The Instigator
kohai
Con (against)
Winning
4 Points
The Contender
truthseeker613
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points

Pascal's Wager

Do you like this debate?NoYes+7
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 1 vote the winner is...
kohai
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/15/2011 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,289 times Debate No: 17921
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (15)
Votes (1)

 

kohai

Con

My opponent has stated in a forum that he'd like to debate me on pascal's wager. Well, I am challenging him to a debate.

It is my burden to show how Pascal's wager is weak and invalid while my opponent must use that to try to convince me to worship god.

Pro, please post your opening argument.
truthseeker613

Pro

I thank my opponent for this most important debate, and for allowing me to start it off. I am shore it will be an enlightening debate.

Basics of Pascal's Wager:

" Even if the existence of God could not be determined through reason, a rational person should wager as though God exists, because living life accordingly has everything to gain, and nothing to lose." [1]

Logic of the wager:

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.
4.You must wager. It is not optional.
5.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.
6.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. [2]

Common misunderstandings of Pascal's wager:

1)doesn't prove gods existence:

1a)doesn't intend to prove gods existence it is an imperative to worship god even without being certain.

2)Religion does have negative consequences such as war:

a1)Pascals wager discusses whether the individual should worship god. If the reason the idividual doesnt want to worship god is bec. Of religious wars, so don't get involved in religious wars.

a2)It is not obvious that religion causes war. As psychology tells us man is by nature aggressive. War is something that is part of human nature. Religion is often blamed for war when it is often not the cause but an excuse. Lets take some examples of major wars. All major American wars, civil war, ww1, ww2, were those religion based?

a3)religion preaches peace it would be logical that this would stem humans violent nature rather than increase it.

a4) ∞ - # = ∞

3)other options:
Even if you worship god it doesn't tell you which one.

a1) Indeed it doesn't.
Pascal's wager tells the non believer to serve god.
The atheist responds "well which one? Since I don't know which one I will serve none."
This is analogous to a person who has been convinced it is better to go to university then not to do so, but doesn't go bec. "Which one?". The obvious answer is try to figure it out. Pascal's wager is an imperative to serve god the fact that you don't know how is not reason not to serve him. It is reason to try to find out how.

a2)All god expects of us is that we do our best.

a3)As with anything in life when we are uncertain we do the best we can. The fact that you are unsure of the answer to a question does not mean you shouldn't ans. Do the best you can.

a4)Pascal's wager is an imperative to constantly ask god for direction of how to serve him. This is the only way of worshiping him until you find an answer.

a5) (∞ / any #) > (any #)

4)insincere:

a1) So? Even if it is, It's certainly better than nothing.

a2) It is not insincere since you are doing the best you can.

a3) According to at least some religions it is through service even with insincere motives that one comes sincere service.

[1] and [2] http://en.wikipedia.org...'s_Wager
Debate Round No. 1
kohai

Con

I wish to thank my opponent for his opening arguments. I hope to have a rational debate with you on the topic: Is Pascal's Wager a Valid Argument?

==================
Con's Opening Argument
==================

C1: Pascal's Wager does not give evidence for God's existance

This is quite obvious. It would be like me stating, "If you don't worship the FSM, then you will end up in a boiling hot pot of spaghettii sauce when you die if it is true." I have gave no evidence for his existance and thus the argument can be invalid.

C2: Pascal's Wager (PW) does not tell you which God to worship.

It is a fact that there are numerous religions in the world today. Which God should I worship? What if I were to be worshiping the wrong God and still end up in another god's hell?

"Once the full range of such possibilities is taken into account, Pascal's argument from comparative expectations falls to the ground. The cultivation of non-rational belief is not even practically reasonable." [1]

C3: The Atheist's Wager

  • You may live a good life and believe in a god, and a benevolent god exists, in which case you go to heaven: your gain is infinite.
  • You may live a good life without believing in a god, and a benevolent god exists, in which case you go to heaven: your gain is infinite.
  • You may live a good life and believe in a god, but no benevolent god exists, in which case you leave a positive legacy to the world; your gain is finite.
  • You may live a good life without believing in a god, and no benevolent god exists, in which case you leave a positive legacy to the world; your gain is finite.
  • You may live an evil life and believe in a god, and a benevolent god exists, in which case you go to hell: your loss is infinite.
  • You may live an evil life without believing in a god, and a benevolent god exists, in which case you go to hell: your loss is infinite.
  • You may live an evil life and believe in a god, but no benevolent god exists, in which case you leave a negative legacy to the world; your loss is finite.
  • You may live an evil life without believing in a god, and no benevolent god exists, in which case you leave a negative legacy to the world; your loss is finite. [2]

I cannot imagine an omnibelevolent God that sends people to an everlasting punishment in hell for not believing in him. Does that sound like free will?


Sources
1. Mackie, op. cit.: p 203
2. wikipedia.org/wiki/atheists_wager

=============
REBUTTAL TO PRO
=============

"Pascal's wager tells the non believer to serve god.
The atheist responds "well which one? Since I don't know which one I will serve none."
This is analogous to a person who has been convinced it is better to go to university then not to do so, but doesn't go bec. "Which one?". The obvious answer is try to figure it out. Pascal's wager is an imperative to serve god the fact that you don't know how is not reason not to serve him. It is reason to try to find out how."

Worshiping God and religion is much different from a university. Religion has an eternal effect if your religion is false and another one is true. So, this still begs the question: "Which one."

"Figure it out"

Well, what if I figure out the wrong religion?

======================
REASONS WHY I AM AN ATHEIST
======================

Reason 1: Argument from non-belief


  • AE: I first define an expression that will be used in the argument:
  • Situation L = the situation of the amount of suffering and prema ture death experienced by humans in the world at the present time being significantly less than what it actually is at present. (In other words, if the actual amount, at present, is, say, a total of n units of suffering and premature death, then in situation L that amount would be, at present, significantly less than n units.)
  • Then AE, making reference to situation L, can be expressed as follows:
    • (A) If God were to exist, then he would possess all of the following four properties (among others):
      • (1) being able to bring about situation L, all things considered;
      • (2) wanting to bring about situation L, i.e., having it among his desires;
      • (3) not wanting anything else that conflicts with his desire to bring about situation L as strongly as it;
      • (4) being rational (which implies always acting in accord with his own highest purposes).
    • (B) If a being who has all four properties listed above were to exist, then situation L would have to obtain.
    • (C) But situation L does not obtain. The amount of suffering and unfairness in the world at the present time is not significantly less than what it actually is at present.
    • (D) Therefore [from (B) & (C)], there does not exist a being who has all four properties listed in premise (A).
    • (E) Hence [from (A) & (D)], God does not exist.
  • ANB: To formulate ANB, I put first forward these two definitions:
  • Set P = the following three propositions:
    • (a) There exists a being who rules the entire universe.
    • (b) That being loves humanity.
    • (c) Humanity has been provided with an afterlife.
  • Situation S = the situation of all, or almost all, humans coming to believe all three propositions of set P by the time of their physical death.
  • Using the above definitions, ANB may be expressed as follows:
    • (A) If God were to exist, then he would possess all of the following four properties (among others):
    • (1) being able to bring about situation S, all things considered;
    • (2) wanting to bring about situation S, i.e., having it among his desires;
    • (3) not wanting anything else that conflicts with his desire to bring about situation S as strongly as it;
    • (4) being rational (which implies always acting in accord with his own highest purposes).
  • (B) If a being who has all four properties listed above were to exist, then situation S would have to obtain.
  • (C) But situation S does not obtain. It is not the case that all, or almost all, humans have come to believe all the propositions of set P by the time of their physical death.
  • (D) Therefore [from (B) & (C)], there does not exist a being who has all four properties listed in premise (A).
  • (E) Hence [from (A) & (D)], God does not exist.
| CONCLUSION |
  1. I have proved that it is possible that God does not exist;
  2. My opponent needs to tell me which one I should follow;
  3. I have shown why his uninversity analogy is false;
  4. I have given my "Atheist's Wager";
  5. My opponent needs to justify why God cannot allow Atheists into heaven;
  6. My opponent also needs to give evidence for and justify why a belevolent God will send people to hell for not believing in him. (i.e. "Atheist's Wager."
truthseeker613

Pro

Rebuttal:
most of the arguments here have already been addressed.

C1: Pascal's Wager does not give evidence for God's existence

Already addressed. see "Common misunderstandings of Pascal's wager:" #1. in R1.

C2: Pascal's Wager (PW) does not tell you which God to worship.

Already addressed see "Common misunderstandings of Pascal's wager:" #3 in R1.

C3: The Atheist's Wager

I'm not clear what my opponents logic in this contention is. So I ask him to clarify in the next round. I will explain to the extent that I understood:
This contention, seems to agree with the part of Pascal's wager which says you have nothing to gain by not believing in god but takes issue with the fact that you may stand to lose by not believing in god. This wager seems to make a very simple mistake in assuming that even if there is a god, there is no punishment for not acknowledging him.
It seems the Prof for this is that if god did put people in hell, for not believing that would contradict free will.
Almost all religions maintain that those who do not knowledge god go to hell. My opponent says this contradicts free will, he does not explain why they contradict, so I will have to wait till next round after he hopefully explains himself.
Until then this contention seems to be baseless, and contradictory with most believers understanding of god.

"REBUTTAL TO PRO"

Seeing that my opponent only takes issue with this point, and not the rest. I do not find it necessary to respond. I will not bother responding, as it will make the debate unnecessary confusing and unfocused.

"REASONS WHY I AM AN ATHEIST"

To simplify, my opponents arguments are the argument of evil and the argument of non belief.

The standard way of dealing with these problems is by getting into a philosophical debate about evil,morals, free will, ect. I prefer to first try a different approach. A simpler, and in my opinion much better approach. It will sound like it does not respond to the matter, but if you bear with me with an open mind, you'll see it does.

My approach to these arguments is to address them without even attempting to ans. them. This approach can be broken into 2 parts. Philosophically speaking they are really one.

a) critique of questioning.

b) critique of drawing conclusions without adequate information.

To get a feeling for the concept I will repeat some of the ways I have presented it in forums on this website.
(They seem to have been effective there, so hopefully it will be effective here.)

"What makes you think you can understand god his and ways? All the brilliant genius scientists cant understand so much of what goes on in this physical world, what makes you think we would understand a god and the world of metaphysics?
Consider the following: a simple person from hundreds of years ago comes across an advanced piece of modern technology. would it be wise to experiment with it and make any conclusions about it based on "the best of his knowledge"?
I hope the ans. is obviously, No. The correct approach is not always to "judge by the best of our knowledge". some times the best approach is one of caution and uncertainty.

To quote the psychology book, "cultures of healing", "the distance between what we know and what there is to know is much greater than we would like to admit." and there for we make things up and assume to bridge the gap. when it comes to god we don't know enough to draw conclusions, he is metaphysical, and there is a whole metaphysical world that we know next to nothing about. The proper approach is one of apprehension, caution, ignorance, uncertainty, curiosity, and open mindedness. Not to draw rash conclusions based on something we know next to nothing about and can hardly relate to. We are missing to much information to make a rational conclusion.

You cannot draw conclusions based on something you know next to nothing about. God as well as many other religious things are not physical. How can you draw conclusions about a being based on your knowledge of him, when you don't have the knowledge necessary to do so?

It's like a 3rd grader reading Einstein's theory coming up with a seeming contradiction. and concluding Einstein was wrong. The appropriate approach for the mature 3rd grader would be, to conclude, that "I don't know much about the world of physics and I therefore cannot draw conclusions before I know more about physics".

We are largely in the dark about what is really going on in this world. It is the equivalent of a 3rd grader "disproving" Einstein's theory of relativity. He does not know enough about physics. We do not know enough about god and the metaphysical world (or the physical world for that matter). l. There is a whole metaphysical world behind our world which we know very little about. We will not come to the truth until we are willing to acknowledge how little we really now, it is only from there that we can begin to expand our knowledge."

Do you realize that almost every scientific theory has questions on it? Do scientists just throw away the theory bec. of a question? The ans. is, No. They work on it and keep it until they find a better one.

Thousands of years ago Zeno developed 3 paradoxes "proving" that there is no movement. This question stood for thousands of years. did anyone conclude for a moment that there really is no movement?" No. bec. a question does not necessarily disprove.

Lastly, there are questions regarding the existence of a godless world. For example, the problem of first cause. The intricacy and complexity of the world. The large gaps in the fossil record. ect.

So if questions is a reasons are automatic reasons to reject there is trouble both ways. Which leads us right back to Pascal's wager: " Even if the existence of God could not be determined through reason, a rational person should wager as though God exists, because living life accordingly has everything to gain, and nothing to lose."

This is the jest of my first approach, on a very basic level, I would like my opponent to critique it, and I will embellish in further rounds. If necessary I will resort to the standard methods of dealing with these problems.
Debate Round No. 2
kohai

Con

Thanks once again for your fascinating arguments.

C1: PW Gives no evidence for God

From 1st round:

"1a)doesn't intend to prove gods existence it is an imperative to worship god even without being certain."

My opponent admits that it does not give evidence for his existence. Therefore, we should automatically reject pascals wager for people like me who demand proof.


1. If a claim is extraordinary, then in the absence of extraordinarily strong evidence in its favor, the claim may be considered false.
2. The claim that a god exists is an extraordinary claim.
3. Therefore, in the absence of extraordinarily strong evidence in its favor, the claim that a god exists may be considered false.
4. There is no extraordinarily strong evidence for the claim that a god exists.
5. Therefore, the claim that a god exists may be considered false. [1]

What I am trying to say is that the existence of God is the most extraordinary claim that anyone can make. Thus, if one cannot prove its existence with extraordinary proof, then the claim should be regarded false.

C2: Pascal's Wager (PW) does not tell you which God to worship.

And I already addressed yours.

"Pascal's wager tells the non believer to serve god.
The atheist responds "well which one? Since I don't know which one I will serve none."
This is analogous to a person who has been convinced it is better to go to university then not to do so, but doesn't go bec. "Which one?". The obvious answer is try to figure it out. Pascal's wager is an imperative to serve god the fact that you don't know how is not reason not to serve him. It is reason to try to find out how."

I do not see the paralell. Worshiping God can have dire consequences if the god you worship is false and another god is true. Your eternality rests on it.

C3: The Atheist's Wager

Sorry if you do not understand. The logic of the wager is simply that God would not care if you worship him or not. Therefore, it makes no difference if we worship him or not. Just be good. If you lead a good life you have the joy of leaving a positive legacy.

C4: Reasons why I am an atheist [2] [3]

I honestly have not a clue what my opponent is trying to say. I think, from the looks of the argument, he is using the free-will defense (FWD hereafter).

I wish to respond to show how the reason for non-belief is sound and teh FWD does not work.

1) Giving evidence for his existence does not interfer with FW.

A) Jesus supposedly performed miracles and people still did not believe in him. Therefore, it is possible to assume that evidence=/=free will.

B) God is omnipotent. Therefore, he knows everything. If he knows everything, how can we still have free will?

Again, I ask that you clarify.

Thank you and back to you!


Sources
1. http://tinyurl.com...;
2. http://tinyurl.com...;
3. http://tinyurl.com...;
truthseeker613

Pro

Rebuttal:

C1: PW Gives no evidence for God

I challenge my opponents claim that the existence of god is "extraordinary".
(depending on the ans. to this there is a follow up question.)

I further challenge my opponents contention that there is no strong evidence for god. Here are some:

Arguments for the existence of God:

"The cosmological argument.

The teleological argument.

The argument of morality.

The ontological argument .

The argument from degree, a version of the ontological argument posited by Aquinas.

Arguments that a non-physical quality observed in the universe is of fundamental importance and not an epiphenomenon, such as:
Morality (Argument from morality).
Beauty (Argument from beauty).
Love (Argument from love).
religious experience (Argument from religious experience),
are arguments for theism against materialism.

The anthropic argument.

The transcendental argument.

The argument from reason.

Argument from testimony.

Argument from survival of the Jews.

Argument from fulfilment of prophesies in the original testament.

ect.

I will not go through these arguments in detail, as that is not the topic of this debate. Each of these arguments are subjects unto themselves and subject of many books and debates. The point is, to say that there is no evidence for God, is simply unreasonable, and untrue.

C2: Pascal's Wager (PW) does not tell you which God to worship.

Okay. My opponent maintains that he already responded to my counter argument. Which he did, partially. I wrote in the previous round that I did not feel it necessary to defend it, as I had written 4 other points on that argument, (see R1) which were not rejected. My opponent seems unsatisfied, so I will explain this point but I maintain, there were 4 other points to address this issue in R1.

My opponent points out a difference between my analogy of university to that of god. In that If you pick the wrong god its infinitely bad. What my opponent fails to address is, so what? In the case of university picking the right one brings finite good and picking the wrong one brings relatively finite bad. Not going at all also brings relative finite bad. In the case of god we up the ante so to speak a wrong decision may (see other points R1 were I reject this) result in infinite bad and a right decision leads to infinite good. No decision brings infinite bad.
The atheist solution is, "do nothing". As with the university example, this option makes no since.

I don't want this to get off topic, so if my opponent still has further problems with this analogy consider it dropped. The
other points made in R1 suffice. The main point of writing this was for the analogy to make it more clear, but if it is causing greater confusion, consider it dropped, and focus on the other points.

((My opponent asks (End R2) which religion to pick. In my personal opinion you should choose the religion of "the seekers of god". K, I know what your thinking, "this is not listed in ddo's religions." The reason is That I just made it up. The basic laws of this religion are basic moral rules,don't kill don't steal ect. To seek god. constantly, and sincerely asking for guidance, truth, meaning, goodness ect. As well as actively researching theology. And lastly spread the religion, and what you've learned.))

C3: The Atheist's Wager

My opponent here clarifies "The Atheist's Wager", as being based on the assumption that god doesn't care if we believe him or not. I note this is not what was written in the previous round, but if that is the argument I will address it:

My opponent tells us that god does not care if we believe in him or not. I ask my opponent how he knows this. Most religions that claim to have the word of god say that indeed god demands that we believe in him, and that those who do not do so go to hell. How can my opponent as a seeming atheist say god does not care.

"C4: Reasons why I am an atheist "

I am sorry that my opponent has "no clue" as to what I was responding in the previous round I will attempt to clarify.
But first, I cant resist responding to my opponents point on FWD.

As stated in the beginning of this round there is a plethora of evidence for the existence of god. So the argument it would seem is, give more. The ans. to this is that the more evidence the less free will. God decided to give x amount of free will and limited the evidence accordingly. So its not just yes free will and no free will. There are different amounts of free will. and this is the amount of free will god decided to provide.

Now to clarify my response from the last round:

1)This first point, is based on a lecture by Professor Dale Gottlieb, Former professor philosophy at Johns Hopkins: [1]

There is a common misconception regarding science, that theories are automatically dropped as soon as a counter example is found. This view of science is incorrect. Richard Roty professor of philosophy of science at Princeton university points out that every known theory ha d/s known unsolved problems or counter examples. When a scientific theory is rejected for another theory, we are exchanging a theory with it's problems for a theory with its problems.

To site an example, in the 30's scientists using quantum mechanics calculated the energy of a single electron to be infinite. Obviously impossible. This did not cause the scientists to reject the whole quantum theory. bec. Contrary to popular belief that not the way science works, to automatically reject a theory just bec. of an unanswered question.

Thus being said It would be double standard to do so in theology. Just bec. There is an outstanding question (I'm not saying there is, I am saying even if there was,) doesn't automatically disprove god.

2)Furthermore I pointed out that god and a large part of the world is metaphysical. Something we know next to nothing about. It would therefore be unwise and inaccurate to make speculative conclusions based on next to nothing.
Now see the analogies I gave for this concept in the previous round.

3)Lastly, there are unanswered questions regarding the existence of a godless world. For example, the problems of first cause. The intricacy and complexity of the world. The large gaps in the fossil record. Ect. (see also list of arguments at the beginning of this round.)

So if questions are automatic reasons to reject, there is trouble both ways. Which leads us right back to Pascal's wager: " Even if the existence of God could not be determined through reason, a rational person should wager as though God exists, because living life accordingly has everything to gain, and nothing to lose."

[1] The lecture can be heard by going to his web site: http://www.dovidgottlieb.com... from the top.
Debate Round No. 3
kohai

Con

I thank truthseeer for an excellent debate and for showing superb conduct throught.

C1: PW gives no vidence for God.

"I further challenge my opponents contention that there is no strong evidence for god. Here are some:"

Remember how I defined an extraordinary claim.

Extraordinary claim: a claim that contradicts accepted physical laws or our common sense, everyday experiences of the world.

Extraordinary evidence: any evidence that would verify the extraordinary claim.

Not a one of those arguments are extraordinary evidence. In fact, all of them have been refuted in some way or another. We can have a debate on that later.

Cosmological argument rebuttal [1] and further on infidels.org. I won't link every one of them.

C2: PW Does not tell you which god to worship.

My opponent drops the university analogy. He tells me to choose the religion of "seekers of God". Huh? I honestly don't quite understand what that is.

Also, how can we know that God is correct?

C3: Atheist Wager


I will certainly not worship any god that actually cares wheither or not we worship him. I'd much rather worship a god that basis salvation on works and moral deeds.

Furthermore, how does my opponent know that God does care if you worship him or not?

C4: Why I am an Atheist

And as stated earlier, all of them can be refuted--which is for another debate. Remember, there is also a plethora of evidence against god's existence. That, of course, is for another debate.

If we can prove God doesn't exist, why on earth should we wager he does?

| CONCLUSION |

My opponent has not yet convinced me that it is better to wager god exists and worship him than to wager he does not. He has not rebutted my arguments convincingly.

As of now, I urge a CON vote.



Sources

1. http://tinyurl.com... (For cosmological rebuttal)

truthseeker613

Pro

I too thank Kohai for an excellent debate and for showing superb conduct .

By the way you did not mention a definition for extraordinary before, and the one mentioned here is unacceptable me.

When I provide a definition, I like to quote the dictionary. This definition was not quoted from the dictionary, and I will therefore replace it with one's that are:

EXTRAORDINARY:
1) Going beyond what is usual, regular, or customary.[1]
2) Beyond what is ordinary or usual.[2]
3) very unusual, remarkable, or surprising. [3]

Based on these definitions, I come to response #1:
1)It is not clear that the claim of gods existence is necessarily intrinsically extraordinary.
The phrase my opponent uses is generally used as skepticism for miracles such as the resurrection of Jesus. (In fact it is based on a quote from Hume's where the words he used was miracle Carl was the one who used the term extraordinary claim. But based on my definitions they are essentially the same and do not apply to the existence of god. With regard to the resurrection of Jesus however I would agree it does apply, but this debate is about god not Jesus.)

response # 2:
do all extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence?
According to Pascal's wager it could be argued that even if the existence of god was extraordinary and even if there wasn't sufficient evidence. One should still go on the side of caution and serve god as:
a) there is nothing to lose. (my opponent has already agreed to this part.) This would be analogous to a free lottery even if the chances of winning are minuscule, its free, so it's worthwhile.
b)The ramifications are infinite. So even if the chances of god existing were minuscule. Mathematically it pays to serve.
To illustrate this point I will provide an analogy: In any gamble there are 3 factors a)cost b)chances c)potential gain.
The greater the potential gain the greater risk and cost one would be willing to incur. If the potential gain and loss are infinite even if the chances are minuscule and even if there was some cost (which there isn't it would still be worthwhile bec., inf. / any #) > (any #, and there for sill infinity relative to any thing finite.) Mathematically this is logical but something feels wrong about it so it should be used combined with part "a".

Response # 3:

Indeed I would like to debate that but in about a 2 months. As I will not have much time for the next few weeks soon.

In response to your point. 1st of all you could have at least provided the names of the counter arguments.

2ndly, yes of coarse their are debates regarding some of these pieces of evidence but the point is that it makes it far from clear or certain that no god does exist. Thus we come to Pascal's wager. Play on the side of caution.

C2: PW Does not tell you which god to worship.

I also wrote:"I had written 4 other points on that argument, (see R1) which were not rejected." and "The other points made in R1 suffice."

C3: Atheist Wager
It's hard to know what exactly my opponent means here as he does not write it in argument form.
It is not clear to me if he is making an argument here at all.
I just discussed it with him in the comment box I will put his words here:
"How do you know god will send one to he'll based on their beliefs?"
Well according to Pascal's wager you don't have to know. Even the possibility is sufficient reason. This was the whole reason he made the wager to begin with.

(Just to clarify worship does not necessarily mean you prostrate yourself to some statue. Acknowledge or accept, would be a more accurate description of the worship I propose, as worship has a negative connotation.)
(You mentioned being good and moral without G-d. Regarding that statement, I would like to list three points:
1) Moral relativism: Without G-d, man will not know what is moral.
2) Heard from Professor Gottleib, if there is a G-d, there is a moral imperative of gratitude.
3) Being that G-d is all goodness and omnipotent, what He command us to do is probably for our own good, not because He needs it.)

C4: "Why I am an Atheist"

To answer my opponents final question:
"If we can prove God doesn't exist, why on earth should we wager he does?"

The ans. According to Pascal's wager is, bec. He might, and you have nothing to lose and everything to gain.

Response#4
The creation of such complex and intricate

[1] http://www.merriam-webster.com...
[2] The American Heritage �ƒ�'���‚����ƒ�€š�‚�� Dictionary of the English Language, Updated in 2009.
[3] Collins English Dictionary Complete and Unabridged.
Debate Round No. 4
kohai

Con

Thank you for your superb conduct. Stay safe for anyone who is in Irene's path!

According to your definitions, the claim "god exists" is still an extraordinary claim. Based on the Theistic definitions and characteristics of "god", he is certainly going beyond what is usual, and very remarkable.

In rebuttal to response 1 it is clear that God's existence is extraordinary. Remember: God is supposedly all-knowing, all-powerful, all-just yet all-merciful. These are attributes that seem to contradict one another. One cannot be all-knowing and all-powerful and all-just and all-merciful...it is impossible!

RR2) The claim "god exists" is the most extraordinary claim one can make because of the characteristics of god. Would you worship the Invisible Pink Unicorn to stay safe even though there is a mountain of evidence against her existence? It is the same way.

Thus we get to the atheist wager which I will elaborate on.

RR3) I anticipate the debate and wish you luck. For the counter arguments, the name is basically "(Name of theistic argument) refuted.)"

On C2) I feel I have rebuted your arguments. I'll leave this to voters to decide.

C3) Atheist wager.

For clarity, here is what we are arguing. [1] See source 1 if you are still confused.


Belief in god (B)No belief in god (~B)
Good life (L) +∞ (heaven) +∞ (heaven)
Evil life (~L) -∞ (hell) -∞ (hell)

No benevolent god exists

Belief in god (B)No belief in god (~B)
Good life (L) +X (positive legacy) +X (positive legacy)
Evil life (~L) -X (negative legacy) -X (negative legacy)

C4) Atheist

To answer my opponents final question:
"If we can prove God doesn't exist, why on earth should we wager he does?"

The ans. According to Pascal's wager is, bec. He might, and you have nothing to lose and everything to gain.

It doesn't matter if he might because we already eliminated the very possibility of his existence.

Rebuttal Response 4)

I don't know what my opponent is stating here. I think he is using a form of the design argument which begs the question: "Who created God?" Surely, God has to be more complex than anything he created!

| Conclusion |

My opponent has not yet demonstrated why it is better to wager God exists than he doesn't. Voters, it is all up to you.


Sources

1. http://en.wikipedia.org...'s_Wager
truthseeker613

Pro

Thank you for your superb conduct. (I am having anything but hurricane whether here in Israel, but my family just evacuated. I am glad you were able to get your last round in.)

C1)
"According to your definitions, the claim "god exists" is still an extraordinary claim...These are attributes that seem to contradict one another...it is impossible!"

Unfortunately my opponent does not explain why it is imposable.

Furthermore my opponent did not respond to the last point made on this contention.

c2)
"I feel I have rebutted your arguments. I'll leave this to voters to decide."

I will repeat what I wrote in the previous rounds:
"I also wrote:"I had written 4 other points on that argument, (see R1) which were not rejected." and "The other points made in R1 suffice.""

I keep saying I made 4 other arguments on this point, that were untouched. So even if that one is mute. The other 4 stand.

c3) Atheists wager:

The atheists wager seems to assume that even if their is a god there there is no reward for believing and no punishment for not doing so.

I don't understand how an atheist can know what god does. Most theist who believe in god and claim to have his word say that god says there is heaven and hell for belief and non belief. How can the atheists know that god doesn't care if you believe in him. At the very least play on the side of caution, as Pascal's wager goes, if there is nothing to lose and everything to gain, do it, even if you are not shore.

(Even if some how you did know that there is no heaven and hell for belief in god. I provided 3 reasons in the previous round why you should still follow the way of god.)

c4) Why my opponent is an atheist:

"It doesn't matter if he might because we already eliminated the very possibility of his existence."

My opponents words seem to be in contradiction, I sent him a message. For the time being I will assume he just meant the 2nd half of the sentence.

In (R3 and) R4 I gave a detailed 3 part response to my opponents arguments. It seemed from R4 that these were accepted.
As he asked in R4:
"If we can prove God doesn't exist, why on earth should we wager he does?"
Which appears he accepted my response to his disproving of god. In R4 I answered his question.
Now he goes back to stating that "we already eliminated the very possibility of his existence."
All I can say is I gave a very detailed response in R4 which my opponent seemed to agree to and certainly did not raise any rebuttal against it.

((Regarding the last thing, I apologize, I asked some one else to insert that when I didn't have computer access.
It was typed in the wrong place and not in full. (It was supposed to be in "C1" as a 4th response. In full it was to read that, "the claim that such a complex and intricate world came from nothing all by itself is an extraordinary claim". obviously, I cannot count this argument as it wasn't made.)))

I thank my opponent for the debate and would like to debate this or similar topics with him or anyone else in the future.
Debate Round No. 5
15 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by justice007 5 years ago
justice007
I second marcoscato.
Posted by truthseeker613 5 years ago
truthseeker613
what does this mean:
"It doesn't matter if he might because we already eliminated the very possibility of his existence."

The first 6 words seem in contradiction with the 2nd half.
Posted by truthseeker613 5 years ago
truthseeker613
Please explain "he is certainly going beyond what is usual,"
Posted by kohai 5 years ago
kohai
Hurricane is here and may mess everything up. PRO please forgive me in advanced if I mistakingly forfeit.
Posted by kohai 5 years ago
kohai
Typo. I meant "How do you know god willsend one to he'll based on their beliefs?"
Posted by truthseeker613 5 years ago
truthseeker613
what do you mean by this?
"Also, how can we know that God is correct?"
Posted by marcuscato 5 years ago
marcuscato
This stuff is good.
Posted by Davididit 5 years ago
Davididit
It's not much about debating. It's just ALWAYS cite your sources. Even if it's a paraphrase or an explanation. Always, always, always cite your stuff. This will help you when you go to college and you're writing research papers. If you can buy this book that I use for my philosophy course, it will be really helpful. It's called Writing with Sources a Guide for Students by Gordon Harvey. It basically teaches you how to properly document your work and how to cite sources.
Posted by kohai 5 years ago
kohai
Sorry--I do not know how to debate very well. I didn't copy and paste anything else.
Posted by Davididit 5 years ago
Davididit
I'm not trying to pick on you, Kohai. Just know that plagiarizing is serious and this stuff does not sit well.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Cerebral_Narcissist 5 years ago
Cerebral_Narcissist
kohaitruthseeker613Tied
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: Pro's English and presentation are terrible, also he seems not to understand Argument 2 with regards 'which God'. This is one of Pascals Wager's critical flaws and he fails to address it.