₦airaland Forum

I think we need to stop searching for significant evidence of God and focus on the implications of Pascal's Gambit (or Pascal's Wager)

Pascal's Wager (or Pascal's Gambit) is a suggestion posed by the French philosopher Blaise Pascal that even though the existence of God cannot be determined through reason, a person should wager as though God exists, because living life accordingly has everything to gain, and nothing to lose. It was set out in note 233 of his Pensées, a posthumously published collection of notes made by Pascal in his last years as he worked on a treatise on Christian apologetics.

Historically, Pascal's Wager was groundbreaking as it had charted new territory in probability theory, was one of the first attempts to make use of the concept of infinity, marked the first formal use of decision theory, and anticipated the future philosophies of pragmatism and voluntarism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal%27s_Wager

                                                                   God exists (G)                                                                       God does not exist (~G)
Living as if God exists (B)             +∞ (heaven)                                                            -N (none)
Living as if God does not exist (~B)      ?? not specified perhaps -N (limbo/purgatory/spiritual death)                  +N (none)
                                                            or −∞ (hell)

By probabilistic theory, Pascal's Wager (from the outlined table above) shows that a life lived believing in God has everything to gain and nothing to lose. The values in red are estimated values of gain due to the decision.

InesQor:
For instance, the fact that I have a clean, spotless white shirt shows that I understand that it CAN get stained. This does not mean that when a speck of dust settles on it, it is a disruption in my original plan of owning a clean, spotless white shirt because it is NOT a stainless white shirt. My plan would be to ensure that the stains are kept under control and do not overrun the whiteness of the shirt.

I don't see how this applies to a disruption of good plans by evil intents. Why not a stainless white shirt, if the plan is to ensure that the stains are kept under control?

Personally, I think this discussion borders on Theodicy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodicy).

Theodicy (pronounced /θiːˈɒdɪsi/) is an answer to the problem of evil. Specifically, Theodicy is a specific branch of theology and philosophy which attempts to reconcile belief in God with the perceived existence of evil. As such, theodicy can be said to attempt to justify the behaviour of God (at least insofar as God allows evil).

Theodicy deals with such philosophical questions as "If God is completely good, then he would only want good things to happen, and if God is all powerful, then he would not allow evil things to happen. So, the perplexing argument is: Why does God let bad things happen (to good people)?"

There is something interesting I discovered about Theodicy recently. There is also the popular belief that Satan was once an angel named Lucifer, and is now fallen (Isaiah 14:12). By the way, Lucifer in Hebrew hay-lale' simply means "the morning star," and the analogy here is also argued to pertain to Adam, wanting to become like God. It is interesting to note that "morning star" is also used in Revelation 22:16 to refer to Jesus, quoting him saying: "I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star." So, that's a bit sketchy of a description to be attributing to both Jesus and Satan. I think it's more likely that "morning star" there refers to Adam in a sinless state, eventually falling from grace, and then references Jesus as the Second Adam who still remains luminous.

Since we will not compromise on God's purity or sovereignty, we can only observe that evil cannot spawn itself and do whatever it wants, overriding God's authority. This would be a tear in the fabric of existence, from which evil sneaks in and taints everything. I don't think this can be. God created/allowed evil to exist, but it is not in his will for it to triumph.

I think I agree with InesQor above

"By establishing an initial harmonious order and declaring it as "good", God had perforce established that anything which does not conform with that pattern is "evil", he thus "created" evil. "

For Satan to have fallen, this necessitates a time at which he was without imperfection. If that is taken to its logical conclusion, then this means that Satan at one time was perfect, but chose of his own volition to go against God's perfect will.

@Deep Sight,

This is besides whatever opinion you have recently gained about me. . .

I want to remind you of our discussion some weeks ago, where I clearly outlined the hypostasis of Christ's nature using an analogy of a movie-director, a movie star and a script-writer, where ALL are the same person; compare that with The Holy Spirit of God, Jesus Christ the manifest Word of God, and God the Father. But even then, you still said it could not make sense that way. We agreed to disagree.

IMO, I don't think this deity / humanity thing could be further explained to you, it may be like trying to explain the taste of pepper to someone who is new to all spices.

Hmmm. . .

So much has been said on this thread already. But I think in our answers, we should not forget FOR ONCE that the OP asks if it makes her a carnal CHRISTIAN.

I think it's only fair to respond in that light, and not lending the leanings of other worldviews about pre-marital seks into the matter.

Whats all the fuss about? Whoever does not want to take it can just say BACK TO SENDER!

@Deep Sight: alright bro. I must be wrong about the third. Maybe we will both manufacture some time later on to finish our contest!

^^^ I love that verse:

John 18:4-6
    Jesus therefore, knowing all things that should come upon him, went forth, and said unto them, Whom seek ye? [5] They answered him, Jesus of Nazareth. Jesus saith unto them, I am he. And Judas also, which betrayed him, stood with them. [6] As soon then as he had said unto them, I am he, they went backward, and fell to the ground.

They did not know what they were up against!

Thanks JeSoul.

Deep Sight: Hahaha true enough you lost on time twice, but you were already "swept" with respect to positional play, and also material value, in the games. If two equally strong players took over from where you lost on time, my game would have won.  And yes! Let's go Deep Maven 003 when you have the time (maybe 3 days per move this time, so that no one loses on time). Blimey, the only game I have lost on chess.com so far was a timeout when I forgot to play my turn 

Ilosiwaju: Bring it on, brother! Hehehe. Nice ideas about Edo and Delta chess mercenaries but, err. . . I am still under probation for faking my NL identity.  Don't wanna do another impersonation in the name of mercenary gaming And as for Deep Fritz, he's my boy  but he twacks me at times, though. So feel free to set me up against Fritz sometime. I wish! Deep Fritz na my oga o!

o

@Kunbee: yes I no am no longer using (f) so I am back as mavenbox(m).

I don hear this joke before. Kunbee i know say you go like am.

Thanks, nuclearboy. Thank you!

Amaka dear, Abuzola is just like that. Pls learn to ignore him if you can.

My friend, Peroxide, I was no longer comfortable in the growing box of lies, and I was forcing cool friends who knew my gender to post awkwardly. Most important, NOT stating my gender may have been Christianly, but stating (f) was just wrong, so my spirit kept chiding me! Best regards.

Please I give the Mods permission to delete the thread, but at their own wishes. Thanks.

@Topic: My opinion is that you don't need to. If you are a Christian you should talk to God instead.

Thanks, Pastor AIO. I dont doubt that you are really a pastor by career/occupation, as you once said when Deep Sight asked you on NL; cos, to me, your comments have been the most helpful on this whole thread. God bless you sir, and may you be more further thoroughly enlightened!

Ohsisi, thank you too. May your latter end overtake whatever you ever thought it could.

@Everyone: Im really sorry about my mode of presentation, and I apologize sincerely: not for confessing but for my manner of doing it. I have deleted the detestable OP and now I can only beg and hope for your forgiveness. Honestly, I am usually meticulous with details that others tend to find bothersome, and i never intended to draw your attention, but to make things right. Please forgive me. Thanks.

@ilosiwaju and oyb: I never said Im a female virgin. Im male, a virgin, and its really no big deal. The reason I reacted that day was cos I was talking to SeanT21, who is a great friend outside NL, and KNEW my gender. Replying that it wasn't your business, like that on that day was my escape route. If I answered otherwise, I would either lie or reveal my gender.

@ilosiwaju: if you think I didnt beat Deep Sight at chess thrice by myself, pls meet me at chess.com and lets do I of two things. You can leverage your best chess software against me, or you can let us do a bloodless blitz. Or both. Im not even a master, let alone an IM, but I was on the university team, played at tournaments and I think I play confidently. Cheers

@Pastor AIO: I guess maybe a better way to put my idea would have been: those early groups were households (with no social differentiation), and not races. Thus you are correct to say that man has always been social.

See this, for instance:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hunter-gatherer#Social_structure
Hunter-gatherer societies also tend to have relatively non-hierarchical, egalitarian social structures. This might have been more pronounced in the more mobile societies, which generally are not able to store surplus food. Thus, full-time leaders, bureaucrats, or artisans are rarely supported by these societies.

This is also demonstrated in the !Kung (Jul'hoansi) people, who live till today.
http://www.peacefulsocieties.org/Society/Juhoan.html

Sincerely, I also have difficulty separating the evolution of cultures and civilizations from the trends of religion, because even though they are distinct, each one has considerably influenced the other. When these ideas were boggling my mind in the early hours of today, I decided to share them in case anyone has some further light to shed on them. Thanks.

@Jagunlabi: Thanks. I don't think all prehistoric concepts of a personal God were polythesitic. At least I know there is the man called Abraham (who had a personal God YHWH), and also Aumakua of ancient Hawaiian civilizations. The personal God was personal to the first faithful, and then to his immediate family and progeny. For the descendants of Abraham, it was eventually a case of "the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob" while concerning Aumakua, who manifests in nature (but in different forms to different families, as a personal deity) as a personal guardian to individuals and families and even as a guardian to the ancient source gods that the Hawaiians worshipped.

More on Aumakua: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aumakua

^^^ LOL I will leave when I want to, and not a millisecond earlier

Hahaha Tudor, nice to hear from you.

Sexyleamon, thanks for your comment.

Thanks, Pastor AIO. Im mobile now and will reply with examples when Im back at my desk!

The path of evolution of cultures and civilizations all over the world seems, to me, to predict the future trend of religion in general, although the progress of religion proceeds slower than that of the civilizations. What do you think?


There was a time when it was everyman for himself, no society and no civilization. This is like an era of no organized religion, no one bothers what views the other one has about the supernatural. The concept of a deity was very personal.


And then tiny sparks of civilization surfaced among people of like minds to achieve greater aims. This relates to the earliest days of acknowledging religion as people came together to worship deities, either in a bid to overcome diverse superstitions or to fill an unexplainable common void. These primitive civilizations considered the cultures with no similar distinct organization as barbarians, and those ones were highly held in contempt. Till today, cultures with very unusual practices deviating from a global norm, are still considered barbaric. This relates to the religious perspective of an atheist today.


Shortly after, philosophy, sociology and alchemy arose and made attempts to dissect and evaluate human & societal natures, and those in the practices were held in awe, misunderstood by the majority, disrespected or generally thought to be wasting their time. This is the age of apologists in religion, who attempt to defend faiths intellectually.

Later, cultures identified superior aspects in other cultures and imbibed them for more efficiency, transforming their cultures with the new elements; although not everyone adheres to the new ways at the same time, and also some would never change, saying the old ways were the best. This relates to new offshoots of old religions, the rise of sects, deification of men, cross-religious infusions etc. In this era, ideas were politely stolen from other cultures but there was little or no violence or a desire for expanding empires.


The next stage in cultural evolution was preying on other cultures and forcibly colonizing them. This was the age of empires, and is related to the age of religious conquests. Cultural ideas were no longer politelyintroduced or borrowed,it was all perforce. Similarly, religion was no longer a suggestion: Men were forced to adhere to the religious values of their conquerors.


And here is where civilization trends have overtaken religion trends: civilizations have (generally) learnt to live and let live, although political and financial motives are existent, they are often subtle. Civilizations are gradually getting more comfortable with having a low standard deviation from the practices of other world civilizations, and matters about barbarians/pirates and unknown societies or extra-human (Alien) societal interactions are generally considered to be conspiracy theories. And this is the future I fortell for religion: a one-religion order where tolerance has gradually absorbed all religions, atheists are very few (as it would actually pay more not to be an atheist), and of course the fanatical mavericks who refuse to participate in the peaceful one-religion order will be handled as terrorists by the religious versions of the United Nations/USA.


Criticisms and comments are welcome!

@JeSoul: Thank you, thank you! I need more rocks like you in my life so I cant go wrong! I have a lot to learn from you in concise expression.

@Nuclearboy: thanks for the vote of confidence, bro. To tell the truth, YOU were the last straw that made me come public. You were so honestly genuine, so I thought: why confess in private when many had believed wrong? I hope you aint mad at me. I just borrowed some nuclear fire power and got bolder!

@SeanT21: You know I still love you "plentily", right? Here's another lady I trusted enough to tell my real gender from scratch. Somehow I knew I could trust em ladies more. Yes! We catch up soon, mi'lady.

@Pastor AIO: LOL siddon there dey find juicy gist. Hehehehe.

@FL gators: never say never!

Young man, Abraham was no avowed murderer. He interceded for Sodom and Gomorrah, the sin city of his day. Dust up your Bible. Lol. You are clutching at straws here, rather than accept your wrong and have a change of heart. But then, what should I have expected? Just another reason I voted for Pastor AIO as best 2009 religion poster that day, he doesnt have your kinda attitude problem. LOLest.

Lol and I assume Davidylan knows those with credibility. You can keep your assumed credibility. I guess I'd be safer around someone who made a mistake and repented, than an avowed murderer.

No, Davidylan. I dont hold grudges like that, sorry to disappoint you. I dont know what you are smoking tonight, but you are not the 1st person I will call out for making insensitive statements, as I did when Tudor and Pastor AIO commented when freecocoa lost her mother. And I have never applauded you for anti-Islamic views. Rather I gave you props for shedding light on Islamic views whenever Abuzola tried to wangle a lie. Even when I have disagreements with people I dont speak such evil. The mouth speaks from the heart's abundance so I wonder how much evil is locked in there to make you say such a thing.

This is just awfully wrong

But to make matters worse, davidylan's comment is a shameful disgrace to Christianity. Maybe one would rather camp safely with fundamentalist suicide bombers.

Davidylan and Deep sight: you both need chill pills. I wonder why you are so bothered.

Deep Sight, yes I know you would probably be the one in greatest denial but im done trying to convince you. Model or not, permission or not, you can believe me or believe anything you fancy.


As for the psychiatric therapy, you need it more, bro. You're cracking up. Since when did anonymous visitors to NL have the ability to view profiles or profile pictures? Or is mavenbox as an ID in any way connected to the profile picture? Isnt it true that mavenbox is only a nairaland ID with search engine connections only to this site? So what's your problem? Get over it, Mr man. I guess you feel hurt cos you dropped your own privacy guard over some games of chess and I didnt? I never intended you to do that. THIS was why I said I wished you didnt tell me your real name or anything that day, cos I would never do same, and I may someday confess my real NL gender. Get over it. This is the internet, we are all, or should be, faceless and nameless. But you have nothing to worry about. Im Fort Knox.

Yeah Amaka right back atchya!

To the one asking, Im not kobojunkie. Thanks.


Deep sight, all I told you in our NL discussions &chat messages was true, from my chess skills to my educational status to my career path to my job description. And I truly believe everything I have posted on NL. As Pastor AIO has said, this gender stuff was quicksand, a lie that went too far. Im glad its in the open now. The only thing you believed and wasnt true is my gender. As for the profile picture, my good friend is a model so I can use her pictures anywhere, as she already gave full permission. If you search on stock photography sites you may just jam her. And as far as I know, Im allowed to use any picture for my profile. When someone finally asked if I was the one in the pic, i didnt reply directly but changed it to a cat then an eye. Then my account was banned and when I re-registered, I didnt put any pic. Eventually I used the current one. Sorry once again if you feel offended.


@Krayola: You are everly my guy! Thanks for your comment. Now you know why I reacted that day when I thought you were being a chauvinist! Its cos Im male and couldnt bring myself switch back to (m). I was just frustrated. To you it's not a big deal but we all have wrong secrets, many will just refuse to come back. WWJD my guy. I still believe in you!

THE AMAKA: and there you are, who I trusted and told my gender from scratch. Love u "muchly", girl. But I really dont know what's eating up your friend Davidylan. He's acting too sanctimonious for his own good, like he had treasury stock in my gender, or like he ought to have had.

TV01: I need to congratulate you. You have simply made a serious effort to speak your self-renewed mind!

FL Gators: thanks. But I dont post my pix online, im into lots of privacy.