Everyone goes to hell, right?

[dcalling]

The other problem I have with Pascal's wager is that it assumes an omnipotent, omnibenevolent and omniscient god can be fooled.

Really? Is that in any way credible?

I do not think so little of god. I wonder why others do.

I assume that Pascal invenetd the wager as a post hoc justification for an existing irrational unjustified belief in god.

And I tend to make the same assumption of anyone who thinks that the argument is credible.

Pascal's wager is primarily about man, where do you read that it says God can be fooled?

Also nothing is omnipotent. omnipotent defies logic.

 

[workmx]

Pascal's wager is primarily about man, where do you read that it says God can be fooled?

Also nothing is omnipotent. Omnipotent defies logic.

The wager assumes that a person can choose to believe and that god is fooled by faked belief.

Indeed, omnipotence is problematic and if Pascal's wager is to be believed, so is omniscience.

 

[ebia]

The wager assumes that a person can choose to believe and that god is fooled by faked belief. /QUOTE]
Surely that should be an or, nor an and.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Jesus is very clear that he supports the 613 commandments from the Old Testament:



Given this is it clear that everyone who does not uphold every one of the 613 commandments only gets "heaven lite".

And if we do not uphold the 613 commandments and are less righteous than scribes and Pharisees, will go to hell.

This means that the less righteous who have not killed all the descendents of Amalek (Deut. 25:19) go to hell.

The less righteous who have at some stage been rebellious (Deut. 21:18) go to hell.

Same for anyone who failed to return a lost object (Deut. 22).

Or a man who has shaved his beard (Lev. 19:27) or head (Lev. 19:27).

Or failed to say the "Shema Yisrael" prayer twice daily (Deut. 6:7).

So, I am assuming that everyone goes to hell.

Is that correct?

Nope, that isn't correct. There's an "until" in there that is pretty important hermeneutically.

 

[Joshua260]

The wager assumes that a person can choose to believe and that god is fooled by faked belief.

Indeed, omnipotence is problematic and if Pascal's wager is to be believed, so is omniscience.

That is pure rubbish. You really are lacking in your understanding of Pascal. What he was saying was that:
1) since he reasoned, by considering the evidence and various logical arguments, that it was reasonable for a person to believe in the Christian god
AND...
2) that it was more profitable to believe in God and be wrong, than not to believe in God and be wrong
THEN...
One should put their trust in the Christian God. It's exactly the same message we advocate today: Put your trust in the salvation offered to you through the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ.

I find it ironic that you criticize others for "speaking for atheism", yet you feel totally unrestrained in mis-characterizing Christians and Christian doctrine.

 

[workmx]

That is pure rubbish. You really are lacking in your understanding of Pascal. What he was saying was that:
1) since he reasoned, by considering the evidence and various logical arguments, that it was reasonable for a person to believe in the Christian god
AND...
2) that it was more profitable to believe in God and be wrong, than not to believe in God and be wrong
THEN...
One should put their trust in the Christian God. It's exactly the same message we advocate today: Put your trust in the salvation offered to you through the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ.

I find it ironic that you criticize others for "speaking for atheism", yet you feel totally unrestrained in mis-characterizing Christians and Christian doctrine.

A god that cannot be proven to exist and with the possibility of angering that god (if you do not understand it correctly) and the possibility of being totally wrong about which of the millions of proposed gods is the correct one...

Sorry, there is only one thing that is rubbish here and it belongs to Blaise (and anyone who thinks he did good work on this).

 

[Joshua260]

one thing that is rubbish here and it belongs to Blaise

Catchy phrase, but you've failed to prove your assertion (that Pascal's argument is "rubbish"). So far, it sounds like you've gotten most of your education concerning Pascal's wager from atheist websites like The Atheist Experience with Matt Dillahunty. You've echoed almost everything I've heard him say, and he also took Pascal's wager out of it's intended context. Seriously...why not try reading Pascal's Pensees for yourself, instead of simply repeating internet straw-man arguments? You owe it to yourself to go find out the truth on your own.

It's a case of simple logic:

premise 1:
considering the evidence and various logical arguments, it is reasonable for a person to believe in the Christian god

premise 2:
it is more profitable to believe in the Christian god and be wrong, than not to believe in the Christian god and be wrong

Conclusion: Therefore, one should decide to put their trust in the Christian god.

As I've explained already, his logic is sound. If both of his premises are true, then the conclusion logically follows. Your "beef" is not with Pascal's wager so much as it is that you deny his first premise...that it is reasonable for a person to form a belief in the Christian god. It's the old evidence debate. And as of yet, I haven't seen you successfully attack any evidence, such as the evidence surrounding the Resurrection, nor successfully refute any philosophical arguments supporting the existence of God.

A god that cannot be proven to exist..."

Pascal did not make that claim. He only said it was reasonable for a person to believe he exists. You are certainly free to deny that premise. Millions of others in the world believe that it is reasonable, based on evidences and logic (not to mention the witness of the holy spirit, although I do not defend that here...I only mention it to be truthful to my fellow Christians) to believe in the Christian god.

which of the millions of proposed gods is the correct one

Fair enough. You didn't list these gods you've been referring to, but so far, I haven't found any that are better candidates for the one true God other than the god of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. If you feel that there's a better candidate for the one true god other than the god of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, then feel free to start another thread posing that possibility and we'll see how it floats.

 

[Lenny3]

Above all else, Pascal's Wager fails on this point: What it you pick the wrong god?

What if the real god doesn't want you to believe in him/her/it?

 

[Lenny3]

Also nothing is omnipotent. omnipotent defies logic.

Wow ... this is interesting. This is the first time I have ever read/heard a Christian claim that god is not all-powerful.

 

[workmx]

Catchy phrase, but you've failed to prove your assertion (that Pascal's argument is "rubbish"). So far, it sounds like you've gotten most of your education concerning Pascal's wager from atheist websites like The Atheist Experience with Matt Dillahunty. You've echoed almost everything I've heard him say, and he also took Pascal's wager out of it's intended context. Seriously...why not try reading Pascal's Pensees for yourself, instead of simply repeating internet straw-man arguments? You owe it to yourself to go find out the truth on your own.

It's a case of simple logic:

premise 1:
considering the evidence and various logical arguments, it is reasonable for a person to believe in the Christian god

premise 2:
it is more profitable to believe in the Christian god and be wrong, than not to believe in the Christian god and be wrong

Conclusion: Therefore, one should decide to put their trust in the Christian god.

As I've explained already, his logic is sound. If both of his premises are true, then the conclusion logically follows. Your "beef" is not with Pascal's wager so much as it is that you deny his first premise...that it is reasonable for a person to form a belief in the Christian god. It's the old evidence debate. And as of yet, I haven't seen you successfully attack any evidence, such as the evidence surrounding the Resurrection, nor successfully refute any philosophical arguments supporting the existence of God.


Pascal did not make that claim. He only said it was reasonable for a person to believe he exists. You are certainly free to deny that premise. Millions of others in the world believe that it is reasonable, based on evidences and logic (not to mention the witness of the holy spirit, although I do not defend that here...I only mention it to be truthful to my fellow Christians) to believe in the Christian god.


Fair enough. You didn't list these gods you've been referring to, but so far, I haven't found any that are better candidates for the one true God other than the god of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. If you feel that there's a better candidate for the one true god other than the god of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, then feel free to start another thread posing that possibility and we'll see how it floats.

J - Since you just kep asserting that Pascal's Wager is correct and have not dealt with my criticisms, I will list them.

Please deal with each one before you resume asserting that Pascal is correct.

Criticisms of Pascal's wager:
1.0 God is happy for people to wager about his existence; or
1.1 god does not know we are wagering, therefore is capable of being fooled.

2.0 people can choose to believe, or;
2.1 people can fake belief and god is fooled by that fakery.

3.0 premise 1 begs the question (by assuming the existence of the christian god), therefore;
3.1 the conclusion fails, unless;
3.2 it can be proven that the christian god exists (which I have repeatedly asked you to do).

4.0 the wager assumes that only one god exists (Pascal rejected all other gods that he know of - which was special pleading) but;
4.1 now we know that many millions of gods have been said to exist, therefore;
4.2 we must expand the wager to be a millions by two decision matrix, or;
4.3 prove that all those other millions of gods do not exist.

5.0 the wager assumes that the christian god wants us to believe in it, and;
5.1 rewards that belief (there is no evidence for either of these claims).
5.2 in fact, an unconventional god may prefer that only atheists and agnostics go to heaven).

6.0 the wager assumes that both heaven and hell exists (there is no evidence for either claim).

7.0 the wager assumes that god made humans that are capable of humans capable of disbelief, but;
7.1 then punishes them for that disbelief;
7.2 such a god is immoral and we should not worship it.

8.0 the wager assumes that god rewards faith not works;
8.1 there is no evidence for either salvation by works or salvation by faith.

9.0 the wager assumes that belief costs nothing, but;
9.1 it is not a zero-sum game, because;
9.2 we lose time and money through worship, plus;
9.3 holding irrational, unjustified beliefs may make us more likely to be fooled/cheated by others.

10.0 the wager assumes that christianity and atheism are the only available options;
10.1 this is a false dichotomy;
10.2 in reality, even christians cannot agree on the purpose/characteristics of their god;
10.3 meaning that there are now thousands of different sects within christianity, thus,
10.4 once again this expands the decision matric to thousands by two (or thousands of millions by two, if all gods are included).

11.0 at the core the wager is an appeal to fear (making it a fallacious proposition - an argumentum ad passiones).

 

[workmx]

Wow ... this is interesting. This is the first time I have ever read/heard a Christian claim that god is not all-powerful.

Me too. I was hoping that DC would expland on that thought.

 

[workmx]

The wager assumes that a person can choose to believe and that god is fooled by faked belief.

Surely that should be an or, nor an and.

No - it is what it is.

For my expanded thoughts on the topic see post 190.

 

[Joshua260]

J - Since you just kep asserting that Pascal's Wager is correct and have not dealt with my criticisms, I will list them.

Please deal with each one before you resume asserting that Pascal is correct.

Criticisms of Pascal's wager:
1.0 God is happy for people to wager about his existence; or
1.1 god does not know we are wagering, therefore is capable of being fooled.

2.0 people can choose to believe, or;
2.1 people can fake belief and god is fooled by that fakery.

3.0 premise 1 begs the question (by assuming the existence of the christian god), therefore;
3.1 the conclusion fails, unless;
3.2 it can be proven that the christian god exists (which I have repeatedly asked you to do).

4.0 the wager assumes that only one god exists (Pascal rejected all other gods that he know of - which was special pleading) but;
4.1 now we know that many millions of gods have been said to exist, therefore;
4.2 we must expand the wager to be a millions by two decision matrix, or;
4.3 prove that all those other millions of gods do not exist.

5.0 the wager assumes that the christian god wants us to believe in it, and;
5.1 rewards that belief (there is no evidence for either of these claims).
5.2 in fact, an unconventional god may prefer that only atheists and agnostics go to heaven).

6.0 the wager assumes that both heaven and hell exists (there is no evidence for either claim).

7.0 the wager assumes that god made humans that are capable of humans capable of disbelief, but;
7.1 then punishes them for that disbelief;
7.2 such a god is immoral and we should not worship it.

8.0 the wager assumes that god rewards faith not works;
8.1 there is no evidence for either salvation by works or salvation by faith.

9.0 the wager assumes that belief costs nothing, but;
9.1 it is not a zero-sum game, because;
9.2 we lose time and money through worship, plus;
9.3 holding irrational, unjustified beliefs may make us more likely to be fooled/cheated by others.

10.0 the wager assumes that christianity and atheism are the only available options;
10.1 this is a false dichotomy;
10.2 in reality, even christians cannot agree on the purpose/characteristics of their god;
10.3 meaning that there are now thousands of different sects within christianity, thus,
10.4 once again this expands the decision matric to thousands by two (or thousands of millions by two, if all gods are included).

11.0 at the core the wager is an appeal to fear (making it a fallacious proposition - an argumentum ad passiones).

I've dealt with all your criticisms so far and have heard enough from you to be convinced that you simply do not know enough about the Pensees to make informative comments on it. If you want to continue this, please start a new thread and don't list a book of questions. Most of all, it would help if you read the Pensees first. Till then.

 

[Joshua260]

Above all else, Pascal's Wager fails on this point: What it you pick the wrong god?

Hi Lenny!
We're really not doing well in this thread...we have drifted way off topic and also only the original non-believer is supposed to post. Discussions can get way out of hand when we have multiple non-believers posting. In fact, one of our frequent non-believing posters has complained himself several times when it happens on his posts.

Anyway, maybe you missed some of my earlier responses that explained that by the time Pascal proposed his wager (within the Pensees), he had ruled out all other faiths as "unreasonable". So the wager is not about whether one should pick any ole god to trust in versus none...it was about whether it was better to trust specifically in the Christian god or not. So as I tried to explain to workmx, we would need to go deeper and evaluate his first premise...the evidence and arguments that caused Pascal to rule all other gods out. What I've been trying to do in my exchange with workmx is to separate the wager itself from the premises. If the premises are true, then the logic of Pascal's wager is sound.

So I hear your "complaint", but I don't see where you have a critique concerning the wager, but rather about the evidence and arguments that Christians say demonstrate the reasonableness of our beliefs in particular.

I hope you can see the difference.

 

[workmx]

I've dealt with all your criticisms so far and have heard enough from you to be convinced that you simply do not know enough about the Pensees to make informative comments on it. If you want to continue this, please start a new thread and don't list a book of questions. Most of all, it would help if you read the Pensees first. Till then.

As I have already asked: please deal with all the issues that I outlined from 1 to 11.

There are serious problems with Pascal's wager.

If these are not addressed I must assume you agree that it is rubbish.

Oh! And could you tell me what evidence there is for a soul?

How would we measure the existence of such a thing?

Let's call those criticisms 12.0 and 12.1 respectively.

 

[workmx]

Hi Lenny!
We're really not doing well in this thread...we have drifted way off topic and also only the original non-believer is supposed to post. Discussions can get way out of hand when we have multiple non-believers posting. In fact, one of our frequent non-believing posters has complained himself several times when it happens on his posts.

Anyway, maybe you missed some of my earlier responses that explained that by the time Pascal proposed his wager (within the Pensees), he had ruled out all other faiths as "unreasonable". So the wager is not about whether one should pick any ole god to trust in versus none...it was about whether it was better to trust specifically in the Christian god or not. So as I tried to explain to workmx, we would need to go deeper and evaluate his first premise...the evidence and arguments that caused Pascal to rule all other gods out. What I've been trying to do in my exchange with workmx is to separate the wager itself from the premises. If the premises are true, then the logic of Pascal's wager is sound.

So I hear your "complaint", but I don't see where you have a critique concerning the wager, but rather about the evidence and arguments that Christians say demonstrate the reasonableness of our beliefs in particular.

I hope you can see the difference.

Personally, I have no problem with anyone posting in this thread.

What I've been trying to do in my exchange with Joshua is to highlight all the problems with the premises in the wager.

Since the premises are unsound, the conclusion failes and the logic of Pascal's wager is also unsound.

More than that, since Blasie's time, our knowledge has grown, making the wager even more irrational.

 

[Tallguy88]

MOD HAT ON

This thread has been cleaned. This is not a debate forum. Please keep the Exploring Christianity Statement of Purpose in mind when posting.

MOD HAT OFF