I asked about anything from the Pentateuch. If you’re going to use anything anyone says as evidence, then use mine as well: People who use Pascal’s Wager to try to get an eternal reward will be rewarded with nothing but eternal suffering. Atheists rule heaven.
Zeus isn’t really relevant, because in that mythology, I believe pretty much everyone went to the underworld when they died, so using Pascal’s wager to believe in Zeus doesn’t benefit you in any way.
Bye!
I am giving you a formal warning for repeated use of this tactic. [I quote two examples from the Kuzari Proof thread below.] As a general rule you’re free to participate in threads as often as you see fit, so you can stop posting in any conversation at any time for whatever reason. But your repeated use of statements like ‘This is my last post’ (always followed by more posts at a later date, or in this case, during the edit window) constitutes an attempt to control the debate by stopping people from asking questions you don’t want to answer. As such it’s being a jerk as far as I’m concerned, and our guiding principle here is “Don’t be a jerk.” Please don’t do this anymore. If you do it in the future, I will shut down the thread (assuming its yours), and I may give you a longer-term break from this site.
(BTW, when I say goodbye, I do it because it seems that we are running in circles. If you bring up a new point, I am more than happy to return. You did bring up a new point, so here I am).
It’s difficult for me to consider your claim that “those who are atheists will rule heaven.” First, you haven’t told me how you got that information. Did you simply guess it, or do you claim that an angel told it to you. If the latter, then it is something relevant. Second, in the context of this debate, it is obvious that you just made that up. It can’t be considered evidence.
Still, for the sake of the argument, what if a sincere prophet comes down from a mountain and claims that only those who don’t worship God, or who don’t believe in God will be rewarded? Is the wager no longer relevant? Not at all.
As I mentioned before, when deciding which religion is most likely to be true, we should simply look at which religion has the most evidence. So we need to evaluate whether this “atheistic prophet” is more likely to be lying than the hundreds of people who claim to have had marian apparitions, or (amongst Talmudic sages) have claimed to have seen Elijah the Prophet. Numbers certainly matter (I am trying hard not to invoke Kuzari, so as not to cause a heart-attack in the oh-so-rational visitors to the thread).
Marley! Chill out!
I’m perfectly chill. I’m just giving you an official warning. If I weren’t chill I could have warned you repeatedly or banned you during the Kuzari discussion, when you did this over and over again. If you don’t do this anymore, you’ll be fine.
I’ll leave the rest for others to answer, but if there is even an infinitesmal chance of there being no reward, it is surely worthwhile to enjoy this one life as much as I can and ignore the restrictions of a god.
No religion is assured to be safe, and atheism is just as likely to be safe as theism. All choices have exactly the same risk.
There is also no evidence that God would rather you be a theist than an atheist. Both options have exactly the same risk.
I can say with absolute certainty and without fear of contradiction that we have no evidence whatsoever for gods or for anything supernatural.
There is also zero evidence that God will reward anyone who IS religious.
]Thios is not an argument against the Wager.
There is no evidence that God even HAS commandments, much less wants anybody to follw them. There is just as much evidence that God will punish those who follow religious commandments as that he will reward them.
Yes.
I’ve seen people make this mistake before. Testimony is not evidence, no. I think people confuse scientific evidence with legal evidence. The word does not have the same meaning in a scientific context as it does in a courtroom. In a courtroom, anything presented to a jury is called “evidence,” regardless of any probative value. Scientific evidence actually has to be empirical, verifiable data which will support or falsify a hyothesis or theory. A mere claim has no scientific value as evidence. It is not information or data. It can’t be used to test a prediction.
Might I remind you of the Sh’ma:
You can’t love if you don’t believe, and this commandment is to love. I don’t know if there is anything similar in Christianity.
I can state this with some confidence: it’s as likely an angel told me that as it is that an angel told Joseph Smith something, Elijah the Prophet told the sages something, or any supernatural being told any prophet, messiah, religious founder anything.
You could say that. 
I guess that counts as Christian, since he’s Jesus. It’s been my experience that a lot of Christians don’t know he was quoting Deuteronomy, though.
Many wonderful new points have been made, so I guess I will have to rescind my goodbye, if so permitted.
Diogenes: How sure would you feel you need to be about the truth of a specific religion for you to accept Pascal’s Wager? It seems that since you are 100% sure that religion is false; if you were merely 99% sure that Christianity is false, would you go to church?
Voyager: Of course the biblical God wants us to believe in him, no question. But what if we don’t, are we still obligated to follow His commandments, no question about that.
Diogenes: Scientific evidence is based on testimonial evidence as well. For example, unless you yourself have done scientific experiments, how do you know that evolution or black holes, for example, are real facts? Yes, scientific experiments were supposedly done to prove those things. But how do you know that the entire scientific world hasn’t been lying to us about those experiments? Because we have testimonial evidence (we don’t assume that people always lie) that there is scientific evidence for black holes.
So, of course, I agree with your point that testimonial evidence may be weak; and weak evidence for something as absurd as angels and gods is weak. Still, it is evidence. If not, then we have no evidence for anything at all.
Voyager: there is a whole debate in jewish commentators regarding whether there is a commandment to believe. Although, as you pointed out, some commandments themselves assume that you already believe in God. Other commandments assume that you believe in the Sinia miracles, such as the commandment “never to forget the day you stood before God in Sinia.”
But some commandments don’t require belief. Leaving the edge of your field to the poor doesn’t require belief. Respecting parents doesn’t require belief. Honoring the elderly doesn’t require belief. Giving tithes to the poor doesn’t require belief. Observing the Sabbath doesn’t require belief. The prohibition to wage war against the ancient kingdoms of Ammon and Moab doesn’t require belief. They are pure actions, etc. etc…
Flip a coin, and then follow some of the commandments(the ones that don’t require actual belief)?
I don’t know if it is possible to “win” using Pascal’s Wager, but this approach is as close to a guaranteed “lose” as I have ever seen. Wow.
I’m not sure I can see the question as measurable by degree. Zero evidence is zero evidence.
To make things easier, though, I would still not go to church (though my wife and kids do) because I would not morally be able to countenance or respect the Christian God.
No it isn’t.
The evidence for black holes is not testimonial. The research and evidence is all available for peer review, critique and replication. Nothing in science relies on taking anybody’s word for anything.
Not if we’re not Jewish, obviously. And I’m sure you are not saying that we are following God’s commandment if we put the Sh’ma on the doorposts of our houses but don’t believe the content.
True testimonial evidence would be something like a report of meteorites falling in the 18th century or a sighting of the Loch Ness monster today. They are taken very cautiously until there is physical evidence or a preponderance of testimonial evidence.
What you are talking about has nothing to do with testimonial evidence. Experimental results are recorded, and, more importantly, methods are published so that the experiments/observations can be reproduced.
For black holes the evidence includes the physics of them, which is not at all testimonial, and reproducibly observable phenomena. And it is of course provisional - if someone came up with a better theory to explain the observations it would be adopted.
This was very nicely illustrated by cold fusion, where the testimony of Pons and Flesischman was refuted by others trying to reproduce their results.
Sure, there are tons of commandments, but Pascal’s Wager doesn’t work all that well for us since there is not infinite torment for not obeying them. Anyone buying into the wager should convert to Christianity (or perhaps Islam) immediately.
Can you just answer his questions instead of dragging this out so he can ask you again? Do you really not get his point? I’m not saying it’s a good one, but actually responding to it instead of focusing on one part of it would help. I’m bring this up because I’ve witnessed you do this sort of thing repeatedly lately.
In case you’re not sure, he’s asking you why you accept certain scientific facts as facts even though you haven’t done experiments to provide evidence that these facts are indeed facts and you accept that the scientific community isn’t pulling the wool over your eyes for things he’s assuming you accept as true whether it be the existence of black holes or some other thing you accept based solely on what the scientific community tells you is true. Sorry for the run on sentence. 
In science, the reason something gets accepted is that others are able to replicate the results. And at the bottom of it, there’s the confidence that I myself could replicate the results if I wanted to.
That’s what makes us accept information shown to us through science, and not trust information from personal testimony.
The first part of this statement is irrelevant. As I suggested before Pascal had just invented a decision theory based on maximizing expected value, this works in some cases but not others. If the probability of the event is microscopic its not worth worrying about even if the payoffs huge. Given a choice of $10 versus a 1 in 10^-100 chance of absolutely anything (either punishment or reward) I’d take the $10.
The second part is off topic. One can ask whether believing a falsehood that makes you happy is of benefit (Santa Clause for example) is a good thing, but this has nothing to do with Pascal’s wager.