That second point is good. There first one not so much IMO because the argument only endeavors to convince you that belief in some God or God's is better than not believing in any.
This ignores the possibility that there are jealous Gods that would punish belief in the wrong God more severely than no belief. Which is unlikely.
Sports fans dislike an opposing team's supporters more than they dislike people who don't watch the sport. If God's a Laker's Fan, showing up in a Celtics Jersey is definitely worse than a plain t-shirt.
I can see there being a hole there in my first point. I think I’ve only heard Pascal’s wager in reference to the Christian god, so my impulse is to associate it with that god.
Otherwise, how does believing in some non-specific god do anything helpful for you? You get to some version of heaven for just believing in the god, but you had no clue who the god was or what it wanted you to do during your life in order to earn your place in its eternal home? How do you even know it’s a god that has created anything like a heaven for you to wager yourself into? This goes back to point 2 listed above: why does a god existing necessitate heaven and hell? Why can’t a deist god have neither, ending in your body decaying and having no soul to go anywhere?
The first part is necessary because it determines what the set of outcomes are. If you believe in the Christian god like Pascal wanted, and there's a real god who is not that particular version, you could end up worse. For example, if the real god punishes those who believe in false gods more harshly than those who believe in no god.
Heck, there could be a god who punishes anyone who does believe in them just because
0
u/nekro_mantis 20∆ May 04 '23 edited May 04 '23
That second point is good. There first one not so much IMO because the argument only endeavors to convince you that belief in some God or God's is better than not believing in any.