Pascal's Wager (The wager uses the following logic (excerpts from Pensées, part III, §233):
1. God is, or God is not. Reason cannot decide between the two alternatives.
2. A Game is being played... where heads or tails will turn up.
3. You must wager (it is not optional).
4. Let us weigh the gain and the loss in wagering that God is. Let us estimate these two chances. If you gain, you gain all; if you lose, you lose nothing.
5. Wager, then, without hesitation that He is. There is here an infinity of an infinitely happy life to gain, a chance of gain against a finite number of chances of loss, and what you stake is finite. And so our proposition is of infinite force, when there is the finite to stake in a game where there are equal risks of gain and of loss, and the infinite to gain.
6. But some cannot believe. They should then 'at least learn your inability to believe...' and 'Endeavour then to convince' themselves. -Blaise Pascal (1623 to 1662)
What if there is a Sovereign God responsible for creation of the universe as well as the creation of human life [beings with both a temporal body and an eternal soul] Who doesn't give a damn about reconciling fallen mankind unto Himself?
Originally posted by Grampy Bobby .... Who doesn't give a damn about reconciling fallen mankind unto Himself?
That's an interesting twist I have never seen added to Pascals wager. Can I take it you have placed your bets on this 'does't give a damn' god AKA Thor?
Originally posted by OdBod Problem is , the COST of believing in a god is not considered, which will affect the odds.
The cost? I see no "cost" in believing in God. Beyond the trivial or imagined, I mean.
If cost is your main consideration, then you should consider the actual, real cost of NOT believing in God. But that's not anywhere on your radar, is it?
Originally posted by Grampy Bobby [b]Pascal's Wager Revisited
[quote]Pascal's Wager (The wager uses the following logic (excerpts from Pensées, part III, §233):
1. God is, or God is not. Reason cannot decide between the two alternatives.
2. A Game is being played... where heads or tails will turn up.
3. You must wager (it is not optional).
4. L ...[text shortened]... body and an eternal soul] Who doesn't give a damn about reconciling fallen mankind unto Himself?
What about revisting Occam's razor?
The principle states that among competing hypotheses, the one with the fewest assumptions should be selected. Other, more complicated solutions may ultimately prove correct, but—in the absence of certainty—the fewer assumptions that are made, the better.
In the scientific method, Occam's razor is not considered an irrefutable principle of logic or a scientific result; the preference for simplicity in the scientific method is based on the falsifiability criterion.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_razor
In other words the simplest solution is the better and most likely the correct one.
Using this principle for determining the truth of the complicated Gap theory between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2 we would logically decide against the Gap theory in favor of the straight forward simple reading of scripture.
😏
Originally posted by RJHinds What about revisting Occam's razor?
[quote] The principle states that among competing hypotheses, the one with the fewest assumptions should be selected. Other, more complicated solutions may ultimately prove correct, but—in the absence of certainty—the fewer assumptions that are made, the better.
In the scientific method, Occam's razor is not consider ...[text shortened]... decide against the Gap theory in favor of the straight forward simple reading of scripture.
😏
A lot of atheists use Occam's Razor as a justification to not believe in God at all, so I'm not exactly sure what you're on about.
A Christian bringing it up to justify believing in the literal word of the Bible is kind of laughable. There is far more to the Word of God than just simple words. Occam's Razor is kind of an idiot's argument. It's the lazy way out.
Originally posted by Suzianne The cost? I see no "cost" in believing in God. Beyond the trivial or imagined, I mean.
If cost is your main consideration, then you should consider the actual, real cost of NOT believing in God. But that's not anywhere on your radar, is it?
Loss of free will. Control by unelected religious leaders. Passing responsibility to supernatural beings. Promoting faith over logic. Endless religious wars . Intellectual and scientific limitation . NOT BEING PERMITTED TO QUESTION ABSOLUTELY EVERYTHING.Social division based on religious identity.etc.
Originally posted by OdBod If the finite is all we have you risk everything.
But by believing, you're not being asked to "give up" anything (besides an antiquated and outdated mindset that you are the pinnacle of all that exists), so what is the risk, again? Everything? Hyperbole, much?
Originally posted by OdBod Loss of free will. Control by unelected religious leaders. Passing responsibility to supernatural beings. Promoting faith over logic. Endless religious wars . Intellectual and scientific limitation . NOT BEING PERMITTED TO QUESTION ABSOLUTELY EVERYTHING.Social division based on religious identity.etc.
Loss of free will? BWAHAHAHAHA!
By choosing to believe in God, you are exercising the very free will you claim is lost. How is choosing twisted around to be the loss of free will? That is nonsensical at best.
And as I said to begin with, all the other "fears" in your post are trivial or imagined. Knowledge is not unicameral, despite what those on both sides will say to get you to believe it. False prophets are everywhere, yes, on both sides of this issue. If you think you have to "give up" something by believing, then you've been talking to the wrong people. The only thing you have to give up in order to believe, is, by definition, your disbelief.
Pascal's Wager Revisited
14 Feb '15 18:53
Back to Top