Is Pascal's wager a good defense for a belief in god(s)?
Pascal's wager- an argument in philosophy presented by the seventeenth-century French philosopher, mathematician and physicist Blaise Pascal (1623–62). It posits that humans bet with their lives that God either exists or does not. This chart makes a summary of it.
| God exists (G) | God does not exist (¬G) |
---|
Belief (B) | +∞ (infinite gain) | −1 (finite loss) |
---|
Disbelief (¬B) | −∞ (infinite loss) | +1 (finite gain)
|
---|
It was made as a defense of Christianity but makes a number of assumptions about this god.
Note: please do not try and post evidence of God.
I could either have the future pass me or l could create it.
“We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain stupid.” - Benjamin Franklin So flat Earthers, man-made climate change deniers, and just science deniers.
I friended myself!
Debra AI Prediction
Arguments
This can also promote evil. These were taken off of https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Pascal's_wager.
"More troubling than this are occasions where you might theoretically be called upon to hurt someone else to advance your worship of the superior entity. This forms a flip side to the argument that Pascal's Wager emphasizes belief over worthiness in that it suggests that outright evil people can gain reward and avoid punishment simply through belief. In the Old Testament, there are numerous instances when worshipers had to kill and hurt others as commanded by God. In fact, there are occasions in which God was extremely displeased that they didn't take the abuse of fellow humans far enough. Even with the Pascal's Wager metric in place, one could argue that it's more moral to resist these commands for the sake of others even if it results in an infinite loss for you."
"If, as Pascal's Wager must assume, God is willing to punish good people simply for a lack of belief, this would preclude God being "good" by any sense that we understand the concept of "good" — and "good" is a necessary property of God, at least as understood by Christianity. As it can be demonstrated on Earth that no single specific religion has a monopoly on good and moral people, a God that causes Pascal's Wager to be valid cannot be focused on spreading good around the world. Various responses to Pascal's Wager involve pointing out that to be at the constant beck and call of such a clearly evil being would be preferable to hell, and so it is favorable to disbelieve."
"If you ask most Christians whether children who die when they are very young will go to heaven, they will say yes. So it would be most reasonable to kill your children while young (especially since children today are much more likely to become atheists), rather than risk them leaving the Christian faith."
"It's just the ocean playing tricks on us. Just because it looks like we're on land, and it doesn't seem like we're moving, doesn't mean we should risk getting out."
"Our ancestors wouldn't have sacrificed so much to stay in the boat if it wasn't really on the water. And I wouldn't feel such a dark, frightened feeling every time my doubts say we've been fooled."
"Absolutely. There's no other explanation for it."
The wager can also be turned around. The chart for the Agnostic Atheism Wager is as follows.
You've wasted your time believing
You've wasted your time believing
If you compare them, the AA wager adds another part of behavior. This takes into account how God would act, rather than just the blind faith.
If it does convince you, I ask you, how do you know that the God that you believe in is the right one and not the others.
“We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain stupid.” - Benjamin Franklin So flat Earthers, man-made climate change deniers, and just science deniers.
I friended myself!
  Considerate: 63%  
  Substantial: 92%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 94%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 10.96  
  Sources: 7  
  Relevant (Beta): 64%  
  Learn More About Debra
Since you haven't allowed me to post proof of such beings, I won't.
Pascal's wager is indeed incorrect because if you believe in the wrong God, most religions' God(s) punish you for not believing in the correct one.
Pascal's wager would be a good wager indeed if you are gambling in a reality where the Christian God is at least 50% likely to be the actual God in my opinion. Since the Christian God itself has so many strange contradictions in the Bible about its ethics and system of punishment+reward and since there are such a huge proportion of proposed God(s) that are alternatives to the Christian God, then this wager begins to make you gamble very suboptimally indeed.
  Considerate: 81%  
  Substantial: 77%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 97%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 12.24  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 54%  
  Learn More About Debra
Just like Anselms eleventh century ontological argument.
Bulls**t may baffle brains. But bulls**t is not proof of anything.
  Considerate: 32%  
  Substantial: 96%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 87%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 10.56  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 98%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 91%  
  Substantial: 96%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 100%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 10.96  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 99%  
  Learn More About Debra
Explanation links:
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/ad-hominem
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/genetic
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/strawman
  Considerate: 76%  
  Substantial: 54%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 93%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 13.14  
  Sources: 3  
  Relevant (Beta): 37%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 91%  
  Substantial: 92%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 99%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 12.7  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 84%  
  Learn More About Debra
Basically put, regardless of the significance of the chance increase, any chance is better than no chance. I agree that Pascal's wager is minimalistic as it doesn't account for many other variables such as that there are multiple religions. However, even a 5% chance of safety is better than no chance, hell even 1% chance of safety is better 0%. Is it worth the time of believing? I'm not here to make that argument, I'm just here to defend a coherent argument. Assume this, you are at a shooting range, you have a 1% chance of hitting a bullseye, and if you do, you win eternal happiness, but if you don't shoot the chances are 0%, it makes most sense that you would take the chance and shoot.
  Considerate: 69%  
  Substantial: 94%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 98%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 10.66  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 98%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 49%  
  Substantial: 36%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 92%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 12.86  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 92%  
  Learn More About Debra
No, you are correct under that proviso, 1/∞ is 0% maybe even less than that, I would be correct if there is only a quantifiable amount of gods like 100, in that case, 1/100 is a better chance than 0. The way I look at it is that God defies the laws of physics, so what's to say there is not an infinite amount of Gods? In that case, 1/∞ is still 0%. I agree only on the proviso that there are an infinite amount of possibilities for Gods. I didn't think it would be fun if everybody agreed that it was crap, so I played devil's advocate for a moment.
  Considerate: 71%  
  Substantial: 95%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 99%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 6.92  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 97%  
  Learn More About Debra
Lovely bit of debating.
But I would suggest that your argument, actually helps to exemplify my point.
  Considerate: 95%  
  Substantial: 57%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 95%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 10.98  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 99%  
  Learn More About Debra
If we assume a finite number of possible gods the situation becomes more tricky as we don't know which one to pick, although you can argue making a selection is still better than not making a selection and it would just be a case of looking at the cost-benefit analysis of the different religions to see reward for belief and punishment for heresy is overall best. However there is no need to limit ourselves there - there are actually an infinite number of possible gods - we are talking about a mystical being we have no certain knowledge of after all. There could be a god which just wants people to be nice to each other and would damn people for eternity for taking a self-interested view like that expressed in Pascal's Wager. The only reason to follow the Wager's logic is if you've already basically already bought into Christianity or a similar religion.
I also find it foolish that people treat belief like we're robots and there's a switch we can flick to convince ourselves of the truth. I do not believe in Jehova. Even if I was convinced it was logically more beneficial to me to follow Pascal's logic, I could not make myself start to believe in Jehova because belief is not a matter of logical self-interest. I could act like I did believe, learn scripture and attend church services but it would be a lie built to try and help myself on the miniscule chance the religion is correct rather than me having any real faith.
  Considerate: 76%  
  Substantial: 97%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 97%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 12.84  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 88%  
  Learn More About Debra
“We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain stupid.” - Benjamin Franklin So flat Earthers, man-made climate change deniers, and just science deniers.
I friended myself!
  Considerate: 78%  
  Substantial: 61%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 92%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 9.38  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 85%  
  Learn More About Debra
“We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain stupid.” - Benjamin Franklin So flat Earthers, man-made climate change deniers, and just science deniers.
I friended myself!
  Considerate: 65%  
  Substantial: 84%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 95%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 10.26  
  Sources: 7  
  Relevant (Beta): 42%  
  Learn More About Debra
I was just expressing a personal opinion.
Which by definition, cannot be regarded as fallacious.
Actually by definition. Pascal's Wager is fallacious.
  Considerate: 66%  
  Substantial: 77%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 83%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 12.66  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 99%  
  Learn More About Debra
Is a parent rewarding a child for doing good equal to punishing the child for not going out of his ways to do good?
Is God rewarding those who believe in him equal to punishing those who do not?
You also need to remove the infinite gain in heaven for good people who do not believe in God, unfortunately. And you can't be a bad person and believe in God.
In short, the arguments are based off of a flawed understanding of Christianity. But I guess Pascal's wager applies to all religions...
  Considerate: 77%  
  Substantial: 81%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 96%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 8.84  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 95%  
  Learn More About Debra
Basically, Pascal's wager is a free lottery ticket. The lottery may not exist, and you might get a bad ticket, but you might get something.
If the lottery ticket is invalid, then you lose nothing.
  Considerate: 77%  
  Substantial: 70%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 94%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 9.32  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 98%  
  Learn More About Debra
“We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain stupid.” - Benjamin Franklin So flat Earthers, man-made climate change deniers, and just science deniers.
I friended myself!
  Considerate: 77%  
  Substantial: 78%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 92%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 8.96  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 80%  
  Learn More About Debra
If you are certain that God does not exist, then fine. Pascal's wager is most applicable to agnostics.
I am only thinking about the Christian God when I say this, but only belief in the Christian God can get you into heaven, not good works. Good works are an inevitable consequence of true @Pogue
Pascal's wager basically says: "Are you sure? If not, rethink it." If you are sure, then okay, I guess. That's all that Pascal's Wager should be used to conclude.
Starting with fear will start your belief, but is not the goal.
  Considerate: 88%  
  Substantial: 76%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 94%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 7.28  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 93%  
  Learn More About Debra
“We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain stupid.” - Benjamin Franklin So flat Earthers, man-made climate change deniers, and just science deniers.
I friended myself!
  Considerate: 90%  
  Substantial: 69%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 90%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 6.74  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 79%  
  Learn More About Debra
1.) If you don’t PayPal me $20, and I am God manifest you lose infinitely.
2.) If you PayPal me $20, and I am not God manifest, you lose finitely.
Ergo, as a result of identical logic to Pascal’s wager, intelligent, logical people should pay me $20.
  Considerate: 39%  
  Substantial: 69%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 94%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 5.58  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 83%  
  Learn More About Debra
I was going to say that "It is Venmo, not PayPal" but I just remembered that Venmo is owned by PayPal. LOL
“We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain stupid.” - Benjamin Franklin So flat Earthers, man-made climate change deniers, and just science deniers.
I friended myself!
  Considerate: 54%  
  Substantial: 84%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 89%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 5.98  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 56%  
  Learn More About Debra
Pascal's wager is only useful if based on assumptions that he specified before the wager, such as the fact that a perfect God exists. He did not try to use to this wager as a tool to convince people that God exists, but more so if there is a chance that the God of the Bible does exist, it would be astronomically better to live in light of that fact than choosing to live in ignorance.
Furthermore, you made a few other claims that I have to disagree with, as someone who has read the entirety of the Bible and studied it on multiple different levels:
1. You make massive assumptions about this God being "trickable." The God of the Bible is not trickable - He is omniscient.
2. Belief is not a get-out-of-jail free card - and a person does not simply flip a mental switch to be saved. Being saved from the just punishment of sin involves repenting (recognizing error and turning from it). That's a lifestyle change, not a quick "trick".
About the killing of children, I have thought along similar lines before. But you ignore the most obvious command of Scripture - Thou shalt not murder. We are not allowed to break God's commands irrelevant of the consequences. We are to follow by faith, and God is to be our leader. Additionally, valid argument can be made that children do not go to heaven automatically.
God is not a cruel God. He made this world and all of us and He therefore has the right to do as He pleases with us - blessing or curses. We have no power (and therefore right) to disagree with the omnipotent Creator. Rather than whine about "what we were given" and "doing our best", let's thank God for giving as opportunity to know Him, and to live with Him forever. He didn't have to do that - but God loved us so much He sent His Son to die for us. All optional for Him: He owes us nothing. But He loved us. Bless His name.
Your Agnostic Atheism chart is a bit busted, and is entirely unrelated to the Biblical God. I don't think it's worth expanding this debate out to there - better to just admit its irrelevant.
  Considerate: 79%  
  Substantial: 99%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 94%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 8.66  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 97%  
  Learn More About Debra
2. Live in ignorance? You are assuming god exists. You are not living in the light.
3. Pascal's wager is about believing in God. Made for the Biblical God but is not used that way anymore. You can fake belief. If you can fake it then he is able to be tricked. I am not saying that he is not omniscient. I am saying that the wager makes him not.
4. The wager says that belief in God will bring you to heaven.
5. I said most Christians say that (that I have talked to).
6. Ha, God killed so many things.
7. No evidence that he did. That was irrelevant.
8. It is not irrelevant. It is a counter to the other chart. We are arguing if it is a good defense for a belief in god. Not the Christian one.
“We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain stupid.” - Benjamin Franklin So flat Earthers, man-made climate change deniers, and just science deniers.
I friended myself!
  Considerate: 77%  
  Substantial: 93%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 94%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 6.46  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 52%  
  Learn More About Debra
A fallacy of false cause: How do you preclude that living a Christian life is a loss of time or waste of valuable time. What type of life worth do you consider living that would not be a waste of time? I'll assume that you would advocate living a good life and one that makes you happy as an individual. If a person what lead a Christian life and it is good and makes him/her happy. How can that be wrong?
  Considerate: 76%  
  Substantial: 92%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 93%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 9.24  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 89%  
  Learn More About Debra
It is a waste of time because it is not truthful and therefore does nothing to advance society. Religion has actually kept us scientifically backward for centuries. What I think is not a waste of time is something that is truthful and overall helps humanity. Happiness is important but that is below what I previously mentioned. Since the rest was just your assumption of my position and a straw man of my argument, I have no need to respond to it.
“We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain stupid.” - Benjamin Franklin So flat Earthers, man-made climate change deniers, and just science deniers.
I friended myself!
  Considerate: 76%  
  Substantial: 88%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 94%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 8.54  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 62%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 63%  
  Substantial: 31%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 93%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 8.68  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 90%  
  Learn More About Debra
“We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain stupid.” - Benjamin Franklin So flat Earthers, man-made climate change deniers, and just science deniers.
I friended myself!
  Considerate: 87%  
  Substantial: 63%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 92%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 6.9  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 24%  
  Learn More About Debra
1Co 2:13-14 These things we also speak, not in words which man's wisdom teaches but which the Holy Spirit teaches, comparing spiritual things with spiritual. But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.
So the argument that there is a God is as old as civilization.
God exists (G) God does not exist (¬G)
The gamble here is really about eternity thus the use of infinite gain/infinite loss. I see a missing variable in the Pascal equation. That is what is a meaningful life here on earth or the physical world. From the information given, a clear assessment of what is being lost in the physical cannot be made. So, there are two possible outcomes.
Assumption 1: A good life is one that results in happiness. Assumption 2: A belief in God makes a man miserable
If our mission statement in life is just to simply live a happy life, then believing in God, is a win-win wager
If however, being a Christian leads to make oneself miserable or something else that results in a negative outcome then Pascal's wager may hold true.
So, with those two assumptions added to the mix if assumption #1 is correct, then I believe a person can live the life of a Christian and still have a happy meaningful fulfilling life. Then, God's existence is irrelevant because they will either gain eternity in heaven or obtained finite gain from living a happy life. While the nonbeliever can only obtain finite gain/infinite loss
If assumption #2 is correct then the God existence does become relevant and you have two outcomes as purposed by Pascal.
I think it should be noted that a non-believer in God always results in an infinite loss. A non-believer can never bring about the possibility of infinite gain regardless of the existence of God. Thus the point that Pascal was trying to expose.
To the non-believers: What is the definition of a good life in context to the individual?
  Considerate: 89%  
  Substantial: 88%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 83%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 9.64  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 32%  
  Learn More About Debra
You still make the assumption that those will get you into heaven. So:
For the last part, good is subjective. My philosophy might not make someone happy. However, wasting your time on something that does not exist is a waste of time no matter what.
“We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain stupid.” - Benjamin Franklin So flat Earthers, man-made climate change deniers, and just science deniers.
I friended myself!
  Considerate: 89%  
  Substantial: 90%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 83%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 9.74  
  Sources: 9  
  Relevant (Beta): 30%  
  Learn More About Debra
Based upon your arguement of "if they are omniscient" how do you conclude God would punish good people. This is an illogical arguement, if a entity is all knowing, how can you determine something different from what a "omniscient deity" has concluded? All through history god's did not punish people for being good. Especially God in the Bible. This line of thinking is what is meant by blasphemy. Blasphemy can also be defined as when you elevate yourself to the same level or above the authority of a deity.
"One, it falsely assumes that that religion's god is the only god, two, it assumes that that god is stupid enough to be tricked by you "believing" in it just because you're scared of whatever punishment might come."
As for God being the only God, that is stated in the Bible, as well as recorded examples of him being the one and true living God. Pharos's gods could not replicate the miracles of God, read 1 Kings 18.20-40 the account of "The Prophets of Baal Defeated"
It is true that if you only "game" your way into heaven, The teaches we are to have fear of God, but that fear is more of fear of disappointing Him. The concept is if we understand what God had done for us (mankind) then when we realize how much He loved us, the we grow a strong love of God and we do these things not out of fear, but out of love. Now don't go pulling verses say He kill these people and He had people kill thousands of animals and so on. Those verse have to be read in context and when they are you understand there was a purpose for it and the purpose was good.
There's only one assumption in Pascal's theory, does God exist or not...heaven and hell are consequential based upon the belief in God.
@Pogue
  Considerate: 62%  
  Substantial: 91%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 90%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 9.96  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 57%  
  Learn More About Debra
God exists (G) God does not exist (¬G)
So, even if you are a good person, you will get an "infinite loss". In the Bible, "in a blazing fire.He will inflict vengeance on those who do not knowGod and do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus." http://biblehub.com/2_thessalonians/1-8.htm. I never evaluated myself to that level.
So there were zombies too. The Bible has many contradictions so it is very hard to take the Bible at its word. We also should be able to see God interacting with particles in the universe.
List of contradictions:
GE 1:3-5 On the first day, God created light, then separated light and darkness. GE 1:14-19 The sun (which separates night and day) wasn't created until the fourth day.
GE 1:20-21, 26-27 Birds were created before man was created. GE 2:7, 19 Man was created before birds were created.
GE 1:24-27 Animals were created before man was created. GE 2:7, 19 Man was created before animals were created.
GE 1:26 Man is to have dominion over fish, birds, cattle, and all wild animals, GE 2:15-17 It is wrong to be able to tell good from evil, right from wrong.
More https://infidels.org/library/modern/donald_morgan/contradictions.html.
No. Many more assumptions and you just straw maned pascal's wager.It was made so that even without evidence, someone should still believe in God.
“We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain stupid.” - Benjamin Franklin So flat Earthers, man-made climate change deniers, and just science deniers.
I friended myself!
  Considerate: 62%  
  Substantial: 92%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 88%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 9.44  
  Sources: 32  
  Relevant (Beta): 60%  
  Learn More About Debra
That is correct, you quoted 2 Thes 1.8, read it again and there are 2 disqualifies for heaven.
See that bold 3 letter word, that's a conjunction mean I have to do 2 things to receive the reward of heaven, Know God, and obey the gospel. Just because you consider yourself a moral person does not mean you'll get in heaven. You have to be a faithful Christian. You may never break a gov't laws, you might be the best person at saving people who are dyeing. But 2 Thes 1.8 as you pointed out requires you to be a obedient Christian.
"So there were zombies too. The Bible has many contradictions so it is very hard to take the Bible at its word. We also should be able to see God interacting with particles in the universe."
"No. Many more assumptions and you just straw maned pascal's wager.It was made so that even without evidence, someone should still believe in God."
You said at the beginning of your response "Very funny. We are talking about Pascal's wager. It is this."
I have answered all of your claims, assursion, presumptions and arugements, will you please answer mine or present a counter argument?
@Pogue
  Considerate: 83%  
  Substantial: 78%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 87%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 8.94  
  Sources: 18  
  Relevant (Beta): 20%  
  Learn More About Debra
"We can prove that something exists by it interacting with our universe. If there is no evidence that it interacts with it, it does not "exist". Where we colloquially define existence as retaining some form of manifestation whereby the said object can interact with particles in our universe."
- I believe I answered this in my last post with the question of multi-dimensional theory
You still make the assumption that those will get you into heaven. So:- I assume you are referring to the second part of your proposition. I answered those conjectures in my second post, of which you asked more questions and I've already responded to them.
"For the last part, good is subjective. My philosophy might not make someone happy. However, wasting your time on something that does not exist is a waste of time no matter what."@Pogue
  Considerate: 90%  
  Substantial: 84%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 91%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 9.28  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 54%  
  Learn More About Debra
If God did it, then he has done evil." How did you come to this conclusion? What are you basing this upon, give me a scriptural reference? You need to support your claims, it's starting to be like blowing your nose with wet toilet paper. By the way, Rational Wiki is not something I would call a source document. Academics 101- Wiki anything, not the best source, not always substantiated. Also, I read Rational Wiki and I would say 90-95% of the claims were not supported by external references...in other words...Is 90-95% opinion, there are 18 pages of information and only 9 sources sited and I think 2 of them might be internal arguments to paper. Not a good foundation to support a debate with. You did state this is an open debate, not an opinion forum.
The New Testament was Jesus trying to make the prophecies of the Old Testament come true. You have not done your homework, nor do you understand the dating of the Bible. The last book of the Old Testament was written 400 years before Christ. But you weren't there to see it, just like you were not at Pearl Harbor....How do you know it happened? You weren't at the Lunar landing, how do you know that it happened? Is Elvis dead?
Classic "Why would I read a book that says there were zombies, a global flood 4k-years-ago, and the Earth being 6,000-years-old."
- You are here arguing the contents of the Bible false, God is evil, and Christ was a zombie
- How can you defend your position when you don't know what you're talking about, I guess it's the old I heard it from a guy, who heard it from another guy, whose sister was there. (apologies for the what comes across as sarcasm, I'm just using some hyperbole to drive home the point.
It is a waste of time because it is not truthful and therefore does nothing to advance society - Not true, complete conjecture. There are many believers who are scientists, doctors, lawyers, Presidents, Military Leaders and so on.Religion has actually kept us scientifically backward for centuries - Not true, don't know your history. Some evil Popes and the Catholic church did, who in my book are false teachers
Since the rest was just your assumption of my position and a straw man of my argument, I have no need to respond to it. - That's what throwing in the towel?
  Considerate: 76%  
  Substantial: 88%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 93%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 8.54  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 60%  
  Learn More About Debra
Ok. You countered your own point. Pascal's wager assumes that this will happen. So it is an assumption. We are not arguing about your fake Christian god. You take my quote out of context too. I responded that way to your argument of "Based on your argument of "if they are omniscient" how do you conclude God would punish good people. This is an illogical argument if an entity is all knowing, how can you determine something different from what an "omniscient deity" has concluded? All through history god did not punish people for being good. Especially God in the Bible. This line of thinking is what is meant by blasphemy. Blasphemy can also be defined as when you elevate yourself to the same level or above the authority of a deity." Your holy book countered you.
Yes. Jesus was a zombie. A zombie is "a corpse said to be revived by witchcraft, especially in certain African and Caribbean religions." He came back from the dead because of the Holy Spirit or something.
There were also zombies during his crucifixion. "Mattew 27: 52 and the graves were opened, and many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised; 53 and coming out of the graves after His resurrection, they went into the holy city and appeared to many.
You ignore those quotes. You do know there are multiple definitions right. The statement of a position opposite to one already made.
"the second sentence appears to be in flat contradiction of the first". It said there was light before the sun. So again,
GE 1:3-5 On the first day, God created light, then separated light and darkness. GE 1:14-19 The sun (which separates night and day) wasn't created until the fourth day.
GE 1:20-21, 26-27 Birds were created before man was created. GE 2:7, 19 Man was created before birds were created.
GE 1:24-27 Animals were created before man was created. GE 2:7, 19 Man was created before animals were created.
GE 1:26 Man is to have dominion over fish, birds, cattle, and all wild animals, GE 2:15-17 It is wrong to be able to tell good from evil, right from wrong.
More https://infidels.org/library/modern/donald_morgan/contradictions.html
These all contradict. The first counters the second. You straw manned the wager because it argues that a person should believe in God even without evidence. You said, "does God exist or not". That is not his argument and is, therefore, a straw man.
No, this debate is about if the wager is enough. The burden of proof is on you and you tried to switch it. So another fallacy. Does the article have evidence of that? We live in 4 dimensions so there are multiple dimensions. Unless you are talking about pocket dimensions. You provided nothing to counter this. A physicist explained this to me. We can prove that something exists by it interacting with our universe. If there is no evidence that it interacts with it, it does not "exist". Where we colloquially define existence as retaining some form of manifestation whereby the said object can interact with particles in our universe.
The definition of waste I am using. Use or expend carelessly, extravagantly, or to no purpose. There is no purpose in believing in God if he does not exist. Why do you assume it is only the God of the bible.
“We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain stupid.” - Benjamin Franklin So flat Earthers, man-made climate change deniers, and just science deniers.
I friended myself!
  Considerate: 83%  
  Substantial: 75%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 86%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 9.14  
  Sources: 34  
  Relevant (Beta): 23%  
  Learn More About Debra
Saying you answered something is not the same as doing it. I countered it because I answered everything directly. I responded to those arguments. I am not pressing my worldview as a fact. So that is a straw man of my argument.
“We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain stupid.” - Benjamin Franklin So flat Earthers, man-made climate change deniers, and just science deniers.
I friended myself!
  Considerate: 88%  
  Substantial: 88%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 91%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 8.76  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 61%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 77%  
  Substantial: 17%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 100%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 7.4  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 99%  
  Learn More About Debra
What? Rational wiki is irrelevant. That is what the wager can entail. So using your logic, I can not write a 20-page essay based on 10 sources otherwise it would be invalid.
The evidence from the scripture.
"I make peace, and create evil" https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Isaiah+45:7&version=KJV
"
“We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain stupid.” - Benjamin Franklin So flat Earthers, man-made climate change deniers, and just science deniers.
I friended myself!
  Considerate: 76%  
  Substantial: 88%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 92%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 8.74  
  Sources: 18  
  Relevant (Beta): 63%  
  Learn More About Debra
You are mixing probability with possibility.
"'Possibility' means something may happen, but we don't know how likely. 'Probability' means something may happen, but we believe it is more likely (i.e., more 'probable') than not."
https://www.italki.com/question/94391
It is possible that I will trip and fall into a volcano, but is the probabilty 50%(either I fall in a volcano or I don't) that I would fall into a volcano?
  Considerate: 89%  
  Substantial: 66%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 92%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 9.96  
  Sources: 1  
  Relevant (Beta): 51%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 94%  
  Substantial: 39%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 89%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 6.86  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 96%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 93%  
  Substantial: 25%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 94%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 9.56  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 68%  
  Learn More About Debra
There is an near infinite number of behaviours in which could be rewarded by an infinite number of deities.
You have to assume you're already correct in order for it to make any sense.
  Considerate: 82%  
  Substantial: 91%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 90%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 10.16  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 99%  
  Learn More About Debra
“We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain stupid.” - Benjamin Franklin So flat Earthers, man-made climate change deniers, and just science deniers.
I friended myself!
  Considerate: 83%  
  Substantial: 58%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 89%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 9.06  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 92%  
  Learn More About Debra
I agree
  Considerate: 84%  
  Substantial: 8%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 100%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 5.9  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 91%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 24%  
  Substantial: 14%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 67%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 6.2  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 90%  
  Learn More About Debra
"Starting with fear will start your belief, but is not the fear described by Pogue
Matthew10:28 "Do not fear those who kill the body but are unable to kill the soul, but rather fear Him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell
It is true that many begin to listen to the Gospel message because they fear the thought of going to hell, but this is only the beginning of the journey, as we hear more about God and how He sent His Son to be the sacrifice for all of man's sins who call on His name. One's fear transition into a love for God and his Son. When love enters the heart, this is what the bible is all about.
In the Old Testament from the ten commandments sprang 613 laws. In the book of Mathew, we find the Pharisees asking Christ, "Teacher, which is the great commandment in the Law?" And He said to him, " 'WITH ALL YOUR HEART, AND WITH ALL YOUR SOUL, AND WITH ALL YOUR MIND.' "This is the great and foremost commandment. "The second is like it, 'YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF.' "On these two commandments depend the whole Law and the Prophets." (Mat 22:36-40)
So, fear can bring about love, and love brings about obedience unto God, but not out of fear, only in Love
"I am only thinking about the Christian God when I say this, but only believes in the Christian God can get you into heaven, not good works. Good works are an inevitable consequence of true"
  Considerate: 81%  
  Substantial: 88%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 88%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 9.72  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 37%  
  Learn More About Debra
Secondly if we factor in the existence of several gods we must take into account punishments meted out for following the wrong god , we now have several options all promising something unless you’re an atheist , so it’s reward or punishment depending on which if any god you follow
So steps one and two are destroyed as it’s no longer a heads or tails call as in one god as it’s multiple choices
1: A god or many gods may exist
2: Thousands of gods are put forward as existing by peoples all over the world so which god , atheists have a significantly higher probability of being right
3: As a believer you can only defend one position
4:You must wager
5:If you wager on one god well you possibly face punishment from the other couple of thousand gods
6:You’re better off sticking with Atheism
Theists use this pathetic argument ad nauseum it’s embarrassing and totally illogical and theists using it really ought to get a new argument maybe ?
  Considerate: 44%  
  Substantial: 78%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 92%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 10.9  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 76%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 88%  
  Substantial: 27%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 89%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 7.92  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 99%  
  Learn More About Debra
As in you agree it’s illogical ?
  Considerate: 79%  
  Substantial: 20%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 100%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 5.82  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 99%  
  Learn More About Debra
Why should you believe in God if this God is too cruel to confirm itself to you?
God has shown herself to me. That means I am a theist.
  Considerate: 60%  
  Substantial: 42%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 91%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 2.62  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 99%  
  Learn More About Debra