Pascal's Wager Stands to Reason

Thank you indeed, Magicr for accepting my first debate on debate.org. I will take the BoP as well."The reality is that there are thousands of choices, if not more, choices between all of the different gods that have been present throughout history."Very true statement in saying there are many choices of gods. In retrospect, they are all gods, therefore saying that the beliefs in gods can be summed up in the belief in God. Then fact stands to reason in presupposing the claim that there are only two choices: God, or not God.All of the different Gods that are presently glorified or acknowledged are in fact, Gods. Those who choose to believe in the existence of the several varying possibilities of the gods (which some, in further detail, can be proved false from different arguments), do in fact, believe in a God. Although, Pascal is specifically discussing the God of Christianity in his context, which I would like to stress.1. There are hundreds of possibilities of gods.2. Either people believe one exists, or is non-existent, even if one is undecided on one's stand on a God.3. Thus, one may either believe in the existence of a God or not.4. Therefore, there are only two central beliefs in choosing if God exists or not."The question does not just apply to the atheist, 'what happen if you're wrong?' but to the theist as well."You make a great point, Magicr. We all must ask ourselves, ostracizing our personal beliefs to examine our own standing unbiased, "What if I'm wrong?" Nonetheless, the argument may also stand to reason. Let's suppose Pascal was wrong about believing in the existence of God (specifically his belief in the Christian God). He is dead and living in eternal non-existence. What has he lost? Actually, everything that the atheist does. Eternal hope and happiness are gone, he was wrong. But was it still a good bet? Of course. He puts it this way, "I should be much more afraid of being mistaken and then finding out that Christianity is true than of being mistaken in believing it to be true." If he is right, he wins everything. If he is wrong, he loses everything. In light of that, if the atheist is right, he loses everything. If he is wrong, he loses everything. Would you rather lose by default or have a chance at winning?If God does not exist, it is needless how you wager, for there is nothing to win after death and nothing to lose after death. On the other hand, if God were to exist, the only possible way to win eternal happiness is to believe, and your only possible way of losing it is refusing to believe (Peter Kreeft on Pascal's Wager). As also put by Kreeft, "Atheism is a terrible bet. It gives you no chance of winning the prize." No matter how you put it, the theist has an invaluably greater chance at eternal life and happiness than the atheist because the theist has a bet with even guarantees and the atheist bets on no guarantees whatsoever."Additionally, what happens if there exists a God who punishes theists and rewards atheists? ...."I've had the opportunity of looking over this question myself. Indeed, what if there existed a God who punished those who believed and loved Him and rewarded those who despised and rejected Him? 1. God is, "that than which a greater cannot be thought."2. In partiality of being greater than any other, God must be morally perfect.3. If a morally perfect God existed, God would reward those who believed in His existence because of their goodness towards Him.4. Therefore, if God existed, He would reward in those who believed in His existence.Then the possibility of the Christian God punishing Christians would be preposterous. The argument does not include punishing atheists, but it wouldn't make as much logical sense to say that God would reward those who rejected Him. Therefore, the advantage would be for the theist in all aspects of his bet over the bet for the atheist.