The basic argument against pascals wager is that, if you claim to believe in god because you'd rather just not chance going to hell. God would be able to see right through it, you think god will take a half assed claim of belief that he is real? For someone who doesn't believe, its impossible to say you believe and really mean it.
Thats my argument, anyone else?
2007-04-04 17:37:44 · 4 answers · asked by kaltharion 3 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
............
2007-04-04 17:47:29 · update #1
Also This video has a good explaination as to the chances of being the right religion.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XT-mrvrPJIs
2007-04-04 17:49:15 · answer #1 · answered by Magus 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Pascal's Wager assumes there are only two answers, God exists and God doesn't exist. It forgets the other gods. If one was to believe based purely on "just in case" then one would spend a lot of time sacrificing and praying to a lot of gods "just in case".
2007-04-05 00:49:39 · answer #2 · answered by Momofthreeboys 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
You are correct but that was probably not what Pascal had in mind. His notes were published posthumously so we really don't know his exact line of reasoning but knowing his earlier works, we can be pretty sure he didn't expect genuine belief to come directly out of it. He probably was going to show that seeking God was a reasonable thing to do because God is of infinite worth.
2007-04-06 14:36:10 · answer #3 · answered by Matthew T 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Since the only "proof" we have of the "one God" is the belief of the believers, and contradictory stories about Who is the Big Kahuna,
and there are so very VERY many Gods and Goddesses,
you have a 1 in..er...LOTS chance of being right if you pick just one,
and a LOTS against 1 of being wrong,
so it's safer to believe in ALL of them.
Better to have insurance and not need it than to need it and not have it, eh?
2007-04-05 01:33:34 · answer #4 · answered by Praise Singer 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋