Science says: probability for blasphemer to burn in hell is higher than of a Christian.

[It Aint Necessarily So]

probability of an atheist burn in hell is higher than if he would accept what ever religion available. This is proof of Pascal Wager.

You haven't taken into account the likelihood that you're worshiping the wrong god, one that might be offended by that fact and who prefers atheists over the religious. If I were a deity sifting through people, I'd prefer to be with the atheists. Twain said heaven for the weather and hell for the company. Putting the good company with the good weather makes more sense than rewarding faith and punishing skepticism.

This is part of the refutation of Pascal's Wager.

 

[questfortruth]

You haven't taken into account the likelihood that you're worshiping the wrong god, one that might be offended by that fact and who prefers atheists over the religious. If I were a deity sifting through people, I'd prefer to be with the latter. Twain said heaven for the weather and hell for the company. Putting the good company with the good weather makes more sense than rewarding faith and punishing skepticism.

This is part of the refutation of Pascal's Wager.

OK. Let me define blasphemer notion. The latter is one who makes God angry. There are two gods: Holy Spirit, and evil spirit. I am monotheist because I love only one of them. The God I am talking about is one who has power to send human to Paradise.

 

[questfortruth]

OK. Let me define blasphemer notion. The latter is one who makes God angry. There are two gods: Holy Spirit, and evil spirit. I am monotheist because I love only one of them. The God I am talking about is one who has power to send human to Paradise.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

OK. Let me define blasphemer notion. The latter is one who makes God angry.

But you have no idea if gods exist or what they're like if they do - just beliefs supported by nothing more substantial than your willingness to believe them uncritically.

You also have no idea if there is an afterlife or not, and if there is, what it is like. Nobody does, and that's the point. You're guessing and assuming that you have guessed correctly. And you have no guarantee that you won't be punished for that. I don't believe that you will, but I also don't believe the Christian god, heaven, or hell exist, either.

But you were talking probability, and there is a non-zero possibility that you have the wrong god and subject to its judgments, which might be just as harsh as those of the god you have guessed exists and will send you to paradise, but uses a different standard to judge than the one you presume.

Also, you didn't address my argument at all. Did you not understand it? Or maybe you did and weren't able to rebut it, so decided to ignore it.

The God I am talking about is one who has power to send human to Paradise.

Me, too, if one exists. You assume you know who that is and what standards it will judge souls by. That's one flaw in Pascal's Wager. It doesn't consider possible gods other than Pascal's and your god.

Let p2 be probability of some Robert to enter hell. [snip] Then, p4>p2. In conclusion, any holy deed (no matter how small) drives Robert away from hell.

This also fails to address the point made.

 

[questfortruth]

You haven't taken into account the likelihood that you're worshiping the wrong god, one that might be offended by that fact and who prefers atheists over the religious. If I were a deity sifting through people, I'd prefer to be with the atheists. Twain said heaven for the weather and hell for the company. Putting the good company with the good weather makes more sense than rewarding faith and punishing skepticism.

This is part of the refutation of Pascal's Wager.

Let p2 be probability of some Robert to enter hell.
Let p1 be probability of Robert to enter Paradise.
Let p be probability of Robert to vanish in non-existence.
The total is: p2+p1+p=100 %. So, p2=100-p1-p.

Let p4 be probability of some Bob to enter hell.
Let p3 be probability of Bob to enter Paradise.
Let p be probability of Bob to vanish in non-existence.
The total is: p3+p4+p=100 %. So, p4=100-p3-p.

Let p3<p1. Namely, Robert is more holy than Bob.
Then, p4>p2. In conclusion, any holy deed (no matter how small) drives Robert away from hell.

 

[questfortruth]

This also fails to address the point made.

Just listen your soul. My theory holds for the case if God has non-vanishing probability. The paranoic objection is what God wants to murder us all. My heart does not believe in existence of evil god.

 

[John53]

I prefer B1 and B2

 

[LuisDantas]

Oh yeah, baby! Shall I burn bright and enjoy fine music while at it!

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

My Theory deals with ones, who have finished the life. Ones are blasphemers, without a single holy deed, others are repented sinners.

Okay, so this is “I say”, not “science says “.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

Paul became all things to all men

Con men are like that.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

But you only have some person’s word that God will.

 

[Ancient Soul]

My Theory deals with ones, who have finished the life. Ones are blasphemers, without a single holy deed, others are repented sinners. Let me define blasphemer notion. The latter is one who makes God angry. There are two gods: Holy Spirit, and evil spirit. I am monotheist because I love only one of them. The God I am talking about is one who has power to send human to Paradise.

Just listen your soul. My theory holds for the case if God has non-vanishing probability. Your paranoic objection is what God wants to murder us all. My heart does not believe in existence of evil god.

Let p2 be probability of some Robert to enter hell.
Let p1 be probability of Robert to enter Paradise.
Let p be probability of Robert to vanish in non-existence.
The total is: p2+p1+p=100 %. So, p2=100-p1-p.

Let p4 be probability of some Bob to enter hell.
Let p3 be probability of Bob to enter Paradise.
Let p be probability of Bob to vanish in non-existence.
The total is: p3+p4+p=100 %. So, p4=100-p3-p.

Let p3<p1. Namely, Robert is more holy than Bob.
Then, p4>p2. In conclusion, any holy deed (no matter how small) drives Robert away from hell.

In conclusion, probability of a human burn in hell is higher than if he would accept what ever religion available. This is proof of Pascal Wager.

Glory to the Spirit of Wisdom! To cite the song ``Hotel California'', ``We haven't had that spirit here since 1969.'' In the 1960s, Kurt Friedrich G\"odel stopped
lecturing. In the 1970s, G\"odel's condition began to deteriorate
rapidly. Yes, Gödel used math to publish his own argument for God.

FROM DISCUSSION:
Twilight Hue: "Well I guess the reliance on what science says, instead of what God says, increases the probability of Christians burning in hell exponentially."
No. My theory says that what ever Christian John does or thinks, his chances (TO ESCAPE HELL) are higher than of atheist Bob.

Scientifically speaking, probability of God's existence (p1+p2) is different from zero.
The probability that probability A of God's existence is non-vanishing is B percent.
Hence, the total probability of God's existence is sum A+B. So, even if A=0, the sum A+B is not zero.
However, the probability that a blasphemer will enter Paradise is zero: p5=0.

So I take it that you don't believe everything in the "word" of your "god"?

 

[Secret Chief]

Let p2 be probability of some Robert to enter hell.
Let p1 be probability of Robert to enter Paradise.
Let p be probability of Robert to vanish in non-existence.
The total is: p2+p1+p=100 %. So, p2=100-p1-p.

Let p4 be probability of some Bob to enter hell.
Let p3 be probability of Bob to enter Paradise.
Let p be probability of Bob to vanish in non-existence.
The total is: p3+p4+p=100 %. So, p4=100-p3-p.

Let p3<p1. Namely, Robert is more holy than Bob.
Then, p4>p2. In conclusion, any holy deed (no matter how small) drives Robert away from hell.

Bob is often what a Robert is called. So p=p. Like Sean=Shaun.