Mageth

Again, to me, it (an afterlife, an eternal afterlife, and the risk of eternal punishment) does not exist. No ifs, ands, or buts. There is no "potentiality" that I risk eternal torment. I have no reason at all to put any stock at all to the rambling threats of particular ancient texts.

They can say it all they want. I'll continue to ignore them, and place Pascal's Wager on the pile of Really Bad Arguments. On top of the pile, actually.

enemigo

Since you are absolutely certain that it is impossible for there to be eternal torment, then Pascal's Wager doesn't apply to you. It is only concerned with those who do not hold your certainty.

My point is that your argument with rhutchin should not even address whether or not eternal torment actually exists, since that is a point that is irrelevant to the logic of Pascal's Wager. Your argument is instead based on the premise that it is impossible for hell to exist, and so the language in which you frame your arguments should focus on the potentiality of existence, not actual existence.

Even though I am not certain of the impossibility of eternal torment (I don't think that is knowledge I could ever attain), I do consider Pascal's Wager to be atop the pile of Really Bad Arguments.

Johnny Skeptic

That is completely true. As I showed in one of my previous posts, the texts prove it. The greatest commandment requires believers to love God with ALL [emphasis mine] of their heart, ALL of their soul, and ALL of their mind if they want to go to heaven, but based upon what the Bible sometimes says about God questionable behavior, it is impossible for skeptics to keep that commandment. Keeping the greatest commandent is obviously a TOTAL committment, but Pascal's Wager most certainly does not require anything remotely resembling a total committment.

I do not have any idea whatsoever what you are talking about. How can you love someone unless you know that he exists? The very first verse in the Bible indicates that God exists, and that he created the heavens and the earth. If we accept that as being probable, you still have an insurmountable problem because it would be impossible for skeptics to love God with all of their heart, all of their soul, and all of their mind even if they believed that he exists, and the texts most assuredly say on a number of occasions that the only way that people can get to heaven is to keep God's commandments, especially the greatest commandment. The words "love" and "all" are the bases of the greatest commandment, and those words have defeated all of your arguments. As William MacDonald says in his 'Believer's Bible Commentary,' "This means that man's FIRST [emphasis mine] obligation is to love God with the TOTALITY [emphasis mine] of his being. As has been pointed out, the heart speaks to the emotional nature......." A web definition of the word "obligation" is "duty: the social force that binds you to the courses of action demanded by that force." So, God demands that believers love him with all of their heart, all of their soul, and all of their mind. Pascal's Wager most certainly does not come anywhere near requiring believers to observe the first commandment.

In one of my previous posts, I proved to you that the texts say that no one can go to heaven if they do not keep God's commandments. I also told you that sins of ommission are one matter, but that sins of commission are another matter entirely. While God will forgive sins of ommission, the God of the Bible will not tolerate repeated sins of commission, most especially repeatedly refusing to keep the greatest commandment. Do you keep the greatest commandment? Is it your position that a person can deliberately repeatedly refuse to observe it and still go to heaven?

The questionable nature of God is one of the chief reasons that people are not willing to become Christians, or one of the chief reasons that they choose to give up Christianity. I gave up Christianity for health reasons.

rhutchin

Pascal’s Wager leads a person to the conclusion that he should believe in God. It does not make a person commit anything to God. This is where logic fails. One can know what is right and have no desire to do right. Pascal’s Wager does not require that a person do anything. It only leads the person to discover what he should do.

You gave up Christianity for health reasons??? If your “christianity� could not survive health issues, what good was it? It seems that you based your christianity on something you did and not on that which God did. You are correct in your analysis of the Bible and that which it says about one having to commit everything to God. That is why man cannot save himself and God has to save a person if they are to be saved.

rhutchin

The situation you described involved a “god� who would reward skepticism. The choice confronting a person was whether to believe in that “god� that threatened eternal torment for lack of belief and that “god� that threatened eternal torment for belief. Pascal’s Wager would lead a person to believe in one of those “gods� in order to escape the penalty for non-belief.

A refutation of Pascal’s Wager must construct a situation where there is no “god� for one to believe. However, any “no god� option would also involve no penalty and no risk. Pascal’s Wager leads a person to believe in a “god� if that god threatened eternal torment because one would want to reduce that risk.

Do you know of a refutation of Pascal’s Wager that uses a “no god� option for belief?

No it would not. There can only be one true and living God. There can be many gods threatening eternal punishment. The Professor’s God is but one of many gods that one could propose. Pascal’s Wager would still lead a person to believe in God in order to escape eternal punishment. The difficulty posed by the Professor’s God is not different than that posed by Allah or any other god. Once Pascal’s Wager has led the person to the conclusion that he should believe in God, the person is then faced with the problem of identifying the true God from among all those gods (the Biblical god, the Islamic god, the Mormon god, the Professor’s God, etc) that are said to exist.

Look at the point in your explanation where you have—

God Z - threatens eternal torment for believing in any god based on risk analysis
…
But if Person A follows your advice to decide on theism by means of risk analysis, and God Z exists, then Person A suffers the penalty of eternal torment for his theism.

You have set up a situation where a God Z exists and one must “believe� in God Z in order to accept the situation created by God Z, but to believe in God Z is to violate God Z’s requirement that no one believe in any god (not even in God Z). In effect, one must “believe� in God Z in order to escape eternal punishment but believing in God Z results in eternal punishment.

Under your scenario, there is no way for a person to escape eternal punishment if God Z actually exists. One is damned if he believes God Z and damned if he doesn’t. That situation does not address Pascal’s Wager because it creates a situation in which one cannot escape eternal punishment no matter what they do.

rhutchin

Your situation is that you choose not to believe in God. Despite your confidence in that decision, it is still true that you cannot be certain that you are correct in your belief. That uncertainty is the basis for Pascal’s Wager.

I do not have to prove that the "penalty of eternal torment" does exist because such a proof would only remove uncertainty and therefore, risk. It is the inability to prove either position that leads to uncertainty and this uncertainty is the basis for Pascal’s Wager.

You may choose not to believe in God, but because you cannot prove that there is no God, your decision involves the possibility that you have made a wrong choice. Given the penalty for being wrong, the rational course of action is for you to reverse your original decision and decide to believe in God.

Vorkosigan

rhutchin, if your god really exists, and really condemns people he doesn't agree with to eternal torture, then the only rational thing to do would be to fight such tyranny. Such a god would be worse than any human tyrant, who after all only tortured people for the duration of their mortal lives.

pharoah

Nonsense. Before we can even discuss Pascal, you must first eliminate the possibility of all other gods. After you've done that, then you have to show why Judaism isn't a viable option. After you've done that, then you need to show which of the thousands of Christian sub-cults is the cult. Then we can invoke Pascal.

Again nonsense. Why couldn't there be many gods? Even though you'll strenously deny it, the Trinity is nothing but 3 gods. Even if there is only god, how do you know that it's Yahweh? For all you know there has been another war in heaven with Satan seizing control or they all killed each other off.

Johnny Skeptic

You are correct that Pascal's Wager does not make a person commit anything to God, and that is the very reason that it cannot possibly be valid if the Bible is true because the Bible definitely requires believer to make a commitment, not just any old committment, but a TOTAL committment of loving God with all of one's heart, soul, and mind, as stated in the greatest commandment. Surely the word "all" indicates a total commitment, but Pascal's Wager does not require anything even remotely close to a total commitment, and in fact allows a mediocre or minimum commitment.

Matthew 19:17 says "And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments."

Matthew 22:35-40 say "Then one of them, which was a lawyer, asked him a question, tempting him, and saying Master, which is the great commandment in the law? Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets."

Matthew 7:21-22 say "Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity." Because casting out devils is mentioned and Jesus said elsewhere that Satan cannot cast out Satan, we know that the verses are talking about people who are Christians and will lose their salvation, in other words, Christians who did not love God with all of their, heart, soul, and mind.

Luke 1:6 says "And they were both righteous before God, walking in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless." Of course, Pascal's Wager does not require anyone to be righteous, leading to the logical conclusion that from your point of view, the only reason that you sometimes do good things is that it feels good to do so. Pascal believed that the only way that a person could be saved was to follow Jansenism, and Jansenism resembled Calvinism. Wikipedia says the following:

"Jansenism was a branch of Christian philosophy founded by Cornelius Jansen (1585 – 1638), a Dutch theologian. It was a movement of the leading public, the bourgeoisie and aristocrats rather than a groundswell of instinctive belief.

"An opponent of the Jesuits, Jansen proposed a return to the principles laid down in the work of St Augustine of Hippo. His posthumously published work, Augustinus (1640), gained an increased following, and prominent adherents of Jansenism included Racine and Pascal. Jansenism was associated with the convent of Port-Royal, which operated a number of famous schools that educated Racine and Pascal, and by the books of Pasquier Quesnel.

"Jansenism emphasized original sin, human depravity, the necessity of divine grace, and predestination. In Jansenist thought, human beings were born bad, and without divine help a human being could never become good. This meant that one had to be very careful about one's choices, exhibit a high level of piety and moral rectitude, and prepare carefully through prayer and confession before receiving Communion (hence Jansenists favored less frequent reception). The Jansenist idea of predestination, based on Augustine's writing and close to that of Calvinism, was that only a small number of human beings, the 'elect', were destined to be saved.

"Jansenism was condemned as heretical in several papal bulls, notably by Pope Innocent X, Alexander VII (Ad Sanctam Beati Petri Sedem - Catholic Encyclopedia article) and Clement XI (Unigenitus). It is interesting to note that because Jansen himself died before his work was published and he included statements of submission to the Roman church in it, he himself was never considered a heretic. The final condemnation of Jansenism was by St. Pius X, who advocated daily communion and communion for children as soon as they could distinguish the host.

"In France, King Louis XIV, acting under the pressures of the Jesuits, sought the end of Jansenism. Particularly targeted was the convent of Port-Royal. In a very symbolic gesture, the convent was razed in 1710 after the last nuns had been forcibly removed."

Acts 5:29-32 say "Then Peter and the other apostles answered and said, We ought to obey God rather than men. The God of our fathers raised up Jesus, whom ye slew and hanged on a tree. Him hath God exalted with his right hand to be a Prince and a Saviour, for to give repentance to Israel, and forgiveness of sins. And we are his witnesses of these things; and so is also the Holy Ghost, whom God hath given to them that obey him." As you correctly said, Pascal's wager does not make a person commit anything to God, but I just showed you that the texts indicate that salvation is given only "to them that obey him."

Hebrews 5:9 "And being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him," or "ONLY unto all them that obey him."

1 Peter 4:17-19 say "For the time is come that judgment must begin at the house of God: and if it first begin at us, what shall the end be of them that obey not the gospel of God? And if the righteous scarcely be saved, where shall the ungodly and the sinner appear? Wherefore let them that suffer according to the will of God commit the keeping of their souls to him in well doing, as unto a faithful Creator." In other words, "what shall be the end of people like rhutchin who do not believe that Christians must obey the gospel of God in order to go to heaven"?

Revelation 3:14-16 say "And unto the angel of the church of the Laodiceans write; These things saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation of God; I know thy works, that thou art neither cold nor hot: I would thou wert cold or hot. So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth."

Exodus 4:11 says "And the Lord said unto him, Who hath made man's mouth? or who maketh the dumb, or deaf, or the seeing, or the blind? have not I the Lord?"

Revelation 9:1-6 say "And the fifth angel sounded, and I saw a star fall from heaven unto the earth: and to him was given the key of the bottomless pit. And he opened the bottomless pit; and there arose a smoke out of the pit, as the smoke of a great furnace; and the sun and the air were darkened by reason of the smoke of the pit. And there came out of the smoke locusts upon the earth: and unto them was given power, as the scorpions of the earth have power. And it was commanded them that they should not hurt the grass of the earth, neither any green thing, neither any tree; but only those men which have not the seal of God in their foreheads. And to them it was given that they should not kill them, but that they should be tormented five months: and their torment was as the torment of a scorpion, when he striketh a man. And in those days shall men seek death, and shall not find it; and shall desire to die, and death shall flee from them."

Revelation 14:9-11 say "And the third angel followed them, saying with a loud voice, If any man worship the beast and his image, and receive his mark in his forehead, or in his hand, The same shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is poured out without mixture into the cup of his indignation; and he shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels, and in the presence of the Lamb: And the smoke of their torment ascendeth up for ever and ever: and they have no rest day nor night, who worship the beast and his image, and whosoever receiveth the mark of his name."

Rhutchin, you lose hands down on at least two counts. First of all, the Bible directly contradicts your arguments on numerous occasions. You are obviously completely unaware what the Bible requires for a person to go to heaven, even though any average sixth grader could understand what it requires if he had not been indoctrinated with Calvinism. Second of all, even if the Bible did not contradict your arguments, it would be completely impossible for me to will myself to love a God like the God who the preceding references depict even if I believed that he exists, and it is a fact that the Bible requires that believers love God, and with all of their heart, soul, and mind I might add. You might as well ask me to will myself to believe that 2+2=5. If the Bible said that in order for a person to go to heaven they must believe that 2+2=5, would you be able to will yourself to believe that 2+2=5, or would you take a chance that 2+2=4 and hope that a being other than the God of the Bible requires believing that 2+2=4 and will provide you with a comfortable eternal life if you believe that 2+2=4? If the Bible is true, we can be sure that Pascal's Wager and Calvinism are not valid. If the God of the Bible exists, at best he is bi-polar or amoral. At worst, he is a monster.

Just so you know where I am coming from, I don't care what people believe as long as they do not try to legislate their beliefs.

enemigo

A 'no-god' situation is not necessary. All that is necessary is an option in which nonbelief would be safer than theism, which the Professor's God accomplishes. But regardless of that, I did offer a 'no-god' option in the form of atheistic Buddhism, which you haven't addressed.

Basically, the atheistic Buddhist position is that we are in a cycle of eternal suffering, known as the Wheel of Samsara, from which the only way to free ourselves is by achieving Nirvana. That is accomplished by freeing yourself of all beliefs and desires. Therefore, if you believe in god, then you will not achieve Nirvana.


You need not believe in the Professor's God in order to fulfill the his requirements to escape eternal torment.

And why are you putting "believe" in quotations? Is it because you mean something other than believe, and are trying to equivocate? If one must "believe" in God Z in order to accept the situation of God Z, then likewise, one must also "believe" in God Y in order to accept the situation of God Y. You can't have it both ways.

Again, I don't have to believe that the Professor's God actually exists in order to refrain from deciding on theism by risk analysis. Accepting that something might exist, is not the same as believing that it does exist.


How is one damned if he doesn't believe in God Z?

One is only damned under God Z if that person believes in a god based on risk analysis. My current beliefs are a direct refutation of your assertion. I don't believe in any god. If God Z does exist, then I am safe, because I DON'T believe in God Z or any other god based on self-preservation.


Incorrect. If God Z exists, there is a way to escape eternal punishment, just like if God Y exists, there is a way to escape eternal punishment. But because those two possibilities directly contradict one another, risk analysis becomes a moot point.