Is Pascal's wager, a theological argument, followed in politics and for what reason is it followed or not followed? So, for example, if it is followed, we'd do anything we thought a God or simulator would want if they exist, as not doing so is more likely to have infinitely great negative consequences than it is to have infinitely great positive consequences and doing so is more likely to have infinitely great positive consequences than it is to have infinitely great negative consequences.
Answers (1)
Pascal's wager is stupid. It is based on ignorance, since the bible clearly explains how to get saved in Romans 10:9&10. Then Mr. Pascal proposes that you can buy your way into heaven by some sort of behavior, somehow forcing God to allow you in. That is just stupid.
As for politics, Luke 4:5&6 clearly state that Satan is the god of Earthly government. So your question is off the track any way you look at it.
"Opinions and bias are not supposed to be part of politics."
You are totally clueless.
I don't agree with any of your premises. I don't agree that Pascal's wager is stupid. I don't agree that Pascal's wager says what you says it does. I think you need to think about probabilities and cost/benefit calculations before you assess the conclusions of following Pascal's wager. You have shown me nothing other than your opinions and aggression towards a theory someone likely more intelligent than you and the average person came up with and not at all answered my question. Opinions and bias are not supposed to be part of politics.