Pascal's Wager

Rebuttal: C1: PW Gives no evidence for God I challenge my opponents claim that the existence of god is "extraordinary". (depending on the ans. to this there is a follow up question.) I further challenge my opponents contention that there is no strong evidence for god. Here are some: Arguments for the existence of God: "The cosmological argument. The teleological argument. The argument of morality. The ontological argument . The argument from degree, a version of the ontological argument posited by Aquinas. Arguments that a non-physical quality observed in the universe is of fundamental importance and not an epiphenomenon, such as: Morality (Argument from morality). Beauty (Argument from beauty). Love (Argument from love). religious experience (Argument from religious experience), are arguments for theism against materialism. The anthropic argument. The transcendental argument. The argument from reason. Argument from testimony. Argument from survival of the Jews. Argument from fulfilment of prophesies in the original testament. ect. I will not go through these arguments in detail, as that is not the topic of this debate. Each of these arguments are subjects unto themselves and subject of many books and debates. The point is, to say that there is no evidence for God, is simply unreasonable, and untrue. C2: Pascal's Wager (PW) does not tell you which God to worship. Okay. My opponent maintains that he already responded to my counter argument. Which he did, partially. I wrote in the previous round that I did not feel it necessary to defend it, as I had written 4 other points on that argument, (see R1) which were not rejected. My opponent seems unsatisfied, so I will explain this point but I maintain, there were 4 other points to address this issue in R1. My opponent points out a difference between my analogy of university to that of god. In that If you pick the wrong god its infinitely bad. What my opponent fails to address is, so what? In the case of university picking the right one brings finite good and picking the wrong one brings relatively finite bad. Not going at all also brings relative finite bad. In the case of god we up the ante so to speak a wrong decision may (see other points R1 were I reject this) result in infinite bad and a right decision leads to infinite good. No decision brings infinite bad. The atheist solution is, "do nothing". As with the university example, this option makes no since. I don't want this to get off topic, so if my opponent still has further problems with this analogy consider it dropped. The other points made in R1 suffice. The main point of writing this was for the analogy to make it more clear, but if it is causing greater confusion, consider it dropped, and focus on the other points. ((My opponent asks (End R2) which religion to pick. In my personal opinion you should choose the religion of "the seekers of god". K, I know what your thinking, "this is not listed in ddo's religions." The reason is That I just made it up. The basic laws of this religion are basic moral rules,don't kill don't steal ect. To seek god. constantly, and sincerely asking for guidance, truth, meaning, goodness ect. As well as actively researching theology. And lastly spread the religion, and what you've learned.)) C3: The Atheist's Wager My opponent here clarifies "The Atheist's Wager", as being based on the assumption that god doesn't care if we believe him or not. I note this is not what was written in the previous round, but if that is the argument I will address it: My opponent tells us that god does not care if we believe in him or not. I ask my opponent how he knows this. Most religions that claim to have the word of god say that indeed god demands that we believe in him, and that those who do not do so go to hell. How can my opponent as a seeming atheist say god does not care. "C4: Reasons why I am an atheist " I am sorry that my opponent has "no clue" as to what I was responding in the previous round I will attempt to clarify. But first, I cant resist responding to my opponents point on FWD. As stated in the beginning of this round there is a plethora of evidence for the existence of god. So the argument it would seem is, give more. The ans. to this is that the more evidence the less free will. God decided to give x amount of free will and limited the evidence accordingly. So its not just yes free will and no free will. There are different amounts of free will. and this is the amount of free will god decided to provide. Now to clarify my response from the last round: 1)This first point, is based on a lecture by Professor Dale Gottlieb, Former professor philosophy at Johns Hopkins: [1] There is a common misconception regarding science, that theories are automatically dropped as soon as a counter example is found. This view of science is incorrect. Richard Roty professor of philosophy of science at Princeton university points out that every known theory ha d/s known unsolved problems or counter examples. When a scientific theory is rejected for another theory, we are exchanging a theory with it's problems for a theory with its problems. To site an example, in the 30's scientists using quantum mechanics calculated the energy of a single electron to be infinite. Obviously impossible. This did not cause the scientists to reject the whole quantum theory. bec. Contrary to popular belief that not the way science works, to automatically reject a theory just bec. of an unanswered question. Thus being said It would be double standard to do so in theology. Just bec. There is an outstanding question (I'm not saying there is, I am saying even if there was,) doesn't automatically disprove god. 2)Furthermore I pointed out that god and a large part of the world is metaphysical. Something we know next to nothing about. It would therefore be unwise and inaccurate to make speculative conclusions based on next to nothing. Now see the analogies I gave for this concept in the previous round. 3)Lastly, there are unanswered questions regarding the existence of a godless world. For example, the problems of first cause. The intricacy and complexity of the world. The large gaps in the fossil record. Ect. (see also list of arguments at the beginning of this round.) So if questions are automatic reasons to reject, there is trouble both ways. Which leads us right back to Pascal's wager: " Even if the existence of God could not be determined through reason, a rational person should wager as though God exists, because living life accordingly has everything to gain, and nothing to lose." [1] The lecture can be heard by going to his web site: http://www.dovidgottlieb.com... from the top.