rhutchin

I disagree. We can identify two general options, X and ~X, where X relates to eternal torment, your tiger, or any of the many decisions people face every day. Each situation can be addressed in a logical manner by asking two questions (or variations of these questions)--

1. I believe X to be true and it is not. What does it cost me?
2. I do not believe X to be true and it is. What does it cost me?

What comes into play with the Wager is the degree of uncertainty associated with X. With regard to eternal torment, we have a collection of writings that describe a god who threatens eternal torment to people based on their behavior. We have a consistent story line espoused by many men over many years. The person can look at this evidence and conclude that it is all superstition and he is certain of that. The Wager has no application. If the person looks at the evidence and is uncertain about the truth of eternal torment, then the Wager guides him through a process to determine what action to take.

In your tiger example, I am certain that you created it to illustrate a point. I am certain that there is no tiger over which you exercise control. What you would need to do to create uncertainty is to have your tiger devour a person. God has done this with the examples of Sodom/Gomorrah and the flood of Noah. If you establish a track record to show your power that could then be published in newspapers, books, or other means, you could create uncertainty in the minds of others.

There is also the issue of cost. If the cost is to be devoured by your tiger, that is a finite cost that I may be willing to incur so long as I can obtain some comparable benefit prior to being devoured.

Again, for the Wager to apply, uncertainty must exist and costs must be spelled out. I think that the person applying the Wager to eternal torment and to your tiger could correctly decide that he should seek to avoid eternal torment and that he could ignore you and your tiger.

rhutchin

Agreed. So is the nature of historical accounts. Read the paper this morning and the ordinary person has no clue what is truth and what is fiction. Science can x-ray a person and determine that a person is a bag of bones. Someone can write of that person and describe that person as a female and a mother. Is it true? Who really knows?

JPD

Um, rhutchin, until actual evidence has been produced and evaluated there IS no position that can be said to hold a higher probability of a positive outcome than any other. Thus it is with absolutely no certainty whatsoever that a decision can be taken. One could make a choice and change it radically every year. One would never know which one was the correct one or of the effects of holding none, one or many beliefs. This is the problem with beliefs - they don't actually reveal that what they assume has any basis.

rhutchin

I am asserting that the Wager is flexible enough so that one does not have to define who God is in order to make the decision whether to believe in God. Pascal was familiar with other religions and argued that no other religion really offered an escape from eternal torment other than Christianity. Pascal applied the Wager narrowly in this sense. However, today, we can apply the Wager more broadly by not defining which god one must believe and still reach a conclusion about whether to believe in God.

rhutchin

OK. So, everything is basically uncertain. Everything can be analyzed by asking the following--

1. I believe X to be true and it is not. What does it cost me?
2. I do not believe X to be true and it is. What does it cost me?

where X is the flavor of the month.

Jack the Bodiless

...And we have repeatedly pointed out that there is no means of determining "what does it cost me?". You're still importing baggage from one rather odd belief system to determine the "costs" involved.
No, we do not. The "party line" is inconsistent, and has changed over the years.
...Except that he hasn't, of course: these are fictional.

It would be very easy to have Alf's tiger devour a fictional person. Let's do so:

JOHN DOE: Holy fuck, a tiger! I'm outta here!
ALF'S TIGER: Rrrowrrr! <pounce>
JOHN DOE: ...AIEEE! It's got me! HEEELP!
ALF'S TIGER: <munch> Yummm!

OK, The lethality of Alf's tiger has now been demonstrated.

JPD

Well you could always try going to the source of the information. But in any case the newspaper can be sued if what it reports is knowingly false. And what decisions does one make on the basis of reading a report that says that someone is one sex when they are in fact the other?

rhutchin

Sure, they count. The Qur'an is allegedly the product of a man named Muhammed who lived some time ago (whether that is true is debatable as Sauron has pointed out). If we take it to be true (being unable to prove that it is not true) then that one man's historical account has every right to be considered along with everything else.

JPD

So no one account, whether in existence, lost, or to come, can be established to be, without a shadow of a doubt, the absolute authority to support any decision taken in respect of reward/punishment after death since what it claims has no demonstrable results to delight/warn people with. Unless you have some actual evidence. I know what hell will contain - Pascal sat on a stool crying and saying "Oh why didn't I just keep my stupid fat mouth shut? I've unleashed the afterlife equivalent of 'I am lying now. This statement is false.' "

rhutchin

Granted, much info is trivial and of little value. The x-ray thing was for purposes of illustrating a point about information and how we get it.

Going to the source involves time and maybe money. Not all can do it. I am not aware that a newspaper can be sued if what it reports is knowingly false (if so, there would be no National Inquirer, Star, or similar rag). Maybe even the New York Times would be in trouble.