http://www.geocities.com/paulntobin/pascal.html The Rejection of Pascal's Wager In the seventeenth century the French mathematician and theologian, Blaise Pascal (1623- 1663) put forward a wager in his Pensees (Thoughts): If there is a God, He is infinitely incomprehensible, since, having, neither parts nor limits, He has no affinity to us. We are then incapable of knowing either what He is or if He is ... you must wager. It is not optional. You are embarked. Which will you choose then? Let us weigh the gain and the loss in wagering that God is. Let us estimate these two chances. If you gain, you gain all; if you lose, you lose nothing. Wager then without hesitation that he is.[1] Pascal's wager sounds deceptively simple. Many a religious person finds such a call attractive: one only needs to believe without considering the evidence and one would immediately be in a better position than that of the non-believer. After all, they say, if I believe and then it turns out to be true I get to enjoy heavenly bliss; but if my belief turns out to be false, and there is no God, then when I die, I lose nothing. An atheist, the religious person may continue, if he turns out to be wrong will suffer an eternity of torment. If the atheist turns out to be right then it is only equal to the believer's "worst case." Obviously then, the believer will say, you must wager on the side of belief. But Pascal's argument is seriously flawed. The religious environment that Pascal lived in was simple. Belief and disbelief only boiled down to two choices: Roman Catholicism and atheism. With a finite choice, his argument would be sound. But on Pascal's own premise that God is infinitely incomprehensible, then in theory, there would be an infinite number of possible theologies about God, all of which are equally probable. First, let us look at the more obvious possibilities we know of today - possibilities that were either unknown to, or ignored by, Pascal. In the Calvinistic theological doctrine of predestination, it makes no difference what one chooses to believe since, in the final analysis, who actually gets rewarded is an arbitrary choice of God. Furthermore we know of many more gods of many different religions, all of which have different schemes of rewards and punishments. Given that there are more than 2,500 gods known to man [2], and given Pascal's own assumptions that one cannot comprehend God (or gods), then it follows that, even the best case scenario (i.e. that God exists and that one of the known Gods and theologies happen to be the correct one) the chances of making a successful choice is less than one in 2,500.
I spent 50 years as a bible believing baptist. I understand the bible. I fail to see the value in using the bible to verify if the bible is true when all of the evidence indicates that the bible is a collection of writings by primitive men who had no concept of science and why things happened to them in their lives and who thought thunder and lightening were God talking to them. Should not i use outside sources to verify the validity of the bible before i use it as evidence? Beliefs should be a search for truth and understanding, not denying reality so you can have faith in a compendium of books written by unknown authors over hundreds and hundreds of years complied much later by other fallible men, as 100% literally correct. That is a faith that is truly blind. You seem to put a lot of stock in Jesus sayings and life. If all of the evidence indicated that Jesus, if he existed, was nothing more than a jewish preacher why should i put a lot of stock in what he said? We know that the stories of Jesus were made up. We know that the virgin birth story never happened. We know that the wise men at christmas story is a fable. We know that the resurrection story is made up. What is left? Jesus if he even existed was just a man. If the plan of salvation changed, and Matthew 19 presents an obsolete plan of salvation, why does Matthew bother to present it? For Matthew wrote long after the death of Christ. Had he been teaching salvation by faith for years before he wrote this book? If Matthew had been teaching a faith-based salvation for years, why does he present this clear teaching of works-based salvation in Matthew? By the time he wrote, this would have been out of date years ago. Why does the book of Matthew never explain salvation by faith?
This is tangential to the discussion at hand. I never used the bible to verify the bible as being true. I had this discussion months ago in this thread with a poster who tried to accuse of the same thing. It's pretty obvious your response is canned. Or perhaps rhetorical in that you mean this generally. But if I just said a few posts ago that I can't prove God exists, how on Earth can I use the bible to prove it's true? Herein lies your problem. You can't even analyse the "story" on an academic level. All you seem to see is red. What I believe is irrelevant as I'm not asking you to believe it either. No where will see me asking you to believe. Your question was straigthforward. It seemed as if you wanted an answer to it. But you're only interested in supporting your change to atheism. I get that. No biggie really. But knowing that, that's why I didn't bother to go through a whole bunch of writing. Did I say anything towards that? No. Did I say the plan of salvation changed? Nope. The book of Hebrews shows that the essence of the mechanism for salvation hasn't changed. You say you've been a baptist for 50 years. That doesn't mean that you know what you're talking about. But at the same time it also doesn't mean you don't. It means you had a baptist POV but now you have an atheist POV. Anyway, an answer, a cogent one is there if you really care to look into it. I gave you a very basic map to find it if you're interested if only academically.
You still have not given an answer that was not contradicted by other bible verses. You said the bible was clear on what it takes to get in the club and i asked you the question to show why you are wrong. It is not clear.
I don't play that game of bait and switch. Nor "gotcha!" Which is mainly what you're looking to play. That's why I left the ball in your court. If I really thought that you were actually interested in fleshing this out, believe me I would take the time. I actually do enjoy these types of discussions with believers and non-believers alike. But when I sense they're not interested but would rather just justify their own POV at all costs I tend to bow out until I see something interesting or something I think might need a bit of tempering. Anyway, I'd know that you were interested if instead of saying, "I was 50 years in a baptist congregation" (paraphrased) you actually either offered to read the books I suggested (nothing like a refresher) or showed a knowledge past atheist website/literature debunking points. I do read many atheist's literature. I find much of it fascinating and enlightening. Doesn't matter that I don't agree with it. I can acknowledge merit in it. I believe I have a better grasp of the bible because of it than before I was challenged by atheist literature. That's also why I read about other religions, past and present. I have no axe to grind nor anything to prove. If you will notice also, while considering myself a bible believing Christian, I do not hide from the faults and failings of Modern Christiandom. Neither the possibilities that it all might ultimately be bunk. Neither do I earnestly care if someone believes or not. It'd be nice, sure. But I don't believe you can make someone believe anything. They will or they won't. There's been a fair amount of study to support my contention. You're a young atheist. Young in the sense that you haven't been one for long and it shows. I can actually empathize with the struggle you went through and are still going through leaving a religion behind. You appear to still need justification for leaving it behind. That's evident by some of the offshoot "proofs" you post which really are grasping at straws. And the game playing and trying to trap for a "gotcha." And at this point in your journey, I actually do understand why you are not simply content with a lack of evidence as justification for leaving Christianity behind. LKH, I really do wish you the best on your transistion to atheism. I know you must be having some serious struggles with your family and friends. I hope that you can come to some reasonable terms with them and that they will come to respect your decision and you respect theirs. I also wish for you to enjoy your life, free of any guilt and angst over your decision if indeed you have that.
Desire! When I walked upon your planet as a man, I confronted many different opinions about the nature of creation, the nature of humankind, and the nature of consciousness or self-identity. Just as you are now confronted with many schools of thought, so too was I. While that can seem to lead to great confusion, as though one must choose from the smorgasborg, it actually serves not unlike the sand inside the oyster from which the pearl will come. It causes you to grate inside. You must find you own way to your own truth. For before each and every one of you lies your pathway, a doorway, an eye of the needle, through which only you can fit. Therefore, in some respects, you are seemingly alone. You must make the decision to desire - above all things - awakening into perfect remembrance of your union with God. Jesus
So perhaps there is one GOD with many different names. One can believe in actual existence but not believe in an organized religion. If you are that worried then believe in all 2500 of them. By doing this, What do you have to lose ? Is the risk worth the reward ?
Well, they disagree on many things, but the only one I'm referring to at the moment is the most basic... the way to salvation. Simple examples of this disagreement can be seen between the Catholics and Protestants -- salvation through the sacrements or not. How much more basic can you get than the way to get to heaven, and everyone believes that they can see it clearly -- and yet... JB