Paschal's Wager re-formulated mathematically: why being Christian is Rational.

[no one]

More cowardly dodging, huh, coward?


And be honest, you clean the toilets in the bank, don't you.

[The Architect Of Fate]

Lol it's anything but sound 

You can polish a turd and and give it a new coat of paint but a turd it remains 

[Angrboda]

Isaac Asimov once said that, "Properly read, the Bible is the most potent force for Atheism ever created." Of course, he hadn't encountered your arguments.

I had thought of responding to your issues with the question of infinity, but after your miserable performance yesterday, including lying about me, and this cheeky piece of idiocy that you've presented here today, I don't think I will waste my time. I will be charitable to you and let you know that there is a fatal equivocation in your argument on infinity. I doubt you'll find it, more because I doubt you'll look than because I doubt you're incapable.

[Fake Messiah]

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.

For "argument's sake" you dismissed all other religions, and then you made a caricature of being a Christian as "just someone who goes to church every Sunday" and certainly "this little sacrifice can be made for luck's sake", but it takes much more sacrifice to be a Christian, so evidence must be very good. If it is to hold to Jesus's alleged words, one must give up all his possession and live as a bird; people must pretty much give up on sex; go to war to fight for Christianity; hate members of their family; hate people for many reasons like for being gay, adulterous and other religions; etc. - these are all the things that Christians did and do to be good Christians and go to heaven.

So, again, it is not something to take lightly "Why just not be a Christian for reward's sake?"

[zebo-the-fat]

Yes, but what if the Muslims are correct, or one of the others?
Assume 1000 other gods, so a 1 in 1000 chance of being right

[no one]

Numbers just confuse it zebo.

[zebo-the-fat]

Numbers just confuse it zebo.

So does common sense

[Deesse23]

---

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.

---

• There is no "marxist atheism", you lying piece of shit.
  
• There  is no 50/50 probability of christianity or atheism being true (Atheism is not a counterposition to christianity at all, but we all know by now that you are a dishonest cunt on that, and that will never change, until you will be judged by.........surprise, surprise, Allah!)
  
• Is your god so utterly incompetent (like, you for example) that he will accept me in heaven just because i hedged my bets?
  
• How does someone "believe" something based on a wager? Can YOU believe anything you want? Like 2+2=5? I can only beleive what i feel compelled to, by reason, logic and evidence, certainly not because someone tells me its a "safe bet"
  
• How bankrupt must your religion (faith) be if you need something shitty like PW? Dont you have anything better....oh, wait, all you other threads, just as ignorant as that one
  

...and thats only the tip of the iceberg of your ignorance and dishonesty

"we can sin without consequence since there is no God"

FUCK YOU for that. FUCK YOU ...with a cactus, you despicable, miserable piece of shit, you pathetic excuse for a human being who gave up its humanity on the altar of worshiping an immoral non-entity.
FUCK
YOU

I am still undecided whats bigger, your character flaws or your ignorance, both bordering the, alleged impossible, infinity.
You are so stupid and dishonest, you created a thread about Atheism, didnt define it, and then went on creating another dumpster fire about PW.

[no one]

Pissant is on a mission.

Spreading stupidity, deceit and falsehoods wherever it goes.

Do you have issues with that pesky 9th commandment pissant?

[The Grand Nudger]

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.

Easy, I bolded the bit where we disagree.  It's true that atheism doesn't offer anything, but christianity doesn't offer me anything either.  You may as well try to convince a tiger to eat a cabbage.