Atheists: Don't you think you should look into Pascal's wager?

Question

It shows you why you should believe in God versus not believe in God. Good luck!

Answer 1

it is full of holes!!!!
-First of all, it doesn't take into account that there are literally HUNDREDS of God's to choose from. Pascal was only talking about HIS God, and gave NO RESPECT to other religions (a pretty ridiculous thing for him to do)
-Secondly, he does NOT take into account what you loose if you spend your life believing in God and then there turns out to be no God. He does not consider the possibility that you have WASTED your life worshiping a nonexistent (or the incorrect) entity. He doesn't consider the money you throw away at church or the time you waste reading holy books and on your knees praying. This question has been worn out, PASCAL'S WAGER IS USELESS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Answer 2

On Pascal's Wager - We're Correct, No Matter What

I say that I there has never been any evidence to prove the existence of God; therefore, I am justified in saying that God does not exist. That is an intellectual position. "Prove it, or stop claiming it to be true."

Now, if a man steps out of the clouds with the army and people start disappearing, I would first want to know what that is. I would have to confirm that it isn't a hallucination, a hoax, another god, and rule out other possible causes. If it turned out to be God, I would feel no regret or shock, I would simply have to do the intellectually responsible thing and state that, when I stated that God does not exist, I was unable, absent any proof, to accept god's existence as fact.

Refusing to accept a claim that is made with no evidence to support it is not morally "wrong". There is nothing "bad" about it, and I would have done nothing to regret. It's not a matter of right vs. wrong, it's about correct vs. incorrect. I would not have been wrong, I still would have been correct to come to the conclusions I had, given the data. Given new data, I would come to a new conclusion, and that would also be correct. That's how science works. That's why Pascal's Wager doesn't work for me, because it assumes that the position that God does not exist is either correct or incorrect. It is not. It is correct, no matter what, because a logical person could not conclude otherwise at this time. If the existence of God was proven, atheists would come to a new conclusion...that he exists, and they would still be correct.

Any god that wouldn't understand that would be far too stupid a deity to hold any further interest for me.

Answer 3

Well, many people have made the point that I'd essentially have made - there are plenty of gods to choose from, so how's Pascal's wager going to look on a betting slip?

3-1 Fav: Gaia, Goddess of the Earth
4-1: Jesus of Nazareth
7-2: Allah the Almighty
11-2: Osiris of the Nile
15-1: Thor, God of Thunder
25-1 Outsider: Buddha

"And they're under starter's order now in the Metaphysicals' Steeplechase....And they're off!

Well, that's a turn-up for the books. The Buddha, always an outsider in a contest usually limited to gods, is simply sitting on the start line, looking altogether pretty smug. That's gonna cost him time...

Gaia's making good headway as they round the first bend - the grass seems to be helping her along. The Nazarene's in trouble at the first hurdle - somebody should have warned him not to wear those sandals...

Thor's having trouble at the back of the pack. Oh, what's this? Shazam, Osiris takes a thunderbolt to the rear! This could turn into a grudge-match between the Egyptian river-god and the Norseman....And as they approach the water-jump, the Nazarene steals a few strides on Gaia - the lad just ran across it!

What's this? Allah's refusing to move...he's sent Mohammed to bring the finish line to him instead! That might warrant a steward's enquiry!

And here they come down the final straight, and it's too close to call as they head towards the line, butt...who's that?! It's the big lad! Buddha's already there, waiting for them. It's Buddha the outsider, taking first place with a stunning bit of blissful non- confrontation! Gaia in second, Thor is third, and it's a photo after that..."

We'd have to bet on them all, and then some, to get any kind of guaranteed results, wouldn't we?

Answer 4

Pascal's wager makes a lot of sense to me. There is only one God who has revealed himself to man. That happens to be the Christian God.
Blaise was right. It is better to believe God exists, because the expected value of believing that God exists is always greater than the expected value resulting from non-belief.
I was once a believer turned agnostic and believer again so I guess I know what I am talking about. What are you missing when you are not a believer? The first thing that comes to mind is fun. It is more fun to believe there is a God. Good clean fun. You will also be at peace with yourself.
Unbelief is worldly and destructive. There's no God so "Lets eat, drink and be merry for tomorrow we die." What a life that was for me. It hurt not only me but also my wife and kids. Not to mention other people I hurt because of that Philosophy.
Peace and every blessing!

Answer 5

I have looked into Pascal's wager, its just that there are a lot of problems with the wager. For example, how do you know that your God is the right God? It could be Baal, or one of the Greek Gods.

Answer 6

I don't think anyone should look into Pascal's wager. If that's why you believe in God, to play it safe, I think you're confused about faith. God knows what is in your heart and you just might lose that bet.

May God Bless you.

Answer 7

Pascal's wager doesn't hold water. Suppose there is a god who is watching us and choosing which souls of the deceased to bring to heaven, and this god really does want only the morally good to populate heaven. He will probably select from only those who made a significant and responsible effort to discover the truth. For all others are untrustworthy, being cognitively or morally inferior, or both. They will also be less likely ever to discover and commit to true beliefs about right and wrong. That is, if they have a significant and trustworthy concern for doing right and avoiding wrong, it follows necessarily that they must have a significant and trustworthy concern for knowing right and wrong. Since this knowledge requires knowledge about many fundamental facts of the universe (such as whether there is a god), it follows necessarily that such people must have a significant and trustworthy concern for always seeking out, testing, and confirming that their beliefs about such things are probably correct. Therefore, only such people can be sufficiently moral and trustworthy to deserve a place in heaven — unless god wishes to fill heaven with the morally lazy, irresponsible, or untrustworthy.

Answer 8

I'm no atheist, but to believe in God only by fear alone is so disturbing I can't adequately express it. To live one's life in fear of the very god who should love you is a horrible perversion of religion. Spirituality is built on love, not fear.

Shame on you. And shame on Pascal, for that matter.

Answer 9

I look into Pascal wager and it so be renamed the the stupid coward's wager.

Answer 10

You would have to believe in every single possible god for that to make any sense.