Talk:Pascal's Wager/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Simply writing Pascal’s wager off as a false dilemma shows how clearly opinionated this article is, and shows clearly that the writer DOES NOT BELIEVE IN GOD. God the Creator is One, and is the God described in all the monotheistic beliefs, such as Islam and the Jewish faith alongside Christianity.

Claiming that a different kind of god may exist than the God, who has presented Himself to mankind through the prophets, is even more preposterous that claiming that there is no God at all.

Therefore Pascal’s assertion that to deny the existence of God one loses everything (i.e. will abode in Hell for eternity) is clearly true, when God exists. And indeed, as long as one is not forced to martyr oneself for one’s faith, one loses nothing by believing in God.

I'm not sure I understand your argument, but if you have something to add to the article, feel free to do so. Specifically, I don't see what makes you certain that the God of Abraham is the only god that could exist. What proof is there than Hinduism or Shintoism isn't the correct religion? In addition, plenty of people believe in the God of Abraham but don't believe that nonbelievers will be damned to Hell for all eternity. What proof is there that any of these belief systems are correct? None, they are all based on faith. Tuf-Kat

I think that Pascal's wager could be stated more fully. It seems odd to spend one sentence describing it followed by five or more refuting it. Wesley 18:12 Mar 5, 2003 (UTC)

Why Pascal is right

The only reason that anyone would reject God has to do with his or her way of life. Because, according to Pascal--and his assertions are correct--one whoives a good life need only follow the path of God, because they are already living well. Why deny God and then follow the rules? Therefore, one makes a conscious decision, because of their choices in life, to merely reject Pascal because he or she does not live well, and therefore cannot afford to accept such a Truth.

Think about it; laws can only exist if we believe that there is a reason for those laws. If we believe that our Reason--that is God--is not reasonable, then how can we truth those who say that they have reason, but deny how they received that. Murder is a perfect example. You cannot say that murder is wrong, but then say it is because there is no ultimate point to life--that there is no Divine Truth. Ultimately, you decide whether or not you want to believe, because you decide whether you can handle the Truth with your lifestyle. Pascal is 100% correct. The article should spend more time speaking the truth, and less time trying to pick it apart. I wonder what kind of person could have possibly written something like that?

 Quite possibly a person that sees the truth within cripplingly flawed philosophical equations.

Why No One Cares If Pascal Was Right

It doesn't matter whether or not he was right or wrong, that's not for Wikipedia to decide. The point is, it is a commonly used term, and most likely should simply be redirected to Pascal's Wager. The article is obviously written by someone who rejects Pascal's Wager, and should be redirected, and added to Wiktionary. 18:22, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

I strongly agree. Bethefawn 0222; 9.1.06

Wager + Flaw

The Flaw and the Wager go together, in the same way that a slice of bread has two sides. (Is that an argument with a flaw?) Peter Ellis 23:53, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree with this. Alex McCusker.

The Flaw, so-called, cannot exist without the Wager. They should be considered, or at least presented, together.Slugger O'toole 15:16, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I also agree. If this "truth" is truly "divine truth", it should not need the aid of censorship. Also, it is interesting that the opposing opinion is justified only by the very wager in question. 17:10, 6 November 2006 (UTC)Caleb Edwards

Wager + Flaw

It does not seem like a good manners to have a page that is dedicated to a certain context "Pascal's Wager", and then add information in the same page that totally undermines the competence of what is being written. When talking about Pascal's Wager, you are not trying to show how Pascal was correct or not, you are trying to put out the facts relating to what Pascal's beliefs, right or wrong. Having an article written on why Pascal was incorrect should be in a new section, not mixed in with his original theory.

Pascal's Flaw

In November 2005, someone proposed merging Pascal's Flaw into Pascal's wager. It seems no discussion took place so far. The flaw is known as a separate concept and therefore I'd rather keep a separate article. Rl 08:05, 23 June 2006 (UTC)