eternal torture as a response to a mistake which is at its worst due to stupidity (but actually not even that: just a stacked deck scenario), outdoes pretty much everyone in terms of evilness. It makes no sense to reward people for dishonesty.
It makes no sense that god would care enough about your belief and worship to consign people to eternal torture but not enough to show up once in a while. So if they're right about the evil stuff, you're probably going to hell anyway. Apparently taking his name in vain is the only unforgivable sin. The bible claims that God hates people eating shellfish, taking his name in vain, and jealousy. The belief or hell rule is hella evil and gains credibility from the same source (Christians, not the bible) who also claim that god is good as a more fundamental belief, which directly contradicts the hell or belief rule. Hell is a medieval invention/translation error: the eternal torture thing isn't even in the modern bibles. For example, there are lots of good, fun, reasons to assign the Christian pascal's wager a lower probability than its opposite even engaging on a Christian level: The real trick of pascals wager is the idea that they're generally no more likely than their opposite.
Conversely, If PASCAL GOD is the only god and he sends you to hell unless you accept any pascal's wager, that's equivalent to any pascal's wager you hear being true. To illustrate: If its true that there is one god: ANTIPASCAL GOD, and he sends you to hell for accepting any pascal's wager, then that's equivalent to any pascal's wager you hear having an opposite (no more "or equivalent"s will be typed but they still apply) which is true because if you accept any pascal's wager you go to hell. I used hell because it is in the most popular wager but it applies to all wagers. The probability that its opposite or equivalent, (anything which would send you to hell for accepting is equivalent), is trueġ/10000 is also way too high even if you're not accounting for opposite possibilities.Įquivalence here refers to what behaviours it punishes or rewards. The probability that the wager or equivalent, (anything whose acceptance would prevent you going to hell is equivalent) is true
1/10000 is about 1/10000 too high for the relevant probability. In this case 9999 times you waste your Christianity and 1/10000 you don't go to hell for eternity, which is, at a vast understatement, much worse than 10000 times as bad as worshipping god even at the expense of the sanity it costs to force a change in belief, the damage it does to your psyche to live as a victim of self inflicted Stockholm syndrome, and any other non obvious cost: With these premises choosing to believe in God produces infinitely better consequences on average. If pascal's wager starts off excluded from the category real life you've already made up your mind so this cannot quite be the actual order of events. Also, this doesn't work for actually excluding pascal's wager. In the world in which pascal's wager is correct you would still see people who plan out their lives on a 1 in 10000 chance of a huge pay-off fail 9999 times out of 10000. It is a unique situation that would never crop up in real life as you're using it. Pascal's wager shouldn't be in in the reference class of real life.
This kind of clever reasoning never pays off in real life." "For so long as I can remember, I have rejected Pascal's Wager in all its forms on sheerly practical grounds: anyone who tries to plan out their life by chasing a 1 in 10,000 chance of a huge pay-off is almost certainly doomed in practice. Also all of these possibilities are literally effectively 0 so don't be worrying. I haven't mentioned any positive equivalents or opposites below. For example pascal's wager has the opposite where accepting sends you to hell, it also has the opposite where refusing sends you to heaven. I started this as a comment on "Being half wrong about pascal's wager is even worse" but its really long, so I'm posting it in discussion instead.Īlso I illustrate here using negative examples (hell and equivalents) for the sake of followability and am a little worried about inciting some paranoia so am reminding you here that every negative example has an equal and opposite positive partner.
0 kommentar(er)
