Pascal's Wager Revisited

Originally posted by KellyJay
They rebelled, they put themselves first, or at least the devil did, and there
were those that followed him. A third of them followed him and they were
cast out to the earth where they are pissed off, and now they spend what
little time left trying to drag us down with them.

That doesn't answer the question. If you don't have the answer, why can't you simply say 'I don't know'? This is the second time you have responded to his question but not answered his question. Why?

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
The refutation of Pascal's wager is straightforward (and may have been mentioned in the thread, I have not read it in its entirety). Its problem is that it assumes that it is more likely that a hypothetical God wants you to believe in its existence than there is a hypothetical God who disapproves of your beliefs, either in itself or in some other god. A priori, such an assumption is unjustified.

KN, there are many more "Arguments for and against" Pascal's Wager to be presented. Please be patient. Thanks.

Originally posted by googlefudge
In terms of it's structure, this is a statement of fact, a claim of knowledge.

So I say, "Prove it".

You are claiming knowledge, to do so you must be able to prove said knowledge claim.

If you cannot prove it, I ask you rephrase your response to indicate that you are not
in fact making any claim of fact and knowledge.

To do otherwise is inherently dishonest.

To be clear you want me to prove why demons did something away from
what the scripture teaches?

Originally posted by lemon lime
If you could rid the world of everything that appeals to self interest, then nothing would be left that appeals to anyone.

Pascals Wager involves three possible outcomes... win, lose or draw. Winning or losing doesn't involve someone else losing or winning, so the only person impacted by making this wager would the person making the wager. If yo ...[text shortened]... joined at the hip... you can allow yourself to indulge in self interests without being selfish.

"My point is that selfishness and self interest aren't necessarily joined at the hip... you can allow yourself to indulge in self interests without being selfish."

I have seen and probably held a position that all of our actions are driven by self-interest. It's facile, that is it ignores the complexities of the issue by assuming from the start what is to be proven -- simply, that all of our actions are driven by self interest. Equating that with selfishness is to attach a moral judgement to the claim, given that an accusation of selfishness assigns a moral flaw to the person so described. So you are right -- if acting on the PW does not hurt anyone else, it may be self-interest, but not selfish.

So it depends on what your acceptance of the PW does to other people. The particulars of the situation matter. The person going this route must be mindful of the effects of his actions on others.

This leaves how we accept the PW. What does he do, to accept it?

It also leaves, which concept of God does he accept? Answers that come from those that believe a particular God-concept is correct, are questionable. And there is no reason he will not get several of those.

Originally posted by googlefudge
In terms of it's structure, this is a statement of fact, a claim of knowledge.

So I say, "Prove it".

You are claiming knowledge, to do so you must be able to prove said knowledge claim.

If you cannot prove it, I ask you rephrase your response to indicate that you are not
in fact making any claim of fact and knowledge.

To do otherwise is inherently dishonest.

Revelation 12 spells out the conflict

Revelation 12 New International Version (NIV)

The Woman and the Dragon

12 A great sign appeared in heaven: a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet and a crown of twelve stars on her head. 2 She was pregnant and cried out in pain as she was about to give birth. 3 Then another sign appeared in heaven: an enormous red dragon with seven heads and ten horns and seven crowns on its heads. 4 Its tail swept a third of the stars out of the sky and flung them to the earth. The dragon stood in front of the woman who was about to give birth, so that it might devour her child the moment he was born. 5 She gave birth to a son, a male child, who “will rule all the nations with an iron scepter.”[a] And her child was snatched up to God and to his throne. 6 The woman fled into the wilderness to a place prepared for her by God, where she might be taken care of for 1,260 days.

7 Then war broke out in heaven. Michael and his angels fought against the dragon, and the dragon and his angels fought back. 8 But he was not strong enough, and they lost their place in heaven. 9 The great dragon was hurled down—that ancient serpent called the devil, or Satan, who leads the whole world astray. He was hurled to the earth, and his angels with him.

10 Then I heard a loud voice in heaven say:


“Now have come the salvation and the power
and the kingdom of our God,
and the authority of his Messiah.
For the accuser of our brothers and sisters,
who accuses them before our God day and night,
has been hurled down.

11
They triumphed over him
by the blood of the Lamb
and by the word of their testimony;
they did not love their lives so much
as to shrink from death.

12
Therefore rejoice, you heavens
and you who dwell in them!
But woe to the earth and the sea,
because the devil has gone down to you!
He is filled with fury,
because he knows that his time is short.”

13 When the dragon saw that he had been hurled to the earth, he pursued the woman who had given birth to the male child. 14 The woman was given the two wings of a great eagle, so that she might fly to the place prepared for her in the wilderness, where she would be taken care of for a time, times and half a time, out of the serpent’s reach. 15 Then from his mouth the serpent spewed water like a river, to overtake the woman and sweep her away with the torrent. 16 But the earth helped the woman by opening its mouth and swallowing the river that the dragon had spewed out of his mouth. 17 Then the dragon was enraged at the woman and went off to wage war against the rest of her offspring—those who keep God’s commands and hold fast their testimony about Jesus.

Originally posted by KellyJay
To be clear you want me to prove why demons did something away from
what the scripture teaches?

To be clear I want you [and people generally] not to make statements of fact
and claims of knowledge of things that are not facts and that you cannot possibly
know.


You made a statement of fact, so I say prove it.

If you can't prove it [and you can't], then I would like you not to claim it as fact.

Originally posted by KellyJay
Revelation 12 spells out the conflict

Revelation 12 New International Version (NIV)

The Woman and the Dragon

12 A great sign appeared in heaven: a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet and a crown of twelve stars on her head. 2 She was pregnant and cried out in pain as she was about to give birth. 3 Then another sign appeared in ...[text shortened]... e rest of her offspring—those who keep God’s commands and hold fast their testimony about Jesus.

If I break out my Star Trek Technical manual and start quoting it to support my claim
that the Starship Enterprise is real and has the powers and properties I'm claiming...

Would you accept the quotes from the Star Trek Technical Manual [STTM] as evidence
or proof that what I am claiming is actually true?

And if not, why not?

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
KN, there are many more "Arguments for and against" Pascal's Wager to be presented. Please be patient. Thanks.

Pascal's Wager is fundamentally flawed in a number of ways. This is well known.
So there can be no good arguments for Pascal's Wager. What may be possible, is to significantly modify Pascal's Wager in order to construct a new argument - but it wouldn't honestly be called Pascal's Wager any more.

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
OdBod, I appreciate the apparent rational rather than emotional focus and intellectual honesty of your reply. Several of your posts in "If..." to the question "Do you believe God exists:" caused me to believe that you were seriously seeking answers without regard for peer pressure to do otherwise similar to the reply from C Hess: "Maybe, but I doubt it. ...[text shortened]... with website links provided. If you're serious about your eternal destiny, we'll continue. -Bob

For me, the words written down in the bible were the work of man nothing more. That being the case they have no special " divine " value. Your intellect is the net result of that information source, many other sources and your own personal experiences. This means, from my perspective I value your thoughts and opinions far more highly than a old book. If you think about it, this view celebrates you as an individual and not just a mouth piece for long dead writers. Our common bond and means of communication must be logic and deductive reasoning in a probabilistic environment. The introduction of "absolute truths" into discussion always creates barriers and prevents a meeting of minds, which is a shame.

Originally posted by JS357
"My point is that selfishness and self interest aren't necessarily joined at the hip... you can allow yourself to indulge in self interests without being selfish."

I have seen and probably held a position that all of our actions are driven by self-interest. It's facile, that is it ignores the complexities of the issue by assuming from the start what is to b ...[text shortened]... d-concept is correct, are questionable. And there is no reason he will not get several of those.

This leaves how we accept the PW. What does he do, to accept it?

Or what does he do to reject it? You can frame the question either way. Someone else accepting or rejecting this might influence my decision, but probably not. That kind of influence usually has the opposite effect. But that's just me... I can't speak for anyone else, or know what influences their decisions.

Originally posted by googlefudge
To be clear I want you [and people generally] not to make statements of fact
and claims of knowledge of things that are not facts and that you cannot possibly
know.


You made a statement of fact, so I say prove it.

If you can't prove it [and you can't], then I would like you not to claim it as fact.

I accept scripture as an authority on matters such as these. If you don't
than you don't.

Originally posted by googlefudge
If I break out my Star Trek Technical manual and start quoting it to support my claim
that the Starship Enterprise is real and has the powers and properties I'm claiming...

Would you accept the quotes from the Star Trek Technical Manual [STTM] as evidence
or proof that what I am claiming is actually true?

And if not, why not?

If I ever find myself caring about what you think about Star Trek I'll
look up your manual.

Originally posted by KellyJay
If I ever find myself caring about what you think about Star Trek I'll
look up your manual.

Sigh. You miss the point.

I am claiming that the Star Ship Enterprise [NCC-1701-D] actually exists.

And asking whether you would accept quotes from my STTM as
evidence/proof for this claim?

And if not, why not?


Whether you care about Star Trek is utterly irrelevant... That's not the point.


EDIT: Decided to answer your other post in this one, to avoid two disparate threads.

I accept scripture as an authority on matters such as these. If you don't
than you don't.

I understand that you accept scripture as an authority.

However you were making an argument to me, answering my question and request
for evidence/proof.

Which means whether I accept scripture as an authority or not, and whether either of
us should do so, is relevant.

If I don't accept scripture as an 'authority' [as being true] then quoting me great chunks
of it is pointless unless you first convince me that I should accept it.

And if we are both being reasonable, then if you cannot convince me that I should accept
scripture then it's a very valid question as to whether you should either.

However, I suspect this conversation will go best [in terms of being coherent as opposed to
any particular outcome] if you answer only the part of this post before this edit.

Originally posted by JS357
"My point is that selfishness and self interest aren't necessarily joined at the hip... you can allow yourself to indulge in self interests without being selfish."

I have seen and probably held a position that all of our actions are driven by self-interest. It's facile, that is it ignores the complexities of the issue by assuming from the start what is to b ...[text shortened]... d-concept is correct, are questionable. And there is no reason he will not get several of those.

This leaves how we accept the PW. What does he do, to accept it?

My answer wasn't very detailed, because imo there's not much detail to explore. When I first saw the PW it simply looked like a logical argument for placing a wager. But unlike cards or horse racing, you can't know (or not know) the outcome of placing your bet until after you die. So I'm not sure what you mean by accepting the PW.

It doesn't sound like a bad thing if more people did unto others as they would have others do until them, so anyone who says it's immoral to accept the wager is simply talking into their hat. And anyone who claims there is no God, and then says it's immoral to say there is a God needs to first prove the no-God claim. But if by morals we are only talking about rules, then why should it matter to atheists whether their own rules are being imposed or not? I don't see what any of this has to do with Pascals Wager.

Originally posted by googlefudge
Sigh. You miss the point.

I am claiming that the Star Ship Enterprise [NCC-1701-D] actually exists.

And asking whether you would accept quotes from my STTM as
evidence/proof for this claim?

And if not, why not?


Whether you care about Star Trek is utterly irrelevant... That's not the point.


EDIT: Decided to answer your other post i ...[text shortened]... osed to
any particular outcome] if you answer only the part of this post before this edit.

I actually care very little about your thoughts on the Star Ship Enterprise,
but if you were to give your opinion about it while backing up your opinion
by some text you go to I'd think you would be backing it up factually
according to the text. Which is what I do with the scripture, you may not
like scripture and your opinion of it is meaningless to me, I frankly don't
care what you think of it. If you wish to dismiss my views since I go to
scripture do so, I don't care!