15 Aug 09
4 edits
Originally posted by duecersure, but there's the question of what, exactly, would lead you to win the wager? is mere belief in the existence of God enough? this would lead to the conclusion that unrepentant murderers who believe in God would go to heaven, which may be the case, but if it is the case then God is quite different to the Christian conception of God.
pascal never differentiated between God's, he was a universalist
it is more commonly thought that winning the wager is also a matter of what you do during your life. and different conceptions of God stipulate different actions for winning the bet. the Christian conception requires that you refrain from murder etc., or at least sincerely repent of any murders etc. that you do commit. On the other hand, perhaps Ra requires you to sacrifice oxen to him while muttering some mumbo-jumbo. So, if Ra turns out to be the true conception of God, then Christians, Muslims, etc. would lose the wager despite believing in God. this is the case regardless of whether Pascal was a 'universalist' - it simply reflects a flaw in his position.
of course, the real problem is that we are in no better an epistemological position with regard to the conditions of winning the wager than we are with regard to the question of the existence of God anyway.
16 Aug 09
1 edit
Originally posted by coquettethere's a pertinent joke featuring the prominent Cambridge philosopher Bertrand Russell. Russell dies and meets God. God puts on a stern expression and says 'Bertrand, why didn't you believe in me?' Russell spreads his hands and says 'Not enough evidence, God. Not enough evidence'.
the wager is nonsense. it's like i believe in the lottery because i have nothing to lose, even though i'm not buying any tickets. but if i didn't believe in it and i won i couldn't collect my winnings. i want to vomit when i think about this one.
Okay, it's not hilarious, but the point it is trying to make, I think, is that we are reasoning creatures that can't justly be blamed for non-belief in a deity that does not provide us with sufficient reason to believe in its existence.
16 Aug 09
Originally posted by BlackampI've had sufficient reason. I'm in no doubt.
there's a pertinent joke featuring the prominent Cambridge philosopher Bertrand Russell. Russell dies and meets God. God puts on a stern expression and says 'Bertrand, why didn't you believe in me?' Russell spreads his hands and says 'Not enough evidence, God. Not enough evidence'.
Okay, it's not hilarious, but the point it is trying to make, I think, is ...[text shortened]... in a deity that does not provide us with sufficient reason to believe in its existence.
God tells me, "Leave Seitse alone!"
16 Aug 09
Originally posted by tomtom232You've got me there
God hasn't been here for over 1000 days. User 255770
17 Aug 09
Originally posted by divegeesteri guess if he is omniscient, he'd know all your moves in advance. but then, that seems to imply that your moves are predestined, which would deny your free will, in the sense that you could not have chosen a different move.
I'm sure we can agree that god would be one heck of a chess player!