The Instigator
LifeMeansGodIsGood
Pro (for)
Losing
2 Points
The Contender
Wylted
Con (against)
Winning
19 Points

Pascal's Wager is Always a Losing Bet

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 5 votes the winner is...
Wylted
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/3/2014 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,769 times Debate No: 55975
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (95)
Votes (5)

 

LifeMeansGodIsGood

Pro

This is a philosophy debate, not a science debate.

Pascal's Wager from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Pascal's Wager is an argument in apologetic philosophy which was devised by the seventeenth-century French philosopher, mathematician, and physicist Blaise Pascal (1623"1662). It posits that humans all bet with their lives either that God exists or does not exist.

Biblical philosophy as well as non-biblical philosophy is acceptable for this debate, but no sources outside of the wickepedia article are to be referenced. If you are getting input from another source, you must put it in your own words without plagiarizing.
This includes direct quotes from the Bible........no direct quotes or sources outside of the wickepedia article about Pascal's Wager are acceptable for this debate.

I will argue as Con that Pascal's Wager is always a losing bet. Pro must argue why Pascal's Wager can be a winning bet whether one wagers for or against the existence of God. I will argue that's Pascal's Wager is always a losing bet if you bet God is there or you bet God is not there. If you assert God is not there, then you are betting He is not there. If you insist you are not betting and you insist that you know for sure God is not there, you are disqualified from accepting this debate. For this debate, you must at least say "if" God is there. God is not there is not acceptable for this debate.

Repeat: For this debate, you must argue from "if" God is there or "if" God is not there.

I will argue that "if" he is there or "if" he is not there, either side is a losing bet.

Please post your argument for the first round. Thank you for honoring the guidelines for this debate.
Wylted

Con

Pro, please lay out your claim as to why you think Pascal's wager is always a losing bet.

Your first round doesn't make your position clear so I can only think you are what I interpret your position to be. If you want to weasel out of that position than we should argue whether Pascal's wager is a good bet without the term always.
Debate Round No. 1
LifeMeansGodIsGood

Pro

Thank you con for accepting this challenge. This is intended to be a civil debate with no attacks on character, no name calling, and absolutely no foul language. I may refer to Hell as a literal place in this debate, I may not refer to Hell. I never use the word Hell as an expletive.

Con's Round 1 Assertions:
1)Your first round doesn't make your position clear.

Rebuttal: The title of this debate makes my position clear. If you are wagering on the existence of God, no matter if you wager that He is there and it's best to try to live with high morals, or if you wager that He is not there and you do not recognize or acknowledge any objective moral rule, either way it's a losing bet. My position is clear. It may not be understood by the readers at first, but that was the idea of the debate......to get people hooked to try provoke thought.

2) I can only think you are what I interpret your position to be.

Rebuttal: I don't know what you mean by this statement. The debate is not about what I am, the debate is to question whether or not you can win within the bounds of Pascal's Wager. I would hope you interpret my position to be thought provoking, and that you would think that I am a thinker. I hope you are not implying something unspoken and derogatory toward my character. I'm really trying to keep this as a civil discussion. My position is clear. In the title and in statements throughout..........Pascal's wager is always a losing bet.

Con's request

1) Pro, please lay out your claim as to why you think Pascal's wager is always a losing bet.

Response: I was hoping Con in Round one would lay out his position that Pascal's wager is not a losing bet. That would be the Con position. Con has wasted round one and failed to make any contrary statements to counter the assertion that Pascal's wager is always a losing bet.

Con's Proposal

1) If you want to weasel out of that position than we should argue whether Pascal's wager is a good bet without the term always.

Response: Who is trying to weasel out of their position? The title of this debate is "Pascal's Wager is always a Losing Bet" and my arguments would be expected to support, as Pro, that opening statement. I was hoping the debate challenge would be accepted with Con arguing why Pascal's Wager is not a losing bet. Apparently, Con is unable to do this and is proposing that the debate be changed to "Pascal's Wager is a good bet". This debate can very well be carried out with Con arguing why Pascal's Wager is a good bet" I will argue according to the opening statement that Pascal's Wager is always a losing bet. Are we going to have a debate or not? I was hoping to see Con give some reasoning as to why he or she thinks Pascal's Wager is not always a losing bet.

Summary: I guess Con wants to argue that Pascal's Wager is a good bet........I'm not sure. Maybe Con wants to argue that Pascal's wager is a bad bet, but that would be arguing in agreement with my position that Pascal's wager is always a losing bet. I would appreciate it if Con would be clear about agreeing or disagreeing with the opening statement of the debate challenge. Con should take the position that Pascal's Wager is not always a losing bet and explain why that position is held. If Con cannot take the position contrary to the opening statement, Con should forfeit the debate.

PASCAL'S WAGER IS ALWAYS A LOSING BET! Not meaning to be rude by screaming here, simply emphasizing once again the clearly stated pro position that Pascal's Wager is ALWAYS a Losing Bet. I was hoping this challenge would be accepted by somebody who would take the opposing position to argue that Pascal's Wager is NOT ALWAYS a Losing Bet. If Con is unable to argue within the debate, and only able to imply character flaws against me with phrases like " I can only think you are what I interpret your position to be." and "If you want to weasel out of that position", then Con should concede that there is no argument against the opening statement that Pascal's Wager is always a losing bet. If this is Con's non-posited/position, Con should graciously request for the debate to be cancelled and I will oblige and reinstate the debate challenge and try to spell out more clearly that I am looking for somebody to argue why Pascal's Wager is NOT Always I Losing Bet while I assert that is IS always a losing bet.
Wylted

Con

Introduction

Oddly enough my opponent has passed on arguing anything in his round 2 statement.

I will take this opportunity to teach my opponent how to debate better and at the end of that I will post my first argument. For those of you not interested in reading anything other than the arguments please scroll down to the section entitled Arguments.

Resolution

It's important to make the position you're debating for crystal clear. This is so the debate doesn't go off course as this one has. It's also a good ideal to make sure you don't have an unfair advantage or disadvantage.

Round 1

It's a good ideal to make the first round for acceptance only and most of your opponents won't bring an argument in round 1 anyways. Just out of respect. The reason you'd want to make the first round for acceptance only is to avoid your opponent having the advantage of an extra round of arguments.

Absolutes

As a general rule of thumb, you want to avoid debating absolutes. Typically something is always one way or always another. There is usually a way to find a situation that is an exception to the rule.

Arguments

Pascal's Wager

Here is what Pascal's wager looks like as copied and pasted from Wikipedia and originally from Pascal himself.

1."God is, or He is not"

2.A Game is being played... where heads or tails will turn up.

3.According to reason, you can defend neither of the propositions.
You must wager (it is not optional).

4.Let us weigh the gain and the loss in wagering that God is. Let us estimate these two chances. If you gain, you gain all; if you lose, you lose nothing.

5.Wager, then, without hesitation that He is. (...) There is here an infinity of an infinitely happy life to gain, a chance of gain against a finite number of chances of loss, and what you stake is finite. And so our proposition is of infinite force, when there is the finite to stake in a game where there are equal risks of gain and of loss, and the infinite to gain.


http://en.m.wikipedia.org...'s_Wager

The Odds

So there are multiple possibilities. Let's examine each.

1. God isn't real- In this scenario you lose. You wasted your life worshipping something that doesn't exist.

The re is only one god isn't real scenario that is even worth mentioning. Let's move onto the God is real scenarios.

2. God is real but could care less about your worship- You lose. There was absolutely no gain from worshipping this diety.

3. God is real. He desires worship, and he will award you with everlasting life. If you worship him. You win.

Under scenario 3 you win. So there is in fact a scenario where Pascal's wager actually pays off. So in conclusion the wager isn't always a losing bet. My opponent could have argued it was a bad bet, but he opted not to. So please vote con.
Debate Round No. 2
LifeMeansGodIsGood

Pro

I'd like to applaud Wylted for apparently recanting his assertion that in Round 1 I did not make my position clear. It seems now that he recognizes 1 ) My position was clear in Round !, and 2 ) The position I am taking is an absolute. Wylted's pretense of saying I was not clear in my position and his offer for me to change the title of the debate by allowing me the option to behave like a weasel in saying "If you want to weasel out of that position, we could argue whether Pascal's wager is a good bet without the term "always" "* seemed to indicate that con wanted to avoid engaging in the debate, and I am not interested in conversation in the debate which is not focused on the topic of the debate. I'm glad Wylted has posted an argument as to why he thinks Pascal's Wager is NOT always a losing bet along with his clear acceptance of my challenge for him to do so.

Pascal's Wager is always a losing bet because we have already lost. We have already lost eternal life; we have forfeited heaven. We have no right to reinstate the Wager. We can offer that God take us up on the wager, but we have already lost. If we spend our whole lives making Pascal's Wager, the best we can do is to fool ourselves into thinking we will win the wager and God will have to pay out to us and give us eternal life in heaven.............and our whole life is then wasted, and all the things we gained and the things we did failed to amount to anything more than total loss. Pascal's Wager is always a losing bet because we lost before the Wager was made and we have no right to reinstate the Wager.. If we had not already lost the Wager, we would have eternal life now. Pascal's Wager is always a losing bet. God won't pay out on a bet that we have already lost.

* Qouted from Wyletd in Round 1, punctuation, grammar, and spelliing edited.
Wylted

Con

Well I'm glad my opponent actually got to debating something. I'll copy and past his argument here, because it could get lost in the other stuff he was writing, that had nothing to do with affirming his resolution.

"If we spend our whole lives making Pascal's Wager, the best we can do is to fool ourselves into thinking we will win the wager"

My opponent hasn't proved that, this is the best we can do. This is just a bare assertion. I've given alternatives, that weren't refuted. The actual wager gives wording that considers options that would make the bet a win. Where does pro get the ideal that the best we can do is fool ourselves?

"and God will have to pay out to us and give us eternal life in heaven.............and our whole life is then wasted, and all the things we gained and the things we did failed to amount to anything more than total loss."

One option is we will lose the bet, and have gained nothing. My opponent has failed to show how choosing to believe in God will always be a losing bet. I've shown a scenario where it would win and the scenario has completely been ignored.

" Pascal's Wager is always a losing bet because we lost before the Wager was made and we have no right to reinstate the Wager.."

We lose under some scenarios before the bet is made, but I've shown scenarios we win by making the bet. My opponent makes a bare assertion once again that we lose before the bet is made. Pro needs to provide some premises for his contentions.

" If we had not already lost the Wager, we would have eternal life now. Pascal's Wager is always a losing bet. God won't pay out on a bet that we have already lost."

He'll pay out in the one winning scenario I gave which went totally unrefuted.

My opponent has failed to uphold his BOP and has basically spit on me when I've tried to be fair and helpful to him.
Debate Round No. 3
95 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by LifeMeansGodIsGood 2 years ago
LifeMeansGodIsGood
lot's of bias in the voting......that's ok.....anybody who thinks they can win heaven with Pascal's Wager has already lost the bet......God will not allow that bet to be placed, you might as well flush your bet slip down the toilet as to try to get God to take you up on it.
Posted by LifeMeansGodIsGood 2 years ago
LifeMeansGodIsGood
Cons grammar and spelling were far worse than mine, this is just plain bias
Posted by LifeMeansGodIsGood 2 years ago
LifeMeansGodIsGood
show me lots of spelling errors.......Con made far more spelling errors than me. Death proves Pascal/s Wager is always a losing bet. Another biased vote.
Posted by LifeMeansGodIsGood 2 years ago
LifeMeansGodIsGood
Fuzz, you are just plain biased. My argument was a diredt refutaion of all of Con's arguments. Just becaue i didn't say "Rebuttal" or "Refutaion" before typing the argument does not mean it was not a rebuttal. You are just plain biased from thinking monkeys were your uncles, you are playing Pascal's Wager yourself thinking you have the right to be spared from the fire of hell. I guess you will follow my debates and always vote against me.......thta's ok........I'm not here to win points, I hear to preach the gosplel of Jesus Chrsit, that He is God who died for you, took your punishment, and he rose from the grave bodily and ascended into heaven and if you call on Him to save you, recieve Him by faith as your Savior, He will change you forever and you will have eternal life.......and you will know God made you in His own image and we did not make ourselves come to life out of pond scum after it was hit by lightning or zapped by aliens.
Posted by LifeMeansGodIsGood 2 years ago
LifeMeansGodIsGood
Points for reliable source shoud lbe a tie.......only one source was allowed for this debate. Voters who give points to Wylted for most reliable source are showing their bias against me.
Posted by LifeMeansGodIsGood 2 years ago
LifeMeansGodIsGood
Ponts for reliable source shoud have been a tie since it was agreed in the debate that only the Wickepedia page about Pascal's Wager would be used for reference.
Posted by LifeMeansGodIsGood 2 years ago
LifeMeansGodIsGood
and if you really got what I was saying, you would have awarde me all the points.......I"m sorry I was not able to get it accross better, wish I could......it's very important for each individual, it's about where you will spend eternity and where you want to spend eternity and where you do not want to spend eternity.....vital stuff........kudos to you for trying to understand what I was saying in my argument.
Posted by LifeMeansGodIsGood 2 years ago
LifeMeansGodIsGood
I thnk you understood what I was saying. It was not easy to say what I was saying without quoting the Bible. You did show you undersood what I was saying, but you don't quite understand or you would know it is a knock down water tight argument.....and it is.
Posted by LifeMeansGodIsGood 2 years ago
LifeMeansGodIsGood
I do appreciate your fair summary. I realy thought nobody would offer anything better than total bias against me. You were fairly fair. I think comments excluded, I deserved the conduct point by about twenty five miles.
Posted by LifeMeansGodIsGood 2 years ago
LifeMeansGodIsGood
that's ok. I won't protest other than what I'm saying in the comments.
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by Ajab 2 years ago
Ajab
LifeMeansGodIsGoodWyltedTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: I honestly believe LMGIG is trying to troll, and is being very subtle at it. I did not actually get a proper argument from LMGIG and that is sad especially as the BoP rests entirely on him. W, sexy dude that he is, went all like so whaa? and respectfully but correctly pointed out that Pro cannot prove that it is always a loosing bet. An argument could have made from the Zermello-Frankell perspective with the axiom of choice but that would have made this debate too technical. Overall Wylted obviously wins! Happy to clarify this in RFD.
Vote Placed by 1Devilsadvocate 2 years ago
1Devilsadvocate
LifeMeansGodIsGoodWyltedTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:13 
Reasons for voting decision: It seems that Pro doesn't understand Pascals Wager. He appears to understand it as a wager with God, which has already been lost. I found what Pro wrote in R2 quite ironic. He writes: In response to con asking con to "please lay out your claim as to why you think Pascal's wager is always a losing bet." "Response: I was hoping Con in Round one would lay out his position that Pascal's wager is not a losing bet. That would be the Con position. Con has wasted round one and failed to make any contrary statements to counter the assertion that Pascal's wager is always a losing bet." Pro tries to shift the BOP, Hypocritically accuses Con of not making an argument, and admits that his round one were assertions, and complains that Con didn't make any "contrary statements". This is a debate, not a simple a disagreement. Pro makes only bare assertions and does not make any well reasoned arguments. As instigator, Pro clearly/obviously has most if not all of the BOP. Conduct deduction
Vote Placed by 9spaceking 2 years ago
9spaceking
LifeMeansGodIsGoodWyltedTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: pro made lots of spelling errors, and could not prove Pascal's wager always losing.
Vote Placed by FuzzyCatPotato 2 years ago
FuzzyCatPotato
LifeMeansGodIsGoodWyltedTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Caps. Winning scenario unrefuted.
Vote Placed by Envisage 2 years ago
Envisage
LifeMeansGodIsGoodWyltedTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:14 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct to Pro because I thought the debate FAQ was a rather condescending, even though I think I would have done the same.. S&G to Con... Because 1. Pro makes several spelling mistakes and 2. 90% of what he wrote is gibberish. Arguments were largely affected by the gibberish:content ratio, as Pro's method of argumentation made finding his points extemely difficult. Pro wastes his entire round 1 and 2, with two small complete non sequiturs. Con outlines a simple way in which it is possible to win with Pascal's wager. Round 3 took gibberish to a whole new level... But I barely deduced that Pro is arguing the very act of making the bet means God will not send you to heaven. However 1. pro doesn't support this bald assertion and 2. I am only about 5% confident in this translation of pro's gobbledygook. Therefore with very little confidence, I vote for Con. Perhaps Pro has a knock-down water-right case, we shall never know....