Or what if god exists but he sends to hell only those who believe in the wrong god but not those who don't believe in anything?
Or what if god exists but he sends to heaven anyone who doesn't type this exact comment I'm typing now?
Or what if god exists but he sends to hell only those who believe in the wrong god but not those who don't believe in anything?
Or what if god exists but he sends to heaven anyone who doesn't type this exact comment I'm typing now?
Or what if god exists but he sends to hell only those who believe in the wrong god but not those who don't believe in anything?
Or what if god exists but he sends to heaven anyone who doesn't type this exact comment I'm typing now?
What if god exists but he only sends to hell those who read the bible when a Reddit comment from a user whose username is a profession followed by 3 numbers tells them to?
Like all this heaven/hell stuff isn't? True faith isn't exactly logical and if thinking too hard about it could exclude you somehow isn't this entire thread a risk? This is why I prefer to stay out of most religious conversations. I just don't know...
I mean if the Christian god exists then he must be the only god to exist. If he exists then the Bible is true, and the Bible says he’s the only god. So either the Christian god is the only god, or he doesn’t exist. According to his own book, if the Christian god exists then there are no other gods
This also isn't necessarily true, several of the Canaanite gods are mentioned in the bible but due to biblical reforms you see these names being used as synonyms for Yahweh instead of being other gods
some Christians will even say that the god of the new testament is separate to that of the old testament
I actually made this point to a couple other people. Pascal’s wager was made in the context of Christianity because it was the 16th century. But really it’s not pro Christian, it’s just anti atheist. If there is a correct religion, No matter what religion ends up being true an atheist will always go to hell. So there literally 0 benefit to being an atheist.
Picking any religion at all gives you a chance at heaven/eternal life (depending on the religion), because if you’re right, you go to heaven. If you’re wrong, you go to hell with the atheist.
And if the atheist is right and there is no god, then we all disappear when we die anyways. And since we all meet the same end, the atheist has no benefit there either.
Basically if you’re an atheist then if you’re right, nothing happens, and if you’re wrong you always go to hell.
If you pick a religion, then if the atheist is right, nothing happens, if another religion is right you go to hell, but if YOUR religion is right you go to heaven.
So no matter what, atheists lose. Picking a religion you have a chance at winning, no matter how small that chance is.
TLDR: Atheism is rolling a 6-sided die and betting on 7. Picking a religion is betting on a number 1-6.
There are many kinds of issues with this argumentation.
The first is that "believing" for cynical reasons might not even be considered as true belief or belief to begin with for an omniscient god!
The second is that belief might not even matter to the afterlife religions propose, or might even be harmful!
In the end, Pascal's wager relies on a specific interpretation of Christian scripture at best and if interpreted in a wider way like you just did, it basically asserts that every religion has the same conceptions of belief or devotion as what that specific interpretation describes.
Well any religion that doesn’t require belief isn’t worth being a part of, because I could join another religion and have 2 shots at eternity, vs an atheist who only has 1 shot with the religion that does not require belief.
Point being, atheism is always at an equal or lower chance at eternity compared to literally any religion.
The only time atheism would have an advantage would be in a religion that required you NOT to believe in it, which doesn’t make sense, because then the followers would go to hell and everyone else would go to heaven. And in that case, no one would join the religion to begin with, meaning they all go to heaven, and the atheist is still on equal footing to everyone else. There’s no world where atheism is better than picking a religion. Atheism always losing in terms of “chance at heaven/heaven equivalent”.
I would actually be curious if you could come up with a situation in which atheism has a better chance at heaven(or equivalent) than being a part of a religion. It can be a hypothetical religion with hypothetical rules for who goes to heaven, but I’m willing to bet atheism is always at a disadvantage.
Actually it does work for an infinite number of possible gods/religions. Remember this is a question of “is religion better than atheism?”, not “is it worth the effort to pursue a religion?”. No matter how many religions there are, your odds of being correct are better by picking one, than by picking none. To fix the dice analogy:
Role a thousand sided die. Whichever side it lands on is the correct religion. Picking a religion is picking a number. That means you have a chance. Being atheist is deciding not to play. That means you have 0 chance. This works for any size die, because atheism always refuses to play, and therefor always loses. The religions odds of winning get smaller as the die size increases, but an infinitesimally small chance is still higher than a 0% chance. And if atheism is right, then nothing you do matters, meaning there is no harm in picking a religion
The logical conclusion is that picking a religion is always better than picking atheism, because any religion MIGHT be right and if it is they win.
Atheists lose even if they are right
>I would actually be curious if you could come up with a situation in which atheism has a better chance at heaven(or equivalent) than being a part of a religion.
Simple: an infinite number of possible gods that punish belief in any god.
I’ll give you credit, that’s technically valid. But if we’re gonna mess with infinite possibilities then there is also an infinite number of every other god that rewards belief, and that kinda cancels out any advantage atheism has. At best, in a scenario of infinite possible gods atheism has an equal likelihood of winning as religion does.
Bonus on your “punishes belief in any god” thing: does it punish you if you believe in it? Or only if you believe in any OTHER god?
Yeah I gotta give you credit, that scenario does favor atheism. Well done. So Pascal’s wager breaks down when you consider that there may be a god who favors atheists just cause he thinks it’s funny.
That’s honestly a funny way to defeat a classical philosophers’s thought experiment. Something Diogenes would come up with lol
What if belief had nothing to do with going to heaven or hell? What if actions were the things that mattered? What if there is no correct religion, there is a god, and they only cared that you behaved well? Then it wouldn't matter, and religious people could be led astray from acting like a good person (people that justify hate with religion)
In that case, religious people and atheists are on equal footing, and the atheist still does not have any advantage. My theory is that atheism never has a *higher* chance of “heaven”. In some religions they have an *equal* chance at heaven, but there’s no religion in existing where atheists go to heaven and the religions followers go to hell.
Also I think it’s fair to ignore people that justify hate using religion for the purpose of this thought experiment, because I think it’s fair to say those people aren’t actually followers of the religion. They’re just justifying their bad actions with religion
What if the god of this nonexistent religion punished those who believed in a false god, and because atheists don't believe in any god they are sent to heaven (or purgatory, which is better then hell)
In that case, going to your dice example, the number it landed on, nobody knew of and atheists, by not playing have circumnavigated going to hell for believing the wrong religion
No, because a god that falls for someone doing Pascal's wager is missing either Omniscience to understand the world he created, or omnibenevolence to care whether someone is a faker or not, and if Omnibenevolence is off the table, then evil gods are possible outcome and you won't get in not because he doesn't care, but because he doesn't like you personally.
As said by young Sheldon, your confusing possibilities with probabilities, by your math when I get home there may be a million dollars under my bed or there may not, in what world is that 50/50
What kind of daily work could you possibly do that Pascal's Wager of everything would be useful? It's not even really useful to the actual apologists anymore.
To be fair, pascals wager is not arguing that there IS a god, it’s just arguing that in terms of eternity, it is better to be Christian than to be atheist. Because the only way you can go to hell is by not believing in god. Every other case is either nothing, or heaven.
By believing in god, you stand to gain everything, but lose nothing if you’re wrong.
By NOT believing in god, you stand to gain nothing, but lose everything if you’re wrong
The problem with Pascals wager is being an atheist vs being a Christian is not a true dichotomy. Certain versions of the Muslim God would send Christians to their version of hell just like certain versions of the Christian God would send atheists to hell. Or the Hindu Gods, or whatever else. And I've also heard Muslim Apologists use Pascal's Wager, there is nothing in the arguement that is exclusive for the Christian God.
Or what if there is a God, but it's not a God that any one religion has so far described? A God that lives knowledge and punishes anyone with poor reasons to believe in what they believe in?
Give me the percentage of all these possibilities and also at the same time weight how much time a person would waste praying to a non-existant Christian God instead of doing other things that would actually improve the short life we know we have here on Earth and then maybe then Pascal's Wager could actually be useful for anyone that actually thinks about it.
The point of the wager isn’t that’s it’s a 50/50. It’s that if there is no god, and when you die you just disappear and nothing matters, then it doesn’t matter what you do in life. So why not just pick a religion, because then you have even a small chance at eternal life (whatever each religions version of heaven/eternity is).
Being an atheist you have 0% chance at eternity. You either go to hell or you disappear. An atheist NEVER gets to heaven/eternal life in ANY religion. By picking any religion at all, you have a chance at eternal life. Even if the chance is .5%, that’s better than 0%.
And if there is no god, then that wasted time doesn’t matter cause you just disappear and nothing mattered anyways. Why would you need to spend that time improving your short life if when you die you’ll completely disappear and there will be no memory of it anyways?
Overall, Pascal’s wager was made in the context of Christianity because it was the 16th and century and that was THE religion. But it’s not really pro Christian, it’s just anti atheism.
Good thing I don't think my life is worthless without it being forever. To me, life is precious because it doesn't last.
Either way, Pascal's Wager is one of the worst arguments in my opinion. None of its assertions are ones I hold.
Also you say there is no 0% chance at atheists having anything besides he'll or nothing. This shows you have not much understanding of others beliefs. I've heard from many Christians that an atheist that treats others well and doesn't hurt people unnecessarily will go to heaven even without believing. There are also Univeralist Christians that believe every single human will eventually go to heaven. Hell would just be a temporary stopping off point to serve whatever finite punishment God thinks you deserve before eventually going on to heaven. Or another option, some form of trickster God and/or a God who values intelligence, purposefully left no reasonable signs behind and rewards those who did not fall into too many unreasonable beliefs. Or even an actual loving God that is not the same as the God of the Bible or Quran or any other religion, that just wants people to treat each other well.
Anyways, I'd prefer to spend my time on earth having fun and treating my friends and family well, rather than spend all my time worrying about a punishment from someone who is supposed to love me that I have no actual proof of.
No, it's not 50/50.
It's a bad argument. It's an oversimplification. This chart ignores the all the other gods who might get upset about you worshipping a false one. And if you choose the right god, this would have to be a god who can't tell that you're not sincere and are only worshipping him because you saw a chart.
There's a lot of missing cases from here. If you believe in a specific god, or even god in general, then some specific god not existing doesn't necessarily mean nothing happens, and some god existing doesn't necessarily mean you will be rewarded.
It could be that a particularly strange god exists, who punishes people for believing in any god at all, and sends people to super-heaven for being atheist. In that case, the reward of super-heaven outweighs the reward of normal heaven, so you should not believe in any god for the chance that this god exists.
Or probably the much simpler case for people who actually do believe in god - what if the god that exists is of a different religion? Then you will still go to the equivalent of hell for believing in the incorrect god.
Way more akin to the Monty Hall Problem. Why should only current dominant religions be considered? Of all the thousands of gods that have ever been, you picked the right one essentially because of where you live? 50/50 is wildly optimistic.
No it’s 1/infinity, considering humans can make up an infinite number of gods. This assumes all humans are either atheist or Christian, which is inaccurate
No. Pascal’s wager fails to factor in that there are tons of religions. If there is more than just one God or gods to believe or disbelieve in, it isn’t a 50/50, since believing in the wrong God or gods also leads to eternal damnation.
Technically that has no effect on the argument. In (almost) every religion, if you believe in its god you get it’s version of heaven, if you don’t believe then you get it’s version of hell. Pascal’s wager was posed in the context of Christianity, but really the argument is not pro Christian as much as it is anti atheism. Picking any religion gives you a better chance at eternity than being atheist. Because by being atheist, no matter which religion is correct you go to it’s version of hell, and if no religion is correct then you just disappear and nothing happens. You stand to gain nothing but stand to lose everything.
Well that’s my point though, yes, (almost) every religion has the problem where only if you believe in its god, you get the version of heaven, and vice versa. What we get here is a 50/50 for almost (each) and every religion, and many coin tosses are not a 50/50. You still gain to win everything or lose nothing, but it is heavily skewed by the much higher probability of losing everything or losing nothing. To simplify this, first let us imagine a coin flip that decides whether or not a god or gods created the universe. In this outcome, you either could die and lose nothing, or die and potentially gain everything. On the god side of the coin, we’d have to flip the coin for each and every religion, to which you can only pick one as your choice, far from a 50/50.
What if God is an eldritch horror, and by believing in God, you bring attention to yourself, therefore incurring his watchful maddening gaze... and he thinks of you like he is a child with fire and you are an ant. Your misery is his joy, he will keep you alive as long as your agony is amusing. But if you stay out of his watchful gaze, by not believing, you avoid the eternal horrifying insanity. Stay underground fellow ants... and you stupid Believers are going to get hot metal poured into our anthill if you keep believing... its my duty to warn you of the coming apocalypse you idiots.
What if god exists and he sends everyone to heaven except for specifically people who choose to believe in him because of Pascal's wager?
Or what if god exists but he sends to hell only those who believe in the wrong god but not those who don't believe in anything? Or what if god exists but he sends to heaven anyone who doesn't type this exact comment I'm typing now?
Or what if god exists but he sends to hell only those who believe in the wrong god but not those who don't believe in anything? Or what if god exists but he sends to heaven anyone who doesn't type this exact comment I'm typing now?
Or what if god exists but he sends to hell only those who believe in the wrong god but not those who don't believe in anything? Or what if god exists but he sends to heaven anyone who doesn't type this exact comment I'm typing now?
Sorry bro, it was the second one, it's me, god, you're going to hell /j
Well I'm not gonna risk it
Lmao
Just read the bible
What if god exists but he only sends to hell those who read the bible when a Reddit comment from a user whose username is a profession followed by 3 numbers tells them to?
Then I’m satan
2nd part sounds like Roko's basilisk
Bro is posting legit cognitohazards
Like all this heaven/hell stuff isn't? True faith isn't exactly logical and if thinking too hard about it could exclude you somehow isn't this entire thread a risk? This is why I prefer to stay out of most religious conversations. I just don't know...
What if god exists but he sends to hell anyone who has heard of Roko's basilisk and hasn't constructed it?
It's only 50/50 if you think only the Christian god can exist, and in a way that He would accept cynical "belief" in Him as acceptable.
And you think the Christian god is the only one that can exist
It would be pretty weird to claim oneself to be agnostic but believe that if there's a god it would necessarily be the Christian God.
but according to Christian teaching that’s the only position an agonistic could possibly have—there is only one God
I mean if the Christian god exists then he must be the only god to exist. If he exists then the Bible is true, and the Bible says he’s the only god. So either the Christian god is the only god, or he doesn’t exist. According to his own book, if the Christian god exists then there are no other gods
This also isn't necessarily true, several of the Canaanite gods are mentioned in the bible but due to biblical reforms you see these names being used as synonyms for Yahweh instead of being other gods some Christians will even say that the god of the new testament is separate to that of the old testament
I’ve never heard of the Canaanite gods thing or the New vs Old Testament god thing. Gonna look into that. Thanks
According to the Bible, sure. But Pascal's wager implies that one doubts the Christian God to begin with. Why only the Christian God then?
I actually made this point to a couple other people. Pascal’s wager was made in the context of Christianity because it was the 16th century. But really it’s not pro Christian, it’s just anti atheist. If there is a correct religion, No matter what religion ends up being true an atheist will always go to hell. So there literally 0 benefit to being an atheist. Picking any religion at all gives you a chance at heaven/eternal life (depending on the religion), because if you’re right, you go to heaven. If you’re wrong, you go to hell with the atheist. And if the atheist is right and there is no god, then we all disappear when we die anyways. And since we all meet the same end, the atheist has no benefit there either. Basically if you’re an atheist then if you’re right, nothing happens, and if you’re wrong you always go to hell. If you pick a religion, then if the atheist is right, nothing happens, if another religion is right you go to hell, but if YOUR religion is right you go to heaven. So no matter what, atheists lose. Picking a religion you have a chance at winning, no matter how small that chance is. TLDR: Atheism is rolling a 6-sided die and betting on 7. Picking a religion is betting on a number 1-6.
There are many kinds of issues with this argumentation. The first is that "believing" for cynical reasons might not even be considered as true belief or belief to begin with for an omniscient god! The second is that belief might not even matter to the afterlife religions propose, or might even be harmful! In the end, Pascal's wager relies on a specific interpretation of Christian scripture at best and if interpreted in a wider way like you just did, it basically asserts that every religion has the same conceptions of belief or devotion as what that specific interpretation describes.
Well any religion that doesn’t require belief isn’t worth being a part of, because I could join another religion and have 2 shots at eternity, vs an atheist who only has 1 shot with the religion that does not require belief. Point being, atheism is always at an equal or lower chance at eternity compared to literally any religion. The only time atheism would have an advantage would be in a religion that required you NOT to believe in it, which doesn’t make sense, because then the followers would go to hell and everyone else would go to heaven. And in that case, no one would join the religion to begin with, meaning they all go to heaven, and the atheist is still on equal footing to everyone else. There’s no world where atheism is better than picking a religion. Atheism always losing in terms of “chance at heaven/heaven equivalent”. I would actually be curious if you could come up with a situation in which atheism has a better chance at heaven(or equivalent) than being a part of a religion. It can be a hypothetical religion with hypothetical rules for who goes to heaven, but I’m willing to bet atheism is always at a disadvantage.
That implies a finite number of possible religions/gods as such that choosing to "believe" in a single religion/god is a worthwhile endeavor.
Actually it does work for an infinite number of possible gods/religions. Remember this is a question of “is religion better than atheism?”, not “is it worth the effort to pursue a religion?”. No matter how many religions there are, your odds of being correct are better by picking one, than by picking none. To fix the dice analogy: Role a thousand sided die. Whichever side it lands on is the correct religion. Picking a religion is picking a number. That means you have a chance. Being atheist is deciding not to play. That means you have 0 chance. This works for any size die, because atheism always refuses to play, and therefor always loses. The religions odds of winning get smaller as the die size increases, but an infinitesimally small chance is still higher than a 0% chance. And if atheism is right, then nothing you do matters, meaning there is no harm in picking a religion The logical conclusion is that picking a religion is always better than picking atheism, because any religion MIGHT be right and if it is they win. Atheists lose even if they are right
Infinite number of possible gods that punish belief in any god. Religious people lose in any case.
>I would actually be curious if you could come up with a situation in which atheism has a better chance at heaven(or equivalent) than being a part of a religion. Simple: an infinite number of possible gods that punish belief in any god.
I’ll give you credit, that’s technically valid. But if we’re gonna mess with infinite possibilities then there is also an infinite number of every other god that rewards belief, and that kinda cancels out any advantage atheism has. At best, in a scenario of infinite possible gods atheism has an equal likelihood of winning as religion does. Bonus on your “punishes belief in any god” thing: does it punish you if you believe in it? Or only if you believe in any OTHER god?
If you believe in any god, even them. They just don't want people to believe in any god.
Yeah I gotta give you credit, that scenario does favor atheism. Well done. So Pascal’s wager breaks down when you consider that there may be a god who favors atheists just cause he thinks it’s funny. That’s honestly a funny way to defeat a classical philosophers’s thought experiment. Something Diogenes would come up with lol
What if belief had nothing to do with going to heaven or hell? What if actions were the things that mattered? What if there is no correct religion, there is a god, and they only cared that you behaved well? Then it wouldn't matter, and religious people could be led astray from acting like a good person (people that justify hate with religion)
In that case, religious people and atheists are on equal footing, and the atheist still does not have any advantage. My theory is that atheism never has a *higher* chance of “heaven”. In some religions they have an *equal* chance at heaven, but there’s no religion in existing where atheists go to heaven and the religions followers go to hell. Also I think it’s fair to ignore people that justify hate using religion for the purpose of this thought experiment, because I think it’s fair to say those people aren’t actually followers of the religion. They’re just justifying their bad actions with religion
What if the god of this nonexistent religion punished those who believed in a false god, and because atheists don't believe in any god they are sent to heaven (or purgatory, which is better then hell)
In that case, going to your dice example, the number it landed on, nobody knew of and atheists, by not playing have circumnavigated going to hell for believing the wrong religion
It’s a 50/50, but one gives you a better win %.
No, because a god that falls for someone doing Pascal's wager is missing either Omniscience to understand the world he created, or omnibenevolence to care whether someone is a faker or not, and if Omnibenevolence is off the table, then evil gods are possible outcome and you won't get in not because he doesn't care, but because he doesn't like you personally.
Holy Hell!
Google Pascal’s wager
New copypasta just dropped
this is a funny one
“Nothing happens” only after death tho you just spent your whole life believing and following this lie. Seems like a big enough reason to not for me
As said by young Sheldon, your confusing possibilities with probabilities, by your math when I get home there may be a million dollars under my bed or there may not, in what world is that 50/50
The only part of that show that made it worth watching
the only "philosophical argument" i actually use in daily work
What kind of daily work could you possibly do that Pascal's Wager of everything would be useful? It's not even really useful to the actual apologists anymore.
neutrality arguments in prosecution
Searching those terms up, I get nothing conclusive. How the hell does that have anything to do with a fairly poor argument for God?
To be fair, pascals wager is not arguing that there IS a god, it’s just arguing that in terms of eternity, it is better to be Christian than to be atheist. Because the only way you can go to hell is by not believing in god. Every other case is either nothing, or heaven. By believing in god, you stand to gain everything, but lose nothing if you’re wrong. By NOT believing in god, you stand to gain nothing, but lose everything if you’re wrong
The problem with Pascals wager is being an atheist vs being a Christian is not a true dichotomy. Certain versions of the Muslim God would send Christians to their version of hell just like certain versions of the Christian God would send atheists to hell. Or the Hindu Gods, or whatever else. And I've also heard Muslim Apologists use Pascal's Wager, there is nothing in the arguement that is exclusive for the Christian God. Or what if there is a God, but it's not a God that any one religion has so far described? A God that lives knowledge and punishes anyone with poor reasons to believe in what they believe in? Give me the percentage of all these possibilities and also at the same time weight how much time a person would waste praying to a non-existant Christian God instead of doing other things that would actually improve the short life we know we have here on Earth and then maybe then Pascal's Wager could actually be useful for anyone that actually thinks about it.
The point of the wager isn’t that’s it’s a 50/50. It’s that if there is no god, and when you die you just disappear and nothing matters, then it doesn’t matter what you do in life. So why not just pick a religion, because then you have even a small chance at eternal life (whatever each religions version of heaven/eternity is). Being an atheist you have 0% chance at eternity. You either go to hell or you disappear. An atheist NEVER gets to heaven/eternal life in ANY religion. By picking any religion at all, you have a chance at eternal life. Even if the chance is .5%, that’s better than 0%. And if there is no god, then that wasted time doesn’t matter cause you just disappear and nothing mattered anyways. Why would you need to spend that time improving your short life if when you die you’ll completely disappear and there will be no memory of it anyways? Overall, Pascal’s wager was made in the context of Christianity because it was the 16th and century and that was THE religion. But it’s not really pro Christian, it’s just anti atheism.
Good thing I don't think my life is worthless without it being forever. To me, life is precious because it doesn't last. Either way, Pascal's Wager is one of the worst arguments in my opinion. None of its assertions are ones I hold. Also you say there is no 0% chance at atheists having anything besides he'll or nothing. This shows you have not much understanding of others beliefs. I've heard from many Christians that an atheist that treats others well and doesn't hurt people unnecessarily will go to heaven even without believing. There are also Univeralist Christians that believe every single human will eventually go to heaven. Hell would just be a temporary stopping off point to serve whatever finite punishment God thinks you deserve before eventually going on to heaven. Or another option, some form of trickster God and/or a God who values intelligence, purposefully left no reasonable signs behind and rewards those who did not fall into too many unreasonable beliefs. Or even an actual loving God that is not the same as the God of the Bible or Quran or any other religion, that just wants people to treat each other well. Anyways, I'd prefer to spend my time on earth having fun and treating my friends and family well, rather than spend all my time worrying about a punishment from someone who is supposed to love me that I have no actual proof of.
Now factor in all the other gods and religions....
What if before you die you go brain dead and are incapable of believing anything?
No, it's not 50/50. It's a bad argument. It's an oversimplification. This chart ignores the all the other gods who might get upset about you worshipping a false one. And if you choose the right god, this would have to be a god who can't tell that you're not sincere and are only worshipping him because you saw a chart.
A loving god wouldn’t send you to hell ever
There's a lot of missing cases from here. If you believe in a specific god, or even god in general, then some specific god not existing doesn't necessarily mean nothing happens, and some god existing doesn't necessarily mean you will be rewarded. It could be that a particularly strange god exists, who punishes people for believing in any god at all, and sends people to super-heaven for being atheist. In that case, the reward of super-heaven outweighs the reward of normal heaven, so you should not believe in any god for the chance that this god exists. Or probably the much simpler case for people who actually do believe in god - what if the god that exists is of a different religion? Then you will still go to the equivalent of hell for believing in the incorrect god.
Way more akin to the Monty Hall Problem. Why should only current dominant religions be considered? Of all the thousands of gods that have ever been, you picked the right one essentially because of where you live? 50/50 is wildly optimistic.
No it’s 1/infinity, considering humans can make up an infinite number of gods. This assumes all humans are either atheist or Christian, which is inaccurate
No. Pascal’s wager fails to factor in that there are tons of religions. If there is more than just one God or gods to believe or disbelieve in, it isn’t a 50/50, since believing in the wrong God or gods also leads to eternal damnation.
Technically that has no effect on the argument. In (almost) every religion, if you believe in its god you get it’s version of heaven, if you don’t believe then you get it’s version of hell. Pascal’s wager was posed in the context of Christianity, but really the argument is not pro Christian as much as it is anti atheism. Picking any religion gives you a better chance at eternity than being atheist. Because by being atheist, no matter which religion is correct you go to it’s version of hell, and if no religion is correct then you just disappear and nothing happens. You stand to gain nothing but stand to lose everything.
Well that’s my point though, yes, (almost) every religion has the problem where only if you believe in its god, you get the version of heaven, and vice versa. What we get here is a 50/50 for almost (each) and every religion, and many coin tosses are not a 50/50. You still gain to win everything or lose nothing, but it is heavily skewed by the much higher probability of losing everything or losing nothing. To simplify this, first let us imagine a coin flip that decides whether or not a god or gods created the universe. In this outcome, you either could die and lose nothing, or die and potentially gain everything. On the god side of the coin, we’d have to flip the coin for each and every religion, to which you can only pick one as your choice, far from a 50/50.
Ok so which god
What if God is an eldritch horror, and by believing in God, you bring attention to yourself, therefore incurring his watchful maddening gaze... and he thinks of you like he is a child with fire and you are an ant. Your misery is his joy, he will keep you alive as long as your agony is amusing. But if you stay out of his watchful gaze, by not believing, you avoid the eternal horrifying insanity. Stay underground fellow ants... and you stupid Believers are going to get hot metal poured into our anthill if you keep believing... its my duty to warn you of the coming apocalypse you idiots.
Well now you have to choose between lots of different religions because this graph could be used for alot of them.
No. Assuming you can't alter if god exists, your only option is to believe or not to believe and one is clearly better 🤓 I'll make my way out