A Metaphysics Method

[37818]

It needs to be understood to use this method like a Pascal's Wager is not to understand this method. It is not Pascal's Wager.

The method requires a narrow use of a specific pair of contrary beliefs.

For the explanation of the method A and B will be used for the two contradictory beliefs.

How to use the method.

First, what is said to be believed, but not true. Give the precieved benefit for believing it to be true.

Second, cite consequences of not beleving what would be the correct belief.

A is believed and not true. What is the preceived benefit?
B is true and not believed. What are the consequences of not believing it?

Repeat the process.

B is believed and not true. What is the preceived benefit?
A is true and not believed. What are the consequences of not believing it?

Weigh these two possibilities in one's mind.

This is a tool which one can use to weight one's own beliefs and unbeliefs.

Of course there can be other issues which can affect ones unerstanding of the two contrary views.

 

[canadyjd]

It needs to be understood to use this method like a Pascal's Wager is not to understand this method. It is not Pascal's Wager.

The method requires a narrow use of a specific pair of contrary beliefs.

For the explanation of the method A and B will be used for the two contradictory beliefs.

How to use the method.

First, what is said to be believed, but not true. Give the precieved benefit for believing it to be true.

Second, cite consequences of not beleving what would be the correct belief.

A is believed and not true. What is the preceived benefit?
B is true and not believed. What are the consequences of not believing it?

Repeat the process.

B is believed and not true. What is the preceived benefit?
A is true and not believed. What are the consequences of not believing it?

Weigh these two possibilities in one's mind.

This is a tool which one can use to weight one's own beliefs and unbeliefs.

Of course there can be other issues which can affect ones unerstanding of the two contrary views.

So, as I understand it, Pascal argued it was better to live a Christian life even if it were not true and/or you didn’t believe that God exists because it was beneficial to live this way.

By comparison, if you do not “believe” and God does exist, then you will forfeit you soul and spend eternity in hell.

So, the consequences of unbelief are compared as follows.

1. God doesn’t really exist and you don’t believe He does but living as a Christian gives great benefits in this life.

2. God does exists but you don’t believe and don’t live as a Christian, eternal damnation results.

Does that sound right?

peace to you

 

[37818]

So, as I understand it, Pascal argued it was better to live a Christian life even if it were not true and/or you didn’t believe that God exists because it was beneficial to live this way.

By comparison, if you do not “believe” and God does exist, then you will forfeit you soul and spend eternity in hell.

So, the consequences of unbelief are compared as follows.

1. God doesn’t really exist and you don’t believe He does but living as a Christian gives great benefits in this life.

2. God does exists but you don’t believe and don’t live as a Christian, eternal damnation results.

Does that sound right?

peace to you

It is not intended to be used as a Pascal's Wager.

It is not Pascal's Wager.

A question a God existing or not existing is not merely a narrow question. Existence is in evidence. A better question, does existence need a god of any sort? And would be pairs of existence in evidence against a sort or type of a god.

It is suppose to be used to compare a narrow issue.
As a Christian one actually knows God, John 17:3, Romans 8:16. Exodus 3:14-15. Genesis 1:1.

 

[RighteousnessTemperance&]

The perceived benefit question should be asked in every case. One may perceive a benefit in not believing something. The consequences, given a true dichotomy, should be the same.

 

[RighteousnessTemperance&]

...Of course there can be other issues which can affect ones unerstanding of the two contrary views.

If that is the case, then the issue is probably not stated narrowly enough, that is, not a true dichotomy.

 

[37818]

The perceived benefit question should be asked in every case. One may perceive a benefit in not believing something. The consequences, given a true dichotomy, should be the same.

Then what [negative] consequence should be asked in believing something, even if there is none.

 

[canadyjd]

Then what [negative] consequence should be asked in believing something, even if there is none.

I think of Dr. Martin Lloyd Jones in England. He was a physician, in line to service the Royal family, who gave up medicine to preach. He felt he would be more beneficial in helping spiritual problems than physical problems.

If God doesn’t exist, did he miss an opportunity of life long physical healing in which he could have helped many people?

Is this what you are asking?

peace to you

 

[37818]

I think of Dr. Martin Lloyd Jones in England. He was a physician, in line to service the Royal family, who gave up medicine to preach. He felt he would be more beneficial in helping spiritual problems than physical problems.

If God doesn’t exist, did he miss an opportunity of life long physical healing in which he could have helped many people?

Is this what you are asking?

peace to you

No. Because that is only half of two sides of the comparison. The two comparisns, neither creates the decision. One chooses which one will believe.
There being a preceived benefit and consequence if one is right and if one is wrong.

 

[canadyjd]

No. Because that is only half of two sides of the comparison. The two comparisns, neither creates the decision. One chooses which one will believe.
There being a preceived benefit and consequence if one is right and if one is wrong.

Ok

Is the purpose of this thread to define Metaphysics Method?

peace to you

peace to you

 

[RighteousnessTemperance&]

Then what [negative] consequence should be asked in believing something, even if there is none.

Perhaps it would be best to drop assumptions and expand the rubric. And admit all is by perception.

A is true but not believed: What are the perceived consequences? What are the perceived benefits?

B is not true but believed: What are the perceived consequences? What are the perceived benefits?

A is not true but believed: What are the perceived consequences? What are the perceived benefits?

B is true but not believed: What are the perceived consequences? What are the perceived benefits?​

Answering both questions in relation to each option separately might help expose more issues, or a false dichotomy.

 

[RighteousnessTemperance&]

...Is the purpose of this thread to define Metaphysics Method?...

At this point, a good example, perhaps hypothetical, might be called for. Most people don't work in the abstract. Even fewer work well in the abstract. And this method will be useful only if applied.

 

[37818]

Is the purpose of this thread to define Metaphysics Method?

To define this method based on where there can be more than two choices, and there is, if merely by random choice, the chances bring wrong. So the premise is what one is going to believe is going to be likely wrong. And to logically choose what would have the least consequence if wrong. And the problem needs to be done in pairs to work. The method can be tested with known results to see and understand how the method works.