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

[Ravenshire]

More cowardly dodging, huh, coward?


And be honest, you clean the toilets in the thrift store two block over from the bank, don't you.

Fixed that for ya.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

OP, you're fighting over your weight.

[Fake Messiah]

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

Sinning without the consequences. You mean Catholic Church doing crimes and opression without any consequences because they have too much money and power and claiming that god is on their side: killing children, selling babies, Crusades, burning books, inquisition, organizing slavery, organizing genocides, keeping people in servitude; you disgusting pedophile enabler.

[GrandizerII]

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.

Christianity itself is but one subset of theism. Theism perse may be rational, but Christianity is not if you hold to absurd doctrines that is commonly adhered to in mainstream Christianity.

If one believes God is basically a superman version of an easily triggered manbaby with major anger issues, who then later mellowed down somewhat to become this gentle father who decided to redeem humanity from the consequences of their sinfulness by offering his Son (somehow becoming man while still being fully God) who is basically the same being as Him but nevertheless not identical to Him, but the sacrifice itself turned out to be not really much of a sacrifice, and somehow now the way to salvation is to believe in Christ (at least as the first step, in the case of Catholicism) ... along with all the other weird stuff about God, Jesus, Holy Spirit, Virgin Mary, saints, etc ... then that's not really the most rational worldview out there. Atheism beats that by miles away.

[The Grand Nudger]

I don't think there's anything rational about imagining that the the forces of nature are super powered people with an intervention hobby. That's blatant and pure projection, informed by a strong urge to wishful thinking, coupled with an obsessive desire to negotiate with things beyond our control or influence.

To be fair, catholicism doesn't really stand out as more irrational than any other form of the belief in personal and intervening deities, either. I know, I know, they believe that they can make a loyalty oath, and then eat a mystical cracker that a shaman has cast a magic spell over, and that this is a way of negotiating with their own mortality....but that's just the regional flavor of a bog standard belief in the transactional nature of divinity present in all theistic religions. All theistic religions have this basic feature in common, it's the difference between deism and theism. I'd say deism is less irrational than theism, but only because they cut out half of the formulation. A deist god is non interventionist - it can't be bargained with and there's no point in bargaining with it. It's still personal, so still not rational - but I guess it was an improvement for it's time.

I think it's a largely academic argument, though, as no one..and I mean no one, actually comes to any state of belief based upon the rationality of those beliefs. That's us rewriting our own personal and collective histories without any factual information..and honestly..without the ability to have any factual information, about why we believe what we do, and what we don't. In a wider view, this idea that we're rational believers or unbelievers is an ad hoc hypothesis informed by contemporary societal values no matter which side of the equation we're on.

That, imo, is why these discussions never actually go anywhere. It's just two contemporary social groups arguing over who has possession of a thing they both agree has value, and would be determinative. The irony is delicious.

[Angrboda]

[The Grand Nudger]

That line is a perfect example of why the terminator worked so well as a monster. Why so many people know what it is, why they keep pumping out the movies. It's the distillation of our private fears about our own existence. You could easily sub in "The World" for terminator.

I mean, that and arnies tight naked ass.

[Anomalocaris]

Now imagine what the box office receipts would have been if the terminator terminates by evangelize until the intended victim is dead.

[Mister Agenda]

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.

You've made no case. Plenty of religions promise some kind of infinite reward. Your logic can equally be used to make a case for playing the lottery, and everyone knows that's a fool's game, because no one actually knows what the winning number will be; odds are that if you play for your whole life, it will be money thrown away. Your wager is irrational unless you've already proven Christianity is correct.

[The Grand Nudger]

-and that's why government tends to lie about what they're going to do with all that money. Its for the kids, and their education.

Ha, bullshit...and familiar bullshit, at that.