Pascal's Wager Redux

  • Thread starter Thread starter Randy_Carson
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
BTW…you said in the referenced post that “Bradski the Christian is exactly the same person as Bradksi the atheist”. That implies that being a Christian doesn’t have meaningful impact on people’s lives, that it doesn’t act as a restraining force in some situations of sin and a compelling force to do good.

Are there people who attend services regularly, consider themselves Christians but who are unaffected by religion? Yes, of course. Does that then mean the majority are so unmoved? Of course not.
Yes, I did say ‘Braski the Christian’. My bad. I should have said ‘Bradski the believer’.

As I mentioned in the last post, Pascal didn’t say you needed to become a Christian, he said that you needed to believe. And as we know, those are not necessarily the same thing.

And as I said, if you say you are a better person because you believe in God, in what way would you be a worse person if you didn’t?
 
As I mentioned in the last post, Pascal didn’t say you needed to become a Christian, he said that you needed to believe. And as we know, those are not necessarily the same thing.
Actually Pascal did say you needed to be a Christian. You would know this if you had read all of Pensees.

*#556

The Christian religion then teaches men these two truths; that there is a God whom men can know, and that there is a corruption in their nature which renders them unworthy of Him. It is equally important to men to know both these points; and it is equally dangerous for man to know God without knowing his own wretchedness, and to know his own wretchedness without knowing the Redeemer who can free him from it. The knowledge of only one of these points gives rise either to the pride of philosophers, who have known God, and not their own wretchedness, or to the despair of atheists, who know their own wretchedness, but not the Redeemer.*
 
Actually Pascal did say you needed to be a Christian. You would know this if you had read all of Pensees.

*#556

The Christian religion then teaches men these two truths; that there is a God whom men can know, and that there is a corruption in their nature which renders them unworthy of Him. It is equally important to men to know both these points; and it is equally dangerous for man to know God without knowing his own wretchedness, and to know his own wretchedness without knowing the Redeemer who can free him from it. The knowledge of only one of these points gives rise either to the pride of philosophers, who have known God, and not their own wretchedness, or to the despair of atheists, who know their own wretchedness, but not the Redeemer.*
You got me there, Charles.
 
And masturbation? From memory, there is one line in the bible regarding that. And quite a few about stoning people to death.
Did you forget that you are on a Catholic forum, in dialogue with knowledgeable Catholics, and not on a fundamentalist forum?

We do not glean our doctrines from a tortured reading of the Bible.

Rather, our doctrines come from Christ, through His Body, the Catholic Church.

We don’t need to read “one line in the Bible” to determine whether action [A] is right or wrong.
 
Did you forget that you are on a Catholic forum, in dialogue with -]knowledgeable/-] Catholics, and not on a fundamentalist forum?

We do not glean our doctrines from a tortured reading of the Bible.
Since the church never bothered to issue a verse-by-verse analysis of the Bible by pointing out which are to be taken literally, and which ones are allegorical, you are not in the position to refer to the church. 😉
 
Since the church never bothered to issue a verse-by-verse analysis of the Bible by pointing out which are to be taken literally, and which ones are allegorical, you are not in the position to refer to the church. 😉
This is a nonsequitur, Vera.

Surely you know that the Church does not get her teachings from the Bible, but rather the Bible affirms and confirms that which the Church has already taught.

And, again, if you were on a fundamentalist forum with Bible Alone folks, perhaps you could talk about how masturbation only has 1 reference to it, or that stoning is mentioned more.

But please remember to whom your dialogue is directed: knowledgeable Catholics.
 
Surely you know that the Church does not get her teachings from the Bible, but rather the Bible affirms and confirms that which the Church has already taught.
Since the NT was written by the Catholics, that is hardly surprising. If it would have been God’s own words, it would certainly not contain elementary mistakes, like saying that the value of “π” is “3”.
But please remember to whom your dialogue is directed: -]knowledgeable/-] Catholics.
If only I could meet some… what a wonderful day it would be.
 
Since the NT was written by the Catholics, that is hardly surprising.
Yep.
If it would have been God’s own words, it would certainly not contain elementary mistakes, like saying that the value of “π” is “3”.
What would “God’s own words” look like to you? And how would you know that these are “God’s own words”?
If only I could meet some… what a wonderful day it would be.
See my dwarves reference again. 🙂

Flowers are being given.
The dwarves see manure.

What’s a girl to do?
 
**[A]**Since the church never bothered to issue a verse-by-verse analysis of the Bible by pointing out which are to be taken literally, and which ones are allegorical, ********you are not in the position to refer to the church. 😉
How is it logically possible to get from [A] to ?
 
I will cease to exist.

I didn’t exist for quite a while previously and I must say that it has never bothered me at all.
True, but now you exist and have a meaningful life, with a wife and children. So your life means nothing to you?
 
What would “God’s own words” look like to you? And how would you know that these are “God’s own words”?
They certainly would not contain elementary errors. It is somewhat like the paternity tests. You cannot ascertain that person “A” is the father of a child, but you can be absolutely certain that person “B” is NOT and CANNOT be the father of a child. I am not interested in finding God’s own words, it is more than sufficient for me to PROVE that certain words did NOT come from God. 🙂
See my dwarves reference again. 🙂
Sorry, fairy tales are not arguments.
 
RE God’s own words – He “wrote” 2 Bibles:
  1. the one which we know as OT & NT (which were God-inspired, not directly written by God; and
  2. His creation, directly written by Him…but it takes “exegesis” or science to come to some understanding of it. It’s not really possible for finite beings as ourselves to understand The Infinite, omnipotent, omniscient, & omnipresent. But we can get some glimpses.
I used to teach, mythology, which is NOT about falsehoods, but ultimate truth.

In ancient times there was not this distinction between religion, science, ethics, philosophy – all were one. So the Bible is also an ancient science book, as well as a religious book.

The ancients in all societies were trying to figure out the origins of the world, people, and society (with laws, culture, etc). They didn’t do a bad job, considering their state of knowledge, & based it on good observations creating theories to fit – like the sun rising in the east & setting in the west. What flies across the sky like that? Birds. The sun must be a fire bird, acc to the Chinese, who understood its importance to life – too much & they’re doomed, too little & they’re doomed. And there must be water above the vault of heaven, which leaks now & then, a good explanation of how it rains now & then.

The actual origins, according to today’s best science would have been incomprehensible to them.

I’m imagining the ancients who wrote (or passed on) the Judeo-Christian Genesis. God telling them, “I made this big bang from nothing, then a tiny bit smaller than a quark, which expanded to this huge & spreading universe…then later on a small, insignificant planet orbiting a minor star, I was in the process that made some DNA molecules replicate & create other molecules RNA…and then the primates started walking fully upright & after some time I was in the process that led to their larger brain & greater intelligence…”

And the ancients responding, " Say what, Lord??!!!" To the other ancient, I think He said,
1In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.
3And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. 4God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness. 5God called the light “day,” and the darkness he called “night.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day.
6
And God said, “Let there be a vault between the waters to separate water from water.” …
26*Then God said, “Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness,…
And the other ancient, said, "I think you’re right. that’s how it must have been, but didn’t He also say about mankind, "Rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky and over every living creature that moves on the ground.”

“Yeah, that’s right.”​

What can we glean about God from today’s science?

Well, He starts it all (before the big bang, creation& evolution of life, evolution of humans) in some tiny, insignificant & humble way. There is NO WAY we humans would have been able to come up with that – we could only do so by scientific exegesis of this 2nd “Bible.”

And the God comes to us (since we’re constantly messing up) as a zygote & tiny baby (ontogeny recapitulating phylogeny) born in a rude & humble way to a peasant mother, who is herself after God’s own nature – humble, tho she knows about the social injustices & expects them to be overturned, as evidence by her Magnificat.
 
True, but now you exist and have a meaningful life, with a wife and children. So your life means nothing to you?
How is it possible to contradict yourself in two consecutive sentences? On the assumption that the second sentence was a statement as opposed to a literal question.

Yes, I have a meaningful life, THEREFORE my life has meaning.

Those two statements are true whether God exists or not. I assume that what I just wrote is true for you.

If your belief that God exists gives more meaning to your life than not believeing so, then that is a benefit to you. Whether what you believe is true or not.
 
True, but now you exist and have a meaningful life, with a wife and children. So your life means nothing to you?
One of the worst features of atheism is its dogmatic conviction that death separates us from our loved ones not just for a few years but for all eternity. Agnosticism is more reasonable in its open-minded approach to problems that cannot be solved by science - and that is the whole point of Pascal’s wager: we have nothing to lose and everything to gain…
 
…Yes, I have a meaningful life, THEREFORE my life has meaning.
A non sequitur, Brad. A subjective belief doesn’t entail an objective fact. We can impose meaning on an activity which has no positive results apart from giving us temporary satisfaction. One poor man in a mental hospital spent all his time making calculations and no one knew why nor could he explain what he was doing…

We can invent reasons for living but if death destroys everything we are deceiving ourselves that love, goodness and justice will prevail. Camus was more logical:

[
Dans l’univers du révolté, la mort exalte l’injustice. Elle est le suprême abus.
](Qui a dit : Dans l'univers du révolté, la mort exalte l'injustice. Elle est le suprême ...)
Death is “the supreme abuse” (for the atheist).
 
RE God’s own words – He “wrote” 2 Bibles:
  1. the one which we know as OT & NT (which were God-inspired, not directly written by God; and
  2. His creation, directly written by Him…but it takes “exegesis” or science to come to some understanding of it. It’s not really possible for finite beings as ourselves to understand The Infinite, omnipotent, omniscient, & omnipresent. But we can get some glimpses.
I used to teach, mythology, which is NOT about falsehoods, but ultimate truth.

In ancient times there was not this distinction between religion, science, ethics, philosophy – all were one. So the Bible is also an ancient science book, as well as a religious book.

The ancients in all societies were trying to figure out the origins of the world, people, and society (with laws, culture, etc). They didn’t do a bad job, considering their state of knowledge, & based it on good observations creating theories to fit – like the sun rising in the east & setting in the west. What flies across the sky like that? Birds. The sun must be a fire bird, acc to the Chinese, who understood its importance to life – too much & they’re doomed, too little & they’re doomed. And there must be water above the vault of heaven, which leaks now & then, a good explanation of how it rains now & then.

The actual origins, according to today’s best science would have been incomprehensible to them.

I’m imagining the ancients who wrote (or passed on) the Judeo-Christian Genesis. God telling them, “I made this big bang from nothing, then a tiny bit smaller than a quark, which expanded to this huge & spreading universe…then later on a small, insignificant planet orbiting a minor star, I was in the process that made some DNA molecules replicate & create other molecules RNA…and then the primates started walking fully upright & after some time I was in the process that led to their larger brain & greater intelligence…”

And the ancients responding, " Say what, Lord??!!!" To the other ancient, I think He said,

And the other ancient, said, "I think you’re right. that’s how it must have been, but didn’t He also say about mankind, "Rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky and over every living creature that moves on the ground.”

“Yeah, that’s right.”​

What can we glean about God from today’s science?

Well, He starts it all (before the big bang, creation& evolution of life, evolution of humans) in some tiny, insignificant & humble way. There is NO WAY we humans would have been able to come up with that – we could only do so by scientific exegesis of this 2nd “Bible.”

And the God comes to us (since we’re constantly messing up) as a zygote & tiny baby (ontogeny recapitulating phylogeny) born in a rude & humble way to a peasant mother, who is herself after God’s own nature – humble, tho she knows about the social injustices & expects them to be overturned, as evidence by her Magnificat.
👍 A fascinating approach!
 
How is it possible to contradict yourself in two consecutive sentences? On the assumption that the second sentence was a statement as opposed to a literal question.

Yes, I have a meaningful life, THEREFORE my life has meaning.

Those two statements are true whether God exists or not. I assume that what I just wrote is true for you.

If your belief that God exists gives more meaning to your life than not believeing so, then that is a benefit to you. Whether what you believe is true or not.
I meant to say that your life has meaning and your loved ones have meaning, and they are more than just people who live a few decades and then cease to have meaning forever. I guess that’s what you believe though.
 
What else would it look like?
Irrelevant. Even one error disqualifies it to be of divine origin.
And what errors are you referencing?
That the value of “π” (see: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pi) is incorrectly stated to be as “3”. Read it here: biblehub.com/1_kings/7-23.htm
He made the Sea of cast metal, circular in shape, measuring ten cubits from rim to rim and five cubits high. It took a line of thirty cubits to measure around it.
Of course this is not taken “literally”, so it is just another legend, isn’t it?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top