Back
to top
How would you refute this argument?
Watch
Announcements
Page 1 of 1
Go to first unread
Skip to page:
How would you disprove or even debunk Pascal's Wager argument to prove that it is reasonable to believe in the existence of a God?
0
reply
Report
#2
Pascal's Wager wasn't devised to prove that God exists. It's essentially saying 'better safe than sorry'.
However, there are so many different religious beliefs and Gods, and it's not possible to believe in all of them simultaneously. You could believe in Christianity 'just to be safe', only to find out on judgement day that Islam was the true religion, and vice versa. Pascal's wager would only really make sense if there was one single religion.
However, there are so many different religious beliefs and Gods, and it's not possible to believe in all of them simultaneously. You could believe in Christianity 'just to be safe', only to find out on judgement day that Islam was the true religion, and vice versa. Pascal's wager would only really make sense if there was one single religion.
0
reply
(Original post by teenhorrorstory)
Pascal's Wager wasn't devised to prove that God exists. It's essentially saying 'better safe than sorry'.
However, there are so many different religious beliefs and Gods, and it's not possible to believe in all of them simultaneously. You could believe in Christianity 'just to be safe', only to find out on judgement day that Islam was the true religion, and vice versa. Pascal's wager would only really make sense if there was one single religion.
Pascal's Wager wasn't devised to prove that God exists. It's essentially saying 'better safe than sorry'.
However, there are so many different religious beliefs and Gods, and it's not possible to believe in all of them simultaneously. You could believe in Christianity 'just to be safe', only to find out on judgement day that Islam was the true religion, and vice versa. Pascal's wager would only really make sense if there was one single religion.
0
reply
Report
#4
teenhorrorstory has essentially brought up what I was going to say. The problem with Pascal's Wager is that it simply overcomplicates things; even if we do agree it's better to believe in God, then we merely end up asking 'okay... which God? Which God out of the tens and thousands ever named do we believe in'. It only creates problems.
0
reply
(Original post by Inexorably)
teenhorrorstory has essentially brought up what I was going to say. The problem with Pascal's Wager is that it simply overcomplicates things; even if we do agree it's better to believe in God, then we merely end up asking 'okay... which God? Which God out of the tens and thousands ever named do we believe in'. It only creates problems.
teenhorrorstory has essentially brought up what I was going to say. The problem with Pascal's Wager is that it simply overcomplicates things; even if we do agree it's better to believe in God, then we merely end up asking 'okay... which God? Which God out of the tens and thousands ever named do we believe in'. It only creates problems.
0
reply
Report
#6
It assumes that there is one deity to be believed in, which is completely untrue. If you factor in all the other religions out there the wager becomes completely untrustworthy.
Moreover, it fails to take into account probability, i.e the likelihood that this deity exists.
Moreover, it fails to take into account probability, i.e the likelihood that this deity exists.
0
reply
Report
#7
It doesn't really assume that there is a deity, if the argument is that it is more reasonable to believe that God exists.
One possible response is to the argument so phrased is to say that confuses reasons for belief with reasons for action. It is necessarily true of beliefs, you could argue, that they aim at truth. (Consider the absurdity of saying, '"p" is true, but I don't believe that p'.) So the benefits of believing that God exists, if God exists, can't give you a reason to believe that God exists. Only God's actual existence could give you a reason to believe that God exists. They might, however, give you a reason to make yourself believe that God exists, for example by quite deliberately opening yourself up to indoctrination or something of that sort.
One possible response is to the argument so phrased is to say that confuses reasons for belief with reasons for action. It is necessarily true of beliefs, you could argue, that they aim at truth. (Consider the absurdity of saying, '"p" is true, but I don't believe that p'.) So the benefits of believing that God exists, if God exists, can't give you a reason to believe that God exists. Only God's actual existence could give you a reason to believe that God exists. They might, however, give you a reason to make yourself believe that God exists, for example by quite deliberately opening yourself up to indoctrination or something of that sort.
0
reply
X
Page 1 of 1
Go to first unread
Skip to page:
Quick Reply
Today on TSR
-
Ofqual consultationTeachers to use 'mini-exams' and other work to decide grades
- Is it too late to do well in my A-levels?
- What Harry Potter house are you in?
- 2021 wellbeing blog launch
- Student tips on lockdown mental health