It is oversimplified, but an interesting thought experiment. I think you abstain from a lot of things by living as a Christian though. It's not like it doesn't affect your decisions if you really live by faith. You basically change your whole life if you are a Christian. It is not just "a ticket to heaven if you believe".
Absolutely, I tried to address the point you made when I talked about disingenuous faith, but obviously I didn’t spend enough time to give a proper answer
Even if God isn't real is the teachings of Jesus bad or immoral? I think even if God doesn't exist you actually gain something from being Christian even if its just being a more kind and righteous person.
@@Koskneds It can also be just the opposite: look at Christian nationalism where amoral behavior is sanctified not the least by regular 'forgiveness' of sins.
@@m0gg83 Is slavery or beatings or genocde not immoral to you? Also, it is the 21st century, why do you lean on bronze age teachings? Why can you not get your morality from today's standards?
The problem with the Wager is many and has been addressed before but I'll go over some of the issues. First, it assumes there is only One God. So if you're a devout Christian and you die and find out Allah is true, you still "lose" as you were following the wrong god. Even if it's still a Christian god, what if it's not the right version? Wooosh, off to Hell you go. Second, there is the idea of "going thru the motions", meaning doing everything a believer would be not actually believing in your heart/mind. This means you would be trying to deceive an omniscient god, which by definition is impossible. Therefore, he (or she) would know you never truly believed... so off to Hell you go. Next there is the claim that you "lose nothing" by believing. This is demonstrably false. You lose time, as you'll be spending time going to church or church functions. You'll lose money as you'll be expected to donate to said church. You'll lose relationships, friendships or love, as your faith will typically exclude certain groups or individuals based off their ethnicity or orientation. Last I'll say that the claim you "gain nothing" by being an atheist is also false. I gain time as I don't have required weekly (or more) trips to a specific location. I can spend my money how I want. I can be friends with or love who I want.
A wonderful explanation of the wager! Intellectualism in the church like this is very useful! Pascal wasn’t just an apologist, but an accomplished scientist and mathematician too!
not only that, you also feel great KNOWING your loved ones are not permanently lost, and you will join them one day. this means you don't fear death, witch will lead you to a better life.
All these comments about “what about the hundreds of other religions” are dumb. If I believe and have faith in the Holy Trinity of the Christian faith, why would I have to disprove other Gods? If anything these atheists who bring up other gods and religions are the ones who have to prove that these “gods” exist for me to even try to prove them wrong. Much commentary on burden of proof yet they bring other “evidence to prove Christianity wrong” without a basis to prove that these gods might even be considered as true. I am monotheist so why would I disprove other “gods” that would involve believing that there ARE other “gods” to begin with. They could be saying that there are infinite gods, but w/ no proof there are none that I have to disprove.
Problems with Pascals Wager 1. Multiple religions. There are many religions, some of which say that if you believe in the wrong god you lose out on something, and if you believe in the right god, you gain something. Christianity and Islam are prime examples of this. So Pascals Wager gives only two options when there are actually thousands, probably more if you consider every possible idea of god. 2. I don't see eternal life as a net gain. That IS a personal opinion, and maybe god is willing to accommodate for me, but I've never heard anyone say so. There are also god's that don't promise eternal life at all, or gods that promise eternal life to everyone, or just to good people which again shows how Pascals Wager is logically fallacious. 3. What if you don't reject god, but simply don't have any reason to think one exists? I personally don't believe that a god exists, but I'm open to the possibility, I've just not seen any good reasons to think one does exist at all, let alone a specific interpretation of god. Pascals Wager is an interesting thought experiment for sure, but it's logically fallacious for only giving two options (God exists/doesn't exist) and (accepting God/Rejecting God) both of which are not the only options. It also doesn't account for me just not seeing eternal life as a positive.
Good points, but in addressing your third reason, I suggest you explore C.S Lewis's, Mere Christianity. I was an Atheist (who admired Pascal's wager) until I became acquainted with Lewis. He's presents some good arguments for the Christian God.
It's a horrible argument in my opinion, and if you invoke it, I will question your position as a theist. Let's say I TAKE your Pascal's wager. Sure I will 'accept God' just to be safe, since I have nothing to lose. Let me ask you: How stupid do you think the God you believe in is? Is your God going to FALL for my insincere acceptance out of pure fear or as a safety play and grant me eternal life? If your answer is no, then why did you insult his intelligence by proposing Pascal's wager to me?
I agree with you that God would not be fooled by some self-serving belief, but I think accepting Pascal's idea is just a starting point. Like a father is delighted by his childs first steps, God is also delighted to see anyone trying to know Him regardless of their reasoning. Of course, it's not something you should base your faith on, but it's a start.
would god accept a fraud believer and reject an honest non-believer? if yes, isn't being a deceiver immoral? if no, then there's no point in pretending
Someone smarter than me once said, "God may be more pleased with an honest, good-hearted Atheist than a hateful, false beliver." My instincts tell me that's the case. As far as pretending goes, even if you're being dishonest, you still have to pretend to fit into church, and when you do that, you're exposing yourself to scripture and rubbing elbows with "real believers." Eventually, you'll find that you're not pretending anymore. @notrhythm
Pascal's wager is a huge strawman that ignores the downside of belief by saying you lose nothing for it and by assuming that the odds are 50% since it doesn't take into account the number of religions and deities. The whole argument is stupid.
There is also the possibility that you will be punished for professing belief on such superficial, self-interested grounds, or rewarded for rejecting for good reasons. Overall, a very silly argument.
@@nomejest5919 The burden of proof lies on the one making the claim of truth. If you claim islam is the truth it is your burden to prove so. It is impossible to prove anything fully false when it comes to supernatural claims. I can't prove islam false any more than you can prove budhism false, so the only constructive approach is the burden of proof on the one claiming truth. That is, all statements are false until proven otherwise.
Good job in explaining Pascal's idea in three minutes. I myself was an Atheist who was troubled by the wager. It made sense and got me reading C.S. Lewis. Honestly, if it hadn't been for my contemplation on the subject, I may never have found God.
My guy be a Christian all you want but Pascal's wager is silly because it presents a false binary that you have to choose between God or no God/Theism or Atheism when the options are actually more like Atheism or the Christian God or the Jewish God or the Islamic God or the Greek Pantheon or etc.
@yaboygoodvibes1397 According to the Jews, Jesus didn't fulfill their prophecy. He's not the son of god, according to them. So you're worshiping a wrong god. The Jews came first. The Torah is literally the Old Testament. Why should I believe the bible? Should I believe in the Quran as well?
@jesterc.6763 That is basically the classic response to the wager. The variety of different possible God's that could be the creator of the universe simply makes the argument meaningless. The whole thing hinges on accepting a very specific conception of God. And worse, one which we have good reason to think is false.
I like Carl Sagans version of this. Its better to not believe and live your life as a good person that would be worthy to get into said heaven or heavens than jsut believe in god to gain entry to this paradise and not only be a bad person but use your religion to justify why you are being that bad like most religious people do.
No one will never be completely good in life. You will lie, cheat, and be angry at people among other sins with or without God and Jesus is the only one who will forgive. Also your assumption that most religious people are bad is just wrong. Through atheism who sets the moral standard? There is no good or bad under atheism nor free will to do good or bad.
@@m0gg83 the concept of sin is completely useless for anyone who is not a christian. Its just a word for what the goat herders thousands of years ago said was a no no. And according to the bible eating shellfish and not believing in sky daddy are sins but owning people as property is ok, so who cares about your precious sins. They are not anywhere near a good source for morality.
@@BotPlays2222 oh really? So the bible does not say that the owner can beat the slave as long as they don’t die for a day or 2 “because they are it’s property”?
4,000 religions, worshipping 5,000 gods this very day and some god decides that I'm scheduled for hell due to lack of belief? LMFAO, that's insane. It should've just made everyone know, undeniably at once instead of dusty old tomes. I do like Pascal's other quote "Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction" ~ Pascal
There has been numerous studies that Christians tend to give more to charity and volunteer to help people. And who decides what is evil? If not God then who? God is real and I pray that you will come to know this. God bless.
Christianity invented modern morals and changed the world forever. Atheism invented goverment that encourages suicide. No, really, check Canada. Also, the amount of gods and religions does not change anything, since most of them don't have 1 proof
@@m0gg83 so is slavery good? Or as Moses commanded, genocide and rape? Declaring that only Christians are moral or generous is nearly on the level as being as egotistical to claim to "personally know the " Creator of the Universe ".
@@m0gg83 christians ALSA tend to harass people outside of abortion clinics and block gays from getting married and block them from adopting and pass laws that ban their books. who decides what is evil? we do. and that's what we did in the bible. we humans had some ideas of good and evil and we put them in a book that threatened people with a bad time if they didn't obey the book.
@@fornowhere7264but according to Pascal’s wager, you’re better off believing, due to the potential reward being infinitely greater than the penalty for being wrong
Even if God exists, how can you know that God will punish people who don;t believe? If God exists, he is behaving as if he doesn't exist. That is not the action of a god that wants people to believe in him or worship him.
You have a lot of great questions, I hope my answer is nuanced enough to give a sufficient answer. If God forced people to live in heaven would that be morally correct? If someone wanted nothing to do with God in life why would God make them live with him in death? The way a lot of us see hell is the Dante’s inferno rings of hell, but the Bible has a different understanding of hell. In my opinion, hell is most accurately described as eternal separation from God
@@Missionarypenguin Youre wrong on both claims here. Firstly hell isnt seperation from god. Revelation 14 10 describes it as gods wrath rather than seperation. The only thing hell is a seperation of is gods kindness. Also you dont understand his question. Hes asking why god would punish people who dont believe/athiest. you have a common thiestic misconception of what athiesm is. Athiem isnt the belief of god but you reject him. Its when you literally arent convinced he exist just like how YOU arent convinced buddha isnt a holy being. Or how you arent convinced Allah isnt god. Nobody can choose what they believe. In order to believe something you must be shown the evidence for it. If i asked you to believe the earth was flat you wouldnt because you have been shown the evidence for it being round. Also, what would happen to people who were isolated from religous beliefs? They will just go to hell because they never knew about christianity? Wow what a loving god
@@ToastEr-f3b Ultimately God is just. No one but God can decide if you make it into heaven, and to my understanding you only go to hell if, like you said, reject him. Regardless of your current beliefs you should try to be as kind and righteous as possible and I would recommend, even if you don't believe yet, to follow the teachings of Jesus as I believe he is God and an example for all of us to follow.
That's not proof, that's speculative preference. Plus it adds circularity if Pascal's Wager is meant to be an argument. I prefer return to nothingness to spending eternity with anyone, including loving gods. As sin is a meaningless concept I am already free from it; you can't prove this wrong without assuming a very specific god.
We do assume a very specific God lol. YHWH, his eternity is a guaranteed happiness. It's not something you can just disregard as "i wouldn't enjoy it" because the being who knows your true happiness, better than you do btw, is going to give it to you. @marknieuweboer8099
@ Forno: thanks for confirming that Pascal's Wager is the logical fallacy called Circular Argument: YHWH, hence eternal happiness, hence YHWH. Also YHWH is a piece of shit if he doesn't want to grant my preference of returning to nothingness. If he exists I'm screwed anyway (in my personal opinion eternity and happiness don't go together), so he's not worth worshipping. My best bet is atheism.
But how can you _choose_ what to believe? Whether or not you believe in God is not a decision, and it’s not up to you. It’s the result of everything you’ve experienced throughout your life. Everything you have gone through-everything you have heard, seen, felt, thought-all this combined will determine whether you believe in God or not. Different experiences might alter your belief or disbelief, but it’s not a _choice._
Ah, that is the philosophical question, isn't it? Is belief a choice? I think it is. I get your point about everything stemming from our experiences, upbringing, geographical location and time period in history. Our worldview is a result of all that, but in a sense we still "choose" what we believe. Our heart and conscience sometimes make choices that defy logic and appear irrational. Say, for instance, you're in love with a woman you know is bad. She's cheated on you before. She lies and your family hates her, but you don't care. You choose to love her anyway. There are times, as a Christain, that I feel the whole thing is made up. Yet there were times when I was Atheist, when I was at the beach looking at the stars in the sky, that I thought there must be a God to have created all this. No matter what my worldview is, no matter how cynical or openminded I am, I still have the power of choice concerning what I believe.
@@garykotowski2622 but all those things you mentioned-loving the woman you know is no good for you, the thought that there must be a God, the thought that there is no God-those all _happen;_ you don’t _choose_ to feel that way or think those thoughts. There may be some choice involved in doing or not doing an action; but as far as believing something, thinking something, or feeling something-all that just _happens_ regardless of any choice. Your “heart” or “conscience” making a choice is not you making a choice at all. In fact, that’s a perfect example of the fact that we can’t choose what to believe or feel. The heart and conscience feel how they feel regardless of any choice we make. You don’t choose to believe in God any more than you choose when to fall in love.
You know, I didn't think about it that way. Point taken. You're correct by saying those things just "happened." Those thoughts, is there a God, I can't help but loving this woman, there can't be a God... all those things popped into my head without me having a choice about it. Excellent. I guess what I can say is that I continue to choose what I believe despite of my emotions or any rational arguments against said belief. In that respect, I still think I have a choice in the matter.
The existence of God isn't impossible. Putting religion aside, isn't it possible that there is beings above us that we just can't fully comprehend? Just like, if micro organisms could think, they wouldn't be able to comprehend humans because we operate on a scale much larger than them. To think we are on the highest order of being, in my opinion is irrational.
Pascals wager has a huge hole, that the OP forgot to mention: you may believe in the wrong god, which forfeits eternal life. Since you don't know which of the many religions is true, you will most likely still go to hell.
@@brianw.5230 exactly. So Pascal's alleged advantage is moot. I think it just proves the point that we are abrogating thousands and thousands of gods, but atheists are only going one god further
@@brianw.5230 You can wager all of these and still go to hell, as I showed earlier. Do you consider Mohammad's revelation through the angel Gebriel not true?... If not, you'd rather believe in the prophet Jesus as a God, despite knowing that God will condemn you to hell, than following the revelation of Mohammed? Aslim taslam, “Convert to Islam and you will be safe,”
You sell the wager as it is a 50/50 but it isn’t. More like 1/1000 if you are right. For every God presented, there are some with the consequence of hell. So if Islam is true we are both going to hell. Also define faith? Because it seems like you are inflating the term to also mean confidence. Atheist do not have faith. It’s a straw-man to say they do. Faith is irrational and not good for determining what is true. If anything, believing something on faith is to stop seeking out the truth because they are blindly accepting the belief only on faith. Not much difference between that and a con
Faith is defined as “complete trust or confidence in someone or something”. Faith is not irrational. You have faith that atheism is correct, if you didn’t you wouldn’t be an atheist, you can’t PROVE atheism. And as the video said, how much evidence is enough for the existence of God?
@@nicholaspini3665 no and no. You need to add to that definition “when they have no good reason to believe or have confidence” I lack faith as an atheist. I don’t have to prove anything when it comes to atheism. No case to be made with “I don’t believe you” especially when you have not brought anything valid to the table.
I agree that faith is irrational. It always was and should this ever change it would be the end to religion. Only because of religion’s irrationality does it work as a belief system. The wager can at most explain nominal church membership but never honest belief and even nominal membership is questionable because god, should he exist, would probably be able to tell the difference and should god’s existence ever be proven, it wouldn’t be believing anymore. I do however have an issue with your statement that believing means stop searching the truth. That is a misrepresentation of religious life. Exactly because belief is irrational and unprovable religious people are full of doubt wich makes them search. Of course you will find people like you described over thousands of years of religiousness but it’s not like every atheist has a critical mindset activated 24/7 either. Many religious people are searching. That is why a whole field of academia, called theology, exists. And they are not limited to that. The famous rule of the order of St. Benedict „Ora et labora“ is a shortened form, it actually reads: „Ora et labora et studia“ (pray, work and STUDY). Gregor Mendel who discovered genetics and Georges Lemaître who discovered the big bang were both catholic priests. You see, for Christians understanding the world, god’s gift in their opinion, means understanding god himself. That is why monasteries were the centers of western knowledge for centuries and why the church state was by far the most professional when it comes to stuff like crafting and preserving documents from science to bureaucracy, way more than was seen as strictly necessary at the time.
The context of PW is the time and place he lived in. His life and that of his family. Also the writings which made up the book Pensees which published after his tragically early death. I don't think he was enjoying the best health when he wrote it and that may have effected his thinking. Of those contexts, by far the most important is that Pensees flatly reject ALL possibility of establishing a logical argument for belief in God. IMO, without PW, Pensees would have not been publishable. As it is, it is still officially banned by the Catholic Church. IMO the real wager was about his life as a privileged person in Catholic France and his relationship with his family, not about heaven and hell. Rejecting God meant living outside polite society, whereas accepting God enabled him to live a comfortable, pleasurable life.
Yo everybody I gained eternal life from Ra but it's been 4,000 years and I'm getting pretty bored with the infinite amount of time on my hands. Anyone got some activities I can do to pass by eternity?
It's disappointing that we have yet another apologist that has zero answers and just tries to pull the wool over our eyes. I'm still hoping for the day I can have a discussion with an intelligent and honest believer.
@@69eddieDDefinitely. Pascal has been torn apart in so many creative and unique ways that I don’t understand how anyone could reference Pascal with a straight face.
@@69eddieD Missionary Penguin wasn't being dishonest, and though Pascal's wager is a weak argument ,the point he was making was that considering what could be on the line maybe you should consider believing in God.
@@m0gg83 So your argument is "Pascal's Wager is weak, but PASCAL'S WAGER PASCAL'S WAGER PASCAL'S WAGER PASCAL'S WAGER PASCAL'S WAGER PASCAL'S WAGER." Are you a liar or an idiot?
@@m0gg83the same applies to you, considering what’s on the line, you should believe in Islam and follow the teachings of the Quran. Or Hinduism, or this religion you may have never heard of called Kenshinism that states you’ll gain eternal life if you wire me $5,000 in the next 72 hours
Here is my main problem with Pascal's Wager - this is an argument used to keep those who already believe, inside the religion, and not one to persuade those who are unconvinced. And that undermines the very strength of the religion. A true religion which has good reason for one to believe in it would not need to resort to cheap tactics to try and keep its followers. Also there is an equivocation fallacy, a false dichotomy, and also a misrepresentation of all alternative possible outcomes, as well as misrepresenting the other side. All in one argument. This isn't even about belief in God in my opinion - anyone who is interested in this topic, should make it a personal point of intellectual honesty to know how to refute this terrible argument, and challenge those who would stoop so low as to use it.
pascals wager has two flaws that i see immediately. when you devote yourself to a religion, it often makes behavioral demands of you, forcing you to give up pork or shaving or red meat on fridays during a specific period of time. god does not exist but you accept god doesn't just "gain nothing" it actually causes you to lose something to prove your faith and obedience. secondly, the wager only works as a binary of accepting one god vs not accepting one god. plenty of religions are polytheist. and since not all religions promise eternal life, that doesn't belong in a square like this. i don't understand why anyone is still trying to use this in this day and age.
Accepting a God that does not exist - is not a cost free wager. You sacrifice your integrity. Perhaps he had none to lose ... but the rest of us might not be so lucky.
Problem is, it’s not binary, you need to assume that god wants to send you to hell, so that heaven and hell exists and that where you go depends on beliefs Second problem is it assumes there is one god, the Christian one, and that every other religions are not an option to chose What if I pick Yahweh but then it’s Allah who exists and I go to hell anyway? The little 4 outcomes graphic ignores the thousand of religions in existence 😅 So picking a god is like going from 0% to be right if said god exists to 0.00001% chance your god exists, so the margin is so ridiculous and it’s equivalent to say: can’t win the lottery if you don’t buy a ticket, so buy a ticket everyday from now on Nope
Massive flaw in Pascal wager that you didn't address is that humanity invented thousands of Gods. And Jewish God only started punishing people for not believing in him with Christianity. Old testament God (who did most evil and wicked things) wasn't so evil to punish people after death, until Jesus was added to the picture
@brianw.5230 id argue that choosing "none" and living an otherwise good life is a better bet than a single religion. choosing no religion means you aren't worshipping the wrong god, and you have the fall back excuse of "there were thousands of different options, and i saw no compelling reason to choose one"
@@brianw.5230 No its not. Many religoons are against worshipping wrong gods or other gods, buy i believe only Christianity has problem with worshipping no gods. Even 10 commandments from Judaism have rule against worshipping other gods, but no rule for no gods.
@@alasarcher400in the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. One for his domain (office basically) and one for ours. God wants to exist with us in both or either of these places... AND then, sin came into the universe through one of Gods angels... now the angels that sinned need a place to go... they cant sit in earth, and they cant be with God in heaven... so God creates hell for those angels... AND THEN... humans saw it fit to eat fruits they werent suppose to and introduce sin into their being. The sin, is contagious. It almost cant be helped, the chances of a human not sinning by their own volition is so next to impossible it might as well be. These sinful humans cant go to heaven, God doesnt sit with sin... and they cant go to earth (in the future) because thats designated for Gods people... where will they go?? They go with the one who introduced sin, Hell. Humans dont belong in hell, but if you do not adhere to the rules of the other 2 places theres no where else left to go
If he exists and you gain eternal life by believing in him - do you really want to play the harp for that damn narcisist for the rest of eternity? Or do you rather work on striking a deal with Satan? Because HE didn't like God either and i don't think that he is cooperating much with heaven.
So what are the odds that *your* specific incarnation of 'god' exists? Next to none. Give me one reason why the Abrahamic god is real and not the Norse or Hindu gods.
As a Christian I think this is a really bad argument. Paul said that if the resurrection isn´t real we are the most miserable of all people. Becoming a true Christian means suffering trials including persecution - but eternal reward. So, from a biblical perspective choosing God only is wise if he is real.
I refuse to be this lazy and dishonest with myself. Belief isnt a choice, and I will not believe and worship something “just because” If your religion allows for that, that is disgusting.
Why Pascal's Wager or ANY belief system is a bad idea: There are many faiths promising hell if you don't believe in them. By picking one and turning your back on the others, your chances of picking the right one are very slim. You're better off being an Atheist and living a life of altruism and humanism; this way you *might* convince a good willed deity to look over your sin of not believing in them and just being good to your fellow man.
Christianity has the most evidence of being true in my opinion, there is plenty of historical documents and writings that acknowledge Jesus's life and existence and not one disagrees with him being righteous and living a sinless life, compared to the likes of Mohammed who was anything but just. I do agree that everyone should live a life of altruism and do good but who sets the standard for good? Without God morality is relative.
@@m0gg83christian morality includes homophobia and system where women shouldn't be in charge but obey men I find this disgusting Especially for "loving God"
Yeah accept being an athiest isnt rejecting to follow god rather its rejecting the claim god is real because of lacking evidence. So why would a loving god send people who simply werent convinced to go to eternal hell. This argument only works for people who are convinced god exists but deliberately dont want to follow him. (which wouldnt be an athiest) Also athiesm DOES NOT involve faith AT ALL. Athiesm isnt saying "there is no god" its saying "i dont have proof to think theres a god" Also pascals wager fails because there are still thousands of religions. So you must believe in the correct one to gain eternal life. For example of christianity is wrong and islam is correct then YOU would still go to hell
I consider this wager on many levels stupid. But let me give you a reason which assumes the biblical deity exists. According to Christian beliefs the biblical deity wants to have a personal relationship with you. But this wager is literally the ultimate version of being selfish. If you choose the biblical deity because of that wager then you are not choosing to have a relationship with that deity because of you wanting to be with the the biblical detiy but you did so because you want rewards and not get punished. I do not see how a "relationship" based on that is any good at all. It is like a wife or husband marrying her/his partner just for the money.
I mean since you guys think that you know better about what jesus says... I mean christ..... First the best objection to this argument is that it doesnt give you ay reason to bleive in your god, your denomination or even jesus. there are other religons, like islam, taht also offer heven and hell. Since The wage is only a bet it doesnt concider the third option. God is real and you followed the wrong Prophet, book, verse, the list goes one. Also Pascals wager doesnt stop death, you still die. Jesus sasid your spirit will resuurect at the end of time and you guys think its immeaditly, and you become and angel or some shit. And either way you still gain immortality, you just either go to hell or heaven. But really the root to all of this is that all pascals wager reaally is , is a way to strike the fear of death and unknown into people and to get their selfish hackles up. Becasue OF course it is not just as simple as just beliving is it? So you also have to read the right booka nd read the right verses ignoreing things like isaisah not saying jesus is coming but the king of assyira and that it says young woman (Alma -Hebrew) and not Virgin (parthinos -Greek). That the world is only 6000 years old and that a flood covered everything. That every piece of evidence to the contray is just the devil in your ear. You have to tite top the church and have to live to its code, because of course thechruch you go to is the real undiluted word of the lord. Even though the book says in Proverbs trust not in your own understanding turst in mine. So of course the unknowable is known to you and the denomination your in. You will be forced to follow the political leaning of thsoe aroudn you and can and will be ostrized and punished by teh memebrs for any diviations from the doctrine taht you and only you toatally have right, right? Pascals wager is nothing mror ethan the kind of arguements you get from the theistic types that like to pontificate to each other because as gandalf sats ' I prefer to to talk to the most intellgent person' and of course its always those that already agree with you. why would any beleiver think this wasn't useful. All the arguemnts are useful becasue they will gaslight someone somewhere and then you get a nice rush of endrphines from feeling pious... isnt that grand for you.....
I don't know why I got recommended a channel called missionary penguin but okay. For me the main issue with Pascal's wager is that you're trying to gameify faith. Game theory is fine and all, but you really need to look beyond the binary options to see what you're actually doing. Is pretending to believe when you don't even remotely do actually giving you a shot at heaven, or is it just hubris that any god will see through? Is it possible that by accepting Pascal's wager you might even anger a potential deity into a worse afterlife than you would have otherwise, like a non-christian god who is cool with anyone who didn't explicitly vow themselves for another god? You're really going off very little data with Pascal's wager, and you kind of often see that in these "Do something, do nothing" diagrams. But more than just the gameified issues with the wager, I think personally I just can't get myself to believe that faith without any sort of conviction would be worth much at all. It would be hollow and empty belief.
How do you know that i gain nothing? YOu assume that people want eternal life. But i dont. Eternal life sounds horrible. Sooner or later that will be torture and you are just a mindless, bored, meaningless husk of a person, that just exists, but doesnt live. So if you dont want eternal life, the opposite is true.
If you wake up every day and don’t immediately kill yourself you affirm that life is valuable. There is nothing good about death, and i can’t stand the mentality that death is somehow a great thing. There is an almost infinite universe with almost infinite things in it. Not to mention the countless relationships that could be made in the afterlife.
Wouldn't an all knowing "God" know you were lying about belief? Could you actually fool this magical sorcerer "God"? According to your own religion, the answer is no. And what about integrity? A nonbeliever surrenders his integrity when he lies to himself, lies to his community, and lies to this fake "God." Isn't integrity important?
A lot of fallacies about Pascal wager have already been raised in the comments (multiplicity of gods, cost of accepting the existence of God etc.), but the main point of the video have not been adressed yet. The point is that christianity is rational and atheism is a belief. Those two assertions are linked here. But it's based on a fallacy which is "something is either true or false" (1:47). This assertion is not true. I, as an atheist, do not believe that God doesn't exist. I really doesn't. I am just fully unable to understand what believers mean by "God" or "eternal life" (or "soul" or etc.). This makes no sense to me. So, a proposition can be true, or false, or devoid of meaning. And the proposition "God exists" is not false: it is devoid of meaning. That is why rejecting it is not a belief. And by the way most atheist doesn't reject it (in France at least). They just don't care.
What you describe as atheism is agnosticism in the American sense. The notion of atheism that I have seen from almost all atheist thinkers is that atheism is a rejection of the idea of God, which would fall into a true/false dichotomy with the theist belief.
@@Missionarypenguin Point taken thank you for your answer. In France, some people say they are agnostics and what they mean by that is that they do not want to say whether God exists or not (that's a kind of PC position). What you describe as atheism, that is asserting that God does not exist, is rather called "militant atheism", people who actively deny God's existance - most people just don't care, as the question of God's existence making no sens to them. But it doesn't change the fact that the argument of Christianisme being no less rational than atheism (or rather agnosticism, as I understand) is flawed.
@@Missionarypenguin Thank you as well. The scope of the discussion was not (I think) to convince each other but to give the reader elements of reflexion on this subject.
@@Missionarypenguinno, atheism is the lack of belief in any gods, not the assertion that there are no gods. Why do theists always try to assert the definition of atheism? This is what we call a strawman, it’s much easier to refute atheism when you define it as a positive belief that no gods exist
Hilarious. You really think Pascal's Wager is a good argument? Man, apologists are scraping the bottom of the barrel again. What a sad bunch you are. Next you'll explain the hip new argument, Kalam, I guess...
The real God grants eternal life and joy to all those who don't profess faith in a false diety. Anyone who professes faith in a false God like YHWH or Allah will be condemned to hell. Atheists, agnostics, and followers of the true God will all live everlasting lives of fulfillment. My God is less selfish than yours in that respect. Sounds to me like atheism is the safer bet. Also, I'm not wasting my entire life. The only life we actually do know exists.
Pascal's Wager is the most disingenuous and loaded argument in the whole world, and it never was "Atheism vs theism", it's straight up Christianity vs non-Christianity. God or the First Mover can be in any logical configuration, and one of these configurations could be "he punishes only theists", or even "he punishes only Christians". And this is logical, he makes the rules, he decides what is good and evil. So is accepting the wager a good idea? No.
Pascal's Wager is freaking pathetic, there is nothing you wager you win either way, and Ultimately only loose if you have to live for eternity with in any of the current day religions. if there was any so call "gods" existence would not be as it is, there would be no debate about such a beings existence, and would ultimately just lead to an infinite regress. And besides who the hell would want to live forever that would make life meaningless, and it would be hell to live in the Abrahamic religions idea of "heaven"
Pascal's Wager is flawed. The notion that you gain nothing from rejecting God in the "God does not exist" scenario overlooks the significant emotional and life damage that many religious beliefs can inflict on individuals. These harms can include guilt, shame, poor decision-making, and a lack of personal agency, among other issues. This perspective shows a lack of understanding of the negative impacts that religious beliefs can have on people's lives.
It is oversimplified, but an interesting thought experiment. I think you abstain from a lot of things by living as a Christian though. It's not like it doesn't affect your decisions if you really live by faith. You basically change your whole life if you are a Christian. It is not just "a ticket to heaven if you believe".
Absolutely, I tried to address the point you made when I talked about disingenuous faith, but obviously I didn’t spend enough time to give a proper answer
Even if God isn't real is the teachings of Jesus bad or immoral? I think even if God doesn't exist you actually gain something from being Christian even if its just being a more kind and righteous person.
@@Koskneds It can also be just the opposite: look at Christian nationalism where amoral behavior is sanctified not the least by regular 'forgiveness' of sins.
@@m0gg83 Is slavery or beatings or genocde not immoral to you? Also, it is the 21st century, why do you lean on bronze age teachings? Why can you not get your morality from today's standards?
@koskneds you can do that too without being a Christian either ie a muslim,jew,stoic,zen buddhist or what not it isn't very unique
The problem with the Wager is many and has been addressed before but I'll go over some of the issues.
First, it assumes there is only One God. So if you're a devout Christian and you die and find out Allah is true, you still "lose" as you were following the wrong god. Even if it's still a Christian god, what if it's not the right version? Wooosh, off to Hell you go.
Second, there is the idea of "going thru the motions", meaning doing everything a believer would be not actually believing in your heart/mind. This means you would be trying to deceive an omniscient god, which by definition is impossible. Therefore, he (or she) would know you never truly believed... so off to Hell you go.
Next there is the claim that you "lose nothing" by believing. This is demonstrably false. You lose time, as you'll be spending time going to church or church functions. You'll lose money as you'll be expected to donate to said church. You'll lose relationships, friendships or love, as your faith will typically exclude certain groups or individuals based off their ethnicity or orientation.
Last I'll say that the claim you "gain nothing" by being an atheist is also false. I gain time as I don't have required weekly (or more) trips to a specific location. I can spend my money how I want. I can be friends with or love who I want.
A wonderful explanation of the wager! Intellectualism in the church like this is very useful!
Pascal wasn’t just an apologist, but an accomplished scientist and mathematician too!
Pascal's wager -- the most dishonest and contemptible of the arguments.
not only that, you also feel great KNOWING your loved ones are not permanently lost, and you will join them one day. this means you don't fear death, witch will lead you to a better life.
Rational people believe things based on whether there’s good reason to believe they’re true, not based on how the beliefs make them feel.
@@kenshin6553 giving you good feelings is a good reason to believe
All these comments about “what about the hundreds of other religions” are dumb. If I believe and have faith in the Holy Trinity of the Christian faith, why would I have to disprove other Gods? If anything these atheists who bring up other gods and religions are the ones who have to prove that these “gods” exist for me to even try to prove them wrong. Much commentary on burden of proof yet they bring other “evidence to prove Christianity wrong” without a basis to prove that these gods might even be considered as true. I am monotheist so why would I disprove other “gods” that would involve believing that there ARE other “gods” to begin with. They could be saying that there are infinite gods, but w/ no proof there are none that I have to disprove.
Which god do you expect? What if it’s the wrong one then you lose so very much right?
By definition, there can only exist one perfect being, and one can logically deduce some of His attributes.
Problems with Pascals Wager
1. Multiple religions. There are many religions, some of which say that if you believe in the wrong god you lose out on something, and if you believe in the right god, you gain something. Christianity and Islam are prime examples of this. So Pascals Wager gives only two options when there are actually thousands, probably more if you consider every possible idea of god.
2. I don't see eternal life as a net gain. That IS a personal opinion, and maybe god is willing to accommodate for me, but I've never heard anyone say so. There are also god's that don't promise eternal life at all, or gods that promise eternal life to everyone, or just to good people which again shows how Pascals Wager is logically fallacious.
3. What if you don't reject god, but simply don't have any reason to think one exists? I personally don't believe that a god exists, but I'm open to the possibility, I've just not seen any good reasons to think one does exist at all, let alone a specific interpretation of god.
Pascals Wager is an interesting thought experiment for sure, but it's logically fallacious for only giving two options (God exists/doesn't exist) and (accepting God/Rejecting God) both of which are not the only options. It also doesn't account for me just not seeing eternal life as a positive.
Good points, but in addressing your third reason, I suggest you explore C.S Lewis's, Mere Christianity.
I was an Atheist (who admired Pascal's wager) until I became acquainted with Lewis. He's presents some good arguments for the Christian God.
Cool, but which Bronze or Iron Age god, exactly ….?
@@ErroneousTheory joseph smith. Lol
It's a horrible argument in my opinion, and if you invoke it, I will question your position as a theist. Let's say I TAKE your Pascal's wager. Sure I will 'accept God' just to be safe, since I have nothing to lose.
Let me ask you: How stupid do you think the God you believe in is?
Is your God going to FALL for my insincere acceptance out of pure fear or as a safety play and grant me eternal life? If your answer is no, then why did you insult his intelligence by proposing Pascal's wager to me?
Excellent point!
I agree with you that God would not be fooled by some self-serving belief, but I think accepting Pascal's idea is just a starting point.
Like a father is delighted by his childs first steps, God is also delighted to see anyone trying to know Him regardless of their reasoning. Of course, it's not something you should base your faith on, but it's a start.
would god accept a fraud believer and reject an honest non-believer? if yes, isn't being a deceiver immoral? if no, then there's no point in pretending
@@garykotowski2622 sounds more like a dead end.
Someone smarter than me once said, "God may be more pleased with an honest, good-hearted Atheist than a hateful, false beliver."
My instincts tell me that's the case. As far as pretending goes, even if you're being dishonest, you still have to pretend to fit into church, and when you do that, you're exposing yourself to scripture and rubbing elbows with "real believers." Eventually, you'll find that you're not pretending anymore.
@notrhythm
Pascal's wager is a huge strawman that ignores the downside of belief by saying you lose nothing for it and by assuming that the odds are 50% since it doesn't take into account the number of religions and deities. The whole argument is stupid.
There is also the possibility that you will be punished for professing belief on such superficial, self-interested grounds, or rewarded for rejecting for good reasons. Overall, a very silly argument.
No it is not. All you have to do is prove all the other religions wrong and they are wrong. Simple as that.
@@nomejest5919 Yeah, really simple indeed .-.
@@shadedusk7831 Islam is the truth. Prove Islam is false.
@@nomejest5919 The burden of proof lies on the one making the claim of truth. If you claim islam is the truth it is your burden to prove so.
It is impossible to prove anything fully false when it comes to supernatural claims. I can't prove islam false any more than you can prove budhism false, so the only constructive approach is the burden of proof on the one claiming truth. That is, all statements are false until proven otherwise.
Good job in explaining Pascal's idea in three minutes. I myself was an Atheist who was troubled by the wager. It made sense and got me reading C.S. Lewis.
Honestly, if it hadn't been for my contemplation on the subject, I may never have found God.
I love C.S. Lewis
My guy be a Christian all you want but Pascal's wager is silly because it presents a false binary that you have to choose between God or no God/Theism or Atheism when the options are actually more like Atheism or the Christian God or the Jewish God or the Islamic God or the Greek Pantheon or etc.
But if you worship the wrong God?
Don't worship the wrong God then. Jesus is the way the truth and the life.
@yaboygoodvibes1397 According to the Jews, Jesus didn't fulfill their prophecy. He's not the son of god, according to them. So you're worshiping a wrong god. The Jews came first. The Torah is literally the Old Testament. Why should I believe the bible? Should I believe in the Quran as well?
@jesterc.6763 That is basically the classic response to the wager. The variety of different possible God's that could be the creator of the universe simply makes the argument meaningless. The whole thing hinges on accepting a very specific conception of God. And worse, one which we have good reason to think is false.
@@JacquesduPlessis11 yeah. Presupposition.
@@m0gg83So you’re admitting that Pascal’s Wager is worthless
I like Carl Sagans version of this. Its better to not believe and live your life as a good person that would be worthy to get into said heaven or heavens than jsut believe in god to gain entry to this paradise and not only be a bad person but use your religion to justify why you are being that bad like most religious people do.
No one will never be completely good in life. You will lie, cheat, and be angry at people among other sins with or without God and Jesus is the only one who will forgive. Also your assumption that most religious people are bad is just wrong. Through atheism who sets the moral standard? There is no good or bad under atheism nor free will to do good or bad.
Atheism invented goverment that helps people to suicide
@@m0gg83 the concept of sin is completely useless for anyone who is not a christian. Its just a word for what the goat herders thousands of years ago said was a no no. And according to the bible eating shellfish and not believing in sky daddy are sins but owning people as property is ok, so who cares about your precious sins. They are not anywhere near a good source for morality.
@@BotPlays2222 oh really? So the bible does not say that the owner can beat the slave as long as they don’t die for a day or 2 “because they are it’s property”?
@@BotPlays2222 Defending slavery is not a good look.
Maybe your fake Gawd has absconded with your brain.
4,000 religions, worshipping 5,000 gods this very day and some god decides that I'm scheduled for hell due to lack of belief? LMFAO, that's insane. It should've just made everyone know, undeniably at once instead of dusty old tomes. I do like Pascal's other quote "Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction" ~ Pascal
There has been numerous studies that Christians tend to give more to charity and volunteer to help people. And who decides what is evil? If not God then who? God is real and I pray that you will come to know this. God bless.
Christianity invented modern morals and changed the world forever. Atheism invented goverment that encourages suicide. No, really, check Canada. Also, the amount of gods and religions does not change anything, since most of them don't have 1 proof
@@m0gg83 so is slavery good? Or as Moses commanded, genocide and rape? Declaring that only Christians are moral or generous is nearly on the level as being as egotistical to claim to "personally know the " Creator of the Universe ".
@@m0gg83 christians ALSA tend to harass people outside of abortion clinics and block gays from getting married and block them from adopting and pass laws that ban their books.
who decides what is evil? we do. and that's what we did in the bible. we humans had some ideas of good and evil and we put them in a book that threatened people with a bad time if they didn't obey the book.
@@m0gg83 Humans can decide what is good or evil? Hello? Or what about the moral systems of various other deities or religions?
If you treat me as a god I might maybe also give you eternal life.
True, would i wager my life on your word though? Nah
@@fornowhere7264but according to Pascal’s wager, you’re better off believing, due to the potential reward being infinitely greater than the penalty for being wrong
Which God?
Jesus
@@m0gg83 Jesus isn't god. Ask the Jews
@@jesterc.6763 GAWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWD
Even if God exists, how can you know that God will punish people who don;t believe? If God exists, he is behaving as if he doesn't exist. That is not the action of a god that wants people to believe in him or worship him.
You have a lot of great questions, I hope my answer is nuanced enough to give a sufficient answer.
If God forced people to live in heaven would that be morally correct? If someone wanted nothing to do with God in life why would God make them live with him in death?
The way a lot of us see hell is the Dante’s inferno rings of hell, but the Bible has a different understanding of hell. In my opinion, hell is most accurately described as eternal separation from God
@@Missionarypenguin Youre wrong on both claims here.
Firstly hell isnt seperation from god. Revelation 14 10 describes it as gods wrath rather than seperation. The only thing hell is a seperation of is gods kindness.
Also you dont understand his question. Hes asking why god would punish people who dont believe/athiest. you have a common thiestic misconception of what athiesm is. Athiem isnt the belief of god but you reject him. Its when you literally arent convinced he exist just like how YOU arent convinced buddha isnt a holy being. Or how you arent convinced Allah isnt god.
Nobody can choose what they believe. In order to believe something you must be shown the evidence for it. If i asked you to believe the earth was flat you wouldnt because you have been shown the evidence for it being round.
Also, what would happen to people who were isolated from religous beliefs? They will just go to hell because they never knew about christianity? Wow what a loving god
@@ToastEr-f3b Ultimately God is just. No one but God can decide if you make it into heaven, and to my understanding you only go to hell if, like you said, reject him. Regardless of your current beliefs you should try to be as kind and righteous as possible and I would recommend, even if you don't believe yet, to follow the teachings of Jesus as I believe he is God and an example for all of us to follow.
Are you talking about the God who authored a whole book telling you to worship and love him??
@@m0gg83 Sucks to be you. Sorry about what happened to your mind.
Prove that eternal life is a gain.
Or in other words: The question is not whether you believe in God or not. The question is: Do you generally submit to powerful assholes or not.
You get to spend eternity with a loving God and be free from sin
That's not proof, that's speculative preference. Plus it adds circularity if Pascal's Wager is meant to be an argument.
I prefer return to nothingness to spending eternity with anyone, including loving gods. As sin is a meaningless concept I am already free from it; you can't prove this wrong without assuming a very specific god.
We do assume a very specific God lol. YHWH, his eternity is a guaranteed happiness. It's not something you can just disregard as "i wouldn't enjoy it" because the being who knows your true happiness, better than you do btw, is going to give it to you. @marknieuweboer8099
@ Forno: thanks for confirming that Pascal's Wager is the logical fallacy called Circular Argument:
YHWH, hence eternal happiness, hence YHWH.
Also YHWH is a piece of shit if he doesn't want to grant my preference of returning to nothingness. If he exists I'm screwed anyway (in my personal opinion eternity and happiness don't go together), so he's not worth worshipping.
My best bet is atheism.
Look at all the people who didn't watch this video and decided that it's wrong anyway.
Plenty watched the video and realized the arguement for the Wager is still weak. Stop this with nonsense, I implore you.
Just because we disagree with it doesn’t mean we didn’t watch
But how can you _choose_ what to believe? Whether or not you believe in God is not a decision, and it’s not up to you. It’s the result of everything you’ve experienced throughout your life. Everything you have gone through-everything you have heard, seen, felt, thought-all this combined will determine whether you believe in God or not. Different experiences might alter your belief or disbelief, but it’s not a _choice._
Ah, that is the philosophical question, isn't it? Is belief a choice? I think it is. I get your point about everything stemming from our experiences, upbringing, geographical location and time period in history. Our worldview is a result of all that, but in a sense we still "choose" what we believe.
Our heart and conscience sometimes make choices that defy logic and appear irrational. Say, for instance, you're in love with a woman you know is bad. She's cheated on you before. She lies and your family hates her, but you don't care. You choose to love her anyway.
There are times, as a Christain, that I feel the whole thing is made up. Yet there were times when I was Atheist, when I was at the beach looking at the stars in the sky, that I thought there must be a God to have created all this. No matter what my worldview is, no matter how cynical or openminded I am, I still have the power of choice concerning what I believe.
@@garykotowski2622 but all those things you mentioned-loving the woman you know is no good for you, the thought that there must be a God, the thought that there is no God-those all _happen;_ you don’t _choose_ to feel that way or think those thoughts. There may be some choice involved in doing or not doing an action; but as far as believing something, thinking something, or feeling something-all that just _happens_ regardless of any choice.
Your “heart” or “conscience” making a choice is not you making a choice at all. In fact, that’s a perfect example of the fact that we can’t choose what to believe or feel. The heart and conscience feel how they feel regardless of any choice we make. You don’t choose to believe in God any more than you choose when to fall in love.
You know, I didn't think about it that way. Point taken. You're correct by saying those things just "happened." Those thoughts, is there a God, I can't help but loving this woman, there can't be a God... all those things popped into my head without me having a choice about it. Excellent.
I guess what I can say is that I continue to choose what I believe despite of my emotions or any rational arguments against said belief. In that respect, I still think I have a choice in the matter.
Belief in the impossible is by definition irrational.
The existence of God isn't impossible. Putting religion aside, isn't it possible that there is beings above us that we just can't fully comprehend? Just like, if micro organisms could think, they wouldn't be able to comprehend humans because we operate on a scale much larger than them. To think we are on the highest order of being, in my opinion is irrational.
@@m0gg83atheism doesn’t claim we’re the highest order being
One cannot choose to believe something they are not convinced of. Can you choose to believe that Islam is true? Or that you can fly?
I got into this argument by myself at around the age of 14 or 15
Pascals wager has a huge hole, that the OP forgot to mention: you may believe in the wrong god, which forfeits eternal life. Since you don't know which of the many religions is true, you will most likely still go to hell.
@@Robert-er5wq everyone risks having the wrong god, even atheists and agnostics.
@@brianw.5230 exactly. So Pascal's alleged advantage is moot. I think it just proves the point that we are abrogating thousands and thousands of gods, but atheists are only going one god further
@Robert-er5wq so you're wagering there's no God, Heaven or Hell.
If you're right, you'll never know. If you're wrong, you lose everything.
@@brianw.5230 You can wager all of these and still go to hell, as I showed earlier. Do you consider Mohammad's revelation through the angel Gebriel not true?... If not, you'd rather believe in the prophet Jesus as a God, despite knowing that God will condemn you to hell, than following the revelation of Mohammed?
Aslim taslam, “Convert to Islam and you will be safe,”
@Robert-er5wq Mohammad was a warlord that married a 6 year old girl when he was 53.
I think he's less credible than Jesus.
Make sense?
You sell the wager as it is a 50/50 but it isn’t. More like 1/1000 if you are right. For every God presented, there are some with the consequence of hell. So if Islam is true we are both going to hell.
Also define faith? Because it seems like you are inflating the term to also mean confidence.
Atheist do not have faith. It’s a straw-man to say they do. Faith is irrational and not good for determining what is true. If anything, believing something on faith is to stop seeking out the truth because they are blindly accepting the belief only on faith. Not much difference between that and a con
Faith is defined as “complete trust or confidence in someone or something”.
Faith is not irrational. You have faith that atheism is correct, if you didn’t you wouldn’t be an atheist, you can’t PROVE atheism. And as the video said, how much evidence is enough for the existence of God?
@@nicholaspini3665 "you can’t PROVE atheism" I don't accept God claims.
Atheism proven.
@@nicholaspini3665 faith is believing in something or someone when you have no good reason to
@@nicholaspini3665 no and no. You need to add to that definition “when they have no good reason to believe or have confidence” I lack faith as an atheist. I don’t have to prove anything when it comes to atheism. No case to be made with “I don’t believe you” especially when you have not brought anything valid to the table.
I agree that faith is irrational. It always was and should this ever change it would be the end to religion. Only because of religion’s irrationality does it work as a belief system. The wager can at most explain nominal church membership but never honest belief and even nominal membership is questionable because god, should he exist, would probably be able to tell the difference and should god’s existence ever be proven, it wouldn’t be believing anymore.
I do however have an issue with your statement that believing means stop searching the truth. That is a misrepresentation of religious life. Exactly because belief is irrational and unprovable religious people are full of doubt wich makes them search. Of course you will find people like you described over thousands of years of religiousness but it’s not like every atheist has a critical mindset activated 24/7 either.
Many religious people are searching. That is why a whole field of academia, called theology, exists. And they are not limited to that. The famous rule of the order of St. Benedict „Ora et labora“ is a shortened form, it actually reads: „Ora et labora et studia“ (pray, work and STUDY). Gregor Mendel who discovered genetics and Georges Lemaître who discovered the big bang were both catholic priests. You see, for Christians understanding the world, god’s gift in their opinion, means understanding god himself. That is why monasteries were the centers of western knowledge for centuries and why the church state was by far the most professional when it comes to stuff like crafting and preserving documents from science to bureaucracy, way more than was seen as strictly necessary at the time.
what if god exists and he will punish you for believing in him?
The context of PW is the time and place he lived in. His life and that of his family. Also the writings which made up the book Pensees which published after his tragically early death. I don't think he was enjoying the best health when he wrote it and that may have effected his thinking.
Of those contexts, by far the most important is that Pensees flatly reject ALL possibility of establishing a logical argument for belief in God.
IMO, without PW, Pensees would have not been publishable. As it is, it is still officially banned by the Catholic Church.
IMO the real wager was about his life as a privileged person in Catholic France and his relationship with his family, not about heaven and hell.
Rejecting God meant living outside polite society, whereas accepting God enabled him to live a comfortable, pleasurable life.
Yo everybody I gained eternal life from Ra but it's been 4,000 years and I'm getting pretty bored with the infinite amount of time on my hands. Anyone got some activities I can do to pass by eternity?
i hope afterlife have some sick games
Perhaps you should start by caring about truth. Instead of trying to justify your silly believes.
It's disappointing that we have yet another apologist that has zero answers and just tries to pull the wool over our eyes.
I'm still hoping for the day I can have a discussion with an intelligent and honest believer.
@@69eddieDDefinitely. Pascal has been torn apart in so many creative and unique ways that I don’t understand how anyone could reference Pascal with a straight face.
@@69eddieD Missionary Penguin wasn't being dishonest, and though Pascal's wager is a weak argument ,the point he was making was that considering what could be on the line maybe you should consider believing in God.
@@m0gg83 So your argument is "Pascal's Wager is weak, but PASCAL'S WAGER PASCAL'S WAGER PASCAL'S WAGER PASCAL'S WAGER PASCAL'S WAGER PASCAL'S WAGER."
Are you a liar or an idiot?
@@m0gg83the same applies to you, considering what’s on the line, you should believe in Islam and follow the teachings of the Quran. Or Hinduism, or this religion you may have never heard of called Kenshinism that states you’ll gain eternal life if you wire me $5,000 in the next 72 hours
Even when I was a Christian, I found Pascal's Wager to be a terrible argument.
Here is my main problem with Pascal's Wager - this is an argument used to keep those who already believe, inside the religion, and not one to persuade those who are unconvinced. And that undermines the very strength of the religion. A true religion which has good reason for one to believe in it would not need to resort to cheap tactics to try and keep its followers. Also there is an equivocation fallacy, a false dichotomy, and also a misrepresentation of all alternative possible outcomes, as well as misrepresenting the other side. All in one argument. This isn't even about belief in God in my opinion - anyone who is interested in this topic, should make it a personal point of intellectual honesty to know how to refute this terrible argument, and challenge those who would stoop so low as to use it.
It's beyond nonsensical to nonbelievers.
Can't religious freaks get the message? WE DON'T BELIEVE YOUR RIDICULOUS LIES FOR JESUS.
Amen. God Bless you ♥️🙏🏾😇
@@GodsMouthpieceJoeRob which god? Shiva? Krishna? Vishnu? Hanaman? Ganesha? Brahma? Rudhra?
pascals wager has two flaws that i see immediately. when you devote yourself to a religion, it often makes behavioral demands of you, forcing you to give up pork or shaving or red meat on fridays during a specific period of time. god does not exist but you accept god doesn't just "gain nothing" it actually causes you to lose something to prove your faith and obedience.
secondly, the wager only works as a binary of accepting one god vs not accepting one god. plenty of religions are polytheist. and since not all religions promise eternal life, that doesn't belong in a square like this.
i don't understand why anyone is still trying to use this in this day and age.
Accepting a God that does not exist - is not a cost free wager. You sacrifice your integrity. Perhaps he had none to lose ... but the rest of us might not be so lucky.
Problem is, it’s not binary, you need to assume that god wants to send you to hell, so that heaven and hell exists and that where you go depends on beliefs
Second problem is it assumes there is one god, the Christian one, and that every other religions are not an option to chose
What if I pick Yahweh but then it’s Allah who exists and I go to hell anyway?
The little 4 outcomes graphic ignores the thousand of religions in existence 😅
So picking a god is like going from 0% to be right if said god exists to 0.00001% chance your god exists, so the margin is so ridiculous and it’s equivalent to say: can’t win the lottery if you don’t buy a ticket, so buy a ticket everyday from now on
Nope
Massive flaw in Pascal wager that you didn't address is that humanity invented thousands of Gods. And Jewish God only started punishing people for not believing in him with Christianity. Old testament God (who did most evil and wicked things) wasn't so evil to punish people after death, until Jesus was added to the picture
Everyone risks having the wrong religion. Even atheists and agnostics.
@brianw.5230 id argue that choosing "none" and living an otherwise good life is a better bet than a single religion.
choosing no religion means you aren't worshipping the wrong god, and you have the fall back excuse of "there were thousands of different options, and i saw no compelling reason to choose one"
@Reverend_Salem being an atheist is the worst choice according to most religions.
@@brianw.5230 No its not. Many religoons are against worshipping wrong gods or other gods, buy i believe only Christianity has problem with worshipping no gods. Even 10 commandments from Judaism have rule against worshipping other gods, but no rule for no gods.
@@alasarcher400in the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. One for his domain (office basically) and one for ours. God wants to exist with us in both or either of these places... AND then, sin came into the universe through one of Gods angels... now the angels that sinned need a place to go... they cant sit in earth, and they cant be with God in heaven... so God creates hell for those angels... AND THEN... humans saw it fit to eat fruits they werent suppose to and introduce sin into their being. The sin, is contagious. It almost cant be helped, the chances of a human not sinning by their own volition is so next to impossible it might as well be. These sinful humans cant go to heaven, God doesnt sit with sin... and they cant go to earth (in the future) because thats designated for Gods people... where will they go?? They go with the one who introduced sin, Hell. Humans dont belong in hell, but if you do not adhere to the rules of the other 2 places theres no where else left to go
If he exists and you gain eternal life by believing in him - do you really want to play the harp for that damn narcisist for the rest of eternity?
Or do you rather work on striking a deal with Satan? Because HE didn't like God either and i don't think that he is cooperating much with heaven.
You lose your time if you believe in god by limiting yourself on your youth and stuff.
So what are the odds that *your* specific incarnation of 'god' exists? Next to none. Give me one reason why the Abrahamic god is real and not the Norse or Hindu gods.
As a Christian I think this is a really bad argument.
Paul said that if the resurrection isn´t real we are the most miserable of all people.
Becoming a true Christian means suffering trials including persecution - but eternal reward.
So, from a biblical perspective choosing God only is wise if he is real.
I refuse to be this lazy and dishonest with myself. Belief isnt a choice, and I will not believe and worship something “just because”
If your religion allows for that, that is disgusting.
Why Pascal's Wager or ANY belief system is a bad idea:
There are many faiths promising hell if you don't believe in them. By picking one and turning your back on the others, your chances of picking the right one are very slim.
You're better off being an Atheist and living a life of altruism and humanism; this way you *might* convince a good willed deity to look over your sin of not believing in them and just being good to your fellow man.
Christianity has the most evidence of being true in my opinion, there is plenty of historical documents and writings that acknowledge Jesus's life and existence and not one disagrees with him being righteous and living a sinless life, compared to the likes of Mohammed who was anything but just. I do agree that everyone should live a life of altruism and do good but who sets the standard for good? Without God morality is relative.
@@m0gg83christian morality includes homophobia and system where women shouldn't be in charge but obey men
I find this disgusting
Especially for "loving God"
@@m0gg83 Christianity is beyond absurd. Wake up.
@@m0gg83 Christianity is abysmally immoral. Wake up.
Yeah accept being an athiest isnt rejecting to follow god rather its rejecting the claim god is real because of lacking evidence. So why would a loving god send people who simply werent convinced to go to eternal hell.
This argument only works for people who are convinced god exists but deliberately dont want to follow him. (which wouldnt be an athiest)
Also athiesm DOES NOT involve faith AT ALL. Athiesm isnt saying "there is no god" its saying "i dont have proof to think theres a god"
Also pascals wager fails because there are still thousands of religions. So you must believe in the correct one to gain eternal life. For example of christianity is wrong and islam is correct then YOU would still go to hell
I consider this wager on many levels stupid. But let me give you a reason which assumes the biblical deity exists.
According to Christian beliefs the biblical deity wants to have a personal relationship with you. But this wager is literally the ultimate version of being selfish. If you choose the biblical deity because of that wager then you are not choosing to have a relationship with that deity because of you wanting to be with the the biblical detiy but you did so because you want rewards and not get punished.
I do not see how a "relationship" based on that is any good at all.
It is like a wife or husband marrying her/his partner just for the money.
I mean since you guys think that you know better about what jesus says... I mean christ..... First the best objection to this argument is that it doesnt give you ay reason to bleive in your god, your denomination or even jesus. there are other religons, like islam, taht also offer heven and hell. Since The wage is only a bet it doesnt concider the third option. God is real and you followed the wrong Prophet, book, verse, the list goes one.
Also Pascals wager doesnt stop death, you still die. Jesus sasid your spirit will resuurect at the end of time and you guys think its immeaditly, and you become and angel or some shit. And either way you still gain immortality, you just either go to hell or heaven.
But really the root to all of this is that all pascals wager reaally is , is a way to strike the fear of death and unknown into people and to get their selfish hackles up. Becasue OF course it is not just as simple as just beliving is it? So you also have to read the right booka nd read the right verses ignoreing things like isaisah not saying jesus is coming but the king of assyira and that it says young woman (Alma -Hebrew) and not Virgin (parthinos -Greek). That the world is only 6000 years old and that a flood covered everything. That every piece of evidence to the contray is just the devil in your ear.
You have to tite top the church and have to live to its code, because of course thechruch you go to is the real undiluted word of the lord. Even though the book says in Proverbs trust not in your own understanding turst in mine. So of course the unknowable is known to you and the denomination your in. You will be forced to follow the political leaning of thsoe aroudn you and can and will be ostrized and punished by teh memebrs for any diviations from the doctrine taht you and only you toatally have right, right?
Pascals wager is nothing mror ethan the kind of arguements you get from the theistic types that like to pontificate to each other because as gandalf sats ' I prefer to to talk to the most intellgent person' and of course its always those that already agree with you. why would any beleiver think this wasn't useful. All the arguemnts are useful becasue they will gaslight someone somewhere and then you get a nice rush of endrphines from feeling pious... isnt that grand for you.....
bro Christianity is on it's way out, please use your talents and energy for something more substantial.
I don't know why I got recommended a channel called missionary penguin but okay. For me the main issue with Pascal's wager is that you're trying to gameify faith. Game theory is fine and all, but you really need to look beyond the binary options to see what you're actually doing. Is pretending to believe when you don't even remotely do actually giving you a shot at heaven, or is it just hubris that any god will see through? Is it possible that by accepting Pascal's wager you might even anger a potential deity into a worse afterlife than you would have otherwise, like a non-christian god who is cool with anyone who didn't explicitly vow themselves for another god? You're really going off very little data with Pascal's wager, and you kind of often see that in these "Do something, do nothing" diagrams.
But more than just the gameified issues with the wager, I think personally I just can't get myself to believe that faith without any sort of conviction would be worth much at all. It would be hollow and empty belief.
How do you know that i gain nothing? YOu assume that people want eternal life. But i dont. Eternal life sounds horrible. Sooner or later that will be torture and you are just a mindless, bored, meaningless husk of a person, that just exists, but doesnt live.
So if you dont want eternal life, the opposite is true.
If you wake up every day and don’t immediately kill yourself you affirm that life is valuable.
There is nothing good about death, and i can’t stand the mentality that death is somehow a great thing.
There is an almost infinite universe with almost infinite things in it. Not to mention the countless relationships that could be made in the afterlife.
Ahhhh....so we can fool God!!!😂😂😂
Evidently he's not too bright... according to apologists.
No. I made it clear in the video disingenuous faith is not good.
Why would you take the time to comment on a video you didn’t even watch fully?
@@Missionarypenguin No sense of humor.
@@Missionarypenguin🤣🤣🤣🤣 are you insane? 🤯
Wouldn't an all knowing "God" know you were lying about belief? Could you actually fool this magical sorcerer "God"? According to your own religion, the answer is no.
And what about integrity? A nonbeliever surrenders his integrity when he lies to himself, lies to his community, and lies to this fake "God." Isn't integrity important?
I made it clear in the video that disingenuous faith is bad.
Why would you take the time to comment on a video you didn’t watch all the way through?
@@Missionarypenguin Do you have a non-canned response? Or are you Apologists-R-Us?
You have no idea how much I would love to be apologist-R-Us. I had some of my best childhood memories in a toys-r-us
@@Missionarypenguin So you have no answer for my questions.
@69eddieD he's not smart enough. He still thinks he solved the problem by mentioning "disingenuous faith" 🤷♂️
Why not worship all gods?
Jesus is the only God
@yaboygoodvibes1397 No, there are thousands of gods. Only naive, indoctrinate children believe there's only one god. Look into Hinduism.
How about worship no gods? They're all fake.
It's called omnism.
It doesn't work and has never worked.
Pascal's Wager is King. Its a risk/reward scenario we can apply it to every human that's ever lived.
So you must believe in Zeus, or else! 🤣
@@DeVibe. Zeus is a myth. Jesus isn't.
@@brianw.5230 Then you're admitting Pascal's Wager is worthless
@brianw.5230 wanna bet? You better believe in Zeus and worship him. If he's a myth, then you lose nothing!
@@DeVibe. Yes. I'll wager on Jesus and you wager on atheism.
A lot of fallacies about Pascal wager have already been raised in the comments (multiplicity of gods, cost of accepting the existence of God etc.), but the main point of the video have not been adressed yet. The point is that christianity is rational and atheism is a belief. Those two assertions are linked here. But it's based on a fallacy which is "something is either true or false" (1:47). This assertion is not true. I, as an atheist, do not believe that God doesn't exist. I really doesn't. I am just fully unable to understand what believers mean by "God" or "eternal life" (or "soul" or etc.). This makes no sense to me. So, a proposition can be true, or false, or devoid of meaning. And the proposition "God exists" is not false: it is devoid of meaning. That is why rejecting it is not a belief. And by the way most atheist doesn't reject it (in France at least). They just don't care.
What you describe as atheism is agnosticism in the American sense.
The notion of atheism that I have seen from almost all atheist thinkers is that atheism is a rejection of the idea of God, which would fall into a true/false dichotomy with the theist belief.
@@Missionarypenguin Point taken thank you for your answer. In France, some people say they are agnostics and what they mean by that is that they do not want to say whether God exists or not (that's a kind of PC position). What you describe as atheism, that is asserting that God does not exist, is rather called "militant atheism", people who actively deny God's existance - most people just don't care, as the question of God's existence making no sens to them. But it doesn't change the fact that the argument of Christianisme being no less rational than atheism (or rather agnosticism, as I understand) is flawed.
Thank you for your respectful answer even though I may disagree
@@Missionarypenguin Thank you as well. The scope of the discussion was not (I think) to convince each other but to give the reader elements of reflexion on this subject.
@@Missionarypenguinno, atheism is the lack of belief in any gods, not the assertion that there are no gods. Why do theists always try to assert the definition of atheism? This is what we call a strawman, it’s much easier to refute atheism when you define it as a positive belief that no gods exist
😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
Lol. More like pascal's idiocy
This is why you must accept the one and only god Allah.
🫏
Hilarious. You really think Pascal's Wager is a good argument? Man, apologists are scraping the bottom of the barrel again. What a sad bunch you are. Next you'll explain the hip new argument, Kalam, I guess...
The real God grants eternal life and joy to all those who don't profess faith in a false diety. Anyone who professes faith in a false God like YHWH or Allah will be condemned to hell. Atheists, agnostics, and followers of the true God will all live everlasting lives of fulfillment. My God is less selfish than yours in that respect.
Sounds to me like atheism is the safer bet. Also, I'm not wasting my entire life. The only life we actually do know exists.
Pascal's Wager is the most disingenuous and loaded argument in the whole world, and it never was "Atheism vs theism", it's straight up Christianity vs non-Christianity.
God or the First Mover can be in any logical configuration, and one of these configurations could be "he punishes only theists", or even "he punishes only Christians".
And this is logical, he makes the rules, he decides what is good and evil.
So is accepting the wager a good idea? No.
Pascal's Wager is freaking pathetic, there is nothing you wager you win either way, and Ultimately only loose if you have to live for eternity with in any of the current day religions. if there was any so call "gods" existence would not be as it is, there would be no debate about such a beings existence, and would ultimately just lead to an infinite regress. And besides who the hell would want to live forever that would make life meaningless, and it would be hell to live in the Abrahamic religions idea of "heaven"
Pascal's Wager is flawed. The notion that you gain nothing from rejecting God in the "God does not exist" scenario overlooks the significant emotional and life damage that many religious beliefs can inflict on individuals. These harms can include guilt, shame, poor decision-making, and a lack of personal agency, among other issues. This perspective shows a lack of understanding of the negative impacts that religious beliefs can have on people's lives.