Paschal being a mathematician was looking at possibility. Possibilities only happen with things that are real. For Odin to be a possibility Odin has to be real.steve-b:
The whole point of Pascal’s wager was to find the most beneficial choice for someone who didn’t know what existed and what didn’t. For such a person the god Odin was as possible a choice as the other two.
To a nonbeliever, God and all other gods aren’t real. Thus, a difficulty in the way the wager is commonly used today.
ray:t2:
:max_bytes(150000):strip_icc()/LearnReligionsDefaultShareImage-144c756bc5424252b4051b050153fac1.png)
In fairness, all you’ve done is come into a forum hosted by your apparent enemy group and labeled them as stupid bigots.
Establishing a common semantic is step #1 in dialogue, even per Voltaire.
Things that aren’t real don’t exist. Therefore they aren’t possiblesteve-b:
Actually, possibilities only happen with things that AREN’T real, never with things that are.
The truly selfless act (donating blood) is more likely the act of a religious person according to this study:
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
Putting this simplysteve-b:
To a nonbeliever, God and all other gods aren’t real. Thus, a difficulty in the way the wager is commonly used today.
It’s not that simple. If we’re both wrong then they are still screwed.
Truth is truth. There is not my truth vs your truth. In the end, there is either heaven or hell awaiting. Both are eternal. The conditions for each are in place.steve-b:
It’s not that simple. If we’re both wrong then they are still screwed.
If you’re right (that Catholicism is the true faith), there’s still 2 hurdles. Does attempting to believe but not sincerely believing save? Also, Catholicism still leaves the possibility of eternal damnation via mortal sin, possibly making all the efforts for nought.
If I’m right then those struggling with scrupulousity have greatly diminished their enjoyment of the life for no gain. That’s a huge consequence.
If we’re both wrong (another faith is true and excludes Catholics) then we lose everything and had no real chance to choose the “correct” answer.
That’s a good start. So your truth that either heaven or hell awaiting doesn’t get a look in.
You contradicted yourself in consecutive sentences. I’m impressed. Most people need a paragraph or two.
There’s no contradictionsteve-b:
That’s a good start. So your truth that either heaven or hell awaiting doesn’t get a look in.
You contradicted yourself in consecutive sentences. I’m impressed. Most people need a paragraph or two.
So how is this bet made exactly? So God is so petty that he will conclude that a person did not “choose” him because they used the brain that he gave them to conclude that the lack of evidence in his existence gives them no reason to think he does exist and that they are just being conned by society? And because they didn’t “choose” him that they deserve to be eternally punished?
I suppose we’ll have to drop this. If we go much further we’ll get too close to debating whether your faith is true or not. That’s not somewhere I wish to go as a matter of courtesy and respect for the venue.