How does one understand Blaise Pascal's "Wager" argument about God

Position:Home>Philosophy> How does one understand Blaise Pascal's "Wager" argument about God

Question:

“Pascal argues that when reason is neutral on the issue of God’s existence, the balance of positive and negative consequences or believing versus disbelieving in God should compel us to move toward a faith-based belief in God!.” What would the consequences be if I believed, didn't believe or was just neutral about God!? Would I, as an atheist, be neutral or just not believe!?Www@QuestionHome@Com

Best Answer - Chosen by Asker:

The idea is simple!.!.!.!. the only thing that brings the possibility negative of consequences is "not believing!."
Believing has two possible outcomes!. There is a God and salvation is recieved, and Hell is avoided!.
There isn't a God!.!.!. I lived a better (moral &peaceful) life!. Nothing is lost!.
Not believing has two outcomes!.
There is a God and damnation is the cost of not believing!.
There isn't a God and I have not gained anything by living as if there weren't!.
Nuetrality is not a possibility!. In and of itself it moves you to the negative position!.
Pascal resolved it is better to believe and be wrong than to not believe and be wrong!.
Is it complete reason!.!.!.!. No!. Does it make sense!? Yes!.

From a position of logic, being an atheist is unreasonable!.

An agnostic has a reasonable position!.!.!. he says, "I don't know!."

An atheist, who like everyone else, knows very little of all the things there are to know in the universe says, 'There is no God!."

The smartest person in the world might know 1% of everything there is to know!. His arrogance says, "It is impossible for to exist God in the 99% of things I don't know!."

That is unreasonable!.Www@QuestionHome@Com

If you believed, says opponents of Pascal, you would be believing selfishly!. It would not be true belief but more like "I want to get to heaven, so let's put on our good behavior act!." If God exists, I'm guessing he doesn't buy acts!. Another thing is that we assume God would reward belief in him, and punish disbelief!. On what basis is that claim made!? If you are athiest, you can just forget about his wager for it's riddled with logical fallacies!.Www@QuestionHome@Com

The only way to understand an illogical argument is to ignore the obvious!.

This idea assumes a God that is not smart enough to realize that someone is only believing because of fear!.

Not much of a god is it!.

Love and blessings DonWww@QuestionHome@Com

I do not even understand the question you are asking hereWww@QuestionHome@Com

Pascal's Wager simply states (or reasons) that if you believe in God, you have everything to gain and nothing to lose!. If you do not believe in God, you will have everything to lose if God exists, and hence by that logic everyone should believe, since if God doesn't exist, you have nothing to lose, but if God exists, you have everything to gain if you believe and everything to lose (an eternity of hell) if you don't believe!.

However, the premise of this logic is flawed because you have everything to lose as well if you were a believer!. You cannot marry someone you love if that person is not a believer!. Your search for truth is questionable since everything is based on faith rather than reason!. You have an easy fall-back solution concerning difficlut questions/issues in life!. Everything voices down to God/the Devil, which is a little simplistic!.

My recommendation is for you to read the Bible for yourself, and read Dan Barker, Farrell Till, Joseph Wheless and Thomas Paine, all available online at infidels!.com (if I still rememebr the link correctly)!.

Before believers accuse me of being one-sided in my argument and using examples of only skeptics' literature, I would like to make it known that I have read C!. S!. Lewis, Josh MacDowell, Philip Yancey, Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Thomas Kempis (whom I am still reading for comfort), Max Lucado etc!. The truth is truth must be tested by fire!. If anyone has read all the literature by the four writers I recommend above and is still convinced that the Bible is the Word of God do let me know!. I'd be more than willing to have a dialogue with you over email!.Www@QuestionHome@Com

Certainly you are not neutral, being that you take a stand on the atheist soapbox!. You therefore just proclaim you do not believe!. The only consequences I see is for the self and that is for you to determine in your life as you wonder in the wilderness of aimless thinking and pondering of that which you have no concept of!.!.!.!.!.Www@QuestionHome@Com