rhutchin

Yes. You cannot explain away the conclusion of the Wager and the emotional decision that you make in the face of logic.

Wake up and start reading the comments that have been stated over and over again. The Wager leads one to the rational conclusion that they should seek to escape eternal torment. You have been unable to argue against that position. So, what's the big deal. You can make decisions on the basis of emotion if you want. That's your right.

Sauron

You miss the point deliberately.

The original claim was not that Pascal lied. The original claim was that Pascal did not understand the full-blown ramifications of his wager.

He may have also been deceptive, inasmuch as he deliberately avoided dealing with problems in his wager that he should reasonably have foreseen.


No. The wager relies upon:

a. a gross oversimplification of the issues;
b. a deliberate avoidance of alternatives and reasoning flaws, and
c. people like you to spread it.

Sauron

Disbelief is not an emotional decision.

Repeating it does not make it so -- especially when there are counterexamples that you have not addressed.

rhutchin

OK. Where does Sauron say that the concept of eternal torment is derived?

OK. Explain the logic of taking the position of disbelief (not acting in one’s interest to escape eternal torment). What advantage does disbelief offer that justifies taking that position (unless you mean to propose disbelief as a way to escape eternal torment)?

rhutchin

It is clearly not a rational decision -- at least you cannot explain why it is rational for a person to decide not to seek to escape eternal torment.

All the counterexamples you and others propose address methods to escape eternal torment and do not argue against the decision to seek to escape eternal torment.

If not, then you will be able to present an argument against one seeking to escape eternal torment.

EverLastingGodStopper

This post is sort of an aside, for those readers wishing to do a little research on the topic of Pascal's Wager.

Back in my MSN Chat days, I used to refer people to this page of Stanford University's: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/pascal-wager/ I thought it was a good overall review of what Pascal's Wager was.

The Secular Web has a vast collection of scholarly papers available on the same topic. If you go to this link, you can find the long list of various reviews of Pascal's Wager: http://www.infidels.org/library/mode...ism/wager.html

I like the intro: I urge you readers to check out some of the Secular Web Library's resources on this topic.

Of course, Homer Simpson summed it up for me: "Suppose we've chosen the wrong god? Every time we go to church we're just making him madder and madder." I guess for me, I can't determine which religion's god is the right god to believe in for the purposes of this "wager." I've decided to wait until all religions unite under one singular definition of God before I make my choice. If there is a god, I think s/he's like Highlander: there can be only one. Right?

Sauron

Deriving eternal torment - and whether it is even possible to do so - is your problem to solve. You are the proponent of pascals wager, not I.


You are not listening. You need to address the counter-examples. Asking me to explain something is not the same as you addressing the counter-examples.

While you are at it, you might also address the following three points:

1. HRG:
There is a simple logical argument which kills the Wager stone dead:

For any X, and for every God who will torment you eternally unless you do X, there is a God who will torment you eternally if you do X. The contributions of both to your eternal fate cancel each other. IOW, I cannot do anything which is guaranteed to escape eternal torment.

There is a pragmatic argument which then desecrates the corpse:

I cannot decide to believe X. I can only decide to act as if X was true.


2. And:

Moreover, any belief in God that was based in such a cynical calculation ("well, I'm not sure, so I guess I'll believe") does not qualify as actual religious faith. Since it still has a significant element of doubt, and since it is not undertaken out of a sincere heart, it doesn't even meet the standards necessary.


3. And finally:

Since extraordinary entities - like disembodied minds, or invisible pink unicorns - are presumed not to exist, lack of belief in them is a very rational response in the face of uncertainty.

Wayne Delia

We also notice in the Bible that many promises are either broken, or they never worked at all. For example, in Mark 16:17-18, Jesus promises that Christians ("those who believe") would have all sorts of magical super-powers, including the abilities to heal any illness by laying on of hands, the ability to drink any poison without harm, and the ability to handle any venomous snakes safely. We can easily see that those promises don't work. Promises of uncheckable, unverifiable supernatural crap are nothing more than wishful thinking without evidence.

"Promises in the Bible" aren't worth Jack Shit.

You've really got to avoid this line of reasoning. It's incredibly hypocritical. You accused all atheists of being "thieves" in a throw-away insult, which technically breaks the Ninth Commandment, since you are falsely accusing other people of crimes without any evidence supporting those charges. You haven't confessed your sin in that incident, because you are too proud to admit you are wrong in front of the atheists. When the issue didn't go away, you tried to defend yourself by misrepresenting Jesus's words in John 10:7-10, insisting that when Jesus referred to "false religious teachers" that had come before Him, He also meant contemporary atheists as well, which is ridiculous.

You've really got to address this issue, otherwise, you will continue to appear more and more hypocritical the more you profess beliefs ("If we confess our sins, God is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness") which you clearly don't adhere to yourself.

WMD

Sauron

Addressed in my previous post - you need to address the counter-examples.

Incorrect.

The counter-examples show circumstances of disbelief in God that are not prompted by emotion. According to your binary argument, that should be impossible.

One other problem - which other posters have pointed out - is that you have not shown that it is *possible* to escape such torment. Even if a person believes that such torment exists, it is entirely another argument to prove that they can do anything about it -- either by their belief, or by their disbelief. The way in which pascals wager is set up assumes that there exists an escape hatch for such torment. Yet if the confidence in that claim is low or nonexistent, then pascals wager fails.

No, I merely catalog the failures in your arguments. Whether you choose to address them is out of my control.

Mageth

You appear to be really confused, rhutchin. And are grossly misstating my position as a result.

Note that the question of "God" is not the key to the Wager. The key to the wager is the question of an afterlife, and an afterlife in which there is "eternal suffering."

I do not think, and have not claimed, that I can "prove with certainty" that no god(s) exist. (Your particular God, now: I'm certain that that god does not exist.)

But the lack of the ability to "prove with certainty" that no god(s) exist is essentially irrelevant in rejecting (or accepting) Pascal's Wager, in recognizing that the Wager is severely flawed and useless, and that the Wager belongs at the top of the heap of "bad arguments for belief", despite what you claim.

The Wager you're presenting rests not only on the existence of god(s), but on the many-headed questions of 1) is there an afterlife? 2) the possibility of "eternal torment" in an afterlife, if there is an afterlife; and 3) the possibility of a god or god(s); 4) the possibility that believing in a particular god (based on the Wager, i.e. from a motivation of self-interest) may provide relief from suffering in an afterlife, if there is an afterlife and if there is a possibility of suffering in an afterlife; 5) the veracity/reliability of the Bible; 6) the veracity/reliability of a particular interpretation of the Bible. And probably a few I'm not mentioning.

I have no reason to believe that 1) there is an afterlife; 2) if there is an afterlife, I may be subjected to "eternal suffering in an afterlife"; 3) a god or god(s) exist; 4) that believing in a god based on a "rational" decision motivated by self-interest will provide relief from suffering in an afterlife; 5) that the bible is a reliable source of information about a god (or any more reliable than any other "source of information" about a god); 6) that any particular interpretation of the Bible (and the "means of salvation) is reliable.

For me, the key place where the Wager fails is that I find no reason whatsoever to believe the "motivating" premise of the Wager - that there is an afterlife, and that there is a threat of eternal suffering in an afterlife. (That's what the Wager rests on; not on proving or disproving a god.). Heck, I find no reason to believe that there is an afterlife. Thus, Pascal's Wager fails completely for me. And my rejection of it is totally rational. It would be irrational for me to put any stock whatsoever in the Wager.

Once again, I do not have to disprove anything. For me to believe in an afterlife, a threat of eternal suffering in an afterlife, the veracity of the Bible, the Biblical God, etc., you (or someone else) has to fulfill the task of providing some actual reasons for me to do so.

The scare tactics of the Wager are useless against me. I do not fear AT ALL the threat you are presenting to me. And, even if I did (believe in the possibility of "eternal suffering" in an afterlife), you have provided no reason at all for me to believe that the means of escaping that threat you've provided would be effective.

(And note, again, that in any case I can no more "choose to believe" in a God based on the Wager, in an attempt to escape the threat of suffering in an afterlife in which I lack belief, than you can "choose not to believe" in God.)

One more note: the Wager also has the premise that there is "nothing to lose" by "choosing to believe" and being wrong (which is false at one point because, as has been correctly pointed out, "choosing to believe" in a particular God might damn you; further, choosing to believe based on the Wager's motivation of self-interest might damn you), and "everything to lose" by not believing and being wrong (which is false at one point because, as has been correctly pointed out, it might be the case that not believing in a god, or in a particular God, might save you).

However, on this thread, you have mentioned costs in believing in your particular God. One notable one is from a couple of pages ago, when you brought up tithing. You implied that tithing was necessary in service to your God. Well, then, the way I understand tithing, salvation via your God would cost at least 10% of your income.