Problem with Pascal's Wager

[cyborg]

Actually, God's fierceness has just about everything to do with who is interpreting it. For example, what's the difference between the scorching heat of the desert and a lush green meadow in the woods? Indeed, both are a result of their relationship with the sun, and yet, the sun remains constant in either case.

I could actually answer this question but you'd not be able or willing to understand. For you it is enough that the sun is the 'same'. As if the sun were the sole influence on climate.

So, who does one blame, if one finds oneself "burning" in hell?

Why not tell us when you get there?

 

[Iacchus]

And such are the ways of Iacchus that he'll make some lame ass psuedo-intellectual statement rather than answer a simple question.

Or, maybe it was just a stupid question?

 

[Iacchus]

I could actually answer this question but you'd not be able or willing to understand. For you it is enough that the sun is the 'same'. As if the sun were the sole influence on climate.

As opposed to what? A cold frozen orb in space?

Why not tell us when you get there?

Actually, the desert is probably very much like a paradise, to the buzzards and snakes that live there!

 

[cyborg]

Or, maybe it was just a stupid question?

No, it's an entirely relevant question to the wager. Replace people with 'mythical magical entities' aka 'gods' if you so wish.

Of course you'd probably think it's still stupid: obviously only your god is real.

As opposed to what? A cold frozen orb in space?

Er... how about the moon for starters? You know that big rock thing in the sky? Or those big ass bodies of water that occupy 2/3rds of the Earth's surface and affect the climate far more than direct sunlight ever could.

But I am of course forgetting that you are an ignorant man who likes the sound of his own ******** analogies far too much to consider how flawed they are.

Actually, the desert is probably very much like a paradise, to the buzzards and snakes that live there!

No. It's just an ecological niche - it doesn't mean creatures that survive in the desert have anything like an easy time of it.

But again I am crediting you as not being a retard who is doing anything other than posting for his own edification.

 

[Iacchus]

No, it's an entirely relevant question to the wager. Replace people with 'mythical magical entities' aka 'gods' if you so wish.

And did you happen to read Abdul Hazred's reply? It makes a lot more sense to me.

Of course you'd probably think it's still stupid: obviously only your god is real.

As I already said, God is not looking for conscripts.

Er... how about the moon for starters? You know that big rock thing in the sky?

What about it? Granted, it does have some effect on the climate, but if you take away the sun, that pretty much spells the end of it.

Or those big ass bodies of water that occupy 2/3rds of the Earth's surface and affect the climate far more than direct sunlight ever could.

What about them?

But I am of course forgetting that you are an ignorant man who likes the sound of his own ******** analogies far too much to consider how flawed they are.

In "context" with what I was saying, I would say it's a very good analogy.

No. It's just an ecological niche - it doesn't mean creatures that survive in the desert have anything like an easy time of it.

And why do these buggers (for the most part) seem to show up under hot and arid conditions?

But again I am crediting you as not being a retard who is doing anything other than posting for his own edification.

Whatever. You're the one who comes across sounding like a retard anyway.

 

[richardm]

Actually, God's fierceness has just about everything to do with who is interpreting it. For example, what's the difference between the scorching heat of the desert and a lush green meadow in the woods? Indeed, both are a result of their relationship with the sun, and yet, the sun remains constant in either case. So, who does one blame, if one finds oneself "burning" in hell?

Well, I'm not a snake or a buzzard, and I wouldn't enjoy the scorching heat of the desert. And let's be quite clear that hell is intended to be a punishment. It is not open to the interpretation that we might rather enjoy it once we were there.

Hell is the big stick with which we're threatened if we don't worship God. This is classic bullying behaviour - if you don't do X I'm going to do Y - "If you don't give me your dinner money I'm going to beat you up". "If you don't worship me, I'm going to consign you to hellfire".

How you can claim God's not a bully is frankly beyond me. The whole premise of the New Testament is the setting up of a new contract between god and humanity - "Worship me, and you will have a great future in heaven". If God was a nice character, that would be the entirety of the deal. But in fact he offers a penalty instead - and the penalty we face for defaulting on this contract is so severely out of proportion that it becomes no better than a protection racket.

Yes, you pay for the offered "security", because the alternative is to have the building burned to the ground. This alternative is not spelled out in the contract itself, of course - but while you're deciding whether to sign up there are plenty of hints about how flammable these old buildings are.

He's just one more unpleasant deity in a long list of unpleasant deities. Which is, of course, the problem with Pascal's wager. You pay your protection money to one thug, but what do you do if it turns out that there is another thuggier thug in the area who takes a Dim View of you supporting this upstart gangster? Much better not to side with any of them, and get yourself a rottweiler. And a fire extinguisher.

 

[richardm]

Well, as I understand it, God is not looking for conscripts.

I'm not sure I agree. Definition of conscript:

[SIZE=-1]A male who was called up by the government to serve in the army.
[/SIZE][SIZE=-1]Draftee: someone who is drafted into military service
enroll into service compulsorily; "The men were conscripted"
[/SIZE]

There is an element of compulsion for any conscript - if you do not join up when called, you are jailed or face some other penalty, right?

God says "Worship me and you will join me in heaven. If you do not join me, you will go to Hell for eternity".

Is that so different? If we are to believe in God and the New Covenent then realistically we do not have a choice to make, because the penalty for not signing up is so severe. If God wasn't into the conscription game there would be no penalty for not joining up - you could just be snuffed out at the point of death. But instead he attempts to compel us to join under the threat of eternal suffering. Sounds like a draft to me.

 

[cyborg]

And did you happen to read Abdul Hazred's reply?

Yes.

It sounds much more sensible to me.

There's nothing that's not sensbile about what I proposed. You dismissed a previous representation of it by asking if the poster enjoyed being 'vindictive'. Sensbile reply? I think not.

As I already said, God is not looking for conscripts.

Indeed. Non-existent things do very little.

What about it? Granted, it does have some effect on the climate, but if you take away the sun, that pretty much spells the end of it.

Yes, if you take away the sun then nothing else related to life is going to happen anyway. That doesn't mean that the sun is responsible for everything. That's a composition fallacy (not that you'd care about that).

What about them?

The oceans affect the climate far more than direct sunlight. Direct sunlight does very little to directly affect the climate infact - all it really does is provide energy to the mechanisms that do affect
climate. You'd know that of course if you knew WHY deserts are like they are and why temperate regions are why they are like are then you wouldn't have proposed this in the first place.

In "context" with what I was saying, I would say it's a very good analogy.

Well yeah, you would.

However your god is not a passive ball of fire that radiates energy irrespective of the consequence of anything that may happen to be in the line of that energy. Your analogy is that it would be silly to blame the sun for making deserts. My point is that this is wrong and your analogy is a strawman.

And why do these buggers (for the most part) seem to show up under hot and arid conditions?

Erm, BECAUSE THEY'RE OCCUPYING A ECOLOGICAL NICHE. Just as I said. Doesn't mean it's a 'paradise'. It just means they can survive there. Otherwise you make the word meaningless and paradise might as well be synonymous with 'any environment that is tolerable'.

Whatever. You're the one who comes across sounding like a retard anyway.

I would to you, Oh Great Iacchus. Only retards couldn't possibly be "swayed" by your "creative" use of grammatical rules for the use of 'punctuation' and typeface packaged around your great insights into your (G/g)od. Why answer any query that is beneath your haughty standards?

 

[Iacchus]

Well, I'm not a snake or a buzzard, and I wouldn't enjoy the scorching heat of the desert.

I never even implied it. Now, if you would like to get some idea as to who this might entail, please read Matthew 23.

And let's be quite clear that hell is intended to be a punishment. It is not open to the interpretation that we might rather enjoy it once we were there.

And if you don't separate the spoiled apples from the good, all you have is spoiled apples.

Hell is the big stick with which we're threatened if we don't worship God. This is classic bullying behaviour - if you don't do X I'm going to do Y - "If you don't give me your dinner money I'm going to beat you up". "If you don't worship me, I'm going to consign you to hellfire".

As I said, God doesn't bully people, people bully people.

How you can claim God's not a bully is frankly beyond me. The whole premise of the New Testament is the setting up of a new contract between god and humanity - "Worship me, and you will have a great future in heaven". If God was a nice character, that would be the entirety of the deal. But in fact he offers a penalty instead - and the penalty we face for defaulting on this contract is so severely out of proportion that it becomes no better than a protection racket.

Let's not forget that these people were also brought up in a desert climate, which might account for the nature of God's fierceness.

Yes, you pay for the offered "security", because the alternative is to have the building burned to the ground. This alternative is not spelled out in the contract itself, of course - but while you're deciding whether to sign up there are plenty of hints about how flammable these old buildings are.

Yep, it sounds a bit like the mafia to me.

He's just one more unpleasant deity in a long list of unpleasant deities. Which is, of course, the problem with Pascal's wager. You pay your protection money to one thug, but what do you do if it turns out that there is another thuggier thug in the area who takes a Dim View of you supporting this upstart gangster? Much better not to side with any of them, and get yourself a rottweiler. And a fire extinguisher.

So, why is it that you think people do bad things? Apparently, according to what you're saying here, it doesn't necessarily have anything to do with God. And maybe that "is" the problem?

 

[Iacchus]

I would to you, Oh Great Iacchus. Only retards couldn't possibly be "swayed" by your "creative" use of grammatical rules for the use of 'punctuation' and typeface packaged around your great insights into your (G/g)od. Why answer any query that is beneath your haughty standards?

Whew, boy! You really have to be careful of those folks who think they've got you all figured out. Do you understand what the word "bigot" means?

 

[kmortis]

I'd hafta say, tho, that if someone were to put a gun to my head and say that I had to worship something, I'd choose the Norse; specifically Tyr. Let's face it, Valhalla is WAY cooler than heaven, what with all the Wine, Women and Song going on. Tyr kicks a$$ (c'mon, he put his sword hand in Fenris's mouth to subdue him...that shows cajones), not a god to be triffled with.

So, if I had to take Pascal's wager, I'd take that excluded middle.

Good thing I don't, eh?

 

[kmortis]

Whew, boy! You really have to be careful of those folks who think they've got you all figured out. Do you understand what the word "bigot" means?

Yes. Do you know what the word "idiot" means? I understand that the Slavs revered theirs.

 

[cyborg]

Whew, boy! You really have to be careful of those folks who think they've got you all figured out.

It doesn't take much looking on this forum to figure out that you're incapable of actually taking in anything anyone else says.

Do you understand what the word "bigot" means?

Er, yes. Do you?

Idiot.

 

[Iacchus]

There's nothing that's not sensbile about what I proposed. You dismissed a previous representation of it by asking if the poster enjoyed being 'vindictive'. Sensbile reply? I think not.

And it sounds to me like it had very little to do with Pascal's wager.

 

[Iacchus]

Er, yes. Do you?

Idiot.

Well, I can see that we have at least two bigots and one "idiot" in the crowd.

 

[cyborg]

And if you don't separate the spoiled apples from the good, all you have is spoiled apples.

And if you don't separate uncut diamonds from the cut ones... you have a big pile of cut and uncut diamonds.

There's your use of analogy again. Any evidence that people are equivalent to apples in this context?

As I said, God doesn't bully people, people bully people.

Indeed. Non-existent things can't bully.

Let's not forget that these people were also brought up in a desert climate, which might account for the nature of God's fierceness.

I agree. The god they created reflected their world.

So, why is it that you think people do bad things? Apparently, according to what you're saying here, it doesn't necessarily have anything to do with God. And maybe that "is" the problem?

Anything people do is irrespective of your god - since he is not there to do anything.

 

[cyborg]

Well, I can see that we have at least two bigots and one "idiot" in the crowd.

Again, I would ask if you know what the meaning of bigot is you idiot?

I recall last time we played the dictionary game you didn't come off so well did you?

And it sounds to me like it had very little to do with Pascal's wager.

Your original objection was on vindiction, not the matter of the nature of Pascal's Wager. Your objection is not upheld.

 

[Iacchus]

God says "Worship me and you will join me in heaven. If you do not join me, you will go to Hell for eternity".

Is that so different? If we are to believe in God and the New Covenent then realistically we do not have a choice to make, because the penalty for not signing up is so severe. If God wasn't into the conscription game there would be no penalty for not joining up - you could just be snuffed out at the point of death. But instead he attempts to compel us to join under the threat of eternal suffering. Sounds like a draft to me.

And do you love what's good and just (ethical and moral that is) or, do you despise it?

 

[Tricky]

I'd hafta say, tho, that if someone were to put a gun to my head and say that I had to worship something, I'd choose the Norse; specifically Tyr. Let's face it, Valhalla is WAY cooler than heaven, what with all the Wine, Women and Song going on. Tyr kicks a$$ (c'mon, he put his sword hand in Fenris's mouth to subdue him...that shows cajones), not a god to be triffled with.

Sounds pretty interesting, but as I understand it's for warriors only. Where do Viking accountants go?

 

[kmortis]

Sounds pretty interesting, but as I understand it's for warriors only. Where do Viking accountants go?

Well, you see accountants are just warriors of a different stripe, eh? They fight against the Monster of the Bottom Line. Granted, it's a bit hard to die in that kind of battle, which is why they serve as the clean-up crew in Valhalla, but they still get to enjoy the party the night before.

Just don't ask about Viking engineers.