The best online Debate website - DebateIsland.com! The only Online Debate Website with Casual, Persuade Me, Formalish, and Formal Online Debate formats. We’re the Leading Online Debate website. Debate popular topics, Debate news, or Debate anything! Debate online for free!
Is Pascal's wager a good defense for a belief in god(s)?
in Philosophy
Debra AI Prediction
Arguments
Good for you to each there own
  Considerate: 81%  
  Substantial: 17%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 88%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 4.46  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 92%  
  Learn More About Debra
In one, you are offending and goading a fight from them and in the other you are saying you don't want one.
  Considerate: 44%  
  Substantial: 80%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 93%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 9.68  
  Sources: 1  
  Relevant (Beta): 96%  
  Learn More About Debra
Incorrect again the argument is 100s of years old and intelligent theists never use it which leaves the rest who are embarrassing to say the least , anyway what it you want more fight is that it ?
  Considerate: 77%  
  Substantial: 56%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 97%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 12.96  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 99%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 79%  
  Substantial: 93%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 93%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 9.86  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
Maybe so I look forward to it and congrats on your last victory well argued
  Considerate: 86%  
  Substantial: 27%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 88%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 8.88  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 88%  
  Learn More About Debra
Your list of contradictory scriptures, I deconflicted them explanations below.
List of contradictions:
GE 1:3-5 On the first day, God created light, then separated light and darkness. (God does not say what the source of light is, it could be something caused by the creation of the universe or a supernatural like. Point being, we are not told what the light is.)
GE 1:14-19 The sun (which separates night and day) wasn't created until the fourth day. (Yes, here we are told specifically what was created, the sun, the moon is the lesser light and stars, this just proves the light on the first day was not the sun) No contraction!
GE 1:11-12, 26-27 Trees were created before man was created. (This is a true statement no contradiction)
GE 2:4-9 Man was created before trees were created. (You missed a subtle detail in these verses; Chapter one is like a quick summary of what creation consisted of, but chapter two, is an examining creation in further detail. Notice in verse 4 This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made earth and heaven. See the author is telling you this how creation happened, was just going into further detail. It’s like from the generic to the specific. v5 is actually day 3 of creation.
Now concerning the trees before man, look a v8 The LORD God planted a garden toward the east, in Eden; and there He placed the man whom He had formed. v9 Out of the ground the LORD God caused to grow every tree that is pleasing to the sight and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. The trees identified here are specifically in the garden of Eden, see v8 planted garden. Notice the underlined word "also", that means in addition to. There is no contradiction here in this verse. The bible is very rich in the vocabulary of each word, one has to literally read and examine every word in its specific context. To gloss over the verses, you are going to miss very subtle details.
GE 1:20-21, 26-27 Birds were created before man was created. (Again, a gloss of creation)
GE 2:7, 19 Man was created before birds were created. Okay, here, as in several previous instances Gen 1:5; Gen 2:4, Gen 2:8-9, the narrative reverts to the earlier part of the sixth day. This is, therefore, another example of the connection according to thought overruling that according to time. The order of time, however, is restored, when we take in a sufficient portion of the narrative. We refer, therefore, to the fifth verse, which is the regulative sentence of the present passage. The second clause in the verse, however, which in the present case completes the thought in the mind of the writer, brings up the narrative to a point subsequent to that closing the preceding verse. The first two clauses, therefore, are to be combined into one; and when this is done, the order of time is observed. Meaning there is no contradiction.
GE 1:24-27 Animals were created before man was created. (Again, a brief summary of creation)
GE 2:7, 19 Man was created before animals were created. Again, here, as in several previous instances Gen 1:5; Gen 2:4, Gen 2:8-9, the narrative reverts to the earlier part of the sixth day. This is, therefore, another example of the connection according to thought overruling that according to time. The order of time, however, is restored, when we take in a sufficient portion of the narrative. We refer, therefore, to the fifth verse, which is the regulative sentence of the present passage. The second clause in the verse, however, which in the present case completes the thought in the mind of the writer, brings up the narrative to a point subsequent to that closing the preceding verse. The first two clauses, therefore, are to be combined into one; and when this is done, the order of time is observed. Meaning there is no contradiction.
GE 1:26 Man is to have dominion over fish, birds, cattle, and all wild animals (I don’t know the contradiction being made here)
GE 2:15-17 It is wrong to be able to tell good from evil, right from wrong. The reason for the prohibition from the tree of knowledge was so Adam and Eve could remain innocent and God commanded that they not eat of the fruit. It is not always necessary to know why we have to do something. We may want to know; however, it is not a requirement for us to know. Man knew what was good: he was created in goodness and was surrounded by it (Genesis 1.31). He had been given everything God wanted him to have, including authority over all the rest of God’s creation. Adam had everything he needed for a fulfilling life. He did not need to “know” evil, especially when the only way for him to “know” it was to experience it. It should have been enough that God had warned Adam against disobedience. God did not want Adam and Eve to “know” evil in the sense of participating in it. The sin of Adam and Eve was not in attaining knowledge but in rejecting God’s will in favor of their own.
The language of the verse, “the man and his wife,” imitates the description of the couple when in their innocence they had lived without shame (2:25). Now they have lost their innocence, their childlike trust in the goodness of God[1] The result is that the authority of God has been successfully undermined, first through trickery and then through willful rebellion.[2]
Christ infers that there are innocents in being innocent like a small child. He says, "Truly I say to you, unless you are converted and become like children, you will not enter the kingdom of heaven. (Matthew 18.3) Paul in reference to the Gentiles says "Therefore having overlooked the times of ignorance, God is now declaring to men that all people everywhere should repent (Act 17.30). So, this verse infers that at one time, during the time before Christ death that God overlooked man’s ignorance, but no longer will that be the case.
Finally, in his letter to the Christians in Rome Paul says “What shall we say then? Is the Law sin? May it never be! On the contrary, I would not have come to know sin except through the Law; for I would not have known about coveting if the Law had not said, "YOU SHALL NOT COVET." (Romans 7.7) Here Paul is informing us that the reason God established the Law of Moses was so that mankind would know what sin is, so today, each individual is responsible to know and understand what one must do to live according to how God would have us to live. This the reason we have His full revelation recorded in the bible. This is why God no longer interacts with man, we have been given all the information we need to live a life according to His will in order to be restored back to Him in heaven.
[1] Mathews, K. A. (1996). Genesis 1-11:26 (Vol. 1A, p. 239). Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers.
[2] Mathews, K. A. (1996). Genesis 1-11:26 (Vol. 1A, p. 242). Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers.
  Considerate: 62%  
  Substantial: 92%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 88%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 9.52  
  Sources: 92  
  Relevant (Beta): 60%  
  Learn More About Debra
Your argument is irrelevant. As the wager is a fallacy.
It assumes you have knowledge of the correct deity, and the correct behaviours which that deity would reward.
  Considerate: 76%  
  Substantial: 54%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 87%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 9.78  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
2. Pascal's Wager was based on the idea of the Christian God, though similar arguments have occurred in other religious traditions. The original wager was set out in section 233 of Pascal's posthumously published Pensées ("Thoughts"). These previously unpublished notes were assembled to form an incomplete treatise on Christian apologetics. [1]
It's not a wager fallacy, I've never seen such thing as wager fallacy, If Pascal's question it based on wager theory. Then if a fallacy exist it would be "begging the questions" (But are you sure you understand what Pascal's wager was?)
Your question: It assumes you have knowledge of the correct deity? I do, Pascal defined what God see above.
Your next question: Assume to have the correct behaviors which that deity would reward. I don't, I have The Holy Bible.
Here is a good explanation of Pascal Wager by Jon Ericson [2]
Pascal intended the Wager to be pulled from Pensées and used as an independent, discrete argument for God. But don't take my word for it, here's what the man says himself:
- "Let us now speak according to natural lights.
- If there is a God, He is infinitely incomprehensible, since, having neither parts nor limits, He has no affinity to us. We are then incapable of knowing either what He is or if He is. This being so, who will dare to undertake the decision of the question? Not we, who have no affinity to Him.
- Who then will blame Christians for not being able to give a reason for their belief, since they profess a religion for which they cannot give a reason? They declare, in expounding it to the world, that it is a foolishness, stultitiam; and then you complain that they do not prove it! If they proved it, they would not keep their word; it is in lacking proofs, that they are not lacking in sense. "Yes, but although this excuses those who offer it as such, and takes away from them the blame of putting it forward without reason, it does not excuse those who receive it." Let us then examine this point, and say, "God is, or He is not." But to which side shall we incline? Reason can decide nothing here. There is an infinite chaos which separated us. A game is being played at the extremity of this infinite distance where heads or tails will turn up. What will you wager? According to reason, you can do neither the one thing nor the other; according to reason, you can defend neither of the propositions". [3]
Stultitiam is Latin meaning folly or foolishness and is a direct reference to: 1 Cor 1.21Pascal rejects the Aquinian project to prove God and proceeds to defend the Christian's warrant [5] to nevertheless believe that, "God is". It is a practical demonstration of the flaws of René Descartes' skepticism. Life is more complicated than merely acting on true beliefs and not acting on false ones. In fact we generally don't know the outcome of our decisions until long after they are made. [6] But that doesn't prevent us from making those decisions—Pascal asserts that by merely existing, we must make the Wager; we must decide what our purpose in life is to be.
Pascal's further point is that even when we don't know the probabilities, the payoff of one of the choices may be so large as to make the decision of which horse to bet on easy. Again, let's let him speak:
- The end of this discourse.—Now, what harm will befall you in taking (the Christian) side? You will be faithful, honest, humble, grateful, generous, a sincere friend, truthful. Certainly you will not have those poisonous pleasures, glory and luxury; but will you not have others? I will tell you that you will thereby gain in this life, and that, at each step you take on this road, you will see so great certainty of gain, so much nothingness in what you risk, that you will at last recognize that you have wagered for something certain and infinite, for which you have given nothing.
Pascal argues that even if God is not, giving up "poisonous pleasures" will cost nothing since they will be replaced by other pleasures in this life. So the Wager isn't so much believing in order to avoid the loss of heaven, but substituting one type of pleasure for another in the expectant hope of an infinite reward. In fact, he seems to be giving the same advice that King David gave in Psalms 34.8-10.Oh, taste and see that the Lord is good;
Blessed is the man who trusts in Him!
Oh, fear the Lord, you His saints;
There is no want to those who fear Him.
The young lions lack and suffer hunger;
But those who seek the Lord shall not lack any good thing. [7]
Pascal isn't arguing that the Christian life is something to be entered into on the off chance that we will win the cosmic lottery. Rather, he is proposing that Christians are not wrong to believe what they cannot prove. Or as Jim Elliot wrote: He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain that which he cannot lose.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal's_Wager
[2] https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/11287
[3]"Pascal's Pensées", para 233; Published 1958 by E. P. Dutton & Co., Inc.,Printed in the U. S. A.: SBN 0-525-47018-2 —Pensée 233
[4] The New King James Version. (1982). (1 Co 1:20–21). Nashville: Thomas Nelson.
[5] For a more comprehensive defense, see Alvin Plantinga's Warranted Christian Belief.
[6] One of the most monumental decisions in my life was to attend UCLA to study Atmospheric Sciences. But the ripple effects of that decision are still not settled. I've already won the bet in the most unexpected ways, including finding my wife.
[7] The New King James Version. (1982). (Ps 34:8–10). Nashville: Thomas Nelson.
  Considerate: 76%  
  Substantial: 90%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 87%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 10.34  
  Sources: 10  
  Relevant (Beta): 40%  
  Learn More About Debra
"I do, Pascal defined what God see above.
I don't, I have The Holy Bible."
This is exactly why it's a fallacy.
You've literally broken down how it's illogical. These preconditions are assumed. .
  Considerate: 63%  
  Substantial: 42%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 79%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 6.98  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 88%  
  Learn More About Debra
Pascal's wager assumes it's chosen the correct one, that there is only one, and one exists.
Then, there is a near infinite combination of human behaviour in which could please said deities, or none at all.
Pascal's wager assumes in addition to the deity, that you have knowledge of how to please said deity.
For instance, the God of Abraham (The Christian God), has a multitude of ways to please him. Islam, Judaism, and Christianity. And then each has their own sects, holy books, etc.
Pascal's wager is a textbook fallacy.
  Considerate: 76%  
  Substantial: 62%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 94%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 8.5  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 88%  
  Learn More About Debra
"Pascal's wager assumes it's chosen the correct one, that there is only one, and one exists." (Every religion is going to presume their God(s) is the right God or they would not be worshipping him/her. Vise versa as well, to not worship God, because you don't believe is an assumption as well.) Let me guess..."Well there's no evidence a God exist"...How do you prove or disprove something that something is in a spiritual realm, while in a physical realm? How do you know there is dark matter? Have seen it? Have you tested it make sure it's dark matter? The Big Bang theory said there was equal amounts of matter and anti-matter in the universe. Where's all the anti-matter at? Have you seen anti-matter? How do you know there is anti-matter? Can you send me some to test?
Am I missing something here? We are not debating if God exist or not, we're debating as to if Pascal's wager is a defense for the belief in God. Pascal wager by itself tell not much of anything, it needs to be viewed in context of the authors writings.
In the original question Pogue stated:
Pascal's wager 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.
The author Pascal defined who was what and I presented a deeper examination of the wager from Pascal's treatise, I argue that it reveals that Pascal isn't arguing that the Christian life is wager or something to be entered into on the off chance that we will win the cosmic lottery. Rather, he is proposing that Christians are not wrong to believe what they cannot prove.
"You state Pascal's wager is a textbook fallacy" What kind of fallacy? I asked you before, you said wager fallacy, I could not find any such named fallacy, are claiming fallacy based up on assumption?
You state "For instance, the God of Abraham (The Christian God), has a multitude of ways to please him. Islam, Judaism, and Christianity. And then each has their own sects, holy books, etc." (How much do you actually know about Bible?)
The fundamental question becomes: "Can anyone truly worship the Father while rejecting the Son?" Father - God, Son - Jesus
The gospels of the New Testament as well as the book of Acts show that the majority of the Jews rejected Christ as the Messiah, and it makes clear that God rejected Israel of old (Jews)
Heb 8:9 NOT ACCORDING TO THE COVENANT THAT I MADE WITH THEIR FATHERS IN THE DAY WHEN I TOOK THEM BY THE HAND TO LEAD THEM OUT OF THE LAND OF EGYPT; BECAUSE THEY DID NOT CONTINUE IN MY COVENANT, AND I DISREGARDED THEM, SAYS THE LORD.
The who book of Hebrews is telling the Jewish converts not to go back to their old ways, that God has done away with the old covenant.
In John 6:44-45: No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up at the last day. It is written in the prophets, 'AND THEY SHALL ALL BE TAUGHT BY GOD.' Therefore everyone who has heard and learned from the Father comes to Me.
- Jesus is talking to the Jewish people on the shores of the Sea of Galilee, he had fed 5000 of them the day before. So they are wanting him to perform another miracle and feed them again. He tells them they are looking for the wrong food, that what he has for them will bring them every lasting life (his ministry). He even tells them he is from God the Father, the mock him and say, "Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How is it then that He says, 'I have come down from heaven'?"(John 6.42)
- In verse 44 & 45 above, Jesus tells them that no one will come to him, unless by the Father, and then he say whoever has heard and learned will know to come to him. What Jesus is saying, whoever, studied the prophets of the Old Testament, and the prophets were God's messengers. If the Jews followed and understood the teachings of the prophets they would know that he was the Christ. But they did not know the prophets and did not believe. I recommend reading John chapter 6 and Hebrews chapter 4.14 thru chapter 11.
Later on in John 8 while Jesus was teaching, someone from the crowd said to Him, "Where is Your Father?" Jesus answered, "You know neither Me nor My Father. If you had known Me, you would have known My Father also."(Joh 8:19)- Again Jesus identifies that the Jewish people did not believe he was the Messiah.
Christians and Muslims do not worship the same God. Christians worship the triune God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit (1 Jn 5.7), and no other god. We know the Father through the Son, and it is solely through Christ’s atonement for sin that salvation has come. Salvation comes to those who confess with their lips that Jesus Christ is Lord and believe in their hearts that God has raised Him from the dead (Romans 10:9). The New Testament leaves no margin for misunderstanding. To deny the Son is to deny the Father.To affirm this truth is not to argue that non-Christians, our Muslim neighbors included, know nothing true about God or to deny that the three major monotheistic religions—Judaism, Christianity and Islam—share some major theological beliefs. All three religions affirm that there is only one God and that He has spoken to us by divine revelation. All three religions point to what each claims to be revealed scriptures. Historically, Jews and Christians and Muslims have affirmed many points of agreement on moral teachings. All three theological worldview hold to a linear view of history, unlike many Asian worldview that believe in a circular view of history.
And yet, when we look more closely, even these points of agreement begin to break down. Christian trinitarianism is rejected by both Judaism and Islam. Muslims deny that Jesus Christ is the incarnate and eternal Son of God and go further to deny that God has a son.
So no, the four religions do not worship the same God, for they do not believe same thing. God and his Son are rejected by the other three.
  Considerate: 86%  
  Substantial: 75%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 90%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 8.64  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 40%  
  Learn More About Debra
Why did you mark my response back to Pogue at Is Pascal's Wager a Good Defense for a belief in God(s) as irrelevant?
Pogue listed sever verses in his response to me claiming they were in contradiction with each other, all that I did was respond to show that the verses were not in contradiction. Did you mark his original reply to me as irrelevant?
  Considerate: 83%  
  Substantial: 83%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 90%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 11.24  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 95%  
  Learn More About Debra
1. If the God exists, it might differ from the God you believe in.
For example, if you believe in Allah, but the actual god is Yahweh, then you are still wrong - and if Yahweh doesn't tolerate belief in other gods, then you might be in an even worse situation after death, than you would be in case you believed in no gods.
2.If the God exists, it does not necessarily privilege those who believe in it.
What if the God rewards atheists and agnostics for being free thinkers, while punishes people following organized religion for conforming with religious views? And the most horrifying question: what if the God is atheist?
3. It is impossible to compensate for the lack of information with a philosophical trick.
There is no two ways about it: there is no verifiable evidence of God's existence. Given that we know nothing about the God or even its existence, any assumptions about it will have little factual ground behind them. Whatever complicated philosophical constructs we devise, the bottom line is: we don't know anything about the God, hence we don't know how one should act.
There are other problems with this argument as well, but these three points are sufficient for making a strong case against it, in my opinion.
  Considerate: 80%  
  Substantial: 96%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 98%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 10.62  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 96%  
  Learn More About Debra
Is it possible for a fallacy to be logical.
I would suggest that anything that is deemed to be fallacious, must therefore be rendered illogical.
1) If a God does exist, wouldn't they be omni-sensible. So many theists don't give their chosen Gods' the credit they might deserve.
2) Exactly the point I was trying to make. Omni-sensibility.
3) Sound logic.
  Considerate: 81%  
  Substantial: 96%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 97%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 9.78  
  Sources: 1  
  Relevant (Beta): 95%  
  Learn More About Debra
I was going to address your whole post, but your issue is this:
"Am I missing something here? We are not debating if God exist or not, we're debating as to if Pascal's wager is a defense for the belief in God. Pascal wager by itself tell not much of anything, it needs to be viewed in context of the authors writings. "
This is why it's a logical fallacy. Simply because this context is assumed to be true, doesn't make it so.
  Considerate: 94%  
  Substantial: 89%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 95%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 8.64  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 96%  
  Learn More About Debra