Pascal's Wager Simplified

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
Originally posted by Grampy Bobby (Page 5)
1) "Either God exists, or he does not exist," argued Pascal, "and since neither proposition can be proved, we must wager. If we wager that God exists and we are right, we win everything. If we wager that God exists and we are wrong, we lose nothing." "You would be impudent," Pascal said, "to wager ...[text shortened]... issue of their eternal address serious thought and reconsider their stated rejection of Christ.

Personal Comment: There are many contributors to this forum I pray for by nickname or first name frequently. The content of these prayers to God the Father remains unchanged: that each of these friends and acquaintances will receive accurate gospel information, give the issue of their eternal address serious thought and reconsider their stated rejection of Christ.

You can keep the passive-aggressive praying at us to yourself.

Originally posted by twhitehead
You clearly missed the point. The 'ticket' I was refering to was the one where you buy into Islaam and various other religions, just in case you win those lotteries.
But lets look at actual lotteries. You purchase 'the occasional lottery ticket'? Not every ticket you can get your hands on. Why?

The wager had more to do with a re-ascension to a belief in the divine, and less to do with what follows.

The lottery analogy only travels so far, but the first leg suits it just fine: you cannot win (gain) anything at all without first 'buying' into the system.
Here, buying is equated with acknowledgement of the existence of the divine.

What follows (although incredibly important) is worthless without the initial birth of general belief.
In fact, the atheists herein acknowledge this very point: how can they have faith on something in which they do not believe?

After that ascension, every person must make up their own minds which--- if any--- of the presented beliefs are where they will cast their futures.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
The wager had more to do with a re-ascension to a belief in the divine, and less to do with what follows.

The lottery analogy only travels so far, but the first leg suits it just fine: you cannot win (gain) anything at all without first 'buying' into the system.
Here, buying is equated with acknowledgement of the existence of the divine.

What follow ...[text shortened]... ir own minds which--- if any--- of the presented beliefs are where they will cast their futures.

The problem believing in the divine and all that goes with it is you can thereafter rationalize not paying attention to the here and now but instead just not worry about whether, for instance, Earth becomes unable to sustain human life because of our abuse of Earth, just ignore that and life your life as if all that doesn't matter because we have been duped into thinking there will be a better life after we die.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
The lottery analogy only travels so far, ....

As I said before, you don't practice what you preach. You refuse to apply the analogy when it doesn't suit you - suggesting that you don't actually believe the argument is valid.

Originally posted by twhitehead
As I said before, you don't practice what you preach. You refuse to apply the analogy when it doesn't suit you - suggesting that you don't actually believe the argument is valid.

You need to read the whole post.

Originally posted by twhitehead
As I said before, you don't practice what you preach. You refuse to apply the analogy when it doesn't suit you - suggesting that you don't actually believe the argument is valid.

You could almost say the same thing for those who have no hope for the future: since it all ends here, why do good?

Or, better: since it all ends here, what is good?

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
You need to read the whole post.

I did. You failed to explain why the analogy only applied where you wanted it to apply.

Originally posted by twhitehead

But what exactly has been rejected? Did I hear the pigeon make any bogus offers? Did I reject the pigeons offer? Or did I reject your offer?

My offer of course.

Nor have I claimed neutrality. I have in fact stated in clear English in this thread that I reject the claims made by the Bible as being false.

Okay then.

There is no ambiguity about your rejecting the claims of the Bible.

But I think on more than one occasion you argued that you cannot reject a biblical claim for some reason. You appeared to argue so as to absolve yourself from being in any position to accept or reject some of the offers of Christ. These are found in the Bible.

The problem is that you can't see past you desperate desire to portray me as being non-neutral that you are not reading what people are actually saying.

There is no need for any desperation. Especially since you JUST SAID that you or a rejector concerning claims of the Bible.

You just wrote:

I have in fact stated in clear English in this thread that I reject the claims made by the Bible as being false

"Desperation" to portray you as "non-neutral" on my part is unnecessary. You have just confirmed yourself that you reject the claims of the Bible as being false.

But in the past you have also argued that you are not in a position to respond with a choice to accept or reject claims of the Bible.

sonship:
In my opinion, your effort to portray your reaction to the Bible as neutral is to make your rejection take on a characteristic of [EDITED] being morally benign rather than as morally not a righteous thing to do.

Well I have to inform you that your opinion is wrong.

In this particular post it would be wrong for you have just stated that you

that you reject the claims of the Bible as being false.

In this post you do not attempt yet, to absolve yourself as being in a position which is impossible to choose to accept or reject that claims of Christ (which are located in the Bible).

I have made no efforts whatsoever to portray my reaction as neutral - that is all in your imagination,

I disagree. In other threads I distinctly remember that you argued that you were not in a position to choose or reject offers/ claims from Christ or allegedly from Christ.

and my reason for starting this discussion was because Grampy made a clearly false statement which displayed either his misunderstanding of most atheists position, or his deliberate mischaracterization of that position.

What misunderstanding or "deliberate mischaracterization" from Grampy?
Let me see it and determine for myself if you are being misunderstood or mischaracterized.

sonship:
IE. - You REJECT the claims of the Bible concerning God and Christ and the Gospel of Christ. You choose to dress up this rejection as neutrality.

I challenge you to go back through the thread and see if you can actually find anything that I said that would indicate this to be the case. I think you will find it is nowhere to be found and that you imagined it.

That stated matter is misunderstood by you. I did not say it was done in THIS thread. If you do not follow me, I meant it has been done by you in other discussions.

In other threads you have argued that you are not in a position to be classified as one who does or does not reject claims of the Jesus Christ in the Bible.

Perhaps you do not realize the accumulative effect of years of argumentation have. I have no need to fictitiously imagine up such a position from twhitehead.

In essence you have argued in the past, IE - "How can I choose to accept or reject something I have never been offered." That is my paraphrasing you and not a quotation.

But I do not think I am mixing you up with another poster.
You have put forth that argument.
And perhaps it could be described in other terms more suitable, but I call it attempting to remain neutral as if you are absolved from the responsibility of having used your will to Yes or No to an offer from Christ (or allegedly from Christ) located in the Bible.

Ask some of the other posters if this is so about your posts.
Ask anyone you want.
Include though asking Freaky, Suzzanne, or RBHILL.

Ask visted. (spelling?) He works hard at objectivity. See if he agrees with you that you never portrayed yourself as being unable to accept or reject a Bible's offer.

To be absolutely clear, since you have a habit of claiming that I am secretive about my views:

That observation is another matter. You want to go back to that ?

I considered your vigorous protestation. That is different criticism from me, I think, from what you are objecting to in this exchange.

I totally and utterly reject, in no uncertain terms (or neutrality), the claims of the Bible concerning God and Christ and the Gospel of Christ and I hereby take full moral responsibility for that rejection. I also reject your claims concerning the same.

Okay. It is not news to me. You see I never understood your arguments as being anything else.

And when you argued that you cannot reject what you feel God (who doesn't exist) never offered you, I also clearly read that as -

You totally and utterly rejecting, in no uncertain terms (or neutrality), the claims of the Bible concerning God and Christ and the Gospel of Christ.

At the same time at other instances you have argued that you cannot reject the claims of Jesus Christ and the strong implication is that you are not responsible in terms of how the Bible says one is responsible.

and I hereby take full moral responsibility for that rejection.

And I hearby state that in the past you have portrayed yourself as at times as having nothing to reject or accept because nothing has been offered to you.

I do not think I am confusing you with another poster.

Now I will tell YOU what I reject. I reject any suggestion that I cannot understand many times exactly what you mean.

I reject that I misread your intention THAT many times.
I accept that sometimes I may misunderstand you.
I reject that most of the time I misunderstand you.

You have become rather predictable.
Mindreading is not at all necessary.

I do not however reject anything that God has said or offered because I do not believe God exists or has made any offers to be rejected. I have equally not rejected any offers made by a pigeon.
If you still cannot see the distinction, then you are deliberately not wanting to see it.

The pigeon offer is an easy matter to correct. I was never intending to mean a pigeon offered anything but a real or imagined sender of a pigeon.

As to aspect of divine offers. It doesn't matter that you do not believe that God exists or not as far as this is concerned:

I have in fact stated in clear English in this thread that I reject the claims made by the Bible as being false

And when you say I deliberately do not want to see that there is some distinction? That's probably accurate.

In the same way I deliberately do not want to imagine that of a dice sitting at 6 has a probability of 1 of being 6, is some profound insight.

I deliberately do not want to subject my mind to that kind of twisting self deception that you have some significant point there.

So I deliberately refuse to think that your rejection of the Bible as full of false claims is anything other than a rejection of the reality of God.

Try your argument on some super tolerant relativistic existentialist for whom "truth" is only relative and subjective. Maybe you'll get a less deliberate attitude - "Well what's right for me is right and what's right for you is right."

I have in fact stated in clear English in this thread that I reject the claims made by the Bible as being false

Whether God is real or not real you have rejected God.
Of course I deliberately realize that you have rejected the God who is real and the reality which is true.

So if your Atheism turns out to be wrong, (which it will) you will bear total responsibility for your rejection of the Bible as false. And that is apparently what you want anyway.

Originally posted by sonship

But what exactly has been rejected? Did I hear the pigeon make any bogus offers? Did I reject the pigeons offer? Or did I reject your offer?

My offer of course.

Nor have I claimed neutrality. I have in fact stated in clear English in this thread that I reject the claims made by the Bible as being false.

Okay then ...[text shortened]... nsibility for your rejection of the Bible as false. And that is apparently what you want anyway.

So if your Atheism turns out to be wrong, (which it will) you will bear total responsibility for your rejection of the Bible as false. And that is apparently what you want anyway.

You do know that you sound pathetic when you threaten us like that...

And you have failed to grasp the point again.

Twhitehead is not rejecting god. God doesn't exist.
Twhitehead is rejecting the idea that the bible is true and is telling him about god.
Also twhitehead's rejecting that you are telling him about god, as opposed to a
figment of your imagination.

You seem unable and unwilling to grasp the difference.

If it is written in a book that Lord Voldermort is making an offer to all muggles that
if they submit to magical rule their lives will be spared.
Then I am not rejecting Voldermort's offer if I reject what the book says as being true.

Lord Voldermort isn't real, I don't believe he's real, and I have thus not, in any meaningful
way, received this offer in order to reject it.

To say that I have rejected Voldermort's offer I would have to actually receive this offer
from Voldermort, or from a valid recognised proxy that I can justifiably trust is delivering
this offer to me. Which can only happen in a world where it's justifiable for me to believe
that Voldermort actually exists. Only in those circumstances, where an offer is being made
by a being I justifiably believe exists, and I have received the offer in such a manner that
I can reasonably think it's genuine and comes from Voldermort, can I reject it if I so choose.


In the same way, to reject that what the bible says is true does not entail rejecting any
'offers' made by any characters from the stories contained within the bible.

I do not reject god, because there is no god to reject.

I do reject what you say about god, and what is said in the bible.

If god DID actually exist, and DID make me that offer THEN I might very well reject it.

But we don't live in that world.

Originally posted by googlefudge

So if your Atheism turns out to be wrong, (which it will) you will bear total responsibility for your rejection of the Bible as false. And that is apparently what you want anyway.

You do know that you sound pathetic when you threaten us like that...

And you have failed to grasp the point again.

Twhitehead is not rejecting god. G ...[text shortened]... and DID make me that offer THEN I might very well reject it.

But we don't live in that world.

You do know that you sound pathetic when you threaten us like that...

And you have failed to grasp the point again.

Twhitehead is not rejecting god. God doesn't exist.

Are you the same googlefudge who said a few days ago that sciience has proved beyond all doubt that God does not exist ? And when I asked for specific quotations they were not forthcoming.

I thought that was pathetic.

Twhitehead is rejecting the idea that the bible is true and is telling him about god. Also twhitehead's rejecting that you are telling him about god, as opposed to a figment of your imagination.

If out of man's imagination the character of Jesus Christ was concocted fictitiously, then we better find that person. He or she has more wisdom than anyone else who has ever lived.

But you are going to provide those quotations for us where some scientists proclaimed publically that without any shadow of a doubt, they had emperical, experimental evidence conclusively demonstrating the non-existence of God.

You're going to back up your big talk with quotations to that effect specifically and catagorically.

Were you hoping I would kind of just ... forget ?

You seem unable and unwilling to grasp the difference.

That is correct. I am unable to grasp the difference.
My mind works properly in this regard.

If it is written in a book that Lord Voldermort is making an offer to all muggles that if they submit to magical rule their lives will be spared.

He said he rejected the claims as the Bible as false.
What do I care if he also rejects the claims of some magical characeter Lord Voldermort with the same skepticism ?

Then I am not rejecting Voldermort's offer if I reject what the book says as being true.

Lord Voldermort isn't real, I don't believe he's real, and I have thus not, in any meaningful way, received this offer in order to reject it.

To say that I have rejected Voldermort's offer I would have to actually receive this offer from Voldermort, or from a valid recognised proxy that I can justifiably trust is delivering this offer to me. Which can only happen in a world where it's justifiable for me to believe that Voldermort actually exists. Only in those circumstances, where an offer is being made
by a being I justifiably believe exists, and I have received the offer in such a manner that I can reasonably think it's genuine and comes from Voldermort, can I reject it if I so choose.

No, I do not admit that the Bible is a fantasy tale or that the Triune God is not real.

If I stated that I would be lying.

I WILL not lie to you or to twhitehead in order to give you some sense of fair play or tolerant relativistic etiquette. If it sounds too dogmatic then sometimes the truth has to sound dogmatic.

In the same way, to reject that what the bible says is true does not entail rejecting any 'offers' made by any characters from the stories contained within the bible.

You can reject what the Bible as not true from now until you are an old wrinkly man in a wheelchair in the recreation from of some hospice or home for old folks over 90 years old.

It will not make any difference to the truth.

I do not reject god, because there is no god to reject.

I do reject what you say about god, and what is said in the bible.

If god DID actually exist, and DID make me that offer THEN I might very well reject it.

But we don't live in that world.

That is the world we live in. That is the world where God has given us His word and God has sent His Son. That IS the world we live in.

Originally posted by sonship

If out of man's imagination the character of Jesus Christ was concocted fictitiously, then we better find that person. He or she has more wisdom than anyone else who has ever lived.

What!
There is nothing new nor particularly wise about what Jesus (if he existed)
has allegedly said. If you think there is then point us to it.
(and I don't mean spouting on about the god nonsense, I want examples
of wisdom as you have claimed.)

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]

From what I understand of this wager matter, Pascal was saying essentially "What do you have to lose if the gospel of Christ turns out to be fiction. But if you reject and it is true you lose your salvation."

It is kind of a gambler's way of thinking.
I cannot write any more. I don't think I have more to say about it at the moment.

Originally posted by sonship

You do know that you sound pathetic when you threaten us like that...

And you have failed to grasp the point again.

Twhitehead is not rejecting god. God doesn't exist.

Are you the same googlefudge who said a few days ago that sciience has proved beyond all doubt that God does not exist ? And when I asked for specific quotations ...[text shortened]... d where God has given us His word and God has sent His Son. That [b]IS the world we live in.[/b]

No, I am not hoping you would forget.

I said what I meant.

I don't believe you are intellectually capable of understanding the arguments for
how it is that science disproves your religion.

As a first step you would have to be able to understand logical arguments.

You manifestly can't, and prove you can't on a daily basis. Including repeatedly
in this thread.

I thus cannot be bothered to go to all the effort of trying to prove my point
when I have absolutely no hope or reason to suppose you could possibly understand it.

That was true then, and is still true now, and unless you magically gain the ability
to logically reason then it's going to stay true permanently.

There are plenty of discussions to be had here with people I can believe can actually
understand the arguments and make reasoned and reasonable counter arguments.

I thus choose not to waste my time trying to explain to you how science refutes
your religion. I neither expect you to like this, nor care that you don't.

I have explained this position before, and I will no doubt do it again.

But not to you, and not today.

What I am hoping is that you will write me off as being a snob and stop bothering me about it,
but that hope seems to be in vain. My question is how badly do I have to insult you for you
to take the hint?

Originally posted by wolfgang59
[b]What!
There is nothing new nor particularly wise about what Jesus (if he existed)
has allegedly said. If you think there is then point us to it.
(and I don't mean spouting on about the god nonsense, I want examples
of wisdom as you have claimed.)[/b]

Yeah. That was pretty much my reaction.

Originally posted by googlefudge

No, I am not hoping you would forget.

I said what I meant.

You should be able to provide as requested three peer reviewed announcements to that effect.

You exaggerated.

I don't believe you are intellectually capable of understanding the arguments for how it is that science disproves your religion.

I have the intellectual capability to read quotations which you are refusing to provide.

The problem is not my lack of intellectual capability but your lack of integrity in favor of lying through your teeth.

As a first step you would have to be able to understand logical arguments.

Notice - no quotations announcing conclusively that science has beyond all reasonable doubt proved the non-existence of God.

You're integrity challenged.
You're delusional too.

You manifestly can't, and prove you can't on a daily basis. Including repeatedly in this thread.

I thus cannot be bothered to go to all the effort of trying to prove my point
when I have absolutely no hope or reason to suppose you could possibly understand it.

Blah, blah, and blah, blah.

No quotations yet.
You have a big mouth googlefudge.

Science has proved beyond all shadow of doubt that God does not exist everybody.

And the peer reviewed quotations confirming these conclusive findings ARE (provided by googlefudge generously)
1.)-----------?
2.)---------- ?
3.)-----------?

That was true then, and is still true now, and unless you magically gain the ability to logically reason then it's going to stay true permanently.

And the three quotations are ------------------- ?

There are plenty of discussions to be had here with people I can believe can actually understand the arguments and make reasoned and reasonable counter arguments.

And the three conclusive quotations announcing that science has disproved the existence of God beyond ALL reasonable doubt, was announce in the following published statements:

1. ------ ?

2. ------ ?

3. ------ ?

Compliments our most logical and brilliant and capable arguer googlefudge.

I thus choose not to waste my time trying to explain to you how science refutes your religion. I neither expect you to like this, nor care that you don't.

Here is where the following three professional scientists announced their findings that the non-existence of God has been proved beyond all reasonable doubt:

1.)

2.)

3.)

Compliments of totally knowledgeable and expert in atheism and science, RHP's own (trumpets) .... GOOGLEFUDGE !

I have explained this position before, and I will no doubt do it again.

But not to you, and not today.

Link me to your three quotations.
That is the announcements - beyond all shadow of doubt, scientists have not conclusively demonstrated that God does not exist.

What I am hoping is that you will write me off as being a snob and stop bothering me about it, but that hope seems to be in vain. My question is how badly do I have to insult you for you to take the hint?

You've written yourself off as a liar.