Originally posted by apathistI choose to believe in God and His Christ. The only other choice is Satan and His demons whether you like it or not. 😏
What is the difference between 'belief' and 'true belief'? You seem to deny human free will. I choose what to believe in, and I believe lots of others do also. Pascal broke ground with his wager in that regard:Stanford
We find in it the extraordinary confluence of several important strands of thought: the justification of theism; probabi ...[text shortened]... infinity.
You do not choose what to believe in? Your beliefs are forced upon you?
Originally posted by apathistOf course I believe in Free Will. The salvation of Jesus is useless without it. Of course we choose what to believe in. Some just choose... poorly.
What is the difference between 'belief' and 'true belief'? You seem to deny human free will. I choose what to believe in, and I believe lots of others do also. Pascal broke ground with his wager in that regard:Stanford
We find in it the extraordinary confluence of several important strands of thought: the justification of theism; probabi ...[text shortened]... infinity.
You do not choose what to believe in? Your beliefs are forced upon you?
The point of this thread is... Pascal's Wager. (My first clue was the thread title.)
One who accepts Pascal's Wager only "believes" in order to be "saved" IF they are wrong and God does exist. This means it is given that that person does not truly believe God exists, nor that they will receive salvation merely by believing in the Christ. All that is necessary for them is to "believe", i.e. to pretend to believe.
In actuality, your belief in God and the salvation offered has to be real, not just "pretend". This is why I said accepting Pascal's Wager, when you actually do not believe in God (Pascal's Wager assumes one is merely "covering one's bases" ) is useless. "Pretending" to believe when you really don't just doesn't cut it. It assumes God is a fool.
This thread is not about Free Will. Free Will is assumed. Of course you have Free Will to accept the wager. I'm just saying it is a useless wager because nothing changes if you take it, because it is not your actual belief which changes. You are only "claiming" to "believe" (just in case). That is the nature of Pascal's Wager.
Originally posted by AgergAdmittedly, Pascal's Wager has been used as currency by more than a few who either do not understand its particulars, are simply too lazy to think or some portion of both.
This isn't so much meant to be an interesting thread topic more than it is intended to be a reminder for theists who don't know one of the essential problems with Pascals wager. I'll proceed by assuming the logic is valid...
Either God exists or he doesn't (so a fifty fifty chance then)
Then
If I'm a Christian we have:
P(Bible God) = 1/2
If I'm a Muslim w ...[text shortened]... robabilities of events in a sample space is equal to 1
So where did I go wrong? 😕[/b]
Three ideas on the issues of the wager, as I see them:
*Pascal does not offer a simplified or more palatable salvation proposition.
*Contrary to the analysis offered by many since him, the 'many god problem' has already been indirectly addressed and resolved.
*The decision matrix formulated as a result of McClennen 1994 contains error.
First, the gambit itself. Although Pascal was indeed (as we all are) a prisoner of his time and therefore inevitably influenced by the fashions of his day, I believe he was able to rise above Church dogma and/or then-current understandings of doctrine and make a unique proposition. He was not specifically suggesting the Catholic God, or offering his Janseistic take on doctrine. He was abstractly contemplating an incomprehensible being, one beyond knowing, one beyond our relational abilities to experience. This eliminates all of the lesser, 'many gods,' and focuses the attention on the one behind all. Clearly, this is neither the God who makes Himself known in the Bible, or more specifically within the strictures of the Catholic teachings.
This abstract being offered is simply the general idea of God, that innate unlearned concept we all have which has woven itself within our history since our history has been recorded. We cannot point to a single society which has ever been atheistic--- no matter what their concept of this all-powerful being, all of our societies have this general concept in common. It cannot be un-thought, or dismissed as constructs of man. Obviously man has made his constructs in response to the thought, but these systems and organizations did not originate the underlying thought.
The heads-or-tails proposition is not an offer of salvation, merely the pre-cursor to salvation (if salvation there be). There is no hallelujah chorus at the end of the thought experiment; this experiment simply allows one into the game in the first place. As mentioned, Pascal was influenced by both Catholicism and the more specific doctrines espoused by Jansenism. Neither of these bodies of teachings considered a belief in God as the measure of salvation, and moreover, his Janseistic understanding of predestination made salvation a moot topic. If this all-powerful being exists, only It can save (bridge the gap between man and It), but we must first determine if It exists. This is where the wager gets a little sticky, but not so sticky as to be ineffective.
If salvation is possible, if the bridge can be spanned, It would need to exist to do the work. If It does not exist, no salvation is possible and we are without that hope. This is where I think the matrix is in error. The decision matrix pits the superdominance of salvation (acceptance of existence) against misery (rejection of existence), juxtaposed with the status quo of non-existence for both categories. If no existence, i.e., salvation is not possible, then the status quo is misery whether one accepts existence or rejects the same. Or, put another way, acceptance of existence is the only possible gain pitted against loss in all other possible choices. To be saved, one must accept existence first. In accepting existence, one could still end in misery, just as one would if existence is rejected.
I say Pascal got it right, even if some of the wording is a bit heavy.
Originally posted by AgergPerhaps each or your (3) god choices should have been 1/3 vs. 1/2? Just guessing.
This isn't so much meant to be an interesting thread topic more than it is intended to be a reminder for theists who don't know one of the essential problems with Pascals wager. I'll proceed by assuming the logic is valid...
Either God exists or he doesn't (so a fifty fifty chance then)
Then
If I'm a Christian we have:
P(Bible God) = 1/2
If I'm a Musli ...[text shortened]... robabilities of events in a sample space is equal to 1
So where did I go wrong? 😕
3 edits
Originally posted by FreakyKBHThanks for your response...sorry it has taken so long for the reply, been busy interviewing (and finally got an offer - yay!). Though I stand by my stance of opposition to the wager I observed an error in my reasoning when conversing with apathist a page prior, as such I don't defend the nature in which I challenge the wager in my OP.
Admittedly, Pascal's Wager has been used as currency by more than a few who either do not understand its particulars, are simply too lazy to think or some portion of both.
Three ideas on the issues of the wager, as I see them:
*Pascal does not offer a simplified or more palatable salvation proposition.
*Contrary to the analysis offered by many s ence is rejected.
I say Pascal got it right, even if some of the wording is a bit heavy.
That said, one of my and others objection to the wager is the consequence he asserts for winning the bet (or losing it). If a god does existthere is no guarantee it will find faith based on the evidence it provided as virtuous (it might, and there may be infinitely many formulations of a god (or gods) for which this holds; but conversely there may be infinitely many formulations of a god (or gods) where it doesn't). We simply cannot know. You touch on those point in your response but I feel it assumes that the 'correct' god must have some sort of characteristics you can identify with via your faith**[1] - I don't see this as justified. But anyway...
Admittedly, Pascal's Wager has been used as currency by more than a few who either do not understand its particulars, are simply too lazy to think or some portion of both.
Three ideas on the issues of the wager, as I see them:
*Pascal does not offer a simplified or more palatable salvation proposition.
*Contrary to the analysis offered by many since him, the 'many god problem' has already been indirectly addressed and resolved.
*The decision matrix formulated as a result of McClennen 1994 contains error.
First, the gambit itself. Although Pascal was indeed (as we all are) a prisoner of his time and therefore inevitably influenced by the fashions of his day, I believe he was able to rise above Church dogma and/or then-current understandings of doctrine and make a unique proposition. He was not specifically suggesting the Catholic God, or offering his Janseistic take on doctrine. He was abstractly contemplating an incomprehensible being, one beyond knowing, one beyond our relational abilities to experience. This eliminates all of the lesser, 'many gods,' and focuses the attention on the one behind all. Clearly, this is neither the God who makes Himself known in the Bible, or more specifically within the strictures of the Catholic teachings.
I sort of agree with you here but I object to your point that the focus of attention remains only on the one behind all. Indeed even if you eliminate from the infinite set of all possible gods, all of the "lesser" gods (whatever you think constitutes lesser gods), then unless you can prove your cull is exhaustive you might still be left with an infinite set of gods!
This abstract being offered is simply the general idea of God, that innate unlearned concept we all have which has woven itself within our history since our history has been recorded. We cannot point to a single society which has ever been atheistic--- no matter what their concept of this all-powerful being, all of our societies have this general concept in common. It cannot be un-thought, or dismissed as constructs of man. Obviously man has made his constructs in response to the thought, but these systems and organizations did not originate the underlying thought.
As for not being able to point to a single society which has been atheistic, perhaps others will disagree with you on thisThat said, though I recognise the general leaning in most cultures that there is some sort of intelligent orchestration behind the dazzling intricacies of our universe, a belief that our "essence" will live on after physical death; this is merely an example of correlation without due evidence of causation. Death is a scary thing, and we'd be rubbish at surviving as a species if we weren't scared of it. If we convince ourselves that death is not the end then we can put our brains to better use than we would by constantly fixating ourselves on a fate we must enultimately counter at some point in the future; indeed that is what we have done and it seems to have served us well . But for all the advantages of religious belief (neglecting for now the disadvantages), it may yet, contrary to your objection, be just (a rather useful) construct of man all the same.
The heads-or-tails proposition is not an offer of salvation, merely the pre-cursor to salvation (if salvation there be). There is no hallelujah chorus at the end of the thought experiment; this experiment simply allows one into the game in the first place. As mentioned, Pascal was influenced by both Catholicism and the more specific doctrines espoused by Jansenism. Neither of these bodies of teachings considered a belief in God as the measure of salvation, and moreover, his Janseistic understanding of predestination made salvation a moot topic. If this all-powerful being exists, only It can save (bridge the gap between man and It), but we must first determine if It exists. This is where the wager gets a little sticky, but not so sticky as to be ineffective.
If salvation is possible, if the bridge can be spanned, It would need to exist to do the work. If It does not exist, no salvation is possible and we are without that hope. This is where I think the matrix is in error. The decision matrix pits the superdominance of salvation (acceptance of existence) against misery (rejection of existence), juxtaposed with the status quo of non-existence for both categories. If no existence, i.e., salvation is not possible, then the status quo is misery whether one accepts existence or rejects the same. Or, put another way, acceptance of existence is the only possible gain pitted against loss in all other possible choices. To be saved, one must accept existence first. In accepting existence, one could still end in misery, just as one would if existence is rejected.
I say Pascal got it right, even if some of the wording is a bit heavy.
I think the real problem is that the decision matrix is lacking rows (it is 2 by 2 instead of 2 by N (where N is the set of all consequences associated with the exhaustive list of theoretical, (non "lesser"!) gods)). I agree with you that we must first establish it exists, but then I think we should then show with much more rigour that the matrix exhausts all cases - and it is that where lies my main objection (even if I didn't formulate it so well in my OP).
-----------------------------------------------------------
**[1] Not necessarily an isomorphism, but possibly a monomorphism, or in human terms:
not necessarily a one-to-one correspondence (in a structural sense) between the characteristics you hold the correct god should have and that of a god perhaps existing, but possibly all the characteristics you suppose it should have being held yet with many others you don't consider
Originally posted by Suzianne...This is a serious question. Why, in your opinion, does God base our afterlife on our beliefs, when He refuses to make himself known? He's all-powerful and so could easily let modern society know He is God, but He doesn't!
The point of this thread is... Pascal's Wager. ...
If God is, and He needs mindless slaves, then it starts to make sense.
Originally posted by AgergCongratulations on the offer.
Thanks for your response...sorry it has taken so long for the reply, been busy interviewing (and finally got an offer - yay!). Though I stand by my stance of opposition to the wager I observed an error in my reasoning when conversing with apathist a page prior[hidden]that of seeing an implication on Pascal\'s part that the chance Abrahamic God exists is 50-50 ...[text shortened]... se it should have being held yet with many others you don't consider[/i]
I agree with the assessment that simply acknowledging the all-powerful cannot be constituted with saving faith. I think, however, that Pascal wasn't offering this as salvation but rather as a mental exercise, a type of bridesmaid to the question of faith itself. I don't know: maybe he was trying to be sneaky, but I doubt it given his life-long dedication to pure numbers and their relations to one another.
And I still disagree with the proliferation of gods on the basis that the concept of one all-powerful Being has been around since man's conception. While other lesser gods have risen and fallen over the course of that time, man has an innate predisposition toward the one God.
Originally posted by apathistReligion is based on Faith. Faith is the belief in something without proof. If we were shown the truth to our faces, Faith would hold no place; only a fool would deny something he has seen with his own eyes.
This is a serious question. Why, in your opinion, does God base our afterlife on our beliefs, when He refuses to make himself known? He's all-powerful and so could easily let modern society know He is God, but He doesn't!
If God is, and He needs mindless slaves, then it starts to make sense.
Our final exam is not whether we are a fool or not.
It's whether we have Faith or not.
Originally posted by SuzianneWhy? You're speaking for God, so tell me why? Why doesn't She care whether we are good people or not, why does she only care if we Believe in Her or not?
Religion is based on Faith. Faith is the belief in something without proof. If we were shown the truth to our faces, Faith would hold no place; only a fool would deny something he has seen with his own eyes.
Our final exam is not whether we are a fool or not.
It's whether we have Faith or not.
I think that makes her a rotten bitch. Thank the stars She doesn't exist.
5 edits
Originally posted by FreakyKBHCheers..been travelling up and down the UK, and operating on half sleep (if I'm lucky) for the last three months - glad it's all over!
Congratulations on the offer.
I agree with the assessment that simply acknowledging the all-powerful cannot be constituted with saving faith. I think, however, that Pascal wasn't offering this as salvation but rather as a mental exercise, a type of bridesmaid to the question of faith itself. I don't know: maybe he was trying to be sneaky, but I doubt and fallen over the course of that time, man has an innate predisposition toward the one God.
I wouldn't say he was trying to be sneaky as such, though like the great mathematician Euler (whose supposed proof of God's existence to Diderot: "(a+b^n)/n = x", hence God exists - reply!" still makes me chuckle) I think he's relying on the persuasiveness of ignorance, and veneration (on the part of non-mathematically inclined) to drive home an argument that wouldn't pass muster for a (relatively) small collection of people who have had the correct training.
That you disagree with the notion of many possible gods is where we'll stay at an impasse. To me, discounting any putative gods; a god is some nebulous entity that could have all manner of characteristics - uniqueness not necessarily one of them. I'd argue that there are infinitely many of such characteristics (and we humans have only, and can only imagine a finite subset of them), and as such, even if we supposed one of such gods existed I have no way to be confident it has any of the characteristics you and other Christians (or theists in general) suppose it might have. Perhaps some god that exists just doesn't give a damn either way about the things it creates (or allows to be created) - perhaps it isn't all powerful (why should it be? why can't it merely be sufficiently powerful enough to construct a universe!?).
Originally posted by AgergYou used math to explain God....man must become as a child (reborn by faith) in order to see the Kingdom of God......let the thrashings begin....lol..
This isn't so much meant to be an interesting thread topic more than it is intended to be a reminder for theists who don't know one of the essential problems with Pascals wager. I'll proceed by assuming the logic is valid...
Either God exists or he doesn't (so a fifty fifty chance then)
Then
If I'm a Christian we have:
P(Bible God) = 1/2
If I'm a Musli ...[text shortened]... robabilities of events in a sample space is equal to 1
So where did I go wrong? 😕