PASCAL'S WAGER

[Tantum_ergo]

You DON’T read posts very thoroughly, I see.

A. Working on Sunday, from the Catholic Catechism:
2187 . … <Traditional activities (sport, restaurants, etc.), and social necessities (public services, etc.), require some people to work on Sundays, but everyone should still take care to set aside sufficient time for leisure. >

B. I was careful to note that worshipping Thor was not a sin, but only if you happen to be a Thor worshipper. Ditto with worshipping Buddha if you’re a Buddhist, Krishna if you’re a Hindu, etc.

You listed four “sins” that “hurt nobody”. Your first “sin” was not a sin, as I showed. Your second sin was likewise not a sin unless you happened to be a Christian (which you did not specifically state). And if you are a Christian and worship Thor, you are hurting yourself, your family and friends, and above all God Himself. Hardly “nobody”.

I note you agree with me that having sex with your lawful married partner is not sinful. Having sex with any “other partner” hurts all involved. If adulterous, it hurts the partners of those sinning and their families too. In fornication, it hurts the people performing it by being an offense against the intrinsic worth of the individuals, bringing sex into a purely “animalistic” form of exchanging of body fluids and simple physical satisfaction, with no long term commitment or sacramental or sacred aspects, sinning against God. And of course, homosexual sex is intrinsically disordered and has physical and spiritual bad effects.

Finally, your “black metal” was also addressed and you apparently found the judgment of “evil being an occasion of sin and taking joy in evil being sinful” adequate. Evil and sin hurt the sinner and God, as well as those with whom the sinner interacts,

So we have absolutely nothing from you which is a sin which happens to be fun and hurts nobody.

 

[Carl]

AnAtheist

Very good question! Not answered by the wager that is.

By CARDINAL JOHN J. O’CONNOR

*“The Christian God does not consist merely of a God who is the author of mechanical truths…but the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, the God of Jacob. The God of the Christians is a God of love and consolation; he is a God who makes them inwardly aware of their wretchedness and his infinite mercy; who fills it with humility, joy, confidence and love; who makes them incapable of having any other end but him.”

That was part of Blaise Pascal’s response to the philosophers and scholars and scientists of his day who believed that their purely naturalistic studies could lead them to discover a God of natural religion in place of the God of Christianity. Pascal himself, of course, was one of the most brilliant scientists of all in “his day,” the 17th century, but on the night of Nov. 23, 1654, in reading of the crucifixion of Christ, he had a vision of the crucifixion which changed his life and put his genius at the service of Christianity, while continuing his scientific pursuits. He called that night, the “night of Fire.”*

 

[AnAtheist]

Tantum ergo:

I note you agree with me that having sex with your lawful married partner is not sinful. Having sex with any “other partner” hurts all involved. If adulterous, it hurts the partners of those sinning and their families too. In fornication, it hurts the people performing it by being an offense against the intrinsic worth of the individuals, bringing sex into a purely “animalistic” form of exchanging of body fluids and simple physical satisfaction, with no long term commitment or sacramental or sacred aspects, sinning against God. And of course, homosexual sex is intrinsically disordered and has physical and spiritual bad effects.

All the sinfull sexual practices you list, may hurt someone. OTOH they may not. Just one example of homosexual sex, that does not hurt anyone, makes the general assertion that all sins hurt someone, wrong.
Tantum ergo:

Finally, your “black metal” was also addressed and you apparently found the judgment of “evil being an occasion of sin and taking joy in evil being sinful” adequate. Evil and sin hurt the sinner and God, as well as those with whom the sinner interacts,
.

I hear Black Metal for years, and it didn’t hurt me all.
btw, when I am doing something that hurts me and nobody else, that is my business and nobody’s else.

 

[Mijoy2]

AnAtheist:

btw, when I am doing something that hurts me and nobody else, that is my business and nobody’s else.

who are you trying to convince?

 

[Tantum_ergo]

You even agreed with me that all sins, by definition, hurt someone. Even if that is just one someone, you–and it never is, BTW, it always involves God too.

And there is absolutely no example of any sexual sin by anyone, homosexual or heterosexual, that hurts no one.

Give it up, hon.

I will happily discuss Pascal’s wager, but this sideline I have already dealt with.

If you want justification for your sins on the basis that “it hurts nobody but me, and that’s MY business”, start another thread, please.

 

[AnAtheist]

Mijoy2:

One example (of many), two people have sex outside of marriage. Then one decides the relationship is over because someone more appealing to them has come along. The other is lfet broken-hearted and deeply hurt. It takes some thinking but sex and marriage are not to be seperated without “hurting others” sooner or later.

That may or may not apply. Many couples have left each other without hurting each other.

Worshipping Thor, hmmmm, who is Thor? Doesn’t take much smarts to realize worshipping Thor is foolish. Not sure about sinful, I suppose it would depend on ones mental capacity.

Really? Worshipping Thor is foolish, but worshipping Jesus is not? :banghead:

Black Metal? Does Black Metal make noise?

If you pump up the volume too much, yes. Same applies to gospel choirs.

 

[Carl]

TANTUM ERGO

Yes, we know why it is that people like to change the subject.

 

[AnAtheist]

Tantum ergo:

You even agreed with me that all sins, by definition, hurt someone. Even if that is just one someone, you–and it never is, BTW, it always involves God too.

No I haven’t I just repeated the way you seem to argue. Argueing with the “true scotsman fallacy” that is.

All scotsmen like haggis.
Angus McDoughal doesn’t.
Well, then Angus is no true scotsman.

All sins hurt someone.
There are some that don’t.
Well, then they are no sins.

:banghead:

 

[Carl]

AnAtheist

Yes, you really are trying to change the topic of this thread. Please stop it. Relate what you have to say to Pascal.

 

[larryo]

Pascal’s Wager is too flimsy a foundation on which to build a viable faith in God. It may have sufficed to grab the attention of 17th century French cynics but, ultimately, it is a weak argument. God is not an insurance salesman. As St. Thomas Aquinas reasoned and as St. Paul pointed out, the concept of God can readily be apprehended by human reason. These philosophical arguments have since been bolstered by the continuing discoveries of modern science. As astronomers peer further and further into the cosmos and as microbiologists and molecular physicists go deeper into the unseen world, it’s becoming more and more apparent that there must be an Intelligent Designer behind creation. The odds are simply too astronomical that mere chance has resulted in the universe that we can observe. It’s logical to conclude that the Intelligent Designer, whom we call God, must exist. If God then exists, reason and common sense dictates that homage and recognition–namely, religion–should be paid to Him. Since man is a rational animal, body and soul, it should be reason that prevails, not the baser instincts and emotions. That’s why Catholicism must be the true religion. It is the most rational and logical of all belief systems.

 

[Carl]

larryo

*If God then exists, reason and common sense dictates that homage and recognition–namely, religion–should be paid to Him. Since man is a rational animal, body and soul, it should be reason that prevails, not the baser instincts and emotions. *

In principle I agree with you. This would be the attitude of the rational person. But Pascal is addressing the baser instincts and emotions of the person who cannot or will not reason thusly. You must know atheists who find a way to block every rational explanation you can possibly offer them for the existence of God. None of the arguments you offer are really compelling from a purely logical point of view for an atheist. So Pascal is throwing out a safety net to catch those atheists who insist on incontrovertible evidence that God exists. Pascal is appealing to their hearts rather than to their heads. I think there is nothing wrong with making this appeal. Christ wants our hearts more than our heads. He rebuked the apostle Thomas for wanting to believe with his head rather than with his heart.

If Pascal can strike a sensitive chord in the atheist’s heart, maybe the wheels in his head will start to turn.

Then again, maybe not.

 

[Carl]

Ultimately the wager argument really kicks in on a deathbed. Few Christians are converted to atheism on their deathbed, but many atheists are converted to Christ.

This is self interest roaring into action. But, we are told, that is what the Last Rites are for.

 

[AnAtheist]

I agree with you that PW is non applicable for various reasons.
I agree with you that the ID argument is the best one, theology has provided so far.

But the necessity of an ID does not automatically lead to christianity, not to speak of catholicism. It may lead to any creator-god.
Many scientists buying it assume a god image like Spinoza proposed (e.g. Einstein), which is much more likely than the christian god.

 

[Carl]

Many scientists buying it assume a god image like Spinoza proposed (e.g. Einstein), which is much more likely than the christian god.

More likely to Einstein, Spinoza and you. Not more likely to Pascal, Newton and me.

Newton, for example, applied his mathematical genius to the Scriptural prophecies and perceived God, as did Pascal, to be a personal Being. This is a more human way to look at God. The other kind of God is impersonal. Why would such an impersonal God bother to make creatures who thrive on personal relationships? Indeed, why would an impersonal God bother to make persons?

You are right to say that Pascal’s argument might apply to any God, but then you would be excluding the rest of his book, Pensees, which keys in on the Crucified Christ as the only God worth choosing.

 

[AnAtheist]

Carl:

More likely to Einstein, Spinoza and you. Not more likely to Pascal, Newton and me.

:yup:
This is my personal likelihood order:
personal god < personal gods << impersonal god << no gods at all
If you want to know, why I regard multiple gods (a fraction) more likely than a single one, that would at least solve the theodicy problem.

Why would such an impersonal God bother to make creatures who thrive on personal relationships? Indeed, why would an impersonal God bother to make persons?

Yes, why?

You are right to say that Pascal’s argument might apply to any God, but then you would be excluding the rest of his book, Pensees, which keys in on the Crucified Christ as the only God worth choosing.

I have to admit I exclude the rest of his book, as I haven’t read it. Perhaps I will do that some time. But right now - out of my head - there are other gods worth choosing, if we had such a choice. I’d prefer the Catharians’ god or Wiccan gods or Odin to the Abrahamic god any time, if they all existed.

 

[Carl]

I’d prefer the Catharians’ god or Wiccan gods or Odin to the Abrahamic god any time, if they all existed.

Why does each of these gods seem preferable to Pascal’s God … the Crucified One?

 

[AnAtheist]

I’d prefer the Catharians’ god or Wiccan gods or Odin to the Abrahamic god any time, if they all existed.

Why does each of these gods seem preferable to Pascal’s God … the Crucified One?

Catharians’ god: Cannot be blamed for the existence of earthly evil, as he did not create the world. The demiurg (the evil counterpart god) did.

Wiccan god/goddess: They demand, what’s my philosophy anyway. “Do what you like, unless you don’t harm others.” If everybody would adhere to that, the world would be a better place.

Odin: He judges you by your deeds only. Devotion, worship, and faith is not really necessary. Granted, we could debate the nature of those deeds now, but that’s not the point, if Odin was the supreme ruler of the universe.

 

[Carl]

AnAtheist

Catharians’ god: Cannot be blamed for the existence of earthly evil, as he did not create the world. The demiurg (the evil counterpart god) did.

Pascal’s God created the universe and saw that it was good.

Wiccan god/goddess: They demand, what’s my philosophy anyway. “Do what you like, unless you don’t harm others.” If everybody would adhere to that, the world would be a better place.

Pascal’s God created us free but told us not to harm others.

Odin: He judges you by your deeds only. Devotion, worship, and faith is not really necessary. Granted, we could debate the nature of those deeds now, but that’s not the point, if Odin was the supreme ruler of the universe.

Pascal’s God also judges us by our deeds, but why should deeds be dissociated from worship and faith that God will judge with justice and mercy?

So with Pascal’s God you get *Three in One * … literally!

 

[BLB_Oregon]

Carl:

I have yet to hear a successful refutation of Pascal’s argument, though many have been offered. Even the great agnostic logician Bertrand Russell, so far as I have been able to determine, leaves the argument alone. One would have thought he would try his hand at it if he thought it was refutable.

Any comments?

Ah, yes, the fire insurance argument.

The refutation of Pascal’s argument is that you do not lose nothing by believing in God if God does not exist, because God asks for everything. “Faith” that gambles nothing is meaningless.

Of course, only the fool does not realize that he is in fact nothing without God. Maybe that is why the agnostics won’t take this up.

 

[Carl]

“Faith” that gambles nothing is meaningless.

So true. It is by faith that we learn good works and everything else the Lord demands.