Quote:
|
Quote by: Dirty Name You have proven yet again that you aren't exactly using logic. Pascal's Wager argues that no matter what, the payoff vs. the risk in the question of God's existence always dictates that you should err on the side of caution. In your "Best Bet" variation, what is the risk vs. reward? |
Alas, this thread is moving faster than I have time to keep up with. :(
Dirty, don't take my comparison too literally. Yes, I understand completely Pascal's Wager, but for me it's irrelavent. I not only don't believe in God, a really
can't believe in God, and I've tried... my mind simply won't work that way, it makes so little logical sense to me that it's like asking me to believe in Oden or Zues. For instance, when I watch Christians get totally rapturous over the phrase, "For God sacrificed his only begotten son so that we might live..", I'm just sort of dumbfounded. To someone not steeped in that tradition it sounds absolutely ridiculous. You might as well be saying, "For God stacked turtles upon turtles so that the heavens would open to us." What a silly thing for an omnipotent God to do.
So in order for me to fullfill Pascal's wager I'd have to cover my bases with a blantant lie, by saying, Ok, I'll make believe I believe, just in case.
Are you suggesting that would work?
Soooo, anyway, the point of my "variation" of Pascal is that, to my mind, it's a far better bet to believe that, since history has shown that we've found rational explanations for all the unknowns that plagued man in the past, unknowns that man used to attribute to god(s), that the best bet is that there are rational explanations for those things we still don't know.
Do you have a response to
that, or are you simply interested in pointing out that I got Pascal's Wager wrong?
.