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.
...then to apply that the way you do would be to ignore the overall context in which Pascal presented the Wager. The Wager is something one does AFTER considering many of the other things that Pascal brings to our attention in his Pensees ...
So are you saying you have to apply the wager an equal number of times as definitions of "god"? Or would you just somehow decide upon one definition and then apply the wager? Or something else?
I'm apparently not as well read on the history behind it. Not that I particularly think it's necessary, but I suppose it can't hurt. The only thing I know is that it's a terrible argument as presented by most people.
What did I say earlier about Pascal's overall context, Todd?Have you read the entire Pensees? Or even a good chunk of it?
Nope, haven't read much Pascal. I'm mostly familiar with him through what others have written about his views. And I'm not likely to unless you're going to offer up something more than vague statements that I may be wrong in my interpretation.
You're not likely to? That's funny, I have ZERO problem in spending time (or in wasting it) in reading a number of Atheist books, or in watching various videos. But, whatever. I know everyone has their own time limitations, families to attend to, and levels of interest and motivation. But, one would THINK that with all of the hoopla that gets touted by atheists toward Pascal's Wager.....they would have taken the time to have read at least the Unclassified Papers Series I, II, & III in the Pensees. Of course, reading more of it would be beneficial in understand just 'how' Pascal comes by his Wager. But, who cares how or why someone fully comes to a conclusion, as long as we can shoot a bullet through it, right?
Oh for pete sakes... Fine, I'll read them. But if I don't find them addressing the issue I've raised about the wager, you're going to get a strongly worded response from me...
Uniqueness alone doesn't preclude there being many paths to a god.
Not all historians conclude that there was an existent Jesus Christ. And of those that do, not all of them believe any supernatural stories about him.
I'm content in pointing out that the actual table that would describe the wager has an infinite number of columns corresponding to an infinite number of god concepts, therefore making it statistically impossible to pick the correct one.
Very few will dispute that Jesus existed.
As for the resurrection I notice you do not even attempt to deal with it. In a more clever way historians use words that say, 'the disciples believed they had met the risen Jesus'. They carefully like you refuse to face the implication that if Jesus had risen from the dead, then he was more than just a 'good' or 'moral' teacher.
Please stop playing with ideas and explain what happened to Jesus's body?
What evidence can you supply to support your claims?
The main problem I see is Islam. At least on the surface Islam is a clone of Christianity. A person must choose one or the other, and the choice is not obvious.
Of course most atheists would give Islam and Christianity an infinitesimal probability that cancels out the infinite reward, so the expected value of Islam and Christianity become infinitesimal.
No problem. I'm glad you replied earlier in the thread. It would be nice if you continue in the discussion, but I know it can be stressful and pointless if people are too far apart to persuade each other.Nope.. i repond to the OP who is a Christian looking for Arguments to give to other theists.. I am not here in this thread to respond to athiests, who incidentaly will not be satisfied with any answer given to them.. I don't waste my time banging my head against brick walls..
I can't give any probability to any god without first knowing what that god's specific properties are, so I can determine if that god can't exist for me (e.g. a god that can create a married bachelor). After that, I'm still left with an incalculable probability that any particular god exists. Which means if I'm going to honestly look at the wager, I have no idea what's more likely among the infinite number of possible gods. I could posit a god that sends all non theists to a paradise after they die and all theists to an unimaginably horrible afterlife. Is there any way to calculate the likelihood this god does or does not exist?
It is really funny how much I disliked Pascal's Wager when I was a non-theist and how sympathetic I am to it now. Not necessarily the tongue-and-cheek version that is so infamous, but simply the fact that if you think any particular belief system is reasonable, if you think it would be personally beneficial to accept it, then what grounds do you have to reject it? If Christianity is not true, Christians still gain the psychological benefit of believing it in this life. If it is true, then the whole playing field looks different. I don't find the idea that nonbelievers are damned terribly plausible, but rejecting faith out of fear that you might be wrong does sound like a dangerous move to make.
Pascal's Wager is not an argument aimed at atheists, though. It's theoretically for agnostics, but I think is better aimed at philosophical theists who for whatever reason are more sympathetic to one religion than others. Atheists may think that all God concepts are equally implausible, but theists most certainly do not agree.
Pascal's Wager. I love it.
Tell me, will your chances of getting into heaven decrease if you sell all that you have, give to the poor, and wander the world doing good works and preaching the gospel? No. Will those actions increase your chances? Possibly. Therefore, by the wager, you should kiss your stuff goodbye.
So unless you've done that, maybe keep the wager to yourself.
It is really funny how much I disliked Pascal's Wager when I was a non-theist and how sympathetic I am to it now. Not necessarily the tongue-and-cheek version that is so infamous, but simply the fact that if you think any particular belief system is reasonable, if you think it would be personally beneficial to accept it, then what grounds do you have to reject it? If Christianity is not true, Christians still gain the psychological benefit of believing it in this life. If it is true, then the whole playing field looks different. I don't find the idea that nonbelievers are damned terribly plausible, but rejecting faith out of fear that you might be wrong does sound like a dangerous move to make.
Pascal's Wager is not an argument aimed at atheists, though. It's theoretically for agnostics, but I think is better aimed at philosophical theists who for whatever reason are more sympathetic to one religion than others. Atheists may think that all God concepts are equally implausible, but theists most certainly do not agree.
Another factor in my evaluation would be claims of miracles. This is a bit like evaluating claims of UFOs, ghosts, and so on. Even though the evidence isn't that good, it is important to me. Without these claims I wouldn't even consider a religion. There are some Christian members who claim to have come to believe through philosophical reasoning. I don't understand that at all.
EDIT: Another factor for me would be a hope that God isn't picky. We have almost no data to work with, so I would hope that any God would keep that in mind.
Probably you are familiar with "The Will to Believe" speech by William James ( The Will to Believe ). I thought his description of the decision making process of a prospective religious person was very accurate and insightful.
Probably you are familiar with "The Will to Believe" speech by William James ( The Will to Believe ). I thought his description of the decision making process of a prospective religious person was very accurate and insightful.
I don't actually share your conception of heaven as a place to be "gotten into" (to the extent that I believe in an afterlife at all), so this is pretty much incoherent to me.
But if you are not interested in talking about alternative ways to look at the wager, you are certainly welcome to not take part in the conversation.
That said, faith without works is dead.
Yet you are sympathetic to the wager. Bizarre.
We hardly exchanged words and yet this is one of the most bizarre conversations I've ever had. Goodbye.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?