Pascal's Wager Fails to Support Theism

Thank you, Matt. Before I begin, I wish to make clear this is only an opening. I have no intentions of addressing my opponent's last post and will, at most, bring up a few points. I only wish to state my stance. Because if we’re going to debate a topic, it’s best to know what we are debating and what our stances are. I have already done my definitions for those who wish to use them if needed. With that, I will begin.Introduction: Rusted Pillars of Pascal’s WagerOne of the biggest failures of a brilliant mind that is used ad infinitum. There are many reasons why the archaic rhetoric does not work, and I will go further why an evolved one very likely does not. But first, an introduction into Pascal’s Wager and how the pillar supporting it have officially rusted from the long use of something that holds no water.Blaise Pascal was born on June 19, 1623, Clermont-Ferrand, France. He was a brilliant mathematician and physicist. His name is known for the unit of pressure, known as Pascal. While a brilliant mind, as Dr. Tyson stated in the conclusional final episode of COSMOS: A Spacetime Odyssey, “And perhaps even the most important rule of all, remember you could be wrong. Even the best scientist have been wrong about somethings. Newton, Einstein, and every other great scientist in history. They all made mistakes. Of course they did, their were human.” This part is important as to give credibility to Pascal being wrong and to prevent simple arguments from authority (him being a mathematician and physicist as means to support his wager). And he was indeed wrong. He was ignorant of not only the God to which he believed in, apparently, but also every other god who has ever been worshiped. Pascal’s Wager, or anything like it, implies the God one speaks about is incredibly incompetent, childish, sinister, malevolent, sadistic, and cruel. And, of course, stupid. This, of course, if you believe there are consequences for not believing.[1] For one, an all knowing, all powerful God would know if you are believing based on pseudo-reasons, such as simply gambling to save your own hide, or disbelief based on logical means. If so, no God with a capacious heart would turn you down unless you choose to follow his way simply to not be boiled ‘alive’ for eternity. Thus making Pascal’s Wager fallacious as your end result is only dependant on the God who turns out to be real if one. The rhetoric of it is old and no longer works with the knowledge we have at our disposal in today’s modern technological world. As Alan Dershowitz one said; "I have always considered 'Pascal's Wager' a questionable bet to place, since any God worth believing in would prefer an honest agnostic to a calculating hypocrite."[2]P1: The Number of Gods, Religions, and Probability Amongst ThemWhen it comes to Pascal’s Wager, or any kind for that matter, it must take into account every religion and option. The original concept, created by Pascal, was a false dichotomy. It was also religious hucksterism. If we take into account all the other religions, Hinduism, Shintoism, Jainism, Buddhism, Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Scientology, the many Pagan religions, and even Jediism, and let us not forget the many secs./denominations/schools of the religions. Each teaching their own thing to the point they could be their own religion had it not been based on a similar concepts, such as Jesus and God of Abraham. So, and I will agree with Pro on this, a good way to go about it would be probability. However, you must take into account the text of the religion itself. The words, that is what matters, nothing else. If you wish to wager your entire life, determine how you live all based on one school of one religion among the thousands others, than you must also acknowledge that your religions probability based on the book itself must stand out to be more likely to be real than the other religions. After that, you must compare bit to an atheistic approach. Both agnostic and gnostic compared to your own agnostic or gnostic stance.P1-A: Probability Amongst ReligionsWhen it comes to the wager, you must measure the weight of each religion being possible. This includes comparison to science. If you wager Christianity, you must look to the text itself. Does it conform with reality? I will be blunt and say no. In short, creationism does not and neither do many of the pseudo-historical accounts, like Moses. Of course people will now tell you they are allegories, but only because they are clearly not true. This is a cop out by organized religion. If they were never proven to be false, you would still believe them to be real. Clearly the Holy Bible is not very clear in that, especially when Jesus refers to the old laws. In no way is it possible Genesis happened. It defies everything we know in modern science. Saying they are not meant to be literally taken is a means to deny the fallacious text of the book. That lowers the probability, and quite a bit with the way Genesis is written. [3][4]The same applies to Islam. It had, out of the many grandiose claims, stated Muhammad split the moon in half and had even rode to heaven on a winged horse. Are there any horses with wings that can fly? No, and that is physically impossible. One reasons is blood boil that Muhammad would have suffered from going to high, that and space. The fact it claims he sliced the moon in half is also going to lower the probability massively. This comes from the Qur'anic verses 54:1-2. Some take it literally and others do not. It doesn’t matter, it’s in the book and impossible.[5]What about agnostic or gnostic atheism? Well, gnostic atheism is simply stating you know God is fake or any God to be fake. The probability is low on that, I will say, because we know hardly anything of reality and thus have no gnostic truth about it. What about agnostic? Well, being neutral on the topic of there being any God shows you deny all the theistic claims due to a lack of belief and also would be willing to admit being wrong should you be wrong and if there is any evidence. Not only would an all knowing and powerful God who cares about his creation see this as an honest and logical position, but likely would have more respect to wait for true evidence for those who have not received it instead of making a wager on your entire way of life and picking a religion. A religion or way of life that could be wrong. Like Homer Simpson stated; “What if we are worshiping the wrong God? What if we are making him madder, and madder every time we go to church?”[6]To conclude that, I would say that it is more logical to not pick and choose and wait for irrefutable evidence. If Gods of any type refuse to appear before everyone in a way that makes his or her or its existence irrefutable, than he or it or she can understand the stance of being an agnostic atheist as the one true logical position.Cited Work1) Cosmos: A Spacetime Odyssey, Dr. Neil Degrasse Tyson Speech, http://www.skepticsfieldguide.net...2) Alan M. Dershowitz, Letters to a Young Lawyer 3) Book of Genesis, The Holy Bible4) Lack of Evidence for Jewish Slaves in Egypt and mass exodus across the desert, http://www.huffingtonpost.com...5) The Holy Qur'an, verses 54:1-2.6) The Simpsons, Episode 62, Season 4, October 8, 1992