Pascal's wager

>just bet on god bro, that way if he's real he'll think you're one of his homies and hook you up
>p.s. lmfao of course i'm talkin bout the christian god, the other ones are so obviously made up by random faggots

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seven_Laws_of_Noah
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

But it's the one people bet on the most.

Pascal's wager is pseud to the core. You can't enter God's Kingdom through rationality alone. Anyone who has studied the Bible knows the fundamental importance of faith.

>To be put at the beginning of Pascal's planned book, the wager was meant to show that logical reasoning cannot support faith or lack thereof,

>>We have to accept reality and accept the reaction of the libertine when he rejects arguments he is unable to counter. The conclusion is evident: if men believe or refuse to believe, it is not how some believers sometimes say and most unbelievers claim, because their own reason justifies the position they have adopted. Belief in God doesn't depend upon rational evidence, not matter which ones.[13]

>Pascal's intended book was precisely to find other ways to establish the value of faith, an apology for the Christian faith.

It's game theory on God's existence. There is nothing to lose, but there might be something to gain.

>You would like to attain faith, and do not know the way; you would like to cure yourself of unbelief, and ask the remedy for it. Learn of those who have been bound like you, and who now stake all their possessions. These are people who know the way which you would follow, and who are cured of an ill of which you would be cured. Follow the way by which they began; by acting as if they believed, taking the holy water, having masses said, etc. …
But to show you that this leads you there, it is this which will lessen the passions, which are your stumbling-blocks.

OP clearly needs to read a little more theology.

except that with an all knowing God who can look into your heart and tell if you're "believing" simply for a reward, Pascal's wager kinda fucks you.

you need to stop treating this board as your personal blog and say something substantive for once you drivel-laden fuckwit

akshully

>the cure for enlightenment is to choke down more bullshit
religionfags

ah yes, I too remember when Jesus said "I am the resurrection and the life. The one who believes in me will live, even though they die; and whoever lives by believing in me will never die. Of course, believing me only because of the Pascal's wager doesn't count; whoever does so will burn in a lake of fire and brimstone"

>babby's first semantic ambiguity
you're assuming the sort of belief implied in "one who believes in me will live" is the same as the sort of belief that results in accepting the terms of a wager

Pascal's Wager is not that cynical. The goal of taking the dive and accepting Christianity is to hopefully reach a point where you find faith not to just fuck around till you die so God won't send you to hell.

That pic gave me a boner

>trying to discuss pascal without any understanding of propability, decision theory or bayesian epistemology
I mean the wager is a stupid idea but not for the reasons you think.

explain or stop saying words like that

To be a self-righteous man that does good and seeks the well of his family nd friends while believing in a "sky daddy" is a far better option than being a self-loathing atheist

Many allegedly faithful people do this however without knowledge of the Wager existing. It could be argued that anyone who embraces religion chiefly out of fear of biblical suffering, existential dread, or for the eternal reward is partaking in a approximation of the Wager—it is not their faith that props up their beliefs, but instead selfishness or fear.
How do they puzzle this one out at the pearly gates? What's the difference in faith between someone who knowingly participates Pascal's Wager and someone who participates without intimate knowledge of it?

>It could be argued that anyone who embraces religion chiefly out of fear
I think most people like that haven't even gotten as far as to examine their reasons for believing in things, so at least the wager represents a pretty big step

How do you determine which religion deserves your faith? There are too many gaps in logic to rely on reason at all, and this is no problem, because we shouldn't expect to understand God.

What if there is a god that doesn't like it that people believed in it and punishes them for it?

how do you determine what determinations deserve your usage? There is to much indeterminateness to rely on determinations at all, and this is no problem, because we shouldn't expect to understand Logic.

God isn't a businessman if you do good not out of love for Him but out of fear of hell, the chances are you won't get saved

God is actually a businessman, because God is Jewish

god is a n*gger f*ggot

The concept of eternal hell is based on a mistranslation.

SOURCE????!

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seven_Laws_of_Noah

this is all you really have to do to satisfy pascals wager

I think there might be something to this

It's interesting that the once common cause of belief, the desire to avoid suffering in hell's damnation, has been replaced with the expectation of heaven's eternal pleasure. By abandoning 'fear and trembling' for the expectation of material pleasures we have become both spiritually flabby, and culturally etiolated. What is this new "God" of the third millennium? one who permits Dogs and sinners into heaven...

Actually study them, numbskull. Think. You'll know the truth when you know it.

Think about that for longer than 2 seconds and you'll have your answer.

>faith is different than reason
jajajaja

Wanting and striving to find faith, is still far better than indifference or contrarianism.

Choosing the stupidest religion and God is still better than not choosing anything. The point is that atheism is irrational, as it's still your highest chance of ending up in some sort of hell.

How so?