Pascal Partial Credit

[FadingW]

There are a lot of things wrong with Pascal's Wager. For one thing, the simplistic nature of it assumes very specific characteristics of god including that god would even care, disregarding the many interpretations of god in other societies and belief systems.

In addition, it's tendency to ward against worst case scenario may mean advocating preparation for absurd things that may never happen and thus leaving one vulnerable to more realistic dangers. For example, gearing up against a possible alien invasion, disregarding bankruptcy.

It might be strange to see christians using this line of argument seeing as how Pascal's Wager leads a person to 'believe' in the god with the most horrific hell... the most unreasonable god. It might even be considered offensive, since the reasoning to such a belief is nothing other than self preservation... not that god exists, not that god is good, but simply because god is so inhumane.

However, one thing I find very interesting about it is that it is an argument for belief that does not rely on dogma. Instead, it uses or perhaps fails to use, risk assessment.

[Lethe]

The one thing I love about Pascal's Wager is all the creative methods in which it is debunked. It's fun to theorize and postulate, but with no evidence, it's just as easy to say it would be better one has faith in talking rocks so as to avoid being bitten by them.

[Anomalocaris]

What if god forgives honest nonbelievers but reserves the worst punishments for hucksterish bet hedgers?

[leo-rcc]

Edward Current made the point very nicely:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PqJpZOljjG8

[Rayaan]

A person who follows every religion would have a greater risk of going to Hell than an atheist. Kind of a hard idea to grasp but it's true.