Wayne Delia

Exactly what about Pascal's Wager is "perfectly logical?" His premises are demonstrably incomplete, as he does not consider the gods of other non-Christian religions. Restricting the possible outcomes to a single god of popular belief and no god at all would also be applicable to the god of any other non-Christian theology, compelling your belief in, for example, Allah, the One True God of Islam. They've got a hell you could go to for thinking that Jesus is a God. [/B] Do you consider yourself a "real Christian?" What are the objective standards for someone to be a "real Christian?" How would you react to some other group of Christians, i.e. the Jehovah's Witnesses, claiming that you're not a "real Christian" because you don't agree with their dogma? Which of the many competing groups (over 20,000 distinct sects) within Christianity is actually correct?

WMD

Starboy

Thanks for the data point.
I see, so if there was no religion in the world then no god would be relevant? So are you saying is that it is religion that makes god relevant and not god itself?

Starboy

BrazenPenguin

Yes, I did join this thread to do what you mentioned. However I didn't come to this forum to reprimant Rational BAC. (I actually stumbled upon this forum while researching fallacies). But I satyed here to get some other points of view, to see what you guys had to offer, to ______.
Does anybody know if this is the same Pascal that set up Pascal's triangle? Its a long stretch, but he is the only other Pascal I have ever heard of. Just wondering.
Hey now, I hope you are not saying that hey Roman Catholic God is different from the Souther Baptist God or the South African Presbyterian God. Yes, these denominations and people may differ but it is the denominations and people that differ, not the god.
your correct, which is why I said Pascal's Wager is not a good reason for converting Christianity (any religion for that matter)

wade-w

Yes, Blaise Pascal is responsible for both.

Mullibok

The good and bad things he did in life had to balance out, after all.

BrazenPenguin

You are calling the fallacy of false analogy on me. I did a presentation on that in school today. Though I do not think that the analogy is so false. The bible says that we were created in the image of God (yet obviously the authority of the Bible(God) is not enough for you, so I don't expect you to go along with this).
No, what I am suggesting is that you become a teenager for a while, and while being a teenager, do everything that a teenager does (school, work, friends, whatever). While doing this, live a perfect life, do a few miracles, and claim to be God. Then, allow yourself to be killed by these teenagers (give your life). So that you could die and then raise from the dead about 3 days later. Then, rejoin the adult world. This way, teenagers all over the world could believe in you and ask for forgiveness for thier "normal" teenage behavior and join the adult world when the die. (obviously I'm not suggesting this really, but the illustration just jumped at me)
God does not send people to hell becuase they disobey Him, if this were the case, then everybody would be going to hell. He sends people to hell because they do not accept the gift of Jesus' sacrifice.

BrazenPenguin

Choice A has outcome X
Chioce B has outcome F
Outcome F is more favorable than Outcome X
Therefore one should chose Choice B
(let me restate again, i agree that this is not a valid reason for converting to Christianity, or any other belief)
Yes I do. Well I know that you know the basic beliefs. But Jesus said that way that you tell a "real" christian from a "fake" one is that, the real ones will "love me and obey my commands" and that you can separate the two by looking at their fruit. I try to do my best to obey His commands and live a "good christian life." And, IMHO, i think I am on the right track for this. The people who use christianity as their fire-insurance policy just hear a "
good" sermon, walk the isle, then proclaim themselves christians but have no change in their life. They keep on being "worldy." But when anybody askes them, yes they are christians and yes they are going to heaven thank you very much. I see this happen waaay to often.

I would call the fallacy of Tu Quoque on them (im doing a presentation on that on friday). I would not accept their charge because I would not believe that they were christians in the first place. (Jehovah's Witnesses are definetly NOT christians because they don't believe in the divinity of Jesus, among other things). But if a legitamet different group of christians (lets just use catholics as an example) told me that I was not a chrstian, my response would depend on their reason.
Not one. All of them have their faults. But, you can't always say that one group is "wrong" while another is "right," many of the differences are just differences in style or preference.

BrazenPenguin

I'm sorry, but what did you mean by this?
This is the fallacy of complex question. You cant have a religion without god(s), or god(s) without a religion.

wade-w

But this ignores the fact that there are other choices available, thus Pascal's Wager involves a false dichotomy (also known as the fallacy of bifurcation).

This is not a Tu Quoque fallacy, it's the "No True Scotsman" fallacy. You are guilty of it here as well.

Starboy

You said:

So I stated the converse:

You then responded to me with:

Brazen I couldn’t agree with you more since if my statement is a fallacy then it follows that your original statement:

is also a fallacy. Although I must admit that I find the philosophical arguments so bogus (you invoke "fallacy of complex question" as if it were a magic spell. If you are going to use it you have a responsiblity to show that it applies). But it is still a fallacy because even if some religions were incorrect then the gods of those incorrect religions are held to be relevant only because of the religion. Now of course if god is relevant without a religion then it should be obvious like say gravity, but alas it is not, so the claim that any religion is relevant is in great doubt. You see gravity was relevant and well known before the explanation of Newton and Einstein came along. However the gods of religion are only relevant after the religion comes along. Very bogus.

Starboy