-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Pascals Wager is a sound argument.
- Thread starter Link
- Start date
Can you elebatorate? What is the original, and in what ways do you think it refutes all objections to it?
Please present this argument you speak of as a formal argument
So people can have a look and see for themselves
It's very long. Every counter argument, he has pages and pages addressing them.
This is a very elaborate argument. I want to see if anyone reads the original and understands it like me or they trust Academia of Western nature (Satan behind it all)?
Sand Dancer
Currently catless
It's not. It assumes only one religion. You gotta include all religions. Everyone is going to hell in someone else's religion.
Please present this argument you speak of as a formal argument
So people can have a look and see for themselves
I believe this is a false way of thinking. Formal arguments are false way to approach an issue. They always miss a lot and misconstrue the original. But I will after I See people thoughts of those who read original works.
For example, the ontological argument I believe is sound, but Academia of western type (Gog and Magog behind it) destroy it by presenting a weak form of it.
So I want to see if people trust others do construe it or will they make notes and read original, and construe it themselves.
He addresses this in so many pages devoted to this topic. Try again. He has no such assumption from what I understand.
Sand Dancer
Currently catless
Well, the only folks that I have heard that from are conservative Christians.
You yourself made the claim that it is "sound"
And then you refuse to show how it is "sound"
It is you who started off using the language of logic in this thread
Not me
If reason is a "false way of thinking" then why do you use the language of reason?
By calling it "sound" you are making an appeal to reason - but I see only a dressed-up claim, not an actual reasoned argument
Yes, I claim it's sound. But this thread, is with me making that claim, and I want to see people reading original, and agreeing or disagreeing and on what basis.
The purpose of this one is NOT TO SPOONFEED, but get you to read originals. I feel originals are well written.
Nimos
Well-Known Member
Ill be happy to look at it, if you care to link to the specific information you use. More because I see little gain in having to spend time on argue back and forth what the correct information is and ain't.
Academia has misconstrued this argument. I want to see if anyone else would read original and see the argument for what it is.
The original works. I'm not using 2nd to 3rd party interpretation which I've seen but realized they misguided me with respect to original works and the content.
I'll give it a try, pulling from Wikipedia's summary below on his wager:
1. Faith in God is not predicated on reason. It's a matter of faith of the heart, not reason of the head. God is not a logical proposition, but an existential question of being, which is much, much more than logic and reason.
Based on that first primary error, the rest falls like a house of cards. But let us continue to the next bullet point....
2. Hardly! How can one reduce the complexities of existence and being to a logical deduction of two choices? This is absurdity, and an error of mind. Besides, who says life is a game? Pascal himself? That qualifies as a strawman argument, where you create the conditions of your opponent, and then defeat him in battle. Life however is not Pascal's strawman.
3. Why is it not optional? He starts with conditions that he himself says. Life does not play by the rules Pascal decides it should have.
4. Again, this is Pascal's made-up God, not God. He draws a box around his ideas of God and then calls that box God. This is hardly Reality.
5. His entire wager is based upon a mythological perspective of the Divine, created by a misreading of scriptures as descriptors, and not metaphors. His logic has led him astray from Reality, into his God-in-a-Box Divinity of his own mind.
6. No one can reason the Divine, not even him (most apparently!). He has shot himself in the foot from the get-go, and everything that follows is nothing but a projection of his own mind upon Reality. God however has a way of not following Pascal's Rules he creates around his own logic fallacy, and expects other to agree with in an attempt to validate his blind assumptions of God.
The wager uses the following logic (excerpts from Pensées, part III, §233):
Okay, I'll pick this apart beginning at bullet point 1- God is, or God is not. Reason cannot decide between the two alternatives
- A Game is being played... where heads or tails will turn up
- You must wager (it is not optional)
- Let us weigh the gain and the loss in wagering that God is. Let us estimate these two chances. If you gain, you gain all; if you lose, you lose nothing
- Wager, then, without hesitation that He is. (...) There is here an infinity of an infinitely happy life to gain, a chance of gain against a finite number of chances of loss, and what you stake is finite. And so our proposition is of infinite force when there is the finite to stake in a game where there are equal risks of gain and of loss, and the infinite to gain.
- But some cannot believe. They should then 'at least learn your inability to believe...' and 'Endeavour then to convince' themselves.
1. Faith in God is not predicated on reason. It's a matter of faith of the heart, not reason of the head. God is not a logical proposition, but an existential question of being, which is much, much more than logic and reason.
Based on that first primary error, the rest falls like a house of cards. But let us continue to the next bullet point....
2. Hardly! How can one reduce the complexities of existence and being to a logical deduction of two choices? This is absurdity, and an error of mind. Besides, who says life is a game? Pascal himself? That qualifies as a strawman argument, where you create the conditions of your opponent, and then defeat him in battle. Life however is not Pascal's strawman.
3. Why is it not optional? He starts with conditions that he himself says. Life does not play by the rules Pascal decides it should have.
4. Again, this is Pascal's made-up God, not God. He draws a box around his ideas of God and then calls that box God. This is hardly Reality.
5. His entire wager is based upon a mythological perspective of the Divine, created by a misreading of scriptures as descriptors, and not metaphors. His logic has led him astray from Reality, into his God-in-a-Box Divinity of his own mind.
6. No one can reason the Divine, not even him (most apparently!). He has shot himself in the foot from the get-go, and everything that follows is nothing but a projection of his own mind upon Reality. God however has a way of not following Pascal's Rules he creates around his own logic fallacy, and expects other to agree with in an attempt to validate his blind assumptions of God.
ratiocinator
Lightly seared on the reality grill.
It's obviously a false dichotomy. There isn't only one (idea of) god to choose from.
Altfish
Veteran Member
It fails in many ways
It assumes only one religion. And you may have chosen the wrong one.
It assumes that believing in a god is not time consuming. It is, we have one life and every minute spent worshiping could be better used.
It assumes that this 'god' does not realise that you are only believing to make sure you get to heaven; if god is omnipresent and all powerful, she'll realise that you are bluffing
You should present your argument so that people can have a look at it, then have a look at the originals, and then see for themselves whether or not your interpretation is sound
By comparing it to their own interpretation
This thread is about your interpretation rather than the actual text and yet you refuse to explain it
I'm finished with this thread
You are making a claim that something is sound but refuse to show your workings, seemingly assuming that it is self-evident
I'm finished with this thread
Good day to you, sir
It assumes potential one religion might be true. That's all, and it doesn't matter which one it is for the sake of argument, even if all wrong, you have to....
Nope, it talks about why sacrificing that time and pleasures, is still worth it. In fact, there are pages and pages about this from many angles. I can't do it justice, he argues this point from many angles and counter to counter arguments, and went in great detail.
And lastly, he makes no assumption that God wants you to pretend to believe in him. This is a big ignorance that is spread about it.
No, I get to make my topic about what I want. Like I said, I will do this later (present the argument for what is, and counter to counter arguments he has for it for each premise).
I want to see if anyone on this forum has read original and see how they understand it, if they did.
Care to explain?