Quote:
Originally Posted by AllBeachNoOcean
"I would rather live believing in God only to find that He doesn't exist, than to live a non-believer, die, and find out that He does."
|
I think that Pascal's wager was brought up before in this thread, but I'm too lazy to wade through the myriad pages above to try to confirm that. So here are my two cents:
There are a few problems with using this argument as a reason to believe in God. The two that bother me the most are as follows...
1. Okay, we'll pretend there is a God... but which one? There are many religions out there that believe in many different gods. What if I spend all my time and energy believing in the wrong one? What if, although I'm believing in God just so that if I die I won't have to find out the consequences of non-belief, my false belief turns out to anger [insert your God here] even more than no belief at all? Will I then spend
two eternities in [insert your God here]'s version of hell?! Should we all just believe in every single God out there that has ever been invented just so that we have all our bases covered when we die? I'm sure that will go over well with whichever God (if, of course, there is one) turns out to be the "real" one...
2. This wager is basically telling us that we should believe in God just for the sake of believing in him/her/it. If God is omniscient (which many religions view their God to be - including Chrisitianity, which is what Blaise Pascal believed in), won't he/she/it know that we are only believing for this sake? How will you explain that one to him/her/it once you die? You: "Well, I really do believe in you..." God: "No, you don't" You: "Uh, yeah... I do" God: "No, you don't... I'm omniscient - I know everything." You: "Oh... well, I at least pretended to believe in you so that I could try to trick you into letting me into your heaven... that's gotta count for something, right?!"
I'm just not buyin' it... it's not a very good argument for belief in a God.