Pascal's Wager

I hope to have a rational debate with you on the topic: Is Pascal's Wager a Valid Argument? ==================Con's Opening Argument==================C1: Pascal's Wager does not give evidence for God's existanceThis is quite obvious. It would be like me stating, "If you don't worship the FSM, then you will end up in a boiling hot pot of spaghettii sauce when you die if it is true. " I have gave no evidence for his existance and thus the argument can be invalid. C2: Pascal's Wager (PW) does not tell you which God to worship. It is a fact that there are numerous religions in the world today. Which God should I worship? What if I were to be worshiping the wrong God and still end up in another god's hell? "Once the full range of such possibilities is taken into account, Pascal's argument from comparative expectations falls to the ground. The cultivation of non-rational belief is not even practically reasonable. " [1]C3: The Atheist's Wager You may live a good life and believe in a god, and a benevolent god exists, in which case you go to heaven: your gain is infinite. You may live a good life without believing in a god, and a benevolent god exists, in which case you go to heaven: your gain is infinite. You may live a good life and believe in a god, but no benevolent god exists, in which case you leave a positive legacy to the world; your gain is finite. You may live a good life without believing in a god, and no benevolent god exists, in which case you leave a positive legacy to the world; your gain is finite. You may live an evil life and believe in a god, and a benevolent god exists, in which case you go to hell: your loss is infinite. You may live an evil life without believing in a god, and a benevolent god exists, in which case you go to hell: your loss is infinite. You may live an evil life and believe in a god, but no benevolent god exists, in which case you leave a negative legacy to the world; your loss is finite. You may live an evil life without believing in a god, and no benevolent god exists, in which case you leave a negative legacy to the world; your loss is finite. [2] I cannot imagine an omnibelevolent God that sends people to an everlasting punishment in hell for not believing in him. Does that sound like free will? Sources1. Mackie, op. cit. : p 2032. wikipedia. org/wiki/atheists_wager=============REBUTTAL TO PRO============="Pascal's wager tells the non believer to serve god. The atheist responds "well which one? Since I don't know which one I will serve none. "This is analogous to a person who has been convinced it is better to go to university then not to do so, but doesn't go bec. "Which one? ". The obvious answer is try to figure it out. Pascal's wager is an imperative to serve god the fact that you don't know how is not reason not to serve him. It is reason to try to find out how. "Worshiping God and religion is much different from a university. Religion has an eternal effect if your religion is false and another one is true. So, this still begs the question: "Which one. " "Figure it out"Well, what if I figure out the wrong religion? ======================REASONS WHY I AM AN ATHEIST======================Reason 1: Argument from non-belief AE: I first define an expression that will be used in the argument: Situation L = the situation of the amount of suffering and prema ture death experienced by humans in the world at the present time being significantly less than what it actually is at present. (In other words, if the actual amount, at present, is, say, a total of n units of suffering and premature death, then in situation L that amount would be, at present, significantly less than n units. ) Then AE, making reference to situation L, can be expressed as follows: (A) If God were to exist, then he would possess all of the following four properties (among others): (1) being able to bring about situation L, all things considered; (2) wanting to bring about situation L, i. e. , having it among his desires; (3) not wanting anything else that conflicts with his desire to bring about situation L as strongly as it; (4) being rational (which implies always acting in accord with his own highest purposes). (B) If a being who has all four properties listed above were to exist, then situation L would have to obtain. (C) But situation L does not obtain. The amount of suffering and unfairness in the world at the present time is not significantly less than what it actually is at present. (D) Therefore [from (B) & (C)], there does not exist a being who has all four properties listed in premise (A). (E) Hence [from (A) & (D)], God does not exist. ANB: To formulate ANB, I put first forward these two definitions: Set P = the following three propositions: (a) There exists a being who rules the entire universe. (b) That being loves humanity. (c) Humanity has been provided with an afterlife. Situation S = the situation of all, or almost all, humans coming to believe all three propositions of set P by the time of their physical death. Using the above definitions, ANB may be expressed as follows: (A) If God were to exist, then he would possess all of the following four properties (among others): (1) being able to bring about situation S, all things considered; (2) wanting to bring about situation S, i. e. , having it among his desires; (3) not wanting anything else that conflicts with his desire to bring about situation S as strongly as it; (4) being rational (which implies always acting in accord with his own highest purposes). (B) If a being who has all four properties listed above were to exist, then situation S would have to obtain. (C) But situation S does not obtain. It is not the case that all, or almost all, humans have come to believe all the propositions of set P by the time of their physical death. (D) Therefore [from (B) & (C)], there does not exist a being who has all four properties listed in premise (A). (E) Hence [from (A) & (D)], God does not exist. | CONCLUSION | I have proved that it is possible that God does not exist; My opponent needs to tell me which one I should follow; I have shown why his uninversity analogy is false; I have given my "Atheist's Wager"; My opponent needs to justify why God cannot allow Atheists into heaven; My opponent also needs to give evidence for and justify why a belevolent God will send people to hell for not believing in him. (i. e. "Atheist's Wager. "