JPD

To someone who believes the Bible it is yes.

The problem with the wager is that it argues in relation to one particular God. You yourself say things like "Well okay, let's apply it to the others that could exist." The wager itself doesn't request that you do this.

rhutchin

I am an advocate of strict adherence to Biblical laws that reflect the teachings of both the OT and NT. Under the OT, sexual immorality (both heterosexual and homosexual forms) was punishable in some way (often by death). The NT does not void those laws but provides a judicial process for judging a person and exacting punishment. I do not see the problem you have with this. The Bible identifies specific laws and it requires a judicial system to determine guilt and justify punishment. How is this being equivocal??

If society were seeking to be ruled by God, it would investigate the Bible thoroughly to determine exactly what it said. There would not be Calvinists or universalists etc. There would be Bible believers and blasphemers. Calvinist doctrines (relating to salvation) have never suffered when compared to the teachings of the Bible.

JPD

Actually decent intelligent people will already have rejected this. We've had quite enough of it for the last two thousand years but thank you for playing. The possibility of life without religion being forced down one's throat is a pleasurable contemplation but some people evidently need a crutch and a sky daddy to make their existence complete.

You still haven't presented a decent argument for why applying the death penalty is a good idea when that person is very likely heading for your hell in any case. Or do you hope that by meddling in people's private lives, on the basis of your special knowledge, that you will somehow save them from themselves?

rhutchin

A person does not have to believe the Bible to see the logic of the position. A person only has to believe the Bible if they want to act on that logic.

Yep. Pascal argued that the Biblical god was the only god that a person need consider. The Wager involves an asessment of two positions - belief and non-belief. While it is true that Pascal limited his argument to belief in God, the argument does not require that a person identify God in order to work through the argument. There is no inherent, logical problem with the approach Pascal used. At least, no one has explained one to date.

JPD

This is truly tedious rhutchin - the wager works on the basis of the Biblical God. It assumes that only the Biblical God exists or, at least (if we wanted to be generous), that only the Biblical God has the power to apply ultimate judgement. This is the problem with it - it is limited in its persepctive. People may decide to apply it to other Gods but the wager itself doesn't state "Now go and apply this to all the other Gods that may or may not exist".

rhutchin

I am not an advocate of forcing religion down anyone's throat. It accomplishes nothing. I am an advocate of laws by which a society chooses to live.

I think the idea of punishment for doing wrong is a good practice to follow. It helps to teach the difference between right and wrong.

djrafikie

but rhutchin, you think homosexuality, along with a plethora of other things, is wrong and should be punishable by death. Therefore you are NOT an advocate of the laws by which our society wishes to live. You are an advocate of shoving religion down everyones throats as you do not believe our laws are "right", and you think people should be punished for doing wrong, the things you consider to be wrong are not punishable under our laws.

I'm not going to keep repeating myself to get the point across.

You have clearly stated your point of view. This NEW point of view is completely contrary to that.

In fact, it seems to me that you don't care that people do or do not choose Xtianity, it seems, futher still, that you only believe that xtianity in the extreme form you follow, should have it's laws imposed of those who do not follow it at all.

JPD

I choose to live in the same country but as I don't believe in the Bible, laws derived from it should not apply to me. That should be my choice no?

I agree with this but there has to be a degree of rehabilitation - the only way to break the cycle cannot be capital punishment. Otherwise what lesson exactly is being taught here? John killed Jake in a crime of passion. So we're killing John. The basis for our judgement? Our beliefs in an old book that contains errors and contradictions and which has mutated through time. Its the best basis you could possibly have. And its backed up with religious fervour and anger in the form of incredulous rage. Sometimes we're dippy with joy. Its the Good Book. In it God hands out all sorts of delicious treats. Sometimes he goes nuts and applies judgement out of proportion with the severity of the crime committed. That's okay though because he's always got a really sound reason for doing it. We don't know what it is - we just know that he has. That's enough for us. This means that when we kill someone because they are a homosexual we only have to say "God's law" and no actual explanation is required. Its just amazing.

rhutchin

Pascal applied the Wager to the position that involved belief in God. That position was assumed to support the argument and arrive at an outcome. The logical framework of the arguemnt can be applied where a person only assumes a god without identifying that god. The Wager reveals the logical superiority between two positions -- belief and nonbelief -- and it only requires a contrast between those two positions. If God is identified, then the Wager compares belief in that God to nonbelief in that God. If God is not identified, then the Wager compares belief vs nonbelief without reference to God.

You are confusing Pascal's overall argument for belief in God that he presents in his Pensees and Pascal's argument supporting the position that belief in God is superior to nonbelief in God in which Pascal uses the Wager. Have you read the Pensees in its entirety (recognizing that it is not a polished presentation but only a collection of ideas that could be woven together and expanded upon to provide such a presentation)?

JPD

Yes - the God of the Bible, Biblegod. That's BG, or G of the B if you will. The God described in the Bible.

In having to apply the logic you identify, very clearly, the obvious limitation of the wager. This is inescapable I'm afraid. Pascal had Biblegod in mind - end of story. It makes no difference how you wish to yank or bend the wager - in its inception it was never anything more. Your rather bizarre and stressed attempts at making it work across the board are really amusing us.

No I haven't read the Pensees in their entirety - why? Would it make your argument even more empty?

The misery of man without God...vanity of man, faults, understanding, wine, compass, reason, philosophy, Descartes. imagination, justice, profit, custom, nature, parents, children, nature, error, self-love, vice, passion, variety, restlesness.

It begins with a generalization about people (that they are vain), then explains how they are unhappy (another generalization) and then runs through a series of feelings to instill guilt and then a little fear after promising that the solution is available. Standard religious claptrap, or double glazing sales technique, if you prefer.

You keep on confusing Biblegod - the one that you believe in - with infinite potential Gods, none of which are supported evidentially. You have done this endlessly in this and other threads and your argument hasn't developed. Pascal had Biblegod in mind. You have Biblegod in mind. Both of these are totally irrelevant to what might be. Pascal's wager was created to assess Biblegod. You have Biblegod in mind yet you're trying to make the wager apply to any God that may or may not exist. What you're not realising is that the potential for infinite Gods to exist invalidates both the wager and your position. It doesn't matter whether you believe that infinite Gods exist or not and it makes no difference how you wish to evaluate them, should you wish.