1. Then in this wager you are choosing the negative.

Summary

The content discusses a philosophical wager akin to Pascal's Wager, the logical impossibility of the universe being self-caused, the ontological centrality of humans in assigning value, and the nature of belief in God as a binary, actionable stance.

Abstract

The text presents a philosophical argument where an individual chooses to believe in a moral, revealed God despite the myriad of unanswered "what if" questions, considering the potential loss minimal compared to the gain of a life with meaning and righteous purpose. It posits that if spacetime had a beginning, it cannot be self-caused, leading to the conclusion that the universe must have a cause outside of itself. This cause is necessitated by both logical reasoning and cosmological evidence that precludes the application of Occam's Razor to the universe. The argument extends to the existence of quantum fluctuations, which themselves require causal explanation, suggesting a deterministic nature of quantum events. Furthermore, the text suggests that the universe holds value primarily because of conscious human observers, who are ontologically central. It also distinguishes between the possibility of God's existence and actual belief in God, emphasizing that belief requires a positive affirmation of existence, not just the acknowledgment of a possibility. Lastly, the argument is framed within an Abrahamic context, acknowledging that while other religions may challenge the wager's sufficiency, it still holds value and validity.

Opinions

The author suggests that the cost of not believing in a moral and revealed God may outweigh the benefits of exploring alternative "what if" scenarios.
The text argues that spacetime cannot be self-existent and eternal, as it would contradict scientific and logical impossibilities of an actual infinite.
It is implied that the universe's cause must be something other than the universe itself (non-X), given its finite beginning.
The author posits that quantum fluctuations, as something, cannot be uncaused and are subject to deterministic quantum theories.
Human consciousness is considered the source of value in the universe, implying an ontological priority over other entities.
The argument distinguishes between considering the existence of God as a possibility and actually believing in God, asserting that belief necessitates a commitment beyond mere speculation.
The wager presented is recognized as part of an Abrahamic framework, with the understanding that it may not convince adherents of other religions but still offers a valid perspective.

1. Then in this wager you are choosing the negative. You have decided cost of believing God is moral and revealed is not worth the price of investigating those what if questions or else that there are simply too many questions to conquer.

So, as Pascal feels, if the answer to any of those questions were "yes" then you would have lost very little by believing that your life had meaning and rightous purpose. One could of course, after accepting the wager, imppose differnt attriubutes on god but that is beyond the scope of this argument.

2. Yes it does. spacetime (or anything else) cannot both have a beginning and be the cause of itself.

1. X began to exist

2. X cannot be the cause of itself

C. Therefore, the cause of X is non X

If spacetime were the cause of itself then spacetime is self-existent and thus past eternal. An actual infinite which is scientifically and logically impossible.

Due to these observations along with the overwhelming cosmological evidence that the universe had a finite begining we cannot apply occams razor to the universe itself. We must infer it had at least one cause.

quantum fluctuations are something and would themselves need a cause. Quantum events are not absent causal conditions and the majority of quanutm theories are fully deterministic.

3. I think the best conclusion is that the universe exists for us and we are the center of it (ontologically not physically). Any animal on the planet or any rock in space only has value because you, a conscious observer, has assigned value to it. Humans are logically prior to value and thus i see no cause to suspect that something even could be of greater value.

4. You can develop your own understanding of god but belief in god is true or false. If you think that god maybe exists but you dont want to make a decision then you do not believe in god. Belief is a positive action and believing somthing is possible does not neccesarily entail belief or faith in existence.

it was clearly understood and purposfully presented as an abrahmic dichotmy. Other religions may show that the wager doesnt provide sufficent cause to believe on its own but that doesnt mean the wager isnt valid or doenst have value.