English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

2006-12-08 10:21:24 · 5 answers · asked by whatever 3 in Arts & Humanities Philosophy

5 answers

A flawed argument for believing in God, it says that you should believe in God because you have more to lose by not believing in Him than if you don't. If you believe in Him, and He exists, then you go to heaven. If you believe in Him and he doesn't exist, nothing happens. If you don't believe in Him, and he exists, you go to hell, but if He doesn't nothing happens. This completely disregards the fact that there are a million different religions with a heaven and hell, and there is no way to know which is the right one. It also assumes that believing in God "just in case" is enough to get you into heaven, when if I was God, I would not let those people in.

2006-12-08 10:32:41 · answer #1 · answered by PopeJaimie 4 · 2 0

The earlier answers should be helpful. I would add another major flaw in Pascal's argument. He disregarded how much resources are spent on belief in god(s). He simply overlooks this by saying something like, "If I worship god and it turns out that she does not exist, I have lost nothing." I would argue that worshipers lose a great deal! Think of all the time and energy spent in useless prayer, or monetary/volunteer time contributions to churches (the part that doesn't go to charity). And then there's the fact that you have spent your entire life being deluded.

2006-12-08 19:24:54 · answer #2 · answered by HarryTikos 4 · 0 0

Pascal's wager states that if you believe in God, and there is no God, then you have lost nothing, but lived a life of virtue. If you believe in God, and there is a God, then you have 'gained' Heaven. If you don't believe in God, and there is no God, then you have lost nothing. If you don't believe in God, and there is a God, then you have 'gained' hell. Pascal concludes that a bet for God cannot lose; a bet against God cannot win.

2006-12-08 10:37:34 · answer #3 · answered by jowens1988 2 · 1 0

Proof 229
PASCAL'S ARGUMENT, a.k.a. PASCAL'S WAGER
(1) If God exists, it would be really cool. (And I would win big-time.)
(2) If God didn't exist, it would really suck. (But I wouldn't lose much.)
(3) Therefore, God exists. (Or, at least I should believe in God because it's the best bet.)

2006-12-08 17:31:36 · answer #4 · answered by hq3 6 · 0 0

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal%27s_wager

basically a "what if God does exist" argument.

Does not help with choice of religion tho :)

2006-12-08 10:28:37 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1 0

fedest.com, questions and answers