Be a fucking genius

This is bullshit, Pascal was earnest in his faith. Ain't no need to believe he was being persecuted, what'd justify the need of a cover up.

pls take your r/atheism bait elsewhere

this

You got be baiting, what if... There are another gods and you're worshipping the wrong one? You seem biased by christianism.

Not saying he didn't believe, just that the arguments he actually cared about weren't this one

just extend Pascal's wager to theism in general and you're good.

his monadism is far from genuis desu

Considering there's a non-zero amount of religions that promise damnation for worshipping false gods this principle is not really extendable.

I don't think that deep in their hearts people become atheist/religious because
arguments and reason.
There is a similar quote from Sartre or Camus about how when he was a child he just KNEW there wasn't a God.

Why is it moronic OP?

The supposed refutation of his wager gives equal validity to all religions which is abject nonsense. Also, the wager is more of an intro into Christianity, to actually be saved you have to do the Will of God

dude ironic christfagging lmao

>gives equal validity to all religions which is abject nonsense
why

it's not bait or bullshit. men of science have been persecuted for their atheist beliefs for centuries. look at gallileo. Pascal saw this and knew it was better to go through the ridiculous song and dance rather than be attacked or risk being de-funded because of small minded christians needing everyone to remain part of the herd.

>most retarded/easily debunked ideas
Please start using a trip so people with an education can block you.
Kthnx

"
>people with
>""""""education"""""

Nigga, you seem just like christianfags who claim no one is really atheist coz they use the expression thankgod.

you seem to mistake him with someone else. he didnt risk being de-funded or losing his job, because pascal never had a job. he stopped giving a fugg about science kaczinski style. the greatest risk he took was attacking jesuits in his anonymous "provincial letters". but the pensees were part of an authentic project to defend christianity.

pacal's wager actually is:

>But there is an eternity of life and happiness. And this being so, if there were an infinity of chances, of which one only would be for you, you would still be right in wagering one to win two, and you would act stupidly, being obliged to play, by refusing to stake one life against three at a game in which out of an infinity of chances there is one for you, if there were an infinity of an infinitely happy life to gain. But there is here an infinity of an infinitely happy life to gain, a chance of gain against a finite number of chances of loss, and what you stake is finite. It is all divided; wherever the infinite is and there is not an infinity of chances of loss against that of gain, there is no time to hesitate, you must give all...

as you can see, he was senile.

So what? Statistically picking one is better than not.

>it could be any religion
>therefore I won't choose any and instead guarantee damnation by all
Genius, what a rebuttal

How is it believing when it's just picking one?

>burn some tendies for Zeus
>'pls no bolt'
It's as easy as that user. You've now vastly improved your odds for a better afterlife experience.

Implying I can't choose one with littler effort. Implying I can't create my own religion with the exact set that just happens to cover my lifestyle avoiding my own danation in this set where any religion has the same probabilistical chance of being the right one.

No you haven't. I personally worship a God that will only reward you with paradise by rejecting Pascal's wager. In fact there's an infinite amount of those. Same goes with Gods that reward you for accepting the wager.

Oh shit Pascal where you at now homie?

Untrue, if two people come up with the same religious principle it suggests a higher likeliness of correctness. Being the sole worshiper of a god is a bad bet.

>mentally accept lutheran doctrine right before death
>go to heaven because muh sola fide

>In fact there's an infinite amount of those
You know that isn't true, and that's the crux of why you're wrong. There are many, yes, but a finite amount. Any increase in chance over 0% is significant, so it doesn't matter.

Tbqf Christianity+Islam is the combo for biggest chances of heaven since a good deal of it is innate morals and can be derived with philosophy.
I wouldn't bet on any sort of polytheism for absolute sure my nigga.

he was already convinced that all other religions were false, so it was only a choice between the one observably legit or nothing at all.

592. >The falseness of other religions. — They have no witnesses. Jews have. God defies other religions to produce such signs: Isaiah 43. 9; 44. 8.

>599. The difference between Jesus Christ and Mahomet. — Mahomet was not foretold; Jesus Christ was foretold.

>Mahomet slew; Jesus Christ caused His own to be slain.
>Mahomet forbade reading; the Apostles ordered reading.

>In fact, the two are so opposed that, if Mahomet took the way to succeed from a worldly point of view, Jesus Christ, from the same point of view, took the way to perish. And instead of concluding that, since Mahomet succeeded, Jesus Christ might well have succeeded, we ought to say that, since Mahomet succeeded, Jesus Christ should have failed.

>600. Any man can do what Mahomet has done; for he performed no miracles, he was not foretold. No man can do what Christ has done.

ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/p/pascal/blaise/p27pe/complete.html

>a finite amount
'No.'

If there's a finite amount of Gods that favor the wager, there could also be an equal finite amount of Gods that reward rejecting it, making the choice have a zero percent increase in odds of getting to paradise.

Second, how do you know there is a finite amount of Gods?

Also, my personal belief in my argument has no bearing on its validity my dude.

finite amount of people = finite amount of gods

Kek wut? Amount and presence of people has no bearing on potential gods whatsoever.

Well, not literally everyone can go into hell and heaven stay empty, that would be stupid.

#
>Untrue, if two people come up with the same religious principle it suggests a higher likeliness of correctness.
Guess what? Untrue, this just seems groupthink, how many times in the history of science the sheer majority of people in this world were just plain wrong? Reason and True has no relation whatsover with the amount of people who hold certain opinion. A science man like Pascal would never make such claim, and as we saw in this thread he never made.

Dude literally has never heard about cosmic horror

What if the one I pick doesn't require me to believe in him?

I don't see a flaw in that argument besides that there are many religions and some contradicts others.

Nuh, I meant that if salvation does exist at least ONE person was saved. If it doesn't, well.
But we can reduce it to 50% chance there's salvation 50% there isn't.

I don't think Pascals wager was intended to be an argument to convince atheists that God exists. Modern atheists like Dawkins love to treat it like it is so they don't have to engage in the serious arguments, he practically dedicates chapters of the God Delusion to Pascals wager while giving almost a paragraph to Aquinas. It's weak sauce.

Those who take Pascal's wager assume that people made up the gods.

>cant kill yourself because then you give in to the absurd
i hate camus.

Why should you care?

People tend to use real rationality when doing mathematics and physics, while they tend to apply rationalizations that give them whatever answers they want when doing theology and philosophy.

how do you know this?

It's also conceivable that there's a God who will only send you to heaven for not believing in God.
>statistically speaking
The idea of infinite value completely breaks statistics. At that point you can justify anything. See above.

>I personally worship a God that will only reward you with paradise by rejecting Pascal's wager. In fact there's an infinite amount of those.
I'm not sure this is true or if true provable, but even if you could show there are infinite potential gods that forbid the Wager and infinite potential gods that don't, it's incredibly implausible that they would all be equally likely to exist.

Just by reading philosophy, user. Haven't you seen how often philosophers "disprove" something just by showing that it leads to an "undesirable" or "problematic" conclusion? You can't get away with that shit in physics.

how does that show they are using rationalizations?
and what do you think they mean by "undesirable"?

I think he means that philosophers say "if X were true, we would all have killed each other already because of Y, so it's probably not true" as a rebuttal.

He probably never read serious philosophy.

that has happened in physics since newtons time

He lived in Western Civilization, and applied the local understanding of reality in all its plausible outcomes within that framework.

Western atheists are Christians who operate on broken code. Well, until we get to replace the code altogether. Lately the baboonpack.dll has been working wonders in the new generation of westerners.

You see, beliefs, ideas, memes. They work like information does. They have structures. What atheists do is change one key variable from 1 to 0, and expect that it all collapses. This is not so. Christianity is a well developed program. What was issued was a self-destruct mechanism for all those who abandoned it. Conducted by those who abandon it.

You see, religious belief works like this.
Religious statement.
>Your body is the temple of God.
>The kingdom of God is within you.
What atheism does is not detach us from the statement. It morphs the statements by changing values.
Therefore the statement remains as
>Your body is the temple of God
But God = 0 or an illusion. So the statement becomes,
>"Your body is the temple of nothingness." or
>"Your body is the temple of delusion."
They operate on those same statements.

This is why Christians await an 'awakening', which is to have that value set to its proper integer. This is also why the end of Christianity was hardly the end of religion. We can not end religion, it is the program which holds us.
New Age, astrology, witchcraft, Kek, Islam.. They all hit this dysfunctional program, and they rock it to its very cores. Simply because some retards and jews decided to sabotage it.

Can I read a book about this? Trying to become a Christian.

The Bible is a dangerous book, especially once you understand the fractal nature of the statements and words.

I suppose Lewis goes near this concept. Mere Christianity, Beyond Personality and Screwtape Letters.
There are audiobooks on youtube as well.

Stop pretending statistics aren't astronomically stacked against God's existence

Whatafuck is this program analogy, you obscurantist

Can you expand it?

I've never seen anyone actually offer a rebuttal to Pascal's wager that didn't simply highlight their own shocking ignorance in mathematics.

>Infinitely many Gods lol
Since God, at least as he's defined in Pascals wager, must have actual believers, and humans are a finite recourse, there can't be more Gods (or even possible Gods, assuming that belief in them is genuine) than there are people.

>There's a lot of Gods lmao
This argument just shows that the person has no understanding of even highschool mathematics, and the introductory chapter to any calculus book is more than enough to refute them.

>But what about the FSM/a God that sends believers to Hell
A thought experiment isn't the same as a God or even a religion, and anyone who's at all sincere in their faith (not gaytheists or gagnostics) understands this.

I'm not even a Christian, but the so called arguments made against Pascal are completely stupid most of the time.

That being said, I think that an authentic life must be lived daringly and courageously, and it's better to live an unapologetic life even if it leads to eternal damnation than to live in fear.

shame pascal is remembered for this on the subject of religion and not for the idea that going to church and praying, whether you believe or not, "objectively" does the believing for you. this is pretty radical (for christian logocentric europe) and you can see that from the fact that many muslims across the world cannot understand a lick of arabic but read the koran and pray in that language, because again, the writing and the language itself communes with god on your behalf.

>A thought experiment isn't the same as a God or even a religion

In what way do they differ, aside from cultural codification of the latter?

Sincerity

Even in human affairs, without a genuine trust and faith in another person love is impossible. It's not different (IMO) with religion.

The idea that your garage is full of invisible dragons because "why not lmao christfags btfo" is dumb because not even the person espousing it sincerely believes it.

>Since God, at least as he's defined in Pascals wager, must have actual believers
We all know Pascal didn't take into account any God besides the christian one. What we see are just adhocs.

>this argument just shows that the person has no understanding of even highschool mathematics, and the introductory chapter to any calculus book is more than enough to refute them.
Good to me I know calculus, tell what part are you talking about?

>>There's a lot of Gods lmao
>This argument just shows that the person has no understanding of even highschool mathematics, and the introductory chapter to any calculus book is more than enough to refute them.
Lmao at this faggot, not an argument

It's my lens. My field is IT. The purpose is to help understand how it acts on the world. Not to obscure.

>Even in human affairs, without a genuine trust and faith in another person love is impossible. It's not different (IMO) with religion.
I agree with this inasmuch as the two situations have the same emotional basis.

>The idea that your garage is full of invisible dragons because "why not lmao christfags btfo" is dumb because not even the person espousing it sincerely believes it.
This I don't agree with. Faith in another person, when well-placed, is nothing if not reasonable. That is, you learn from your interactions with them that they are dependable. You find that it is to your benefit to be loyal to them, and if they tarnish this dependability in your eyes, you may revoke that loyalty at any time.

In the case of religion, there is by definition no physical basis for the faith. One must a la Kierkegaard "take the leap." The metaphor is an apt one, since it helps to close one's eyes (blind oneself) to take such a leap (hence "blind faith"). A religion is the same as any other ideology, it simply demands a stronger faith that becomes more difficult to dislodge over time.

I have no problem with sincerity toward other persons: I can't maintain friendships without being open and sincere with my friends. But sincerity toward them doesn't change who they are, just as sincerely believing an ideology doesn't change the content of that ideology. Sincere belief in nothing (an ideology) is by definition misplaced, and leads to heartache.

It's just that humanities fags don't understand statistics and it shows

>>There's a lot of Gods lmao
>This argument just shows that the person has no understanding of even highschool mathematics, and the introductory chapter to any calculus book is more than enough to refute them.
What did he mean by this?

An infinity of rewards divided by an infinitesimal is larger than nothing divided by anything, which is the bones of Pascal's wager.

It doesn't matter how small the possibility of God's existence is, or whether there's "a lot" of other Gods, because the argument itself is dealing with an arbitrary small possibility.

>An infinity divided by an infinitesimal
That's not how calculus works, you dumb shit.

>he thinks the wager is invalid
pseud detected

thanks for explaining how evolutionists justify their religion

>literally the study of pebbles
>but don't consider the little pebbles, you dumb shit

Spotted the tard.

I don't even know what you're talking about. Infinity and infinitesimal are not numbers you can multiply or divide by. You may be thinking of the limit of a sequence, in which case you're still wrong. It's possible for a sequence whose numerator and denominator both diverge to infinity to converge to zero.

He just threw an ad hominen without any argumentation
fag detected

>Infinity and infinitesimal are not numbers you can multiply or divide by

Although feel free to substitute infinity for an arbitrarily large number of rewards, the point still stands.

A small chance of a big payoff is better than a big chance of zero payoff. It doesn't matter how minute that chance is, especially when the payoff is your soul's eternal salvation.

>he thinks argumentation is a necessity
evirate detected

>A small chance of a big payoff is better than a big chance of zero payoff. It doesn't matter how minute that chance is
Yeah dude, that's why I always play the lottery.

>pic not related

even when your ticket is free?

Get all these ghosts out of my sight.

It's only free if you don't value intellectual integrity. Not to mention all the things people have been spooked into sacrificing in the name of deities.

Its disturbing to think that good chunk of world past and present is destined to burn in hell due to their lack of knowledge of Christianity or belief in god, regardless of whether they live being selfless good beings.

>division by an infinitesimal isn't related in response to somebody saying you can't divide by infinitesimals

I see, but why should I choose the christian God even though the others have the exactly same likelihood?

Personal reasons? That doesn't invalidate Pascal's argument, and his reasoning is equally applicable to most religions.

But being an atheist is very risky.

The names E, Risk E. Lovely to meet you.

SeeChristianism is not a neutral chose as you make it appear

In lottery you tend to lose. However, if there is no victory, there can be no loss.

>doesn't understand the basic math behind Pascal's wager

Christianity has nothing to do with the argument. Pascal believes Christianity was the natural choice for other reasons, but his argument is a mathematical one against atheism.

>debunked
No it's not, you just don't understand it.