Perfect counter to Pascal's Wager, do you agree?

Sounds perfect to me.

I'm saving that image, too.

Good quote. However, what if the unjust gods don't care about belief, they just want you to be bad people. You don't have to believe in them, but if you did 'bad' things they would reward you in the afterlife.

Alternatively, what if it wasn't about justice at all, and it was just about reward for being logical. And then they decided people who held faith were not using the brains they were given to see that there is no trace of the supernatural, so they would be punished, and those who bore no faith, and didn't believe in the supernatural were ultimately punished. Some might consider this unjust, but I see that as just being upset that you picked the wrong concept to follow.

It really does not do anything to Pascal's Wager, though it is a wise statement in regard to how to treat other humans with dignity.

There are adequate motives to reject Pascal's wager that we don't choose something like this. i don't think of it is somewhat helpful, besides. i don't believe your P1 and that i'm constructive many might argue against P2 to boot. i assume the wonderful element is, who're you to declare what's maximum classic for me? perhaps i choose regimented policies? perhaps i'm getting excitement of believing i'm doing the artwork of in spite of god i might have faith in? additionally, there's a great concern on your outcomes tables in that in case you have faith in gods and you're superb, how is it achieveable you lived a miles less maximum classic existence while that individual became perfect. (I recommend, if the god of the Bible exists and the Bible is definitely the awareness of that god, then for sure we've been meant to persist with all those policies. So your guy or woman valuation of a 'maximum classic existence' is made beside the point.) There are a methods extra desirable arguments against Pascal's wager: a million. wager works the two nicely on all depictions of gods making perception in each god ever conceived the logical end. 2. Assumes the fee of perception to be nil yet it is obviously not the case. 3. Assumes perception itself is sufficient to learn the payoff of heaven. Works, that have their own expenses, are additionally required in maximum depictions of gods. 4 (from 2 and 3) the percentages of any particular depiction of gods cutting-edge at the instant are not 50/50. Taking the percentages into attention (which could be astronomical given even all the depictions that should be actual extremely) to boot simply by fact the payoff at those odds and the fee of the movements/perception, the 'pot odds' are certainly very detrimental certainly and you're extra desirable off taking those expenses and works and putting them in the direction of something with an better payoff. 5. Assumes disbelief is sufficient to disqualify somebody from getting the payoff of heaven. i ought to be the kindest maximum honourable and easy individual who provides to charity, etc, yet while i don't think in gods i'm going to be sent to hell? If it is actual, then that god isn't worth of worship and that i might choose not something to do with it in any respect. Sorry to declare, yet i don't see how your argument is including something new or smart to the table.

I think Homer Simpson already came out with the perfect counter-argument. "But Marge, what if we picked the wrong religion? Every week, we're just making God madder and madder!"

Pascal with a problem of evil twist.

Cool Quote! I agree!.........I saved it!