hey weatherop..
Re: your signature
Pascal's wager, in a nutshell, is this. No one knows for certain whether God exists. Maybe he does, maybe he doesn't. It's a gamble whether you believe in him or not. So let's treat it like a gamble, says Pascal, and look at the odds.
He described the payoff of this gamble like so. If you choose to believe in God, and you happen to be right, then the reward is infinity. Eternal bliss in heaven. However, if you are wrong, then you lose nothing at all. On the other hand, if you choose not to believe in God, and you're right, you GAIN nothing (in either of the previous two cases, you just die and that's the end). But if you are wrong, your payoff is negative infinity. Eternal suffering in hell.
Now here's the main thrust of the wager. Since the chance of God existing is unknown, but the payoff/punishment scheme is infinitely in favor of believing in God, just on the small chance that he might exist, you'd better believe. It's the only wager that makes sense.
Okay, that's Pascal's wager, now here are our reasons for not agreeing with it.
Reason 1: In the case where God does not exist, there really is a clear advantage to not believing. In other words, the payoff is not zero. For one thing, if you go through life believing a lie, that is a bad thing in itself. Besides that, there is more to being a believer than just saying "Okay, I believe now" and getting on with your life. Serious believers spend a lot of their time in church, and contribute a lot of money as well. There's a reason why some towns have very affluent looking buildings for churches, and why large and elaborate cathedrals are possible: they're funded by folks who donate 1/10th of their income throughout their lives to tithing. This is surely quite a waste if the object of worship isn't real. That's to say nothing of the persecution of other groups that's been instigated in the name of God throughout the ages.
All the eye of the beholder my friend, or in the other case, ignorance is bliss.
See if I believe in God and he doesn't exist, and we both die, who will ever disprove me? Secondly, since I believe in God, I believe that I should go to church, you feel that you don't need too. Even if God doesn't exist, I am still doing something that I feel I should do, and thus stopping would really put a hamper on my life, so it would be counter-productive. So the advantage is moot.
Advantage: Pascal's Bet
Reason 2: Even if you buy into Pascal's wager and decide you should believe, that doesn't give any basis for choosing which religion to believe in. Fundamentalists often use the wager to prove that you should be a Fundamentalist, but of course, Pascal was Catholic and was using it to prove you should be a Catholic! This just highlights the whole problem of which religion is the right one. Since many Fundamentalists believe that Catholics are going to go to hell, Pascal's not much better off than an unbeliever. We don't know if the Jews are correct, or perhaps the Muslims, or if reincarnation is right... or worse, if there's a perverse God who only lets atheists into heaven! It's not impossible. For all we know, maybe God exists but he doesn't care at all whether people believe in him.
Who cares what other fundamentalist think? Lots of republicans believe in man-made global warming, I don't, does that mean I am not a republican? I can say with a fact that not all catholics will go to hell, as I can say that not all Baptists will go to heaven.
Another god existing, if I am crazy, it's possible, but I haven't got a call from Buddha, Allah or Osiris. So, I'll stick with the one that called me. Who knows I maybe crazy, but hey no one can ever prove me wrong to my face.
Advantage: Pascal's Bet
Seriously, I expected something quite a bit better from you Kazan, I think your rusty.
