The Fruit of Pascals Wager

  • Thread starter Thread starter catholicray
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
STT said:
You need to be truly lover. A true lover doesn’t gamble on God/Love. That is the only message of Jesus.
Click to expand...
It’s not about gambling on God your emotions are blinding you. It’s about not taking chances with hellfire.
😂🤣😂🤣😂🤣😂🤣😂🤣😂🤣
 
Coin tosses are calculable in the long run (in other words sufficient coin tosses will always approach 50/50 if it’s a fair coin). I have no means of calculating the probability that God exists. Not only that, but the underlying premise that you can discount all the other kinds of deities simply because the reward and punishment assumptions may not work seems hopelessly biased. To even play the game you have to accept what to me at least seem biased and unwarranted rules. Pascal’s Wager simply doesn’t seem to me to be a legitimate reason to believe in the Judeo-Christian god
 
catholicray said:
It’s not about gambling on God your emotions are blinding you. It’s about not taking chances with hellfire.
😂🤣😂🤣😂🤣😂🤣😂🤣😂🤣
Click to expand...
That is contrary. Then why Jesus said that “God is Love”. No-one intentionally choose pain over joy.
 
I’m not trying to be mean. I may not know you but I do care. However at this point I believe we have started talking past each other.
 
All I’m saying is that Pascal’s Wager is an example of a fallacious appeal to consequences. It’s certainly not a probability equation.
 
niceatheist said:
All I’m saying is that Pascal’s Wager is an example of a fallacious appeal to consequences. It’s certainly not a probability equation.
Click to expand...
Pascal was saying that:
(Your odds < absolute) + (losing = eternal torture) and you gamble = what is wrong with you?? 😂

That is a true and simple statement.

As to the quarters:
probability does not dictate results. While it is true that the odds, that all quarters would land heads in a million coin flips, are incredibly slim even borderline impossible mathematically it is still possible.

Granted most people would take their chances with the coin flips but logic dictates that this is always a poor decision.
 
The odds are incalculable, not to mention that the Judeao-Christian god isn’t the only one that promises some sort of afterlife.
 
catholicray said:
Oh really? Let’s put it in different terms. You are given a coin flip. Heads you suffer for eternity, never mind God for a second. Tails can be whatever you want it to be. Should you gamble? Pascals Wager says no.

Let’s try again your given a million to flip. If they all land on heads all of them you suffer for all of eternity. If just one lands on tails you get whatever you want. Should you gamble? Pascals Wager says you should not.

Why? Because as long as there is a chance that your gamble will earn you infinite suffering no matter how small the chance then the gamble is irrational. It’s that simple.
Click to expand...
“Suffering for eternity” is a human-contrived concept that has no basis of reality. In many ways, it is such a fanatical, outlandish idea, it is almost an insult to people who think. Just because some ancient psychopath envisioned the idea, and it took on a life of its own as a crowd-controlling, mind-numbing propaganda tool, doesn’t mean reasonable minds should give it any merit.
 
laylow said:
“Suffering for eternity” is a human-contrived concept that has no basis of reality. In many ways, it is such a fanatical, outlandish idea, it is almost an insult to people who think. Just because some ancient psychopath envisioned the idea, and it took on a life of its own as a crowd-controlling, mind-numbing propaganda tool, doesn’t mean reasonable minds should give it any merit.
Click to expand...
Pascals about to take you to school.
The logic accounts for the possibility you have put forth. And you have merely put forth your own two cents on the matter. You do not know nor have you proven nor will you prove your statement.

Regardless (and follow along carefully here) of how slim the probability that hell actually exists:

If (hell does not exist < absolute) = possible
Remember Pascals Wager Examines all (necessary) possibilities.
 
niceatheist said:
The odds are incalculable, not to mention that the Judeao-Christian god isn’t the only one that promises some sort of afterlife.
Click to expand...
Wrong and I’ve already been over this in a previous response please review the thread.
 
No, you’ve danced over the problem, handwaving the whole way. In fact, the Wager produces no probability at all. I can’t calculate a hypothesis or P score on it. It really says “there some chance, unknown as it may be, that God exists, and if He does, believing him gives you some chance of salvation.”
 
Philosophically, the concept of God can work to some degree, as in it is defined as the “IAM”, the alpha and the omega, the infinite “being”, supernatural force that cannot be fathomed by inferior life-forms it created. OK, fair enough, the theory itself is somewhat sound, although incomprehensible for the human mind. Therefore, theory is all the further you can go.

The issue with humans, and therefore religions, is the attempt to define or comprehend the supernatural (by definition is beyond human comprehension) and give it attributes of the natural world. “God is love.” Love is a human emotion, a subjective one at that. Assigning human-perceived attributes to a supernatural concept is oxymoronic. Therefore, if a supernatual “GOD” exists, it is beyond human comprehension, so stating any knowledge about how to “please it” (if it even desires pleasing) does not work.
 
catholicray said:
Remember Pascals Wager Examines all (necessary) possibilities.
Click to expand...
No, maybe “God” prefers that you hate humans and kill them to avoid “hell” Pascal’s only basis for knowing is following preachings of a religion he is familiar with. In order to “choose” God, you need to know the basis on what it means to be “chosen.” If you are going by what the ancient “Christians” say, well, your evidence is just a “he says, she says” scenario.
 
Last edited:
laylow said:
No, maybe “God” prefers that you hate humans and kill them to avoid “hell” Pascal’s only basis for knowing is following preachings of a religion he is familiar with. In order to “choose” God, you need to know the basis on what it means to be “chosen.” If you are going by what the ancient “Christians” say, well, your evidence is just a “he says, she says” scenario.
Click to expand...
Pascal Wager takes into account all necessary possibilities. Your above scenario while it is possible is mute in Pascals Wager for the same reason that Pascal didn’t include the possibility that God flys around in a ufo just above the atmosphere of some super earth 15 billion light years from us.
 
niceatheist said:
No, you’ve danced over the problem, handwaving the whole way. In fact, the Wager produces no probability at all. I can’t calculate a hypothesis or P score on it. It really says “there some chance, unknown as it may be, that God exists, and if He does, believing him gives you some chance of salvation.”
Click to expand...
It could be the same odds as you jumping off a cliff, yelling “Ivan Drago!”
 
catholicray said:
Pascal Wager takes into account all necessary possibilities. Your above scenario while it is possible is mute in Pascals Wager for the same reason that Pascal didn’t include the possibility that God flys around in a ufo just above the atmosphere of some super earth 15 billion light years from us.
Click to expand...
And that reason would be?
 
Calliope said:
I find it humorous that logic is attempting to be used to get people to follow a god that behaves illogically.

Blah blah blah, god is above human understanding, doesn’t have to appear logical by our standards, etc etc. Yet, I’m supposed to assume some logic on his part or the wager is meaningless. Because if god doesn’t behave in a manner that follows human logic, why should I believe he would in the case the wager presents? Maybe he’ll illogically save or condemn everyone or no one.
Click to expand...
Just take a look at the world around you. The Problem of Evil clearly shows that an Omnipotent, Omnipresent, and Omniscient being, as God is mostly often described either does not exist, or does not fit into human logic. Unless of course it is accepted that a father allow his children to do as they please to the point of hurting themselves, only to neglect their pain and ultimately punish them for not know better.

Don’t kid yourself, religions attempt to do the very thing that you find humorous, every day, “get people to follow a god that behaves illogically.”
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top