Pascal's Wager

[PRmerger]

PRmerger,

I’ve been very careful not to state certain things.

I don’t know if there is enough evidence for a Historical Christ, much less his Apostles. This is a subject that I’m reading about. I have not yet formed an opinion on this.

Fair enough.

I really hold even less of an opinion of the Apostles. I simply do not know enough. I can’t form one.

Ditto.

Except it does seem curious to me that you accept President Obama’s citizenship with a deep faith in something you have not seen.

I’m really not trying to be dishonest with you or difficult

I’m not sure why you would say this, Watcher. Is it because I am questioning your arguments? If so, that is the nature of this forum. Someone proposes, another refutes. There is nothing that constitutes “difficult” behavior in this, except if one is being uncharitable.

My answer is: Yes. Yes, this feels like the same genre to me. The language is obviously a little different. The speaker is different. It feels the same.

Then I will not judge, but I remain incredulous and a bit skeptical. It does seem that for one to see those 2 texts as belonging to the same genre one must have a certain degree of close-mindedness or obduracy.

But I will not belabor the point.

I am not Christian.

Clearly.

Please PM if you wish to talk about this further. (I don’t want to get in trouble with the atheism ban.)

I don’t wish to talk about atheism with you. I wish to pursue the subject at hand: how the Gospels couldn’t possibly be myths. And to believe that the Apostles recanted–and no one told the big guy who ordered all these persecutions–is possibly the most unsupported, unrealistic belief and leap of faith I’ve heard posited by atheists, *ever. *

 

[Rock_Happy]

Although there are thousands of religions and religious sects the vast majority concur that there is an afterlife in which we receive what we deserve…

True. But the argument stands. There is nothing to differentiate any of them as being the correct choice, by Pascal’s wager. He asks that you choose one among the thousands but with one chance in thousands of choosing the correct religion. He defeats his own logic.

 

[PRmerger]

True. But the argument stands. There is nothing to differentiate any of them as being the correct choice, by Pascal’s wager. He asks that you choose one among the thousands but with one chance in thousands of choosing the correct religion. He defeats his own logic.

PW is not used to support Christianity. It is not used to argue for the Divinity of Christ. It is not used to proffer that Christ is present, body, blood, soul and divinity in the Eucharist. It is not used to support the Trinity.

It is an argument of logic: it makes more sense to believe in a God than it doesn’t.

Nothing more and nothing less.

 

[Oreoracle]

It is an argument of logic: it makes more sense to believe in a God than it doesn’t.

Nothing more and nothing less.

Well “sense” has nothing to do with it. The Wager says that it’s more advantageous to believe in God, not that it’s more sensible.

The most glaring issue concerning the Wager (and there are many) is that you cannot genuinely believe in something based on a threat or on the possibility of being rewarded. At least, most people can’t most of the time. For example, suppose that someone were a mind-reader, and they had a gun to your head. They told you to believe that a unicorn was on top of your roof or they would shoot you. Could you force yourself to believe that? I didn’t think so. Now suppose the same mind-reader offered an additional incentive for you to believe: they would give you one billion dollars if you could believe in that unicorn. Could you bring yourself to do it then?

Also, people seem to be restricting the number of possible gods to the thousands, but since we know of no restrictions imposed on what a god can or cannot be, there are conceivably infinitely many possible gods. It is also possible that some of these gods would reward non-belief over belief.

 

[TheWatcher]

Except it does seem curious to me that you accept President Obama’s citizenship with a deep faith in something you have not seen.

I’m not sure why you would say this, Watcher. Is it because I am questioning your arguments? If so, that is the nature of this forum. Someone proposes, another refutes. There is nothing that constitutes “difficult” behavior in this, except if one is being uncharitable.

I don’t wish to talk about atheism with you. I wish to pursue the subject at hand: how the Gospels couldn’t possibly be myths. And to believe that the Apostles recanted–and no one told the big guy who ordered all these persecutions–is possibly the most unsupported, unrealistic belief and leap of faith I’ve heard posited by atheists, *ever. *

You wrote

There are 5 possible scenarios, as delineated by philospher Peter Kreeft:
Jesus died; Jesus rose>>>>Christianity
Jesus died; Jesus didn’t rise—apostles deceived>>>Hallucination
Jesus died; Jesus didn’t rise—apostles myth-makers>>>Myth
Jesus died; Jesus didn’t rise—apostles deceivers>>>Conspiracy
Jesus didn’t die>>>Swoon

Likewise, I said I saw three possible scenarios for the apostles.

1. They believed it, died professing it
2. They didn’t believe it, died lying
3. They either believed or didn’t, confessed to whatever (even if their confession was false), and then were put to death ANYWAY. Supporters started the myth that they did not confess.

I suppose there are other scenarios possible too-
4) Apostles didn’t die under torture/execution >> Myth
5) Apostles didn’t exist >> Myth

Peter Kreeft wasn’t trying to make a claim that Jesus didn’t die, just swooned. He also wasn’t trying to make the claim that the apostles were deliberately deceiving people. He was trying to cover all possible scenarios. I’m going to assume from what I know of him, but not having read his stuff personally, he will make the case for Jesus Rose>>> Christianity.

Unlike him, I’m unwilling to defend one position at the moment; I have no evidence of any of them being particularly true. I simply stated, like Kreeft stated, various possible scenarios. I’ve taken no leap of faith here.

One of the things I find interesting about this conversation is the idea of the rulers who had these men tortured.
Some questions:

1. Could you take the rulers at their word?
2. Why would they not have lied anyway and said the men confessed when they didn’t, if it gave them political gain?
3. Why would they not have the men executed even if the men had confessed?

The reason I assured you that I was not being difficult or dishonest was because I noticed you keep trying to get me to explain points that I did not make, like asking me to defend and give you proof of the confession>> myth scenario. You further comment that my belief is the “most unsupported, unrealistic belief and leap of faith…ever” when I’ve stated repeatedly that I do not hold this belief.

This is akin to me asking you to prove Jesus didn’t die >> swoon, then suggesting that this belief is the most outlandish belief that I’ve ever heard a Christian make. It might be, if you had made this claim.

Lastly, about the Obama citizenship thing…
whitehouse.gov/blog/2011/04/27/president-obamas-long-form-birth-certificate
Yes, I have seen a digital copy of his birth certificate.
I’ve listened to his assurances and those of his office.
I think it is likely that he is a citizen. The evidence that I’ve seen supports the hypothesis.
No, I am not 100% certain of this. This is not a leap of faith.

I do not wish to talk about the President. I brought him up to illustrate a point and discussion about him is no longer needed.

 

[PRmerger]

Well “sense” has nothing to do with it. The Wager says that it’s more advantageous to believe in God, not that it’s more sensible.

Sensible/advantageous–this is merely a question of semantics, no? They are essentially
the same concept.

The most glaring issue concerning the Wager (and there are many) is that you cannot genuinely believe in something based on a threat or on the possibility of being rewarded. At least, most people can’t most of the time. For example, suppose that someone were a mind-reader, and they had a gun to your head. They told you to believe that a unicorn was on top of your roof or they would shoot you. Could you force yourself to believe that? I didn’t think so. Now suppose the same mind-reader offered an additional incentive for you to believe: they would give you one billion dollars if you could believe in that unicorn. Could you bring yourself to do it then?

No, I could not.

But if someone were pointing a gun to my head and tossed a coin and said: make a wager: heads (God) or tails (no God), I certainly could make the best bet.

And you? You wouldn’t be able to make the wager with a gun to your head?

Also, people seem to be restricting the number of possible gods to the thousands, but since we know of no restrictions imposed on what a god can or cannot be, there are conceivably infinitely many possible gods. It is also possible that some of these gods would reward non-belief over belief.

'Tis true. PW is merely a refutation of atheism as a foolish wager, not an argument
for Christianity.

 

[PRmerger]

Unlike him, I’m unwilling to defend one position at the moment; I have no evidence of any of them being particularly true. I simply stated, like Kreeft stated, various possible scenarios. I’ve taken no leap of faith here.

I understand that you are merely presenting possible options.

Yet, when you have been presented with evidence which slices and dices these options, and still say, “Well, it’s possible that the Gospels are myths” then you are like the ostrich sticking his head in the ground. Or the little child sticking his fingers in his ears saying, “Lalalalala! I can’t hear you!”.

Isn’t logic and reason and evidence the* raison d’etre *of the atheist?

One of the things I find interesting about this conversation is the idea of the rulers who had these men tortured.
Some questions:

1. Could you take the rulers at their word?
2. Why would they not have lied anyway and said the men confessed when they didn’t, if it gave them political gain?
3. Why would they not have the men executed even if the men had confessed?

Exactly! And do you have any evidence to this? Where’s the documentation that these men confessed???

Evidence, please! T

Lastly, about the Obama citizenship thing…
whitehouse.gov/blog/2011/04/27/president-obamas-long-form-birth-certificate
Yes, I have seen a digital copy of his birth certificate.
I’ve listened to his assurances and those of his office.
I think it is likely that he is a citizen. The evidence that I’ve seen supports the hypothesis.
No, I am not 100% certain of this. This is not a leap of faith.

Oh, but it is, Watcher. You have a greater degree of faith in this online document than Christians have in the Gospels!

 

[TheWatcher]

Evidence, please! T

For what?
I asked you a question.

 

[PRmerger]

For what?
I asked you a question.

Evidence for your proposal as you posited here:

1. Could you take the rulers at their word?
2. Why would they not have lied anyway and said the men confessed when they didn’t, if it gave them political gain?
3. Why would they not have the men executed even if the men had confessed?

If you are entertaining the possibility that the Apostles confessed, “I made it all up! The Lord did not really rise from the dead!” and not a single soul spread this “good news”, please provide the evidence that this occurred.

It’s like saying: why couldn’t little green men from Mars have left Noah’s Ark on earth?

You can ask the question, but then you need to provide evidence for this supposition.

 

[TheWatcher]

You can ask the question, but then you need to provide evidence for this supposition.

Questions are not assertions. They’re… questions.

What evidence can you possible give for a question?

This thread has gotten very derailed and this isn’t going anywhere. Your asking for evidence for a question demonstrates to me that you’re not interested in actually discussing anything. I am electing to opt out of any future notices for this thread. Thank you for the interesting chat.

 

[PRmerger]

Questions are not assertions. They’re… questions.

What evidence can you possible give for a question?

This thread has gotten very derailed and this isn’t going anywhere. Your asking for evidence for a question demonstrates to me that you’re not interested in actually discussing anything. I am electing to opt out of any future notices for this thread. Thank you for the interesting chat.

What you say, when you pose a question, (at least in this context) is that you’re giving it the benefit of the doubt.

So like when a detective says, “What about the butler?” that means he’s considering the fact that the butler may have stolen the pearls.

So even if it’s a question, it’s a possibility he’s considering. And the correct response to the detective is, “What makes you consider that it may be the butler?”

If he responds, “I’m asking you the question!” then he’s, well, he’s rather inutile, isn’t he?

 

[PRmerger]

Your asking for evidence for a question demonstrates to me that you’re not interested in actually discussing anything. I am electing to opt out of any future notices for this thread. Thank you for the interesting chat.

You have been edging towards the door for quite a while in this discussion. You are, of course, welcome to stay, but it’s clear to me that you have run out of ammo and now you’re sidling for the exit.

As you wish.

 

[Oreoracle]

But if someone were pointing a gun to my head and tossed a coin and said: make a wager: heads (God) or tails (no God), I certainly could make the best bet.

You’re missing the crucial point here. Making a wager is not the same as forming a belief. I could wager that a coin flip will have a certain result, but since both results are equally likely, I couldn’t truly believe in one with any more certainty than the other if I had any intellectual integrity whatsoever.

And you? You wouldn’t be able to make the wager with a gun to your head?

I didn’t ask whether you could wager, I asked whether you could believe, and that’s what my hypothetical mind-reader wanted, too. The Christian god wants genuine belief, not gambling.

'Tis true. PW is merely a refutation of atheism as a foolish wager, not an argument
for Christianity.

This is nonsense. An omniscient god would know that someone’s wagering rather than believing.

 

[PRmerger]

You’re missing the crucial point here. Making a wager is not the same as forming a belief. I could wager that a coin flip will have a certain result, but since both results are equally likely, I couldn’t truly believe in one with any more certainty than the other if I had any intellectual integrity whatsoever.

Of course you could. If one provided you with* * and the other resulted in then the rational person would pick the flip the offers the .

It is simply an argument of logic.

One would be immensely stupid to pick

And, in the end, one MUST take the bet, no?

 

[PRmerger]

I didn’t ask whether you could wager, I asked whether you could believe, and that’s what my hypothetical mind-reader wanted, too.

Well, friend, since this is called Pascal’s Wager, then we’re talking about, er, well, a wager.

The Christian god wants genuine belief, not gambling.

How is it that you know what this Christian god wants? Can you show some sort of revelation that this god has made that you accept?

This is nonsense. An omniscient god would know that someone’s wagering rather than believing.

Okay.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

Oreoracle;8240553:

The Christian god wants genuine belief, not gambling.

How is it that you know what this Christian god wants? Can you show some sort of revelation that this god has made that you accept?

Throwing in my two cents from the sideline here. From what I understand there’s not not agreement on what Yahweh’s stance is on gambling (I got a chance to see disagreement on that vocalized from local church leaders when there was a state vote on whether gambling profits should be used to pay for college scholarships).

John 3:16 is often used to emphasize the importance of belief. It seems to be one of the most well known verses in the bible.

Not that any of these qualify as “revelation” but I thought they were relevant to the question.

 

[PRmerger]

Throwing in my two cents from the sideline here. From what I understand there’s not not agreement on what Yahweh’s stance is on gambling (I got a chance to see disagreement on that vocalized from local church leaders when there was a state vote on whether gambling profits should be used to pay for college scholarships).

Heh.

That’s why I’m a Catholic. I am a mean poker player.

And I like wine with my dinner, too.

 

[PRmerger]

John 3:16 is often used to emphasize the importance of belief. It seems to be one of the most well known verses in the bible.

Fair enough.

I take it, then, that you accept that the writer John is inspired and what he wrote was theopneustos?

You accept what the Bible professes about Yahweh?

 

[ThinkingSapien]

I take it, then, that you accept that the writer John is inspired and what he wrote was theopneustos?

You accept what the Bible professes about Yahweh?

I got some understanding for what is commonly believed, but those are not my beliefs. If you would like to speak on some point that has its foundation on John being inspired or about something the bible says on Yahweh go ahead. I won’t try to argue against those two foundations (though I may ask questions for the sake of getting clarification on a point that extends from those foundations).

 

[PRmerger]

I got some understanding for what is commonly believed, but those are not my beliefs. If you would like to speak on some point that has its foundation on John being inspired or about something the bible says on Yahweh go ahead. I won’t try to argue against those two foundations (though I may ask questions for the sake of getting clarification on a point that extends from those foundations).

Sure. Let’s discuss how you know that the Christian God is . Is it because you accept the Catholic Church’s authority to declare that the Gospel of John is inspired, but that, say, the Gospel of Philip is not?