New thought about Pascal's Wager

[KCfromNC]

The problem with the wager is Pascal assumes we lose nothing if we believe in God and God doesn't exist.

That's one of many problems. There are others, such as the impossibility of betting on a multitude of mutually contradictory ideas of gods. And that only includes the various brands of Christianity - there are also other religious views up to and including ones which claim that the very concept of gods is distracting from the real way to find the maximum other-worldly reward.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Suppose we have Universe. Its time is continuous, because otherwise we have not the universe, but large collection of tiny parallel universes. Each one has zero volume.

Therefore, it is infinite number of time moments, in which pen on my desk will be taken. Therefore, number of Many Worlds is actual infinity. Latter can not be linked to physical objects. Therefore, the many worlds interpretation (MWI) of Quantum Mechanics is not real.

Secondly, the wormhole connects different universes. Thus, the MWI is in conflict with No-Clone theorem.

As you see, many things can be proved with mind application. See: we are 100 pro certain, what Bible is true. Therefore Jesus's Revelation is the 100 pro proof.

Brother Dmitri,

I appreciate your effort to clarify your points, and let me be clear as well that I, myself, do not believe in the Many Worlds theory.

The problem with the wager is Pascal assumes we lose nothing if we believe in God and God doesn't exist. If the conception of God in question causes us to give up any value for this world (which probably wasn't what Pascal had in mind, but a whole lot of religious people do), and this world is it, no afterlife at all, then we do in fact come close to losing "everything" if we believe in God and he doesn't exist.

Hi Received,

Wouldn't it be more accurate to say (from the context given by Pascal) that we lose nothing of notable social value; in other words, he is saying that if there is indeed something to lose, it is the loss of a profligate lifestyle and all of its social trappings.

His main point seems to be that the Wager, as an intellectual exercise, isn't a proof for faith at all, but ultimately a challenge to that aspect of our humanity which often causes us the most disbelief: Our Passions. His Wager, he avers, exposes this deficiency evident in human 'reasoning.'

2Philovoid

 

[2PhiloVoid]

That's one of many problems. There are others, such as the impossibility of betting on a multitude of mutually contradictory ideas of gods. And that only includes the various brands of Christianity - there are also other religious views up to and including ones which claim that the very concept of gods is distracting from the real way to find the maximum other-worldly reward.

Pascal already takes into account the fact that other religions exist...........

Whether we agree with his assessments of those other religions can be questioned, however.

Addendum: Here is an interesting article I found which treats the subject of what and how Pascal 'addressed' the issue of other World Religions. (Look at pages 4 and on, specifically....)

http://www.ibri.org/Tracts/pwager.pdf

 

[Dmitri Martila]

I can say the same about my non-Eastern Orthodox faith.

Then, you are saying, what I am crazy. All issue is in the mind. The one, who has problem with it, is crazy. I am not crazy: my achievements! I have not violated or lied in my mind. Therefore, the God is Eastern Orthodox!

 

[bhsmte]

Then, you are saying, what I am crazy. All issue is in the mind. The one, who has problem with it, is crazy. I am not crazy: my achievements! I have not violated or lied in my mind. Therefore, the God is Eastern Orthodox!

I think you may have missed this question:

Dmitri Martila said: ↑
The path of mind

There is one general choice: be mind-less fool, or be mind-full.
I have not violated my mind in Eastern Orthodox Christianity.
Thus, my path is mind-full. Therefore, the Eastern Orthodox Christianity is true.

How one could violate the mind? Consider mental cases. If man believes, what he is Jesus,
then tell him from Bible. Or ask him to talk in Spanish. If man believes, what he is king, then ask him about his blue-blooded relatives.
Click to expand...

Would this then mean; anyone who disagrees with you, is a mindless fool?

 

[Eudaimonist]

Then, you are saying, what I am crazy. All issue is in the mind. The one, who has problem with it, is crazy. I am not crazy: my achievements! I have not violated or lied in my mind. Therefore, the God is Eastern Orthodox!

You are only convincing me that you just might be crazy.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[ananda]

Then, you are saying, what I am crazy. All issue is in the mind. The one, who has problem with it, is crazy. I am not crazy: my achievements! I have not violated or lied in my mind. Therefore, the God is Eastern Orthodox!

No, I am not saying that you are crazy. I am stating that your logic is faulty.

"I have not violated or lied in my mind" does not equal "therefore my beliefs must be true".

 

[Crowns&Laurels]

The Bible seems to tackle Pascal's Wager head on, funny enough. Almost as if it was a looming elephant in the time of the Apostles really.
There is a teaching of faith alongside a declaration of God being self-evident, harmonized by the notion that man falls so short that faith is still actually needed to suffice for what one already knows. We live in a world that is fundamentally adversarial to God, and so people are taken in by deception and end up rejecting their Maker nonetheless.

 

[ananda]

How is the god of the Bible self-evident?

 

[Davian]

Sort of. If you stretch it out and apply it to daily life, he's not really making a special argument at all. Should I ask this girl out? Well, I'll gain everything if I do and she says yes and only lose just a little bit if I ask and she says no, whereas I gain nothing if I don't ask her out. He's just applying this pragmatic reasoning to God. You could apply it to anything.



Yeah, why not? I think there's a lot more at stake than just intellectual integrity, btw, if you get the bottom of the barrel with God conceptions.

Each time I get to the bottom of the barrel of a god conception, all I find is wishful thinking.

I'll hold on to my intellectual integrity at least until there is something demonstrable to show that gods are more than characters in books.

 

[Davian]

The Bible seems to tackle Pascal's Wager head on, funny enough. Almost as if it was a looming elephant in the time of the Apostles really.
There is a teaching of faith alongside a declaration of God being self-evident, harmonized by the notion that man falls so short that faith is still actually needed to suffice for what one already knows. We live in a world that is fundamentally adversarial to God, and so people are taken in by deception and end up rejecting their Maker nonetheless.

How is the god of the Bible self-evident?

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

 

[TheQuietRiot]

indeed,

the wager was mainly having to do with the fact that,

fire insurance is fire insurance.

you are insuring your future against the damage of fire as in any fire insurance claim of today,

he merely is stating that if an athiest is wrong, they have a real fire to contend to, if we are wrong, we are simply mistaken.

so in the classic case of the idea that Christianity is not fireinsurance,

in it's raw basic gospel element, it is actually fire insurance.

and if I am not mistaken that is really what the gist of what he was saying was all about.

to pull little quotes of one or two words out of main stream thought and use it as proof text for something opposite, is at very best, shoddy research.

but then again we all do that at some point,

I do it with some evolutionists as they question their evolution,

while some may use the above quotes to question pascals wager.

but again the wager was as follows, if we lose, we still win,

if an athiest loses, they have some damages to contend with.

thus the need to be insured against, and hedge against such a volititle time as judgement day.

Christ blood is our hedge.

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?

 

[Black Dog]

We live in a world that is fundamentally adversarial to God, and so people are taken in by deception and end up rejecting their Maker nonetheless.

I don't think a lack of evidence is deception. I can't believe in a supernatural being without evidence. Could you believe in Santa Claus?

 

[Crowns&Laurels]

I don't think a lack of evidence is deception. I can't believe in a supernatural being without evidence. Could you believe in Santa Claus?

I can prove that Santa Claus doesn't exist:
http://www.christianforums.com/threads/and-what-about-christmas.7912656/page-2#post-68736520

 

[Black Dog]

I can prove that Santa Claus doesn't exist:
http://www.christianforums.com/threads/and-what-about-christmas.7912656/page-2#post-68736520

That isn't a proof that Santa Claus doesn't exist. No more so than a similar post would be proof that Jesus Christ doesn't exist.

 

[Crowns&Laurels]

That isn't a proof that Santa Claus doesn't exist. No more so than a similar post would be proof that Jesus Christ doesn't exist.

It is proof that Santa doesn't exist. What, are we moving on to Solipsism now? Santa Claus is a blatant merger of two things that was never intended to even be true. It's no different then writing a fiction. How are you going to say that something which was purposefully intended to be fictitious is something I can't prove?

 

[Black Dog]

It is proof that Santa doesn't exist. What, are we moving on to Solipsism now? Santa Claus is a blatant merger of two things that was never intended to even be true. It's no different then writing a fiction. How are you going to say that something which was purposefully intended to be fictitious is something I can't prove?

Santa just influenced what was written so his existence wouldn't be obvious. He is a bit of a recluse if truth be told. That's also why he keeps his house at the North Pole invisible. But if you're good, you get awesome gifts at Christmas, we all know that, but some choose to be deceived.

 

[Eudaimonist]

It is proof that Santa doesn't exist.

You are setting the bar lower than many Christians would. On this standard, Richard Carrier has proved that Jesus did not exist, or come very close to doing so.

Typically, what I see is Christians insisting that atheists show omniscience to disprove the existence of God, and they reserve omniscience for themselves by claiming to have God's omniscient revelations.

But I approve of your standard. If one can show that human beings are religion-creators, that's strong evidence that deities are fictional entities. This is as blatant as it gets in human history.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Dmitri Martila]

"I have not violated or lied in my mind" does not equal "therefore my beliefs must be true".

Define the Truth then. I am happy with my mind, and I am constantly using it. So why my mind is wrong? Just because you have closed an eye on some thing in your false religion? I am not crazy - thus, my mind is true to God.

 

[Dmitri Martila]

How are you going to say that something which was purposefully intended to be fictitious is something I can't prove?

Good one, brother. Same is with Spaghetti Monster or with the
Russell's teapot. The atheists have invented these objects to kill the True God. To kill God is needed another god. Therefore, the atheists are pagans. Proof ends.