Pascal's wager

[Spike]

The same guy who came out with probability theory.

Pascal’s Wager, formulated by Blaise Pascal in his Pensées (1657–58), is a philosophical argument suggesting that believing in God is the most rational bet, even if God's existence cannot be proven. It posits that if God exists, the believer gains infinite rewards (Heaven) and avoids infinite punishment, while if God does not exist, the believer loses little, making faith the "safest bet". [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]
Key Aspects of Pascal's Wager:

• The Decision: Since human reason cannot prove God's existence, one must "wager" through their lifestyle choice.
• The Outcome Matrix:
  • Believe and God Exists: Infinite gain (Eternal happiness).
  • Believe and God Doesn't Exist: Finite loss (Small sacrifices in life).
  • Don't Believe and God Exists: Infinite loss (Eternal suffering).
  • Don't Believe and God Doesn't Exist: Finite gain (Pleasures), or neutral.
• Rationality of Choice: Because the potential reward is infinite and the potential loss is small, the expected value of believing in God is infinitely higher than not believing.
• Context: The argument is not a formal proof of God, but an argument for the rational self-interest of living as a believer. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6]

Critics often argue that this approach to faith is opportunistic, or that it fails to account for which "God" one should wager on. [1, 2]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal's_wager

 

[bruiser69]

Bro Spike is a deep thinker

 

[CI]

The Singapore way... why choose when you can have all of 'em...

 

[psyger-zero]

The same guy who came out with probability theory.

Pascal’s Wager, formulated by Blaise Pascal in his Pensées (1657–58), is a philosophical argument suggesting that believing in God is the most rational bet, even if God's existence cannot be proven. It posits that if God exists, the believer gains infinite rewards (Heaven) and avoids infinite punishment, while if God does not exist, the believer loses little, making faith the "safest bet". [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]
Key Aspects of Pascal's Wager:

• The Decision: Since human reason cannot prove God's existence, one must "wager" through their lifestyle choice.
• The Outcome Matrix:
  • Believe and God Exists: Infinite gain (Eternal happiness).
  • Believe and God Doesn't Exist: Finite loss (Small sacrifices in life).
  • Don't Believe and God Exists: Infinite loss (Eternal suffering).
  • Don't Believe and God Doesn't Exist: Finite gain (Pleasures), or neutral.
• Rationality of Choice: Because the potential reward is infinite and the potential loss is small, the expected value of believing in God is infinitely higher than not believing.
• Context: The argument is not a formal proof of God, but an argument for the rational self-interest of living as a believer. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6]

Critics often argue that this approach to faith is opportunistic, or that it fails to account for which "God" one should wager on. [1, 2]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal's_wager

 

[articland05]

believing in which God?
imagine if the real higher being is Dua Pek Gong but one choose to believe in Jesus...when die alrdy how? will this Jesus believer be condemn to forever 18 depths of hell?

 

[70secs]

The Singapore way... why choose when you can have all of 'em...

There's a new version.

There are two main Gods, the Cao Đài ("Highest Lord") and the Diêu Trì Kim Mẫu or Đức Phật Mẫu ("Holy Buddha Mother"). They represent respectively the yang and yin forces. Cao Đài is viewed as the heart of the universe, the common Father of all beings. He imparts part of him into each living being, including even rocks, in the form of consciousness.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caodaism

 

[CI]

There's a new version.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caodaism

Damn... could have start Sinkie version, call chapalang-nism. Mix and match whatever you like. No one is a loser! All winners!

 

[70secs]

Damn... could have start Sinkie version, call chapalang-nism. Mix and match whatever you like. No one is a loser! All winners!

Rojakism more appealing

 

[Geminiboy]

Believe in God I do. But need go church? Different story

 

[Atilas]

Heng ah, BBFAs here are always reminded not to think too much.

 

[zensushi]

Anti-Pascal?

 

[nyvrem]

believe loh.

do good, live an honest life.

dont enforce your beliefs on people.

dont do harm

 

[RyanJ]

I prefer Marcus Aurelius on living a good life.

Spoiler

“Live a good life. If there are gods and they are just, then they will not care how devout you have been, but will welcome you based on the virtues you have lived by. If there are gods, but unjust, then you should not want to worship them. If there are no gods, then you will be gone, but will have lived a noble life that will live on in the memories of your loved ones.”

 

[Geminiboy]

Believe whatever comforts you. It’s like a security blanket. People need it.

 

[plaingrain]

The same guy who came out with probability theory.

Pascal’s Wager, formulated by Blaise Pascal in his Pensées (1657–58), is a philosophical argument suggesting that believing in God is the most rational bet, even if God's existence cannot be proven. It posits that if God exists, the believer gains infinite rewards (Heaven) and avoids infinite punishment, while if God does not exist, the believer loses little, making faith the "safest bet". [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]
Key Aspects of Pascal's Wager:

• The Decision: Since human reason cannot prove God's existence, one must "wager" through their lifestyle choice.
• The Outcome Matrix:
  • Believe and God Exists: Infinite gain (Eternal happiness).
  • Believe and God Doesn't Exist: Finite loss (Small sacrifices in life).
  • Don't Believe and God Exists: Infinite loss (Eternal suffering).
  • Don't Believe and God Doesn't Exist: Finite gain (Pleasures), or neutral.
• Rationality of Choice: Because the potential reward is infinite and the potential loss is small, the expected value of believing in God is infinitely higher than not believing.
• Context: The argument is not a formal proof of God, but an argument for the rational self-interest of living as a believer. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6]

Critics often argue that this approach to faith is opportunistic, or that it fails to account for which "God" one should wager on. [1, 2]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal's_wager

I believe!

 

[articland05]

Anti-Pascal?

watch the whole thing...
very naise

who is this Joe Pashe?

 

[buttbERry]

this one like anyhow

 

[CI]

I believe!

This one universal - all will believe, regardless of race, language or religion!

 

[zensushi]

watch the whole thing...
very naise

who is this Joe Pashe?

Joe Pesci. Actor with tough-guy screen persona from films like Casino and Goodfellas.

 

[Song Bro]

The same guy who came out with probability theory.

Pascal’s Wager, formulated by Blaise Pascal in his Pensées (1657–58), is a philosophical argument suggesting that believing in God is the most rational bet, even if God's existence cannot be proven. It posits that if God exists, the believer gains infinite rewards (Heaven) and avoids infinite punishment, while if God does not exist, the believer loses little, making faith the "safest bet". [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]
Key Aspects of Pascal's Wager:

• The Decision: Since human reason cannot prove God's existence, one must "wager" through their lifestyle choice.
• The Outcome Matrix:
  • Believe and God Exists: Infinite gain (Eternal happiness).
  • Believe and God Doesn't Exist: Finite loss (Small sacrifices in life).
  • Don't Believe and God Exists: Infinite loss (Eternal suffering).
  • Don't Believe and God Doesn't Exist: Finite gain (Pleasures), or neutral.
• Rationality of Choice: Because the potential reward is infinite and the potential loss is small, the expected value of believing in God is infinitely higher than not believing.
• Context: The argument is not a formal proof of God, but an argument for the rational self-interest of living as a believer. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6]

Critics often argue that this approach to faith is opportunistic, or that it fails to account for which "God" one should wager on. [1, 2]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal's_wager

There is a problem with this matrix. Since human cant prove God's existence, how do we have the knowledge of believe and God exist lead to infinite gain. This is assumption. Why cannot believe ler and if exist is eternal suffering? The caged earth theory is one of such. Whether you believe or not it doesnt matter because the crafter of this theory sets the conditions and defines the outcome without tangible proof. Not that it is an uninteresting idea.

I remembered someone, forgot who, once propose the Simulation Hypothesis. It has follows a similar structure. To show Virtual Reality trend in inevitable, he said:

1. Before humans create Virtual Reality, they will be destroyed by the Great Filter
2. After humans create Virtual Reality, they will be destroyed by the Great Filter
3. Humans can create Virtual Reality but choose not to create
4. Humans cannot create Virtual Reality but choose to create

The logical mind will tell you 4. and 3 . is false. (At that time 4. is uncertain) 1 cannot be true if not we wouldnt be discussing this. So naturally left the answer 2. Its a classic draw the conclusion before setting the condition.

It restricts the mind of the audience by saying there are only 4 choices.
The mind naturally think, ok mybfd - your are right.
There is no motivation to challenge. Accept is better. Maybe that's call faith.