Is Pascal's wager a good defense for a belief in god(s)?

someone234

@Dee if my calculations are correct I'll be fighting you just fine in the semifinals.

Dee

@someone234

Maybe so I look forward to it and congrats on your last victory well argued 

with_all_humility

Pogue said:

with_all_humility said:

"It is not a good defense. It makes a number of assumptions about the god. Like they are gullible enough for you to trick them. If they are omniscient, you could not trick them. It also makes the assumption that this god is willing to punish good people for a lack of belief. I could say that if you don't get me some ice cream, my buddy Doof over here will detonate the reality bomb and it'll lead you to agonizing suffering for eternity, but you're not gonna let that influence your decision. "Pascal's wager: Believing in and searching for kryptonite — on the off chance that Superman exists and wants to kill you." One, it falsely assumes that that religion's god is the only god, two, it assumes that that god is enough to be tricked by you "believing" in it just because you're scared of whatever punishment might come. If you believe just because you're scared, I don't think the god would look very favorably on you. It also makes the assumption that there are a hell and heaven." 

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 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

Very funny. We are talking about Pascal's wager. It is this. 

                 God exists (G)                    God does not exist (¬G)

Belief (B)	+∞ (infinite gain)	−1 (finite loss)
Disbelief (¬B)	−∞ (infinite loss)	+1 (finite gain)

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 1:11-12, 26-27 Trees were created before man was created. GE 2:4-9 Man was created before trees were created.

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. 

Pogue said:

with_all_humility said:

"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."

That is correct, you quoted 2 Thes 1.8, read it again and there are 2 disqualifies for heaven.

• those who do not know God and 
• those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus

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, I never elevated myself to any level either.  I just read the text, it's the scripture that's telling you a "good" person not going to heaven

"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."

• You accuse me of fallacies, nothing like a good ad hominem to get your point across.
• No, there were no zombies
• Know as for your claim of Bible contradictions, if you will seriously give me some genuine contradictions. That YOU have found and are confusing to you. I will deconflict the contradictions. If your just going to go out to someone else's website and cut and paste. I don't have the time, I've spent all day dealing with insincere people who think their cute and that their going to stump the Bible guy with some atheist propaganda.  That's not what debate is about and I don't believe it to be honorable.
• Your cited verse dealing with Genesis, the only contradiction that you are making is with your belief.
• A contradiction is: a combination of statements, ideas, or features of a situation that are opposed to one another.
• The verse you sited are not in contradiction with one another, the bible does not claim or state the idea of evolution
• You have injected evolution into your understanding and therefore the bible is in conflict with your ideals.
• That does not constitute a contradiction within the text of the bible
• Now if you want to claim my argument has come contradiction point them out, but what you have stated is not statements that are opposed to one another.

"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."

• Show me where the strawman is? You can't just can't claime something, what part of my arguement is a strawman?
• How is my last statement false? or you say "No"
• This debate is about believe in God, correct? 
• I stated "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." What is false?
• You can only draw one of two choices from Pascal Equation -  God exists (G)     or      God does not exist (¬G)
• Again, we can't prove there is a spirtual dimetion in our current dimention, correct?  You beleive in mulit-dimentional theory, don't you?
• Check this out...http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/crux/2014/12/04/multidimensional-universe/#.Wrb-LWbMxo4  
• Scientific Artilcle right? Talks about a multi-demtional univers, says think of a ballon inflating (3D), but you only see a 2D visual, like a drawing on a piece of paper. Right before it starts to talk about a warp drive (how cool) is say...
• We don’t see or feel more dimensions; nevertheless, theoretical physics predicts that they should exist.                                                  Interesting, but are there any practical implications? Can they become part of applied physics?
• Wow, what does that theory sound like? What kind of people have faith now? Could this be an explanation of a Spriitual Dimention?
• So, having shown that there is the possiblity of multi-demtions
• Again, only one varible to decide: Does God exists, by answering this one varible, should logically drive your future outcome. How so? If you believe in God the you will realize what his requirements are for gaining the gift of eternal life (heaven) 2 Thes 1.8 as we discussed. A true believe will follow the word of God, believe in His son Jesus and live an obedient life. If there is no God, then you lived a happy Christian life 
• You don't debeilve then your faight is sealed again, if there is a God, your going to Hell, if there is not you're good to go
• You never answered my question on how you deamed No God but believe in God was waist of time? This personal value that we are talking about? If so, would not a good life be determined by what make the individual happy and fullfiled?  It's not money, plenty of rich people have lived a miserable life. What else constitues a good life?  I beleive it to be personal value.  Some people like baseball others like football.  Who am I to say which one is most valuable for the other two people?  Would that not be a dictatorship? Those really drive high moral... (a little sarcasim) If that is true, how do you detemine these statement to be true?
• Disbelieve in God = Infinite gain in heaven + You have made the world a better place & No God + Believe in God = You've wasted your time believing
• The first equation does not meet the requirement of 1 Thes 1.8, so, that a false arugement 
• The second begs the question of who made you the dictator? Another false arguement 

You said at the beginning of your response "Very funny. We are talking about Pascal's wager. It is this."

• I used the same equation you did, I just explained it from another perspective, go back to my original post.

I have answered all of your claims, assursion, presumptions and arugements, will you please answer mine or present a counter argument?

 

@Pogue

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 1:11-12, 26-27 Trees were created before man was created. GE 2:4-9 Man was created before trees were created.

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. 

Based on what you scientist friend told you, 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.  Okay, tell me how Nothing became Something became Everything?

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.

   

EmeryPearson

@with_all_humility

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.

with_all_humility

EmeryPearson said:

@with_all_humility

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.

EmeryPearson said:

@with_all_humility

Your argument is irrelevant. As the wager is a fallacy.

1.Pascal's Wager; noun [in singular] Philosophy the argument that it is in one's own best interest to behave as if God exists, since the possibility of eternal punishment in hell outweighs any advantage in believing otherwise.[1]
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 1.21

• 20 Where is the wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the disputer of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of this world? 21 For since, in the wisdom of God, the world through wisdom did not know God, it pleased God through the foolishness of the message preached to save those who believe. [4] 

Pascal 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.

EmeryPearson

@with_all_humility

"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. . 

EmeryPearson

There are over 5000 recorded deities, and an infinite number of unknown deities, or none.

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.

with_all_humility

EmeryPearson said:

There are over 5000 recorded deities, and an infinite number of unknown deities, or none.

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 behavior 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.

You sir, make a straw man fallacy by assuming Islam, Judaism, Muslim, and Christianity worship the same God. 

"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. 

with_all_humility

@EmeryPearson

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?

MayCaesar

I've always seen Pascal's Wager as a logical fallacy: it assumes that if the God exists and you believe in a God, then you will win your bet. The main problems with this assumption are:

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.

Fredsnephew

MayCaesar said:

I've always seen Pascal's Wager as a logical fallacy: it assumes that if the God exists and you believe in a God, then you will win your bet. The main problems with this assumption are:

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.

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.

EmeryPearson

@with_all_humility

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.