Why You Should Believe in God: Pascal's Wager
Вставка
- Опубліковано 3 чер 2018
- Matt Fradd opens up a discussion about Pascal's Wager, the argument that lays out why-in the end- believing in God is more beneficial for us than not believing in God. He also wants to know what you think of Pascal's argument. Check out the video and leave your thoughts on the matter in the comments below.
Find out more about Matt Fradd at mattfradd.com/.
MORE FROM ASCENSION:
Ascension’s main website: ascensionpress.com
Ascension Presents: blog.ascensionpress.com/categ...
Ascension Blog: blog.ascensionpress.com/categ...
Ascension Podcasts: blog.ascensionpress.com/categ...
SOCIAL MEDIA
Facebook: / ascensionpress
Twitter: / ascensionpress
LinkedIn: / ascension-press
Instagram: / ascensionpress
Subscribe: / ascensionpresents - Розваги
Before I watched this video, I didn't know what Pascal's Wager was. I really like this argument, and I love the way Matt explained it.
I’ve always thought that Pascal’s wager was the epitome of a false dilemma: either the one Christian god exists or he doesn’t and that is what you are wagering on. What about the possibility of multiple gods? What about a malevolent god? By the way, I am a practicing catholic, I am just playing devils advocate and trying to parse out the logic for others
Saying that the one Christian God either exists or doesn't exist isn't a false dilemma. If multiple gods exist then the one Christian God doesn't exist, same with a malevolent god.
You're completely correct. The argument is flawed because it presupposes a false dichotomy (or, it ignores other religions that say people who don't adhere to its doctrine will suffer eternally - of which there exist many).
@@Onoesmahpie Exactly. I'll just come up with a religion called Babanism. if you dont believe in it, you suffer for eternity and if you believe in it you get eternal happiness. Tada! Now you should all believe in it
I think it's important, in the FIRST instance, to step back and remind oneself of who God is. God is the all-good, all-knowing, all-loving creator and sustainer of all life who created us in His own image, to whom we will return at the end of our lives. Now, with that definition firmly in mind, apply the logic of Pascal's wager and you can see that it holds true (i.e. If, on the other hand, you believe in this definition of a non-existent God, then no loss; If, on the other hand, He does exist then you're all set. The reverse 'odds' of the alternate bet in Pascal's Wager would also hold true, as explained by Matt Fradd).
Now, change your definition of God to....well what, exactly? An all-knowing but all-malevolent creator of all life? Here you run into a problem .... If an 'all-malevolent' God existed (i.e. more than the 'Devil') , why would any life exist at all? That would particularly be the case because the destruction of a malevolent mankind - created in a God's own malevolent image - would be guaranteed. No room for Pascal and no room for a 'wager'.
What about changing the definition of God to multiple Gods? The problem here is that there can't be multiple Gods because only one can be, in effect, the very best. If one of the multiple gods 'knew' more than the others, then those 'others' couldn't be gods, by definition. It would be impossible to claim that God 'A' is as much a god as 'God B' if he knows just that little bet less, or is not as good, or ran a little behind in the creation of life or wasn't quite as loving. I think it might be rational to claim that a God doesn't exist at all (although I would disagree) but I think it irrational to speak of multiple 'Gods' because the very definition of God (infinite, ALL-good/loving/knowing, unsurpassed etc) would be undermined.
@@dominic8761 So, you have to believe that your god is "the best" of all options for it to work. It says nothing about the truth that this god exists, just that it is the best option given out of all the options out there. It's still a false dilemma because you are subjectively leaving out all the other god definitions out there and arbitrarily ascribing to your god everything you believe to be valid and true for you. If you wanted to really use Pascal's Wager correctly, you'd have to hold the same standard of truth to all the other versions of god out there: "it is true that god is malevolent" or "it is true that god is multi-armed" before playing this game WITH ALL RELIGIONS, not just your own. Suggesting that this is impossible because it doesn't conform to your own personal definition just shows you're playing Pascal's Wager incorrectly, not that Pascal's Wager couldn't be used on that religion ("why would life exist at all?")
The wager pushed me to study religion and now i'm a catholic
You didn't even read my comment before responding. I said the wager pushed me to study religion. We could argue if catholicism is the true religion or not but thats another debate i don't have time for
once again you didn't read my comment thoroughly. I said i wasn't having a debate with you about catholicism. Read the Somma Theologica then come back
Welcome home 😊☺️
@Zachary Stewart What about Christianity makes it anymore reliable than another religion, especially one you don't know anything about?
@Zachary Stewart
“Faith exists because our reason is flawed.”
Faith exists because people are loathe to say “I don’t know”. Rather than be honest with themselves they choose to believe without evidence. Faith is the scam they use to support that choice.
With faith one can choose to believe in anything. That makes faith worthless as a tool to discover the truth.
The problem is that belief is not a choice. I cannot believe that something is true only because I want it to be true. Even if I don't like the fact that I'm going to die, I cannot simply start believing that I'm immortal.
Let's say that an atheist is taken prisoner by ISIS; do you think that he will be able to simply choose to start believing that Allah exists and Mohammed was his prophet only because he wants to avoid being decapitated by the terrorists?
This is incredibly astute. And almost NOBODY mentions the glaring problem of belief choice in relation to this argument. Apologists ignore this point almost entirely, as do most of the commenters here.
In my experience, if the issue is actually discussed (which happens rarely), many apologists will, in some form or another, assert that belief is a choice. In a way, their theology forces them to support this idea, because if belief is not a choice, then the idea of god's omnibenevolence becomes very hard to promote convincingly. In effect, they would be forced to accept that god sends people to hell for something that they are not able to do. If they don't claim that belief is a choice, then they'll claim that non-believers actually do know that god exists, but we're lying, because we're bad, rebellious people who want to sin.
You cannot choose to believe, you are compelled to believe or you are not compelled to believe. If the arguments are not convincing enough to compel one to believe that they are true, then you are simply unable to believe, no matter what you choose. But what if one believes without any arguments? What could be compelling someone to say that they choose to believe? We've already found a condition that can make someone believe something that is not true without any reason or argument: indoctrination.
People have this misconception that religion bars you from discovering your true self or taking experiences away from you, when in reality it liberates you to be able to live the life you are seeking. You can think of it like an adult taking candy from the child. Every flavor is a new great experience until your child becomes diabetic. And then those pleasures you thought you couldn't miss out on, bite you elsewhere. - probably a bad analogy.. but Without a guiding structure for your greatest aspirations, you will be forever living a life searching for something that's been within your reach for as long as you've been alive. No matter what how satisfied you think you might be, you will always be seeking with aimless destination. And if you believe you do have a destination for this life, then you already believe in God. The transcendence pushing you to your absolute.
@Solin Keid You are not free to believe there is no god. You are compelled to believe that God exists. I am not free to believe that God does exists. Free will is, at best, an illusion, and at worst, an excuse.
Thank you for your cheerfulness. It really brighten my day.
Hilarious; I've used this exact same reasoning for believing in the existence of God before, I just didn't realize it was an actual, named argument!
Same case, I was surprised to learn it's an actual theory that has been documented.
I too! Sometime later on quora, an atheist introduced me to it lol.
I don't know if its unique to this video or this channel, but I'm impressed by the general clear thinking and politeness of commentators, both Christian, Athiest and otherwise.
In a college philosophy course, I did read Pascal's wager in English, a translated excerpt of his treatise. You did explain it well, as far as I can remember, and that was ages ago. I still remember it now, much later in life, because it has influenced my thoughts. There is merit to reading the philosopher's own words, though, as I think the impact is greater.
Why didn't you mention that Pascal (full name, Blaise Pascal) was a mathematician and physicist? The SI (Système International = International System) unit of pressure is the Pascal, abbreviate Pa. Pascal also invented the first mechanical calculator! This would have given a greater impact to your audience, in my opinion, because Pascal was both a scientist and believer!
I’m so glad God gave me a “Damascus Road” conversion. I went from being a loud mouthed atheist to a believer in less than a second. I don’t think Pascal’s wager would have worked on me. I don’t think the cerebral route would have worked either.
Instead God looked down from heaven, pointed at me and said, “I’ll have the loudmouth”. Thank you Lord.
Me too. It happened to me in 2016.
Interesting... the exact opposite happened to me.
@@hbeeteevee
We’re all different...God gives us the conversion experience we need. How did it happen for you Hannah?
I mean the opposite happened suddenly where I no longer believed blindly. I was raised Christian and then one day realized it isn’t truth.
@@hbeeteevee
I thought you meant that you had to go the long, questioning route. Lots of study and reflection and gradually coming to faith.
I love Matt Fradd. Such a good guy.
I understand the premise of the wager, but if I were to start "believing" in God on the basis of this wager then my belief would be false. It wouldn't be sincere. I'd only be hoping that God is real, not *believing* he is real.
Believing in God isn't going to help much. Love, trust and obedience is what the biblical God desires in mankind. If I believe in the law but don't follow it, my belief isn't very helpful.
Repent and trust in the Christ to save from eternal dismay.
Not only that but you could use other religions as Pascals wager. "But what if you are wrong and Muhammad is real, then you have nothing to lose from believing in Muhammad"
@@Kage-jk4pj there is probably a pro-Islam version of Pascal's Wager.
I argue that as men and women, we should passionately search out spiritual truths.
@@jamesparson A spiritual truth is a reality in the realm of the spirit. Some of these realities are manifested into the physical realm.
The holiness of God is a spiritual truth. Spiritual senses (similar to intuition) are spiritual realities. True love is a spiritual reality. Some consider it a chemical reaction.
This morning I brought my family to the beach outside of Cabo San Lucas along the sea of Cortez. First time at the beach for our 3 month old pup. I thought to myself, why do we as mankind see a beautiful site in nature and look at it in awe while animals dont seem to care. This is cross cultural through mankind. There is something much bigger than natural selection out there. There is something wonderful beyond the physical.
Thanks, Matt. I had never heard that before. Simplistically interesting.
There were 2 Friars leaving a Church in Paris at 6am after Holy Adoration. They were barefooted in the heart of winter. At the same time, 2 young men exited a bar across the street, wasted and tired, having done everything they wanted all night. When they crossed paths, one of the young lads tell the older of the Friars: "Brother, what a bummer it will be for you if it turns out there is no Heaven! hahaha". The witty friar replies immediatelly: "But what a terrible bummer it will be for you if there is a Hell..."
I never thought of it this way, nice 👍
Great explanation of Pascal's wager, thanks!
This is a timeless argument of uncertainty, and is the essence of having to have faith. However, for me it highlights the major failing of the primary world religions: the inability to demonstrate the spiritual aspect of Man. The only way for the individual to commit fully is to experience his own spiritual side and thus his connection with divinity.
I think Pascal's wager is useful to reassure believers, but not to convince non-believers. This is because believers tend assume there are just two possibilities of significant likelyhood, that their One True God exists or that no god exists. Then the wager is convincing. Or they believe that their God is more likely to exist than any other one if a god or gods exist, which also makes the wager convincing. However, there could be as many gods as there are possible characteristics of a god, and for each god there could be an opposing god which rewards opposing beliefs or ways of living life. If one thinks there is a lack of evidence that one of these gods is more likely than the rest, the wager is unconvincing. From that point of view: whichever way you believe, or live your life, there is the same likelyhood that that you will be punished or rewarded after death. Choosing to lack belief in god A, is only as likely to get you eternally damned as believing in, and following the guidance of god A, because there is as much of a chance that a god -A exists that will damn you for for doing everything god A would want. This is a very rough explanation, but basically
you have to be convinced that your God is more likely to exist than all the other possible gods (which is a belief) in order for the wager to make sense, otherwise all beliefs, in any number of gods, give you a neutral chance of reward and punishment. Hence you must already have some predisposed belief in the greater likelyhood of your One True God existing for this argument to be convincing. An agnostic atheist has no reason to believe that any other god or anti-god is more likely to exist, so this makes the wager useless in convincing them if they analyze it logically. Hence you must first give a non-believer evidence of your God being a likelier possibility, or the wager justifiably doesn't make logical sense to them.
There are many other convincing arguments against the wager, and better explanations of the one I'm making out there. I recommend the RationalWiki page on Pascal's wager if you want some good criticisms of the wager to address. I'm paraphrasing this one from that page by the way. It gives a more rigorous explanation of it so I recommend you read it there before addressing my point.
This is Awesome!! I have had 0 known knowledge of Pascal before your video, and have been telling people that exact statement for years "what do you have to lose"
What do I have to lose? Everything if it ends up that another god exists and much of my life if no god exists.
To attempt to bet on any one god is no better than any other bet when we don't know the odds or the score.
What if you choose the wrong God? What if in the end another religion is the right one? You will have wasted a lifetime and also eternity...
Just bought the Pensees just started to read it.
I think the problem with "Pascal's Wager" is that it assumes all people who chose not to believe in God are going to hell (oblivion). Or does it ?...
It does not, like he said in this video, by not beleiving you run the risk of ending up in hell, so do we as beleivers but what Pascal is saying is that logically it is more likely for a non beleiver to go to hell than for a good beleiver
You are amazing! Love your voice btw
I'm glad he mentioned the Biblical self-interest part; most debunking videos seem to think there's something amiss with self-interest.
I ask this question as a Protestant: which God do you bet on??? There are many to “bet” on...tons of different religion...
the one founded by Jesus, The catholic church
Death Korps of Krieg so if you’re speaking to someone who is Muslim or jewish... how do you argue your opinion? How do you prove this to anyone?
churchpop.com/2015/06/28/5-extraordinary-eucharistic-miracles-with-pictures/ show them catholic miracles like this
Death Korps of Krieg other religions report miracles
pliz show me. i want to see a prot one also
I remember being a teenager and wanting to make the leap of faith, but being terrified of being seen as foolish. The wager liberated me from the anxiety of having the "the perfect defense" for believing in God; and I was able to begin a journey that has led to Catholicism and a deeper joy than I thought possible. God bless Blaise Pascal!
Exactly. I know everyone likes to hate on it, but for me it’s exactly what I needed to hear to get me on the road to faith. Is it good to base your entire faith on? No, but it’s exactly what people like me needed to take that leap
Yeah the wager basically gave you something to defend your faith with despite it still being a terrible argument. You just didn’t look that far into it.
So the Wager made you feel good about the thing that you already wanted to believe, and you listened to just enough about it to get that emotional lift but not enough to have to confront all the well-known reasons that it is logical nonsense. And so now you want God to posthumously bless Blaise Pascal for telling you what you wanted to hear.
Why not just be honest about the fact that all you want to do is believe things that make you feel good, and skip the pretense of basing it on logical reasoning?
Love this
And even though our gospel is veiled, it is veiled for those who are perishing, 2 Cori 4:3
JBP brought me around. l operate similarly as he -- acting as if I believe even with loads of doubts. Looking at our society's trajectory -- self-referring for values, self indulgence, and denying reality of sex differences, flexible morality -- acting as if God is real is better than behaving as if He were not.
Formed a video response, linked below.
ua-cam.com/video/S01mjiHppXA/v-deo.html
@NotACapitalist You must not understand Christianity then, because if you really look into it, it is extremely thought filled and every concept fits together like a puzzle
@NotACapitalist I do realize that you spoke about "gods" in general so God (Christian) fell under what you were saying. As well, the reason we believe in God is because it is illogical to believe everything started from nothing and that there was no purpose for such intellectual beings to be created so complexly. You have to look at the odds- which in fact are in favor of there being a God. Not to mention what I presumed about you did not come out of thin air- you can tell things about people by the way they choose to speak and present themselves, like you did
@NotACapitalist The thing is, there is proof of my God- Jesus lived on earth and it was documented by even secular writers, whereas these other "gods" you are talking about- there is no evidence of them existing. As well, yes the odds are that there is a god (in general), but yet again, my God actually has some evidence of existence.
I know faith is a difficult thing, and I doubt anything I'm saying is making a difference so I'm going to stop arguing, but if you decide you ever want to look if to it further I'd suggest watching Father Mike Shmitz on youtube :)
So, since the wager is about avoiding punishment rather than seeking truth, I should choose to believe the religion with the greatest negative outcome for non-belief?
One of the difficulties I see with this theory is that if we chose to believe in God but are instructed by weak leadership in the believing system of faith, we can run the risk of abusing or hurting others with misuses of our faith. One radical example comes to mind : A father abused his little daughter and had intercourse with her, then solicited her to prostitution. The daughter later in life disclosed that when these abuses happened, her father always grabbed the bible to justify his actions. All the little girl wanted from her father was acceptance and to be loved so she did as her father asked/demanded of her. So in short, as we journey on our decision to chose God, may the Holy Spirit guide and lead us to give proper Love and Glory to a most beautiful God. Thank you for the great videos and sharing your talent with us. God Bless You :)
Good job man.
I've got a more fundamental issue. I couldn't believe in God if I wanted to without some profound religious experience. I just can't take the idea seriously.
Look Around . The Beauty & Miracles ALL around you ,,,, Look At Yourself You Are A Miracle - Peace Be With You - : )
@@stevebastow9292 lol. Even if that led you to believe in a creator, it doesn't get you to any specific one, which is pointless if the god isn't giving you an ultimatum.
@@CHAZER-sp5cm
Reason can be applied for either belief or disbelief.
@@dwo356 Lol. What you said is true so you have to go to the religion with the most evidence - Christianity. There is plenty of proof, for example the apostles were murdered for their adamant belief that Jesus had resurrected. Either they were insane or its true. I know for a fact less than ten percent people would die for someone who lied to their faces saying he was God and then died a weak death. Plus it would make no sense for people who kept getting whooped to lie when they were strictly told by Christ that it is better to die than sin.
@@dude6392 There is absolutely no evidence that any of the apostles were murdered for their belief in Jesus resurrection.
There are old catholic church stories that claim that, but that's it. It's just catholic tradition.
Even if we fully accept that any lof those church traditions about them being killed are true, it doesn't prove that they died for their beliefs. They likely would have died for their disruption whether they would have recanted their supposed beliefs or not. There is no evidence that they were tortured and were given the opportunity to save themselves either.
Besides, being willing to die for one's beliefs is nothing new or even remotely significant enough to warrant one changing their beliefs.
How many Muslims have willingly died for their beliefs both in the western world and the Middle East even without being forced? Does that make Islam true? Of course not. So why would some old stories claiming such things for which there is no legitimate evidence more convincing than physically observing people dying for their beliefs today?
I highly recommend you do some more research and verify the evidence you've been provided for your beliefs. By your comment, I have a feeling you'll be shocked by the false claims of evidence. If not, then truth and evidence aren't what you were actually looking for.
But now you have to figure out which God to believe in.
Right. Study the various religions. FYI, Christianity, Judaism and Islam all have the same God :)
@@brianw.5230 "Study the various religions"
In other words, Pascals Wager is incorrect because "believe or don't believe" is too simplistic.
One of the reasons I believed in God as a child is Pascal's Wager and it kept me from falling from theism. Later on I found more arguments and evidence for theism/Christianity/Catholicism. I still like it and in spite of some "flaws" I think it's one of the top 5 arguments for God among lay people.
Btw, it's great to see Matt Fradd here.
@Eugen Golubic
Yes, Pascal’s Wager may be one of the best arguments that supports the Christian God, bummer is, it is due to the fact that THERE ARE NO GOOD ARGUMENTS. Most of the arguments for God are: appeal to ignorance fallacy, anecdotal “evidence”, False Dilemma, Faulty Analogy, Slippery slope fallacy, Appeal to Emotion, Hasty Generalization.
So we should believe in him just in case hes real
which him?
Jarrod im an atheist
What he is trying to say is if you believe in God you have nothing to lose and if you don’t you have nothing
@@teddytaffy4574
One can believe in God and still have much to lose.
@@davidadams2395 no you don't lose anything that you don't want to lose.
Very good.
My problem with this is that you do not choose to believe. You either do or you don't.
Sure you do some people choose to believe the earth is flat.
In the late 80s or so, when I was a kid, I remember seeing a stand-up comedian saying that he believes in God just in case. For over 30 years that has been an interesting point to me but I hadn't heard of Pascal's wager until today.
I’d say that’s because PW is a really terrible argument.
@@KaeFwam Agreed
@@woodfamily5229 it seemed like a great argument when I was religious lol
@@KaeFwam That's funny because I am more religious right now than ever (meaning I'm actually looking at it more seriously, for once) and still think PW makes no sense. 😂
@@woodfamily5229 well I also felt my god has significantly more evidence than the others so it was 50/50 to me.
One objection that I read is: that Pascal does not consider whether there is multiple gods. When you are talking to someone who believes in a polytheistic religion, how do you prove that there is no multiple gods?
1: One cannot choose to believe. (Try to start to believe in say Thor if you don't happen to believe in Thor. Did it work?)
2: Even if God does exist, then believing in God in your way might cause more problems than if not believing. The God in question might see your way of believing as offensive.
3: Would the God be fooled by belief because of the wager?
.... and do on.
Responses:
1.) One can start to go to church, hang out with other believers and read Scripture. This is what Pascal wrote. After a time, their beliefs may start to become convictions.
2.) Pascal's wager is for people that think Christianity could be true would but aren't sure. Agnostics.
3.) In Christianity, God is desperate for humans to come to Him. Read the story of the Prodigal Son.
Hi Mat .. I need to thank you for the explanation of Pascal's wager ..
I am a lapsed Jehovahs witness .. And this has made me hurry back
To God .. Paul
Pascal's Wager is one of the worst apologetics around. Right from the start it is an _argumentum ad consequentiam_ (appeal to consequences).
Second, even if you do fall for the Wager and pick a god... what if you pick the wrong one? Third, the argument completely fails to account for the wasted life of those who believe in a non-existent god and spend their entire life worshipping nothing.
The list of failings in this argument are too numerous to count. Anyone with access to Google and a touch of intellectual honesty should be aware of this fact. I *wager* we will never see that follow-up video or, if we do, it will fail to address any of the well known problems with Pascal's Wager which prevent all but the most deluded or dishonest apologists from using it.
The thing is that choosing God is not waste of life .Catholicism is false . It teaches that you have to stop sinning to gain God`s favor. But His Word says that sin does not count AT ALL if you have The One who already payed for it ,and you are like you never sinned even once in His eyes. Your desires change though, if you will let yourself to know how good He is
Horses4life1001 Who is “The One?”
Horses4life1001 We are told that God gave us free will and that we are able to choose good or bad. Even though He saved us, we still do sin. Just because Jesus died on the cross for our sins doesn’t mean that the devil will still not tempt us. The devil still exists and we need to fight our temptations.
I’m a catholic btw
Pascal's wager is not intended to be a leading apologetic argument or proof of God's existence and it is introduced as such in this video. The speaker notes that this is usually only invoked when one believes the arguments against the existence of God are equal to the arguments against the existence of God. In this following example, what will you place your bet on? My paternal grandparent's both smoked cigarettes heavily. My grandmother died of lung cancer years ago and my grandfather is still alive, smoking, and relatively healthy in his late 80's. Shall I pickup smoking or shall I not? If I smoke, I might die of cancer or I might not. If I don't smoke I might die of cancer or I might not. Which would you recommend I do? Would you also not appeal to the consequences of smoking?
Secondly, you are not picking a god, but you are accepting belief in God. You could chose to worship Zeus or Poseiden, but can you come to know they exist through reason alone? No. Even Aristotle who lived in times of rampant polytheism knew that those gods did not exist. Thomas Aquinas expanded on the Aristotelian tradition of rationalizing an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, singular God through his Five Proofs. These five proofs, expanded upon by 800 years of scientific and philosophical development stand to reason that only one God can exist. Even if other "gods" existed, they would still not be worthy of worship as they are contingent, limited in power and ability and could not have "actualized" themselves out of nothing. Yes, the Abrahamic religions are not in unison on HOW to worship the sole God or His characteristics, but they do agree that through philosophy and reason, only one can be known.
Thirdly, could you please expand on your definition of a wasted life by a believer if God doesn't exist? Take an average practicing Christian in America. Do they waste an hour or two on Sundays reading a book that isn't true if God isn't out there? Yes. Do they still benefit from congregating and spending time in a community? Yes. If God isn't real, would their acts of mercy and charity be a waste of time? What about living a morally just life, is that a waste too if God isn't real? Sure, their are believers that live morally corrupt lives, but there are certainly non-believers who match them, they just don't have the pleasure of being called a hypocrite like the believers. The whole point of the wager is to propose living as though God exists is a win if God does, and a win if God doesn't, granted you are at a stalemate of evidence for and evidence against existence.
I will agree with you to some extent about how poor of an apologetic argument this is. I would never present Pascal's wager to someone who was only deeply embedded in atheism, such as yourself as I assume you might be. If someone had truly heard the most compelling evidence from both sides this could be thought provoking, but by the questions you pose such as "which god would I chose to worship?", demonstrate you have not been subjected to any philosophically and intellectually sound arguments for classical monotheism.
William Swenson - PS: contrary to your cartoonist portrayal of me, I have engaged with many deep philosophical arguments for God. If you would like to participate in some of those conversations, come join me on Randal Rauser's blog (aka The Tentative Apologist). My name there is Angry_Grasshopper.
(And before you misconstrue the monicker, I am not "angry" at God. That's just the name of my Fantasy Football team and I used it when I signed up for disqus about a decade ago, while I was still a preacher.)
Benefit I’m believing God .
Joy in my heart that no can give or the world cannot give. Because that joy is mystery, I can have it with me wherever I go.
Then peace of mind and Heart that you cannot buy in any shop niether the hospital cannot give. Base on my experience on Believing God. Watching from uk.
Very interesting. Pascal's Wager puts into words What I have been telling myself when my faith has wavered. Now I can use this argumnet when I am trying to evagelize an agnostic or athiest. Thank you for your ministry Matt
It won't work at all with someone that actually thinks about it.
dan andy
It’s a dreadful reason
Definitely interesting. It’s a simple argument, and I think that’s the point. Most religion argues for the existence of a god or even gods, the point is just to make a decision in favor of that existence, in my opinion. To get someone to believe in our Christian God and more specifically to be Catholic, will take more time and assistance. In any case, the first step is the most important
That’s just my take, any thoughts?
A lot of people will (and have) come back with "you can't just chose to believe, either you do or you don't" That is not true. I did not grow up in a religious home, I was not exposed to the church until I was in high school. I didn't use to be a believer, now I am. Conversely there are plenty more who use to believe and now don't. I distinctly remember when Pascal's concept dawned on me, I had never heard of him, I was 17, was taking a shower. It hit me like a ton of bricks. I tried to articulate it to my mom who of course was agnostic...she said, "yea, I guess"
Anyway, Pascal's wager is, in my opinion not a good tool for evangelism. It might be a conversation starter, but on its it's own it becomes just an exercise in philosophical thinking. He completely leaves out the element of the Holy Spirit, and the peace and joy of living life as a Christian. You are never going to argue an atheist into Christianity with Pascal, because their insurmountable hurdle is that God does not exist. They believe this with all of their might. Pascal was right about one thing, you cannot prove Gods existence with reason. You also can't prove
God by any scientific means. You can't prove a spiritual, supernatural being with any human, worldly means. On the other hand, someone who wants to find God, to that person, God, through the Holy Spirit will reveal Himself. I wanted to believe, the atheist proactively does not.
The other hole in Pascal's argument is that salvation requires more than mere mental ascent. "Even the demons believe and they shutter" Pascal being Catholic, and a misguided one at that, had probably never actually read the scriptures for himself (I'm guessing most Catholics back then didn't own a copy of the bible and the R.C.C. generally speaking, didn't encourage bible reading on one's own) Acts 2:38 says, "what must we do to be saved?"
This question in response to Peter's excoriating sermon. His answer has three distinct parts, believe, repent, and be baptized, and you will receive the gift of the holy spirit.
A true Atheist isn't choosing to be defiant or rebellious, we simply search for compelling evidence for a god and find none while simultaneously finding plenty of evidence that they are fictional beings created by people. We don't allow fear to be a factor in our search. We know how easy it is for people to lie and how effective religion is at controlling the masses. All "evidence" of gods came from people, can't be tested and therefore can't be trusted.
This argument seems to only apply to Christianity - what about Gods of other religions? By believing in the Christian God you are risking going to Islam's Jahannam, or Hinduism's Naraka (their equivalence of Hell). It's impossible to believe in every God at the same time - therefore you are always risking going to some sort of hell.
God is God. There is no "Christian God" or "Islamic God" or "Hindu God" -- there is only God, Creator of the Universe. Even if you question which religion to join, and entertain Hinduism with its multiple gods, there is still only one Creator God. If you seek the Creator God, then you will use your reasoning to choose how to follow Him. Christians believe Jesus' words that those who seek, find.
And atheist gain nothing either. Believe in one God rather then being an atheist because atheist will go to all of these regardless (if they were real)
KA Fleury Prove it!
NXT Taffy Atheist gain piece of mind not having to hold up to a ridiculously unrealistic standard!
The reason this argument doesn't work is that it could be applied to any religion with a similar concept of hell or heaven. If I'm an unbeliever, why should I be more concerned about the Christian hell or heaven, versus the Islamic versions? Do I pick the religion that has the worst concept of hell or the nicest concept of heaven?
Can you summarize the main points here?
I;d really rather just talk about it.
J Ro I've watched the video and it doesn't address my objection to Pascal's wager. This is why it would have been quicker for you to just tell me what you thought the point was.
How do you know Christianity is unique in its explanation? Why doesn't Hinduism and Islam, for example, also answer the questions that you've deemed important?
Lots of other religions emphasize the paradox of human nature. Salvation is still earned in Christianity. You need to believe first, then be saved, right? It's not just given free of charge.
I'm amused at how the majority of comments are pointing out how flimsy Pascal's Wager is as an argument.
As said in the video, Pascal's wager isn't an argument for the existence of God, it simply explains why, considering all our options, belief in God is a reasonable choice.
@@paulregier7384 ...which is exactly why people say it's a flimsy argument. It's flimsy because when you're "considering all our options" you're left with thousands of different religious beliefs to pick between and no particular reason to believe one of them over another, outside of personal bias.
@@Cellidor Yes, to believe one thing over another need not be determined at random or by personal bias. What Pascal's wager shows us is that a reason to believe *any* faith, the Christian faith included, can stem from at least in part an enlightened sense of self-interest.
Often the best evidence for choosing in this way what we put faith in is the testimony or result of the faith in others (i.e. how are they living? are they happy? is they result of their living produce something you also want?).
@@paulregier7384 Cool, well in _that_ case I'm going to "wager" that it's better to believe something once you have good reason to, instead of just how it makes you or others feel. That, and I've seen how badly believing things without adequate evidence can negatively impact the life of a person and those around them, so, all the more reason I see to not to adopt a religious belief.
@Mary Smith "adopting the Atheist, or at least Agnostic, Religion"
Fella I'm an atheist by category, not by choice. I don't care about _being_ an Atheist, it's a descriptor. I haven't been convinced any gods exist, so by definition I'm an Atheist, nothing I can do about that, though I welcome folks to convince me otherwise.
"The Bible says"
Why should I be concerned what the bible says?
"Atheism gave us 100 million innocents murdered by communists in the 20th century"
Right, I remember all of those many historical documents, detailing those who killed people because 'I don't believe in a god, myself'! Following the strict tenants of the thing that has no beliefs or tenants! Right.
Please make a video on why sitting on the fence isn’t believing because pascal said you can believe and not believe, but why is sitting on the fence or kind of believeing still not believing
I came here for reinforce my belief and it worked
where is the video where he would answer pascal's wager objection?
I remember reading about Pascal's wager once a few years ago - I think it's great!
May we stop falling into the temptation of speculating and start arguing with actual evidence, or rather experiences, of how God is Real in our lives
"It is not enough to speak about the importance of putting Christ first in our lives. The impact is magnified ten-fold if we take the next step to spell out exactly what this means with a few concrete examples." - Ascension, October 2018
What evidence is there or what evidence do you have?
Ohhhh! I want all those icons on your wall!!!
So basically believe in God just in case he is real...because the punishments exceed living a life of discovering your true self?
Spoiler alert: your true self is... to be a child of God. So you have the responsability to do what your Father tells you to do. You don´t get to enjoy all the privileges of living in this beautiful world He created for you, and do as you please by ignoring His commands and expect not be be punished.
rod45 -5 He is not only my God. He is our God. Our Father. I love Him because He loved me first. He made me and everything we see. As you are to obey your father when he tells you to do or not do something, we have to strive to be obedient to God, and fear the outcome he says will come if we don’t. I believe Him. You can understand that you can love your dad and fear to disappoint him not only because of the punishment but because it will hurt him cause you chose to disobey and chose punishment over being with him forever...
cubs0110 They were myths of ancient civilizations. All the people in the Bible and Jesus were real. There is proof.
What makes the god that you believe in different than the gods that you claim are "ancient"? The Greeks, Native Americans, everybody throughout history for the most part believed in some god that happened to not be the god that you currently believe in. The native Americans believe that nature is a living example of the gods at work, the sun, the sky, the moon. They had stories of miracles of how everything came into being. The only difference that I see is that the god you believe in has a book to go along with him.
And if being real and claiming to be a god is what constitutes belief, then why isnt everybody Mormon? Joseph Smith and Brigham Young were very real, and there was a book for that too. Are the Mormons wrong?
Assuming that we are indeed children of a deity, then I think it is my duty to become an adult who takes responibility for my own life and doesn't bother my parents all the time. I am sure that any reasonable deity will understand if not outright applaud me for that and thus appreciate my stance.
Pascal's Wager is not controversial. There are too many conflicting GODs out there for it to hold any weight.
"You can choose a ready guide in some celestial voice, If you choose not to decide you still have made a choice"
Geddy Lee.
Glad I'm not the only person who heard that in his head...
We all have a soul... given to each and every human being, given freely by God....so the Soul belongs to God.
Prove it.
In my early days of self conversion, I had this exact thought but had no idea someone much smarter than I had already written it down centuries ago. It's such a logical approach to faith that I love
FOR EVERYONE SAYING: Pascal's wager is purely based on fear of godly intervention. Fear should never be the reason for one's beliefs.
You should fear God. It says so in scripture (Psalm 112). Fear can give you imperfect contrition and makes a confession valid. However fear should NOT be the only thing to why you should believe in God, as God offers us so much more. Pascal's wager is good for people who are undecided and are looking into Christianity. This initial reasoning to why they SHOULD believe in God can lead on to more authentic relationship. I hope this helps! :D
I was always taught that fear of God did not literally mean to be anxious and scared of his power but to be in awe and wonderment instead. I never understood why they didn’t just say that though.
Now what if ur praying to the wrong god and making the real one angrier a d angrier with you
If your belief in god is because of fear then you don't really believe. The Pascal wager Argument presumes you can trick god into that saving you while in reality, you're making a probabilistic decision. It's a terrible argument that can be applied to any religion.
An impotent threat of eternal torture is NOT any kind of reason to believe in fairy tales.
Well pascal's wager is better for islam than christianity.
What about those people that believe in God but they don't believe in a certain church?
They say "i believe that God creat natire therefore i can practice things like affirmation belief and feng shui"
JBP Is doing a great job for God in different way saving people ending up more evil
I believe in God and Jesus Christ and he was crucified for our sins. God is love and I love Jesus Christ ☦️
I
Are the odds even money, 1/2, 50/50, a coin toss, as Pascal implies (iirc he more than implies it)?
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).
I've heard of this theological opinion, the issue that I've got with it is that when one choses to beleive in God because of this logical conclusion in which if He exists he'd get all the benefits by beliving and if He doesn't exist he wouldn't loose anything, I'm afraid seeing life like that is not having a solid and stable faith since you beleive in the possibility of God not existing.
Using this same logic, you should always wear a helmet every single time you leave the house, because a Mad Batter might be waiting somewhere out there to hit you over the head with a baseball bat.
Via Pascel's Wager:
Mad batter is real: yes. Wearing helmet: yes. Result: You are saved from having your skull crushed.
Mad batter is real: yes. Wearing helmet: no. Result: Your skull gets crushed and you die a painful death.
Mad batter is real: no. Wearing helmet: yes. Result: No damage, but you look silly wearing the helmet.
Mad batter is real: no. Wearing helmet: no. Result: Nothing happens.
So you better be sure to wear that helmet in the off chance that there really is a mad batter out there waiting to crush your skull. There is nothing gained by not wearing the helmet, and everything gained by wearing it and there really is a mad batter.
Perhaps I should even start up a product line, as I'm sure that everyone should be clambering to buy a helmet. I could call them Pascel's Protector. I could even put little Bible quotes and crosses on it for added protection.
(Edit for typo)
You're not wrong, but you are just supporting the same argument. And looking silly is a part of faith. People will criticize you, think you're stupid, maybe hate you for believing, but God has already warned us about this an told us that the reward for persevering is far greater than the discomfort of being seen as an outcast among those of the world.
@@rileybenedict1804 - but the only reason that potential discomfort even would exist is because your god made it.
You know what they call it when you manufacture a threat unless someone complies with a demand?
Extortion
Wearing a helmet would save you from the potential wrath of Mad Batter, but Joseph Swinger might be waiting around the corner with a cricket bat aimed towards your unprotected knees.
By the way, have I told you about Ryan Shankler?
@@1ceYourPimpHand - exactly. So we need to provide a full line of body armour to these people so they can be protected 24×7 from any potential imaginary threat.
False dichotomy. The choices aren’t atheism or Christian theism. The choices are atheism or theism. The fact that theism can pertain to any number of gods renders the Wager meaningless.
When one chooses to believe which god should one believe in? Making the wrong theistic choice is no better than choosing non-belief.
It is better to always withhold belief in anything until there is sufficient evidence to support that belief.
The point of the wager isn't to convince you to become a Christian or a theist in general. The purpose of the wager is simply to put into perspective the pros and cons of choosing each and determining which choice would be better simply based on the potential benefits and loses. Therefore, belief isn't really a factor.
One should believe in the religion that one thinks is most likely to be true. This is done by studying the claims.
The evidence for the resurrection of Jesus is pretty solid historically. Pascal obviously knew this.
The evidence for Zeus, Thor or Odin is much less.
Christianity is much more credible than pagan myths.
There is nothing I am missing if I was an atheist meaning no sin I want in my life. However my whole faith is based on this wager meaning nothing is worth eternal fire. However I yearn for a faith stronger than a wager especially when times are tough.
You said you were going to do a follow-up video responding to the comments and criticisms brought up in the comments to this video. Well it's been 7 months and no follow-up video.
Have you not posted a follow-up video because you can't refute the points made against Pascal's Wager and you now realise how flawed it is?
Gimme your objections and I'll respond to them. :)
@@brianw.5230, writes _"Gimme your objections and I'll respond to them."_
OK, let's start with the first part of the first premise: *"Whatever begins to exist* has a cause".
As far as we can tell nothing has ever begun to exist (ex nihilo). So what, specifically, is this premise referring to?
@@fred_derf I was referring to your objections of Pascal's Wager.
@@brianw.5230 Oops, sorry. Wrong apologetic.
So, Pascal's Wager.
Q: What if religion is a test to determine who is gullible and the gullible will not go to heaven?
@@fred_derf that's possible. Literally no one believes it, though.
Many geniuses believe in Christianity: Newton, Descartes, Aquinas, Augustine, C.S. Lewis, etc.
If needs be, Pascal's wager is a good place to start. Anything that sets someone on a path to a relationship with Jesus Christ is a good thing.
It’s a starting point for many atheists or non believer to ponder, “why they won’t lose anything if they believe in God” hence believing God is the correct option ( Pascal’s wager)
However one cannot dwell in there for lifetime, God is a person and you long for a relationship and desire of love within that can only be completed by Him, all other search end in vain.
If I believe in God, then that means I don't believe in the gods for all of the other religions. If one of those religions is right and God doesn't exist, I've just damned myself to that other religion's hell.
Christian here and Pascal’s wager doesn’t seem very logical
yeah it's like "believe in God not because you believe in him but because he's mean if you don't"
are you a catholic christian? why don't you think it's logical?
@@benedictly1571 why ask him if he's Catholic?
@@benedictly1571 maybe he's a Baptist Christian!!! Do you even know what a Christian is,,or what makes a Christian??? I hear people say that my God is a God of love so he could never destroy certain people,,,so then Muslims will be saved by that rational
Why should I believe in a God that hates me? My life has been one struggle alone after another. He clearly doesn't love me. Every time something good happens to someone, they say, "God is good!" "I'm blessed." God hasn't been good to me. What about the rest of us?
Pascals wager would work if one was agnostic and completely undecided, but in my experience when I was leaning towards the ‘unbelief’ but the fear of hell made me act spiritual with complete lack of faith, which brings the ultimate challenge of Pascal’s wager; you cannot chose to have faith, no matter how scared of eternal damnation or how longing you are for eternal happiness it’s a bit of an oxymoron to choose to have faith in something.
Pascal was also trying to help those who just didn't feel they could master the logical arguments. Which is mostly a matter of the intuition not matching what the logic tells us, becuase once you really see it it's ridiculously obvious that there's a God.
No, it was only obvious to you that there's a god. The idea of a god is not obvious to mamy people.
If it's looked at as a compelling case, it may be the wrong way to look at it. What the "wager" does is takes a person who is at the very starting point (presumably someone who does not believe) and creates a very simple logic argument no the basic question of is there ANY God at all. Which starts a person down the of at least considering the position of, on balance, is it more logical to consider there is God at all?
how do you know you “picked” the right god to believe in? pascal says it is better to believe in god. but in most religions worshipping a false god is worse than not worshipping at all...what if it’s really shiva, or buddha, or allah, or jah...and you picked jesus...
Besides all the obvious problems, you can not make yourself believe in something that is patently false. Non-belief is not a choice, it is a rational position based on the evidence.
I think people fail to see the importance of going a step further. Belief is 100% a choice. Logic plays a huge part in any human life, especially if you're Christian. You must decide whether or not you believe, whether or not you want to or have reason to believe. Pascal's Wager is supposed to be the beginner step. Many people have a hard time believing for many reasons, but a popular one among people that I know is "What good and loving God would let such bad things happen?" The wager is the start. You decide, "Well, I think I should believe." You want to be sincere and not believe for the selfish reason of the reward of heaven. God wants our sincerity, and He knows our hearts. So Pascal intended for the sincerity to follow the conclusion of the reasoning for the existence of God. Many people believe that this Wager is ineffective, but I have proof that it is. A good friend of mine came home to the Catholic Church by way of Pascal's Wager. Matt Fradd is also living proof that it works. Both are good, sincere, holy men! My opinion of the Wager was formed by my friend and Matt Fradd.
Logic plays no part in being a Christian. Logic tells me that virgins do not give birth, & that if someone dies they cannot be resurrected. To believe in the supernatural, by definition you must suspend logic, the laws of physics & nature. That's fine as far as it goes, but please don't delude yourself.
I believe in God. And I love Him. But I can't see how this wager could ever lead to real faith. I suggest you read the book "The Prodigal God" by Timothy Keller. It describes very well how false and lost such a faith would be.
@Paul Cassar
What is “real” faith? LOL
Faith is an excuse to justify unwarranted belief.
What can you not believe in using faith? Is faith a reliable method to discover truth? No.
Let’s assume that a god does exist. How many people using faith to believe in a god found the truth? Several billion in today’s world believe in the Christian god and almost two billion believe in Allah.
It appears that some billions at least have faith in a falsehood. Maybe they all believe in a falsehood because the real god is neither one of those.
The evidence, or lack thereof, suggests that no god belief is the truth thus far.
I find it condemning that the number one indicator of which god one believes in is the geography of one’s birth. That suggests that the god belief is a result of indoctrination by the other people who are part of one’s life.
How can one truly feel confident in those other’s beliefs when it was forced on them by a similar method?
To date the scientific method is by far the most reliable method for determining the truth of claims because it follows the evidence. It doesn’t fabricate evidence to support the claim.
If you believe in God and his will for your life can’t you fall into the trap of believing that where you are in life is his will for you without ever reaching your actual real potential. I remember in the book Jane Eyre St John Rivers was so focused on his “mission” for God that he forgot how ordinary people think and feel. However St John firmly believed even to death that what he was doing was right and that was because he believed in God. Now I think that if he didn’t have this belief he may have been more satisfied and had a happier ending. We can be raised up to believe in God and it is reinforced every Sunday at church. Can that hold us back from seeing reality as it really is as f*cked up or as beautiful as it is? Without thinking oh God must have put that there or God didn’t want me to go down this path.
In my opinion I believe the belief in God and the way the people around me like my Grandmother believed held me back from being me. It held me back from accepting many things that I came to find rationally and not as a sign of God’s will.
🤟🏽🤟🏽that was long
Who is Ashreah and as a Catholic do we have to worship Ashreah as well....?
I want to remind you again about Yoga ... Please give me answer .....
xavier toppo -- it doesn't matter who Ashreah is, because we don't have to worship whatever it is. Avoid yoga. Do pilates.
@Artur Ferrão Exactly. She was another god the Israelites/Canaanites often worshipped.
No one should try to convince someone else to follow a specific religion- everyone should choose what's best for them, what feels right to them; they should worship whatever higher power resonates with them, and maybe that's none! I would describe myself as athiest/agnostic (leaning athiest) and I have faith that if there is a higher power, it would not be so vile and sadistic as to torture someone for eternity on the basis of simply not knowing it existed.
You are responsible for your knowledge. Say you find yourself looking St. Peter in the eye and him asking you what went wrong, are you gonna say, "well, I didn't look, how was I suppose to know?". The truth still lives even if you ignore it.
So which god should we believe in?
THOR ofc
This man clearly doesn't understand what atheism is since he said arguments for atheism when there are no arguments for atheism only arguments against religion's arguments
There are SO many problems with Pascal's wager that I think the only people even slightly impressed by it are those that intentionally try NOT to think.
Firstly, it depends on a god with several SIMULTANEOUSLY required criteria..
(1)the god has to want to REWARD PEOPLE for doing a specific action,
(2) that action must be to believe the god
(3) the god must not change
(4) the god must exist and continue to exist.
Now those are primaries..
How many different gods are/were there? Most of them don't / didn't care about belief. Most didn't care about people. Almost none of the gods would or could 'reward'...
So that'd be 320,000,000 different gods.
Heck, if you 'believed' in god X, that would invariably annoy at least some other gods. If you failed to die in valorous battle, or sacrifice enough live children, or perform the weekend moon-dance rituals, then you'd earn their ire.
There are about 70 'forms' of divine placation, in gross categories (with simple belief being one of the more rare ones).
Ok, so that means that believing in the Judeo-Christian god almost definitely guarantees you will either suffer, or at least NOT reach heaven -- so far. Now let's assume that the Judeo-Christian god does exist. What's more likely, he was described perfectly in all the books of the bible, or that he was mischaracterised in some substantial way as to change how he treats believers?
Remember, he drowned people and didn't reward the Mosaic Hebrews with heaven and many of them believed.
The odds are VASTLY MORE overwhelming that belief in god will result in torment, destruction or worse..
Even Blaise Pascal realized the 'argument' was laden with fallacious thinking.
PhrontDoor all I want to say is look up Ravi zachirias
PhrontDoor Don’t think...look up Ravi Zacharias
@@xxsageonexx8910 So he has evidence that all the other gods don't exist? He has evidence that ONLY the non-calvinistic versions of the Judeo-christian god exist?
Try looking up the fact that even Pascal thought his 'wager' was garbage, intellectually as well as philosophically. Or look up all the debunkings of Pascal's wager. No sensible apologist uses it any more because it's flawed at literally every level.
PhrontDoor I was mocking ‘Good Man’
I'm a Catholic, but don't think this argument is particularly useful. The best atheist/agnostic argument I have heard against it is that Paschal's Wager assumes that the choice is simple; you believe in God or you do not. However, surely there are 100s of different choices, as there are 100s of different religions, which can't all be right as they contradict each other. Christians say Jesus is God incarnate, Muslims and Jews believe he was merely a man. If the logic of paschal's wager is applied, then one might decide to 'bet' on God's existence, yet decide to become a Muslim. From the point of view of a Christian, this person will not receive the rewards in the after-life. Therefore, we find that after deciding to 'bet' on God's existence, we find that there are still further more options available in terms of a particular religious belief. I'll be interested to hear your thoughts!
notformebeaky -- there is more evidence for the existence of God than there is for the nonexistence of God. If you choose to reject the evidence, that just means you reject the evidence, it doesn't mean there isn't any evidence. Your arguments are really childish.
Ash Roberts -- either there is a God or there isn't .... there are only 2 choices, no matter how many religions there are. Go back and read St. Paul's reasoning about the pagans having God in their hearts, following Him the best way they knew how. If you don't believe, but decide to take the wager, then you seek Him, and those who seek, find.
Further to my comment below, I don’t think that John Smiths response will convert people but I do think it will make them think. I think it will make them more open to accepting Christianity not convert on the spot.
Pascal’s wager? Same response.
I don't like this argument because it presupposes that we have gotten to the point where people no longer believe that God's existence can be proven by the natural light of reason. Pascal's time was the time of Descartes and the complete rejection of the Scholastic project. This argument seems like it could only have arisen in that specific historical circumstance or one similar to it. To address the argument itself, it seems to be based on will and utility, not on reason and truth.
That being said, if there are people that absolutely need Pascal's wager in order to come to know the truth, it's better than nothing. We should be all things to all people.
I remember talking about this argument in my philosophy class. I really do like this argument, but one of the issues that my classmates and professor talked about was (and this already may have been mentioned in other comments):
Although there is the notion that the "believers (or good Christians)" go to Heaven, how do we know that that is the case? For all we know, God could have reversed the situation and made it so that the good Christians receive punishment and the others deserving of "hell" receive eternal life. I understand that this is probably not the best example, but their point was that we don't know the mind of God whether he does or does not exist; therefore, we cannot assume that good things will happen to those who believe and bad things happen to those who do not/live their lives in sin. We have no idea what will happen to us when we die.
Thank you for the video and for all the videos you do! They're extremely helpful for people (like me) who get easily confused by philosophical arguments. Many blessings!
I do like the wager but as you wanted some comments here you go. Next to being a great apologist for the Catholic faith he is well known in France for his excellent literary writing (little insert here I studied Theology in Paris). There are lots of subtleties that just don't get translated very well in English. One is the context for his wager. In his pensées he tries to sketch the limits of raison by showing the vastness of creation next to the smallness of men. Our insignificance in the cosmos means our raison is too limited to understand all of the cosmos (as an integrated system => we can't be all knowing). He therefore proposed a return to God by searching the human condition, and therefore God is found in your own heart ( he makes the allusion to the prophets of Israel who found God in their heart) his Wager is totally opposed to that. What he does a lot is making an argument from different sides. He notices that people who claim to be rational aren't so and he proves this with his wager. As nobody can proof or disprove God definitively any reasonable person should just act or bet that God exist, enter here his wager because not doing so would provide the proof that there not acting out of reason alone. So the wager is not at all a raison why you should or shouldn't believe in God it's just a way of showing that we don't make decision based on raison at all and that our raison just is limited. Like some other comments say the wager captures the raison why you should believe in God and a certain element of fear is used, but it doesn't capture the full reason why you should believe in God transcending the wager itself. So in short there are a lot of people who just misuse the wager of Pascal as he is not trying to prove the existence of God by reason (or why you should bet on that) but just showing the unreasonable attitude of reason alone thinking people. God bless the excellent work that Ascension Presents does.
The problem is that you assume it's a binary choice, but it's not. There are thousands of religions, many of which claim you will be punished for not believing in their god or gods. The claim could also be made that there is a god that rewards only atheists, and this would be just as valid as the god of Christian theism.
JESUS CHRIST I LOVE AND BELIEVE IN YOU!!!
I am a fan of Pascal's wager. I am also a fan of "stone-manning" an argument (previous video). Here's a question: If you bet that God doesn't exist, and he truly doesn't, does this support patronage of non-theistic religions (maybe buddhism, hinduism, confucianism, etc.)
Buddhism is a belief in the supernatural, whether practitioners admit it or not. They often say you can believe in a god or not and still be a Buddhist, but they are meditating to get in touch with "the Universe," which is a spiritual connection (to a demon or demons, whether they know it or not). Hinduism definitely worships a multitude of gods. I don't know about Confucianism, but Confucians perform rituals for their dead ancestors, so they believe in the spiritual realm. These examples don't support atheism.
Can one just decide to believe? Decide to act in a certain way sure, but to genuinely believe in their heart? That's like deciding to love someone, it just doesn't work that way.
ChangesOfTomorrow I know it seems backwards but I think getting to know God actually often does work this way - it's kind of like fake it till you make it. You decide that believing is reasonable. Whether or not you feel anything is beside the point. Then you begin to act as if you believe... Trying to pray, going to church, etc. Christianity can only be learned from the inside. I think being in love and loving actually are often decisions, not just feelings and emotions. There are many times when we are angry or whatever and don't have wonderful loving feelings towards our spouses, kids, friends, etc. Acting charitably towards them precisely when we don't feel like it is real love. Feelings don't mean much... And I think belief and faith work much the same way...
ChangesOfTomorrow - An intelligent comment.
As an ex-atheist let me tell ya serious doubt exists and Pascal has helped me through it in important ways... and mor importantly at crucial times of my life. It's a philosophical patch to help you wait till the big argumentative artillery comes around.
Say you choose to believe in God based on this wager, how does one grow in authentic relationship with God from there? It seems like this kind of believe (the kind achieved through logic) is very isolated from feeling personally pursued by God or pursuing God personally. I would love to hear a response to this!
You should fear God. It says so in scripture (Psalm 112). Fear can give you imperfect contrition and makes a confession valid. However fear should NOT be the only thing to why you should believe in God, as God offers us so much more. Pascal's wager is good for people who are undecided and are looking into Christianity. This initial reasoning to why they SHOULD believe in God can lead on to more authentic relationship. I hope this helps! :D
Aussie mate? 👍 g'day mate.
Hay guy's for a while now I've been asking people to pray to keep abortion out of Ireland. Unfortunately the good guys lost this one. I just wanted to thank you for your response and for taking part in this prayer campaign. GOD BLESS YOU ALL. PLEASE GOD SOME DAY OUR LORD AND OUR LADY WILL FREE THE WORLD FROM THE EVIL OF ABORTION 🕇 ❤ 🕇 😆
Michael McEvoy You are so welcoming. I too was praying for Ireland. God bless you all.
Marci HF Thank you GOD BLESS 😆 🕇
yep, makes me sad. ireland definitely needs another St Patrick right now. will continue to pray for them and the whole world
Ryzer Thanks and GOD BLESS 🕇 😆
Everything that happens on this Earth is either wanted by God, or allowed by God. He's sovereign. Don't forget that when things don't seem to go the 'right' way.