>>13713392pascals wager just says that believing in god is more pragmatic than not believing in god. and think about this - what if the nature of god is different than what pascal imagines it is? maybe abrahamic religions got it wrong, and some other religion got it right. or maybe the nature of god is something that no religion has gotten right. besides, arguing that a belief is more pragmatic than another is different from arguing whether a belief is true or not.
there might be some reasons that support the existence of god. but, i do not think that there is any kind of proof of god. i don't mean to say that belief in god is irrational. i'm just saying that it's not the kind of belief that you can be convinced of through a rational discussion if you don't already have that belief. and that's fine. if i didn't believe in causality, you couldn't rationally prove to me that causality exists. but i still have a strong intuition that causality exists, and i will continue to believe that it exists. but when it comes to god, i just don't have that same faith that you do for some reason.
