"Why Do Men Reject God?"

Originally posted by Suzianne
..., you must have consulted Wikipedia, because I found that same precise sentence on a Wikipedia page I had looked at just that morning.
Actually I just looked again, and it wasn't the precise sentence.

Apology accepted. 😀

There's half a chance my notes were from Wikipedia but could have come from elsewhere.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
The only way you could possibly assume you "destroyed" Pascal's Wager is to misunderstand its underpinnings in the first place... which, using your sketch of a response here, proves to be the case.

You never even attempt to justify your random mumblings - you just
state something then finish with a "because" "therefore" or (as here)
"proves to be the case".

It's a pile of BS from you every day.

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
"You ran away crying when I destroyed Pascal's Wager..."

Pascal's Wager is still alive and well as the representation of an option which you've (presently) rejected.

Come on, Bob, even I say Pascal's Wager doesn't work, and I'm sure that if you thought about it at all, so would you.

Originally posted by googlefudge
Just so you know and don't waste your time.

I'm pretty much ignoring you as I think you're an irrational moron.

So if you want an argument bother someone who cares.

If you don't care if I respond to you then go right ahead.

"Just a little harsh," she said, somewhat sarcastically.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
The only way you could possibly assume you "destroyed" Pascal's Wager is to misunderstand its underpinnings in the first place... which, using your sketch of a response here, proves to be the case.

In your first sentence, you've already missed the boat. Following that, it's just so much rubbish and double-speak to reduce it to gibberish--- not worth ev ...[text shortened]... plied exponentially to one big puff. You really should polish up your game and try again later.

It is my belief that Pascal's Wager should have been withdrawn and never spoken of again ages ago, and by Christians, at that.

Can you think of ONE reason why Christians should not believe Pascal's Wager to be a valid argument? One is all you need, really.

Originally posted by Suzianne
"Just a little harsh," she said, somewhat sarcastically.

Probably.

However, tone is hard on the internet.

And it's possible to think someone is being mean or sarcastic or insulting when
they were just being playful or joking.

So I have a policy where if I am being insulting/sarcastic/ect you KNOW about it.

If you're unsure if I am insulting you or not I wasn't.


Also, I genuinely don't want him to go post replies to my posts and expect me to engage
when I am basically ignoring him, without knowing I am doing it.
Mainly it's just brutally honest.

Truth isn't always nice.

Originally posted by Suzianne
It is my belief that Pascal's Wager should have been withdrawn and never spoken of again ages ago, and by Christians, at that.

Can you think of ONE reason why Christians should not believe Pascal's Wager to be a valid argument? One is all you need, really.

A short obvious and easily understood refutation is that the argument can
be used by any religion (known or unknown)(past or present) and
therefore is no argument to believe in any particular one.

Originally posted by Suzianne

Come on, Bob, even I say Pascal's Wager doesn't work, and I'm sure that if you thought about it at all, so would you.

Originally posted by Suzianne
"Come on, Bob, even I say Pascal's Wager doesn't work, and I'm sure that if you thought about it at all, so would you."

"Belief is a wise wager. Granted that faith cannot be proved, what harm will come to you if you gamble on its truth and it proves false? If you gain, you gain all; if you lose, you lose nothing. Wager, then, without hesitation, that He exists." -Pascal

Makes absolute sense to me, Suzi. It's a matter of life and death: eternal life and personal relationship with God forever in heaven or separation from Him alone in the Lake of Fire [anguishing] forever. Pascal's metaphorical illustration borrows from the passage, "So as by fire", i.e., foxhole or deathbed 11th Hour, last resort conversions (reversals of a lifetime's decisions of neglect, dismissal, adamant denial and public rejection in a moment of repentance [change of thinking] to believe in the Risen Christ. Same wager made by one of the criminals at Golgotha who expressed his belief in Christ the Messiah moments before their crucifixion and won. The other criminal who was of a different persuasion refused the wager and lost.

"For God did not send the Son into the world to judge the world, but that the world might be saved through Him. He who believes in Him is not judged; he who does not believe has been judged already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. ... He who believes in the Son has eternal life; but he who does not obey the Son will not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him." John 3:17-18, 36

"But if your eye be evil, your whole body shall be full of darkness. If therefore the light that is in you be darkness, how great is that darkness!" Matthew 6:23 American Standard Version "Jesus is the God whom we can approach without pride and before whom we can humble ourselves without despair." -Blaise Pascal "In faith there is enough light for those who want to believe and enough shadows to blind those who don't." -Blaise Pascal "Christianity, if false, is of no importance, and if true, of infinite importance. The only thing it cannot be is moderately important." -C. S. Lewis

Originally posted by wolfgang59
A short obvious and easily understood refutation is that the argument can
be used by [b]any religion (known or unknown)(past or present) and
therefore is no argument to believe in any particular one.[/b]

Originally posted by wolfgang59
"A short obvious and easily understood refutation is that the argument can
be used by any religion (known or unknown)(past or present) and
therefore is no argument to believe in any particular one."

wolfgang59, Christianity isn't a religion; it's a relationship in which a human being is reconciled unto God. In religion, man does the inadequate good works; in Christianity, Christ (undiminished deity and perfect humanity in hypostatic union in one uniquely born person forever) did the work of propitiating [satisfying] God the Father's Justice during three hours of spiritual death [separation from God the Father]: a substitutionary spiritual death on our behalf to remove the barrier of sin. Sin is not an issue in salvation; faith alone in Christ alone is the only issue (too simple for some but God's way for all).

"When it comes to the possibility of God's existence, the Bible says that there are people who have seen sufficient evidence, but they have suppressed the truth about God. On the other hand, for those who want to know God if he is there, he says, "You will seek me and find me; when you seek me with all your heart, I will be found by you." Before you look at the facts surrounding God's existence, ask yourself, If God does exist, would I want to know him?" (Marilyn Adamson)

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
Originally posted by wolfgang59
"A short obvious and easily understood refutation is that the argument can
be used by [b]any religion (known or unknown)(past or present) and
therefore is no argument to believe in any particular one."

wolfgang59, Christianity isn't a religion; it's a relationship in which a human being is reconciled un ...[text shortened]... existence, ask yourself, If God does exist, would I want to know him?" (Marilyn Adamson)[/b]

Excrement.

Christianity is a religion, all this gibbering about a personal relationship is irrelevant.

You believe in a god and an afterlife and have rules and holy books and churches...

It's a damn religion. Deal with it.


However. Whatever you want to call it.

Pascals Wager still applies to any god or gods...
Or even to any claimed afterlife.

So your inane insistence that Christianity is not a religion is utterly irrelevant to the point.

Originally posted by wolfgang59
A short obvious and easily understood refutation is that the argument can
be used by [b]any religion (known or unknown)(past or present) and
therefore is no argument to believe in any particular one.[/b]

Possibly. But that's not why I say Christians should refute it.

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
Originally posted by Suzianne
"Come on, Bob, even I say Pascal's Wager doesn't work, and I'm sure that if you thought about it at all, so would you."

[b]"Belief is a wise wager. Granted that faith cannot be proved, what harm will come to you if you gamble on its truth and it proves false? If you gain, you gain all; if you lose, you lose nothi ...[text shortened]... true, of infinite importance. The only thing it cannot be is moderately important." -C. S. Lewis

All that is as may be.

Following your lead, maybe I can find a verse of scripture to explain why Pascal had a good theory, but a terrible idea in execution.

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
"You will seek me and find me; when you seek me with all your heart, I will be found by you."

And this is a clue.

Originally posted by Suzianne
Possibly. But that's not why I say Christians should refute it.

Really? The fact that the argument can be used equally by other religions
isn't a reason for Christians not to use it?

I would have thought that would be an excellent reason to reject it.

Then again, I'm trying to think of arguments that can't equally be used by
other religions and I am struggling.

Maybe that should tell us something.

Originally posted by googlefudge
Really? The fact that the argument can be used equally by other religions
isn't a reason for Christians not to use it?

I would have thought that would be an excellent reason to reject it.

Then again, I'm trying to think of arguments that can't equally be used by
other religions and I am struggling.

Maybe that should tell us something.

All it tells me, is that you are unaware (probably simply because you don't care to know) of some of the finer points of Christianity. A hint would be that it sorta, kinda ties in with free will.

I'm not saying that my argument as to why Pascal's Wager doesn't work couldn't be used by another religion (I probably do not know quite enough about those other religions to know for sure, but I'm sure it is possible ), what I am saying by this is that yes, there is a reason why Christians in particular should not adopt Pascal's Wager as an argument (taking all of Christianity into account, it's just not a good argument, but there is one reason I find more compelling than others).

And no, just because another religion could use Pascal's Wager is not a good enough reason to discount it for Christianity.