Pascal's Wager Revisited

[Simon Moon]

The argument makes no reference to any particular religion or to the idea of "religion" at all. Insofar as it talks about God, it builds up a slice of him, that is, unlocks some of his attributes (creative, etc.), in the process of showing the reasonableness of this God's existence.

Pascal's Wager, however, is based on a specific god. A god that punishes disbelief. There is no argument if it is not referring to a specific god that punishes disbelief.

I am explicitly not conceiving of the next life as an external reward for this one but as a natural outcome of one's search for virtue and happiness in this one. If I am hungry and make a sandwich for myself, is the sandwich a "reward" or a consequence and consummation of previous work?

Just what is there of us that will continue after our body stops working?

Consciousness is an emergent property of a physical brain. Once the brain fails at death, there is no consciousness.

The intuition is that human improvement is such a fundamental feature of our lives that we are led to the idea that it continues forever. But we can't conquer death on our own; so, perhaps there is something that helps us, in a (purposively?) hidden way.

Intuition is a horrible path to truth. It is far more often wrong than right. Humans are notorious for remembering the 'hits' and forgetting the 'misses'. 

Intuition is most accurate on judging people on first meeting, not answering questions about the nature of reality.

This is not one of the more worked out arguments I have for God. It's an idea to ponder in one's more contemplative moments.

I pondered Pascal's Wager when I was 10 or 11. As soon as I discovered there were other gods and religions believed in by humanity, PW became worthless. Now, I find it laughable.

Why start a thread with an argument that you admit is not very strong?

Please hit us with your best argument. The one that convinced you to be a theist.