>be a fucking genius >contribute to various fields of mathematics

>>9346310
Autism.

Low barrier of entry. People like Liebniz being called a polymath is a joke. Everyone comes up with kinetic energy, calculus, and can be a practicing lawyer and one of the most important philosophers of his century.
Me, I'm just lazy.

What's wrong with the Wager by the way. Seems good.

Enlightenment arguments in favor of Christianity generally tend to be retarded. Descartes is retarded on this subject too. They're not really worth bothering with, just skip to the Romantic period and read John Henry Newman.

>>9346310
As someone who doesn't care for religion, I find that a solid argument. Look at Aquinas for actual retardation.

there were a lot of otherwise intelligent people who pretended to believe in the skydaddy.

Gregor Mendel, Pascal, Leonhard Euler the list goes on...

but what you have to realize is these people didn't actually believe in god. it was all a front to protect them from social or in some cases barbaric "legal" persecutions.

pascal was merely trying to assuage christian fundementalists who at the time ruled his society. He, as a man of logic and reason never bought in to such drivel.

>>9346376
>but what you have to realize is these people didn't actually believe in god. it was all a front to protect them from social or in some cases barbaric "legal" persecutions.
This. They didn't want to be exiled eating glass Spinoza.

>>9346310
This genuinely bothers me, he was such a genius otherwise. Probably wanted to make something quick and easy for the masses to blindly accept.

Doesn't this basically admit that he was an atheist?

>>9346310

I don't think he took it that seriously. It's like, two pages in a whole book he wrote about many other things.

>>9346376
>>9346402
This is bullshit, Pascal was earnest in his faith. Ain't no need to believe he was being persecuted, what'd justify the need of a cover up.

>>9346376
>>9346402
pls take your r/atheism bait elsewhere

>>9346434
this

>>9346336
>>9346352
You got be baiting, what if... There are another gods and you're worshipping the wrong one? You seem biased by christianism.

>>9346465
>>9346470
Not saying he didn't believe, just that the arguments he actually cared about weren't this one

>>9346492
just extend Pascal's wager to theism in general and you're good.

>>9346402
his monadism is far from genuis desu

>>9346521
Considering there's a non-zero amount of religions that promise damnation for worshipping false gods this principle is not really extendable.

File: quote-the-heart-has-its-reasons-which-reason-does-not-know-we-feel-it-in-a-thousand-things-blaise-pascal-52-69-33.jpg (60KB, 850x400px) Image search: [Google]

60KB, 850x400px

>>9346508
I don't think that deep in their hearts people become atheist/religious because
arguments and reason.
There is a similar quote from Sartre or Camus about how when he was a child he just KNEW there wasn't a God.

>>9346310
Why is it moronic OP?

The supposed refutation of his wager gives equal validity to all religions which is abject nonsense. Also, the wager is more of an intro into Christianity, to actually be saved you have to do the Will of God

>>9346588
dude ironic christfagging lmao

>>9346588
>gives equal validity to all religions which is abject nonsense
why

>>9346465
>>9346470
it's not bait or bullshit. men of science have been persecuted for their atheist beliefs for centuries. look at gallileo. Pascal saw this and knew it was better to go through the ridiculous song and dance rather than be attacked or risk being de-funded because of small minded christians needing everyone to remain part of the herd.

>>9346310
>most retarded/easily debunked ideas
Please start using a trip so people with an education can block you.
Kthnx

File: img-thing.jpg (16KB, 300x300px) Image search: [Google]

16KB, 300x300px

>>9346617"
>people with
>""""""education"""""

>>9346609
Nigga, you seem just like christianfags who claim no one is really atheist coz they use the expression thankgod.

>>9346609
you seem to mistake him with someone else. he didnt risk being de-funded or losing his job, because pascal never had a job. he stopped giving a fugg about science kaczinski style. the greatest risk he took was attacking jesuits in his anonymous "provincial letters". but the pensees were part of an authentic project to defend christianity.

pacal's wager actually is:

>But there is an eternity of life and happiness. And this being so, if there were an infinity of chances, of which one only would be for you, you would still be right in wagering one to win two, and you would act stupidly, being obliged to play, by refusing to stake one life against three at a game in which out of an infinity of chances there is one for you, if there were an infinity of an infinitely happy life to gain. But 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. It is all divided; wherever the infinite is and there is not an infinity of chances of loss against that of gain, there is no time to hesitate, you must give all...

as you can see, he was senile.

>>9346492
So what? Statistically picking one is better than not.

File: 1490956851841.jpg (47KB, 550x366px) Image search: [Google]

47KB, 550x366px

>>9346492
>it could be any religion
>therefore I won't choose any and instead guarantee damnation by all
Genius, what a rebuttal

>>9346657
How is it believing when it's just picking one?

>>9346678
>burn some tendies for Zeus
>'pls no bolt'
It's as easy as that anon. You've now vastly improved your odds for a better afterlife experience.

File: 1475449770995.jpg (52KB, 780x688px) Image search: [Google]

52KB, 780x688px

>>9346657
>>9346659
Implying I can't choose one with littler effort. Implying I can't create my own religion with the exact set that just happens to cover my lifestyle avoiding my own danation in this set where any religion has the same probabilistical chance of being the right one.

>>9346705
No you haven't. I personally worship a God that will only reward you with paradise by rejecting Pascal's wager. In fact there's an infinite amount of those. Same goes with Gods that reward you for accepting the wager.

Oh shit Pascal where you at now homie?

>>9346709
Untrue, if two people come up with the same religious principle it suggests a higher likeliness of correctness. Being the sole worshiper of a god is a bad bet.

File: smugrabbit.jpg (66KB, 653x648px) Image search: [Google]

66KB, 653x648px

>>9346678
>mentally accept lutheran doctrine right before death
>go to heaven because muh sola fide

>>9346716
>In fact there's an infinite amount of those
You know that isn't true, and that's the crux of why you're wrong. There are many, yes, but a finite amount. Any increase in chance over 0% is significant, so it doesn't matter.

>>9346558
Tbqf Christianity+Islam is the combo for biggest chances of heaven since a good deal of it is innate morals and can be derived with philosophy.
I wouldn't bet on any sort of polytheism for absolute sure my nigga.

he was already convinced that all other religions were false, so it was only a choice between the one observably legit or nothing at all.

592. >The falseness of other religions. — They have no witnesses. Jews have. God defies other religions to produce such signs: Isaiah 43. 9; 44. 8.

>599. The difference between Jesus Christ and Mahomet. — Mahomet was not foretold; Jesus Christ was foretold.

>Mahomet slew; Jesus Christ caused His own to be slain.
>Mahomet forbade reading; the Apostles ordered reading.

>In fact, the two are so opposed that, if Mahomet took the way to succeed from a worldly point of view, Jesus Christ, from the same point of view, took the way to perish. And instead of concluding that, since Mahomet succeeded, Jesus Christ might well have succeeded, we ought to say that, since Mahomet succeeded, Jesus Christ should have failed.

>600. Any man can do what Mahomet has done; for he performed no miracles, he was not foretold. No man can do what Christ has done.

https://ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/p/pascal/blaise/p27pe/complete.html

>>9346722
>a finite amount
'No.'

>>9346722
If there's a finite amount of Gods that favor the wager, there could also be an equal finite amount of Gods that reward rejecting it, making the choice have a zero percent increase in odds of getting to paradise.

Second, how do you know there is a finite amount of Gods?

Also, my personal belief in my argument has no bearing on its validity my dude.

>>9346730
finite amount of people = finite amount of gods

>>9346748
Kek wut? Amount and presence of people has no bearing on potential gods whatsoever.

>>9346757
Well, not literally everyone can go into hell and heaven stay empty, that would be stupid.

>>9346717
>>9346709 #
>Untrue, if two people come up with the same religious principle it suggests a higher likeliness of correctness.
Guess what? Untrue, this just seems groupthink, how many times in the history of science the sheer majority of people in this world were just plain wrong? Reason and True has no relation whatsover with the amount of people who hold certain opinion. A science man like Pascal would never make such claim, and as we saw in this thread he never made.

File: cthulhu.gif (348KB, 389x495px) Image search: [Google]

348KB, 389x495px

>>9346767
Dude literally has never heard about cosmic horror

>>9346657
What if the one I pick doesn't require me to believe in him?

I don't see a flaw in that argument besides that there are many religions and some contradicts others.

>>9346904
Nuh, I meant that if salvation does exist at least ONE person was saved. If it doesn't, well.
But we can reduce it to 50% chance there's salvation 50% there isn't.

I don't think Pascals wager was intended to be an argument to convince atheists that God exists. Modern atheists like Dawkins love to treat it like it is so they don't have to engage in the serious arguments, he practically dedicates chapters of the God Delusion to Pascals wager while giving almost a paragraph to Aquinas. It's weak sauce.

>>9346757
Those who take Pascal's wager assume that people made up the gods.

>>9346310
>cant kill yourself because then you give in to the absurd
i hate camus.

>>9347065
Why should you care?

>>9346310
People tend to use real rationality when doing mathematics and physics, while they tend to apply rationalizations that give them whatever answers they want when doing theology and philosophy.

>>9347088
how do you know this?

>>9346659
>>9346657
>>9346521
It's also conceivable that there's a God who will only send you to heaven for not believing in God.
>statistically speaking
The idea of infinite value completely breaks statistics. At that point you can justify anything. See above.

>>9346716
>I personally worship a God that will only reward you with paradise by rejecting Pascal's wager. In fact there's an infinite amount of those.
I'm not sure this is true or if true provable, but even if you could show there are infinite potential gods that forbid the Wager and infinite potential gods that don't, it's incredibly implausible that they would all be equally likely to exist.

>>9347109
Just by reading philosophy, anon. Haven't you seen how often philosophers "disprove" something just by showing that it leads to an "undesirable" or "problematic" conclusion? You can't get away with that shit in physics.

>>9347134
how does that show they are using rationalizations?
and what do you think they mean by "undesirable"?

>>9347153
I think he means that philosophers say "if X were true, we would all have killed each other already because of Y, so it's probably not true" as a rebuttal.

He probably never read serious philosophy.

>>9347134
that has happened in physics since newtons time

>>9346310
He lived in Western Civilization, and applied the local understanding of reality in all its plausible outcomes within that framework.

Western atheists are Christians who operate on broken code. Well, until we get to replace the code altogether. Lately the baboonpack.dll has been working wonders in the new generation of westerners.

You see, beliefs, ideas, memes. They work like information does. They have structures. What atheists do is change one key variable from 1 to 0, and expect that it all collapses. This is not so. Christianity is a well developed program. What was issued was a self-destruct mechanism for all those who abandoned it. Conducted by those who abandon it.

You see, religious belief works like this.
Religious statement.
>Your body is the temple of God.
>The kingdom of God is within you.
What atheism does is not detach us from the statement. It morphs the statements by changing values.
Therefore the statement remains as
>Your body is the temple of God
But God = 0 or an illusion. So the statement becomes,
>"Your body is the temple of nothingness." or
>"Your body is the temple of delusion."
They operate on those same statements.

This is why Christians await an 'awakening', which is to have that value set to its proper integer. This is also why the end of Christianity was hardly the end of religion. We can not end religion, it is the program which holds us.
New Age, astrology, witchcraft, Kek, Islam.. They all hit this dysfunctional program, and they rock it to its very cores. Simply because some retards and jews decided to sabotage it.

>>9347641
Can I read a book about this? Trying to become a Christian.

File: 1904.jpg (51KB, 489x291px) Image search: [Google]

51KB, 489x291px

>>9347685
The Bible is a dangerous book, especially once you understand the fractal nature of the statements and words.

I suppose Lewis goes near this concept. Mere Christianity, Beyond Personality and Screwtape Letters.
There are audiobooks on youtube as well.

>>9346657
Stop pretending statistics aren't astronomically stacked against God's existence

>>9347641
Whatafuck is this program analogy, you obscurantist

>>9347755
Can you expand it?

File: darger21.jpg (166KB, 690x538px) Image search: [Google]

166KB, 690x538px

I've never seen anyone actually offer a rebuttal to Pascal's wager that didn't simply highlight their own shocking ignorance in mathematics.

>Infinitely many Gods lol
Since God, at least as he's defined in Pascals wager, must have actual believers, and humans are a finite recourse, there can't be more Gods (or even possible Gods, assuming that belief in them is genuine) than there are people.

>There's a lot of Gods lmao
This argument just shows that the person has no understanding of even highschool mathematics, and the introductory chapter to any calculus book is more than enough to refute them.

>But what about the FSM/a God that sends believers to Hell
A thought experiment isn't the same as a God or even a religion, and anyone who's at all sincere in their faith (not gaytheists or gagnostics) understands this.

I'm not even a Christian, but the so called arguments made against Pascal are completely stupid most of the time.

That being said, I think that an authentic life must be lived daringly and courageously, and it's better to live an unapologetic life even if it leads to eternal damnation than to live in fear.

>>9346310

shame pascal is remembered for this on the subject of religion and not for the idea that going to church and praying, whether you believe or not, "objectively" does the believing for you. this is pretty radical (for christian logocentric europe) and you can see that from the fact that many muslims across the world cannot understand a lick of arabic but read the koran and pray in that language, because again, the writing and the language itself communes with god on your behalf.

>>9347777
>A thought experiment isn't the same as a God or even a religion

In what way do they differ, aside from cultural codification of the latter?

>>9347795
Sincerity

Even in human affairs, without a genuine trust and faith in another person love is impossible. It's not different (IMO) with religion.

The idea that your garage is full of invisible dragons because "why not lmao christfags btfo" is dumb because not even the person espousing it sincerely believes it.

>>9347777
>Since God, at least as he's defined in Pascals wager, must have actual believers
We all know Pascal didn't take into account any God besides the christian one. What we see are just adhocs.

>this argument just shows that the person has no understanding of even highschool mathematics, and the introductory chapter to any calculus book is more than enough to refute them.
Good to me I know calculus, tell what part are you talking about?

>>9347777
>>There's a lot of Gods lmao
>This argument just shows that the person has no understanding of even highschool mathematics, and the introductory chapter to any calculus book is more than enough to refute them.
Lmao at this faggot, not an argument

>>9347765
It's my lens. My field is IT. The purpose is to help understand how it acts on the world. Not to obscure.

>>9347818
>Even in human affairs, without a genuine trust and faith in another person love is impossible. It's not different (IMO) with religion.
I agree with this inasmuch as the two situations have the same emotional basis.

>The idea that your garage is full of invisible dragons because "why not lmao christfags btfo" is dumb because not even the person espousing it sincerely believes it.
This I don't agree with. Faith in another person, when well-placed, is nothing if not reasonable. That is, you learn from your interactions with them that they are dependable. You find that it is to your benefit to be loyal to them, and if they tarnish this dependability in your eyes, you may revoke that loyalty at any time.

In the case of religion, there is by definition no physical basis for the faith. One must a la Kierkegaard "take the leap." The metaphor is an apt one, since it helps to close one's eyes (blind oneself) to take such a leap (hence "blind faith"). A religion is the same as any other ideology, it simply demands a stronger faith that becomes more difficult to dislodge over time.

I have no problem with sincerity toward other persons: I can't maintain friendships without being open and sincere with my friends. But sincerity toward them doesn't change who they are, just as sincerely believing an ideology doesn't change the content of that ideology. Sincere belief in nothing (an ideology) is by definition misplaced, and leads to heartache.

>>9347777
It's just that humanities fags don't understand statistics and it shows

>>9347777
>>There's a lot of Gods lmao
>This argument just shows that the person has no understanding of even highschool mathematics, and the introductory chapter to any calculus book is more than enough to refute them.
What did he mean by this?

>>9347895
>>9347846
An infinity of rewards divided by an infinitesimal is larger than nothing divided by anything, which is the bones of Pascal's wager.

It doesn't matter how small the possibility of God's existence is, or whether there's "a lot" of other Gods, because the argument itself is dealing with an arbitrary small possibility.

>>9348109
>An infinity divided by an infinitesimal
That's not how calculus works, you dumb shit.

>>9346310
>he thinks the wager is invalid
pseud detected

>>9347110
thanks for explaining how evolutionists justify their religion

File: 77374810001_1847585292001_ari-origin06-arc-140-1347991548405.jpg (17KB, 480x360px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 480x360px

>>9348119
>literally the study of pebbles
>but don't consider the little pebbles, you dumb shit

Spotted the tard.

>>9348130
I don't even know what you're talking about. Infinity and infinitesimal are not numbers you can multiply or divide by. You may be thinking of the limit of a sequence, in which case you're still wrong. It's possible for a sequence whose numerator and denominator both diverge to infinity to converge to zero.

>>9348121
He just threw an ad hominen without any argumentation
fag detected

File: eq0037P.gif (1KB, 222x106px) Image search: [Google]

1KB, 222x106px

>>9348165
>Infinity and infinitesimal are not numbers you can multiply or divide by

Although feel free to substitute infinity for an arbitrarily large number of rewards, the point still stands.

A small chance of a big payoff is better than a big chance of zero payoff. It doesn't matter how minute that chance is, especially when the payoff is your soul's eternal salvation.

>>9348189
>he thinks argumentation is a necessity
evirate detected

>>9348195
>A small chance of a big payoff is better than a big chance of zero payoff. It doesn't matter how minute that chance is
Yeah dude, that's why I always play the lottery.

>>9348195
>pic not related

>>9348202
even when your ticket is free?

Get all these ghosts out of my sight.

>>9348221
It's only free if you don't value intellectual integrity. Not to mention all the things people have been spooked into sacrificing in the name of deities.

>>9346310
Its disturbing to think that good chunk of world past and present is destined to burn in hell due to their lack of knowledge of Christianity or belief in god, regardless of whether they live being selfless good beings.

File: mfwlearninglatin.png (127KB, 245x265px) Image search: [Google]

127KB, 245x265px

>>9348209
>division by an infinitesimal isn't related in response to somebody saying you can't divide by infinitesimals

>>9348195
I see, but why should I choose the christian God even though the others have the exactly same likelihood?

>>9348262
Personal reasons? That doesn't invalidate Pascal's argument, and his reasoning is equally applicable to most religions.

But being an atheist is very risky.

>>9348291
The names E, Risk E. Lovely to meet you.

>>9348291
See>>9346709
Christianism is not a neutral chose as you make it appear

>>9348202
In lottery you tend to lose. However, if there is no victory, there can be no loss.

>>9348317
>doesn't understand the basic math behind Pascal's wager

Christianity has nothing to do with the argument. Pascal believes Christianity was the natural choice for other reasons, but his argument is a mathematical one against atheism.

>debunked
No it's not, you just don't understand it.

His wager was in his unpublished notes, and he may well not have thought it good enough to share.

File: IMG_20170497_021335.jpg (154KB, 480x466px) Image search: [Google]

154KB, 480x466px

>>9348381
Your fucking ass, the wager was designed with the sole purpose of defending christianism. You're just moving the goalposts

>>9346310

Newton was also obsessed with alchemy. These people are a victim of time. They didn't live in the age of information where we have global scientific consensus of almost all human knowledge to date.

>>9348421
Well, with Newton is somehow different. Alchemy apart from the esoteric stuff is what with a more rigorous method later devolved into Chemistry, seems to me it was borderline science in a time we're defining these frontiers. The Pascal case is a constant reminder that even the brightiest people aren't imune to biases, principally if the subject is religion.

>>9348416
No it wasn't you fucking moron.

It's a mathematical argument, not a theological one. The only conclusion drawn is that belief in a higher power (with rewards) trumps belief in no rewards.

Pascal was a Christian. His argument isn't. If you can't separate these concepts you're a brainlet, and a smug one at that.

>>9346310
You can't choose to believe something. You can choose to act in accordance with religion, but which one do you pick?

>>9346597
>gives equal validity to all religions which is abject nonsense
I read that as abstract nonsense, and was prepared to launch into a defence of category theory.

>>9346659
Yeah, being damned by ∞-1 religions is soo much better than by ∞ religions.

>>9346310

Huh, Roko's Basilisk is basically just sci-fi Pascal's Wager. I wonder how quickly transhumanism will recapitulate Christian theology in it's entirety.

>>9349523
In the end only one religion of the multitude is true, you absolute brainlet. Picking one gives you an infinitely small chance at salvation, not picking any at all doesn't.

>>9349547
>one religion of the multitude is true

Whew lad

>>9348526
That entirely depends on the religion, clearly for some religions merely believing is not enough to get into heaven/valhalla/whatever.
Besides, ignoring the context of Pascal his argument is idiotic.

>>9346632
Typical response of the lower classes.

>>9348261
That's not what that df/dx means. Just stop.

>>9349542
Christianity promises us already new bodies, and the child of the marriage of Church and Christ (Logos) is prophesied.
I'll give it a thousand years, give or take a few.

>>9349569
>That entirely depends on the religion
Ignore religions that do not offer rewards. Ignore religions that only punish.

Remember, there is no neutral option, there is win or loss.

>>9348354
The victory doesn't have to be real for the loss to be

Well, religion is matter of faith.

>>9348261
Believe it or not, math isn't as simple as your spooky little brain would like to believe.

>>9349758
What does dt/dx mean, then?

>>9346470
take your r/truechristian bait somewhere else.

>>9350039
The derivative of t with respect to x. For more information, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derivative#Rigorous_definition

>>9349918
Without meta-win, there is no win. Without meta-lose, there is no lose.

File: Tangent_animation.gif (69KB, 400x314px) Image search: [Google]

69KB, 400x314px

>>9350071
Derivatives are calculated by using infinitesimals you ponce.

Next time try actually reading the wikipedia articles you throw around.

dy/dx is literally an infinitesimally small change in y divided by an infinitesimally small change in x. Even the word calculus comes from the latin word for small pebble, and a huge amount of it's study is devoted to things like infinitesimals and limits, neither of which you seem to understand given your inability to grasp at Pascal's wager.

>>9347862
its rong becuz i dnt like it

>>9350158
No it isn't, not rigorously. Try actually studying mathematics isn't of just reading Wikipedia articles.

File: 20170407_130827.jpg (289KB, 566x797px) Image search: [Google]

289KB, 566x797px

>>9350158
The rate of change of a function has nothing to do with Pascal's wager.

Just because both involve infinitesimals doesn't mean your autistic ramblings make any sense.

>>9348416
Yes, it defends Christianity. Why is that relevant? It applies to other religions.

You do know
that
one can
take parts of somebody else's argument and work with it
you do right
yeah?

>>9348421
>consensus
muh populum

>>9349542
Transhumanism is irrelevant fedorashit

>>9346723
Pascal's wager doesn't require you to worship the right god. It requires you to worship God, however. The big G God. And honestly, if he's omnipotent and knows the content of your soul truly and deeply then I really think the religion itself is irrelevant. Be a good person and acknowledge the infinite unknowable; do that and God won't damn you I can promise.

>>9350243
>good person
Does not exist, goodness is not an active quality.

>>9350243
What about anti-God who tortures everyone who believes in God?

File: Untitled.png (4KB, 256x56px) Image search: [Google]

4KB, 256x56px

>>9350158
>Derivatives are calculated by using infinitesimals you ponce.
Wrong.

>dy/dx is literally an infinitesimally small change in y divided by an infinitesimally small change in x.
That was the original meaning used by Leibniz and others. It was intuitive, but not well defined and ultimately proved untenable, so it was redefined as pic related. We still keep the notation for historical reasons, but that is no longer what it means despite what your high school teacher told you.

File: scientific consensus.jpg (273KB, 1852x2048px) Image search: [Google]

273KB, 1852x2048px

>>9350233

>>9350319
That's still muh populum. First, evidence doesn't exist. Logic is a meme you turds got from the Greeks.
Third, there is an obvious logical inconsistency in that reasoning. Wow, science sure is logical even though its built on a straw foundation!

>>9350319

Studies are worse than worthless.

>>9350339
>>9350353
>they said over the internet
In the face of real achievement, your posts amount nothing more than autistic screeching.

>>9350376
>internet
Irrelevant; presupposition.

>>9350379
>[autistic screeching]

>>9346609
>look at gallileo

Gallileo was persecuted because he was a plagiarist and a disrespectful cunt, not because he challenged the church. Take your reddit history elsewhere.

File: 1478059110295.jpg (25KB, 446x296px) Image search: [Google]

25KB, 446x296px

>mfw people don't realize God is statistically more likely to be real than not

>>9346310
nonsense Wager

>>9350395
>b-but he was disrespecting the church! That makes it okay to ruin his life!
The mindset of Cathcucks is truly disturbing.

>Gallileo was persecuted because he was a plagiarist
There is no good basis for considering him a plagiarist and attributing his persecution to it is absurd. He was accused of plagiarism once and found innocent, it didn't affect his reputation in the long term.

>>9350482
I can't remember correctly but he disrespected a lot of other scientists of the time and basically pissed everyone off. The church sponsored a lot of heliocentric theorists at the time, Gallileo wasn't persecuted over his scientific beliefs, just his conduct.

>>9346717
This is retarded on so many levels.
Can you just stop your delusion for 1 secound and relfect your own thoughts?

>>9350314
>and ultimately proved untenable
You can make infinitesimals work, like in non-standard analysis or synthetic differential geometry -- as well as algebraic geometry but that's a bit different -- but it isn't standard and it isn't like the historical methods.

>>9350482
In the judgement of Galileo, one his claims was listed as

>The sun is the center of the world and completely devoid of local motion.
The response:
>All said that this proposition is foolish and absurd in philosophy; and formally heretical, since it explicitly contradicts in many places the sense of Holy Scripture

"Absurd" meaning scientifically untenable. Or, as this nature article puts it "Galileo backed Copernicus despite data." http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100305/full/news.2010.105.html
His observations could actually be explained more effectively with the geocentric Tychonic system.

>men of science have been persecuted for their atheist beliefs for centuries
Heretical =/= atheistic. There is no reason to assume Galileo had atheistic beliefs.

File: Screen Shot 2017-04-07 at 1.53.37 PM.png (8KB, 48x40px) Image search: [Google]

8KB, 48x40px

>>9350314
>>9350221
>>9350222
You can still apply limits to Pascal's wager and come up with the same result.

Pascal: Pic related
Gaytheists: Zero

>>9350482
Sorry fedoraman, church > one idiot

This whole thread is pointless.

>>9350980
>You can still apply limits to Pascal's wager and come up with the same result.
Explain how.

People get too hung up on the 'infinite gain/loss' aspect but the 'finite gain/loss' is never contested; Why not believe in God, insofar as he is a 'gain' to one's beliefs in the mortal world, without worry of the vastness of possible afterlives?

Get all these ghosts out of my sight.

>>9352096
>Why not believe in God, insofar as he is a 'gain' to one's beliefs in the mortal world
1. You still can't consciously choose to believe something.
2. The idea that it does benefit you in this life is pretty suspect.

>>9347777
>Infinitely many Gods lol
So gods need humans to exist, is that it?
There could be literally infinite gods, pascal concept of god or your baseless assumption that "a god need believers" is utterly irrelevant, that's just a dumb premise. It seems to me that you're not religious yourself, since you think of gods as human's creations and not the other way around.
>A thought experiment isn't the same as a God or even a religion
How can you discern a "proper god" or religion from a "thought experiment"? How do you evaluate "sincere faith"?

>>9352096
>Why not believe
I know, right? It takes nothing and it's so easily accomplished, isn't it? Just the other day I decided to believe that I will gain 1 extra day of life every time an unicorn is born somewhere in the world.

>>9352096
>I chose to "believe" in God just because this will possibly save me from damnation, pretty sure that's good enough for Him to send me to heaven, amirite?

>>9350216
i talk like autist instad of maek argooment

File: 1487143032778.jpg (94KB, 964x1268px) Image search: [Google]

94KB, 964x1268px

>>9350980
Post proof

>one of the most retarded/easily debunked ideas on the subject of religion
Then why hasn't it been debunked? Most of these people have never even read Pensées.

>>9346310
Debunk pic related, faggot. You can't

File: t7zm9c.jpg (34KB, 800x600px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 800x600px

>>9352399
>>9352585
Implying it wasn't in so many ways in this same thread.

>>9352323
>I chose to "believe" in God just because this will possibly save me from damnation, pretty sure that's good enough for Him to send me to heaven, amirite?

kinda is, yes

Jesus said that those that want to belive will have fatih granted to them

>>9346310
You're missing one factor. Add it to make a 3d graph and not this simplified 2d one.

>>9347891
not true. I studied both Economics and Literature in college. Fuck off.

>>9350255
Nice Truism bro. You understand exactly what I meant by "good person" yet you want to be a pedantic fuck.

>>9350295
there's no anti-god. God isn't a bearded semite in a white robe but that's the form he has to take for us to grasp him. He is most likely some inconceivable, ethereal or noncorporeal intelligence like that of Q from Star Trek.