What is Pascal's Wager?

Answer 1

Something like:
- There could be a God or not. Analizing the possibilities:
-If there is a God, and I choose not to believe in Him, then I go to hell, and if I choose to believe in Him, I go to heave
- If there is not God, and I believe, I lose nothing, and if I dont believe, then I gain nothing.
- Conclution: it is better to believe in God than not believing in Him.

The supposed "refutations" are just rationalizations at most.

On the other hand, I would use this wage in this form, in order to have intellectual honesty: I would use the rest of my life to look for the truth about spiritual things. Even if I have come to the conclusion there is no God or have no hope of salvation, I would still search if I can, because I have nothing to lose, and if there is a chance, even a small one, I would take it.

In fact, I took a little variation of that (not that I didn't believed in God, just that didn't know the right way for me) and finally God led me to understand there is a spiritual world, and then to become a born again Christian. The evidence is towards this overwhelmingly; the people who says different are, I think, either mislead by others, or have lack of information, or just rationalize something that is emotional (don't want to leave sin, hate some "Christian" who made something bad to them, etc).

Answer 2

# Blaise Pascal (1623-62) was a famous French mathematician, physicist, and philosopher who truly sought to understand the meaning of his existence in this vast universe. Like any man of intellect, Pascal struggled with the concept of God's existence, saying, "I see too much to deny God, yet too little to be sure . ...
www.apologetics.org/glossary.html

# Pascal's proposition was that even if the chance of the Christian doctrine of salvation being true was extremely small, the benefit of eternal life (the prize to the believer if, in fact, the doctrine is true), so that the expectation of the wager was also infinite, and it was therefore a good risk to believe in the doctrine. This is not a position that will much appeal to modern persons, though it received some attention in its own time (the 17th century).
www.umass.edu/wsp/statistics/glossary/or.html

# Pascal's Wager (also known as Pascal's Gambit) is Blaise Pascal's application of decision theory to the belief in God. It is one of three 'wagers' which appear in his Pensées, a collection of notes for an unfinished treatise on Christian apologetics. Pascal argues that it is always a better "bet" to believe in God, because the expected value to be gained from believing in God is always greater than the expected value resulting from non-belief. ...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal's_Wager

Answer 3

Also known as Pascal's Gambit is Blaise Pascal's application of decision theory to the belief in God. It is one of three wagers which appear in his Pensees, a collection of notes for an unfinished treatise on Christian apologetics. Pascal argues that it is always a better bet to believe in God, because the expected value to be gained from believing in God is always greater than the expected value resulting from non-belief. Note that this is not an argument for the existence of God, but rather one for the belief in God. Pascal specifically aimed the argument at such persons who were not convinced by traditional arguments for the existence of God. With his wager he sought to demonstrate that believing in God is advantageous to not believing, and hoped that this would convert those who refected previous theological arguments.

Answer 4

Pascal's Wager is the French philosopher Blaise Pascal's application of decision theory to the belief in God. It is also occasionally known as Pascal's Gambit. It appears in the Pensées, a posthumous collection of Pascal's notes for an unfinished treatise on Christian apologetics. Pascal argued that it is a better "bet" to believe that God exists, because the expected value of believing that God exists is always greater than the expected value resulting from non-belief. Indeed, he claimed that the expected value is infinite. With this, he sought to convert those, to Christianity, who were uninterested in religion and unimpressed by previous theological arguments for it.

Answer 5

Basically, Pascall's is comparing religious decisions on a "wager." He says that if you believe in God, and you're right you win, but if you believe in God and God doesn't exist, you lose nothing. Where as on the other hand, all you can do is break even if God doesn't exist, or if God does exist, you lose everything and spend eternity in hell..

Basically, it's a "what do you have to lose" kind of thing. Even if you devote your life to serving God, or wager for Him, and you're wrong, all you've done is lead a good, moral life void of sin.

Answer 6

Pascal's Wager is the proposition that since if Christianity is true, and you believe, you will go to heaven, but if it is not true, you don't lose anything. If you don't believe, and it is true, you go to hell.

The wager then is weighted toward belief because you supposedly lose nothing.

The refutation is multiply stated. Here are a few:

It is immoral to state a belief when you do not, in fact, hold it.

It places God in the position of being a ticket taker. As long as you have at death your professed-belief ticket, you get into heaven. No ticket, no entry.

It turns Christianity into a religion that requires nothing more than belief.

And ultimately, it promotes intellectual dishonesty.

In short, it's an immature statement that suggests that a few magic words please a relatively naive God, something akin to crossing your fingers when you promise to do something.

Answer 7

stupidity.

Philosopher Pascal once said it is better to believe in the christian god than to not believe because if christians are right they go to heaven, but if atheists are wrong, they go to hell. This is obviously wrong because there are hundreds of gods out there, and the fact that I don't think god would want you to gamble yourself into heaven. And many Christians don't know that since the wager came into philosophy circles he was laughed at by the entire philosophical community.

Answer 8

That if I follow God and end the end there is a God, then I win everlasting life.

However if I follow God and in the end there is no God then I have lost nothing and I still win

However if there is a God and I dont follow him and in the end I forfeit eternal and suffer eternally in Hell then I lose

it is better to follow God and than to not follow God and lose eternal life.

Answer 9

Is it worth being a non believer in christ?

if christ is wrong you just die thats it.

but if you dont beleive in christ and christ is right then you go to hell.

Answer 10

I'll take my chances on the future to get what I want today. A fool's logic.