rhutchin

The outcome of the Wager seems predictable to me. It is the decision of the individual to seek an escape from eternal torment -- He determines that the rational action is to seek to identify a belief (in a god or philosophy) that will provide him an escape from eternal torment. The Wager does not direct the person to the correct escape.

rhutchin

Pascal addressed the cost issue. What is the error you found in his explanation of the costs?

aa5874

.

Rhutchin, Pascal addresses the cost issue erroneously. Pascal is of the view that if one believes in the Biblical God and is wrong then there is no threat of eternal torment. That may not be true. Allah may torment him and the Biblical Gods together. The God of Judaism may want to toast the Christian believers, in Hell,for spreading heresy. And don't forget those Gods whose 'Holy Scrolls' have been destroyed by the Christian believers. Perhaps those 'unknown' Gods are just waitng patiently for those believers to die.

Pascal's Wager has no predictable outcome. Belief in one or all Gods does not guarantee escape from eternal torment, nor does unbelief in one or all the Gods guarantee eternal torment. Belief or unbelief carries the same cost.

Pascal's argument for the Wager is erroneous and hopelessly flawed.
Pascal's belief in the Biblical Gods have distorted the Wager beyond redemption. Rationality shows this clearly.

Rhutchin, you have failed. How can uncertainty become certainty. Pascal's Wager is rubbish, useless.

Johnny Skeptic

Message to rhutchin: You frequently mention risk assessment, but where loving God is concerned, which is definitely a requirement for believers, risk assessment is not an issue at all, thereby rendering Pascal’s Wager completely useless. In order for a rational and fair minded person to love God, such a person must have sufficient reasons to do so. Unfortunately for Christians, there are not sufficient for people to love God, that is, unless we change the widely accepted definitions for love, tolerance, consistency, and fairness. Many books have been written on this subject, but I will list some of my reasons for you:

1 - 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?” Such behavior on God’s part is detestable and unnecessary.

2 - God allows animals to suffer, even though no animal has ever committed a sin. Such behavior on God’s part is detestable and unnecessary.

3 - In the Old Testament, God ordered the death penalty for a Jew who killed another Jew, but not for a Jew who killed a slave. Such behavior on God’s part was detestable and unnecessary.

4 - God created Hurricane Katrina and sent it to New Orleans. Such behavior on God’s part was detestable and unnecessary.

5 - Today, the best evidence indicates that good things and bad things are not distributed to those who are in greatest need. Such behavior on God’s part is detestable and unnecessary.

6 - There is not sufficient evidence that God provides evidence of his existence and love on a personal, tangible, daily, first hand basis. Such conduct cannot possibly be of any benefit to God, and it most certainly is not of any benefit to humans. God’s perennial absence has led to millennia of wars and doubt, even causing wars and hatred within Christianity, the Protestant Reformation being a good example. Without God’s direct, personal guidance, Christian nations have accounted for the largest colonial empire in history by far, an empire taken by means of persecution, murder, and theft of property. In addition, for about 90% of the time since Christianity was founded, the majority of Christians endorsed slavery and the subjugation of women. This is what happens when a supposed God relies upon human proxies instead of speaking for himself.

God would have nothing whatsoever to lose if he were to clearly reveal himself to everyone, and mankind would have much to gain if he did so. The fact that God does not choose to do so indicates that he does not exist, or that if he exists, he is not worthy of love and respect.

You have mentioned the miracles that Jesus supposedly performed, but your claim is not at all convincing. Today, millions of Christians disagree as to what constitutes a miracle healing. Why do you believe that it was any different back then?

You have also mentioned the words that Jesus supposedly spoke, but we can’t be reasonable certain what he said. The anonymous Gospel writers always wrote in the third person. They never claimed to have personally witnessed anything that they wrote about. In addition, they never mentioned who their sources were, which were second hand at best.

Regarding Resurrection, if there was a Resurrection, why do you assume that the supposedly risen Jesus was not Satan in disguise? 2 Corinthians 11:14-15 say “And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light. Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also be transformed as the ministers of righteousness; whose end shall be according to their works.” In other words, why would you find it at all unusual if the supposedly risen Jesus was actually Satan in disguise?

7 - God clearly shows himself in tangible ways to some people, but not to everyone. Such behavior on God’s part is detestable and unnecessary, as well as God’s refusal to explain himself regarding this matter.

8 - God has never provided sufficient reasons for his actions and allowances. Adam and Eve eating forbidden fruit is most certainly not a sufficient reason. If Adam and Eve had no knowledge of good and evil, they were treated unfairly by God.

9 - Since it cannot be reasonably proven that God is perfect, his judgments do not have any validity as far as fairness is concerned. If he has the power to enforce his judgments, that does not automatically mean that his judgments are fair.

10 - 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.” The verses preclude any reasonable possibility that the God of the Bible exists AND is someone who should be loved and respected.

11 - You are a Calvinist. I will at least give the majority of Christians credit for knowing that Calvinism is patently absurd. If God chooses who will be saved, then it doesn’t make any difference who makes a wager. In addition, since hundreds of millions of people have died without ever having heard the Gospel message, so we know that God does not take Pascal’s Wager seriously.

If God chooses who will be saved, how do you explain a book that was written by Kosmin and Lachman that is titled One Nation Under God? Billy Graham endorses the book, but I do not have any idea why. The authors cite a lot of documented evidence that shows that in the U.S., the major factors that influence religious beliefs are geography, family, race, ethnicity, gender, and age. This precludes any reasonable possibility that Calvinism is true because the aforementioned factors are secular. God would not likely make his choices based upon predictable and analyzable factors. In addition, the very same factors also apply to other religions. Further, a loving and rational God would not allow knowledge of his existence and will to be limited by such factors.

Why do you not object to anything that God does? Why must all of his judgments be right?

So, Rhutchin, you are wasting your time discussing risk assessment since even if everyone believed that the God of the Bible exists, it is impossible for rational, fair minded people to love God based upon the evidence that we have to consider at this time.

Wayne Delia

To be fair, rhutchin has already addressed this point. It was essentially that yes, God did create and send Hurricane Katrina to New Orleans, causing extensive death and displacement, widespread damage, and the temporary destruction of a major U.S. city. This could have been prevented, according to rhutchin, if all citizens of the greater New Orleans area called out to God for help, and since the disaster actually happened, he concludes that not everyone called out to God for help - considering the huge population of deeply religious Christians affected in that area, such a requirement of unanimity to avoid general destruction is pretty much unreasonable. Which, of course, begs the question of why "meccas of sin" such as San Francisco and New York are not routinely destroyed more often.

I read a compelling argument yesterday elsewhere on this message board (Paul Doland in the Feedback section) that the argument of apparently unnecessary pain and suffering for a greater good has an equally apparently evil side effect: most of the deaths in natural disasters are inflicted on poor people, such as the high number of poor people who die in an earthquake because their roofs collapsed in on them, because they could not afford sturdier, higher quality housing that might withstand the disaster. This was very much the case in New Orleans. Thus, the intended effects used in the explanation result in the extremely unsatisfying conclusion that God requires the death of many poor people in order to teach the wealthier survivors a lesson, to illustrate that they should depend on God to save them from the problems God created in order to show them they needed to rely more on God, which is patently absurd. I am so fortunate I am not laboring under that delusion.

WMD

aa5874

Wayne Delia, it is for the very same reason, believing that Hurricanes were created to punish, that Rhutchin continues to err in his argument supporting Pascal's Wager.

Nothing that Rhutchin says about the Christian Gods are verifiable. The very place that the Wager applies to is an imaginary entity. The very Gods that are to be believed to escape the imaginary place are also themselves imaginary.

Yet Rhutchin, without any evidence, like Pascal himself, claims with deliberate
certainty that the Wager once used correctly will make a person escape from that imaginary place.

If that is not irrationality of the highest odor, then what is? The person who puts forward the Wager, does not know if any Gods, he does not know if any place of Torment exist, yet he is sure, by some mathematical or should I say magical formula that he could escape from the unknown.

No person, except under the spell of fear and torture as was Galileo, can be so unreasonable to accept Pascal's Wager as any alternative solution of an imaginary threat.

Rhutchin should understand by now that that belief in Uncertainty does guarantee escape from the Unknown.

Pascal's Wager is useless rubbish, garbage. Rhutchin, you have failed miserably.

Street_Scholar

<edit> Was I even talking to you?

Please you atheists, are very annoying. Go Worship Dawrkins or what ever you atheists do...

Hedshaker

You don't get to come here and dictate who posts.

Also, your spiteful ad hominem says far more about you than it does about me.

I have reported you to the mods.

darkfox

Apart from the fact that Pascal's wager offers no guidance as to the best course of action when analysed correctly, how is a person to make themselves believe something that they do not believe? If an executioner said to an executionee I will set you free if you accept the truth of the Bible, the executionee may be made a liar but there is not going to be some great revelation that will lead them into faith. Punishment and threats of punishment will never lead to truth. Further, a malformed version of the wager could hold it as reasonable to terrorise people into a belief in God because such terror is insignificant next to the terror of eternal damnation.

lenrek

This thread is almost a year old, since its last post till now. We don't really encourage resurrection of old thread.

Thread is now closed