Replies

thats some neat stuff there, but it's still something that I cannot agree with. Let me analyze this:

"Pascal's wager can be said to suffer from the logical fallacy of false dilemma, relying on the assumption that the only possibilities are:

1.)the Christian God exists and punishes or rewards as stated in the Bible, or
2.)no God exists."

The actual argument would assume that it is better to bet that there is a god. Not necessarily the Christian god, but it suffices to believe in a creator. Pascal's argument may have been that one should bet that the Christian god exists, however the argument is better supported to say that a god must exist.

"The wager cannot rule out the possibility that there is a God who instead rewards skepticism and punishes blind faith, or rewards honest reasoning and punishes feigned faith. In societies where faith is often rewarded by economic and social benefit, its potential moral significance is dubious."

This is a very intriguing argument, however, I would like to pose the question: why would a god punish people for believing in him?
Answer: He wouldn't.

I can understand perhaps rewarding reasoning, thats why post #126 is so important. I can also understand punishing feigned or fake faith could be punished. The actually says those who fake their faith will not enter the Kingdom of Heaven:

"Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. Matthew 7:21 "

"The "many-gods" argument points out that we can find indefinitely many other possibilities offering eternal bliss and threatening eternal torment. For example, non-Christian gods might exist, and punish Christian believers for their failure to believe in them."

This is a very good argument, however I really don't see much of a choice. Unless the chance of God existing is zero, then there is still a better chance of believing than not believing. Regardless of the odds, If there is no god, there is still no loss from believing.

"Even if (contrary to Pascal's original argument) we can assign greater probability to one of the possible outcomes, it makes no mathematical difference. As the previous section mentions, any non-zero probability multiplied by infinity yields an infinite expected value."

Actually there is a mathematical difference. Its still very small, however: 0/infinity < 1/infinity. 0/infinity can be written as zero, however 1/infinity can only be written as 1/infinity.

"In this way, Pascal's Wager could be used to deduce that it would be advisable to believe in any or all of a variety of gods; however the belief systems of some religions are exclusive, leading to theoretical contradictions with Pascal's Wager for those practicing an exclusive faith. "

This actually does not contradict believing in a creator, which we have already established is better than not believing in a creator. As long as we're on the subject, this actually supports the argument in favor of believing in a creator(s).

"The wager assumes a non-zero chance that God exists. This makes it ineffective on strong atheism which assigns the chance that God exists to zero, making choosing to believe or not believe provide an equal reward (0). Others have argued that the utility of salvation cannot be infinite, either via strict finitists or belief that an infinite utility could only be finitely enjoyed by finite humans."

Why assume the chance is zero? If there is no chance we'll all be worm food anyway, there is nothing to lose.

Also, the idea of salvation teaches of a "resurrection body." It is my contention that God would create this body for the sake of allowing us to indulge in eternal reward.

"Although many people, even those highly critical of the Wager, have conceded that it is logically valid, some have argued that it is not. Given that the choice of wagering has an infinite return, then under a mixed strategy the return is also infinite. Flipping a coin and taking the wager based on the result would then have an infinite return, as would the chance that after rejecting the wager you end up taking it after all. The choice would then not be between zero reward (or negative infinite) and infinite reward, but rather between different infinite rewards."

This also supports believing in a creator(s).

"The wager may also be criticised for requiring one to choose one's beliefs."

Like I said earlier, the actual argument does not necessarily support the existence of "God" rather the existence of a god(s). The thought that it only supports the existence of a Christian god is a strawman argument, which makes it an easier target.

why would a god punish people for believing in him? Answer: He wouldn't.

Perhaps He would punish them for believing in Him, but then not behaving well enough, while he let the non-believers off because "they didn't know any better"

"Many Gods Argument"

This is a very good argument, however I really don't see much of a choice. Unless the chance of God existing is zero, then there is still a better chance of believing than not believing. Regardless of the odds, If there is no god, there is still no loss from believing.

This doesn't follow when the beliefs may be mutually exclusive. Picking none may be not as bad as picking the wrong one (and may even get you THE REWARD for reasons like the one I suggested in the last paragraph) .

"The wager may also be criticised for requiring one to choose one's beliefs."

Like I said earlier, the actual argument does not necessarily support the existence of "God" rather the existence of a god(s). The thought that it only supports the existence of a Christian god is a strawman argument, which makes it an easier target.

I think the point here is that "choosing" to believe in one of the available deities is not a true option. We don't "choose" our beliefs in any meaningful way. They enter our minds like viruses. We may be persuaded by reason or adopt faith but such actions are rarely truly volitional in the sense that we choose what to have for dinner.