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

Pascals wager

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 1 vote the winner is...
K.Risk
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/7/2016 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 6 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 233 times Debate No: 90839
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (1)
Votes (1)

 

jakabus

Pro

I see your last debate about pascals wager did not go as intended. I was interested in the topic until I read your opponents opinions. So I would like to converse this topic with you.

I will argue for pascals wager being theoretically acceptable. I read (and wish you would like to still hold your position against/con of the debate) that you think pascals wager is false or non-sensible. I hope you still wish to debate from your past position.

The way I understand pascals wager is if a believer of an existing God is proven to be true then that believer will be rewarded entry into heaven (eternal happiness) but if the believer held his faith in a non-existing God then he has lost nothing. However if a non-believer comes before an existing God then he has lost everything (hell) but if that non-believer was correct about Gods non-existence then he has gained nothing.

If you could please repost your 3 premises from your last attempt with your acceptance of this debate. I wanted to answer those 3 questions in this debate but I can't quite remember them as well as I doubt my own fumbling memory lol.

I do not wish for this debate to develope into an argument. So I ask for your respect and no name calling. please be polite and if I am out of line then please pull me up on it and I will apologise. Although I think we would be able to handle this conflict of opinion like adults (but then again it does involve religion lol religion is generally a recipe for war) oh, it may be some time before I reply. I tend to be quite slack at replying but I am genuinely intrigued indeed.
K.Risk

Con

I am glad to see a somewhat literate person, taking it upon themselves to respectfully challenge me on a topic I was extremely dissatisfied with in the past (in regards to the last debate). I have noticed multiple flaws in your perspective already but will gladly debate, considering that you seem interested and engaging. This will only be my second debate on 'debate.org' so I expect to be treated respectfully.

Here are my three premises as requested:

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.

1) This can represent the opposing theism argument; that if you had to adhere to a divine order, there may be another thing or person or divine order who has given the contrary order/command. 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.).

2) The second premise is to essentially understand your ability to explore other actions, beliefs and outcomes that are either derivative forms or contrary forms to a divine order or being. 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.

3) The third premise; 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 of 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. Disregarding enlightened people who claim their faith through subjective apparitions or faith based progress, we may never empirically know the existence of Gods or a God to be assured until death. 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 from realizing the prior two premises I have mentioned and adopt 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).

Those are my three premises, including short explanations (as requested). I accept your challenge and hope for a coherent debate. I apologize for the slight tardiness of my response; I have been very busy between school, earning money and leisure activities.

Question: I would like to inquire for clarification on the basis of what you personally deem as an argument. You state early in your challenge that you will 'argue' for Pascal's Wager to be theoretically acceptable. However, the first sentence of your concluding statement tells me that you do not want this debate to become an 'argument'. If by argument regarding the second instance, you mean to say aggression, I understand your statement and will respect this rule. Nonetheless, there is no guarantee that this will not develop into an argument for contrary opinions. I will refrain from any unexpected aggression (name calling, generalizations, bigotry, assumptions, personal insults etc.) but will respectfully argue the position of Pascal's Wager being nonsensical and essentially flawed.
Debate Round No. 1
jakabus

Pro

jakabus forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
jakabus

Pro

jakabus forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
jakabus

Pro

jakabus forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
jakabus

Pro

jakabus forfeited this round.
K.Risk

Con

I stand by my original statements regarding the fallacies of Pascal's Wager. You shouldn't start what you can't finish.
Debate Round No. 5
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by dsjpk5 6 months ago
dsjpk5
A rather ironic conclusion.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by David_Debates 6 months ago
David_Debates
jakabusK.RiskTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: FF in all rounds except the first is an automatic 7-point loss.