Replies

Care to defend your assessment of Pascal's Wager? In contrast to your assessment, I find it incredible brilliant and elegant.

You're right, Pascal's Wager has convinced me -- to worship Odin. After all, if Odin doesn't exist, I've lost nothing, whereas if he does, it's a good thing I've worshipped him, because if I didn't I'd be screwed out of Valhalla.

...Right?

Another dumb part of Pascal's Wager is the implication that one "loses nothing" if one follows and worships a non-existent god. On the contrary.

Yet another problem is the question of whether a god would be likely to reward someone who didn't necessarily believe in the god, but went through the motions because of the results of a cost-benefit analysis on whether to act as if one actually believed...

Another dumb part of Pascal's Wager is the implication that one "loses nothing" if one follows and worships a non-existent god. On the contrary.

Or as Homer Simpson put it, "What if we're going to the wrong church? Then every week, we're just making God madder and madder..."

My apologies for not answering sooner. I had to work… a poor excuse, I know. However, please allow me to respond to some of your posts.

“I think, therefore I am” [cogito ergo sum] --- Descartes

Why "counter" it? It's correct.

Your statement indicates acceptance of Descartes’ statement. Consequently, the logical implications of “existence” must be accepted as well.

By the rules of logic, there is a cause for every effect (existence is one such effect you have just admitted). If you exist (or anyone else exists), then there must have been a “cause” or “origin” of that existence.

Of course, you may cite your parents as a cause for your existence, and for them, their parents, etc. However, at some point, the chain of causality must arrive at a point of origin for existence. If you maintain that there is no supreme creator, how do you explain a primary cause for existence? (Your follow-on argument is addressed further below.)

“If I believe in God and He does not exist, then I have lost nothing. However, if I do not believe in God and He exists, then I have lost everything…” --- Descartes

It was Pascal, and the problem with it is that it is an equally "good" argument for worshipping Odin, Shiva, Quetzelcotl, and Cthulhu.

You are correct it was Pascal, my apologies. However, your assertion concerning an equally "good" argument… is about the nature of the Divine, not the existence of such. As an atheist denies the existence of the Divine, you must offer a better counter to Pascal’s Wager than that which you offered.

The universe had a beginning…i.e., a creation moment [The Big Bang Theory]

Actually, according to Big Bang Theory, the BB wasn't so much a "beginning" as the time when the Universe transformed into the kind of Universe we know, from something else previously (if "previously" is even a valid word in that context, since time as we know it also came about then).

The Big Bang Theory, per se, does not postulate about the existence what was “before” it. Your speculation (or some else’s to which you may be referring) begs the question. You still have not addressed the issue in logic of “primary cause.”

If there was a creation moment, then the existence of a Creator is established ipso facto.

See above, that doesn't necessarily follow. But even if it did, the "creator" could have been some natural thing or process or configuration -- there's certainly no logical necessity for it to be some conscious entity, much less a "god" in any sense.

Again, your first assertion, … that doesn't necessarily follow…, begs the logical issue of “primary cause.” Since you admit, even in your previous speculation, that some “transformation” occurred about which you confess you know (and can know) nothing, the logic of a “primary cause,” or a “transformer” comes to the fore. In your following assertions, you are merely labeling your “creator” as some natural thing or process or configuration. As such, this argument, again, degenerates into the nature of the Creator not the existence of such.

For example individual lightning bolts have distinct beginnings and "creation moments", but their creator, thunderclouds, aren't gods, or even conscious. The Big Bang could have been simiarly "sparked" by some extraordinary (at least by our standards) natural process as well. "Creators" need not be "some guy in the sky with a long white beard", as it were.

You offer mere speculations and analogies without primary evidence. Again, your other assertions are about the nature of a Creator.

You're right, Pascal's Wager has convinced me -- to worship Odin. After all, if Odin doesn't exist, I've lost nothing, whereas if he does, it's a good thing I've worshipped him, because if I didn't I'd be screwed out of Valhalla.

...Right?

Another dumb part of Pascal's Wager is the implication that one "loses nothing" if one follows and worships a non-existent god. On the contrary.

Yet another problem is the question of whether a god would be likely to reward someone who didn't necessarily believe in the god, but went through the motions because of the results of a cost-benefit analysis on whether to act as if one actually believed...

Your entire argument is about the nature of the Divine, not the existence of such. You are merely quarreling that since you, personally, do not know the nature of the Divine, your ignorance dictates that a Divine cannot exist.

Care to defend your assessment of Pascal's Wager?

That's easy since it's a logical nightmare.

The "avoiding the wrong hell" problem. Which religion am I supposed to believe in to remain safe? I'm not necessarily safe if I believe in God, since another god that is the true god could get mad and send me to hell for it. Like the South Park episode said, "I'm sorry, the correct answer was 'Mormon'."

Your argument, like Ichneumon’s, is about the nature of the Divine, not the existence of such. Additionally, like Ichneumon you are merely quarreling that since you, personally, do not know the nature of the Divine, your ignorance dictates that a Divine cannot exist.

There's also the problem of odds, that these are equally probable choices. What if the likelihood of God existing is very low? Then the God choice is less attractive.

I recommend you read The Probability of God by Stephen D. Unwin, PhD (theoretical physics). In this book, the author uses Bayseian probability methodology to demonstrate the statistical probability that God exists. Contrary to your assertion, the likelihood (probability) that a creator does not exist not anywhere near equal.

Then there's the matter of belief. Exactly how stupid do you think God is? Don't you think he can tell the difference between true belief, which is to be rewarded, and selfish pseudo-belief driven only by a calculated desire to avoid hell? Taking Pascal's Wager would likely end you up in hell anyway just for trying to pull a fast one on God.

Once again, you are speculating about the nature of God, not the existence of God. An atheist claims there is no god. Therefore, the nature of a non-existent entity should be of no concern to atheist.

However, since neither you, nor any other atheist, can prove that God does not exist, it requires faith to believe that there is no God. In view of the logically driven requirement for a “primary cause” for “existence,” it requires far less faith to believe that there is a God. Therefore, Pascal’s Wager is easy to decide. All after that is merely an argument over the nature of God (which Unwin’s book, cited above, also partially addresses using probability).