Pascal's Wager
Poll
 | 10 votes (41.66%) | ||
| | 13 votes (54.16%) | ||
| | 1 vote (4.16%) |
24 members have voted
August 21st, 2010 at 9:09:04 AM
permalink
Quote: rxwineI'm guessing Adolf Hitler or Tony Robbins.
I'm thinking, Edison?
Quote: mkl654321Since we can think/conceive of the impossible, that statement is incorrect, and I strongly suspect that it was constructed because it rhymed, not because it was thought to be correct.
But aren't you, sir, slowly "screwing a god" into existence here, at least within yourself by writing...
Quote: MoscaIf it can be screwed, you can bet somewhere some guy has tried to screw it.
Why bet at all, if you can be sure?
Anyway, what constitutes a "good bet"? - The best slots-game in town; a sucker's edge; or some gray-area blackjack-stunts?
(P.S. God doesn't even have to exist to be God.)
August 31st, 2010 at 5:03:05 AM
permalink
The interesting thing about what this article suggests, is it bridges the gap between a creator and science.
Oddly enough, the existence of the designer (if you accept the premise) is the least questionable thing about it.
Oddly enough, the existence of the designer (if you accept the premise) is the least questionable thing about it.
There's no secret. Just know what you're talking about before you open your mouth.
August 31st, 2010 at 12:05:31 PM
permalink
Belief in a god is to be contrasted with PRESUMED (or blind) belief in a god, for purposes of Pascal's problem. True belief probably yeilds the results he indictes, as nothing is lost form a lifelong, immutable mindset, just as nothing is truly lost from a lifelong skin color. However, presumed belief in a god (for purposes of ensuring possible salvation) results in the worst type of loss--the loss of interest in truth. That type of loss is just as eternal as salvation.
