Pascals' Wager Reloaded 3 (Matrix 3rd movie kidding)

[Link]

Hi,

So there was this thread that surveyed how people understood it: Pascals Wager is a sound argument. | Religious Forums

Then explained toolkit: Pascal's Wage Reloaded. | Religious Forums

In this thread, I am going to recommend a 3rd factor. Since hell is the factor in this or main one, heavily focus on arguments for or against God's wrath. Is it truly evil/petty or is truly righteous of God to punish people who don't seek his guidance or turn away from it wasting their lives seeking petty things?

This question takes priority.

If you solve this issue, and there is a hell, then obviously, you don't want to risk it.

If you are sure there is no hell, I'm recommending a modification.

Losing out on truth no matter what outcome, we forgiven or not, is a great loss, that we didn't seek it in this life. It's a dishonor on our report card forever regardless if no hell.

I'm saying even in this case, although the pascal wager has ceased, truth is still worth seeking.

But how more so, if hell is uncertainty and for all you know it's true? Therefore, till one is sure there is no hell, pascal's wager motivation holds.

And if one is sure, truth is still worth seeking and there can be a lot of spiritual reward for having known the truth both in our life time and next.

 

[Guitar's Cry]

There's a huge complication with this. Pascal's wager is based on probability, and one has to to consider a lot of different factors that play into this probability: there are multiple traditions, even within Abrahamic religions that have different views on hell and what counts as faith; there are multiple perspectives on the afterlife and god in general; there are logical arguments against god, both the existence of and whether it makes sense to have an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent god capable of damning someone based on faith (that god has a good amount of control over anyway); and whether it matters that your faith is based on gambling on avoiding hell.

 

[Link]

There's a huge complication with this. Pascal's wager is based on probability, and one has to to consider a lot of different factors that play into this probability: there are multiple traditions, even within Abrahamic religions that have different views on hell and what counts as faith; there are multiple perspectives on the afterlife and god in general; there are logical arguments against god, both the existence of and whether it makes sense to have an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent god capable of damning someone based on faith (that god has a good amount of control over anyway); and whether it matters that your faith is based on gambling on avoiding hell.

I think even if there 0.0000001% chance in your head that God putting you in hell is rational, you should not risk it, because of the forever time compared to temporary time. It's not worth the risk. Anyways, this thread is about a different angle to all that.

(1) focus on this issue
(2) Even if hell doesn't exist and one attains certainty it does not, truth is still worth seeking.

 

[ratiocinator]

I think even if there 0.0000001% chance in your head that God putting you in hell is rational, you should not risk it, because of the forever time compared to temporary time. It's not worth the risk. Anyways, this thread is about a different angle to all that.

But there is literally no rational course of action that you can take to avoid the tiny chance that some god might exist and send you to hell. People have spent lifetimes seeking, and thinking they've found, 'the truth' and at least most of them must be wrong because they contradict each other.

A god that puts people in hell for making a mistake would be an evil, unjust monster anyway, and there is no way to rationally protect yourself from a supernatural psychopath.

 

[Link]

But there is literally no rational course of action that you can take to avoid the tiny chance that some god might exist and send you to hell. People have spent lifetimes seeking, and thinking they've found, 'the truth' and at least most of them must be wrong because they contradict each other.

A god that puts people in hell for making a mistake would be an evil, unjust monster anyway, and there is no way to rationally protect yourself from a supernatural psychopath.

There is a rational course or if there isn't, you should try to find one regardless and seek the truth regarding this just in case. Anyways, this thread just added to the other two threads and says you should prioritize this question and if even sure there is no hell, truth is still worth seeking.

 

[ratiocinator]

There is a rational course or if there isn't...

It's blindingly obvious that there isn't, for the reasons I stated and you just ignored.

...if even sure there is no hell, truth is still worth seeking.

If you're seeking the truth, why bother with ancient superstitions? If a god exists, and wants me to do something about it, it should stop playing childish and cruel games of hide-and-seek, get off it's lazy omnipotent backside and make itself known in a clear an unambiguous way.

 

[Link]

It's blindingly obvious that there isn't, for the reasons I stated and you just ignored.

I only ignored it because it was the subject of the second Pascal Wager thread: Pascal's Wage Reloaded. | Religious Forums

Perhaps that will help you. Perhaps not.

I'm trying to keep each thread on point. This one is about two additional arguments:

(1) Truth is worth seeking even if one is certain there is no hell.
(2) The question of hell should take priority to see if it's philosophically sound or not.

 

[Left Coast]

I think even if there 0.0000001% chance in your head that God putting you in hell is rational, you should not risk it, because of the forever time compared to temporary time. It's not worth the risk. Anyways, this thread is about a different angle to all that.

(1) focus on this issue
(2) Even if hell doesn't exist and one attains certainty it does not, truth is still worth seeking.

Of course truth is with seeking. The problem is, in the absence of any evidence for some torturous afterlife, or any way of reliably verifying is existence, why would any of us spend our time worried about it or trying to avoid it? Are you worried about the Christian hell, where you are headed if some fundamentalist Christians are correct? What if they're right? Is that truth "worth seeking?"

This is a basic tactic of fear to keep people tied to a religion by threatening them that something bad will happen (no matter how unrealistic the threat is) to them if they step out of line.

 

[Link]

Of course truth is with seeking. The problem is, in the absence of any evidence for some torturous afterlife, or any way of reliably verifying is existence, why would any of us spend our time worried about it or trying to avoid it? Are you worried about the Christian hell, where you are headed if some fundamentalist Christians are correct? What if they're right? Is that truth "worth seeking?"

This is a basic tactic of fear to keep people tied to a religion by threatening them that something bad will happen (no matter how unrealistic the threat is) to them if they step out of line.

Pascal's wager doesn't want people to believe without proof. And so if say there is no proof, he argues having spent time seeking it is little loss. In this thread, I'm making an additional argument. Say one begins to seek the truth, and then builds skills and becomes philosophically certain there is no hell. I would say the person will find skills in seeking truth rewarding since seeking truth is rewarding itself and should be done regardless if there is hell or not.

So there is no real "loss" in the wager of having sought truth.

 

[Guitar's Cry]

I think even if there 0.0000001% chance in your head that God putting you in hell is rational, you should not risk it, because of the forever time compared to temporary time. It's not worth the risk. Anyways, this thread is about a different angle to all that.

(1) focus on this issue
(2) Even if hell doesn't exist and one attains certainty it does not, truth is still worth seeking.

What if you consider that that may mean a 99.99999% chance that the anxiety over spending your life to please a god that may not exist, or may exist in a form that doesn't condemn you to hell, is its own hell that will waste the only life you have and you can STILL seek truth unfettered by this double-binding anxiety.

 

[Link]

What if you consider that that may mean a 99.99999% chance that the anxiety over spending your life to please a god that may not exist, or may exist in a form that doesn't condemn you to hell, is its own hell that will waste the only life you have and you can STILL seek truth unfettered by this double-binding anxiety.

You can seek truth without this anxiety, that's true. But if you don't seek truth and avoid it, the anxiety/fear is good to consider, since there maybe forever consequences.

 

[Guitar's Cry]

You can seek truth without this anxiety, that's true. But if you don't seek truth and avoid it, the anxiety/fear is good to consider, since there maybe forever consequences.

Sure, and this is a pretty common part of spiritual journeys. Just be careful about getting stuck in the Wasteland.

If god demands faith, it should come wholeheartedly and through honest reflection on the already tragic trials of life.

 

[Link]

Sure, and this is a pretty common part of spiritual journeys. Just be careful about getting stuck in the Wasteland.

If god demands faith, it should come wholeheartedly and through honest reflection on the already tragic trials of life.

I agree all with what you said in this post.

 

[Left Coast]

Pascal's wager doesn't want people to believe without proof.

Yes, it literally does. Thats the whole point of the argument.

And so if say there is no proof, he argues having spent time seeking it is little loss. In this thread, I'm making an additional argument. Say one begins to seek the truth, and then builds skills and becomes philosophically certain there is no hell. I would say the person will find skills in seeking truth rewarding since seeking truth is rewarding itself and should be done regardless if there is hell or not.

So there is no real "loss" in the wager of having sought truth.

There is loss in dedicating one's life to a religion that controls them through fear, even if that threat ends up being bull****.

No one is arguing we shouldn't seek truth or there isn't value in it. With hell, there is nothing to seek. We have no information to pursue aside from bald claims about things none of us have access to know anything about.

 

[Link]

Yes, it literally does. Thats the whole point of the argument.

No this is a common myth spread about it. You should read original.

 

[Left Coast]

No this is a common myth spread about it. You should read original.

Oh bless your heart!

I have. Have you? Firstly Pascal's original argument was not about believing in hell, it was about believing in God. From the Pensees:

"If there is a God, He is infinitely incomprehensible, since, having neither parts nor limits, He has no affinity with us. We are incapable, therefore, of knowing either what He is or if He is. That being so, who will dare undertake to decide this question? Not we, who have no affinity with Him.
Who then can blame the Christians for not being able to give reasons for their
belief, professing as they do a religion which they cannot explain by reason. They declare, when expounding to the world, that it is foolishness, stultitiam; and then you complain that they do not prove it! If they proved it they would give the lie to their own words; it is in lacking proofs that they do not lack sense."

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

I'm trying to keep each thread on point. This one is about two additional arguments: (1) Truth is worth seeking even if one is certain there is no hell.

We're you expecting an argument on that? There doesn't seem to be much difference of opinion on that matter. Where the differences will be revealed is in what people consider truth to be - what they are willing to call truth - and how they decide that.

(2) The question of hell should take priority to see if it's philosophically sound or not.

This also requires almost no comment. There is no compelling evidence for a deity, afterlife, or punishment in an afterlife. Philosophically, if one is a skeptic, he should not believe that any of these things exist even if they do until he has a reason to. That's the whole analysis unless you want to revert back to Pascal' Wager, which you seem intent on preventing. Pascal offers a reason to believe even without evidence.

Incidentally, Pascal made his argument for you, too. You have wagered that his God will not send you to hell even though, as Pascal would tell you, the only path to salvation is through the blood of the Lamb, Jesus. You're Muslim. Have you not noticed that? Or are you just generalizing the argument to include yourself among those betting on a god that damns because you believe that, even if it's not Pascal's God?

 

[Erebus]

I think even if there 0.0000001% chance in your head that God putting you in hell is rational, you should not risk it, because of the forever time compared to temporary time. It's not worth the risk. Anyways, this thread is about a different angle to all that.

(1) focus on this issue
(2) Even if hell doesn't exist and one attains certainty it does not, truth is still worth seeking.

I've spent plenty of time pondering what, if anything, might come after death. I don't know whether or not there's a Hell and I don't know whether or not there are specific actions that would send somebody there. It's my opinion that we can't know and that this opens up every possibility.

Have you considered that we might all be destined for Hell regardless of our actions? Or that it's actually believing in God that damns us? Or eating potatoes? Or not slapping ourselves in the face every thirty minutes? How can you possibly know with 100% certainty that none of those things are true?

I agree that it's worth seeking out the truth. I also think that there are some truths we're simply incapable of knowing.

 

[night912]

Hi,

So there was this thread that surveyed how people understood it: Pascals Wager is a sound argument. | Religious Forums

Then explained toolkit: Pascal's Wage Reloaded. | Religious Forums

In this thread, I am going to recommend a 3rd factor. Since hell is the factor in this or main one, heavily focus on arguments for or against God's wrath. Is it truly evil/petty or is truly righteous of God to punish people who don't seek his guidance or turn away from it wasting their lives seeking petty things?

This question takes priority.

If you solve this issue, and there is a hell, then obviously, you don't want to risk it.

If you are sure there is no hell, I'm recommending a modification.

Losing out on truth no matter what outcome, we forgiven or not, is a great loss, that we didn't seek it in this life. It's a dishonor on our report card forever regardless if no hell.

I'm saying even in this case, although the pascal wager has ceased, truth is still worth seeking.

But how more so, if hell is uncertainty and for all you know it's true? Therefore, till one is sure there is no hell, pascal's wager motivation holds.

And if one is sure, truth is still worth seeking and there can be a lot of spiritual reward for having known the truth both in our life time and next.

I agree that you that truth is worth seeking, but that's not what Pascal's Wager proposed. What it actually propose is to accept something that's not known to be true and stop there. Basically it's telling you to stop seeking the truth and just take the risk to accept something that you don't know it's true or not.