Pascal's wager should make you Hindu

[Wertbag]

If you were convinced that Pascal's wager was a valid argument (ignoring the obvious glaring problems that make it unable to change anyone elses mind), then by extension wouldn't you end up with whichever religion gave you the most potential chances? Hinduism claims an older history, plenty of holy writings and many claimed miracles. Surely its evidence is at least as strong as anything Christianity has put forward? But on top of their "evidence" they also worship millions of gods. 

Purely from a hedging of your bets on the unknown, they have more possibilities that could be correct. If you are going to roll the dice why roll once when you can roll 33 million times? 

[LogicalFallacy]

Pascal made the mistake of assuming that there was only either the Christian god or not.

 

Thus

 

P1) The Christian God Exists or Doesn't Exist

P2) If you believe in the Christian God upon death but it doesn't exist you lose nothing

P3) If you don't believe in the Christian God upon death and it exists you go to eternal hell

C) Therefore it is better to believe in the Christian God and escape the possibility of eternal hell.

 

However P1 and P2 should be

 

P1) God/s either exist or they don't

P2) God claims are contradictory and mutually exclusive

 

From that you can make either the case that you should either pick the one with the greatest reward or the greatest punishment. (So you are trying to either go for gold, or just avoid the worst hell), or because on the basis of probabilities the one that no gods exist is just as likely then one should pick no gods and take the risk of that choice.

 

Of course in order to actually work out the probabilities you actually need demonstrable evidence of gods... which there is none, hence the probability is on the side of a "no god" dice roll.

 

[TruthSeeker0]

4 hours ago, LogicalFallacy said:

 

P2) If you believe in the Christian God upon death but it doesn't exist you lose nothing

 

 

 

Except of course the only chance you ever had to experience a truly free life not controlled by irrational stupid fear. 

There's plenty of time to enjoy hell if it exists, that's my wager

[LogicalFallacy]

25 minutes ago, TruthSeeker0 said:

Except of course the only chance you ever had to experience a truly free life not controlled by irrational stupid fear. 

There's plenty of time to enjoy hell if it exists, that's my wager

 

Yes, but the wager is that its better to miss out on 'pleasures' in this life, rather than risk eternity in hell. (Which by all accounts is not pleasant, though not the worst hell imagined)

 

 

 

[TruthSeeker0]

29 minutes ago, LogicalFallacy said:

 

Yes, but the wager is that its better to miss out on 'pleasures' in this life, rather than risk eternity in hell. (Which by all accounts is not pleasant, though not the worst hell imagined)

 

 

 

See, I don't really care for wagers, but I do care about "loving" and sucking up to a "petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully", as Dawkins puts it. To put it the short, or not so short way.

I'll be true to myself and my principles, thanks.

[LogicalFallacy]

7 minutes ago, TruthSeeker0 said:

See, I don't really care for wagers, but I do care about "loving" and sucking up to a "petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully", as Dawkins puts it. To put it the short, or not so short way.

I'll be true to myself and my principles, thanks.

 

Yes, me too. If there is a god, and it does think torturing people for eternity is just.... then fuck it!