So the message of this is, faith is a space(cannot be measured or seen) which is empty to make us work with it whatever we want to make, for we are creators hand.
Pascal's Wager is one of the most fundamentally flawed propositions in religious apologetics. The fact that so many religions (not just Christianity) use this argument reveals one of its major flaws: it ignores every religion or "god" proposition other than the one they're attempting to validate. It's the "black and white" fallacy (or false dichotomy); a logically fallacious argument that only accounts for two possibilities when the possibilities are virtually infinite. What if you believed in the wrong god? What if it's the right god but wrong denomination? What if there are multiple gods, but you only believed in one? What if the one true god doesn't even care what you believe, but instead offers salvation through particular works? It's ironic that the series is titled "Eleventh Hour Evidence" when the basis for David Asscherick's argument is simply an assertion without evidence that his understanding of god is the only possibility; that he was somehow able to narrow it down for us in advance, without showing his work. Even within Christianity, there have been over 40,000 denominations with fundamentally differing views on soteriology (i.e. how one obtains salvation). But a Hindu, Krishna, or Muslim could present this argument with the same level of confidence and validity. But the nail in the coffin for Pascal's Wager is the false idea that "belief" is a choice. You don't choose what you believe. "Belief" is a brain state. You're either convinced or you're not. So for Pascal's Wager to be true in this respect, either god can be fooled by someone pretending to believe in him, or he rewards liars.
1) As to the many possibilities, maybe we can reduce them. a) How about eliminating from further consideration all possibilities that are ad hoc, that means, which seem like you just made them up in order to seemingly increase the number of possibilities? b) Also, how about focus on those traditions which actually seem to have made an impact in the history of humanity rather than some obscure ones? c) For obvious reasons, focus on those traditions, which tell of an eternal fate, especially an eternal fate that you want to escape, like hell. d) How about after you have thus reduced the possible candidates to your most likely traditions, you look at the evidence for each of them. And then you go with the one, which is most likely from them (or the ones who are most likely, if they should happen not to be exclusive to one another). 2) As to forcing yourself to believe not being possible, maybe you cannot believe something by sheer will. But what you can do is to walk in the path of the tradition that seems most likely to be true to you from all the traditions. You can search for evidence in that tradition. You can attempt to engage in religious activities, being on the lookout for things that might make you believe. Eventually, you might come to believe.
No because Christianity is the most likely religion to be true because it's based on a historical event which is the resurrection of Jesus. It's still more rational to be Muslim or Jewish then atheist because the atheists reject all faiths.
Pascal's wager makes sense from a risk-return standpoint, because (if we exclude the irrational possibility of a perverse god) the risk involved in pledging one's allegiance to one type of god is no greater than believing in no gods at all, while the expected return overall is very slightly increased. However, beyond the mathematical considerations, a god that prefers perfunctory belief, or demeaning worship, over honest skepticism, would be shallow and vain. Pascal's audience was almost exclusively Christian, hence it would have been irrelevant for him to consider the possibility of other gods at the time.
Great Message
Believe in God with your heart if you cannot using Pascal’s wager is the best bet you can ever make.
So the message of this is, faith is a space(cannot be measured or seen) which is empty to make us work with it whatever we want to make, for we are creators hand.
Pascal's Wager is one of the most fundamentally flawed propositions in religious apologetics. The fact that so many religions (not just Christianity) use this argument reveals one of its major flaws: it ignores every religion or "god" proposition other than the one they're attempting to validate. It's the "black and white" fallacy (or false dichotomy); a logically fallacious argument that only accounts for two possibilities when the possibilities are virtually infinite. What if you believed in the wrong god? What if it's the right god but wrong denomination? What if there are multiple gods, but you only believed in one? What if the one true god doesn't even care what you believe, but instead offers salvation through particular works?
It's ironic that the series is titled "Eleventh Hour Evidence" when the basis for David Asscherick's argument is simply an assertion without evidence that his understanding of god is the only possibility; that he was somehow able to narrow it down for us in advance, without showing his work. Even within Christianity, there have been over 40,000 denominations with fundamentally differing views on soteriology (i.e. how one obtains salvation). But a Hindu, Krishna, or Muslim could present this argument with the same level of confidence and validity.
But the nail in the coffin for Pascal's Wager is the false idea that "belief" is a choice. You don't choose what you believe. "Belief" is a brain state. You're either convinced or you're not. So for Pascal's Wager to be true in this respect, either god can be fooled by someone pretending to believe in him, or he rewards liars.
1) As to the many possibilities, maybe we can reduce them. a) How about eliminating from further consideration all possibilities that are ad hoc, that means, which seem like you just made them up in order to seemingly increase the number of possibilities? b) Also, how about focus on those traditions which actually seem to have made an impact in the history of humanity rather than some obscure ones? c) For obvious reasons, focus on those traditions, which tell of an eternal fate, especially an eternal fate that you want to escape, like hell. d) How about after you have thus reduced the possible candidates to your most likely traditions, you look at the evidence for each of them. And then you go with the one, which is most likely from them (or the ones who are most likely, if they should happen not to be exclusive to one another).
2) As to forcing yourself to believe not being possible, maybe you cannot believe something by sheer will. But what you can do is to walk in the path of the tradition that seems most likely to be true to you from all the traditions. You can search for evidence in that tradition. You can attempt to engage in religious activities, being on the lookout for things that might make you believe. Eventually, you might come to believe.
Nah bro ur wrong
No because Christianity is the most likely religion to be true because it's based on a historical event which is the resurrection of Jesus.
It's still more rational to be Muslim or Jewish then atheist because the atheists reject all faiths.
Pascal's wager makes sense from a risk-return standpoint, because (if we exclude the irrational possibility of a perverse god) the risk involved in pledging one's allegiance to one type of god is no greater than believing in no gods at all, while the expected return overall is very slightly increased. However, beyond the mathematical considerations, a god that prefers perfunctory belief, or demeaning worship, over honest skepticism, would be shallow and vain.
Pascal's audience was almost exclusively Christian, hence it would have been irrelevant for him to consider the possibility of other gods at the time.