ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 18 มิ.ย. 2024
- Many of you are probably familiar with Pascal’s wager. The famous 17th-century mathematician believed that evidence alone doesn’t fully settle the question of God’s existence. So Pascal proposed that you should bet on God because of what’s at stake. We can show his argument with this decision-making matrix.
* If God exists and we commit to God, we’ll experience an infinite good - heaven.
* If God exists and we don’t have faith, we might go to hell, and well, that’s no bueno. Infinite no bueno.
* If God doesn’t exist, then whatever we’d gain or lose would only be finite. So, the smart money says bet on God as long as the chances of theism being correct are more than zero.
Here’s where the critics come in. For some of them, the wager fails hard.
In this video, I respond to three popular atheist TH-camrs: Rationality Rules, Cosmic Skeptic, and Genetically Modified Skeptic. Rationality Rules brings up the famous “many gods” objection. Cosmic Skeptic brings up the “impossibility objection” - in other words, you can’t just choose to believe something you think is untrue. And Genetically Modified Skeptic brings up the “costs too high” objection. He argues that if one wagers they actually stand to deal a lot even if it is in terms of finite goods.
Join this channel to get access to perks:
/ @testifyapologetics
Rationality Rules video: • The Wrong God | Pascal... and • A Monstrous Premise | ...
Cosmic Skeptic: • Pascal's Wager Debunke...
Genetically Modified Skeptic: • What You Lose by Being...
References: Taking Pascal's Wager: Faith, Evidence and the Abundant Life, Michael Rota, amzn.to/3u0clXV
Help support me: / isjesusalive
Merch: is-jesus-alive.creator-spring...
Outro music:
Equinox by Purrple Cat | purrplecat.com
Music promoted by www.free-stock-music.com
Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported
creativecommons.org/licenses/...
Thanks to all my Patreon supporters.
www.patreon.com/isjesusalive
Hey bro can you make a video refuting trey the explained 10 times the bible was changed
@@sonoftheking1977 it is on my agenda for sure.
Awesome video!!!
@Testify
Hey!! I'm a Oneness Pentecostal!!!
😤😱😬
@@jahovashalom17 I'm sorry! I'm basically AG and you guys are the closest on my family tree, so to speak. I love your denomination's music and emphasis on the move of the Holy Spirit. I know some Oneness are becoming a little more ecumenical. Not a fan of the whole you gotta speak in tongues and be baptized in Jesus' name only or you're not saved stuff, aside from just the Modalism.
"If people are good only because they fear punishment, and hope for reward, then we are a sorry lot indeed." -Albert Einstein
Brilliantly put by Einstein, but - wasn't he a theist? Basically acknowledged, that deep truths in nature pointed elsewhere than just total, random chaos?
He certainly never accepted Niels Bohr's defense of quantum physics on this account, I believe, as this had some obvious philosophical implications, contradictory to his own views, but - Bohr would always meet his objections with some hard mathematics that offered further explanation.
And Bohr couldn't care the least about religion; as a fellow countryman, I can't say, I find it surprising, but Christianity, all over Europe, is reduced to a mere symbol these days. I wonder what will happen when the teachings of Jesus are completely abandoned; even Einstein, I think, would have found this prospective slightly disconcerting...
look at the state of the world today, we ALREADY ARE a sorry lot. why do you think laws exist and so many people still find themselves in jail.
"I never said that." Albert Zweistein
Following Christ isn’t a matter of “being good for a reward”. Truly, being good is the reward. Being with God is the reward.
@@kimjensen8207 The problem with the "teachings of Jesus" is you have to cherry pick them. Love, forgiveness, tolerance; I can get behind those, but loving God more than your own family? He's not exactly subtle with the sword analogies when it comes to dividing families. The immoral concepts of vicarious redemption and infinite torture for the finite crime of not believing he was a god. No thanks. Humanism offers a more comprehensive answer to questions of ethics and morality.
It was extremely convenient for Pascal that what he considered to be the winning bet just happened to coincide with the established religion of his country. Had he decided to gamble on the Huguenots instead, he might have been forced to cash in his chips a bit sooner than he might have liked. Pascal's gamble is little more than an argument for religious conformity.
I know right😂
The problem with "Live religiously and eventually you'll be convinced" is that it doesn't account for people who did live religiously and nothing changed. The majority of atheists have listened to apologists and lived a religious life but weren't convinced. For this reason Pascal's Wager doesn't work.
It's a different journey for each. If one is a staunch intellectual atheist, one will probably have a lot longer road to travel to get to the point to even THINK in spiritual terms, much less about "god". At any given moment, we cannot be forced to believe something we think is untrue. It is only over a period of time, of exposure, and a searching and open mind, can something reveal itself to us without our former control. When people move to different areas of the globe, they first are often scared or hesitant, but over years, make friends and learn to trust in the people, the culture. Same with religion. If you are adamantly against even searching for God, then no, you will not find him, even if you tell others "I'm living religiously (whatever that means)." It's in the heart.
@@watteau6646 That doesn’t explain or account for people like me who were indoctrinated from childhood to believe in God, and naively spent the first part of my life trying to get closer to God and find better reasons for believing what I believe, only to realize how silly most of what I believed in was and realizing I had just accepted religion because it was forced down my throat. And no, the heart is a muscle that pumps blood, no one can ‘write’ any thing on there and nothing comes from it except blood and electrical signals. Religious people have gotten so used to using BS spiritual language that makes zero literal sense that they almost expect regular folks to take it seriously. ‘Finding God’ is basically a process of gaslighting yourself or being gaslit by someone else hard enough that you choose to stick with a religious and it’s rules. Even though this video did a terrible job at responding to the arguments against Pascal’s wager it did point out that any response to the wager is an ought derived from nothing. Also, the narrators silly point that, ‘pleasure isn’t everything’, but don’t be despaired Christian’s, because research shows you report having more enjoyable sex! just shows how easily Christians will contradict themselves to support their belief in nothing.
@@voltaire372 Seems like you are disillusioned by theism. Depending on our age, we can be disillusioned by past beliefs or ways of living once we leave the home or the place that "indoctrinated" us. But this may only be a reaction, and we need to spend years "sowing our oats" until we realize, later on, that living for pleasure, status, or even friendship or human love is not enough. What then? We inch closer to the grave, and we start revisiting what we once denounced.
@@watteau6646 Speak for yourself buddy. This is the classic, “once you get closer to death, you’ll fear what happens after and you’ll need God to feel calm and comfortable”. That’s why you are speaking for yourself. If you had truly gotten over your fear of death, then you wouldn’t need to drift towards an extreme belief system that you supposedly opposed to help you get over your fears and doubts about leaving the living. I have a feeling though you are like many Christians who never really opposed religion, but have had real doubts, hence why you think you can relate to Atheists in some way; at least for those periods, but then the existential dread and fear of death caused you to venture heavily back to the Christian camp where you believe moving on to death can be less scary and possibly come with a reward. This supports the fact that people are basing their beliefs off of emotions, not off of any evidence.
@@voltaire372 Before I mentioned the grave, I said that living for those other things will not feel like "enough". I've reached the age where they don't feel like "enough"--does that mean I'm scared of dying? Not yet. But I just don't find real meaning in those other things. Do you? Is it enough? And how long will it be enough for you? As for emotions, just about every human being orders their life around what makes them happy, i.e. emotionally content. Only a computer wakes up in the morning and does not have a bias this way or that, because it cannot feel this way or that. When it comes to the big things in life, our beliefs, loves, hope--it's all emotion, baby. Examine whether you reject religion and God out of emotion, too--angry at how it "wasted" your youth. Is that possible?
Rationality based on an insurance policy. That's not spirituality.
Nor is it claimed to be. It's one way to rationalize to an athiest becoming agnostic and giving Christianity a chance. Coming to earnestly want to serve and revere (fear) God.
Pascal’s Wager wasn’t meant to be a reason to believe in a certain religion, but a reason to not not believing in any.
Thank you for making this channel. It’s hard to find channels that deal with the skeptics critically so I appreciate you using their words and presenting arguments worth the time to think over
If you actually put up a good argument the "skeptic" will actually listen. Skeptic doesn't try to destroy anything,they just doubt stuff and hearing more non sense in their way and they became even more skeptical, pascal wager is a bad mind set in term of literally cause of how easy it is to become flawed.
It's a thrill to see!
Amen!
He didn't address their points in any meaningful way. He completely ignored what cosmic skeptic was saying. Even if you in all humility go to church, pray, and read the scriptures in an attempt to believe, unless you truly believe, Christianity teaches you won't be saved. God will see through your religious charade.
he also dismissed the many gods argument by using the analogy of a coin toss and a die, for which we have known probabilities. One of the points of the many gods analogy is that we don't have known probabilities and saying something "seems" more likely doesn't actually mean anything, regardless of two random skeptics opinions. Clearly a billion Muslims think their religion is much more plausible, otherwise they'd just become Christian.
Pascale's wager reduces Christianity to a business deal and reduces God to a business man. It basically say to God "I will believe in you and in exchange you let me in heaven" there's no actual love involved. I don't think a Pascalian relationship is what God had in mind. I think Christians should have a bigger problem with the wager than nonbelievers for that reason.
I tried to address that in the response to Cosmic Skeptic.
@@TestifyApologetics but it has the look of trying to get into heaven with actions. It's like being in a loveless marriage because your afraid to be alone. Dr Liz Jackson has done alot of work on the wager and it sounds like the wager is basically probability theory.
@@vinnygiggidy I think the problem is that we Christians present the wagers in the wrong way.
Instead of saying: "Hey if you're wrong you will lose everything and if I'm wrong nothing happens." We should say: "Hey the most important question in life is 'Does God exist?' because if he does your eternity is at stake. So maybe instead of hoping that he doesn't, you should ask with sincere hart to God if he can reveal himself to you because a loving God would never let you down if you called upon him. And if he doesn't exist you don't lose anything"
So yes I agree that the Pascals wagers the way we present it isnt right
@@jochemschaab6739 hey Jochem, how are you. 😁. I agree that is a better way to present Christianity but I don't think it Pascal's wager, remember the wager is built off of the question what if you're wrong. It's basically reducing the choice to be a Christian to a math equation. And that's intuitively seems wrong
Agreed. While I've heard this argument before, I didnt know it had a name. Its such a bad argument that we as Christians shouldnt even defend it, never mind using it.
I was just talking to a friend about Pascal's wager last night. Thank you for this video.
0:36, see, if someone is convinced of the non-existence of G-d then Pascal’s Wager won’t work on them since Pascal’s Wager is best as an argument against people who are on the fence
RationalityRules criticism still holds because even if you bet on the most probable God, if it's not the right one (because most people have horrible math), you still have everything to lose, not nothing.
In many Gods scenario, the worst decision is to pick none, i. e. remain atheist.
@@manncz assuming all those Gods punished people who don't believe in them
You can easily imagine a God who punishes believers and rewards atheists with eternal pleasure because they don't want people having any knowledge of them
If that God is in the sample space of Gods, then being an atheist is just as good choosing one God to believe in
@@manncz also, you're only given one chance, one lifetime to choose one God out of so many sects of so many religions, your chances of getting it right are so low that they might as well be zero and whoever thinks those odds are worth committing your whole one life to is seriously being dishonest
@@manncz On the contrary, the BEST decision is to remain atheist (i.e. not convinced that a God exists due to insufficient evidence). This is the most reasonable position to hold. Any reasonable God (including one we don't know about) would accept this. If God was unreasonable, there's no telling what he would do regardless of any promises he might have made.
@@manncz Then we should choose the Norse Gods. Not only are they powerful war gods but the days of our week are named after them. That's solid good evidence they are real. They are also recognized by the MCU as the true gods. I'm throwing in with Odin and Thor.
I know its been a while since this video was posted, but I would like to credit Pascal's wager for leading me to dig deeper into my Christian faith. When I was really young, I think 8 or 9, I asked my dad "How do we know that God actually exists and this isn't all just a lie." My dad basically gave me Pascal's Wager as a response. Now, in no way did Pascal's Wager give me "saving faith" in the moment, but it did cause me to think that Christianity was really worth looking into (not at the time I was 8 or 9 of course, but years later). That moment with my dad has always stuck with me.
Ultimately, Pascal's Wager is not the strongest argument for why God exists, but it is a good argument for why someone should care IF God exists.
As always, fully appropriate use of pixelated sunglasses 😎
Mr beast? 🤔 Nahhh “Mr testify” 😎🤙
😂
@@TestifyApologetics Mr testify gang 😎🤙🤙🤙🤙🤙🤙🤙🤙🤙🤙🤙🤙🤙🤙🤙🤙🤙🤙🤙🤙🤙🤙🤙🤙🤙🤙🤙🤙🤙
@@zahydierodriguez1529 yes
@@TestifyApologetics pls make a video on Matt Dillahunty
@@zahydierodriguez1529 yes
1. The "many Gods objection" is specifically a counter to Pascal's Wager, showing why the matrix is flawed. If you say that Pascal's Wager as an argument works best in conjunction with the available evidence, then there is no need for Pascal's Wager at all because the evidence will suffice to give people a reason to believe. If the evidence is not sufficient for belief on that basis alone, then that brings you to the Impossibility objection.
2. See above.
3. See Robert Nozick's Pleasure Machine thought experiment.
Pretty much. TheraminTrees's 11 years old video "Betting on infinity" is a classic if any coping theists are interested
In many Gods scenario, the worst decision is to pick none, i. e. remain atheist.
Like Tomas said, the odds of you being right that atheism is true and NONE of the other gods are real is still FAR lower than the alternative. It’s much more likely that at least *one* god is real than it is that there is no god at all. Ironically, the common argument against Christianity that atheists have-that there are thousands of gods and religions, so it’s unlikely that Christianity could be the only right one- ends up countering the “many gods” counter to Pascal’s wager. Because if you think about it, if there are thousands of gods and religions but only *ONE* belief in atheism (the belief there are ZERO real gods), then the odds that at least *one* god is real are FAR greater than the odds that *NO* gods are real.
Pascal’s wager simply invites people to think about that, not to tell them they should or have to believe in a god.
@@lakerfan0243 "It’s much more likely that at least one god is real than it is that there is no god at all."
what makes you believe this?|
consider the different types of dragons, winged dragons, serpent dragons, etc. believing there are no dragons isnt less likely just because there are many different types of dragons people have thought up.
also, athiesm isnt the belief that there are zero gods. its just the lack of a belief in any one god.
@@nyutrig lol what makes me believe this?? Simple statistics. There’s FAR more people throughout humanity that believed in a god or deity than those that did not. So the odds that even ONE of those gods is real is FAR greater than the odds that NONE are real.
And atheism cannot be “atheism” if someone believes in even ONE god. Atheists by definition do not believe in any gods, or else they’d be THEISTS 🤷🏻♂️
That's the thing, if we put empirical evidences weight on religions, all religions will have expected probability of being true to be near 0.
With every person willing to give credits to the resurrection, you can find at least one more person not willing to give credits...
So if resurrection doesn't convince you, Pascal's wager won't convince you either. The wager changes absolutely nothing.
Okay, if I don’t believe in a God or gods how would I use Pascal’s wager to come to the truth? I don’t CHOOSE not to believe in God. I simply don’t believe in him/her/it. Am I just supposed to change my mind?! I don’t think beliefs work like that.
Good job this is first video watched and you're earned a sub. God bless you
Great video, bro! I’m subscribed 😁👍
Erik’s Favorite phrase to say, AHHHH the........
Lol gotta ham it up occasionally
Hey man, been watching for a while. You are a fantastic creator. This may be your best video yet - beautiful presentation of the arguments and rebuttals. Thank you for the work you do, you’ve gained a new patron!
If I remember correctly, Pascal directly addresses Cosmic Skeptic's criticism in "Pensées." His response is similar to the response given in this video. (I am going off memory though, and it has been a while!)
1. What evidence is there for the resurrection? Are the answers to this question simply going to be "The epistles of Paul", "The Acts of the Apostles", or "The Gospels"? I know some information about the Christian and non-Christian historical writings, but I am open to more information about them.
2. If a non-religious person doesn't personally want to go every week through the motions and the ritual and ceremony at church or at a place of worship or prayer, what are the best reasons for them frequently attending church or frequently visiting a place of worship or prayer?
3. If a non-religious person who doesn't believe supernatural claims is strongly doubtful a hallucination will convince them of the supernatural, what are the best reasons for them talking to themselves and expecting to hallucinate?
4. If a non-religious person is virtually well-settled on the belief that there are mostly good morals and lessons to be learned from the Christian bible, what are the best reasons of reading and trying to convince themselves of the claims made in the Christian bible at the exclusion of reading and trying to convince themselves of the claims made in all other mythological literature?
5. If it's more proven that monogamy will make anyone happy above other options, should those who practice those other options be personally guilt-ridden, or worse chastised, for choosing those practices instead of choosing monogamy? Furthermore, should they react to their feeling of guilt, or to chastisement, by switching over to monogamy? On a side note, are these studies about the happiness of participants in monogamous and other types of intimate relationships finding self-identified happiness?
6. What percentage of women and men in "somewhat religious" relationships report being satisfied by the sexual relationship they have with their partner? Having a "somewhat religious" relationship is asking a lot of many Atheists though maybe not as much of some Agnostics. What religion were the religious participants of the study? If the religious participants were Christian, should we all join the modern Jesus Movement in exclusion of all other religious movements merely in order to have better sex with our partners? Are there studies asking questions about what the participants most believe is the reason they are satisfied as such?
Bonus Question: If there is more to life than pleasure, why is the study on satisfaction with the sexual relationship with one's partner in the chapter called "Conclusion"?
Well done explanation and defense of Pascal. My atheist sister once told me Pascal was just 'hedging his bets'. To me his wager always seemed more like the proverbial straw that Pascal hoped would break a stubborn camels back.
The strongest appeal to me came from Cosmic Skeptic. Your reply was well put. You are right in saying that Pascal was not so ignorant as to think his wager would produce belief, much less saving faith. He did indeed hope it would produce activity, both mental and physical. And it was in that activity that true belief and saving faith might arise. At least that was his hope and motivation in offering his wager.
That’s helpful clarification. Thanks!
Really great video. Please continue the great work! Thank you for the vids!
So you're saying if you keep telling yourself you believe in god long enough you will fool yourself into actually believing?
No one said that, just look for the evidence and if God exists it will be there
@@Slave-of-the-most-merciful
con·fir·ma·tion bi·as
noun: confirmation bias
the tendency to interpret new evidence as confirmation of one's existing beliefs or theories.
You wager if you have a biased towards a religion… duh.. if you think they’re all fairy tales then wagering is really stupid.. the resurrection only has hear say evidence which counts as 0 evidence because of the claim..
nice, thank you for your work
The problem with living as if you believe (even if you don't) is that you're still going to go to hell, so the wager doesn't help in that case. Could you come to actually believe it? Sure. Is it guaranteed? Not at all.
😂😂😂 boom!!!
There's a deeper issue in how Cosmic defines belief. As made evident in Romans, starting in verse 1:18, Christianity is a heart issue, not a head issue. It's about our rebellion, not our lack of knowlege. Yes, knowlege of the gospel in specific terms comes through preaching (Romans 10), but our concience bears witness to the fact that we are sinners. We must believe that Christ's work is sufficient i.e. admit that ours is insufficient. To my understanding, belief usually isn't used ontologically (believing in the existence of something) in scripture, the exception being Hebrews 11. It is usually the same as trust or accept. A similar thing goes for faith. Faith IS trusting in things not seen, but not because we have no idea. It is because it is foolish to deny the trustworthiness of a God so clearly faithful throughout history. Of course, we haven't even gotten into TULIP yet...
What’s the TULIP and could you explain it to me?
@@leahcimoyatse5511 It is an acronym for theological concepts that have to do with soteriology (doctrine of salvation). It is commonly used when talking about the Protestant Reformation because how an individual gets saved/ their "role" in salvation was a big point of debate between the Roman Catholics and Protestant Reformers (and it still is). I'll link a playlist that explains it better than I can in the comments section. The relevant part is that Cosmic, in a certain sense, is correct: you cannot make someone "believe" neither can they make themselves "believe." We are all so radically turned against God that only an act of God can change our hearts so that we can follow Him (basically read Romans, especially ch. 3 & 9). TULIP seeks to summarize the scriptures on these points, also dealing with "predestination" and "election" which are terms used EVERYWHERE in the NT and thematically in the OT. th-cam.com/play/PL30acyfm60fXICLFyvTlD36Bh-ypGcrXe.html
I have to conclude that either you don't know what meaning you're trying to say or I have no idea what meaning you're trying to convey.
Whoa, I’m very glad I found this channel. Very well done, I’m motivated to research more about this topic
Damn. These are good point. You've made me change my mind on some of them. Good job!
I don't want to wager my life with any of these gods. If they want to punish me eternally because I didn't believe in them because there wasn't enough evidence then that is what's going to have to happen. If you personally are afraid of these gods and the fear of displeasing them is so much that you have to choose one then I suppose that fear of being ruthlessly controlled is not something you are afraid of
1:55 I couldn't take him seriously anymore after he said that..
Couldn’t take him seriously after the star wars reference.
Why not? I was raised 7th day Adventist, and believed that other Christians weren't destined straight for Hell, but that all other churches were being manipulated and misled by the devil. Jehovahs witnesses definitely believe they are the only saved believers on Earth.
To simplify things let's pretend there are two versions of Christianity: X teaches that all Christians are saved while Y teaches that only Y Christians are saved while X Christians are at risk if not outright damned. According to the wager, isn't it wiser to join group Y? Even if we take Testify's suggestion of applying probabilities and find Y is much less likely, isn't joining group Y better? Sure it's less likely but you risk nothing by joining them, whereas joining X risks everything.
I think here, Steven is demonstrating how cynical and unreliable this approach to truth is. Let's suppose X is the truly true Christianity. Pascale's wager would have you bet on Y no matter how much smaller its probability to X is, but the wager did not lead to truth. Equally so, Shintoism has no real consequences for non believers. If it is hypothetically true, Pascale's wager could never lead you to accept the truth merely on the grounds that unbelief had no consequences. It's a terrible method for making truth decisions.
@@SphericalCowPhysics This reminds me of Rationality Rules’s fairly recent video response to Apologetics Squared.
Anyways, check out 4:03.
Also, “As with all non-Christian beliefs, their beliefs can also be scrutinized.”
I don’t think the Wager is supposed to be used as the sole, single reason to believe in Christianity. I think Christianity should be considered as a cumulative case, with multiple facets to it. Therefore when using the Wager as a point for Christianity, I think it is necessary to examine not only how the Wager works by itself, but also by how it works in a Christian setting.
Do you have any way to prove that you're not in a simulation? If we're all really in the matrix, and when religious people die they could all experience their prefered afterlife but one that's really still part of the simulation.
And then it could be that the only way to escape the simulation and to ascend to the real ultimate reality is to be rational and not buy into gods.
If you have a way to actually test and disprove humanity being in a simulated reality I'd love to hear it but otherwise it really seems like you're going to be stuck with any unprovable / undisprovable speculation about the nature of reality also having an equal an opposite speculation.
I really enjoyed this video! Im not exactly an athiest but right now going through thinking about my religion more deeply and a question ive had about pascal's wager is. How likely is hell itself to exist within the religions? I personally believe through evidence and studying this that hell cannot exist within the christian faith so i believe examining the chances or % basis of going to hell in each religion could also affect the wager
I love this channel
Around 7:00 you say that we should throw ourselves into the activities of Christianity if we want to believe it to satisfy the wager. In that way we might come slowly to believe.
That is just a “fake it till you make it” philosophy of conversion haha
It isn't faking it, it is just sincerely seeking. For instance I'm a former atheist but I decided to pray and read the Bible shortly after becoming more of a generic theist. After several months later I had a religious experience.
@@TestifyApologetics right, but Cosmic’s point is that this religious experience convinced you and you were not able to not be convinced by it. Thus, your choice to believe and be converted was out of your hands, just as someone else might have a religious experience that is not convincing to them after genuinely seeking in a similar way.
People cannot control what convinces them is his main point. Otherwise you could choose to be convinced that Australia doesn’t exist on a whim.
Ok. And I'm saying wager by your actions before the belief comes and you may come to genuine belief. I'm not saying pretend Australia doesn't exist. There's a difference.
@@TestifyApologetics and I’m saying that wagering by your actions is false until you are convinced and it become genuine belief. Since you cant determine yourself when that belief becomes genuine (since you cannot control what convinces you), then your choice to genuinely believe is never a free choice. And if that’s true then the wager becomes “try as hard as you can to put yourself in a position where you might be convinced.” But you might lose it all anyway since you can’t freely choose to genuinely believe something.
@@Iamwrongbut then why literally believe in ANYTHING? How can you *TRUST* that what you believe is correct? You make it seem like our brains are computers with input/output and nothing more, and that if a person receives a certain magical input (or in this case, a magical piece of evidence) their brain will automatically output a belief in that thing. You act like if an agnostic hears an atheist argument, that they literally cannot help it if that argument leads them to become an atheist. Humans aren’t that simple. There’s far more complexity in rational thought than you are saying there is. People reason things out in their minds before coming to a decision about something. It’s not a simple as “You cannot choose what to believe” when it comes to worldviews such as atheist, agnostic, deist, etc. We cannot map out the human mind and predict how a human will react to new information. You act as though we CAN do that and act like we KNOW how the human mind makes decisions about everything in life.
Sure, you can’t force yourself to disbelieve something that is a verifiable FACT, BUT you can *choose* to believe in something that cannot be 100% proven OR disproven- which is exactly what believing in a deity is. It cannot be proven without a doubt and it cannot be disproven without a doubt. So, you absolutely CAN come to a belief in God through experiences relating to Christianity and Christian living. 🤷🏻♂️
In the many gods argument, you said to pick the one that seems most probable to exist. What happens if I decide that the most probable, correct belief system is not christianity?
Exactly.
You believe that
@@sababugs1125 was that a question or a statement?
Well it doesn't really matter, if you decided to believe in another religion after it's being proven to you that Christianity is the correct one, you're just gonna go to hell
@@seriously235that’s not a helpful comment unless you give reasons for your assertion. For people like me looking for answers In the comments you were a waste of time.
So many of your points are self-defeating, the final one is just icing I guess. I mean if you're going to say they didn't lose out on an opportunity to truly live as they wanted to live just because "maybe the grass is greener on the other side" or whatever your point really was, that's really just the opposite end of the same assertion isn't it? I mean who are you to say any of that is true, there's just about as much legitimacy and you saying that is the quote you played before it. You're trying to defend one of the most problematic philosophical concepts, it's turning out about as well as I would have expected. I mean I do respect the fact that you give the opposing side plenty of room to breathe and actually make their point clear, I can't say I left this video agreeing with you.
Great video mate
Good luck in your ministry on TH-cam brother, I learned a good bit thank you. God bless ✝️
1- The thing is you still risk punishment, if another religion provides worse punishment than yours even if yours is more likely to be true, seeing as the downsides can (hypothetically) be worse then it would make more sense to bet on the other one.
Say I have a wheele, 90% of that wheel says I will be struck in the face with a hammer for all of eternity while the other 10% says I will have my skin peeled off for all of eternity.
Now whichever I bet on I won't suffer that punishment if it so happens to land on that part. But having my skin peeled off would be a lot worse then simply being hit in the face with a hammer. So would it be more logical to bet on the 90% of the wheel or the 10%?
Of course my system obviously ignores reward and you would have to take that into consideration as well but I think this point still holds merrit. If Christianity has a 20% chance to be true but a religion with a punishment billions of times worse has a 1% why not believe the 1%? Now that is just an example but still.
Lets say I made up a religion right now with punishment infinitely worse than Christianity. By this logic as long as my religion has a less than 0% chance of being real. You should follow it over Christianity.
2- You do realize you can do all of that and still not genuinely believe right? And if you never believe then what? Some people actually deconverted while continuously doing these things.
3- "If they are leading a joyful and fulfilling life then why can't you?" I'm not them? That statement alone sort of ruined your entire argument for me. Some slaves could be joyful and happy. But something tells me being a slave does not sound to appealing. Well it may for some people, humans are diverse. But you get my general point.
also some changes require outright changes to you as a person on a drastic level to where you may not even be the same person, and if I change to the point I can't recognize myself in the mirror, is it even me that's benefiting?
1 - completely agree. And this isn't a 90 vs 10 argument, it's a 10 vs 10 vs 10... There are so many religions out there (and the possibility none of them are true).
2 - exactly! That is how I deconverted. I went through all the motions, prayed for God to show himself, and desperately wanted to be a Christian. Besides, isn't it the case that works are a product of faith, not the other way around?
3 - I agree here as well. I was surprised at how much life changed for the better after deconverting. I no longer felt guilt for forgetting to read the Bible or pray before a meal. I no longer felt uncomfortable when a book/movie/song presented an idea or scene that was in some way against the Christian teachings. Sure, I don't believe that my life has a higher purpose, but in a way even that realization lifted a weight off my back.
Also, this point is completely disregarding those who go through persecution to defend their faith. I'm lucky enough to live in a country where that is not true, but would Pascal's wager work in a country that actively tortures and kills Christians? What do you tell them? "You will for sure suffer in this life, and you might drag yiur family into it, but there is the possibility of living in paradise afterwards. Or if you get it wrong you just suffer and become nothing."
In regard to not truly believing, there was the father who said to Jesus, "help my unbelief." I think a person could possible not have attained the faith they see in others, and still be saved, since faith is more hope in God saving, not necessarily knowing God will save.
*Hebrews 11:1 - "Faith is the confidence that what we hope for will actually happen; it gives us assurance about things we cannot see."*
Great job brother 👍
No sabía que hablas Español
Since probability is X/Y, Y being the amount of times it is right out of the X the instances of it could be right, how do you define the Y in this scenario. We have to have significant evidence to prove a Y, and since we don't have any, Y = 0, and you can't divide by 0. Other scenarios would include only 1 is true, in which case your probability is still, as we have no evidence for any, X/1. Another way could to be assume that all are equally true, as none have any evidence, so X/X, and thus you would end up in which ever afterlife you choose, if any. Pascals wager is debunked until there is significant evidence for any afterlife.
Will you be doing any response videos anytime soon?
That's what this is. Did you have something specific in mind?
I have one the guy that responded to You on the realativity of the gospels
@@jesusirizarryrodriguez835 the Cams? I do plan on talking more about Mathean authorship, sure.
@@TestifyApologetics yeah I think he’s referring to that guy I’m not sure I think they might have done another vid on you not sure 🤷🏻♂️ but it would be nice seeing you respond to him even when it takes very long since he’s vid response on you takes hours
@@zahydierodriguez1529 I mean it is a hard to respond to a 2 hour livestream. And I don't like their use cringe and unironic I might just make videos addressing the topic in an indirect way
If Pascal had doubts without the benefit of the scientific method and the accumulation of knowledge that we have today, I wonder if he would have come to the same conclusions and faith. With the development of evolution, genetics, paleontology, archeology and the many historical methodologies that can be used to understand ancient texts, would Pascal view the wager as reasonable? I wonder the same for many of the early brilliant scientific minds who came before Darwin....
This is kind of argument smacks of chronlogical snobbery. Pascal was smart. If Pascal lived in my time, it doesn't seem like he believed because in my time we've proven all that stuff is nonsense. But meanwhile we have plenty of intelligent scientists, geneticists, philosophers, historians, archaelogicists, etc. who are still devout believers in 2021.
@@TestifyApologetics No doubt there are many smart scientists who are Christians today. But if the argument is that there are Christians who are scientists, isn't it also a valid observation to make that the proportion of scientists who are Christian has declined relative to the general population?
@@truncated7644 I'd recommend giving this video a watch. th-cam.com/video/v8WUr58HiCM/w-d-xo.html
@@TestifyApologetics Watched it, agreed with it, thank you for the recommendation. My point was that provided more data and reliable methods of discovery, I still wonder how many of the great minds of the past would have come to different conclusions.
Think of it this way, if a famous thinker from 600 years ago was quoted saying the earth is flat, his opinion is frozen by history. Flat-earthers might quote him and use him to justify their beliefs. But if he had lived in the 21st century, with the same IQ, he probably would have lived and thought very differently.
@@truncated7644 smart people of the past were no stupider than the smart people of the present
The third argument is also bad in that he gets the math wrong. "You've lost a lot" how? In his belief he thinks once he dies he stops existing completely. Not even a soul or consciousness but an absolute void and not even the existence of thoughts with which to comprehend it forever and ever.
Who then is the "you" in his claim of "you've lost a lot" you don't exist after you die so who lost something? Who? They don't exist.
"A lot"? What do you mean you've "lost" 80 years in comparison to your infinite span of non existence? Infinite turns 80 years into zero.
So the correct response is "no one has lost anything"
First of all, considering the wager makes you automatically agnostic.
But the fourth argument is, even if some God exist, no one choose to born, so we deal with some kind of celestial dictatorship?
I remember when I was presented with the wage in High School and thinking "whell this is stupid, how could any man think this is a good idea". Some years later I got to study it by myself and found out the problem was not the argument, the problem was the way my teacher presented the argument. When you see that Pascal was not trying to prove God, only motivating others for finding their religious life, if possible, instead of being stubborn, it is understandable why he made this argument at all.
You atheists are always lying. Pascal was debunking atheists for even attempting to use logic against the moessner miracle.
@@ummerfarooq5383 Where I lied? I am not an atheist. Why would Pascal try to debunk atheists using logic around a mathematical trick?
@@HenriqueAlves-xs7je what are you?
@Sinful Bastard Child atheist polytheist they both bedfellows of villany
@@ummerfarooq5383 I read that in a hateful preachy tone, Where you have a cross necklace while in religious robes, about to spread hate to people because 'that's exactly what god intended for us'.
A slim chance at something is better than a guarantee at nothing… that’s basically the summary of the wager…
That's an interesting summary. I'm wondering does the wager convince you to believe the Christian god claim?
Here are two questions that I find challenging:
How is any chance at any afterlife in any eternal supernatural paradise any chance at something? Is it something to have 72 virgins to make love to forever, one million virgins, an infinite group of virgins? Is it something to interact with loved ones forever and ever and ever and ever?
How does not living a lie, letting go of the world better than when you found it, being yourself over the course of a life you are strongly convinced is your one and only life, and never concerning yourself with any number and kinds of bonus lives guarantee you nothing?
Most likely to be true? And Pascal's wager falls. Even a chalk chewer like me sees that.
rationality rules: "we cannot discount a God who deals in absolutes"
Testify: *uses the force with awesome star wars quote*
only a sith deals in absolutes!
Actually, the Star Wars quote was in RR's original vid. Sorry to disappoint!
@@TestifyApologetics awww man
your still awesome without quote though!
Ah so refreshing to hear a cogent defense in favor of an argument I long ago dismissed while still a Christian.
That said, I've been thinking about this video for a day and realized this new argument doesn't actually change much for a non believer. Say I hypothetically have the following confidence levels: 97% Atheism, 2% Christianity, 1% distributed between all other religions. 2% is pretty terrible odds, but surely I should still gamble because of the enormity if the stakes. I could risk some portion of my mortal lifespan for a chance at eternity. That's just the core of Pascale's wager.
Ultimately though, this argument rests not on truth but on consequences. No matter how my confidence is distributed, according to Pascale's wager, and unchanged by this videos argument, I should always place my chips on the side with the worst punishment and greatest reward (excluding astronomically small odds like an afterlife I just invented now with a Hell 100x worse than anything in Christianity). The issue is, I don't think Christianity teaches an eternal torture chamber for non believers. In Luke there are 2 or 3 references to some sort of strife but it's as vague as vague gets, and in revelations at the end of the beasts dominion over the Earth sinners are cast into a lake of fire where they experience their second death (implying finality: they are burned to nothing and dead), with no suggestion those cast in live forever. Rather it suggests to me oblivion, a cleansing. Nearby (textually) Jesus is visualised as pruning the dead branches from a vine and burning them. You cast things into fire because you want them gone without a trace, and the text does nothing to contravene such a reading. The earliest depiction of an eternal torture chamber Hell for sinners I am aware of is from the Apocalypse of Peter written in the 300's, however, this version is not even eternal since the prayers of those in heaven will eventually redeem the sinners in hell (that last part actually comes from a later edit to the book).
However, I am quite convinced Islam does have a torture chamber for sinners called Jahannam, although the Quuran and Hadith are vague if such torment is eternal or not. My interpretation is that some sinners will experience temporary punishments (ie the Hadith claims most occupants of Jahannam will be women for their inclination to gossip and idle chatter. Yet men will also have multiple wives in paradise. Thus some of these women must enter paradise eventually), while other sins might be punished forever. For the sake of argument let's just assume a finite duration of agony in the pitch black flames.
The 'classic version' of Pascale's wager would imply I should profess belief in islam since my understanding of Jahannam is worse than my understanding of Hell. I consider both religions unlikely but Islam as marginally less likely. To put numbers to things let's say 97% Atheism (no afterlife), 2% Christinaity (Heaven but no Hell only a second death), 1% Islam (Paradise and Jahannam: finite duration of torture). Applying the 'classical' wager, we can dismiss my 97% confidence in Atheism. There is only a finite reward and punishment. Applying Testify's probability suggestion, and assuming Heaven is as preferable as Paradise, should I play against the odds in the hope of avoiding the fires of Jahnnam? With 2% vs 1% odds I would probably choose Islam. Islam would have to be around 1000 times less likely I think before I would risk decades, centuries, millenia(?) in hellfire for a chance at Heaven rather than Paradise.
If your criticism of my approach is that I dismiss the Christian notion of Hell as an eternal torture chamber for sinners and that I should instead use version X of Christianity than we play the sliding scale of probability I just went through at the end of the last. Except now version X of Christianity takes the place of Islam. You saw above I am quite prone to avoid bets that result on horrendous torture, I require 1000x more confidence in my version of Christianity before I would bet on it over my version of Islam. So to apply this to all the versions of Christianity, I would have to first categorize Christian denominations according exclusivity: Jehovahs Witnesses believe all other Christians are damned; 7th day Adventists don't quite believe that, but do believe most other denominations will end up working for the devil so thats kind of in the middle; Mormons have multiple tiers of Heavan so maybe if I joined another denomination and mormonism is true I could at least avoid Mormon hell; I can dismiss any denominations that don't claim some form of exclusivity because there is no benefit to my probability by throwing in my lot with them. If the non-denominationalists are correct, I'm saved as a Jehovas witness or a Baptist or a Catholic, but the reverse may not be true. Now I apply three numbers to each group: a confidence level, a reward level, and a punishment level. From there, I select the best candidate and devote my life to that version of Christianity.
Not only is this exercise impossible to pull of realistically, not only would assigning these three numbers require decades of theologic study, but this approach to truth is just so cynical I find myself more disgusted with Pascale's wager now after contemplating it after watching this video than I did after watching Rationality Rules or Cosmic Skeltics, or Genetically Modified Skeptics videos.
All that said I still enjoy your content, Testify (would be astounded if you actually read all this haha I got a bit wordy) and enjoy your fresh arguments. Some of your other videos still have me digesting and reanalyzing certain beliefs, but this one felt particularly weak. Keep up the good work, let's see this channel grow.
Hi, just want to say I appreciated coming across your post, which was very thoughtful and friendly. I hope Testify has seen it.
I actually agree that if someone does think that Islam were comparable in plausibility to Christianity, and had a roughly equivalent “good afterlife” but a much worse “bad afterlife”… then yes, it would potentially be logical for that person to choose Islam over Christianity.
The wager itself just doesn’t really help us decide which is actually the most plausible.
Just to address one of your points:
I say to you that many will come from east and west, and recline at the table with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven; but the sons of the kingdom will be cast out into the outer darkness; in that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.”
- Matthew 8:11-12
“Woe to you, Chorazin! Woe to you, Bethsaida! For if the miracles had occurred in Tyre and Sidon which occurred in you, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes. Nevertheless I say to you, it will be more tolerable for Tyre and Sidon in the day of judgment than for you. And you, Capernaum, will not be exalted to heaven, will you? You will descend to Hades; for if the miracles had occurred in Sodom which occurred in you, it would have remained to this day. Nevertheless I say to you that it will be more tolerable for the land of Sodom in the day of judgment, than for you.”
- Matthew 11:21-24
And the smoke of their torment goes up forever and ever; they have no rest day and night, those who worship the beast and his image, and whoever receives the mark of his name.”
- Revelation 14:11
And the devil who deceived them was thrown into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are also; and they will be tormented day and night forever and ever.
- Revelation 20:10
I got bad news because I just invented an afterlife torture chamber 100x worse than Jahannam. I'd get flagged just for describing it to you. Anyway, you're gonna have to recalculate.
Yay! Another secret way of sneaking transfinite arithmetic into theology! :)
This is well-done. Breaks out the 3 main criticisms and dissects them a bit. I feel the strongest criticism is the 3rd one, but it was well-dissected, too. Belief itself can change, so no, it's not like believing a continent is not there or 2+2=5, both of which are permanent and concrete facts. While it is true that at any given moment, one must be compelled to believe something, once you spend time with something, you might grow to trust it, and believe it. And it can take time. Even loving someone else can be a long process which starts out with shallow sex, and develops into something true and real.
"In this life, we all have to wager, so wager well" - very true, and we'll said.
Keep on testifying brother! Good stuff.
I think maybe pascals wager has a sort of decent power if you’re like really on the fence on converting to Christianity
But if you’re unconvinced of the claims of Christianity like me then… it’s just not a thing
Why Christianity and not Islam?
It was never meant to convince you of any religion or belief- that’s what this video is about. He says Pascal’s wager isn’t meant o convert people. It was meant to make you really consider the “what if I am wrong” scenario and determine if investigating religion/religious beliefs is worthwhile to you.
The problem of Pascal’s wager is it relies on Weaponizing hell and torment to scare people into Christianity, that alone is extremely horrendous and it is extortion.
@@_xiper Because Blaise Pascal was Christian
@@stevenbari5568 Not really. It was made for people who were on the fence and weaponizing Hell against behaviour considered sinful just goes with the territory
This is pretty damn fantastic. However do you have a response specifically to the LGBTQ argument from GMS? In this case it sounds like you imply people are happier if they live a heterosexual life. Am I understanding that right?
Please pardon me when I listen to these augments I start thinking about David Wood's Scooby-Doo video
Fear of the lord is the beginning of knowledge. If you fear something enough to change then you believe it. Belief in Christ is what is asked for and if you don't end up loving God i would be surprised since he came and suffered for you. It will force you be honest with yourself about research and evidence about all Gods.
Fear leads to knowledge. Enough fear leads to self-change. Believe in Christ because he suffered for me.
How is the Passion of Christ supposed to inspire fear? My mom once hurt herself catching me when I fell off a bike as a kid. It didn't cause me to fear her, but it did inspire change in that I didn't want to cause her pain again in the future... sorry perhaps there is a dog whistle in your message but I can't make sense of it.
@@SphericalCowPhysics You feared your mom feeling pain so you changed. It's the same thing.
@@hiddenrambo328 Fear doesn't quite feel like the right word to use there, but I concede that is certainly part of it, so for now ill accept it completely. But you aren't using the word fear in the same way. I can't make your first two sentences align with my experience.
If [I fear my mother being hurt by my actions] enough to change then I believe it. I substituted my experience for the word something in your second sentence. How does this relate to the first sentence fear of the lord is the beginning of knowledge?
I acquired knowledge from my fear for my mother's safety. But my knowledge did not begin with fear of the lord.
@@hiddenrambo328 more relevant to the point of Christianity though, how does Christ's sacrifice inspire fear that will lead to me to change?
I understand what you mean when you say I feared for my mom's safety. But you seem to use fear with a different definition elsewhere. "Fear the lord". Does that mean I should live with a constant terror that an omnipresent entity is tight there waiting to cause me harm? That without this kind of fear, I can't know anything? Or are you using the word fear with a nuance or connotation I am not aware of?
@@SphericalCowPhysics Oh Sorry It is a quote from Scripture Proverbs 9:10 The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom, and knowledge of the Holy One is understanding.
It can be fear like knowledge of God there is a Judge a Law you must answer to.
OR
Fear like a respect or reverence like you fear letting down your parents if you didn't believe your parents exist you have no fear in respect to them no Concern.
If you think life is meaningless no God then you realise there is than you wont start to take it seriously until you fear the outcome and the one that gives the outcome is God.
A way i explained to another is imagine you lived way back when you think you are not on any persons land it is yours you then find out your land falls within the realm of a kingdom if you believe that king exists you will fear his actions/judgement since he can enforce it and that fear will inspire you to think i should find out who he is and what he wants since you are in his realm and subject to him.
That King is God and creation is in his kingdom.
A believer will not do certain things a non believer will do it for fun they have no fear/respect/understanding/concern.
(preparing for anything or being aware of threats is a form of fear once God is added to that prep list wisdom begins)
I hope that helps.
If we start taking into account evidence, then the option of "no god" also exists and is the most likely by far. Saying "a god created physics but didnt do anything else" would be the only equal contender with atheism. However, if that god sends you to hell for a lack of belief, then you can cancel it out with an opposite god, so any wager leads to an atheist answer.
I understand
I think adhering to a belief because it is useful and not because you believe it is immoral which Pascal's Wager seems to imply. It is possible I am simply misunderstand the argument however.
Never even thought about heaven and hell as options for loving Christ.
An additional criticism of Genetically Modified Skeptic here. In the absolute sense, the believer does lose something, but relative to the reward, they lose practically nothing. As an analogy, when you have the expression x-1, what happens when x is infinity is that the -1 is completely discarded. So too with finite, earthly joys, whose pleasure disappears beneath beatitude.
How is eternal existence a reward.
@@morganmiller2579 Existence is a good in itself.
Or there is no x and it's just -1. What a sad short wasted existence that would be.
@@paytonogallagher3284 What are you talking about lol
@@Zosso-1618 It's your analogy. I understand if you've forgotten about this, it's been 9 months, and if you don't wish to reopen this talk, just ignore me.
Also, if there is no God/afterlife, then when you die you won’t remember if you were happy or not. So ultimately your happiness only matters if there is a God/afterlife-and any amount of pain or suffering in this life pales in comparison to an ultimate good outcome.
When I die my children and everyone around me will remember if I was happy or not and use my experience to improve to their own. That's how the world developed.
@@mauromacave2662 so even the people whom you inspired to have a happy life “assuming they even are inspired”. Will lose their happiness when they die and so on. Happiness is just limited, chase after God and your family and children will be inspired to have hope in the one who gives transcending joy and peace not of this world.
@@mickeynoah6352 I appreciate your advice, but I'm going to focus on happiness in this life and making this world a better place, not some hypothetical afterlife that cannot and will not be demonstrated.
I wonder how many have actually read the Pensées, because so many objections would just dissolve because of the context.
Pascal saw the Christian life as one that did tend to be one that gave one a happy life. It would be a mistake to say “either happiness now doing my own thing or no happiness because I have to live by the design of the creator”
@@mauromacave2662 only living life worth God's calling and seeking him through righteousness and truth serves you with unending happiness whether it be this life or the next....
Enjoying this life only ends in vanity as solomon dictates his life of emptiness and not true happiness
in ecclesiastes chapter 1.
One counter argument that i have come across is what if we find out there is a god and all religion is wrong and the test was too walk away from religion to get to everlasting life?
I don't really think you debunked anything they said. If you're going to cite "studies", for example to show that religious people are happier, like when debunking Drew's argument, please go into that and show sources.
Cosmic skeptics argument does work. So did rationality rules. Genetically modified skeptics was a weak argument. I'll use cosmic skeptics.
You looked at from a theists point of view. You already believe and think anyone can. This is not true. I tried for my sister. I went to church and I volunteered, helped. The more I was there and exposed to theism, the more resentful I got. This was because I cannot attempt to hold or be open to religious views and be honest with myself. It was just nonsense. I saw the hypocrisy of it's members and of their beliefs and finally left to keep my sanity. Pascal's wager tells true atheists to live miserable lives and all for nothing. Or nothing I believe in.
I've always looked at pascal's wager as nothing more than emotional blackmail. A 'you'll be sorry' attempt to wag your finger in my face as if I really believed anything from your bible or even care.
That is a lot of “ifs” for someone to trying to prove something beyond objection… this is the problem with believing in god: they want you to believe in their god and do as they say (in the name of god) so committing to believing in god has a hefty penalty as you waisted your life going to church. Now if you are really interested in my salvation then i can tell you i believe in your god so you stop bothering me but don’t expect me to contribute to your church of fight for you in the name of god this way you will live happy and I will live happy… or not?
Particularly with the ‘cost too high’ argument, fundamentally, the case isn’t that these things are worth having lost in your lifetime. The case is that, without God, you simply do not exist to feel the effects of having lost out on any given thing.
Mace a video debunking the friendly Atheist about exodus.Ik it takes a lot of time,but have in mind
Just discovered your channel and it looks like you have a lot of good content. Can't wait to binge all your stuff. Keep up the good work edifying the body😉
What about the hidden god objection? In other words, what if there’s a god who’s hidden themselves and only those who reasonably withhold belief in a god receive eternal bliss?
Even if you choose to pursue the god concept with the best evidence, if the evidence is insufficient to justify belief, your actions to foster your belief in that god would be irrational by the wager’s logic. In this case, you’re back to the evidence with no compulsion to try and make belief happen when the evidence isn’t fully convincing on its own.
This is one of those sounds reasonable but is, in fact, just silly.
Let's imagine that the you knew, for a fact, that the God you propose existed. If that were true you would, by definition, be excluded from eternal bliss. So your withholding belief in this case, as the best way to go, is an appeal to ignorance. Don't look in case looking is what causes the problem. But according to you there isn't sufficient evidence so looking can't possibly result in the outcome that you fear. Therefore looking, investigating and exploring in search of God can't reasonably lead to the problem you envisage.
Basically it's a logical nonsense is an argument.
You would have to propose that it was just as probable that merely investigating the matter led to dire consequences as not investigating the matter.
Now here is the problem with that, you are an atheist. So either you have never looked at any evidence or considered the existence of a deity or deities and are an atheist by ignorance or you have reached your position rationally and in that case you have already gone too far for that God to be any use to you. In fact by not going further you have damned yourself if that God exists and if that God doesn't exist. That God is in fact only of use to those who don't even consider the question.
So now you are back to this wager, do nothing and face dire consequences or do something to give yourself the opportunity to avoid dire consequences.
If you say but there might not be any God at all you are just reset back to the wager still undebunked 😀
And 9:00 What if the Wager was *never* based on the assumption that nothing is lost, but that only something finite was lost? Against something infinite potentially being gained.
But how do you decide that it's worth giving up what you know exists for something that you have to bet on?
Like what if I told you that a foreign government was listening in on everything you were doing, and in 10 years they'll invade and kill everyone except those who have become estranged from their old friends and sworn loyalty to that country (who they will take with them and give a life of luxery). But there is no way to know for sure which country is doing this. Do you choose to cast aside your friends and choose which country out of dozens you think is spying on you, so that you have a chance of surviving? Do you choose to not believe me when I say someone is spying, or that the invasion will happen? Do you believe me, but know the chance is too small if you pick one country, so you decide to live the rest of your life happily with your friends?
You definitely have to give up something to follow religion. Even Jesus said to take up your cross and follow me. Some people may give up less than other's, but for some the sacrifice is too big for a simple game of chance.
All that said, I do think Pascal's wager is a good thought experiment to get people to start considering religion. It just doesn't hold up well as an argument.
@@lucidragon5260 Those were interesting, smart thoughts.
My understanding is economists use “utility” to analyze human rational decisions. Technically, mathematically, if I have a 1% chance of infinite utility (not same as infinite wealth) and a 100% chance of super massive awesome FINITE utility, then the model of utility says I should go for the 1%. Because 1% of infinity is more than 100% of super massive.
But that’s so theoretical. That said, Ive listened to MANY Christian and non-Christian nde reports. And seen some of the new, rigorous research about nde’s. The non-Christian ones always meet a group of creatures and there’s always something off. The people cannot tell they are meeting with demons. Off as in: one guy said they were glowing happy creatures, and one had the face of a beetle. A beetle?! Another said “three mischievous little guys”. The Christian ones always meet Christ. It’s possible someone will, as I used to, presume they are just hallucinations. But there are many reasons that’s not so. Channel inspiring philosophy has a series on irreducible mind that covers nde’s pretty well.
Also we have that christianity is not just one more country who could be the one listening to my phone calls. It is utterly unique. The only one offering salvation based on forgiveness, and credit for believing God about his son, rather than salvation based on working a path to being good enough. It’s the only one that is historical and based on a claim about what has happened which can be evidentially examined. It’s the only one that has swept the world and become so incredibly cross-cultural and transnational. Also the biggest world religion. South Korea of all places might be the most Christian country. It’s also the only one that has the kind of quirks that truth and reality throw at us in every field of study. Manmade religions are often odd, but not in the same way. CS Lewis said, “would anyone have ever figured out that people procreate the way they do? It’s a unique quirk”. So much of Christianity is like that. Turns out to make sense and be right once I finally understand it, but not what a person would have ever come up with. It’s worth investigating. Including for the gain/loss potentialities. Like when I watched that two-part William Guy md-phd presentation on the shroud. Team of 32 world-class US scientists studied it, 30 of then being agnostic. All 32 came back saying this is a clearly supernaturally created object.
Actually, an Italian team of physicists spent FIVE YEARS using the world’s most powerful eximer laser, and could not reproduce the image. They estimate it would take a pulse lasting one *forty billionth* of a second of uv radiation on the order of several billion watts of power. Clearly, obviously supernatural. Cannot be done by modern man. Probably the single most amazing part of the shroud. It broke the carbon bonds of the top layer of the fibrals, turning them into double-bonds.
Journal Article: “Coloring linens with excimer lasers to simulate the body image of the Turin Shroud”
Giuseppe Baldacchini, Paolo Di Lazzaro, Daniele Murra, and Giulio Fanti
Can search “evidence for resurrection”. The archeology is there. The history is there. The documents are there. The physics is there. The evidence is there.
Finally, we have the fact that as I began to examine it, every EVERY single common misconception turned out to be more anti-Christian than the truth. Why so many lies about this thing. Myths like “the scriptures are uncertain and from a type of ‘telephone game’ and politicized”. No we have tens of thousands of partial codices. And it is anti-science. All of modern science including the scientific method developed by serious believers: Galileo, newton, von lin, maxwell, ohm, bacon, euler and hundred others I cant think of now. We straight wouldnt have science without it. And so many more. Channel Truthology helped me (had to watch it on 1.5x).
@@lucidragon5260 I commented. But im being shadowbanned so dunno if you’ll get
The problem with the third argument is that "wasted opportunities" would only be significant if, and only if, the individual would be conscious enough to regret their decisions at the time that there was realization that God doesn't exist. However, with no God, the existence of an afterlife seems absurd, which would mean that consciousness would cease when someone died. This would mean that no one would be conscious enough to regret their decisions about missed opportunities if God does not exist.
I am 20, I never had sex, and I can live my entire life very happily without having sex because life is more than sex.
Btw, nice video, I love your videos on the Gospels:))
Waiting for wife I was waiting with sex till 32 and that was good decision
@@Pumpkin_Lich yes I would. It's the Jehovah's witnesses that forbid things like these from what I heard
Sigh. You are going to have to spend your life in a world full of women, and you need sexual and relationship experiences with a few of them to develop the skills you need to deal with women in general competently. Women respect sexually experienced men a whole lot more than they respect adult male virgins.
@@albionicamerican8806 weird,Jesus had no sexual relations with any,and by no means He had a hard time dealing with women or understanding them. I know women that are 20 or a bit older,still virgins and I respect them for having integrity to not sleep around with the first boyfriend they had. Either way,I prefer to stay that way the rest of my life
@@albionicamerican8806 That is absolutely false.
In case of multiple choices we should bet on the deity which is most likely to be true. Yet, the whole point of Pascal's wager is to disregard probability in light of an infinite consequence.
Hmm. It is almost like someone didn't think this through...
On top of that, the "arguments" for christianity being the most probable religion are... dubious, to say the least. Merely quotes of supposed critics of christianity. The existence of a historical Jesus is very thin - merely two contemporary non-christian sources reference him, and the only thing all sources agree on are that he was baptized by John the Baptist and died by Pilate. There's little - if any - proof of the ressurection.
It is true that wager doesn't help to decide between different religions, but each of them superdominates atheism
@@catologic
Except if the god of atheism, who condemns anyone who believes in a god, is true.
@@gergelymagyarosi9285 Eternal suffering is as meaningless as non-existence, so the existence of such a god is no different from the absence of any god
@@catologic
Wise words.
even if Pascal’s Wager did have some truth to it, it still attempts to make people believe in God through fear of Hell. Isn’t a relationship with God supposed to be loving? As someone who doesn’t believe in God, it’s REALLY difficult to try and truly believe in him because to me there’s no evidence that points to the existence of a God, let alone the Christian God in specific, but it’s made even harder to try and believe when I realise I’m only doing it out of fear.
I am not sure why the algorithm decided to suggest this channel to me, but after watching a few of these videos I am not more convinced of your position and get a feeling that you don't really grasp the objections.
You need to start with addressing points from the get go instead of just saying "bro you're wrong" A contradiction is not a refutation.
@@TestifyApologetics true. should I put a shallow surface level understanding of the objection on my refuting also? You say just choose the most likely God but that is an untestable standard. You don't address Woodford's Diest God or Malicious God etc. Pascal's wager is truely a false dichotomy but you treat it as a simple choice. It has been my opinion (limitied as my exposure to your channel is mild) that your adressing of arguments do not represent the arguments as presented from the person you quote. It comes across as disingenuous
3:06 - Jeff Lauder
3:26 - Anthony Flew
6:21, 6:35 - Faith and actions
6:39 - How to wager
7:08 - “This isn’t about lying to yourself for God. It’s just an honest, ‘God, if you’re there, I’m serious about this thing, I don’t deserve you, but I humbly ask you to reveal yourself to me.’”
9:10 - Dan Gilbert
10:12 - checkmate
Thanks!
Im really glad that i found this channel, i wish there were more Christian channels that responses to skeptic videos.
I like these shorter bite sized videos that you can really sink your teeth into and that get straight to the point. Capturing Christianity mainly only does live streams. Which makes it a little hard to find the smaller better points.
Another Christian channel that does this is “waddo you meme” or Red Pen Logic, Capturing Christianity, Mike Winger, etc……
Same here, though it can be clunky since many of my favorite skeptic channels are themselves response videos and responding to a response video is difficult to pull of effectively. However, this is less of a response video, and more like an argument that addresses the opposition. The only issue I see with this style is it can move too quickly and doesn't really give each skeptic time to develop their argument so this video attacks their thesis rather than their evidence. It could be interesting to see this content creator engage in some form of live or written debate with a skeptic content creator!
Not a fan of Waddo yo meme but testify is very good
Another very good channel is DEFLATE
As an agnostic, I'd say it is much better to be skeptical now and wager later rather than living the rest of your life blinded and believing in one religion. Comes with a plus too, once you wager on a religion or none at all after deliberating on the others, the belief is authentic.
Smart. Just wait till the doctors say time is running out and avoid risking your life till then.
@@paytonogallagher3284 And this is why Pascal's Wager fails.
@@paytonogallagher3284 The problem with this is that tons of people DON’T know when they are going to die… so you’d be wagering that you will know when you will die, such as getting a cancer diagnosis. But you could just as easily be unexpectedly killed by any number of things before then. Car crash, murdered, drowning, etc. So I wouldn’t use that strategy if I were you
on the many gods topic, there are countless gods and religions that have been forgotten, so the only logical thing to do is to make your own religion
Wow a couple of points here.. blew my mind. Well opened it anyway, haha. Great stuff. Thanks for your videos.
I really love your channel. You motivate me to seek more evidence for my sceptical mind. God bless
Thanks!
The whole argument is “well your missing out.” Is the weakest one. It’s like if there is no god and when you die your gone it’s not like you can look back and be like “darn I missed out.”
Exactly. If a Christian dies and it turns out there's no God, it's not like this Christian will be able to come to the realization of: "Oh, it looks like God isn't real after all. That means that I could have lived a life full of sinful pleasures! But now I've missed out because I'm already dead!"
But you are missing out whether or not you realise it. If I died in my sleep that is still a bad thing . And mind you, there are people who literally die for their religion
You're treating the only life you have evidence exists, like a stepping stone
Good stuff.
8:02 Infinite happiness or sex.... infinite happiness or sex... I can’t decide, it’s neck and neck!
I call this the Esau objection. What is this birthright worth to me? Pass that soup over here!
@@TestifyApologetics that must've been SOME soup
Pascal's wager is nonsensical unless you prove that no belief system with forever punishment other than Christianity can be true. Pascal's wager is nonsensical unless you assume that either atheism is true or Christianity is true and no other religion can be true and no other belief system with forever punishment can be true. This is a false dichotomy.
A person living in another part of the world can just as much use the same flawed argument of Pascal's wager to make people follow their local religion that promises forever punishment if you don't follow it. The only reason you use Pascal's wager for Christianity is because you are already a Christian.
Unless you prove that no belief system with forever punishment other than Christianity can be true Pascal's wager is flawed.
And btw even then Pascal's wager would be flawed, but more on that later.
What if you die and you find out that some of the thousands of religions was true all along and you will face forever damnation because you chose Christianity over that religion?
Also, there are even more belief systems that could in theory be made up which if you don't follow them you will face forever damnation. How do you decide which belief system to follow if dozens of them are telling you that their one is correct and if you don't follow them you will face forever damnation?
If you follow a religion because of Pascal's wager you are a fool that can be easily tricked. All it takes to fool you and to trick you into doing whatever the scammer wants is to make up a belief system with forever damnation if you don't follow and boom, the scammer will completely control your life. All it takes is a cult leader to tell you "do this or face forever punishment" and you will join the cult? All it takes for a criminal to rob you is to say "give me your money or face forever punishment" and you will oblige?
Pascal's wager is a completely flawed argument which could only work if either Christianity is true or atheism is true and no other religion can be true and no other belief with forever punishment can be true.
And even then Pascal's wager would be flawed, as you need to believe Jesus is the Lord in order to be saved according to Christianity. Christianity does not provide salvation by works. So, if you don't believe Christianity is true, following Christian rules will not save you. The Pascal's wager argument assumes that people willfully choose whether they believe Christianity is true or not. That's not how it works, people either believe it is true or they don't believe it is true, they don't consciously decide whether they believe Christianity (or any other religion) is true. They consciously decide whether they will follow Christian rules but they don't consciously decide whether they believe Christianity is true, which is required for salvation. Many people practiced religion for years before leaving it because they don't believe it to be true. Following religious rules didn't make people believe religion is true in many, many cases.
As a Hindu I have never been more happy in my existence!
I swear that thumbnail is the album cover for Straight Shooters by Bad Company
you should do a video about what happens if you believe in every single god in each religion
You will be saved and probably reach nirvana
you said that the case for christianity is stonger and we could look at whats more probable, yes we can look at whats the most probable but i think youre missing the point, also there isnt more evidence for jesus, christanity isnt more probable than the islamic religion or buddism or hinduism, the point in bringing up other religons is to point out that no one really wins in the end unless youre this small minute group and why would you bet on something that is next to impossible to prove, also you said that is we kept an open mind and asked god to reveal himself or to be open to him, i find that to be condessending, as if we arent or havent honestly considerd said religon before and after we deconverted, we just want evidence to prove the religous claim and there isnt any at least not any good evidence. also a lot of us wanted to believe and tried to make it work but we cant lie to ourselves and believe something that is false.
"you said that the case for christianity is stonger"
It is.
"yes we can look at whats the most probable but i think youre missing the point"
No he's not.
"also there isn't more evidence for jesus"
Sure there is.
"christanity isnt more probable than the islamic religion"
So I guess you'll throw out the secular scholarship attesting to the falsity of the Islamic claim that there was no
crucifixion?
"or buddism or hinduism, the point in bringing up other religons is to point out that no one really wins in the
end"
Christians don't need to show other positions to be wrong to validate theirs, they need only argue and present
evidence that theirs is correct.
"youre this small minute group"
Truth isnt dependent on size also 2.38 billion isnt a minute group.
"why would you bet on something that is next to impossible to prove"
Because it's not, the evidence has satisfied those who believe after all.
"also you said that is we kept an open mind and asked god to reveal himself or to be open to him, i find that to be
condessending"
Why exactly should we care what you find condescending?
"as if we arent or havent honestly considerd said religon before and after we deconverted"
A lot of you haven't though, I mean I know some theists like to say you lot 'were never really x" in order to
pathetically shut down discussion or discredit the deconverted individual but in my experience a lot of you actually do fit the mold of this critique and theists ought to start showing similar levels of doubt on atheist origin stories for example some of you lot didn't even affirm core doctrine when you identified as theists, barely ever darkened the doors of a religious establishment or were straight up cultural theists etc. It's absolutely fair for theists to challenge their interlocutors on their experiential claims not to shut down discussion but to hold them to a standard.
"we just want evidence to prove the religous claim and there isnt any at least not any good evidence"
This sounds nice on paper until one eventually discovers time and time again that a lot of atheists seem to think they arbitrarily get to decide what 'evidence' even is. Theists aren't obligated to play that game.
"also a lot of us wanted to believe and tried to make it work but we cant lie to ourselves and believe something
that is false."
*Naruto OST - Sadness and Sorrow* kicks in.
GM skeptic's argument was so hedonistic and shallow.
Yes. Like, it legit sounded like he was promoting fornication.
@@petery6432 he was, it didnt just sound like it lmao
Excellent video.
I wouldn't say it's logical to believe in the one that makes the most sense because that immediately runs into the road block of us not actually knowing/having evidence for the one that exist and frankly skips the point of the wager entirely. The point of the Many Gods Counter Argument is to acknowledge that what we consider to be logic-ie the truth is that (insert god) does(n't) exist-can be flipped on ourselves in an instant (example: you thought it was Allah but it turned out to be Queztalcoatl). And that's just a bit of self awareness and acceptance you have to keep otherwise you're not approaching the wager fairly.
It would be logical to believe in the god who's punishment you fear/reward you value the most or at least take action to avoid offending them when picking another god as you believing in them may or may not even be a factor to said punishment/reward.
This also means you have to account for the gods who you know nothing about. Either because their religions are long forgotten, have yet to be born, or will perhaps never exist because said god doesn't want it to be so. You very well might offend a god that you couldn't properly worship or by taking actions you had no idea could bare consequences.
Great video! also the 33,000 denominations claim is so exaggerated its not even funny
It doesn't have to be 33,000 it can 20 and it's still would be too much to wager on
I say this from a genuine place of searching, but I think growing up has a lot bigger of an impact than people care to acknowledge. I understand that, yes, people are intellectual beings and can choose to switch religions, but how many really do? If you look at the statistics of people who convert to major religions such as Islam or Christianity, you see that the number of converts is a tiny minority. This is a problem. It’s easy for one to say that the religion that they grew up in is the “true religion”, but that doesn’t prove that it is true.
Plus, you say that “okay, we will look at the evidence and probability of each religion and go with the one that seems the most likely”. The problem with that is that criteria for what makes a religion true differs from religion to religion.
In Islam, if there is any contradictions in the Quran, then Islam fails. In Christianity, if Jesus never died and resurrected, then Christianity fails. My problem is that after looking at the evidence for both, they both seem to pass the test that they themselves assigned. I’ll read the Quran and see that there is no contradictions and conclude it is the true religion, but that was the criteria that it itself gave and then passes. Same with Christianity, i look into the crucifixion of Christ and find that through Josephus and earlier church apostles that he really did get crucified and resurrect, therefore passing the test that Christianity gave itself.
I guess the problem is that there is no absolute standard to test it something is true or not, without the religion itself claiming. It comes off very circular in my eyes.
It’s like if I said “If this book contains the letter ‘e’ 765 times exactly, then you know that this book is from God” And then when it does have exactly 765, i say “see, it is from God”. I’m creating my own criteria and then succeeding in it to show authority of my religion.
Going back to the original point of people being born into their religion, I think to me, this is a sort of proof that there is no such thing as a” true religion “. How can a Hindu have a spiritual encounter with God and a Christian have a similar yet different encounter with God?
The Christian would probably argue that the Hindu’s experience was a demon pretending to be God. But then a Muslim would probably argue that the Christian’s experience was jinn (demons) pretending to be God.
It makes no sense. I want to believe in something. I believe there is a force greater than us because I have experienced supernatural events in my life (I guess that would be the evidence for God for me), but the idea of “well which God is it?” Still doesn’t make sense to me
I think the wager argument is specifically addressed to people who have considered his reasons for the truth of Christianity, i.e., the plausibility of its explanation of our human condition and the historical proofs for the divinity of Jesus, but is not fully convinced of it, but who finds the proofs for the inexistence of God unconvincing. It's like an urge for someone who is torn between believing in Christianity and atheism to bet on the existence of God. As such, it's an argument with a narrow scope and it comes late in his philosophy. Pascal never thought of it as an independent argument for the existence of God. He bets all his chips on his detailed description of human nature for his Apologetic strategy. He starts with a kind of anthropology and then tries to show that the hypotheses of the fall is the best possible explanation for our many shortcomings.