Pascal's Wager Simplified

Pascal's Wager Simplified

Options: 1) Accept God's Grace Gift of eternal life with an uncoerced decision to believe [place your confidence] in Christ for your salvation; 2) Reject the Person and Work of Christ as flimsy fiction. Risk/Reward Question: What if you're wrong?

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
[b]Pascal's Wager Simplified

Options: 1) Accept God's Grace Gift of eternal life with an uncoerced decision to believe [place your confidence] in Christ for your salvation; 2) Reject the Person and Work of Christ as flimsy fiction. Risk/Reward Question: What if you're wrong?[/b]

Did you not get how stupid Pascal's Wager the last umpteen times you brought it up?

http://www.rejectionofpascalswager.net/pascal.html

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Pascal%27s_wager

http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=Pascal%27s_Wager

http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=File:Cectic-Without_Hesitation.jpg


It's an epically stupid argument that has been refuted. Many many many times.

So stop making it. You're just wasting everyone's time.

One problem with Pascal's Wager Simplified:
1. Explain to me why the same argument does not apply to every other religion, including past or invented ones.
2. If you can't explain 1., then explain why you are not a member of all those religions. ie do you actually believe the argument is valid and act on it, or do you only expect other people to do so with regards to your religion?

Originally posted by twhitehead
One problem with Pascal's Wager Simplified:
1. Explain to me why the same argument does not apply to every other religion, including past or invented ones.
2. If you can't explain 1., then explain why you are not a member of all those religions. ie do you actually believe the argument is valid and act on it, or do you only expect other people to do so with regards to your religion?

"1. Explain to me why the same argument does not apply to every other religion, including past or invented ones." -twhitehead

Thanks for your thoughtful statement of "One problem with Pascal's Wager Simplified"; please identify these other options.

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
"1. Explain to me why the same argument does not apply to every other religion, including past or invented ones." -twhitehead

Thanks for your thoughtful statement of "One problem with Pascal's Wager Simplified"; please identify these other options.

Allah
FSM
Thor
Loki
Ra
The god that only rewards Atheist's
Ect ect ect
....

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

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
"1. Explain to me why the same argument does not apply to every other religion, including past or invented ones." -twhitehead

Thanks for your thoughtful statement of "One problem with Pascal's Wager Simplified"; please identify these other options.

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

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
[b]Pascal's Wager Simplified

Options: 1) Accept God's Grace Gift of eternal life with an uncoerced decision to believe [place your confidence] in Christ for your salvation; 2) Reject the Person and Work of Christ as flimsy fiction. Risk/Reward Question: What if you're wrong?[/b]

How can a decision be “uncoerced” if there are risks involved in not choosing this option? It is safe to say that if a person chooses your first option because of perceived risks (specifically the threat of being sentenced to spend an eternity in hell), that decision is being coerced.

Even with GB's posts blocked, it's still painfully obvious that it's to him that people are replying.

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
"1. Explain to me why the same argument does not apply to every other religion, including past or invented ones." -twhitehead

Thanks for your thoughtful statement of "One problem with Pascal's Wager Simplified"; please identify these other options.

Thanks for your thoughtless response to a thoughtful rebuttal; please identify your inability to engage in serious discussion.

Originally posted by googlefudge
Allah
FSM
Thor
Loki
Ra
The god that only rewards Atheist's
Ect ect ect
....

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

Thank you googlefudge; I'll incorporate your listing ["Allah... FSM... Thor... Loki... Ra"] of persons and/or entities
with my reply to twhitehead. Please clarify the identity of "The god that only rewards Atheist's Ect ect ect".

Originally posted by divegeester
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_religions_and_spiritual_traditions

dive, I'll include this site's contents if it provides additional entries with those furnished by googlefudge.

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
Thank you googlefudge; I'll incorporate your listing ["Allah... FSM... Thor... Loki... Ra"] of persons and/or entities
with my reply to twhitehead. Please clarify the identity of "The god that only rewards Atheist's Ect ect ect".

"The god that only rewards Atheist's" is one of the infinite* number of possible
god concepts that exist in 'god space'**.

It is a god that only sends people to heaven if they don't believe in the existence
of gods.

*If not infinite then extremely large, this point is debatable and may depend on
whether infinite recursion is allowed, and whether or not god concepts are quantum.

**Otherwise known as the 'plane of deities', 'The phase space of the gods', and Dunmanifestin.

Originally posted by PatNovak
How can a decision be “uncoerced” if there are risks involved in not choosing this option? It is safe to say that if a person chooses your first option because of perceived risks (specifically the threat of being sentenced to spend an eternity in hell), that decision is being coerced.

"How can a decision be “uncoerced” if there are risks involved in not choosing this option?" PatNovak. Same risk/reward reason that there are risks involved in choosing or not choosing "2) Reject the Person and Work of Christ as flimsy fiction." Human life on earth isn't all fun and games. There are many decisions we make which have significant consequences.

Originally posted by BigDoggProblem
Even with GB's posts blocked, it's still painfully obvious that it's to him that people are replying.

Hey, BDP. Isn't SG's gbaway working to expectation? By the way, he's been silent since late April. Should we be concerned?

Originally posted by Agerg
Thanks for your thoughtless response to a thoughtful rebuttal; please identify your inability to engage in serious discussion.

.... is there a question hidden within your full licensed paraphrase?