I know many think Paschal's Wager is false and allegedly irremediable, even with a few changes; but let me make a quick case for it, with some adaptations and changes. Let's call it the NPW, the New Paschal's Wager:

Firstly, the purpose of the NPW is not to show that Christianity is True. There are independent arguments for that, Cosmology, Fine Tuning, the Moral Argument, the Historical Evidence for Christ's Crucifixion, Messianic Prophecies like Isaiah 53, then that for Christ's Resurrection, Internal Experience etc.

The purpose of the NPW is rather to show that Christianity is a rational choice or decision to make given the relation of risk to reward. This is a very common idea in probability called expectations. People might have heard of it and an example will illustrate for those who haven't.

Let's say you had a dice of 1 to 5, and you would receive $100 either for playing on the side of (1) getting 1-3 or (2) 4-5. Which would you choose? Of course the former, because there's a 60% probability that you would get it, while only a 40% probability of the latter. If it was 1-3, and 3-6, and the return was the same in both cases, you'd be neutral in your choice, as those are equiprobable events.

Now, let's come to evaluating the two opinions of Christianity and Atheism. Of these two opinions, Christianity promise an Eternal, Priceless reward. Let's call it, for analogy' sake, like receiving $1 TN. Atheism, according to itself, can credibly promise nothing of that sort. At most it can promise such things as "I'll have my Sunday mornings free", "we can sin without consequence since there is no God" etc. Let's consider that like $1000.

Now, what needs to be assessed is not only the respective reward promised by each but also the probability of each being true.

Given the above, if Christian Theism vis-a-vis Marxist (or other) Atheism is even 50-50, i.e. Christianity has a 50% probability of being true, and 50% one of being false, it in fact logically follows that being a Christian is the more rational choice. [It doesn't prove it true to be sure, but the more rational choice, yes] The same as if 1-3 promised you 1 TN, whereas 3-6 promised you 1000. For atheists to show, in light of the respective reward Christianity promises and Atheism cannot promise, that Atheism is a more rational choice, they would have to show, that Christianity is extremely improbable and Atheism allegedly extremely probable. Again, I don't personally believe it's only 50-50, but the argument works.

If you disagree, pls explain where and why, with reasons of your own. Thanks.

Regards,
Xavier.

That's not a reformulation, that just Pascal's [note correct spelling] basic wager. And it's just as deeply flawed as it ever was. Let's look at in in different terms.

I present you with two boxes, A and B. Choosing box A will give a long, happy life on Gumdrop Mountain where the unicorn chickens will serenade you with the Zithers of Contentment while the leprechaun chorus sing selections from Edgar Cayce's Song Of The Remarkable. Choosing box B will give you the opportunity (just the opportunity) for a good education, a satisfying career, and a happy home life.

If you choose box A, you're an idiot, because none of those things exist. Same with Christian promises.

Boru

If christiboi's sky pixie is so true, why did it take so long to reveal itself?

Why was there no mention of jebus h, in any of the ancient Greek tales? Or the tales of the ancient Romans?
The Aztecs?
The Mayans?
The Incas?

Hinduism is the oldest still practiced religion, it predates the godiboi of yours by a few thousand years, still no mention of your savior.

Why is that?

Paschal's Wager is garbage if I'm right you lived a lie and if you're right I lose nothing anyway.

(July 24, 2023 at 5:20 am)Helios Wrote: Paschal's Wager is garbage if I'm right you lived a lie and if you're right I lose nothing anyway.

How so, to the bolded? I didn't even bring Hell into the equation above, but perhaps that would be like -1 TN Dollars. So not only the opportunity cost of not gaining the actual 1 TN, but also that of losing a further 1 TN eternally. What I said is absolutely true and logically follows. If Christianity and Atheism are but equiprobable, i.e. 50-50, it's logically and mathematically demonstrable Christianity is the more rational choice.

Quote:Choosing box B will give you the opportunity (

Quote:just the opportunity) for a good education, a satisfying career, and a happy home life.

Of course, those are things Christians can have too, and do have in many cases. We wish them for our Atheist Friends too, as we wish them also Eternal Happiness. But that does nothing to show that, the situation being as I stated, Atheism is more rational to choose than Christianity. For Atheists to show that, they would have to show that the probability of Christianity being true is vanishingly low, as in the case of your example Box A. If it's even 50-50, as I said, then Christianity is the more rational choice, just as I explained with the dice example? Which would you choose in the dice example, Brian, if 1-3 offered you 1 TN Dollars, and 4-6 1000? I think I know, but you tell me.

I didn't mention hell and no he atheist doesn't have to show anything of the sort 

(July 24, 2023 at 4:30 am)Nishant Xavier Wrote: Now, let's come to evaluating the two opinions of Christianity and Atheism. Of these two opinions, Christianity promise an Eternal, Priceless reward.

As I understand it, Pascals wager says you you should believe in god because you might win and cand can't lose (simplified I know) but by the same argument you should also believe in ALL the other thousands of gods people have believed in in the past.
Makes no sense

Yes, hence I said I was re-formulating it, mathematically, in terms of the probabilistic theory of expectations, well known to us Investment Bankers. Any thoughts on the OP, Zebo? The traditional formulation does need some reworking and updating, but the general premise is sound for the reason I explained. Will get back after work to the rest.