Pascal's Wager Fails to Support Theism

Excellent point you bring up Berend. It is helpful to bring each other's points up first. I would agree with you that Pascal's Wager is not Pascal's Proof, and that is important to keep in mind. Yes, I do agree that everyone has been wrong, but I want to point out that there have also been people who have been wrong in claiming others are wrong. That doesn't mean you're wrong, it just means it's a fairly unsettled and complicated issue. As a side note, one could go on and on about person A saying that "Person B is wrong saying that person A is wrong saying that person B is wrong saying that person A is wrong saying that ..." Now, I must add that those people who were remembered were remembered because they got something right, and hopefully something important right. I totally agree with you that arguments from authority must never be assumed to be usable unless both sides agree to use said authority. Now, I already said that I didn't want to continue talking about Pascal's Wager, though I did think my argument would be a derivative of Pascal's Wager. I don't think that it is though upon thinking about it some more, just that it is in a similar format as Pascal's Wager. (P1): I would like to propose a probability system for all religions based off of the resolution that I gave towards this problem in my own wager (as a recap, I said to use reasoning as the judge, basing it on known science and self-contradictions). Oh, and I want to add a level, saying that if they do something that is highly unlikely, in my reference to Archbishop Sheen, then they get put on a higher level. Now, I want to start off with those religions and give the sum probability of the highest category I can think of, category miracle, they get a sum probability of 'x'. Then, the category that doesn't contradict reasoning or known science, category reason-friendly, they get a sum probability of x/100. Then, the category that hasn't been looked at, category unknown, they get a sum probability of x/100^2. Lastly, the category that provably contradicts reason (I mean that they say that 4 = 5, not that things can become invisible or appear out of nowhere) should have a sum probability of x/100^3. Oh, and atheism can be compared with each of the four levels. My goal is to get a religion to the highest level, as that would stand the best chance against atheism. Yes, the text must be taken into account of the religion itself. However, you can't take the words out of their true context. So, you can't just give your own interpretation of it. In fact, some of the texts aren't meant to be taken literally. However, they should be accountable when it is interpreted on a moral level. Then, yes, the religion that is chosen out of that should be analyzed with atheism on its own, hence the 'version A' I gave. Note that version A is tuned to Catholicism (and what I think is the only rational interpretation of Christianity I am aware of), so it could change depending on which religion is selected. From the definition I know of agnosticism, it seems to be defined as in between religion and atheism. I think the winner of the discussion between religion and atheism should get the agnostics. I don't know if you think that position works, so let me know. Also, I don't want to limit atheism to gnostic atheists, so tell me if you think otherwise. Now, I just realized that I want to clarify on science. The rules of science can be broken if the religion gives sufficient justification. Of course, that actually takes out what I said about science previously as a test, because if God isn't material, then God isn't bound to material law, and if God created matter, then God could theoretically control matter, though there would have to be a sufficient reason, and I would have to think more about it before I could give a system for this, at least for the Christian God. So, I would say that known science is assumed to be true, and that there would have to be an explanation to allow for the deity-system to be exempt. It seems like we will go into a brawl determining whether the Christian God is any good or not. But before we do that, I want to make sure that the structure of my argument works if the Christian God was good. You also seem to be attacking the Bible without understanding what the other side meant. You can't do that. That's a logical fallacy, assuming the other side is wrong, and then using that assumption to say that you proved that the other side is wrong. Also, Catholics don't adhere to creationism as a necessary tenet. They can "legally" believe in evolution and still be fully Catholic. For your information: In Catholicism there are optional beliefs and required beliefs for the faithful (I think there are also subcategories within at least one of them). Hopefully, the required beliefs are easy to get to. I can try to get them if asked. Also, I don't know which stories were true in the Bible and which ones weren't. Some of them are critical, others aren't. All I can do is start going at them case by case. What I will say is that I have heard nothing from Catholicism saying that all of the books of the Bible are literally true, or the vast majority of them are. Besides, it was meant to be more of a theological book than a historical book or scientific book. That doesn't mean it has no historical ideas which are true or scientific ideas which are true, it is just that this isn't the point of the Bible. However, I think I can say that the first chapter of Genesis must not be literal, as there is a contradiction with creating the sun on the fourth day, when the sun is needed to define "day" in our common term. It would lower the probability if Catholicism intended for that part in Genesis 1 to be literal. However, that has to be shown true. Now, as for the Bible, you are free to ask me questions about that, but no assuming it is wrong just because your interpretation of it is a bad one. You have to first show one of a few possibilities. You can show that it is the Catholic's interpretation which is required for everyone to believe, and then show it is a bad one. There are some other possibilities I think, but I'm not sure of them yet. Anyway, bring up some stumbling points and we can discuss them. Now, Moses not existing doesn't disprove that the stuff he did couldn't happen if there is the Jewish God. So, if one can't disprove the Jewish God's existence, one can at least attack the reasoning to lower its probability. I am no expert on the Muslim faith, so I would have to hear what they would say in terms of my probability system before they go against atheism, though you could put them against atheism anyway. So, I don't know about the Muslim faith, and Catholicism contradicts the Muslim faith, so you can't put them in the same subcategory within religion. It does matter whether a religion decides a certain part is true or not, as long as they don't give a contradictory view in regards to things they absolutely believe in. Otherwise, their religion changed, which is still valid until proven troublesome again. I find it impossible to be neutral on the topic of, "Does God exist?" A "no" isn't neutral. It wouldn't be a 1/2 yes and a 1/2 no, so I'm not sure a neutral position even exists. A neutral position can't deny atheism unless it also denies theism, which place doesn't seem to exist. Atheism would be a neutral position only if one was forced to pick a religion. Well, what if God wanted to test us, and so He didn't reveal Himself as God in a clear way? This idea works in Catholicism. In addition, what if God wants us to have free will in not forcing us to choose Him? This can be explained if asked upon. As to the Homer Simpson remark, I do agree that this is a legitimate point, and have heard about it about seven months ago. I do have a response to it, but I'm out of room, so I will say it next round. (*1)