2 Comments
Published by Jeff
on Friday, April 27, 2007 at 9:35 AM. 
It is strange writing in this blog. I mean, I am writing but I know that no one is reading it - or hardly anyone. My other blog started the same way, but that was a year ago. When one is used to having a semblance of community, it is hard to hear the echos of his voice in an empty room like this. Oh well.
I have yet to hear anyone defeat Pascal's Wager. Skeptics tend to cite that the argument is, indeed, "Pascal's Wager" like it is self-defeating, but I really haven't heard anything that actually deals a death blow to it. Pascal's Wager is like this (paraphrased):
If person "A" does not believe in God, and it turns out that God doesn't exist, then he was correct and nothing happens at death other than nonexistence. However, if "A" does not believe in God, yet God does exist, then "A" may suffer dire circumstances in eternity.
Conversely, if person "B" DOES believe in God, and God does exist, then person "B" may be rewarded in eternity. However, if "B" believes in God, but God does NOT exist, then person "B" gets the same result as person "A", i.e. nothing happens but nonexistence.
So, in this small scenario, it makes no sense to be in the position of person "A" because there is nothing to gain and everything to lose. Person "B", conversely has nothing to lose and everything to gain for being a believer.
Of course there are subsequent issues such as "intellectually believing" may not be enough, or what if person "B" believes in the wrong god, etc., but the root of it is hard to refute.
I have yet to hear anyone defeat Pascal's Wager. Skeptics tend to cite that the argument is, indeed, "Pascal's Wager" like it is self-defeating, but I really haven't heard anything that actually deals a death blow to it. Pascal's Wager is like this (paraphrased):If person "A" does not believe in God, and it turns out that God doesn't exist, then he was correct and nothing happens at death other than nonexistence. However, if "A" does not believe in God, yet God does exist, then "A" may suffer dire circumstances in eternity.
Conversely, if person "B" DOES believe in God, and God does exist, then person "B" may be rewarded in eternity. However, if "B" believes in God, but God does NOT exist, then person "B" gets the same result as person "A", i.e. nothing happens but nonexistence.
So, in this small scenario, it makes no sense to be in the position of person "A" because there is nothing to gain and everything to lose. Person "B", conversely has nothing to lose and everything to gain for being a believer.
Of course there are subsequent issues such as "intellectually believing" may not be enough, or what if person "B" believes in the wrong god, etc., but the root of it is hard to refute.
Labels: apologetics, blog
Not an empty echo at all! I am looking forward to following you in this journey of yours. What you have written so far is very good.
The "A" person and "B" person scenario is exactly how I always describe my choice to be spirirtual. I couldn't have said it better myself.
Interesting that you found me. I am sure that you used technorati, but what did you search for? How did you know what to look for?
I am glad that you are here. This journey is going to be two-fold. One is the journey up till now, and the other what is surfacing now.