Does Pascal's Wager fall apart when you consider the large number of possible religions and gods out there...

Joke's on you: Manichaeism was the one true faith and it's now extinct. Enjoy an eternity of fire.

You could take it in stages, if you wanted to. First stage would be God or No God.

But honestly, just knowing there is a God won't change your circumstances. The devil knows there is a God, and he's doomed for all eternity.

Why do you think your free will gives you the power to surprise an omniscient being?

That seems completely idiotic to me.

Not only that, considering pascal doesb't bring teology to the argument,another option fucking the probabilites would be "what if only atheists go to heaven?"

No because Christianity is the only true religion

>You are not god you puny chodling

I am God.

youtube.com/watch?v=QEn5QnM3lXE

You are but a puny chode. You lack sufficient Glourie to be a god, or even a man.

>You are but a puny chode. You lack sufficient Glourie to be a god, or even a man.

Hey, you've been warned - that's my duty. This planet decided to follow the Jews. The assertion of the Jewish religion is the following:

"I will not serve the gods nor the King, but I will serve myself in the name of God and the King."

You're all squatting in the boss' parking spot and I'm the boss.

youtube.com/watch?v=o3PxPGcRoTQ

Jesus was also a puny chode, as does anyone who dies a virgin. The idea of you claiming divinity over the Almighty Glourie of The Amazing Dildoni is comic.

>the logical impossibility of having free will if an omniscient being exists
There is more and more research on the existence of free will and doubt about it existing is increasing

>Jesus was also a puny chode, as does anyone who dies a virgin.

I'm not a virgin. Neither am I Don Juan other than in the sense that I technically have a divine right to any woman I want - but I only have that (partially) because I'm not really inclined to force myself on women - other than issuing a divine mandate for 6+/10 Jewish women to send me topless pics because the phony divine mandates of the Jews have caused serious substantive harm to me - physically, emotionally, and reputationally - the being that is "my Father" (God in spirit) will treat them much harsher than me.

youtube.com/watch?v=B_2AfrYpqGY

It doesn't count if you got fucked in the ass you he-bitch.

Christianity and Islam are the only really major extant religions that threaten non-believers with eternal hellfire. I think Pascal's wager narrows it down to those two. If some version of say one of the religions of India turns out to be true you'll eventually be reincarnated and have another go at it.

You're getting it backwards. If someone knows before my grandparents are even born what I will do, want and think then I cannot possibly have free will as I can't change the forseen. As such I'm a slave to destiny with only the illusion of free will.

I personally have never believed in free will. The concept just seems nonsensical, as we aren't living and acting in a vacuum. A simply thing such as you're not in charge of your own desires or what thought will pop into your head seems to be all the proof one needs to refute the whole concept.

>Problem of evil
Why do atheists push this when it's never been an actual problem? It's literally a retarded strawman they keep pulling out over and over even when the Bible itself explains it in no less than THREE of it's books.

>I have a divine right tl any woman I want because I don't want to force myself on them
Wut mate?

Please demonstrate this instead of just making vapid claims.

...

>If someone knows before my grandparents are even born what I will do, want and think then I cannot possibly have free will as I can't change the forseen
Not true. Someone having knowledge of your actions doesn't remove your free will. They're not causally related. Say you live in a world where you're 100% sure you have free will. You perform a days actions and I observe you. Then I use a time machine to go back to the start of the day. I have foreknowledge of what you'll do. Has your free will been removed on the second loop? Of course not. My knowing what you do doesn't affect your own will in any way, you still have the freedom to do whatever you want, the fact that you use the same logic on the second loop to make your choices freely doesn't mean you suddenly lack freedom, it just means you're predictable.

Explain how it's a strawmen then.

The possibility to go back in time would, to me, seem to exclude the possibility of free will. If my will can be predicted then it follows that my will is bound to andandthings reliant on things to that cause it and thus not free at all.

But this is wrong since Christianity is the only true religion. Better luck next time buddy.

Prove it.

If God knows everything I will "freely choose" before I'm even born, then I must have made the choices for him to know it. How can I make choices before I'm even born?

Relies on a retarded definition of omnipotence that is intentionally absurd in order to make stupid paradoxes like the "Can God create a boulder so big even he can't lift it?" question. It's intentionally disingenuous because that definition of omnipotence, the ability to perform logically contradictory acts, doesn't make sense at all.

Omnipotence is the ability to do all things that are possible to be done. Once you use a definition that isn't intentionally absurd to create paradoxes then all problems become trivial. God created this world because the existence of evil was necessary for the highest potential good to be manifested. Creating a world that is as good as this one without evil would be like creating a two sided triangle, logically impossible.

No you aren't. Stop lying.

What??? This is just getting sad.

I'm certain there is one retard who still cannot/doesn't want to wrap his head around what free will means with omniscience. Your posts all sound the same and you're dumb. Stop please.

>How can I make choices before I'm even born?
He exists in a timeless state where he can see past, present and future simultaneously. Again, him knowing what you'll do doesn't remove your agency any more than the example of going back in time and observing your actions. You're still using your own internal sense of logic and your own will to make your choices.

If I know you well enough to know that you love coke and hate pepsi and we go to a restaurant I know with 100% certainty when presented with the two options you'll pick coke. Me knowing your action doesn't rob you of your agency, you made your choice of your own will but you're always going to be informed by your preferences. Free will doesn't necessarily mean you're going to wildly meander through life doing things at random, to some extent your choices are going to be predictable to people who know you and God knows you better than anyone.

You sound much more desperate to convince yourself rather than me. If I'm wrong, put up some actual arguments, huh?

The problem with freewill is honestly much deeper than the omniscience problem. Freewill is inherently an incoherent concept. It literally doesn't even mean anything that can be made logical sense out of.

I'm just saying. You're a broken record.

>Freewill is inherently an incoherent concept
Not really. It's perfectly coherent with my subjective experience of the world. Remember that all truth must flow from that starting point. Your subjective experience of the world is the absolute highest truth, therefore your experience of free will cannot be denied by anyone.

If God is omniscient he would know the choices you are going to make before he even created you. The only way to avoid this pitfall is to say that God is unaware of what choices we make, so he isn't actually omniscient, but more importantly I think if our choices are based on our temperaments or nature then god created those too. And if he didn't know the consequences of crafting an individual's nature, just fucking throwing things at the wall, then he's really playing fast and loose with the souls of those he creates.
>Freewill is inherently an incoherent concept
Sort of agree,desu. We are free to do what we will but not to will what we will. So in what sense are we free to ACTUALLY choose?

>If I know you well enough to know that you love coke and hate pepsi and we go to a restaurant I know with 100% certainty when presented with the two options you'll pick coke. Me knowing your action doesn't rob you of your agency, you made your choice of your own will but you're always going to be informed by your preferences

You're off here. You can only know, absolutely, that I'll choose coke if there is a reason or determining cause that forces me to choose coke, in which case I don't have freewill. Or, there is an actual possible world or outcome in which I choose pepsi, in which case you do not actually know that I will choose coke. The possibility of me choosing pepsi is 100% in violation of your knowledge that I will choose coke.

>Says Christianity is debunked
>Actually takes the Bible literally
>Takes the words of some buttfucking greek as infallible argument

Your conception of what constitutes free will is strange. If you love coke and hate pepsi in what world would you ever willingly pick pepsi? There's always the possibility you can choose, if you so willed, but free will is the ability to do what you WILL. Free will doesn't mean you're whacky zany random doing entirely incoherent things because you can. It means you have the freedom to act of your own will. Why would you choose something you hate of your own will? You're confusing the idea that you could do that, with the reality that you won't.

I'm 100% certain that you're not going to smash your hand with a hammer in the next hour. Yes, you could do that, but that fact I know you won't doesn't change the fact it's your will, no-one elses, that determines that you won't do it. Because it would hurt.

Why do you think having predictable behavior must mean you have no free will?

Why I don't like pepsi and love coke?

>he fell for the compatibilism meme

>Me knowing your action doesn't rob you of your agency,
No one is, as far as I know, arguing this.
>you made your choice of your own will but you're always going to be informed by your preferences.
This is the problem. My will is enforced by my own preferences and other things beyond me. Without those and/or other influences I would have probably made a different choice. Thus my will isn't free.

>Actually takes what he said literally
It's all a metaphor my dude :^)

Believing that you have free will is not the same as actually having free will.

>Actually takes the Bible literally
Low-quality-bait.jpg

This.
Your preferences determines your wants.

I mean, what did you expect?
It's quite obvious that insisting on absolute Biblical literalism is the only way they can even hope to "win" an argument.

Kek mate.

>Christianity and Islam are the only really major extant religions that threaten non-believers with eternal hellfire. I think Pascal's wager narrows it down to those two. If some version of say one of the religions of India turns out to be true you'll eventually be reincarnated and have another go at it.
This.
That, or those other religions believe either all nice folks go to heaven, or you croak for good.

And It's not like the faiths didn't consider this.

>Those who believe (in the Qur'an) those who follow the Jewish (Scriptures) and the Sabians and the Christians any who believe in Allah and the Last Day and work righteousness on them shall be no fear nor shall they grieve.

Well, unless it turns out calvinism or something is true.

Then you are fucked.

>No you aren't. Stop lying.

Yes I am. Do you know what God looks like? Describe what God looks like so you describe how you know I am not God.

youtube.com/watch?v=W5HCSNnUdys

Pascal's Wager falls apart as soon as you think whether an omnipotent force will be able to know the essence of your faith and how false it is.

>Seems like being a nonbeliever is a similar wager to picking one of the countless faiths out there.
It might actually be better, many religions take a special hatred to followers of rival religions, and some religions posit universal salvation where even unbelief is not important.

False idolaters and heretics will be the first to burn in the Eternal Lake of Fire

>muh countless religious and billions of gods
Why do people act like there's actually a lot to choose from? If a God isn't worshipped by at least a billion people in the year 2018, he's a meme God. Thus there is only the God of Abraham to worship, and maybe Brahman or whatever.

Why the fuck are you arguing with a schizophrenic person? Are you that lonely?

>If a God isn't worshipped by at least a billion people in the year 2018, he's a meme God.
That's some top level retardation, have a (you)!

>top level retardation
If that's a synonym for common sense and logic, then yes.

>Jesus comes along, teaching his new religion
>Common sense prevails and everyone ignores him because he has only 12 (LOL) followers

Popularity doesn't dictate logic or what's right. If you limited truth to a popularity contest you'd have some pretty wacky results.

That would've been the correct decision had Jesus not performed actual miracles that hundreds of people saw with their own eyes.

Miracles prove nothing, Pharaoh's magicians were able to match Moses miracle for miracle, and Simon Magus flew across the colesseum before hundreds of witnesses. There is only one miracle that ONLY God can cause, and that's the holocaust, the taking of a sacrificial offering and consuming it in divine fire. Jesus never did this.

Pascal's wager is intrinsically disingenuous to begin with. Believing in god only to avoid punishment.

>Thinks free will and omniscience are impossible to coexist
>Not believing string theory
ISHYGDDT

tpbp

Impossible if given that omniscience includes the future. I'm not sure why it would.

>That would've been the correct decision had Jesus not performed actual miracles that hundreds of people saw with their own eyes.
>Source:Jesus' fan club

I take it you believe everything said about Chuck Norris aswell? After all both have had books written about their works.

>False idolaters and heretics will be the first to burn in the Eternal Lake of Fire

Yes, like monotheists - exactly like Jesus said.

You dare murder a King and say he "died for my sins." You'll burn.

>Why the fuck are you arguing with a schizophrenic person? Are you that lonely?

Why on Earth would you think I'm schizophrenic when this guy claims he represents God?

I represent God, Mr. "obey me or burn without a shred of evidence I work for any gods" is a delusional nutcase.

youtube.com/watch?v=3tCvPHozwZw

>God created this world because the existence of evil was necessary for the highest potential good to be manifested
How do you know that? And why should we believe you?
Also if you're going to quote the Bible, revelations claim God will create a conflict-free paradise. So why can he do it later, but not now?

Not either of you guys, but the problem isn't merely his omnicients, it's his omnipotence and the fact that he's the creator of the universe. Basic relativity and the resulting block universe eliminates free will via predestiny, but still leaves you agency to make those decisions that shaped those grooves in the time stream. Having an omniscient AND omnipotent god that created you and the universe, on the other hand, eliminates agency completely. Not only did he know everything you ever would choose to do before you were ever born, he decided on exactly what you were going to do - he built that stream of decisions and everything that lead to them and follows after them. At this point, "testing" whether you're going to disobey him is redundant.

Mind, some flavors of Christianity fix this by playing these two factors against each other. Basically, they say that all this is true, but God gives you free will by overriding his omniscience with his omnipotence, by forcing himself to forget what you're going to do, and this is how souls are born (though they don't quite phrase it that way).

Really though, it's all a logical quirk in the religion caused by too much literal interpretation. All the religions of the era in which Christianity was born have gods with titles like "all powerful" and "all knowing", even when they are relatively minor gods and the mythology around them makes it clear they are anything but. Even within the scope of the Bible, God is constantly being surprised, having regrets, etc, and not acting at all like an all powerful all knowing being - but instead, particularly in the Old Testament, just the baddest divine motherfucker in the valley.

I mean, seriously - does pic related really look like the sort of thing that would result from the conflict with an uncontestedly omnipotent and omniscient god?

>Yaldabaoth
>God

>Creating a world that is as good as this one without evil would be like creating a two sided triangle, logically impossible.
How do you know this?
What makes you think that evil is somehow necessary?
Wouldn't it be less evil to have created the exact same world with the exception that people couldn't get ALS or alzheimers? What is logically contradictory about releasing a bug-free product?