Someone just used this term, and I have no idea what it means...
=0)
2007-09-22 10:06:10 · 20 answers · asked by Anonymous in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
Aw, gazoo! I'm just having a little fun...
And I haven't died of sarcasm yet, but what a way to go...=0)
2007-09-22 10:12:20 · update #1
Stop teasing them.
2007-09-22 10:11:15 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 5⤊ 1⤋
The way it is commonly formulated, Pascal's Wager is a straw man. It is set up then joyfully demolished.
But the real Pascal's Wager isn't so easily dismissed.
You were either created or not. If created, then your Creator is defined as God. If you were created, and you know that love is better than hate and mercy better than revenge, etc, then God must have put that knowledge into your head. If He did that, He must also have those qualities Himself.
And if He exists, He must also have put our great need for meaning into our human nature and if He did that, it must have been to point us to seek Him.
So if your creator exists, He must be a good God and He must be willing to be found. This interpretation deflates the common atheist rebuttals. So I win.
2007-09-24 11:55:37 · answer #2 · answered by Matthew T 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Pascal's wager (or Pascal's Gambit) is the utility by ability of the French actuality seeker Blaise Pascal of determination theory to the perception in God. It became set out interior the Pensées, a posthumous determination of notes made by ability of Pascal in direction of his unfinished treatise on Christian apologetics. The wager posits that that's a miles better "wager" to have self belief that God exists than to no longer have self belief, simply by fact the estimated fee of believing (which Pascal assessed as limitless) is often greater advantageous than the estimated fee of no longer believing. In Pascal's assessment, that's inexcusable to no longer inspect this concern: in the previous stepping into into the proofs of the Christian faith, i come across it mandatory to point out the sinfulness of those adult males who stay in indifference to the quest for actuality in a count that's so significant to them, and which touches them so almost.[a million] transformations of this argument may be present in different non secular philosophies, alongside with Islam, Hinduism, and Buddhism. Pascal's wager is likewise comparable in shape to the precautionary concept.
2016-10-09 16:09:27 · answer #3 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
its following the beliefs of christianity/God for your own benefit basically. It states that there is no reason to not follow the word of God because it will be a win/win situation if there happens to be that God isnt real...but there's a contracdiction because the bible states that people should believe solely based on faith and nothing else..the wager on the other hand is having"faith" with the hope that if God is real, you wont persih with the apparently "stupid" atheists.
In one word. Its a gamble, which is definately sin acording to the bible of christianity.
2007-09-22 10:14:20 · answer #4 · answered by Cilantro 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Pascal's Wager basically said that atheists should be Christians because if they're right about God not existing, nothing will happen to them, but if they're wrong and God does exist, then they are doomed and will go to hell.
The main flaw in this logic is that the wager is assuming that Christianity and Atheism are exlusive, which they are not. With this logic, I should believe in every deity (1000s of) to make sure nothing happens to me.
//EDIT//
haha, just understood it was joke. oops. :)
2007-09-22 10:12:27 · answer #5 · answered by :) 4 · 5⤊ 0⤋
I think its the old "fire insurance" idea.
According to Pascal (he argued so anyway for the hearer's sake; he actually had a revelatory encounter with God, so was sure himself) we can't know if God does or doesn't exist.
So if we believe..
1) God doesn't exist 50% probability; we'd never know after death
2) God does exist 50% probability: heaven
If we don't..
1) God doesn't exist ; we'd never know after death
2) God does exist: hell might be our destination
So, rationally, believing in God would be sensible.
(Pascal did some early maths work on probability theory.)
2007-09-22 10:18:26 · answer #6 · answered by Cader and Glyder scrambler 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Basically.... the retarded notion that if you do accept god and you're right, you'll be rewarded, and if you're wrong nothing happens..... but if you don't accept god and you're right, nothing happens and if you're wrong, you end up in hell.
It doesn't account for the possibility that BOTH options are wrong.... For instance, if the truth is that the christian deity sort-of exists.... but is actually Cthulhu and is just priming christianity to be his lunchiemunchies when he wakes up.... then if you believe ... you'll be eaten by a giant squidmonster.... but if you don't, you might possibly have a chance of evading his notice (by simple virtue of not drawing it)...
2007-09-22 10:10:48 · answer #7 · answered by Lucid Interrogator 5 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Blaise Pascal was a brilliant physicist and mathematician. Then he got sick, nearly died, and had himself a religious experience. It scared the bejeezus into him, so to speak.
2007-09-22 10:13:31 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
It is the rock-solid logical argument that is guaranteed to bring all atheists back into the fold. Do you dare mock its power?
2007-09-22 10:16:03 · answer #9 · answered by Pull My Finger 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Bet on a winner.
Get A Grip
2007-09-22 10:10:23 · answer #10 · answered by Get A Grip 6 · 3⤊ 1⤋
It was a terrible argument made by a brilliant man.
2007-09-22 10:16:22 · answer #11 · answered by Gawdless Heathen 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋