An interesting interpretation of Hell

[Mahdi]

Let's just pretend I quoted your bottom paragraph:

Where did I disagree with that?  I do believe I was the first in this thread to call it cynical and cheap, and i have no doubt that if that is your entire purpose for worshiping god then no doubt he, being omniscient, will see through it.

I gots no problems with any of that bottom paragraph.

[Acriku]

For those reasons, it is not logical and sound, though.

[nemafakei]

Whether or not the wager works depends on the assumption that the 'religion' you end up with is pleasing to the real god. Even if Pascal intended it only as a consideration of christianity, the practical problem still exists that the consequences could be dire if you get it wrong. And do you believe in god or in Pascal? Does God reward faith based on Pascal's wager, or would he prefer us to spend out time and efforts on doing good in the world than on worship?

The wager I'd work on is that it's better to work for others' good. Assuming there's no god, if you can justify that to yourself and be happy with that, then, by the time you die, you'll have brought much good to the world. If there is a god, if it's in any way a moral god, you won't be punished as a false believer, and you should be given credit for your nature.

And I repeat: Pascal's wager is not an objective proof for god. Even if valid, it only showws that it is in the interest of individuals to believe/worship: at best, Pascal's wager is an insurance policy, not a argument that god exists.

[GUNWOUNDS]

oh for crying out loud.... you people are overcomplicating the matter... this is what you call "red herring overload"

its where you say this cant be right cause i cant tell you what color socks jesus wore on his 32nd birthday.

First of all Mahdi is correct... there is nothing fallacious about the wager.... its perfectly logically sound.

[Acriku]

Actually, there are an infinite amount of possible gods who punish those who BELIEVE in other gods, through blind faith, and reward those who are skeptical and bound by reason, consequently NOT BELIEVING. But it only takes one possible god to disprove your entire post, that atheism returns a zero chance of reward. So... You're wrong  :-*

[Caid Ivik]

hm, but only one possible absolute and infinite God, so why bother with partly ones...

[nemafakei]

Even a lottery ticket costs money.

I would rather give the money to charity than play.

Pascal's wager is like forging a lottery ticket: even if you win, you mightn't get the money with a fake.

"the CORE of the argument is still correct."

I don't contest Pascal's maths - it's all perfectly valid. For the basic definition of the problem, his solution is correct. But what I take issue with is whether the wager omits important considerations in its *application* (i.e. its definition may not fit reality). That I'm discussing complications does not necessarily mean I'm overcomplicating the issue: the alternative is that Pascal was oversimplifying it, and it's only by examination we can decide which is the case.

And there's another issue here, too. If you derive your morality from your religion, you could end up committing acts which are immoral in the view of the REAL god. As an agnostic or atheist, you've got to derive your principles logically, and if you assume god is absolutely good, he should correlate with an objectively-derived morality.

What we have to assess is the possibilities. If it's possible that a god exists, but not the one you're worshipping, then how does that affect your afterlife? If, for example, it's possible that the god that actually exists will punish false belief more than agnosticism (or atheism), then the bet doesn't look so good. Suddenly, there's the chance that you're paying the lottery winners with more than just the token contribution - it's your afterlife.

"Doing good works doesnt mean you cant worship a God... why are you making them exclusive Nema?"

Yes you can do both - in the same way that if I had

[GUNWOUNDS]

hm, but only one possible absolute and infinite God, so why bother with partly ones...

[nemafakei]

"To Nema....All of your comments seem to be that you are unable to see that you are overcomplicating the matter"

1. Claim of overcomplication.

2. Insert response (from previous post).

3. Repeat.

[Acriku]

    Exactly Caid... Acriku's is bringing up Gods that dont meet the true criteria of a God...i am not gonna sit here and rehash everything i just said when its written above in previous posts.  Acriku's make-belief god tactic might work with people who havent thought out what a God truely is... but its not gonna work here.  In my previous posts where i explained the need for Jesus.. Acriku said he understood it so i know he knows what i am talking about.    When you sit down and think it out... analyze good and evil and absoluteness... then  understand how dualism is debunked... then understand how God must have an Impersonal side to be absolute and must have a Personal side to give mercy.... it all points to the Christian God.  Therefore insisting upon false-attribute gods doesnt hold any water.

There's a difference between understanding the need for Jesus (in the context of the Judeo-Christian god!) and agreeing that it is the only possible option. You're using the FALLACY of excluding other possible options. It is possible for an infinite number of gods to exist that are different in their own respects, that reward skepticism and reason and punish blind faith. What is the true criteria of a god? A being who created us, and in the context of this wager, can punish or reward us for eternity. It doesn't all point to the Christian god. This is so rediculous, I'm almost laughing out loud.

[GUNWOUNDS]

There's a difference between understanding the need for Jesus (in the context of the Judeo-Christian god!) and agreeing that it is the only possible option. You're using the FALLACY of excluding other possible options. It is possible for an infinite number of gods to exist that are different in their own respects, that reward skepticism and reason and punish blind faith. What is the true criteria of a god? A being who created us, and in the context of this wager, can punish or reward us for eternity. It doesn't all point to the Christian god. This is so rediculous, I'm almost laughing out loud.

I am laughing because you dont understand the magnitude of what God really means.. the stuff you are referring to is genies or leprechauns.... beings with power that do whatever... those are not Gods.... if you cant understand what a "true" God's attributes are... if you cant understand what the most perfect absolute being of which none higher can be conceived.. if you cant understand that.... then this discussion is pointless.  Have fun toying with religion.  If being purposefully dense makes you comfortable about your life then by all means do it.  I am not pressuring you to change.... I'm simply letting others know why i chose what i chose and others who read this thread with an open mind will see that.  I have gotten many PM's from various people thanking me for posting because it helped them understand the situation a bit better.  That in itself has made it all worth it even tho people such as yourself wish to tear my words down with red herrings.

[GUNWOUNDS]

"To Nema....All of your comments seem to be that you are unable to see that you are overcomplicating the matter"

1. Claim of overcomplication.

2. Insert response (from previous post).

3. Repeat.

You can be silly if you want... but i clearly refuted your weak position by showing how you can be charitable and be part of a faith simultaneously without "losing" time, money, or effort.

[Acriku]

I am laughing because you dont understand the magnitude of what God really means.. the stuff you are referring to is genies or leprechauns.... beings with power that do whatever... those are not Gods.... if you cant understand what a "true" God's attributes are... if you cant understand what the most perfect absolute being of which none higher can be conceived.. if you cant understand that.... then this discussion is pointless.  Have fun toying with religion.  If being purposefully dense makes you comfortable about your life then by all means do it.  I am not pressuring you to change.... I'm simply letting others know why i chose what i chose and others who read this thread with an open mind will see that.  I have gotten many PM's from various people thanking me for posting because it helped them understand the situation a bit better.  That in itself has made it all worth it even tho people such as yourself wish to tear my words down with red herrings.

Your words? Listen to yourself, man! You're saying that your god is the only true god, and that is all there is to it. There is not even the possibility of other gods existing, instead or in addition. That's what I would call dense. So you have fans, good job. A pastor gains fans when his church comes to his service. Doesn't mean much, but I'm glad it makes you smile.

[GUNWOUNDS]

[Acriku]

    The thing is that i am making my decision based on logic acriku... NOT what makes my flesh comfortable.  I would love to have a God that didnt care what i did and let me do whatever so long as i used my "reason" and that really didnt care about things that i did so long as i was "reasonable" (whatever the hell that means).

And the possibility of such a god exists. You have given no reason why my logic is wrong, I wonder why that is?

    But no... i realize that such a God would merely be something conjured up out of comfort to myself.... something that lets me stay in my comfort zone... something that lets me keep my pride... something that lets me be arrogant.... something that doesnt make me be accountable for upholding moral law.  Its a childish/fleshy fantasy.

Conjured or not, the possibility of such a god exists. You can't deny that. It isn't self-contradictory, therefore it is possible of such a god. THEREFORE, Pascal's Wager is illogical, because of the "leaving-out-other-options" fallacy. It assumes only a Christian god, or even only a god that rewards people for believing in it.

    I never said that i could prove that my God exists... cause you cant....

And while I can't disprove the existence of your god (and I won't try, at least in this discussion), at the same time you cannot disprove the possibility of a god that rewards skepticism over blind faith.

i merely said that the Biblical concept of God is the only god that offers hope for you to have a successful afterlife and to even come close to understanding His will.

This is completely wrong. The god that I declare exists as a possibility, fully rewards people who use skepticism over blind faith. Your god is not the only god who offers hope to have a successful afterlife. And by rewarding skepticism over blind faith, we can understand his will to be to have a more rational human species. You cannot deny the possibility of this god. Therefore, Pascal's Wager is wrong. It's illogical. You have no argument.

  As he provides a personal side and insight into His will. This means when taking the Pascal Wager you should take the faith that makes the most sense logically to give you real hope for sucess..... which would be Christianity.  And i dont believe this cuz my mommy told me so and i dont beleive this because i think it makes me superior... i believe this because i have painstakingly written out the logic here in this thread that just about everyone agreed was reasonable.  However once that happened your panic alert came on which threatened your own faith status quo (oh no people are agreeing with gunwounds!!) and therefore you felt you had to red herring me to death with sillyness and partial definitions of god that fit your comfort zone.

Partial definitions? How is my definition of the god partial? We do not know much of anything about your god, since we have no understanding of his will, so how complete is the definition of your god? Your argument of partial definitions is non-sequitor. Because my definition doesn't give you that full feeling after eating a hamburger, it should be discarded? Please. I found a flaw in your argument and you're trying to ignore it. Well, I'm sorry but you haven't given a valid reason for ignoring it.

    Your atheism God or "infinite number of gods" excuse is merely something you conjectured to make yourself feel comfortable about living exactly the way you live. basically creating God in your own image.  My God is not something that makes me comfortable the way i live.... i know i must change myself... become better... ask him to soften my heart and take away my temper... pray for discernment and humility.  I refuse to accept your notion of a God that lets you do whatever so long as you use your intellect. 

And how does your refusal affect the logic of my argument? You're sticking your head in the sand and hoping it all boils over. Get your head out and start to think for yourself. Follow the logic, not what you think should be right.

And what does age have to do with anything anyways?  Thats your philosophy? To be skeptical of 2000 year old books?  So basically the younger the book the better it is for you? Nice logic there. Sorry but the bible has alot better material in it than most books written today in modern times.  Also if i want to know what happened 2000 years ago... i probably would want to read a book that was 2000 years old instead of something somebody wrote today.

I'm sorry, I wasn't done. A two-thousand year old book comprised of many different smaller books written by many different people, over many years after PREVIOUSLY told orally for many years, and VOTED UPON to be included. The credibility of that document decreases exponentially with that in mind.

[Caid Ivik]

We're going off-topic.

There's a difference between understanding the need for Jesus (in the context of the Judeo-Christian god!) and agreeing that it is the only possible option. You're using the FALLACY of excluding other possible options. It is possible for an infinite number of gods to exist that are different in their own respects, that reward skepticism and reason and punish blind faith. What is the true criteria of a god? A being who created us, and in the context of this wager, can punish or reward us for eternity. It doesn't all point to the Christian god. This is so rediculous, I'm almost laughing out loud.

Jesus is not a judeochristian God, Jews don't agree with him, it is its christian emanation, to hold it in understandable terms. Anselm made some work (Monologion I think) about how God had to sacrifice himself in earthly way to fulfill own creation, in 12th century. But that's a detail.

'Rewarding' of either skepticism and reason or blind faith is an aspect unknown to our definition of God. More of consideration are motives and consequences of actions, a view itself isn't here a moral category. While human morality isn't the principle of God anyway. Perhaps it is such an attribute of God, may you say, but it doesn't reward me if I blindly believe, neither when I doubt and change stance. So why should we bother with such question? God is infinite primordial being, where you hear any mentions about your faith or what? For Gunwounds believes it so and he is the only one who can define God for you?

[GUNWOUNDS]

I think that the main flaw of Pascal's wager lies in the faulty assumption that the chance God exists is 50/50. What if I am 99% certain there is no God? By having faith and living as a chirstian should, I am spending part of my energy I could use to make my life on earth even better. If these were the odds, any gambler that respects himfelf would choose a happy earthly life, over improbable eternal happiness.

In order for the wager to work, one must first determine what the odds are. Can a 2000 year old book be trusted? Gunwounds, you said that you didn't become a christian because your parents told you to; you employed your logic and critical thinking to judge religion. Yet that alone is not enough. Who gave you the bible and let you know about christianity? People. You are placing trust on them. Who did the same for them? Other people, to whom you also place trust. All the way back to those who write the bible.

I think it all boils down to how much you trust the authors of the bible and all those who carried the idea of christianity through the centuries.

You can only work with what you have Spectral.

[Acriku]

You see....either he has all of the attributes of a God that offers hope .....or he is a God that offers no hope..... or there is no God and there is no hope..

An arrogant Christian statement. Either your god exists, or there is no god. And who decides it is necessary to have all the attributes of the Christian God in order to be a "true God"? It's so closed-minded to think that the one true God (another assumption, that there is only one god) can only exist, as defined by the Christian god. Why do my gods not work? Sure, they were made up. But if they are logically sound, they are possible to exist. And they truly gave you hope, if you followed rationality and skepticism (just as your god gives you hope if you blindly believe in Him). You choose to ignore them over and over because you know it destroys your argument. I'm beginning to think you're ignoring my entire posts. You haven't provided a single reason why I am wrong besides the banter "The Christian god is the only true god to factor into the wager." It just smells of arrogance.

This is the clincher:

If you can offer me a better God that satisfies all of my requirements spectral then i will be open to your suggestion.

All of your requirements? Like I said, you're burying your head in the sand. You're ignoring all of the other possible gods because you can't live with them existing. But they're quite psosible. And should be factored into the wager, rendering it flawed. In order for the wager to work, and you say this in a way, one must ignore every possible god but the god they can live with existing. Ignore every god but the god they want to exist. You're hilarious GUNWOUNDS.

[GUNWOUNDS]

Who says i "want" the christian God to exist?

I would rather your God exist Acriku... one so easy to follow and gee no guilt at all plus he is made up so i can discard him if i ever want to....(damn doesnt that just screw up your arguement?) but unfortunately logic points to the christian God and is the only one that really offers true hope.

[stefanhendriks]

I don't believe in ANY god, though i believe life is bigger then any human can possibly realize. To make it a bit more understandable. We can think in 1 dimension, 2 dimensions, 3 gets tough, but i believe life is bigger then 3 dimensions. I think WAY more.

As long as people respect i don't live with any God , i respect those who do. As long as people don't force me to do things by their 'God' or their believe in this God, i am satisfied. I will let them be as well.

Wars oftenly are fought due religions and Gods and whatsoever. (alongside with power, wealth, money, etc). I'd say, believe what you believe, do what you do, but keep respect for your fellow human being.

[GUNWOUNDS]

I don't believe in ANY god, though i believe life is bigger then any human can possibly realize. To make it a bit more understandable. We can think in 1 dimension, 2 dimensions, 3 gets tough, but i believe life is bigger then 3 dimensions. I think WAY more.

As long as people respect i don't live with any God , i respect those who do. As long as people don't force me to do things by their 'God' or their believe in this God, i am satisfied. I will let them be as well.

Wars oftenly are fought due religions and Gods and whatsoever. (alongside with power, wealth, money, etc). I'd say, believe what you believe, do what you do, but keep respect for your fellow human being.

Of course respect for human life and freedom is a given.... but its not really what we are discussing.

[Acriku]

Who says i "want" the christian God to exist?

I would rather your God exist Acriku... one so easy to follow and gee no guilt at all plus he is made up so i can discard him if i ever want to....(damn doesnt that just screw up your arguement?)

Nope, doesn't do much to my argument. And actually, it's not that easy for people so engrained into their religion. You have to actually think for yourself and question things.

but unfortunately logic points to the christian God and is the only one that really offers true hope.

Logic does NOT point to the Christian god. Logically, an all-loving God does not send people to hell for eternity for not following a command of his. Logically, an all-loving God does not drown most of his creation in order to start over, all the while knowing it would've ended that way from the beginning. Logically, a universe cannot be made out of nothing. Logically, the sun comes before light (God created light before he created stars). I can go on and on. Logically, Noah's Flood is impossible and therefore puts a black mark on everything else in the Bible. There's little logic pointing to your god being the only, and true god.

  Also asking why multiple Gods cant exist is silly as there can only be one absolute being.  AS caid so simply put :

What Caid said makes no sense. There's nothing inherently wrong with more than one infinity existing. There can only be one absolute being? Wow, there's some Christian propaganda for you.

The reason i think the christian God is the only one with the right attributes is because a God must be the absolute perfect being above which none other can be conceived... thats how a God is defined.

No, a god is defined as a creator or controller of something. It doesn't need to be perfect (which is a human, and impossible to define term). Assuming the Christian god is the only true god is a statement of faith, not fact. To say no other god could be possible is a statement of arrogance, not truth. 

So no i dont "want" my God to be the right one and i dont ignore all the other possibilities....... i clearly said that there could be a God that offers no hope or that God doesnt exist....

And this doesn't ignore gods who do offer hope? Head in the sand GUNWOUNDs...

however i just understand that if you want to acheive an afterlife then logcially you need a God that is absolutely perfect, good, and accessible personally, in order to be logically sound to worship and understand.

What a crock. You're making this up as you go, aren't you? You can achieve an afterlife with a god that is not absolutely perfect (which is kind of redundant, eh? oh, and impossible to define [therefore nonsensical]) and good and accessible personally. You're going at this with the idea that your god is the only god instead of an open mind that people need to have in this thread...

Stop ranting on your anti-christian crusade...

At least my crusades doesn't involve massacres and genocides. Sorry, couldn't resist  :-X

i dont worship the God because of the christian culture i worship him because he is the only one that makes sense.  You are projecting your feelings onto me.... YOU are the one who "wants" your god to exist... i simply follow mine because it is the only one that is logical if one is to follow a god, "want to exist" is not a factor.

Only one who makes sense? That's a bold statement. An all-loving god sending people to hell for eternity for not doing what he says, and still values free will? Yeah, makes total sense. A perfect all-knowing god fucks up and drowns his mistake to start over, and is all-loving. No, you're right, Makes so much sense.

Even though i would love to worship your guilt-free God which is border-line self-worship and which would most assuredly satisfy my flesh and give me that "full hamburger feeling"..... i just CANNOT as i feel that it is too illogical and too much of a copout.  You really have the wrong idea about me, thats for sure.

You keep saying guilt-free. Tell me, why does there have to be guilt? Anyway, it's not illogical at all. You're just saying whatever I say is wrong without even saying WHY. And why is that? Because you have no real reason. But on the offchance that I am wrong and you do have reasons as to why I am wrong, I will gladly read any that you post.

Or perhaps you havent defined you God clearly enough for me....All you seem to be mentioning is that your God rewards you for skepticism.... without mentioning anything else.  It doesnt give me much to work with or help me to understand your stance or point of view.  Stop being cryptic and be as detailed as possible and then maybe we can get somewhere.

It's not relevant. Whatever details makes you happy, then it's enough for this argument. The fact that this god is possible is enough, whether I made it up or it was made up 2000 years ago is irrelevant.

To it rewards you for being a skeptic towards everything but itself. Nice :)

  To say a God rewards you for being skeptic, yet does not reward for faith is a paradox.  Because in order to believe that you are following this God you must have some shred of faith that what you are following is what is right and exists ...

True, but I imagine this god to not have huge insecurities and does not require his people to believe in him. He is not the one to get a hard on from people worshipping him. Funny how a perfect god would need people to worship so badly?

AS far as your claim that "The christian God is the only God to fit into teh wager" is an arrogant statement ... it is not... if you can show another god that gives hope then it definately fits into teh wager as well.  But i was merely stating that making up arbitrary gods or trying to put purely impersonal gods into the wager is pointless (duh because there is no hope)

Damn, if only I made it up two thousand years ago and it wouldn't be seen as an arbitrary made-up god ::) Head in the sand GUnwounds...

[GUNWOUNDS]

[Caid Ivik]

Still, believing in God could be defined as trust that God will help you where you want, altough your prayers are not always fulfilled. We believe in attributes, or to be more exact, in emanation. Substantial God, which is infinite, isn't being questioned by believes.

However, I assert again this is off topic. Infinite God is being discussed here.

[stefanhendriks]

Of course respect for human life and freedom is a given.... but its not really what we are discussing.