cross-posted from: https://lemmy.zip/post/71446600
cross-posted from: https://piefed.social/c/comicstrips@lemmy.world/p/2378938/you-know-japheth-maybe-this-wasn-t-such-a-good-idea
“You know, Japheth… maybe this wasn’t such a great idea.”
This appears to be by Rusty Epstein. More:
https://www.google.com/search?q=comics+by+someone+who+signs+"Rusty"&udm=2
In every religion you ignore every other religion, so that point is bollocks. Everyone faces the roulette wheel.
In some religions all you have to do is repent at the last minute. So just choose one of those if youre going pascals wager, no need to devoutly practise from birth.
How do you know you cant trick god? On like page 10 of the Christian bible god says “whoops not like that” and smiles everyone.
Sorry to have made you type all that, i dont even believe in any of this stuff, but I feel weirdly called out having -xx in double digits and baby accounts piling on.
How does that negate my point? If anything, it supports my point. Pascal’s Wager is specifically about Christianity. That’s like literally my point.
No. Only people who think they are going to be subjected to eternal punishment for not believing. I’ve got no religion roulette wheel in my life because I’ve never been given a single good reason to believe I’m facing eternal punishment.
Only if you choose the correct god. You’ve got a 1 in several thousand chance of being correct. Good luck I guess.
And finally:
Because literally the definition of the word “omniscient”. If you can trick your god into thinking your beliefs are genuine, when in reality you’re just hedging your bets, then they’re not omniscient.
No need to apologize, this is for anyone who happens to read this, not just you.
Theres a chance i just dont understand the fallacy.
It would be better to write down anything on the exam than leave the question blank?
That’s exactly the concept thats being discussed though? That’s not a point against pascals wager thats just straight atheism.
Yeah. Like on roulette, only if you choose the right number.
He might not be. You’ll be familiar with the classic refutal where “he cant be omniscient AND omnipotent AND benevolent”. If god exists then he must fall short of at least one of those.
I really might be misunderstanding here, but i dont feel like I’ve seen any solid proof other than a firm belief that there’s no god.