I took the scripture to mean we are capable of living to 70, and even 80 if some have enough strength. It’s not reporting it as a mean average of the general population. Many living thousands of years ago, didn’t make it to 25. There were plenty of wars being fought, famine, all sorts of diseases, and infant mortality to reckon with. The bible also records Adam living to be 930 years old, Noah 950, and Methuselah 969. Take this literally? Did the psalmist?
Christians can and do ignore Pascal’s Wager, although some like yourself obviously still think it carries weight. It doesn’t. Pascal’s Wager has a multitude of problems.
Just wanted to shout out to Czarcasm, Der Trihs, and others who persist in engaging these tedious fools in arguments–don’t know where you get the strength.
As long as I’m quoting from HAMLET, tho’, I thought I’d pass along an anecdote about Stacy Keach’s performance in the title role, in the Delacorte Theater in Central park in 1972, an open-air theater, by way of commenting on the "minor miracle’ of the wind blowing some papers away about ten pages back: I was sitting in the theater, enjoying Keach’s performance immensely, and it was a damp cloudy night but not raining until Keach reached the line, “Look you, the o’erhanging firmament…” when thunder cracked and the skies opened up exactly on cue. It poured, and Keach tried to persevere, but finally just shrugged and ran offstage as everyone sought cover.
If this were to have happened in a religious setting, you’d never heard the fricken end of it.
Completely invalid arguments because of one simple fact: Pascal’s Wager was devised entirely from within a Christian theological framework. The “which God?” question becomes nullified.
It was fitting for the point. Psalms is neither fantasy nor allegorical. Psalms contains mostly emotion-driven poetry and can and does encapsulate historical fact, such as human life expectancy of those who weren’t killed while young.
On what reasonable basis can all other religions be excluded from the wager? If the stakes of the wager are one’s eternal fate, all possible “winning” bets must be considered.
If you read the wager, Pascal writes:
And yet, despite this admission, Pascal goes on to narrow humanity’s options to either Catholicism or atheism. This is absurd; it is indeed assuming the correctness of itself.
Completely invalid arguments because of one simple fact: Pascal’s Wager was devised entirely from within a Christian theological framework.
Great question! It either does not apply (if you chose not to engage) or it *can *apply.
Here is how: Some detractors of PW would say that insincere beilief is not bona fide belief. Logical. However, again supposing there is a God, then the opening of the mind to possible belief is a bit like showing up at a door instead of discarding an invitation to an event. Once the doubter at least retracts from closedminded unbelief, again assuming there is a trinitarian God, then the Holy Spirit can plant that seed of true faith that has the potential to grow. One is no longer saying “no” they are saying , “let me explore this.” The thing about God is that he will never infringe upon your free will. Are all atheists locked into a permanent condition of closemindedness and “no?” I doubt it.
And it should be noted that Pascal himself subscribed to a sub-sect of Catholicism called Jansenism, so the correct belief in God that Pascal would’ve endorsed is one that died out in the 18th century.
Are you a Jansenist Roman Catholic, by any chance?
More to the point though, on what basis can it be taken as a given that the Christian theology is correct? What is the source of the assumption that underlies Pascal’s Wager?
What is your basis for believing that there is a God who rewards faith?
I think your assumption that because Pascal was of the Roman sect it can only be restricted to that sect. But he addresses a core common denominator to all of Christianity: Faith. From his world view Roman Catholicism being the dominant Christian presence, he did an excellent job distilling it down to that common denominator or core belief of all Christianity. He didn’t say anything about pennance or ritualistic actions, it is merely faith in a Christian God.
I think your assumption that because Pascal was of the Christian sect it can only be restricted to that sect. But he addresses a core common denominator to most religions: Faith.
Additionally, NormalDude, is your god so easily fooled by your ingenuine “toadying and barefaced flattery” that he’d give you a pass to heaven for simply showing up and making mockery of him? What’s the minimum effort that your god requires for a passing mark?