“This is why we shouldn't be afraid. There are two possibilities: One is that there's more to life than the physical life, that our souls "will find an even higher place to dwell" when this life is over. If that's true, there's no reason to fear failure or death. The other possibility is that this life is all there is. And if that's true, then we have to really live it - we have to take it for everything it has and "die enormous" instead of "living dormant," as I said way back on "Can I Live." Either way, fear is a waste of time.”

Ergo, what the clay should do is life a full, enjoyable and productive life, and pay little attention to that which is out of its hands.

There are volumes upon volumes of philosophical work spent discussing this one idea. I wouldn't think less of someone simply for having a different point of view, especially if it might be supported by more than a back-of-the-envelope argument.

A god could define rules. So can men (in fact, men can be observed to create rules all the time). Anybody can define rules if they wish to do so. I'm not quite sure of the point here.

> And if it is so, how would c know that it lives a good life? By whose standards?

As a Stoic philosopher, obviously Marcus Aurelius' answer would be along the lines of the standards embraced by Stoicism. In addition to a heavy emphasis on virtue, the Stoics were also avid logicians, and this informed their ethics.

The first parent comment implies the created can dictate on what basis the creator will "welcome you". That can only happen if the creator has given the created that specific trait. How does the created know if it has that trait?

He might have other traits like e.g. free will, but that does not mean he can make rules on how the creator will welcome him.

How else should we interpret the lack of unambiguous instructions from our supposed Creator, if not as permission to speculate on said Creator's intentions and desires for us?

A God who communicates only with insane people is indistinguishable from no God at all.

And I am sure you are right, I probably am a little crazy :-) But that is okay, as my hope in God is an anchor for my soul, firm and secure . . . (Hebrews 6.19)

Exactly. In this setup, the created can't know. Therefore it is pointless to worry about it.

Let's say this god entity as understood by any major religion, past or present, exists. Or would that be entities?

1. It doesn't communicate its rules to its created (C) in a way that would be undeniably from It. Books can be written by anyone. Give me letters of starfire in the sky, or floating letters of stone a mile tall, or something similarly miraculous that would be an undeniable mark of its divine provenance.

2. It gives C built-in rules (a moral sense), but enforces an external set of rules that often conflict with the internal rules. Why not just implant the rules in C in the first place?

3. There are rumors among C that they are being judged, and if they don't behave according to aforementioned poorly-communicated rules, they will be "rejected". Why? As the creator it's responsible for any defects in the created.

All together these seem like the actions of a cruel psychopath who gets off on its creations failing. But these are my internal rules, you say. Sure, but it planted them in me. What else am I supposed to use? The Book (any "Book") makes no sense by these rules. And I cannot respect a creator so childish and cruel, because my internal rules forbid me to and because by my rules, I am far superior to it - I don't torture those with less power than me.

I could pretend to respect it, but if it's omniscient as is always claimed, I couldn't fool it. So the only way to live is by my rules, and if at the end it turns out that there is a creator and that it is, indeed, as described in The Book and that I am, indeed, going to Hell, I can only hope for a chance to spit in its face when I meet it.

Either it's exactly what we should be doing, god's a complete idiot, or he doesn't exist.

Regardless, not much concerning ourselves with.

Manage all your actions, words, and thoughts accordingly, since you may at any moment quit life. And what great matter is the business of dying ? If the gods are in being, you can suffer nothing, for they will do you no harm. And if they are not, or take no care of us mortals — why, then, a world without either gods or Providence is not worth a man's while to live in. But, in truth, the being of the gods, and their concern in human affairs, is beyond dispute. And they have put it entirely in a man's power not to fall into any calamity properly so-called. And if other misfortunes had been really evils, they would have provided against them too, and furnished man with capacity to avoid them. But how can that which cannot make the man worse make his life so ?

However as it is trying not to make assumptions about the existence of gods then it really should take into account the possibility of infinite gods. Wager value now divided by infinity or negative as believing in infinite gods is tough on your wallet.

Given that there is no evidence that the Christian God is more likely to exist than, say, Zeus, we must provide equal statistical weight to Zeus as to J.C. And so on for all the other possibilities, ad infinitum.

But it doesn't stop there. Some religions' tenets conflict directly with the tenets of others. So it can be said that there are multiple sets of compatible religions that can be held at a given time. Most of these religions are polytheistic. By contrast, adopting a monotheistic religion limits you to just one chip on the cosmic roulette table.

Ergo, from a statistical standpoint, choosing a monotheistic religion (such as Christianity) for the Wager is taking the worst possible odds.

What do you think about a premise that if one of the gods of religion exists, it is more likely to be one that has been fairly successful or at least has not allowed his following to die out, perhaps on the assumption that such a god would be fairly powerless and not much worth following anyway. I suppose you could counter that such a metric of success would depend greatly on the time period you looked at. Still, I think it might be reasonable to assert that a god who let all his followers die out is less likely to exist than a god who has inspired his followers to successfully spread his name to every country on earth for two thousand years running. If so, you might at least restrict Pascal's wager to a few "major" religions and perhaps proceed from there.

Were that the case, however, it seems strange that the same being would demand more sacrifices of some than of others, or place stricter guidelines on one group versus another. (Though perhaps God is a behavioral economist, after all, and he's simply structuring different incentives for different groups, i.e., creating the frameworks the different groups need most? But, to your point, that wouldn't account for why some groups and gods died out altogether).

"So...which religion was the right one?" someone asks.

"Mormonism," he replies. It turns out Mormonism was the correct answer. Sorry."

For example, Pascal's Wager doesn't really consider the set of hypothetical gods who are violently offended by blind faith, but these gods are no less possible than the ones it does consider.

As you aren't the OP, you can't answer the intended relevance. I do not think his reasons would match your rationalization of it. I agree with you, but doubt the OP does.