heh heh...and why is god jealous...?jaweh (or yaweh), the vengeful god from genesis 1, is described as jealous. whom has he to be jealous of unless there are other Gods? why would he create the serpent? furthermore, how could he not foresee "the fall?" anyway, that is off topic. there is no evidence for God, just as there is no evidence against him. as soon as someone declares their belief or lack thereof, they're appealing to ignorance. Ever been asked by some one, "hey, you don't belive in God -- prove to me God doesn't exist." It's a classic example of the fallacy, "shifting the burden of proof." the burden of proof is always on the beliver. anyway, that was a good deduction and refutation of Pascal's arguement. i'm sure that as a philosophy major you're familiar with Anselm's ontological arguement...now that one is a doozy. there is so much wrong with it I don't even know where to begin. I hate Anselm.

I like the way you have made the distinction that Pascal is not trying to prove that God exists, but rather Pascal is trying to show that it is more rational to believe that there is a God instead of believing that there is no God. Unfortunately your arguments to refute Pascal’s Wager seem to be arguing against the proof of God’s existence (which the wager is not trying to prove). I don’t understand how these arguments would help anyone refute Pascal’s Wager. There seems to be a lot of assumptions in your arguments that are not backed up by proof.

I will start with your second argument because it is an important foundation.

Argument 2:
What is God? This is a great question! But Pascal does not give us a definition for God in the wager. In your argument you assume that Pascal has defined the “Christian God” as God, but he does not. But if Pascal does mean the “Christian God” when he talks of God, what is the “Christian God?” St. Anselm (died about 1100) gave us a definition of God that is well known and simple, “God is that being beyond which we can think of nothing greater.” I would suggest that if Pascal was just trying to prove that it is more rational to believe in God then this would be a rational definition to use.

Argument 1:
Not believing is making a choice, you have chosen to believe as true the “evidence” against God existing. Just because you have looked at “all” the evidence does not mean that you have actually seen all the evidence or seen it clearly. You may at one point have looked at a “broken” stick in a pond only to pull it our and find that it was perfectly straight. Besides, it is next to impossible to prove a negative. As hard as it might be to prove that God exists, it is impossible to prove that God does not exist (show me that God is not there).

Argument 3:
This does not address Pascal’s Wager at all. This argument is based on someone’s personal assumptions about what God is. A person could easily respond to this argument by asking, “If God (note I say if) is a ‘God of Love,’ then who would not want to spend eternity with a God like that?”

Argument 4:
This is another great question, but once again has nothing to do with Pascal’s Wager. But to answer the question, someone might suggest that the reason God created us was because He loves us. Don’t we owe love and respect to our parents? So how much more love and respect would we owe to God?

Argument 5:
If you are using the word “contradiction” the way it would be used in Logic or Philosophy, then hell would not be a contradiction and could very well exist. If God does exist, created everything, is love, and created us with free will then how could there be a hell? Or better yet, how could the creation of hell be an act of love!?! It could be that God made hell out of respect for our free will choice to reject God’s love. It could also be that God made hell as a “floor” that limits how far away we can move from God.

I apologize for the length of this, and I apologize if it is too short to fully consider your arguments.

Hey Bloody_Cavum, you ask some good questions about God and what is in the Bible. I hope you are a seeker of truth because there are some good answers our there. But I am curious, how do you know that there is no evidence of God out there? How would you go about proving that?

Also, you say that someone who either declares belief or unbelief is appealing to ignorance. This statement seems a bit backwards to me; in either case I think we need to respect that the person had to put some thought into their decision and is trying to brake out past ignorance. It appears more likely that the person who refuses to use their intellect to seek out the truth in respect to God is the person who is appealing to ignorance.

I think you are a bit off on the concept of the “shifting the burden of proof” fallacy. The burden of proof is not necessarily on the “believer”, but on whichever party chooses to prove their belief. That belief could be that God exists, or that God does not exist. This fallacy comes into play when someone is arguing their belief and then as part of their argument demands that you prove your belief. So someone could be arguing that God does not exist, get flustered and then say, “Oh yea, prove to me that God does exist!” This would be the fallacy of shifting the burden of proof. Someone may even make the argument that it is more important for someone to prove that God dose not exist because the majority of people believe there is a God. I am often amazed when people claim that it is a much stronger “intellectual” position to believe that God does not exist, then refuse to back up this belief with an intellectual argument. You would think it would be so easy to show these intellectual lightweights who believe in God that they are wrong.

If you are familiar with Anselm’s ontological argument, which is not perfect but pretty tight, then you must be very familiar Thomas Aquinas’ 5 proofs of God’s existence that are even tighter! If you hate Anselm you must really hate Thomas, but hey, don’t be a hater!

Rich I lot of people use Pascal's Wager to try to prove god exists. And number one on that list refuting isn't half bad. Although my response is to flip it around an point out that people do give things up when they follow a religion. And point out I can go through the motions, but that doesn’t mean I will believe. Translation, Pascal’s Wager is bull, proves nothing, and is a suckers bet for an argument.

"he burden of proof is not necessarily on the 'believer'"

The believer is make the positive claim so yes the burden of prove is on them. Why? I can't prove a negative of an idea that is somewhat unclear. By that I mean that I could disprove the christian god because I have an outline of what it is, but the idea of just a 'higher power' isn't as easy. When some asks to prove god they usually talk about the basic idea of a higher power. Also once you get someone to start trying to disprove a basic idea like that you can tell them they can't disprove a negative...

[b]Ontological Argument[/b]
1. God is the entity than which no greater entity can be conceived. ([i]well a king is greater then the common man, should we call him god?[/i])
2. The concept of God exists in human understanding. ([i]so do unicorns...[/i])
3. God does not exist in reality ([i]assumed in order to refute[/i]).
4. The concept of God existing in reality exists in human understanding. ([i]but it just said god doesn't exist in reality, can't have both...[/i])
5. If an entity exists in reality and in human understanding, this entity is greater than it would have been if it existed only in human understanding. ([i]ok so I am greater then I would be if I was just a dream, what does this have to do with anything?[/i])
6. from 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 An entity can be conceived which is greater than God, the entity than which no greater entity can be conceived. ([i]ok but if that is true then couldn't anything be god?[/i])
7. Assumption 3 is wrong, therefore God exists in reality. ([i]assuming 1, 2, 4, and 5 are accepted as true...[/i])

[b]Thomas Aquinas’ 5 proofs of God’s existence[/b]
1. Everything has a cause, there must be a first cause, so god exists ([i]not really because if everything needs a cause then god needed a cause if god can be around without cause then so can matter[/i])
2. Everything needs a cause, so I must say there must be a first cause, thus god exists ([i]see one[/i])
3. Everything that exists had to be made, but can't come from nothing, so god did it. ([i]I think that whole thing is nothing but assumptions...[/i])
4. There must be something that is the best, the best thing is god, so god exists ([i]so just because I think something is the most kickass I can call it god?[/i])
5. There is a plan and everything is designed, so god exists ([i]really? Why do I see a lot of randomness and things that if designed where done so poorly? This reminds me of the argument for ID most people who look into it find it to be a poor argument. As for the idea of a plan as soon as I point out how I don't see a plan you'll say I can't understand god, Iet's skip the bullshit of that game.[/i])

In response.

"Argument 2:
What is God? This is a great question! But Pascal does not give us a definition for God in the wager. In your argument you assume that Pascal has defined the “Christian God” as God, but he does not. But if Pascal does mean the “Christian God” when he talks of God, what is the “Christian God?” St. Anselm (died about 1100) gave us a definition of God that is well known and simple, “God is that being beyond which we can think of nothing greater.” I would suggest that if Pascal was just trying to prove that it is more rational to believe in God then this would be a rational definition to use."

You say that the definition of God should be “God is that being beyond which we can think of nothing greater.” Not a bad definition. However, my point was that it is impossible for us to know what God is, if God were to exist. While that is a nice definition, why must God be a being beyond which we can think of nothing greater? Does this mean that if an imperfect being created the Universe, and has power over our souls so to speak, we should not consider that being a God? Personally, I would. And if you accept that, then my argument stands.
1) We don't know the nature of God.
2) We can't know the nature of God if there
3) God could be anything, and value anything.
4) There is no reason to believe in God for fear of going to hell, because we don't know if that is what God wants, and in fact, some type of God might actually not want that.

You said,
"Argument 1:
Not believing is making a choice; you have chosen to believe as true the “evidence” against God existing. Just because you have looked at “all” the evidence does not mean that you have actually seen all the evidence or seen it clearly. You may at one point have looked at a “broken” stick in a pond only to pull it our and find that it was perfectly straight. Besides, it is next to impossible to prove a negative. As hard as it might be to prove that God exists, it is impossible to prove that God does not exist (show me that God is not there)."

Belief is not a choice. I know facts, I think, and I consider. After careful consideration of both sides of the argument, I have come to a conclusion. How can I just throw that away? I can't stop myself from thinking. I can't make myself believe something that in my mind seems wrong.

You said,
"Argument 3:
This does not address Pascal’s Wager at all. This argument is based on someone’s personal assumptions about what God is. A person could easily respond to this argument by asking, “If God (note I say if) is a ‘God of Love,’ then who would not want to spend eternity with a God like that?”"

I would love to spend eternity with a 'God of Love'. However, I would not want to spend an eternity with a God who sends people to hell for simply thinking. Therefore, Pascal's Wager is mute, if there is a hell, then I don't like God very much.

You said.
"Argument 4:
This is another great question, but once again has nothing to do with Pascal’s Wager. But to answer the question, someone might suggest that the reason God created us was because He loves us. Don’t we owe love and respect to our parents? So how much more love and respect would we owe to God?"

We know our parents exist to begin with. If I didn't know I was born how could I respect my parents? But you are correct; this argument alone does not refute Pascal's Wager. But it works very well with the second argument.

And finally, you said.
Argument 5:
"If you are using the word “contradiction” the way it would be used in Logic or Philosophy, then hell would not be a contradiction and could very well exist. If God does exist, created everything, is love, and created us with free will then how could there be a hell? Or better yet, how could the creation of hell be an act of love!?! It could be that God made hell out of respect for our free will choice to reject God’s love. It could also be that God made hell as a “floor” that limits how far away we can move from God."

Read the article I linked here, and respond to that.

In conclusion, my arguments do refute Pascal's Wager. They show that it isn't more rational (in my case possible) to believe in God than to not believe in God.

Good thoughts though. Please respond to my responses if you have more responses to respond with. (what?)

Thanks for replying! There are a lot of things that I want to say and perhaps try to define, I feel that I must apologize up front because I’m not sure that I’m going to place them in the proper sequence or be as clear as possible, but here goes.

First, you said at the end of you response “In conclusion, my arguments do refute Pascal's Wager. They show that it isn't more rational (in my case possible) to believe in God than to not believe in God.” Once again I think that you are right on the money here about what Pascal is trying to accomplish, he is merely trying to show that it is more rational to believe that a God does exist, not that God does exist. Because Pascal’s Wager is not a logical argument or logical proof of God’s existence it is hard to disprove his wager if not impossible. This is easily seen even in the argument’s name Pascal’s “Wager.” I think that we could both agree that a wager is a gamble, not a certainty (I apologize if it seems like I am putting words in you mouth). When you make a wager you want to increase your odds of winning by making the bet that makes the most sense, or has the best chance for a payout.

So what is Pascal saying about where you should place your wager?

First we must start with an assumption that could legitimately be argued; if all we are is a random material creation, an accident of coincidence then when we die there is nothing of us left. Sure there are atoms and stuff that we were once composed of, but there is nothing left after death that we would recognize as ourselves. The only way that a heaven could exist is if there is something more to us than just “stuff,” if there is a God who loves us and calls us into a loving relationship with Him. Of course because God loves us He does not force us to love Him. If we choose not to love God and His creation then we have chosen to separate ourselves from His love, we have decided that we would rather spend eternity Hell outside God’s love in Heaven.

The bottom line assumption here (and it is an assumption but one that makes sense on the level of Pascal’s argument) is that if there is no God then there is no Heaven, no Hell, no nothing after death. For there to be a Heaven or a Hell there must be a God (note that the argument is not that there even must be a heaven but merely that for heaven to exist there must be a God).

So the bottom line is that how you live your life is a wager or bet you make on one question, is there a God or is there no God.

Pascal says if you wager that there is a God and you are right you stand to gain an eternity embraced in God’s love (a huge win for only 80 or so years of life!), if you are wrong then you lose nothing because there is nothing after life (some may argue that you loose something because you had to live you life a certain way, but this is not what is meant by you loose nothing, if there is no God then there is no eternity and your life is meaningless no matter what you do or do not give up).

If you live your life like there is no God and you’re right you gain nothing because there is nothing, congratulations! You were right and now after death you are nothing, and your life has had no value what so ever! But if you are wrong you risk loosing eternity embraced in God’s love.

So if there is a God you stand to gain eternity and lose nothing, if there is no God you stand to gain nothing and lose eternity.

No concern or argument about the nature of God has an impact on this wager. You can’t say “If God sends people to hell just for thinking then I don’t what to be with that God” because that is not what you are making a wager over. The wager deals specifically with heaven as a “place” to spend eternity and the only “bet” that can get you there. If God is a bad God, then it doesn’t matter what you choose (just like choosing no God as a wager), you lose either way.

The only way you have a chance of winning the eternity bet is by believing, and living your life as though there is a God.

I think your comment on “belief is not a choice” is very interesting. I might agree if you were to claim that to be an agnostic is to not make a choice. After all an agnostic is saying that they do not have enough evidence either way to make a choice (hopefully they are still searching because it is the quest for and finding of truth that is important, not an intellectual laziness). When someone, as you said, knows the facts, thinks and considers, they must then make a judgment on those "facts" and makes a choice to accept what they feel is the stronger evidence. But this is not what I find most interesting in you statement. If there are facts that prove there is no God then it should be very easy to prove that there is no God. Although I have heard many people try to disprove God, I have never heard anyone prove that there is no God. People have tried using the “problem of pain” argument but I have never really found that a convincing argument. So I guess what I’m asking is, “What are the facts that prove there is no God?” To say that there is absolutely no God is a tough position to defend because you are then making a claim that there is no argument in the entire universe that could logically prove God’s existence, and that is a very universally broad statement to make.

A thought just occurred to me about the last point you made about our parents and God. If there were no God and thus no “after life,” why would we still love and respect someone who has died and no longer exists? Wouldn’t it just be a waste of time, emotion and energy thinking about someone who doesn’t matter any more, who can no longer play any role in our lives?

As I said before, I’m sorry for jumping around but finally to the comments on my questions about your second argument. One of the first rules of logic is that you need to define terms before you can have a meaningful conversation, which is why I offered up the definition of God. I’m not sure I get the “imperfect God” statement. If God created the universe, us and has power over our souls, how could we possibly define this being as imperfect? How would I be able to make a judgment that God was imperfect? The only way that I could see this happening is if there was some measure of what “perfect” was. If something existed to allowed us to make that “measurement” then that thing would be God because it would be perfect and thus greater than anything else. The question of knowing God’s nature is awesome! If God is infinite and we are finite then certainly we cannot know all of what God is. It might be safe to say that they only way we can know anything about God, if God were to exist, is if God were to want us to know something of Him and thus reveal Himself to us. Of course if we are created in God’s image and likeness then we could to each other to gain some insight into God. I think that it may be safe to say (but it is too late for clear thinking right now) that the God who created heaven in the wager would have also reveled enough about himself for us to be able to get into heaven, but I’m not sure that this is even relevant to Pascal’s wager.

I would also like to quickly address something that Voiderest said above. There is so much I would like to address but it would take far too much time to do. First as we have said Pascal’s Wager is not a logical proof of God’s existence, but I went through that up top. Also he seems to miss the point of the first part of the ontological argument (perhaps I did not state it clearly), which sets up flaws later. Yes, you may say that a king is greater than a common man, but can you think of anything that may be greater than a king? If so then you would not call the king God because you could think of something greater than the king. It is that being beyond which you could think of nothing greater that you would call God.

Thank you for taking the time to reading this and the thoughtful consideration

Rich