0
No, in my opinion. It seems good when you first hear it, but in fact it relies on one's ability to believe. A case can be made that a person can't, by an act of will, force himself to believe that God exists. The only sure result of Pascal's Wager is that one will pretend to believe (which is all you can do if you don't believe). If there is an Omnipotent God, he would know that you are faking it. So you would go to Hell anyway.
The argument can also be used for any god at all. What if one picks the wrong god? And who's to say this god actually rewards belief and punishes non-belief. Supposing we do pick one and it does reward belief, won't this omniscient god know we're only believing just to be safe? Would it still reward our fake belief? And if this god is not omniscient, is it really a god at all?
It is not a good argument. A simple refutation is simply to ask: "which god?"
If you pick the Christian god and the real god turns out to be Thor or Zeus or a Hindu god or another god altogether, then they may be even more angry with you than with atheists.
The argument is therefore weak because it can be applied to any god, not just the one Pascal was talking about.
Also, if you believed in a god because you wanted to have chance on your side, then the god would know this (being a god) and would know that your belief was not real.
Finally, it relies on the assumption that the god described is real and has those characteristics. If an argument begins with an assumption, and then draws the same assumption as its conclusion, then it is circular logic. You have to believe it in order to believe it. If you do not believe the initial assumption already, then the argument should not convince you.
Epicurus came up with a much more convincing argument for the non-existence of gods two thousand years before Pascal. It has the advantage of being logical, as well.
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?"
Epicurus - BC 341-270
Answer:
Pascal's Wager, of course, depends on there being only two choices - no god, or his God. This is called basing an argument on a "False Dichotomy", saying the range of choices is limited to two when there are more potential options available. Of the several thousand gods worshipped throughout human history it is difficult to imagine a process to choose the "right" one. Even more difficult would be the process to imagine how to believe in this deity - does it require circumcision, blood sacrifices, or dietary conformity. Also one would have to hope the deity chosen offers some sort of eternal reward, not all of them do. Another consideration would be the consequences of choosing the wrong god. Some of them are pretty testy if you make a bad choice. Too bad if you are wrong!
The wagers results then become:
1. If you choose a god with an associated afterlife and he/she/it exists and cares anything about you (another question) and you are right in your choice you may get your "reward" if you haven't ticked him off by not following all the rules or by just believing in he/she/it with the ulterior motive of getting a reward. Note that not all afterlife's are pleasant even for the "good".
2. In the same case as above, and you choose to ignore this god/afterlife package, you probably wind up in a comparable situation - maybe a bit worse, maybe a bit better.
3. If there is no god, no afterlife, no continuation and you wasted your time mutilating yourself and your kids, eating a restricted diet or giving your time and money to a ragtag bunch of shaman's, you've missed a lot in this life - the only one you've got.
4. If case 3 is true and you live a normal life with no effort made to believe in any god or follow any "divine" rules - you win.
Wiki User
∙ 14y ago
Wiki User
∙ 8y agoopinion: Yes. Eternity is a very long time, so it does not pay to take chances with it.
What is it?
Pascal's Wager states that belief in God is the most rational choice due to the consequences of being wrong. If one were to believe in God and be wrong, there would be no consequences. However, if one were to deny God and be wrong, the consequences are eternally tragic. Therefore, the most rational choice is not agnosticism or Atheism, but belief in God.
Which religion?
We are talking here about belief in principle. This is more fundamental than belief in a specific religion. Since atheism is worse than idolatry (Maimonides), the above principle still holds, even were a person to embrace the wrong religion. In the afterlife, he'd be better off than those who have no religion at all.
See also:
Wiki User
∙ 8y agoPascal's Wager, of course, depends on there being only two choices - no god, or his God. This is called basing an argument on a "False Dichotomy", saying the range of choices is limited to two when there are more potential options available. Of the several thousand gods worshipped throughout human history it is difficult to imagine a process to choose the "right" one. Even more difficult would be the process to imagine how to believe in this deity - does it require circumcision, blood sacrifices, or dietary conformity. Also one would have to hope the deity chosen offers some sort of eternal reward, not all of them do. Another consideration would be the consequences of choosing the wrong god. Some of them are pretty testy if you make a bad choice. Too bad if you are wrong!
The wagers results then become:
1. If you choose a god with an associated afterlife and he/she/it exists and cares anything about you (another question) and you are right in your choice you may get your "reward" if you haven't ticked him off by not following all the rules or by just believing in he/she/it with the ulterior motive of getting a reward. Note that not all afterlife's are pleasant even for the "good".
2. In the same case as above, and you choose to ignore this god/afterlife package, you probably wind up in a comparable situation - maybe a bit worse, maybe a bit better.
3. If there is no god, no afterlife, no continuation and you wasted your time mutilating yourself and your kids, eating a restricted diet or giving your time and money to a ragtag bunch of shaman's, you've missed a lot in this life - the only one you've got.
4. If case 3 is true and you live a normal life with no effort made to believe in any god or follow any "divine" rules - you win.
Add your answer:
Earn +20 pts
Can a valid argument be weak?
Ques: Can a valid argument be weak? Ans: If the valid argument has logic to it, it cannot be weak, it is strong!
All valid arguments are sound arguments?
No, but all sound arguments are valid arguments. A valid argument is one where the conclusion follows from the premises. A sound argument is a valid argument where the premises are accepted as true.
Are Valid arguments strong or weak?
A valid argument is certainly stronger than an invalid argument. but an argument can be valid and still be relatively weak. Validity and strength are not the same, although they are both good features for an argument to have.
When you are building an argument for an issue that is significant to you do you think it is more important to be valid or sound?
For an argument to be valid, it means that if the premises of the argument are true, then the conclusion must be true. Validity has to do with the form of the argument. If one or more of the premises are not true, that does not mean the argument isn't valid. Soundness means that the argument is valid, and all of it's premises are true. It's a little redundant to say "both valid and sound", because if your argument is sound, then it must be valid. It is important for an argument to be not just valid, but also sound, in order for it to be convincing.
Hypothesis only becomes a valid argument conclusion after it has been?
A hypothesis only becomes a valid argument after it has been proved. It is only a valid argument if there is proof (i.e. from an experiment).
A valid argument can have a false conclusion True or False?
True. - Valid arguments are deductive. - Arguments are valid if the premises lead to the conclusion without committing a fallacy. - If an argument is valid, that means that if the premises are true, then the conclusion must be true. - This means that a valid argument with a false premise can lead to a false conclusion. This is called a valid, unsound argument. - A valid, sound argument would be when, if the premises are true the conclusion must be true and the premises are true.
What is the difference between a valid deductive argument and a fallacy?
A valid deductive argument will have a valid premise and conclusion and a fallacy may be true, it all matters on how you came to the conclusion.
What is the difference between a valid or invalid argument?
An invalid argument is when the facts you are using are invalid or your forms of defense are wrong or incorrect, a valid argument is the opposite of an invalid argument. "There is a windmill in my beard. your argument is invalid." (This is a good example of a bad contradiction)
What is the difference between valid and sound in a argument?
Valid means that the argument leads to a true conclusion, given that its premises are true, but if an argument is valid that does not necessarily mean the conclusion is correct, as its premises may be wrong. A sound argument, on the other hand, in addition to being valid all of its premises are true and hence its conclusion is also true.
What is the difference between a valid fact and a valid argument?
Facts cannot be valid. They can only be true or false. Arguments, on the other hand, can be valid. A valid argument in one which must have a true conclusion provided that the premises are true (no guarantee of that though).
What is a fallacious argument?
An argument that sometimes fools human reasoning, but is not logically valid.
Is it true that valid arguments are said to be strong or weak?
No, arguments can either be strong or weak, however, a valid argument would be considered a sound argument. The opposite would be an invalid argument.
