Pascal's Wager is an argument in apologetic philosophy devised by the seventeenth-century French philosopher, mathematician and physicist Blaise Pascal (1623–62).[1] It posits that humans all bet with their lives either that God exists or not. Given the possibility that God actually does exist and assuming an infinite gain or loss associated with belief or unbelief in said God (as represented by an eternity in heaven or hell), a rational person should live as though God exists and seek to believe in God. If God does not actually exist, such a person will have only a finite loss (some pleasures, luxury, etc.).[2]

Pascal formulated the wager within a Christian framework. The wager was set out in section 233 of Pascal's posthumously published Pensées ("Thoughts". These previously unpublished notes were assembled to form an incomplete treatise on Christian apologetics.

Historically, Pascal's Wager was groundbreaking because it charted new territory in probability theory, marked the first formal use of decision theory and anticipated future philosophies such as existentialism, pragmatism and voluntarism.[3]


For more, including criticism click http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal's_Wager

Just a brief take on the wager

OP, the chart you posted assumes that you have chosen the right God or religion. Here's what the chart should look like in reality. Feel free to play your odds now.

And then again you will have to put all God(s) into consideration. .
If you are a christian then die and find out islam was right then you are going to get fvcked up in hell. same goes if hindhus were right, if christianity were right, if jainism was right, and so the options extends to more than 5,000 gods . . just how right can you be

You are atheistic to 4,999 Gods, atheist just disbelief 1more God than you.. so u see?
Your odds as a theist is 99.9% the same with that of an atheist

Since religious people insist on regurgitating the same dead arguments over and over, I'm going to just copy and paste the same thing I posted 4 years ago.

EvilBrain1:
Wow, this Pascal's wager has really opened my eyes to the folly of atheism. From now on, I'm going to become a born-again Christian and serve Jehovah God so he doesn't throw me in hell.

But come to think of it, isn't it risky to stick to just one god? What if my parents were wrong and I'm betting on the wrong horse? I don't want to end up in hell! Just to be safe, I think I'll also start worshiping Allah, Shiva, Orunmila, Chukwu, Egbesu and all of the thousands of other gods. This might take a while.

But then many of these gods have rules against worshiping other gods. If the one true god turns out to be the jealous type (e.g. Yahweh or Allah), he/she is going to be pissed at me for praying to all the others. Not to forget that there are different variants of all these gods (which Yahweh should I worship, the jewish, catholic, pentecostal or jehovah's witness version?).

Gaddem, this stuff is far too much stress. I'm going back to being an atheist (I actually prefer the term rational empiricist)

EvilBrain1:
Since religious people insist on regurgutating the same dead arguments over and over, Im going to just copy and paste the same thing I posted 4 years ago.

My apologies evilbrain. I dont go around looking at 4 year old topics before posting. Posting Pascals wager isnt a call for u to reject ur believe but rather it proffers an interesting perspective. timmy2409 even posted an expanded version which i found verry interesting.

Pascal's Wager is for stinking hypocrites.

EnlightenedSoul:
Pascal's Wager is for stinking hypocrites.

and am in love with this one

timmy2409:
OP, the chart you posted assumes that you have chosen the right God or religion. Here's what the chart should look like in reality. Feel free to play your odds now.

'The wager' refers to the creator God. It matters not how each religion choose to identify with it.

Your expanded version is just a repetition of the same thing.

'The wager' doesn't make much sense to me cause it assumes two extremes:


1) A disbelief in God, necessarily leads one to destruction.

2) A belief in God leads one to salvation.

It's not as clear-cut as that.

Ifeann:


My apologies evilbrain. I dont go around looking at 4 year old topics before posting. Posting Pascals wager isnt a call for u to reject ur believe but rather it proffers an interesting perspective. timmy2409 even posted an expanded version which i found verry interesting.

Fair enough. But you really should search Nairaland or the internet in general to see if what you want to post has already been debunked. You have no idea how annoying it is to have to kill the same zombie argument over and over again.

It seems that because Christians cant win on logic, their strategy is to wear atheists down by spamming the section with the same copy/pasted nonsense in multiple threads and pretending each time that its a fresh idea that just occurred to them. The moment no atheist bothers to reply, they start circlejerking each other that they've "proved" god exists and "defeated" the foolish atheists.

The amount of energy needed to refute bullshít is an order of magnitude more than the energy needed to produce it. And its very tiring.

striktlymi:
'The wager' doesn't make much sense to me cause it assumes two extremes:


1) A disbelief in God, necessarily leads one to destruction.

2) A belief in God leads one to salvation.

It's not as clear-cut as that.

But isn't a belief in God necessary for salvation? Didn't Jesus say he who believes will be saved and he who doesn't will be damned? Isn't faith and belief inextricably linked? For by grace are ye saved through faith.

McSterling:
But isn't a belief in God necessary for salvation? Didn't Jesus say he who believes will be saved and he who doesn't will be damned? Isn't faith and belief inextricably linked? For by grace are ye saved through faith.

lol same way belief in allah is necessary for salvation, same goes to krishna, wotan, thor and thousand other GOD.

Chances that you chose the right God is just 0.1% (even tho God(s) are just human invention and afterlife is born of out sheer selfish wishful thinking) remember you dont believe in allah, krishna or thor and 4,999 other God(s) the only difference between you and atheist is that an atheist don't believe in 5000 God(s) that includes yours.

So assuming islam was right, as a christian you will burn in hell for not believing in God, assuming vikings are right then all adherents of the other 4,999 God(s) will burn in hell for not believing in God. . . so you see? as a theist your chances of being wrong is 99.9% almost same thing with an atheist.

McSterling:
But isn't a belief in God necessary for salvation? Didn't Jesus say he who believes will be saved and he who doesn't will be damned? Isn't faith and belief inextricably linked? For by grace are ye saved through faith.

Yes you are right in a sense but it is not exactly that straightforward.

If you read through Luke: 12:47-48 you may realize that the belief Jesus and the Apostles spoke about is also tied to the individual's level of exposure to what is 'true'.

Not everyone is gifted with the Christian faith; and for some, whatever it is they practice, they perceive that as the truth because of their level of 'exposure'.

For those who are exposed to the Christian faith, for which the Spirit has revealed the 'truth', they have a responsibility to believe.

For them "belief" becomes a prerequisite for salvation. This is not applicable to those who do not have such exposure. For these category of persons, their exposure to the natural law as guided by 'right conscience' should suffice.

striktlymi:

'The wager' refers to the creator God. It matters not how each religion choose to identify with it.
Your expanded version is just a repetition of the same thing.

Because every god promises to cook you for eternity for a lack of belief in him? Since when was that part of the definition of the word 'god'? And polytheists are suddenly irrelevant?

Pascal was clearly speaking of xtian god.

striktlymi:


Yes you are right in a sense but it is not exactly that straightforward.

If you read through Luke: 12:47-48 you may realize that the belief Jesus and the Apostles spoke about is also tied to the individual's level of exposure to what is 'true'.

Not everyone is gifted with the Christian faith; and for some, whatever it is they practice, they perceive that as the truth because of their level of 'exposure'.

For those who are exposed to the Christian faith, for which the Spirit has revealed the 'truth', they have a responsibility to believe.

For them "belief" becomes a prerequisite for salvation. This is not applicable to those who do not have such exposure. For these category of persons, their exposure to the natural law as guided by 'right conscience' should suffice.

So, according to this, a Muslim who adheres to his religious text's command to kill nonbelievers would be judged by his religious text which is his own truth and could still go to heaven.

Even the passage you referred to doesn't entirely preclude punishment for the ignorant. It only alluded to a lesser punishment. It even lends credence to the belief that there is a universal objective truth because there are obviously things "worthy of stripes" which he was ignorant of. If he was to be judged by his own subjective truth, why punish him at all?

I concede that your view is more humanistic and less sadistic than what the Bible actually says but I think the Bible is unequivocal in letting us know that only belief in Jesus ensures salvation. Even Jesus said he's the only way to the Father. No two-way about it. This is the motivation for Christian proselytizing.

Aside the fact that a life lived as a wager absent conviction is a genuine waste; the truth is that neither belief nor unbelief of the sort depicted here renders safe passage for the soul of man upon exit from its physical garment. Only a heart full of undimmed love for all that rests in creation does.

DeepSight:

Aside the fact that a life lived as a wager absent conviction is a genuine waste; the truth is that neither belief nor unbelief of the sort depicted here renders safe passage for the soul of man upon exit from its physical garment. Only a heart full of undimmed love for all that rests in creation does.

E b like say u don iron out d details of dis ur dstism religion. What's the official name?

Hire me as one of your pa$tor$ abeg

wiegraf:


Because every god promises to cook you for eternity for a lack of belief in him? Since when was that part of the definition of the word 'god'? And polytheists are suddenly irrelevant?

Pascal was clearly speaking of xtian god.

Perspectives defer, God is the same!

McSterling:
So, according to this, a Muslim who adheres to his religious text's command to kill nonbelievers would be judged by his religious text which is his own truth and could still go to heaven.

That's actually news to me. I know the Quran permits killing during war of a defensive nature but the 'go kill nonbelievers' for no reason is news to me.

Anyways, that's by the way...

The principle would apply in the case of ignorance. One who, through no fault of his, does wrong for whatever reason and no matter how grave the wrong doing is, can't be held totally guilty for the wrong act.

The Muslim, in your example, won't exactly be judged by the standarss of the Quran but by what he is she perceives as good in light with his or her right conscience, even when that is in accordance with the Quran.

McSterling:
Even the passage you referred to doesn't entirely preclude punishment for the ignorant. It only alluded to a lesser punishment. It even lends credence to the belief that there is a universal objective truth because there are obviously things "worthy of stripes" which he was ignorant of. If he was to be judged by his own subjective truth, why punish him at all?

If you read through chapter 8, you would realize that the individual did wrong which I choose to say are against the 'natural order'. The 'natural laws' are written in our hearts, such that no one can claim to be ignorant of them.

McSterling:

I concede that your view is more humanistic and less sadistic than what the Bible actually says but I think the Bible is unequivocal in letting us know that only belief in Jesus ensures salvation. Even Jesus said he's the only way to the Father. No two-way about it. This is the motivation for Christian proselytizing.

My view was gotten from the Bible.

striktlymi:


'The wager' refers to the creator God. It matters not how each religion choose to identify with it.

Your expanded version is just a repetition of the same thing.

*sigh*

Please refer to EvilBrain1's reply from 4 years ago.

timmy2409:


*sigh*

Please refer to EvilBrain1's reply from 4 years ago.

Nah...I will pass!

striktlymi:
'The wager' doesn't make much sense to me cause it assumes two extremes:


1) A disbelief in God, necessarily leads one to destruction.

2) A belief in God leads one to salvation.

It's not as clear-cut as that.

Good point.

Not all of my effort on you went to waste, apparently.

ooman:


Good point.

Not all of my effort on you went to waste, apparently.

Lol!!!


See ya head!

striktlymi:


Perspectives defer, God is the same!

Years pass, folly is the same!

striktlymi:

For those who are exposed to the Christian faith, for which the Spirit has revealed the 'truth', they have a responsibility to believe.

A responsibility to believe
How can one believe what just seems utterly ludicrous.
How hard can it be to provide each person with the evidence they need to believe? God created me and knows what is required. He has the responsibility to supply me with the evidence that will convince my rational mind that he himself created. Me burning in hell due to his failure to convince me is all on him.

Redlyn:


A responsibility to believe
How can one believe what just seems utterly ludicrous.
How hard can it be to provide each person with the evidence they need to believe? God created me and knows what is required. He has the responsibility to supply me with the evidence that will convince my rational mind that he himself created. Me burning in hell due to his failure to convince me is all on him.

The post you quoted is simple enough; I wonder why it seems so difficult for you to understand.

striktlymi:


The post you quoted is simple enough; I wonder why it seems so difficult for you to understand.

I didn't say I didnt understand it. I just dont have agree with it. I simply expressed my opinion on the matter and asked some questions.