JPD

Oh no! How many pages and you STILL DON'T GET IT at all. Pascal didn't state which God - of the many possible - that one should believe in. The "conclusion" is that it is only with great uncertainty that one can make a decision and the result of that decision may only be known after death or never. The effect of belief is unknown - you just don't get it do you? You can't see why anyone holding an argument from the perspective of one religion only is not holding a safe argument at all. You may believe that you do but so does everyone else who subscribes to other religions.

rhutchin

Only for the mathematically challenged. "God" can remain undefined for purposes of the Wager, (a difficult concept for emotion-prone people to grasp).

JPD

No - there is no reason to believe it in the first instance - there is no evidence. Only an idiot makes a decision on the basis of no evidence.

"So you say you're a dentist but here we are in the middle of the desert and the only piece of equipment you have is a spoon. Okay, let's get on with it then"

And that would be more reliable than any decision based on the Bible.

Mageth

It's incredible that you can still just flat-out state that as if there was any credibility at all left to it. For one thing, you have failed to establish that believing in God is any more of "a sure bet" than lacking belief in god(s). For another, you have failed to establish that "choosing to believe in God" in an attempt to escape the superstitious threat of eternal torment is any guarantee of actually escaping eternal torment at the hands of God (it is possible that God won't accept the motivation behind your "choosing to believe").

The first premise of the Wager is enough to tear the "two options" statement down. The first premise asks you to believe in the "threat of eternal torment", and therefore in a God that would mete out eternal torment, or at least enough so that you would act on it.

That's what the Wager really asks you to accept: belief in the superstitious threat of eternal torment.

At a minimum, what we have are these options:

1. Lack belief in god(s)
2. Believe in a God that does not threaten us with eternal torment (i.e., believe in God, but lack belief in eternal torment)
3. Believe in a God that does threaten us with eternal torment (i.e., believe in God and in eternal torment).

As I've pointed out with Mageth's Hellish Wager, option 2 is a safer bet than option 3. It's even possible that option 1 is safer than option 3, or at least no more dangerous than option 3 (you have not established that God doles out punishments and rewards based on belief in it at all - that's simply another assumption from your chosen superstitious belief system).

As for option 3, you're left with a countless number of possibilities. Your chances of actually "landing on the right God" are slim, to say the least.

Overall, the Wager as you present it assumes one accepts the particular set of superstitions in your particular superstitious belief system. One has to accept a God that metes out eternal punishment and reward, and that does so based on whether you believe in it or not. To even consider Pascal's Wager, one has to accept the superstitious premises and assumptions of a particular superstitious belief system.

The Wager is simply a bad attempt to wrap Christian superstitions up in a "rational" cloak. Again, it's superstitions all the way down. Acting on superstition is not rational.

Pascal's Wager does not lead to the "conclusion" to believe in God. Far from it. It fails miserably in that task.

Indeed. And Pascal's Wager in its first premise asks you to accept a particular sort of God. I don't understand why you can't see that. You have to believe in a certain sort of God to even consider Pascal's Wager.

That's a primary flaw of the Wager.

Acting based on Pascal's Wager is irrational, plain and simple.

And again, if acting rationally is your desire, you should consider Mageth's Hellish Wager. In doing so, you should correctly determine that the rational action is to lack belief in a God that would subject people to eternal torment for unbelief. And, in addition, that there is risk in presuming to speak for God by telling people that they will suffer eternal torment for lack of belief - there is risk in promoting Pascal's Wager, greater than the risk of not promoting it. The rational thing for you to do is to abandon the Wager.

Your argument has been reduced to an Argumentum ad Infinitum. It's not getting any better by repetition.

JPD

What? God remains undefined for any purpose. Demonstrate that any character or behaviour ascribed to God is true or false.

Everyone is emotion prone - its called being alive.

enemigo

rhutchin,
for the sixth time, will you please address the issues I raised here:
http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.p...74#post3110974

Wayne Delia

That's why we reject belief in it. It's really that simple.

You're the one who believes in eternal magical rewards you can't even provide evidence for. You're the one who asserts, without justification, that those who don't agree with what you believe face an eternity of torture. You're the one whose pride is too great and too arrogant to overcome. You're the one who rejects Islam, Hinduism, Ba'ha'i Faith, and all sorts of other religions, even though you claim others who reject Christianity do so for emotional reasons. Meanwhile, all I'm doing is expressing skepticism over the existence of a reward (heaven) or punishment (hell) for which you cannot and will not provide. Do you understand what the term "emotions" actually mean?

It's been pointed out that you accept Pascal's Wager on the emotional basis of greed, pride, fear, guilt, and - to use your own terms - "self-interest". It's been pointed out that you reject all non-Christian religions, while you accuse others of rejecting Christianity for emotional reasons. You have absolutely no credibility whatsoever. I am forced to conclude that you are either being intentionally dishonest, or are actually unable to comprehend why you are so completely wrong.

Well, that's nothing, compared to the time you said you were one of the Devil's minions, and that you thought the Holy Spirit was a lying, deceiving, servant of Satan as well. Of course, if you ask me to back that up with a quote from you, I'll simply "remove the bloviating."

See why it's a bad idea to make up bullshit arguments for your opponent?

WMD

rhutchin

Pascal's purpose for the Wager was not to identify the god in which a person should believe. The purpose of the Wager was only to guide a person to the rational conclusion that he should believe in God. After having rationally determined that the correct action to take was to believe in God, the person would then have to determine which of the many religions offering a god was espousing the one true God.

Mageth

It's a superstition, and will remain so until it can be established that it is not a superstition.

That person would be acting irrationally based on a superstition.

It is a superstition (that is a fact, it is not a belief. I know it is a superstition; I don't believe it is a superstition), and acting on superstition is irrational.

Heh. Therefore, acting based on Pascal's Wager is irrational, because its motivation is fear. Fear of a superstition, no less.

Making decisions based on superstition is irrational. That is not an emotional position, and is not based on emotions. It is a rational position.

rhutchin

Only if you explain how to cite a message like you do above.