Pascal's wager

You did not reformulate the wager at all. You did not offer a formulation for addressing which god to choose. I phrase it as I did because a formulation on choosing which god, or excluding some goods, need not be done as a reformulation of the wager. For example, the argument I p provided of why one can exclude an unjust or inverted "god" from the wager was not a reformulation of the wager, it was its own formulation.

 

Message #400. You even quoted it in its entirety once.

 

As I said before, I read your post #400 as you just defining god==Odin, infinite afterlive == Valhalla and then added your views about how to win the "wager" for that particular god. Fundamentally still the same wager.

 

Can you point out where the text of the wager says a particular god on which to bet? As I said in the rest of the paragraph you cited above. but cut out I don't believe the wager says how to win, just that you should go all in.

Once you decided to wager, knowing that its all in, then how to win is then up to you to analyze how to maximize your chance of winning. The issue of which god, and which set of rules is not a addressed, and in my view leave the person wagering the task of analyzing which to choose and what it means to follow the appropriate rules.

Since there are many conflicting choices, in MY case that meant studying a wider range of religions, seeing the common ground/elements and trying to follow them. I presented a piece of that before... which considers the fact the that only evidence is third, forth-one-hundredth hand and effectively ad populum, so I have to weight the statements with the fact that humans have been reinterpreting the data so many times, often with their own agenda/power-base, that it cannot all be taken as gods truth.

If I imaging gods trying to help us reach enlightenment, maybe they did speak with various people, but they just misunderstood what they hear or later followers adapted it to support their own desires. As an educator I know/see the difference between providing students answers and letting them learn their own from just enough direction and hints.

If one is unsure about which god, e.g. one that has a finite afterlife or for which the infinite aspects of afterlife is not condition on a special behavior/belief, then maybe you can effectively use the same ante for multiple bets.

If the bets are mutually exclusive then, in my view, is far more likely the effect of an attempt by human interpreters to control others and build their power base than it is the actual will of any just god. Note this is well outside the original wager, but if I have to go all in on a particular bet I'm free to analyze even weak data to refine my choice.

 

Yes, that was entirely the point. A reformulation for a different god. If you feel that Pascal's wager has merit. You should be following this version as well. If you are not, you are just using Pascal's wager to justify an irrational choice you have already made.

 

Actually choosing which god(s) is pretty easy. Since there is no evidence upon which to make a choice. One should choose that subset of gods for which the largest number can be compatibly met, and which are promising eternal bliss. Choosing in a single jealous god is a terrible strategy, when you can choose hundreds or thousands of gods who each offer a chance.

OK. not easy. But not a philosophical conundrum.

 

This was beyond ridiculous about 400 posts ago.

I think the believer's strategy is to talk in circles until the non-believers bang their heads in frustration, lose their temper, and run away screaming. Then, they can say: "See? Heathens are angry, and confused."

 

You're opinion noted....

This is mine...

Agreed, 400 posts and continuing to argue is pointless, yet I predict some will be compelled to continue.

 

I'll bet your prediction is spot-on Bra...

 

^ believe me, I'd like to be wrong on this one.

Someone will ignore I've been quiet for most of a week on this thread, yet respond like I've been itching for a fight.

I'd like to thank Daniel for giving the thread a brief rest last weekend, along with his good will.

 

Interestinly, this is similar to heavy-handed methods that Pascal himself
was not above using:

"… One of the Apologie's main strategies was to use the contradictory philosophies of
[ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skepticism]Skepticism[/ame] and [ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stoicism]Stoicism[/ame], personalized by [ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montaigne]Montaigne[/ame] on one hand, and
[ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epictetus]Epictetus[/ame] on the other, in order to bring the unbeliever to such despair and confusion
that he would embrace God.[/I]"
[ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blaise_Pascal]Blaise Pascal[/ame]

 

Yup. You got it.

You show me the church that tells any prospective parishoner "Sorry bub, you're doomed. Don't bother to come here".

Back when I went to a church the baptismal ritual was a big deal: it "saved" you; once "saved" you were "safe". Nothing you could do would "unsave" you. I thought at the time it was an incredibly childish belief (and still do, albeit much more strongly).

Look at the Catholic ritual of Confession - how is that anything other than a "Get Out Of Jail Free" card printing factory?

And they key?

BELIEVE.

BELIEVE and god will forgive you.

All those pastors at the gallows and at the doors to the last room of prison death rows aren't there because they think there's no hope of heaven, even after a lifetime of total and complete depravity.

 

Yes, that is interesting. I thought I was just being sarcastic, based on my own experiences.

So, even an atheist/agnostic/heathen gets in, because they were baptised as a child? Belief alone as a 'get out of hell free' card doesn't make sense to me, either. I'm firmly in the 'actions, not words' camp. And I try to live by it.



As a side note to Chuck: This debate has raged for millennia, and will likely rage for millennia more. I'm sure you are a nice person who is kind to strangers, children, and other small animals, and I don't dislike you in the least or wish you any harm. I'm discussing and debating ideas, not bullying people.

 

^ Thank you for the thoughtfull reply....I also give you the benefit of the doubt in general...my last post was not directed at you, although I was quoting you.

I hope the course of this thread for most part the past week is the rule.

 

You can be in the debate, or out, but none of us has any hope of ending it.

I think Daniel has the patience of a saint.

Thank you, Chuck, for giving me the benefit of the doubt as well. Even though I strongly suspect that the beliefs you hold probably tell you that I'm going to hell. Please correct me if I'm wrong about that.

And if it's any consolation, you'd never know my beliefs by my actions. The assumptions people make can be quite astounding.

 

^ I believe in a lot of bad outcomes - including Hell, but do I wish them on anybody?

Hell no.

 

Oh, thank heavens.

 

You can go to Hell, but you don't have to.