Thanks for presenting Pascal's Wager in the context of the Rationalists of the 1600's/Early 1700's. As a teacher-to-be, I find your videos to be both accessible and high quality for the students. As a thesis I am currently working on, I am developing an appropriate argument for how to think about these very interesting "scientists" (they would say "Natural Philosophers," which is the interesting point I believe, as I will describe next) within the religiously turbulent times of the 1600's. I think that one thing to keep in mind is that there was no separation, until later in the 1700's, in world history between a developing notion of "Science" as separate and different than "Religion." In fact, within the context of the lingua franca of the day, Latin for the upper classes of the hierarchy of the late Medieval world of Europe, Scientia was a word to denote a certain collective/universal type of knowledge. Today we have the term/phrase "scientific method," but that phrase did not exist yet in this time period. Indeed, a good example of the use of the word science in the Latin context is the title of Bacon's 1620 work Novum Organum Scientiarum, or New Instrument of Knowledge. The subtext for the title page of this work is also good for the above point, the Latin quote Multi pertransibunt & augebitur scientia which means Many will Travel and Knowledge will be Increased, in showing us the contextual use of the term science at this time period. For these Natural Philosophers, my basic argument is thus, the knowledge they were gaining and working on was not so much an act of rejection (to say that they were trying to prove something by saying "You're Wrong" to Aristotle's or Aquinas's adherents) but instead an act of confirmation (to say that they were trying to prove something by saying "This is how it Works" in regards to new information). What was this 'new Information?' And, what is the "New Instrument of Knowledge" stated in the title of Bacon's work more specifically? The "Novum" is really important as the theme of Skepticism of the 1500's Renaissance being expressed by these people, in their own unique ways such as the very smart Mr. Pascal, and were changing the intellectual landscape quite rapidly in that: 1). The invention of the Gutenberg Press in the late 1430's, resulting in an exponential increase in New interpretations of the bible (against official Catholic doctrines). 2). The 'discovery' of the 'New World' in 1492 by Colombus and company. 3). New churches are founded in Protest against the Catholic Church, which is begun with Luther's famous 95 Thesis of 1517. 4). The New, but also not new at all, theory of the universe as being Heliocentric, proposed by Copernicus's On the Heavenly Bodies on his death bed in 1543. (This theory sets the stage for the divide which is now a part of our modern logic between Religion and Science). 5). Michel de Montaigne publishes a new, secular form (unintentionally) of writing and sharing ideas called the "Essais" in the latter 1500's. 6). Francis Bacon copies the style of Montaigne's work and publishes his own "Essays" in 1597. (Helping to cement this new form of writing in the English lands, and the bane of writing of students to this day.) 7). In the year 1572 Tycho's Supernova was observed in the sky, and thus added a New star to the (previously understood as static and non-moving) heavens. 8). In the year 1604 Kepler's Supernova was observed in the sky, adding another New star to the heavens. 9). Galileo publishes Starry Messenger in 1610 which shows New information on the revolutions of new heavenly bodies (Medici Moons) in relation to observing Jupiter with a telescope. (Also, basically confirming the Heliocentric theory to be more true than Geocentric theory). 10). Rene Descartes publishes his book Discourse on Philosophy in 1637, which becomes the new pedagogical guide for all higher level learners and intellectuals from then on. Which includes both the realms of Qualitative Reasoning (via the Ontological statement of Cogito Ergo Sum) and Quantitative Reasoning (via the appendix book La Geometrie which lays out the new form of maths called Analytical Geometry, and thus introducing the other bane of student's existence, the Cartesian Coordinate system). Taken together, not a rejection but a confirmation for all this New. The goal of the Natural Philosophers was to determine a way in which all this "fits together" in the realm of the cosmos, or God, and Earth, or Man. Pascal is another fascinating tale to add to this process occurring in the 1600's. Then, step in this video with Mr. Blaise Pascal. (Who may I add, did have correspondence with Mr. Descartes during his short lived life, and had a whole lot to add to our knowledge of 'Science' as we know and understand it today).
@GreatPlays
5 жыл бұрын
I wished you were my history teacher haha
@tomrichey
5 жыл бұрын
Thanks to KZitem, I can be your history teacher anytime (and I won’t even assign you homework). Some wishes do come true!
@RonniePerito
6 ай бұрын
i never thought this idea actually exist, i was already thinking the same philosophy for myself.... just get hyped that i found out about this....GOD be PRAISED...
@pyrrho314
5 жыл бұрын
it makes no sense... it can be applied to any religion, any belief, every superstition...
@yunusahmed2940
5 жыл бұрын
No it can't as not every religion promises you heaven hell or anything. Really only a few are clear. Also no it cannot be applied to any belief or superstitions. What do you gain from believing in leprachauns? Or that the Earth is flat? Take this more seriously.
@silentkiller2mm
5 жыл бұрын
@@yunusahmed2940 A great number of religions promise some kind of rewards if you believe in a certain deity, concept or thing, and/or follow vertain traditions, etc. ... Fundamentally, Pascal's Wager wants to tell you why you should believe in a god, and to be more precide, the christian god. However, he set it up in a way that it would suit his narrative. In essence, there are two options according to Pascal 1.) there is a god that punishes nobelievers and rewards believers, 2.) there is no god, so you won't get punished,nor rewarded. But there are more then two, if we want to do it correctly (and here differs the mathematician and the philosopher - a shame Pascal chose the latter): 1.) there is a (christian) god that punishes nobelievers and rewards believers, 2.) there is no god, so you won't get punished,nor rewarded. 3.) there is no god, yet people will somehow get rewarded after life (one option we have to consider) 4.) there is a god that will punish all christians for heresy 5.) there is a christian) god that only rewards with x (while x can be any amount of rewards, meaning the rewards can be either amazing or disappointingly small) 6.) There is achristian) god that only punishes with x (--\\--) 7.) 5 and 6, while leaving "only" out. 8.) There is a god that rewards not only with believing as a parameter. Moreover, Pascal assumes believing costs nothing - which, in case of christianity, it does. (unless we say, only believing in god is necessary) From a philosophical POV, Pascal's Wager (with all the stuff he said before - after all, Pascal's Wager holds no ground on it's own) is more interesting, but overall, it's a rather weak arguments constructed to suit the christian narrative. If you rewrite it a bit, it can fit to most major and minor believes. PS. If you believe in a leprachaun, and one exists that rewards people that believe in it (and/or punishes people that don't believe in it), you might get a pot of gold.
@brianw.5230
5 жыл бұрын
No because one has to study the evidence of each religion.
@vanivanov9571
5 жыл бұрын
@@silentkiller2mm No you wouldn't.... Leprechauns don't give pots of gold to people who believe in them. Your math is also below high-school level, as you didn't simplify your equation, including many elements that do not change the outcome. You also, very intentionally, left out the possibility of a God that punishes atheists. If there was one that punished Christians or the religious specifically, clearly there'd be one who hates atheists and likes all theists, or such. No matter how you try to screw with the math, it always comes out with atheists on the losing end. As Brian said, yes, Pascal's wager applies to the general principles of religion, but you can't have all religions be right. So you must commit yourself to the one that seems most right. I would say that YHWH, who returned the Jews to Israel as he promised over two thousand years after it was prophesied, has proven Himself to be the best choice, over the communism and Darwinist murder of atheism, which has killed more people than any other religion, in just he space of the 20th century.
@Miskeen-33
2 жыл бұрын
Pascal's wager when taking into account modern philosophy and science would be infinite gain or loss Or no gain or loss
@ExecutiveCounsel
5 жыл бұрын
Very interesting man and video
@tomrichey
5 жыл бұрын
Thanks!
@rofyle
5 жыл бұрын
Nothing can be taken as a given except that nothing can be taken as a given . . . . . DOH!
@someone2973
5 жыл бұрын
One problem with pascals wager is that it assumes that if God exists he/she/it would want us to believe in him, but you could add to the equation an opposite god, who gives atheists an infinite reward and theists an infinite punishment.
@Blitzman1999
5 жыл бұрын
I can sympathize with Pascal's Wager but at the same time it's just pragmatics and doesn't involve knowing the truth, but instead says you should believe because of a possible horrible alternative when what actually matters is whether god's existence can be proven with arguments.
@benwil6048
3 жыл бұрын
@Zachary S it can’t be disproven indeed, but if god were real you would actually be able to prove it. So I guess you just admitted that it’s bs. Like the bible said “faith is evidence for things unseen”, except it is not evidence at all ;)
@stevenos100
5 жыл бұрын
Mohammed must go to the mountain and the mountain moved said by jesus the christ So Mohammed said the mountain is still moving and christ ascended on the mountain Better to believe in an unknown God Christ even promised (Good,bad) afrimatiom (self,others) Better to struggle in belief Than have in doubt in pleasure Store your treasures in heaven Better to believe than not Nothing to lose... Except your eternal life Pascals wager
@newsystembad
4 жыл бұрын
That's the problem with the wager: what if you are _also_ wrong? What if neither Christianity or Atheism is right, but Islam is? Then you'd suffer the same as the atheist. Now extrapolate that to every other religion. Hinduism, Buddhism, Judaism, Sikhism, Shinto, any of the various regional faiths across Africa, Asia, and Polynesia. The odds get a lot worse for you then.
@jessebryant9233
4 жыл бұрын
@@newsystembad Can you make a case for ANY of them? ...
@brodibarringer5016
4 жыл бұрын
Pascal, to be brilliant, was a fool..he basically says you are either christian or atheist, which is idiotic..what if there is a god, but not the christian god, what if the true god/religion is islam, with allah, Muhammad the prophet, maybe its the jewish god, maybe Buddha or how about hinduism or any number of other religions and their gods that are out there..you can't believe in them all, and you have No way to prove which one is the True religion..common sense says you can't rule the other religions out, they believe in their god as a christian believes in jesus god..as I said, to be a brilliant man, he was a fool..
@jessebryant9233
4 жыл бұрын
Well, if you'd like to make a case for some other god, then feel free! I mean, how do you know that you can't prove which one (singular by definition) exists? And how did you arrive at the conclusion that there is "no way to prove" which religion is true? Common sense reveals that while it is possible for ALL of them to be false, it is not possible for more than one of them to be true. I think you got it kind of backwards...
@jessebryant9233
4 жыл бұрын
@Bohrmaschine Small chance... or only chance? And what you do mean by "in a religious way"? Also, if all the people on earth lived consistently with Judeo-Christian principles (the teachings of Jesus) do you think that would make the world a better place or no?
@barryisland5942
3 жыл бұрын
Which god? The following is from Google : How many gods are there in total? Estimates suggest that there are at least 100,000 different gods worshiped on earth today and there have been more than that worshipped throughout history.
@beyondrepair8949
5 жыл бұрын
Time to put that sport coat in the Goodwill bin.
@tomrichey
5 жыл бұрын
LOLOLOLOL
@erikfjell8741
5 жыл бұрын
Oh come on man. That sport coat is ROCKING!! Reminds me of the awesome Bear Bryant. It is styling Tom, and keep doing you.
@trombone7
5 жыл бұрын
Blaise Pascal seems like a smart dude, but he's wrong on this one.
@nelsoncamachotirado6967
5 жыл бұрын
Pascal’s Wager was not a completely thought out argument. It was just a thought experiment. It’s like a sketch made by Van Gogh. I don’t think it works because it assumes monotheism and Christianity. It doesn’t take into account the possibility that there’s more than one god or the possibility that there’s only one evil god (read Stephen King’s Revival).
@brianw.5230
5 жыл бұрын
Pascal knew that Christianity was the most plausible religion.
@benwil6048
3 жыл бұрын
@@brianw.5230 he “knew” now did he? That’s bs lol He specifically states you can’t understand and that it’s a gamble of 50/50 odds. It is not
@brianw.5230
3 жыл бұрын
@@benwil6048 well, he believed it obviously.
@benwil6048
3 жыл бұрын
@@brianw.5230 then why did you first say he knew it?
@brianw.5230
3 жыл бұрын
@@benwil6048 Because he was a genius :)
@benwil6048
3 жыл бұрын
If there is nothing about the christian religion that is indecent, would someone then consider being my servant under biblical law?
@amandawang382
4 жыл бұрын
I can't believe that I watched your Ap Euro videos in high school, and now still watching you for PHIL at uni
@JoshKaufmanstuff
4 жыл бұрын
0:40 Math +theologian = odd. But Tom is poor at math, so it's logical that he could be a theologian?
@kevinrworthy
4 жыл бұрын
I think there may be a problem with Pascal’s formulation in that it’s not clear to me that hell is never ending. Athanasius (one of the early church fathers) didn’t seem to believe in an eternal hell, but in a punishment that lasts long enough to do justice to the unrepentant and that is followed by passing back into nonbeing. So, it’s not as if we end up suffering for ever and ever with no end if we do not believe in Christ and repent from sin, but rather that we cease to exist at all when we might have been saved to live with God for ever. That’s what I understood Athanasius to be saying anyway (in the early part of On the Incarnation). With that adjustment, however, Pascal’s formulation makes a lot of sense to me. I mean, if God does exist and he gives eternal life to those believe in Christ and repent of their sins, then it’s a tremendously good idea to believe in Christ and repent of our sins. But if God does not exist and the scientific materialists are right, then our lives will all be over in the instant that we die and this will happen no matter what we do to ourselves or to other people. So, while we may lose something by repenting of our sins in this life if there is no Christ (because there really is no such thing as objective sin), what we lose is of no real consequence.
@jecar8431
5 жыл бұрын
What an awesome video! This really helped me understand the "wager" concept. New subscriber!!
@tvilla6466
4 жыл бұрын
This is an excellent explanation.
@serahill
Жыл бұрын
Pascal's Wager only works if you forget that other religions or many christian denominations exist. Many religions and denominations of those religions offer the "infinite reward" to anyone who lives their life virtuously, but disqualify you if you worship false gods/deities. If you took the sum of religions and denominations that people still believe, and checked on what conditions those religions offer their reward you would come to the conclusion that not believing any any god/deity is the best bet.
@NightmareRex6
Ай бұрын
basicaly only thing we can pull from it is its a GAMBLE with your soul PERIOD weather christain athiest islam eta eta..... and can conclude therefor gambling is NOT a sin! kzitem.info/news/bejne/o6eZqox_sWh0dG0
@TheManInRoomFive
5 жыл бұрын
C. Hitchens had a thing or two to say about this wager :D
@brianw.5230
5 жыл бұрын
His objections were terrible because he didn't know anything about Christianity. He should have read the story of The Prodigal Son.
@erikfjell8741
5 жыл бұрын
Chris Hitchens gambled incorrectly, in the eyes of many, even his own brother and the dozen or so theologians he debated. More than one of them, including myself, cried the day he died, due to the missed opportunities. These decisions are personal, and depends on internal convictions. No one person is an island, or will be dragged into such decisions.
@pleasesubscribe7659
5 жыл бұрын
He produced plenty of platitudes on many things he understood notching about.
@benwil6048
3 жыл бұрын
@Trolltician yeah, poor christians
@benwil6048
3 жыл бұрын
@T&P nice ad hom fallacy, gj
@jaznn2107
5 жыл бұрын
What is finite loss and finite gain? Kindly elaborate for me to understand.
@ces4621
5 жыл бұрын
Pascal wagers ultimately fails when put in an environment with other religions. By Pascals wager you're best bet would to find the religion with the worst hell and try to avoid that.
@lukaszwojcik8174
5 жыл бұрын
Christianity would most likely win that one, the problem is... How do you assess the actual probability for each religion's scenario to happen? Just based on popularity? It really puzzles me why Pascal wanted so much to prove this based on logic when faith defies logic by it's very definition.
@ces4621
5 жыл бұрын
@@lukaszwojcik8174 Regardless if Christianity has the worst hell or not, I find the notion of trying to scare people into believing something completely against the notion of any benevolent deity.
@lukaszwojcik8174
5 жыл бұрын
@@ces4621 We're discussing the Pascals wager though - a concept based entirely on the combination of scaring people into believing something and promising them things to make them believe into the same thing, and the former is arguably the bigger part of this concept than the latter (a lot of people would be fine with just disappearing, but who would be fine with burning for eternity? nobody :)) . I find this very cynical, absurd and even sad, and Albert Einstein if i recall correctly had something to say about this carrot/stick strategy... "If we only do good out of fear of being punished after life, then indeed we are sad people". Not fully accurate because i'm writing it from my memory but the essence has been preserved :) In my opinion, we should keep faith apart from reason and logic. Faith defies them by definition - if you KNOW, or if you have CALCULATED your chances, it is no longer even faith, is it? It's a "logical thing to do". Faith is believing, so i really don't understand why religious scientists are trying so hard to bring reason into this. Especially in such way as Pascal.
@stevescoffee8325
5 жыл бұрын
Peridot Diamond well I do believe that is reason to be scared, any chance even if very small of eternal torture should be frightening.
@lukaszwojcik8174
5 жыл бұрын
@@stevescoffee8325 I used to think that way too, and after being raised Christian i was very scared of hell. Terrified in fact, so much that it had took over my life for a certain period of time. I was a teenager back then, of course, and this had taught me the invalidity of the Pascal's wager - after i found out how much i'd have to do to achieve my chances of salvation and have done research on how probable the entire Christian vision is, i walked away from it for good and the thought and fear of eternal suffering have not crossed my mind in years. The odds are there is a tiny, tiiiiiny fraction of chance one of the thousands of religious legends indeed has it true and i will be burning forever. However, life is worth living because we're taking risks. Even when you leave your house you are taking an enormous risk. Without it, life would be tasteless and not worth living. So on one part you have this tiiiiiny chance, and on the other hand this HUGE chance that by subjugating your life to Christianity in fear of hell you are losing your true potential for one life you really have in this world. That's what the wager really is, and i don't know a single reasonable person who is going to bet on the former instead of the latter. Christians included - name me a sane modern Christian who really sticks to his religion only because he fears hell. That'd be pathetic. They simply love their religion and values genuinely and that makes them happy. this is why in my view Pascal's wager is an ultimate failure and i have much doubt as to whether Pascal himself truly believed it - how would one live such an accomplished, magnificent life if all he thought about was "bbbbbut what if im going to hell for this?". Nonsense in my view.
@Bwkjam
5 жыл бұрын
Watching Tom struggle with art is hilarious.
@jaydentownsend5402
5 жыл бұрын
I'm going to heaven lieutenant Dan ;c
@catkeys6911
5 жыл бұрын
... And all this blah, bla, bla, bla, bla..... can be summed up as "Better Safe Than Sorry", can't it? "Believe in my god, or you will suffer the consequences! Why, just last night, he told me..."
@brianw.5230
5 жыл бұрын
I think Pascals' Wager is brilliant. Even if there's no God, Christians live better lives according to the social sciences; more happiness, more altruism, less depression, less suicide, etc., etc. It's no coincidence, in my opinion, that depression and suicide are up 30% in the United States as more people become atheist. I say this as a recovering atheist. :)
@graysonguinn1943
5 жыл бұрын
Even with those statistics being true that doesn’t prove the faith
@graysonguinn1943
5 жыл бұрын
Zachary Stewart Being based upon faith makes it far harder to accept though, especially in our society that values reason very highly
@malchir4036
5 жыл бұрын
"It's no coincidence, in my opinion" Well, your opinion doesn't matter, correlation is not causation.
@seraph9969
5 жыл бұрын
Hey Richie my AP Euro teacher loves your work, and we watch it all the time keep up the great work!
@tomrichey
5 жыл бұрын
Thanks for the encouragement! Please say hello to your teacher for me.
@seraph9969
5 жыл бұрын
Tom Richey My teacher Mrs. Lunney says hi back
@vanivanov9571
5 жыл бұрын
Good video. Notably, Galileo was a Christian who was part of the church, and the argument was not really anything against religion. It wasn't even that the Church disliked the science, but that he had criticized the Catholic church on some other issues, which made the whole mess complicated. They were all for his research, previously.
@user-lr5yn4lm6i
5 жыл бұрын
So I take it you are going to bet on Notre Dame? Because with a spread like that, you ain't going to make any money on Clemson. Go ahead, throw your money away ahahh!
@andreyrussian2480
5 жыл бұрын
nevertheless system of coordinates requires mesurement and morality first to understand what situation is about and god as the second part of reasoning...
@lukaszwojcik8174
5 жыл бұрын
"Do you find Pascal's logic credible? Let me know in the comments!" Because of my respect to you and your work i will be as polite as possible, but... In my view Pascal's wager is the single greatest example of how even the greatest minds may be inclined to proclaim something utterly ridiculous. Christianity does not promise the infinite reward of eternal life for free. Not at all. You have to fulfill requirements, ridiculously high requirements if you're going by the actual Bible (granted, not many people do - thank God :) ), and even if you're a "modern" Christian who believes not everything in the Bible should be taken literally and that God is merciful and loving and will only punish those truly evil, etc etc. You're still putting in effort for this cause, you are humbling yourself before this being, you are putting this being above your actual loved ones (worst part by far). So the cost is tremendous. It's not like you live as an atheist and then wave your hand at your deathbed and say "alriiight, Pascal's wager is clear on this, i have better odds if i say this... JESUS, I BELIEVE IN YOU!". The entire concept of Pascal's wager is so cynical that in connection to faith, something that is supposed to be indisputably genuine and "pure", it should be ridiculous even to Christians. Do you really only believe because you have better odds in the post death life? Do you not love God, do you not find comfort and happiness in living by Christian values? Is it seriously just about you not getting your ass burned forever? All above is just from a point of view of a Christian - assumption being made that hell/heaven are real, just to prove how ridiculous this idea is even in eyes of a believer; actually ESPECIALLY in eyes of a believer because it's so cynical! But now, onto my own point of view. It is enough to look at the history, at the many, many beliefs, at their gradual transformation, at how they have been used as a political tool, at the Paganic and Christian celebrations shamelessly merging wherever the Church desired to turn more people friendly to their religion, at how shaky and illogical the Bible itself is and many other things, you realize that odds are entirely different. We may never answer the question whether God is real or not, but we may assess the probability quite easily by looking at many factors. And books have been written on this so i will not attempt to explain this further in a youtube comment, but long story short, according to reasoning which occurs most credible and unbiased to me, there is a TIIIIIINY percentage that there is a Christian hell you will go to if you don't believe. Then, there is a tiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiny chance that there is a Muslim hell to which you will go if you don't believe OR if you are Christian. Then... catch my drift? And for this tiny, microscopic chance, you are sacrificing the greatest gift of all - your personal freedom, your limited life in a beautiful world, your free will, you subjugate it all and put it under a mythical figure that is going to mean more to you than your family and your friends, because you were afraid devil is going to cook your ass in one of the hundreds of visions of afterlife which happens to be widspread due to geopolitical and historical reasons... Not the best odds! Not the wisest wager. As a finishing note - there is a certain chance that a glass that's on your desk is going to suddenly "jump up" for no reason whatsoever. Because entropy on the universe is always increasing, the number of possible states the molecules could be in increases as well, and one of those states may just be the one which causes acceleration upwards. Sure, the chance is absolutely, ABSOLUTELY tiny, very close to non-existent, but it is there! Gonna spend your life now worrying about that glass jumping up? Didn't think so! And that, in my view, is the end of that. // Message was not meant to be to any extent offensive or even hostile towards any people of faith. I respect your beliefs, i simply disagree with them strongly, but nonetheless i think many Christians are wonderful people. Nothing against religious people - but something against religion. Best wishes, Mr Richey, i'm looking forward to more of your videos! :) You're one of the best history KZitemrs out there.
@tomrichey
5 жыл бұрын
I don’t see why anyone would be offended by any of this, at all. You are just sharing your own “pensées.” All perspectives are welcome here.
@lukaszwojcik8174
5 жыл бұрын
@@tomrichey Cool! :) Was just worried my approach would be interpreted to be hostile by deeply believing people, that was not my intention.
@yunusahmed2940
5 жыл бұрын
Stop strawmanning the Bible. There are no ridiculously high requirements for salvation.
@lukaszwojcik8174
5 жыл бұрын
@@yunusahmed2940 What about the part where thinking about sexual relationship with someone you're not supposed to have it with is a sin? You having an easy time doing that? Or do you simply subscribe to the "welp, we all do these thingies, but it's all about asking Jesus for forgiveness before we die", modern concept? Regardless, unless you're a complete cynic, you must actually try to at least fulfill these requirements. So yeah, good look trying to stop your thoughts. I'm now strawmanning the Bible. I recommend you read the Bible and see for yourself. What about the God's test of loyalty - murder your own son because i said so or you're disloyal to me? Easy enough? :) Oh, i forgot, that's the Old Testament. We're forgetting that now, it was the not-cool part of the Bible... And we do get to choose after all, we're the creators of the whole thing :) Really, read it yourself and you will see. Atheists are in some cases much better informed on the Bible than Christians because it's terrifying to read that book while believing you have to live up to what's written in it.
@yunusahmed2940
5 жыл бұрын
@@lukaszwojcik8174 Where does the Bible say do not sin or else youre condemned? Are you claiming the only way to salvation is by not sinning? Then no one is going to heaven. But obviously the Bible disagrees. You need to stop lying and keep your mouth shut. Let the people who sho actually read the scriptures do the talking. Paul clearly said we are saved by grace and not from a result of work. Ephesians 2: 8-9 Now stop picking and choosing
@matthewpoynter7906
5 жыл бұрын
Here before 10 views!!!
@totallyasmr8444
5 жыл бұрын
Matthew Poynter oooooooohhhhhhhhh I’m rich
@totallyasmr8444
5 жыл бұрын
Matthew Poynter oooooooohhhhhhhhh I’m rich
@benwil6048
3 жыл бұрын
Newton indeed spent more time studying stuff like alchemy and other mumbojumbo Ps. Your French is indeed quite good, but you might want to drop the “ay” sound at the end, it is not “Penséay” :P nonetheless gj you only have a small accent
@larsenxix346
3 ай бұрын
Alchemy also has a metaphorical meaning
@larsenxix346
3 ай бұрын
Why is alchemy mumbojumbo?
@SnowyOwlPrepper
5 жыл бұрын
Is this were I can get a used car?
@charles-griffin
5 жыл бұрын
Yes. -charlu
@JohnCashin
4 жыл бұрын
To be fair to Blaise Pascal, he was a smart guy for the time he was living in but what he couldn't have known and where his idea falls down is that it's not just a case of either believing in a God and a subsequent belief system that will either be or not true and you've lost nothing if it's untrue, it's more like when it comes to God concepts and belief systems, it's Multiple Choice. What happens if I choose to believe in the Christian God concept and it turns out that the Islam concept is the correct one? I will end up in so-called 'Jahannam', which is how Muslims refer to their Hell concept and also, even if it turns out that I am right to believe a God exists, that still wouldn't necessarily mean that it's the same God of any of the many religions. It might turn out to be the deistic concept of God, in which I case I would never meet him anyway lol but let's say this God exists "hey, I was right, a God exists", if it is the deistic one, I've still go nothing for my trouble and in the face of this Multiple Choice of Gods to choose from, this is where Pasca's wager gets very shaky, to say the least. If there were just ONE God concept and ONE connected belief system to that ONE God, then it might make more sense and worth the gamble but there is MUCH MORE than one and even WITHIN Christianity itself, there are different doctrines and you get one Christians accusing the other of not following and promoting the 'true Gospel of Christ' (they used to call it Hierarchy in the early Christian church) and they will also....uh...burn baby burn lol, according to the Bible. So even though all Christians believe, according to the Bible, not all will get into Heaven and some will end up in Hell. This is where Pascal's wager gets too messy and subsequently, unravels. It was a nice try on Blaise Pascal's part though. Thanks for the upload Tom, really fascinating stuff. Best wishes.
@jessebryant9233
4 жыл бұрын
I've always thought of the Wager as a reason for the search, not a conclusion. For sure, which god is THE GOD is of the utmost importance. It is not about simply going, "Okay, I believe God exists just in case." (Which would be silly - and likely a bit dishonest.) So it is better to believe in Christianity even if it is false, then it is to fail to believe in it if it is true. (And that case can be made just from a historical and moral position...)
@benwil6048
3 жыл бұрын
That’s not how Pascal presented it though, he specifically compares it to a coin toss. So a 50/50 chance his god exists. Not at all about which god, it is specifically his god. Due to this it falls flat on it’s face when you introduce the thousands of other gods mankind invented
@jessebryant9233
3 жыл бұрын
@@benwil6048 That doesn't answer the question I asked...
@benwil6048
3 жыл бұрын
@@jessebryant9233 but you did not ask a question lol, so how would one go about answering it?
@jessebryant9233
3 жыл бұрын
@@benwil6048 Well you got me there! So let's phrase it as a question: Is it better to believe in Christianity even if it is false, then to fail to believe it if it is true?
@benwil6048
3 жыл бұрын
@@jessebryant9233 I would say the chances of Christianity being true are so infinitesimal that it is better not to believe it, especially since believing it more often than not leads to immorality (mistreating of ppl). If for example you are scared of hell you’d prob be better off being Muslim as their hell is quite horrible. I’d also like to quote Voltaire in favour of atheism: “If you can get ppl to believe absurdities, then you can get them to commit atrocities” as we have just seen in France
@AtamMardes
3 жыл бұрын
Pascal's Wager is actually an insult to God (if there is one) as it implies God is an unjust, unfair, cruel, unkind, irrational, thoughtless, and savage dictator that punishes those who didn't believe based on bad evidence (faith).
@scottybranum9142
4 жыл бұрын
There’re 4,300 religions. Going “all in” for any one won’t work...
@rexgoodheart3471
4 жыл бұрын
You've done a good job here of explaining Pascal's Wager, and you haven't taken a position... which might be commendable, except that his Wager is so blatantly and ridiculously flawed that it DEMANDS a position. Now, I won't reveal my own belief or lack thereof, because in either case my criticism is the same: HONEST BELIEF is not a CHOICE. You will find other criticisms, sure, such as that Pascal presumes things which should not be presumed, but I've given you now its true fatal flaw. True belief is a consequence of evidence, not of fear of punishment or promise of reward. I can name several atheists who would prefer some system of eternal reward for good people and inexorable punishments for evil people, but they don't accept espistemologic or spiritual propositions on emotion. Nor should they.
@benwil6048
3 жыл бұрын
Well said Rex
@jimbobbarton6730
5 жыл бұрын
He was very reasonable. I think he was a genius. We need more people like him, instead of those egg heads we got now (among those egg heads are Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Bill Mahrer, Stephen Hawking, and Christopher Hitchens).
@jimbobbarton6730
5 жыл бұрын
@Traditionalism and Perennialism I know that. Hawking's died not to long ago, and hitchens died of cancer. I just didn't have time to make that clear (reading my three new manga and anime I bought Yuri on Ice, Goblin Slayer, Conception, Whistle, and Reincarnation as a Slime). I had my pastor say a prayer for the dead for their souls after they died. But no matter how much u pray, if u didn't accept Christ as ur savior, you'll be cast into the outer darkness, where you'll be burned for eternity in that lake of fire. I'm just upset that we got atheists leading our young folks from Christ, into secularism, and if they don't recant, into eternal torment. I was one of those people the atheists led from the truth. But I never became an atheist (I was a deist), because I knew in order for something like the universe to exist, it must've had a creator. But the Lord predestined my time to be saved long before I was born, and when I turned 17 dragged me to the Presbyterian Church, where I found Christ. I'm now 24.
@benwil6048
3 жыл бұрын
Kudos to you for having good taste in manga. However no kudos for believing that fool was rational in this ridiculous wager. He was however a genius at maths. Strange how he can be so irrational at the same time
@eugenesokol3918
4 жыл бұрын
Well if you believe in God but its the wrong god, you're still cooked! lol
@brendanmessenger5118
4 жыл бұрын
True but pascal did the assessment of other religions and concluded Christianity was the only plausible one.
@benwil6048
3 жыл бұрын
@@brendanmessenger5118 but, *drum rolls* what if he’s wrong? 😱 lol.
@CloudGirlDani
5 жыл бұрын
Ok so what if the Muslims are right and you go to hell for being a Christian? What if the ancient Greeks were right and you go to the underworld for not worshipping Zeus? The issue with Pascal’s wager is that it assumes there are only four options when in reality there are an infinite amount possibilities regarding religion. You’re making the same bet by not believing in the Muslim god as a nonbeliever in any religion. There is no evidence for any god, however, so there it makes no logical sense to believe in any god.
@brianw.5230
5 жыл бұрын
But there's a ton of evidence that Jesus rose from the dead. The empty tomb and all the eyewitnesses.
@divisiveamerica7764
5 жыл бұрын
Pascal's wager is more than math. Pascal's Wager is actually what drove me from religion rather than to it. I thought that if life was merely temporary and what was after is eternal than this life doesn't matter. However, when I looked around people who professed to be religious didn't live their lives as they believed in what they said they did. Giving up a good-paying job, a comfortable home, a cushy preaching gig, giving up everything they own as Jesus demanded is a very low cost for eternity. Yet, you have people of religion living their lives as if this is it and when it's over it is over. They have the big homes and call it a 'blessing' from god, while Jesus said that if you gain your rewards here then you have them. While this alone doesn't really disprove anything it made me question everything and when I did I started to realize the Bible didn't say what I was told it said.
@jonasstrzyz2469
5 жыл бұрын
While the logic behind Pascals Wager is undeniable. It does not take into account the multitude of other religions out there. If there is a reason as to why Christianity is the only religion that needs to be taken into account and that all others can be ignored, then fine. Yet to this day, I fail to see the existance of such a reason or the validity thereof.
@yunusahmed2940
5 жыл бұрын
Christianity is the one with the most evidence
@thescapegoatmechanism8704
5 жыл бұрын
Jonas Strzyz Pascal has already set up the Christian context in which the skeptic would have to make a decision on God. Just read what he says about the paradox of humanity’s greatness and wretchedness and you’ll see why he thought Christianity was different from other religions.
@divisiveamerica7764
5 жыл бұрын
@@yunusahmed2940 Not really. It has a basis in reailty but the stories within the Bible are far from proven true. Sea monsters have a basis of truth as well, there is a giant ocean and there are giant creatures in the ocean, but does that mean the Kraken is real? We have many movies written today that use real people and places but are completely fabricated otherwise, these fabrications are no more true because we can prove that these people and places existed. The Bible has very little proof of being accurate, certainly far less than Christians will claim. And it doesn't even matter if it is true that Christianity has 'the most evidence' out of all other religions if there isn't a god then all the proof in the world won't change that all religions are false. Well, aside from perhaps non-theistic religions.
@yunusahmed2940
5 жыл бұрын
@@divisiveamerica7764 there is a God that is obvious
@divisiveamerica7764
5 жыл бұрын
@@yunusahmed2940 no, it's not
@silentkiller2mm
5 жыл бұрын
I find it always a bit assuming when people argue with Pascal's Wager alone. It's not a stand-alone argument, and requires certain parameters and criteria that were predifined by Pascal so it would suit his POV. This makes it interesting for philosophy maybe, and the rationalists at the time, but overall, Pascal's Wager didn't stand the test of time, and when religion slowly was being defanged, people got confident enough to questions these things - even if they come from great mahematicians and philosophers. So, in conlcusion, I personally find it a weak argument, especially if people just bring it up in a debate without mentioning said predefined criteria. But its a fun little thought, and you can spend some time to switch some word to fit it to some other religion when you are a little bored.
@vanivanov9571
5 жыл бұрын
"and when religion slowly was being defanged..." Defanged, you say? That's some strong language.... I've seen plenty of laughable arguments by people who can't count, against Pascal's wager. I remember the Rational Wiki suggesting that, "What if there is a God, but no heaven!?" Then, they added a 0 to both sides.... and thought that adding 0 would somehow change the variables. That's how stupid hatred makes a person. Pascal's Wager is simple math. Some people try to dispute it, by conjuring up the most absurd ideas that no one would follow or ever deem credible, such as the idea that the flying spaghetti monster is going to stand up for atheists, and punish all the Christians. I tried to go through all the mathematical possibilities, one time, and atheists still came out on the losing side (go ahead and try it yourself sometime). I suppose one should consider that possibility, still, when moving onto the second part of Pascal's Wager: Which religion should you support? I can only make the suggestion that Israelite religion, that which said the Jews would be returned to Israel, some more than two thousand years before it happened, has proven itself the most.
@giggletushjr
5 жыл бұрын
Tradition>Reason. Faith is always a +. Hedonism can never be an inherent good because there is nothing to substantiate it as such, Tradition provides something meaningful at least.
Пікірлер: 150