Pascals wager revisted

[Streamline]

Ever heard of pascal's wager

One variation of that would be: it is better to be prepared than not to be,
ie assume there is a God or Gods, if one has thought about the divine possiblity, one may be better prepared than if one did never expect God or Gods.

In other words, it is better to be safe than sorry.

Therefore assume the divine.

Once one has made this assumption, where shall one turn. My personal belief is not to turn to a major religion, but rather philosophise on the subject and come forward with reasonable statements about the divine.

One reason I reject Christianity is Mark 16:16 "The one who believes and is baptized will be saved, but the one who does not believe will be condemned."

I find this very unfair. Unfair to all humans born before Jesus, unfair to all who never have heard of Jesus, and unfair to all who do not accept the words from someone who threatens with punishment if one does not believe.

Anyway, since I expect some thinkers here, I propose a challenge:

What statements - "truths" - can one with reason bet on, assuming the divine. Note, we do not know which religion is true, if any, in fact we know nothing first hand. All we know come from reason.

1. Is it fair to expect that consciousness of the divine is somewhat similar to our own?
2. Is is fair to expect that humans will rule in any afterlife, just as we rule in this world.
3. Is it fair to expect the laws of physics in any afterlife?
4. What extra rules/laws might apply in any afterlife?

 

[marv]

What statements - "truths" - can one with reason bet on, assuming the divine.

Therein lays the flaw......

 

[Prince_James]

Streamline:

1. Is it fair to expect that consciousness of the divine is somewhat similar to our own?

Yes. It must follow the same laws which govern thought, otherwise we cannot rightfully proclaim it to be conscious.

2. Is is fair to expect that humans will rule in any afterlife, just as we rule in this world.

No. There could be greater things there which subjugate us.

3. Is it fair to expect the laws of physics in any afterlife?

Is the afterlife composed of energy and matter? Is it part of our universe? Or is it completely distinct?

4. What extra rules/laws might apply in any afterlife?

Impossible to answer.

 

[Roman]

What if you choose the wrong god?

 

[Sarkus]

What statements - "truths" - can one with reason bet on, assuming the divine. Note, we do not know which religion is true, if any, in fact we know nothing first hand. All we know come from reason.

1. Is it fair to expect that consciousness of the divine is somewhat similar to our own?
2. Is is fair to expect that humans will rule in any afterlife, just as we rule in this world.
3. Is it fair to expect the laws of physics in any afterlife?
4. What extra rules/laws might apply in any afterlife?

If you know nothing about the divine (assuming it exists for the sake of this thread) then we can say nothing about it.
We can not assume, except through arrogance, that it in any way resembles us.

1. Firstly we can not say that the divine has a consciousness that we would recognise. If it does (which we won't know until we meet him/it/her) then we can make some assumptions at that point. But until then we can say nothing.

2. Humans ruling the afterlife? Hell, we don't even know if there is life on any other planet in this Galaxy, let alone in the Universe! And until a few 100,000s of years ago we didn't even rule this planet!!!
Again, it is only arrogance that would assume we would rule any afterlife.
The only afterlife in which we would rule by right is the one which we create in our minds.
And of course this relies on the existence of an afterlife, for which there is no evidence.

3. Laws of physics in an afterlife? Again, we can say nothing about that which we have no knowledge of. We can not say it exists, therefore we can know nothing about it.

4. See number 3.

Again, to make any assumption about the Divine, should one exist, is utter arrogance and utterly unsupportable.

 

[Streamline]

Yes. It must follow the same laws which govern thought, otherwise we cannot rightfully proclaim it to be conscious.

One might argue it this way:

Our consciousness has developed because it is useful in doing practical things like planning and reacting to reality.
God/Gods consciousness have done something useful, namely created our universe, which is complicated. This is a sign of that the God/Gods have a useful consciousness.

 

[Sarkus]

One might argue it this way:

Our consciousness has developed because it is useful in doing practical things like planning and reacting to reality.
God/Gods consciousness have done something useful, namely created our universe, which is complicated. This is a sign of that the God/Gods have a useful consciousness.

Complexity of action is no evidence of consciousness.

 

[KennyJC]

I don't assume the existence of a creator, but I assume the possability of it. I don't know what you mean by 'being prepared', though. This assumes to me that you mean prepared to be judged in the afterlife on your performance in the universe it created.

This is something I reject completely. If I found out tommorrow there was a God, I would still reject any possability that I would exist in some other place after death. People just cant understand the possability of not existing anymore, as it is all we know. So natrually we invent an afterlife which makes us hope we will in someway live forever. This will always be fantasy wether there is a God or not.

 

[Roman]

Again:
What if you choose the wrong God?

Pascal's wager is only good if you believe the only god is God, in which case you're already a believer.

 

[Streamline]

I don't assume the existence of a creator, but I assume the possability of it. I don't know what you mean by 'being prepared', though. This assumes to me that you mean prepared to be judged in the afterlife on your performance in the universe it created.

This is something I reject completely. If I found out tommorrow there was a God, I would still reject any possability that I would exist in some other place after death. People just cant understand the possability of not existing anymore, as it is all we know. So natrually we invent an afterlife which makes us hope we will in someway live forever. This will always be fantasy wether there is a God or not.

It could be a fantasy it could be for real. However I think the fantasy of an afterlife is rather unattractive concidering the invention of Hell. Even if I do not go there I find it rather repulsive that any should suffer massively for eternity. I believe in the rule of just law and justice, in that punishment should be in line with crimes comitted. This should be valid in any afterlife too. I wonder why believers of major religions don't protest against this unjustice (massive punishment for minor wrongs).

 

[Sarkus]

Again:
What if you choose the wrong God?

Pascal's wager is only good if you believe the only god is God, in which case you're already a believer.

If you're going to "hedge your bets" so to speak by believing in god, you would also believe that all gods are merely different faces of the same one - so it doesn't matter which one you end up worshipping.

 

[Streamline]

Again:
What if you choose the wrong God?

Pascal's wager is only good if you believe the only god is God, in which case you're already a believer.

The idea is that one should be open to choosing the right or wrong god. One should just concider that there might be God/Gods and an afterlife. Then from there, move on.

"My" version of pascals wager says,
it is better to be prepared for God(s) and an afterlife than not.

Thus it makes no assumptions on what God is. Just that there might exist a divine world, and then take it from there and take preemptive actions on just that assumtion of a possible divine world.

 

[Streamline]

This assumes to me that you mean prepared to be judged in the afterlife on your performance in the universe it created.

What if one were to learn from the facts in this world. As before, assume the divine. Then it seems that the divine has let humans to rule for themselves, and the divine does not intervene. Therefore, one can infer that a possible afterlife also lets humans to rule for themselves. Therefore one can assume human values will judge each and everyone in that afterlife. I do not think this will mean that the performance will be judged, rather I believe in justice and revenge of the unjustices in this world. The revenge will be the societys revenge on individuals who have caused suffering in this life. The punishment will be after what suffering one has caused. Therfore one does not wander in blindness when speculating over a possble afterlife.

Do you think this line of argument is reasonable.

Personlly I see the divine as rather likely. If there is a afterlife, I really hope it will not be wasted on a Hell, but rather "another earth" in next life, where humans rule with democracy and rule of law. I hope totalitarian dictator religions, like christianety and islam will not rule.

I think there is a lot of beauty in humans. A lot of value. It just seems so unlikely that it is all coincidences that laws of physics (with the corresponding laws of chemistry) are so right to create such beauty as humans. There is of course also a lot of soul ugliness in some humans; I really hope they get what they deserve in a possible next life. I do not think my values are lonely; if people were presented with the right options and values to choose from, alot would choose rule of law and revenging over those who have done ugly things to fellow humans.