A more laid-back video, and a departure from the usual Schopenhauer/Nietzsche content. Do you like it? Please subscribe if you like the video, apparently only 16% of our viewers are actually subscribed! www.patreon.com/WeltgeistYT
I watched this awhile ago but just now thought of a reply to this comment. What about this type of video on more obscure and specific Nietzsche passages? I'm reading TSZ rn and just finished "On The Adder's Bite", for example.
Can you explain why God is the only possible diety of reality. There could be infinite to choose from. How do you know you arent gonna reincarnate based on Karma and Christianity gets you negative Karma for false hood. Or if theres no dieties but just an afterlife of beings and you just end up near other believers. Or if Taoism is real. Can you explain why you wager so lowly on other choices
My biggest issue with Pascal's wager is how easily it can be applied to other scenarios. For example, if I were to say "looking at a black cat will cause bad luck", would you look at that cat? In this scenario, Pascal's wager too applies. If it is true, then looking at it will cause you harm. Otherwise, nothing will happen. Therefore, under the logic of Pascal's wager, it is logical to never look at the cat, reguardless of how absurd the original superstitious statement is. This expands to any statement, and ultimately just leads to conformity with whatever others say. You simply continue in comfort, never seeking any more than what is given.
Your video is educational, but it sounds like you're completely missing the point: as you said, the wager is meant to shock us into religious exploration, but you're not addressing the mechanism of this "shock", which is to induce a fear of hell. That's how pascal used it and that's how it's used today, regardless of any specific formulation of the wager. The atheist rebuttals, regardless of the specific wording they use that you might not approve of, try to point this out -- that this wager is empty. It pretends to employ reason (which is the entire reason it survived), while the real argument is purely emotional. By showing that the wager is "wrong", i.e. not meaning what it claims to mean, it is nullified. That's one of the main uses of reason: dispelling superstition, which is nothing more than customs which we follow for no other reason but the fear of imaginary consequences.
To be fair, the wager presupposes that you at least think that in principle Christianity could be true, if you believe that it is demonstrably false (and not merely something that could be reasonably doubted), then it would make no sense. In short: the wager is meant for a specific kind of person, and it's rationality works in a specific context.
@@Aliocha777 So to paraphrase: it's only meant for those who already presuppose that Abrahamic religions are the only viable ones and rejects all other kinds of religions (even though many the other ones predate the Abrahamic ones by a long shot and were & are being practiced much more in the world)...
@@kimbanton4398 it's not meant for the general category of "abrahamic religions" it's meant specifically for Christianity, the context of the wager is that you already bought into pascal's motives of credibility for Christianity, the wager is meant to show to you then how serious it is for you to investigate the issue.
@@Aliocha777 Then this wager is nothing but a tool for reaffirming the beliefs of those who already believe and does nothing to convince those who do not believe to actively investigate Christianity. Just a waste of an argument...
@@kimbanton4398 did you even watch the video? The wager was never meant to stand alone, it's not a silver bullet to make you become christian, that's the whole point of the video.
Atheistic text wall warning. When people think of nothingness, many think that it is inherently bad. This is common and understandable, but this is not the only view. Some including myself, see nothingness as rewarding in itself. In doing so I only make one assumption, that being that burden is bad, which I think to be obvious. Which one could and should forward to for three reasons. No other state of being requires no burden. Burden is seemingly not truly fungible with reward. There is no existence, even if non-physical, that one could think of that would be free from this burden. Considering these three reasons the assumption of non-existence is the most positive regardless of reward thus showing that Pascal's Wager can be taken and non-existence in the after-life selected. Existence inherently involves burden, even if non-physical. Consider a task, this can be any task. Any task that you considered by its nature, required burden. Whether it was a thought or twitch of a muscle, it was required. If you thought of the heavens or eternal life, then I ask how could such a thing be thinkable? I argue that there is no existence that is thinkable and does not require a burden. No reward can fully offset the inherent burden of existence, even if non-physical. This is because no bad can be made up with any amount of good. This is seen in day-to-day life. No matter the task, no matter the enjoyment, there is a burden, even if it is enjoyed. By the end of the day, while one may find it worth the effort one can not say their burden is undone. This makes it by its nature, not exchangeable and thus non-fungible. If all existence was burdensome, then we should look to the inverse. This is non-existence. As non-existence requires that one does not exist, it stands to reason that no task can be done. As no task can be done, then logically, there is no burden. This means that of all states of existence, only non-existence offers actual freedom. In conclusion, if one claims that a lack burden is the greatest reward then it must be that non-existence is the most preferable
@@chrisxdeboy To clarify, if your argument is claiming that burden must be fungible with potential of reward or it must be reward in itself. If this is the case I counter this in my text wall. "This is because no bad can be made up with any amount of good". I find this statement to be true in all other cases and fail to see an exception in this case.
It's only a burden if you have low testosterone and or are not a christian or part of some other life affirming religion. Nietzscheanism is kind of naive but at least it does look joyfully at life.
I guess I've never been shocked into thinking that not only do I have a soul, but that it's at stake in regards to an afterlife. Those automatic assumptions have always been strange to me.
@@karlamay_ Those aren't my words, but apparently yours. I am a human being, aka, Homosapien, who is the product of evolution by natural selection, just like all life on planet earth. We have some pretty amazing features and characteristics.
@@karlamay_ Well, for me, it's because I can't simply go with what I've been traditionally told to believe. I begin my questioning with, what does someone mean by soul? What exactly is it? Can it be demonstrated to exist? Is it something we've made up in the comfort of myth and folklore? I begin with those questions, and maybe, what good reason to I have to believe in soul or an afterlife at all?
@@karlamay_ *So, in other words, you are just a sentient piece of meat?* Don't we all start as mere proteins that build up and become more sentient & self-aware as our brain develops? I don't have any problems accepting this. And also the very fact that brain damages can change our personality kinda points towards the proposition that we are in fact most likely sentient meat...
I find it tiresome when atheists are criticised for not taking into account all the context and nuances of an argument like pascal’s wager and yet christians (most of whom probably havent read the rest of the book either) also cherry pick this wager in isolation (how many times do christians ask that tired question “what if you are wrong”) and think this is some slam dunk argument. Doubtless Pascal was a smart guy, but you can only refute the argument that is actually being applied.
You can use a lifetime on taking into account all the contexts and nuances of an argument, and still be left with "no" answer - but a open question. Most people settles or search for The answer - more often than not they stop to think about an argument or question when they are convinced that this question is answered. Atheists and Christians that believe that they have The answer - is the ones who "quarrel" over different nuances and beliefs they "know" to have an answer on. The rest of "us" can have an open conversation about any topics - until we get tired of talking about it. "Slam dunking" and refuting arguments/talking points etc... have unfortunately become the mainstream - while most "sober" thinkers is left in the dark (both Atheist and Christian). I recommend watching "Echo Chambers, explained" by "Horses". This video isn't about God or Faith - but generally about the human condition right now. As this video is saying: "Most people isn't philosophers" - so "what if you're wrong" or "we can't know for sure" is reasonable answers/questions to ask. "I don't know" - is really underrated in our day and age.
Billy Joel sang a song in which he said something like “Never argue with a crazy person. Don’t you know by now.” The wager is Pascal’s attempt to argue with crazy people. In an ideal world Pascal might be right, not this world.
Pascal is utterly failing in his thoughts about god and religion because he is unable to question his own belief system to begin with. You say he is concerned with the fate of each person's immortal soul int the afterlife? Yes and the problem there is that he is not proving that there are such an immortal soul and such two possible afterlives to begin with. It's a given in his "philosophy". Just like the existence of his god is a given. You want me to be concerned with the fate of my immortal soul? Ok, first prove I have one. Then prove there is a god who is also concerned with it and who is both very good and very loving AND who is threatening this soul with eternal damnation and suffering if I'm not obeing very weird commands concerning very trivial things or things I have no control over. So Pascal is trying to get out of this corner he is putting himself in by saying 'I can't prove any of this but you'd still better believe in all these things I said because there is more to gain if you do than if you don't". And that's just simply not a compelling argument at all because to be compelling... it would still require for Pascal to first prove the god and the religion he believed in were indeed "existing and therefore the only choice". In these matters, Pascal's thoughts are just that, thoughts which basically means "opinions". He has no ground to stand on except his christian believes. It's just a very standard "begging the question" fallacious argument with absolutely no inherent value. Despite what you're saying his "matrix" is all wrong and it's not rational at all. Why? Because the outcomes are rigged. Once again, Pascal is asserting that "Eternal happiness" and "Eternal Damnation" are actual possible outcomes but... he has no proof, not even a rationale demonstration of that. He is just asserting these two possibilities do exist. There is no rationality here, just an unsubstanciated belief. I could do the very same by hacking his matrix and say "God may exist or not, if you don't believe in him you end up with some eternal felicity because you escaped the Samsara to reach Nirvana where no god has control over the fate of your immortal soul". I would be implicitly asserting the existence of this immortal soul just like he did; only to differ on the possible fates of this soul in the afterlife. And I would have no more proof of my assertions and outcome proposals than he did... but no less proof either. Pure and idle speculation based on nothing but irrational believes. You are failing at rationality just as Pascal did. Sorry pal. Pascal's wager is just a desperate attempt to wrap up religion in some seemingly rational argument. But as you said Pascal himself was very aware of that. And in the end he has to admit that in order to have faith you must... have faith. A tautological belief you cannot support with any level of rationality... except if you're an hypocrit and a fraud trying to hijack and twist rationality to support your unsubstanciated opinions and claims. As for the arguments Pascal used to try anbd demonstrate his religion is the only real one. Most if not all of them are just "pro domo" arguments where only the claims of his religion are considered serious. Once again a bunch of "begging the question" fallacies where he was taking for granted what he was supposed to demonstrate. Utterly pathetic.
It's an argument for a person seriously considering the possibility of theism. It's not arguing for theism itself, only telling an apathetic person that they should at least think about how important of a question they're dealing with. "Eh, there might be a god out there, I don't know. Doesn't really matter to me" is a senseless, shortsighted perspective. "Yes, if there were a God, it would be incredibly important, but I've thought about it a lot and I don't think there is" is a rational perspective, even though it doesn't come to the same conclusion Pascal came to.
I'm not sure I agree with your counterargument for Pascal's Wager being applied to other religions. I get that Pascal knew they existed, and I understand that from his perspective Christianity was the one true religion, but how does that change the fact that your odds of selecting the correct option just changed from 50/50 to 1/1,000+. Not to dismiss your point about people needing to pay more attention to our "immortal souls", but I think that is kind of the entire point of argument #2, that if you can't even reasonably convince someone that they have an immortal soul then why should they dedicate their life to preserving it? Especially when Christians aren't the only ones claiming to know what is best for their soul.
So, we're supposed to take it as rhetoric that merely looks like reasoning? And we shouldn't criticize the reasoning it appears to have, in virtue of it just being rhetoric? And people's poor reaction to it isn't considered evidence against its effectiveness as rhetoric?
in other words, they are in fact good arguments, and Pascal just agrees with them that his wager is dumb. This video is a defense of Pascal, not his wager.
@@ayathados6629 between Islam and atheism yes your safe bet is on islam not atheism. also youre assuming that all these religions have the same likelihood of being true which is false
And if he does need petty blackmail it wouldn't be possible for the rational mind to think they're a good god. It would only be worshipping out of fear of punishment rather than thinking the cosmic dictator is genuinely good or the source of morality.
The wager being placed in a book that made arguments elsewhere for the divinity of Jesus and the truth of Christianity was, obviously, part of an argument to get you to believe. I don't have any problem with this inherently. Getting people to try and act like believers, in the hope they actually become believers, is a deeply high quality conversion method. Going through the motions until your mind catches up with those actions is called 'orthopraxis' and most every form of social behavioral conditioning uses it. But I'm mystified as to why you seem to think the wager is being taken out of context when it isn't. Because it's an attention-grabber statement instead of a serious calculation? As a moral calculation, it might make sense, but would make sense for someone trying to integrate into a received moral framework, regardless of what that framework is. Is it because Pascal was smart and aware of other religions? Then the other arguments he makes supporting Christianity matter more, and the wager is a novelty. Given how many Christians try and use the wager as if it's legitimate, that actually hurts it. The benefit to the wager is that it's simple as can be, and anyone can understand it, but its shortcomings are far worse.
Pascal's wager is genuinely one of the dumbest things I've ever seen, and I say that as a theist. Pascal's wager only works if you make ALOT of arbitrary assumptions.
What is far more important to consider regarding the concept of GOD, yet all who argue about it, ON BOTH SIDES, fail to realize, is the two fundamental differences in the definition of the concept: 1) GOD as the creator and sustainer of the universe. 2) GOD as the provider of laws what humans must do, which must be followed, and the one who demands subordination and prayers. Pascal's argument doesn't consider the fact that the former doesn't imply the latter. On the contrary, the existence of an entity that creates and sustains all matter is a certainty. But this entity, The Cruel Brute that creates and sustains all the evil, doesn't deserve any respect whatsoever, let alone prayers and subordination to the rules supposed to have come from The Brute, but in fact are composed by the believers only. Hence, Pascal's logic is a totally unacceptable absurdity.
@@brianw.5230 "Praying" only makes the anxiety greater! Just because you make a choice in Pascal's wager doesn't mean your doubts go away; in fact, they become greater! And that's the point of the wager. Your going to have to choose, and whatever you choose makes you even more uneasy. Pascal was a Jansenist which was a Catholic heresy rife with this kind of anxiety. Atheist who misunderstand Pascal's wager are not misunderstanding it intellectually. They get that and those criticisms are correct. Rather, they misunderstand it existentially. And there they miss the mark completely.
@@karlamay_ Honestly I feel more at ease with the prospect of not existing in death. Dont misundertand however, Im no pessimist. I love existence, I love life and the ability to think and act, still I cant help but be at peace with not being able to do those things any longer
I absolutely love this channel, and I understand that this is an informal video, but I think that there is more context that needs to be taken into account. First off, though the modern atheistic arguments against the Wager (or Gambit, as some say is the more reasonable translation) were used by Voltaire and Diderot far before our time, it is important to know that these arguments may be more valid today after the Wager began to be used by theists who, it can be argued, tore it from it's context at the start. I'd say that the arguments against the Wager, mostly put to paper by notable "New Atheists" such as Dawkins, have been used more effectively in modern religious discourse due to the use of the Wager by theists as a fear-inducing tool to instill belief in their particular religious idols. Modern theists do not use the Wager in it's original context, but as an explicit argument for their God's existence on all sides, in my experience, despite it obviously not being intended for that purpose. Statements such as "You see? God has made belief in him the only rational thing to do! Pascal proved it!" I would say that once an argument or idea is separated from the intended use of the person who created it, it should be countered in the new context it is found in. If someone, for example, was found criticising Christian Identity Theology, you'd likely know that they aren't just misunderstanding the context behind it's formation, they'd be criticising the people who it inspired, namely the Klu Klux Klan. I don't know how familiar you are with the writings of modern Protestant apologists (primarily in the USA) who base their arguments almost entirely upon the framework of suposed rationality that was inspired by the American Pragmatist movement for the sole purpose of provoding reasonable arguments to keep faith, but I think an educated and fair-minded person as yourself would be mildly disgusted by them and how readily they twist and resurrect the thoughts of great thinkers on the subject for their own sway in religious discourse. Many atheists do treat Pascal badly as a result of this argument's prevalence in theistic apologetics, but I know many atheists who adore Pascal's writing and thoughts. I am glad that many of us who haven't yet been provided the proper context of Pascal's writing will be able to hear it from you, but please keep in mind the context in which the argument now exists. Thank you for your work.
i grew up lutheran and while i forgot almost everything, one thing i will always remember. we were taught by our pastor during confirmation, that all humans go to heaven. there are no prerequisites, you can be christian, muslim, jewish, hindu, atheist, antitheist and even hitler himself, everyone goes to heaven. hell, if it exists, is not a place for humans but at most for fallen angels. as far as i am aware the bible does not even teach anything about people being punished in burning hellfire. all i could find after a quick search is that it might mention something about punishment by nonexistence after death in contrast to the reward of eternal life in heaven.
Pascals wager can be universally applied to anything no matter how irrational, it is an incredibly poor argument for God, its more akin to philosophical blackmail.
Interestingly I can somewhat relate to pascal. I find it baffling how people can simply ignore the big questions of life and not think constantly about them. I don’t think they are unintelligent, so they either do not find the time for this or they simply lack the spirit of curiosity. Either way, I find it somewhat tragic.
People do not appear to care about their immortal souls because they tend to live as though their lives will go on forever, and Jungian psychoanalysis generally concurs that this is both normal and healthy. Even in old age, it is better to look forward to the next day because, otherwise, one "dies before his time" and in a great deal of psychological pain. The present is, after all, the only real time. There is the opposite problem of never letting go of one's life, but the point is that Pascal's observation may not have needed the Wager as a response. Contemplating death and the afterlife to correct one's outlook ought to be medicinal rather than dietary. Part of the reason Hell is depicted in such lurid terms of everlasting suffering is because of the very problem Pascal addresses himself to: that people, against all reason, choose to sin. So the moralists kept enlarging the metaphysical stick and the carrot of Hell and Heaven respectively to try and correct the matter and likewise shock them into piety, but the situation persists because the problem was, and still is, so poorly understood. Even Nietzsche did not understand it and feel into the same trap of trying to emplore the Last Man to change his ways and falling on death ears. He got one step further in assuming that some ought to be able to overcoem this condition of indifference and cross the precipice, addressing himself to the "free spirits," but even these he found wanting and was forced to acknowledge that the meek will inheirit the earth, or at the very least that the last man recurs no less eternally than the great man. The resolution of this problem is understanding that morality has it's role, but one must never be swindled by it's logical conclusion that man out to reach perfection. The condition people have _now,_ in spite of all of it's very serious and harmful shame and decay, is the way they ultimately ought to be and morality works towards _that_ end, not some distant dream of the ubermensch. That is why the Last Man endures and the ubermensch perishes. To seek the ubermensch is to demand a holocaust. Because, after all, what could be more urgent than bringing humanity to a state of exaltation and the salvation of his immortal soul as soon as possible and by any means necessary? The right amount of moral preaching helps people to live together. Too much, sends them to war.
I value beauty & greatness above all else. Yet I don’t want a holocaust. I’ve also had enough with many social problems that make the world I want less viable. The worse it gets the more extreme a reaction becomes acceptable. I don’t think impatient ideals cause holocausts. It’s more like desperation for survival itself.
Writing this comment before I watch the video... Pascal's wager isn't about the "eternal reward" it's about the "worldly reward"... This becomes incredibly apparent if you read the wager in the context of his notes, with any biography.
@@kimbanton4398 for Pascal the equivalent of millions of dollars, a job and the respect of his family! 😁 Literally this is the primary reason that most people go to religious services! It has almost nothing to do with "future rewards" it's the "rewards" they get right away!
@@LiverpoolReject Then it's kinda strange that his argument and syllogism isn't really... let's say "presented" in such a way as to convince the non-believer of engaging in religious customs for earthly rewards. Under "heaven" & "hell" in that argument the receiving end usually doesn't think about friendly meetings in the church, but whether or not one should believe for the sake of avoiding eternal torment... (sry for bad English, my native language is German)
The basic problem is that God is often assumed to be a primitive understanding of causation rather than the complete rejection of causality that it basically is. You can't base a rational wager on miracles. Not if you really want to live, even if you use the best logic or math. It just doesn't mix.
@sresponses Another relevant question is how someone would fare if they were suddenly transported to another area like that and had to fit in, whether they would even survive. He'd be like a negotiator from another country and then maybe the negotiator would need a negotiator. You get into this infinite regress even with raw cultural forms free of religion, so then when religion appears it's like you solidify the counter party and then political problems follow.
Sadly consequences are not just in the afterlife but in this life and you have to judge the negative effects of religion upon the world during our lfietime too and thats where the balance of suffering tips the other way particularly as there is no evidence for an afterlife and plenty of evidence for suffering caused by religion.
The main problem that I have with Pascal's Wager is that the "there is no God" conclusions are lazy and wrong, because things DO happen. If you believe in God and there is no God, and go through all of the worship motions, unnecessary self-restrictions, and giving your money to the church, you wasted all of that precious life and money, furthering a gigantic con for an indefinite number of future generations to be abused. If you don't believe in God and there is no God, you not only saved your life from all of that waste, but you didn't contribute to abusers of religion and their schemes, helping future generations be safer from them. This is an alternative kind of "eternal consequences" to consider, one based on selflessness instead of selfishness.
How could a deity be benevolent and almighty, if Access to heaven is dependend on belief in deity? Would a good creater Not create either humans as believers in the First Place, or no deity exists or it is Not benevolent
You put into words how I view religion at the moment. I mean, how can an all-powerful, almighty God who made the heavens and earth rely on His creations' belief? I mean, I created the earth and the galaxies, and the whole universe yet I need humans to honor and worship me? That, to me, sounds to vain.
@@no-ic5gw yes, I strongly tend towards agnosticism myself. However, I cannot help but feel like its a cheap way out. People who are certain, that there is deity (or vice versa) propably receive satisfaction on their (non)belief. Agnostiscs are doomed to stay in doubt.
How orthodoxy treat belief as a choice is in some sense rather sadistic and solipsistic. I recently learned that there's an alternative to it. That Orthopraxy is not a state of right belief, as orthodoxy is, but of right conduct instead, which makes more sense as it's something other people can also observe and hold you true to. Nobody can peer into your true essence and try to pry out the right belief in any other way than force and threat of force, and then it's not genuinely a free choice of belief. Also, if the circumstances are such that you are indeed free to choose what you want to believe, it would be no more than emptiness to such a mind. As then truly nothing would be weighing down any side of the wager and no choice could be made. Not even chance could have any involvement in this total freedom, or it would not be a choice as we wish to think of it. In a radical notion of freedom of conscience like that then it wouldn't even be worth calling it freedom at all, as it would just be motionless, stagnated, frozen, and not even a mind. A mind needs flux, motion of the contents and so on to even be said to have made a choice of belief. So we introduce chance, we introduce contents of the mind that it is constituted by, for example a knowledge of Pascals Wager among other things. The problem we all know of is that we are not free to make up our mind, if we are part of a process that would predetermine our choice of belief. Or maybe, we require our choice of belief to be predetermined for there to even be a state of mind to arrive at? So predetermination is a required ingredient in the making of our choice. On the one hand, total freedom isn't something we have, and on the other hand, we can not have a mind of our own, that is free as we think of it, in a predetermined world either. Tricky, if we had that sort of freedom, we could on the one hand be damned one moment and saved the next, or both at the same time, in the flux required. We would have to wait and see until we had made a decision and then one or the other state would be the case, like it was some flip of a coin. Okay, so we are not free to make up our own mind about any of it, then what? The answer is that we are already truly free indeed, only because there are no wagers of this kind to begin with. It's simply not possible to have a universe in which a mind is constituted in a way that we would think of it as truly being a mind, and also have a wager of correct belief in that same universe. Or maybe I'm missing some piece of the puzzle? Which is probably the most likely, given the tiny range of my knowledge and limited ability to grasp what a tricky and profound subject this truly is. It goes well beyond my horizon, that much I can guess for now.
I'm saying it as an other antinatalist that Benatar's asymmetry argument doesn't work. The absence of bad things (e.g. pain) is only good if there is a compassionate person there to reflect on it. If there is no one around, the absence of suffering is not good for anyone, because there isn't anyone. There are way better arguments for antinatalism.
It's inane - suffering is a necessary part of life. We are forged in suffering. Suffering is necessary for beauty, and anything good for that matter. How unfortunate David's parents did not practice what he preached and save him from this life of suffering... It would've been nice for Schopenhauer too, but then we would not have Nietzsche. I hope the antinatalists see how poor their arguments against suicide are before infecting posterity with their beliefs.
I don’t think it’s valid to use Pascal’s writings as the litmus for what constitutes legitimate faith. He isn’t an arbiter of Christianity or any other religion. It’s then up to the doctrine of the religion as to what constitutes legitimate faith. It’s their determination as to whether or not “reason alone” is sufficient basis for belief. I’m sure in some sects of religion rationally “choosing to believe” is plenty fine and sufficient.
The problem with the wager is that it is based on the Christian god. If I believe in the Norse gods, then I could make the equal statement that one should go to war, because those who die of sickness or old age go to hell. Therefore, to face the temporary pain of dying in battle, or the eternal pain of hell, it should be seen that waging war is the more logical option. It comes from an insincere point
First of All, one can not compel oneself neither to believe or stop believing nor stop believing in God, cuz they're both merely states of mind Furthuremore if you believe in God and it doesn't exist, then you'll have squandered your entire life by undertaking his commands(morality and way of life)
Does not apply to Hinduism. Rejection of Gods is not punishable in any realm, material or divine. We think of that as very petty and childish. If God were so petty and judgmental, then a hell would be a more favourable place. No he is not to be feared, for he is the one who is supposed to have created us (as per Abrahamics).
@@mjolninja9358 The 4 Vedas, Mahabharata, and the Ramayana are the essentials. The latter two are basically the Vedas applied into real incidents and so is classified as our "itihaasa" or history. The "Ved" mean revealed knowledge and has the same root as "vid" in latin where video comes from. It is a very intense read and are really no shortcuts here. You can start with western philosophers who drew inspiration from our works. Schopenhauer, Evola.
I believe you don't. If i put your hand on the stove and ask you this question i think the answer will be different. Secondly i recon you think like this because of you interpret god as a dictator. We perceive dictatorship as bad because of our human nature and history, but we are talking about an "all loving" god.
@@christianakrouche2216 yeah no, people have faced much much worse than this resisting this loving God's lovely followers. I'd rather spend eternity in hell with those people rather than this loving God's pleasure box filled with these lovely people of peace
It's crazy how you just went over why Pascal is misapplied by atheists (and lets be frank some christians too) and yet the comments here MISSAPLY THE WAGER AGAIN. WATCH THE EFFING VIDEO BEFORE YOU COMMENT!
@sresponses Even if so, you can have a cool idea among bad ones. No? Not that Weltgeist portrays him as a genius. He even mentions a bad argument Pascal has for God! He points out a case of circular logic! You are just mad for the sake of being a mad atheist. Despite being an atheist myself, I actually find the idea people do not care for their soul a powerful one. Both in the the literal sense of the idea and not so literal.
Thank you for making this one. I accept Pascal's wager but have a follow up question for him, and its not meant to be a trick question of snide, but might be taken that way, "How do you believe in God?" I would like to think God is real but just don't think he is. I do not reject faith, I just can't find it. How do you do this? It's like a monkey asking a fish why it chooses to not climb up to the safety of the tree tops.
I really relate to the purpose of the wager. People are really just uninterested in the matters Pascal was suggesting that people should be interested in. I'm not a Christian and I definitely don't believe in a theistic God, but these things are just too interesting to not think about.
That is why i respect more Dostoyevaky than Socrates and Pascal . He understood psychology of man much better than latter ones. Wager cannot be a mean to the path of relligion . Dostoyevsky understood this , Pascal didn't. Socrates in other way of "there is only ignorance" didn't .
Pascal’s wager has always been the original bait for newly minted “philosophers” lol… Somehow I feel that Pascal knew people would not understand its core principle, even then, hence why he didn’t elaborate further in his book. I always thought why do people complicate it? lol. He really trolled many and continues to do so! LMAO.
I dont think of believing in god is the most rational way of thinking as believing in this non existent entity you subconsciously detach yourself from your true power...
It’s been a while since I’ve looked into it, but as I recall, Pascal actually addresses the issue of doxastic voluntarism at some point. Unfortunately, I can’t recall exactly where I found this-do you happen to know?
Don't forget you have to believe in the right religion, let alone denominations! So what starts out as a simple box with four choices actually becomes like 200 choices. Then after taking that context into account believing in God isn't so rational after all.
@@DK-mb7dgYes and I disagree that the wager can be separated wholly from the context of other religions. I also disagree with him and I guess Pascal that the wager isn't about other religions because again, I also believe the wager can't be separated from the context of other religions.
@@cumulus1869 You disagreeing is fine. But your first comment is just restating the objection that was mentioned in the Video. That is why i was asking If you have already watched the Video.
Godel’s God proof is the best proof but most don’t understand it. Atheism is no different than people who blindly believe something no matter what. Agnostics are the only way to not believe in God but open to reason.
@@James-ll3jb Do you believe in my God? You don't even know the name of my good, so I will have to say no. If I tell you to believe and you tell me you will, have made the choice to do so, are you actually believing? No believe is a choice. You just reach there. If you don't feel like you believe it, you are not going to "make the choice" to believe. You either do or do not. You can try to learn more or (i)rationalize until you do, but this is the choice of working towards believe, not believe itself.
I just can’t pretend to believe something I know to be untrue. Any God that cares about anything but your character would be evil in my mind. Fear of punishment is not a virtue.
@@Justin_B1997 Wasted, not accomplishing anything thing with their life. Dedicating themselves to something that isn't real but is thought to be real. so not the same as fiction.
On average are happier?😂 Sure, you clearly haven't been inside a church and analyzed the personal lives of those desperate enough to believe in a myth. The internet is the perfect opportunity for God to prove himself when he constantly did in the Bible in front of everyone@jcc7912
So all those theists who misapply the thought experiment as if it were a proof, were just doing their deity's work? It's all very well to claim "atheists" are the ones that are wrong about "this argument for God", when it's apparently isn't an argument for God at all, yet theists regularly use it as such. What Pascal apparently didn't have a useful understanding of was what the effect of beliefs themselves are. If you invoke a deep belief about anything you will subsequently think that the content the belief references is unequivocally true. Beliefs interfere with the evaluation of information and experience. That is the effect of that process of thinking has. It doesn't matter what the content is. Nor does it matter what the counter claims are nor even any other possible facts. Deep beliefs override such considerations. You need only talk to a flat earther to understand this, let alone an array of theists devoted to different deities. If you know what beliefs do and how they do it, then invoking them comes with profound side effects. Not least of which profoundly distorts the application of reason. Pascal seems to be projecting a set of ideas that come directly from his own beliefs on the matter. It's no wonder then that he has particular views about the outcome of his prescription.
Great video. Pascal wrote about other religions. Here's a quote: "I see then a crowd of religions in many parts of the world and in all times; but their morality cannot please me, nor can their proofs convince me. Thus I should equally have rejected the religion of Mahomet and of China, of the ancient Romans and of the Egyptians, for the sole reason, that none having moremarks of truth than another, nor anything which should necessarily persuade me, reason cannot incline to one rather than the other."
In other words, he just already presupposed that Christianity is the true religion without any evidence, and then builds his wager on that lack of evidence and his personal incredulity... did I get this right?
@sresponses Buddhism teaches that Christians are building up good karma so Pascal's Wager works if Buddhism is true. Christians will be reincarnated as something better.
@sresponses Buddhists judge everyone by karma so Christians will he fine if they obey the 10 Commandments. Either way, you're wagering your life on atheism.
//meant to put you on the p// You can't have it both ways, you can't say it's not an argument as if it doesn't make epistemic statements of truth, then put forth the epistemic statements of truth it leads with.. as if they can't be challenged or pointing out that the nature of them is arbitrary and pointless. You're not really refuting anything, you're just restating pascals wager, then just insisting it isn't argument as it delivers ALL the same components as an argument as if it were proof of anything. There's no reason to presuppose a god, a dichotomy of heaven & hell, a god that cares one way or another, a god that even participates in human existence, etc. The odds of a god existing that will punish you for BLIND FAITH based belief and reward you for reasoned non-belief is as EQUALLY possible/probable as the opposite.
Meh. I read the original text and knew about these already. Getting someone to think about the "Immortal soul" is a worse defense of the wager than asserting the reasonableness of the belief payoff matrix. I don't care about the immortal soul any more than Bigfoot. I don't question the sincerity of Pascal's belief and the wish to deter his fellow men from the path of eternal damnation, only the fatuity of his reasoning. The context doesn't save Pascal's wager. "Context" is used by religious apologists as a shield for all sorts of ridiculousness.
"I don't care about the immortal soul any more than Bigfoot." Bigfoot, if supposed to be real, is still not a constantly lingering threat to you. Your immortal soul in eternal hellfire is. So I guess you don't care more for the latter because you are absolutely sure that neither exists. I just wonder, how can you be so completely sure?
@@Tomviel *"Your immortal soul in eternal hellfire is."* Not, if both the concept of an immortal soul and the concept of eternal hellfire are pure fantasies... *"So I guess you don't care more for the latter because you are absolutely sure that neither exists."* Yep. (I'm gonna assume that you're a Christian for the sake of this point. Sry if I'm wrong.) You as a Christian are "quite sure" that no Islamic hell exists where all Christians would be thrown into for the same exact reasoning that makes an atheist "quite sure" that no Christian hell exists. The atheist just goes one hell further with the reasoning and doesn't just stop at Christianity for convenience... *"I just wonder, how can you be so completely sure?"* Ask this yourself or any other Christian. How can you be so completely sure that there's no Muslim hell?
@@kimbanton4398 I am not a Christian. My question goes for the teachings of Islam as well, because I don't see how could I be completely sure that their teachings regarding the afterlife are not true although I'm not nearly as familiar with them.
@@CeramicShot It would be if it was demonstrably true. But since we have no access to anyone else's consciousness, it's not demonstrable. The very question of what consciousness is, is disputed. You can look up David Chalmers, Galen Strawson or A. N. Whitehead for example if you are interested.
Interestingly I do find the Idea of a afterlife plausible because I am a immanent realist about universals. It is possible that my mental pattern will be reinstantiated somewhere else in the universe. At least if the universe is infinite or at least big enough to make something like this likely to happen. But this is probably closer to reincarnation then the Christian afterlife.
Why does not believing in god means damnation? Does the argument mean to imply that god is insecure? That those who do not believe in him must face punishment. It also sounds like god is a narcissist. But god can mot be that (according to all religion). Psscal's argument is childish if not stupid.
9:50 No, religion does not have a universal tendency to be exclusive and call themselves the absolute truth. Islam recognises the existence of a messenger in every culture (Quran 10:47) and implies the People of the Book, whom it sets at worst higher than anyone else but Muslims and otherwise arguably on the same level as Muslims and implies them to be true believers (e.g. the beginning of sura ar-Rûm), Christianity exalts the execution of the commandment above lip service paid to it (the Epistle of Paulus to the Romans 2:12-16), Judaism (originally henotheist or monolatrist under the Cult of YHWH) just has Sheol (a world devoid of God's love) and Ge Hinnom (hellfire to destroy the soul) with relatively little focus on the afterlife, many Indian religions such as Buddhism (after all a commonly syncretic religion) have underworlds (e.g. Naraka) but more so purify the soul (so closer to purgatory than Hell) so the soul can eventually achieve nirvana or otherwise freedom from the samsara (same for Jainism and Hinduism but with moksha instead), etc. This isn't even to mention regional polytheist religions, deceased or extant, such as Shinto with Yomi, Mesopotamian myth with Arallu and Ganzer, Greek myth with Tartarus, the Zoroastrian Dužaŋhu, etc. Most underworlds are very different from the Abrahamic ones or at best like the Jewish Ge Hinnom or Sheol. Saying 'most religions condemn unbelievers' is an absurd, extremely Abrahamic-centric (which even then can be disputed for Islam and Christianity) claim that Westerners say when they don't know what to say. History is more complicated and nuanced than that. Edit: forgot to mention: see 2:62 of the Quran if you think it's an exclusivist religion.
Atheists are not only to blame for these poor arguments because Christians also present the wager based on an incomplete understanding of it's context and intentions. Pascal's Wager is addressed to a hypothetical Christian to whom the existance of God is completely taken for granted, but who can't seem to embody the Christian ideals of poverrty, chastity, and obedience. It is meant to stoke piety and resolve in someone who _already_ beileves, not lead non-believers or apostates to the rational conclusion that God must exist. It isn't an argument for the existance of God, but Christians present it as though it is -- possibly because it may even have helped strengthen their own convictions -- but it's completely meaningless as a thought experiment for converting atheists. The arguments for God offered by theologicans such as Tomas Aquinas, such as the Cosmological Argument or the Ontological Argument, are often given in a similar spirit and fall just as flat.
i fully agree with your conclusion, but i think it's even further than that. The large majority of conversions (in either direction) have some sort of trauma, hurt or crisis at its roots. Very few are convinced by logical arguments. Profound experiences during emotionally vulnerable moments seems to be what convinces people the most. This is why i don't think any of these arguments are good.
You seriously need to edit the scripts for these videos. A lot of waffling and repetition. And all you said about it was EXACTLY what atheists always say about it, except in a more obfuscatory manner: it's not meant to be an actual robust argument, but a tactic of emotional manipulation designed to rattle the non-believer.
Thanks man! We need more Pascal videos! Quite frustrating how many ignorant people on RUclips hate on Pascal, and all they know is the fucking wager 🙄 I mean, if you like existentialism, Pensées has to speak to you on some level. Even Nietzsche couldn’t deny the genius of Pensées: “The profoundest and least exhausted books will probably always have something of the aphoristic and unexpected character of Pascal's Pensées.”
@sresponses it’s easy for people to reduce Pascal to one or two ideas. He wrote more than that. This video actually cares about context. And yes, it’s possible to regard someone as a genius without necessarily agreeing with their conclusions
Great. Pascal has an opinion. I don't care about his feelings. He's not searching for truth but using a pedantic argument to fit his presuppositions. Evidence please?
His main point is evidence is found in the experience when acting as a Christian & Devine revelation if you’re open to it. To be open to it is key. I’m open to it I guess, if it happens I’ll let you know 😂
What if evidence is possible but you can only have it through direct personal experience of the divine which requires enormous spiritual effort and commitment on your side? Because this is what some people say. What counterargument can be made for this?
@@bryanutility9609 *His main point is evidence is found in the experience when acting as a Christian & Devine revelation if you’re open to it.* Then his main point can be debunked in the fact you can find that same "evidence" in the experience when acting as a believer of any other religion, (conflicting) denomination or sect if you're open to it... still doesn't put the "many gods/religions" objection to rest. *To be open to it is key.* And open-minded people start believing in different religions that don't have any concept of hell. Then Pascal's wager still becomes arbitrary & useless...
@@Tomviel *What if evidence is possible but you can only have it through direct personal experience of the divine which requires enormous spiritual effort and commitment on your side?* Then how could you objectively & reasonably distinguish these direct personal experiences from delusions, shizophrenia or similar dreams? What good reason would there be for anyone who's skeptical of such claimed events in the first place to not simply dismiss these all as illusions? *Because this is what some people say. What counterargument can be made for this?* That those might all just be delusions induced by your brain in times of trouble as a means of coping & relieving your stress level. Like when for example people still hear & feel the presence of their deceased loved ones... What counterargument can be made for this?
I'd disagree with that claim. It's possible to both consciously implement a belief as well as undo the evocation of one. The processes are knowable. The problem being that when you're consciously aware of the processes, both for the implementation of belief and the dissolving of a belief, what special properly does a belief have? They both become conscious decisions and are then they are either rational or irrational. The consequences are profound either way. If you rationally conclude you're better off invoking a belief, a part of the conclusion must justify why a belief is required for something that you have concluded is a rational fact. The point of contention being, a fact can be reviewed and decisions updated, if new information comes to hand. Whereas, if you invoke a belief about some topic it's considerably harder to both notice the information that is at odds with the belief's tenants, and also much harder to correct due to the effects of the belief itself. Facts and the contexts in which the facts have meaning remain unchanged whether you invoke a belief about something or not. So why invoke a belief at all? If a deity has purported writings, or devotees, that claim a belief is required, why does such a being need that kind of reassurance for something which needs only be a rationally evaluated fact? If a deity is such that it cannot provide sufficient evidence for it's existence, properties and intent, then there can be no rational justification for an unequivocal submission to a belief. Similarly, if there is sufficient evidence then a belief is simply unnecessary and a deity who requires it seems overly needy if it's supposed to be some supreme entity. Beliefs in that sense are not reasonable to implement. However, in practical terms, if you want a religion to propagate and you want unquestioning devotees, beliefs are a great step to insist upon. As they make it much harder for those who are temporarily convinced to reevaluate their position later. It's a basic property of a mind virus.
All the comments are from reddit atheists who still don't get it. The point is to start thinking about your eternal soul, and yet banal assholes here keep asking for "proof". I am not a christian, and I definitely see the argument as valuable in Pascal's wager. I especially hate the arguments that go "if God good then why no unconditional heaven?". I think the story Dostoevsky mentions in Brothers with the woman and the onion is quite a good refutation for these types of arguments that challenge God's benevolence. Hinduism provides an even better answer (imo) via Karma and reincarnation. In the end, we all go to God, what journeys we take are different.
Lol classic ad hom attack “Anyone who doesn’t agree with me is a wannabe edgelord asshole. How dare they ask for stupid things like ‘proof’ and ‘evidence’ for my insane ramblings and wild theories. Just mindlessly believe like me you idiots! PS God is love” Seems about right for the quality of people who lean into Pascal’s Wager and deny the Problem of Evil, there are literally easy to understand reasons right here in this comment chain why even the proper interpretation is full of logical fallacies and the base argument holds no weight. Instead of defending your position, you just decide to call everyone who disagrees some hateful names and then refer to someone else to make your argument for you. Funny how those who always say things like “God is love” are the most hateful assholes out there. But anyone who has dealt with strongly religious people know your behavior and attitude is the norm not the exception. Just shows your religion and beliefs have not changed you for the better and you don’t lead by example so it must not be a very powerful nor good belief if it can’t stop you from being an asshole to anyone who dares question you.
*The point is to start thinking about your eternal soul, and yet banal assholes here keep asking for "proof".* Well, what do you expect? That the atheist will just so easily believe and except the existence of a soul without any evidence in the first place, just like religious believers do? You kinda need to provide some credible and objectively verifiable evidence that the thing called "eternal soul" does exist and isn't just some imaginary stuff... If you can't do that, then the whole "start thinking about your eternal soul" question breaks apart... *I am not a christian, and I definitely see the argument as valuable in Pascal's wager.* Why though? You can't just assume that hell is one of the options, if you can't prove that the god(s) in question is/are (a) god(s) that will send you to hell for non-belief... *I especially hate the arguments that go "if God good then why no unconditional heaven?".* Me too :) *I think the story Dostoevsky mentions in Brothers with the woman and the onion is quite a good refutation for these types of arguments that challenge God's benevolence.* I haven't read this yet. What is the message there about? *Hinduism provides an even better answer (imo) via Karma and reincarnation.* Does (your denomination of) Hinduism require one to believe in the Hindu gods to be rewarded in the next life and punished for non-belief? *In the end, we all go to God, what journeys we take are different.* Then Pascal's wager is irrelevant anyways, don't you think?
@@kimbanton4398 I only want to comment on your last question. The reason why it wouldn't be irrelevant is because it would be better to return to God sooner than later, plus the return probably wouldn't happen until you decide to dedicate your life to it. (I'm not trying to argue for any religion, I'm just sharing my own intuitive thoughts.)
I think one of my top tier genre of content that got there in the past 2 weeks is "Atheists look at the original formulations of religious arguments and point out how modern atheists misinterpret them".
And you're doing it again; Pascal didn't intend for this to be proof.. Pascal wanted reason.. and the wager is reason.. you're just listing out the bullet points of the wager.. in response to criticism of that wager, you're not addressing the criticism.
Deus, aquele que é perfeito, indivisível e absoluto, viu-se impelido a uma única possibilidade: a criação do cosmos. No entanto, ao dar origem ao mundo, este não poderia ser senão uma extensão de sua própria essência, pois ele não é condicionada a nada ser senão a ele mesmo. Assim, a existência do mundo implica necessariamente uma diminuição da potência divina, uma fração do Todo transmutada em multiplicidade. Eis o princípio do panteísmo. Neste ato de criação, a Totalidade Divina sofreu um esvaziamento de sua potência original, ou permanece como uma existência enigmática e incompleta, destituída da onipotência, onisciência e onibenevolência que outrora a caracterizavam. O poder e o conhecimento não são mais atributos que ele detém em plenitude. Eis o princípio do panenteísmo fraco. Ademais, imaginar o cosmos como uma realidade imaterial, puramente informacional, torna-se uma especulação viável. Este universo, desprovido de substância tangível, reflete talvez uma estratégia divina engenhosa e deliberada para manter a sua onipotência magna e um mundo concomitantemente (olá George Berkeley)
Believing in G.d is far from stupid. The same cannot be said for believing that if you are good you will be pampered for eternity in some sort of heaven.
I support a “religion” that judges goodness based on what kind of world we leave behind for our grandchildren. That “eternal life” is here through our progeny & I don’t want it to be hell on earth.
@@bryanutility9609 Childfree man, here. Which also implies grandchild-free. There can be no greater gap in values than the one that separates us. All versions of eternal life are more than suspect from my point of view. I want death to come as late as possible, but when it comes it should be permanent.
@@patcartier8171 well I hope you’re able to live your life to the fullest without making things worse in the process, wish that for everyone who values life.
This video is strangely anti-intellectual for a philosophy channel. Somehow Pascal is allowed to use reason, but we can’t use reason? Or “context” means that he must be correct? This all seems like a rather silly way to say “nuh uh”
Here is my thorem: Provided there has never been God's intervention in human lives, and if there were, it would violate all moral standards by its discriminating nature, the following is true: If God is Almighty and Merciful, then whether one believes in Him or not does not matter. And if He is not Almighty the above still holds true, and if He is not Merciful, pretending "faith" will not save you, nor would it be beneficial to live forever by the side of such a god. Therefore Pascal's Hedging is an absurd.
I wasted 14 minutes of my life in this. The crux of this defense if simply "consider the wager in the context of the book it's originally written in." It didn't actually refute the atheistic arguments. It's just saying that those arguments should consider the whole book written by Pascal. 😂 This is lazy argumentation. Pascal's Wager is a distinct idea in itself and it's not confined within the array of disjointed ideas in the book. You even said in the beginning that this wager was from a book with random contents published after Pascal's death. Lazy. The video is very American in its orientation even when the host sounds European.
@@Schmopit Its more than mere metaphor. Look up the meaning of the word. Defined as eternal Being, said being always was therefore needn't have been created by anyone. For anyone else reading this: Ever meet an honest atheist?... ....me neither....(lmfao!)
@@James-ll3jb of course it's a metaphor. You two are demonstrating a big problem in science communication. Scientists use simplified analogies to help explain complicated concepts to the average Joe. This is not inherently a bad thing, but often Joe Schmo takes the analogy too literally. This is why you can find videos of people claiming to have disproven quantum mechanics, because they could poke holes in the Schrodinger's cat analogy. "The cat is clearly either alive or dead, therefore QM is bs". The purpose of the metaphor is to help us understand the concept, but it only goes one way. The concept of code has no bearing on the concept of DNA. Why can you accept that god is eternal, but not the universe? If the existence of something as complex as DNA necessitates an intelligent creator, surely the existence of such of a being itself necessitates a creator? And following that logic; wouldn't the creator of the creator be complex enough to necessitate a creator? If you actually follow this rational to its conclusion, you end up with an infinite sequence of gods each creating the next until one eventually makes the universe. It's a paradox. I am very open to discussion on this, but please actually respond with a point instead of just saying "your wrong".
The flesh of Christ distinguishes "good" from "bad" birthing ego duality.. Catholicism rejects the trinity in consumption of flesh idols for the One of Islam
That's because Pascal's wager is DONE after you have acted upon your original centre of coherent irrational meta-memory/nous potential capacity of awareness, before any wager is made in any attempt at a rational justification for any of its representational subjective value. Doing a Pascal's wager for all infinite combinations of every wisdom code and space/time consequential eternal or otherwise outcome for ignoring its core warning part of it, never works. This is because the salient meaningful value of each worldview and its meta-mapping code which overlaps with others never holds itself for long for everyone until it all becomes "word salad, word salad" or is judged against all of the other infinite possible worldviews that could be formed as being equal from any rational sceptical analysis seeing no exceptionalism in any of the worldviews, no signal in the noise. Which is WHY the purely rationalist "atheist" is ALREADY eaten by any undetectable non-perceptible "cartesian evil demon" entity before they have even begun i.e. checkmate, assuming ones irrational or even silent meta-gnosis a-rational capability can overrule such an entities capacity for omni-deception. So the fate of the atheist is the same as the fence sitter in his attachment to mere human reason (materialistic mundane intellect minor wisdom in the hermetic hint). They never live in any wagered epistemic manner from "within", they hold only to the mere material reasoning answer algorithms and always look "outside" of themselves and remain on the fence about "ultimate reality". Holographic caricatures/ghosts/hylic re-creations, hyper-real versions of "a-lethe-ia". Bound in the endless ouroboric labyrinth of ever expanding logical fallacies and cognitive bias's to filter EVERYTHING in forming/re-forming every infinite combination of "images" of materialistic knowledge thereby never ever grasping anything of the inner "essence" of that which cannot enter into material "form". They act like retarded blind prisoners wondering in absolute oblivion in a warped innocence in a way. The dead don't ever figure out they are DEAD, the headless can never tell they are headless if they truly are "Head-less" :) "Let the dead bury their own dead". Discern accordingly.
A more laid-back video, and a departure from the usual Schopenhauer/Nietzsche content. Do you like it?
Please subscribe if you like the video, apparently only 16% of our viewers are actually subscribed!
www.patreon.com/WeltgeistYT
Indubitably, maybe Kierkegaard next?
Thank you so much, I enjoyed this one particularily. Best YT channel of them all.
I watched this awhile ago but just now thought of a reply to this comment. What about this type of video on more obscure and specific Nietzsche passages? I'm reading TSZ rn and just finished "On The Adder's Bite", for example.
Please make an analytical video on Zapffe. Specially, on "The Last Messiah".
Additionally, Mainländer, Leopardi, Shestov, Cioran can be explored.
Can you explain why God is the only possible diety of reality. There could be infinite to choose from. How do you know you arent gonna reincarnate based on Karma and Christianity gets you negative Karma for false hood. Or if theres no dieties but just an afterlife of beings and you just end up near other believers. Or if Taoism is real.
Can you explain why you wager so lowly on other choices
My biggest issue with Pascal's wager is how easily it can be applied to other scenarios.
For example, if I were to say "looking at a black cat will cause bad luck", would you look at that cat?
In this scenario, Pascal's wager too applies. If it is true, then looking at it will cause you harm. Otherwise, nothing will happen. Therefore, under the logic of Pascal's wager, it is logical to never look at the cat, reguardless of how absurd the original superstitious statement is.
This expands to any statement, and ultimately just leads to conformity with whatever others say. You simply continue in comfort, never seeking any more than what is given.
Don’t think of a pink elephant? 😂
You can prove that (bad) luck (don't) exist in this life but as for God's existence or the afterlife you'll have to die to know for sure.
@@Ms0a9 How can you prove that luck doesn't exist?
@@Ms0a9 isn’t luck just a synonym for chance? “Being in the right place at the right time?” Like when a meteor crashes into someone’s window? 🤣
@@bryanutility9609yes, but some see luck as some kinda of aura like a video game
Your video is educational, but it sounds like you're completely missing the point: as you said, the wager is meant to shock us into religious exploration, but you're not addressing the mechanism of this "shock", which is to induce a fear of hell. That's how pascal used it and that's how it's used today, regardless of any specific formulation of the wager. The atheist rebuttals, regardless of the specific wording they use that you might not approve of, try to point this out -- that this wager is empty. It pretends to employ reason (which is the entire reason it survived), while the real argument is purely emotional. By showing that the wager is "wrong", i.e. not meaning what it claims to mean, it is nullified. That's one of the main uses of reason: dispelling superstition, which is nothing more than customs which we follow for no other reason but the fear of imaginary consequences.
To be fair, the wager presupposes that you at least think that in principle Christianity could be true, if you believe that it is demonstrably false (and not merely something that could be reasonably doubted), then it would make no sense. In short: the wager is meant for a specific kind of person, and it's rationality works in a specific context.
@@Aliocha777 So to paraphrase: it's only meant for those who already presuppose that Abrahamic religions are the only viable ones and rejects all other kinds of religions (even though many the other ones predate the Abrahamic ones by a long shot and were & are being practiced much more in the world)...
@@kimbanton4398 it's not meant for the general category of "abrahamic religions" it's meant specifically for Christianity, the context of the wager is that you already bought into pascal's motives of credibility for Christianity, the wager is meant to show to you then how serious it is for you to investigate the issue.
@@Aliocha777 Then this wager is nothing but a tool for reaffirming the beliefs of those who already believe and does nothing to convince those who do not believe to actively investigate Christianity. Just a waste of an argument...
@@kimbanton4398 did you even watch the video? The wager was never meant to stand alone, it's not a silver bullet to make you become christian, that's the whole point of the video.
Atheistic text wall warning.
When people think of nothingness, many think that it is inherently bad. This is common and understandable, but this is not the only view. Some including myself, see nothingness as rewarding in itself. In doing so I only make one assumption, that being that burden is bad, which I think to be obvious. Which one could and should forward to for three reasons. No other state of being requires no burden. Burden is seemingly not truly fungible with reward. There is no existence, even if non-physical, that one could think of that would be free from this burden. Considering these three reasons the assumption of non-existence is the most positive regardless of reward thus showing that Pascal's Wager can be taken and non-existence in the after-life selected.
Existence inherently involves burden, even if non-physical. Consider a task, this can be any task. Any task that you considered by its nature, required burden. Whether it was a thought or twitch of a muscle, it was required. If you thought of the heavens or eternal life, then I ask how could such a thing be thinkable? I argue that there is no existence that is thinkable and does not require a burden.
No reward can fully offset the inherent burden of existence, even if non-physical. This is because no bad can be made up with any amount of good. This is seen in day-to-day life. No matter the task, no matter the enjoyment, there is a burden, even if it is enjoyed. By the end of the day, while one may find it worth the effort one can not say their burden is undone. This makes it by its nature, not exchangeable and thus non-fungible.
If all existence was burdensome, then we should look to the inverse. This is non-existence. As non-existence requires that one does not exist, it stands to reason that no task can be done. As no task can be done, then logically, there is no burden. This means that of all states of existence, only non-existence offers actual freedom.
In conclusion, if one claims that a lack burden is the greatest reward then it must be that non-existence is the most preferable
Counterargument: it's only a burden if it's not wanted.
@@chrisxdeboy
To clarify, if your argument is claiming that burden must be fungible with potential of reward or it must be reward in itself.
If this is the case I counter this in my text wall. "This is because no bad can be made up with any amount of good". I find this statement to be true in all other cases and fail to see an exception in this case.
@merchantman3102 no, I said that if it's not wanted, it's not a burden
It's only a burden if you have low testosterone and or are not a christian or part of some other life affirming religion. Nietzscheanism is kind of naive but at least it does look joyfully at life.
So nonexistence is a state of existence?
I guess I've never been shocked into thinking that not only do I have a soul, but that it's at stake in regards to an afterlife. Those automatic assumptions have always been strange to me.
So, in other words, you are just a sentient piece of meat?
@@karlamay_ Those aren't my words, but apparently yours. I am a human being, aka, Homosapien, who is the product of evolution by natural selection, just like all life on planet earth. We have some pretty amazing features and characteristics.
@@kendrickjahn1261 I am only asking because I am curious as to why you believe you don't have a soul and your skepticism about the afterlife.
@@karlamay_ Well, for me, it's because I can't simply go with what I've been traditionally told to believe. I begin my questioning with, what does someone mean by soul? What exactly is it? Can it be demonstrated to exist? Is it something we've made up in the comfort of myth and folklore? I begin with those questions, and maybe, what good reason to I have to believe in soul or an afterlife at all?
@@karlamay_ *So, in other words, you are just a sentient piece of meat?*
Don't we all start as mere proteins that build up and become more sentient & self-aware as our brain develops? I don't have any problems accepting this. And also the very fact that brain damages can change our personality kinda points towards the proposition that we are in fact most likely sentient meat...
I find it tiresome when atheists are criticised for not taking into account all the context and nuances of an argument like pascal’s wager and yet christians (most of whom probably havent read the rest of the book either) also cherry pick this wager in isolation (how many times do christians ask that tired question “what if you are wrong”) and think this is some slam dunk argument. Doubtless Pascal was a smart guy, but you can only refute the argument that is actually being applied.
You can use a lifetime on taking into account all the contexts and nuances of an argument, and still be left with "no" answer - but a open question. Most people settles or search for The answer - more often than not they stop to think about an argument or question when they are convinced that this question is answered. Atheists and Christians that believe that they have The answer - is the ones who "quarrel" over different nuances and beliefs they "know" to have an answer on. The rest of "us" can have an open conversation about any topics - until we get tired of talking about it. "Slam dunking" and refuting arguments/talking points etc... have unfortunately become the mainstream - while most "sober" thinkers is left in the dark (both Atheist and Christian). I recommend watching "Echo Chambers, explained" by "Horses". This video isn't about God or Faith - but generally about the human condition right now. As this video is saying: "Most people isn't philosophers" - so "what if you're wrong" or "we can't know for sure" is reasonable answers/questions to ask. "I don't know" - is really underrated in our day and age.
Billy Joel sang a song in which he said something like “Never argue with a crazy person. Don’t you know by now.” The wager is Pascal’s attempt to argue with crazy people. In an ideal world Pascal might be right, not this world.
Thank you for this video, the context is really helpful. I hope to see you explore other philosophers in the future!
Pascal is utterly failing in his thoughts about god and religion because he is unable to question his own belief system to begin with.
You say he is concerned with the fate of each person's immortal soul int the afterlife? Yes and the problem there is that he is not proving that there are such an immortal soul and such two possible afterlives to begin with. It's a given in his "philosophy". Just like the existence of his god is a given.
You want me to be concerned with the fate of my immortal soul? Ok, first prove I have one. Then prove there is a god who is also concerned with it and who is both very good and very loving AND who is threatening this soul with eternal damnation and suffering if I'm not obeing very weird commands concerning very trivial things or things I have no control over.
So Pascal is trying to get out of this corner he is putting himself in by saying 'I can't prove any of this but you'd still better believe in all these things I said because there is more to gain if you do than if you don't". And that's just simply not a compelling argument at all because to be compelling... it would still require for Pascal to first prove the god and the religion he believed in were indeed "existing and therefore the only choice".
In these matters, Pascal's thoughts are just that, thoughts which basically means "opinions". He has no ground to stand on except his christian believes. It's just a very standard "begging the question" fallacious argument with absolutely no inherent value.
Despite what you're saying his "matrix" is all wrong and it's not rational at all. Why? Because the outcomes are rigged. Once again, Pascal is asserting that "Eternal happiness" and "Eternal Damnation" are actual possible outcomes but... he has no proof, not even a rationale demonstration of that. He is just asserting these two possibilities do exist. There is no rationality here, just an unsubstanciated belief. I could do the very same by hacking his matrix and say "God may exist or not, if you don't believe in him you end up with some eternal felicity because you escaped the Samsara to reach Nirvana where no god has control over the fate of your immortal soul". I would be implicitly asserting the existence of this immortal soul just like he did; only to differ on the possible fates of this soul in the afterlife. And I would have no more proof of my assertions and outcome proposals than he did... but no less proof either. Pure and idle speculation based on nothing but irrational believes. You are failing at rationality just as Pascal did. Sorry pal.
Pascal's wager is just a desperate attempt to wrap up religion in some seemingly rational argument. But as you said Pascal himself was very aware of that. And in the end he has to admit that in order to have faith you must... have faith. A tautological belief you cannot support with any level of rationality... except if you're an hypocrit and a fraud trying to hijack and twist rationality to support your unsubstanciated opinions and claims.
As for the arguments Pascal used to try anbd demonstrate his religion is the only real one. Most if not all of them are just "pro domo" arguments where only the claims of his religion are considered serious. Once again a bunch of "begging the question" fallacies where he was taking for granted what he was supposed to demonstrate. Utterly pathetic.
If pascal’s wager is meant to be a “wake up call”, then how is its purpose not an argument for theism?
It's an argument for a person seriously considering the possibility of theism. It's not arguing for theism itself, only telling an apathetic person that they should at least think about how important of a question they're dealing with. "Eh, there might be a god out there, I don't know. Doesn't really matter to me" is a senseless, shortsighted perspective. "Yes, if there were a God, it would be incredibly important, but I've thought about it a lot and I don't think there is" is a rational perspective, even though it doesn't come to the same conclusion Pascal came to.
I'm not sure I agree with your counterargument for Pascal's Wager being applied to other religions. I get that Pascal knew they existed, and I understand that from his perspective Christianity was the one true religion, but how does that change the fact that your odds of selecting the correct option just changed from 50/50 to 1/1,000+. Not to dismiss your point about people needing to pay more attention to our "immortal souls", but I think that is kind of the entire point of argument #2, that if you can't even reasonably convince someone that they have an immortal soul then why should they dedicate their life to preserving it? Especially when Christians aren't the only ones claiming to know what is best for their soul.
So, we're supposed to take it as rhetoric that merely looks like reasoning? And we shouldn't criticize the reasoning it appears to have, in virtue of it just being rhetoric? And people's poor reaction to it isn't considered evidence against its effectiveness as rhetoric?
in other words, they are in fact good arguments, and Pascal just agrees with them that his wager is dumb. This video is a defense of Pascal, not his wager.
You just mean that thinking about what happens after you die is dumb
If, for Pascal's wager to work, I first have to be convinced that Christianity is the one true faith, then... it's pretty useless
No I think it works regardless, since Christianity being true is still a bigger chance than zero so youre still safe to bet on it
@sturmgewehr4471 the same is also true of islam, hinduism, buddhism and shinto. Should I believe all of the above?
@@ayathados6629 between Islam and atheism yes your safe bet is on islam not atheism. also youre assuming that all these religions have the same likelihood of being true which is false
you didn't even watch the video
@om-js6qq different religions have different likelihood of being true
If God exists I see no reason to believe the wager itself, because He certainly doesn't need petty blackmail.
And if he does need petty blackmail it wouldn't be possible for the rational mind to think they're a good god. It would only be worshipping out of fear of punishment rather than thinking the cosmic dictator is genuinely good or the source of morality.
The wager being placed in a book that made arguments elsewhere for the divinity of Jesus and the truth of Christianity was, obviously, part of an argument to get you to believe. I don't have any problem with this inherently. Getting people to try and act like believers, in the hope they actually become believers, is a deeply high quality conversion method. Going through the motions until your mind catches up with those actions is called 'orthopraxis' and most every form of social behavioral conditioning uses it.
But I'm mystified as to why you seem to think the wager is being taken out of context when it isn't. Because it's an attention-grabber statement instead of a serious calculation? As a moral calculation, it might make sense, but would make sense for someone trying to integrate into a received moral framework, regardless of what that framework is. Is it because Pascal was smart and aware of other religions? Then the other arguments he makes supporting Christianity matter more, and the wager is a novelty. Given how many Christians try and use the wager as if it's legitimate, that actually hurts it. The benefit to the wager is that it's simple as can be, and anyone can understand it, but its shortcomings are far worse.
Hes lying on purpose. This is clearly a i know better piece
Pascal's wager is genuinely one of the dumbest things I've ever seen, and I say that as a theist. Pascal's wager only works if you make ALOT of arbitrary assumptions.
Belief in a personal god cannot be reached through reason which is why faith is required to compensate for its lack of rational foundation.
+1 on bringing in other philosophers into the discussion as this is one of my favourite channels.
"Fire. God of Abraham, God of Isaac, God of Jacob -- not of the philosophers and scholars." - Pascal
Great quote
What does this mean?
@@unknowninfinium4353 it means a living God, not a theoretical God. I.e. a God you can feel and experience yourself, not a God you can read about.
@@salvador.garciait's like Kierkegaards argument for the personal subjective truth that differs personal faith from "religion"
@@salvador.garcia But it states the opposite and contradicts itself.
What is far more important to consider regarding the concept of GOD, yet all who argue about it, ON BOTH SIDES, fail to realize, is the two fundamental differences in the definition of the concept:
1) GOD as the creator and sustainer of the universe.
2) GOD as the provider of laws what humans must do, which must be followed, and the one who demands subordination and prayers.
Pascal's argument doesn't consider the fact that the former doesn't imply the latter.
On the contrary, the existence of an entity that creates and sustains all matter is a certainty. But this entity, The Cruel Brute that creates and sustains all the evil, doesn't deserve any respect whatsoever, let alone prayers and subordination to the rules supposed to have come from The Brute, but in fact are composed by the believers only.
Hence, Pascal's logic is a totally unacceptable absurdity.
I get the same uneasy feeling when I think, "I will only be alive for about 80 years or so, but I'll be dead for an eternity."
Me too, I am actually not scared of dying. It is the 'not thinking'/ 'not existing/ experiencing' that keeps me up at night.
@karlamay_ start praying and you may get eternity in Heaven with Pascal. :)
@@karlamay_u were dead before u was born
@@brianw.5230 "Praying" only makes the anxiety greater! Just because you make a choice in Pascal's wager doesn't mean your doubts go away; in fact, they become greater! And that's the point of the wager. Your going to have to choose, and whatever you choose makes you even more uneasy. Pascal was a Jansenist which was a Catholic heresy rife with this kind of anxiety. Atheist who misunderstand Pascal's wager are not misunderstanding it intellectually. They get that and those criticisms are correct. Rather, they misunderstand it existentially. And there they miss the mark completely.
@@karlamay_ Honestly I feel more at ease with the prospect of not existing in death. Dont misundertand however, Im no pessimist. I love existence, I love life and the ability to think and act, still I cant help but be at peace with not being able to do those things any longer
I absolutely love this channel, and I understand that this is an informal video, but I think that there is more context that needs to be taken into account.
First off, though the modern atheistic arguments against the Wager (or Gambit, as some say is the more reasonable translation) were used by Voltaire and Diderot far before our time, it is important to know that these arguments may be more valid today after the Wager began to be used by theists who, it can be argued, tore it from it's context at the start. I'd say that the arguments against the Wager, mostly put to paper by notable "New Atheists" such as Dawkins, have been used more effectively in modern religious discourse due to the use of the Wager by theists as a fear-inducing tool to instill belief in their particular religious idols. Modern theists do not use the Wager in it's original context, but as an explicit argument for their God's existence on all sides, in my experience, despite it obviously not being intended for that purpose. Statements such as "You see? God has made belief in him the only rational thing to do! Pascal proved it!" I would say that once an argument or idea is separated from the intended use of the person who created it, it should be countered in the new context it is found in. If someone, for example, was found criticising Christian Identity Theology, you'd likely know that they aren't just misunderstanding the context behind it's formation, they'd be criticising the people who it inspired, namely the Klu Klux Klan. I don't know how familiar you are with the writings of modern Protestant apologists (primarily in the USA) who base their arguments almost entirely upon the framework of suposed rationality that was inspired by the American Pragmatist movement for the sole purpose of provoding reasonable arguments to keep faith, but I think an educated and fair-minded person as yourself would be mildly disgusted by them and how readily they twist and resurrect the thoughts of great thinkers on the subject for their own sway in religious discourse.
Many atheists do treat Pascal badly as a result of this argument's prevalence in theistic apologetics, but I know many atheists who adore Pascal's writing and thoughts. I am glad that many of us who haven't yet been provided the proper context of Pascal's writing will be able to hear it from you, but please keep in mind the context in which the argument now exists. Thank you for your work.
i grew up lutheran and while i forgot almost everything, one thing i will always remember. we were taught by our pastor during confirmation, that all humans go to heaven. there are no prerequisites, you can be christian, muslim, jewish, hindu, atheist, antitheist and even hitler himself, everyone goes to heaven. hell, if it exists, is not a place for humans but at most for fallen angels. as far as i am aware the bible does not even teach anything about people being punished in burning hellfire. all i could find after a quick search is that it might mention something about punishment by nonexistence after death in contrast to the reward of eternal life in heaven.
Very amazing video❤ I have not realized those things before
Pascals wager can be universally applied to anything no matter how irrational, it is an incredibly poor argument for God, its more akin to philosophical blackmail.
Interestingly I can somewhat relate to pascal.
I find it baffling how people can simply ignore the big questions of life and not think constantly about them.
I don’t think they are unintelligent, so they either do not find the time for this or they simply lack the spirit of curiosity.
Either way, I find it somewhat tragic.
People do not appear to care about their immortal souls because they tend to live as though their lives will go on forever, and Jungian psychoanalysis generally concurs that this is both normal and healthy. Even in old age, it is better to look forward to the next day because, otherwise, one "dies before his time" and in a great deal of psychological pain. The present is, after all, the only real time.
There is the opposite problem of never letting go of one's life, but the point is that Pascal's observation may not have needed the Wager as a response. Contemplating death and the afterlife to correct one's outlook ought to be medicinal rather than dietary.
Part of the reason Hell is depicted in such lurid terms of everlasting suffering is because of the very problem Pascal addresses himself to: that people, against all reason, choose to sin. So the moralists kept enlarging the metaphysical stick and the carrot of Hell and Heaven respectively to try and correct the matter and likewise shock them into piety, but the situation persists because the problem was, and still is, so poorly understood.
Even Nietzsche did not understand it and feel into the same trap of trying to emplore the Last Man to change his ways and falling on death ears. He got one step further in assuming that some ought to be able to overcoem this condition of indifference and cross the precipice, addressing himself to the "free spirits," but even these he found wanting and was forced to acknowledge that the meek will inheirit the earth, or at the very least that the last man recurs no less eternally than the great man.
The resolution of this problem is understanding that morality has it's role, but one must never be swindled by it's logical conclusion that man out to reach perfection. The condition people have _now,_ in spite of all of it's very serious and harmful shame and decay, is the way they ultimately ought to be and morality works towards _that_ end, not some distant dream of the ubermensch. That is why the Last Man endures and the ubermensch perishes. To seek the ubermensch is to demand a holocaust.
Because, after all, what could be more urgent than bringing humanity to a state of exaltation and the salvation of his immortal soul as soon as possible and by any means necessary?
The right amount of moral preaching helps people to live together.
Too much, sends them to war.
I value beauty & greatness above all else. Yet I don’t want a holocaust. I’ve also had enough with many social problems that make the world I want less viable. The worse it gets the more extreme a reaction becomes acceptable.
I don’t think impatient ideals cause holocausts. It’s more like desperation for survival itself.
Writing this comment before I watch the video...
Pascal's wager isn't about the "eternal reward" it's about the "worldly reward"...
This becomes incredibly apparent if you read the wager in the context of his notes, with any biography.
And what is the worldly reward for going to church each Sunday?
@@kimbanton4398 for Pascal the equivalent of millions of dollars, a job and the respect of his family! 😁 Literally this is the primary reason that most people go to religious services! It has almost nothing to do with "future rewards" it's the "rewards" they get right away!
@@LiverpoolReject Then it's kinda strange that his argument and syllogism isn't really... let's say "presented" in such a way as to convince the non-believer of engaging in religious customs for earthly rewards.
Under "heaven" & "hell" in that argument the receiving end usually doesn't think about friendly meetings in the church, but whether or not one should believe for the sake of avoiding eternal torment...
(sry for bad English, my native language is German)
The whole argument could have been summarize in "just believe in it, and it'll work" like bro have never heard of the placebo effect
That's not the argument.
@@voskresenie- lol
@@voskresenie- why does the argument ignore other religions
@@rohanking12able it doesn't. that's not the argument. Did either you or nurifidei watch the video?
The basic problem is that God is often assumed to be a primitive understanding of causation rather than the complete rejection of causality that it basically is. You can't base a rational wager on miracles. Not if you really want to live, even if you use the best logic or math. It just doesn't mix.
@sresponses Another relevant question is how someone would fare if they were suddenly transported to another area like that and had to fit in, whether they would even survive. He'd be like a negotiator from another country and then maybe the negotiator would need a negotiator. You get into this infinite regress even with raw cultural forms free of religion, so then when religion appears it's like you solidify the counter party and then political problems follow.
Sadly consequences are not just in the afterlife but in this life and you have to judge the negative effects of religion upon the world during our lfietime too and thats where the balance of suffering tips the other way particularly as there is no evidence for an afterlife and plenty of evidence for suffering caused by religion.
Great video , I love Nietzsche and Schopenhauer, but I want to see more videos on other philosophers and their ideas as well.
The main problem that I have with Pascal's Wager is that the "there is no God" conclusions are lazy and wrong, because things DO happen.
If you believe in God and there is no God, and go through all of the worship motions, unnecessary self-restrictions, and giving your money to the church, you wasted all of that precious life and money, furthering a gigantic con for an indefinite number of future generations to be abused.
If you don't believe in God and there is no God, you not only saved your life from all of that waste, but you didn't contribute to abusers of religion and their schemes, helping future generations be safer from them.
This is an alternative kind of "eternal consequences" to consider, one based on selflessness instead of selfishness.
How could a deity be benevolent and almighty, if Access to heaven is dependend on belief in deity? Would a good creater Not create either humans as believers in the First Place, or no deity exists or it is Not benevolent
Thats why gnostic beliefs are cool. They make that make sense with the idea of the demiurge
You put into words how I view religion at the moment. I mean, how can an all-powerful, almighty God who made the heavens and earth rely on His creations' belief? I mean, I created the earth and the galaxies, and the whole universe yet I need humans to honor and worship me? That, to me, sounds to vain.
@@no-ic5gw yes, I strongly tend towards agnosticism myself. However, I cannot help but feel like its a cheap way out. People who are certain, that there is deity (or vice versa) propably receive satisfaction on their (non)belief. Agnostiscs are doomed to stay in doubt.
@@EarnestBunbury the truth doesn’t require your belief & there’s no point in believing something untrue.
According to Christianity God created humans with free will, he can't force you to believe.
How orthodoxy treat belief as a choice is in some sense rather sadistic and solipsistic. I recently learned that there's an alternative to it. That Orthopraxy is not a state of right belief, as orthodoxy is, but of right conduct instead, which makes more sense as it's something other people can also observe and hold you true to. Nobody can peer into your true essence and try to pry out the right belief in any other way than force and threat of force, and then it's not genuinely a free choice of belief. Also, if the circumstances are such that you are indeed free to choose what you want to believe, it would be no more than emptiness to such a mind. As then truly nothing would be weighing down any side of the wager and no choice could be made. Not even chance could have any involvement in this total freedom, or it would not be a choice as we wish to think of it. In a radical notion of freedom of conscience like that then it wouldn't even be worth calling it freedom at all, as it would just be motionless, stagnated, frozen, and not even a mind. A mind needs flux, motion of the contents and so on to even be said to have made a choice of belief. So we introduce chance, we introduce contents of the mind that it is constituted by, for example a knowledge of Pascals Wager among other things. The problem we all know of is that we are not free to make up our mind, if we are part of a process that would predetermine our choice of belief. Or maybe, we require our choice of belief to be predetermined for there to even be a state of mind to arrive at? So predetermination is a required ingredient in the making of our choice. On the one hand, total freedom isn't something we have, and on the other hand, we can not have a mind of our own, that is free as we think of it, in a predetermined world either. Tricky, if we had that sort of freedom, we could on the one hand be damned one moment and saved the next, or both at the same time, in the flux required. We would have to wait and see until we had made a decision and then one or the other state would be the case, like it was some flip of a coin. Okay, so we are not free to make up our own mind about any of it, then what? The answer is that we are already truly free indeed, only because there are no wagers of this kind to begin with. It's simply not possible to have a universe in which a mind is constituted in a way that we would think of it as truly being a mind, and also have a wager of correct belief in that same universe. Or maybe I'm missing some piece of the puzzle? Which is probably the most likely, given the tiny range of my knowledge and limited ability to grasp what a tricky and profound subject this truly is. It goes well beyond my horizon, that much I can guess for now.
Can you fool God if he exists? Like he'd know you believed just in case, to save your ass from hell
I wont waste my time on putting salt around my house and onion everywhere just because vampiers might be real .
I shall buy salt and onion. I didn't know it kept vampires away!
@@raucousriley143you should wear silver too .
Don't come crying here when you inevitably become turned into a vampire yourself, you fool!
just dont invite them inside silly
I just tried to reply here but it didn't show up. ..odd. must of been flagged or something
Benatar's asymmetry table is much more important subject than Pascal's wager
Agreed!
From a fellow antinatalist ❤❤❤
Ok redditor, don't breed.
I'm saying it as an other antinatalist that Benatar's asymmetry argument doesn't work. The absence of bad things (e.g. pain) is only good if there is a compassionate person there to reflect on it. If there is no one around, the absence of suffering is not good for anyone, because there isn't anyone. There are way better arguments for antinatalism.
Benatar’s asymmetry doesnt work for masochists and sadists
It's inane - suffering is a necessary part of life. We are forged in suffering. Suffering is necessary for beauty, and anything good for that matter. How unfortunate David's parents did not practice what he preached and save him from this life of suffering... It would've been nice for Schopenhauer too, but then we would not have Nietzsche. I hope the antinatalists see how poor their arguments against suicide are before infecting posterity with their beliefs.
I don’t think it’s valid to use Pascal’s writings as the litmus for what constitutes legitimate faith. He isn’t an arbiter of Christianity or any other religion. It’s then up to the doctrine of the religion as to what constitutes legitimate faith. It’s their determination as to whether or not “reason alone” is sufficient basis for belief. I’m sure in some sects of religion rationally “choosing to believe” is plenty fine and sufficient.
The problem with the wager is that it is based on the Christian god.
If I believe in the Norse gods, then I could make the equal statement that one should go to war, because those who die of sickness or old age go to hell.
Therefore, to face the temporary pain of dying in battle, or the eternal pain of hell, it should be seen that waging war is the more logical option.
It comes from an insincere point
Hel is not eternal pain in native European religion.
First of All, one can not compel oneself neither to believe or stop believing nor stop believing in God, cuz they're both merely states of mind
Furthuremore if you believe in God and it doesn't exist, then you'll have squandered your entire life by undertaking his commands(morality and way of life)
Does not apply to Hinduism. Rejection of Gods is not punishable in any realm, material or divine. We think of that as very petty and childish. If God were so petty and judgmental, then a hell would be a more favourable place. No he is not to be feared, for he is the one who is supposed to have created us (as per Abrahamics).
Can you suggest some good reads about Hinduism, im genuinely curious
@@mjolninja9358 The 4 Vedas, Mahabharata, and the Ramayana are the essentials. The latter two are basically the Vedas applied into real incidents and so is classified as our "itihaasa" or history. The "Ved" mean revealed knowledge and has the same root as "vid" in latin where video comes from. It is a very intense read and are really no shortcuts here.
You can start with western philosophers who drew inspiration from our works. Schopenhauer, Evola.
Pascal's Wager is not a wager for me, because I gladly accept eternal suffering over obedience to the god who causes it
I don’t see God causing suffering I see humans causing suffering.
I believe you don't. If i put your hand on the stove and ask you this question i think the answer will be different. Secondly i recon you think like this because of you interpret god as a dictator. We perceive dictatorship as bad because of our human nature and history, but we are talking about an "all loving" god.
@@christianakrouche2216 yeah no, people have faced much much worse than this resisting this loving God's lovely followers. I'd rather spend eternity in hell with those people rather than this loving God's pleasure box filled with these lovely people of peace
@@ChanakyanStudent7971 Real knowledge is to know the extent of one's ignorance.
@sresponses i am not talking about the christian god.
It's crazy how you just went over why Pascal is misapplied by atheists (and lets be frank some christians too) and yet the comments here MISSAPLY THE WAGER AGAIN. WATCH THE EFFING VIDEO BEFORE YOU COMMENT!
When are you making a video on Zarathustra? I check your channel now and then to see if you have uploaded a video on it.
Good video on a good topic. Sad to see it is not doing very well in views. It is only the first 24 hours though.
@sresponses Even if so, you can have a cool idea among bad ones. No? Not that Weltgeist portrays him as a genius. He even mentions a bad argument Pascal has for God! He points out a case of circular logic!
You are just mad for the sake of being a mad atheist. Despite being an atheist myself, I actually find the idea people do not care for their soul a powerful one. Both in the the literal sense of the idea and not so literal.
Thank you for making this one. I accept Pascal's wager but have a follow up question for him, and its not meant to be a trick question of snide, but might be taken that way, "How do you believe in God?" I would like to think God is real but just don't think he is. I do not reject faith, I just can't find it. How do you do this?
It's like a monkey asking a fish why it chooses to not climb up to the safety of the tree tops.
I really relate to the purpose of the wager. People are really just uninterested in the matters Pascal was suggesting that people should be interested in. I'm not a Christian and I definitely don't believe in a theistic God, but these things are just too interesting to not think about.
That is why i respect more Dostoyevaky than Socrates and Pascal . He understood psychology of man much better than latter ones. Wager cannot be a mean to the path of relligion . Dostoyevsky understood this , Pascal didn't. Socrates in other way of "there is only ignorance" didn't .
Pascal’s wager has always been the original bait for newly minted “philosophers” lol…
Somehow I feel that Pascal knew people would not understand its core principle, even then, hence why he didn’t elaborate further in his book. I always thought why do people complicate it? lol. He really trolled many and continues to do so! LMAO.
I dont think of believing in god is the most rational way of thinking as believing in this non existent entity you subconsciously detach yourself from your true power...
It’s been a while since I’ve looked into it, but as I recall, Pascal actually addresses the issue of doxastic voluntarism at some point.
Unfortunately, I can’t recall exactly where I found this-do you happen to know?
Don't forget you have to believe in the right religion, let alone denominations! So what starts out as a simple box with four choices actually becomes like 200 choices. Then after taking that context into account believing in God isn't so rational after all.
Have you watched the Video?
@@DK-mb7dgYes and I disagree that the wager can be separated wholly from the context of other religions. I also disagree with him and I guess Pascal that the wager isn't about other religions because again, I also believe the wager can't be separated from the context of other religions.
@@cumulus1869 You disagreeing is fine. But your first comment is just restating the objection that was mentioned in the Video. That is why i was asking If you have already watched the Video.
@@DK-mb7dghe didnt watch the video
Whether Pascal intended it to be a proof for a god is irrelevant; theist use Pascal's Wager as if it is.
Godel’s God proof is the best proof but most don’t understand it. Atheism is no different than people who blindly believe something no matter what. Agnostics are the only way to not believe in God but open to reason.
Believing isn't really a choice. Therefore, not only was the wager not meant to stand alone - it cannot.
I am LowIQ what does this mean?
@@unknowninfinium4353it means his iq is lower than yours.
Prove believing is not really a choice, please 😊
@@James-ll3jb Do you believe in my God? You don't even know the name of my good, so I will have to say no. If I tell you to believe and you tell me you will, have made the choice to do so, are you actually believing? No believe is a choice. You just reach there. If you don't feel like you believe it, you are not going to "make the choice" to believe. You either do or do not. You can try to learn more or (i)rationalize until you do, but this is the choice of working towards believe, not believe itself.
@@James-ll3jb Can you make out every single beliefs you have? Even the subconscious ones?
I just can’t pretend to believe something I know to be untrue. Any God that cares about anything but your character would be evil in my mind. Fear of punishment is not a virtue.
If God isn’t real, a Christian has wasted his life
Wasted how?
@@Justin_B1997 Wasted, not accomplishing anything thing with their life. Dedicating themselves to something that isn't real but is thought to be real. so not the same as fiction.
Atheists also waste their lives in other ways regardless of God's existence.
On average are happier?😂 Sure, you clearly haven't been inside a church and analyzed the personal lives of those desperate enough to believe in a myth. The internet is the perfect opportunity for God to prove himself when he constantly did in the Bible in front of everyone@jcc7912
How do you prove God isn't real?
So all those theists who misapply the thought experiment as if it were a proof, were just doing their deity's work?
It's all very well to claim "atheists" are the ones that are wrong about "this argument for God", when it's apparently isn't an argument for God at all, yet theists regularly use it as such.
What Pascal apparently didn't have a useful understanding of was what the effect of beliefs themselves are. If you invoke a deep belief about anything you will subsequently think that the content the belief references is unequivocally true. Beliefs interfere with the evaluation of information and experience. That is the effect of that process of thinking has.
It doesn't matter what the content is. Nor does it matter what the counter claims are nor even any other possible facts. Deep beliefs override such considerations. You need only talk to a flat earther to understand this, let alone an array of theists devoted to different deities.
If you know what beliefs do and how they do it, then invoking them comes with profound side effects. Not least of which profoundly distorts the application of reason.
Pascal seems to be projecting a set of ideas that come directly from his own beliefs on the matter. It's no wonder then that he has particular views about the outcome of his prescription.
Neil Böhr did, because he heard it works whether you believe in it or not.
True! 😅
Great video. Pascal wrote about other religions. Here's a quote:
"I see then a crowd of religions in many parts of the world and in all times; but their morality cannot please me, nor can their proofs convince me. Thus I should equally have rejected the religion of Mahomet and of China, of the ancient Romans and of the Egyptians, for the sole reason, that none having moremarks of truth than another, nor anything which should necessarily persuade me, reason cannot incline to one rather than the other."
In other words, he just already presupposed that Christianity is the true religion without any evidence, and then builds his wager on that lack of evidence and his personal incredulity... did I get this right?
@kimbanton4398 if you read "Pensees", you'll see he wrote 200 pages why Christianity is true.
He wrote about Jesus, miracles, prophecies and morality.
@sresponses Regardless, Buddhism and Eastern religions don't condemn Christians so Pascal's Wager holds strong. :)
@sresponses Buddhism teaches that Christians are building up good karma so Pascal's Wager works if Buddhism is true. Christians will be reincarnated as something better.
@sresponses Buddhists judge everyone by karma so Christians will he fine if they obey the 10 Commandments.
Either way, you're wagering your life on atheism.
//meant to put you on the p// You can't have it both ways, you can't say it's not an argument as if it doesn't make epistemic statements of truth, then put forth the epistemic statements of truth it leads with.. as if they can't be challenged or pointing out that the nature of them is arbitrary and pointless. You're not really refuting anything, you're just restating pascals wager, then just insisting it isn't argument as it delivers ALL the same components as an argument as if it were proof of anything.
There's no reason to presuppose a god, a dichotomy of heaven & hell, a god that cares one way or another, a god that even participates in human existence, etc. The odds of a god existing that will punish you for BLIND FAITH based belief and reward you for reasoned non-belief is as EQUALLY possible/probable as the opposite.
Why would you assume that 'heaven' is desirable? Have you been there?
If you live your life as your life should be lived you don't have time to worry about it.
Meh. I read the original text and knew about these already. Getting someone to think about the "Immortal soul" is a worse defense of the wager than asserting the reasonableness of the belief payoff matrix. I don't care about the immortal soul any more than Bigfoot. I don't question the sincerity of Pascal's belief and the wish to deter his fellow men from the path of eternal damnation, only the fatuity of his reasoning.
The context doesn't save Pascal's wager. "Context" is used by religious apologists as a shield for all sorts of ridiculousness.
"I don't care about the immortal soul any more than Bigfoot." Bigfoot, if supposed to be real, is still not a constantly lingering threat to you. Your immortal soul in eternal hellfire is. So I guess you don't care more for the latter because you are absolutely sure that neither exists. I just wonder, how can you be so completely sure?
@@Tomviel *"Your immortal soul in eternal hellfire is."*
Not, if both the concept of an immortal soul and the concept of eternal hellfire are pure fantasies...
*"So I guess you don't care more for the latter because you are absolutely sure that neither exists."*
Yep. (I'm gonna assume that you're a Christian for the sake of this point. Sry if I'm wrong.) You as a Christian are "quite sure" that no Islamic hell exists where all Christians would be thrown into for the same exact reasoning that makes an atheist "quite sure" that no Christian hell exists. The atheist just goes one hell further with the reasoning and doesn't just stop at Christianity for convenience...
*"I just wonder, how can you be so completely sure?"*
Ask this yourself or any other Christian. How can you be so completely sure that there's no Muslim hell?
@@kimbanton4398 I am not a Christian. My question goes for the teachings of Islam as well, because I don't see how could I be completely sure that their teachings regarding the afterlife are not true although I'm not nearly as familiar with them.
@@Tomviel Isn't the very basic idea that consciousness ceases with the death of the brain enough to undermine any idea of an afterlife?
@@CeramicShot It would be if it was demonstrably true. But since we have no access to anyone else's consciousness, it's not demonstrable. The very question of what consciousness is, is disputed. You can look up David Chalmers, Galen Strawson or A. N. Whitehead for example if you are interested.
Interestingly I do find the Idea of a afterlife plausible because I am a immanent realist about universals.
It is possible that my mental pattern will be reinstantiated somewhere else in the universe.
At least if the universe is infinite or at least big enough to make something like this likely to happen.
But this is probably closer to reincarnation then the Christian afterlife.
Why does not believing in god means damnation? Does the argument mean to imply that god is insecure? That those who do not believe in him must face punishment. It also sounds like god is a narcissist. But god can mot be that (according to all religion). Psscal's argument is childish if not stupid.
False dichotomy, because god could be shy. What if you go to heaven for not believing and hell for believing?
9:50 No, religion does not have a universal tendency to be exclusive and call themselves the absolute truth. Islam recognises the existence of a messenger in every culture (Quran 10:47) and implies the People of the Book, whom it sets at worst higher than anyone else but Muslims and otherwise arguably on the same level as Muslims and implies them to be true believers (e.g. the beginning of sura ar-Rûm), Christianity exalts the execution of the commandment above lip service paid to it (the Epistle of Paulus to the Romans 2:12-16), Judaism (originally henotheist or monolatrist under the Cult of YHWH) just has Sheol (a world devoid of God's love) and Ge Hinnom (hellfire to destroy the soul) with relatively little focus on the afterlife, many Indian religions such as Buddhism (after all a commonly syncretic religion) have underworlds (e.g. Naraka) but more so purify the soul (so closer to purgatory than Hell) so the soul can eventually achieve nirvana or otherwise freedom from the samsara (same for Jainism and Hinduism but with moksha instead), etc.
This isn't even to mention regional polytheist religions, deceased or extant, such as Shinto with Yomi, Mesopotamian myth with Arallu and Ganzer, Greek myth with Tartarus, the Zoroastrian Dužaŋhu, etc. Most underworlds are very different from the Abrahamic ones or at best like the Jewish Ge Hinnom or Sheol.
Saying 'most religions condemn unbelievers' is an absurd, extremely Abrahamic-centric (which even then can be disputed for Islam and Christianity) claim that Westerners say when they don't know what to say. History is more complicated and nuanced than that.
Edit: forgot to mention: see 2:62 of the Quran if you think it's an exclusivist religion.
Atheists are not only to blame for these poor arguments because Christians also present the wager based on an incomplete understanding of it's context and intentions.
Pascal's Wager is addressed to a hypothetical Christian to whom the existance of God is completely taken for granted, but who can't seem to embody the Christian ideals of poverrty, chastity, and obedience.
It is meant to stoke piety and resolve in someone who _already_ beileves, not lead non-believers or apostates to the rational conclusion that God must exist.
It isn't an argument for the existance of God, but Christians present it as though it is -- possibly because it may even have helped strengthen their own convictions -- but it's completely meaningless as a thought experiment for converting atheists.
The arguments for God offered by theologicans such as Tomas Aquinas, such as the Cosmological Argument or the Ontological Argument, are often given in a similar spirit and fall just as flat.
i fully agree with your conclusion, but i think it's even further than that.
The large majority of conversions (in either direction) have some sort of trauma, hurt or crisis at its roots.
Very few are convinced by logical arguments. Profound experiences during emotionally vulnerable moments seems to be what convinces people the most.
This is why i don't think any of these arguments are good.
Both of you guys are alright in my book.
You seriously need to edit the scripts for these videos. A lot of waffling and repetition. And all you said about it was EXACTLY what atheists always say about it, except in a more obfuscatory manner: it's not meant to be an actual robust argument, but a tactic of emotional manipulation designed to rattle the non-believer.
Thanks man! We need more Pascal videos! Quite frustrating how many ignorant people on RUclips hate on Pascal, and all they know is the fucking wager 🙄 I mean, if you like existentialism, Pensées has to speak to you on some level. Even Nietzsche couldn’t deny the genius of Pensées:
“The profoundest and least exhausted books will probably always have something of the aphoristic and unexpected character of Pascal's Pensées.”
@sresponses it’s easy for people to reduce Pascal to one or two ideas. He wrote more than that. This video actually cares about context. And yes, it’s possible to regard someone as a genius without necessarily agreeing with their conclusions
Which god though?
Blaise Pascal?? more like Based Pascal 🗿
You can’t force yourself to believe in God.
I don't understand People seens tigered by this in the comentas. But, well as always athiethbof the New age are Just antijudeic god.
Great. Pascal has an opinion. I don't care about his feelings. He's not searching for truth but using a pedantic argument to fit his presuppositions. Evidence please?
His main point is evidence is found in the experience when acting as a Christian & Devine revelation if you’re open to it. To be open to it is key. I’m open to it I guess, if it happens I’ll let you know 😂
What if evidence is possible but you can only have it through direct personal experience of the divine which requires enormous spiritual effort and commitment on your side? Because this is what some people say. What counterargument can be made for this?
@@bryanutility9609 *His main point is evidence is found in the experience when acting as a Christian & Devine revelation if you’re open to it.*
Then his main point can be debunked in the fact you can find that same "evidence" in the experience when acting as a believer of any other religion, (conflicting) denomination or sect if you're open to it... still doesn't put the "many gods/religions" objection to rest.
*To be open to it is key.*
And open-minded people start believing in different religions that don't have any concept of hell. Then Pascal's wager still becomes arbitrary & useless...
@@Tomviel *What if evidence is possible but you can only have it through direct personal experience of the divine which requires enormous spiritual effort and commitment on your side?*
Then how could you objectively & reasonably distinguish these direct personal experiences from delusions, shizophrenia or similar dreams? What good reason would there be for anyone who's skeptical of such claimed events in the first place to not simply dismiss these all as illusions?
*Because this is what some people say. What counterargument can be made for this?*
That those might all just be delusions induced by your brain in times of trouble as a means of coping & relieving your stress level. Like when for example people still hear & feel the presence of their deceased loved ones...
What counterargument can be made for this?
@@Tomviel How many years must I mediator before I levitate? I’m a shoe me kind of guy. The burden of proof is on the one making the claim.
What idiots get wrong about Pascal's Wager: One can not simply _choose_ that which he or she believes.
I'd disagree with that claim. It's possible to both consciously implement a belief as well as undo the evocation of one. The processes are knowable.
The problem being that when you're consciously aware of the processes, both for the implementation of belief and the dissolving of a belief, what special properly does a belief have? They both become conscious decisions and are then they are either rational or irrational. The consequences are profound either way.
If you rationally conclude you're better off invoking a belief, a part of the conclusion must justify why a belief is required for something that you have concluded is a rational fact. The point of contention being, a fact can be reviewed and decisions updated, if new information comes to hand. Whereas, if you invoke a belief about some topic it's considerably harder to both notice the information that is at odds with the belief's tenants, and also much harder to correct due to the effects of the belief itself.
Facts and the contexts in which the facts have meaning remain unchanged whether you invoke a belief about something or not. So why invoke a belief at all?
If a deity has purported writings, or devotees, that claim a belief is required, why does such a being need that kind of reassurance for something which needs only be a rationally evaluated fact?
If a deity is such that it cannot provide sufficient evidence for it's existence, properties and intent, then there can be no rational justification for an unequivocal submission to a belief.
Similarly, if there is sufficient evidence then a belief is simply unnecessary and a deity who requires it seems overly needy if it's supposed to be some supreme entity.
Beliefs in that sense are not reasonable to implement.
However, in practical terms, if you want a religion to propagate and you want unquestioning devotees, beliefs are a great step to insist upon. As they make it much harder for those who are temporarily convinced to reevaluate their position later. It's a basic property of a mind virus.
@sigmata0 Can YOU simply _choose_ that which YOU believe to be true? Yes or no.
@@Theo_Skeptomai Yes.
Which one?
All the comments are from reddit atheists who still don't get it. The point is to start thinking about your eternal soul, and yet banal assholes here keep asking for "proof". I am not a christian, and I definitely see the argument as valuable in Pascal's wager. I especially hate the arguments that go "if God good then why no unconditional heaven?". I think the story Dostoevsky mentions in Brothers with the woman and the onion is quite a good refutation for these types of arguments that challenge God's benevolence. Hinduism provides an even better answer (imo) via Karma and reincarnation. In the end, we all go to God, what journeys we take are different.
Lol classic ad hom attack “Anyone who doesn’t agree with me is a wannabe edgelord asshole. How dare they ask for stupid things like ‘proof’ and ‘evidence’ for my insane ramblings and wild theories. Just mindlessly believe like me you idiots! PS God is love”
Seems about right for the quality of people who lean into Pascal’s Wager and deny the Problem of Evil, there are literally easy to understand reasons right here in this comment chain why even the proper interpretation is full of logical fallacies and the base argument holds no weight.
Instead of defending your position, you just decide to call everyone who disagrees some hateful names and then refer to someone else to make your argument for you.
Funny how those who always say things like “God is love” are the most hateful assholes out there. But anyone who has dealt with strongly religious people know your behavior and attitude is the norm not the exception.
Just shows your religion and beliefs have not changed you for the better and you don’t lead by example so it must not be a very powerful nor good belief if it can’t stop you from being an asshole to anyone who dares question you.
*The point is to start thinking about your eternal soul, and yet banal assholes here keep asking for "proof".*
Well, what do you expect? That the atheist will just so easily believe and except the existence of a soul without any evidence in the first place, just like religious believers do? You kinda need to provide some credible and objectively verifiable evidence that the thing called "eternal soul" does exist and isn't just some imaginary stuff...
If you can't do that, then the whole "start thinking about your eternal soul" question breaks apart...
*I am not a christian, and I definitely see the argument as valuable in Pascal's wager.*
Why though? You can't just assume that hell is one of the options, if you can't prove that the god(s) in question is/are (a) god(s) that will send you to hell for non-belief...
*I especially hate the arguments that go "if God good then why no unconditional heaven?".*
Me too :)
*I think the story Dostoevsky mentions in Brothers with the woman and the onion is quite a good refutation for these types of arguments that challenge God's benevolence.*
I haven't read this yet. What is the message there about?
*Hinduism provides an even better answer (imo) via Karma and reincarnation.*
Does (your denomination of) Hinduism require one to believe in the Hindu gods to be rewarded in the next life and punished for non-belief?
*In the end, we all go to God, what journeys we take are different.*
Then Pascal's wager is irrelevant anyways, don't you think?
@@kimbanton4398 I only want to comment on your last question. The reason why it wouldn't be irrelevant is because it would be better to return to God sooner than later, plus the return probably wouldn't happen until you decide to dedicate your life to it. (I'm not trying to argue for any religion, I'm just sharing my own intuitive thoughts.)
TikTok Theist spotted.
@@skepticalcentral8795 reddit atheist response.
Moving outposts.
Contridictions.
Terrible.
I like this new type of video
I think one of my top tier genre of content that got there in the past 2 weeks is "Atheists look at the original formulations of religious arguments and point out how modern atheists misinterpret them".
And you're doing it again; Pascal didn't intend for this to be proof.. Pascal wanted reason.. and the wager is reason.. you're just listing out the bullet points of the wager.. in response to criticism of that wager, you're not addressing the criticism.
The skeptical god might exist and might not like you believing in god... best be careful! :p
Deus, aquele que é perfeito, indivisível e absoluto, viu-se impelido a uma única possibilidade: a criação do cosmos. No entanto, ao dar origem ao mundo, este não poderia ser senão uma extensão de sua própria essência, pois ele não é condicionada a nada ser senão a ele mesmo. Assim, a existência do mundo implica necessariamente uma diminuição da potência divina, uma fração do Todo transmutada em multiplicidade. Eis o princípio do panteísmo.
Neste ato de criação, a Totalidade Divina sofreu um esvaziamento de sua potência original, ou permanece como uma existência enigmática e incompleta, destituída da onipotência, onisciência e onibenevolência que outrora a caracterizavam. O poder e o conhecimento não são mais atributos que ele detém em plenitude. Eis o princípio do panenteísmo fraco.
Ademais, imaginar o cosmos como uma realidade imaterial, puramente informacional, torna-se uma especulação viável. Este universo, desprovido de substância tangível, reflete talvez uma estratégia divina engenhosa e deliberada para manter a sua onipotência magna e um mundo concomitantemente (olá George Berkeley)
Believing in G.d is far from stupid. The same cannot be said for believing that if you are good you will be pampered for eternity in some sort of heaven.
I support a “religion” that judges goodness based on what kind of world we leave behind for our grandchildren. That “eternal life” is here through our progeny & I don’t want it to be hell on earth.
@@bryanutility9609 Childfree man, here. Which also implies grandchild-free. There can be no greater gap in values than the one that separates us. All versions of eternal life are more than suspect from my point of view. I want death to come as late as possible, but when it comes it should be permanent.
@@patcartier8171 well I hope you’re able to live your life to the fullest without making things worse in the process, wish that for everyone who values life.
Lol. No you are wrong.
This video is strangely anti-intellectual for a philosophy channel. Somehow Pascal is allowed to use reason, but we can’t use reason? Or “context” means that he must be correct? This all seems like a rather silly way to say “nuh uh”
2:14
Lol.
Here is my thorem:
Provided there has never been God's intervention in human lives, and if there were, it would violate all moral standards by its discriminating nature, the following is true:
If God is Almighty and Merciful, then whether one believes in Him or not does not matter.
And if He is not Almighty the above still holds true, and if He is not Merciful, pretending "faith" will not save you, nor would it be beneficial to live forever by the side of such a god.
Therefore Pascal's Hedging is an absurd.
I wasted 14 minutes of my life in this. The crux of this defense if simply "consider the wager in the context of the book it's originally written in."
It didn't actually refute the atheistic arguments. It's just saying that those arguments should consider the whole book written by Pascal. 😂 This is lazy argumentation.
Pascal's Wager is a distinct idea in itself and it's not confined within the array of disjointed ideas in the book. You even said in the beginning that this wager was from a book with random contents published after Pascal's death.
Lazy. The video is very American in its orientation even when the host sounds European.
DNA is a code, every code has a programmer
And that programmer is most likely the billions of years of evolution we went through to reach the stage we are at now.
DNA is not a code, that's just a metaphor. What about God? Does he have a creator?
@@Schmopit Its more than mere metaphor. Look up the meaning of the word.
Defined as eternal Being, said being always was therefore needn't have been created by anyone.
For anyone else reading this:
Ever meet an honest atheist?...
....me neither....(lmfao!)
@@James-ll3jb of course it's a metaphor. You two are demonstrating a big problem in science communication. Scientists use simplified analogies to help explain complicated concepts to the average Joe. This is not inherently a bad thing, but often Joe Schmo takes the analogy too literally. This is why you can find videos of people claiming to have disproven quantum mechanics, because they could poke holes in the Schrodinger's cat analogy. "The cat is clearly either alive or dead, therefore QM is bs". The purpose of the metaphor is to help us understand the concept, but it only goes one way. The concept of code has no bearing on the concept of DNA.
Why can you accept that god is eternal, but not the universe? If the existence of something as complex as DNA necessitates an intelligent creator, surely the existence of such of a being itself necessitates a creator? And following that logic; wouldn't the creator of the creator be complex enough to necessitate a creator? If you actually follow this rational to its conclusion, you end up with an infinite sequence of gods each creating the next until one eventually makes the universe. It's a paradox.
I am very open to discussion on this, but please actually respond with a point instead of just saying "your wrong".
@@Schmopit You're just a natural prevaricator aren't you lmfao!!!
The flesh of Christ distinguishes "good" from "bad" birthing ego duality..
Catholicism rejects the trinity in consumption of flesh idols for the One of Islam
That's because Pascal's wager is DONE after you have acted upon your original centre of coherent irrational meta-memory/nous potential capacity of awareness, before any wager is made in any attempt at a rational justification for any of its representational subjective value.
Doing a Pascal's wager for all infinite combinations of every wisdom code and space/time consequential eternal or otherwise outcome for ignoring its core warning part of it, never works. This is because the salient meaningful value of each worldview and its meta-mapping code which overlaps with others never holds itself for long for everyone until it all becomes "word salad, word salad" or is judged against all of the other infinite possible worldviews that could be formed as being equal from any rational sceptical analysis seeing no exceptionalism in any of the worldviews, no signal in the noise.
Which is WHY the purely rationalist "atheist" is ALREADY eaten by any undetectable non-perceptible "cartesian evil demon" entity before they have even begun i.e. checkmate, assuming ones irrational or even silent meta-gnosis a-rational capability can overrule such an entities capacity for omni-deception. So the fate of the atheist is the same as the fence sitter in his attachment to mere human reason (materialistic mundane intellect minor wisdom in the hermetic hint). They never live in any wagered epistemic manner from "within", they hold only to the mere material reasoning answer algorithms and always look "outside" of themselves and remain on the fence about "ultimate reality". Holographic caricatures/ghosts/hylic re-creations, hyper-real versions of "a-lethe-ia".
Bound in the endless ouroboric labyrinth of ever expanding logical fallacies and cognitive bias's to filter EVERYTHING in forming/re-forming every infinite combination of "images" of materialistic knowledge thereby never ever grasping anything of the inner "essence" of that which cannot enter into material "form". They act like retarded blind prisoners wondering in absolute oblivion in a warped innocence in a way.
The dead don't ever figure out they are DEAD, the headless can never tell they are headless if they truly are "Head-less" :)
"Let the dead bury their own dead".
Discern accordingly.