I was discussing with my Christian friend about religion and the probability of the existence of biblical god and when I have completely debunked all his claims that Christianity is valid, he said something that goes like this:

“God can’t be proved. But if God exists, the believer gains everything (goes to heaven) and the unbeliever loses everything (goes to hell). If God doesn’t exist, the believer loses nothing and the unbeliever gains nothing. There is therefore everything to gain and nothing to lose by believing in God.”

This argument for belief in God’s existence is called Pascal’s Wager, named for Blaise Pascal who conceived it.

The argument can also be expressed like this: Either there is a god or there isn’t. If you believe in God, and God exists, then you win big time and go to Heaven for all eternity. If you don’t believe in God, and God exists, you lose big time and go to Hell for all eternity. If there is no god, then you haven’t lost much by believing. So the obvious choice is to believe in God, because it’s simply the best bet.


Pascal’s Wager has several faults.
1. The biggest problem is that it’s not a proof of any god’s existence; it’s just an argument for believing, not a proof of existence.It is purely a method of extorting the gullible thru fear.

2. Like many other such arguments my friend and I have discussed, it also fails to denote exactly which god it refers to. Pascal’s Wager could be applied to any god that offers rewards and punishments. Taken to the extreme, following the wager would necessitate betting on the god with the worst hell, so it could be avoided. It's impossible to know which god to worship, and which (perhaps jealous) gods to spurn. I doubt if many Christians would convert to Islam if the wager were presented by a Muslim who told them that Muslim Hell is worse than Christian Hell and[b] Muslim Heaven[/b] is better than Christian Heaven.

3. Pascal’s Wager assumes that the chosen god doesn't mind people believing in him for explicitly selfish reasons. But religionists are in much danger as the atheists. Who knows, perhaps he actually prefers independent thinkers such as atheists, not cowardly subordinate followers. Since the Christian god Yahweh is on record as having lied (II Thess2:11-12, Ezekiel 20:25), there's no way to know his intentions. It would be quite possible for a true believer to discover on Judgment Day that the destination was not Heaven. Yahweh, in his infinitely mysterious ways, may have had other plans; and there would be no appeal or debate with an omnipotent being.

4. Another problem with Pascal’s Wager is that it wrongly assumes that the bet is only for non-existence vs existence of Christian god. Since the odds of the Christian, Jewish, Hindu or Muslim god co-existing are zero, the wager creates a false dilemma.

5. The wager even goes against the doctrine that many religions have where gambling is sinful. Note also that the existence of the wager (gambling) and the fact that so many people think that it's relevant to deliberate on the lack of actual evidence for God.

6. Pascal’s Wager also depends on the idea that you don’t lose much by believing. This has been false for many who have trusted in their god for help or guidance, instead of seeking reality-based solutions. People have unnecessarily fought, killed and died for their belief in their god. Far too many have died because they (or their parents) chose prayer instead of medicine (e.g. Jehovah Witnesses will rather let their children die than allow blood transfusion ). Swords, bullets, poison, and poisonous snakes have killed many who thought that they were protected by their god etc etc etc.

7. Even without these more dramatic effects, believers often devote significant time, energy and money to worshipping their god. This could have been properly invested in worthwhile developmental pursuits both for the individual and for humanity as a whole. This probably explains why the least religious nations have been the most advanced nations on earth and vice versa. Nigeria, as deeply religious as we are is still one of the most corrupt nation on earth.

8. Beliefs in a god (and the often resultant ideas of divine punishment and reward) too often make people more willing to accept inequalities in this life, without trying to make things better for themselves. Low-paid factory workers and slaves were taught that their rewards were in the afterlife, so they should be meek and obedient in this life to ensure their (imaginary) rewards. Even the factory and slave owners could think that they were part of their god's divine plan, and thus deserved their earthly rewards.

9. God-belief has real expenses that can be large or destructive both to the individual and to the world e.g Islamic terrorism and boko haram, they sincerely believed they are doing god’s will by killing fellow human beings.

10. The last problem with Pascal’s Wager is that it completely ignores and even denigrates intellectual integrity and honesty; the wager assumes that people can believe something just because they want to. As an example, let’s talk about belief in Santa Claus. Don’t we have more respect for a child who figures out that Santa doesn’t exist, and says so, rather than continuing to lie so he can get more presents? It’s a sign of growing integrity and maturity for children to stop believing in Santa. Similarly, adults can give up belief in a god when they realize that there’s no real evidence for their god. Christians can quit being “sheep” or “children of god” and become intellectually honest.

11. The loss of intellectual integrity and honesty engendered by Pascal’s Wager gives some insight into how apparently rational people can behave so irrationally. By accepting the wager, they have (perhaps implicitly) given up these important traits.


In conclusion, I think that many people continue to believe in a god because it gives them comfort, not because god actually exists; it’s an emotional response. It allows them to pray to their god and think that they’re actually accomplishing something. It gives them feelings of structure and meaning in their lives, and makes them feel connected. It helps remove the fear of death and nonexistence that most of us experience after death, just exactly what we experience before our birth. Belief in the Christian god helps remove people’s fear of Christian Hell that has been pounded into their minds from childhood. Belief in a god also makes the world more black and white, less confusing, and easier to deal with. But, is this any actual proof for the existence of a god? Is comfort a good indicator of the truth of external reality? I don’t think that it is, any more than the reality that astrology is not true simply because people find comfort in it. The universe does not owe us comfort and meaning; we create them ourselves through our various religions.

“The fact that a believer believes he is happier than a skeptic/atheists is no more to the point than the fact that a drunken man believes is happier than a sober one. The happiness of credulity is a cheap and dangerous quality.”

Religions are like feel-good addictive drug. I think that addicts will do or think almost anything to continue getting their fix. Some people eventually see that freedom from religious addiction is an intellectually and emotionally healthy change, although withdrawal can be painful.

Agreed.


Pascal's wager has long been debunked.

yes, but christians still use it when they argue about the existence of god

cyrexx: yes, but [size=18pt]Ignorant[/size] christians still use it when they argue about the existence of god

Correction

A insightful post made by Cyber999
aren't you tired of using Pascal's Wager which states that
"God can't be proved. But if God exists, the believer gains
everything (heaven) and the unbeliever loses everything
(hell). If God doesn't exist, the believer loses nothing and
the unbeliever gains nothing. There is therefore
everything to gain and nothing to lose by believing in
God."
listen all of you, this argument, first formulated by French
philosopher Blaise Pascal, is sheer intimidation. It is not a
case for a god's existence: it is an argument for belief,
based on irrational fear. With this kind of reasoning we
should simply pick the religion with the worst hell.
It is not true that the believer loses nothing. We diminish
this life by preferring the myth of an afterlife, and we
sacrifice honesty to the maintenance of a lie. Religion
demands time, energy and money, draining valuable
human resources from the improvement of this world.
Religious conformity, a tool of tyrants, is a threat to
freedom.
Nor is it true that the unbeliever gains nothing. Rejecting
religion can be a positive liberating experience, gaining
perspective and freedom of inquiry. Freethinkers have
always been in the forefront of social and moral progress.
What kind of person would eternally torment an honest
doubter? If their god is so unjust, then theists are in as
much danger as atheists. Perhaps god will get a perverted
thrill from changing his mind and damning everyone,
believers and unbelievers alike. Or, inverting the gamble,
perhaps god will only save those who have enough
courage not to believe!
Pascal was a Catholic and assumed that the existence of
god meant the Christian God. However, the Islamic Allah
might be the true god, which turns Pascal's wager into a
riskier gamble than intended.
In any case, a belief in a deity based on fear is not a belief
that produces admiration. It does not follow that such a
being deserves to be worshipped.

If all that is needed to go to heaven is the belief in god, then i must say god must be as silly as some of the folks that worship him. i do not think that any athiest would want to be in that heaven , even for one second, with countless mor.ons are their moronic god. No way. Athiest would rather be any where else withh likeminded souls to discuss ideas.

@post
Very interesting to read

manmustwac: @post
Very interesting to read

thanxx a lot

@cyrexx, I'm sure you think yourself a smart person, your arguments seem to make sense, but i'd read them through and what I see is a lot of inconsistencies, illogical associations and plane judgements based on nothing but assumptions & anecdotes.
I will make my arguments in the following posts..

cyrexx: Pascal’s Wager has several faults.
1. The biggest problem is that it’s not a proof of any god’s existence; it’s just an argument for believing, not a proof of existence.It is purely a method of extorting the gullible thru fear.

So, is the absence of evidence the same thing as the evidence of absence?? of course we can't yet prove everything does not mean those phenomena are not there. eg: can you prove you love your wife? no you can't, love is a very subjective feeling of which you cannot bring a third party into that experience, even your wife who is the subject of such love cannot appreciate the extent & magnitude of your feelings. So, do we assume that love does not exist then??

cyrexx: It is purely a method of extorting the gullible thru fear

So, is there any system on earth that is not based on fear?? whether it is govt, marriage, academics, corporate world, etc. religion & god is also a system, with do's & don'ts

okeyxyz: @cyrexx, I'm sure you think yourself a smart person, your arguments seem to make sense, but i'd read them through and what I see is a lot of inconsistencies, illogical associations and plane judgements based on nothing but assumptions & anecdotes.
I will make my arguments in the following posts..

i dont see myself as a smart person for posting this.
i just posted a reply to a common argument that religionists use to prove the existence of god.
plain and simple.

the basic idea of a forum is to share knowledge, not to prove smartness
i bring what i know, you bring what you know, we agree, we disagree and we learn
cheers, bro

cyrexx: 2. Like many other such arguments my friend and I have discussed, it also fails to denote exactly which god it refers to. Pascal’s Wager could be applied to any god that offers rewards and punishments. Taken to the extreme, following the wager would necessitate betting on the god with the worst hell, so it could be avoided. It's impossible to know which god to worship, and which (perhaps jealous) gods to spurn. I doubt if many Christians would convert to Islam if the wager were presented by a Muslim who told them that Muslim Hell is worse than Christian Hell and Muslim Heaven is better than Christian Heaven.

Now that's one of the assumptions i'm talking about. A typical person who chooses christianity above any other religion, it's not b'cos it's got better heavens or worse hells, he chose it because it made more sense, He found a more logical answer to his question, regarding the nature of the universe. you on the other hand, are simple letting your assumptions run unchecked here.

okeyxyz:
So, is the absence of evidence the same thing as the evidence of absence?? of course we can't yet prove everything does not mean those phenomena are not there. eg: can you prove you love your wife? no you can't, love is a very subjective feeling of which you cannot bring a third party into that experience, even your wife who is the subject of such love cannot appreciate the extent & magnitude of your feelings. So, do we assume that love does not exist then??

wrong
i can prove that i love my wife by doing things for her that are evidence of my love for her and she will recognise it as love[b] beyond reasonable doubt[/b]

besides my wife does not threaten me with eternal hell fire if i dont love her.

okeyxyz:
So, is there any system on earth that is not based on fear?? whether it is govt, marriage, academics, corporate world, etc. religion & god is also a system, with do's & don'ts

so you agree that religion is a system? do you

okeyxyz:

Now that's one of the assumptions i'm talking about. A typical person who chooses christianity above any other religion, it's not b'cos it's got better heavens or worse hells, he chose it because it made more sense, He found a more logical answer to his question, regarding the nature of the universe. you on the other hand, are simple letting your assumptions run unchecked here.

each and every religion can say exactly the same thing you are saying here about their religion. no proof of anything

besides if you had been raised from childhood as a muslim or buddhist or hindu, you would believe strongly exactly the same way about them as you are about christianity now. nothing more nothing less

cyrexx:
wrong
i can prove that i love my wife by doing things for her that are evidence for my love and will recognise it as love[b] beyond reasonable doubt[/b]

Things like what?? Being a good lover? shower her with praises? buy her gifts? build a house for her parents? what? if i did all these for a woman, does it mean i love her? Bill gates an do all these for his numerous prostitutes(hypothetical), he can afford to, is that love? please do tell, what exactly can you do that will be irrefutable scientific evidence that you love your wife.

besides my wife does not threaten me with eternal hell fire if i dont love her

but marriage has it's rules that you are supposed to abide by, else would lead to the break-up of the relationship & loss of it's benefits, right?

so you agree that religion is a system? do you

is that a bad thing??

^^^
so how do you relate this to the existence of biblical god

cyrexx:
so how do you relate this to the existence of biblical god

it's the same principle with god, A person percieves the existence of god, he believes and subjects himself god's doctrines. the fact that you don't understand him is not evidence that the subject of his beliefs is not true, just as it is impossible for you to prove your love for your wife to other people. Why else do people say "love is blind" if not that the people who are being observed seem to go against common sense & logic?

okeyxyz:

it's the same principle with god, A person percieves the existence of god, he believes and subjects himself god's doctrines. the fact that you don't understand him is not evidence that the subject of his beliefs is not true, just as it is impossible for you to prove your love for your wife to other people. Why else do people say "love is blind" if not that the people who are being observed seem to go against common sense & logic?

by your logic it means that Jehovah, Allah, Brahma, and many other gods that millions of people "percieves his existence, believes in him and subjects themselves to that god's doctrines" are all co-existing?

all of them are co-existing as the "one and only true god" by your logic here

cyrexx:
each and every religion can say exactly the same thing you are saying here about their religion. no proof of anything

besides if you had been raised from childhood as a muslim or buddhist or hindu, you would believe strongly exactly the same way about them as you are about christianity now. nothing more nothing less

True! but many have been know to convert from christianity to islam & vice versa, many to atheists, many to bhudism, etc. so logic is still dynamic & independent. nodody is irrevocably bound by the religion of his childhood.

cyrexx:
by your logic it means that Jehovah, Allah, Brahma, and many other gods that millions of people "percieves his existence, believes in him and subjects themselves to that god's doctrines" are all co-existing?

all of them are co-existing as the "one and only true god" by your logic here

I can't vouch for another man's god, I can only speak for the god i understand, & have practiced his ways & experienced his works. I believe he's the true god.

okeyxyz:

I can't vouch for another man's god, I can only speak for the god i understand, & have practiced his ways & experienced his works. I believe he's the true god.

just as more than 4 billion people on earth can vouch for their own god too. they sincerely believed your god is NOT the true god.

cyrexx: 4. Another problem with Pascal’s Wager is that it wrongly assumes that the bet is only for non-existence vs existence of Christian god. Since the odds of the Christian, Jewish, Hindu or Muslim god co-existing are zero, the wager creates a false dilemma.

You also assume that christianity is unaware of or disregards the existence of other objects of worship, not so. Rather christianity urges it's believers to be faithful and holds them to account for their beliefs. christianity does not hold a non-christian to account for christian doctrines.(i understand why you'd get the wrong impression on this one, because many christians actually malpractice christianity by holding non-christians to christian values )

cyrexx: 5. The wager even goes against the doctrine that many religions have where gambling is sinful. Note also that the existence of the wager (gambling) and the fact that so many people think that it's relevant to deliberate on the lack of actual evidence for God.

Another assumption & fallacy, christianity does not say "gambling is a sin"

cyrexx: 6. Pascal’s Wager also depends on the idea that you don’t lose much by believing. This has been false for many who have trusted in their god for help or guidance, instead of seeking reality-based solutions. People have unnecessarily fought, killed and died for their belief in their god. Far too many have died because they (or their parents) chose prayer instead of medicine (e.g. Jehovah Witnesses will rather let their children die than allow blood transfusion ). Swords, bullets, poison, and poisonous snakes have killed many who thought that they were protected by their god etc etc etc.

Another assumption & fallacy, christianity does not in any way encourage it's believers to refuse work & learning, it infact urges them to find knowlege & wisdom & to show themselves as excellent in whatever their hands find to do.

There are millions of accomplished christian doctors, chemists, pharmacists, engineers,teachers, bankers, etc

cyrexx: 7. Even without these more dramatic effects, believers often devote significant time, energy and money to worshipping their god. This could have been properly invested in worthwhile developmental pursuits both for the individual and for humanity as a whole. This probably explains why the least religious nations have been the most advanced nations on earth and vice versa. Nigeria, as deeply religious as we are is still one of the most corrupt nation on earth.

Again, I refer you to my last post: There are millions of accomplished christian doctors, chemists, pharmacists, engineers, teachers, bankers, etc

The most advanced nations are the ones that have separated religion from the state, it doesn't mean they don't have religion. I am against making religious law into state law, i don't know any christian who does.

cyrexx: 8. Beliefs in a god (and the often resultant ideas of divine punishment and reward) too often make people more willing to accept inequalities in this life, without trying to make things better for themselves. Low-paid factory workers and slaves were taught that their rewards were in the afterlife, so they should be meek and obedient in this life to ensure their (imaginary) rewards. Even the factory and slave owners could think that they were part of their god's divine plan, and thus deserved their earthly rewards.

So much assumption & fallacy: Again i refer you to my last two posts, Christians are urged to excel in their handworks which in turn brings better pay & rewards. no more, no less.

cyrexx: 9. God-belief has real expenses that can be large or destructive both to the individual and to the world e.g Islamic terrorism and boko haram, they sincerely believed they are doing god’s will by killing fellow human beings.

sadly, many gullible & vulnerable people are taken advantage of & incited to kill non-believers. But do you judge christianity by the exception or the norm? there are criminals in the society at large, do you judge the societal values because the few who have been decieved & destructive?

okeyxyz:

sadly, many gullible & vulnerable people are taken advantage of & incited to kill non-believers. But do you judge christianity by the exception or the norm? there are criminals in the society at large, do you judge the societal values because the few who have been decieved & destructive?

There is a root cause for this malady, they are judged on the basis of that not their resulting behavior - does that help?

cyrexx: 10. The last problem with Pascal’s Wager is that it completely ignores and even denigrates intellectual integrity and honesty; the wager assumes that people can believe something just because they want to. As an example, let’s talk about belief in Santa Claus. Don’t we have more respect for a child who figures out that Santa doesn’t exist, and says so, rather than continuing to lie so he can get more presents? It’s a sign of growing integrity and maturity for children to stop believing in Santa. Similarly, adults can give up belief in a god when they realize that there’s no real evidence for their god. Christians can quit being “sheep” or “children of god” and become intellectually honest.

11. The loss of intellectual integrity and honesty engendered by Pascal’s Wager gives some insight into how apparently rational people can behave so irrationally. By accepting the wager, they have (perhaps implicitly) given up these important traits.

Mehn.., I'm tired of referring you to my last three posts, but i'm gonna do it anyway
These accomplished christian professionals, with all the logic & know how in the various disciplines, yet they believe in a god. I wonder, what is it you know intellectually that they don't

okeyxyz:

Mehn.., I'm tired of referring you to my last three posts, but i'm gonna do it anyway
These accomplished christian professionals, with all the logic & know how in the various disciplines, yet they believe in a god. I wonder, what is it you know intellectually that they don't

Maybe you are new here, only God opens the eyes of the blind.

God resists the proud and gives grace to the humble.

He alone can open the eyes of the blind to the deep truths of scripture !

Do not let the 'godless' exhaust your kindness in trying to rescue them, move on to those who will appreciate the pearls of great price.

lagerwhenindoubt:

There is a root cause for this malady, they are judged on the basis of that not their resulting behavior - does that help?

i don't understand??

okeyxyz:

i don't understand??

What will cause a fully-grown, thinking man to believe that his God demands the death of another man because he worships a false god. Only a flawed philosophy, its practice and evidently its leaders. ISLAM is what it is today (evidently) because Allah demands death to every unbeliever - or so its devotees believe. or one that will cause a sick man to refuse medication because he has been miraculously healed of his ailment even when the evidence is to the contrary. Believing in God gives man the latitude to stop thinking for himself and allow this unseen, almighty being become the final word on his life on earth. what a travesty