Pascal's Wager Argument

  • Thread starter Thread starter Charlemagne_II
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
jonfawkes

**It’s awe of the Lord not fear of Hell. **

“Awe” is only a synonym for “fear”. And why would we fear the Lord unless we were concerned about losing our souls in hell?

“Everyone who acknowledges me before others I will acknowledge before my heavenly Father. But whoever denies me before others, I will deny before my
heavenly Father.” Matthew 10:32-33

“He who believes and is baptized will be saved; he who does not believe will be condemned.” Mark 16:16

What’s to fear? Condemnation. Condemnation to where? Hell.
 
Charlemagne_II said:
jonfawkes

**It’s awe of the Lord not fear of Hell. **

“Awe” is only a synonym for “fear”. And why would we fear the Lord unless we were concerned about losing our souls in hell?

“Everyone who acknowledges me before others I will acknowledge before my heavenly Father. But whoever denies me before others, I will deny before my
heavenly Father.” Matthew 10:32-33

“He who believes and is baptized will be saved; he who does not believe will be condemned.” Mark 16:16

What’s to fear? Condemnation. Condemnation to where? Hell.
Click to expand...
God doesn’t condemn you to hell you do it to yourself. Fear doesn’t bring you to God.
 
Filthy_Tugboat said:
As far as I’m aware the New Testament frequently references and recommends the Old Testament in it’s entirety. Then there’s the issue of slavery that is still commanded within the New Testament, I’m sorry but a moral system that denigrates individuals to property, women included, is not in line with moral systems recommended in todays society…
Click to expand...
To be fair, Filthy, Christianity introduced the radical notion of love in such a way that slaves should be treated fairly, and justly. However, it was not until Vatican 2 that Catholicism clearly condemned all forms of human trafficking. There are respected Catholics who say that the Church condemned slavery as early aw 1890, and others who say that it was in the 1930’s. The Catholic church was far behind some other Christian denominations in coming to that interpretation of the scriptures, no matter which dates you accept. Christianity was also a huge influence in elevating the status of women, when you consider the society at the time. Historical perspective is important. Within various Christian denominations, there is currently disagreement as to the potential roles of women in the Church. If you sniff around the various threads, here, you can find them. Not really in the same line of thinking as this thread.
 
jonfawkes

**God doesn’t condemn you to hell you do it to yourself. Fear doesn’t bring you to God. **

Whatever. Happy Easter!!! 👍
 
jonfawkes said:
Acting “faithful, honest, humble, grateful, generous, a sincere friend, and truthful” aren’t contingent on belief in the Christian or any other God.
Click to expand...
They certainly aren’t contingent on atheism! Pascal’s argument is based on the fact that you have nothing to lose and everything to gain by following the teaching of Christ - regardless of what you believe about the origin and nature of moral values.
 
tonyrey said:
They certainly aren’t contingent on atheism! Pascal’s argument is based on the fact that you have nothing to lose and everything to gain by following the teaching of Christ - regardless of what you believe about the origin and nature of moral values.
Click to expand...
Acting that way doesn’t mean that you believe in Christ nor by acting that way you will believe.

There are " believers " that don’t act that way.
 
jonfawkes said:
They certainly aren’t contingent on atheism! Pascal’s argument is based on the fact that you have nothing to lose and everything to gain by following the teaching of Christ - regardless of what you believe about the origin and nature of moral values.
Click to expand...
That is true but Pascal believed we too have nothing to lose and everything to gain by presenting his argument to non-believers! As Lear said, nothing shall come of nothing…
There are " believers " that don’t act that way.
Click to expand...
They are only believers in name. Their failure doesn’t affect Pascal’s argument.
Click to expand...
 
tonyrey said:
That is true but Pascal believed we too have nothing to lose and everything to gain by presenting his argument to non-believers! As Lear said, nothing shall come of nothing…
They are only believers in name. Their failure doesn’t affect Pascal’s argument.
Click to expand...
you have wagered for something certain and infinite, for which you have given nothing
Click to expand...
Is in reference to the wager, not presenting the wager to non-believers. He doesn’t address others offering his wager to others.
 
tony

That is true but Pascal believed we too have nothing to lose and everything to gain by presenting his argument to non-believers! As Lear said, nothing shall come of nothing…

Or as Tex said to Rex:

“You can bring that mule to water, but you can’t make him drink.” 😃
 
Peepers said:
I had my choice of Harvard or Yale, and chose the latter. I only mention that to show that I don’t think I have low expectations of myself.
Click to expand...
And Obama chose the former, but he still completely full of fecal matter when it comes to reasoning intelligently about religion. Even profs at these fancy schools are often full of it, so I really don’t see the force of your statment here. In any case, your reference to “low expectations” is too vague - it simply doesn’t address my specific point.
There are others more capable than I, and others who are less capable. God will be revealed to me as He chooses. I do my part and leave the rest to Him. I would consider it hubris to think that I can comprehend the “mind” of God, if something even should be called that. I believe that my spiritual journey is a process, and I will realize what I am to know as I go along. I have lived long enough to know that goals are only an objective to strive for. I do my part, and God decides the rest which is beyond my control. I don’t try to be God. This brings me a good deal of peace and equanimity in my life.
Click to expand...
In general, that’s good, that’s nice, etc. I too, however, would consider it hubris to think that I can comprehend the ‘mind’ of God; but that is entirely beside the (original) point, since Augustine, Anselm, Pascal (et alia) would surely *also *agree, right?
 
jonfawkes said:
You implied he did, it is not the case.
\QUOTE]That is true but Pascal believed we too have nothing to lose and everything to gain by presenting his argument to non-believers! As Lear said, nothing shall come of nothing…
Click to expand...
You implied he did, it is not the case.
Pascal didn’t write the Pensees solely for himself or believers. Why should his wager be the exception?
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Betterave said:
And Obama chose the former, but he still completely full of fecal matter when it comes to reasoning intelligently about religion. Even profs at these fancy schools are often full of it, so I really don’t see the force of your statment here. In any case, your reference to “low expectations” is too vague - it simply doesn’t address my specific point.

In general, that’s good, that’s nice, etc. I too, however, would consider it hubris to think that I can comprehend the ‘mind’ of God; but that is entirely beside the (original) point, since Augustine, Anselm, Pascal (et alia) would surely *also *agree, right?
Click to expand...
I have forgotten by now what your specific point was, however I took it to be that you were suggesting that because I believe that the existence of God cannot be proved by logic alone, that I was prone to settle for mediocrity in my personal achievement, which is a non sequiter anyway. Rather than point out the fallacy of your own statement, I chose to refute the unfounded claim. Perhaps I misunderstood you. As for President Obama, I don’t see how your opinion of him is relevant to much in this discussion.
 
What’s relevant in this discussion is whether one can find an avenue by which the non-believer can, using his intelligence, wend his way toward God. That was Pascal’s reason for writing Pensees.

Pensees is really a notebook Pascal had put together that was going to be expanded into a full length book on the subject. He died before he could get the book together. But the wager argument is at the heart of the book.

The wager argument appeals not so much to the reasons of the head, as Aquinas and others had appealed, but to the reasons of the heart. Pascal could see that no matter what a non-believers says to refute the reasons of the head, it is more difficult to refute the reasons of the heart. God has planted the desire in us not only to to know Him, but more importantly, to love Him. And according to Pascal, the only way to know Him is to love Him. But how can you love Him without first giving Him the befit of the doubt that He exists in the first place. Wager on God, and you will not be disappointed. Wager against God and you will have everything to lose.

This is the fundamental question every non-believer has to confront at the last hour of his life. If he has refused until then to believe, there is nothing left for him to do but to concede that he may have been wrong all along.

And what if he is? :eek:
 
Charlemagne_II said:
What’s relevant in this discussion is whether one can find an avenue by which the non-believer can, using his intelligence, wend his way toward God. That was Pascal’s reason for writing Pensees.

Pensees is really a notebook Pascal had put together that was going to be expanded into a full length book on the subject. He died before he could get the book together. But the wager argument is at the heart of the book.

The wager argument appeals not so much to the reasons of the head, as Aquinas and others had appealed, but to the reasons of the heart. Pascal could see that no matter what a non-believers says to refute the reasons of the head, it is more difficult to refute the reasons of the heart. God has planted the desire in us not only to to know Him, but more importantly, to love Him. And according to Pascal, the only way to know Him is to love Him. But how can you love Him without first giving Him the befit of the doubt that He exists in the first place. Wager on God, and you will not be disappointed. Wager against God and you will have everything to lose.

This is the fundamental question every non-believer has to confront at the last hour of his life. If he has refused until then to believe, there is nothing left for him to do but to concede that he may have been wrong all along.

And what if he is? :eek:
Click to expand...
Yes, we use our intelligence, our senses, our emotions, our intuition, our experience, and probably other faculties which I fail to mention. Fortunately for all of us, intelligence alone is neither sufficient, nor is it required for faith.
 
Peepers said:
I have forgotten by now what your specific point was, however I took it to be that you were suggesting that because I believe that the existence of God cannot be proved by logic alone, that I was prone to settle for mediocrity in my personal achievement, which is a non sequiter anyway. Rather than point out the fallacy of your own statement, I chose to refute the unfounded claim. Perhaps I misunderstood you. As for President Obama, I don’t see how your opinion of him is relevant to much in this discussion.
Click to expand...
With due respect, you either indeed did forget my original point, or you never understood it, and since you are obviously prone to settling for mediocrity, certainly in the arguments you are offering here (you ‘forget’ what my point was, but accuse me of committing a non sequitur anyway?), I’ll leave it at that.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top