Pascal's Wager early on, in his first collected work of poetry & essays in 1923. He thought it is a rational wager. — Cavacava

Rational it may be - but certainly believing in God only on your deathbed is cowardly, arrogant, presumptuous, and lacking in integrity.

In fact, I would compare deathbed conversions to someone who, say, joins a war supporting one side because he stands to gain from it rather than because he really believes in the cause. The general in charge may accept him, because he may be an important asset, however, he will never think highly of him - ultimately he is an opportunist at heart.

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.

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? — Cavacava

Possible, but I wouldn't bet on it. But I don't think belief in God per say is necessary for salvation. Even an atheist can be saved - it's more about virtue and morality, than mere belief. Mere belief without the virtue and morality is empty and vacuous.

This means nothing if A and B are not defined. — Jeremiah

It makes absolutely no difference whether or how A and B are defined. If you believe that if A then B, and you believe A, then it is rational for you to believe B, and irrational for you to deny B. If x+y=a and y=mx+b, then x=(a-b)/(m+1) and y=(ma+b)/(m+1), no matter how we define x, y, a, b, and m.

I am sorry but that is not so, if that was, then we'd have one equation to measure every thing.

You are trying to drag the argument in to such abstraction it holds no more meaning.

I am sorry but that is not so ... — Jeremiah

What is not so? Everything in my last post is undeniably true, unless you reject simple deductive logic and basic algebra.

... if that was, then we'd have one equation to measure every thing. — Jeremiah

Who said anything about measuring? Again, I am talking about the rules of logic and algebra, which are content-neutral.

Everything in my last post is undeniably true — aletheist

If you were trying to prove you can move undefined variables around, I suppose so.

x=(a-b)/(m+1) — aletheist

m= -1

Who said anything about measuring? — aletheist

I did.

which has greater utility than not believing in God. — Cavacava

It has greater utility with respect to what?

If an equation cannot be fit back into the context of the original inquiry, then you failed to prove anything at all.

If you were trying to prove you can move undefined variables around, I suppose so. — Jeremiah

I was not trying to "prove" anything. I was simply showing how both deductive logic and algebra are about the relations among the terms, not their contents.

m= -1 — Jeremiah

Then a=b, while x and y are any two numbers that add up to a (or b).

If an equation cannot be fit back into the context of the original inquiry, then you failed to prove anything at all. — Jeremiah

Then a=b, while x and y are any two numbers that add up to a (or b). — aletheist

That does not follow. if a-b =0 then x = 0 in x=(a-b)/(m+1)

Go back to math class, anything divided by zero is undefined. — Jeremiah

Go back to the original equations, set m=-1, and see what happens. In this case, undefined simply means indeterminate, since any pair of values for x and y that add up to a (or b) will work.

That does not follow. if a-b is zero then x = 0 in x=(a-b)/(m+1) — Jeremiah

No, you already set m=-1; so if a-b=0, then x=0/0 (undefined). Again, go back to the original equations, which become x+y=a and x+y=b.

If an equation cannot be fit back into the context of the original inquiry, then you failed to prove anything at all. — Jeremiah

No, you already set m=-1; so if a-b=0, then x=0/0 (undefined) — aletheist

That is not what I said, I said if a-b = 0, not if a-b = 0 and m+1 = 0.

I can see aletheist the only way you know how to debate is to drag things out of context.

No, you already set m=-1; — aletheist

I think this more than proves my point, keep dragging it to abstraction until the argument makes no sense at all, and does not apply to the original debate.

Let's review the exchange, just for the record.

If x+y=a and y=mx+b, then x=(a-b)/(m+1) and y=(ma+b)/(m+1), no matter how we define x, y, a, b, and m. — aletheist

m= -1 — Jeremiah

Then a=b, while x and y are any two numbers that add up to a (or b). — aletheist

That does not follow. if a-b is zero then x = 0 in x=(a-b)/(m+1) — Jeremiah

No, you already set m=-1; so if a-b=0, then x=0/0 (undefined). Again, go back to the original equations, which become x+y=a and x+y=b. — aletheist

That is not what I said, I said if a-b = 0, not if a-b = 0 and m=1 = 0. — Jeremiah

You gave no indication of withdrawing your initial stipulation that m=-1. If a-b=0, then indeed x=0 for any value of m other than -1; and y=a=b, so it is still the case that x+y=a=b.

None of this is relevant to the thread topic, but I felt the need to defend my algebraic acumen. The real problem is our failure to communicate.

Let's review — aletheist

Yes let's do.

If an equation cannot be fit back into the context of the original inquiry, then you failed to prove anything at all. — Jeremiah

I am not gonna sit here and debate nonsense with you all day.

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

Possible, but I wouldn't bet on it. But I don't think belief in God per say is necessary for salvation. Even an atheist can be saved - it's more about virtue and morality, than mere belief. Mere belief without the virtue and morality is empty and vacuous. — Agustino

Yes, I made this point earlier, that belief about God cannot be a merely intellectual matter. If your faith does not transform you, then it is not real faith. I can say that as someone who does not have real faith, but who hopes to be open to it.

From what I remember from the New Testament, salvation is possible only by accepting Christ as having died for our sins. That's how the murderer (?) was welcomed into Heaven as he was being crucified beside Jesus.

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.

So believing in God is useful because it's useful to believe in God? You just made a tautology.

If your faith does not transform you, then it is not real faith. — John

Which comes first though? Are you transformed because of your faith, or do you have faith and are transformed thereby?

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.

those who believe in a Good God believe in salvation through this belief. which has greater utility than not believing in God. — Cavacava

Sorry, but you still haven't explained the "utility" here. Believing in God and salvation is more useful than not believing in God and salvation because.... ?

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.

If god is unreasonable and irrational you have no way to know if there will be any salvation from belief.