Pascals Wager is a sound argument.

[Mock Turtle]

This is not true, there can be an array of potential gods/creators and he is arguing we better strive to find the right one because there exists potential of hell and heaven. This doesn't mean other Creators (hypothetical true only God) can't exist in religions where there is no hell.

This is not assumed.

Everything is potential - so why pick on one of them - the Hell?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

His universal application and as a variable, I do. But I don't accept his version of what the true variable is. But he wrote in a way, that has universal application even if Christianity is wrong.

IOW, you don't accept his actual argument; you accept a modified version of it.

He argues against all religions and why Christianity is true, with this argument, to show, why they should not settle for falsehood and risk the next world.

When he says the religion that matters, he means, the one he and his society believes is true.

He means the religion with the Eucharist and the religion that proclaims that Jesus is God. He gets into this.

He means yes this argument would work if Islam is true and Christianity is false, but he is going to provide the example of Christianity being true and all other religions false, and why this argument still works with them believing in hell (some of them like Muslims).

No, in the preface of the Wager, he specifically calls Islam (using the parlance of his time) out as a false religion.

 

[Link]

Everything is potential - so why pick on one of them?

BINGO: This is why he argues for particular, he is saying, say Christianity is truth and there is way to know, Muslims risking without knowing is bad because they are wagering the next world.

So he uses an example, but since I don't believe in Christianity and believe in particularly a different approach to God then he does, I will give my example of how the doubter (the one who doesn't know God or Twelver Shiism) should act.

His argument has both a universal and particular. I disagree with his variable being true, but the universal argument is still true.

So his specific examples (go to Church...) I don't agree with but he has some universal examples. We can all work on this together too, what skillset should we build to reach truth.

I start with the first recommendation of Quran and first words revealed to Mohammad (s):

Read.

 

[ratiocinator]

This is not true, there can be an array of potential gods/creators and he is arguing we better strive to find the right one because there exists potential of hell and heaven.

Oh, right, so just like we need to seek to understand the Great Green Arkleseizure because of the potential of the Coming of the Great White Handkerchief? Or perhaps investigate all the possible consequences of stepping on the cracks in the pavement or walking under ladders?

 

[Link]

No, in the preface of the Wager, he specifically calls Islam (using the parlance of his time) out as a false religion.

Yes, in his argument Islam is false, and Christianity is the variable of the true religion. Abstract that in general way and you can always invert variables.

 

[ChristineM]

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.

You describe Pascal well

 

[Link]

Oh, right, so just like we need to seek to understand the Great Green Arkleseizure because of the potential of the Coming of the Great White Handkerchief? Or perhaps investigate all the possible consequences of stepping on the cracks in the pavement or walking under ladders?

So this how to arrive at truth and come closer to it, is something he addresses but I disagree with some of his examples. For example he says spend time around philosophers, ask them questions, spend time with religious. Some I agree, some I don;t. Because yes, there is infinite potential like you said. How can we take them all seriously?

He is saying don't risk, so strive to find the truth. If someone becomes 100% sure hell doesn't exist, then it's disproven.

 

[Link]

You describe Pascal well

Wait for me to elaborate on his argument in detail. So far there is snips and pieces. But I think people can over all get what I understand.

 

[ChristineM]

and he says say Christianity is true.

And many people say it isn't. So i guess he's guessing

 

[Mock Turtle]

BINGO: This is why he argues for particular, he is saying, say Christianity is truth and there is way to know, Muslims risking without knowing is bad because they are wagering the next world.

So he uses an example, but since I don't believe in Christianity and believe in particularly a different approach to God then he does, I will give my example of how the doubter (the one who doesn't know God or Twelver Shiism) should act.

His argument has both a universal and particular. I disagree with his variable being true, but the universal argument is still true.

So his specific examples (go to Church...) I don't agree with but he has some universal examples. We can all work on this together too, what skillset should we build to reach truth.

I start with the first recommendation of Quran and first words revealed to Mohammad (s):

Read.

But he still projects onto any God as to properties - vengeful or otherwise - and when we are supposed to have no knowledge of such. So why would we accept any particular outcome from our decision when we can't make such a judgment? Pascal appears to base his assumptions on his Catholicism - so his logic is polluted by such.

 

[ChristineM]

To be fair, I think we have to consider the time and the culture he was working in. The world is a lot more secular, now. And a lot of people are much more sophisticated in terms of logic and reasoning.

True.

 

[Link]

And many people say it isn't. So i guess he's guessing

Maybe he didn't know better, but, yeah from an Islamic perspective he guessed himself, kind of makes him hypocritical!

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Yes, in his argument Islam is false, and Christianity is the variable of the true religion. Abstract that in general way and you can always invert variables.

It's some pretty impressive mental gymnastics to see you argue that an argument for Christianity and against Islam can be taken to be an argument for Islam and against Christianity.

The best part is that you insist that even with all this, you're using the "original" version of the argument.

 

[viole]

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?

Since it is entirely possible that God sends believers to Hell, and nonbeliever to Heaven, the Pascal Wager leads to a contradiction. Ergo, it is logically incoherent.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Link]

But he still projects onto any God as to properties - vengeful or otherwise - and when we are supposed to have no knowledge of such. So why would we accept any particular outcome from our decision when we can't make such a judgment? Pascal appears to base his assumptions on his Catholicism - so his logic is polluted by such.

If you are sure God is not vengeful and that there is no punishment for not follow the true religion, then the argument breaks. If there is a chance it is true in your mind, then you shouldn't wager infinite pain and lose infinite blessing/pleasure.

So from that, you start your journey to truth. What the truth is - will have a different explanation on how it should be arrived at of course. But we can all work on this toolkit together.

For example, let's assume Buddhism, is true. I don't know how to lay a scenario to find that, but I can't assume it's true. So it's layered, maybe I should seek to find some mystics, try to get a mystic experience to get the ball rolling.

Maybe, in this case, I should read different religions, travel. Maybe meet different people of different religions and if a monk of the right religion can show truth, maybe I can benefit.

Maybe part of my toolkit would be to not follow Quran in this case, because, it would not have proof in this case. So only follow truth.

Maybe part of my toolkit would be to act according to recommendations of ascetics of Buddhism if I perceive good energy and light from them and justice from them.


I am trying to show how it can be open ended, but specific.

 

[Link]

Since it is entirely possible that God sends believers to Hell, and nonbeliever to Heaven, the Pascal Wager leads to a contradiction. Ergo, it is logically incoherent.

Ciao

- viole

It's possible, so we should reflect on this and try to arrive at the truth, not risk either scenario.

 

[Link]

Anyways, assignment, ASSIGNMENT, TIME FLYS TOO FAST. Got to go, GOT TO GO.

 

[viole]

It's possible, so we should reflect on this and try to arrive at the truth, not risk either scenario.

Well, in order to do that, and in general, that Wager is useless. As I just showed.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Link]

Well, in order to do that, and in general, that Wager is useless. As I just showed.

Ciao

- viole

He saying strive to find truth, not to believe.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It's not. It assumes only one religion. You gotta include all religions. Everyone is going to hell in someone else's religion.

And since the odds of being right are so low it is best to choose one's religion wisely. One does not want a religion with impossible standards to get into heaven. And some heavens sound godawful. So it is best to choose a version where one is at least apt to get into heaven and where heaven is actually enjoyable.

Do I have a religion for you!