Pascals Wager is a sound argument.

[ChristineM]

Yes, I am arguing most of western Academia has deceived you regarding this argument. He refutes their simple refutations of it in the chapters he elaborated predicting the none sense people would come up with.

So if he knew people would consider his work nonesense, do you not think he had doubts himself?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Most people don't read original and so misconstrue it.

All the counter arguments to it, I think he predicted it and refuted it already by counter to counter arguments in his works.

What do people think of it?

I'm surprised to hear a Muslim argue for the original version of Pascal's Wager, since the original version focused on whether the Catholic Church is correct, and whether a person should partake of the Catholic sacraments.

 

[Link]

I'm surprised to hear a Muslim argue for the original version of Pascal's Wager, since the original version focused on whether the Catholic Church is correct, and whether a person should partake of the Catholic sacraments.

He uses Christianity as a variable, try to keep up with the thread. He doesn't assume for it to be true, just uses it as an example, if it's the truth, what would be expected of you.

 

[Link]

So if he knew people would consider his work nonesense, do you not think he had doubts himself?

He is smart guy, he predicted counter arguments or versions of his argument that people will misconstrue it. This is why he went into great elaboration and wrote many pages of it.

 

[ChristineM]

He is smart guy, he predicted counter arguments or versions of his argument that people will misconstrue it. This is why he went into great elaboration and wrote many pages of it.

Then he knew his arguments were flawed and in the typical way of apologetics waffled on for pages to hide the flaws

 

[Link]

I'm surprised to hear a Muslim argue for the original version of Pascal's Wager, since the original version focused on whether the Catholic Church is correct, and whether a person should partake of the Catholic sacraments.

I am only considered to be Muslim by outsiders, remember most Muslims and their sects and scholars, consider me heretic.

I don't go with the flow, I break the fabrics of fate that Satanic forces try to impose on me.

 

[Link]

Then he knew his arguments were flawed and in the typical way of apologetics waffled on for pages to hide the flaws

Or he was a genius and predicted how people would misunderstand it.

 

[Windwalker]

Okay do so. Let's see the way I understand and the way you will.

Let's start with your understanding of it, since this is your thread. Okay?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I am only considered to be Muslim by outsiders, remember most Muslims and their sects and scholars, consider me heretic.

I don't go with the flow, I break the fabrics of fate that Satanic forces try to impose on me.

Okay, but you aren't a Catholic, are you?

Pascal was arguing for Catholicism. In the original version, your beliefs were as much of a target for him as atheists' beliefs were.

 

[Link]

Okay, but you aren't a Catholic, are you?

Pascal was arguing for Catholicism. In the original version, your beliefs were as much of a target for him as atheists' beliefs were.

Pascal argument just uses it as a Variable. Explained already and he elaborated this.

 

[Link]

Let's start with your understanding of it, since this is your thread. Okay?

I usually do it that way, but I think everyone would assume I misunderstood and they understood it. So I did the opposite, I'm showing people misunderstand it then will reveal how I understand it later.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

He uses Christianity as a variable, try to keep up with the thread. He doesn't assume for it to be true, just uses it as an example, if it's the truth, what would be expected of you.

No, he specifically states that his attempt is to defend Christianity. In the leadup to the "wager," he expounds on the importance of the Eucharist and recognizing Jesus as God. He also contrasts the beliefs he argues for against those of the "Turks" (i.e. Islam).

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Pascal argument just uses it as a Variable. Explained already and he elaborated this.

Sure, but you were wrong.

If you don't believe me, read for yourself:

https://www.ccel.org/ccel/pascal/pensees.iv.html

 

[ChristineM]

Or he was a genius and predicted how people would misunderstand it.

Or he was a genius and knew how other geniuses could pull it apart

 

[Link]

No, he specifically states that his attempt is to defend Christianity. In the leadup to the "wager," he expounds on the importance of the Eucharist and recognizing Jesus as God. He also contrasts the beliefs he argues for against those of the "Turks" (i.e. Islam).

That's irrelevant to his argument, he is saying, say Christianity is true and these things are important, then it's expected Muslims strive to find these truths. He is trying to make touring complete since other faiths belief in hell. So he is saying, consider these traits of Christianity as true, which he does believe is true but is besides the point. No Muslim should risk not knowing them in this case.

This is true.

If the last Prophet was Jesus (a), then Quran says it would be WRONG to follow Mohammad (s) because the former has proof and the latter would not, if Mohammad (s) is not a Prophet, Quran doesn't want you to accept him nor follow what you have no knowledge of.

Like I explained, this is part of how he covers all scenarios with his variable. You don't have to assume this variable is true, but he starts with say it's true. So that he has to show how this argument applies to other religions.

 

[Link]

For example, let's say Islam is true. It would mean Christians and Jews should not risk not knowing it to be true, and strive to find the truth. The example I would provide for this would be different then his examples of assuming Christianity is true. For example, I would describe a different path to truth then his assumption of Christianity.

But his argument applies in all cases, he just uses Christianity (assumption is true), and so how would that work if Christianity is true.

It's very clear. Western Academia misconstrued it.

 

[ChristineM]

For example, let's say Islam is true. It would mean Christians and Jews should not risk not knowing it to be true, and strive to find the truth. The example I would provide for this would be different then his examples of assuming Christianity is true. For example, I would describe a different path to truth then his assumption of Christianity.

But his argument applies in all cases, he just uses Christianity (assumption is true), and so how would that work if Christianity is true.

It's very clear. Western Academia misconstrued it.

So if the FSM is true where does that leave the Abrahamic faiths?

 

[Link]

Or he was a genius and knew how other geniuses could pull it apart

Cunning people can and geniuses can be wrong, but not sincere true to themselves geniuses. The problem with being smart is sometimes we can trick ourselves and outsmart ourselves unfortunately.

 

[Link]

So if the FSM is true where does that leave the Abrahamic faiths?

We got to search it and eat spaghettis a lot I don't know? But part of the assumption is there potentially a path to truth and he says say Christianity is true.

Then this how you come to it, and so it doesn't make sense to risk the next world.

I hope you understand how he uses it as a variable in the argument but he also happens to believe in it being true.

 

[Link]

By the way Christians and Jews, I think you would like this argument and should because of the proverb "fear of God is the start of wisdom".