DMW

Because, if there is no threat, we don't need the wager, but, even if we use the wager, we must conclude that there is no threat. With or without the wager, we can reach the same conclusion... making the wager unnecessary and useless.

DMW

rhutchin

Obviously, if there is no threat, then there is no use for the Wager since the Wager is only used where a threat is thought to exist.

If you use the Wager, then there is the presumption of a threat. The Wager leads to the conclusion that you should seek a solution to that threat if the costs do not exceed the benefits of doing so.

Your argument that "...if there is no threat,...we must conclude that there is no threat," is a truism, isn't it, so what did you intend by presenting it?

aa5874

Rhutchin, Pascal's Wager claims that if one is uncertain about eternal torment, that the best choice is to believe in the CHRISTIAN GODS. Pascal erred. All Gods have equal weight in uncertainty. This Wager is played out right before our very eyes.

Rhutchin, these are some broad figures: 1 billion muslims, 1 billion catholics, 750 million Hindus, 250 million bhudist, several million mormons, millions of Jews,several millions atheists and the list goes on.

Rhutchin, is it not evident that Pascal erred? As the World wagers, the figures show ,without contradictiion ,that the Christian Gods are the least believable.

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

rhutchin

I think I am agreeing that circular reasoning may involve evidence that a person could describe as not sufficient, as you do. There would still be evidence, just not enough. That evidence that a person requires (i.e., passes their sufficiency test) may be subjective and may exceed that amount of evidence actually necessary.

Agreed. Your conclusion is proper, “...there appears to be no such entitiy in the reality I experience.” You are being fair.

Those who go further and try to argue that there is no God must use a circular argument to make that case.

rhutchin

Pascal argued for the rejection of all gods except the Biblical god. Perhaps your argument is with Pascal on his rejection of other gods and not with the Wager. Regardless, the Wager can accommodate more than one god. It is only necessary to leave God undefined to accomplish this. The Wager works just as well in both cases. I don't see where Pascal erred (and you do not seem able to explain it).

rhutchin

Why would that be so?

Mageth

Mageth's Hellish Wager returns!

If one wants to fully address the issue, one would first consider the threat of PRESUMING there is a threat. Again, a "threat" is primary to the wager. The Wager "presumes" the threat is real. Prudence suggests one first considers the notion of the threat itself, and the risk involved in the very "presumption of a threat".

Is there danger in presuming eternal torment, and in presuming a God that would subject humans to such? Would a God be angry at you for PRESUMING that she was threatening you with eternal torment?

It seems we have the following states that must be considered.

1) There is no god; therefore, both presuming and not presuming a threat in an afterlife are "safe".

2) There is a god, but that God will not subject anyone to eternal suffering in an afterlife. Such a notion is foreign, perhaps even repulsive, to this god. (as it should be, IMO).

It should be perfectly safe to not presume eternal torment with this god. However, this God may or may not be angered if one wrongly presumes that she will subject humans to eternal suffering in an afterlife. It's possible that this god may only allow afterlife suffering to those that wrongly believe it's the type of god that would punish people for such things as non-belief.

So there is risk involved in presuming eternal torment with this god.

(BTW, this god is consistent with some people's notion of the "Christian" God. It, after all, sometimes described as "Love" ("God is Love"), a loving God that loves us all. And, supposedly, this God is "not willing that any should perish". The notion of eternal torment simply doesn't mesh with the way this God is often described.)

I'd also guess that there may be risk involved in presuming to SPEAK for such a God by saying what it will do to others in an afterlife, IF that god will in actuality not do any such thing. Such an act may be the WORST SIN in the eyes of such a god.

3) There is a god, and that god will subject at least some people to eternal torment. Actually, THIS is what one must presume, in its totality, if one is going to "use the Wager". (Note that 3) not only presumes "eternal torment", it presumes a God that would subject one to such torment.)

However, this God may or may not care whether one believes in eternal torment or not. It seems quite possible that this God will NOT punish anyone for the "sin" of not believing in eternal torment.

So, even with this type of God, not believing in eternal torment seems like a safe bet.

It's possible that BELIEVING in Hell with this type of God, believing that this God would subject people to eternal torment, may be a risk. He may expect one to presume he's a "loving" God that wouldn't do such a thing. Who knows the mind of God?

Further, preaching or teaching that he will do so if you do not believe a certain way or do a certain thing may anger this God, esp. if you get it wrong, but maybe even if you get it right. He may be the type of God that preserves such judgments and pronouncements for Himself.

(If the Christian God exists, and is indeed the type of God that will send some people to suffer eternally in Hell, would he send someone who believes in Him to Hell for simply not believing in Hell? That hardly seems likely.

However, it seems possible that He might not be happy if He is the type of God that will NOT send some people to suffer eternally in Hell, but WOULD be angry at someone for wrongly accusing him of BEING such a God.

It is also possible that He may be angry at people for preaching "hellfire and brimstone", by saying things like "if you don't believe this or that, or do this or that, you will go to Hell."

God may be royally pissed at Pascal, and at anyone who teaches the Wager as a way to reason one's way to God.)

----

Three possible states are listed above. In all of them, NOT believing in eternal torment appears to be a safe bet. However, believing in eternal torment, and "preaching" eternal torment, carry risk in two of them.

Therefore, the safe bet in "Mageth's Hellish Wager" appears to be to not make "the presumption of a threat". You're safer not believing in eternal torment.


----

So the Wager clearly leapfrogs what one should initially consider, and jumps right to the conclusion (which, according to you, is "presumed") it's supposedly providing a "logical argument" for. The hoped-for end results are built right into its premises.

Thus, by saying "If you use the Wager, there is the presumption of a threat", what you are actually saying is that "If you use the Wager, you're already presuming the threat of eternal torment and a God that would subject humans to such". You have to presume what Pascal is supposedly providing a logical argument to persuade you to believe! And you're entailing risk by making the presumption in the first place!

This ties in to what was pointed out earlier: the "threat of eternal torment", a God that would subject humans to such torment, and a path of escape (belief in that God), are all components of a particular mythical system which you accept, and which Pascal accepted. They're not separate components, as the Wager, and your arguments in defense of it, attempt to make it appear.

"Using the Wager" actually presumes one already believes in the Christian notions of an eternal soul and afterlife, a Christian type of God, and a Hell to which that God (according to some that believe in that God) will subject non-believers based on their actions in this life.

One needs to back up a huge step and first evaluate what I've labeled "Mageth's Hellish Wager". One needs to evaluate the whole thing. E.g., if God exists, is it the type of God that will subject some to eternal torment? Does Hell exist?

If one wants to think about God, to consider the question of God, one will be far better served by thinking at a much higher level than at the narrow, presumptive level of the Wager, with its "presumed" eternal torment.

By doing so, it should be clear that the "presumption of a threat" is the great risk that should be avoided when considering God. You're much safer in not so presuming.

Mageth

Rhutchin, this is for your edification: If one wants to think about God, to consider the question of God, or to ARGUE IN FAVOR OF THE EXISTENCE OF GOD, then forget the Wager. It's a total waste of time. There's not a rational bone in its dessicated body. The Wager starts you out on the wrong foot and leads one down the wrong path when thinking about the God question, and this is spoken by someone who has done a lot of thinking about the God question, and had to escape the wrong path to do so, as that is the path that I was started down as a young boy in a Pentecostal church where "hellfire and brimstone" was the typical fare on many a Sunday and Wednesday night, and at many a "revival".

It's a notion of God that is destructive, damaging, and alienating. I can't imagine a God that would be in favor of promoting such a notion of itself.

Again, Pascal's Wager is nothing more than a hellfire-and-brimstone sermon that attempts to scare those that already believe into "making a commitment to the Lord". As far as rationality, or philosophy, or theology, goes, it truly is garbage. It has no useful application at all, except in a narrow sense to those that already presume what you say it provides a rational basis in favor of "believing in" in order to avoid risk. Since one already must PRESUME what it supposedly argues in favor of accepting to "use the Wager", the Wager is actually is of no use at all except to light hellfire under the asses of those who already believe but are afraid that they haven't jumped through the right hoops with God as of yet to escape the threat they already presume from a God they already presume.

Hedshaker

Now that's disapointing rhutchin, just when I though we were making a little headway, sigh! Go to the blackboard, Bart Simpson style and write a hundred lines: "Evidence based on a fallacy is no evidence at all"

Whatever happened to, "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence"?

Thank you

Sure, "God doesn't exsit because God doesn't exist" would be circular, but I've never met an intelligent atheist who uses that as a serious argument. Maybe sometimes in frustration when being preached at. Being preached at can get you like that sometimes :devil3:

JPD

Merely take the reverse of my statement - what you would hold to be the case - it is no more or less evidenced than mine. That your assertions have their foundation in the printed word does not increase the probability of their being true - the probability of them reflecting reality is impossible to determine before death (and may or may not be after).