Go back
Pascal's Wager Revisited

Pascal's Wager Revisited

Spirituality

1 edit

Originally posted by Suzianne
Perhaps.

I just tend towards simplicity, is all.

And I know I may regret saying this, but I've never really been one for mental gymnastics. Yes, I have imagination, but I also don't consider God and "fiction" getting along, either. They both have their place, but perhaps "never the twain shall meet".
Simplicity's ultimately the key. I understand this going in modus operandi; the intent of this thread though is to explore both pro and con positions and, in doing so, to avoid a rush to judgment. As with brainstorming, the first phase encourages off the wall, blue sky ideas without negative criticism; doing so stimulates the thought process of others in the room. Then, a hard nosed critique phase which sifts out any irrational crap or emotional fluff while focusing on the gut that's real. Ok?

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by Suzianne
I have never really understood this quote. Maybe it's popular with the anti-"religion" (name only) crowd, or those who claim Christianity is not a religion. Let's not throw the baby out with the bath water.
My read is that Wilde is delineating ritual without reality from the authenticity of faith in a supernatural being.

2 edits

Originally posted by RJHinds
You atheists see self-worth in coming from a premordial soup by accident. We Christians see our self-worth in coming from humans created on purpose in the image of God. 😏
Ron, let's not unintentionally stifle the expression of anyone's present point of view which is all any of us have. Thanks.

1 edit

Originally posted by KellyJay
The sad thing is in my opinion this line of questioning, I think it displays
God in a very shallow light and really doesn't do anything towards meeting
God, since there are many who do believe in God who are going to go to
Hell, because they believe yet reject Him. The end goal has never been in
my opinion just believe there is a god, the end goal is God with us, that is
done only on God's terms.
Kelly, would you agree that God's grace plan offers the gift of salvation at the moment of faith alone in Christ alone?


Originally posted by Suzianne
Prophecy WILL be resolved, by someone.

If not one person, then another.
if "A" doesn't do it "B" will?
That means B doesn't have free will (his destiny is determined by A's action/inaction.

If you allow "B" free will and he doesn't do it is left to "C" do it - he
therefore does not have free will.

Et cetera.


Originally posted by wolfgang59
if "A" doesn't do it "B" will?
That means B doesn't have free will (his destiny is determined by A's action/inaction.

If you allow "B" free will and he doesn't do it is left to "C" do it - he
therefore does not have free will.

Et cetera.
Ye of no faith. God can fulfill prophecy while giving all free will. 😏

HalleluYah !!! Praise the LORD! Holy! Holy! Holy!


Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
twhitehead, we're examining an obverse possibility/counterpart hypothetical.
I am familiar with Pascals wager. You however do not seem to be. Which is odd given that this is not the first time you have started a thread on the topic.
Are you willing to discuss, and possibly resolve, all the well known problems with Pascals Wager, or are you going to, as per your tradition, ignore any questions you don't like regarding the same?
If you are open to a reasonable honest discussion, then so am I. If you are just planning to keep resposting the OP ad infinitum whilst ignoring all reasonable responses, then enjoy your trolling but don't expect much more from me.


Originally posted by Suzianne
The cost? I see no "cost" in believing in God. Beyond the trivial or imagined, I mean.
So can I take it that all those times you have played at being persecuted, it was 'trivial or imagined'?


Originally posted by Suzianne
If such a strategy actually brings people to God, I can't fault it all that much.
So lying for God is OK in your book?


Originally posted by lemon lime
Pascal was a philosopher and mathematician, so I think his wager was more of an intellectual exercise than anything else.
Pascal, as with many scientists/philosophers was battling with a conflict between his learning and his faith. He was trying hard to justify his faith to himself and was willing to abandon reason whilst attempting to do so. He is far from unique in this regard.

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
Kelly, would you agree that God's grace plan offers the gift of salvation at the moment of faith alone in Christ alone?
There is only one way to God and that his through His Son Jesus Christ by
the salvation He gives us, through the work Jesus did. So yes, salvation is
a mighty gift from God, not one we can earn only accept.


Originally posted by twhitehead
So lying for God is OK in your book?
She only faults my methods becasue I am a redneck.


Originally posted by twhitehead
If you are just planning to keep resposting the OP ad infinitum whilst ignoring all reasonable responses, then enjoy your trolling but don't expect much more from me.
Grampy Bobby recently admitted he is currently "trolling" the forum ~ he talked about how he's wearing his "troll's shoes". I can't ever remember, not even once, him appearing to want to discuss Pascal's Wager in a genuine or sincere way, and he's brought it up more times than I can remember.


Originally posted by RJHinds
She only faults my methods becasue I am a redneck.
Based on her earlier comment, I would guess that she faults your methods because they are ineffective at best and counter productive at worst. You have converted more theists to atheism on this forum than anyone else.


Originally posted by twhitehead
I am familiar with Pascals wager. You however do not seem to be. Which is odd given that this is not the first time you have started a thread on the topic.
Are you willing to discuss, and possibly resolve, all the well known problems with Pascals Wager, or are you going to, as per your tradition, ignore any questions you don't like regarding the same ...[text shortened]... ilst ignoring all reasonable responses, then enjoy your trolling but don't expect much more from me.
Originally posted by Grampy Bobby (Page 2)
googlefudge, criticisms of proof and arguments will follow as part two of the original post. Thanks for the youtubes.