Pascal's Wager

Firstly I guess, thank you for conceding your position. I was however hoping for a more lively discourse. Belief and faith cannot exist with the absolute knowledge of god, which is why it is called a wager. One does not need to prove the existence of god to defend the wager. Arguing against the existence certainly helps though (lowering the odds). The very fact you concede the difficulty in proving gods' existence only strengthens my own argument; that the wager is unacceptable. The odds are not at all favourable. How the wager works: a) If God exists, then whoever does not believe in him, will end up being eternally tormented or at least annihilated. (b) If God exists, then whoever believes in him will gain eternal life in Heaven. (c) If God does not exist, then whether or not people believe in him is irrelevant. (d) Therefore [from (a)-(c)], atheists are running a severe risk. At the very least, the expected utility of their belief situation is infinitely worse than that of theists. (e) But such people are able to self-induce theistic belief. (f) Therefore [from (d) & (e)], all atheists ought to swap their beliefs and become theists. It is erroneous to assume an individual who chooses to follow, based on Pascal's Wager, can then somehow make the transition to truly believe. Unfortunately, most atheists don't find it possible, nor are they willing to make that leap. Therefore the wager fails. In addition, this hypothetical God may require more than simple belief; the majority of Christians believe that the Christian God requires an element of trust, faith and obedience from his followers. That destroys the assertion that if you believe but are wrong, you lose nothing. Belief is not enough. Therefore the wager fails. Pascal's wager was as such directed at the Christian god, arguing an individual case against all gods is unfeasible so my arguments are directed to the god in the mind of Pascal. The Christian God is defined as a personal being who knows all. Christians state, personal beings have free will. In order to have free will, it requires more than one option, each of which is not inevitable. Before you make a choice, therefore, there must be a state of indecision during a period of potential, you cannot know the future. Even if you think you can predict your decision, if you claim to have free will, you must admit the potential to change your mind before the decision is final. An entity who knows everything cannot have a "state of uncertainty." It knows its choices in advance. Therefore it has no potential to avoid its choices, and therefore lacks free will. Since a being that lacks free will is not a personal being, a personal being who knows everything cannot exist. You can object that God, being all powerful, can change his mind. But if he does, then he did not know the future in the first place. If he really knows the future, then the future is fixed and not even God can change it. If he changes his mind anyway, then his knowledge was limited. You can't have it both ways: no being can be omniscient and omnipotent at the same time. If God always acts in accordance with his nature, then he still must have more than one viable option that does not contradict his nature if he is to claim free will. Otherwise, he is a slave to his nature, automaton, and not a free personal agent. No objection can save the Christian God. Perhaps a modest deity can be fantasised, one that is not both personal and all-knowing, both all-knowing and all-powerful, both perfect and free. But until a god is defined coherently, and then proven to exist with evidence and sound reasoning, it is sensible not to think that such a being exists. Therefore, the Christian God does not exist. William of Occam formulated a principle which has become known as Occam's Razor. In its original form, it said "Do not multiply entities unnecessarily." That is, if you can explain something without supposing the existence of some entity, then do so. Nowadays when people refer to Occam's Razor, they often express it more generally, for example as "Take the simplest solution." or "The simplest answer is often correct." The non existence of god is by far the simpler option; god is seen as existing beyond time and space (another debate, another time maybe) as incomprehensible to the human mind, therefore any solution that we can comprehend is a simpler one. The wager is not as simple as Pascal proposed, the odds are low, and the nature of god itself, as defined by its one source, is contradictory. Perhaps the most damning, is acceptance of the wager itself, is no guarantee of the rewards offered, even if we assume the premise of God as true.