Pascal's Gambit

[the squid of despair]

no, I believe in pascal's gambit. which is an entirely different discussion.

Out with it boy.:P

[Jimmy James]

lol, I saw this coming.
Pascal's Wager (also known as Pascal's Gambit) is Blaise Pascal's application of decision theory to the belief in God. It is one of three 'wagers' which appear in his Pensées, a collection of notes for an unfinished treatise on Christian apologetics. Pascal argues that it is always a better "bet" to believe in God, because the expected value to be gained from believing in God is always greater than the expected value resulting from non-belief. Note that this is not an argument for the existence of God, but rather one for the belief in God. Pascal specifically aimed the argument at such persons who were not convinced by traditional arguments for the existence of God. With his wager he sought to demonstrate that believing in God is more advantageous than not believing, and hoped that this would convert those who rejected previous theological arguments. Applications of this argument can be found in other religious philosophies, such as Hinduism, and especially Buddhism. A well known example is the C.S. Lewis quote: "Christianity, if false, is of no importance, and if true, of infinite importance. The only thing it cannot be is moderately important."

[the squid of despair]

lol, I saw this coming.
Pascal's Wager (also known as Pascal's Gambit) is Blaise Pascal's application of decision theory to the belief in God. It is one of three 'wagers' which appear in his Pensées, a collection of notes for an unfinished treatise on Christian apologetics. Pascal argues that it is always a better "bet" to believe in God, because the expected value to be gained from believing in God is always greater than the expected value resulting from non-belief. Note that this is not an argument for the existence of God, but rather one for the belief in God. Pascal specifically aimed the argument at such persons who were not convinced by traditional arguments for the existence of God. With his wager he sought to demonstrate that believing in God is more advantageous than not believing, and hoped that this would convert those who rejected previous theological arguments. Applications of this argument can be found in other religious philosophies, such as Hinduism, and especially Buddhism. A well known example is the C.S. Lewis quote: "Christianity, if false, is of no importance, and if true, of infinite importance. The only thing it cannot be is moderately important."

I already read that much on wikipedia. I didn't read the "Criticisms of Pascal's wager" yet though, so I'll get back to you on your false beliefs. :|

[RobCheadle]

lol, I saw this coming.
Pascal's Wager (also known as Pascal's Gambit) is Blaise Pascal's application of decision theory to the belief in God. It is one of three 'wagers' which appear in his Pensées, a collection of notes for an unfinished treatise on Christian apologetics. Pascal argues that it is always a better "bet" to believe in God, because the expected value to be gained from believing in God is always greater than the expected value resulting from non-belief. Note that this is not an argument for the existence of God, but rather one for the belief in God. Pascal specifically aimed the argument at such persons who were not convinced by traditional arguments for the existence of God. With his wager he sought to demonstrate that believing in God is more advantageous than not believing, and hoped that this would convert those who rejected previous theological arguments. Applications of this argument can be found in other religious philosophies, such as Hinduism, and especially Buddhism. A well known example is the C.S. Lewis quote: "Christianity, if false, is of no importance, and if true, of infinite importance. The only thing it cannot be is moderately important."

Interesting that, I'd heard of pascal's gambit but didnt know what it entailed. Thanks for explaining!

[Jimmy James]

I don't know how else to explain it, so I looked it up. it's all about risk vs. reward. I hurt no one by saying peace and blessing of Allah be upon him, but if Islam is the one true faith, I gain bonus points.

[RobCheadle]

I challenge anyone to think of when they used 'Pascal's Gambit' theory in real life, I know I have...

[Dymond]

LOL we ALWAYS do.. How many times have you said 'God Willing?' or 'I hope to God'. Really it amounts to praying coming down to these words..

'Can't Hurt..Might Help'

[DnD]

You dont think if their really is an omnipotent god, he could read your intentions in your 'belief'?
I think its silly to think your belief in a god or religion should grant you rewards. I dont think any god could be so self-concious that he cares whether we credit him or not and if such a god existed, and he wanted the credit, i think he would make it obvious to us.
It seems more logical to me, that we should be rewarded for our deeds, for being good and moral people, rather then who we credit creation to. And if some atheist spends a lifetime being a good person, shouldnt he be just as deserving of any rewards that a religious person, who is equally good, is granted? Afterall the religious man has his own interests in mind when he is being a good person, yet the atheist does it just for the sake of being a good person.
I also think that if there is a god and he didnt want us to commit sins, he wouldnt have created sins or the ability to commit them. Rather we should embrace our sins as part of ourselves, and part of god, if there is one.

So basically, thats why i dont care if there is a god or not. :)

[Aeon]

so basiclly .. if i have this straight,

the basic idea is....

"believe in god..what have you got to lose?"

[Dymond]

I believe thats the simple premise..

[Rex Mundi]

LOL we ALWAYS do.. How many times have you said 'God Willing?' or 'I hope to God'. Really it amounts to praying coming down to these words..

'Can't Hurt..Might Help'

Of course, by taking the Lord's name in vain, you have in fact earned yourself demerits.

If you are looking to hedge your bets, try something like Strewth, which I believe is derived from G*d's truth, as an expression of surprise.

Peace & goodwill to all on this thread.

(a) (a) (a)

[Maija]

Pascal was obviously the world's first poker player ;-) Implied odds...


But really, I was JUST thinking about this yesterday and I didn't realize that there was an actual theory associated with it. Being a non-believer...I started to think that the best "bet" would be to believe in God, simply, because if you don't, and you are right...what do you win? And if you are wrong...Oh shit. A real gambler would take the better pay-off.

(a)

Anyway, that's just "Maija's World According to Gambling".....thanks for the info *goes to google Pascal's Gambit*

[Dire Wolf]

I think the only non-reward for this would be if you followed the life that the religion lays out for you and find out when you die that none of it was true. I mean if you deny yourself simple sex or some other pleasure because God says its wrong and then find out he/she's not real...well you can't go back and get a do-over.

[DnD]

what if it backfires and god scorns you for your false belief, and isnt gambling a sin anyway? :O

[Maija]

what if it backfires and god scorns you for your false belief, and isnt gambling a sin anyway? :O

That's the beauty of this theory ;)

[Jimmy James]

what if it backfires and god scorns you for your false belief, and isnt gambling a sin anyway? :O

ever read the book of Job? iin that book, God is talking with Satan, and He mentions Job, the most rightious of all the people, and Satan says he is only that way becasue God had given him so much, if he were to lose that, he would curse God for allowing it, so God allowed Satan to kill off Job's sheep, kill his wife and children, destroy all his worldly possessions, and strike ob down, just short of his death, to test his faith. and after Satan has taken all those things, Job says he cannot understand the ways of God, for he is simple by comparision, God must have a reason for smiting him, those affirming his beliefs, and the rightiousness of his being, and God grants Job everything that was taken from him.

I see this as a bet between God and Satan, so how can it be wrong for me to bet on a football game, when god bet on the life of his most rightious servent?

[the squid of despair]

I don't know how else to explain it, so I looked it up. it's all about risk vs. reward. I hurt no one by saying peace and blessing of Allah be upon him, but if Islam is the one true faith, I gain bonus points.

Meant to bring this up before. You are taking a risk when you say a specific gods name. You are choosing that one specificly, therfore, taking a side. Is there a reason you choose allah? Wouldn't it just be safer to say "peace and blessing of Allah be upon him"?

[Jimmy James]

Meant to bring this up before. You are taking a risk when you say a specific gods name. You are choosing that one specificly, therfore, taking a side. Is there a reason you choose allah? Wouldn't it just be safer to say "peace and blessing of Allah be upon him"?

Judaism, Christianity, and Islam all have the same God. Allah is the arabic word for God, not the word for a different God.

[RobCheadle]

I think the only non-reward for this would be if you followed the life that the religion lays out for you and find out when you die that none of it was true. I mean if you deny yourself simple sex or some other pleasure because God says its wrong and then find out he/she's not real...well you can't go back and get a do-over.

Or can you? Who knows! :|

[DnD]

Satan must not be very bright for making bids against God.

[Davecat]

Or can you? Who knows! :|

And therin lies the gamble.

[DnD]

ever read the book of Job? iin that book, God is talking with Satan, and He mentions Job, the most rightious of all the people, and Satan says he is only that way becasue God had given him so much, if he were to lose that, he would curse God for allowing it, so God allowed Satan to kill off Job's sheep, kill his wife and children, destroy all his worldly possessions, and strike ob down, just short of his death, to test his faith. and after Satan has taken all those things, Job says he cannot understand the ways of God, for he is simple by comparision, God must have a reason for smiting him, those affirming his beliefs, and the rightiousness of his being, and God grants Job everything that was taken from him.

So, God makes Satan, then God makes Job, God allows Satan fuck with Job, and then God gives Job all his shit back, all just to make a bet? I think that is just further proof, that if 'God' put us here for any reason, he did it just to fuck with us for his own amusement. An image comes to mind of a child, bent over an anthill, wickedly stirring the ants with a stick just to watch the chaos that ensues.
God Giveth and God taketh away, might as well put your faith in Abraxas. :S

[Jacx]

So, God makes Satan, then God makes Job, God allows Satan fuck with Job, and then God gives Job all his shit back, all just to make a bet? I think that is just further proof, that if 'God' put us here for any reason, he did it just to fuck with us for his own amusement. An image comes to mind of a child, bent over an anthill, wickedly stirring the ants with a stick just to watch the chaos that ensues.
God Giveth and God taketh away, might as well put your faith in Abraxas. :S


God didn't make satan, the demons made themselves when they fell.

Oh and saten is not the devil, he is actually second in command, vice president of hell if u want a "current" term.

The whole plagueing of jusus and the chaos he caused for Job linked saten and Lucifer in the NEW testament.


So why shouldn't god have a bet for a giggle...he won didn't he?

[St.Michael]

You dont think if their really is an omnipotent god, he could read your intentions in your 'belief'?
I think its silly to think your belief in a god or religion should grant you rewards. I dont think any god could be so self-concious that he cares whether we credit him or not and if such a god existed, and he wanted the credit, i think he would make it obvious to us.
It seems more logical to me, that we should be rewarded for our deeds, for being good and moral people, rather then who we credit creation to. And if some atheist spends a lifetime being a good person, shouldnt he be just as deserving of any rewards that a religious person, who is equally good, is granted? Afterall the religious man has his own interests in mind when he is being a good person, yet the atheist does it just for the sake of being a good person.
I also think that if there is a god and he didnt want us to commit sins, he wouldnt have created sins or the ability to commit them. Rather we should embrace our sins as part of ourselves, and part of god, if there is one.

So basically, thats why i dont care if there is a god or not. :)


Why shouldn't I believe in an omnipotent and all-knowing God? He does know our intentions and our desires, that comes with the job. The fact we give God praise for the things we do is not to make him feel better about himself but to show others our faith and that we give thanks for our blessings.


Everyone has sinned, and no one is good enough to get to heaven on their own (Romans 3:23). Getting into heaven is not based on whether our good outweighs our bad, we will all lose out if that is the case. "And if they are saved by God's kindness, then it is not by their good works. For in that case, God's wonderful kindness would not be what it really is...free and undeserved" (Romans 11:6). We can do nothing good to earn our way to heaven (Titus 3:5).

I do not know where you get your beliefs and opinions from but according to my experiences a religious man does not have his own interests in mind when being a good person. "Whatever you do...do it for God" was something my mom always told me. Whether you are giving money to charity or simply giving a homeless man a coat you don't do it to bring personal glory to yourself but to let them know that God loves them.


Ok let me explain something real quick before I go into another rant, Satan or Lucifer was once and angel and was a very powerful angel. But satan believed he was more powerful than God and tried to take heaven from God. Lucifer and all his followers were cast into hell by God for their defiance. Hell was created for lucifer and his followers only, it was not ment for us. But since sin cannot exist in heaven that is the only alternative. So therefore if we do not know jesus christ as our lord and savior and havn't been forgiven of our sins then we will follow lucifer to hell. God doesn't want us to be his puppets, he doesn't want to force us to love him because then it wouldn't really be love at all! We would just be mindless servants doing his will and thats not what he wanted. So when he created adam and eve he gave them a choice, he gave them free will. But you can't throw a crack addict into a small room with nothing in it and tell them to go ahead and smoke crack if they want too, because even if they wanted to they couldn't. Its like with adam and eve, he can't give them free will and not give them the tree of knowledge. God knew that when he gave us free will, there would be some of us who chose to follow him, and yet others who will turn their backs on him. But to him it was worth it because those few that did choose him would love him unconditionally of their own free will.

And ever since eve was tricked by lucifer to eat the fruit from the tree of knowledge that God forbid them to eat from, we have sin in our lives. We are born with sin, so therefore we cannot go to heaven. But God sent his son jesus to die on the cross so that we might be saved from our sins and make it too heaven. On that cross jesus bore all the sins of the past, present, and future.

[Jacx]

you cannot understand good...unless you understand evil too. Without feeling the effects of evil, you cannot feel the concept of good. Pascal covered his base good

[St.Michael]

So, God makes Satan, then God makes Job, God allows Satan fuck with Job, and then God gives Job all his shit back, all just to make a bet? I think that is just further proof, that if 'God' put us here for any reason, he did it just to fuck with us for his own amusement. An image comes to mind of a child, bent over an anthill, wickedly stirring the ants with a stick just to watch the chaos that ensues.
God Giveth and God taketh away, might as well put your faith in Abraxas. :S

Here's a short list of desirable qualities: compassion, mercy, heroism, courage, justice, sacrifice.

Think about it. Could there be...

Compassion without suffering? Mercy without need? Heroism without a desperate plight? Courage without danger? Justice without injustice? Sacrifice without compelling cause for it?
Which great virtues could be seen in a world without suffering or evil? Don't most if not all of the greatest virtues come into play in response to evil and suffering?

Think of your favorite books and movies. Take Gladiator, Saving Private Ryan, Schindler's List or Amistad. Or take fiction like Star Wars or Lord of the Rings. The virtues and camaraderie that inspire us in these stories could not exist without evil or suffering.

If you could snap your fingers and remove all evil and suffering that has ever happened, would you?
If you did, there could be no Hellen Keller, Frederick Douglas, Sojourner Truth, Abraham Lincoln, Harriet Tubman, Susan B. Anthony, Corrie ten Boom or William Wilberforce (who abolished England's slave trade).

We must not minimize suffering. But we must also admit that we praise the virtues that have emerged from suffering—and in so doing we make an unspoken recognition, that good can come out of suffering.

Isn't it logically inconsistent to say the virtues that emerge out of contexts of suffering are good, then turn around and say there's no way a good God couldn't allow evil and suffering? You can't have it both ways. Is it possible that the good coming out of permitting human freedom to choose outweighs the evil that results?

If you think that's not even possible, what qualifies you to know this? You can say, "In my limited understanding of all things, I don't think the good outweighs the bad." Fine, that's your opinion. But to say "I know for sure the good cannot outweigh the bad" would require that you be all-knowing. (And if you think you are all-knowing then you do believe in God after all—you believe that you are God!)

^^^^^ above is from a book I read my freshman year.

Bible verses that go along with the topic...

“…but we also rejoice in our sufferings, because we know that suffering produces perseverance; perseverance, character; and character, hope. And hope does not disappoint us, because God has poured out his love into our hearts by the Holy Spirit, whom he has given us.” (Ro 5:3-4)


“I consider that our present sufferings are not worth comparing with the glory that will be revealed in us.” (Ro 8:18)

[DnD]

i feel so pwned lol, but i was just posting my opinion, maybe i forgot the IMO tags, but thanks for those st.michael, some good food for thought. (Y)

[St.Michael]

i feel so pwned lol, but i was just posting my opinion, maybe i forgot the IMO tags, but thanks for those st.michael, some good food for thought. (Y)

Its not about whether or not you got pwned...you joined in this discussion to maybe learn something. I just hope ya did....I know I did.

[DnD]

so if an atheist loves most of his fellow man and animals and what not, does that not mean he allready loves God, even if he doesn't recognize him?

[St.Michael]

so if an atheist loves most of his fellow man and animals and what not, does that not mean he allready loves God, even if he doesn't recognize him?

He loves God's creations, but not necessarily God.

[Dymond]

OK... I wanna go back to Satan is second in command... Jacx then who the hell is first in command? Lucifer and Satan are one being. Lucifer was his angelic name meaning 'Bearer of Light', He was called Satan when he was cast out of heaven, its meaning, I believe is 'Opposer'.

Now I have a personal theory about Lucifer. If you read some bibles they say the first being God created was Jesus Christ, the Archangel Micheal and together they made everything else. My theory is the first thing these two beings made together was Lucifer. He really is the prodigal second son. No matter how close he was to God he knew that Micheal would always be the first born. Even though he must have been a spectacular creation it always ate at him that there was thing that they shared in the creation of that he didn't, and that was himself.

[Jacx]

OK... I wanna go back to Satan is second in command... Jacx then who the hell is first in command? Lucifer and Satan are one being. Lucifer was his angelic name meaning 'Bearer of Light', He was called Satan when he was cast out of heaven, its meaning, I believe is 'Opposer'.

Now I have a personal theory about Lucifer. If you read some bibles they say the first being God created was Jesus Christ, the Archangel Micheal and together they made everything else. My theory is the first thing these two beings made together was Lucifer. He really is the prodigal second son. No matter how close he was to God he knew that Micheal would always be the first born. Even though he must have been a spectacular creation it always ate at him that there was thing that they shared in the creation of that he didn't, and that was himself.

ok, first Lucifer and Satan are TWO beings not one, its a common misconception. Both feature heavily in the old storys, but lucifer (gods left hand man)(also the reason why in the past, if you was left handed you were belived to be cursed/demonic/evil and many people died becuase of these beliefs) is supposedly the devil. Archangel Micheal was believed to be the right hand man (aka the one thats good) (also note in many books Micheal was as twisted as Lucifer was but choose gods side knowing he could get the number 2 spot that Lucifer had given up in the challange.

According to Wierus Beelzebub is actually the devil and according to others it rulled by all three....imagin how fucked that would be...the board of directors :O.

Anyway my ranking of it all is Lucifer the boss, Satan vice president and then Beelzebub chief of staff. Also note all 3 are Seraphim angels so pre fall, they were sexy fuckers.

sorry for going off topic...but he asked and i replyed with what I BELIEVE, not whats PROVEN FACT of course.

[Mark]

Pascels gambit is stupid beyond belief if their was a god he would surely recgonize that you believe in him for your own selfish gains rather then any true belief

[Jimmy James]

Pascels gambit is stupid beyond belief if their was a god he would surely recgonize that you believe in him for your own selfish gains rather then any true belief

well, believing in God and living a lifestyle that he approves of is selfish, period. what difference does it make if you do it because of implied odds, or because of a desire to go to heaven? or even a fear of going to hell?

[DnD]

well, believing in God and living a lifestyle that he approves of is selfish, period. what difference does it make if you do it because of implied odds, or because of a desire to go to heaven? or even a fear of going to hell?

thats what i was tryng to say lol

i still think if god wanted my faith or my love he would tell me. otherwise, that would be like a teacher collecting and marking an assignment without handing it out first. :S

[Mark]

and i think that if there is a god how the new testement describes him that he wouldent care if you belived in him. He is a perfect being who feels no nager or suprise or any emotion what so ever. If i am a good person that is good enough for me. And if that is not good enough for god then i guess i'll have fun in hell parting with ghandi.

[St.Michael]

and i think that if there is a god how the new testement describes him that he wouldent care if you belived in him. He is a perfect being who feels no nager or suprise or any emotion what so ever. If i am a good person that is good enough for me. And if that is not good enough for god then i guess i'll have fun in hell parting with ghandi.


Do you think your cool now? Who are you anyway? Some insignificant being with so much pride and ignorance that you'd rather choose hell over heaven? You won't be "partying" with ghandi you fool, in hell you will spend eternity ALONE and in the DARK. Burning in a pit of sulfur for ever and ever but never dying. Yea that sounds like a party eh?

[Mark]

no what i am saying is that if god is so jealous and full of human flaws that he cares more about you beilveing in him then you being a good person then i dont want to go to heaven. If that is the case god is a tryant and not at all loving and defintly not perfect