Do you think you can cheat God?

[naomi24]

Pascal’s Wager, in short, states that:

**a man has everything to gain and nothing to lose by believing in God, and everything to lose and nothing to gain by not believing in God. On these grounds, one would be foolish not to believe.** (**-** Copied from the internet).

So, according to that, Pascal’s faith wasn’t genuine – but more importantly, he rather stupidly overlooked the fact that God is, allegedly, omniscient, and would therefore be aware of this devious ploy.

Many of the religious here appear to have no hesitation in trumpeting their piety and their good deeds, whilst at the same time often vilifying their fellow man, and in particular those who don’t believe as the religious claim to. In my understanding of Christianity, all of that seems rather contrary to Christ’s teachings. However, it now appears that one self-proclaimed Christian here is, in fact, taking the path of Pascal’s Wager, and I wonder just how many others are secretly following suit– and if so, if it transpires that God does indeed exist, do they really think they are capable of cheating him?

[bert_h]

I think that people's logical and analytical abilities vary so widely that what seems a perfectly straightforward and convincing argument to one of them will look like incomprehensible nonsense or self-deluding rubbish to another one; and in anything related to religion, it's even more so.

So there's isn't the slightest chance of getting anything like a consensus of opinion on this item, but that won't stop lots of people trying.

[jomifl]

Pascal's wager is typical of a lot of philosophical arguments, it is too glib and doesn't address the little matter of probability. In real terms it is completely fallacious as it ignores the very real downside of belief in god whilst giving too much weight to the the unfeasibly remote possibility that such a thing as god exists. I have never considered it worthy of anything other than the most cursory consideration.

[Zacs-Master]

For Gods sake give it a rest. (see what I did there?)

[mibn2cweus]

Then there's the problem of determining which witch is the real witch, going on the assumption that any one of the choices standing in the line up is indeed the 'actual' suspect, a possibility I've already ruled out by the alleged nature of the candidates presented to date . . . but that's another topic.

[humbersloop]

//However, it now appears that one self-proclaimed Christian here is, in fact, taking the path of Pascal’s Wager, and I wonder just how many others are secretly following suit//

Naomi, I don't know who you refer to in the first part of that sentence, and only those you refer to in the latter can, or will answer honestly.

Imo, Pascal's Wager is a theoretical, actuarial luxury only available to those with the time and security to invent it, never mind seriously exercise or debate it, why ever they do.

Recent exposure to the -admittedly /specialist/ - brothels in Mumbai providing 8-10 year old Nepali girls indentured as prostitutes by utterly impoverished families leaves me with questions this question really doesn't touch.

[Old_Geezer]

Seems more of a potential legitimate reason for the choice than a devious ploy to me. Surely a diety would be content with whatever convinces you to choose 'the right path'. Anyway it's not what you believe so much, it's what you are. Actions speak much louder than words. And 'roads to hell' aside, intent must surely be important too.

[naomi24]

Zac, //For Gods sake give it a rest.//

This is R&S. If the topics here don't suit you, go elsewhere. No one is obliged to contribute.

Humbersloop, //Recent exposure to the -admittedly /specialist/ - brothels in Mumbai providing 8-10 year old Nepali girls indentured as prostitutes by utterly impoverished families leaves me with questions this question really doesn't touch.//

This question isn't intended to touch, or to address, the issue you mention, and therefore I can only suggest you ask the questions that you would rather seek answers to. I, for one, would be interested in any discussion arising from them.

[Zacs-Master]

Naomi love, it's time to step back and re-evaluate your life, or rather your somewhat serious take on it. I'm not sure what event triggered your obsession with condemning religion, but you've almost made a religion out of it.

[naomi24]

Read my previous post to you.

[bigbadmarty]

naomi is it ok to worship you x

[naomi24]

Hello Marty. Nice to read you again. :o)

[Zacs-Master]

I see it as a kind of missionary work. Trying to save you from yourself, if you like. It's good to have a hobby and be passionate about something but there's a fine line between passion and obsession, and I think you're in danger of crossing it. I hope this doesn't come across as patronising but I have seen people, both friends and relatives who's passion has made them blinkered to the fact that life was hurtling past them and before they realised, it was too late.

[naomi24]

Zac, thank you for your concern. I'll bear it in mind.

[mike11111]

Nice one, Zak, I especially enjoyed the subtle irony of describing the OP as a missionary.

[Zacs-Master]

I tried.

[naomi24]

Evening Mike.

[bigbadmarty]

you can't hedge your bets - its all nonsense but because its nonsense it means all the ancestors I can trace have either been delusional or (hopefully) delluded . In any event its time to move on - lets pick on the homeopaths

[mike11111]

So you're starting on the gays now, eh?

[naomi24]

Marty, Homeopaths have been done - but no reason we shouldn't do them again if you post a question.

As for time to move on - if only.

Gays? Haaa! Mike, look up homeopath.

[RATTER15]

Its a perfectly civilised question in the correct category, whats the problem? touches a few raw nerves maybe?