Total Posts:32|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page

# Pascal's Wager

 Posts: 254 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 5/5/2016 6:46:06 PMPosted: 11 months agoI am going to try and explain Pascal's Wager in order to provide a basis for a less nuanced discussion of it.1) Pascal claims we have limitted knowledge and we are not capable of understanding God, therefore it is impossible for humans to use rationality to prove or disprove God. According to Pascal the only option we have is to make a wager.2) Further assumptions:-(X): We can choose what we believe in.-(Y): A belief in God is the only thing required to get into heaven.-(Z): The only two options we have is either belief in God or Atheism.3) The wager goes as follows:As mentioned, we have two options: We can choose to believe or disbelieve in God.There are two possible truths concerning God: Either God exists, or he does not exist.There are 4 possible outcomes:(i) We believe in God and God does exist -> we go to heaven.(ii) We believe in God and he does not exist -> nothing happens after our death.(iii) We don't believe in God and God does exist -> we go to hell.(iv) We don't believe in God and God does not exist -> nothing happens after our death.According to Pascal we are faced with a choice of two "lotteries", let's call them A and B.A (believe) = {50% chance outcome (i), or 50% chance outcome (ii)}B (don't believe) = {50% chance outcome (iii), or 50% chance outcome (iv)}Put in words:If we choose to believe then either we go to heaven or nothing happens.If we choose to not believe then either we go to hell or nothing happens.Given these choices, it is clear that believing in God brings about the better outcome for us, therefore we should believe in God.This is Pascal's wager.
 Posts: 3,337 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 5/5/2016 6:55:12 PMPosted: 11 months agoAll well and good, but2) Further assumptions:-(X): We can choose what we believe in.Is not true, so it's all rather pointless.
 Posts: 822 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 5/5/2016 7:05:28 PMPosted: 11 months agoAt 5/5/2016 6:46:06 PM, A1tre wrote:There are 4 possible outcomes:(i) We believe in God and God does exist -> we go to heaven.(ii) We believe in God and he does not exist -> nothing happens after our death.(iii) We don't believe in God and God does exist -> we go to hell.(iv) We don't believe in God and God does not exist -> nothing happens after our death.Those "outcomes" are actually additional assumptions. That's where it fails!(i) We believe in God and God does exist -> we go to hell.(ii) We believe in God and he does not exist -> nothing happens after our death.(iii) We don't believe in God and God does exist -> we go to heaven.(iv) We don't believe in God and God does not exist -> nothing happens after our death.This is just as likely.Science in a nutshell: "Facts are neither true nor false. They simply are." "All scientific knowledge is provisional. Even facts are provisional." "We can be absolutely certain that we have a moon, we can be absolutely certain that water is made out of H2O, and we can be absolutely certain that the Earth is a sphere!" "Scientific knowledge is a body of statements of varying degrees of certainty -- some most unsure, some nearly sure, none absolutely certain."
 Posts: 2,385 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 5/5/2016 7:17:22 PMPosted: 11 months agoMaybe god died.
 Posts: 2,742 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 5/5/2016 7:20:52 PMPosted: 11 months agoAt 5/5/2016 7:05:28 PM, user13579 wrote:At 5/5/2016 6:46:06 PM, A1tre wrote:There are 4 possible outcomes:(i) We believe in God and God does exist -> we go to heaven.(ii) We believe in God and he does not exist -> nothing happens after our death.(iii) We don't believe in God and God does exist -> we go to hell.(iv) We don't believe in God and God does not exist -> nothing happens after our death.Those "outcomes" are actually additional assumptions. That's where it fails!(i) We believe in God and God does exist -> we go to hell.(ii) We believe in God and he does not exist -> nothing happens after our death.(iii) We don't believe in God and God does exist -> we go to heaven.(iv) We don't believe in God and God does not exist -> nothing happens after our death.This is just as likely.I believe that these outcomes just have the weight/strength of assumption because they're derived from assumption (Y), but they're not independent assumptions, in of and themselves (except perhaps for "go to hell" in place of the proper negation,"don't go to heaven").At 5/5/2016 6:46:06 PM, A1tre wrote:2) Further assumptions:-(Y): A belief in God is the only thing required to get into heaven.
 Posts: 1,257 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 5/5/2016 7:31:04 PMPosted: 11 months agolol What if you are a sinner? Then believing in God means going to hell. either way there are only 2 possible outcomes.
 Posts: 254 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 5/5/2016 7:34:43 PMPosted: 11 months agoAt 5/5/2016 7:20:52 PM, Chaosism wrote:I believe that these outcomes just have the weight/strength of assumption because they're derived from assumption (Y), but they're not independent assumptions, in of and themselves (except perhaps for "go to hell" in place of the proper negation,"don't go to heaven").Good point, I should have specified the following claim "given God's existence, the only alternative to heaven is hell" as a further assumption
 Posts: 254 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 5/5/2016 7:38:26 PMPosted: 11 months agoAt 5/5/2016 6:55:12 PM, keithprosser wrote:All well and good, but2) Further assumptions:-(X): We can choose what we believe in.Is not true, so it's all rather pointless.I guess that would be the easiest way to prove Pascal wrong.
 Posts: 254 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 5/5/2016 7:42:37 PMPosted: 11 months agoAt 5/5/2016 7:31:04 PM, Furyan5 wrote:lol What if you are a sinner? Then believing in God means going to hell. either way there are only 2 possible outcomes.I think most theologians would answer this by saying we are all sinners, but only those who accept jesus as their savior will eventually be saved.
 Posts: 2,742 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 5/5/2016 7:45:23 PMPosted: 11 months agoAt 5/5/2016 7:34:43 PM, A1tre wrote:At 5/5/2016 7:20:52 PM, Chaosism wrote:I believe that these outcomes just have the weight/strength of assumption because they're derived from assumption (Y), but they're not independent assumptions, in of and themselves (except perhaps for "go to hell" in place of the proper negation,"don't go to heaven").Good point, I should have specified the following claim "given God's existence, the only alternative to heaven is hell" as a further assumptionThe idea of Hell is another issue, here. I believe that there are concepts of hell that are portrayed not as a place for eternal torment, but eternal death. Meaning, permo-death or non-existence. If the latter is the case, I think that would be more preferable to any eternal existence, myself. In my opinion, it's the finite nature of life that makes it valuable.
 Posts: 822 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 5/5/2016 7:48:06 PMPosted: 11 months agoAt 5/5/2016 7:20:52 PM, Chaosism wrote:At 5/5/2016 7:05:28 PM, user13579 wrote:At 5/5/2016 6:46:06 PM, A1tre wrote:There are 4 possible outcomes:(i) We believe in God and God does exist -> we go to heaven.(ii) We believe in God and he does not exist -> nothing happens after our death.(iii) We don't believe in God and God does exist -> we go to hell.(iv) We don't believe in God and God does not exist -> nothing happens after our death.Those "outcomes" are actually additional assumptions. That's where it fails!(i) We believe in God and God does exist -> we go to hell.(ii) We believe in God and he does not exist -> nothing happens after our death.(iii) We don't believe in God and God does exist -> we go to heaven.(iv) We don't believe in God and God does not exist -> nothing happens after our death.This is just as likely.I believe that these outcomes just have the weight/strength of assumption because they're derived from assumption (Y), but they're not independent assumptions, in of and themselves (except perhaps for "go to hell" in place of the proper negation,"don't go to heaven").At 5/5/2016 6:46:06 PM, A1tre wrote:2) Further assumptions:-(Y): A belief in God is the only thing required to get into heaven.Ok. So change "belief" to "nonbelief"Science in a nutshell: "Facts are neither true nor false. They simply are." "All scientific knowledge is provisional. Even facts are provisional." "We can be absolutely certain that we have a moon, we can be absolutely certain that water is made out of H2O, and we can be absolutely certain that the Earth is a sphere!" "Scientific knowledge is a body of statements of varying degrees of certainty -- some most unsure, some nearly sure, none absolutely certain."
 Posts: 822 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 5/5/2016 7:48:44 PMPosted: 11 months agoAnd also make it a necessary condition to get into heaven, not just sufficient.Science in a nutshell: "Facts are neither true nor false. They simply are." "All scientific knowledge is provisional. Even facts are provisional." "We can be absolutely certain that we have a moon, we can be absolutely certain that water is made out of H2O, and we can be absolutely certain that the Earth is a sphere!" "Scientific knowledge is a body of statements of varying degrees of certainty -- some most unsure, some nearly sure, none absolutely certain."
 Posts: 254 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 5/5/2016 7:52:26 PMPosted: 11 months agoAt 5/5/2016 7:45:23 PM, Chaosism wrote:At 5/5/2016 7:34:43 PM, A1tre wrote:At 5/5/2016 7:20:52 PM, Chaosism wrote:I believe that these outcomes just have the weight/strength of assumption because they're derived from assumption (Y), but they're not independent assumptions, in of and themselves (except perhaps for "go to hell" in place of the proper negation,"don't go to heaven").Good point, I should have specified the following claim "given God's existence, the only alternative to heaven is hell" as a further assumptionThe idea of Hell is another issue, here. I believe that there are concepts of hell that are portrayed not as a place for eternal torment, but eternal death. Meaning, permo-death or non-existence. If the latter is the case, I think that would be more preferable to any eternal existence, myself. In my opinion, it's the finite nature of life that makes it valuable.In that case Hell would be the desirable option over Heaven. You would have reversed the wager leading to the conclusion that one should best not believe in God.
 Posts: 910 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 5/16/2016 1:47:27 AMPosted: 11 months agoAt 5/5/2016 6:46:06 PM, A1tre wrote:I am going to try and explain Pascal's Wager in order to provide a basis for a less nuanced discussion of it.1) Pascal claims we have limitted knowledge and we are not capable of understanding God, therefore it is impossible for humans to use rationality to prove or disprove God. According to Pascal the only option we have is to make a wager.2) Further assumptions:-(X): We can choose what we believe in.-(Y): A belief in God is the only thing required to get into heaven.-(Z): The only two options we have is either belief in God or Atheism.3) The wager goes as follows:As mentioned, we have two options: We can choose to believe or disbelieve in God.There are two possible truths concerning God: Either God exists, or he does not exist.There are 4 possible outcomes:(i) We believe in God and God does exist -> we go to heaven.(ii) We believe in God and he does not exist -> nothing happens after our death.(iii) We don't believe in God and God does exist -> we go to hell.(iv) We don't believe in God and God does not exist -> nothing happens after our death.According to Pascal we are faced with a choice of two "lotteries", let's call them A and B.A (believe) = {50% chance outcome (i), or 50% chance outcome (ii)}B (don't believe) = {50% chance outcome (iii), or 50% chance outcome (iv)}Put in words:If we choose to believe then either we go to heaven or nothing happens.If we choose to not believe then either we go to hell or nothing happens.Given these choices, it is clear that believing in God brings about the better outcome for us, therefore we should believe in God.This is Pascal's wager.Suppose you believe in God but you pick the wrong one? And the real God keeps getting madder and madder each time you ignore him and pray to your fake God? I'd rather not pray at allKen
 Posts: 2,175 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 5/16/2016 11:04:10 AMPosted: 11 months agoAt 5/5/2016 7:42:37 PM, A1tre wrote:At 5/5/2016 7:31:04 PM, Furyan5 wrote:lol What if you are a sinner? Then believing in God means going to hell. either way there are only 2 possible outcomes.I think most theologians would answer this by saying we are all sinners, but only those who accept jesus as their savior will eventually be saved.If a theologian says what you think they would then they are not theologians. They are self proclaimed believers. The Bible is as clear as it can be without even an argument against it. "Only Jesus is the true judge of the reins of the heart", nobody knows who is or isn't going to hell no one knows what will ultimately weigh the decision, unless they are Jesus. I promise you if someone identifies as a theologian, they are not Christ. And if anyone says they know what the Bible says about going to heaven or hell, they're liars, unless they're Christ. Btw. You might get a lot of "what about this verse b.s." Pretty simple, if they are Jesus, then they know, if not they don't.
 Posts: 2,175 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 5/16/2016 11:22:54 AMPosted: 11 months agoAt 5/5/2016 6:46:06 PM, A1tre wrote:I am going to try and explain Pascal's Wager in order to provide a basis for a less nuanced discussion of it.1) Pascal claims we have limitted knowledge and we are not capable of understanding God, therefore it is impossible for humans to use rationality to prove or disprove God. According to Pascal the only option we have is to make a wager.2) Further assumptions:-(X): We can choose what we believe in.-(Y): A belief in God is the only thing required to get into heaven.-(Z): The only two options we have is either belief in God or Atheism.3) The wager goes as follows:As mentioned, we have two options: We can choose to believe or disbelieve in God.There are two possible truths concerning God: Either God exists, or he does not exist.There are 4 possible outcomes:(i) We believe in God and God does exist -> we go to heaven.(ii) We believe in God and he does not exist -> nothing happens after our death.(iii) We don't believe in God and God does exist -> we go to hell.(iv) We don't believe in God and God does not exist -> nothing happens after our death.According to Pascal we are faced with a choice of two "lotteries", let's call them A and B.A (believe) = {50% chance outcome (i), or 50% chance outcome (ii)}B (don't believe) = {50% chance outcome (iii), or 50% chance outcome (iv)}Put in words:If we choose to believe then either we go to heaven or nothing happens.If we choose to not believe then either we go to hell or nothing happens.Nothing happens isn't an outcome. An outcome would entail knowledge of an experience. No one could experience "nothing happens". It's nice to make Pascal wager into something a little more involved than it is, you're over thinking in my opinion. Either believe in God and lose nothing or don't believe in God and lose your soul. Nothing happens isn't an actual outcome. Its a "nothing" experienced by nothing so it can't be determined as nothing. You know I should have followed my instincts and respond with nothing.....its late.Given these choices, it is clear that believing in God brings about the better outcome for us, therefore we should believe in God.This is Pascal's wager.This is not Pascal's wager, at least not as far as logic is concerned. Its more Pascals imaginary straw man of what the wager is wager....lol
 Posts: 1,293 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 5/16/2016 11:44:14 AMPosted: 11 months agoAt 5/5/2016 6:55:12 PM, keithprosser wrote:All well and good, but2) Further assumptions:-(X): We can choose what we believe in.Is not true, so it's all rather pointless.*facepalms*Why idiot.Jesus loves you. //////////// -Funny Links- http://tinyurl.com... http://tinyurl.com... Stupid atheist remarks #: 6
 Posts: 1,293 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 5/16/2016 11:46:21 AMPosted: 11 months agoAt 5/5/2016 7:05:28 PM, user13579 wrote:At 5/5/2016 6:46:06 PM, A1tre wrote:There are 4 possible outcomes:(i) We believe in God and God does exist -> we go to heaven.(ii) We believe in God and he does not exist -> nothing happens after our death.(iii) We don't believe in God and God does exist -> we go to hell.(iv) We don't believe in God and God does not exist -> nothing happens after our death.Those "outcomes" are actually additional assumptions. That's where it fails!(i) We believe in God and God does exist -> we go to hell.Christianity has a far greater chance of being true.It is because the christian god is an absolute, no trait is finite.(ii) We believe in God and he does not exist -> nothing happens after our death.(iii) We don't believe in God and God does exist -> we go to heaven.(iv) We don't believe in God and God does not exist -> nothing happens after our death.This is just as likely.Jesus loves you. //////////// -Funny Links- http://tinyurl.com... http://tinyurl.com... Stupid atheist remarks #: 6
 Posts: 1,293 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 5/16/2016 11:47:13 AMPosted: 11 months agoAt 5/5/2016 7:17:22 PM, Deb-8-A-Bull wrote:Maybe god died.^^^ I am going to tally stupid things atheists say.Jesus loves you. //////////// -Funny Links- http://tinyurl.com... http://tinyurl.com... Stupid atheist remarks #: 6
 Posts: 1,293 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 5/16/2016 11:48:35 AMPosted: 11 months agoAt 5/5/2016 7:31:04 PM, Furyan5 wrote:lol What if you are a sinner? Then believing in God means going to hell. either way there are only 2 possible outcomes.The only way to be saved by christianity is calling Jesus lord and asking for forgiveness.||Jesus loves you. //////////// -Funny Links- http://tinyurl.com... http://tinyurl.com... Stupid atheist remarks #: 6
 Posts: 1,293 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 5/16/2016 11:50:47 AMPosted: 11 months agoAt 5/5/2016 7:48:44 PM, user13579 wrote:And also make it a necessary condition to get into heaven, not just sufficient.Yeah.Jesus loves you. //////////// -Funny Links- http://tinyurl.com... http://tinyurl.com... Stupid atheist remarks #: 6
 Posts: 1,293 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 5/16/2016 11:52:15 AMPosted: 11 months agoAt 5/16/2016 1:47:27 AM, ken1122 wrote:At 5/5/2016 6:46:06 PM, A1tre wrote:I am going to try and explain Pascal's Wager in order to provide a basis for a less nuanced discussion of it.1) Pascal claims we have limitted knowledge and we are not capable of understanding God, therefore it is impossible for humans to use rationality to prove or disprove God. According to Pascal the only option we have is to make a wager.2) Further assumptions:-(X): We can choose what we believe in.-(Y): A belief in God is the only thing required to get into heaven.-(Z): The only two options we have is either belief in God or Atheism.3) The wager goes as follows:As mentioned, we have two options: We can choose to believe or disbelieve in God.There are two possible truths concerning God: Either God exists, or he does not exist.There are 4 possible outcomes:(i) We believe in God and God does exist -> we go to heaven.(ii) We believe in God and he does not exist -> nothing happens after our death.(iii) We don't believe in God and God does exist -> we go to hell.(iv) We don't believe in God and God does not exist -> nothing happens after our death.According to Pascal we are faced with a choice of two "lotteries", let's call them A and B.A (believe) = {50% chance outcome (i), or 50% chance outcome (ii)}B (don't believe) = {50% chance outcome (iii), or 50% chance outcome (iv)}Put in words:If we choose to believe then either we go to heaven or nothing happens.If we choose to not believe then either we go to hell or nothing happens.Given these choices, it is clear that believing in God brings about the better outcome for us, therefore we should believe in God.This is Pascal's wager.Suppose you believe in God but you pick the wrong one? And the real God keeps getting madder and madder each time you ignore him and pray to your fake God? I'd rather not pray at allKenThen that god should set you strait or make itself known.If that one were to exist don't you think he would turn you towards it?Jesus loves you. //////////// -Funny Links- http://tinyurl.com... http://tinyurl.com... Stupid atheist remarks #: 6
 Posts: 254 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 5/16/2016 9:21:54 PMPosted: 11 months agoAt 5/16/2016 11:22:54 AM, skipsaweirdo wrote:At 5/5/2016 6:46:06 PM, A1tre wrote:I am going to try and explain Pascal's Wager in order to provide a basis for a less nuanced discussion of it.1) Pascal claims we have limitted knowledge and we are not capable of understanding God, therefore it is impossible for humans to use rationality to prove or disprove God. According to Pascal the only option we have is to make a wager.2) Further assumptions:-(X): We can choose what we believe in.-(Y): A belief in God is the only thing required to get into heaven.-(Z): The only two options we have is either belief in God or Atheism.3) The wager goes as follows:As mentioned, we have two options: We can choose to believe or disbelieve in God.There are two possible truths concerning God: Either God exists, or he does not exist.There are 4 possible outcomes:(i) We believe in God and God does exist -> we go to heaven.(ii) We believe in God and he does not exist -> nothing happens after our death.(iii) We don't believe in God and God does exist -> we go to hell.(iv) We don't believe in God and God does not exist -> nothing happens after our death.According to Pascal we are faced with a choice of two "lotteries", let's call them A and B.A (believe) = {50% chance outcome (i), or 50% chance outcome (ii)}B (don't believe) = {50% chance outcome (iii), or 50% chance outcome (iv)}Put in words:If we choose to believe then either we go to heaven or nothing happens.If we choose to not believe then either we go to hell or nothing happens.Nothing happens isn't an outcome. An outcome would entail knowledge of an experience. No one could experience "nothing happens". It's nice to make Pascal wager into something a little more involved than it is, you're over thinking in my opinion. Either believe in God and lose nothing or don't believe in God and lose your soul. Nothing happens isn't an actual outcome. Its a "nothing" experienced by nothing so it can't be determined as nothing. You know I should have followed my instincts and respond with nothing.....its late.Who says anyone has to experience "nothing hapens". That's the point, there is noone to experience and nothing to be experienced in that case."Either believe in God and lose nothing or don't believe in God and lose your soul." You missed the entire point of this wager. It does not assume God's existence to be true, It assumes that we are not capable of reaching the truth through rationality and hence we have to consider all the possible outcomes and choose the best strategy.Given these choices, it is clear that believing in God brings about the better outcome for us, therefore we should believe in God.This is Pascal's wager.This is not Pascal's wager, at least not as far as logic is concerned. Its more Pascals imaginary straw man of what the wager is wager....lol"Either believe in God and lose nothing or don't believe in God and lose your soul."Is this what you think Pascal's wager is? Because if so I highly disagree.
 Posts: 477 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 5/17/2016 4:01:47 AMPosted: 11 months agoAt 5/5/2016 6:46:06 PM, A1tre wrote:I am going to try and explain Pascal's Wager in order to provide a basis for a less nuanced discussion of it.1) Pascal claims we have limitted knowledge and we are not capable of understanding God, therefore it is impossible for humans to use rationality to prove or disprove God. According to Pascal the only option we have is to make a wager.2) Further assumptions:-(Y): A belief in God is the only thing required to get into heaven.It's the clash between this assumption and Pascal's initial claim that makes the wager complete nonsense. Without this assumption, the wager has no outcomes tied to correct belief or incorrect disbelief. So the question on my mind is, "If we are incapable of understanding God, how can one even begin to justify this assumption?"To say one has free will, to have chosen other than they did, is to say they have will over their will... Will over the will they have over their will... Will over the will they have over the will they have over their will, etc... It's utter nonsense.
 Posts: 2,175 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 5/18/2016 2:19:08 AMPosted: 11 months agoAt 5/16/2016 9:21:54 PM, A1tre wrote:At 5/16/2016 11:22:54 AM, skipsaweirdo wrote:At 5/5/2016 6:46:06 PM, A1tre wrote:I am going to try and explain Pascal's Wager in order to provide a basis for a less nuanced discussion of it.1) Pascal claims we have limitted knowledge and we are not capable of understanding God, therefore it is impossible for humans to use rationality to prove or disprove God. According to Pascal the only option we have is to make a wager.2) Further assumptions:-(X): We can choose what we believe in.-(Y): A belief in God is the only thing required to get into heaven.-(Z): The only two options we have is either belief in God or Atheism.3) The wager goes as follows:As mentioned, we have two options: We can choose to believe or disbelieve in God.There are two possible truths concerning God: Either God exists, or he does not exist.There are 4 possible outcomes:(i) We believe in God and God does exist -> we go to heaven.(ii) We believe in God and he does not exist -> nothing happens after our death.(iii) We don't believe in God and God does exist -> we go to hell.(iv) We don't believe in God and God does not exist -> nothing happens after our death.According to Pascal we are faced with a choice of two "lotteries", let's call them A and B.A (believe) = {50% chance outcome (i), or 50% chance outcome (ii)}B (don't believe) = {50% chance outcome (iii), or 50% chance outcome (iv)}Put in words:If we choose to believe then either we go to heaven or nothing happens.If we choose to not believe then either we go to hell or nothing happens.Nothing happens isn't an outcome. An outcome would entail knowledge of an experience. No one could experience "nothing happens". It's nice to make Pascal wager into something a little more involved than it is, you're over thinking in my opinion. Either believe in God and lose nothing or don't believe in God and lose your soul. Nothing happens isn't an actual outcome. Its a "nothing" experienced by nothing so it can't be determined as nothing. You know I should have followed my instincts and respond with nothing.....its late.Who says anyone has to experience "nothing hapens". That's the point, there is noone to experience and nothing to be experienced in that case."Either believe in God and lose nothing or don't believe in God and lose your soul." You missed the entire point of this wager. It does not assume God's existence to be true, It assumes that we are not capable of reaching the truth through rationality and hence we have to consider all the possible outcomes and choose the best strategy.Given these choices, it is clear that believing in God brings about the better outcome for us, therefore we should believe in God.This is Pascal's wager.This is not Pascal's wager, at least not as far as logic is concerned. Its more Pascals imaginary straw man of what the wager is wager....lol"Either believe in God and lose nothing or don't believe in God and lose your soul."Is this what you think Pascal's wager is? Because if so I highly disagree.I am making that argument solely on the basis of there only being two "knowable" results, not 4 outcomes. If "nothing happens" is what you want to qualify as a known outcome then your case is sound. But to me "nothing happens" isn't a "knowable" experience. That's my point. One cannot conclude an outcome of not knowing there wasn't an outcome, that's all I'm saying. You look at it from being alive than dead. I look at it from being alive only and not knowing there is death. When you die all knowledge ceases to exists in your nothing happens scenario. To me it is illogical to consider a "non thing" as being a thing, hence no outcome in my thinking cannot be an outcome. The living doesn't know what the dead say, unless we talk to Theresa Caputo or John Edward or the blonde dude in Hollywood who is a young medium that looks like the Home Alone kid. Lol
 Posts: 254 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 5/18/2016 6:37:10 AMPosted: 11 months agoAt 5/17/2016 4:01:47 AM, mrsatan wrote:At 5/5/2016 6:46:06 PM, A1tre wrote:I am going to try and explain Pascal's Wager in order to provide a basis for a less nuanced discussion of it.1) Pascal claims we have limitted knowledge and we are not capable of understanding God, therefore it is impossible for humans to use rationality to prove or disprove God. According to Pascal the only option we have is to make a wager.2) Further assumptions:-(Y): A belief in God is the only thing required to get into heaven.It's the clash between this assumption and Pascal's initial claim that makes the wager complete nonsense. Without this assumption, the wager has no outcomes tied to correct belief or incorrect disbelief. So the question on my mind is, "If we are incapable of understanding God, how can one even begin to justify this assumption?"Well I guess assumption Y comes from the Bible. Maybe understanding what the Bible says does not conflict with the assumption that we can't understand God.I've heard someone say that when we read the Bible we are guided by the Holy Spirit to find the truth.
 Posts: 254 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 5/18/2016 6:50:54 AMPosted: 11 months agoAt 5/18/2016 2:19:08 AM, skipsaweirdo wrote:I am making that argument solely on the basis of there only being two "knowable" results, not 4 outcomes. If "nothing happens" is what you want to qualify as a known outcome then your case is sound. But to me "nothing happens" isn't a "knowable" experience. That's my point. One cannot conclude an outcome of not knowing there wasn't an outcome, that's all I'm saying. You look at it from being alive than dead. I look at it from being alive only and not knowing there is death. When you die all knowledge ceases to exists in your nothing happens scenario. To me it is illogical to consider a "non thing" as being a thing, hence no outcome in my thinking cannot be an outcome. The living doesn't know what the dead say, unless we talk to Theresa Caputo or John Edward or the blonde dude in Hollywood who is a young medium that looks like the Home Alone kid. LolCorrect me if I am wrong, but this is how I understand the point you are making:An outcome must be a knowable experience. If there is no afterlife there would be no conservation of knowledge. Death can not be experienced. Hence the permanent state of death is not a possible outcome and there must be an afterlife.Why does an outcome have to be a knowable experience? Is it not possible for things to happen to you without you knowing of them? To what extent does an outcome have to be knowable?
 Posts: 2,175 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 5/18/2016 10:11:21 AMPosted: 11 months agoAt 5/18/2016 6:50:54 AM, A1tre wrote:At 5/18/2016 2:19:08 AM, skipsaweirdo wrote:I am making that argument solely on the basis of there only being two "knowable" results, not 4 outcomes. If "nothing happens" is what you want to qualify as a known outcome then your case is sound. But to me "nothing happens" isn't a "knowable" experience. That's my point. One cannot conclude an outcome of not knowing there wasn't an outcome, that's all I'm saying. You look at it from being alive than dead. I look at it from being alive only and not knowing there is death. When you die all knowledge ceases to exists in your nothing happens scenario. To me it is illogical to consider a "non thing" as being a thing, hence no outcome in my thinking cannot be an outcome. The living doesn't know what the dead say, unless we talk to Theresa Caputo or John Edward or the blonde dude in Hollywood who is a young medium that looks like the Home Alone kid. LolCorrect me if I am wrong, but this is how I understand the point you are making:An outcome must be a knowable experience. If there is no afterlife there would be no conservation of knowledge. Death can not be experienced. Hence the permanent state of death is not a possible outcome and there must be an afterlife.Why does an outcome have to be a knowable experience? Is it not possible for things to happen to you without you knowing of them? To what extent does an outcome have to be knowable?Let me try it this way, how did you determine that there not being a God would result in nothing happening? You did so from the premise that a God existing results in outcomes so a God not existing results in nothing happening outcomes, which isn't necessarily logical to assert. Something may happen even though there isn't a God. Pascal merely came from the point believing there is a God results in no possible loss and not believing in God results in a possible loss. That's what I get from Pascal. But it may seem more logical that no God means nothing happens, but I just don't see the logic in assuming that no God means nothing happens as being a part of Pascals argument.
 Posts: 477 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 5/18/2016 10:55:01 AMPosted: 11 months agoAt 5/18/2016 6:37:10 AM, A1tre wrote:At 5/17/2016 4:01:47 AM, mrsatan wrote:At 5/5/2016 6:46:06 PM, A1tre wrote:I am going to try and explain Pascal's Wager in order to provide a basis for a less nuanced discussion of it.1) Pascal claims we have limitted knowledge and we are not capable of understanding God, therefore it is impossible for humans to use rationality to prove or disprove God. According to Pascal the only option we have is to make a wager.2) Further assumptions:-(Y): A belief in God is the only thing required to get into heaven.It's the clash between this assumption and Pascal's initial claim that makes the wager complete nonsense. Without this assumption, the wager has no outcomes tied to correct belief or incorrect disbelief. So the question on my mind is, "If we are incapable of understanding God, how can one even begin to justify this assumption?"Well I guess assumption Y comes from the Bible. Maybe understanding what the Bible says does not conflict with the assumption that we can't understand God.I've heard someone say that when we read the Bible we are guided by the Holy Spirit to find the truth.If that's the case, then the wager is a follow-up to convincing someone the bible is true, which makes it pointless anyways. Belief in God comes along with accepting the bible as true, whereas the wager is meant to target those who don't believe in God.To say one has free will, to have chosen other than they did, is to say they have will over their will... Will over the will they have over their will... Will over the will they have over the will they have over their will, etc... It's utter nonsense.
 Posts: 254 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 5/18/2016 11:45:24 AMPosted: 11 months agoAt 5/18/2016 10:55:01 AM, mrsatan wrote:At 5/18/2016 6:37:10 AM, A1tre wrote:At 5/17/2016 4:01:47 AM, mrsatan wrote:At 5/5/2016 6:46:06 PM, A1tre wrote:I am going to try and explain Pascal's Wager in order to provide a basis for a less nuanced discussion of it.1) Pascal claims we have limitted knowledge and we are not capable of understanding God, therefore it is impossible for humans to use rationality to prove or disprove God. According to Pascal the only option we have is to make a wager.2) Further assumptions:-(Y): A belief in God is the only thing required to get into heaven.It's the clash between this assumption and Pascal's initial claim that makes the wager complete nonsense. Without this assumption, the wager has no outcomes tied to correct belief or incorrect disbelief. So the question on my mind is, "If we are incapable of understanding God, how can one even begin to justify this assumption?"Well I guess assumption Y comes from the Bible. Maybe understanding what the Bible says does not conflict with the assumption that we can't understand God.I've heard someone say that when we read the Bible we are guided by the Holy Spirit to find the truth.If that's the case, then the wager is a follow-up to convincing someone the bible is true, which makes it pointless anyways. Belief in God comes along with accepting the bible as true, whereas the wager is meant to target those who don't believe in God.fair point