'>>23361596
We value truth and there is harm in superstition and false belief. The same argument applies to carrying around the foot of a rabbit out of a superstitious belief in luck.
It is quite pathetic that Christcucks have to reduce their superstition to a matter of gambling, but I'm not surprised to see such behavior from people lacking a drop rationality.';

'>>23361644
>It is quite pathetic that Christcucks have to reduce their superstition to a matter of gambling
what about wagers on things that do have real basis such as idk betting on the fact that cosciousness is genedeep and hence all people must reproduce to ensure it's survival?';

'>>23361661
because betting against reproduction is betting against 3.5 billion years of life and many other unknowns';

'>>23361596
how can such a smart person think and say such a stupid thing? religion really destroyed people's brains, does it not?';

'>>23361596
This logic can be applied to many things outside of spirituality. Entrepreneurs, athletes, artists, investors, etc. all have this sort of belief toward themselves and their ventures. It's the reason 70% of millionaires are religious. You need "belief" to achieve anything substantial, spiritual or material.';

'>>23361644
You actually have no idea how we are influenced more from pragmatic beliefs than a dispassionate search for truth. Otherwise skepticism wouldn’t be so distasteful as it is for us. We would halt nature’s guidance.';

'>>23361661
This is beside the point. Christcuck theism is not a position for which pragmatic arguments are rational.
>>23361684
"There are three persons in one God" is not the same kind of pragmatic belief "causality exists" to anyone who follows rationality, a simple task at which Christcucks fail pathetically.';

'>>23361695
revealed truths are more real than measured ones.
rationalists lost, empiricists lost';

'>>23361695
>Christcuck theism is not a position for which pragmatic arguments are rational.
I don't follow you. Are u trying to imply or say that pragmatic beliefs and religious beliefs are not the same kind given that the fomer kind has a realistic, materialistic, verifiable apriori while the latter doesn't?';

'>>23361695
I mean that is a specific theological issue, it is beside the point. Religion has always been what moved humanity forward, cultures, societies and civilizations have been built on superstitious ingenuity.';

'When did /lit/ become Christian? Is this a /pol/ psyop?';

'Everyone believes without seeing, the honor of doing so just isn't granted to atheists because they have used the power of faith in the gayest way possible by placing their faith in finite things before the infinite, and claiming the finite is the infinite.';

'>>23361596
There's no lie. But it's a practical position and not all people are beholden to practicality as a way of life.
But even from this practical stance then you have to question if faith born merely out of practicality is enough. If we accept that god knows all then will god be satisfied with only a practical faith. How can anyone know?
This is the limits of skepticism and practicality illustrated quite clearly. You can be skeptical and practical but you can't assume it will always be of use. The irony of a system concerned with absolute usefulness is that you cannot assume usefulness will be favored in which case it becomes useless.';

'>>23361596
>what harm will come to you if you gamble on its truth and it proves false?
Hmmm, how about… religious OCD, lack of assurance of salvation, tiresome religious responsibility, stress of attempting to convert friends and family, worrying that you’ve chosen to wrong wager (there’s many religions and sects). And so on.

As a former Christian, that’s why this silly wager makes no sense. I refuse to wager on imaginary concepts that are designed to strike fear into humans, especially when they have such a bad mental effect on me (and many others).';

'>>23361866
what's so bad about finite things
finiteness only gives value';

'>>23361880
But it is the great majority of people who will cling to practical positions more than theoretical considerations. The latter are what very few are concerned with, they are scientists, philosophers. But even them will recur to practical reason concerning the belief in free will, in which we believe, be it in a natural or pragmatical way.
As for faith from practical standpoint, I think this is the only honest and most accepted way for believing in. Fear as the beginning of knowledge, etc. But then Pascal’s wager is very interesting because it can point to this very problem, that even reason is no assurance of established faith.
Usefulness is considered in experience, so I don’t see your point.';

'>>23361596
Did he say this after he became a brain-damaged religious schizo from the bridge accident?';

'>>23361673
>>23361644
He's trying to help you understand the weight of infinity. Any account of reality is inadequate by comparison.';

'>>23361673
Yes, it really destroys it. A few examples of people who had their brains destroyed by it:
Plato, Aristotle, Kepler, Copernicus, Galileo Galilei, Newton, Descartes, Pascal, Leibniz, Kant, Hegel, Mendel, Pasteur, Gödel, etc. But thank God we have people like you, Sam Harris and the like in this thread.';

'>>23362259
Why can the infinite reward not come from carrying the foot of a rabbit in my pocket every day? Why can we not suppose an infinite judge who condemns men who believe pragmatically for mercenary gain to an infinite Hell?
>>23362306
>Kepler, Copernicus, Galileo Galilei, Newton, Descartes, Pascal, Leibniz
Rational scholars only read these men for their scientific research.';

'>>23361678
There's plenty to lose if your belief in those things proves wrong';

'>>23362324
>Why can the infinite reward not come from carrying the foot of a rabbit in my pocket every day? Why can we not suppose an infinite judge who condemns men who believe pragmatically for mercenary gain to an infinite Hell?
Read Kant for the literal basics of correlation between personality and morality. Your post shows that I can't even begin to expound it here.';

'>>23362324
The activity you describe participates in reality and can provoke spiritual understanding, for example, by making you see that it makes you be in a particular way. Prayer is a more refined form of spirituality. If you are confusing God with something finite, you are performing a category error. The Creator is uncreated. I'm only aspiring to become an Eastern Orthodox Christian catechumen so relate to what I write accordingly.';

'>>23361596
>a single paragraph side fragment not even in the top thirty passages of the Pensees
>still buckbreaks so many so long after
He won.

>>23361678
>You need "belief" to achieve anything substantial, spiritual or material.
Na bro, let me wallow in impotent self-imposed pitfalls because I totally have the universe figured out, then pretend I am the theoretical minded master above the pragmatic hylics actually doing things. Many such cases (already ITT).';

'>>23361596
You can apply such a wager to any belief. How is one to choose among contradictory beliefs?';

'>>23362551
By uniting them.';

'>>23362426
Prayer is a more refined form of spirituality because it makes you be directly in relation to your Creator.';

'>>23361644
Parody of the r/atheism redditor well done. A comment that basically smells of like the obese male feminist neckbeard's armpits.';

'>>23362426
>>23362712
>Eastern Orthodox
A mercenary believer praying out of self-interest seems to me the most inappropriate and unacceptable person to your tradition of monasticism and almsgiving. That so many Christcucks accept Pascal's wager demonstrates to me that the whole superstition is a farce not to be taken seriously by anyone with one drop of rationality.
>>23362794
Yes, I don't believe in arranging the marriages of young girls, unlike your Christcuck superstition.';

'>>23361596
It relies on unjustified nontrivial claims about God to reason about the outcomes, in the case that He exists, of belief and non-belief, respectively.
>>23362695
If they can be united, they aren't contradictory';

'>>23362949
Although a person may be fueled by passions, he is redeemable because of his nature. One can pray to those who have lived in sin and turn their thoughts back towards God. It is wise to see that one can only repent for his own sins. The category of inappropriate and unacceptable only applies to demons and the devil, who reject God eternally. Philosophy allows one to reconcile contradictions and injustices with an illumined understanding of the world. The Church Fathers teach that evil lacks substance and is only a privation of the good. There is good in Pascal's wager. The way I see his point is that there is always what is above and beyond any kind of activity, whose remembrance allows for transcendence and gratitude. The wager can provoke such memory. Can you explain to me what you have found irrational in my writings?';

'>>23362551
Pick the one you think is most likely to be true. Do your research and analyze their historical truth claims.';

'>>23363047
One can develop contradictions towards agreement. I believe in God. My belief is lacking when I sin. These aren't mutually exclusive statements. One can hold different perspectives simultaneously in his mind.

Pascal's wager applies to everything because believers live in the world. For example, I hope that my writings can be of help and will lead me closer to God.';

'>>23361596
If you believe in the God that you are intending to believe in at any moment when reading my post, the OP post, or any moment forward from this one, you will experience unimaginable spiritual loss and consequence at the hands of the spiteful deity who is in contact with me right now. This deity is more spiritually, metaphysically, and even materially powerful than any concept or god that you have known thus far or will ever come to know.
It's a smarter idea to believe in the deity I am talking about, than to not believe in him, because if my deity is real, you will not be subject to his power which infinitely dwarfs that of your own deity.
If my deity is not real and your deity is, then you still win, because while you may suffer for not believing in your own God, you did everything in your power to avoid being punished by a much harsher, much more powerful, and much more capricious god, whose existence you have/had no way of disproving.
So are you going to start believing in my god now? If you don't you might lose everything. The spiritual alienation you'll experience will be far worse than anything your own god can or would mete out. It's the logical thing to do, in order to minimise potential consequences.
Where is the lie?';

'>>23361596
(If) God is real I don't think he'd be stupid enough to do you any favors just because you pretend to believe in him. And I'd trade my (potentially) immortal soul to say that to his face.';

'>>23361596
>if you lose, you lose nothing
You lose your identity and sense of moral compass.';

'>>23363586
>>23361924
I literally can't understand why you retards infer that you either must needs become a fucking zealot fanatic or not believe (in any sense) at all. It is funny because usually those who apply such a fixed dichotomy tend to become a zealot of the atheistic kind. You have no authenticity already.';

'>>23363062
If you positively believe that the God of classical theism and Christianity is logically contradictory and incoherent, as many atheists argue, then you would be believing what you know to be false because you are superstitiously gambling on the possibility of an infinite reward after death based on mercenary self-interest. This is offensive not only to reason but to Christianity.
>>23363135
It's only a contradiction if it holds at the same time in the same respect.
>>23363159
>you did everything in your power to avoid being punished by a much harsher, much more powerful, and much more capricious god, whose existence you have/had no way of disproving.
Threatening people into mercenary belief is inappropriate and unacceptable.
There is also nothing stopping me from proposing a God who is slightly more just, harsh, and powerful than yours, except that he punishes mercenary belief and self-interest with an infinite Hell.
>>23363703
Most Abrahamic traditions condemn lukewarm believers to Hell. The classical confessional Lutheran tradition teaches that most people go to Hell, and there are no lukewarm saints in communions that canonize saints.';

'>>23361596
This assumes that are only 2 possible beliefs and that you can't prove any of them wrong. This logic is wrong because there are possibly infinitely many beliefs where you can go to some type of hell, so your wager would be 1 one in a infinite amount.';

'>>23361596
The problem is that you don't actually believe god exists, you just tell yourself so because you're scared.
If god is willing to settle for that, fine, but I'm pretty sure he could tell if someone's heart wasn't actually in it.';

'>>23361596
I tried to gaslight myself for years. I was miserable.';

'>>23364239
I fail to see how I'm doing any of those things. Please respond to what I have written if you want me to continue replying.';

'>>23364660
I can't convince myself either. I guess we're vessels of wrath predestined for hell. Calvin was right.';

'>>23361596
>mankind thinking they're the reason for the universe
lmao cope';

'>>23364660
did it for 6 years, idk if I can keep going like this';

'>>23361596
If your "belief" is a wager its not real belief. So putting belief in terms of a wager is nonsensical. A belief is what you think is real, not what you think you should think is real, for bet hedging or any other reason.';

'>>23364239
>Most Abrahamic traditions condemn lukewarm believers to Hell. The classical confessional Lutheran tradition teaches that most people go to Hell, and there are no lukewarm saints in communions that canonize saints.
How does this apply to Pascal, which is the matter here?';

'>>23364807
BEHEAD ALL GAYYLIENS';

'>>23364807
Many theists, including christian ones, believe that there can be other beings with higher intelligence even inhabiting our universe as well, so your point fails here. Plus, there are questions concerning metaphysical realism, morality and personality, etc. It can only be a simple issue worth of mockery for narrow minded people like you.';

'>>23364239
>Threatening people into mercenary belief is inappropriate and unacceptable.
>There is also nothing stopping me from proposing a God who is slightly more just, harsh, and powerful than yours, except that he punishes mercenary belief and self-interest with an infinite Hell.
Exactly.
I'm unsure about your post because given your replies to others, it seems you're criticising Pascal's argument for the same reasons I am, but I'll reply with what I would have said if you were a... Pascalite, because your points are relevant to other side.
Pascal's wager isn't about what is morally appropriate or acceptable, it's explicitly about a pragmatic weighing up of the costs and benefits of belief, regardless of whether any moral or empirical arguments have been exhausted.
There is indeed nothing stopping you from proposing another god, or another similar situation, and then attaching consequences to that situation that demand an even greater urgency of belief. But that's exactly what Pascal's argument was, and that's why it doesn't work.
There is an infinity of potentially real gods that anyone could propose at any given moment, each with their own conditions for belief or even non-belief, and their consequences for rejection. So how can anyone possibly argue, 'what HARM will come to you if you GAMBLE on its truth and it proves false?'
>>23364917
>>23364784
>>23363135
>>23362794
>>23363703
>>23362259
>>23361880
>>23362331
What would be the sense in wagering belief in ANY god, be it mine, yours, or the god that a 3rd person proposes who outranks both of ours, when anyone can make any claim about any god and then invite a similar wager? Surely, those who agree with Pascal's wager wouldn't ever take the other wagers seriously, even though they're meaningfully the same. They already don't believe any of the other existing religions and gods that could similarly make use of Pascal's wager. Wager then, without hesitation, that Zeus exists. Or Horus, or the god that is in contact with me right now.';

'>>23365262
Isn’t the point wagering on the existence of God (unqualified) as opposed to not wagerint on the existence at all? How can we even start discussing the different views of God throughout history without even being open about the concept whatsoever?';

'>>23365262
The other wagers are meaningfully different because only God is infinite and omnipotent. God is not a posited being. He is beyond being. He is the Creator of all the most exultant forms of being. Therefore to attain union with Him is more rewarding than any worldly accomplishment. Faith is a requirement for purification and illumination which ultimately are completed in deification. The wager simply puts belief into an economic perspective.';

'>>23361596
I’m not going to become a homophobe on a hunch.';

'>>23361596
There isn't. It's pretty similar to arguments for accepting reality on a metaphysical level. If the physical world exists and you believe in it, you live a full life. If it doesn't exist and you believe in it, there's nothing to lose. Therefore, you should believe in a physical reality.';

'>>23365559
>The other wagers are meaningfully different because only God is infinite and omnipotent. God is not a posited being. He is beyond being. He is the Creator of all the most exultant forms of being. Therefore to attain union with Him is more rewarding than any worldly accomplishment.
Everything you just said is true about my God, who is different from the God you are talking about in your post. The other wagers are not meaningfully different because every god mentioned in all of the other wagers is infinite, omnipotent, beyond being, and the Creator of all the most exultant forms of being. The god who is in contact with me right now as I type this post IS in fact infinite, omnipotent, beyond being, and the Creator of all the most exultant forms of being, and he is telling me, and telling you through my words, that belief in him is more rewarding than any worldly accomplishment.
From an economic perspective, it's better for you to wager belief in my God rather than your own, because my god is the Creator of all the most exultant forms of being. Economically, you would do right to wager on my God rather than your own, because if my God does not exist, at least you wagered on my God because of his infinity and omnipotence.';

'>>23365357
I'm not sure. I don't like undermining people's intent, but it seems to me that whether the wager concerns an unqualified, general conception of a God, vs the existence of a specific individual one, usually depends on whatever mood the theist posing the argument is in, what prior responses their conversation partner has made, or which concern is the most successful at softening/obfuscating the theist original intent.
Putting that aside, the cost/benefit part of the wager makes no sense when wagering the existence of an unqualified God. How can one have faith to the point of spiritual reimbursement, if they don't even know which god they have faith in? Which God would allow someone to 'gain all' by non-commitally believing that 'somewhere out there, I'm sure some kind of God exists, but I'm not saying I know which one' ? A situation like that certainly doesn't describe 'If you gain, you gain all; if you lose, you lose nothing.'
It's not a thought experiment that opens up discussion towards the different views of God throughout history, it's a direct challenge to individual beliefs that evaluates faith along lines of risk-reward/ It states clearly and with great flourish of rhetoric that the logical, risk-minimising, reward maximising position concerning ones own individual salvation, is to believe because you have all to gain and nothing to lose.';

'>>23365850
I don’t get what you mean by “faith to the point of spiritual reimbursement”. I accept that there might be degrees of faith (more or less solidified, so to speak), but then the issue goes into very specific theological ones, about the difference between layman’s and saints’ faiths, their place and difference in heaven, how united they are with God, etc.
I think any idea of God implicates qualities which are barely conceivable, apophaticism is not something alien, it actually is the rule, so not knowing which God one has faith on is not a problem, contrary to what you pointed.
Gaining all: is it not everything, as minimal as it might be if there be a difference in degree of faith as that mentioned about layman’s and saint’s, compared to nothing?';

'>>23362794
>Christlarper "arguments"
>Muh fedora!';

'>>23365914
>I don’t get what you mean by “faith to the point of spiritual reimbursement”
A faith which allows one to join in unity and infinity with God in the eternal afterlife which constitutes the spiritual fulfilment/salvation articulated by followers of the Christian establishment and by the great plurality of Christians who pose Pascal's wager; this includes the OP, the numerous replies in this thread, and, unless I'm mistaken, Pascal himself. I borrowed 'spiritual reimbursement' as a phrase from another poster in this thread.
>Gaining all: is it not everything, as minimal as it might be if there be a difference in degree of faith as that mentioned about layman’s and saint’s, compared to nothing?
No. I'm not sure if I'm misreading you here, but it seems like you're casting 'gain all' as 'any belief, no matter how miniscule, is an immeasurable 'gain' when considering belief itself as a virtue, life improving quality, or spiritually healthy quality'. To me, 'gaining all' clearly refers to the spiritual salvation, unity and infinity which is bestowed on the believer BY God; Pascal himself makes reference to God's 'mercy' and 'justice' in the chapter the OP quote originates from.
>I think any idea of God implicates qualities which are barely conceivable, apophaticism is not something alien, it actually is the rule, so not knowing which God one has faith on is not a problem, contrary to what you pointed.
If this is the spirit in which the wager is being made, then I need more clarification on what 'gaining all' entails, because the nature of the 'gain' changes the nature of the 'belief' wagered. If one believes in an unqualified God, what do they gain? The ability to sincerely discuss God as a concept? We are doing that right now, and I don't believe that some kind of god exists.';

'Okay but what if God punishes you FOR believing in him?
>n-no that's ridiculous even tho any god would be totally incomprehensible to us';

'>>23366092
>A faith which allows one to join in unity and infinity with God in the eternal afterlife which constitutes the spiritual fulfilment/salvation articulated by followers of the Christian establishment and by the great plurality of Christians who pose Pascal's wager
Woah, that's a lot of assumptions. Let's see. So you are implying into Pascal's wager all of this very minute theology of redemption. But you are failing to provide its theological development concerning the differences between the faith of common laymen and the faith of saints. So the former would be ''less'' joined into unity with God? How would that work? Is this established by which theologians? Bible? Do we really need to take all of it into account, which is far from a settled matter in theology, in order to simply decide whether to believe or not? Well, I hope you see the point here and how this issue of yours is absolutely irrelevant.
>it seems like you're casting 'gain all' as 'any belief, no matter how miniscule, is an immeasurable 'gain' when considering belief itself as a virtue, life improving quality, or spiritually healthy quality'
No, not at all, I'm literally just following the premise of your reward theology, the least of faith can grant the least of rewards which is absolute in comparison with nothing at all, even if it is not the saintly level of rewards.
>If this is the spirit in which the wager is being made
Pascal's Pensées is filled with elements that are characteristic of existentialism, it is far from being something sectarian in specific theological issues, which is mainly what you and 90% of people arguing against OP are derailing into.
>I need more clarification on what 'gaining all' entails, because the nature of the 'gain' changes the nature of the 'belief' wagered. If one believes in an unqualified God, what do they gain? The ability to sincerely discuss God as a concept?
I don't know why a moment ago afterlife rewards coming from faith in God was a thing and now it simply is something obscure. Do you want to know about the concept of God more generally and how it has cataphatic and apophatic predicates and how they relate to each other? But isn't he reward expected of what can reward? What is the difference between believing or not believing in what is indifferent? Why would God here be anything but the basics of what will know the faith? An intelligent/personal God is already too much? But this qualification here of ''intelligence''/''personal'' is not positively taken insofar as the relation between cataphatic and apophatic approach is considered, hence why I need to point to it all the time.';

'>>23366142
Ok but what if EVERYTHING IS A PRANK AND I FIGURED IT OUT? I mean it would precisely confirm what I already believe right? I GOT IT.';

'https://www.alternet.org/questioning-faith-is-believing-in-god-really-a-safe-bet/

Tl;dr:
1. Which God?
2. Does God even care?
3. Is God that easily fooled?
4. Does this even count as "belief"?
5. Is the cost of belief really nothing?

6. Conceding Your Argument Before You've Even Started It. The moment you propose Pascal's Wager is the moment you've conceded the argument. Pascal's Wager isn't an argument for why God exists and is really real. Pascal's Wager is, in fact, 100% disconnected from the question of whether God exists and is really real. Pascal's Wager offers no evidence for God's existence -- not even the shaky "evidence" of the appearance of design or the supposed fine-tuning of the universe or the feelings in your heart. It offers no logical argument for why God must exist or probably exists -- not even the paper-thin "logic" of the First Cause argument. It does not offer one scrap of a positive reason for thinking that God is real.

Pascal's Wager is misdirection. Distraction. It's a way of drawing attention away from how crummy the arguments for God actually are. It's an evasion: a slippery, dodgy, wanna-be clever trick to avoid the actual argument. It's a way of making the debater feel wily and ingenious, while ignoring the actual question on the table.';

'>>23365802
It took me a while to figure this out. You confuse relation with ownership and infinity with multiplicity. God does not change because of what we believe. We do not own God. Many infinities are unified tautologically by infinity. If your god is infinite, it extends beyond the arbitrary limitation you place upon it, which is the division between yours and mine. The wager is about belief in God, Who really exists, instead of a conceptual account.';

'>>23366213
>Pascal's Wager isn't an argument for why God exists and is really real. Pascal's Wager is, in fact, 100% disconnected from the question of whether God exists and is really real. Pascal's Wager offers no evidence for God's existence -- not even the shaky "evidence" of the appearance of design or the supposed fine-tuning of the universe or the feelings in your heart. It offers no logical argument for why God must exist or probably exists -- not even the paper-thin "logic" of the First Cause argument. It does not offer one scrap of a positive reason for thinking that God is real.
On the one hand you are right because Pascal does not believe in proofs of God. Pascal is a proto-existentialist. On the other hand you are wrong, it does concern the question of knowledge and proof of God's existence in that it assumes an epistemological stance regarding this issue.

>1. Which God?2. Does God even care?3. Is God that easily fooled?4. Does this even count as "belief"?5. Is the cost of belief really nothing?
This has been addressed in this very thread. Want me to quote the posts? Read the thread, I am one among the posters here who have addressed these questions. For instance, this faith from fear is literally a popular maxim found in the Bible, in that fear of God is the beginning of wisdom.';

'>>23366194
I think the main issue here is that the two of us have radically different interpretations of the wager. I was interested in discussing the wager as it corresponds to God being an infinite, omnipotent mind who rewards belief with unity and salvation. To that end I conceived of belief as a binary thing, because such a God would be capable of distinguishing with total certainty, belief from non-belief, regardless of variety between, for example, the faith of laymen and the faith of saints.
>So the former would be ''less'' joined into unity with God? How would that work?
No. I did not consider any differences between common laymen and saints, with regard to belief or reward, because I assumed God attributes and then verifies different but perfectly accurate standards for faith to each individual person, and that once these standards for belief vs non-belief are met, He rewards each believer infinitely, and thus equally.
To clarify, the above is what I was assuming before, not necessarily now.
I have no problem with the simple possibility of an unqualified God, but I don't understand how this would connect to 'gain' within your conception or within Pascal's as you claim, and I also am confused as to what this 'gain' is.
After some rereading of your post it seems clear that you do in fact mean that 'gain' means 'afterlife rewards', and also that 'all' in this context simply means the difference between zero and anything greater than zero, even if there may be a scale of rewards beyond that.
Alright.
Why would belief in an unqualified God grant a non-zero afterlife reward, with the alternative non-belief simply granting zero? Why wouldn't non-belief grant non-zero, and belief grant zero? Why are other wagers not applicable, such as unqualified belief inviting scorn, thus negating the 'gain all, lose nothing' centrality of the wager?
>the premise of your reward theology, the least of faith can grant the least of rewards which is absolute in comparison with nothing at all
What are the rewards? I can't figure out whether this makes sense unless I have at least an approximation of what the rewards are. In this case specifically, the thing that constitutes even the 'least of rewards', is vitally important to figuring out whether or not belief, in any degree, would result in reward.';

'>>23361596
All wagers rely on belief, and Pascal's wager is wise because you risk nothing by losing it. An unwise wager would be to bet God doesn't exist, as you would win nothing by being correct.';

'>>23366214
>It extends beyond the arbitrary limitation you place upon it, which is the division between yours and mine.
Am I correct in reading this as
>because God is infinite, your God and my God are actually neither yours or mine, they are simply God
If so, does belief in God simply mean belief in infinity, with no distinguishing characteristics, as that would be the imposition of a limit, and thus not the God of the wager?
That certainly removes urgency from the wager, for me. OK.
>Therefore to attain union with Him is more rewarding than any worldly accomplishment. Faith is a requirement for purification and illumination which ultimately are completed in deification. The wager simply puts belief into an economic perspective.
Was this previous reply you? If so, given your most recent reply, are you saying that union with God can be attained through a faith that negates the 'arbitrary limitation' that divides your God from my God? Can union with God be attained through any belief in anything one psychologically or spiritually labels God at all, regardless of the specifics? Or does faith need to be as non-specific as possible in order to relate to God, and avoid the non-infinite, to avoid a conceptual account of God?';

'>>23366293
What if you win the favour of a scornful God by betting that God doesn't exist?
In that case, you would win everything by not being correct. The latter wager is thus not necessarily unwise.
Please reply, nobody ever addresses this.';

'>>23366316
>a scornful God
Which god of which pantheon? We're apparently not talking about the same God, so this assumes some form of polytheism which the wager does not.';

'>>23361596
>God accepts cynical gambling in belief rather than authentic, genuine, honest non-belief
Such a God would be contemptible. Is God contemptible, anon?';

'>>23366278
By unqualified I didn't want to mean that it is an empty concept, but that it is not loaded with specific theological categories, which end up leading to irrelevant controversies. For as I said, there would be no difference between believing or not in what is indifferent, that is, in what is not conscious, intelligent, personal. The apophatic quality of the concept is something that I posited here because it impedes retorts that try to circumvent the heart of Pascal's Wager, that there might be another God EXACTLY like Christianity's but higher, more powerful or whatever, as if the belief because of that is duped.
The apophatic conception makes these qualities (higher, more powerful, different) useless and connects directly the belief with the very idea that the concept of God represents. Also, as I said, apophaticism pervades in the Bible, in the very words of God as well and prophets communicated with God without knowing him. But Pseudo-Dionysius' work is one of the most well known theological works dealing with cataphatic and apophatic aspects of theology.
Now the gain can only be something stemming from a caring, a not indifferent God. For this God must needs be intelligent, conscious and personal. But again, even though expressed in positive qualities, they are qualities pertaining to what is beyond our conceptions. However, these qualities are the only ones that warrant us the hope of understanding and reward. It is only thus that we can gain and it is only thus that we can also lose. So every other conception of God is worthless, because they are worthless of pertaining to God, they make God something lesser, which we couldn't even bother to care. Then it is only within this understanding of God that the Wager makes sense.
>What are the rewards?
Taking the above into consideration, I believe the reward is something that grants what mutual caring and relationship grant; the loss follows likewise. Saying anything more than this I believe is to engage in theological speculation, that the nature of reward is this or that, or whatever.';

'>>23366293
What if, through good karma, you will transcend to enlightenment, but by cynical gambling on a God person results in bad karma and a descent of your soul? The wager only works if you presuppose that there is a binary of 1: God exists and rewards belief or 2: Nothing transcendent exists. If you account for all possibilities, Pascals wager becomes laughable.';

'>>23366231
This is why I hate christcucks.

Notice how he does not answer any of the questions, but adds more distraction with esoteric babel and belief based axioms.
>Fear of god is the begining of wisdom
Nonsense.
This is why you don't argue with christomorons. They literally cannot see anything but the lie the grifters have given them, and most who are really into this are part of the grift.';

'>>23366319
The true God, the only God. We're not talking about the same God, because one of us is wrong, and one of us is right.
No polytheism. What if there is one, true God, and he scornful? You could bet that he doesn't exist, and then he could choose to reward you for it. So a situation exists where betting against God in the wager is not unwise.';

'>>23366396
You sound retarded.';

'>>23366412
Why would any sane person expect a reward from a non-being? Assuming you actually believe in what you're betting, i.e. making an actual wager.';

'>>23366396
I don't even care about theology, which denomination is right, I'm more or less skeptical of Jesus' miracles, but the thing is that your kind always comes up with the dumbest retorts. See how a lazy piece of shit you are that you are incapable of reading a thread before engaging with it and still refuse to do so after someone points to an information already addressed in the thread.
>Nonsense.
How is that a nonsense if the issue of ''fooling God'' is precisely what is solved, you retarded nigger?';

'>>23364917
>How does this apply to Pascal, which is the matter here?
Because the specific traditions of Christianity that most people who cite Pascal's wager are defending confess that the vast majority of people, including sincere Christians who pray daily, are going to Hell, which undercuts initial argument that wagering on God because God will reward belief infinitely.
There is a common dishonest tactic among theists where they will defend an initial philosophical thesis, such as classical theism and the immateriality of the mind or soul, and then smuggle in less probable theological beliefs, such as the Trinity, evil demons, and miracles.
>>23365262
>Pascal's wager isn't about what is morally appropriate or acceptable, it's explicitly about a pragmatic weighing up of the costs and benefits of belief, regardless of whether any moral or empirical arguments have been exhausted.
I mean inappropriate and unacceptable in an intellectual sense. Threatening people with a punishment is not an intellectually acceptable argument.
Regardless, I also find the moral dimension relevant, because internally Pascal's wager seems to lead to problems within Christianity. Is a mercenary believer gambling on an infinite reward who dedicates his earthly wayfaring to raping women serially better than an atheist serial rapist? Do Christians want churches full of mercenary believers clutching their prayer beads and volunteering at food banks not because of a sincere conviction but because of self-interest?
>>23364784
>The way I see his point is that there is always what is above and beyond any kind of activity, whose remembrance allows for transcendence and gratitude. The wager can provoke such memory.
>Although a person may be fueled by passions, he is redeemable because of his nature. One can pray to those who have lived in sin and turn their thoughts back towards God. It is wise to see that one can only repent for his own sins.
Because we have ample evidence of nonresistant nonbelievers. Thousands of former Christians are atheists even after a lifetime of sincere prayer, fasting, and chastity. If the prayer of sincere Christians isn't enough, then the self-interested prayer of a mercenary Christian should be even less effective.';

'>>23366445
>Why would any sane person expect a reward from a non-being?
They wouldn't. Nonetheless, a true God who punishes people for sincerely betting on him, and rewards people for sincerely betting against him, could exist. The latter person would not be unwise, just unwitting.
>Pascal's wager is wise because you risk nothing by losing it
A sane person would not expect a reward from a non-being, but a sane person might not be unwise to consider that since he has no true knowledge of God's nature, any bet he does or does not make could have any outcome, including negative or even infinitely negative, cruel ones.';

'>>23366362
Does this mean that Pascal's wager is entirely about wagering the existence of a God that is simply not indifferent, and in fact does include any and all belief in an intelligent, conscious, personal god? If someone believes in Brahma this way, are they actually wagering positively in Pascal's wager, as long as Brahma is not indifferent? If I believe in my mother along the lines of her being intelligent, conscious, and personal, am I also entering Pascal's wager, or are 'immaterial and/or infinite' rolled into the 'God' part of 'God who is not indifferent.'?
>Now the gain can only be something stemming from a caring, a not indifferent God. For this God must needs be intelligent, conscious and personal. But again, even though expressed in positive qualities, they are qualities pertaining to what is beyond our conceptions. However, these qualities are the only ones that warrant us the hope of understanding and reward. It is only thus that we can gain and it is only thus that we can also lose. So every other conception of God is worthless, because they are worthless of pertaining to God, they make God something lesser, which we couldn't even bother to care.
Does this include caring negatively, such as being spiteful or jealous? Such a quality could also warrant us the hope of understanding and reward, or avoidance of a potentially worse loss could it not?
Does this not warp the wager? A God who is negatively caring could still have significant implications for the gain-loss ratio of the wager, he may even invert it.';

'>>23366578
>Does this mean that Pascal's wager is entirely about wagering the existence of a God that is simply not indifferent
Since the wager would not make any sense if this was not the case, yes.
>If someone believes in Brahma this way, are they actually wagering positively in Pascal's wager, as long as Brahma is not indifferent
I believe this case to be positively so, although again, the very specific qualities of this specific branch of Hinduism (was not Brahma superseded by Vishnu, Shiva? Was Prajapati not a prior, and thus higher, God?) is alien to a fundamental understanding of God.
>If I believe in my mother along the lines of her being intelligent, conscious, and personal, am I also entering Pascal's wager, or are 'immaterial and/or infinite' rolled into the 'God' part of 'God who is not indifferent.'?
How could you think of it as some worthy retort? Seriously, this is very stupid. I literally told you what I meant by intelligence and personality in the context of apophatic theology, even though these are elements a divinity must have in order to be worth of being believed in, they are far from our common, understanding, since they are not the same predicates referred to common subjects.
>Does this include caring negatively, such as being spiteful or jealous?
How is it contrary to positively, if wanting the good also can cause one to be jealous, annoyed, sad? Anyway, here I don't see the point you're trying to make, I sincerely don't see how supposed mundane emotions predicated of God are relevant here. Who is saying that the reward and loss come only from God directly, and not from the effects of the balance or imbalance of an ultimate relationship?';

'>>23361596
>If you lose, you lose nothing.
There, there's the lie. In fact, I question how a Christian could say this when the biblical Jesus calls upon his followers to suffer and sacrifice everything for him.';

'>>23366774
How will one know if he has lost or not in that case?';

'>>23366647
>How could you think of it as some worthy retort?
I'm not trying to play dumb here, especially considering the abstraction of these ideas. I am trying to understand you and I understand you are trying to explain, but I didn't bring up my mother as some kind of gotcha.
>even though these are elements a divinity must have in order to be worth of being believed in, they are far from our common, understanding, since they are not the same predicates referred to common subjects.
Why can divine intelligence, consciousness and personality, i.e. non-indifference, on a level that is far from my own common understanding, not exist in my mother? Why can't my mother, or anyone/thing else, be included in Pascal's wager if they are being believed in through the context of non-indifference?
>I believe this case to be positively so, although again, the very specific qualities of this specific branch of Hinduism (was not Brahma superseded by Vishnu, Shiva? Was Prajapati not a prior, and thus higher, God?) is alien to a fundamental understanding of God.
Wait, why is this alien to the fundamental understanding of God? Is this speaking outside of Pascal's wager? For example
>The apophatic quality of the concept is something that I posited here because it impedes retorts that try to circumvent the heart of Pascal's Wager, that there might be another God EXACTLY like Christianity's but higher, more powerful or whatever, as if the belief because of that is duped.
Does this not very similarly address what you're saying about the Hindu gods superceding one another?';

'>>23366647
My apologies for all the text.
>How is it contrary to positively, if wanting the good also can cause one to be jealous, annoyed, sad? Anyway, here I don't see the point you're trying to make, I sincerely don't see how supposed mundane emotions predicated of God are relevant here.
>Who is saying that the reward and loss come only from God directly, and not from the effects of the balance or imbalance of an ultimate relationship?
The wager is explicitly about the believer having a chance of gaining something good, that being afterlife reward from a non-indifferent God. You phrased this as 'something that grants what mutual caring and relationship grant'. The reason why this is a good wager, is because if you lose the wager, the 'loss' or lack of reward is not having this afterlife-reward, this relationship. This is a good wager because losing is only as bad as not wagering - i.e. if you don't wager, you won't have a relationship anyway, but if you do wager, you have a chance of a relationship and a chance of not having a relationship.
If a non-indifferent God is the only type of God that matters in Pascal's wager, the reason why it matters in the wager is because, as you said, the qualities of non-indifference are the ones that warrant the understanding of hope and reward.
My problem is that this wager invites questions about whether those are the only two considerations. Relationship vs no relationship. What about a bad relationship, which is so bad, it's worse than not wagering? What about a relationship which ruins others' relationships? What about some combination of the above, that cannot be dismissed as 'supposed mundane emotions predicated of God', because we don't know his true nature and can never know?
We have supposedly used apophatic aspects of theology to define what concept of God the wager ideally addresses; intelligent, conscious, personal. What is not included in the wager, from my point of view, is an adequate consideration of relevant outcomes that bear-out from WHY these qualities are truly important. I.e., I have been told why these qualities are important, but I can see that the potential results articulated from their importance are half-complete.
A wager on a spiteful God may be theologically uninteresting or meaningless on its own, but, a wager that proposes to analyse the risk-reward nature of belief in a non-indifferent God, may not be honest with itself or its readers if it doesn't consider the possibility that God's non-indifference may be completely opposite to mutual caring, for example, cruelty. It may also have problems if it considers 'afterlife reward'
vs 'no afterlife' as the only possibilities worth considering as part of its wager, when the wager specifically claims to 'gain all' and 'lose nothing'. You may lose all, worse than you could possibly imagine, and gain nothing, even when addressing the apophatic definition of a non-indifferent God.';

'>>23366823
This is the last time I'll answer this stupidity about the mother instance. I believe you're trying to understand better, that's why I'm still here, but this issue about the mother is really retarded. But the main thing about it is that the reward does not come from your mother / your relationship with her. What is the sense in thinking that a consideration of and relation with a created person and the consideration of and relation with a non-created personal creator, which will include justification, telos of natural and human history/individual, befits the Wager which deals with our end (and end in general, end of the world, taken fully in its ambiguity)? Another is that humans are not non-indifferent, we are driven by instincts, imperceptible sensibilities, values and whatnot.
>why is this alien to the fundamental understanding of God?
I mean, God is personal, intelligent, caring. Ok. Now God has eight eyes, he is brown, he came out of an egg, actually engaged in a debate with another god to settle who was the greatest... do you need more? How is that fundamental on the Wager level, that is, how is God's having brown skin fundamental to settle belief in God?
>Does this not very similarly address what you're saying about the Hindu gods superceding one another?
Yes, polytheistic gods in general have held different positions among themselves, plus brings back Eutyphro's problem. That's why they are not fundamental aspects of divinity, the Biblical God stripped out of many particular qualities ascribed to Him by the Bible still retains this fundamental, metaphysical aspect.';

'>>23366944
>>23366823
>the Biblical God stripped out of many particular qualities ascribed to Him by the Bible still retains this fundamental, metaphysical aspect.
Let me a bit clearer here: I believe that Brahma's case could be that too if stripped out of all those particular characteristics, Brahma being the Creator is as fundamental as Biblical God, it it interesting that the names might generate particularities too Brahma, Prajapati, etc. so suppose a sign '26878' referring to all in common that those particular names represent, Creator, Intelligent, etc. they all agree, and in this fundamental aspect the beliefs converge.';

'>>23366874
I'll have to answer this tomorrow. It's late up here and I need to depart.
But meanwhile, I'll leave a short answer for what I skimmed from your post:
>My problem is that this wager invites questions about whether those are the only two considerations. Relationship vs no relationship. What about a bad relationship, which is so bad, it's worse than not wagering?
The wagering and not wagering are what determine the relationship, it is not the relationship that comes before the wager/belief.';

'>>23366874
>A wager on a spiteful God may be theologically uninteresting or meaningless on its own, but, a wager that proposes to analyse the risk-reward nature of belief in a non-indifferent God, may not be honest with itself or its readers if it doesn't consider the possibility that God's non-indifference may be completely opposite to mutual caring, for example, cruelty
So you're trying to say that there might be a possibility of the necessary belief in question being a belief on a cruel God instead of a good God, of having a bad relationship, blasfemous, hating on him, instead of believing positively in him, that this opposite belief is what will grant the reward? But then why would these words refer to what they do? Why would belief be then the same as it is instead of non-belief, so that believing thus would not be not believing thus?';

'>>23361596
no one mentioned hitchens?

this guy summed up this quite well. to take stock in pascals wager is to believe in an incredibly stupid god

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c6_hlkrtx94';

'>>23366231
Fear is one of the most debilitating emotions possible. It literally makes you incapable of thinking. No wonder Christians are so lost at sea if they esteem it so highly.';

'>>23367038
bald';

'>>23361644
Nietzsche called Pascal the most logical Christian.
At least Pascal is honest, heaven and hell are the most important parts of Christianity, at least they are potential experiences we might have, who cares about worshipping an abstract idea?
The wager is basically an early exercise in decision theory, which is now its own field. Making rational decisions might be more important than just having a bunch of random justified true beliefs.
Of course the only certainty the wager can give you (if you think it makes sense at all) is that you made the right decision, not that God really exists. Just like going all-in with AA in poker is the correct decision but that doesn't mean you will win every time.';

'>>23366311
God transcends limitations. He is simple and indivisible, and His attributes are unified. He is also immanent, with His infinity participating in finitude. The distinguishing characteristics and specifics are there to guide us towards God. Positive theology affirms attributes of God, for example, by saying that God is love. However, these attributes do not provide an exhaustive account of God. This is one reason why negative theology is more pronounced in Eastern Orthodoxy. God is not finite, not material, not mortal, and not human love. While we can label anything as God, it is only when we worship things that we engage in idolatry. When understanding God as being of the wager, you are stuck in a conceptual account. The wager is simply a way to understand God and not a definitive encapsulation of what God is. Union with God, or theosis, is attained through katharsis, or purification, and theoria, or illumination. The wager can help purify the mind by putting things in an ordered perspective through ascribing an economic weight to them. Pascal wasn't a saint, though.';

'>>23366195
huh?';

'>>23366367
I can't wver see how anyone can be in favor of Pascal's wager after this image gets posted.

It doesn't make sense by itself, different denominations of Christians will often believe the others will be in hell.
There's no way he didn't know that- he was just willfully ignoring it';

'>>23367068
Fear does not make you incapable of thinking, but incapable of acting. But this specific fear of God makes you incapable of taking specific actions. Now what does it have to do with the wager?';

'>>23367425
>>23366367
Read these posts:
>>23366944
>>23366963
>>23366362
And the others following the exchange.

The wager does not imply a full commitment to specific aspects that might follow the belief in God, they are not necessarily dependent. Also, the idea of karma is one of the most stupid ones because it ignores completely that morality is predicated of agency and personality, Kant shows this very clearly.';

'>>23367015
>So you're trying to say that there might be a possibility of the necessary belief in question being a belief on a cruel God instead of a good God, of having a bad relationship, blasfemous, hating on him, instead of believing positively in him, that this opposite belief is what will grant the reward?
No. I'm saying the necessary belief in question might be a belief in a good God. And then the God may turn out to be cruel. One could sincerely apply to the wager along the lines of a good relationship, and the outcome of the wager could be that the non-indifferent God is cruelly, spitefully non-indifferent. Hence the reward vs loss would not be 'afterlife reward of a good relationship' vs 'no relationship'. Instead it would be 'afterlife reward of a good relationship' vs 'non-indifferent punishment of a bad relationship', or something worse than a bad relationship, where the believer is sincere in an attempt at a good relationship but is punished with a bad one by God, a God who would necessarily be able to do this while still being a logical consideration of the concept of God implied by the wager.';

'>>23368021
Why would this God be spiteful? Out of resentment? He would be lacking something? Why would the concept of God be fitting for this kind of being which seems to have nothing of what qualifies to befit into the concept? Hence why I wrote “ then why would these words refer to what they do? Why would belief be then the same as it is instead of non-belief, so that believing thus would not be not believing thus?”. If we can’t decide what our words and ideas refer to, why would we talk about this or anything at all?';

'>>23361596
The problem with the wager idea is that God weighs and tests the hearts of man. Faith as a gamble isn't real faith.

>>23361673
It does not.';

'>>23361644
>we value truth
>proceeds to tell himself lies
As expected from (You).';

'>>23367731
To accept the wager, you have to believe God is extremely petty and will accept the most depraved type of hedge-betting out of selfish fear, not out of love for Him. To believe in such a God is an insult to the concept of God. Also, again, it assumes that God must accept basic belief and reward you. There's no reason not to believe that God actually rewards sincerity, thus it might be better to disbelief with an honest heart rather than dishonestly and deceptively proclaim belief only because you want a reward.';

'>>23368564
Not really, I see it more like some rules that you should follow for your own good. Do you analyse every social and cultural aspect of the place where you live? Do you go after those responsible for making the law, to discuss and understand each line thereof or you just better not do what is wrong so you can develop your life peacefully? But even then the analogy is not perfect because it might be said that it is not God who punishes, it is not a chastisement, a direct punishment.
>There's no reason not to believe that God actually rewards sincerity
Most are not sincere, most just want to refute, to push down what they dislike. A honest non-believer would not indulge in low offenses, would not contrive ways of getting out of metaphysical, moral, epistemological, existential arguments pointing, if not to God, I can concede it, but it in no way points to no-God necessity. I like that Pascal says in an aphorism that if there is no God everything is inconceivable, but if there is a God, everything is likewise inconceivable.
>dishonestly and deceptively proclaim belief only because you want a reward.
But again, there is absolutely nothing wrong with it, God himself says this all the time in the Bible, people will never be like God, who gives himself freely, de gratia, hence grace, which only God is capable of.';

'>>23361924
Obviously, you forget the part where you place all the responsibility on "God".';

'>>23368621
Bro, even Dawkins acknowledges you can't "disprove" God, the point is that if you look at the phenomenon of religion in an anthropological way, it's clear that human beings who gather into groups make up some wild stories and then the crowd mentality takes over and they begin to believe these arbitrary stories are real (possible due to the utilitarian benefits of a common mass delusion). An honest person is obliged to eschew formal theism and, at the absolute extent of charity, allow for a deism of the type of Thomas Paine (while still eviscerating theistic lies). You seem to begin with the premise that people who oppose theism are enemies of truth, when it is the opposite. If you defend the truth, you must oppose lies, and religion taken as a whole is categorically mostly lies, since even if one section is true, by virtue of mutual incompatibility, the rest will be false. The starting point should be disbelief, since there is no justification for accepting Christianity over Islam over Hinduism over Zoroastrianism over Pagan god worship. The truth of any one means the lie of dozens, thus, the honest position is to hold them all to be equally likely untrue.';

'>>23369289
>the point is that if you look at the phenomenon of religion in an anthropological way, it's clear that human beings who gather into groups make up some wild stories and then the crowd mentality takes over and they begin to believe these arbitrary stories are real (possible due to the utilitarian benefits of a common mass delusion)
You should do yourself a favor and read any book about comparative religion, phenomenology/psychology of religion. It is literally impossible for religions to be rationally created. Seriously I don't even know where to begin, but try to think how humanity in the beginning had barely any language separated from senses, how inductive reasoning was something barely reflexive, how the category of permanence of objects was still moving from the way a baby has no idea of it (an object that goes out of his vision no longer exists, its existence is nullified, and when it returns to its visual field, it returns with no explanation, as a miracle). This was how humanity as a whole was before the developments of reason/language, culture/society, so obviously the divine was something natural because nature was also something mysterious.
>An honest person is obliged to eschew formal theism
Because you confuse metaphysical theology with traditional theistic beliefs, I don't know what the fuck you mean by formal theism.
>You seem to begin with the premise that people who oppose theism are enemies of truth, when it is the opposite
Truth? What do you even mean by that? Again as I have explained to another anon, Pascal's wager takes epistemological assertiveness of truth of the fact of God's existence as useless to the very question concerning belief in God's existence. I don't know how you people are so dense as to be oblivious of this existential element of the wager.
>Religion taken as a whole is categorically mostly lies
Yes, I also think religion is illusion, lie, deception. I'd just add ''useful'' as predicate. However, as I also have mentioned in this thread, religiosity has nothing to do with Pascal's wager.
>even if one section is true, by virtue of mutual incompatibility, the rest will be false
I also pointed to the underlying metaphysical and epistemological implications of that superficial, contingent form that characterizes religions, they remain universal.
>The starting point should be disbelief
This is as dogmatic as belief as prior supposition. You are by essence a crass dogmatist, this shines through the words of your post. Suspending judgment is constrained by neither, since nothing is given to constrain belief or disbelief.
>there is no justification for accepting Christianity over Islam over Hinduism over Zoroastrianism over Pagan god worship
Which is not the point of the wager, again! Read the thread and the posts mentioned, for fuck's sake.';

'>>23369399
What is all this waffle? Pascal's Wager explicitly exists in relation to religiosity, because it is wagering that a God exists who will reward a cynical, artificial belief as opposed to a genuine non-belief. That is what the wager is! You can't just pepper "metaphysical" and "epistemological" through your post and pretend you're making a profound point. Disbelief should be the default if my preceding logic holds true, that most of religion is a lie, and if you value truth over falsehood, you must remain in disbelief. This is not dogma, it is a syllogism, which you you already admit the first part of: that most of religion is lies, so you must take exception to the following part and instead value useful lies over the truth. Thus, my point, you cannot be honest and truthful and at the same time accept theistic tenets. You basically admit as much with your post. Again, for Pascal's Wager to work, you must begin with the assumption that the deity you are giving your cynical belief to will honor deceit and accept dishonesty over honest and straightforward non-belief.';

'>>23369753
>What is all this waffle?
You literally were the one who sperged out into reddit-tier enthusiasm of recently discovered interest in anthropological materialism.
>Pascal's Wager explicitly exists in relation to religiosity, because it is wagering that a God exists
It is an existential proposition that follows from the fact that however we live we are already making a wager.
>cynical, artificial belief as opposed to a genuine non-belief
I have explained this a thousand of times, this ''conditional'' belief is the rule for every believer, we cannot exist if not by the pursuit of what we conceive is good for us.
>You can't just pepper "metaphysical" and "epistemological" through your post and pretend you're making a profound point
As if that was the intention and not addressing your stupidity in implying belief in God, a belief implicating universal concept, is the same as full commitment to a specific religious form.
>Disbelief should be the default if my preceding logic holds true, that most of religion is a lie, and if you value truth over falsehood, you must remain in disbelief
Retard, what is false about Being? What is false about causation? What is false about metaphysics, epistemology, ethics? (protip: these are not matters of simply truth and falsity, but of inquiry itself, like science is). Religion is the sensible, contingent side of what are perennial and fundamental issues concerning human reason, human existence and experience.
>honor deceit and accept dishonesty over honest and straightforward non-belief.
So the wager is only on one side? Why belief in God, even if grounded on the desire of my own well-being, is not a belief? I want my well being so much that I will not risk being oblivious to this possible outcome, that a God might exist and that I better leave it open as a belief, or that I will carry this belief because it makes me feel good? Why is this not a genuine belief? Why is this not a wager?';

'>>23361596
BUT consider this:
Since becoming aware of religion as a choice, you have doubtless discovered that at least one that you don't belong to is untenable.
If there are N religions in the world.
Like in the famed Monty Hall problem then, a betting man should change religions every time he discovers another one to be untenable.
It strictly improves his odds with respect to Pascals wager.';

'>>23369854
You type so much to say so little. You ignore the entire point about the origin of religious belief, in short, that it arises out of primitive fictions told to one another by barbarous people.

Pascal used his wager as a call to a certain belief, not as an observation that there is a wager being conducted in all directions, and, once again, if he had acknowledged this, he would have been on the side of a cynical type of selfish deceit whereby one would profess a belief in the divine for no other reason than as a kind of legal maneuver to trick God into rewarding a hollow profession of belief with none of the weight of authenticity or honesty that a man should attach to his beliefs. Such a proposition is foolish on it's face, and if you can't see that then it's your loss.

Once more, you admit something previously, but once it becomes inconvenient you pretend it doesn't exist. Most religious assertions are false. You admitted such here:>>23369399 Thus, any defense of religion must come with the corollary of accepting falsehood for it's utility; not a particularly dignified position to place oneself.

To answer you on the topic of wagering on honesty, I shall say a word or two. If there comes the option of conducting oneself with virtue, truth, goodness, compassion for others, integrity, and dignity, or to embrace selfishness, falsehood, deceit, and the desire to benefit oneself through dishonesty, I shall forever feel myself justified in choosing the former and condemning the latter. If God exists, and he be just, he shall reward this sentiment, if he exists and is not just, I would be a fool to try to placate him, and if he does not exist, I will have done right by myself and my fellow man and drift away to oblivion with a clear conscience and a light heart. I fear you with your embrace of lies will fare more poorly.';

'>>23361596
This is only considering Christianity. Is a Muslim supposed to make the same wager? If not then it seems to say that faith should be questioned and if judged so, rejected.';

'>>23361596
I believe in God, but not because of Pascal’s wager, that would be silly. No, instead I actually had a meeting with God. I was out on one of my usual walks in the woods when lo’ in front of me a burning bush! I couldn’t believe it. In my trembling terror I asked what this bush was. It said, “I am.” I immediately prostated myself in reverence. God said He was going to show me something very important. I suddenly found myself floating over an endless plain of fire. Engulfed in this fire were an infinite multitude of screaming people. To my left floating with me was a dazzling figure I could hardly look at. God's brilliance was stunning. I asked Him why there were so many in Hell. He told me all followers of Abrahamic religions go to Hell for all eternity. I looked on in horror, but He assured me they were all here by choice and gave out a mirthy chuckle. When I heard that, I too began to laugh. After all, God knows best. He then floated over a few feet to a wall and, with a loving grin, cranked up the thermostat a few more degrees. The screams became even louder. I asked about Jesus and He told me that Jesus was just one of His many tests. The correct answer, He said, was to reject Jesus as a false prophet. He laughed again and said the answer was painfully obvious. We were about to leave Hell when God addressed the inhabitants of Hell and told them He loved them with all his heart, but I don’t think they heard Him over the roaring flames and screams. Then, just as fast as we entered Hell we entered Heaven. I found myself in the company of Daniel Dennett and Christopher Hitchens. After some chatting Hitchens handed me a cigarette. I politely refused as I don’t smoke, but he insisted I take it. After a great time in Heaven God bid me adieu and I was returned to the forest path. I walked for a bit and began to doubt my experience as perhaps the heat getting to me, but then I reached into my pocket and found the cigarette! God is good, friends. God is good.';

'>granted that faith cannot be proved
theres the lie';

'>>23370970
that could have been a hallucination. how do you determine it to not be that.';

'I hope everyone goes to heaven :)';

'>>23371005
I had the cigarette in my pocket, silly. I don't smoke let alone take cigs with me on a walk. Also, God told me that people who accuse my journey with Him of being a hallucination, or even suggest that it might be, are also doomed to Hell for all eternity.';

'>>23371015
well then i guess im going to hell. false memory and hallucination explains your experience.';

'>>23371020
God loves you and yes you are going to Hell.';

'>>23370753
>You ignore the entire point about the origin of religious belief, in short, that it arises out of primitive fictions told to one another by barbarous people.
Are you retarded? I literally said here >>23369399 that religion is the product of the stage in which human mind is child-like.
> Pascal used his wager as a call to a certain belief
Not to call, but to change it. Man is made of beliefs.

>religion is false…
You are only repeating yourself, I already told you and to other people here, with relative subtlety, what religions implicate concerning metaphysics, epistemology (the case of induction is obvious), morality. Read a book for once, I recommend Gorgias, which is short, so you can understand why religions are useful illusions. Art, myth can be thus too.';

'>>23371027
God doesn't exist. It's a fantasy in your mind.';

'>>23371040
No shit.';

'>>23367113
>Nietzsche called Pascal the most logical Christian.
Nietzsche was borderline retarded himself so that's not surprising.
> The wager is basically an early exercise in decision theory, which is now its own field. Making rational decisions might be more important than just having a bunch of random justified true beliefs.
It is extremely poor. One does not need a modicum of knowledge of decision theory to understand how intellectually bankrupt the argument is and refute it.';

'>>23370970
Crazy I had the exact same experience. The burning bush, the cigarette, Hitchens, Dennett, all of it. This means it cannot have been a hallucination and is definitely real.';

'>>23361644
*tips the fedora with a smug on the face*';

'>>23371047
God is Good!';

'Religion is for weak, empty, fearful souls. If you have strength and wisdom, you can engage with reality without an imaginary supernatural presence to mediate between your spirit and the world.';

'>>23371058
Most people are weak, anon. Let them believe.';

'>>23361596
>the lie
loaded question';

'>>23370753
>I shall forever feel myself justified in choosing the former and condemning the latter
But why? What is the reason for doing so?';

'>>23371043
>One does not need a modicum of knowledge of decision theory to understand how intellectually bankrupt the argument is and refute it.
It was a different time.';

'>>23371232
was it really though?
i can imagine even the dumbest of rocks thinking "wait, arent there more beliefs than just that?"';

'>>23361596
"Belief" based on a meme wager isn't belief at all. So the wager is pointless. You can't just choose to believe in god based on muh wager.';

'>>23361596
Learning about Pascal's wager is unironically what turned me into an atheist.
Insincere, frantic worship in the hope you strike jackpot and don't get tortured in the afterlife? Doesn't get much more cucked than that.';

'>>23371259
Read Gorgias retard.';

'>>23371275
>read 9001 pages of theory, chud!
>and if that doesn't convince you, you just need to read more of it!
>and don't you dare point out contradictions between different authors, the only thing that matters is that they agree on the one issue I care about!
Fuck off, seen these tricks already.
The fact that Pascal's wager wasn't branded as blasphemy speaks volumes about the actual values of the Catholic Church.';

'>>23371238
I don't think Pascal's argument succeeds but then most philosophers are wrong about most things because they all contradict each other and if you just accept the law of non-contradiction, which most do, they can't all be right.
What's often more interesting is how they thought, if they have new methods, new concepts and categories etc. Pascal was the first philosopher I'm aware of that said that God can not be proven through reason but there might be other ways of acting reasonably with imperfect information. I still disagree with some of the criticisms in this thread:
>>23366367
The outcomes in case different Abrahamic religions are true are very pessimistic. It's important to note that Pascal's wager includes more than just one conscious decision, he thought that if you dive into a religion you are likely to develop genuine faith over time, so at least you would have a high chance of heaven if Catholicism is true, but possibly also with other denominations.';

'>>23371282
First of all, I am what they might connot under the term “chud”, so yeah no. Secondly, Gorgias is 100 pages, too much for you right?
Thirdly what authors? I cited only one.
Fourthly, Catholic Churc? Cool but I don’t give the reins of my intellect to any other authority than myself.';

'>>23371259
>Insincere, frantic worship in the hope you strike jackpot and don't get tortured in the afterlife? Doesn't get much more cucked than that.
>>23371282
>The fact that Pascal's wager wasn't branded as blasphemy speaks volumes about the actual values of the Catholic Church.
To me this is actually the form of Christianity that makes the most sense, maybe it's because I'm not much of an idealist. When we look at the God of the Old Testament that's basically the view of God, we are completely powerless before him, he is the potter and is free to destroy whatever he made. Christians often say that God is good, but he is good in the sense that whatever he does is automatically good by definition, not that he is good in the sense that his actions correspond to our moral intuitions. When I look at the natural world I get the same feeling, if this world is a reflection of who God is, then the most intuitive view of God is that he is pretty harsh.';

'>>23371389
>if this world is a reflection of who God is, then the most intuitive view of God is that he is pretty harsh.
But this world is not what was intended to be. I guess that what is argued for this seemingly unknown good which we can’t discern, is that our intellect cannot see all the dimension of each thing, so we cannot understand what is really good. It’s like a father warning and chastising us for things the consequences of which we have no apprehension.';

'>>23371409
I guess you are referring to the fall in Genesis. Certain interpretations of Genesis change the view on the Christian God but I think they are in conflict with empirical data. If the world is old and our current view of evolution is roughly true, then natural evil at least has existed long before humans existed so it couldn't have been caused by the first humans.
I interpret the fall very loosely, it points at some psychological tendencies that we have, which Christians would call sinful. I don't use the word sin but of course we have the potential for violence and so on, so I agree with the observation itself.
Whether the Christian God exists or not, we are powerless before the cosmic forces, be they natural or supernatural, be it God or gods or reincarnation, whatever. Maybe most people really go to hell, this is not an uncommon belief and it could just be a harsh truth. In that case maybe all we can do is look for any way to avoid that, and if something like the wager is all we can do, maybe that's just the way it is. It's a cucked way of thinking but we are cucks before any higher power.';

'>>23361678
that doesn't mean the belief is true or justified however';

'>>23361596
>You lose nothing by following jewish slave morality teachings';

'>>23371332
>the original argument is a couple sentences
>your counterargument is a couple sentences
>my reply is 100 pages, the entire corpus of someone else's work that I could not be bothered to summarize nor cite selectively nor make any specific claim about how it's relevant to the argument at hand
>why aren't you taking me seriously?
Again, stale pilpul.
>b-but I'm le based!
If you use the same rhetorical posturing of marxists and feminists you're a faggot, regardless of what you're actually posturing for.';

'>>23371748
You shouldn't even be allowed to access this board without having read Plato beforehand';

'>>23371098
Did you stop reading at that line? I laid out exactly why in the very next sentence:
>If God exists, and he be just, he shall reward this sentiment, if he exists and is not just, I would be a fool to try to placate him, and if he does not exist, I will have done right by myself and my fellow man and drift away to oblivion with a clear conscience and a light heart.';

'>>23371036
You prefer lies, I prefer truth. I'm content to let the conversation end on these terms.';

'>>23372087
Again, you don’t read. Truth is not something uncontroversial epistemologically. Ironically you are the one preferring lies because you don’t even recognize some of them as such.';

'>>23371036
>>23371275
>>23371332
>READ GORGIAS!
>READ GORGIAS!!
>READ GORGIAS!!!
Present his arguments yourself or commit suicide post haste, nigger.';

'>>23372146
You've already acknowledged that you would defend a useful lie. You admit you are on the side of illusion and falsehood. I proclaim I am on the side of truth. Do what you must to cope with these facts.';

'>>23372255
Where did I say that I defend a useful lie instead of whatever I believe is true? I’m merely pointing to the fact that religion is not something wholly illogical, unnatural, unreasonable, it literally has implications of moral and metaphysical inquiry. How can you be this fucking dense?';

'>>23372082
I mean, what reason do you have to know that being kind to others is right? That being good is the right thing to do?';

'>>23361596 (OP)
I wanna take ratio and faith in same place; imo they serving same purpose cause as you describe belief can be dangerous in wrong hands like Christians using it wrongly...(as a Muslim i can criticize my people: Also they are being in false belief yes i admit it that this too dangerous).
But also ratio "CAN'T" say to us that which thing is true or false because as Plato and Aristo did back then The Human Beings need to stand somewhere constant. It's can be Idea/Form or Logic. In the end all of them being a justified/grounded belief.
A person can say that on base of his rationality the most good is being pragmatic cause it comes with good interest. I can giving Machiavelli for example. Any means to seize power is legitimate he says or something like this my translate can be wrong u gotta check it out yourself :D(if i'm wrong write me back fellas)
And when we talking about Pascal's wager theorie we're missing some point; if we believing in wager (i mean if we believing that heaven is true then in this wager I/myself need to act base on that belief rules There is one doctrin in Islam it goes like this: Belief isn't belief if you are not act on that)
In the and i wanna say this wager thing isn't running down to easy way if you taking the wager you need to play like champion. You can fool people on wager... but GOD... you can't';

'Faith is dead without works';

'>>23372276
I can claim the popcorn kernel lodged in my back tooth "has implications of moral and metaphysical inquiry". It's the type of thing a pseud says when he doesn't know what he is talking about.';

'>>23372288
The universal desire for the personal good. I know I desire things, and feel good when they are achieved. Others have desire and feel good when those desires are fulfilled. Out of the mutual engagement and synergistic fulfillment of mutually compatible desires arises a sublime camaraderie which, itself, transcends the mere form of the desires in question and constitutes the highest mode of being in unity with virtue, the character of which can be discovered through honesty, goodness, truth, and beauty. A rational and dispassionate examination of the human condition will lead to this conclusion, unless the individual human subject be such an unfortunate soul as we call "sociopath" or "psychopath". These unfortunate beings degrade the project of the dignity of the human soul and must be dealt with accordingly, guided by justice. In short, Aristotelian virtues can be discovered in the manifest world of human experience, thus, the wise man pursues them and with a cheerful disposition and a light heart. He encourages and brightens all those around him until the light of the human soul shines to it's brightest hue, and the angelic thrum of the human spirit reaches that highest, exalted pitch. To know this is to answer your question.';

'>>23372713
The goodness of works proves utility and renders faith superfluous.';

'>>23372896
No retard, religion served as a tool for social order and cohesion, it justified action and omission on the grounds of abstraction, representamen. Why are you so dumb?';

'>>23372952
As I said already, if you look at religion anthropologically, it is a collection of arbitrary lies and illusions which have the utility of social cohesion. The claims themselves, however, almost universally conflict, thus they must be regarded generally as falsehoods. It's okay, I'll take the time to spell it out for you again.';

'>>23372927
>The universal desire for the personal good.
Desire is universal, but personal is subjective. Personal desire is subjection of the universal act of pursuit to particular, subjective ends. Now this implies nothing of a reason that is not subjective and arbitrary. So you didn't answer the question.
>A rational and dispassionate examination of the human condition will lead to this conclusion
A rational examination will lead to the proofs we have of survival competition, natural right of providing for one's own survival and good. Even if for instance avoiding to kill creates superficial bonds (society), this is ultimately for the good of oneself (not being killed in return, pursuing one's desires peacefully, survival, sex, etc.). You are being very unscientific, very whimsical of the sort of a mystic preacher, calling for a spurious union. How ironic, of course the gaytheist is a idolater of false ideas.';

'>>23372959
>it is a collection of arbitrary lies and illusions which have the utility of social cohesion
Wow, we moved from only lies to having utility. This is a nice step, but still a small one seeing that you are not even honest enough to recognize your faults, specially the ones made against another person. But I don't have the time to keep lecturing you. Educate yourself, try reading books.';

'>>23372974
Human survival depends to a great degree on solidarity, trust, and community. We have existed under such conditions for so long we have developed an innate sense of fairness, even extending to tender feelings for those other than ourselves who are treated wrongly. Your insistence on the importance of placing oneself above the community seems to indicate that you may be just such a sociopath as I mentioned earlier.';

'>>23372979
Cling to your falsehood with the shallow appeal to utility if you wish, I, for one, will pursue the truth unclouded by the snare of illusion and self deception.';

'>>23362306
damn thats hit hard';

'>>23361596
This pascal bitch is talking about wagers! Oh dear me, this is an induction! How can he even profess any sort of wisdom?';

'>>23373053
>Human survival depends to a great degree on solidarity, trust, and community
Human survival depends to a great degree on... cohesion/community. The rest is obviously just your usual mawkish abstraction of bio-chemical survival instincts and tools.
Now you obviously proceed like those mad raving ideal-peddlers, accusing others who side with actual facts, with science and human intellectual progress, of sociopathy, of being an heretic excommunicated from your sect.';

'>>23373099
Prithee, my squire, I beg thy pardon, for a whim which propels me to address so curious a feeling striking deeply is barely bearable to restrain; now, I must invite your disposition to answer me: what didst thou expect when you opted to craft such an intriguing post, after which you proceeded to click on the button ''Post''?';

'>>23373131
Ah you sound like a perfectly reasonable sort, forgive my use of sound good sir, I'm in such a terrible state at the moment, I need someone to provide me with a metaphysics that is completely devoid of induction, this pascal is talking about wagers, and that is certainly inductive. Is there a metaphysics that is devoid of induction?';

'This thread was moved to >>>/his/16610059';