rhutchin

Pascal’s Wager is addressed to the person who does not believe in God. Just because a person does not believe in God does not mean that he cannot do a risk analysis. The analysis is very simple and allows a person to ask a simple question, What is the downside to me if God does exist and I face eternal torment? Even if the person does not believe that God exists, he can come to a rational conclusion that, if it turns out that he is wrong, there is the impact. He can then look at the two positions: (1) He can refuse to believe that God exists and be wrong; or (2) He can believe that God exists and be wrong. Since taking position (1) has significant negative impacts and taking position (2) does not, the rational decision would be to believe that God exists.

Regardless of the number of gods which people claim to exist, it is only necessary to look at the worse outcome. That outcome (and not the god associated with the outcome) is the central point for the Pascal risk analysis. Once one has determined that the rational action is to believe that God exists, he then faces the task of determining who God is and what God requires of a person to actually escape eternal torment.

Pascal’s Wager focuses on the penalty imposed by God and not which god is God. It looks at the worse penalty that one faces and does a simple risk analysis for that penalty. Once one determines that the prudent action is to avoid the penalty, he then looks for the action required to avoid that penalty.

Pascal's Wager says that your analysis should lead you to the conclsuion that you should believe that God exists (regardless whether it is Martin's "Professor's God," the Biblical God, or any other god).

enemigo

But your risk analysis is only considering gods who threaten eternal punishment for atheism to be the worst possible outcome. You completely ignored the examples I gave below, which, if plugged into your risk analysis logic, would result in atheism as the safer bet; that is, if considered in the same false dichotomic fashion as you're doing with YHWH-type gods. On the other hand, if they are taken into account with all other possibilities, as they should, then they only show the sheer uselessness of Pascal's Wager.

But, again, Pascal's Wager (as presented by you) doesn't take into account the Professor's God or atheistic religions in which theism results in eternal damnation. If one were to take such possibilities into account, which is necessary to be logically consistent, then Pascal's Wager would not lead you to the conclusion that you should believe God exists. If either of those possibilities were true, then believing in God based on desire to avoid eternal punishment, would result in eternal punishment, the penalty which you say that Pascal's Wager's purpose is to avoid.

Pascal's Wager is worthless.

Johnny Skeptic

Message to rhutchin:

It seems that as far as you are concerned, what this all gets down to is what evidence there is that the God of the Bible has supernatural power. There is the issue what the Bible has to say about God’s supernatural power, and there is the issue of personal experience. Many Christians place great importance on personal experience, but it seems that you don’t, or that if you do you haven’t chosen to mention it.

Please cite some of the scriptures that you believe indicate that the God of the Bible has supernatural powers. If you mention the Resurrection, I will tell you that there is not even one single reasonably provable first hand, second hand, or third hand testimony that Jesus bodily rose from the dead. Only Paul mentions the 500 eyewitnesses, so his testimony is completely uncorroborated. In addition, he never told were he got his information from. Further, it is quite suspicious that none of the anonymous Gospel writers ever mention the 500 eyewitnesses.

If you mention that Jesus healed people, today, millions of Christians disagree as to what constitutes a miracle healing. Why should anyone assume that it was any different back then?

It is impossible for anyone to corroborate the claims that Jesus was conceived by the Holy Spirit, was born of a virgin, never sinned, and that his shed blood and death remitted the sins of mankind.

If you mention that God can predict the future, Deuteronomy 13 says that bad people can predict the future too, and if that is true, there is no telling where God or the bad people got there abilities to predict the future. In addition, there is not any credible evidence at all that any Bible prophecy was divinely inspired. Just pick a prophecy and we will debate it.

Muslims worship the same God the father of Abraham that you do, so they believe that the same God that you worship created the universe.

It is a fact that if the God of the Bible exists, on some occasions he revealed his supernatural powers in tangible ways specifically for the purpose of encouraging people to accept him (I gave you some examples), but that on most occasions, he abandoned that approach, thereby deliberately limiting the number of people that will go to heaven, although any rational minded person would conclude that if a loving God exists he would do everything in his power to insure that at many people as possible will go to heaven, and that as few people as possible will go to hell, and that his methods of doing so would be consistent, not inconsistent.

While spiritual/emotional experiences are subjective, tangible experiences are objective, or at least it is much easier to believe that a pig sprouted wings and flew based upon a personal, tangible experience rather than by faith. Humans are much more convinced by personal, tangible experience than by anything else. That was the sole intent of the following scriptures:

John 3:2 says “The same came to Jesus by night, and said unto him, Rabbi, we know that thou art a teacher come from God: for no man can do these miracles that thou doest, except God be with him.�?

In the NIV, John 10:37-38 say “Do not believe me UNLESS [emphasis mine] I do what my Father does. But if I do it, even though you do not believe me, believe the [tangible] miracles, that you may know and understand that the Father is in me, and I in the Father.�?

There are a number of other examples, but those should do. Suffice it to say that a loving, rational being would use every opportunity to support subjective spiritual/emotional experiences with objective tangible experiences as much as possible because he would know that objective tangible experiences are the very best way to convince people to accept him.

It is a fact that if the God of the Bible exists, he is bi-polar or amoral. Here is the proof. 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? On the other hand, the texts say that Jesus healed people. God had one of his bi-polar or amoral moments when he created Hurricane Katrina and sent it to New Orleans. If an evil human made a person blind or deaf, he would be sent to prison, and with you blessing I might add, except of course in your case if the evil human promised you a comfortable eternal life. You said that an evil God would not give anyone a comfortable eternal life, but that is not necessarily true. Mafia members are kind and loving to their families, and they would give their families a comfortable eternal life if they were able to.

Do you really care what God does to unbelievers in hell? 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.�?

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.�?

It would be impossible for me to love a being like that, and yet the Bible requires that believers love God in order to receive eternal life. Matthew 22:36-38 say “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.�?
I could not possibly fulfill that commandment even if I believed that God would send me to hell. The verses speak of nothing less than total commitment.

Matthew 7:21 “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.�? More than any other scriptures, it is necessary and required for Christians to keep the greatest commandment, and Pascal’s Wager does not require that believers keep the greatest commandment.

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.�? Jesus was talking about the Ten Commandments, but surely he placed much greater importance upon the greatest commandment, which is found in Matthew 22:36-38.

I need to quote the greatest commandment in its complete context.

Matthew 22:37-40 say “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 [emphasis mine] the law and the prophets.

Rhutchin, you cannot possibly get away with claiming that a person can go to heaven without keeping the two greatest commandments. There is a big difference between sins of omission and sins of commission. While it is reasonable to assume that if God exists, he will forgive sins of omission, it is not reasonable to assume that he will forgive deliberate sins of commission,

It is more rational and fair to reward actions than to reward beliefs. Our entire legal system is built upon actions, not beliefs. While people who believe in the Bible frequently hurt people, a lot of people who are not Christians are much more beneficial to society than the typical Christian is. Actions are a much better indicator of the goodness and value of a person than beliefs are, so the God of the Bible should be much more concerned with peoples' actions than with their beliefs.

In short, if the God of the Bible exists, he has made it impossible for decent, loving, rational minded people to love him EVEN IF THEY BELIEVE THAT HE EXISTS.

rhutchin

That is somewhat true. At the same time, God has made it possible for evil, hateful, rational minded people to love him even if they DO NOT BELIEVE that He exists. Of course, why would decent, loving, rational minded people need to love God?

rhutchin

I am not sure how you get to that conclusion.

Let’s consider all those gods who threaten eternal torment to those who DO NOT worship the god. Pascal’s Wager leads to the conclusion that a person should believe in one of those gods.

Now consider all those gods who threaten eternal torment to those who DO worship a god or who worship a god merely for selfish reasons. Pascal’s Wager leads to the conclusion that a person should believe in one of those gods.

In both situations, it is to the benefit of the person to believe that God exists and to then seek out the true God and worship Him.

In both cases, the risk analysis leads one to avoid eternal torment.

Can you describe a situation where the penalty of eternal torment exists where one would not seek to avoid that penalty? If not, then Pascal's Wager cannot be worthless.

Mageth

The "penalty of eternal torment" does not exist.

That's where Pascal's Wager fails.

rhutchin

Only if you can prove that the "penalty of eternal torment" does not exist. Can you prove your claim?

Mageth

Can you prove that the "penalty of eternal torment" does exist? Or even an afterlife? An eternal afterlife? If you can't (and you can't), then as far as I'm concerned, anyway, the "penalty of eternal torment" does not exist. I do not waste one nanosecond worrying about such nonsense.

Therefore, the "penalty of eternal torment", as I said, does not exist (or, to put it another way, cannot be said to exist). It's just speculation which one may believe or not believe. There's an implied threat of eternal torment, according to some, based on ancient texts. I put no stock in those texts, nor in the threat they make (for which there is no actual evidence to support them). I do not waste one nanosecond worrying about such nonsense.

Either you believe in an afterlife, an eternal afterlife, and the "penalty of eternal torment" or you do not. I do not believe in any of it. The "penalty of eternal torment" does not exist. I do not waste one nanosecond worrying about such nonsense.

Pascal's Wager is only effective if you believe the "penalty of eternal torment" does exist, if you believe the threat is real. I do not. I do not waste one nanosecond worrying about such nonsense.

enemigo

How do you figure?

In that situation, it pays to remain skeptical, rather than to choosing to belive in god because you think you'll escape eternal torment if you do. If such a god does exist, and someone decides to believe in any god in the interest of self-preservation, then that person would suffer eternal torment. Do you not see how in this case, that choosing to believe in any god would result in eternal torment?

That is a direct refutation of your assertion that Pascal's Wager necessarily supports theism.


I don't think you understand the attributes of the Professor's God. If the Professor's God exists, then belief in any god based merely on the desire to avoid eternal torment, would result in eternal torment!


Pascal's Wager is worthless though. I have already described it quite clearly. The Professor's God is the opposite of your YHWH-type gods. The possibility that either type could exist, makes Pascal's Wager useless, because with one type, it pays to use risk analysis to believe in god, and with the other it pays to not use risk analysis to believe in god.


I'll try to simplify it even further.

Person A does not believe that god exists.

Imagine that there are only two potential gods that might exist:

God Y - threatens eternal torment as penalty for not believing in God Y
God Z - threatens eternal torment for believing in any god based on risk analysis

If Person A decides to believe in God Y based on risk analysis, and God Y does exist, then Person A is safe.

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.

In one situation, eternal torment is the penalty for disbelief, and in the other, eternal torment is the penalty for belief based on risk analysis. The risk for belief is equal to the risk for nonbelief.

There is no reason for me to assume that one of those situations is true while the other is not. You're saying that I should risk eternal torment from God Z in order to potentially escape eternal torment from God Y. But either way I would be taking the same risk of eternal torment.

Since using Pascal's Wager to decide to believe in god could potentially result in eternal torment, as the potentiality of a Professor's God demonstrates, then Pascal's Wager is useless.

I don't know how I can make it any clearer.

enemigo

But, again, according to Pascal's Wager proponents, it doesn't matter if eternal torment doesn't exist. They are arguing that the speculation that eternal torment might exist, is reason enough to be scared of it and to base your beliefs on that potentiality. They are saying that whether or not it exists, doesn't matter; that since we don't (or can't) know for absolute certain that it doesn't exist, it is better to assume that it exists, just in case it does.

The actual existence or even belief in the penalty of eternal torment is irrelevant to Pascal's Wager. All it is concerned with is the possibility that the penalty might exist. If you don't believe in the penalty, the Wager proponents are saying that you should, just in case it is real.