Editing Talk:525: I Know You're Listening

Whether or not this is what the Citation request needs, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal%27s_Wager#Criticism would be helpful.  Most people tend to go for the "What if it's the ''wrong'' god that you believe in?" counter to the wager.  i.e. the parts of your religious observance that most please Zeus might well anger Odin greatly, or something similar for any two gods (pantheonic ''or'' sole Authority, this factor also being a major issue of choice) that you might care to compare between.  This is mostly covered in the "Argument from inconsistent revelations" section of the above, it appears.

Personally my favoured counter-argument is that any sufficiently omniscient god worth his pillar-of-salt should ''know'' whether you are Wagering, and probably has a special area of Hell (or Tantarus) reserved for those that try to toady up to him by faking a belief (covered by the "Argument from inauthentic belief" section). I choose to believe that an honest non-believer might at least get a look-in at any middle-ground afterlife (regardless of their lack in belief of same), but I also don't have amy great reason to believe that this attitude is going to reward me, either.

(c.f. also the assumption that 'innocents', and people who have never been exposed to the Word Of God<sup>TM</sup> are entitled to a free pass to some non-Hell level of afterlife, the punishment only applying after having been introduced to the whole Judeo-Christian system of post-death existence.  On this basis, missionaries that go out and inform remote tribespeoples and oceanic islanders of the state of affairs are actually potentially making things a lot worse for their target audience than they ''would'' have been...  Assuming that they're right in the first place.)

But note that, for every philosophical argument, there's an equal and opposite philosophical argument.  I just plan on being good in the mortal world (where I know I will be rewarded, or at least regarded in a reasonably good light, if perhaps a bit of a doorstep) and if this doesn't help out when I hypothetically find myself at the Pearly Gates then I probably wouldn't have hit on the right form and combination of observances anyway so its not a wager that I could have reasonably 'won'.

This is, of course, way heavier an edit than I had intended, and I'm not suggesting that this is the best intepretation, just my own, and probably not worth a discussion over. [[Special:Contributions/31.111.87.233|31.111.87.233]] 09:28, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

(Forgot to say... non-deity eavesdroppers probably wouldn't have the omniscience, so go ahead and randomly profess your belief in them! [[Special:Contributions/31.111.87.233|31.111.87.233]] 09:30, 28 May 2013 (UTC))
@@ Line 10: / Line 10: @@
 (Forgot to say... non-deity eavesdroppers probably wouldn't have the omniscience, so go ahead and randomly profess your belief in them! [[Special:Contributions/31.111.87.233|31.111.87.233]] 09:30, 28 May 2013 (UTC))
-:"Wouldn't have hit on the right form and combination of observances anyway"? Hmm. If only this hypothetical God had hypothetically given us some hypothetical information... like a book or something. That would have been helpful. --[[User:Jlc|Jlc]] ([[User talk:Jlc|talk]]) 02:11, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
-:My best argument against pretending to believe something you doesn't is: do you really want to spend an ethernity with people whose belief you faked? For (extreme) example, if only Jehovah's witnesses go to heaven (and assuming you are not one), do you WANT to go there? Similarly, abstinents probably don't want to end in Valhalla. -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 08:41, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
-::This is a lot of unnecessary talk, even realized to be such by the one who wrote it.  The explanation, as written, is fine without this extraneity. [[Special:Contributions/152.119.255.250|152.119.255.250]] 16:24, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
-:::Since you did remove the incomplete tag I did add some more explains for Pascal's Wager. --[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 20:23, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
-You get the record for longest expoundition of a title text.[[Special:Contributions/72.70.180.234|72.70.180.234]] 18:21, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
-:Yes, check your e-mail. (Not you; him.)
-[[User:Weatherlawyer| I used Google News BEFORE it was clickbait]] ([[User talk:Weatherlawyer|talk]]) 19:36, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
-There is a [[explain_xkcd:Community_portal/Proposals#Merge_Cueball_.26_Rob|community portal discussion]] of what to call Cueball and what to do in case with more than one Cueball. I have added this comic to the new Category:Multiple Cueballs. Since there is only one Cueball that "talks" it is obvious to keep him listed as Cueball. Just made a note that the other guy also looks like Cueball. --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 14:43, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
-Cueball's calculation here is wrong. Yes, if there's nobody listening, he doesn't lose anything. But if there is, what happens when they think he's on to them could get unpleasant for him. {{unsigned ip|108.162.221.64}}
-I'd do this on the internet but there's a good chance they actually are listening. Though they can't arrest commies for being commies, they can still watchlist them and monitor them closely, especially those who admit to plotting revolution. So yes, I know the government is listening, and the government knows I know they're listening. My only wonder is what are the consequences going to be? And how much faster will it be because I know they're listening?
-Perhaps Cueball shouldn't be so quick as to say such... [[User:International Space Station|International Space Station]] ([[User talk:International Space Station|talk]]) 05:25, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
-It is funny how embarrassing doing this actually feels, and how hard it seems to be to utter out. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.11.88|172.68.11.88]] 22:14, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
-who else say I know your listening, alone.