreme being.

The only "beings" I am aware of are human beings. How are gods like human beings?

Reasonable:being in accordance with reason

Reason: the power of the mind to think, understand, and form judgments by a process of logic

Sure. Now where is this definition, and how do you propose establishing the belief in such a thing is reasonable? Is this definition testable? Falsifiable? Or just more claims?

Again, Pascal addressed this in his Pensees.

It hasn't been done here.

I'm not sure you know what objective means then.

Objectiveof a person or their judgment) not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts

Agreed. All you have done to this point is assert your religious opinion.

Many unbelievers (by definition hostile to the Gospel) have considered various objective evidences

Do any of these "objective" evidences have alternative explanations?

and often reluctantly come to believe in the existence of God.

Irrelevant. Beliefs do not affect reality.

"All the hundreds of millions of people who, in their time, believed the Earth was flat never succeeded in unrounding it by an inch.”" - Isaac Asimov

By the way, ever heard of Anthony Flew?

What of him?

 

[Davian]

Flew came to believe in God as a result of considering the objective evidence of the fine-tuning of the universe,

What fine-tuning? Are you referring to the perception of "fine-tuning"?

 

[ecco]

That's the point of that section of the Pensees...one can't prove the existence of God one way or the other, so you have to place your bet.

Isn't that what I have been saying?

Pascal did not use the word Prove or Proof. The whole point of the argument is not about proof. Quite the opposite. It is about what choice one should make in the absence of proof