Are you scared of death? / what do you think comes after death?

[TristanLuigi]

says the one claiming to be certain of something incomprehensible and impossible to observe or deduce either way

I've already admitted that I worded it badly:

Admittedly, I was a bit too assertive in my original comment; I was expressing my personal opinion, but it would probably have been better to say "In the absence of evidence for heaven/hell/purgatory/limbo/reincarnation/ghosts/spirits, the most reasonable assumption is that your consciousness simply stops existing."

You're right, it's not possible to be certain that there's no afterlife. But with no evidence to the contrary, it's the most reasonable conclusion.

[Ad Bot]

[Foxscotch]

I don't think I know what happens (or doesn't happen), and I don't really care that much, in the end
I am curious about it though

[Red Spy]

I don't think I know what happens (or doesn't happen), and I don't really care that much, in the end
I am curious about it though

you wanna find out

[Foxscotch]

you wanna find out

that's literally what curious means you fool

[TristanLuigi]

that's literally what curious means you fool

i think there were other implications there

[Foxscotch]

the only implication I see is my fist implied up that commie's ass

[TristanLuigi]

the only implication I see is my fist implied up that commie's ass

hoh stuff

[Red Spy]

the only implication I see is my fist implied up that commie's ass

you're gonna fist tristan?

[TristanLuigi]

hey man communist parties can get pretty intense

[Kearn]

You're right, it's not possible to be certain that there's no afterlife. But with no evidence to the contrary, it's the most reasonable conclusion.

God is, or God is not. Reason cannot decide between the two alternatives.

A Game is being played... where heads or tails will turn up.

You must wager (it is not optional).

Let us weigh the gain and the loss in wagering that God is. Let us estimate these two chances. If you gain, you gain all; if you lose, you lose nothing.

Wager, then, without hesitation that He is. (...) There is here an infinity of an infinitely happy life to gain, a chance of gain against a finite number of chances of loss, and what you stake is finite. And so our proposition is of infinite force, when there is the finite to stake in a game where there are equal risks of gain and of loss, and the infinite to gain.

But some cannot believe. They should then 'at least learn your inability to believe...' and 'Endeavour then to convince' themselves.

[TristanLuigi]

God is, or God is not. Reason cannot decide between the two alternatives.

A Game is being played... where heads or tails will turn up.

You must wager (it is not optional).

Let us weigh the gain and the loss in wagering that God is. Let us estimate these two chances. If you gain, you gain all; if you lose, you lose nothing.

Wager, then, without hesitation that He is. (...) There is here an infinity of an infinitely happy life to gain, a chance of gain against a finite number of chances of loss, and what you stake is finite. And so our proposition is of infinite force, when there is the finite to stake in a game where there are equal risks of gain and of loss, and the infinite to gain.

But some cannot believe. They should then 'at least learn your inability to believe...' and 'Endeavour then to convince' themselves.

Pascal's Wager is a case that you should believe in God, not a case that God exists. Those are two very different things. While I do have a couple issues with it, they're besides the point here.

[Kearn]

Pascal's Wager is a case that you should believe in God

...that's exactly what i'm saying?

[The Chad Toxicology]

are you scared of  breath?? *breaths stinky breth on u* haha lol

[Nonnel]

...that's exactly what i'm saying?

keep reading friend (:

[TristanLuigi]

...that's exactly what i'm saying?

As I understand it, you were arguing that God exists. Pascal's Wager doesn't help you at all, because it offers no evidence or logical proof that God exists; it merely makes a case that it's in your interests to believe in God. As Voltaire stated, "the interest I have to believe a thing is no proof that such a thing exists."

In any case, I don't find Pascal's Wager particularly convincing. Pretty much any belief system can be adapted into Pascal's Wager; Christianity, but also other world religions, like Islam, Judaism, Hellenism, Nordic paganism, and Hinduism. But even joke religions could be reasoned about via Pascal's Wager, such as Pastafarianism. So could belief systems humans have never imagined, or could EVER imagine. And many of these systems are in contradiction to each other. Maybe a God exists who, for some reason, rewards only those who do not believe in his existence. That situation has no lower chance of being correct as Christianity, given that there's literally no proof either way.