Pascal's Wager states that it is a better "bet" to believe God exists than not to believe, because the expected value of believing is always greater than the expected value of not believing. I have a problem with this because I feel like I can't help what I believe. I am agnostic. I believe there is no way to prove God exists or prove that God doesn't exist. What do you think?
2007-05-28 07:28:38 · 12 answers · asked by 12th 3 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
Source: Wikipedia
2007-05-28 07:29:25 · update #1
There are two main objections to Pascal's Wager:
1) How can we force ourselves to believe something just because there is a potential reward? This is your objection.
2) There are many postulated gods, in which should I believe? This has been exemplified in the popular world by Homer Simpson's "Marge, suppose we've chosen the wrong god".
The answers to these objections:
1) Pascal died before completing the description of his wager. He was arguing for the reasonableness of seeking God, not for a direct belief in God. He thought that the only way to find God is to honestly seek Him and then God will reveal Himself and then comes belief.
2) We seek the God who created us and put within us the desire to know our Creator. If we postulate that we are created beings, then immediately we can know quite a bit about God just by looking within ourselves. For example, we know it is right to be loving and compassionate. If we are created, it is logical that our Creator put that knowledge within us. If He put that knowledge withing us, it is logical that He is loving and compassionate to an even higher degree.
2007-05-28 23:37:25 · answer #1 · answered by Matthew T 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
The 2 sentences "God exists" & "God does not exist" are logically equivalent because neither can be shown to be true or false. Therefore, the only basis for choosing is pragmatic, and on that basis Pascal is correct. The only reason for choosing to not believe must be some kind of petty intellectual egotism: "I will not have the wool pulled over my eyes!" The agnostic view is free of the low-grade egotism, and is in a way a recognition that if God does exist as an omnipotent, omnscient, and benevelont being, surely the agnostic doubter will not be "refused at the gate" or "punished" for not having a will to faith. We as human parents often love our own children even though they do not care for us, even deny us.
Could the Perfect Parent do any less? Even the atheists, the positive deniers, will not be rejected by God, although they will always have the free will to turn their backs on the Creator.
2007-05-28 07:45:09 · answer #2 · answered by jacksonbobsy@sbcglobal.net 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I would encourage you to read even more Pascal...he makes some great points. Yes, they are philisophical, but then so is the whole question about God.
I do believe in God, and a Christian to be specific. It is my observation that God has left enough room for doubt because He expects us to believe by faith, not proof.
Seriously, what can we prove? Except for things that have "empirical evidence" such as water is wet, fire is hot and I am short, what can be proven? I do not know if who you say you are is a real person, I can only ASSUME that who you tell me you are is the truth. You could be my next door neighbor or my own brother for that matter.
You CAN help what you believe...we all can. None of us are helpless...and if you think we are helpless, who is responsible? Nothing happens without a purpose or reason behind it...not even you asking this question.
2007-05-28 07:40:05 · answer #3 · answered by MiKal-el 2 · 1⤊ 1⤋
I'm godless, myself, yet I've always found this line of reasoning offensive.
Apart from the fact that I don't believe, so my choices are to be honest or to pretend (as you say, if you don't believe, you, well, don't believe).
But beyond that, it says that god is perfectly happy with people ONLY believing as insurance.
What god worth his salt would want that?
Is the person who refrains from stealing only out of fear of jail as moral person than those who don't steal because it's wrong?
I've just started Richard Dawkins' God Delusion; I've been keen to see what he has to say about Pascal's argument.
I've always found it pretty bogus, though.
What makes a belief reasonable is that there is, well, reason to believe it, evidence, it makes sense, stuff like that.
The point is to believe true things.
So arguments that have nothing to do with truth, reality, reason, fact, evidence, and such have no weight with me.
2007-05-28 13:19:48 · answer #4 · answered by tehabwa 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Pascal's Wager does not constitute real belief unto salvation in God. In the Bible there were devils that believed that Jesus was the son of God (Matthew 8:28-29):
" And when he was come to the other side into the country of the Gergesenes, there met him two possessed with devils, coming out of the tombs, exceeding fierce, so that no man might pass by that way. And, behold, they cried out, saying, What have we to do with thee, Jesus, thou Son of God? art thou come hither to torment us before the time? "
Obviously their belief and confession that Jesus was the son of God, did nothing for their salvation.
You see you have to accept Jesus as your Lord and Savior. That is a realization of truth that occurs in your heart. It is more than just saying, yeah God exists. It is a heart felt decision to follow him. Neither clever wagers, nor last second repentance measure up to the faith unto salvation.
2007-05-28 07:41:13 · answer #5 · answered by ignoramus_the_great 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
i find it true, some would say it is not necessary coz there are many gods..but obviously what pascal is talking about is the God in the Holy Book.. look, there's nothing wrong with it, nothing to lose.. what's wrong if there is a God? i cannot see what's the reason why was this conclusion had been thrown back but i believe one day, truth shall prevail.. i dont know if i am right or some atheists out there, we're all just humans, but at the end of the day it is our right to know the right thing.
2007-05-28 07:31:49 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 3⤋
i could nonetheless pass with Pascal for 2 reasons: demons have executed little, if something, to make this worldwide a miles better place; and 2nd, no demon ever had a working laptop or pc application named after him (PASCAL)--ok, ok, undesirable premise. nonetheless, i % the Pascal's guess.
2016-12-12 04:28:15 · answer #7 · answered by galle 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It think it's rather silly that Pascal had to devise this complex algebraic equation to solve a simple question. It just exemplifies how dependent on math he was.
2007-05-28 07:34:09 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
* Drink * Hic!... Well, it's a silly way to life your life... what if one's chosen "God" was the wrong one?
I hereby assert the the Kind and Mighty FSM is the one true God and if thou dost not worship His Noodlyness thou shalt spend 20 billion enernities in His Fires of Hell, Norway.
And wouldn't any deity worth his salt see thru a belief-ruse?
2007-05-28 07:31:56 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 1⤋
It's the worst argument in the book.
Click here to see just how flawed it is:
http://www.abarnett.demon.co.uk/atheism/wager.html
2007-05-28 07:36:15 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋