“Pascal’s Wager” says it’s best to bet that a God exists for the believer gains everything if right and loses nothing if wrong, whereas an atheist gains nothing if right and loses everything if wrong. Following are a few reasons why this is typical poor Christian reasoning.
1. If a non-Christian God exists, a Christian is no better off than an atheist.
2. If the Christian God exists, He would know the difference between belief and betting, and without true belief hell awaits the so called “Christian.” The atheist can accept hell gladly if it means separation from a deity diabolical enough to create one.
3. If no God exists, it means the Christian lived with unwarranted guilt and fear while wasting time and money supporting a delusion whereas the atheist didn’t.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
You have analyzed this wager well, but what you fail to realize is that Pascal's wager is an existential argument for God's existence .
Since I am too dumb to understand the last part of your comment I will hold dearly to the first part. Thanks.
You don't know what an existential argument is?
Never been all that clear on that word. Is there a better argument than an existential argument that Pascal could have used? If so I would like to make that my bitch too :)
Post a Comment