New thought about Pascal's Wager

[Eudaimonist]

To my knowledge, Pascal's Wager is still relevant simply for its historical importance. It is no longer considered relevant in any other sense due to how problematic and useless it is.

You clearly haven't spent that much time at Christian Forums. Pascal's Wager is brought up all the time. It is far from abandoned by Christians attempting to sway atheists or defend their faith. Perhaps you meant that it has been abandoned by Christian intellectuals.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Haasrecht]

You clearly haven't spent that much time at Christian Forums. Pascal's Wager is brought up all the time. It is far from abandoned by Christians attempting to sway atheists or defend their faith. Perhaps you meant that it has been abandoned by Christian intellectuals.


eudaimonia,

Mark

You are correct -- I am new here. It is disappointing that people bring up such an old, out-dated, and debunked argument.

 

[Dmitri Martila]

If God was obvious, it wouldn't require faith to believe.

Church Holy Fathers say, that in Paradise there is no faith: just knowledge. So we are moving from blind trust to knowledge.

 

[Dmitri Martila]

Even if Jesus did perform "miracles", that doesn't prove that he is God.

Please define God then. Secondly, because Jesus has consciously demonstrated "I am God's Son", He is not a creature, not the alien.

 

[Eudaimonist]

Please define God then.

God is thought to be an entity with awareness, intelligence, personhood, and supernatural powers that is the sole creator and/or orderer of the natural universe.

In a polytheistic system, it is possible for one particular god to be "God", but not necessarily. A god does not have to be God. Also, some religions have something closer to nature spirits, and they also would not be God. Angels and devils, despite being thought of as having a supernatural existence, would also not be God.

Secondly, because Jesus has consciously demonstrated "I am God's Son", He is not a creature, not the alien.

Please keep in mind here that I don't believe that Jesus had ever existed, even as an ordinary human being. I'm probably in the minority among atheists on this issue, but that is the direction in which I lean.

Jesus hasn't demonstrated anything, as far as I can tell, not even his own historical existence.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Dmitri Martila]

God is thought to be an entity with awareness, intelligence, personhood, and supernatural powers that is the sole creator and/or orderer of the natural universe....
Jesus hasn't demonstrated anything, as far as I can tell, not even his own historical existence.

Good girl, it is your opinion. Perhaps I have more deep one. 1) Because of Free Will, a theist influences the universe. That violates the energy conservation. Therefore, it is not surprising, if holy theist would bring something into existence (due to E=m). Therefore, as Bible say, "You are gods". 2) Jesus was observed by direct witnesses: Judas, Peter, Maria, and many, many others, including the Rome authorities. Therefore, please explain your point.

 

[createdtoworship]

Brother Dmitri,

I would like to ask you a question, and I hope you don't perceive it as an offense: Have you read Pascal's Pensées, in which Pascal's Wager is actually found, or at the least, the 2nd series of his unclassified papers in which the Wager is articulated?

I ask because I so often see that persons with an opinion about the Wager come at it without having read the context. What Pascal says in connection with the Wager is, in my estimation, a reflection of what Paul the Apostle says in Colossians 2:5-10.

Pascal says in sum: So, after considering the evidences available for the plausibility of faith in Christ, do you still find it difficult to believe? Well then, consider this Wager.

2PhiloVoid

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.

 

[createdtoworship]

Pascal's Wager besides the known criticism in Wikipedia is the expression of hidden agnosticism: "Theists must have mind-less faith". Then the small step is needed, for the Europe become atheistic: the Pascal is very respected one. And now EU is over the head in atheism. The Pascal has here descended to the level of the "seeker" in desperate try to save one -- it failed: EU is in atheism now. Perhaps Pascal needed to stay above the sickness of rotting man.

Our freedom (ie, God's non-coercion) is not the absence of logical proofs of God. After all, I have such proofs (not to be envious, Blaise Pascal!). And the Christ's Cross and His Words and Deeds have conclusively proved. Our freedom is in the fact that we are free to think logically and to be sober, but are also free to be fools:

"The fool says in his heart, "There is no God." They are corrupt, their deeds are vile; there is no one who does good.
" (Psalm 14:1 NIV)

POETRY:

The Blaise Pascal was saying, that
"The mind is only impotent.
One can decide believe in God,
But know for sure
Is over throat."
That's wrong idea of Theist!
The Jesus came to us, he missed.
I've kept my mind in serving God,
And no-one cut my singing throat:

(My Proofs of God. http://viXra.org/abs/1507.0114;
In God We Mind or Physical Considerations of Divine. http://vixra.org/abs/1507.0152;
Has the Joke "Spaghetti Monster" a Deeper Meaning for Atheism? http://vixra.org/abs/1509.0269;
Is Atheism Evil? http://vixra.org/abs/1510.0019)

The idol is denying God,
Read Martila's you special blog.
Therefore, the atheist is wrong.
He's simply pagan, sinful "blob".

In dialog:
My faith is not mindless one. Thanks for reply. Your clip against Pascal has the major flaw: there is single and easy step out of atheism: "God is real, however I do not know more about Him. I want to know. Let me ask Him and let me think and feel." (You will be in Eastern Orthodox Christianity). Point of video: "there are many false religions, so you will pick the wrong one in case you stop being atheist. Therefore, do no stop." It is flaw. The mixing the steps. First step is: "God is real". That is true information. Just keep it through all your life. Many false religions will not change this TRUE information. Guess what? You just stopped being atheist. Do not step back!!!

See as example: Bob doesn't believe in Obama, but wants to get published in Nature (without high power in connections it is 100 pro impossible). His first step out of delusion is getting into mind: "President of USA does exist!" The next steps include getting his address, email, Obama's character, etc in order to write him convincingly. Same is with God. I understand, what you are opposer to any theist, but please agree on this obvious thing.

Church Holy Fathers say, that in Paradise there is no faith: just knowledge. So we are moving from blind trust to knowledge.
All can be proved logically. And can not be unproved. See: because Jesus made impossible miracles, He is God. This is simplest proof of God, which can not be unproved. Next, Jesus loved the man, because He did only good. Therefore, Jesus has not lied. Jesus told us, that there is Holy Trinity. This is 100 pro certain proof, which can not be unproved.

wikipedia has been proven to be liberally motivated, and to have been proven to post things as fact that are quite wrong, or presumptuous.

I call to question the use of the term quote mine.

in wikipedia,

I have contacted them and changed it numerous time, only to be reverted back to valid, even without any official citation from any regognized and printed dictionaries by any colleges or schools.

it's an internet term. and because wikipedia is internet based they presume quote mining is a term.

in reality, the term is quoting out of context.

and sometimes they even equivocate it with misquoting, sometimes both together,

so they equivocate three terms together as one,

when in reality there are only two official terms that are quite distict from one another.

so I would find another source, maybe google scholar, at least they try to shift to real scientific articles for the most part.

if you do a google search for wikipedia innacuracies many pop up.

I can show you some real quick:

http://media.prsa.org/news-releases...-wikipedia-entries-contain-factual-errors.htm

http://www.ihealthbeat.org/articles...althrelated-wikipedia-articles-contain-errors

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/04/120417113527.htm

and coming from the opposing view, and a more critical analysis perspective conservapedia actually does much to correct what went wrong with public edited reference books.

most libraries will not even let you check out reference books, yet wikipedia lets any and there brother change it.

http://www.conservapedia.com/Examples_of_Bias_in_Wikipedia

it's one thing to have bias and error, that you can easily go in and modify in time, its anothe thing to try to edit say "quote mine" as being an official term when no dictionairies carry it. (that are not daughter sites of wikipedia), so it was a rude word coined to bash on christian creationists, and when called out on it, all that wikipedia moderators say is "revised the deletion and add words back in because this topic is answered elsewhere"/ But if it is answered elswhere than they need to stop hiding and use real citations.

 

[bhsmte]

Church Holy Fathers say, that in Paradise there is no faith: just knowledge. So we are moving from blind trust to knowledge.

What knowledge? Can you demonstrate this knowledge?

 

[Dmitri Martila]

God is thought to be

The one, Who made first Free Will act "C" is the Father of the Free Will creatures. Indeed, without the C, there won't be us. Therefore: get to know the God.

 

[Eudaimonist]

Good girl, it is your opinion.

I am a male, in case you weren't aware.

And, yes, it is my opinion, just as you have been expressing your opinions.

Perhaps I have more deep one. 1) Because of Free Will, a theist influences the universe. That violates the energy conservation.

Please explain how free will works, and how it violates energy conservation laws. What experiments have you performed that show that energy conservation laws were violated?

2) Jesus was observed by direct witnesses: Judas, Peter, Maria, and many, many others, including the Rome authorities. Therefore, please explain your point.

How do you know that these were direct witnesses? All we really have is the Gospel writer we call "Mark", and he was clearly writing in allegories and doesn't seem to be a direct witness himself.

I recommend that you watch the full Richard Carrier video if you'd like to discuss this further.

The one, Who made first Free Will act "C" is the Father of the Free Will creatures. Indeed, without the C, there won't be us. Therefore: get to know the God.

We are products of natural processes. Therefore: get to know science.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[2PhiloVoid]

All can be proved logically. And can not be unproved. See: because Jesus made impossible miracles, He is God. This is simplest proof of God, which can not be unproved. Next, Jesus loved the man, because He did only good. Therefore, Jesus has not lied. Jesus told us, that there is Holy Trinity. This is 100 pro certain proof, which can not be unproved.

Brother Dmitri,

Yes, as Christians, we believe the testimony of the Church which tells us that Jesus "made impossible miracles, He is God."

However, when you say that, "All can be proved logically," I have to disagree, because this goes against what the New Testament teaches.

Peace
2PhiloVoid

 

[Dmitri Martila]

However, when you say that, "All can be proved logically," I have to disagree, because this goes against what the New Testament teaches.

Brother, you have not quite global picture: Jesus has used logic. See: Jesus says, what God is not God of dead people, thus, there is no death. It is divine wisdom. See here my new product, because Jesus says, what they will hear not only His, but also our words.

Hawking's idea is debunked: the mystery of Origin remains

Wikipedia: "The Grand Design is a popular-science book written by physicists Stephen Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow and published by Bantam Books in 2010. It argues that invoking God is not necessary to explain the origins of the universe, and that the Big Bang is a consequence of the laws of physics alone."

Suppose there is law: today at 12.30 on my desk will appear book on itself. This violates the law of energy conservation, thus it is impossible. But it is infinitely more impossible, if prior to 12.30 there is no time at all. Why? 1) It is extra complication: must appear not only book, but the time itself. And for sure, the energy conservation can not be applied in this NATURAL event. Thus, latter is impossible. 2) Any law connects two known states. But state without time is not known.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Brother, you have not quite global picture: Jesus has used logic. See: Jesus says, what God is not God of dead people, thus, there is no death. It is divine wisdom. See here my new product, because Jesus says, what they will hear not only His, but also our words.

Hawking's idea is debunked: the mystery of Origin remains

Wikipedia: "The Grand Design is a popular-science book written by physicists Stephen Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow and published by Bantam Books in 2010. It argues that invoking God is not necessary to explain the origins of the universe, and that the Big Bang is a consequence of the laws of physics alone."

Suppose there is law: today at 12.30 on my desk will appear book on itself. This violates the law of energy conservation, thus it is impossible. But it is infinitely more impossible, if prior to 12.30 there is no time at all. Why? 1) It is extra complication: must appear not only book, but the time itself. And for sure, the energy conservation can not be applied in this NATURAL event. Thus, latter is impossible. 2) Any law connects two known states. But state without time is not known.

Brother Dmitri,

Ok. I understand what you are saying about Jesus' use of 'Logic.'

Sure, Jesus demonstrates use of His reason to recognize some level (or type) of logic that is embedded in the meanings of Scripture and in the way that we should responsibly interpret Scripture. But the 'logic' Jesus uses assumes also a Revelation type framework, the fullness of which is not available to all human beings unless made available by God.

Let me be clear that I agree with you that Stephen Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow can be challenged as to the overall conclusions they reach about the origin of the universe. However, we can also allow them to make their theory, and acknowledge that they themselves imply that limits exist as to the ultimate reach of their theory. More or less, Hawking is just saying that a generic explanation of the universe can be given that seems somewhat cogent on a rational level. As a Wikipedia article explains:

According to Martin Gardner, the "other" worlds of MWI [Many Worlds Interpretation] have two different interpretations: real or unreal; he claims that Stephen Hawking and Steve Weinberg both favour the unreal interpretation.[80] Gardner also claims that the nonreal interpretation is favoured by the majority of physicists, whereas the "realist" view is only supported by MWI experts such as Deutsch and Bryce DeWitt. Hawking has said that "according to Feynman's idea", all the other histories are as "equally real" as our own,[81] and Martin Gardner reports Hawking saying that MWI is "trivially true".[82] In a 1983 interview, Hawking also said he regarded the MWI as "self-evidently correct" but was dismissive towards questions about the interpretation of quantum mechanics, saying, "When I hear of Schrödinger's cat, I reach for my gun." In the same interview, he also said, "But, look: All that one does, really, is to calculate conditional probabilities—in other words, the probability of A happening, given B. I think that that's all the many worlds interpretation is. Some people overlay it with a lot of mysticism about the wave function splitting into different parts. But all that you're calculating is conditional probabilities."[83] Elsewhere Hawking contrasted his attitude towards the "reality" of physical theories with that of his colleague Roger Penrose, saying, "He's a Platonist and I'm a positivist. He's worried that Schrödinger's cat is in a quantum state, where it is half alive and half dead. He feels that can't correspond to reality. But that doesn't bother me. I don't demand that a theory correspond to reality because I don't know what it is. Reality is not a quality you can test with litmus paper. All I'm concerned with is that the theory should predict the results of measurements. Quantum theory does this very successfully."[84] For his own part, Penrose agrees with Hawking that QM applied to the universe implies MW, although he considers the current lack of a successful theory of quantum gravity negates the claimed universality of conventional QM.[70]​

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Many-worlds_interpretation

So, there could be multiple universes from which our universe came, or possible other realities, but we as Christians see that Hawking's theory cannot fit coherently with Biblical teleology or ontology. So.....as you have graciously shared already about the implications of Space-Time, we Christians have to assume otherwise than Hawking and Mlodinow do (or as many other physicists do).

Thank you for sharing your logical deductions with me. You have given me something to think about...

Peace
2PhiloVoid

 

[ananda]

1) Because of Free Will, a theist influences the universe. That violates the energy conservation. Therefore, it is not surprising, if holy theist would bring something into existence (due to E=m). Therefore, as Bible say, "You are gods".

Even if the assertions set forth by Pascal's Wager was true, who is to say that the god of the Bible is the God?

2) Jesus was observed by direct witnesses: Judas, Peter, Maria, and many, many others, including the Rome authorities. Therefore, please explain your point.

I would say instead: "An alleged Jesus was allegedly observed by alleged direct witnesses: Judas, Peter, Maria, and many, many others, including the Rome authorities, according to the allegations of the writers of the books of the New Testament".

How do you know who the real writers of the books were? How do you know for sure that your reading of those books are uncorrupted and proper? How do you know that the writers of the books of the New Testament are in fact stating the truth? How do you know that the books chosen by somebodies in the past to be included in the New Testament were the correct books to be included? How do you know that the books weren't written as fictional stories for children?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

To my knowledge, Pascal's Wager is still relevant simply for its historical importance. It is no longer considered relevant in any other sense due to how problematic and useless it is.

Possibly. But Pascal's basic idea is that people who doubt will do themselves a favor in the long run IF they place themselves in a social (church) context wherein God can work on their hearts.

If that is what Pascal meant, and I think it is, then we can't quite say that it is 'useless' advice.

2PhiloVoid

 

[bhsmte]

Possibly. But Pascal's basic idea is that people who doubt will do themselves a favor in the long run IF they place themselves in a social (church) context wherein God can work on their hearts.

If that is what Pascal meant, and I think it is, then we can't quite say that it is 'useless' advice.

2PhiloVoid

Some people can't perform the psychological gymnastics, to go along with something they don't believe to be true.

 

[Haasrecht]

Possibly. But Pascal's basic idea is that people who doubt will do themselves a favor in the long run IF they place themselves in a social (church) context wherein God can work on their hearts.

If that is what Pascal meant, and I think it is, then we can't quite say that it is 'useless' advice.

2PhiloVoid

I intentionally referred to Pascal's Wager. As far as the individual man, I have little interest in him. I was simply speaking about his famous little gambit that has been shown to be philosophically irrelevant for quite some time.

 

[Dmitri Martila]

Even if the assertions set forth by Pascal's Wager was true, who is to say that the god of the Bible is the God?...
How do you know who the real writers of the books were? How do you know for sure that your reading of those books are uncorrupted and proper? How do you know that the writers of the books of the New Testament are in fact stating the truth? How do you know that the books chosen by somebodies in the past to be included in the New Testament were the correct books to be included? How do you know that the books weren't written as fictional stories for children?

All your questions seem to me as one: "DO YOU TRUST YOUR MIND, what if you are in some extent crazy?" Have I hit the nail?

 

[ananda]

All your questions seem to me as one: "DO YOU TRUST YOUR MIND, what if you are in some extent crazy?" Have I hit the nail?

No, I think they're legitimate questions. They are applicable to any religion where faith in certain deity(s) or doctrines is central to the ultimate goal.