Pascal's Wager Revisited

[IATIA]

Here's what I did: I described a part of the general structure of a plausible afterlife. The Valhalla afterlife fails to fit into it, while the Christian afterlife does fit into it; as a result, the latter is judged (again if there is an afterlife at all) reasonable, while the former, not reasonable.

So you, as a christian, have decided that only a christian afterlife is possible. You do not see any bias in that?

[Esquilax]

So... you are comparing fairy tales to see which one is more "realistic"? I'm afraid you've abandoned that tool long ago after the huge number of assumptions necessary to believe in any kind of afterlife at all.

Here's what I did: I described a part of the general structure of a plausible afterlife. The Valhalla afterlife fails to fit into it, while the Christian afterlife does fit into it; as a result, the latter is judged (again if there is an afterlife at all) reasonable, while the former, not reasonable.

Aha, ahaha, no. What you actually did was arbitrarily decide that an afterlife that doesn't "transcend," whatever that means, is implausible, and then you similarly arbitrarily decided that a plausible afterlife must necessarily "transcend," and then come to a conclusion based on those utterly unjustified premises that you just pulled out of your ass, which oh so conveniently, happens to reinforce the afterlife you already believed in.

If you disagree with that assessment then I absolutely invite you to explain how you determined which afterlife is plausible versus implausible, without relying on simple assertions, as you don't exactly have any afterlives with which to draw plausibility from. Because you didn't exactly do any of that in your initial post.

[Pizza]

Has anyone mentioned Christian universalism yet?

[Thumpalumpacus]

Christianity is to reasonableness as dogshit is to chile con carne. It can seem to have a passing resemblance, but it cannot pass the smell test ... it stinks all the way 'round.

[Minimalist]

Great analogy, P/T.

[datc]

What you actually did was arbitrarily decide that an afterlife that doesn't "transcend," whatever that means, is implausible, and then you similarly arbitrarily decided that a plausible afterlife must necessarily "transcend"...

No afterlife which you would not want to enjoy for eternity is plausible. The Christian heaven (given that we know virtually nothing of it), if nothing else, at least has the infinite God for the souls to explore; or perhaps an endlessly expanding civilization to build.

Valhalla is fully finite; and who'd want to stay there forever? The end result is indeed "persistent vegetative state."

If you don't like "transcend," use "upgrade." The meaning of transcending is a transformation that preserves some A, B, C and greatly upgrades other P, Q, R. On the one hand, then, Valhalla is implausible, because nothing in it gets upgraded. It merely continues the same "slaying of enemies" that was featured in this life.

On the other hand, my argument does not assume that everything will get upgraded, either. That would be an opposite mistake. It thus delineates one thing, namely, the human insatiable urge for improvement of oneself and the world, that will not be upgraded. It is part of human nature here, and it will be part of human nature in the hereafter. As a result, the hereafter must needs present an endless supply of novel experiences and will never be boring.

[Esquilax]

No afterlife which you would not want to enjoy for eternity is plausible. The Christian heaven (given that we know virtually nothing of it), if nothing else, at least has the infinite God for the souls to explore; or perhaps an endlessly expanding civilization to build.

So, you respond to my pointing out that you were making completely arbitrary qualifications, by making another arbitrary qualification? Why the hell does our enjoyment of an afterlife impact its plausibility? How the fuck did you determine that? Doesn't christianity offer hell as a second afterlife?

Valhalla is fully finite; and who'd want to stay there forever? The end result is indeed "persistent vegetative state."

And why does this impact its plausibility at all? I said to stop making baseless assertions.

If you don't like "transcend," use "upgrade." The meaning of transcending is a transformation that preserves some A, B, C and greatly upgrades other P, Q, R. On the one hand, then, Valhalla is implausible, because nothing in it gets upgraded. It merely continues the same "slaying of enemies" that was featured in this life.

And how did you determine that an afterlife necessarily has to improve upon this one to be plausible? I'm asking for your reasoning, not just another rehash of your conclusions, because I think your conclusions are just made up.

On the other hand, my argument does not assume that everything will get upgraded, either. That would be an opposite mistake. It thus delineates one thing, namely, the human insatiable urge for improvement of oneself and the world, that will not be upgraded. It is part of human nature here, and it will be part of human nature in the hereafter. As a result, the hereafter must needs present an endless supply of novel experiences and will never be boring.

Why does an afterlife necessarily have to cater to our whims to be plausible?

[Minimalist]

Is this one ever going to be surprised when he dies and finds out nothing happens....oh,wait.  He won't.  He'll just be fucking dead.

[robvalue]

Why are the only candidates for possible afterlives those written about in story books? There's an infinity of forms an afterlife could take. We have no idea if any of them are possible. But if any are, we don't know which ones. Just saying ones that you don't like or don't meet your preconceptions are impossible seems arbitrary. Their existence or non existence doesn't depend on your approval.

[Thumpalumpacus]

No afterlife which you would not want to enjoy for eternity is plausible.

[/quote]
In that case, Hell is implausible, and that renders Pascal's Wager nugatory, insofar as it is premised on "choosing to believe" in order to avoid Hell.