(god decides the fate of your soul, not you)

No. I don't believe that it's a different topic, did you get that from something I said?

The thing is I value life more than reason/rationality, what if you win an argument and lose your soul? :o

Actually Agustino brought up the practicality, which may or may not be effective on atheists but I think there is a good chance to knock some agnostics off the fence. War also tends to favor belief over non-belief.

Logical arguments are not the only type of argument, value judgements can also be valid, but not on the same terms as logical arguments, because there are no undeniable objective values or viewpoints, and I think appling T/F to value judgement conclusions is a mistake.

I don't think it matters, you believe in what you understand, what you have been taught about God, if it is wrong then it is wrong, but if it is even a tiny bit right it is a home run.

This is not a logical argument, it is not a question of discursive logic.

Either way you roast

This is not a logical argument...value judgements are not T/F are they?

that's why we wager our belief, we gain nothing if we are wrong and we lose nothing by wagering it.

and if God is good.

Ok, all along I have stated it is a belief in a Good God.

I don't think it matters, the argument is not about what's right or wrong in the logical sense of those terms, it is a valuation which can be either assigned or not assigned to a belief. If you believe there is nothing after death then it's not worth your wager, if you believe there is even an infinitesimal chance that belief in God will save you for an eternity, then it is worth the wager.

Believing in God and salvation is more useful than not believing in God and salvation because.... ?

the anticipated payout is greater than and more comforting than nothing.

The wager doesn't make much sense unless you expect to get something out of it. It's a decision to believe or not to believe and you assign it a value to each side of that decision, but even if the decision to believe is wrong you lose nothing.

Note (which I alluded to earlier) when Christ gets crucified his conversation with the two thieves crucified on either side of him.

"Are You not the Christ? Save Yourself and us!" 40 But the other answered, and rebuking him said, "Do you not even fear God, since you are under the same sentence of condemnation? 41 "And we indeed are suffering justly, for we are receiving what we deserve for our deeds; but this man has done nothing wrong." 42 And he was saying, "Jesus, remember me when You come in Your kingdom!" 43 And He said to him, "Truly I say to you, today you shall be with Me in Paradise."

Luke 23:32-43

So yes we can certainly question motives for deathbed conversion, but we cannot know that the person was or wasn't in earnest, that's up to the individual & God. I think the brute fact of one's imminent demise makes one more serious about the life. As I suggested, I don't think it takes much to knock an agnostic off the fence, and to suggest that an agnostic is insincere from the get go is a mistake in my estimation.

The expectation that by believing in God one might be saved, obtain eternal bliss versus the expectation of nothingness.

Keep in mind though that I'm a theist. If I was an atheist... I'm not sure what I'd do, because it's a hard one. I would feel the need to believe in God and convert - that's the only way to die with hope in your heart. At the same time I would be disgusted at myself, and see myself as a nothing. And I would think that if I was God, then a man like me certainly wouldn't deserve Salvation.

Suppose you were agnostic. Pew Research indicates 4% of the US population considers itself agnostic, which is lot of people based on 320m. You believe in a true act of contrition?


Ciao I have to leave, put a battery in my car.

I didn't say that you did, it obviously means something to those who believe in God and those who believe in a Good God believe in salvation through this belief. which has greater utility than not believing in God.

Obviously not to those who believe in god.

Yes, I read the Wikipedia article and other accounts. The Hospital Chaplin confirmed his conversion and as I pointed out in one of my posts he did an exposition on Pascal's Wager early on, in his first collected work of poetry & essays in 1923. He thought it is a rational wager.

God refers to what ever you believe is god is, for many god is the creator, but what ever you sincerely believe god is.

Yep 100% cavacava

The problem with zoos has to do with how some of them intentionally or unintentionally mistreat animals, there are good zoos and real sucky zoos. As others have noted, they serve a purpose. I always liked going the zoo as a kid.

Do you think that the existence or non-existence of god can be proved? If the answer is no then whether you believe in god or not is a belief which cannot be logically justified. Yet many people believe in god. I think most people at some point in their lives make a decision to believe or not, but a number of them change their minds when death looms in front of them. This is not about how rational or irrational this belief is in itself. It is about how someone assigns value to concepts how they view the utility of concepts like a Good God.

Maybe you can provide a reference, I thought he was out of town throughout this period.

From Wikipedia:

In the year 399, Xenophon was soldiering with the Greek mercenary army of the Ten Thousand (cf. Anabasis); hence was not in Athens for the trial of Socrates

According to Plato in his Phaedo there were several people. This dialogue is one recollection of what happened, according to dialogue Plato was sick.

Algebra is hypothetical until it is applied.

Let me think about it, I think offhand that it these are not hypothesis, but wagers, as in a bet, in which they obtain the assignment of certain values of utility by the person in making the decision.

You

wager a person on their death bed is not in a rational frame of mind.

and at the same time refer to Socrates. Yet at Socrates' on his deathbed, was in a rational frame of mind. Whether he feared death, I think might have to do with the interpretation of his very last words.

.[reply="Jeremiah;39999"

As Socrates points out we don't really fear death, we fear what we imagine death to be, and I would wager a person on their death bed is not in a rational frame of mind]

This sentence defeats itself.

Yea, it's ideological propaganda in my opinion.

Ok, but how do you read someone like Plato and not get involved in that fallacy. Plato works are each separate they stand on their own, yet in many ways they seem to depend on one another. How would irony be possible if we didn't read intent into what we are reading.

Ok, but wouldn't you say that some interpretations are better than others. More informed, able to demonstrate more solidarity with the text. Hermeneutics has a methodology.

The idea of training the body to move based on concepts such as:

Philosophy of Keeping Yourself Centred in Wing Chun

sounds intriguing. I have been doing very basic Qiqong for around 30 years. It's a form of meditation.


[Aside: I found the writing style very clunky, you should practice some of your philosophy and make it flow, but perhaps that is the way you want to come across]

Yea, I went to Catholic grammar school, high school and college, then a predominantly Jewish graduate school, which was like shock therapy, changed me significantly. Pretty much agnostic now.

Interesting, I have to ask my daughter what if any beliefs she holds, her background does not include the push towards any religion.

.

The worst outcome with A1 is being rewarded for all eternity. The best outcome with A2 is being punished for all eternity. The worst outcome with A1 is at least as good as the best outcome with A2. Therefore my objection meets the premise

No that does not sound right. The worst outcome with A1 is oblivion, no god, no eternal bliss, no nothing. The only outcome from A2 is oblivion, eternal nothing.

Well isn't life a lot like that, we believe certain things and we act accordingly. We don't always know the "reality" of our beliefs, but we do assign them values, and I think what Pascal is saying is that if you assign good values to a belief in god, then you have nothing to lose in believing in him, and you have the potential to gain a lot.

If think the deathbed scenario paints this situation in stark relief, one must make a choice, do you talk to the Chaplain or not Terrapin? Do you confess or just die?

This argument is a wager, it assumes certain possibilities have a certain utility. If you think that by believing in God you may compromise your eternal life, then you do not wager a belief in God, but if you similar to others think that God is Good, then the your wager of belief is certainly no worse than the atheistic non-belief and if true then you are eternally ahead...infinite utility.

Yes, and imagine if you are an agnostic.

One of the premises of his argument is that

the worst outcome associated with A1 is at least as good as the best outcome associated with A2;

and I don't see how your objection meets this premise.

Not sure I understand your problem. Here is what Wallace Stevens had to say about Pascal's Wager from his 1923 book Harmonium:

Pascal begins by painting a situation where both the existence and non-existence of God are impossible to prove by human reason. So, supposing that reason cannot determine the truth between the two options, one must "wager" by weighing the possible consequences. Pascal’s assumption is that, when it comes to making the decision, no one can refuse to participate; withholding assent is impossible because we are already "embarked", effectively living out the choice.