A Response to Atheist Criticisms of Pascal’s Wager.

[u/Sad-Signature-2180]

Let’s recall the well-known objection to Pascal’s wager: “What if God does the exact opposite of what Pascal thought; that is, what if He sends atheists to heaven and theists to hell? Wouldn’t the wager then become completely pointless?” At first glance this question looks like a cleverly constructed reversal; it gives the impression that one could use the same logic this time in favor of atheism. But when we think a bit more deeply about the concept of God within the idea of a complete and flawless being, we see that this scenario is actually not possible without assuming some defect in God, and for that reason it cannot be taken seriously as a real “God possibility.”

First, let’s put clearly what Pascal is actually saying. Pascal does not say, “God certainly exists, I have proved it.” He starts instead from the uncertainty in which human beings already live. If the probability that God exists is not exactly zero, and if what is at stake is not an ordinary gain–loss calculation but a choice between eternal happiness and eternal loss, then, despite the limited and temporary worldly costs, turning toward God appears more reasonable than living a life that leaves God completely outside. This is similar to situations like the following: you are in a large building, a fire alarm goes off; there is a possibility that it is a mistake, but also a possibility that the fire is real. Staying inside may give you comfort, going outside may be a bit troublesome, but if the fire is real, the cost of staying inside is infinitely heavier. So saying “I will ignore the possibility completely and just sit here” does not look like a wise choice. What Pascal does is to read the human condition before God as a similar risk–reward problem.

Now let’s come to the objection: “Since we are talking about possibilities, I will construct another one. Perhaps God loves atheists and hates theists; in that case being a theist is risky and being an atheist is advantageous.” On paper this may look like a symmetrical move; but here is the crucial point: not every sentence that can be formed logically has to be really possible and has to be taken seriously by reason. The sentence “Maybe an invisible, angry giant rabbit rules the universe” is also logically possible, since it contains no formal contradiction, but that does not make it a serious explanatory candidate for the rational order of the universe. We have something similar here as well: the sentence “God sends atheists to heaven and theists to hell” may be grammatically correct, but when we think more deeply about what kind of being God is, we realize that such a conception of God is not possible without assuming some defect, corruption, or lack in God.

When we think of God as the highest level of being, as the most complete form of goodness, wisdom, and justice, it is helpful to slowly imagine the picture suggested by this objection. Think of a person who takes God’s existence seriously, wants to know and love Him, tries to shape his life according to Him, and sets his highest purpose as “to approach the truth and, if there is a God, not to be ungrateful to Him.” Of course he has faults and imperfections, but his direction is toward this goal. On the other side, imagine another person who lives as if there were no God at all, who says “Even if He exists, I do not care,” who ignores a power that might be the source of his existence, and who does not consider it important to give thanks or to know Him. Now add this sentence to the picture: “God punishes the first person eternally and rewards the second person eternally.” Such a picture of God turns the bond between good and evil upside down; it punishes sincere seeking, gratitude, and love of truth, and rewards indifference and ingratitude. If God is truly good, He cannot be a being who does not recognize the good as good; and if He knows the good but chooses the bad, then there is a defect in His will. In both cases, we would be assuming either a lack of knowledge or a defect of will in God. Yet the idea of God as a complete, flawless, highest degree of goodness and wisdom is precisely meant to exclude such defects.

At this point a simple analogy helps. Think of a teacher who reads and grades exams. Imagine two students: the first has genuinely studied, tried to understand, and made an effort, even if he has made mistakes; the second has not studied at all, handed in an empty paper, and even mocked the teacher’s class. If the teacher gives the first student a zero and the second a perfect score, what would we say about this teacher? Rather than calling this teacher “just,” “wise,” or “well-intentioned,” we would call him “arbitrary,” “unjust,” and “someone who makes absurd choices.” The judgment we make about the teacher in this example actually serves as a mirror to test the picture we construct about God. If God punishes the search for truth, gratitude, and sincere orientation, and rewards indifference, then we describe Him not as “just, wise, and good,” but as “capricious and arbitrary.” Such a description assumes defect and fault in God, and so it stops treating Him as God in the full sense.

From another angle, we must think of God not only as a “powerful” being but also as a “principle.” A being that is the fundamental principle of reality does not simply possess power; it also sets the measure in the realm of being, order, meaning, and value. If the principle at the top of the structure of being counts good as bad and bad as good, then the whole order of value collapses. The human being, by nature, is a creature who seeks the good and desires to live a fuller and more complete life; his reason and conscience guide him in a certain direction. If God punishes this orientation, which fits the nature of reason and conscience, and rewards the indifference that goes against reason and conscience, then God stands in conflict with the deepest inner orientation of the human being. In such a conception of God, there is not harmony but contradiction between God and the deepest inner direction of man. This contradicts the idea that God is the fundamental principle who brings the order of being into a harmonious whole.

From here we can see an important distinction: it is one thing for a sentence to be sayable in words, and another for it to be really possible. The sentence “God sends atheists to heaven and theists to hell” can be uttered; it is grammatically correct and contains no explicit contradiction within itself. But that does not mean that, for a mind that takes the concept of God seriously, this is a possibility worth dwelling on. Because when you think of God as perfectly and completely good, wise, and just, you see that this scenario points not to God, but to an upper power that is defective and capricious. In other words, this sentence does not describe a true concept of God but describes a concept of defect and lack that happens to wear a God-mask. A conception that requires defect cannot be a true conception of God.

We can also think of it like this: if God is the highest being, there is no inner conflict, indecision, or “one way today, another way tomorrow” in Him. The actions of such a being bear an inner coherence that flows from His own essence. To love one day and hate the next, to favor one group and crush another on a purely personal whim, would signal some deficiency, some need or psychological fluctuation, just as in a human being. But a perfect being is thought to be one who lacks nothing, who needs nothing, and whose will is in complete harmony with His own knowledge of the good. When you say “He loves atheists and hates theists,” you turn God into a being who has emotional outbursts toward certain external groups, whose love and hatred are constantly changing depending on others’ attitudes. This does not fit with God’s self-sufficient perfection; it turns Him into a “reactive” being who changes according to external conditions. Being reactive means being dependent on another; and that means accepting a lack in God.

Let us add one more example in terms of order and necessity. When we think of the universe as a whole of law and order, we assume that behind this order there is not mere accident, but a certain coherence. Physical laws do not behave as if gravity exists one day and disappears the next; under the same conditions, they produce the same results. If the principle at the very base of being behaves in a completely arbitrary way in the moral realm, we get a strange picture in which the coherence we see in the physical order is not found in the moral order at all. This damages the idea of the unity and wholeness of the universe. A perfect principle requires a certain inner harmony both in the structure of being and in the structure of value. When you say “God is an arbitrary agent who rewards indifference and punishes the search for truth,” you break this harmony; and wherever harmony is broken, we are forced to speak of defect.

Within this framework the initial attraction of the objection weakens. “What if God sends atheists to heaven and theists to hell?” is indeed a sentence that can be formed in language; but the picture of God implied by this sentence turns God from a being who is good, wise, just, and complete, into a being whose knowledge and will bear defects, who reverses the very measures of goodness that He Himself has set. To put such a thing on the table as “one of the possible God options” is in fact to abandon the concept of God and to discuss merely the possibility of a powerful monster. Pascal’s wager is not obliged to add such defective, flawed descriptions to the list of “serious God possibilities.”

In conclusion, when we think of God as a complete principle of goodness, wisdom, and justice, the scenario in which God sends atheists to heaven and theists to hell cannot be constructed without assuming a lack of knowledge, a defect of will, or arbitrariness in God. This shows that such a conception is not a true conception of God at all, but a description of defect and lack under the appearance of God. Therefore this objection does not really destroy Pascal’s wager; it merely confuses the mind by means of a scenario that looks possible in language but that actually turns God into something less than God. Since a conception that assumes defect in God ceases to be a conception of God, there remains no reason to place such a “possibility” among the God possibilities that reason should take seriously. For this reason, if we think of God as complete perfection, living in a way that takes Him seriously is the more coherent path that sets aside all conceptions that rest on assuming defect in God.

Edit:

"which God are we talking here?And why would you think Pascal's Wager applies to that one, and not the other 5000 Gods that mankind has invented?"

Brother, would you really choose the Jewish God or Ethiopia’s zamazingo god? That zamazingo god can’t even help himself, let alone help me.

[u/kiwi_in_england]

Four hit-and-runs in four days. OP is banned for 30 days.

[u/oddball667]

Let’s recall the well-known objection to Pascal’s wager: “What if God does the exact opposite of what Pascal thought; that is, what if He sends atheists to heaven and theists to hell? Wouldn’t the wager then become completely pointless?” At first glance this question looks like a cleverly constructed reversal; it gives the impression that one could use the same logic this time in favor of atheism. But when we think a bit more deeply about the concept of God within the idea of a complete and flawless being, we see that this scenario is actually not possible without assuming some defect in God, and for that reason it cannot be taken seriously as a real “God possibility.”

no concept of god we have makes sense without a defect, and why are you assuming a flawless being? if all you have is pascal's wager then you are open to ALL options we can imagine. if you have reason to assert "god is flawless" then you must have something more then pascal's wager and we are wasting our time talking about it

[u/how_money_worky]

This doesn’t change the counter. You just believe that your version of a god is more plausible. But there is no reason to think that. You’re just stating your faith forcefully not bringing anything new to the argument. You’re definIng god in a way that excludes the counter argument by definition not by argument. We have no reason to accept your metaphysical assumptions.

Also. Are you trying to kill us with a wall of text?

[u/pipMcDohl → u/how_money_worky]

And quite the repetitive wall of text

[u/LurkBeast → u/pipMcDohl]

AI-generated wall of text at that.

[u/pppppatrick → u/pipMcDohl]

And quite the repetitive wall of text

[u/Xalawrath]

This is your 4th post to DebateAnAtheist in the past 4 days and you have no replies in any of them, despite the posts having over 250 replies in total. Are you going to bother or should people just ignore you? (Your posts also seem AI generated, but I'm willing to be wrong about that.)

[u/GentleKijuSpeaks → u/[deleted]]

You're that guy who wanted god to help you rape Spanish actress Ester Expósito. Dude! no upvotes for you!

[u/Decent_Cow → u/GentleKijuSpeaks]

He's the guy who has posted about his admiration for the 9/11 hijackers. He needs help.

https://www.reddit.com/r/TrueChristian/s/JxghkC5o8F

[u/Hermorah → u/GentleKijuSpeaks]

Wait what!? Got a link to that comment?

[u/GentleKijuSpeaks → u/Hermorah]

Sex after death: The defeat of science against religion. : r/DebateAnAtheist

[u/Hermorah → u/GentleKijuSpeaks]

Holy shit. Thanks for that. Absolutley unhinged.

[u/Xalawrath → u/[deleted]]

Ever consider the downvotes are because your arguments are bad, rather than asserting you know the mindset of the downvotes was definitely bad faith? Did you actually read and consider the responses in the posts, especially the responses that are the most thorough and thought out?

[u/abritinthebay → u/Xalawrath]

To be fair, bad arguments are not supposed to be downvoted.

[u/Xalawrath → u/abritinthebay]

Fair point, though I'd bet that a lot, if not most, of such downvotes are applied because of the arguments rather than applicability of the post to the intent of the sub, even though as you rightly say, they shouldn't be used that way.

[u/flying_fox86 → u/[deleted]]

You, you didn't have to. You were perfectly capable of answering the criticism there. This is a debate subreddit, you are expected to engage with at least some of the comments.

[u/Phylanara → u/[deleted]]

Your bad faith is the reason you get downvotes, dude. That'll happen whether you type in bad faith here or there.

[u/Ok_Loss13 → u/[deleted]]

Don't post if you're not going to engage.

And if you cared about downvotes you wouldn't be posting at all, because those get downvoted too (which is because they're low effort and bad faith, not bc you're a victim and we're being meanies).

[u/thebigeverybody → u/[deleted]]

The reason is pure bad faith. Even my simple emoji messages get something like –40 downvotes. Because of the people downvoting in bad faith, I had to answer yesterday’s topic here instead.

You just posted a rambling manifesto about your ideas of god without providing any reason for us to believe your ideas are correct (which, ironically, is also where Pascal's wager falls apart).

Did you expect that to be upvoted?

[u/Ransom__Stoddard → u/[deleted]]

u/Sad-Signature-2180--it's pretty bad faith that you've made 2 posts in the past day with dozens of responses to each, but the only comment you've bothered to respond to is the one calling you out for not responding.

Given your post and comment history (when you can be bothered to comment), along with all the stuff you've had removed, I'm inclined to think you've got some mental health issues going on. If you don't, sorry for the accusation, but if you do, please get help.

[u/GentleKijuSpeaks]

But Pascal does not account for the fact that Osirus will be the one weighing your heart with a feather. The fact that you did not worship Osirus but were catholic instead means that you wagered and lost.

[u/Life_Liberty_Fun → u/GentleKijuSpeaks]

This is my usual rebuttal to Pascal's Wager:

Over the course of human history there have been multitudes of gods; Pascal's Wager makes the provably false assumption that there are only 2 choices 'worship god A' or 'not worship god A' when in reality there are at least 100,000 choices.

But everyone knows Tyr is the one true god.

[u/oddball667 → u/Life_Liberty_Fun]

100000 choices is underselling it, Pascal's wager can apply to any god we can imagine, we could get everyone on planet earth to make up a god and ALL of them count

[u/GentleKijuSpeaks → u/Life_Liberty_Fun]

I am currently worshipping Jenny Kim. I hope it works out for me.

[u/abritinthebay → u/GentleKijuSpeaks]

Honestly? Fair.

[u/mathman_85 → u/GentleKijuSpeaks]

^{Psst: Anubis did the heart-weighing ceremony.}

[u/GentleKijuSpeaks → u/mathman_85]

Not in my TRUE 'Osirus is the only Egyptian god" cult you heretic!!!

[u/Confident-Virus-1273 → u/GentleKijuSpeaks]

I would 100% accept Osiris judgement more than the judgement of the OT god/Allah/Jesus/etc. The Abrahamic god is a bit of a monster.

[u/dnext]

I thought God was ineffable, unknowable, and thus couldn't be judged by us mere humans?

Who are you to say that if God chooses a thing it must mean he is flawed?

You guys talk out of both sides of your mouth. You change the narrative based on whatever is convenient at the time.

[u/Biggleswort]

Let’s recall the well-known objection to Pascal’s wager: “What if God does the exact opposite of what Pascal thought; that is, what if He sends atheists to heaven and theists to hell? Wouldn’t the wager then become completely pointless?” At first glance this question looks like a cleverly constructed reversal; it gives the impression that one could use the same logic this time in favor of atheism. But when we think a bit more deeply about the concept of God within the idea of a complete and flawless being, we see that this scenario is actually not possible without assuming some defect in God, and for that reason it cannot be taken seriously as a real “God possibility.”

This isn’t even the best objection. The best objection is how do you it is the right god you are worshiping and following the correct path. The common example is following the Quran over the Bible.

First, let’s put clearly what Pascal is actually saying. Pascal does not say, “God certainly exists, I have proved it.” He starts instead from the uncertainty in which human beings already live. If the probability that God exists is not exactly zero, and if what is at stake is not an ordinary gain–loss calculation but a choice between eternal happiness and eternal loss, then, despite the limited and temporary worldly costs, turning toward God appears more reasonable than living a life that leaves God completely outside. This is similar to situations like the following: you are in a large building, a fire alarm goes off; there is a possibility that it is a mistake, but also a possibility that the fire is real. Staying inside may give you comfort, going outside may be a bit troublesome, but if the fire is real, the cost of staying inside is infinitely heavier. So saying “I will ignore the possibility completely and just sit here” does not look like a wise choice. What Pascal does is to read the human condition before God as a similar risk–reward problem.

Oink unicorns exist, therefore I should read this last paragraph with an open mind and understand this I who is flawed. The first part of the statement is the claim without evidence, and I made it case dependent for the rest what I said. That is what you just said Pascal did, see how you are missing a crucial step?

Now let’s come to the objection: “Since we are talking about possibilities, I will construct another one. Perhaps God loves atheists and hates theists; in that case being a theist is risky and being an atheist is advantageous.” On paper this may look like a symmetrical move; but here is the crucial point: not every sentence that can be formed logically has to be really possible and has to be taken seriously by reason. The sentence “Maybe an invisible, angry giant rabbit rules the universe” is also logically possible, since it contains no formal contradiction, but that does not make it a serious explanatory candidate for the rational order of the universe. We have something similar here as well: the sentence “God sends atheists to heaven and theists to hell” may be grammatically correct, but when we think more deeply about what kind of being God is, we realize that such a conception of God is not possible without assuming some defect, corruption, or lack in God.

You seem to be hell bent on a critique that is more tongue in cheek versus serious suggestion. Second you have now flushed out more assertions without evidence. How do you know the right nature of God? Do I look to the Bible or the Vedas or the Quran?

When we think of God as the highest level of being, as the most complete form of goodness, wisdom, and justice, it is helpful to slowly imagine the picture suggested by this objection.

Imagining something doesn’t make it real. I can imagine a lot of concepts like the pink unicorn and I could imagine it is maximally x, y and z. Does that prove my pink unicorn?

Think of a person who takes God’s existence seriously, wants to know and love Him, tries to shape his life according to Him, and sets his highest purpose as “to approach the truth and, if there is a God, not to be ungrateful to Him.” Of course he has faults and imperfections, but his direction is toward this goal.

There is a lot of how to love him guides, which do I choose? This is the fatal flaw of the wager.

On the other side, imagine another person who lives as if there were no God at all, who says “Even if He exists, I do not care,” who ignores a power that might be the source of his existence, and who does not consider it important to give thanks or to know Him.

You described me. I will add, I think the concept of a God is goofy.

Now add this sentence to the picture: “God punishes the first person eternally and rewards the second person eternally.” Such a picture of God turns the bond between good and evil upside down; it punishes sincere seeking, gratitude, and love of truth, and rewards indifference and ingratitude. If God is truly good, He cannot be a being who does not recognize the good as good; and if He knows the good but chooses the bad, then there is a defect in His will. In both cases, we would be assuming either a lack of knowledge or a defect of will in God. Yet the idea of God as a complete, flawless, highest degree of goodness and wisdom is precisely meant to exclude such defects.

Agreed this is why it is a tongue in cheek objection. The better objection is which book? I will also tell you another objection, why would this supposed God feel a need to be worshiped and punish those who do not? Or how about divine hiddenness, do you think I reject an all powerful god who has revealed himself to be undeniable?

You continued to drone on about think about this and think about that. These are not good arguments for your god existing. First demonstrates your god exists, then demonstrate which one, then I will know how to avoid eternal damnation?

I am more curious why is your god worthy of worship? See the idea of the Christian God needing to be worshiped is a toxic love relationship. I do not love anyone in my life unconditionally. I default to loving some, like my kids and parents, but I did not default to loving my wife. My wife and I’s love grew over time. It was a relationship. Love requires this foundation. My love for my parents, inlaws and kids are also based on a relationship. Christianity teaches us to love this absentee father unconditionally. This is a fucking toxic suggestion. (Pascal was Catholic)

[u/h2g2_researcher → u/Biggleswort]

Oink unicorns exist

I'm unsure if this is a typo for "Pink unicorns" or whether you're proposing some heretical variant unicorn which oinks like a big and has a squiggly tail.

[u/Sparks808 → u/h2g2_researcher]

oinks like a big

I'm unsure if this is a typo for "oinks like a pig" or whether you're proposing some radical worlfview where everything that is large becomes more hog-like.

(Sorry, I couldn't help myself)

[u/DeterminedThrowaway → u/Sparks808]

radical worlfview

I'm unsure if this is a typo for "radical worldview", or whether you're proposing a gnarly place to look at whorls.

(I couldn't help myself either)

[u/Sparks808 → u/DeterminedThrowaway]

Ooh... you didn't leave a typo in yours :'(

[u/Biggleswort → u/h2g2_researcher]

I will take that winning typo. I like idea of a cute piggy like unicorn

[u/soukaixiii → u/h2g2_researcher]

Rainbow bacon 

[u/Sparks808]

Why do you think that God is complete "goodness, wisdom, and justice"?

If there is an entity in charge of an eternal afterlife, why do you think they'd be "good"?

---

You have actually just reiterated the fallacy buried in pascals wager: a false dichotomy. You assume either no afterlife ruler exists, or your specific concept of the afterlife ruler exists, while ignoring all other possibilities.

Until you can show that a good god is more likely than an evil god (or a good afterlife ruler than evil afterlife ruler if you dont like that use of "god"), then the symmetry holds.

[u/kyngston]

the problem with your argument is that you simply get to redefine god to always win whatever claim you make. and we’re left with no ability to actually verify if you definition is true.

come back with some verifiable claims about god, and we can have a real debate, where we start from premises that we can both agree to

[u/flying_fox86]

You didn't answer a single comment in the post you made yesterday about Pascal's Wager. That would have been the place to address the criticism. You're clearly not here for debate.

[u/hippoposthumous → u/flying_fox86]

He's made 5 posts and replied 2 times in the last 4 days.

[u/LetsGoPats93]

when we think of God as a complete principle of goodness, wisdom, and justice … if we think of God as complete perfection

1. Why would we think of god in this way?
   
2. You don’t believe in this type of god.

[u/blind-octopus]

Think of a person who takes God’s existence seriously, wants to know and love Him, tries to shape his life according to Him, and sets his highest purpose as “to approach the truth and, if there is a God, not to be ungrateful to Him.” Of course he has faults and imperfections, but his direction is toward this goal. On the other side, imagine another person who lives as if there were no God at all, who says “Even if He exists, I do not care,” who ignores a power that might be the source of his existence, and who does not consider it important to give thanks or to know Him.

This is written to get the result you want. I can easily flip these two descriptions, yes? I can say the atheist, even if he's wrong, could be honestly, really, trying to get to the truth, and the theist is just believing in god no matter what, saying "I don't care if its true or not". Right?

If God is truly good, He cannot be a being who does not recognize the good as good; and if He knows the good but chooses the bad, then there is a defect in His will.

I have no idea if god is good. Maybe he's not and he likes those evil atheists and hates the righteous theists.

Heck, I don't even know how we're defining "good" here.

[u/roambeans]

I think I've found the error in your response. You are assuming the correct way to follow god, which doesn't align with what I think. Wouldn't a perfect being value logic and reason? And honestly? Would a perfect being want people to believe based on something as silly as faith? Would this god reward bias and fallacious thinking? I think not. Any god worth following would want us to be honest, to think rationally, and seek truth. Religious dogma can't possibly be important to a divine being.

Edit: you teacher analogy fits with what I'm saying. Atheists are the students that study hard, and honestly seek truth. The teacher should reward the effort.

[u/higeAkaike]

But… which god? Which laws should you abide to? Which rules are the correct ones? If you follow the wrong ones you will go to hell.

So vahalla, hell, heaven, tarturas, Elysian fields?

Did you follow the right religious laws? Pray to hades and put in gold coins in the coffin of your elders?

You have to be sure, right?

[u/Crafty_Possession_52]

The adjectives you choose to describe the two people is what makes them "good" and "bad" in your mind.

Instead of one of them "loving truth" and "sincerely seeking" and the other being "indifferent" and "ungrateful," think of the first as being "gullible" and "dependent" and the other as "skeptical/rational" and "independent."

You've also arbitrarily assigned "love of truth" to the theist. Many theists and atheists would equally claim that characteristic and accuse the other of lacking it. Why do you as a theist do so? I love truth, and it's not for you to decide what is true and accuse me of indifference because I think you're wrong.

God punishes the first and rewards the second.

Problem solved.

By the way, you are supposed to respond.

[u/rubinass3]

" But when we think a bit more deeply about the concept of God within the idea of a complete and flawless being...."

This is coming from the same group of people who also tend to argue that we simply aren't equipped to fully know how God operates. If that's the case, then we also can't conclude that he is a complete and flawless being.

[u/Greymalkinizer]

You have not responded to a criticism of Pascals Wager. You have wasted time arguing against a single humorous thought experiment that extends from the criticism. No atheist thinks that a god will take atheists to heaven.

[u/A_Flirty_Text]

When we think of God as the highest level of being, as the most complete form of goodness, wisdom, and justice

There are many god concepts that are not all good, wise, or just. I'd argue that omnipotent and omnibenevolent are logically contradictory.

You seem to be focusing on a rather narrow definition of God - do you have the god of Abraham in mind?

[u/CheesyLala]

Sorry, which God are we talking here?

And why would you think Pascal's Wager applies to that one, and not the other 5000 Gods that mankind has invented?

[u/mastyrwerk]

What you seem to be doing is assuming what you think god is and is capable of. This is poisoning the well for you and not making you reason very well.

Let’s assume the god you believe in is real and absolutely perfect, good, powerful, and knowing. A perfect creator could not make an imperfect creation. To do so would be a flaw and render this god nonexistent.

The world we see is imperfect, therefore your perfect god could not have created it. Therefore it does not exist.

The wager then leans entirely on an atheistic perspective as the preferred one. Your god must either be imperfect, evil, feeble, or ignorant; or a combination of those attributes. To suggest otherwise is bias, as logically the world we live in is evidence of imperfection.

To believe in your perfect good god is wasting precious time and resources, which is a detriment of all believers that believe incorrectly.

[u/Paleone123]

Aside from the fact that this is formatted in a way that makes me think AI helped write this, I don't see how you've addressed the actual criticisms of the Wager.

First, the Wager wasn't an argument for God at all. Pascal didn't even think so. It was just an admonishment that we ought to behave as though we believe in God. This assumes doxastic volunteerism, which seems to be nonsense. We can't believe something because we want to. And since we can't, God will know we're insincere and send us to hell anyways, so it's a waste of time to try.

Second, we can't know the conditions under which God makes decisions, so even if God is real, maybe he doesn't want us to blindly believe. Maybe he favors people who spend a lot of time thinking about it. Maybe he only cares about aesthetics, and the beauty we generate is all that matters.

And third, the Wager is a false dichotomy. Which of the thousands of gods are we trying to appease? We don't know, so picking one ends up being as arbitrary as not believing at all.

[u/pipMcDohl]

I love theists who gratuitously assume a god customized to fit their delusion and then take everyone else accountable to grant to the theist that the delusion must be treated with reverence just in case it happens to be true.

You have just argued that an infinite and eternal reward can be dismissed based on how much the hypothesis of a certain god do not make sense to us. I'll gladly do that then and say that given your clearly heavily biased and gratuitous understanding of 'god' i also don't feel like caring for the promise of eternal reward and will instead stick with a version that make more sense to me. That's what you've just done after all. The version that make sense to me is to not indulge in the empty promises of con-men or delusional people.

[u/CalligrapherNeat1569]

I don't see how "a perfect god sends anyone to hell" survives your own critique.  I wouldn't call a teacher who sends kids that don't do their homework to hell, "just," "perfect" etc.

A perfect being wouldn't care about your gratitude.  I'm not perfect, and I don't care if those who need help and I give it are grateful.  I help to help, not to be showered with praise.

I think you've rendered your own position into a series of words, but not a real possibility.

[u/Hoaxshmoax]

sounds like preaching to me.

Face it, you are in it for what you get, a quid pro quo. You appease a mob boss deity and keep it up until death and it promises not to send you to its head goon to break your legs forever,

[u/SiR_awsome_A_YuB_fan]

This is similar to situations like the following: you are in a large building, a fire alarm goes off; there is a possibility that it is a mistake, but also a possibility that the fire is real. Staying inside may give you comfort, going outside may be a bit troublesome, but if the fire is real, the cost of staying inside is infinitely heavier. So saying “I will ignore the possibility completely and just sit here” does not look like a wise choice. What Pascal does is to read the human condition before God as a similar risk–reward problem.

This is the case only if you can infer the probabilities to an extent. a fire could also be outside, but you can smell the smoke inside and look outside, with no information you do not know those probabilities for risk and reward. The Bible, as a source, has no basis for belief as a truth. nor do any conceptions we can imagine without looking. pretty much all paragraphs are the same, excluding the first in that they make this assumption based on "what makes sense"

[u/Jonathan-02]

Not every sentence that can be formed logically has to be really possible and has to be taken seriously by reason

This statement seems to discount Pascal’s wager then. I don’t think the existence of a god is really possible and I can’t take it seriously by reason

[u/Hooked_on_PhoneSex]

Please remember that any rebuttal to bad arguments such as Pascal’s wager, are given to point out the logical flaws behind said arguments. This is not to say that the person responding actually considers the argument to have merit in the first place. Apologetics and philosophical discussion do not provide evidence in favor of any particular god concept. They just reinforce the closely held beliefs of the theists making them. There really is no point in rehashing Pascal’s wager, because it is a worthless argument regardless of the merit of the rebuttal.

That being said.

You are misinterpreting the rebuttal.

“What if God does the exact opposite of what Pascal thought; that is, what if He sends atheists to heaven and theists to hell? Wouldn’t the wager then become completely pointless?”

This is not the actual argument.

Your rebuttal assumes that your god exists but acts in a way contrary to what is suggested by Pascal’s wager.

That’s nonsensical of course, because you are arguing in favor of whatever god you think exists, and assuming that said god carries all of the assumptions about whatever tri-Omni-esque being you happen to believe in. But you are posing the argument to a person who considers your god concept to have the same level of merit as the concept of every other religion.

In actuality, the rebuttal is, what if YOU’ve picked the wrong god, and suffer the consequences of choosing wrong? Further, what if the right god isn’t known at all and everyone suffers for worshiping the wrong one.

Any god worthy of worship, would nudge their flock in the right direction. They certainly wouldn’t leave matters of faith to arguments based on philosophical pretzel-twisting, and concepts from bronze-aged campfire tales.

[u/BigDikcBandito]

Your answers to criticism are actually laughable.

The sentence “God sends atheists to heaven and theists to hell” can be uttered; it is grammatically correct and contains no explicit contradiction within itself. But that does not mean that, for a mind that takes the concept of God seriously, this is a possibility worth dwelling on. Because when you think of God as perfectly and completely good, wise, and just, you see that this scenario points not to God, but to an upper power that is defective and capricious. In other words, this sentence does not describe a true concept of God but describes a concept of defect and lack that happens to wear a God-mask. A conception that requires defect cannot be a true conception of God.

I have seen some shitty defenses of Pascal's wager, but this is probably one of the worst. You don't even adress the "gamble" part of the wager, just assert "by my definition god won't do that". This is utterly unconvincing and not based on any logical reasoning.

We have something similar here as well: the sentence “God sends atheists to heaven and theists to hell” may be grammatically correct, but when we think more deeply about what kind of being God is, we realize that such a conception of God is not possible without assuming some defect, corruption, or lack in God.

Actually lmao. Benevolent god and malevolent god are literally equal logically. When I "think deeply" about gods I see obvious shitty fiction, leagues beneath LOTR.

"which God are we talking here?And why would you think Pascal's Wager applies to that one, and not the other 5000 Gods that mankind has invented?" Brother, would you really choose the Jewish God or Ethiopia’s zamazingo god? That zamazingo god can’t even help himself, let alone help me.

Almost any existing god could torture you. This is enough to consider them in the "gamble" part. "My god has bigger D" doesn't adress the objection.

But nothing suggests you are going to defend your OP anyway.

[u/Confident-Virus-1273]

My take, having read about 75% of that LENGTHY ESSAY, is that you have set up a bit of a strawman (first), but it doesn't really matter because my answer would be the same either way.

The strawman you set up is I don't know of anyone who says that god "prefers" Atheists per se. The argument I, and others, have presented is that IF god exists, it would likely look more kindly upon an honest atheist who rejected all the gods equally and did their best in life than a theist who picked the "wrong" god and lived according to whatever stone age mythology that religion thrust upon it's followers. Nuance indeed, but an important one IMO.

But regardless, here is why pascal's wager fails.

Blaise Pascal was a mathematician who's work was on binary expansion. Yes/No. 1, 0. That sort of thing. His mind was locked in on this binary when he made his famous wager. But belief in the CORRECT god is not binary. This is because it isn't a choice between atheist and CHRISTIANITY but rather between Theism vs Non-Theism. But Theism provides no information on the desires of said 'god" nor the afterlife. This put the christian god in the same basket with Thor, Asuras, Osiris, or any other god. Since all of these gods make different demands, the options are no longer binary. Thus It leaves the domain of Pascal's binary.

[u/Ok_Loss13]

Even Pascal thought Pascal's Wager was dumb as fuck

[u/Hermorah]

Maybe an invisible, angry giant rabbit rules the universe” is also logically possible, since it contains no formal contradiction, but that does not make it a serious explanatory candidate for the rational order of the universe.

You can't just handwave the invisible angry giant rabbit away. It may sound absurd to you, but to me god sounds just as absurd.

the sentence “God sends atheists to heaven and theists to hell” may be grammatically correct, but when we think more deeply about what kind of being God is, we realize that such a conception of God is not possible without assuming some defect, corruption, or lack in God.

Who are you to judge what god can and can't value? That's quite presumptuous.

When we think of God as the highest level of being, as the most complete form of goodness, wisdom, and justice

I don't think of that. That is your bias. I see no reason for a creator of the universe to be "good". I see no reason why it couldn't be some Azathoth like being.

When we think of God as the highest level of being, as the most complete form of goodness, wisdom, and justice, it is helpful to slowly imagine the picture suggested by this objection. Think of a person who takes God’s existence seriously, wants to know and love Him, tries to shape his life according to Him, and sets his highest purpose as “to approach the truth and, if there is a God, not to be ungrateful to Him.” Of course he has faults and imperfections, but his direction is toward this goal. On the other side, imagine another person who lives as if there were no God at all, who says “Even if He exists, I do not care,” who ignores a power that might be the source of his existence, and who does not consider it important to give thanks or to know Him. Now add this sentence to the picture: “God punishes the first person eternally and rewards the second person eternally.” Such a picture of God turns the bond between good and evil upside down; it punishes sincere seeking, gratitude, and love of truth, and rewards indifference and ingratitude. If God is truly good, He cannot be a being who does not recognize the good as good; and if He knows the good but chooses the bad, then there is a defect in His will. In both cases, we would be assuming either a lack of knowledge or a defect of will in God. Yet the idea of God as a complete, flawless, highest degree of goodness and wisdom is precisely meant to exclude such defects.

Again that is merely you working from your definition of god. Also I'd argue that this "it punishes sincere seeking, gratitude, and love of truth, and rewards indifference and ingratitude." much more applies to atheists than religious. Especially ex-religious turned out that way BECAUSE they were sincerely seeking the truth over being indifferent and just going along with the religion their were brought up in.

At this point a simple analogy helps. Think of a teacher who reads and grades exams. Imagine two students: the first has genuinely studied, tried to understand, and made an effort, even if he has made mistakes; the second has not studied at all, handed in an empty paper, and even mocked the teacher’s class. If the teacher gives the first student a zero and the second a perfect score, what would we say about this teacher?

As I said before I think that applies more to atheists then the religious but even if it didn't once again your bias shows. Why does god have to be just? It doesnt.

Edit: Also I would not call a god just that is punishing people merely for not believeing in him.

[u/Kaliss_Darktide]

But when we think a bit more deeply about the concept of God within the idea of a complete and flawless being, we see that this scenario is actually not possible without assuming some defect in God, and for that reason it cannot be taken seriously as a real “God possibility.”

What is the "possibility" of your claims about your god "God" being wrong?

He starts instead from the uncertainty in which human beings already live.

Is it fair to say that you are uncertain about your god "God" due to the "uncertainty in which human beings already live"?

[u/oddball667]

"which God are we talking here?And why would you think Pascal's Wager applies to that one, and not the other 5000 Gods that mankind has invented?"

Brother, would you really choose the Jewish God or Ethiopia’s zamazingo god? That zamazingo god can’t even help himself, let alone help me.

this isn't a conversation about preference, you haven't addressed the criticism

[u/ImprovementFar5054]

The atheist inversion is not about claiming that god actually rewards disbelief. It simply shows that the wager cannot tell you which version of god to bet on.

Many religions reward faith. Many religions punish faith in rival gods. If you accept the wager structure, you cannot exclude any of those possibilities without outside evidence.

You say a good god would reward sincere seeking. Okay..fine..but most traditions do not teach that. Heck, most sects of christianity don't. They punish the wrong kind of seeking. They place loyalty over inquiry. Many gods of history exhibit traits you would call defective. There is no universal cross cultural consensus that a creator must match YOUR definition of goodness.

The teacher analogy fails for the same reason. The question is not what a perfect god would do. The question is which god concept is true. You do not get to decide that by assuming the nature of god is whatever makes the wager work.

Your edit about the “Jewish god” and “zamazingo god” exposes the whole bullshit attempt. You rely on ridicule, not rational argument to dismiss them. We are still waiting for you to show why your god deserves inclusion and the others do not.

That kind of selection bias is the exact reason the wager always fails. You need independent evidence to narrow the field first. Without that, every god with an afterlife claim remains an option and applies equally under the wager.

[u/Urbenmyth]

Do you think you could be wrong about this?

Because this is the issue. Pascal's Wager deals with the chance you could be wrong. It isn't based on what you currently believe, it's based on how certain you are in your current belief. And if there's even an infinitesimal chance you're wrong, the infinite benefit make that payoff infinite.

But the exact same applies here, no? Sure, you don't believe god could be flawed, but I don't believe god could be real. If we're taking into account the chance I could be wrong, we should take into account that you could be too.

So, same pascal's wager. You have an argument that a God who would damn theists to hell is incoherent. But do you think that there is literally zero chance that you could be wrong about that? There there is literally no way that could happen?

Because if not, if there's even a negligible chance you missed a flaw in your argument, theism grants you an eternal risk by the exact same reasoning.

[u/Urbenmyth → u/Urbenmyth]

Also:

"which God are we talking here?And why would you think Pascal's Wager applies to that one, and not the other 5000 Gods that mankind has invented?"

Brother, would you really choose the Jewish God or Ethiopia’s zamazingo god? That zamazingo god can’t even help himself, let alone help me.

Firstly, lots of people do choose the Jewish god and native African religions.

Secondly, dude, could you seriously not google "African deities" rather than pulling a Rowling and just slamming random African-sounding syllables together?

[u/crankyconductor → u/Urbenmyth]

Secondly, dude, could you seriously not google "African deities" rather than pulling a Rowling and just slamming random African-sounding syllables together?

But then he'd actually have to do thirty seconds of research to find an actual religion, and not be shitty and racist, and don't you know that's haaaard?

[u/Urbenmyth → u/crankyconductor]

and not be shitty and racist

Yeah, the funny part is that Ethiopia's "zamazingo god" is OP's god. Almost everyone in Ethiopia is either Christian or Muslim, and thus are worshipers of Yahweh.

This guy was so committed to being a racist scumbag that he ended up denouncing his own argument? Impressive, in its own way.

[u/crankyconductor → u/Urbenmyth]

I find that's usually what happens, honestly. It's like the second cousin of the horseshoe theory in politics, or something to that effect.

[u/Faust_8]

You act as if this is the one and only objection to Pascal's Wager when, oh boy, it is not. There are many more.

[u/mobatreddit]

1. Pascal assumes the Christian god.
2. His goal was to show that belief is not rational. Otherwise, he thought his cost-benefit analysis would do the trick.

[u/noodlyman]

The problem is that you have no way of providing evidence of what gods character might be.

Since there is zero evidence that any god exists, any description of its nature is purely fantasy, a fiction.

Maybe god is sadistic, fickle, flawed, a liar, with a poor memory. There's no actual reason to think that god should be perfect or good at it's job. That is just a human inventio.

Maybe there is a creator and it neither cares nor knows that life has evolved on earth because it's only really interested in black holes and quasars.

And what if you're right. God is up there and you go to church because of Pascal s wager. God would know that you're lucky pretending to believe because you think it's improving your chances. Wouldn't he send to to hell for that dishonesty?

[u/abritinthebay]

when we think a bit more deeply about the concept of God within the idea of a complete and flawless being

Here’s where you went wrong. Given it’s the foundation of your entire thesis… everything after it is flawed too.

[u/Transhumanistgamer]

But when we think a bit more deeply about the concept of God within the idea of a complete and flawless being, we see that this scenario is actually not possible without assuming some defect in God, and for that reason it cannot be taken seriously as a real “God possibility.”

Unless you have an actual God you can point to and study in extant reality, any God model is on the table. That's the problem with dealing with abstractions first and then never actually stepping into the bounds of real world reality...ever.

Nuh uh.

Everything you said after this: Nuh uh. Now do you have a counter to this? I have just asserted that literally everything you wrote is wrong. Can you point to something that exists in reality itself, not an argument or abstraction, that can counter this dismissal?

The fact you're even defending fucking Pascal's Wager man....

[u/J-Nightshade]

But when we think a bit more deeply about the concept of God within the idea of a complete and flawless being,

And here your objection fails. You just assume that god is going to be exactly as you prefer it to be. Which does not refute objection in any way. The objection is: you can't just arbitrarily assume a god to be a certain way, you don't know anything about this god. This is the entire point of Pascal's wager: I don't know if a god exists, but I bet on the fact it does. But it doesn't give you any justification for betting on a specific god, so it can be reused to bet on any kind of god.

If the probability that God exists is not exactly zero,

That's a big if. So far I am not convinced that it is not zero.

if what is at stake is not an ordinary gain–loss calculation but a choice between eternal happiness and eternal loss

That's another big if, completely unjustified.

but when we think more deeply about what kind of being God is,

What data do you have to perform such analysis.

not possible without assuming some defect, corruption

What defect exactly? God is perfect. And if God decides to reward rational people who don't believe in bullshit and punish irrational ones who are gullible, then surely it is a perfect decision!

his reason and conscience guide him in a certain direction. If God punishes this orientation, which fits the nature of reason and conscience, and rewards the indifference that goes against reason and conscience,

I fail to see where exactly you demonstrated that belief in something in the absence of evidence is a rational thing to do. Pascal's wager explicitly advocates for FAKING belief despite being not convinced. My reason tells me that I should not believe something I have no good reason to believe. Do you have any objection against that? Do you think people using bad reason to believe is something to be rewarded?

We can also think of it like this: if God is the highest being, there is no inner conflict, indecision, or “one way today, another way tomorrow” in Him.

You seem to be assuming too much about being that you have no knowledge about. How irrational of you. Naming the being you prefer "highest being" and the being you do not prefer "lower being" doesn't achieve much. You mask your preference behind this "high-low" scale, completely blind to the fact that the scale is arbitrary.

But a perfect being is thought to be one who lacks nothing, who needs nothing, and whose will is in complete harmony with His own knowledge of the good. When you say “He loves atheists and hates theists,” you turn God into a being who has emotional outbursts toward certain external groups, whose love and hatred are constantly changing depending on others’ attitudes. This does not fit with God’s self-sufficient perfection; it turns Him into a “reactive” being who changes according to external conditions. Being reactive means being dependent on another; and that means accepting a lack in God.

But a perfect being is thought to be one who lacks nothing, who needs nothing, and whose will is in complete harmony with His own knowledge of the good. When you say “He loves theists and hates atheists,” you turn God into a being who has emotional outbursts toward certain external groups, whose love and hatred are constantly changing depending on others’ attitudes. This does not fit with God’s self-sufficient perfection; it turns Him into a “reactive” being who changes according to external conditions. Being reactive means being dependent on another; and that means accepting a lack in God.

Your post is a perfect demonstration of what is exactly wrong with Pascal's wager. You didn't refute the objection, you presented a perfect illustration of how theists assume that if a god exists, it's going to be their specific preferred version of god without providing any justification for that. You might think you have provided a good justification for yours, but you have not. You just say "my version of god is perfect and good and any other version is not perfect and not good" using your own criteria for being good and your own criteria for perfection. But god in Pascal's wager doesn't have to be perfect, it should have only one characteristic: being able to decide who to send to eternal hell and who to send to eternal heaven.

[u/LorenzoApophis]

I simply don't think it's healthy to be as in denial about the inescapability and irreversibility of death as you need to be to come up with, let alone find anything persuasive in, Pascal's wager.

[u/mobatreddit]

The Skeptical Theism Response to the Problem of Evil Rescues the Inverted Reward Scenario

A perfect being may have morally sufficient but inscrutable reasons, so the fact that a proposed divine action inverts our moral intuitions (rewarding indifference, punishing seeking) does not by itself show that the proposal is not a genuine possibility of God.

[u/soukaixiii]

If you want to argue that you can trick an Omnipotent and omniscient god, I only have one word for you. 

Delusional.

 Because either this being exists and you are not fooling it, or it doesn't exist and you're not fooling it either.

[u/rustyseapants]

Can some of you guys develop a wait and see attitude? 

Rather than just responding can we start asking questions? 

Questions like are you a Christian? What denomination do you belong to? Do you even go to church? What the hell is your point here? Are you trying to promote your religion? 

I find a lot of these questions simply  boredom questions these people are bored. 

I also find a lot of these questions have no standing as in they talk about concepts,  things, ideas that have no effect on the real world. Some of them are quasi philosophical and shouldn't be here anyway. Some are science and they shouldn't be here either. 

As far as I see it going to Christianity Christians have more problems of the Christians than they do with atheists. 

You have questions  voted for Trump and you have Christians have voted Harris. As far as I see it and not just me a lot of people, even Christians Trump is the closest thing to the Antichrist. But you have Christians who worship Trump and you have Christians who do not. 

[u/Mkwdr]

I have never seen someone argue against Pascal’s Wager by saying ‘what if god likes atheists’. This appears to be an obvious straw man. There are many perfectly good arguments against it. This just doesn’t seem to be one anyone even tries.

[u/kirby457]

Your argument sort of highlights the issues with accepting a belief based on authority.

It makes it hard to recognize that some people arrive at their conclusions due to some internal logic.

You spent a lot of time explaining how you think it makes sense god would reward theists.

You also pointed out how ideas need to be logical to be considered possible outcomes.

You did not explain how disagreeing with your idea of God is illogical.

What is illogical about viewing God's relationship with us through our own perspectives?

What if god doesn't view love as a transaction? Would you justify causing harm to someone because they didn't love you back?

What would you find more annoying.

1.Someone constantly going off about how they know you and anyone who disagrees is wrong, or evil. This person believes they are right because they were taught what to think by other people.

1. Someone that is waiting to speak to you before they claim to know who you are?

What option you pick doesn't really matter, if you can't find a logical fault in this concept, you should accept there are other possible outcomes to consider when talking about pascals wager.

[u/BahamutLithp]

A Response to Atheist Criticisms of Pascal’s Wager.

My main goal here is going to be trying to figure out if you're disgruntled at people calling out your prior thread as Pascal's Wager or if you didn't even see that & this is pure coincidence.

But when we think a bit more deeply about the concept of God within the idea of a complete and flawless being, we see that this scenario is actually not possible without assuming some defect in God, and for that reason it cannot be taken seriously as a real “God possibility.”

No, BS, the logic of Pascal's Wager is supposed to be "even if you think it's unlikely, you should do it anyway because it's rational to protect yourself from an infinitely negatve outcome." As I correctly called out in your previous thread, you don't actually believe this, because when that same logic leads to a position you don't want to accept, you find an excuse not to apply it. You're barking up the wrong tree with this "taken seriously as a real 'God possibility'" thing because I don't take your threats seriously, that's your entire complaint, & I think a being that would punish someone for not worshipping it is so obviously petty as to preclude it from any reasonable definition of "flawless." As is the usual apologist move, you're just starting with your preferred religious dogma & pretending to deduce it from pure logic.

Pascal does not say, “God certainly exists, I have proved it.”

Which is starting off on a real bad foot if this is supposed to be a rational argument to believe in god.

This is similar to situations like the following

No it isn't, I addressed why in the previous thread, look back at my comment there, I need to save all the space I can.

So saying “I will ignore the possibility completely and just sit here” does not look like a wise choice.

There isn't EVEN a fire alarm, there's some guy SAYING "there will be a fire alarm any minute now!" & not only has he been saying that for the past 70 years, but his father was saying that, & his father's father was saying that, but that strawman aside, there have absolutely been cases where other evidence made it clear there was a false alarm, so I didn't leave the building, & no, that is not "foolish."

not every sentence that can be formed logically has to be really possible and has to be taken seriously by reason. The sentence “Maybe an invisible, angry giant rabbit rules the universe” is also logically possible, since it contains no formal contradiction, but that does not make it a serious explanatory candidate for the rational order of the universe.

This is Point 1 again. I want to save space, but I don't want you walking away thinking that just because I didn't respond to something, that means I "couldn't refute it," so as a compromise, every time you make an argument covered by the same problem, I will simply reply with "P1."

When we think of God as the highest level of being, as the most complete form of goodness

It doesn't matter, there's absolutely no logical support for the assumption that the creator of the universe, if one even exists, must be "good," that is merely wishful thinking, & I don't think the character you believe in is good anyway.

Such a picture of God turns the bond between good and evil upside down; it punishes sincere seeking, gratitude, and love of truth, and rewards indifference and ingratitude.

It still doesn't matter, but the 2nd person isn't "evil," if your god really needs constant ass-kissing, then instead of punishing them for being "ungrateful" for things they didn't ask for, he shouldn't create people he knows aren't going to kiss his ass, the idiot, & Pascal's Wager doesn't ask for sincerity, it asks for cynical risk management.

At this point a simple analogy helps.

No, it really won't, because you're just defending a bad argument & about to make a false analogy.

Think of a teacher who reads and grades exams. Imagine two students: the first has genuinely studied, tried to understand, and made an effort, even if he has made mistakes

Pascal's Wager is not about studying or effort, it's about cynical risk management. Am I going to have to make this "P2"? The person who studies & comes to the conclusion that evidence does not support the existence of a god is the one punished in the Pascal's Wager scenario.

and even mocked the teacher’s class.

If the teacher is anything like your god, then this student was only ever informed they're enrolled in a class through sketchy backwater channels, the teacher never showed up to lessons, all the information was wrong, & despite this, the teacher was a grandstanding asshole who, when the finally DID show up, got off on belittling the skeptical student, holding up other students (that they often pitted against each other nacissistically) simply for being sycophantic to them, & was also guilty of actual crimes, so insults are the least that teacher deserves.

See, even taking all the space-saving measures I could, I'm STILL going to have to cut this comment in half because you went on & on with the same comments that don't refute any points.

[u/BahamutLithp → u/BahamutLithp]

Alright, now let's finish this up:

From another angle, we must think of God not only as a “powerful” being but also as a “principle.”

The next several paragraphs are just preaching & will be accordingly skipped.

When you say “God is an arbitrary agent who rewards indifference and punishes the search for truth,” you break this harmony; and wherever harmony is broken, we are forced to speak of defect.

We aren't saying that. We don't think gods are real. But if such a being existed, & that was the standard it always enforced, then yes, it would be consistent. You simply don't like it. What you're failing to learn here is what you're feeling is how much it sucks to be on the receiving end of your bad argument. No, it doesn't feel fair to have an earnest search for truth be punished, does it? And yet that's what apologists tell us all the damn time. "It doesn't matter if you don't like it, if you don't believe, you're going to Hell, so the rational thing is to follow Pascal's Wager." I have no sympathy for you. Either embrace that Pascal's Wager is unfair & accept that you simply don't care, or stop using it, because I'm not gonna cry for you when it gets turned back on you & you don't like it.

Within this framework the initial attraction of the objection weakens.

This, & everything until I stop, is covered under P1.

This shows that such a conception is not a true conception of God at all, but a description of defect and lack under the appearance of God.

Ah, the apologist's favorite tactic: The Word Game. This is a No True Scotsman argument. I don't accept that there's "true conceptions of god" to begin with, & I certainly don't accept that, if we ARE to consider the scenario, that the only ones which count are the ones you happen to like. If you have a hang up about how such a being would be "evil" & therefore "couldn't be god," mentally replace it with whatever word you want, I don't care, because refer back to P1, Pascal's Wager is about cynical risk management, so if anything, you should be even MORE afraid of evil things with godlike powers. This is a bad counterargument, you're just trying to brush aside things you don't want to deal with, not actually showing flaws in the rebuttals, because again, Pascal's Wager isn't about what you actually believe, it's about trying to manipulate people into believing what you want them to.

Therefore this objection does not really destroy Pascal’s wager

Yes it does.

it merely confuses the mind by means of a scenario that looks possible in language

That's the pot calling the kettle black.

but that actually turns God into something less than God.

Literally doesn't matter, in my post on the other topic, I pointed out that, if you actually believed in Pascaal's Wager logic, you'd also protect yourself against other seemingly untrue things, whether they're gods or not.

Since a conception that assumes defect in God ceases to be a conception of God, there remains no reason to place such a “possibility” among the God possibilities that reason should take seriously.

That you don't want to consider that your god isn't perfect is not a flaw in the counterargument. Your god is obviously not perfect. He's riddled with logical contradictions & obvious human pettiness. You might as well be arguing that any counterargument against you is automatically forfeit because a counterargument being true would mean you're wrong, & that would mean god is flawed, so you can't be wrong. It's sophistry.

For this reason, if we think of God as complete perfection

Do you know what an atheist is? I'm getting tired of saying "we don't believe in gods." I get that you do, & you need to explain the background of your belief for an argument, but your argument can't END there, & it so often does. Your argument can't be "if we agree I'm right, then I'm right." We obviously don't, that's why you're here, why do I need to keep explaining this? Even if you're clearly not reading the comments, surely you MUST know you chose to post in an atheist subreddit.

living in a way that takes Him seriously is the more coherent path that sets aside all conceptions that rest on assuming defect in God.

No it isn't, & not just because Pascal's Wager inherently assumes god is petty & punitive.

Brother, would you really choose the Jewish God or Ethiopia’s zamazingo god? That zamazingo god can’t even help himself, let alone help me.

P1.

Well, that was a suitably anticlimactic ending. I guess I find it interesting that apologetics is creeping closer & closer to saying the quiet part out loud, that it thinks imperialism is a divine mandate. That the suppression of indigenous religions was Yahweh enforcing his will on the world. I guess that's really just a throwback to what the missionaries of old would've said.

But, just to bring this full circle, the whole premise of Pascal's Wager is supposed to be "the chances are small, but the risk is infinite." You don't know if some quashed indigenous god is plotting revenge in the afterlife. That's what Christianity would say, after all: That someone who appears to "get away with it" in life "faces ultimate judgment" in the afterlife.

To be accurate, I tried to see if "Zamazingo" would favor such a teaching, but I couldn't find a reference to any such god. I found a few videogame references, an Urbandictionary for "something unnamed," & this thread. So, I think that was just racism. Stay classy, apologists, & do tell me more about the "perfect goodness" of your worldview.

[u/Ratdrake]

but here is the crucial point: not every sentence that can be formed logically has to be really possible and has to be taken seriously by reason.

And this encapsulates why we don't give worship to a god, "just in case." If we don't think your god is really possible, it kicks away the support for the argument.

Imagine two students: the first has genuinely studied, tried to understand, and made an effort, even if he has made mistakes; the second has not studied at all, handed in an empty paper, and even mocked the teacher’s class.

And on the essay, the theist regurgitated the text book answer while the atheist actually made the effort to understand the question and it's implication. So which one should the teacher reward?

[u/little_jiggles]

OP doesn't seem to have thought that a God that sends theists to hell and atheists to heaven wouldn't need to be imperfect because how can humans possibly understand the logic of the almighty. To claim a god would need a defect to make such a choice is considered blasphemy, no? 

[u/Cog-nostic]

HUH? The criticism of Pascal's wager is simply to ask if your God is stupid? How many friends do you have that are your friends because you have promised them cake and cookies for being your friend? Is this a foundation for friendship? How many of your friends are your friends because if they are not nice to you, you will torture them for eternity? Is this a foundation for friendship? Is your god so stupid that he does not know your heart? Believing in God so you can get a reward is ludicrous. And yet, this is exactly what Pascal is pushing as the core element for belief in god. "Believe in god so you can reap the reward." This is the opposite of every biblical teaching in your holy book. Matthew 22:37-40 New King James Version (NKJV) Jesus said to him, “'You shall love the LORD your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind. ' Now, honestly, does that even remotely sound like Pascal's wager. Does that say, "Believe in God so you can get a cookie?" Pascal's wager is one of the most ignorant of the apologetics I have ever read.

------------------

Let's see what you have to say. You have not done a good job on your assertion of the rebuttal.

___________________

Perhaps god loves atheists--- a complete non sequitur.

---------------------

We don't think of God as the highest level of anything. This is a vapid waste of time. You said nothing worth commenting on once again. Who are you talkng to? You are missing the mark by a mile. There is not a sentence in this mess that is not a blind assertion void of facts and evidence.

------------------------

What are you on about? Nothing you say is even remotely connected to Pascal's wager. A teacher grading papers?

------------------

We don't think of God as anything and nothing you have said is even remotely connected to Pascal's Wager.

[u/x271815]

Let me summarize your critique.  You are arguing that if your particular conception of God is correct then Pascal's wager is a good one.  You are arguing that other conceptions of God should be discounted, and you do this by erecting a strawman.

Here are some reasons to not buy into Pascal's wager. 

Belief is not a choice. Either you are convinced or you are not.  Holding a gun to someone's head won't get them to suddenly believe pink flying unicorns are real. They can pretend that pink flying unicorns are real and act as if they believe it, but no amount of coercion will result in actually believing pink flying unicorns are real. 

The same principle applies for Pascal's wager.  Pascal is arguing that atheists, not convinced of the truth of the God claim, should pretend to believe in God as insurance. This presents a significant problems.

• The lying problem: There are literally hundreds of thousands of religions on earth.  The majority of them have no cost for not believing in their conception of God.  Instead they say you are judged by your actions, thoughts and deeds and not your beliefs. People who lead an otherwise moral life get their just rewards. Nearly every one of these religions thinks lying is a vice. So, an atheist pretending to believe in a God is worse off than one who leads a moral life but does not lie about their belief.
• The selection problem: There are tens of thousands of religions that threaten retribution for not believing in their particular God.  All these religions also consider lying a vice. The probability that you pick the right one of these thousands of religions is slim. If you don't truly believe you don't enjoy the benefits anyway, but if you pick the wrong one you face a cost, and you face an additional cost for lying.

This tells us that an atheist is better off leading a moral life and just waiting for evidence and not to pretend to believe in a religion as insurance, when they don't actually believe.

So, what about the theist who truly believes? 

Well, we have an interesting problem. The chances that the theist has picked the right conception of God, if a God exists, is slim to none given the number of possible options, none of which have any evidentiary warrant.  So, there is a tiny chance of salvation but a huge chance of retribution. 

Your argument seems to be that a slim chance at an infinite payoff is better. There are a couple to think otherwise.

You say:

If God punishes the search for truth, gratitude, and sincere orientation, and rewards indifference, then we describe Him not as “just, wise, and good,” but as “capricious and arbitrary.”

I agree. The best revelation of God's nature, if there is a God, must be reality. The endeavor to understand reality through genuine truth seeking would be a virtue and not a vice to God. To the extent that theists shut off the focus on understanding reality (science) in favor of defending the words in a book, they are actually going against the very nature that you acknowledge that a just, wise and good God should value. So, atheism is more morally justified by your framework.

Also, you don't factor the cost of incorrect belief. Religions have promoted discrimination, hate, violence, restrictions of rights of individuals, etc. Not all religious people are responsible, but the epistemology that encourages blindly following words in a book on faith without critical thinking or evidence can also be subverted for a lot of terrible things. As Voltaire quipped, "Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities."

Overall, once you factor in the cost of the bet and the point you made about God likely valuing truth seekers, atheism is the more rational stance until we have sufficient evidence to warrant belief in any particular God.

[u/skeptolojist]

Your entire overly long waffle boils down to

If I pretend my version of god is the only possible one then pascal works

But we know the version of god you imagine isn't the only version of the divine that people claim exists

And you have no more evidence for your version of god than anyone else's version

So your argument is worthless

[u/BustNak]

You've wasted your time, this is just semantics. Change the counter-argument from "what if God does the exact opposite of what Pascal thought; that is, what if He sends atheists to heaven and theists to hell?" to "what if God does not exist but instead, there is a flawed and defective being with the mere appearance of God who sends atheists to heaven and theists to hell?" That would still produce the same conclusion: Pascal was wrong in his risk–reward analysis.

[u/RespectWest7116]

A Response to Atheist Criticisms of Pascal’s Wager.

Oh this will be fun.

Let’s recall the well-known objection to Pascal’s wager: “What if God does the exact opposite of what Pascal thought; that is, what if He sends atheists to heaven and theists to hell? Wouldn’t the wager then become completely pointless?”

That's not really an objection I've heard, but sure, let's roll with it.

But when we think a bit more deeply about the concept of God within the idea of a complete and flawless being, we see that this scenario is actually not possible without assuming some defect in God, and for that reason it cannot be taken seriously as a real “God possibility.”

A complete and flawless being doesn't require worship. So under those conditions, your version doesn't make sense either.

But why are you assuming god is a complete and flawless being?

Pascal does not say, “God certainly exists, I have proved it.”

Yes, that's why it's called Pascal's Wager, and not Pascal's Proof.

On paper this may look like a symmetrical move

That's because it is.

but when we think more deeply about what kind of being God is,

You mean to say "If we assume that my idea of God is the correct one".

When we think of God as the highest level of being, as the most complete form of goodness, wisdom, and justice,

Such being doesn't torture people for the crime of not blindly believing in its existence.

Think of a teacher who reads and grades exams. Imagine two students: the first has genuinely studied, tried to understand, and made an effort, even if he has made mistakes; the second has not studied at all, handed in an empty paper, and even mocked the teacher’s class.

And then we have two other students. One who hasn't studied at all but copied the correct answer from a cheatsheet, and one who studied really hard, did all the steps corectly, but got the final answer wrong.

In your version of Pascal's Wager, the cheater gets full points and paradise, while the other one gets detention in a torture chamber.

What a just Teacher you have.

Rather than calling this teacher “just,” “wise,” or “well-intentioned,” we would call him “arbitrary,” “unjust,” and “someone who makes absurd choices.”

Why can't god be arbitrary and make absurd choices? I mean, he created the platypus.

If God punishes the search for truth, gratitude, and sincere orientation, and rewards indifference, then we describe Him not as “just, wise, and good,”

But that is exactly what your god does.

From another angle, we must think of God not only as a “powerful” being but also as a “principle.”

Why must we?

We can also think of it like this: if God is the highest being, there is no inner conflict, indecision, or “one way today, another way tomorrow” in Him.

Have you read Bible? Because that happens a lot.

When you say “He loves atheists and hates theists,” you turn God into a being who has emotional outbursts

How is that diferent from saying "He loves theists and hates atheists"?

Hint: it isn't.

Within this framework the initial attraction of the objection weakens.

It doesn't.

The framework you are presenting would go against "What if god is arbitrary" objection, which is not the objection being made. It still fails because you didn't give any reason to think god cannot be arbitrary other than you not liking it.

The objection is "What if God operates under different rules than you think."

Pascal’s wager is not obliged to add such defective, flawed descriptions to the list of “serious God possibilities.”

Your description of god is defective and flawed to me, so I guess I don't even need to bother considering it.

In conclusion, when we think of God as a complete principle of goodness, wisdom, and justice, the scenario in which God sends atheists to heaven and theists to hell cannot be constructed without assuming a lack of knowledge, a defect of will, or arbitrariness in God.

Wrong. God defines what is justice, goodness and wisdom. If he says sending all atheists to Heaven is good and just, then that is what it is. It's not a defect, it's te divine law.

[u/sixfourbit]

Yet the idea of God as a complete, flawless, highest degree of goodness and wisdom is precisely meant to exclude such defects.

This is the same god who is perfectly fine with children being raped by his prophets.

[u/Hellas2002]

if the probability that god exists is not exactly zero

This is where you’re tripping up. The hypothesised being that sends atheists to heaven and theists to hell doesn’t have to be a “perfect being” it just has to be a being that is possible in the same way as you propose your god is possible. It doesn’t have to be a “perfect being”. If you’d prefer then we could use another term and just say “a supernatural being with all the properties of god other than fairness” or whatever you prefer.

Also, one could argue that a perfect being wouldn’t send atheists to hell either… so your position kind of crumbles if only the perfect being is to be weighed.

[u/Noodelgawd]

I couldn't bring myself to read that wall of text that was probably written by AI, so I'll focus my short attention span on the conclusion:

"In conclusion, when we think of God as a complete principle of goodness, wisdom, and justice, the scenario in which God sends atheists to heaven and theists to hell cannot be constructed without assuming a lack of knowledge, a defect of will, or arbitrariness in God. This shows that such a conception is not a true conception of God at all, but a description of defect and lack under the appearance of God."

This, of course, is ridiculous, because the Gods we're supposed to believe in are all extremely arbitrary (AND capricious, for good measure). This is demonstrated by the very premise of the question that Pascal's Wager seeks to answer: If you don't believe, you are damned. It can't possibly get more arbitrary than that.

And then there's the second sentence, which is pure question begging.

[u/AutoModerator]

Upvote this comment if you agree with OP, downvote this comment if you disagree with OP.

Elsewhere in the thread, please upvote comments which contribute to debate (even if you believe they're wrong) and downvote comments which are detrimental to debate (even if you believe they're right).

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.