Pascal's Wager Simplified

Originally posted by googlefudge
"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 whet ...[text shortened]...
**Otherwise known as the 'plane of deities', 'The phase space of the gods', and Dunmanifestin.

For the sake of the listing, does this "god" have a name?

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
"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.

That doesn't answer the question.


If someone points a gun at your head and tells you to take money from a cash register...
Then that choice is coerced.

And we legally recognise that that choice is coerced, so that if someone can prove that
they were [sufficiently] coerced we will let them off crimes they committed while being
coerced to do so.

In this case, god is saying that "if you worship me I will let you live in paradise for all eternity,
if you don't worship me then I will kill you/torture you in hell for all eternity"

This is exactly analogous to the person pointing a gun at your head.

It's coercion.

Unless you can present a reasoned argument otherwise.

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
For the sake of the listing, does this "god" have a name?

Atheos?

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]

Pascal's Wager does not hold water, GB!

I can confidently say this as a Christian.

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
"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.

What I was specifically wanting from you was for you to make an argument that the threat of being sent to hell does not qualify as coercion (or alternately, concede that the threat of going to hell is indeed coercion).

Originally posted by Suzianne
Pascal's Wager does not hold water, GB!

I can confidently say this as a Christian.

Thanks for weighing in on the conversation, Suzi. I'm aware of your position. Please restate its biblical rationale.

Originally posted by googlefudge
That doesn't answer the question.


If someone points a gun at your head and tells you to take money from a cash register...
Then that choice is coerced.

And we legally recognise that that choice is coerced, so that if someone can prove that
they were [sufficiently] coerced we will let them off crimes they committed while being
coerced to do s ...[text shortened]... g a gun at your head.

It's coercion.

Unless you can present a reasoned argument otherwise.

Dinner's ready @ GMT -5. I'm starved... be back later this evening.

Originally posted by googlefudge
Atheos?

Merci.

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;[/b]

Coercion lies at the very heart of your ideology. Do you think that threats of eternal torture can somehow force someone to believe something that they don't believe?

Originally posted by googlefudge
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 ...[text shortened]... s been refuted. Many many many times.

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

Hey, gf.

I think you sell the wager short by expecting too much.
Take another look at the times in which Pascal formulated the wager, as well as the entailment of each side.

The wager forgave an awful lot, I will grant you.
It pretty much equated an acceptance of God's existence with salvation; it presumes reason will lead you to the Christian way of thinking.

Yet, for all of its immaturity and juvenile thinking, it was right in at least one regard: still born babies never cry.

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]

And then again, what if YOU are wrong? You spend your whole life striving towards this spiritual being and it ends up just being a massive scam, an illusion designed just to control people and build up a political power structure?

Where the sad part is, there might even actually BE a real god out there but just not the bible god that has so many billions it sway.

Originally posted by sonhouse
And then again, what if YOU are wrong? You spend your whole life striving towards this spiritual being and it ends up just being a massive scam, an illusion designed just to control people and build up a political power structure?

Where the sad part is, there might even actually BE a real god out there but just not the bible god that has so many billions it sway.

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby (OP)
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 sonhouse
And then again, what if YOU are wrong?" ~sonhouse

That's the awesome symmetry of the OP: it cuts both ways; more importantly, it cuts slack for no one! This OP's right index finger is pointing outward toward every mother's son and daughter contributing replies with three clenched fingers at me.

Originally posted by googlefudge
That doesn't answer the question.


If someone points a gun at your head and tells you to take money from a cash register...
Then that choice is coerced.

And we legally recognise that that choice is coerced, so that if someone can prove that
they were [sufficiently] coerced we will let them off crimes they committed while being
coerced to do s ...[text shortened]... g a gun at your head.

It's coercion.

Unless you can present a reasoned argument otherwise.

"In this case, god is saying that "if you worship me I will let you live in paradise for all eternity,
if you don't worship me then I will kill you/torture you in hell for all eternity" -googlefudge

God is saying that He is not willing that anyone [including googlefudge, Grampy Bobby, Russ and every member of Red Hot Pawn and their families should perish [be separated from Him for eternity] but rather that every one of the aforementioned individuals and their neighbors might come to a saving knowledge of Christ and His Perfect Plan which offers a grace gift [none of us can work for or earn] and choose to accept rather than reject it. It's a free gift because Christ fully paid the enormous cost of separation [in our place] from God the Father for three hours [while every one of the sins of mankind was imputed to Him and judged] during the Golgotha Hill Crucifixion nearly 2,000 years ago. You decide your eternal destiny.

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

Whoosh.

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
I'll incorporate your listing ["Allah... FSM... Thor... Loki... Ra"] of persons and/or entities with my reply to twhitehead.

Please don't. A reply to my questions does not require a listing, so I will be forced to assume that you are using your usual tactic of drowning the thread in copy/pastes to try and avoid giving honest answers to questions.