Forum for ex-members of Revival Churches
Revival_Centres_Discussion_Forums > Reviving from Revival > The Ex-Christian Chatroom Go to subcategory:
Author Content
Ex_Member
  • Rank:
  • Score:0
  • Posts:0
  • From:Unknown
  • Register:21/09/2018 12:36 AM

Date Posted:10/07/2010 1:29 AMCopy HTML

Reply to vjesnik

 

There is one big question arising from all this. Bible is saying that God so loved the World that He didn’t spare even His own Son. Son through whom God created the World came to Earth, lived sinless life, suffered, was humiliated and died for us. He took our sins on his self so we could live. Creator died for creation, so creation could live, every one who believes in God and His Son Lord Jesus who died, was risen and will come.

So let put it this way, if this didn’t happen and God doesn’t exist believers will lose nothing. It will be same to all after we die.

On the other hand if He does exist and his word is true we risk eternity. Eternity in which human mind can’t even imagine what He prepared for us, no sadness and tears, no pain, no sin…

So question is if odds are let’s say 50:50, who is willing to risk it?


It sounds good on the surface, but the logic is actually flawed. Rather than reinvent the wheel here, I'll draw your attention to
this website that addresses your idea in detail.

Pascal's Wager

In the seventeenth century the mathematician Blaise Pascal formulated his infamous pragmatic argument for belief in God in Pensées. The argument runs as follows:

If you erroneously believe in God, you lose nothing (assuming that death is the absolute end), whereas if you correctly believe in God, you gain everything (eternal bliss). But if you correctly disbelieve in God, you gain nothing (death ends all), whereas if you erroneously disbelieve in God, you lose everything (eternal damnation).

How should you bet? Regardless of any evidence for or against the existence of God, Pascal argued that failure to accept God's existence risks losing everything with no payoff on any count. The best bet, then, is to accept the existence of God. There have been several objections to the wager: that a person cannot simply will himself to believe something that is evidently false to him; that the wager would apply as much to belief in the wrong God as it would to disbelief in all gods, leaving the the believer in any particular god in the same situation as the atheist or agnostic; that God would not reward belief in him based solely on hedging one's bets; and so on.

-- Keith Augustine


Ex_Member Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #1
  • Rank:
  • Score:0
  • Posts:0
  • From:Unknown
  • Register:21/09/2018 12:36 AM

Re:Pascal's Wager

Date Posted:10/07/2010 1:28 AMCopy HTML

Reply to Te Luo Yi

Reply to MothandRust

Mathew 24 Jesus refers to "those days." However, in verse 36 we have a direct contrast when Jesus says, "But of 'that day' and hour knoweth no man. There seems to be an intended contrast between that which is near (in verse 34) and that which is far (in verse 36): this generation vs. that day.

So, this article is further arguing the post above that there are two distinct events in this passage, one being THIS: the destruction of Jerusalem (AD70...in the lifetimes of the hearers) and the the other being THAT: the future return of Jesus. Correct?

So let's wait for the reply from Blessings and then dissect the theory.



No, the words in red is the futurist view that the article is refuting.
And let's deal with one contradiction at a time ;}

As for the 50:50 thing and who's gonna risk it?... man that's an old stale apologist line

1. The first problem lies in the implicit yet unstated assumption that we already know which god we should believe in. That assumption, however, is not necessary to the argument, and thus the argument itself does not explain which religion a person should follow. This can be described as the “avoiding the wrong hell” dilemma. If you happen to follow the right religion, you may indeed “go to heaven and avoid hell.” However, if you choose the wrong religion, you’ll still go to hell.

Thus even if we accept the premise that we have nothing to lose and everything to gain by converting, what should we convert to? The thing missed by so many who use this argument is that you cannot “bet” on the general concept of “theism.” You have to pick specific doctrines. Theism is just a broad concept which includes all possible god-beliefs and, as such, barely exists absent specific theologies. If you are going to really believe in a god, you have to believe in something — which means picking something. If I pick, then I risk picking the wrong god and avoiding the wrong hell.

2.  it isn’t actually true that the person who bets loses nothing. If a person bets on the wrong god, then the True God™ just might punish them for their foolish behavior. What’s more, the True God™ might not mind that people don’t bother believing in it when they have rational reasons — thus, not picking at all might be the safest bet. You just cannot know.
ColinXY Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #2
  • Rank:Not quite new
  • Score:760
  • Posts:29
  • From:New_zealand
  • Register:12/04/2015 3:59 AM

Re:Pascal's Wager

Date Posted:12/04/2015 9:03 AMCopy HTML

That and religions tend to be exclusionary so you're not allowed to hedge your bets by being a Catholic-Protestant-Pentacostal-Shia-Sunni-Hindu-Shintoist-Buddha (etc.) Until then Pascal's Wager is a false dichotomy.
RCI prophesies
Copyright © 2000-2019 Aimoo Free Forum All rights reserved.