Pascal’s Wager is the best argument for Christianity and is only said to be the worst by those who have not read Pascal. Pascal in his Pensées shows why other religions are false and shows why Christianity is the true religion so the common objection again

Posting mode: Reply [Return]
Name
Options
Subject	Spoiler Image
Comment
Flag
File
Embed
Password	(For file deletion.)

File: 1687313147113.jpeg (108.76 KB, 475x600, mary.jpeg)

Anonymous 2023-06-21 (Wed) 02:05:47 No.18244

Pascal’s Wager is the best argument for Christianity and is only said to be the worst by those who have not read Pascal. Pascal in his Pensées shows why other religions are false and shows why Christianity is the true religion so the common objection against his wager is wrong.

There are too many unanswered questions in the universe to take a chance on eternal hell.

The cosmological argument. Why is there something rather than nothing? The only explanations from atheists are supernatural explanations. Silly reddit sci-fi explanations like multiverses and eternal universes both of which are not shown in nature at all and are just as likely as a creator of the universe existing.

DNA is which is more complicated and structured than you can possibly imagine created out of stardust for the first microbes in the universe. Consciousness. Where does it come from? Quarks? All this created randomly from nothing? It’s a bigger leap to say the Big Bang, DNA for microbes, consciousness, and everything else in the universe came out of nothingness and random chaos. All of it seemingly so perfected crafted where even a centimeter of difference would mean nothing would exist in the universe. Really. How does something so perfectly crafted and complicated as DNA come out of nothingness and stardust for microbes and every living thing on the universe?

None of this means you have to be absolutely 100% sure a God exists. It’s just enough of a doubt that it’s worth trying to find faith in God.

Think of it like percentages. 20% from the cosmological argument. 20% from the teleological argument. 20% from the argument of beauty. All of these arguments combine into a reason to justify having faith without evidence.

_
If there is a God, He is infinitely incomprehensible, since, having neither parts nor limits, He has no affinity to us. We are then incapable of knowing either what He is or if He is….

…"God is, or He is not." But to which side shall we incline? Reason can decide nothing here. There is infinite chaos that separated us. A game is being played at the extremity of this infinite distance where heads or tails will turn up. What will you wager? According to reason, you can do neither the one thing nor the other; according to reason, you can defend neither of the propositions.
Do not, then, reprove for error those who have made a choice; for you know nothing about it. "No, but I blame them for having made, not this choice, but a choice; for again both he who chooses heads and he who chooses tails are equally at fault, they are both in the wrong. The true course is not to wager at all."

Yes; but you must wager. It is not optional. You are embarked. Which will you choose then? Let us see. Since you must choose, let us see which interests you least. You have two things to lose, the true and the good; and two things to stake, your reason and your will, your knowledge and your happiness; and your nature has two things to shun, error and misery. Your reason is no more shocked in choosing one rather than the other since you must of necessity choose. This is one point settled. But your happiness? Let us weigh the gain and the loss in wagering that God is. Let us estimate these two chances. If you gain, you gain all; if you lose, you lose nothing. Wager, then, without hesitation that He is.

Anonymous 2023-06-21 (Wed) 05:14:37 No.18245

File: 1687324476959.png (663.69 KB, 1361x1598, christianchad.png)

thank you anon for convincing me to read Pensées.

Anonymous 2023-06-21 (Wed) 06:43:44 No.18247

sorry OP, god sends everyone to hell who believes what a preacher tells them blindly and saves everyone who has skepticism. It is skepticism, not faith, that is God's test. Don't believe me? Are you willing to risk it bro????

Anonymous 2023-06-21 (Wed) 10:09:24 No.18249

>Why is there something rather than nothing?
there just is, ok?

Anonymous 2023-06-21 (Wed) 10:09:49 No.18250

File: 1687342188870.jpg (38.14 KB, 480x640, homer's wager.jpg)

relevant

Anonymous 2023-06-21 (Wed) 10:19:00 No.18251

>>18244
The contradictions and incoherence of the Bible are a certainty that it was made by anti-Roman, anti-Assyrian nihilists who had nothing but belief and a negative evil eye to cast upon their enemy.

Furthermore, all theistic arguments - cosmological, teleological etc reduce to ontological arguments, which has no means to distinguish itself from fiction but human assertion. Kant and Hume did this ages ago.

In the Protestant anglo context, belief reduces to a sinner's prayer, which is as cheap as a politician's speech. You can read the Epistle to the Romans, mumble the words Paul tells you to mumble and still FEEL NOTHING.

And finally the wager refutes itself. It appeals to Tychism, that is chance, to appeal to a Reality without chance. Here we return to Parmenides' challenge - what is, is and what is not, is not.

Anonymous 2023-06-21 (Wed) 10:40:23 No.18253

Nothing and pure Being are immediately each other. "Nothing" by definition is featureless, empty, and also is, and therefore is immediately Being. If you say that Nothing does not exist, then you are saying that only Being exists. So therefore Nothing exists, which means it is Being. But pure Being is empty. It has no features whatsoever. Pure being has no determinate features besides the fact that it is. Because Being is featureless then it is devoid of everything, and therefore is Nothing. it is immediately Nothing. And hence Nothing is immediately Being and vice versa.

When Being ceases to be to become Nothing, and Nothing ceases to be Nothing to become Being then this motion is an unraveling of pure Becoming. Nothing becomes Being due to the necessity of its existence and Being becomes Nothing due to the void existence of Being. Becoming is the ultimate essence of Being and Nothing, which means that potentiality and unraveling are a necessary feature of both. Becoming is the tension that brings forth existence.

Also, as shown, you can't have Nothing without Being, therefore Being must exist, but it can only exist in relation to Nothing, so Nothing must also exist.

And that's why there is something rather than nothing.

:)

Anonymous 2023-06-21 (Wed) 12:52:34 No.18254

Has anyone ever in the history of the world ever come to Christ due to Pascal's wager? It seems like something to justify believe only after the fact, and is it really even "belief" if God to you is just a game of chance? It's not like God is retarded and wouldn't know you're just scared of damnation.
The Wager is about belief in a higher deity in general, there is nothing about it that requires it to be the Christian capital-G God. People criticizing the Wager are perfectly justified in bringing up either deities.
Same with the argument from design, first cause etc. If there is a higher deity, a creator, some entity you could call "God", there is no reason it should be involved in human affairs, or desire worship. Every one of these arguments presupposes Christianity is the one true religion, but why would this be the case? Which Christianity, even?

Unique IPs: 6