Freethought & Rationalism Archive

knotted paragon · 02-23-2006, 05:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhutchin

OK. What about those people who are not convinced by your arguments that there is no threat of eternal torment?

Why are you asking this rhutchin. You already answered it:

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhutchin

I don't think that anyone ever really uses the Wager in a formal fashion to make a decision.

aa5874 · 02-23-2006, 06:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhutchin

OK. What about those people who are not convinced by your arguments that there is no threat of eternal torment?

Your question reveals exactly what I have been saying. The belief in Christian Gods is directly linked to ETERNAL TORMENT. The fabricators of the Christian Gods have suceeded in creating Gods that must be believed in whether they exist or not.

For example, if one reads the book of Matthew and carefully examines the 'prophecies', it will be found that every single 'prophecy' is taken out of context and is therefore false, which makes the book of Matthew false and the whole Chritian Bible false.

However, a person who is fearful of ETERNAL TORMENT, who thinks the truth will make them suffer, can never admit any obvious false statements in the Christian Bible.

As a matter of interest, rhuctin, if the Christian God were to ask you to collect two of every living creature in the entire world, would that seem reasonable? How long would such an assigment take?
Only a person who is fearful of ETERNAL TORMENT and is terrified by facts and logic will not see the fabrication of these Gods.

Pascal's Wager is not valid when information is available to show that the Christian God is not vald, unless you consumed by fear and terror of ETERNAL TORMENT.

Jack the Bodiless · 02-23-2006, 06:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhutchin

When Pascal formulated the Wager, he accepted that there was a position of nonbelief that did not provide an escape from eternal torment.

Why do you use "accepted", rather than "assumed without foundation..." or "blundered in assuming..."?

This is really quite simple. It's possible that NOBODY suffers eternal torment, it's possible that EVERYBODY suffers eternal torment, it's possible that SOME people suffer eternal torment. Pascal's Wager applies only if the latter is true.

Now, if we assume that SOME people suffer eternal torment: it's possible that religious belief is NOT a relevant factor, and it's possible that religious belief IS a factor.

If we assume that religious belief IS a factor, it is possible that Christians are less likely to suffer eternal torment than unbelievers. Pascal's Blunder is his failure to consider the possibility that unbelievers MIGHT be less likely to suffer eternal torment than Christians.

And Pascal's Blunder invalidates Pascal's Wager.

You don't seem to be able to accept the notion of Pascal's Blunder. It's almost as if you've decided that he was "inerrant".

Quote:

People are challenged every day with dealing with the threat of this or that. That’s life. In every instance of a threat, people evaluate the seriousness of the threat to themselves and act accordingly. Why treat the threat of eternal torment any differently?

So, here is one more threat - eternal torment. If one is uncertain about whether eternal torment is real (as one might be uncertain about any other threat alleged to exist), what action should the person take? Pascal offered the Wager as a decision-making tool.

Atheism claims that there is no God and no eternal torment. Atheism cannot prove that there is no God. What should a person do?

Remain an atheist. I have determined that this is probably the safer course.

Quote:

We seem to agree that a person has to view eternal torment as a possibility in order to apply the Wager. However, the Wager can be applied to any threat the person perceives to exist. The Wager is not unique to the threat of eternal torment. It is a tool that one could use to evaluate any threat. The only presupposition that exists is that one is faced with a perceived threat (regardless of the source of the threat). As you describe it, all threats involve hidden presuppositions (belief in the threat) and circular reasoning (one must react to the source of the threat because the source says it is a threat).

No, the hidden presupposition is that there is a SPECIFIC threat which can be negated by a SPECIFIC, KNOWN response: that you need to do THIS to reduce the risk.

How should we reduce the risk of being killed by a meteorite? Simple: by choosing to live far away from where the next big meteorite will hit. The problem is that we have NO DATA about where it will hit...

Now let's assume we have many claims from various self-styled "psychics" about where it will hit. You don't really believe in psychics: but do you just select one at random who says "the Big One will hit Denver" and move to Australia? And do you pick one who also falsely stated that humans came from Mars and that his dead cousin would become President of the United States in 2004?

aa5874 · 02-23-2006, 12:31 PM

Jack the Bodiless what is interesting to note is suppose you arrive in Australia only to find that the Australians are moving to Denver because the psychics in that region say Denver is the safest place.

Do you still use Pascal's wager?

openlyatheist · 02-23-2006, 03:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Your question reveals exactly what I have been saying. The belief in Christian Gods is directly linked to ETERNAL TORMENT. The fabricators of the Christian Gods have suceeded in creating Gods that must be believed in whether they exist or not.

It reminds me of the old Necessary Being trick:

A Necessary Being is one that cannot fail to exist
God is a Necessary Being
Therefore, God exists

Using this logic I also discovered:

My bowl of chocolate pudding exists
Since it exists, it cannot fail to exist
Therefore my bowl of chocolate pudding is a Necessary Being
Therefore, my chocolate pudding is God

But then I ate it.

Makes you think.

rhutchin · 02-23-2006, 03:52 PM

Quote:

rhutchin
OK. What about those people who are not convinced by your arguments that there is no threat of eternal torment?

aa5874
Your question reveals exactly what I have been saying. The belief in Christian Gods is directly linked to ETERNAL TORMENT. The fabricators of the Christian Gods have suceeded in creating Gods that must be believed in whether they exist or not.

OK. So, can you prove that it is a fabrication? If you can, fine. If you cannot, then should a person do if he is uncertain about eternal torment?

Quote:

aa5874
For example, if one reads the book of Matthew and carefully examines the 'prophecies', it will be found that every single 'prophecy' is taken out of context and is therefore false, which makes the book of Matthew false and the whole Chritian Bible false.

How do we know that you are correct. Perhaps, the explanation of the prophecies places them in proper context and allows us to understand much more than we could otherwise. Why should people believe you when you clearly state that you think it is a fabrication. Should people consider you to be an honest reviewer?

Quote:

aa5874
However, a person who is fearful of ETERNAL TORMENT, who thinks the truth will make them suffer, can never admit any obvious false statements in the Christian Bible.

Maybe the fear people have reflects your inability to prove otherwise. You claim the Bible to be a fabrication but cannot prove it. What are people to think?

Quote:

aa5874
As a matter of interest, rhuctin, if the Christian God were to ask you to collect two of every living creature in the entire world, would that seem reasonable? How long would such an assigment take?

God did not even ask Noah to do that. Noah seems to have been convinced that a flood was coming and to build an ark to specifications given to him. Was it coincidence that a flood came?

Quote:

aa5874
Pascal's Wager is not valid when information is available to show that the Christian God is not valid, unless you consumed by fear and terror of ETERNAL TORMENT.

Pascal's Wager is not applicable when certainty exists. One does not have to be fearful of eternal torment, only uncertain, to apply the Wager.

rhutchin · 02-23-2006, 04:07 PM

Quote:

rhutchin
When Pascal formulated the Wager, he accepted that there was a position of nonbelief that did not provide an escape from eternal torment.

Jack the Bodiless
Why do you use "accepted", rather than "assumed without foundation..." or "blundered in assuming..."?

This is really quite simple. It's possible that NOBODY suffers eternal torment, it's possible that EVERYBODY suffers eternal torment, it's possible that SOME people suffer eternal torment. Pascal's Wager applies only if the latter is true.

Now, if we assume that SOME people suffer eternal torment: it's possible that religious belief is NOT a relevant factor, and it's possible that religious belief IS a factor.

If we assume that religious belief IS a factor, it is possible that Christians are less likely to suffer eternal torment than unbelievers. Pascal's Blunder is his failure to consider the possibility that unbelievers MIGHT be less likely to suffer eternal torment than Christians.

And Pascal's Blunder invalidates Pascal's Wager.

You don't seem to be able to accept the notion of Pascal's Blunder. It's almost as if you've decided that he was "inerrant".

Pascal recognized that there were many possibilities. There was the possibility of eternal torment and the possibility that there was no eternal torment. There was no reason to address the situation where there is no eternal torment. Consequently, Pascal, looked at the situation where eternal torment was a possibility. This situation reflected the uncertainty that resulted from the inability to either prove that there was eternal torment or not eternal torment.

Pascal then looked at the available information. There was information to the effect that a person could escape eternal torment through belief. If there had been information to the effect that believers would incur eternal torment, he could have taken that into account. If Pascal had blundered, people would have explained that blunder by now.

Quote:

rhutchin
People are challenged every day with dealing with the threat of this or that. That’s life. In every instance of a threat, people evaluate the seriousness of the threat to themselves and act accordingly. Why treat the threat of eternal torment any differently?

So, here is one more threat - eternal torment. If one is uncertain about whether eternal torment is real (as one might be uncertain about any other threat alleged to exist), what action should the person take? Pascal offered the Wager as a decision-making tool.

Atheism claims that there is no God and no eternal torment. Atheism cannot prove that there is no God. What should a person do?

Jack the Bodiless
Remain an atheist. I have determined that this is probably the safer course.

That is fine. You, like everyone else, assumes the risk of having made a wrong decision.

Quote:

rhutchin
We seem to agree that a person has to view eternal torment as a possibility in order to apply the Wager. However, the Wager can be applied to any threat the person perceives to exist. The Wager is not unique to the threat of eternal torment. It is a tool that one could use to evaluate any threat. The only presupposition that exists is that one is faced with a perceived threat (regardless of the source of the threat). As you describe it, all threats involve hidden presuppositions (belief in the threat) and circular reasoning (one must react to the source of the threat because the source says it is a threat).

Jack the Bodiless
No, the hidden presupposition is that there is a SPECIFIC threat which can be negated by a SPECIFIC, KNOWN response: that you need to do THIS to reduce the risk.

How should we reduce the risk of being killed by a meteorite? Simple: by choosing to live far away from where the next big meteorite will hit. The problem is that we have NO DATA about where it will hit...

Now let's assume we have many claims from various self-styled "psychics" about where it will hit. You don't really believe in psychics: but do you just select one at random who says "the Big One will hit Denver" and move to Australia? And do you pick one who also falsely stated that humans came from Mars and that his dead cousin would become President of the United States in 2004?

It all depends on the data, the information, that one has. Without data, one cannot evaluate risk. The information that one has is contained in the Bible (and other religious documents). One has to determine which are true and which are not.

rhutchin · 02-23-2006, 04:10 PM

Quote:

rhutchin
The Wager, a small part of that argument, merely showed that a person should rationally choose to believe in God as opposed to not believing in God.

knotted paragon
Ok, it has been shown repeatedly that this is not the case. So now what?

Maybe you could summarize that argument since no one else has been able to do so.

rhutchin · 02-23-2006, 04:14 PM

Quote:

rhutchin
Atheism claims that there is no God and no eternal torment. Atheism cannot prove that there is no God. What should a person do?

JPD
If a person believes in God(s) they may have an interest in the wager - or may hold beliefs that negate the need to utilise it since it would merely mirror what they feel.

If a person doesn't believe in God(s) what possible interest would they have in the wager? It deals with things that they don't believe in so why would they be interested in looking at the odds of outcomes based on them?

It would appear that neither believers nor non-believers should be interested in the wager if they hold true to their beliefs.

Then we are left with those who are neither convinced that God exists not that God does not exist. It is those people who are not certain what is true that would have an interest in the Wager. Do you object to people in this category using the Wager to decide what action to take?

knotted paragon · 02-23-2006, 04:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhutchin

Maybe you could summarize that argument since no one else has been able to do so.

Start at page one and read the thread rhutchin, then summarize.

Meanwhile, please provide evidence to support this assertion:

Quote:

The Wager, a small part of that argument, merely showed that a person should rationally choose to believe in God as opposed to not believing in God.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

02-23-2006, 12:31 PM	#1814
aa5874 Contributor Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: the fringe of the caribbean Posts: 18,988	Jack the Bodiless what is interesting to note is suppose you arrive in Australia only to find that the Australians are moving to Denver because the psychics in that region say Denver is the safest place. Do you still use Pascal's wager?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.