Pascal's Wager is a Good Argument for Belief in God

Firstly, I think objecting to my language is odd. The language doesn't matter, as long as it conveys the same meaning. When he says "infinite gain" or "infinite loss," he means heaven and hell. Furthermore, it doesn't have any affect on the validity of any arguments, so it is irrelevant. ======= Now, onto your arguments: For the sake of argument, I will temporarily accept your premise that the Abrahamic God is the only valid one. Okay, then which of the three main Abrahamic faiths does he want us to follow? A significant number of interpretations of each of the three exclude believers of the other two from God's eternal reward. What if Muslims are correct, and the particular interpretation that the only people allowed into heaven are Muslims? Hell, some denominations of Christianity (Catholicism comes to mind) believe that their denomination is the only way into heaven. What if one of them is correct? What if you choose the wrong denomination? Now, that aside, I will say that I do *not* accept your claim that God only refers to the Abrahamic God, and that we therefore need not consider the others. Hinduism is only alien to you because it's not a part of the culture you were brought up in-- and to claim that it's a dead option is silly when it's the world's third largest religion, after Christianity and Islam[1]. I would also contest your claim that Hinduism offers no emotive response. I do not know if you've ever read the Bhagavad Gita, but it's beautiful, and I've responded just as strongly to it as I have to, say, the Sermon on the Mount. And sure, more than half the world's population follows an Abrahamic religion, but this is a classic example of the argumentum ad populum fallacy. Indeed, there is no rational reason, no actual evidence to suppose that the Abrahamic God is any more likely to exist than Lord Krisna, Baal, or Ares. Even IF the Abrahamic God is more probable than any other, by the terms of the Wager, you must not discard the other beliefs as long as they are *possible.* Indeed, there was once a time that Christianity (or even monotheism!) was, proportional to the population, smaller than, say, Wicca or any other form of paganism is now. Just because none of the other beliefs have the power Christianity does, does not mean it will always be that way. As to your next objection, I never claimed that faith *must* oppose evidence, merely that it is, by definition, a firm belief in the absence of-- or in spite of-- the evidence. If such a God exists as the one I proposed, then believing in a being that you have no evidence for would net you punishment. Now, if evidence and reason lead you to conclude that there is indeed a God, which I am not claiming to be impossible, then no, you would not be punished. But the Wager is not based on evidence at all, and is thus not a valid reason to believe. Which brings me to your next claim that the idea of the Wager is, essentially, "fake belief, go through the motions, and eventually you will find that you really do believe." I find this ridiculous, as plenty of people have gone through the motions of belief for years before admitting to being closet atheists-- myself among them. We went through the motions for quite some time, and never did it cause any of us to start to believe it was true. Even if you do manage, by going through the motions enough time, force yourself to belief by sheer force of will, then you still are not believing in God through evidence or reason, so my hypothetical God would still condemn you. If you do find evidence for the existence of God, and that leads you to believe, then it turns out that the Wager is unnecessary all along. If you never do find evidence to believe, but you do so anyway, then my hypothetical God (which is, rationally, just as likely to exist as the Abrahamic God) would condemn you. ========== Ultimately, however, the Wager is based on a single premise: that you cannot lose if you have faith in God. If that premise is false, the entire Wager falls apart. Therefore, if I can propose a single plausible scenario where it is preferable to be an Atheist, Pascal's Wager is completely refutable. First, I will say that it would be slightly preferable to be an Atheist if it turns out that no God exists whatsoever-- because quite apart from the value of knowledge itself, it means that you do not need to live with certain restrictions that have no rational purpose. You don't need to keep in the closet if you're gay, but can be free to love those who you will. You don't need to worry that you're going to go to Hell. But certainly, I don't think the benefit for the atheist being right really compares to the benefit for the religious believer if he is right, so I will propose a hypothetical scenario that is no less probable, according to the evidence, than the Abrahamic God: Say a God exists. However, this isn't the Abrahamic God, but it is some other, currently unknown God. The one thing this God can't stand is people worshiping gods other than himself, because all the other gods do *exist,* but they are actually demons, and worship makes them more powerful. This God doesn't mind atheism, because atheists do not give these demons more power. Therefore, on this God's judgment day, he condemns all believers in these demon-gods, but he allows atheists into his heaven as long as they have lived a decent life and tried to be a boon to the world, rather than doing harm. The reason that we do not know about this God is because he is still preparing the world for his prophets, who are yet to come. The way he is doing so is unknowable, because His plan is beyond understanding for mere mortals such as us. Now, you might claim that such a God is ridiculous, but there is no rational reason to assume that he cannot exist. And in this situation, it is preferable to be an atheist instead of believing in *any* of our modern religions. Now, this is just one scenario, off the top of my head. Other plausible ones exist, but I'm running low on characters and thus will not include them. ====== In summary: 1. Even if we remove non-Abrahamic Gods from the picture, the Wager fails because you can still choose the *wrong* Abrahamic faith, or the wrong denomination (if God is that picky-- as some interpretations claim He is.) 2. However, we must NOT remove the non-Abrahamic gods from consideration. They are just as probable as the Abrahamic God is. 3. While faith doesn't necessarily *oppose* reason/evidence, it is belief in the absence of reason/evidence. A hypothetical God could exist that would punish faith and reward pure reason. 4. Your claim that if you begin by believing through the Wager, and thus go through the motions long enough, you will eventually believe is not necessarily true. Plenty of people do this for years without ever believing. 5. Pascal's Wager is based on the premise that the religious believer cannot lose. If it turns out that this premise is false, then the argument falls apart. 6. This premise IS false, because there are situations in which it turns out to be preferable to be an atheist. 7. Because this premise is false, Pascal's wager falls apart. It is made completely invalid. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org...