Prove me wronge (pro tip, you can't)

If you introduce the possibility that God is testing people will all the different religions of the world, and the real test is to use logic and reasoning to reject them as nonsensical (and be moral just person) and only then you get the ultimate reward (whatever that is, infinite days in heaven for arguments sake) it has some probability of being true, and its reward is also infinite.

There is no reason this is not one of your choices that you can choose from (at least if it is not allowed God forgot to include me on that memo).

So now we would have to look at the validity of each option (all religions plus rejection of all religions, as all have the same infinite benefit) to assign a probability of the likely hood of that outcome being correct, and pick the one that is most likely to be the truth (if only one can be true).

So what is more likely, that God picked a random religion to be right, and its like winning the ultimate lottery (sorry John, the correct answer was Mormonism, off to the fiery pit with you) (which is not very just action), or that He chose to reward those that used logic and reasoning to reject all religions (since He was the one that gave us logic and reasoning abilities, and they are Godly qualities as any all powerful moral being would be logical reasonable and just.)

I would argue that the probability of my introduced case is higher than the probability of all the other possibilities combined. (If you ignore the possibility that God does not exist as a possible outcome). It is the most just selection and the most logical, to pick any other choice would mean you have to believe an arbitrary set of beliefs over all other possible beliefs and get lucky enough to pick the right one.

Other urls found in this thread:

truetorahjews.org/
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

*wrong (no idea how I hit an extra e there) (shameless self bump)

What if God hates the fools who chose to believe some stupid fairytale instead of making a rational judgement based on the evidence he provided? In fact, the God of the Jews is just like that.

So Pascal wager for him would be like that:

Judaism is Wrong! Right!

(wrong)Belief N/a You're a grave sinner

Atheism N/a You're OK

how exactly is this an argument against what I said? it looks like your agreeing with it in fact, in a anti-Semitic kind of way. I think Anti-Zionist and Anti-Globalist is a better stance to take rather than blindly hating any group, there are good Jews out there somewhere I am sure.

Try reading stuff from anti-Zionist Jews, its pretty interesting.

truetorahjews.org/

Where are all the religious fags, get in here. Don't worry a little cognitive dissonance is good for you.

>Prove me wronge (pro tip, you can't)
You need to prove there's a god first or no one needs to take you seriously.

>I would argue that the probability of my introduced case is higher than the probability of all the other possibilities combined.

I would counter argue that any logical, rational, reasonable god would only allow the atheists in heaven.

Why would he spend eternity with a bunch of credulous, gullible, brainless misfits who fell for the Abrahamic religions nonsense?

Get on it.

christians are really starting to compete with feminists for most annoying people on the internet

>my religion is correct
If the man in the sky feels like punishing me because I couldn't work out what religion was correct is far from good god.

>It was the Mormons, the mormons were correct

What the ruskie said, the wager is flawed because it only accounts for 2 options.

Two words.

Which God?

I'll wait.

I'm a theist btw, I just think Pascal's Wager is one of the worst arguments for the existence of God I've ever encountered. Didn't do shit for me as an atheist, still doesn't do it for me as a theist.

nope, this is a rebuttal to pascal dipshit
Not relevant, its not an atheist argument if anything its a Deist argument, use your brain and try again

this seems like an agreement with my rebuttal.

Belief - You're Wrong : You wasted your entire life trying to make sky-daddy happy and it turns out he doesn't exist. You wasted your life bro kill yourself.

>You need to prove there's a god first
Not really. The proving part comes in-between religions.

>wasted your life
That's only possible if life has value outside of the experience.

>Prove me wronge (pro tip, you can't)

Pascal's wager and your argument hinges on the idea that God is a retard that can't tell if people genuinely believe in him or not.

I don't believe in God. If I pretend to believe on the off chance that I might be able to get into Heaven, and it turns out that He exists, He'll fucking know.

Their are good parts of religions such as the community, and atheist in general are miserable people... so there is always that... but I agree with this mostly.

Pascal addresses this, by saying go to church hang out with Christians and you may eventually believe.

>Not an argument

Also, that is pascal's argument, not my rebuttal to it. if you read, I am refuting his argument about religion in particular, and even specify that I am ignoring the God not existing case.

Even if we assume one of the two biggest religions is correct (Christianity and Islam) that means there's still a 50/50 shot you're wrong and go to Hell.

That's also ignoring that most religions also have subsets (like Protestant or Catholic or Sunni etc.) which would make your odds even lower.

What if the one true correct religion is one of the smaller ones with less than a million followers? Fuck, what if fucking Scientology is the one true faith?

Pascal's Wager is fucking retarded.

Instead, I submit to you the following: user's Wager

user's Wager is the idea that if a Creator or God exists, your best chance is to just be the best person you can be and hope God isn't a dick when Judgement time comes.

If God is such a dick that a fantastic person can go to Hell just because they picked the wrong arbitrary sect of a religion, then fuck it.

I will say that community is the only good thing about Christianity. But we could have the same communities without Christianity.

> go to church hang out with Christians and you may eventually believe.

I was raised going to Church and even baptized. I decided I didn't believe later. That's a shitty plan anyway.

>implying I can just up and choose to believe in a diety

It's cool that so many of you can lie to yourself, but I can't.

That doesn't mean I disparage those who do. I try to live by Christian morals.

But I can't just believe something because I'm scared of the consequences of not believing. That's fucking mind enslavement.

Humans are creatures of habit. Go to church enough, pray enough and say amen enough; you're likely to eventually truly believe.

All this does is expands the argument and reduces the chance of choosing correctly; not eliminate it. Pascal's Wager is still in play here.

Not really. Pascal's Wager has nothing to do with proving anything, but saying that belief is more advantageous than disbelief.

With "user's Wager", would't you still improve your odds choosing to believe in one god? If god's a dick, but you believe, you're golden; if he's nice, then he shouldn't care if you chose the wrong religion, only that you were good. So be good and believe.

It's much simpler than that. By enabling any sort of cloud fairy theory to persist despite any real evidence, just some camp fire stories from a few thousand years ago, you are enabling reason to be removed from the table at any time and for no good reason other than, muh cloud fairies! This has been the real yoke on civilization for some time now.

If we want to collectively return to the dark ages and feudalism we can just vote on it now that we have democracy.

Which god though?

This is a really bad restatement of what I proposed... I think...

It sucks everyone I know is Christian and I am a black sheep cause I can not wave the pocket watch in front of my face and believe it, and am not willing to soil myself intellectually.

I would say this argument is a Deist argument, since it is ignoring the non-existence possibility. God would just refer to a higher order being that was moral and just and passed some sort of judgment on us.

See I went to a Christian school for over a decade. Hell, your statement is half the reason I stopped believing.

The only reason I or most anybody else considers God and Jesus's magic could possibly be real is because while they were young and impressionable, people encouraged it.

god is a jew

I was hoping to get some religious fags in here to debate me... I love debating religion, and pascal's argument is one of the better ways of convincing people to believe. I can debate against the other arguments even better, but this one is a bit harder to argue against. though I think this is a pretty clear and concise refute of it.

Yes, religion as an institutionalize do set of dogma is bad. Even Jesus thought so. Remember, the priests were supposed to be looking for Him to arrive. He did not approve of their benefits package or pension plan, so they said, "Fuck it! Let's kill him!" Being the lead hypocrites of the age, and knowing nothing of the social justice warriors who would one day form a particularly nutty belief systems, this sounded like a sure thing. Then a few years later, the Romans destroyed their temple and killed/enslaved them all. Whoops...paradise lost.

Now, we all believe some things that are nutty shit to others. But, just because we believe it doesn't mean reality has to care...at all.

The Bible reflects Gods work throughout creation. It is largely ignored, except by a few nuts like me, and religious types.

I tried to read and understand it. They try to make it say good things about giving them money. Confusion rules the day. The only requirement today...out of the whole thing...is that you believe that Jesus, son of God and Jewish messiah, died to pay the price for man's sin, was buried, and rose again, according to scripture. That's it. Nothing else is required to get your foot in the door. You won't be rich in heaven, but you'll be in heaven, which is better than the alternative.

Everything else that distracts from that message is a useless vanity. Unfortunately useless vanity is the American way.

You seem to be able to understand English better than the average person, so you might enjoy reading a bit about the supernatural character of the Bible as proven by math and science.

Chuck Missler wrote a book, Cosmic Codes, which goes into this. If you're too cheap to buy it, there are videos of him presenting it on YouTube.

I thought very similar to you up until I actually started studying the Bible a couple of years ago. Too many opinions to sort through in this day and age. Take a look!

>Not really. Pascal's Wager has nothing to do with proving anything, but saying that belief is more advantageous than disbelief.

Scientifically, no. Our brains are designed for reason and rational thought. They are designed for short term imaginings and creative thought. the long term cognitive dissonance of irrational beliefs and fantasies damages your ability to think rationally.

Before you know it, you're on Sup Forums trying to prove god exists to a bunch of edgy 9th graders who are laughing at you.

If you want to debate religiousfags, you should see if there's a Christian General running. That or one of those daily "Reminder: Sup Forums is a Christian Board" threads. They're shitposts, but there's bound to be a couple of Christfags eager to debate.

>he fell for the monotheism meme
Fuck you, (((Moloch-YHWH))).

PRAISE KEK!
PRAISE HORUS!

subjecive reality is evidence for a creator because it cannot be explained by logic and it cannot be deducted

This is not addressing anything in the argument against pascal, this is not a bible rebuttal thread, I have read the bible and the bible is the best proof that it is not God's will, it is blasphemy by any definition of the word.

>if he's nice, then he shouldn't care if you chose the wrong religion, only that you were good. So be good and believe.

Good is subjective. Mudslimes believe pedophilia is good. Does that mean fucking an 8 year old is good?

Too many religions contradict each other ethically. You can't argue that they're all right.

looking to debate pascal's wager in general, it can apply to any religion that believes in an infinite afterlife

Pascal's Wager is the single dumbest reason to believe in religion you can think of.

>Christcucks

This "argument" is the single dumbest reason to do anything.... Ever...

>but saying that belief is more advantageous than disbelief.
This is incorrect. There may be a god that sentences false Idol worshiper to eternal suffering while sentencing non believers to purgatory or something. Pascal's wager has always been shit because it presupposed Christianity.

Pascal is making a practical argument, and can be expanded to other religions very easily. basics of it. if you believe x and your right you get ultimate reward, if you believe x and your wrong you have no punishment, so its insane not to believe x.

I'd say it's evidence for some form of idealism instead, which may or may not imply the existence of God.

That's the point everyone here is trying to articulate.
You (and anyone else who believes that Pascal wager is a legitimate argument) simply ignore other options.

The whole list of possibilities looks like that:

if you believe x and your right you get ultimate reward
if you believe x and your wrong you get ultimate punishment
if you believe x and your wrong you get nothing

So there's absolutely no reason to believe in x based on Pascal wager logic.

Reread my post and see what is wrong with that argument. There is indeed consequences in many religions for picking the wrong god. There are even religions in which the consequences are worse than ignorance (non belief).

I think you meant if you don't believe x you get ult. punishment. and I am arguing against pascal, as I posted a refute of it. that no one has even attempted to rebut my refute.

Negative consequences are not really all that relevant. but you can include them in the probabilities.. but still you have not addressed one part of my argument. my argument is. Pascal wager type arguments can be completely disprove by the original post.

it's not really believing it if you're just doing it to avoid punishment though, is it?
one also has to wonder about virtuous people that lived before christ. why would Socrates be damned to hell or purgatory?

God wrote the Bible to test out gullibility. Everyone who believes it fails God's test and everyone who understands that it's stupid passes God's test.

I see what you're saying and I think it is interesting. I've thought about it fleetingly but I'll think about it later. Nevertheless, the negative consequences are relevant to the point Pascal thought he made because he was arguing that there is no consequence for being wrong in belief...but there is depending on which religion is right.

Pascal is not making an evidence based argument, and I was trying to debate the people that believe in a particular religion mainly because of the practical arguments for it.

that is my argument, but about all religions, and that the possibility of that being true is higher than the probability of any religion being true.

Actually Satan wrote the Bible and mocks us in it by pointing out how Satan would use trickery to lead people down the wrong path...and yet many are too blind to see it. Satan surely is one smug cunning bastard.

The negative consequences would just be added in as a probable outcome, and you would assign a probability to them similar to the probability of that particular religion being correct, so they can be ignored more or less. and I am arguing that it is more probably all religions are wrong and a test of logic that if you can reject all religions you have a much higher chance of getting the ultimate reward than if you believe in any religion.

what about agnostics?

This would be support for my argument... I think...

You would have to hope that God is a Generous God (assuming your a good moral person), or does not exist, in this particular model.

No I understand your probability argument. I'm not saying you're wrong. I'm just also saying that Pascal was wrong because his argument relies on there being no consequence for belief, when there very well could be.

I mean there are multiple things wrong with belief in imaginary friends. I think you and I are on the same page on that one.

Have you even read the bible?
So what is more likely, that God picked a random religion to be right, and its like winning the ultimate lottery (sorry John, the correct answer was Mormonism, off to the fiery pit with you) (which is not very just action), or that He chose to reward those that used logic and reasoning to reject all religions (since He was the one that gave us logic and reasoning abilities, and they are Godly qualities as any all powerful moral being would be logical reasonable and just.)

In the first page it's clear God is talking to Israel and he says "don't worshp the sun or idols, etc. I have given them to other countries to worship". So unless you're an Israeli right there you could stop reading it and worship the sun or a cartoon frog if that's what you want. Correct me if I'm wrong and I don't necessarily believe this but it's the first thing I thought when I read it.

I mainly love to debate logic and such, I am a bit of a noob at the formal aspect of it. But, religion is something that most everyone knows about so its fun to debate it. Anyways, I think my reasoning here is the best rebuttal to Pascal I have seen was hoping knew if it had been described before and had a name, and knew the counter argument to it, if there is one... But, I do not see a very good way to counter it's logic.

Dumb. You can both be wrong. You can make the same argument for Jihad, except if you're right you get 72 virgins. Since eternal joy AND 72 virgins is better than just eternal joy, the logical conclusion is Jihad.

Kill yourself.

A long time ago we all used to believe in different gods, and often several god simultaneously, which we believed were real just as much as we believe that the Abrahamic god is real today. I find it difficult to have faith as a result.

Good point.

"There's this dude named Satan, who is bad and who tricks people into worshipping him. Also, there's this dude named God, who says we need to worship him."

-- "You haven't thought this through, have you?"

I have read the bible, but this is not really talking about the topic at hand I dont think. I am not arguing against Christianity but all religions. also, the old test. is part (or the whole thing) of the Jewish bible if I am not mistaken.

Yeah not sure if there is a name for that one. The common counter argument is often Pascal's Wager expanded and the one I was talking about.

you first... write me let me know what happens after...

In the first page of the bible God is clearly speaking to Israel and (dont quote me, but) says"Do not worship the sun or the moon, etc, etc. I have given them to other countries to worship"

Let's play a game. I put some colours in a hat and if you draw the correct colour, you win. Everyone else is killed on sight and no one can sit out. What colour do you draw if you want to win? "Well I should sit out since it is way more likely that I chose incorrectly any way" —Sup Forums

i see. i feel like the premise of the wager is sort of flawed, due to it not discriminating between true belief and belief simply to avoid punishment. but this is a different argument i suppose.

>taking heaven and hell literally
>pretending to be a reasonable human bean
k

Alternative option: you call the man's bluff.

If you call his bluff, he was only bluffing about their being a winner. You all get shot instead. There is no valid argument to sit out, you should randomly pick a colour and hope he isn't bluffing.

That's not how Christianity works. Faith doesn't works that way. To be truly be saved you have to be born again. How to be saved? Simply pray once prayer of repentance and give up your life to Jesus Christ. One thing I can promise you, you will know that moment when you will get born again and everything will never be the same.

And for the sake of the argument, no, it isn't a lottery pick like pascal's wager claims it to be. And you know there are so many religions but there is only ONE religion which God died for you in order for you to have everlasting life in heavens (yes, plural). Honestly if you seriously think about and study the Bible it's the only religion which looks legit. But forgive me all this explaining won't change anyone belief and I fully realize this. Bare with me my agnostic/atheistic friends, I'll just add this, when Bible prophecies (ex. gog and magog war, rapture, 7 years of tribulation) will start getting fulfilled THEN YOU WILL BELIEVE. As for now enjoy your rebellious life my friends. But be sure, tomorrow is promised to no man.

God bless you all.

This.

just repend on your deathbed, problem fixed!

Even modern monotheistic religions are based on traditions of thousands of years ago, many of which have been lost to time and myth as men edited them down to make them more palatable or to shape them to support a particular ruling system.
The Hebrew god was originally one of many in a region-wide pantheon. Although they were commanded to ignore the rest and just worship their chosen god, it's pretty clear when you say "you will have no other gods before me" that there are other gods, you're just supposed to ignore them, or worship your god before the rest of them.
Most religions of thousands of years ago were polytheistic. So how did we go from that, where the gods originally supposedly revealed themselves directly to their prophets, to where we are now, with no gods having revealed themselves to any prophets and yet we've condensed everything, without direct divine revelation, to monotheism?

The Correct answer is that no religion is real, or every single one of them is real, the old lost traditions are right, and the gods don't really give a shit about you. Lately I'm inclining towards the latter because for some fucked up reason, the elites of our time still worship Moloch. Or even know who Moloch is.

To any Christian in here, it troubles me big time how disproportionate is the time that you must endure in hell or enjoy in paradise based solely in what you lived here on earth. Let's say I live 70 years and I was a blasmephous dick, lets say I murdered someone, that alone grants me an eternity in hell, isn't that disproportionate? Isn't that an unfair punishment for the soul? Coming from a perfect God he must have thought this on a more mathematical way. Anyone care to explain this to me?

>rapture