Jump to content

Is there a Pascalian-esque Wager specific to Mormonism?


Recommended Posts

What would it look like?

To get you started...

  1. Mormonism is true, or Mormonism is not. Reason cannot decide between the two alternatives.
  2. A Game is being played... where heads or tails will turn up.
  3. You must wager (it is not optional).
  4. Let us weigh the gain and the loss in wagering that Mormonism is true. Let us estimate these two chances. If you gain, you gain [what?]; if you lose, you lose [what?]
  5. ?

 

 

 

Link to comment

Doesn't it matter what the other options are if the LDS faith isn't the best expression of the Gospel or at least God's authorized covenant makers?

For example, there is a huge difference in gains and loses if the other option is Atheism as opposed to Calvinism.

Link to comment

Add-on:  though perhaps in Calvinism the idea of a wager is nonsense because God determines who are saved and who are not. I don't know enough about that faith and its variation to say.  Perhaps you could explain how a Pascal wager might work with Calvinism to get us going on LDS faith.

 

Link to comment
6 minutes ago, cksalmon said:

What would it look like?

To get you started...

  1. Mormonism is true, or Mormonism is not. Reason cannot decide between the two alternatives.
  2. A Game is being played... where heads or tails will turn up.
  3. You must wager (it is not optional).
  4. Let us weigh the gain and the loss in wagering that Mormonism is true. Let us estimate these two chances. If you gain, you gain [what?]; if you lose, you lose [what?]
  5. ?

 

 

 

What is truth? ;)  Is it true that murder is wrong?   How do you show that?  Mormonism is true in the same way that "It is wrong to murder" is true.  It works as a way of life.

By the way, good to see you!

Link to comment
17 minutes ago, cksalmon said:

What would it look like?

To get you started...

  1. Mormonism is true, or Mormonism is not. Reason cannot decide between the two alternatives.
  2. A Game is being played... where heads or tails will turn up.
  3. You must wager (it is not optional).
  4. Let us weigh the gain and the loss in wagering that Mormonism is true. Let us estimate these two chances. If you gain, you gain [what?]; if you lose, you lose [what?]
  5. ?

 

 

 

As Pascal's wager your version does not make sense either.

There's nothing in between believing/not believing.

Edited by Atheist Mormon
typo
Link to comment

I am no philosopher and will leave that to the more educated board members.

But I will say that if you cannot see " the gain in wagering that Mormonism is true" you should not partake.

Entering into covenants that might be true without a testimony sufficient to fulfill them would be a dangerous game.

Link to comment
12 minutes ago, Calm said:

Doesn't it matter what the other options are if the LDS faith isn't the best expression of the Gospel or at least God's authorized covenant makers?

For example, there is a huge difference in gains and loses if the other option is Atheism as opposed to Calvinism.

Fair enough. 

But, my question is how Mormonism cashes out ultimate options. Ex hypothesi, Mormonism is true. What does one gain by opting in versus opting out?

As for Calvinism vs Atheism: you'd sure better opt in. That's a given. I'm wondering if Mormonism has a trump card. 

Link to comment
15 minutes ago, Calm said:

though perhaps in Calvinism the idea of a wager is nonsense because God determines who are saved and who are not.

 

I wouldn't say it's nonsense, given Calvinism. (But, according to some Calvinists, I'm illogical.) I'd say that each and every person determines whether he or she wants to be saved. Determinism functions as both ratification and cause. 

Link to comment
25 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

What is truth? ;)  Is it true that murder is wrong?   How do you show that?  Mormonism is true in the same way that "It is wrong to murder" is true.  It works as a way of life.

By the way, good to see you!

Hey, buddy. 

You know I'm not a pragmatist. So, I'll just throw some NT at ya. 

"For sin indeed was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not counted where there is no law."

Edited by cksalmon
Link to comment
31 minutes ago, cksalmon said:

What would it look like?

To get you started...

  1. Mormonism is true, or Mormonism is not. Reason cannot decide between the two alternatives.
  2. A Game is being played... where heads or tails will turn up.
  3. You must wager (it is not optional).
  4. Let us weigh the gain and the loss in wagering that Mormonism is true. Let us estimate these two chances. If you gain, you gain [what?]; if you lose, you lose [what?]
  5. ?

 

 

 

This type of wager is assuming it is a random chance either way, as in a coin toss. The thing is there is a truth, it is only our lack of knowledge that makes it seem like it would be a random wager. We can find out the truthfulness before placing our so called bets. It's an unfair advantage. The gain by choosing the enlightened truth as opposed to just discounting it as false, is that we gain an advantage in how to live happier and healthier, we also gain advantages in the states of being to come:

"18  Whatever principle of intelligence we attain unto in this life, it will rise with us in the resurrection.
19  And if a person gains more knowledge and intelligence in this life through his diligence and obedience than another, he will have so much the advantage in the world to come."
D&C 130:18-19

If you on the other hand choose the false path, then you may find yourself weeping, whaling and gnashing your teeth.

That said, let's just say there really isn't a way to find out truth, from the Holy Spirit Of Truth:

If you choose that God isn't real and that he hasn't set up His church, and just live a life driven by all our own natural and selfish desires, we will just be setting ourselves up for problems when other people don't like these selfish attitudes and you lose out on friends and opportunities that would rather be given to someone who has that, or pure love of Christ, who would use those opportunities to cause more good, instead of selfishly hoarding it to themselves. Not to mention the fact that you might be wrong and therefore remain condemned, unless you decided to accept the winning side's bet in the Spirit world which would be allowed if you were wrong, in the hereafter for not choosing it.

If instead you choose God and His church, then the winnings of that wager are a more fulfilled life helping and serving others to help contribute to God's kingdom and in society in general. You learn how to master our basest desires and not be led around by them but rather can act in a more rational and controlled way. We get to live with God again, and continue progressing further and further for eternity. At the worst if it ended up that God wasn't real and therefore His church wasn't real. You would end up still having lived a more fulfilled life, having helped others along the way through their own life, and having a more complete control of our basest desires.

Just my two cents worth anyway.

Link to comment
1 hour ago, cksalmon said:

What would it look like?

To get you started...

  1. Mormonism is true, or Mormonism is not. Reason cannot decide between the two alternatives.
  2. A Game is being played... where heads or tails will turn up.
  3. You must wager (it is not optional).
  4. Let us weigh the gain and the loss in wagering that Mormonism is true. Let us estimate these two chances. If you gain, you gain [what?]; if you lose, you lose [what?]
  5. ?

 

Are you asking whether a rational person, having no spiritual incentive or inclination, should live as though he does have such spirituality (according to a rational concept of what spirituality is), and to believe and to do so specifically by the tenets of Mormonism? I think that depends on his rationale, but Mormonism uniquely offers exaltation as a family of Heavenly Father. I’m not sure what benefit a purely imitated faith brings, though, if it doesn’t evolve into actual faith. According to Alma 32, that would make the rationale faulty as well.

If reason is lacking in the power to decide (per rule #1), and faith is not in the cards (per rule #2), and agency cannot be exercised (per #3), then there is no basis upon which to  calculate the odds (per invitation #4).
Link to comment
1 hour ago, cksalmon said:

Hey, buddy. 

You know I'm not a pragmatist. So, I'll just throw some NT at ya. 

"For sin indeed was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not counted where there is no law."

Far too heavy for my little brain, dude.  Right over my head I'm afraid.

Link to comment

Every faith has two options.  One is either right or wrong.  Same with those that do not believe God.  Of all the faiths that I see, the LDS faith offers the biggest bang for being right.  I am not aware of any other faith that believes that one has the potential to be like God is.  To create worlds, black holes, blow up stars in supernovas if one wants ect.  So in my opinion if one is going to roll the dice, might as well go all in and for the biggest jackpot.  The atheist has the worst position.  If they are right, they simply do not exist and don't get a chance to tell everyone else that and spike the ball in front of them.  They have no upside for being right.  The best they can do is cease to exist which is a pretty horrible option I think.

Link to comment

If accepted, eternity with the likes of Joseph F Smith, Boyd K Packer and Bruce R McKonckie. And they each think their being there meant they were right.

Who doesn't like fireworks?

😃

If false, an existence better than you can presently imagine in the company of Jimi Hendrix, Jim Morrison, and Janis Joplin. And they also think they've got it right and are willing to prove it.

Seems like a pretty compelling argument to me.

Edited by Honorentheos
phone typing
Link to comment
1 hour ago, Honorentheos said:

If accepted, eternity with the likes of Joseph F Smith, Boyd K Packer and Bruce R McKonckie. And they each think their being there meant they were right.

Who doesn't like fireworks?

😃

If false, an existence better than you can presently imagine in the company of Jimi Hendrix, Jim Morrison, and Janis Joplin. And they also think they've got it right and are willing to prove it.

Seems like a pretty compelling argument to me.

Well, they were all passionate in their own way, and each bought the farm.  However, I'm not sure what you are really saying here.  Could you lay it out it bit more clearly for me?

Link to comment
6 hours ago, cksalmon said:

What would it look like?

To get you started...

  1. Mormonism is true, or Mormonism is not. Reason cannot decide between the two alternatives.
  2. A Game is being played... where heads or tails will turn up.
  3. You must wager (it is not optional).
  4. Let us weigh the gain and the loss in wagering that Mormonism is true. Let us estimate these two chances. If you gain, you gain [what?]; if you lose, you lose [what?]
  5. ?

I don't think that the LDS faith has anything to do with wagering, but to each his  own.

Link to comment
6 hours ago, cksalmon said:

What would it look like?

To get you started...

  1. Mormonism is true, or Mormonism is not. Reason cannot decide between the two alternatives.
  2. A Game is being played... where heads or tails will turn up.
  3. You must wager (it is not optional).
  4. Let us weigh the gain and the loss in wagering that Mormonism is true. Let us estimate these two chances. If you gain, you gain [what?]; if you lose, you lose [what?]
  5. ?

 

 

 

Doesn't work. If living the LDS gospel was that simple it might but I doubt anyone can be saved on the kind of faith this kind of a mercenary decision would generate.

Link to comment
1 minute ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Well, they were all passionate in their own way, and each bought the farm.  However, I'm not sure what you are really saying here.  Could you lay it out it bit more clearly for me?

Pascal's Wager:

  God exists God does not exist
Wager for God Gain all Status quo
Wager against God Misery Status quo

I was tongue in cheek contrasting what it may be like in the Celestial v. Telestial kingdoms if the same argument were made for "God exists, and is uniquely favorable to Mormonism." Let's call it "P".

So,

  P=True P=False
           Wager for God  Spend eternity in what amounts to the High Priests Quorum of all High Priest Quorum meetings. (i.e. - hell)             Status quo          
      Wager against God            Best. Concert. Ever. Status quo

 

Link to comment
21 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Well, they were all passionate in their own way, and each bought the farm.  However, I'm not sure what you are really saying here.  Could you lay it out it bit more clearly for me?

I doubt it

Link to comment
16 minutes ago, Honorentheos said:

Pascal's Wager:

  God exists God does not exist
Wager for God Gain all Status quo
Wager against God Misery Status quo

I was tongue in cheek contrasting what it may be like in the Celestial v. Telestial kingdoms if the same argument were made for "God exists, and is uniquely favorable to Mormonism." Let's call it "P".

So,

  P=True P=False
           Wager for God  Spend eternity in what amounts to the High Priests Quorum of all High Priest Quorum meetings. (i.e. - hell)             Status quo          
      Wager against God            Best. Concert. Ever. Status quo

 

Huh?

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...