Talk:Pascal's wager/Archive 1

message: I can't believe that such a silly proposal (in game theory?) has so many people paying attention to it. This Blaise Pascal fellow is trying to turn belief into a betting game. Belief isn't something that is under your control. Either something makes sense and you believe or it doesn't. This isn't at all like betting money on a horse race. This guy is a religious nut trying to convince people to join his religion or is this just an exercise in game theory? Vmelkon (talk) 22:47, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Blaise did very early work in probability, hence we can think of this as an exercise that he did in applying his method. It's nice to see the discussion phrased in modern parlance (ala Nash, et al), though. ... A missing element (I'll have to see how it might be addressed) is the difference twixt belief and knowledge, even though we find the latter couched in terms of the former. Knowledge? Yes, Blaise's take on his experience ought to have some respect, even from advanced minds of the 21st century. jmswtlk (talk) 23:53, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Impressive 

message: The following makes unjustified assertions.
Nonetheless, as this criticism has surfaced, apologists of the wager have commented that of the rival options, only the ones that award infinite happiness create a problem.  Neither Odin's nor Kali's finite, semi-blissful promise could contend with the infinite bliss offered by Jesus Christ, so they drop out of consideration. Alan Hájek, Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy  Also, the infinite bliss the rival god offers has to be mutually exclusive.  If Christ's promise of bliss can be attained concurrently with Jehovah's and Allah's (which is a plausible assumption, given that all three are identified as the God of Abraham), there is no conflict in the decision matrix. Alan Hájek, Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
And furthermore, ecumenical interpretations of the wager For example: Jeff Jordan, Gambling on God: Essays on Pascal's Wager, 1994, Rowman & Littlefield. argue (perhaps in conjunction with Romans 1:19-20 and Romans 2:14-15, that it could even be suggested that believing in an anonymous God or a god by the wrong name, is acceptable so long as that God has the same essential characteristics (like the God of Aristotle).  Proponents of this line of reasoning suggest that either all of the gods of history truly boil down to just a small set of "genuine options",Paul Saka, The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy - Pascal's Wager or that if the wager can simply bring one to believe in "generic theism" it has done its job. Paul Saka,   The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy - Pascal's Wager
:I agree that these two paragraphs are unjustified assertions.  Ostensibly Odin's Valhalla was no more "semi-blissful" than the Christian heaven, and the Saka reference doesn't make sense in context and is really just a reference to another reference.  These lengthy non-NPOV passages really throw the criticism section out of balance.  But sadly, the title "bunk removed" is no longer the case, because someone put these two paragraphs back. They deserve to be pruned. Tom NM (talk) 11:50, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The line about Kali and Odin seems justified.  At the very least a similar statement was made in the notes to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy's article on Pascal's Wager: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/pascal-wager/notes.html#6.  The SEP is, of course, a reliable source. 129.62.119.81 (talk) 02:00, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bunk Removed 

message: The section on Buddhism seems completely wrongheaded and I would argue that Buddhism specifically has NOTHING LIKE Pascal's Wager!! The section is uncited, and though there are links, in my research the linked material contradicts what is written rather than supporting it. I will tag it for now but I would really like to see it deleted Cuvtixo (talk) 14:37, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm totally in agreement.  I've been suspect of that section from the first time I read it.  Thanks for forcing the issue.  David Bergan (talk) 16:55, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Delete Buddhism from the article 

message: From the wikipedia article about The Meno:After witnessing the example with the slave boy, Meno tells Socrates that he thinks that Socrates is correct in his theory of recollection, to which Socrates replies, “I think I am. I shouldn’t like to take my oath on the whole story, but one thing I am ready to fight for as long as I can, in word and act—that is, that we shall be better, braver, and more active men if we believe it right to look for what we don’t know...” (86b).
(The commonality with Pascal's Wager is the idea of believing something solely for the (expected) benefit that the belief itself gives you)
Ekoontz (talk) 06:30, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a sketchy link at best.  David Bergan (talk) 16:57, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plato's [[Meno]] 

message: Given that it was mentioned earlier already, I deleted the Buddhism subsection due to... utter irrelevance. That argument is entirely different from Pascal's wager by the simple fact that it's not actually a gamble in one's life: happiness follows regardless. That's not the point of the Wager (even if Pascal does acknowledge that the religious man will be happy in his life, the point is to make somebody believe in God, whereas the point of the buddhism paragraph was that doctrine is less important.
I will delete the remnant of this section due to lack of sourcing and seeming lack of relevance in a few days as well, unless someone comes up with a reason for it to stay. DDSaeger (talk) 19:18, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: When you say the point is to make somebody believe in God, do you mean the jewish god, Yahooway? Vmelkon (talk) 15:38, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Appearances Elsewhere 

message: Are any of these actually notable? I don't see the mentioning of an argument in a tv series notable unless that tv series (or an episode of it) is really about that argument. For example, mentioning Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade in Popular Culture about the Holy Grail is fine, whereas a mention of an argument that takes up a few instants (or even minutes) is not. If any single reference was included, these sections would become meaningless; they would not actually teach us anything. It'd be nothing but trivia, unsuited for encyclopedic articles. DDSaeger (talk) 19:18, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree.  Cull the cruft. David Bergan (talk) 04:39, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

text: I removed everything but Prevert (who is a rather notable artist) and the movie that seems to be completely about the Wager. DDSaeger (talk) 13:32, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Popular Culture 

message: Please do not delete what I added. If you do, then delete both analysis of the atheist wager as neither contains quoats. If you have any arguments against it then quoat them.
You may then delete what I added. But please do not delete may comments if you desire to comment on it do. Else both should be deleted.
bw  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Goodbryan (talk • contribs) 10:01, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for trying to contribute, but your edits added no substance.  I restored the last good version of the article.  Kind regards, David Bergan (talk) 23:00, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Change in Atheist wager 

message: As noted by others above, the criticism section contained way more counter-criticism than criticism, by two to one.  Further, some of the criticism had been manipulated so that it made no sense, as has been noted.  I massaged parts of the criticism section so that it now actually describes the criticism. I reworked two of the sections to that they now neutrally describe some of the major objections to the logic of Pascal's Wager.  (That seems fair, since Pascal ostensibly based his Wager on *logic*.)  Certainly there are many other credible criticisms of Pascal's rationale, so it seems reasonable that the few that are presented in the article are treated fairly. Tom NM (talk) 11:34, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism NPOV revisions 

message: On the citation of Terry Pratchett:  his fans will note that
his demigoddess "The Lady" is also an implicit satire of Pascal's
Wager.  The Lady, who is (very circumspectly), identified as Lady
Luck, only grants favor to those who do not seek it.  She regards
any efforts to invoke Her assistance as condescending, taking
Her for granted, and anyone who tries is going to find their luck
running out immediately.  People NEVER speak Her full name if they
know what's healthy for them.
This is a variation on the Atheist's Wager that might be called the
Gambler's Wager:  if you try to influence the decision-making of the
gods by prayer or faith, they will desert you.  It has a certain basis in experience because
gamblers of any stripe know perfectly well that to proclaim how
lucky they are is to be asking for trouble -- like the extremely
successful skirt-chaser who says:  "No, man, my luck with women
is always bad."
Jade Cat 71.33.225.71 (talk) 16:35, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: They only know that if the Gambler's Fallacy isn't a fallacy after all. But it is a fallacy, so there is no such "basis in experience". -- 96.247.231.243 (talk) 08:38, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pratchett's Lady 

message: Is the phrase "shredded the trees of certainty" a quote from Pascal or someone else?  It's a colorful metaphor, but if it's our own phrase, it seems a bit unencyclopedic.  It doesn't seem to serve any function other than to suggest that we agree with Pascal's arguments and conclude that he's successfully undermined all certainty in the areas of religion.  That may not be the intent, but if that's what we're in effect doing, I'd suggest that it's taking an editorial point of view.  It would seem much more neutral to say something along the lines of "[Having] first attacked certainty, he then asks . . ."  If it is a quote, we should attribute it so that it's clear to the reader where the conclusion is coming from. EastTN (talk) 14:52, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: A google search for "Shredding the trees of certainty" didn't turn up anything for me.--CyberGhostface (talk) 15:56, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I did a google search for "shredded the trees of certainty" and all I found was various versions of this article. EastTN (talk) 16:08, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shredding the trees of certainty 

message: Occuring event in Probability Theory can have a chance of zero.  More formally, the event in the measure space has Measure zero.  Any Lebesgue integral over such event (as a set), as is the case determining the expected value, yields zero too.  Therefore even with infinite gain, if the event that God exists has measure zero, the resulting contributed expected value is 0. 80.101.55.174 (talk) 11:55, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: From your comment, it's obvious you don't understand the wager at all. Since there's nothing in the physical world that can either prove or disprove the existance of God with absolute certainty, we must wager as if either is possible. --204.184.214.2 (talk) 16:00, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Your assertions are baseless. It is quite reasonable to believe that the probability that there is a god that can grant infinite reward and will grant it to those who believe in it is zero. And to prove that, consider an eye-god who grants infinite rewards to those who stab themselves in the eye. If you believe that Pascal's logic is valid and you believe that the probability of the existence of such a god isn't zero, then why haven't you grabbed a knife? -- 96.247.231.243 (talk) 09:00, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Analysis with decision theory: wrong conclusion 

message: The OP above is correct in stating that the decision theoretic evaluation of the wager includes an unstated assumption. Namely, that the probability that god exists is not 0. Else, the conclusion is wrong. I am adding that part.
Furthermore, the wiki-link and connection with game theory is wrong. Given the matrix, "Living as if God does not exist" is not dominated according to game theory: If you opponent (nature? universe? god?) plays "god does not exist", your best reply is to play "Living as if God does not exist". Of course, using game theory implies that the human is playing against someone, which might be questionable in the first place. I am removing the wrong link. --Xeeron (talk) 14:40, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: positive probability / game theory

message: No choice, no wager... plain and simple. If a proposition doesn't correspond to any perceivable reality (as in god or afterlife), there simly is no choice which one has to make, never was and never will be, regardless of infinite possibilities. A similarly ridiculous coin toss may sound like "If I don't believe in it, will the giant Spaghetti Monster eat my testicles, so I won't be able to reproduce... whereas if I believe in it, it may spare them so I may perceive the bliss of having children?"... well at least that would corresond to a real life scenario. 92.225.67.249 (talk) 15:11, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  there must be quotable sources for the following view 

message: The section on pascal's anti wager is very short and is POV. It quickly dismisses the claims of Richard Dawkins but barely elaborates on said claims. The Anti wager does not just encompass that "you should live your life happy and free because there is no deity". It also, and in many ways more importantly, describes the odds that you are correct. Dawkins describes how there are thousands of gods and hundreds of thousands of ways to worship these gods. The odd that you pick the right god and follow that god's doctrine are against you. On top of this, Dawkins explains that many of the gods in question punish you for beliving in another god, further diminishing your odds. I can get the quotes if necessary, they all can be found in the God Delusion, but if we are going to mention Pascal's Anti Wager at all, IT MUST be properly presented.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.83.23.166 (talk) 19:09, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Pascal's Anti Wager POV

message: This whole page seems to be contradictory edits composed of "Sentence showing the proof is wrong. However, contradicting sentence showing the previous sentence is wrong." Could we cut out some of the "Take-thats"? --Ye Olde Luke (talk) 05:57, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contradictory edits 

message: This article is listed as a GA, but there is no record of how it got that status. The flaws are obvious: excessive use of quotations, insufficient and limited references, one-sentence sections, the disfavoured "In (popular) culture" section, etc. Since the GA promotion has not followed proper procedure, I see no reason to go through a formal reassessment, and will just remove the GA-status forthwith. If anyone has an issue with this, feel free to bring it up at Wikipedia:Good article reassessment. Lampman (talk) 18:47, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removing GA status 

message: The Martin text consolidates the criticisms in precisely this form, and I think it should be properly attributed in a footnote somehow.  While primary sources (such as Voltaire, etc.) should certainly be presented.  (I haven't read the book in about ten years, so my memory could be rusty about the proper attribution, but a redflag went up right away when skimming the article that I had seen this elsewhere.)  71.182.249.158 (talk) 22:46, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticisms section should somehow be attributed to Martin 

message: I've had a quick read through this article and it appears to be a bit one sided.  All counter arguments to the wager are dismissed with what appears to be a cavalier attitude.
Also wondering why infinite reward is assumed for God exists + Living as if God exists?  Why is the following less likely and not just as persuasive?
                                    	God exists (G)	God does not exist (~G)
Living as if God exists (B)         	-∞            	f1
Living as if God does not exist (~B)	f2            	f3
--Dion Liddell (talk) 10:17, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: What is the case for Christian doctrines is irrelevant, since the logic of the wager is aimed at those who don't currently accept Christian doctrine. The comments below about "no one believes it" are likewise nonsensical, since the wager is all about what is logically compelling; what people currently believe doesn't enter into it. -- 96.247.231.243 (talk) 09:21, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

text: From what I understand, Pascal is a christian and the point of his argument is to say being a christian is better than being an atheist. He does not take into consideration the other religions and gods. His focus is on believing his particular religion. In other words, his argument is pretty limited, simple and not well thought out. Vmelkon (talk) 20:44, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

text: I wonder if his original was better. Pascal could easily have decided to self-censor, after realizing that publishing "What if my people believe in a false deity?" was likely to cause him some trouble.  TooManyFingers (talk) 02:09, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Flip side to this one-sided article? 

message: This may be the best article I've ever read on the Wiki. It provides penetrating analysis from multiple perspectives Theriddles (talk) 05:16, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: This page is for improving the article, not for bible thumping. -- 96.247.231.243 (talk) 09:23, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Thanks 

message: I'm kinda confused about the criticism section of this article. More than half of it seems dedicated to argue against the raised critisism, which gives a wierd vibe while reading the article. When I come down to the critisism section I do not expect for the article to mainly continue arguing for the validity of the wager.
Furthermore, some of the responses to the criticism outright contradicts each other and the premises laid out for the wager, creating a confusing paradox. For instance, it is stated that: But Pascal did not offer the wager as a so called "proof". It merely followed from his arguments that reason can fail to give any answer and that discerning God's actual existence appears to be "a coin toss." If reason can answer the question of God's existence, then the wager simply does not apply.
But at the same time just a paragraph futher down it is stated: Pascal himself didn't address the question of other religions in his section on the wager, presumably because throughout the rest of Pensées (and in his other works) he examined alternatives, like stoicism, paganism, Islam, and Judaism, and concluded that if any faith is correct, it would be the Christian faith.
These two lines are in direct contradiction. How can one reason that one faith is superior to all others, and then state that because reason doesn't apply, this faith is the best bet?
It goes on: Apologists reply that hypotheses such as these lack the backing of tradition that genuine religions have, and thus should be disregarded. Which again doing the exact same thing.
I know original research is a no-no on Wikipedia, so I'm not suggesting what it should be changed to instead, but surely the article isn't supposed to contradict itself so openly?
Best regards Drakim (talk) 13:31, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism section needs work 

message: How about adding a new section 'Pascal's Wager Debunked' from atheist POV. Here is a clip of Matt Dillahunty from his atheist show - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v9WRG4e6m2s. This basically argus on following points
# Pascal's Wager ignores different gods, religions, heaven, hells.
# Pascal's Wager assumes that the god can be fooled by pretended belief, worshipping.
--Abhishikt 03:17, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pascal's Wager Debunked 

message: An image used in this article, File:Blaise Pascal.PNG, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests July 2011 
;What should I do?
	A discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs.
This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 10:22, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: File:Blaise Pascal.PNG Nominated for Deletion

message: God exists (G)	God does not exist (~G)
Belief (B)    	+∞ (heaven)   	+1 (moral benefits)
Disbelief (~B)	−∞ (hell)     	-1 (immoral consequences)
On what basis have we ascribed benefits and negative consequences to the ~G outcomes? Surely in a world without God, B and ~B should objectively both be valued at 0? To ascribe them moral values is to beg the question of the existence of God or the morality of believing in Him...  If the +1 and -1 values are ascribed by Pascal, could someone please include a reference to this, or highlight the circular reasoning in it? If these values are not in fact explicitly stated by Pascal, perhaps it would be fairer to him to alter them.
92.22.160.241 (talk) 20:17, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Currently, the table says −1 (finite loss), which basically means that the believer wasted his life. +1 (finite gain) which means the non-believer did not waste his life. Pascal is not placing much value on human life, so he gives it a -1 and +1. In your case, you want to make it neutral but I'm not sure why. highlight what circular reasoning? Vmelkon (talk) 21:35, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Bias in outcomes of "God does not exist" column of decision table?

message: In the section titled "Analysis with decision theory," I don't understand the sentence that says:
:"Any matrix of the following type (where f1, f2, and f3 are all finite positive or negative numbers) results in (B) as being the only rational decision."
because in the chart that follows, f2 corresponds to −∞ (from the previous chart in this section), thus it would not be "finite positive or negative" as the cited sentence claims.
--JohnJSal (talk) 00:38, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Negative infinity as a consequence of ~B 

message: As of today, the footnote #"4" and "a" is wrong.  It should be "Pensees 233", NOT 272.  See Paragraph eight, at: http://www.gutenberg.org/files/18269/18269-h/18269-h.htm#p_233
24.190.167.34 (talk) 21:34, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wrong section of Pascal's 'Pensees' 

message: Added "Unbalanced" tag, reflecting the comments others have made on this talk page. For example, the part about inconsistent revelations ends with ecumenical interpretations, referenced to Saka. Saka specifically argues that these arguments against the many gods objection are invalid. See here. Using critics of the wager merely as a source for arguments against the criticism seems pretty biased to me.  Ssscienccce (talk) 20:58, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism section unbalanced 

message: I've just tuned in to the article and went back through the edit history and talk history. 
Would any regulars be willing to give a summary of where things stand?
My interest was piqued by the late Christopher Hitchens's rather shallow dismissal of the wager. I'm taking a print-out of the article to lunch to mark up.
Thank you. JWorkman 20:18, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Status of discussion on this article as of Feb.16, 2013 

message: The final sentence needs a citation from Pascal. Especially in view is the first clause, "Unbelievers who persistently endeavor in an honest, rational effort to search for the truth are commended by Pascal...." This claim is made in the context of the "Argument [objection to the wager] from inauthentic belief. I cannot find where Pascal commended those who make a search for truth, but don't authentically accept the existence of God. I think Pascal would have concluded that those who do not finally come to an acceptance of God are "lost". I welcome documentation; otherwise I plan to replace this sentence with the following from from Pensees #236, "...If you die without worshiping the True Cause, you are lost." Thanks. JWorkman 23:33, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Final sentence needs citation 

message: In the variations-section some "Samlin" is "quoted". Who is this Samlin? Urgently needs a link (btw also citation)! 
I'm also interested in this Samlin, as this variation seems to me a bit weird: Looking at all history (no matter at which date) the influence of belief on society doesn't look appealing to me. Only looking at the 4000years of history of faith (esp. their wars) is for me far more a strong argument against faith! --93.223.199.209 (talk) 20:30, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Variation of "Samlin"  

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Pascal's Wager. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20120418162422/http://www.voltaire-integral.com/Html/22/07_Pascal.html to http://www.voltaire-integral.com/Html/22/07_Pascal.html
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20061014231859/http://www.classicallibrary.org/pascal/pensees/pensees03.htm to http://www.classicallibrary.org/pascal/pensees/pensees03.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 06:03, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: :Hey I'm just a gonna leave this here, it's two refutations by theremintrees, a youtuber who focuses on teaching critical thinking and exposing manipulation and coercion in unethical groups, especially religion. "betting on infinity" https://youtube.com/watch?v=fZpJ7yUPwdUfZpJ7yUPwdU and "rebutals to 'betting on infinity'" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bXSjzCf1waA 
47.33.147.53 (talk) 19:50, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Make a Wager. 

message: There's no guarantee for no eternity in Hell nor eternity in Heaven... even if one has done everything possible to please the God.
Such a God can make arbitrary decision at will, unhindered, unstoppable by anything. Everything is fully at whose mercy.
All beings are inherently vulnerable to such supreme beings, even God himself: how could God ensure that no supreme being sits in judgment of him?..
If their existence makes too little difference, whether they exist or not is made of little importance.
— Wikipedian Right (talk) 04:42, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  No guarantee for no eternity in Hell... nor eternity in Heaven 

message: "If I can make this chapter sufficiently stupid, I bet it will generate discussion for generations!" TooManyFingers (talk) 02:33, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pascal's Real Wager 

message: Pascal's wager rests on dichotomies: you believe or you do not. God exists or does not. Hell exists or does not. The logical use of dichotomy is powerful and pervades mathematical logic, but for analysis of one's philosophical framework it falls short at each step. First, in the matter of belief - our minds are not logical or unitary. We can and do hold contradictory "beliefs" - I believe that I should be a law-abiding citizen, and I believe it is sometimes OK to go a little over the speed limit. We all know know of the phenomenon of eleventh-hour conversion - our belief systems can be hidden from our own conscious awareness and only realized by crisis: does such a belief "count" to an omniscient deity if it never informed the convert's actions until the 11th hour? Speaking of deity, of what deity do we speak? Pascal emphatically believed in the Christian God, but is THAT the god that he must appease with his faith? Humanity has hypothesized (or discovered, or been informed of) quite a variety of gods. Does it matter which one in which we place our faith? The Christian God professes to be "a jealous god" - it seems that at least in that case if God exists, we better believe in him particularly (and perhaps "correctly"? If he is the Catholic God, are the Baptists "close enough"?).
So, the matter of hell is weak soup now: if we consider that there are many, many versions of "god", there are correspondingly many versions of penalty or admonition for the unbelievers - and variations within for willful unbelievers as opposed to the merely uninformed. Without any way to know WHICH god to worship, how are we to know which godless afterlife to fear? Is it even fearful?
Pascal's wager sheds no light. It is an historical curiosity, chiefly of value for how WELL it illustrates the problems of a false dichotomy in logical argument. There is no mention of this "fly in the ointment" within the article, and there should be. Kg4jxt (talk) 19:06, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  False Dichotomy