Pascal's Wager

I've heard this argument a few times. It seems good on the surface, but then it becomes rather weak after a bit of thought.

1. As Noroz pointed out, we 'lose' due to restrictions placed upon us. We have to conform, even if it's merely going to church, or labelling oneself as a theist. What we lose out on is the ability to call ourselves atheists. This loss in itself is enough to make one reconsider. While, if I choose religion and I'm wrong, I won't know about my mistake, the fact of the matter is that I've still made a loss. Lack of knowledge of a loss is not enough to negate the loss.

2. There are many deities. I can say 'I believe in Yaweh', and then lose because it turns out the Romans were right. Why should I choose one deity over another? Pascal's wager is not a dichotomy, as Mirai stated. There are many, many choices to make. Who's to say that it's not the Flying Spaghetti Monster?

3. The biggest flaw in Pascal's Wager is the fact that it's assuming belief is a conscious choice, and not a conclusion a person draws from evidence presented. I cannot simply decide to believe in a god. I imagine I could twist my mindset into believing such a thing, but the process would be far from easy. Coming back to point one, all of that is a cost I have to pay.

So overall, Pascal's Wager is an interesting argument, but as with many religious arguments, it's not strong enough to convert me.

 

It' s supposed to be a conscious choice, that' s why it' s called a leap of faith. Not a single believer on Earth has undeniable proof of God' s existence. Logic says there' ll never be any such proof. Sure, some believers actually think such proofs exist, based on insane troll logic, but not all believers do.

When you decide to trust or love someone chances are you don' t have any undeniable proof that he' s worthy of your trust/love and never won' t have any. I highly doubt any human being who lives long enough, as logic-oriented as he may be, manages to live his life without making any such leap.

 

I don't consciously decide, "I am going to love this person". It happens subconsciously. I can try to be more understanding towards someone, and I can -act- as though I love them, but I can't actively choose to love them. It's the same here. I'm not saying that I have to be an automaton. Quite the opposite. I can't choose what my emotions or beliefs are. They come from my upbringing and observations of the world. So even if someone presents an argument for why it's beneficial to believe in a god, I cannot.

 

Comparing love to religion is impossible, because if there is a God, he knows if the faith is true. But if it's love, you can fake it quite easily so that the other person believes you actually love them. Since God is all knowing, it doesn't matter how much you pretend to believe, because He would know, right?

Anyhow, As P just stated, you don't choose to believe, it's something that happens. I think most of the believers now-a-days believe because it's how they're brought up.
True Faith is never logic, and I know many people who know more about a certain God than a religious person does, I am pretty sure I am one of the less knowing ones.

Another thing, I think that the majority of religious people, especially in the western, Christian world, does not practice what they (were brought up to) believe.

But you are right, it's a concious decision, but it has to be backed up by the subconcious and the faith you have deep down. But "taking a leap of faith" is such a broad expression, so much so that it can be by actually choosing a religion, or it can be as simple as to go out with someone who is interested in you, because you might believe there could be something there.

 

Incorrect. Loss is subjective. The notion that whether or not you believe in something determines gain is flawed. Who decided or made it so that you 'gained' if you believed, and 'lost' if you did not? Supposedly, the god did. Your definition of gain was left out. Apply this to any other situation in which some external entity is giving you a dichotomy. The thing that they want you to do is irrelevant, but let me give a very common one. A person tells you that you should trust them with your money, and that they will do good with it. If you do not trust them with it, you will lose everything, such as your life, your house, or your freedom of movement, at this person's hands. If you give it to him, he will use some of it to benefit you by giving you a service, such as protection. Perhaps he gives you a time limit in which to do this. Perhaps this entity tells you that in many generations' time, he will ask to collect it from your descendants as well. You would tell your children about this thing, and they would tell their children, but what if the entity never came? They would still fear his coming, ready the money and ask this same question that you ask me.

To some appearances, this is an honest choice, but it is a sidestep of the real problem. Was the entity right to ask this of the people? Would they not be better off without his interference? The true gain would come if he would leave them alone and let them stop worrying over his question, his creation of some ill-conceived fate. The strategy employed here amounts to a sort of "hope for the best, plan for the worst" approach, but it is also very submissive. Assuming that the question is a just one is folly, because the true loss is the loss of will that comes when someone starts moralizing such a thing as this.

 

What is hilarious is your argument is 100% invalid when you realize that if nothing created mankind in the first place you wouldn't be able to participate in this debate.
There is no "Interference" at all. Think of a God as higher than a king or something along the lines of that. They or God alone in this case can do whatever they please. For example an owner of a website can make it to be whatever they want. Sure it may seem inconvenient for you but thinking that was is selfish. They can do what they want because it is their property. In my opinion without a God we wouldn't be here so thinking of God as an inconvenience is an all time low. If anything you should be thankful.

 

Fundamentalism will not solve this problem. Imagine the external entity as your parent, either father or mother, or both, and then argue against it from there, please.

 

Alright that works. Imagine God to be your father. Without him you would not exist and you should be thankful for him no matter what happens.

 

Yeah, no matter what happens.

 

It is a completly selfish reason. I would like to point one problem with Mr. Pascal's wager.
What if you're wrong about Zeus not existing, or Allah not existing? What if the FSM exists?
By only believing in one God you are relying on luck that your God out of 100s and millions of other Gods is the right one. It's like playing the lottery. Even if you are right, it does not make you wiser for believing in what you did earlier.

 

Fundamentalism is logically fallacious by definition. You cannot assume a point as a means of proving that point in an intelligent discussion.

 

Be thankful they brought you into the world. I didn't say you had to love what they currently do.

 

Existence is a precarious thing. Would the world be better off without you? Would you rather not have existed, to avoid the trouble that it brings? If I were created in order to choose between bowing or pain, I would probably rather not have been created. What a sad raison d'être that is. I consider being created the same as having been woken up. Waking me up to make me choose this is a waste of my time.

I was not speaking to you. Fundamentalism is assuming a point as a means of proving it. Please read my posts here and rethink what you have said. It is redundant and does not answer my questions.

This post did not contribute anything to the discussion. In your last response, you restated the original argument without countering my own. Reciting what has already been said is known as being redundant or repetitive. Your post did not address my points, but instead put forth your own ideas about the original post's meaning. That is not a response to me so much as one's expression of faith in a post that quoted me. You also said that intelligence is fallacious. Nothing could be more insulting to the one saying it. Please read the description for this section.

"For topics that require more intelligence and thought than the spam zone. Have an issue you wish to discuss? Has a recent event caught your attention? Maybe you have a problem IRL and need advice. Here is the place to go."

I suggest that you stay away if you find it to be a fallacy.

 

If you think like they then why are you still around. I don't mean to sound a little harsh but if your logic adds up so well then killing yourself would end any trouble. That isn't how I think I am simply stating what you sound like. So if you supported it that much you wouldn't be alive right now.

 

Correction... If I believed that that was why I had been woken up, that would be the case. But I believe that I woke up myself up, if anyone did. Now that I am awake, I can do whatever I want with my day. Am I wrong?

 

I never said you were. To be honest I couldn't care less about how you live your life. But what bothers me is your motivation to post in this thread.
Is it to be right or is it because you actually care about getting your point across?

 

Neither. That is a false dichotomy. It is to find the truth, either by proving myself right or by provoking you into showing me a new side of it.

 

You are taking Pascal's wager to be something that it is not. It is by no means an argument for Christianity, it is only an argument that shows logic behind believing in a deity. The conclusion to Pascal's Wager isn't "I'm going to be a Christian" or even "I believe in some type of God", it's, "It is more logically sound to believe in God than not to."

A valid conclusion of Pascal's Wager is that it is more logical to believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster (Assuming the FSM allows believers into some Flying Spaghetti Heaven) than no deity at all.

...Which is why, as a Christian, this argument is pointless to me, and it kind of bothers me when other Christians use it.