Pascal's Wager

Seriously, have you ever actually used in in pre-evangelism? If it is so flawed, why does it often work? You're giving hypotheticals. I'd like to hear your own experience with atheists.

What you have missed is that the discussion is only between an atheist and a Christian, not a Muslim, etc. However, if the atheist wants to postulate any other god, such as those you've postulated, he still loses, since he has then been forced to admit some kind of god. If the atheist brings up the Muslim Allah as a refutation, he still goes to Hell, but you have a chance at Heaven. As for a "malevolent god," no religion believes in such a god. It simply doesn't make sense, since all religion is based on pleasing that particular god and being rewarded. Either way, the atheist loses.

 

Having trouble connecting the dots? A person may speculate the existence of any god without believing it. The same as you can discuss the part of the wager where no god exists without believing it (or losing).

And just because no religion you know posits a malevolent deity doesn't mean it is not a correct mental exercise for the sake of demonstrating the flaws in PW.

 

Paul tells us that if our faith is not true we are, of all men, most to be pitied. Why?

Because, imho, historically Christians had much to lose for their faith. They lost family and friends, businesses and homes... even their lives.

peace to youraying:

 

The Wager is invalid right from the start since it is based on the notion that a person can consciously CHOOSE to believe that someone does or doesn’t exist and of course that is impossible.

 

It is? Can I choose to believe you exist, or do I assume a computer created your profile and typed your post? If you were standing in front of me do I have the choice to believe you exist?

 

webdog,

re: " If you were standing in front of me do I have the choice to believe you exist?"
　
In order for something to be considered a choice, there have to be at least two options from which to select. And each option has to be able to be selected. In the case of belief, there are three options. In your example, the three options are: 1) believe that I exist; 2) believe that I don’t exist; or 3) have no belief either way. If I were standing in front of you, could you select option #2? But that’s a hypothetical. Let’s try something in real time. Since you seem to be saying that you can consciously CHOOSE to believe things, I wonder if you might demonstrate your ability and explain how you do it. What do you do at the last moment to instantly change your one state of belief to another? What is it that you do that would allow you to say, "OK, at this moment I have a lack of belief that ‘x’ exists or is true, but I CHOOSE to believe that ‘x’ exists or is true and now instantly at this new moment I do believe that ‘x’ exists or is true?

Maybe you could use something like leprechauns to demonstrate your technique. According to the Encyclopedia Britannica, a leprechaun is "a fairy peculiar to Ireland, who appeared in the form of an old man of minute stature, wearing a cocked hat and a leather apron." So, assuming that you don’t already have a belief in them, how about right now, while you are reading this, CHOOSE to believe - be convinced without a doubt - that they exist. Now that you believe in leprechauns, my question is, how did you do it? How did you make the instantaneous transition from lack of belief to belief?

 

Benjamin,

re: "The wager consists of that even if the existence of God could not be determined through reason, a rational person should wager as though God exists."
　
Is there any belief (a conviction without doubt) involved in the implementation of the wager?
　

re: "Option 3 is fallacy, it simply avoids the argument (or wager)."

Option 3 was given in response to webdog’s question to me about my existence. I agree that there are only 2 options with regard to the "Wager". But that still doesn’t change the fact that beliefs cannot be consciously CHOSEN and therefore the "Wager" is flawed from the start.

 

Benjamin,

re: "It seems you are avoiding the argument..."

I’m not avoiding it at all - I’m addressing it head on by stating that it can’t be implemented because beliefs cannot be consciously CHOSEN.
　


re: "...by a suggestion that God allows some not to participate in making the decision (having no ability to choose) to love the Truth or not and to come to faith or not?"

Actually, that would be "all" and not just "some".
　


re: " If so, wouldn’t they then have an excuse since they are not responsible for their actions?"

If by "actions" you mean not having a belief in a supreme being, then yes, I think a case could be made for that position.
　


re: " Are you suggesting God pre-determined that they would have no hope?"

No.
　


re: " The only ‘real’ difference I see in your belief in men not having creaturely volition (ability to make a choice) is that you see yourself to be one of the lucky pre-selected few who was forced to have faith."

That would be incorrect.

 

Pascal's Wager or Gambit is an interesting proposition and I agree with him. After thinking about it I realize that is would be just as valid a wager if posed by a person of any religious persuasion. For instance a Hindu or a follower of Islam, just like a Christian, could well say to an atheist, "I have everything to gain if I am correct and nothing to loose if you are correct."

 

You just refuted your previous statement that it is impossible to choose that someone consciously does or doesn't exist as that is two options (your third is a fallacy, whether you agree or not, choosing not to have an opinion is having an opinion)

 

webdog,

re: "You just refuted your previous statement that it is impossible to choose that someone consciously does or doesn't exist..."
　
That’s not what I said. I said that it is impossible for a person to consciously CHOOSE to believe that someone does or doesn’t exist.
　

re: "You just refuted your previous statement... choosing not to have an opinion is having an opinion).

Where have I said otherwise, although I would call it a CHOICE and not an opinion?"

 

You are not getting it. I choose to believe that you consciously exist, meaning it is possible, plausible, probable and most likely completely factual.

 

webdog,

re: "You are not getting it. I choose to believe that you consciously exist..."

Can you right now, while you are reading this, believe - be convinced without any doubt - that I don’t exist? Or can you right now, while you are reading this, believe - be convinced without any doubt - that leprechauns exist and have a pot of gold at the end of a rainbow?

 

That is what's known as a false dichotomy. While I agree that you cannot prove a negative (that you do not exist) I think it's quite easy to prove you do exist and that you are not a leprechaun. Remember, from the start you said it was impossible that a "person can consciously CHOOSE to believe that someone does or doesn’t exist". It's simply not true.

 

webdog,

re: " Remember, from the start you said it was impossible that a 'person can consciously CHOOSE to believe that someone does or doesn’t exist'. It's simply not true.
　
　
Let me repeat what I said to you above: "In order for something to be considered a choice, there have to be at least two options from which to select. And each option has to be able to be selected. In the case of belief, there are three options. In your example, the three options are: 1) believe that I exist; 2) believe that I don’t exist; or 3) have no belief either way." I am simply asking you to select option #2. If you can’t do that, then your belief that I exist is not the result of a conscious CHOICE.

 

Benjamin,

re: "You’ve apparently missed two points I made about conscious choice and your option #3."

I said in post #30 that option #3 doesn’t apply to the Wager. Option 3 was given in response to webdog’s question to me about my existence.
　
　
　
re: "BTW, free will should be defined as volition and this sustains the meaning that a creature has the ability to consciously choose..."

Free will to me is to be free from any outside restraint preventing the pursuit or fulfillment of ones desires. It does not mean , however, that the object of one’s will or desire has to be able to be realized. The person first has to have the innate ability to put their desires into action .
　
　
　
re: "Sorry, but in avoiding the arguments and then repeating your claim (no ability to choose) doesn’t carry any logical weight."

I have never been able to consciously CHOOSE any of the beliefs that I hold or have held, and no one that I have asked to demonstrate an ability to consciously CHOOSE to believe things has ever been responsive to that request. Now while I haven’t asked every person on the planet, I think that it is not illogical, based on my experience, to assume that beliefs cannot be consciously CHOSEN.

　



re: "Regarding judgment for actions [having a lack of belief]: Then show me a case where a creature can be held responsible for his actions [having a lack of belief] pertaining to that he has no [conscious] choice in the matter of making [having] it?"

Revelation 21:8: "But the...unbelieving...shall have their part in the lake which burns with fire and brimstone, which is the second death."
　
　
　
　
re: "You know that for certain about what I see?"

Of course not. I was saying that what you said you see about me is not correct. I do not see myself to be one of the lucky pre-selected few who has been forced to have faith.