The Instigator
Pro (for)
3 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
4 Points

Pascal's Wager is Flawed

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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 2 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/28/2015 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 392 times Debate No: 75891
Debate Rounds (1)
Comments (2)
Votes (2)




First, I would like to say I'm not against religion, but when it comes to an argument as absurd as this, I would think I'd rather be against it. The gist of Pascal's Wager is that people should believe in Christianity just because if it happens to be wrong, there will be no risk. For the people who believe that statement I ask," What about the thousands of other faiths?" Wouldn't you have to believe in those, just to make sure you are safe. If there are so many faiths, why would it be yours or nothing? In summary, there are a lot religions, so you cannot be justified in saying that it's either Christianity or nothing in the end. My finishing question is, " What if your god isn't the right god?"


First, let me say that I'm an anti-theist, but I wanted to give this a shot.

Pro has argued that Pascal's Wager is flawed and provided a "gist" of the wager. The determination of "flawed" cannot be ascertained based on a "gist", but on the Wager itself.

The Wager is as follows:
Given that we cannot know with 100% certainty either the existence of God or non-existence of God.
Given that if God exists, there exists an afterlife with consequences derived (for good or for ill) based upon the individual's belief in God - with positive consequences for belief and negative consequences for disbelief.
Given that rational beings will seek to maximize benefit/minimize harm to themselves.
Therefore, a rational actor will choose to believe in God, as if God does not exist, there is no afterlife, and if God exists, failure to believe will result in highly negative consequences.

This argument is logically sound, containing no fallacies. Therefore the argument is logically flawless. QED
Debate Round No. 1
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by Tucktovich 1 year ago
Thank you for your graciousness, and for the debate (my first here). It was a pleasure.
Posted by user13seth 1 year ago
I would like to admit defeat, and thank Tucktovich for clearing up an issue that I've realised I didn't have best familiarity with in the first place.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Sourec 1 year ago
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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:31 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro's "wrong god" question was actually a good point. The "gist" was just a summary, but it does take more than that to determine the actual worth of the wager. I would've liked to have seen more rounds, this could have been more interesting!
Vote Placed by TheHitchslap 1 year ago
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro in the comments admits defeat.