Should we base our belief in God on a blind bet or a hopeful gamble? In this brief clip, R.C. Sproul assesses the idea known as Pascal’s Wager. Watch the Full Message: www.ligonier.o...
Pascal's Wager is actually an insult to God (if there is one) as it implies God is an unjust, unfair, cruel, unkind, irrational, thoughtless, and savage dictator that punishes those who didn't believe based on bad evidence (faith).
@@jake5811 I ask you a simple question; try to answer it by properly thinking on your own without letting religious dogma interfere with your intellectual honesty: *You thank a creator for giving life to you & also for giving life to animals for you to take their lives & eat them. Don't you see any hypocrisy, narcissism, ignorance & arrogance?*
@Linkintime1 "I wish I could go through a course with him lecturing with the textbooks he used. What a blessing." ======================================= *1:04** TO **1:30**.* How conveniently *this speaker in this video misrepresents* agnostic-atheists such as myself (and also non-Christians) by claiming that such persons are lustful, are wanton, have a lack of moral restraint, are self-indulgent, self-centred and so on!
@@ex.hindu.now.atheist Having heard many of his teachings from Lingonier, I can say that Dr. Sproul may have a more nuanced view of every believer and non-believer. By this I mean that there can be Christians who have done horrible things and Non-beleivers who were more virtuous. He was a reformed teacher so part of his core belief system was the total depravity of man. Not that man is as bad as they can possibly be but that our depraved nature believer and non believer alike affects all parts of the person Mind, body, will and all. We don't realize how bad sin is and there must be justice for wrongdoing. A perfect just being requires justice. We can either take that punishment ourselves or we can trust Jesus who took the penalty on our behalf. Either way justice will be served.
@@Linkintime1 "Having heard many of his teachings from Lingonier [...] took the penalty on our behalf. Either way justice will be served" ============================================ How conveniently *you* have provided a 140-words long reply, *WITHOUT addressing the main issue-* that this speaker misrepresents agnostics and atheists with a broad, sweeping brush!
Romans 1: 20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
@ChandraAnandInChrist "For the invisible things of him from the [...] eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:" ================================= No credible evidence, only claims... as usual.
@storba3860 "The problem with Pascal's Wager is [...] good of a life you live you end up in Hell." ========================================= I agree with you. Further, *FROM **1:04** TO **1:30**,* this *speaker in this video conveniently misrepresents* agnostics (and) atheists-and also, by implication, non-Christians)-by claiming that such persons are lustful, are wanton, have a lack of moral restraint, are self-indulgent, are self-centred, and so on!
@@ex.hindu.now.atheist Now that I think about it Sproul is a Calvinist so Pascal's Wager doesn't even work. According to Calvinism God's already picked who's damned and who's saved and He did it before the universe was created so trying to fake it until you make it just isn't going to fly.
@@storba3860 "Now that I think about it Sproul is a Calvinist [...] make it just isn't going to fly." ============================ I see. Theistic beliefs seem to get weirder and weirder, the more one learns about them. So, do Calvinists claim that THEY ALONE are the ones whom Yahweh-boi has already selected for 'salvation' ?
@꧁.꧂ Son of Man 333 ꧁_꧂ Yep. It's a simple as that. Eph 2:8-9 "For by grace you have been saved through faith, and this not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; not of works, so that no one may boast." If Vero has saving faith, it is a gift that demons are not privy to.
@꧁.꧂ Son of Man 333 ꧁_꧂ No one argued that. You asked what the difference is between the faith of demons and the faith of someone who is excited because they believe they are winning all the way with Christ. The only answer that I am aware of is that the faith of someone who believes they are winning all the way with Christ is a gift, whereas the faith of demons is not. Vero simply expressed that he chooses the faith that God has given him as opposed to the alternative. I'm not sure what you're arguing about.
My mom sent me this and I thought Pascal's Wager had nothing to do with religion. Although I am a wiccan, this does make a lot of sense. I'm glad UA-cam still has an educational side that's not for toddlers.
@@maxxam3590 Is that what you believe and are you willing to act on that belief? In that case, you exhibit faith. Faith is trusting what you believe. Now, your faith is not saving faith because it's not faith in the sacrifice of Christ Jesus for your sins, that all have sinned and have earned eternal death in Hell for our sins, and that only by believing in Christ's sacrifice can we be rescued from Hell and receive eternal life. You might not believe this. You might believe the opposite, that we're all deluded. But, by trusting what you believe, you act on it and exhibit faith that what you believe is true. By acting on our belief, we each place a sort of a bet on what the real nature of the universe and the afterlife is. Good luck with your bet. But don't pretend you don't have faith in something.
@@morefiction3264 No. Faith, in the religious sense, is described perfectly in Hebrews 11:1 And it's not just "trust in what you believe". It is a vice.
@@maxxam3590 And if you read all of the chapter, you see he presents a number of examples of people providing evidence of faith by acting on what they believe. Again, good luck.
I’ve heard the idea of this wager before but never knew exactly what it was or where it came from. I definitely see the merit in it. However 1 Corinthians 15:16-19 comes to mind where Paul talks about how pitiable we are if our hope in Christ is in this life alone. Does that negate Pascal’s wager? Or at least part of it?
Maybe he was talking about this in light of the heavy persecution they suffered. Having their families killed and their own bodies destroyed for nothing would be a horrible shame.
@@LeevesFPS that’s a good point. Your probably right, aside from that Pascal’s wager works. And even that is way better than not believing in God and then finding out your wrong.
I mean, the wager is for skeptics and nowadays it is considered the very weakest of the apologetic arguments. There are simply too many counters that atheists have developed to justify the weakness of the argument, because, as Sproul said, it isn’t an argument for Gods existence, but a wager for existentialist meaning. I would encourage those seeking to strengthen their apologetic repertoire to move on to the greater arguments. In my experience, though countered by the well studied atheists, the moral argument is amazing for the average conversation with a half-learned atheist
@@thomastyler5582 How is the moral argument countered by well studied atheist? Atheism has no basis for morals except for relativism, which is self defeating, and anyone outside of Christianity invoking morals is taking it from the Christian view. If done right, the whole conversation is like defending the existence of air and they are trying to disprove air while needing to breath in order to make their argument.
@@adammccaskill2329 Hello Adam, you have to consider that the atheist is coming to this discussion presupposed. You and I agree that the moral argument is final. But when an atheist justifies something in their own mind like, for instance, that morality is a sociocultural construct that has been in the making since the dawn of humanity, then they have come to the argument already decided on the matter. The only thing, in many of these cases, that one can do is argue the shallowness of the morality vs the depth of real morality created by God. All i meant by that is that an atheist on the fence is way easier to persuade via this argument than one who had already justified this argument, albeit incorrectly.
Why wouldn't I bet on an invisible sky wizard and do the things it commands? For the same reason I wouldn't string garlic around my door in case there are really vampires. Both myths are ridiculous on their face and my life has been a joy without them. Cheers.
@@grilledcheese2285 because that is where you were indoctrinated in believing... what if thor, shiva, etc was the real God you encounter upon your death?
"so if a person gives up everything in their life, and then dies realizing all of their sacrifices were for nothing, then really they haven't lost anything."
@carealoo744 "so if a person gives up everything in their life, and then dies realizing all of their sacrifices were for nothing, then really they haven't lost anything. =========================================== Yeah, I see the point that you are making. From *1:04** TO **1:30**,* how conveniently this speaker in this video misrepresents agnostic-atheists such as myself (and also non-Christians) by claiming that such persons are lustful, are wanton, have a lack of moral restraint, are self-indulgent, self-centred and so on!
@Ligonier Ministries Thank you for these. But it would be helpful if you guys would cite the sources for these snippets in the video description so that we can look them up for ourselves and watch the whole thing. And maybe even provide a link. There is obviously more before and after that some of us would like to listen to.
Thank you for reaching out to us. We appreciate your feedback. This message in particular is from Dr. Sproul's series, The Consequences of Ideas. You can find that series here: www.ligonier.org/learn/series/consequences-of-ideas/
@@ligonier Thanks. But, in the future, can you guys try to remember to cite the original videos in the description, and possibly give a link to it as well? Thanks again!!
And what if that god that exists is not the Christian god? Pascal’s Wager is a false dichotomy, you’re not minimizing risk by believing in the Christian god, you still expose yourself to the risk of another god existing
True. Except good luck finding any historical evidence for other religions like Greek mythology. Very clearly a lot of religions were just made up by people, but a religion such as Christianity is claiming divine revelation because of a historical event they witnessed. That’s what the gospels are. Read 1 Corinthians 14 -19. So Christianity is making a verifiable claim in contrast to religions like Hinduism that offer nothing to actually show their religion is true except faith. And if god was real doesn’t it make sense that he would offer evidence for his existence just like Jesus did with the disciples by doing miracles and resurrecting. So instead of taking it as believe because you might was well just in case hell exists. Instead think of it as you would want god to exist because that idea offers good things like heaven or justice. So when you look for evidence for gods existence in philosophical arguments or in New Testament scholarship you want to look for the positive arguments and see if the objections are good enough to refute them. So it’s not believe because just in case. It’s be charitable to gods existence being possible and then being open to evidence for his existence.
@@arielcosentino2202 If you're accepting Christianity because you think it has verifiable historical evidence for its claims, then you don't need Pascal's Wager, do you? You've already got the evidence you need and don't have to bother with a purely logical risk-reward gamble. Pascal's Wager IS "believe because just in case". Simply being charitable to the possibility and then looking for evidence is fine but that is not at all what Pascal argued. And I'm not saying I agree with your assertions that Christianity has compelling historical evidence, because I don't, but that's a separate question and a separate argument. Pascal's Wager still has the exact flaw, a fatal one, that the commenter above mentioned.
How about just creating the aperture to something else to come. If there's something, you're set to that frequency. In the case of Pascal, he went with the only salvific religion. It's the most promissory of a good time.
@@kazman_6899 Pascal went with the religion that dominated the culture he was a part of, just like most religious people do. He would have been aware of Islam and other current or past religions that make promises or threats regarding the afterlife, of which there are plenty.
@@scotte4765 You are missing my point. He went with the religion that offers instant absolution. All one requires is Jesus. No other religion has this built-in reward. If you believe in Allah, you'll still need to go through the cleansing process (it will only feel like hell, jaja). Ergo, Pascal bet on the one with the biggest return. If he bet on any other, he's reward would be punishment.
But without faith [it is] impossible to please [him]: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and [that] he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him. (Hebrews 11:6, KJV) I don't believe God could honor someone's wager here. There's a difference of hoping or even gambling on something and knowing it's going to be true, that it is true. If you don't know Jesus Christ personally, and that he's real, then this wager is futile.
Yeah I saw an organization at my university giving handouts of Pascal’s wager. It explained the wager, and it also included their own type of “sinner’s prayer,” that began (I kid you not) with: “God, I don’t even know if you’re real…” And I was absolutely horrified at it. For one, they failed to present reasonable evidence for God. Then on top of that, they gave occasion for doubt, presenting the wager to unbelievers without presenting real evidence for God’s existence, and as far as I can remember, not even the gospel (though I hope I’m wrong about that). If I was an unbeliever who received one of those, I would’ve only thought “wow, this is the best they can do?” And would’ve inclined my beliefs toward Christianity being a baseless faith. Then the “sinners prayer” type thing that was a prayer designed around Pascal’s Wager, and full of doubt, probably didn’t help either. On a technical level, I think I can agree with Pascal’s wager that, given an uncertainty, it’s better to go with the safer option. So if one is uncertain of God’s existence, it would be a more helpful conclusion to live as though He does, than as though He doesn’t. But as you’ve noted, an uncertain “wager” that God exists is not faith, and so will not aid the sinner in any way of eternal significance. Betting/uncertain hoping isn’t faith.
Pleasing lesser god from Canaan mythology, yea, let's just do this, let's also add some other religions, some philosophy, wow, we now got blood cult, apocalyptic cult a.k.a. ch.ristianity P.s. even Saul didn't know "jesus" personally.
@@grilledcheese2285 It is. If there is a god/gods, it's a lot more likely that a god or gods that don't care if somebody is an atheist, but hates somebody who believes in the wrong God or gods would exist, rather than the one that you believe in
@@tiedeman39 You didn't point out why it is a logical fallacy though. But the point still stands. Pascal didn't disagree with the use of evidence, he argued that evidence alone can't settle the problem, however it should be shown the stakes. So to bet on let's say Christianity because it has more evidences than any other religion, would be a better idea than not betting at all. And i don't know of any religion which condemns someone because they don't believe in a God, i believe that the major world religions believe that sin causes damnation. And the wager mostly goes for the atheist, so it's practically better to be a muslim than an atheist in terms of belief. But it is better to be a christian, arguably, because it is more evidential than Islam. And that is what i argue the point of the wager is. If you are on a road trip to a place but there is a possible road danger in a specific road, possibly due to a crash, but there is another road which didn't have a crash but it takes longer, it's a better choice to go to the one that takes longer since you would risk possibly being stranded, losing a car or maybe your own life. The only difference is this doesn't take into account evidence. Basically your comment assumes arbitrary belief to do the Pascal's Wager. We theists don't believe in arbitrary belief rather the most evidential one.
It’s a false dichotomy. The Christian exposes themselves to the risk that either Yahweh isn’t the true god, or that Jesus is a false prophet. Any nonzero probability multiplied by the infinitely horrible outcome gives an expected value of infinitely horrible outcome. No theist is in a better spot than the atheist given this proposition
@@grilledcheese2285 Buddhism and hinduism believes that among major ones. Sin leads to damnation and no eternal hell. Christianity and islam is the most strict in both the fact that you must follow that religion and the fact that the punishment is eternal hell with unimaginable amount of pain every picosecond. Judaism will tell you that you must believe in God but not necessarily be jewish however I don't see a solid concept of eternal hell.
I am a Christian but if I live as a Christian and die and there is no God, I am not sure I lived my best life? As a Christian I limit my freedom to honor God, if I am limiting my freedoms, I realize unlimited pleasure would be better?
I would remind you that Jesus said we are all slaves, either of God or of sin. If you were not a Christian and lived a hedonistic lifestyle you would still lack genuine joy and you would certainly be in bondage. Believers don't actually desire that carnal life so we don't consider it a loss at all to avoid drunken orgies and the like. Sin grieves us and we hate the sins we do commit. I know the lost think Christians are forlornly looking out from their cages as they have all the fun but thay simply isn't true. Christians are quite happy and we know we have the greener grass. We look at the lost with sympathy because we were once also lost and know what they are missing out on.
@Ligonier Ministries *1:04** TO **1:30**.* How conveniently *this speaker in this video misrepresents* agnostic-atheists such as myself (and also non-Christians) by claiming that such persons are lustful, are wanton, have a lack of moral restraint, are self-indulgent, self-centred, and so on!
Some atheists have argued with me that it doesn't matter because Jesus Christ may not be the true God and there are 5 other religions. So becoming a Christian doesn't guarantee salvation. Well, a 17% chance is better than 0% chance.
@@hera9191 That's a gross estimation of the fact, it does not account reasonable belief, like i only know that there is the Judeo-Christian God (Mono), the Judeo-Islamic God (mono) and the poly theistic religion of Hindusim you have 1+1 plus 33 million poly gods of hinduism see the problem with your logic? for the sake of argument though let's say all religions are reasonable, which some of them aren't, that's why some religions have died out, the pascal's wager is not to arbitrarily choose random god/s, but to become less close minded as an atheist, and to push to find the best and most logical belief, and if possible most evidential, because you run incredibly high risks believing there is no God, than believing there is a possibility of a God, and you have way lesser risks to believe in Christianity, than to believe in hinduism. What you have presented is a ruined explanation of the wager (Strawman argument) to defeat the argument The Pascal's wager is a wager, not a threat, it is a wage to weight the evidences and to help people search for truth. We here think that Christianity is the best and most evidential religion and belief. That's the point of the wager.
@@grilledcheese2285 "close minded as an atheist".. funny, how not accepting claims without evidence you address as close mind. I'm afraid to believe something for bad reason, pascal wager sound silly for me.
@@hera9191 Amazing how you did not also quote any other sentence but that one. Let's quote more of what i said shall we? "The Pascal's wager is a wager, not a threat, it is a wage to weight the evidences and to help people search for truth. We here think that Christianity is the best and most evidential religion and belief. That's the point of the wager." "the pascal's wager is not to arbitrarily choose random god/s, but to become less close minded as an atheist, and to push to find the best and most logical belief, and if possible most evidential" You have entirely ditched my statements, disqualifying your argument "I'm afraid to believe something for bad reason" - Let's disect that. Now what my point was, was that the pascal's wager tells us that it is less risky to believe in God rather than not, this is of course true and for me to tell you why would be concerning. But let's move further, if God is not real, and you believed in him, let's say there is a 30% chance he exists, that means you had the 60% chance of him not existing, but if you had the 30%, then you would be in danger of the judgement, then if it was the 10% which is God existing but him not being able to sentence anyone to hell, then the risks are lower. - The point of this illustration is that the risks outway the chance of a non existence of God, and even that is very much disputed, we see evidences of God everywhere, meaning the chances of him not existing is lower than 60%. The wager is meant to pressure you to make a decision, once you make the decision of theism, you will then be able to search for the "correct God" so to speak. So wage by being agnostic than atheist, or if you are agnostic, go to churches, be open minded, ask pastors, go to Christian apologists im not forcing you to Christianity same way Pascal isn't but I am telling you that if you die, and that risk becomes true, well im sure you know what may happen.
Pascal’s Wager as an evangelical tool is horrible. Carl Sagan introduced an idea that is a far better way to save humanity than ever has been achieved by 2000 years of Jesus. Reversing Pascal's Wager would be far better for humanity as shown by the actions of Christian's themselves. Not only is it wrong, think about what it does to anyone that is actually convinced by it. They embrace Trump's Authoritarianism, they also vote for those that do nothing about climate change, gun violence, health care access and list goes on. Such a person, who decides to believe in God out of fear or avarice, is unlikely to be “saved.” The kind of belief that is intrinsically advocated by someone who professes that the Wager is good evangelism is an insincere and a manipulative belief. Pascal’s Wager, when used as an evangelical tool, is really an insult to God by the theist. It is far better to embrace saving humanity ourselves and if we fail AT LEAST WE TRIED and if a God does exist that saves us all one day great. But as a rational human being I'll work and vote for those that want to make the world a better place instead of those that fearmonger like all the Trump puppets.
“For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God; Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus” Romans 3:23-24
And he continued, “You have a fine way of setting aside the commands of God in order to observe your own traditions! 10For Moses said, ‘Honor your father and mother,’ and, ‘Anyone who curses their father or mother is to be put to death.’ Mark 7:9-10
There is no falsifiable test for any religious assertion of the reality of any God(s). With no data, you cannot justify the wager. In the court of the (alleged) supernatural you would still be held blameless because of your utter steadfastness to honesty.
1 Cor 15 14 and if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain, your faith also is in vain. 15 Moreover, we are even found to be false witnesses of God, because we testified against God that He raised Christ, whom He did not raise, if in fact the dead are not raised. 16 For if the dead are not raised, then not even Christ has been raised; 17 and if Christ has not been raised, your faith is worthless; you are still in your sins. 18 Then also those who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished. 19 If we have hoped in Christ only in this life, we are of all people most to be pitied.
Pascal’s Wager is a thoroughly debunked flawed and fallacious argument no matter which modified version one might choose to present. Pascal, like Isaac Newton was a brilliant theorist in the area of Mathematics who made notoriously nonsensical utterances about religious matters in the twilight of life. UA-cam is chock full of solidly reasoned dismissals of the so-called Pascal’s Wager in its many forms. No sincere believer should present it as an argument to convince a non-believer. In fact, the wager is an insult to the god you believe in if you look at the proposal logically.
What if you place Pascal's wager on Jesus Christ and after you die you discover that god is some else like, for example, Odin or Zeus? You lose! Which god are you betting on?
Odin and Zeus are myths. Jesus is not. 🙂 Pascal wrote "Pensees" to show why Christianity was true and other religions were not. He wrote about Jesus, miracles, prophecies and morality. He addressed other religions: "I see then a crowd of religions in many parts of the world and in all times; but their morality cannot please me, nor can their proofs convince me. Thus I should equally have rejected the religion of Mahomet and of China, of the ancient Romans and of the Egyptians, for the sole reason, that none having moremarks of truth than another, nor anything which should necessarily persuade me, reason cannot incline to one rather than the other."
@@brianw.5230 What is a virtuous life? Is there more than one kind of virtuous life? Is one kind of virtuous life more "virtuous" than others? How do you know?
Pascal's Wager is actually an insult to God (if there is one) as it implies God is an unjust, unfair, cruel, unkind, irrational, thoughtless, and savage dictator that punishes those who didn't believe based on bad evidence (faith).
But, this is image of judaistic/christian god, how you can claim that Christianity believe in "insult"?
@@dod-do-or-dont
"The best cure for Christianity is reading the Bible."
Mark Twain
@@AtamMardes Yup, my response was sarcastic 😉.
Christians are using arguments that are cutting themselves.
@@AtamMardes ---The best cure for atheism is in a foxhole surrounded by enemy forces intent on your demise.
@@jake5811 I ask you a simple question; try to answer it by properly thinking on your own without letting religious dogma interfere with your intellectual honesty: *You thank a creator for giving life to you & also for giving life to animals for you to take their lives & eat them. Don't you see any hypocrisy, narcissism, ignorance & arrogance?*
I wish I could go through a course with him lecturing with the textbooks he used. What a blessing.
@Linkintime1
"I wish I could go through a course with him lecturing with the textbooks he used. What a blessing."
=======================================
*1:04** TO **1:30**.*
How conveniently *this speaker in this video misrepresents* agnostic-atheists such as myself (and also non-Christians) by claiming that such persons are lustful, are wanton, have a lack of moral restraint, are self-indulgent, self-centred and so on!
@@ex.hindu.now.atheist Having heard many of his teachings from Lingonier, I can say that Dr. Sproul may have a more nuanced view of every believer and non-believer. By this I mean that there can be Christians who have done horrible things and Non-beleivers who were more virtuous. He was a reformed teacher so part of his core belief system was the total depravity of man. Not that man is as bad as they can possibly be but that our depraved nature believer and non believer alike affects all parts of the person Mind, body, will and all. We don't realize how bad sin is and there must be justice for wrongdoing. A perfect just being requires justice. We can either take that punishment ourselves or we can trust Jesus who took the penalty on our behalf. Either way justice will be served.
@@Linkintime1
"Having heard many of his teachings from Lingonier [...] took the penalty on our behalf. Either way justice will be served"
============================================
How conveniently *you* have provided a 140-words long reply, *WITHOUT addressing the main issue-* that this speaker misrepresents agnostics and atheists with a broad, sweeping brush!
Romans 1: 20
For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
@ChandraAnandInChrist
"For the invisible things of him from the [...] eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:"
=================================
No credible evidence, only claims... as usual.
The problem with Pascal's Wager is that without faith no matter how good of a life you live you end up in Hell.
@storba3860
"The problem with Pascal's Wager is [...] good of a life you live you end up in Hell."
=========================================
I agree with you.
Further, *FROM **1:04** TO **1:30**,*
this *speaker in this video conveniently misrepresents* agnostics (and) atheists-and also, by implication, non-Christians)-by claiming that such persons are lustful, are wanton, have a lack of moral restraint, are self-indulgent, are self-centred, and so on!
@@ex.hindu.now.atheist Now that I think about it Sproul is a Calvinist so Pascal's Wager doesn't even work. According to Calvinism God's already picked who's damned and who's saved and He did it before the universe was created so trying to fake it until you make it just isn't going to fly.
@@storba3860
"Now that I think about it Sproul is a Calvinist [...] make it just isn't going to fly."
============================
I see.
Theistic beliefs seem to get weirder and weirder, the more one learns about them.
So, do Calvinists claim that THEY ALONE are the ones whom Yahweh-boi has already selected for 'salvation' ?
as a new believer his teachings were water too deep for me, over 35 years later they are deeply enriching to me.
My choice is my belief that I am winning all the way with Christ who is the true light and life.
🙌🙏❤️
@꧁.꧂ Son of Man 333 ꧁_꧂ please don’t be a hyper Calvinist, if someone believes do not discourage them.
@꧁.꧂ Son of Man 333 ꧁_꧂ The answer to your question is within your question: the difference is the former is a gift and the latter is not.
@꧁.꧂ Son of Man 333 ꧁_꧂ Yep. It's a simple as that. Eph 2:8-9 "For by grace you have been saved through faith, and this not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; not of works, so that no one may boast." If Vero has saving faith, it is a gift that demons are not privy to.
@꧁.꧂ Son of Man 333 ꧁_꧂ No one argued that. You asked what the difference is between the faith of demons and the faith of someone who is excited because they believe they are winning all the way with Christ. The only answer that I am aware of is that the faith of someone who believes they are winning all the way with Christ is a gift, whereas the faith of demons is not. Vero simply expressed that he chooses the faith that God has given him as opposed to the alternative. I'm not sure what you're arguing about.
@꧁.꧂ Son of Man 333 ꧁_꧂ why are you attempting to change the subject? If you have something to say, say it.
My mom sent me this and I thought Pascal's Wager had nothing to do with religion. Although I am a wiccan, this does make a lot of sense. I'm glad UA-cam still has an educational side that's not for toddlers.
So why are you Wiccan?
Pascal's Wager is a logical fallacy based on a false dichotomy. It is not an educational tool.
why do you follow a 20th century religion
Pascal's Wager will never produce saving faith. But if it gets someone to think seriously about God and the consequences of sin, it's useful.
There isn't such a thing as "savibg faith". Faith is a vice, not a virtue, and there isn't anything we need to be "saved" from.
@@maxxam3590 Is that what you believe and are you willing to act on that belief? In that case, you exhibit faith. Faith is trusting what you believe.
Now, your faith is not saving faith because it's not faith in the sacrifice of Christ Jesus for your sins, that all have sinned and have earned eternal death in Hell for our sins, and that only by believing in Christ's sacrifice can we be rescued from Hell and receive eternal life.
You might not believe this. You might believe the opposite, that we're all deluded. But, by trusting what you believe, you act on it and exhibit faith that what you believe is true.
By acting on our belief, we each place a sort of a bet on what the real nature of the universe and the afterlife is.
Good luck with your bet. But don't pretend you don't have faith in something.
@@morefiction3264 No. Faith, in the religious sense, is described perfectly in Hebrews 11:1
And it's not just "trust in what you believe". It is a vice.
@@maxxam3590 And if you read all of the chapter, you see he presents a number of examples of people providing evidence of faith by acting on what they believe.
Again, good luck.
@@morefiction3264 "Acting on beliefs" is not "evidence" of faith. Again, faith is a vice. One that I'm free from, and I couldn't be happier about it.
I’ve heard the idea of this wager before but never knew exactly what it was or where it came from. I definitely see the merit in it. However 1 Corinthians 15:16-19 comes to mind where Paul talks about how pitiable we are if our hope in Christ is in this life alone. Does that negate Pascal’s wager? Or at least part of it?
Maybe he was talking about this in light of the heavy persecution they suffered. Having their families killed and their own bodies destroyed for nothing would be a horrible shame.
@@LeevesFPS that’s a good point. Your probably right, aside from that Pascal’s wager works. And even that is way better than not believing in God and then finding out your wrong.
I mean, the wager is for skeptics and nowadays it is considered the very weakest of the apologetic arguments. There are simply too many counters that atheists have developed to justify the weakness of the argument, because, as Sproul said, it isn’t an argument for Gods existence, but a wager for existentialist meaning. I would encourage those seeking to strengthen their apologetic repertoire to move on to the greater arguments.
In my experience, though countered by the well studied atheists, the moral argument is amazing for the average conversation with a half-learned atheist
@@thomastyler5582 How is the moral argument countered by well studied atheist? Atheism has no basis for morals except for relativism, which is self defeating, and anyone outside of Christianity invoking morals is taking it from the Christian view. If done right, the whole conversation is like defending the existence of air and they are trying to disprove air while needing to breath in order to make their argument.
@@adammccaskill2329 Hello Adam, you have to consider that the atheist is coming to this discussion presupposed. You and I agree that the moral argument is final. But when an atheist justifies something in their own mind like, for instance, that morality is a sociocultural construct that has been in the making since the dawn of humanity, then they have come to the argument already decided on the matter. The only thing, in many of these cases, that one can do is argue the shallowness of the morality vs the depth of real morality created by God.
All i meant by that is that an atheist on the fence is way easier to persuade via this argument than one who had already justified this argument, albeit incorrectly.
Why wouldn't I bet on an invisible sky wizard and do the things it commands? For the same reason I wouldn't string garlic around my door in case there are really vampires. Both myths are ridiculous on their face and my life has been a joy without them. Cheers.
So you have to believe in Allah to avoid consequences?
But whose God would he ultimately face?
the most reasonable and if possible most evidential God.
Yeah, we dont know...
@@grilledcheese2285 because that is where you were indoctrinated in believing... what if thor, shiva, etc was the real God you encounter upon your death?
A theology that makes Paschal’s Wager serious enough to mention is a really bad idea to begin with.
"so if a person gives up everything in their life, and then dies realizing all of their sacrifices were for nothing, then really they haven't lost anything."
@carealoo744
"so if a person gives up everything in their life, and then dies realizing all of their sacrifices were for nothing, then really they haven't lost anything.
===========================================
Yeah, I see the point that you are making.
From *1:04** TO **1:30**,*
how conveniently this speaker in this video misrepresents agnostic-atheists such as myself (and also non-Christians) by claiming that such persons are lustful, are wanton, have a lack of moral restraint, are self-indulgent, self-centred and so on!
@Ligonier Ministries Thank you for these. But it would be helpful if you guys would cite the sources for these snippets in the video description so that we can look them up for ourselves and watch the whole thing. And maybe even provide a link. There is obviously more before and after that some of us would like to listen to.
Thank you for reaching out to us. We appreciate your feedback. This message in particular is from Dr. Sproul's series, The Consequences of Ideas. You can find that series here: www.ligonier.org/learn/series/consequences-of-ideas/
@@ligonier Thanks. But, in the future, can you guys try to remember to cite the original videos in the description, and possibly give a link to it as well? Thanks again!!
But God knows your intent.
Your belief is not faith based?
I'm not Christian, but, that was a wonderful explanation.
And what if that god that exists is not the Christian god? Pascal’s Wager is a false dichotomy, you’re not minimizing risk by believing in the Christian god, you still expose yourself to the risk of another god existing
True. Except good luck finding any historical evidence for other religions like Greek mythology. Very clearly a lot of religions were just made up by people, but a religion such as Christianity is claiming divine revelation because of a historical event they witnessed. That’s what the gospels are. Read 1 Corinthians 14 -19. So Christianity is making a verifiable claim in contrast to religions like Hinduism that offer nothing to actually show their religion is true except faith. And if god was real doesn’t it make sense that he would offer evidence for his existence just like Jesus did with the disciples by doing miracles and resurrecting. So instead of taking it as believe because you might was well just in case hell exists. Instead think of it as you would want god to exist because that idea offers good things like heaven or justice. So when you look for evidence for gods existence in philosophical arguments or in New Testament scholarship you want to look for the positive arguments and see if the objections are good enough to refute them. So it’s not believe because just in case. It’s be charitable to gods existence being possible and then being open to evidence for his existence.
@@arielcosentino2202 If you're accepting Christianity because you think it has verifiable historical evidence for its claims, then you don't need Pascal's Wager, do you? You've already got the evidence you need and don't have to bother with a purely logical risk-reward gamble. Pascal's Wager IS "believe because just in case". Simply being charitable to the possibility and then looking for evidence is fine but that is not at all what Pascal argued.
And I'm not saying I agree with your assertions that Christianity has compelling historical evidence, because I don't, but that's a separate question and a separate argument. Pascal's Wager still has the exact flaw, a fatal one, that the commenter above mentioned.
How about just creating the aperture to something else to come. If there's something, you're set to that frequency. In the case of Pascal, he went with the only salvific religion. It's the most promissory of a good time.
@@kazman_6899 Pascal went with the religion that dominated the culture he was a part of, just like most religious people do. He would have been aware of Islam and other current or past religions that make promises or threats regarding the afterlife, of which there are plenty.
@@scotte4765 You are missing my point. He went with the religion that offers instant absolution. All one requires is Jesus. No other religion has this built-in reward. If you believe in Allah, you'll still need to go through the cleansing process (it will only feel like hell, jaja). Ergo, Pascal bet on the one with the biggest return. If he bet on any other, he's reward would be punishment.
saved me from my gambling addiction.
But without faith [it is] impossible to please [him]: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and [that] he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him. (Hebrews 11:6, KJV)
I don't believe God could honor someone's wager here. There's a difference of hoping or even gambling on something and knowing it's going to be true, that it is true. If you don't know Jesus Christ personally, and that he's real, then this wager is futile.
Yeah I saw an organization at my university giving handouts of Pascal’s wager. It explained the wager, and it also included their own type of “sinner’s prayer,” that began (I kid you not) with:
“God, I don’t even know if you’re real…”
And I was absolutely horrified at it. For one, they failed to present reasonable evidence for God. Then on top of that, they gave occasion for doubt, presenting the wager to unbelievers without presenting real evidence for God’s existence, and as far as I can remember, not even the gospel (though I hope I’m wrong about that). If I was an unbeliever who received one of those, I would’ve only thought “wow, this is the best they can do?” And would’ve inclined my beliefs toward Christianity being a baseless faith. Then the “sinners prayer” type thing that was a prayer designed around Pascal’s Wager, and full of doubt, probably didn’t help either.
On a technical level, I think I can agree with Pascal’s wager that, given an uncertainty, it’s better to go with the safer option. So if one is uncertain of God’s existence, it would be a more helpful conclusion to live as though He does, than as though He doesn’t. But as you’ve noted, an uncertain “wager” that God exists is not faith, and so will not aid the sinner in any way of eternal significance. Betting/uncertain hoping isn’t faith.
@@reuben8328 I couldn't agree more my friend.
Pleasing lesser god from Canaan mythology, yea, let's just do this, let's also add some other religions, some philosophy, wow, we now got blood cult, apocalyptic cult a.k.a. ch.ristianity
P.s. even Saul didn't know "jesus" personally.
Do people here know this is a known fsllacy?
It isn't.
@@grilledcheese2285 It is. If there is a god/gods, it's a lot more likely that a god or gods that don't care if somebody is an atheist, but hates somebody who believes in the wrong God or gods would exist, rather than the one that you believe in
@@tiedeman39 You didn't point out why it is a logical fallacy though. But the point still stands. Pascal didn't disagree with the use of evidence, he argued that evidence alone can't settle the problem, however it should be shown the stakes. So to bet on let's say Christianity because it has more evidences than any other religion, would be a better idea than not betting at all. And i don't know of any religion which condemns someone because they don't believe in a God, i believe that the major world religions believe that sin causes damnation. And the wager mostly goes for the atheist, so it's practically better to be a muslim than an atheist in terms of belief. But it is better to be a christian, arguably, because it is more evidential than Islam. And that is what i argue the point of the wager is.
If you are on a road trip to a place but there is a possible road danger in a specific road, possibly due to a crash, but there is another road which didn't have a crash but it takes longer, it's a better choice to go to the one that takes longer since you would risk possibly being stranded, losing a car or maybe your own life. The only difference is this doesn't take into account evidence.
Basically your comment assumes arbitrary belief to do the Pascal's Wager. We theists don't believe in arbitrary belief rather the most evidential one.
It’s a false dichotomy. The Christian exposes themselves to the risk that either Yahweh isn’t the true god, or that Jesus is a false prophet. Any nonzero probability multiplied by the infinitely horrible outcome gives an expected value of infinitely horrible outcome. No theist is in a better spot than the atheist given this proposition
@@grilledcheese2285
Buddhism and hinduism believes that among major ones. Sin leads to damnation and no eternal hell. Christianity and islam is the most strict in both the fact that you must follow that religion and the fact that the punishment is eternal hell with unimaginable amount of pain every picosecond. Judaism will tell you that you must believe in God but not necessarily be jewish however I don't see a solid concept of eternal hell.
I am a Christian but if I live as a Christian and die and there is no God, I am not sure I lived my best life? As a Christian I limit my freedom to honor God, if I am limiting my freedoms, I realize unlimited pleasure would be better?
How much would YOU sell your soul for?
I would remind you that Jesus said we are all slaves, either of God or of sin. If you were not a Christian and lived a hedonistic lifestyle you would still lack genuine joy and you would certainly be in bondage. Believers don't actually desire that carnal life so we don't consider it a loss at all to avoid drunken orgies and the like. Sin grieves us and we hate the sins we do commit. I know the lost think Christians are forlornly looking out from their cages as they have all the fun but thay simply isn't true. Christians are quite happy and we know we have the greener grass. We look at the lost with sympathy because we were once also lost and know what they are missing out on.
Pascal was running amok
@Ligonier Ministries
*1:04** TO **1:30**.*
How conveniently *this speaker in this video misrepresents* agnostic-atheists such as myself (and also non-Christians) by claiming that such persons are lustful, are wanton, have a lack of moral restraint, are self-indulgent, self-centred, and so on!
Some atheists have argued with me that it doesn't matter because Jesus Christ may not be the true God and there are 5 other religions. So becoming a Christian doesn't guarantee salvation.
Well, a 17% chance is better than 0% chance.
Thats why its vitaly inportant to use the transcendental arguement. Its the easiest and most effective apologetic.
People know about 3000 gods, so your chance to pick correct is at least 1/(3000+1) ~ 0.03 % (+1 is for no god possibility)
@@hera9191 That's a gross estimation of the fact, it does not account reasonable belief, like i only know that there is the Judeo-Christian God (Mono), the Judeo-Islamic God (mono) and the poly theistic religion of Hindusim
you have 1+1 plus 33 million poly gods of hinduism
see the problem with your logic?
for the sake of argument though let's say all religions are reasonable, which some of them aren't, that's why some religions have died out, the pascal's wager is not to arbitrarily choose random god/s, but to become less close minded as an atheist, and to push to find the best and most logical belief, and if possible most evidential, because you run incredibly high risks believing there is no God, than believing there is a possibility of a God, and you have way lesser risks to believe in Christianity, than to believe in hinduism. What you have presented is a ruined explanation of the wager (Strawman argument) to defeat the argument
The Pascal's wager is a wager, not a threat, it is a wage to weight the evidences and to help people search for truth. We here think that Christianity is the best and most evidential religion and belief. That's the point of the wager.
@@grilledcheese2285 "close minded as an atheist".. funny, how not accepting claims without evidence you address as close mind.
I'm afraid to believe something for bad reason, pascal wager sound silly for me.
@@hera9191 Amazing how you did not also quote any other sentence but that one. Let's quote more of what i said shall we?
"The Pascal's wager is a wager, not a threat, it is a wage to weight the evidences and to help people search for truth. We here think that Christianity is the best and most evidential religion and belief. That's the point of the wager."
"the pascal's wager is not to arbitrarily choose random god/s, but to become less close minded as an atheist, and to push to find the best and most logical belief, and if possible most evidential"
You have entirely ditched my statements, disqualifying your argument
"I'm afraid to believe something for bad reason"
- Let's disect that. Now what my point was, was that the pascal's wager tells us that it is less risky to believe in God rather than not, this is of course true and for me to tell you why would be concerning. But let's move further, if God is not real, and you believed in him, let's say there is a 30% chance he exists, that means you had the 60% chance of him not existing, but if you had the 30%, then you would be in danger of the judgement, then if it was the 10% which is God existing but him not being able to sentence anyone to hell, then the risks are lower.
- The point of this illustration is that the risks outway the chance of a non existence of God, and even that is very much disputed, we see evidences of God everywhere, meaning the chances of him not existing is lower than 60%.
The wager is meant to pressure you to make a decision, once you make the decision of theism, you will then be able to search for the "correct God" so to speak.
So wage by being agnostic than atheist, or if you are agnostic, go to churches, be open minded, ask pastors, go to Christian apologists im not forcing you to Christianity same way Pascal isn't but I am telling you that if you die, and that risk becomes true, well im sure you know what may happen.
But if we are elect we are covered?!?
What does that mean? An elect person cannot live life outside of Gods grace and will believe in God.
Pascal's wager negates the "predestined election" of Calvin.
Pascal’s Wager as an evangelical tool is horrible. Carl Sagan introduced an idea that is a far better way to save humanity than ever has been achieved by 2000 years of Jesus. Reversing Pascal's Wager would be far better for humanity as shown by the actions of Christian's themselves. Not only is it wrong, think about what it does to anyone that is actually convinced by it. They embrace Trump's Authoritarianism, they also vote for those that do nothing about climate change, gun violence, health care access and list goes on. Such a person, who decides to believe in God out of fear or avarice, is unlikely to be “saved.” The kind of belief that is intrinsically advocated by someone who professes that the Wager is good evangelism is an insincere and a manipulative belief. Pascal’s Wager, when used as an evangelical tool, is really an insult to God by the theist. It is far better to embrace saving humanity ourselves and if we fail AT LEAST WE TRIED and if a God does exist that saves us all one day great. But as a rational human being I'll work and vote for those that want to make the world a better place instead of those that fearmonger like all the Trump puppets.
“For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;
Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus”
Romans 3:23-24
And he continued, “You have a fine way of setting aside the commands of God in order to observe your own traditions! 10For Moses said, ‘Honor your father and mother,’ and, ‘Anyone who curses their father or mother is to be put to death.’
Mark 7:9-10
@@tiedeman39 and
@@andrej1659 And have you killed your children that haven't honored you?
There is no falsifiable test for any religious assertion of the reality of any God(s). With no data, you cannot justify the wager. In the court of the (alleged) supernatural you would still be held blameless because of your utter steadfastness to honesty.
1 Cor 15
14 and if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain, your faith also is in vain. 15 Moreover, we are even found to be false witnesses of God, because we testified against God that He raised Christ, whom He did not raise, if in fact the dead are not raised. 16 For if the dead are not raised, then not even Christ has been raised; 17 and if Christ has not been raised, your faith is worthless; you are still in your sins. 18 Then also those who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished. 19 If we have hoped in Christ only in this life, we are of all people most to be pitied.
Pascal’s Wager is a thoroughly debunked flawed and fallacious argument no matter which modified version one might choose to present. Pascal, like Isaac Newton was a brilliant theorist in the area of Mathematics who made notoriously nonsensical utterances about religious matters in the twilight of life. UA-cam is chock full of solidly reasoned dismissals of the so-called Pascal’s Wager in its many forms. No sincere believer should present it as an argument to convince a non-believer. In fact, the wager is an insult to the god you believe in if you look at the proposal logically.
What if you place Pascal's wager on Jesus Christ and after you die you discover that god is some else like, for example, Odin or Zeus? You lose! Which god are you betting on?
R are evil
Odin and Zeus are myths. Jesus is not. 🙂
Pascal wrote "Pensees" to show why Christianity was true and other religions were not. He wrote about Jesus, miracles, prophecies and morality.
He addressed other religions:
"I see then a crowd of religions in many parts of the world and in all times; but their morality cannot please me, nor can their proofs convince me. Thus I should equally have rejected the religion of Mahomet and of China, of the ancient Romans and of the Egyptians, for the sole reason, that none having moremarks of truth than another, nor anything which should necessarily persuade me, reason cannot incline to one rather than the other."
@@brianw.5230 What is you are wrong?
@@Mykola9 Then I'll never know and I'll still live a better more virtuous life, according to the social sciences. 🙂
@@brianw.5230 What is a virtuous life? Is there more than one kind of virtuous life? Is one kind of virtuous life more "virtuous" than others? How do you know?