Yet you forgot one thing—you did not attack my idea that 'This hardly qualifies'. You attacked ONLY that I used "Pascal's Gamble" as opposed to 'Pascal's Wager'. So tell me, why are you here precisely—and this time, stick to your posts, not anyone else's.TRIPLE let me spell it out for you.
The Jokster wrote "As far as God goes, I would rather live my live believing he exist and die finding out he doesn't rather than living my life believing he doesn't exist and die finding out he does."
Yellowdawg wrote "the sentence is known as Pascal's Wager." (which is correct)
TripleNegative wrote "That was hardly Pascal's Gamble." (which shows you have no clue they were the same)
TheJokster wrote "Actually Triple, it is Pascal'a Wager. Which is "belief in God is rational whether or not God exists, since falsely believing that God exists leads to no harm whereas falsely believing that God does not exist may lead to eternal damnation."
TripleNegative wrote Actually it's called both 'Pascal's Wager' and 'Pascal's Gamble', depending on your region of origin. And I am familiar with the concept.(if you were familure with it as you say then you would have never said "That was hardly Pascal's Gamble"
Now after reading all that together you can see how ignorant you look.
Yet, as to the argument between 'He and I', and not 'you and I'—the latter of which to be 'totally correct with regard to balatnt ad hominem—then he should have cut and pasted the portion he considered to be Pascal's Gamble. I read the portion he posted, at least as much as possible without going numb, and responded. Yet if this was his statement, then why are you doing his work for him? Is he not capable of defending himself?
The answer is simple—you did not care about the argument. You were searching poorly for philosophical errors in the TITLE. For a supposed philosopher, you certainly did abuse ad hominem.
I respond very quickly to 'that which I have access to'. I cannot respond to fifty-five posts ago that I did not write or that I did not cite poorly. If you're going to attack a single portion of anything, then use it within the citation. Making blank statements causes such difficulties.
Anything further? Just leg-humping? I deal in specifics. Try it. And this time,'use your own specifics', not someone else's. Can you remind me what you said about my so-called misuse of 'Pascal's Gamble'? It was so damned 'cute'.