rhutchin

Our initial condition is that the person is uncertain about the reality of eternal torment. If the person were certain that there were no eternal torment, then he would not do anything to escape eternal torment. However, the person who is uncertain about eternal torment would apply the Wager and determine to do “something.” That “something” is to seek out an escape from eternal torment because that is the rational course of action as determined by the Wager. To do otherwise requires that the person be certain that there is no eternal torment.

The choice to live life as if there is no hell requires certainty that there is no hell. A person would not choose to live life as if there is no hell if he is uncertain whether there is a hell would he? What would motivate him to do that?

Correct, but confused. Those possible gods are not identified until the person seeks them, and the person does not seek those gods in an effort to escape eternal torment until after he makes a decision, based on the Wager, that he should seek to escape eternal torment. So, yes, a person who applies the Wager and determines that it is rational to escape eternal torment may then discover some god who somehow rewards nonbelief. How this could work is really fuzzy and no one has explained how it would work (it’s a hypothetical for now).

You are confused as I described above. Prior to the Wager being exercised, the person is uncertain about the reality of eternal torment. If the person were certain that there was no eternal torment, he would choose Option 1. Otherwise, his uncertainty drives him to Option 2 and the Wager explains why this is so. It is as a consequence of the person having chosen to escape eternal torment that the person then discovers all these possible escapes from eternal torment (the scenarios that many have presented) and the person then embraces one of those scenarios.

Purportedly, one scenario for escaping eternal torment is this God Z who rewards nonbelief, but no one can explain how the God Z scenario would work (for no, it’s just a hypothetical).

This is where you show that you do not understand the Wager.

We merely have to assume that Eternal Torment may exist. This assumption creates the uncertainty that the Wager addresses. At this point, there are only two choices for the person who asks, “How do I deal with my uncertainty about eternal torment?” The person can (1) do nothing or (2) do something. If the person were certain that there were no eternal torment, he would choose to do nothing. Because of his uncertainty, he follows the Wager and chooses to do something. The “something” the person chooses to do is to seek out an escape from eternal torment. It is here that he discovers a infinite number of choices. Clearly, there is uncertainty about which choice to make, but the Wager is not applied here; it was applied earlier.

Twice explaining this should be enough.

rhutchin

If Person B does not try to do anything to escape eternal torment, then we can conclude that he was certain that there is no eternal torment. Can’t we?? There is no issue with the Wager when a person is certain that there is no eternal torment.

Yep. That’s what makes uncertainty uncertainty.

Hedshaker

Can you address his post or not? Your pathetic little one liner posted here is meaninless and does not show you in a very good light, Street_Scholar.

Hedshaker

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_mass_unit

Now have the guts to address Mageth's post in it's entirity :huh:

MRM

a) We can not conclude that B is certain about eternal torment. Maybe person B saw the "many possible hells" problem and was so uncertain that he simply ignored the problem.

b) even if person B was certain about it he was wrong because in this scenario is a real threat.

c) And the worst aspect is ignored by you. Person A was doomed because of the wager. Instead of helping person A, the wager harmed person A. So what is the use of the wager here ?

aa5874

Rhutchin, the Wager is based on uncertainty. Uncertainty means an infinite number of scenarios are applicable. Uncertainty defeats the Wager. Let me give you some of the infinite scenarios:

1. An uncertain number of Gods. 2 An uncertain number of levels of Torment. 3. An uncertain number of people to be tormented. 4. The uncertainty of time of reward. 5. The uncertainty of number of chances to repent. 6. The uncertainty of the number of beliefs. 7. The uncertainty that any Gods exist. 8. The uncertainty that the God you believe in wont be eternally tormented with you by another God.

Rhutchin, the list goes on to infinity. When will you admit that uncertainty defeats the Wager? You cannot hide your flawed belief behind the Wager.

Rhutchin, unless you can say , absolutely, that your personal belief is the only true belief, then Pascal's Wager is garbage.

knotted paragon

Here you just said that since the wager's conclusion is to seek out an escape, a person who was uncertain would do so since that's what the wager concludes. After almost escaping it, you've fallen below the surface again. 1st, there's no reason to insist that a person who chooses to do nothing must be absolutely certain there is no eternal torment. You have chosen to do nothing about the looming perils of the afterlife described in the Book of the Dead and you haven't proved with absolute certainty that they are false. Please stop championing a position that you yourself have denied. It is hypocrisy. 2nd, using the wager's conclusion to argue the wager's conclusion is fallacious; please stop doing it; you can do better.

Break away from your certainty about the wager for a second and consider the scenario we've described to you in which a person deliberates the wager and chooses unbelief. Specifically your version in which eternal torment is the underlying issue, separated from YHWH's exclusivity.

Deliberating your version of the wager, a rational person can say that she is uncertain whether eternal torment exists, and that after examining all the evidence and all the claims made about how to escape that torment, the best thing to do is remain in the default position of unbelief. Although she never established certainty about whether or not eternal torment was real, she included all the possible escape methods while deliberating, not just those sanctioned in an established religion (extant text, message, policy, purported revelation, etc...). If the existence of eternal torment is uncertain, then so are the actions that might result in consignment to it. No, it doesn't require that certainty. Please stop demanding certainty for the bible when you do not demand it from all other religious texts. Honesty would motivate her to do that. Honestly admitting that not only is the existence of eternal torment uncertain, but so are the actions that might result in consignment to it, including damnation for credulity. It works by being honest and admitting that all aspects of the afterlife are uncertain. If the agent that would consign a person to eternal torment despises credulity and admires intellectual integrity, then the only rational choice is the default position of unbelief. The realized utility of unbelief is inherently greater than choosing to worship any given deity, since the value of that portion of the equation we can evaluate, our life, will not be reduced due to intellectual supplication, surrender, or slavery. Please stop saying this rhutchin. We each have a different perspective and understand different aspects of the wager. Please stop equating certainty with the choice of doing nothing. Your wager takes a terribly torturous route to get to your desired conclusion, and it certainly is not Pascal's version of the wager, but if your "something" includes the option to do nothing, and remain in the default position of unbelief, then I suppose it's possible. Will you allow that the "something" a person might do is to remain in the default position of unbelief?

aa5874

Rhutchin, in order for Pascal's Wager to be effective, you must declare that the Christian Bible is the inerrant Word of God and the doctrine of Calvism is the inerrant doctrine and all other doctrines are heresy. You must declare that uncertainty will not deter or defer your Gods from the punishment of eternal torment.

Rhutchin, you have a major problem, you cannot prove your Gods exist. Pascal's Wager is garbage.

rhutchin

Perhaps you could make that proof available or the other proofs that you claim to exist. Citing a list of alleged contradictions proves nothing.

I can claim that nobody can prove the Bible false until someone actually comes up with a proof.

"It is possible..." Is that the best you can do? Anything is possible in theory. All you have done is suggest that they is uncertainty on this issue.

The wager deals with one uncrtainty and two options to take. Where a person is uncertain about eternal torment and thinks it could be possible, he has two options (1) do not seek to escape eternal torment and (2) seek to ecape eternal torment. The Wager directs the perosn to seek to escape eternal torment. When the person follows the advice of the Wager and seeks to escape eternal torment, we may find him making statements like, "It is possible that those who believe in the Christian Gods may be eternally tormented and the atheist, for his honesty, good use of reason and observation will be rewarded favourably." No one making a statement like that can call the Wager rubbish as he is following the advice of the Wager.

????? Even you cannot say that there is no God or that there is no eternal torment. What is certain is that it is uncertain. If uncertainty is not certain then certainty must rule and a person must be certain that there is no eternal torment. That certainty does not exist.

It looks like your argument is confused and relegated to the rubbish heap. As KP says, you have failed.

rhutchin

???? Surely you jest! You are making a joke, No!