Pascal's Wager Simplified

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
I contend that it is logical.
As slim as the chances of a lottery are, there is a logic to purchasing one.

How do you think the Wager is logical? Do you think it logical that Man can fool God?

And I don't play the lottery, either.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
I contend that it is logical.
As slim as the chances of a lottery are, there is a logic to purchasing one.

Yet you do not practice what you preach. You do not buy tickets in every lottery you can get your hands on. This demonstrates that you don't actually believe your own words.

Originally posted by Suzianne

How is it that you don't get this??????

How is it that I also don't get that this thread, indeed, this entire forum is about you and what you do not believe?? Because that must be why you mention this every other post you make.

I'll say it again, in case you missed it the first couple of thousand times.

I am probably the one theist in th ...[text shortened]... ER.

So please understand if I politely tell you to shove your atheistic bull%#$& up your *%%.

YOU are the one refusing to bend even one millimeter towards accepting
my THEIST viewpoint as just as valid as your atheistic one

Because it's Reveal Hidden Content wrong. The viewpoints are not equally valid.

You're complaining that I am not doing the equivalent of accepting that there
is a reasonable middle ground in the debate over whether-or-not the Earth is
a flat disk or an irregular oblate spheroid... Or if 2+2=4.

Also, and again, you mistake not respecting your beliefs with not respecting you,
or your right to hold them.
[EDIT: do you respect the belief that the world is 6000 [ish] years old?
do you respect the belief that a women's place is to stay at home raising the kids and
to devote her entire life to making her master [husband] happy in whatever way he wants?
Do you respect the belief that a 'Muslim' woman who converts to Christianity and marries
a Christian man should be stoned to death?
Why the hell should anyone respect such beliefs???]

And finally, my problem is not that you don't accept 'the atheist' position.

It's that you keep demonstrating that you do not in fact understand it.

And it's no good telling me you understand my position when you keep saying stuff
about my position that's not correct.

It's not about you respecting my position, it's that you don't seem to be able to understand it.

That I don't understand. I'm quite clear on why you don't respect me or my position.
I don't get why it is you can't seem to understand what my position is.

Originally posted by Suzianne
How do you think the Wager is logical? Do you think it logical that Man can fool God?

And I don't play the lottery, either.

It's a logical argument for believing in god.

It's a bad and invalid logical argument, but it's a logical argument none the less.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
I don't think it's a false dichotomy in this sense:
• the theist says God exists
• the atheist rejects the existence of God

Some of the "beliefs" out there have literally nothing to do with that question.
The rest of the beliefs are variations of one of those two.

Pascal's Wager does not say which of the various beliefs about God is the correct o ...[text shortened]... ssible winnings.
You might not win with the purchase, but you definitely won't win without one.

Pascal's wager implies a particular God: one who offers eternal reward for believers and eternal suffering for non-believers. The Christian god (depending on who you ask!) also only rewards those who believe in that specific God. Therefore, all the other Gods that might exist must also require their individual entries in the table depending on the attributes of what kind of beliefs/actions they reward and what they reward them with.

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
Pascal's Wager Simplified

Options: 1) Accept God's Grace Gift of eternal life with an uncoerced decision to believe [place your confidence] in Christ for your salvation; 2) Reject the Person and Work of Christ as flimsy fiction. Risk/Reward Question: What if you're wrong?

1) "Either God exists, or he does not exist," argued Pascal, "and since neither proposition can be proved, we must wager. If we wager that God exists and we are right, we win everything. If we wager that God exists and we are wrong, we lose nothing." "You would be impudent," Pascal said, "to wager that God does not exist." So Pascal infers that if you wager that God does not exist, and you are wrong, you will suffer eternally." Pascal http://www.pleacher.com/mp/mfacts/wager.html

2) “There are two kinds of people: those who say to God, 'Thy will be done,' and those to whom God says, 'All right, then, have it your way'" -C.S. Lewis. "Religion is the fashionable substitute for belief." -Oscar Wilde. 'There's a hole in the heart of man in the shape of God. If I believe in the Risen Christ and it's just an artful falsehood, there is nothing to lose. If true, then I have everything to gain.' -Pascal (1623-1662)

3) Originally posted by Grampy Bobby (OP) Pascal's Wager Simplified
Options: 1) Accept God's Grace Gift of eternal life with an uncoerced decision to believe [place your confidence] in Christ for your salvation; 2) Reject the Person and Work of Christ as flimsy fiction. Risk/Reward Question: What if you're wrong?
_____________________________________________________________________________________

Note: 1) Provides a secular site's summary of Pascal's Wager; 2) Provides two verbatim quotations along with the italicized paraphrase of Pascal's Wager which have been gathering dust in my Red Hot Pawn Profile since 2007. 3) This thread's OP.
_____________________________________________________________________________________

With respect to "1)" Positive Response or Negative Reaction at God Consciousness rather than at Gospel Hearing appears to be in view. Yes, I obviously concur with Suzi and Freaky with reference to their qualifying comments. Whether Blasé Pascal ever believed in Christ for his eternal salvation is unclear to me. I am aware of the centuries of hotly contested academic debate and informal argument his wagering proposition has provoked; as well as a few of the principal rebuttals (one, the 'Limited Matrix/Other Gods', was employed here). "2)" Simply combines several quotes and a paraphrase about Christ. "3)" This thread's brief two sentence original post should, perhaps, have been titled: "Pascal's Wager Clarified" or "Revisited."
_____________________________________________________________________________________

Personal Comment: There are many contributors to this forum I pray for by nickname or first name frequently. The content of these prayers to God the Father remains unchanged: that each of these friends and acquaintances will receive accurate gospel information, give the issue of their eternal address serious thought and reconsider their stated rejection of Christ.

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
I am aware of the centuries of hotly contested academic debate and informal argument his wagering proposition has provoked; as well as a few of the principal rebuttals

Except you don't seem to have understood the rebuttals. If you did, you would realise that they are perfectly sound rebuttals and you would not have tried to use the wager as an argument because you would know it is unsound. (or you are just dishonest, but lets give you the benefit of the doubt, although given that you avoided certain questions about it, it might be the best explanation ) .

The content of these prayers to God the Father remains unchanged: that each of these friends and acquaintances will receive accurate gospel information, give the issue of their eternal address serious thought and reconsider their stated rejection of Christ.
Have you considered the possibility that maybe you would be more persuasive if you learned how to communicate without coming across as a pompous &*$% and it couldn't hurt to try listening as well as preaching. For example, I am fairly sure that not one single poster on this site has ever stated their rejection of Christ, which suggests that you haven't been paying attention.

Originally posted by twhitehead

For example, I am fairly sure that not one single poster on this site has ever stated their rejection of Christ, which suggests that you haven't been paying attention.

A proclaimed position of atheism is a rejection of Christ.

Anyone repeatedly maintaining a position that God does not exist, is in rejection of Christ. Why kid yourself about it?

Not, so says me. Says Jesus Christ -

"Truly, truly, I say to you, He who hears My word and believes Him who sent Me has eternal life, and does not come into judgment but has passed out of death into life." (John 5:24)

If you are an atheist you certainly will not believe in "Him who sent Me [the Son]" . And you will not hear His word either.

Originally posted by sonship
A proclaimed position of atheism is a rejection of Christ.

It may be interpreted as a rejection of Christ. It is however emphatically not a 'stated rejection of Christ'.

Why kid yourself about it?
I am not kidding myself about it. I am pointing out that Grampy doesn't pay attention to what others have to say.

If you are an atheist you certainly will not believe in "Him who sent Me [the Son]". And you will not hear His word either.
Were you just that desperate to quote the Bible? If anything I think you just argued against yourself. How can someone reject something they have not heard?
You certainly didn't quote a verse that suggests that atheists have rejected Christ.

Have you ever, to your knowledge, stated your rejection of Thor?

Originally posted by Suzianne
How do you think the Wager is logical? Do you think it logical that Man can fool God?

And I don't play the lottery, either.

No, I don't believe God can be fooled.
I do think that Pascal had a lot of confidence in the eventual outcome and was doing everything possible to put asses in the seats, so to speak.
He knew full well that unless/until the mind acknowledges/accepts the existence of God, any further (salvific) progress is futile.
He wasn't necessarily speaking to everyday-man; he was directing his wager toward those who (through reason, logic and whatnot) had become hardened to the point that the concept of God had become pointless.

Think how predominant an aspect the stars used to play in the ebb and flow of man's existence.
With the advent of lights and other technology, stars have been relegated to minor status among first world countries.
Cities have eliminated the ability to even casually look up into the night sky.
What was once wondrous is no longer given a second thought for most of mankind.

Originally posted by Penguin
Pascal's wager implies a particular God: one who offers eternal reward for believers and eternal suffering for non-believers. The Christian god (depending on who you ask!) also only rewards those who believe in that specific God. Therefore, all the other Gods that might exist must also require their individual entries in the table depending on the attributes of what kind of beliefs/actions they reward and what they reward them with.

I've already granted how his formula forgave and assumed quite a bit in premises five and six.
But he could have left out the assumption of happiness, presented it as all entailment of acceptance and been in essentially the same spot.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Yet you do not practice what you preach. You do not buy tickets in every lottery you can get your hands on. This demonstrates that you don't actually believe your own words.

I absolutely do practice what I preach.
My purchase of the occasional lottery ticket is directly related to my confidence in winning: hardly ever.
Yet I still know I don't have the slightest chance at all of winning any of them by purchasing none of them.

Originally posted by sonship

For example, I am fairly sure that not one single poster on this site has ever stated their rejection of Christ, which suggests that you haven't been paying attention.

A proclaimed position of [b]atheism is a rejection of Christ.

Anyone repeatedly maintaining a position that God does not exist, is in rejection of Christ. Why k ...[text shortened]... will not believe in "Him who sent Me [the Son]" . And you will not hear His word either.[/b]

No atheism is the position of not having a belief in ANY gods.

It's not about rejecting your particular god.

The problem is you're so immersed in your own religion you cannot see the
world other than with respect to that religion.

This is the same reason dictionaries often say atheism is the lack of belief
in 'God' [singular capitalised] signifying the Christian god... Except that that
could apply to anyone of a different faith, who believes in their god/s but not
in the bible god. It just never occurred to the dictionary writers of the time
that any other point of view might be relevant or valid.


Atheism isn't about rejecting Christianity.

Atheism is the position of not believing any gods [lower-case plural] exist.

Not everything is about you and your religion.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
I don't think it's a false dichotomy in this sense:
• the theist says God exists
• the atheist rejects the existence of God

Some of the "beliefs" out there have literally nothing to do with that question.
The rest of the beliefs are variations of one of those two.

Pascal's Wager does not say which of the various beliefs about God is the correct o ...[text shortened]... ssible winnings.
You might not win with the purchase, but you definitely won't win without one.

Pascal's Wager does not say which of the various beliefs about God is the correct one.
What it does argue is that between the two questions, one has more to lose by aligning one's self with the latter than with the former.

If all of the former beliefs were thought of collectively as the lottery, buying a ticket would be tantamount to faith, albeit not in an identical or wholly consistent manner.
By purposely not buying a ticket, a person is rejecting the possible winnings.
You might not win with the purchase, but you definitely won't win without one.

This remains to be justified. Perhaps some god that does exist is testing each of us and rewards only those who will staunchly maintain the same level of scepticism about the supernatural as they would some stranger's "cannot-lose" ponzi scheme. Those who in spite of their acknowledgement a reward would be nice, act reasonably on the principal that no such reward is available; and do good unto others purely for the sake of being good.

In this case "buying a ticket" would be a losing bet!

You could of course state you reject the proposition that such a god exists, instead settling for the unproven assertion that your god is a nice god, a god who rewards faith, etc ... but that doesn't actually do anything to elevate Pascal's wager. It is a completely broken argument that can be refuted merely by referring to a different god with a different rule-set.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
I absolutely do practice what I preach.
My purchase of the occasional lottery ticket is directly related to my confidence in winning: hardly ever.
Yet I still know I don't have the slightest chance at all of winning any of them by purchasing none of them.

If you buy two tickets a week every week* in a lottery with 14million to 1 odds
[The odds of the original main UK lottery... most big lotteries have longer odds]
Then you will have a ~1% chance of winning if you play for 1,400 years.
A ~10% chance after 14,000 years.
And a ~50% chance after 100,000 years....

Buying the odd random ticket here and there... How long were you planning on playing?

*Assuming two draws a week as the UK main draw has.