Pascal's Wager is a fallacy. Change my mind. (Page 3)

zeffur: People have free will. God doesn't demand people accept Him. Christianity isn't Islam (which is a false religion, imo) which has forced people to convert or die in the past.

AbovetallAOTY: That we have free will to "choose" our belief is one of the fallacies inherent in the wager. I cannot choose to believe something that does not seem believable to me. And the threat of hell belies your claim that God doesn't demand people accept him. This is the very premise of the wager.

chronology: Above. It is not so much hell is a threat for not believing, as a final place for a very flawd hybrid being called man. The incident in Eden of eating some kind of powerful psychoactive fruit completely altered mankind's DNA. Or at least parts of the DNA that dealt with the mind.
We now have a extremely dangerous, out of control creature that needs to be dealt with in a final way in order to prevent the ongoing damage and suffering to this planet. And, if humans are allowed to, the solar system, as pretty soon people will be visiting nearby plants.

To understand the contradiction of modern man, consider this. The library of Alexandria was the global centre of human knowledge. A place you would expect the most rational intelligent people, huh?
Well a top official of the library was dragged from her chariot, stripped naked and beaten to death in the street.
Fast forward 1500 years to San Francisco, and consider the new Library of Alexander, so to speak, Silicon Valley. A top management guy from the Valley collapsed one night on his boat after too much junk and champagne and died face down in his vomit. His prostitute for the night stepped over his body and walked away.

So here we have people with all the knowledge of mankind at their fingertips dieing violent pointless deaths, and there is no reason to see an improvement. God has set an end to all this. And hell is the final residence for all who reject the only way of avoiding the place, Jesus Christ.

AbovetallAOTY: chron. And God didn't anticipate any of this? But he created an eternal hell anyway? Why? Seems a bit odd. Does God bear any responsibility for creating an extremely dangerous, out of control creature? In any case, nothing you posted here seems relevant to Pascal's Wager.

chronology: Good points, like you say, the whole story sounds like a fairy tale to modern people. And is off topic here.

zeffur: re: "AbovetallAOTY: That we have free will to "choose" our belief is one of the fallacies inherent in the wager. I cannot choose to believe something that does not seem believable to me. And the threat of hell belies your claim that God doesn't demand people accept him. This is the very premise of the wager."

The real purpose of the wager is to get a person to understand one decision is infinitely better than the other--and it doesn't take a genius to understand which one of the 2 options that is.

Free will to choose is not a fallacy. You certainly can choose the option that leads to death if that is what you prefer--no one can prevent you from making that decision--hence it is a valid free will choice & not a fallacy. You object to it because you probably think that option shouldn't have a consequence that you abhor--but, that doesn't matter if you really wish to reject believing in & following God's commandments.

re: "I cannot choose to believe something that does not seem believable to me."

Of course you can believe in it--you just decide not to. It's a bit like a speed limit sign of 55 mph. You know you can drive much faster than that & you've experienced no problems doing so, so you exceed the speed limit every time you drive in that area--until you see evidence of police in the area--which causes you to consider the consequence of your free will disregard for the law, so you slow down to avoid being issued a ticket for speeding. You may not *believe* it is right to have to follow such a law, but you abide by the law when you are faced with an undesirable consequence. The only difference with God is that you have to wait until the end of your life to face your consequences.

AretoNyx: You know we all die , but really how do you know for sure you never will based on only what humans communicate? Good to know some one knows all and was there, but just let people choose whatever then. No skin off your nose.

AbovetallAOTY: >> The real purpose of the wage is to get a person to understand one decision is infinitely better than the other

Yes, that is the purpose of the wager. But that's not what we're discussing. We are discussing its logical fallacies.

>> Free will to choose is not a fallacy.

The fallacy lies in the false dichotomy presented by the wager. There are more possibilities beyond "Either my god exists or no god exists." Why don't you address this issue for us?

>> Of course you can believe in it--you just decide not to.

This seems an absurdity to me. Perhaps you can "choose" to believe things that appear unbelievable to you. I cannot.

>> It's a bit like a speed limit sign of 55 mph.

Actually it's nothing like that at all. I know that cars and roads and speed limits exist. Belief is not required. False analogy.

>> The only difference with God is that you have to wait until the end of your life to face your consequences.

How very convenient.

AretoNyx: True Above.

zeffur: re: "The fallacy lies in the false dichotomy presented by the wager. There are more possibilities beyond "Either my god exists or no god exists." Why don't you address this issue for us?"

There is no false dichotomy. There is only 1 God or no God. 'my' isn't an important factor in the wager.

re: "zeffur: Of course you can believe in it--you just decide not to."
"AbovetallAOTY: This seems an absurdity to me. Perhaps you can "choose" to believe things that appear unbelievable to you. I cannot."

To believe is to accept something as true without having sufficient evidence to prove that it is true. God exists because there is credible evidence that God exists & because evolution is clearly a fairy tale for atheist & other nitwits (i.e. foolish people).

re: "Actually it's nothing like that at all. I know that cars and roads and speed limits exist. Belief is not required. False analogy."

All those things represent the essentials in a system that tests your attitude & free will decision--just like God created all the things that are necessary to tests your attitude & free will decisions.

re: "zeffur: The only difference with God is that you have to wait until the end of your life to face your consequences."
"AbovetallAOTY: How very convenient."

Being just so is sufficient enough.

AbovetallAOTY: >> There is no false dichotomy. There is only 1 God or no God. 'my' isn't an important factor in the wager.

It's an absolutely critical factor. There are many different versions of this "1 God" in which people believe. Some of these gods don't even send people to eternal punishment. But you know this.

>> God exists because there is credible evidence that God exists

If this were true, there would be no atheists.

>> All those things represent the essentials in a system that tests your attitude & free will decision--just like God created all the things that are necessary to tests your attitude & free will decisions.

As I said, false analogy.

>> Being just so is sufficient enough.

Not sure what this means.

zeffur: re: "...There are many different versions of this "1 God" in which people believe. Some of these gods don't even send people to eternal punishment. But you know this."

There are many confused & willful people--but, there is only 1 real God.

re: " >> God exists because there is credible evidence that God exists".
If this were true, there would be no atheists."

Untrue. Some people are meant to be blind due to their attitudes (e.g. lacking faith) & their choices in life. They cannot understand the evidence that is obvious to others.

re: ">> All those things represent the essentials in a system that tests your attitude & free will decision--just like God created all the things that are necessary to tests your attitude & free will decisions.
As I said, false analogy."

Calling it false doesn't mean it is false.

re: ">> Being just so is sufficient enough.
Not sure what this means."

It means being convenient is good enough in God's plan.

If the stars fell: not to mention that you wasted the only life you have if there is no god, no heaven, and no hell.... which is extremely likely lol

If the stars fell: zeff literally doesnt understand the terminology though... he is arguing about shit he cant even comprehend

zeffur: re: "If the stars fell: not to mention that you wasted the only life you have if there is no god, no heaven, and no hell.... which is extremely likely lol"

Wasted how exactly? Being the best you can be with God's blessing isn't any kind of waste. How could you possibly arrive at that conclusion??

re: "f the stars fell: zeff literally doesnt understand the terminology though... he is arguing about shit he cant even comprehend"

It doesn't take a genius to understand which choice is the best choice to make.
You're the one that doesn't understand. You think it's a false false dichotomy--but it isn't. You either accept or reject God & the rejection options leads no blessings, a less quality life, & no eternal life.

Why anyone would reject God is truly incredible.

AbovetallAOTY: >> There are many confused & willful people

We finally agree on something.

>> but, there is only 1 real God.

In your belief. Other people believe in a different god or gods. This is why the wager fails as an argument for belief. I'm not sure how many different ways this can be explained to you.

>> They cannot understand the evidence that is obvious to others.

If there was obvious evidence, faith and belief would be completely unnecessary.

>> Calling it false doesn't mean it is false.

Agreed. But I EXPLAINED why it is false. And you had no response.

zeffur: re: "In your belief. Other people believe in a different god or gods. This is why the wager fails as an argument for belief. I'm not sure how many different ways this can be explained to you."

Untrue. If you look back at my original statement, you will see "Pascal's wager is valid...if the following conditions are met: 1. There is only one possible God that can or can't exist. ..."

re: ">> They cannot understand the evidence that is obvious to others.
If there was obvious evidence, faith and belief would be completely unnecessary."

That's the catch 22--you have to have faith/belief or you won't accept the evidence & you will reject God. That's one of God's requirements for believers/followers.

re: ">> Calling it false doesn't mean it is false.
Agreed. But I EXPLAINED why it is false. And you had no response."

Actually, I did respond to your comments. You claimed that you "...cannot choose to believe something that does not seem believable to me." My response was "Of course you can believe in it--you just decide not to & then I compared it to dis/obeying a speed limit sign (the logical correlation being you can dis/obey God's rules). In life you *may* get caught & face a consequence & in the after life you *may* face a consequence for disobeying God's rules (if God exists). Either way, you can believe God exists & obey His rules--just as you can obey driving rules.
No one is preventing you from believing God exists except YOU. There is certainly evidence that God does exist--so, you really don't have any valid excuse to deny God's existence.

AretoNyx: What does evolution have to do with this? There are people that think all sorts of things theist and others...even theists that have many different views when it comes to philosophy on this topic. Any how being a broken record about feelings and beliefs is not going to change my mind, and I do not see how it would others on this argument.

zeffur: Some people believe evolution is evidence God does not exist. Evolution is a fairy tale for atheists & other nitwits. There is no compelling/convincing evidence or proof & a cogent expanation that 'evolution is a scientific fact' as some people like to pretend. Evolutioners *believe* life evolved from molecules to mankind--but, there is ZERO verified truth that such a thing has ever occurred.

If the stars fell: "there is only 1 god, or no god" is also a false dichotomy... for the record lol

If the stars fell: absence of evidence is evidence of absence... contrary to popular belief lol

AbovetallAOTY: >> Pascal's wager is valid...if the following conditions are met: 1. There is only one possible God that can or can't exist.

Which could be one of many possible gods. Get the idea?

>> That's the catch 22--you have to have faith/belief or you won't accept the evidence

So you believe something first, and then you look for evidence that confirms this presupposition? That's not a catch-22, it's an error in logic. Circular reasoning. If you believe the world was created by your god for example, then the world is evidence for your god. Your conclusion is contained in your premise.

>> Actually, I did respond to your comments. You claimed that you "...cannot choose to believe something that does not seem believable to me." My response was "Of course you can believe in it--you just decide not to & then I compared it to dis/obeying a speed limit sign (the logical correlation being you can dis/obey God's rules). In life you *may* get caught & face a consequence & in the after life you *may* face a consequence for disobeying God's rules

You responded to my comments, but didn't address the actual point, that cars and roads and speed limits do not require belief, as do gods. Hence, false analogy.

AretoNyx: Off topic on evolution but not everyone thinks as exactly as you say believing a deity exists while also evolution, and others understanding of what present things of science exist without adding in what was a beginning before big bang to evolution ( as such with viruses and other wise how things are shown). However back on topic this wouldn't matter either way to the argument as a whole even whatever "some" may supposedly believe.

If the stars fell: its called begging the question... your premise is predicated on an assumption.... you start with the conclusion then use the premise to prove the premise "because the world was created by god, god exists" a logical fallacy

If the stars fell: origin of life, origin of the universe... and the diversity of living things are all separate questions by the way