As most of you know, Pascal's Wager (or Pascal's Gambit) is a suggestion posed by the French philosopher, mathematician and physicist Blaise Pascal that, even though the existence of God cannot be determined through reason, a person should wager as though God exists, because living life accordingly has everything to gain, and nothing to lose.

Some assert that since there have been many religions throughout history, and therefore many potential gods, all of them need to be factored into the wager, in an argument known as the argument from inconsistent revelations. Believing in one god would lead to a high probability of believing in the wrong god, which destroys the mathematical advantage Pascal claimed with his Wager.

Richard Dawkins argues for an "anti-Pascal wager" in his book, The God Delusion. "it could be said that you will lead a better, fuller life if you bet on his not existing, than if you bet on his existing and therefore squander your precious time on worshiping him, sacrificing to him, fighting and dying for him, etc."

(An interesting side note.....Blaise Pascal also wrote)
"Men never commit evil so fully and joyfully as when they do it for religious convictions."

So the question is what to do ???
1) live with faith (or fake it, act like you believe (which was OK to Pascal)) in one god, like Jesus
2) try to cover all bases and act like you believe in all 2800 known gods
3) do like Dawkins and spend your time doing other things besides worshiping god or gods
4) take the time to write this post instead of being outside enjoying this beautiful weather LOL

I enjoy these posts and appreciate how they stay friendly and kind 99% of the time, ed :)

Im more with pascal on this one


IM reminded of the scene from pinocchio where the boys are taken to a special island,,,their belief is that they can do whatever they want without worrying about consequence,,but in reality , as each of them do naughtier and naughtier things,,,,they are turned into the jackasses they behaved as


Id rather be wrong about worshipping a 'non existent' God

than wrong about worshipping a true and just God

our beliefs dont erase reality, I can believe I can step in front of a train and it will go through me, but once I do it ,,,,,u get the picture

1) live with faith (or fake it, act like you believe (which was OK to Pascal)) in one god, like Jesus

Faking it would supposedly be futile. Living it out of fear would be futile too. So either you genuinely and sincerely believe it or you don't.

I choose to be HONEST and confess that I sincerely don't believe it.

If a God doesn't respect HONESTY then it's not much of a "God" anyway.

2) try to cover all bases and act like you believe in all 2800 known gods

That would be a life of paranoia.

3) do like Dawkins and spend your time doing other things besides worshiping god or gods

Sounds like a plan to me.

4) take the time to write this post instead of being outside enjoying this beautiful weather

That is a SIN that I'm obviously guilty of!

I'm waiting for dinner to cook though, so it's ok.

why would "Pascal's Wager" be anything more than an explanation as to why a believer is actually an Agnostic and Vise Versa

MsHarmony,

When I hear Christians talk like this it truly brings up some really deep questions.

For example:

1. Exactly what it is that YOU would like to do that you have to refrain yourself from doing in order to pacify what you believe your God expects from you?

Clearly based on what you've just said it's your belief that people will act differently if they don't believe in a God.

So this suggests that you yourself are restraining yourself from doing things that you'd truly prefer to do if you didn't think you were going to be judged poorly by a God for having done them.

I personally don't feel that way at all. I have no desire at all to run off and do things that would supposedly go against the "laws" or "commandments" of even the Biblical God.

My GREATEST SIN in that regard would actually be my mere disbelief in the actual RELIGION, especially in the Christian religion where it supposedly important that I believe that Jesus is the only begotten Son of God and worship him as LORD.

But in terms of actual everyday life, I have no problem living by most of the "rules" that are supposedly associated with that religion.

Especially the biggies, like stealing, raping, murdering, etc.

Even if I felt that the religion was believable, I wouldn't need to change my actual behavior or lifestyle in any way.

So these "Christians" who claim that if it wasn't for their belief in a God they would be running around doing all sorts of nasty things truly have me concerned.

It seems to me that these kinds of "Christians" are actaully horrible people who are merely restraining themsleves in the hope that they will be rewarded for thier willingness to restrain themselves.

They're ONLY motivation in this case can truly be a desire to AVOID punishment and possibly be REWARDED a GIFT for their "Good Behavior". A behavior that they personally WOULD NOT EVEN CHOOSE (according to you) if they didn't think that they were either going to be punished or rewarded for having chosen to restrain from acting out their TRUE DESIRES.

All you're saying is that if someday you actually accepted that atheism might be true, you then have no reason to RESTRAIN yourself anymore.

~~~~~

This is why I say that any "judgmental" God who views humans as his "children" would surely be most pleased with atheists or agnostics who just naturally are GOOD PEOPLE and don't behave that way for any other reason than it's because of WHO THEY ARE.

What parent would be more pleased than to have a child who is just automatically a GOOD person on their own and doesn't even require any instructions and/or threats of punishments or rewards?

And there most certainly are GOOD atheists and agnostics around!

Yet the Christians would have Jesus condemning them for not acknowledging that he is "KING".

There's something majorly WRONG with that picture.

you lost me this time, I have no clue where you concluded the following from what I Said


Clearly based on what you've just said it's your belief that people will act differently if they don't believe in a God.

So this suggests that you yourself are restraining yourself from doing things that you'd truly prefer to do if you didn't think you were going to be judged poorly by a God for having done them.



do I refrain from certain things because of consequences, sure, who doesnt?

do I act differently because I believe in God? no I just seek something different,,,namely GODs grace


most good children want to be in their parents good grace

as a parent I love my child at all times and she knows this, yet she still restrains from certain things she might LIKE To do because she does not wish to disappoint me AND because of real consequences


she may want to sit and eat chocolate all day, I dont wish her to do so because I know it will cause her illness eventually,,,,she doesnt understand WHY I dont want her to do it as well as she understands that I am upset when she tries,, so she refrains from trying

so, I act how I act because I Was instilled with certain values and morals, and I seek to use follow those values and morals AS they correlat to Gods Grace because I Trust in his desire for my spiritual health, just as I Desire the physical health of my children

as to the condeming those who dont accept jesus as king, there are various degrees of non acceptance

there is ignorance, which comes from not having been given the informaiton

there is rejection, which comes from being given the information and disregarding it


I am sure , that somewhere, there is a manual about how to put together a chair,,,,and IM sure some people read it and follow the directions and some never look at it but figure out how to assemble it on their own,,,,but those who read it and refuse to follow it, will probably not be successful in assembling the chair


it is the same with religion, we are given the information, some of us know the information intuitively and others use a manual(the bible), and both are equally likely to be successful

but those who read the manual and ignore parts or just refuse to accept ANY of the instructions, are much less likely to find success

If you're not acting any differently from the way you would act if you didn't believe in a God, then being an atheist wouldn't change you one iota.

Your belief in a God, and the idea that you are "seeking grace", would then be a moot point. Why would you care about seeking the 'grace' of a God? The only possible reasons would either be to avoid its disapproval, and any possible punishment that might accompany that, or to seek its approval, and any possible rewards that might come with that, even if the only the reward is a feeling that someone "approves" of you.

I posted a verse that says what I feel,
Romans 2:13 For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified


merely following the laws of men will keep us from the judgement of mans courts , rather we have ever heard them or not

similarly following the laws of God will keep us from the judgement of Gods justice, rather we have heard/read them or not

it does not follow that the only reason I dont steal or kill is to avoid jail, but I do enjoy my freedom enough seek to obey the laws,,

similarly, I follow moral laws given to me, not to get to heaven, but I do seek to take the right path back to the father

the pretense that choices are so simple as to have one MERE motivation, is a false pretense

I do seek Gods grace, I do seek to follow the laws mapped out for me in the holy book, I also sought similar laws(values) before I ever read or understood a bible,,,

Ok, I think I see where you're coming from now. You need to have someone else define values for you because you don't feel capable of defining values for yourself.

I guess I never thought of things that way because I've never felt a need to seek values from someone else. I've always felt quite confident in my own choice of values.

So perhaps this is why I don't understand your views. I just don't understand why a person wouldn't already have confidence in their own abilities to judge what's moral to begin with.

yes, you dont understand. The reference to what I 'need' is evident of that.


I dont need books. I dont need a book to tell me how to speak english, because I have been exposed to it since day one. Yet I have USED books throughout my formal education as an additional resource to learning MORE about the english language. I needed the courses in the sense of eduational requirements, but my studying wasnt explicitly because of a need for a credit but also a DESIRE to learn more,to reinforce the things I knew were right and to have an opportunity to correct those things in which I was flawed.

so, I feel capable of defining values for myself, but not BEYOND continuing to learn , which can lead to reinforcement of values I already had or reconsideration of them

Previously written:
"Im more with pascal on this one
Id rather be wrong about worshipping a 'non existent' God
than wrong about worshipping a true and just God"



This goes back to one of my original questions....
All believers (of all 2800 known gods)believe their god is the true god... and the other 2799 gods are false

I'm more with Dawkins on this one
"don't squander your precious time on worshiping him, sacrificing to him, fighting and dying for him"

Actually that's a false notion that is being spread around as if it has some sort of merit when truly it doesn't.

It may be true of many religions that they feel that their idol image of God is the only "true" picture of God. And thus to refuse to worship their idol image of God is to reject God. But it's certainly not true of all religions.

All religions do not view "god" as a single personified jealous idol image.

Taoism is certainly one such religion, as is most forms of Buddhism.

In fact, most pagan beliefs do not personify or idolize "god" to such an extreme degree. They realize that God has many facets and if one person is worshiping say, Gaia, and another person is worshiping say, Wanka Tanka, then they are intelligent enough to recognize that these are simply different facets of the same underlying divine source of life.

This is also true of many Wiccans, one person may be worshiping Hecate as the Goddess archetype whilst another person is worshiping Cerridwen as the Goddess archetype, and they recognize that these to simply be different psychic facets of the same underlying divine source.

So it's simply not true that all religions automatically believe that their "gods" are they only true god whilst all other concepts of God on necessarily false.

That idea is actually created and perpetuated mainly by the "jealous-god" religions that idolize God. Religions that have created a personified view of God and made it into an idol. They worship that idol and have decided that their idol is a "jealous God". Therefore if you don't worship their idol then you are rejecting "God" because you're rejecting their idol image of God.

Jealous-god religions are idol worship. They miss the point entirely, and usually end up spreading hatred and condemnation in the name of their idol image of "God" toward anyone who refuses to worship their idol God.

But it's actually false to suggest that all religions and spiritual views of a "god" create such extreme idol images of "god" in this jealous hateful way. Some religions and spiritual philosophies are far more intelligent than that.

here is the scenario

IF there are 2800 Gods and I worship one, my odds are one in 2800

IF there are 2800 Gods and I worship none, my odds are none in 2800

The former scenario STILL would has better odds than the latter...

that can be explain since God goes by many names

Yahweh, Allah, Bruce Lee, etc.

I appreciate Abracadabra's comment about the 2800 gods,
and I look up to Abracadabra as one of the sharpest people who writes in this blog :)

My point was meant to be about people's preception of the 2800 gods as true, not necessarily that the god (or gods) they personally believe is/are the true #1, top of the god food chain, god(s).

Many religions tolerate or accept other's gods.
But at some point in time (some presently), all of these 2800 gods had followers who believed they exist. All of these gods had followers who knew the "truth" about these gods, where they lived, what they did, what they thought etc... My point is that all of these god beliefs are in our minds.. purely imaginary :)

Pascals wager is a futile imagining.

Each time mankind as a whole increases the 'vision' of itself.

The concept of all 'all things' God triggers an increase in level of the whole of mankind.

How far can you see Sons and Daughters of Man?

God is greater than the whole of you.

For as far as you can see all is incompassed within the glory of God.

God is indeed of The Highest Glory.

and you and I but twinkling light to His Brightness.

Yet his Glory surrounds is.

So we may walk in the light.

If Pascal's Wager helps you as an individual promote inner peace, tolerance, non violence, education, a good health recipe, and laughter then by all means enjoy this philosophy.

Pascal left out one thing...the pot...the ante ....what is one actually wagering

wouldn't the wager consist of giving up all one's worldly posessions, their house, their bank account, their computer...if a believer is not willing to do this...then they are wagering nothing

actually I think people who are agreeing with Pascal are wageringh a great deal.....mainly wasting precious time (along with $$ for religion, guilt, prejudice) etc.....

that which you named lies in the eye of the beholder and applies to both the religious and the non-religious...one could waste precious time by being on the computer, even the non-religious will give money to religious charities, guilt and prejudice are happenstances of life...

anyone can claim to believe in the existence of God but not many are would be willing to pay the cost and prove to God that they actually do believe in his existence or they would take a vow of poverty....

the willingness to give up everything is what Pascal left out of the equation ..which is why Pacal's Wager is bias and just his way of promoting his agnostic beliefs ...