Topic content
We either believe in God or we don't believe. If we believe in God and He exists, then we will have endless maximum happiness; if we believe in God but He does not exist, then the worst case scenario is that we miss some opportunity to enjoy the pleasures of sin. But even if God does not exist, it is in itself worth believing in the kind of revelation he has received; however, if we do not believe in God and He exists, then we may enjoy certain sinful pleasures but be punished forever; if we do not believe in God, and God does not exist, then of course there is no problem.
Source: Pascal,"Thoughts"
A total of 377 small partners participated in the discussion, 50% chose "identification, from a rational point of view, blameless" 40% chose "do not agree, this is a kind of sophistry", 9% of the small partners want to see what everyone says, the following is part of the reader's message, "interests", "norms", "evil happiness" and other keywords appear many times.
The following are some of the comments of friends in the comment area:
@ food, color, sex also
The bet is "whether believing in the existence of God will yield more benefits or not believing that more benefits will be gained"
I don't want to say anything about the previous argument, but I think the biggest problem with this question is that "if we don't believe in God and He exists, then we may enjoy the pleasures of certain sins, but we will be punished forever" The sentence is very illogical, because I can say that "if human beings do not believe in me and I am God's spokesman, then human beings may enjoy certain evil pleasures, but they will be punished forever" This cannot be falsified, in fact, until now, many cults still do this. And the reason why the belief in God has been passed down for so long is that I think it has to do with the fact that it is itself a person who exhorts people to be good, and like Buddhism, when there is internal corruption, someone will always stand up and say that we are good and good, and then slowly it becomes a sign of goodness, and the divinity is retained.
In the final analysis, it is because of the good and the good that he can be passed down, not because he has the possibility of judging you, the cult will also judge you, do you believe?
The reason why this debate is accepted by many people is because the good ideas represented by God have been deeply rooted in the hearts of the people, and there are also evil sects that are waiting to be bad, and some people believe, but this is a wrong value orientation, so it is always defeated by justice, it is only defeated, it is not non-existent, so you may be punished by the evil God for doing good deeds.
I think the reason why good defeats evil is because equality, solidarity and mutual assistance are the best solution to the game between people, and to understand this truth requires us to seriously study and reflect, rather than lazily believing in God, I can say that if you do not live carefully, then whether you believe in God or not may be painful.
<h1 toutiao-origin="h3" >@yangong </h1>
Disagreement, not to think pascal sophistry. Just a sigh for reason. I tried to talk to my friend that philosophy withdrew from theology, and I did not dare to claim the confident wisdom of Buddhism, standing at the door of the infinite and the limited, or seeing God and not daring to recognize, or turning my back on God and saying to myself to establish a destiny for the people, it seems to have kept the bottom line of reason, resisted the seemingly chaotic two laws of rebellion, but in fact it is just a small family temperament, wisdom is mistaken by wisdom, and Qingqing's life is mistaken. Tang Yongtong's history of Indian philosophy mentions two broad categories of liberation, either faith or wisdom. Western medieval theology had two paths to God, one positive and one negative. Lao Tzu said that the Tao is the pursuit of learning. Each of the three great civilizations has an axis, but the hearts and minds are imprinted without contradiction, and they recognize the infinite, and their unity is also one. Reason is obscene, leaking sperm outside the Taoyuan, with probability and gambling to the greatest and most good happiness, how to give up the four beauty and seek the second dimension, such as the beginning of the Past in the United States. God does not exist, there is nothingness and no heart, no benefit drama, what a foot. I did not dare to devote myself, I could not be enlightened, so I had to draw a pie to fill my hunger, and I was obsessed with the expectation of seemingly rational probability.
<h1 toutiao-origin="h3" >@๐ Yonghao </h1>
I just wrote a paper on this argument last year, and there are currently several mainstream objects.
1. It is wrong to believe in God for the sake of maximizing your own interests, God will not reward you for this speculative behavior, and you naturally cannot get endless happiness.
2. This argument does not prove faith in God, faith in God, or Zeus. Even in order to be foolproof, the safest bet should be that all gods believe, but if so, they will be regarded as ungodly pagans by every god, or they will not be rewarded.
3. The point of this argument is that no matter how unlikely God may exist, since rewards and punishments are endless, we should still believe in God. But this set of logic can justify all behaviors. Example: If I go out to kill people today, I may also wake up and realize that I will receive an eternal reward from God, although the probability is very small, but because the rewards of believing in God are infinite, I should still do it.
<h1 toutiao-origin="h3" >@_jing common brain </h1>
First, Pa followed the established idea that God can bring happiness or punishment. But he didn't prove it.
The idea that man will be punished by God derives from the infinite amplification of man's sanctions by authority.
The idea that man will receive happiness from God derives from a lifelong expectation (God is with you) that arises from the eternal guarantee of life in human nature.
In this way, happiness exists only in the human heart, and punishment also exists in the human heart.
<h1 toutiao-origin="h3">@GRACE </h1>
Man cannot win eternal life by the mentality of a gambler. Pascal's bet may appeal to utilitarians who want to have the joy of eternal life, but most people don't attach it at all, preferring to be rewarded with a moment-long win. God does not exist in the hearts of fools!
<h1 toutiao-origin="h3" > @I think so I am </h1>
Diderot had a good saying: "One day I asked a man if there was a true atheist, and the man asked me, 'Do you think there are truly absolutely devout believers in the world?' โใ
Now, combined with his words, I will give a little opinion of my own.
Pascal has his right place, but he's still too cunning here, and by setting a trap, an easy trap, he convinces you that "believing in God will make you happier and bring you more benefits." โ
But in reality, God is most likely non-existent, and God's creation has been shown to be a false doctrine. If everything is God's masterpiece, then how did God keep energy conserved? And how can all matter be subdivided into atomization, ionization, and even quantization? If everything is god's work, and people think that God's work is perfect, then how did he create so many imperfect inventions?
<h1 toutiao-origin="h3" > the retreater who does not want to retreat anymore </h1>
The Garden School's hypothesis of "killing god" shows to some extent that "one", "supreme good", and "almighty" God are theoretically untenable. So here's the question, if you believe in God, then you're going to face three situations
1) God is not omnipotent, and you may not be able to help you if you believe in Him
2) God is not pure good, and having a good heart for Him does not mean that you will receive a good return
3) There is more than one God, do you know which one you believe in to save you?
So believing in God is intellectually untenable
<h1 toutiao-origin="h3" >@ the richest man in Xihong </h1>
If we believe in God and He exists, then we will try to please God, and until He is satisfied, we will have endless maximum happiness, but it is unknown when it will satisfy Him; if we believe in God but He does not exist, it is impossible not to make mistakes at all, despite the moderation of morality or law, even if we do not believe that God will follow certain norms in large aspects, so in any case, Most people miss out on certain opportunities to enjoy the pleasures of sin. Even if God does not exist, it is in itself worthwhile to believe in the kind of revelation he has received, and although it is worth it, it is not possible to obtain a higher level of wisdom; however, if we do not believe in God and He exists, no matter what we do, we will not know whether he is satisfied or not, so any good deed or evil will incur punishment, and most importantly, what his standard is, no one knows. If we don't believe in God, God doesn't exist, but we still deal with anything according to our own norms, and the big evil doesn't do it, and the little evil goes on and on.
Any society will have its norms, whether it believes in God or not.
<h1 toutiao-origin="h3" > @last hand </h1>
I invent now
God Number Two
Remember the one that Pascal proposed as God Number One
God II and I claim exactly the same thing
The only difference is that you need Faith Number Two to be saved
Faith Number One still has to go to hell
Obviously, we can replicate an infinite number of God n
Let me ask you, this gamble of infinite gods together
Which one do you want to believe?
Notice that as long as you don't believe in the only one who is right, you're going to hell
<h1 toutiao-origin="h3" > @ๅคฉๅคฉๅไธ </h1>
Theory is practice! The theory of what to believe or what to express as oneself determines that this is not a question that can be answered at will, but must be considered as to why the purpose of belief or unbelief arises. If you are doing something and you are not clear about its purpose, then this is not called a choice, but someone else's arrangement. From this point of view I do not believe, because I have expressed what I believe.
<h1 toutiao-origin="h3">@Halo </h1>
Pascal's bet was to use decision theory to make atheists believe in God under the influence of reason. He gave a variety of assumptions, and the result of his reasoning was that faith in God was more indebted. Within the scope of my rational considerations, perhaps not so many assumptions per se, I will most likely choose the pleasure of sin at this time. But Pascal was cunning, moving out of conditions and their consequences that I had not expected, or had not cared about, which undoubtedly created an invisible pressure that forced my "reason" to function abnormally.
Pascal built a simple game model that led to the belief that faith in God is a rationally driven decision. You may wish to think of this as a gamble, blocking the bet is your happiness, the beginning is easy, but it is difficult to guarantee the consequences, so do not dare to take risks easily, in order to make the most profit, faith in God is the most secure.
In my opinion, faith itself is metaphysical. If I am enjoying material happiness, then faith is not important to me; if I pay more attention to the spiritual level, then for pure happiness, in order to stop loss in time, faith in God is not only to cultivate myself, but also an effective measure to stop loss in time.
Besides, since God is only illusory and exists only in the heart, why should we believe in God? The true faith should be the self and the heart, so that the question of believing in God or not seems to be meaningless in itself.
<h1 toutiao-origin="h3" >@่ถ็ฟ </h1>
Some problems can be seen this way, if we eat an apple, our intestines will digest it, or 1 plus 1 equals 2. But believing in God can be a complicated process. God is the equivalent of a being that transcends man. The man could not predict God. Three-dimensional can see two-dimensional, two-dimensional can understand three-dimensional? Doesn't seem to work. Since this principle is still unknown to us. We cannot say that faith in God leads to happiness. Or if God actually exists but we don't know, we will be punished. It's too simple. It's like using simple mathematical equations to solve the love problem.
<h1 toutiao-origin="h3" >@Liu Congcong </h1>
Disagree. I think it is not the question of how religion can keep oneself from making mistakes, not that some mistakes are not a matter of non-belief in religion, but that many of the claims of religion are themselves wrong and their purposes are wrong, but in the era when religion was first formed, it may have belonged to the most correct norms under the understanding at that time.
Nowadays, many people blindly believe that many people will not think so much, nor do they have the spirit of defending their original conscience and dignity, and the morality and values of religion are relatively one-sided and superficial.
Something that was once important and then not important, and then something new and important, what was once important, did not know, so how can those dogmas always be true. And this philosophical question mentions God's punishment, in fact God punishes you for what? And why do you want endless happiness because of your devotion? Religion does not have this fear of the very existence of the gods themselves, but rather the fear of punishment and the yearning for happiness that man has created in the name of God.
And whether or not to be happy is determined by the present law and one's own conscience, not by some scripture, if the two contradict each other.
Next week's topic preview
Locke's whiteboard
Philosophical canvas bag debut, click to buy!