Talk:Avoidance of hell
I've thought about it and I don't see why this article is distinct from Pascal's Wager. The article says:
- "If you don't believe in God, you'll go to hell after you die."
- The threat of hell differs from Pascal's wager in that it assumes from the start that hell exists.
To me, the second statement appears to contradict the first, unless there happens to be a person who doesn't believe in God, but does believe in hell, and also believes that the god they don't believe in will send them to hell.
The short version of Pascal's Wager is that if you incorrectly believe in God then you lose nothing, but if you incorrectly disbelieve in God then you go to hell. That sounds nearly identical to this article.
Can somebody please 'splain the difference? If there isn't one, can I #REDIRECT this page? --Kazim 11:16, 26 July 2006 (MST)
- I'd recommend we leave it (and flesh it out a bit more) as a specific argument, include a note that this is a reformation of Pascal's wager and add a category (in addition to the default "arguments" category) that covers this argument as well as Pascal's wager.
- I tried to come up with a category for these, but it proved difficult. They aren't arguments for the existence of a God, they're arguments for belief when all "real" arguments fail. Sans Deity 12:13, 26 July 2006 (MST)
- How about something like "Arguments for faith"? That's pretty broad, and it dovetails with the theme of Lee Strobel's other famous book, The Case for Faith.
- I'd still like an answer to the question though... what is the difference between avoidance of hell and PW? There must be one, or there'd be no reason for a separate page. --Kazim 13:45, 26 July 2006 (MST)