Pascals Wager is a sound argument.

[KWED]

He saying strive to find truth, not to believe.

So when we find that truth to be 'no god', what does Pascal's argument suggest?

 

[KWED]

Keep searching, if you are sure no God exists, the argument doesn't work. But only if 100% sure. Rounding down. So if 99.999999999999999999999999999999% sure God doesn't exist, it still works. Only way is 100% sure no God exists or no heaven and hell exists.

So even if we are almost certain that there is no god, we should still choose one and pretend to believe in it. And that is supposed to be sufficient for god to grant us a place in heaven.
So, which one? And how do we choose?

Also, does the god of Islam allow people into Jannah who are 99.9% certain he doesn't exist and just pretend he does to avoid hell?

 

[`mud]

Ahhh...the bushes we all go around.....to get to nothing.

 

[KWED]

That part at least is generally in line with Pascal's Catholic beliefs. It's not so much that Pascal think that God is "fooled" as much as God has instituted the sacraments as a means of salvation, and participating in the sacraments is an action that people can decide to do or not do.

His arguments don't work at all in "sola fide" Protestantism, but Pascal wasn't arguing for Protestantism.

It also doesn't work for Islam (ironically, given the OP is a Muslim) because Allah specifically rails against the munafiqun (hypocrites) "saying with their mouths what was not in their hearts. And Allah is most Knowing of what they conceal" and "there is for them a painful punishment". "Indeed Allah will gather the hypocrites and disbelievers in Hell all together".

 

[KWED]

They aren't supposed to. The quest even if you never see God and he don't exist, sill has to embarked with utmost effort, because the risk is too much and wager shows whatever loss in this world, it was worth it, since risk was always too much.

You are just repeating the claim that I am asking you to explain.
After the quest has been completed with utmost effort, and the conclusion is still no god, what does Pascal recommend then?

 

[Link]

You are just repeating the claim that I am asking you to explain.
After the quest has been completed with utmost effort, and the conclusion is still no god, what does Pascal recommend then?

As I said the loss (if truth seeking is seen as a loss) is nothing compared to the pain of hell forever. It's called a wager for a reason.

 

[Sand Dancer]

Most people don't read original and so misconstrue it.

All the counter arguments to it, I think he predicted it and refuted it already by counter to counter arguments in his works.

What do people think of it?

I don't think it's sound at all. It gives either Christianity or atheism as choices. What about all of the other religions? We can't believe in them all just to escape any possible punishment.

 

[Link]

I don't think it's sound at all. It gives either Christianity or atheism as choices. What about all of the other religions? We can't believe in them all just to escape any possible punishment.

This whole thread I've been explaining this. Anyways I'll explain again, it uses Christianity as a variable, not a necessarily it has to be true. But since he believes it's the truth, he uses two birds one stone approach. However, it works regardless if it's true or not since it's a variable, you can substitute for truth any religion including ones that don't have hell and including no religion is true, but the issue is we should not risk it. We have to arrive at certainty because the risk is too much to risk hell, is the argument.

To me it makes sense.

 

[Sand Dancer]

This whole thread I've been explaining this. Anyways I'll explain again, it uses Christianity as a variable, not a necessarily it has to be true. But since he believes it's the truth, he uses two birds one stone approach. However, it works regardless if it's true or not since it's a variable, you can substitute for truth any religion including ones that don't have hell and including no religion is true, but the issue is we should not risk it. We have to arrive at certainty because the risk is too much to risk hell, is the argument.

To me it makes sense.

Sorry I didn't look at the replies. Gotta hop off but thanks for clarifying.

 

[Link]

Sorry I didn't look at the replies. Gotta hop off but thanks for clarifying.

No problem. It was the purpose of the thread to survey views and see if anyone understood it correctly.