Pascal's Wager

I too thank Kohai for an excellent debate and for showing superb conduct . By the way you did not mention a definition for extraordinary before, and the one mentioned here is unacceptable me. When I provide a definition, I like to quote the dictionary. This definition was not quoted from the dictionary, and I will therefore replace it with one's that are: EXTRAORDINARY: 1) Going beyond what is usual, regular, or customary.[1] 2) Beyond what is ordinary or usual.[2] 3) very unusual, remarkable, or surprising. [3] Based on these definitions, I come to response #1: 1)It is not clear that the claim of gods existence is necessarily intrinsically extraordinary. The phrase my opponent uses is generally used as skepticism for miracles such as the resurrection of Jesus. (In fact it is based on a quote from Hume's where the words he used was miracle Carl was the one who used the term extraordinary claim. But based on my definitions they are essentially the same and do not apply to the existence of god. With regard to the resurrection of Jesus however I would agree it does apply, but this debate is about god not Jesus.) response # 2: do all extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence? According to Pascal's wager it could be argued that even if the existence of god was extraordinary and even if there wasn't sufficient evidence. One should still go on the side of caution and serve god as: a) there is nothing to lose. (my opponent has already agreed to this part.) This would be analogous to a free lottery even if the chances of winning are minuscule, its free, so it's worthwhile. b)The ramifications are infinite. So even if the chances of god existing were minuscule. Mathematically it pays to serve. To illustrate this point I will provide an analogy: In any gamble there are 3 factors a)cost b)chances c)potential gain. The greater the potential gain the greater risk and cost one would be willing to incur. If the potential gain and loss are infinite even if the chances are minuscule and even if there was some cost (which there isn't it would still be worthwhile bec., inf. / any #) > (any #, and there for sill infinity relative to any thing finite.) Mathematically this is logical but something feels wrong about it so it should be used combined with part "a". Response # 3: Indeed I would like to debate that but in about a 2 months. As I will not have much time for the next few weeks soon. In response to your point. 1st of all you could have at least provided the names of the counter arguments. 2ndly, yes of coarse their are debates regarding some of these pieces of evidence but the point is that it makes it far from clear or certain that no god does exist. Thus we come to Pascal's wager. Play on the side of caution. C2: PW Does not tell you which god to worship. I also wrote:"I had written 4 other points on that argument, (see R1) which were not rejected." and "The other points made in R1 suffice." C3: Atheist Wager It's hard to know what exactly my opponent means here as he does not write it in argument form. It is not clear to me if he is making an argument here at all. I just discussed it with him in the comment box I will put his words here: "How do you know god will send one to he'll based on their beliefs?" Well according to Pascal's wager you don't have to know. Even the possibility is sufficient reason. This was the whole reason he made the wager to begin with. (Just to clarify worship does not necessarily mean you prostrate yourself to some statue. Acknowledge or accept, would be a more accurate description of the worship I propose, as worship has a negative connotation.) (You mentioned being good and moral without G-d. Regarding that statement, I would like to list three points: 1) Moral relativism: Without G-d, man will not know what is moral. 2) Heard from Professor Gottleib, if there is a G-d, there is a moral imperative of gratitude. 3) Being that G-d is all goodness and omnipotent, what He command us to do is probably for our own good, not because He needs it.) C4: "Why I am an Atheist" To answer my opponents final question: "If we can prove God doesn't exist, why on earth should we wager he does?" The ans. According to Pascal's wager is, bec. He might, and you have nothing to lose and everything to gain. Response#4 The creation of such complex and intricate [1] http://www.merriam-webster.com... [2] The American Heritage ï¿½ƒï¿½'ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½‚ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ƒï¿½€šï¿½‚ï¿½ï¿½ Dictionary of the English Language, Updated in 2009. [3] Collins English Dictionary Complete and Unabridged.