The Instigator
K.Risk
Con (against)
Winning
5 Points
The Contender
vi_spex
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points

Pascal's Wager is true.

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 2 votes the winner is...
K.Risk
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/5/2016 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 581 times Debate No: 90770
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (6)
Votes (2)

 

K.Risk

Con

I am looking for an opposer who fully believes that Pascal's wager holds truth and is justifiable by the reasoning of finite and infinite gain or loss depending on the existence or non-existence of God. I was hoping for an opponent who will respectfully introduce me to a different perspective and respectfully debate me until the very end.

I will be arguing that there are flaws with Pascal's wager and that his ideology of God's existence is irrelevant and false. I am looking for an opponent who is both religiously and philosophically adept (who believes the contrary; Pascal's wager does hold absolute truth).

I am fairly new to 'debate.org' and would like to experience what this site is like. I have been looking for serious debate for a very long time but I have yet to find any viable sources for exciting discourse. It would be much appreciated if anyone can accept my challenge and debate as aggressively, yet as rationally, as possible.

Format:
Round 1 - Acceptance and statement of opinion (no aggression)
Round 2-5 - Debate proceeds

Rules:
No name calling, generalizations, assumptions or ostentatious bigotry.
vi_spex

Pro

if you dont place your hand on the top of your head for santa, and keep it there to honor his universally important request that you do this within the next few minutes, then santa will destroy you.. now i have tried reasoning with this fellow but he is entirely illogical, and he will surely kill you if you dont jump specifikally 10 times for him, not 9, and not 11, but 10 times.. you will especially ignite his easily invoked fury if you dont accept these words are true, and if you think you can escape the wrath of all mighty santa think again, btw santa is watching you right now, waiting..
Debate Round No. 1
K.Risk

Con

Alright. Thank you for challenging me on this issue.

If I am to proceed with arguing against Pascal's wager it is necessary for me to state that I will not be attacking the existence or non-existence of God, but the viability of Pascal's wager. Pascal's wager can be defined that it is in one's own best interest to behave as if God exists, since the possibility of eternal punishment in hell outweighs any advantage of believing otherwise. If God does exist and you believe he existed, there will be an infinite gain for you (eternal peace - heaven). If you did not believe he existed when he actually does, there will be an infinite loss for you (eternal suffering - hell). If God does not exist and you believed he did exist, there is only a finite loss (a tangible loss only for yourself) and if you did not believe God exists when God does not exist, then there is a finite gain (a tangible gain only for yourself).

Now I will be arguing against the latter claims of Pascal's Wager.

The idea of there being only a finite gain or loss from disbelief is absolutely absurd on the the basis of three premises;
1) What if the God (or Gods) of a different theism existed? In other words, what if you had belief or disbelief in the wrong God?
2) What if the God that does exist, is not the God which we think to exist within the Deisms and Theisms man has created?
3) There is no possible way to have a memory or waking experience of death or life after death, so understanding if you, in fact, gained or lost in a finite or infinite manner, would be impossible to comprehend in our live's waking conscious.
vi_spex

Pro

the possibility that you will fall and snap your neck on stairs are always there.. so is it true you should stay away from stairs?

pascals wager is paranoid non sense

and if god is a lie and the only way to get to heaven is not believe in the biblical god you will gain going to heaven.. and not hell

death=rebirth=afterlife
Debate Round No. 2
K.Risk

Con

I think you have misunderstood the purpose of this debate. You are supposed to be arguing in favor of Pascal's Wager holding truth. As I somewhat agree with your inarticulate statement of "pascals wager is paranoid non sense", I do not think it is appropriate to mention your last statement of a possible rebirth and/or afterlife.

I have a slight inclination to assuming that this debate has too many rounds and you will put forth very little articulation and effort.

You should take it upon yourself to either put forth effort or forfeit because this debate seems to be going nowhere. I am arguing the position of Pascal's Wager holding no truth and being 'paranoid non sense', as you would put it. Maybe some reiteration is necessary here.

The three premises you need to be arguing against are;
1) What if the God (or Gods) of a different theism existed? In other words, what if you had belief or disbelief in the wrong God?
2) What if the God that does exist, is not the God which we think to exist within the Deisms and Theisms man has created?
3) There is no possible way to have a memory or waking experience of death or life after death, so understanding if you, in fact, gained or lost in a finite or infinite manner, would be impossible to comprehend in our live's waking conscious
vi_spex

Pro

well i am trying to make you argue why pascals wager is non sense, by arguing for it.. because is it not true you will fall and snap your neck if you dont jump for me 1 time real fast because i just mentioned it?

i am saying you will fall and snap your neck, jump..

you jump yet?
Debate Round No. 3
K.Risk

Con

It seems from that perspective, there is a terrible negation for the option of not jumping. Although an illogical order is given, it disregards the option of not adhering to that order. There are various alternatives to adhering to this absurd notion of believing and acting upon the illogical orders of someone or something that may or may not be true. The three alternatives I will list to disprove your nonsensical view are in direct relation to the three premises I stated earlier.

The first alternative is to give a contrary order of your own that is as equally illogical. This can represent the opposing theism argument; that if you had to adhere to this order, there may be another thing or person who has given the contrary order. Therefore, your belief or disbelief in the order that has been given to you, may be held for or against the origin of that order which may be incorrect or nonexistent (e.g. the origin is the subject that gave that order - you telling me to jump, God ordering not to murder, Allah ordering to obliterate infidelity etc.).

The second alternative is to understand your ability to explore other actions, beliefs and outcomes that are either derivative forms or contrary forms to the order given. Understanding that there is possibility of other orders or subjects giving that order that are just as equally illogical (it can be noted that logical presentation of the order or subject giving the order does not matter when understanding the second and third alternative), there is greater skepticism for the validity of that order and subject(s) giving the order which inspires us to explore endless possibilities of other orders and subjects of giving those orders that in turn, inspire the discovery of better order and they're corresponding beliefs, actions and outcomes. For example, I tell you that if you sit down, you will fall and snap your neck, the differing subject to jumping makes changes the validity of jumping to fall and snap your neck because we may never know which one is true until experienced.

This leads to the third and final alternative; there is no possible way to empirically experience God (or Gods) and to know if the orders it gives are true or false. Without listing the thousands or atrocities orders of faith and deities of faith have caused for the human race, it is imperative to understand that we can never be 100% sure that the order and the subject giving the order is correct and true. We can never fully know our belief or disbelief in a theism is true or correct (or at least more correct than any other theism) because we cannot experience the finite gain or loss Pascal says we will experience once we pass and understand which God exists. Millions upon millions have claimed in the past and present (and sadly the future I assume) that they have had many visions and experienced apparitions, awakenings and rebirths of faith which sealed their belief in one God or the other. In doing so, they are limiting themselves to the prior two alternatives I have mentioned and have total belief in illogical orders and the subject giving that order which cannot be fully explained or empirically experienced in our waking consciousness (without delusion or mental illness).

Understanding that there are differing orders and subjects giving those orders, we can negate the possibility of one order or subject giving that order being more or less logical and 'better', 'true' or 'more correct'. This skepticism would lead to quarreling subjectivity (which can be cited to almost any religious quarrel - must I name them ALL?) for belief or disbelief of these differing orders or subjects giving those orders. In order to abolish this quarreling and take a harmless objective stance, we must choose to understand the first premise and that there must be other orders (or no orders) and subjects(or nonexistence of the subjects/deities) giving those orders. Drawing from what we can empirically experience without the use of skeptical intuition that may stray our consciousness away to making drastic generalizations about how everything works (divine command), will lead us towards a higher age of agreeable reasoning without relying on outdated faith that forces us in believing something not existing in a physical manner that we may never be able to fully comprehend until death.
vi_spex

Pro

so you didnt jump? you have until some point this day

the thing about the bible is that the truth of it is not christian.. it is truth for me that there are rocks on the beach, im not a christian for accepting that from anyone..
Debate Round No. 4
K.Risk

Con

I will counter by elaborating on the fallacies of your latter statement which is trying to disprove my previously stated alternatives. The rocks that you determine to be a universal truth is a deductible fact that the rock is rightfully, a rock - because you can distinguish all other things from it and identify that physical thing as a rock. Once you internalize the universal characteristics (that may not even be able to be describe as words but comprehended and stored in your conscious inventory of distinguishing empirical things), you can distinguish rocks not only as rocks and separate from all other things but can distinguish the differences between a wide diversity of what makes rocks different from themselves.

This kind of empirical identification, storage and further classification cannot be achieved concerning the belief or disbelief for the existence of one or the other deity (or no deity). The belief of an order and a subject giving the order being a truth is entirely subjective and does not really on any sort of empirical knowledge. In accordance, faith does not seem to hold any consistent truths within it's own order and with any other divine orders other theism's believe that will cause others to accept the order as universal, literal and physical. In other words, it would be like if I told you that the rocks on the beach you are comprehending are really spiders. In addition, if you did not believe that those rocks were spiders, I would never trust you and enjoy your company and I would carry on this distaste for thousands of years against your beliefs and others who believe they were rocks and not spiders. This is in congruent stature to the functioning of theism's and what Pascal's Wager seems to be conveying to force belief and expose his Wager which is essentially flawed and irrational.

It seems from that perspective, there is a terrible negation for the option of not jumping. Although an illogical order is given, it disregards the option of not adhering to that order. There are various alternatives to adhering to this absurd notion of believing and acting upon the illogical orders of someone or something that may or may not be true. The three alternatives I will list to disprove your nonsensical view are in direct relation to the three premises I stated earlier.

The first alternative is to give a contrary order of your own that is as equally illogical. This can represent the opposing theism argument; that if you had to adhere to this order, there may be another thing or person who has given the contrary order. Therefore, your belief or disbelief in the order that has been given to you, may be held for or against the origin of that order which may be incorrect or nonexistent (e.g. the origin is the subject that gave that order - you telling me to jump, God ordering not to murder, Allah ordering to obliterate infidelity etc.).

The second alternative is to understand your ability to explore other actions, beliefs and outcomes that are either derivative forms or contrary forms to the order given. Understanding that there is possibility of other orders or subjects giving that order that are just as equally illogical (it can be noted that logical presentation of the order or subject giving the order does not matter when understanding the second and third alternative), there is greater skepticism for the validity of that order and subject(s) giving the order which inspires us to explore endless possibilities of other orders and subjects of giving those orders that in turn, inspire the discovery of better order and they're corresponding beliefs, actions and outcomes. For example, I tell you that if you sit down, you will fall and snap your neck, the differing subject to jumping makes changes the validity of jumping to fall and snap your neck because we may never know which one is true until experienced.

This leads to the third and final alternative; there is no possible way to empirically experience God (or Gods) and to know if the orders it gives are true or false. Without listing the thousands or atrocities orders of faith and deities of faith have caused for the human race, it is imperative to understand that we can never be 100% sure that the order and the subject giving the order is correct and true. We can never fully know our belief or disbelief in a theism is true or correct (or at least more correct than any other theism) because we cannot experience the finite gain or loss Pascal says we will experience once we pass and understand which God exists. Millions upon millions have claimed in the past and present (and sadly the future I assume) that they have had many visions and experienced apparitions, awakenings and rebirths of faith which sealed their belief in one God or the other. In doing so, they are limiting themselves to the prior two alternatives I have mentioned and have total belief in illogical orders and the subject giving that order which cannot be fully explained or empirically experienced in our waking consciousness (without delusion or mental illness).

Understanding that there are differing orders and subjects giving those orders, we can negate the possibility of one order or subject giving that order being more or less logical and 'better', 'true' or 'more correct'. This skepticism would lead to quarreling subjectivity (which can be cited to almost any religious quarrel - must I name them ALL?) for belief or disbelief of these differing orders or subjects giving those orders. In order to abolish this quarreling and take a harmless objective stance, we must choose to understand the first premise and that there must be other orders (or no orders) and subjects(or nonexistence of the subjects/deities) giving those orders. Drawing from what we can empirically experience without the use of skeptical intuition that may stray our consciousness away to making drastic generalizations about how everything works (divine command), will lead us towards a higher age of agreeable reasoning without relying on outdated faith that forces us in believing something not existing in a physical manner that we may never be able to fully comprehend until death.

Note: I have already fallen and snapped my neck, and today, I have not and will not jump.
vi_spex

Pro

the real fall will kill you
Debate Round No. 5
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by vi_spex 1 year ago
vi_spex
you people are unable to understand you own position, how am i to
Posted by albertack 1 year ago
albertack
Sorry this fellow didn't treat your debate topic with the respect it deserves. I have mixed feelings about Pascal's Wager. I can't say I'm for it, but if you want to discuss it further, I'd be happy to.
Posted by princearchitect 1 year ago
princearchitect
Honestly I don't know who to vote for, because you both was arguing the same thing. Against Pascal's Wager
Posted by vi_spex 1 year ago
vi_spex
i dont understand your premises*
Posted by vi_spex 1 year ago
vi_spex
i dont agree with your premises
Posted by vi_spex 1 year ago
vi_spex
my point is, whatever possibility has an opposite, therfore its basically just stupid
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Ragnar 1 year ago
Ragnar
K.Riskvi_spexTied
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:40 
Reasons for voting decision: S&G: "the real fall will kill you" was an entire round from pro, on top of other weird bits like "death=rebirth=afterlife" which had no connection to anything. Arguments pro to affirm that Pascal's Wager is true stated "pascals wager is paranoid non sense" but insisted this was not conceding his case or accidently arguing the wrong side, whereas con had a case, plu the rather witty "Note: I have already fallen and snapped my neck, and today, I have not and will not jump." ... Good luck doing this again sometime.
Vote Placed by iTruthSeeker 1 year ago
iTruthSeeker
K.Riskvi_spexTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro was trolling, conduct goes to Pro for giving reasonable arguments