Rejecting Pascal's Wager

[crystalonyx]

Pascal's wager has been refuted long ago, there are several main objections to it, like belief for the sake of belief is phony, i.e. not real belief, also the time and money wasted worshipping something that doesn't exist.

[Popeyesays]

Originally Posted by science_is_my_god

Pascal's Wager states that it is better to believe in god because if you are wrong, you lose nothing, but if you are right, you gain eternal life. These are my thoughts. If a god created everything, he created my personality, my mind, and my logic. So why then does my mind and my logic reject his existence even though he knows with my personality I value logic above faith? Using that same logic a god supposedly created, this means one of three things:

1. God did it by accident. (so long for omnipotence)

2. God doesn't want my belief in him.

3. God is sadistic and creates this this way for no reason.

Anyways, I wanted to know what people's thoughts were on Pascal's Wager.
Do you think it is or is not a good way to justify a god's belief?

This has come up a lot before in other threads.

Pascal's wager is morally bankrupt.

Even Christ rejects it when He speaks of spitting the "lukewarm" out of His mouth.

Belief is not a side bet.

Regards,
Scott

[science_is_my_god]

Thanks for the input folks. I didn't know that so many people rejected Pascal's Wager as I do. Around where I live, there are a lot of people that like to use it.

[Jayhawker Soule]

Originally Posted by science_is_my_god

Thanks for the input folks. I didn't know that so many people rejected Pascal's Wager as I do.

Perhaps because many understand it as you do as well.

[Poisonshady313]

"Religious hucksterism of the cheapest, vulgarist, nastiest kind that's possible to imagine."
Christopher Hitchens

Hitchens goes on to wonder, if he's wrong and there is a God, who is more moral, honest, and courageous... someone who is able to tell God honestly and sincerely that he couldn't bring himself to believe in God, or someone who spends half their life on their knees making fawning professions of faith just because Pascal told them it was a good bet.


I agree with Hitchens. The dishonesty involved with having to say "so what if I'm wrong, I won't lose nothing" builds a lifestyle of dishonesty and taking important matters in life for granted.

Pascal's wager belongs on a poker table, and nowhere else.

[3.14]

pascals wager doesn't include all variables needed to make a claim better thus the claim is flawed

[Orontes]

Originally Posted by science_is_my_god

Pascal's Wager states that it is better to believe in god because if you are wrong, you lose nothing, but if you are right, you gain eternal life. These are my thoughts. If a god created everything, he created my personality, my mind, and my logic. So...

Hello,

Creatio ex nihilo is not necessitated by or a part of 'Pascal's Wager'. You are introducing a foreign element into the position and launching a critique from that introduction. This would make it a red herring fallacy. The pragmatic theism position Pascal puts forward does not imply a specific dogma.

[Poisonshady313]

Originally Posted by Orontes

Hello,

Creatio ex nihilo is not necessitated by or a part of 'Pascal's Wager'. You are introducing a foreign element into the position and launching a critique from that introduction. This would make it a red herring fallacy. The pragmatic theism position Pascal puts forward does not imply a specific dogma.

So then what's the cost of one not believing and there being a god, accordnig to Pascal?

[Scott C.]