-
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
You must wager..
- Thread starter pinkputter
- Start date
- Status
I'm not sure what's causing the confusion. At which point was it unclear that I think the wager is completely ridiculous?
How exactly is it the strongest and weakest argument at the same time? It's either one or the other. Make up your mind.
Upvote
0
Dear lord, another of you...where are the Christians when you need them!
Look, you (I'm assuming purposefully) edited my explanation on how doubt is bad by leaving out my last sentence.. slanting the truth. Do you want to practice habbits of tabloid magazines to pursue your Truth? Makes me wonder if you are genuinely seeking. Which brings me to my point. If you doubt your whole life. "I don't think God exists" without having legitimate reason (hence, the seeking) then it is a BAD thing. Now, is that so hard to see? No contradiction there, pal. You fabricated one.
Upvote
0
razeontherock
Well-Known Member
Thank you for the clarification. It's not often that I will agree with Mulimulix, but in this instance I think he's right; Paschal's wager is not a particularly strong argument, neither does it really result in Faith. I do think there is value in familiarizing yourself with it's ins and outs though, and some unbelievers do find it useful. For example I know of one genius who is a top PhD in their specialized field who used it for decades, and G-d eventually led them into His will. Their thinking was that it didn't require them to do anything differently than they already were anyway - not exactly what I'd call the most heartfelt commitment.
Upvote
0
No, I'm not. As I've said, I think it's utterly ridiculous. The wager assumes a lot of things, among them: that it's as reasonable to assume that God exists in the first place, that we can estimate the probability of each outcome or that the probability of the desired outcome is in your favor or even know the outcomes at all, or that an omniscient God can be tricked in such a fashion by someone interested solely in self-preservation instead of loving Him, or that your God is the correct God to hedge your bets on, et cetera et cetera.
A false dilemma (also called false dichotomy, the either-or fallacy, fallacy of false choice, black-and-white thinking or the fallacy of exhaustive hypotheses): a type of logical fallacy that involves a situation in which only two alternatives are considered, when in fact there are additional options (sometimes shades of grey between the extremes). For example, "It wasn't medicine that cured Ms. X, so it must have been a miracle."
It goes without saying that most (if not all) Christians don't base their faith on Pascal's Wager. The reason you have to throw out this fallacious wager in an attempt to appeal to people's emotions is because you know that your real reasons for believing wouldn't hold water in a logical debate.
Upvote
0
Wait, what?
Your last sentence doesn't matter when the first two contradict. That points out a clear flaw in your logic, and of course anything after that can't be deemed valid (as you are using invalid logic).
Again, you don't seem to respond to my points whatsoever. Rather than try to explain why my method of thinking is wrong or trickery, how about you just respond to what I actually said? Quote my individual statements (like I did you) and respond to them accordingly.
Just to remain consistent and respond to every point you make: there is every reason to doubt God's existence. I can give you 5 (random number) if you'd like, only if you actually respond to my rebuttals I posted earlier about your contradictions. Quote what I said, and explain exactly why I am wrong in my quote.
Upvote
0
oi_antz
Opposed to Untruth.
Most of the doubters don't come here to seek, they come to fight. Remember Jesus said "behold I am sending you as lambs among wolves, be as shrewd as a snake and harmless as a dove."
Pascal's wager is not going to convince the strongest warriors to commit themselves to the Lord. Only spiritual conviction can do that, and when you battle with a strong warrior it's going to be an intense fight. You're facing some heavyweights on this thread, remember what Paul says: put on the whole armor of God.
Now, addressing the OP: What Christianity boils down to is faith in the following verse:
Matthew 26:53
Dont you realize that I could ask my Father for thousands of angels to protect us, and he would send them instantly?
Christians will believe with their whole heart that Jesus is correct here as we believe that Jesus has authority over all heaven and earth. Non-Christians will likely doubt this passage.
That's what I want to add to this thread, I hope it helps to open a can of worms for us
Upvote
0
CryptoLutheran
Friendly Neighborhood Spiderman
If I hear a report that my house is on fire and my children are in side, and yet I have no real notion of this thing called "fire" apart from what people tell me it's going to change things considerably.
If you told me that my house is herploxing, even if you explain what you think herploxing is, that's going to change things considerably.
The analogy offered in the OP fails because in the analogy a person knows readily what fire is, what a house is, what children are, the value of his/her children's lives and the danger posed by a house burning with his/her children inside. We've observed, and in some cases experienced, this very real and tragic phenomenon. We can relate to it as an experiential and sensible idea.
Hell does not work that way. Hell is fundamentally abstract and what it is, if it exists or if it's dangerous are ideas that can certainly be spoken about; but nobody can relate to it viscerally or sensibly as one can a burning house; in that case it's like talking about a house herploxing.
That's just one reason why the form of Pascal's wager offered in the OP is a terrible argument.
Apart from that, Pascal's wager is just a horrible argument. I say this as a Christian.
It's a non-argument altogether.
-CryptoLutheran
If you told me that my house is herploxing, even if you explain what you think herploxing is, that's going to change things considerably.
The analogy offered in the OP fails because in the analogy a person knows readily what fire is, what a house is, what children are, the value of his/her children's lives and the danger posed by a house burning with his/her children inside. We've observed, and in some cases experienced, this very real and tragic phenomenon. We can relate to it as an experiential and sensible idea.
Hell does not work that way. Hell is fundamentally abstract and what it is, if it exists or if it's dangerous are ideas that can certainly be spoken about; but nobody can relate to it viscerally or sensibly as one can a burning house; in that case it's like talking about a house herploxing.
That's just one reason why the form of Pascal's wager offered in the OP is a terrible argument.
Apart from that, Pascal's wager is just a horrible argument. I say this as a Christian.
It's a non-argument altogether.
-CryptoLutheran
Upvote
0
oi_antz
Opposed to Untruth.
At your request, here is a response from a Christian.
From my observations I have come to notice that there are people who are honest and good, and people who are dishonest and bad. Those who are honest and good, when spoken to about Jesus, genuinely respond in favor of what I say. What it comes down to is the nature of Jesus. Many people really have such a distorted view of the nature of Jesus that it takes a lot of work to help them see Him clearly. But it is my firm belief that on the day of judgment when Jesus drafts the sheep from the goats our hearts will be laid bare in His glorious light and the truth will expose all lies. So in response I give you a clobber quote:
Whosoever therefore shall confess me before men, him will I confess also before my Father which is in heaven. But whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Father which is in heaven. Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.
Pascal's wager doesn't work when proving Christianity. Your chances of believing are not calculable, it depends on your nature as a person. Out of twelve disciples only one was Judas. And those twelve were selected by Jesus because they were fit for His purpose. None of us therefore are qualified to pass a judgment who is drafted as sheep or goat, but we must be concerned with our own warrant of fitness.
MattRose currently has a long thread about this, http://www.christianforums.com/t7570574/ He is discussing whether hell is valid given that contracts are void when committed under duress. If you want my opinion, Ray has given the best response yet http://www.christianforums.com/t7570574-25/#post57902159
Sin is the act of harming God's creation. You shouldn't want to live like that even if you don't believe in God.
Well we've already established that I don't believe Pascal's wager is effective in producing genuine faith anyway, so there's really no argument from me.
Hope this helps
Upvote
0
Well, that's true too, but the arguments on the page explain why Pascal's Wager isn't effective even at convincing people to hedge their bets on God because it's logic is fundamentally flawed.
Upvote
0
- Feb 13, 2009
- 10,421
- 12,379
- 53
- Country
- South Africa
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Word of Faith
- Marital Status
- Married
Upvote
0
Good. Maybe they should! C'mon! Christians? You might as well have announced to the Atheists they are right and that there's no god when you don't back other Christians on stuff like this.
Exactly. and I could prove that it in fact IS effective with its logic if time weren't an issue. I'll be sure and remember this and tear down your threads like you have mine. Really helps see the other side's "perspective" You all say not to troll and that's exactly what youve done to my thread.
Upvote
0
Do you realize youre in the minority compared to a pretty well-established majority who believe Pascal's wager is sound philosophical reasoning? Any philosophy class will teach you it as one of proponent arguments.
Oh yeah. Youre right. The wager we make about this life is A LOT more pressing than any wager we could make IN this life. So they are different.
And yes, Pascal's demonstration is proof that you must wager, whether you like it or not. Sorry I'm not gonna sugar coat it. We are moving beings...getting closer and closer to shore. Some boats (you) don't believe there is a shore because of fog that blocks us from "seeing" it. I believe, however, that there is shore, for innumerable reasons.
And as far as you thinking Christianity has nothing to do with the examples explained, youre just thinking yourself into a pit. Many many atheists do that...chasing their own tails. It's similar to very intelligent students not testing well because they over-think the test questions. It is in fact, much of the same thing. You soul is in danger, just as those loved ones in the example's life is in danger. There is, however, some one who can rescue us from that danger. Jesus in our case, a firefighter in the other example. The point of the matter is, do you find it important enough to "assess" the risk of the POSSIBILITY? In the example, some one just -told- you they were in danger, just like a Christian tells you your soul is in danger. Do you find it worth your while to pursue the facts? Like I already mentioned, many atheists follow Jesus' teachings, while remaining atheists because they do so mentally, rather than opening their heart to him as Savior.
Upvote
0
I'm sorry, but as CryptoLutheran demonstrated in post #33, Christians don't necessarily need to blindly accept nonsense just because it's pro-Christian nonsense. It's called using your brain.
I'm sorry, but you're demonstrating the exact behavior humblehumility ascribed to you in post #30. Whenever your faulty logic gets pointed out for what it is, all you do is freeze like a deer in the headlights, and proceed to go on a tangent down an unrelated train of thought without even trying at all to address the arguments presented to you.
Upvote
0
@sabercroft:
No...I don't need to be concerned if it will lead to my religion or not. I already know it does.
For all the Christians doubting that this technique will lead to Faith for anyone.......
At least this gives you grounds for discussion, which is the first step.
don't you know your beliefs must change first? You can't just adapt blind faith "cold turkey." I do agree with those of you who said this alone won't produce that. But hopefully we assume that these now Atheists are seeking Truth in other ways and will realize that. It's a personal decision, but if this argument affects one person's belief system then it's worth a little effort.
Doubting your faith like this is what the evil one wants, especially when there are could-be christians in this very forum. Don't give into his tricks that's what he wants.
No...I don't need to be concerned if it will lead to my religion or not. I already know it does.
For all the Christians doubting that this technique will lead to Faith for anyone.......
At least this gives you grounds for discussion, which is the first step.
don't you know your beliefs must change first? You can't just adapt blind faith "cold turkey." I do agree with those of you who said this alone won't produce that. But hopefully we assume that these now Atheists are seeking Truth in other ways and will realize that. It's a personal decision, but if this argument affects one person's belief system then it's worth a little effort.
Doubting your faith like this is what the evil one wants, especially when there are could-be christians in this very forum. Don't give into his tricks that's what he wants.
Upvote
0
I have no idea what youre referring to. Show me the logic I didn't answer, and I'll answer it.
Upvote
0
Sure, here are the two contradictions in our discussion with a brief explanation :
You said doubt leads to growth and progress, but is bad. The sentence about it being good while seeking is moot, because doubt usually arises when you're seeking the answer to something. I doubt Christianity because of all the research (seeking) I've done. Now, is doubt good or bad? Note that doubting something without doing any seeking is an act of faith, not reason.
You said that you know (certainty) this person is the love of your life, yet when you meet her you have doubt (uncertainty) about loving her. You can't be uncertain about something certain.
Upvote
0
- Status
Similar threads
- Poll
