03-25-2004, 06:08 PM
For Pete.
When taken at face value and unadroned with deceit, the wager makes a measure of sense, but only if one posits gambling as the framework for decision making (which to a certain extent all risk based decisions are), one assumes one cares what happens in the eternity after your mortal life ends, and one makes the statement without "mental reservation or purpose of evasion."
b= belief g = god y =yes n = no
b/g
1. yy = good outcome: harps, coffee, guinness, no slow cooker
2. ny = bad outcome: no coffee, no guinness, yes slow cooker
3. nn= good (or good enough) outcome: proven correct, no coffee, no guinness, worms chow down, finis
4. yn= good outcome (or is it neutral outcome? Is eternal disappointment a bad outcome?) No coffee, No guinness, worms chow down, No Harps but felt good about the Faith?
We may be at a batting .500 position more than the batting .750 suggested.
If one is faking it, per your comment, the first outcome is negated, since the "Omniscient Almighty" knows the truth, and sends the liar, the faker, to the slow cooker. That takes one to at best batting .500, and at worst .250, based on the ambiguity of item 4.
Which is why Pascal's god is not Pascal's God. The faking it solution ignores the Omniscient, Omnipresent, and Omnipotent assumptions of the deity in question, and the premise of belief as a sincere act of volition. I don't recall if Pascal was around before or after the issues of Faith and Free Will were being kicked around, I think it was after. If one tries to hedge one's bets by breaking a Commandment . . . hmmmmmmm, methinks that dog don't hunt.
For Jester: If you believe and are wrong, wrong is wrong. The idea is that of "Is or Isn't" not what flavor.
If Allah = God, then I infer that both the Muslim and the Christian show up and eat yogurt together, in some fine setting, per CS Lewis' suggestion, and the second bit is a "y" even if it is loaded with sruprises in the afterlife.
*flash to an afterlife scene, where Francois and Achmed find one another wearing ethereala flip flops, blue jeans, and checkered shirts:*
"What, we now eat communion dates? Angels don't shave their armpits? We drink wine?"
When taken at face value and unadroned with deceit, the wager makes a measure of sense, but only if one posits gambling as the framework for decision making (which to a certain extent all risk based decisions are), one assumes one cares what happens in the eternity after your mortal life ends, and one makes the statement without "mental reservation or purpose of evasion."
b= belief g = god y =yes n = no
b/g
1. yy = good outcome: harps, coffee, guinness, no slow cooker
2. ny = bad outcome: no coffee, no guinness, yes slow cooker
3. nn= good (or good enough) outcome: proven correct, no coffee, no guinness, worms chow down, finis
4. yn= good outcome (or is it neutral outcome? Is eternal disappointment a bad outcome?) No coffee, No guinness, worms chow down, No Harps but felt good about the Faith?
We may be at a batting .500 position more than the batting .750 suggested.
If one is faking it, per your comment, the first outcome is negated, since the "Omniscient Almighty" knows the truth, and sends the liar, the faker, to the slow cooker. That takes one to at best batting .500, and at worst .250, based on the ambiguity of item 4.
Quote:Thus Pascal's god cares more for the form than the function -- he rewards believers and hypocrites alike. Interesting concept, a god who allows himself to be fooled and a heaven that can be entered by ass kissing.
Which is why Pascal's god is not Pascal's God. The faking it solution ignores the Omniscient, Omnipresent, and Omnipotent assumptions of the deity in question, and the premise of belief as a sincere act of volition. I don't recall if Pascal was around before or after the issues of Faith and Free Will were being kicked around, I think it was after. If one tries to hedge one's bets by breaking a Commandment . . . hmmmmmmm, methinks that dog don't hunt.
For Jester: If you believe and are wrong, wrong is wrong. The idea is that of "Is or Isn't" not what flavor.
If Allah = God, then I infer that both the Muslim and the Christian show up and eat yogurt together, in some fine setting, per CS Lewis' suggestion, and the second bit is a "y" even if it is loaded with sruprises in the afterlife.
*flash to an afterlife scene, where Francois and Achmed find one another wearing ethereala flip flops, blue jeans, and checkered shirts:*
"What, we now eat communion dates? Angels don't shave their armpits? We drink wine?"
Cry 'Havoc' and let slip the Men 'O War!
In War, the outcome is never final. --Carl von Clausewitz--
Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum
John 11:35 - consider why.
In Memory of Pete
In War, the outcome is never final. --Carl von Clausewitz--
Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum
John 11:35 - consider why.
In Memory of Pete