"Pascal’s wager is a type of theistic argument developed by Blaisé Pascal, a French mathematician of the seventeenth century.
There are at least four versions of the wager within Pascal’s posthumously (after the death of the person in question) published work, Pensées, each of which is a pragmatic argument. Pragmatic arguments for theism are designed to motivate and support belief even in the absence of strong evidence. They seek to show that theistic (belief in the existence of a god or gods, specifically of a creator who intervenes in the universe.) belief is permissible, even if one does not think that it is likely that God exists. Other theistic arguments – the Ontological Proof or the Cosmological Argument for example - provide epistemic reasons in support of theism: that is, reasons to think that there exists an all-powerful, all-knowing, morally perfect being. According to Pascal, there is good reason to seek to inculcate (instil (an idea, attitude, or habit) by persistent instruction) theistic belief, even if one does not appreciate the evidence in support of theism. The role of the wager, as Pascal conceived it, was to move self-interested individuals towards a perspective in which they could appreciate the evidence for theism."
< "If one wagers on God and believes, then there are two possible outcomes. Either God exists and one may have put oneself in a position to gain an eternity of bliss; or, God does not exist and one loses little, if anything. On the other hand, if one bets against God and wins, one gains little. But, if one loses that wager, the consequences may be dismal. Because the first alternative has an outcome that overwhelms any possible gain attached to nonbelief, the choice is clear, says Pascal, one should wager that God exists."
An objection, anticipated by Pascal himself, is that we cannot simply choose to believe something. We might be able to say that we do, but saying that we believe and actually believing are two different things.
IN SUMMARY; a pragmatic (practiced & focused) philosophical argument, not a proof of God's existence, that suggests it is rational to believe in God because the potential infinite rewards of believing in Him (eternal joy) out weight the losses and the probability of an infinite loss (eternal suffering in a hellfire) if one does not believe.
just a theory to think about, not to argue about religion. always separate a person from their religion
There are at least four versions of the wager within Pascal’s posthumously (after the death of the person in question) published work, Pensées, each of which is a pragmatic argument. Pragmatic arguments for theism are designed to motivate and support belief even in the absence of strong evidence. They seek to show that theistic (belief in the existence of a god or gods, specifically of a creator who intervenes in the universe.) belief is permissible, even if one does not think that it is likely that God exists. Other theistic arguments – the Ontological Proof or the Cosmological Argument for example - provide epistemic reasons in support of theism: that is, reasons to think that there exists an all-powerful, all-knowing, morally perfect being. According to Pascal, there is good reason to seek to inculcate (instil (an idea, attitude, or habit) by persistent instruction) theistic belief, even if one does not appreciate the evidence in support of theism. The role of the wager, as Pascal conceived it, was to move self-interested individuals towards a perspective in which they could appreciate the evidence for theism."
An objection, anticipated by Pascal himself, is that we cannot simply choose to believe something. We might be able to say that we do, but saying that we believe and actually believing are two different things.
IN SUMMARY; a pragmatic (practiced & focused) philosophical argument, not a proof of God's existence, that suggests it is rational to believe in God because the potential infinite rewards of believing in Him (eternal joy) out weight the losses and the probability of an infinite loss (eternal suffering in a hellfire) if one does not believe.
just a theory to think about, not to argue about religion. always separate a person from their religion
nigga
