2007-05-31 12:35:43 · 21 answers · asked by JR 2 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
Because it isn't an argument for the existence of God at all, it's an argument for worshiping a specific God regardless of whether he exists.
2007-05-31 12:38:23 · answer #1 · answered by WWTSD? 5 · 12⤊ 0⤋
Because going by Pascal's Wager, it could be just as easy to prove the existence of Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy, and the Easter Bunny.
2007-05-31 12:46:54 · answer #2 · answered by Adam G 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Pascal's wager is more of a push in the direction of believing in God than a direct argument for it.
For those who say it's a wast of a life I beg to differ. Not many will argue with me that Mother Theresa's life wasn't a waste, but she lived it for God, and had God not been a part of her plan, she probably would not have taken an active part in healing so many lives. She probably would not have been devoted as she was, nor would she have been as wise. Her self sacrifice was a result of her love for her Lord and Savior Jesus Christ and her life was certainly not wasted.
I personally live a much more fulfilling life because of my belief in God. If I did not take the wager and believe in Him despite my doubts, I would not try to please Him in all things. I would not care to be faithful to my husband and children. I probably wouldn't care to be married... yadda yadda yadda...
I suppose my wager is more like this... If I follow the path that I find to contain the most truth, my life will be most valuable to all those around me and, perhaps, if God is there watching it will be most valuable to me too, as I will go to heaven. If, however I do as I feel and as I please, I will ruin not only my life, but countless other lives and if I die I will go to hell, so I'd might as well live the good life, rising above personal discomfort to please all those dear to me and to love my God with my whole heart, so that some day I may be happy with Him in heaven.
2007-05-31 16:54:51 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
The Wager posits that it is a better "bet" to believe that God exists than not to believe, because the expected value of believing (which Pascal assessed as infinite) is always greater than the expected value of not believing
You live as though God exists.
If God exists, you go to heaven: your gain is infinite.
If God does not exist, your loss is nothing.
You do not live as though God exists.
If God exists, you go to hell: your loss is infinite.
If God does not exist, you gain nothing & lose nothing.
Also, because there actually is a loss if you believe in God and he doesn't exist. You spend time going to church, reading the Bible, tithing, etc. If there isn't a god, then you've just wasted time and resources.
2007-05-31 12:41:54 · answer #4 · answered by ahelaumakani 4 · 2⤊ 0⤋
It never was an argument for the existence of gods, it was an argument that believing in gods, whether they existed or not, was better bet than not believing. Its fault is that you cannot fake a belief. If the god you are trying to show belief in is omniscient then it will know you are feigning belief. If that is the case, there is no point in doing so.
If there were any gods they would be more inclined to reward a non-believer who was honest rather than a hypocrite.
2007-05-31 12:40:56 · answer #5 · answered by tentofield 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Pascal's wager only invokes an experimental speculative type of faith whereas Biblical faith - the faith that saves - is characterized as a confident application oriented certainty. It characterizes those who are actually convinced.
One cannot simply "try out" saving faith. Either a person is convinced or he is not. Pascals Wager only deals with the predicament, and not the object of faith.
2007-05-31 12:43:37 · answer #6 · answered by Steve Amato 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It is based on assumptions that many people don't share. If the assumptions are wrong, the whole argument falls apart.
The words may present a logical progression but it doesn't work if people do not agree with the premise. It's empty and meaningless and is only good for convincing people (of no integrity) they ought to act like they worship a deity.
2007-05-31 12:45:28 · answer #7 · answered by KC 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I don't think it's a valid argument for the existence of God. I think it's a way to "cover your bases" in case there is a God.
And this is not the way to repent of sin and confess Christ as savior. That is an act of faith and humility, not a "oh, just in case, I'll say it". Receiving Jesus as Lord is only the first step in being a Christian. It is the doorway to an entirely new life.
2007-05-31 12:40:23 · answer #8 · answered by Esther 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
You're kidding, right?
Atheist's wager:
You should live your life and try to make the world a better place for your being in it, whether or not you believe in God. If there is no God, you have lost nothing and will be remembered fondly by those you left behind. If there is a benevolent God, he may judge you on your merits coupled with your commitments, and not just on whether or not you believed in him.
2007-05-31 12:48:57 · answer #9 · answered by Dylan H 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
If you believe and follow the God,
and you found at the end of the day, God is not exist ?
Are you sure you lost nothing ?
You have lost your whole life.
It's the reason, Bill Gate said, "I have better thing to do in the Sunday morning"
2007-05-31 13:37:44 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋