This is incredibly astute. And almost NOBODY mentions the glaring problem of belief choice in relation to this argument. Apologists ignore this point almost entirely, as do most of the commenters here.

In my experience, if the issue is actually discussed (which happens rarely), many apologists will, in some form or another, assert that belief is a choice. In a way, their theology forces them to support this idea, because if belief is not a choice, then the idea of god's omnibenevolence becomes very hard to promote convincingly. In effect, they would be forced to accept that god sends people to hell for something that they are not able to do. If they don't claim that belief is a choice, then they'll claim that non-believers actually do know that god exists, but we're lying, because we're bad, rebellious people who want to sin.

You cannot choose to believe, you are compelled to believe or you are not compelled to believe. If the arguments are not convincing enough to compel one to believe that they are true, then you are simply unable to believe, no matter what you choose. But what if one believes without any arguments? What could be compelling someone to say that they choose to believe? We've already found a condition that can make someone believe something that is not true without any reason or argument: indoctrination.

People have this misconception that religion bars you from discovering your true self or taking experiences away from you, when in reality it liberates you to be able to live the life you are seeking. You can think of it like an adult taking candy from the child. Every flavor is a new great experience until your child becomes diabetic. And then those pleasures you thought you couldn't miss out on, bite you elsewhere. - probably a bad analogy.. but Without a guiding structure for your greatest aspirations, you will be forever living a life searching for something that's been within your reach for as long as you've been alive. No matter what how satisfied you think you might be, you will always be seeking with aimless destination. And if you believe you do have a destination for this life, then you already believe in God. The transcendence pushing you to your absolute.

@Solin Keid You are not free to believe there is no god. You are compelled to believe that God exists. I am not free to believe that God does exists. Free will is, at best, an illusion, and at worst, an excuse.

Saying that the one Christian God either exists or doesn't exist isn't a false dilemma. If multiple gods exist then the one Christian God doesn't exist, same with a malevolent god.

You're completely correct. The argument is flawed because it presupposes a false dichotomy (or, it ignores other religions that say people who don't adhere to its doctrine will suffer eternally - of which there exist many).

@@Onoesmahpie Exactly. I'll just come up with a religion called Babanism. if you dont believe in it, you suffer for eternity and if you believe in it you get eternal happiness. Tada! Now you should all believe in it

I think it's important, in the FIRST instance, to step back and remind oneself of who God is. God is the all-good, all-knowing, all-loving creator and sustainer of all life who created us in His own image, to whom we will return at the end of our lives. Now, with that definition firmly in mind, apply the logic of Pascal's wager and you can see that it holds true (i.e. If, on the other hand, you believe in this definition of a non-existent God, then no loss; If, on the other hand, He does exist then you're all set. The reverse 'odds' of the alternate bet in Pascal's Wager would also hold true, as explained by Matt Fradd). Now, change your definition of God to....well what, exactly? An all-knowing but all-malevolent creator of all life? Here you run into a problem .... If an 'all-malevolent' God existed (i.e. more than the 'Devil') , why would any life exist at all? That would particularly be the case because the destruction of a malevolent mankind - created in a God's own malevolent image - would be guaranteed. No room for Pascal and no room for a 'wager'. What about changing the definition of God to multiple Gods? The problem here is that there can't be multiple Gods because only one can be, in effect, the very best. If one of the multiple gods 'knew' more than the others, then those 'others' couldn't be gods, by definition. It would be impossible to claim that God 'A' is as much a god as 'God B' if he knows just that little bet less, or is not as good, or ran a little behind in the creation of life or wasn't quite as loving. I think it might be rational to claim that a God doesn't exist at all (although I would disagree) but I think it irrational to speak of multiple 'Gods' because the very definition of God (infinite, ALL-good/loving/knowing, unsurpassed etc) would be undermined.

@@dominic8761 So, you have to believe that your god is "the best" of all options for it to work. It says nothing about the truth that this god exists, just that it is the best option given out of all the options out there. It's still a false dilemma because you are subjectively leaving out all the other god definitions out there and arbitrarily ascribing to your god everything you believe to be valid and true for you. If you wanted to really use Pascal's Wager correctly, you'd have to hold the same standard of truth to all the other versions of god out there: "it is true that god is malevolent" or "it is true that god is multi-armed" before playing this game WITH ALL RELIGIONS, not just your own. Suggesting that this is impossible because it doesn't conform to your own personal definition just shows you're playing Pascal's Wager incorrectly, not that Pascal's Wager couldn't be used on that religion ("why would life exist at all?")

You didn't even read my comment before responding. I said the wager pushed me to study religion. We could argue if catholicism is the true religion or not but thats another debate i don't have time for

once again you didn't read my comment thoroughly. I said i wasn't having a debate with you about catholicism. Read the Somma Theologica then come back

Welcome home 😊☺️

@Zachary Stewart What about Christianity makes it anymore reliable than another religion, especially one you don't know anything about?

@Zachary Stewart “Faith exists because our reason is flawed.” Faith exists because people are loathe to say “I don’t know”. Rather than be honest with themselves they choose to believe without evidence. Faith is the scam they use to support that choice. With faith one can choose to believe in anything. That makes faith worthless as a tool to discover the truth.

kzfaq.info/get/bejne/iZZhoM2ardbUiHU.html

@NotACapitalist You must not understand Christianity then, because if you really look into it, it is extremely thought filled and every concept fits together like a puzzle

@NotACapitalist I do realize that you spoke about "gods" in general so God (Christian) fell under what you were saying. As well, the reason we believe in God is because it is illogical to believe everything started from nothing and that there was no purpose for such intellectual beings to be created so complexly. You have to look at the odds- which in fact are in favor of there being a God. Not to mention what I presumed about you did not come out of thin air- you can tell things about people by the way they choose to speak and present themselves, like you did

@NotACapitalist The thing is, there is proof of my God- Jesus lived on earth and it was documented by even secular writers, whereas these other "gods" you are talking about- there is no evidence of them existing. As well, yes the odds are that there is a god (in general), but yet again, my God actually has some evidence of existence.

I know faith is a difficult thing, and I doubt anything I'm saying is making a difference so I'm going to stop arguing, but if you decide you ever want to look if to it further I'd suggest watching Father Mike Shmitz on youtube :)

Me too. It happened to me in 2016.

Interesting... the exact opposite happened to me.

@@hbeeteevee We’re all different...God gives us the conversion experience we need. How did it happen for you Hannah?

I mean the opposite happened suddenly where I no longer believed blindly. I was raised Christian and then one day realized it isn’t truth.

@@hbeeteevee I thought you meant that you had to go the long, questioning route. Lots of study and reflection and gradually coming to faith.

Same case, I was surprised to learn it's an actual theory that has been documented.

I too! Sometime later on quora, an atheist introduced me to it lol.

Believing in God isn't going to help much. Love, trust and obedience is what the biblical God desires in mankind. If I believe in the law but don't follow it, my belief isn't very helpful. Repent and trust in the Christ to save from eternal dismay.

Not only that but you could use other religions as Pascals wager. "But what if you are wrong and Muhammad is real, then you have nothing to lose from believing in Muhammad"

@@Kage-jk4pj there is probably a pro-Islam version of Pascal's Wager. I argue that as men and women, we should passionately search out spiritual truths.

@@jamesparson A spiritual truth is a reality in the realm of the spirit. Some of these realities are manifested into the physical realm. The holiness of God is a spiritual truth. Spiritual senses (similar to intuition) are spiritual realities. True love is a spiritual reality. Some consider it a chemical reaction. This morning I brought my family to the beach outside of Cabo San Lucas along the sea of Cortez. First time at the beach for our 3 month old pup. I thought to myself, why do we as mankind see a beautiful site in nature and look at it in awe while animals dont seem to care. This is cross cultural through mankind. There is something much bigger than natural selection out there. There is something wonderful beyond the physical.

It does not, like he said in this video, by not beleiving you run the risk of ending up in hell, so do we as beleivers but what Pascal is saying is that logically it is more likely for a non beleiver to go to hell than for a good beleiver

the one founded by Jesus, The catholic church

Death Korps of Krieg so if you’re speaking to someone who is Muslim or jewish... how do you argue your opinion? How do you prove this to anyone?

churchpop.com/2015/06/28/5-extraordinary-eucharistic-miracles-with-pictures/ show them catholic miracles like this

Death Korps of Krieg other religions report miracles

pliz show me. i want to see a prot one also

Look Around . The Beauty & Miracles ALL around you ,,,, Look At Yourself You Are A Miracle - Peace Be With You - : )

@@stevebastow9292 lol. Even if that led you to believe in a creator, it doesn't get you to any specific one, which is pointless if the god isn't giving you an ultimatum.

@@CHAZER-sp5cm Reason can be applied for either belief or disbelief.

@@dwo356 Lol. What you said is true so you have to go to the religion with the most evidence - Christianity. There is plenty of proof, for example the apostles were murdered for their adamant belief that Jesus had resurrected. Either they were insane or its true. I know for a fact less than ten percent people would die for someone who lied to their faces saying he was God and then died a weak death. Plus it would make no sense for people who kept getting whooped to lie when they were strictly told by Christ that it is better to die than sin.

@@dude6392 There is absolutely no evidence that any of the apostles were murdered for their belief in Jesus resurrection. There are old catholic church stories that claim that, but that's it. It's just catholic tradition. Even if we fully accept that any lof those church traditions about them being killed are true, it doesn't prove that they died for their beliefs. They likely would have died for their disruption whether they would have recanted their supposed beliefs or not. There is no evidence that they were tortured and were given the opportunity to save themselves either. Besides, being willing to die for one's beliefs is nothing new or even remotely significant enough to warrant one changing their beliefs. How many Muslims have willingly died for their beliefs both in the western world and the Middle East even without being forced? Does that make Islam true? Of course not. So why would some old stories claiming such things for which there is no legitimate evidence more convincing than physically observing people dying for their beliefs today? I highly recommend you do some more research and verify the evidence you've been provided for your beliefs. By your comment, I have a feeling you'll be shocked by the false claims of evidence. If not, then truth and evidence aren't what you were actually looking for.

@Eugen Golubic Yes, Pascal’s Wager may be one of the best arguments that supports the Christian God, bummer is, it is due to the fact that THERE ARE NO GOOD ARGUMENTS. Most of the arguments for God are: appeal to ignorance fallacy, anecdotal “evidence”, False Dilemma, Faulty Analogy, Slippery slope fallacy, Appeal to Emotion, Hasty Generalization.

Exactly. I know everyone likes to hate on it, but for me it’s exactly what I needed to hear to get me on the road to faith. Is it good to base your entire faith on? No, but it’s exactly what people like me needed to take that leap

Yeah the wager basically gave you something to defend your faith with despite it still being a terrible argument. You just didn’t look that far into it.

So the Wager made you feel good about the thing that you already wanted to believe, and you listened to just enough about it to get that emotional lift but not enough to have to confront all the well-known reasons that it is logical nonsense. And so now you want God to posthumously bless Blaise Pascal for telling you what you wanted to hear. Why not just be honest about the fact that all you want to do is believe things that make you feel good, and skip the pretense of basing it on logical reasoning?

What do I have to lose? Everything if it ends up that another god exists and much of my life if no god exists. To attempt to bet on any one god is no better than any other bet when we don't know the odds or the score.

Responses: 1.) One can start to go to church, hang out with other believers and read Scripture. This is what Pascal wrote. After a time, their beliefs may start to become convictions. 2.) Pascal's wager is for people that think Christianity could be true would but aren't sure. Agnostics. 3.) In Christianity, God is desperate for humans to come to Him. Read the story of the Prodigal Son.

Right. Study the various religions. FYI, Christianity, Judaism and Islam all have the same God :)

@@brianw.5230 "Study the various religions" In other words, Pascals Wager is incorrect because "believe or don't believe" is too simplistic.

which him?

Jarrod im an atheist

What he is trying to say is if you believe in God you have nothing to lose and if you don’t you have nothing

@@teddytaffy4574 One can believe in God and still have much to lose.

@@davidadams2395 no you don't lose anything that you don't want to lose.

I was always taught that fear of God did not literally mean to be anxious and scared of his power but to be in awe and wonderment instead. I never understood why they didn’t just say that though.

Now what if ur praying to the wrong god and making the real one angrier a d angrier with you

If your belief in god is because of fear then you don't really believe. The Pascal wager Argument presumes you can trick god into that saving you while in reality, you're making a probabilistic decision. It's a terrible argument that can be applied to any religion.

An impotent threat of eternal torture is NOT any kind of reason to believe in fairy tales.

Well pascal's wager is better for islam than christianity.

That’s just my take, any thoughts?

God is God. There is no "Christian God" or "Islamic God" or "Hindu God" -- there is only God, Creator of the Universe. Even if you question which religion to join, and entertain Hinduism with its multiple gods, there is still only one Creator God. If you seek the Creator God, then you will use your reasoning to choose how to follow Him. Christians believe Jesus' words that those who seek, find.

And atheist gain nothing either. Believe in one God rather then being an atheist because atheist will go to all of these regardless (if they were real)

KA Fleury Prove it!

NXT Taffy Atheist gain piece of mind not having to hold up to a ridiculously unrealistic standard!

THOR ofc

Sure you do some people choose to believe the earth is flat.

You're not wrong, but you are just supporting the same argument. And looking silly is a part of faith. People will criticize you, think you're stupid, maybe hate you for believing, but God has already warned us about this an told us that the reward for persevering is far greater than the discomfort of being seen as an outcast among those of the world.

@@rileybenedict1804 - but the only reason that potential discomfort even would exist is because your god made it. You know what they call it when you manufacture a threat unless someone complies with a demand? Extortion

Wearing a helmet would save you from the potential wrath of Mad Batter, but Joseph Swinger might be waiting around the corner with a cricket bat aimed towards your unprotected knees. By the way, have I told you about Ryan Shankler?

@@1ceYourPimpHand - exactly. So we need to provide a full line of body armour to these people so they can be protected 24×7 from any potential imaginary threat.

Prove it.

Can you summarize the main points here?

I;d really rather just talk about it.

J Ro I've watched the video and it doesn't address my objection to Pascal's wager. This is why it would have been quicker for you to just tell me what you thought the point was.

How do you know Christianity is unique in its explanation? Why doesn't Hinduism and Islam, for example, also answer the questions that you've deemed important?

Lots of other religions emphasize the paradox of human nature. Salvation is still earned in Christianity. You need to believe first, then be saved, right? It's not just given free of charge.

A true Atheist isn't choosing to be defiant or rebellious, we simply search for compelling evidence for a god and find none while simultaneously finding plenty of evidence that they are fictional beings created by people. We don't allow fear to be a factor in our search. We know how easy it is for people to lie and how effective religion is at controlling the masses. All "evidence" of gods came from people, can't be tested and therefore can't be trusted.

Spoiler alert: your true self is... to be a child of God. So you have the responsability to do what your Father tells you to do. You don´t get to enjoy all the privileges of living in this beautiful world He created for you, and do as you please by ignoring His commands and expect not be be punished.

rod45 -5 He is not only my God. He is our God. Our Father. I love Him because He loved me first. He made me and everything we see. As you are to obey your father when he tells you to do or not do something, we have to strive to be obedient to God, and fear the outcome he says will come if we don’t. I believe Him. You can understand that you can love your dad and fear to disappoint him not only because of the punishment but because it will hurt him cause you chose to disobey and chose punishment over being with him forever...

cubs0110 They were myths of ancient civilizations. All the people in the Bible and Jesus were real. There is proof.

What makes the god that you believe in different than the gods that you claim are "ancient"? The Greeks, Native Americans, everybody throughout history for the most part believed in some god that happened to not be the god that you currently believe in. The native Americans believe that nature is a living example of the gods at work, the sun, the sky, the moon. They had stories of miracles of how everything came into being. The only difference that I see is that the god you believe in has a book to go along with him. And if being real and claiming to be a god is what constitutes belief, then why isnt everybody Mormon? Joseph Smith and Brigham Young were very real, and there was a book for that too. Are the Mormons wrong?

Assuming that we are indeed children of a deity, then I think it is my duty to become an adult who takes responibility for my own life and doesn't bother my parents all the time. I am sure that any reasonable deity will understand if not outright applaud me for that and thus appreciate my stance.

The thing is that choosing God is not waste of life .Catholicism is false . It teaches that you have to stop sinning to gain God`s favor. But His Word says that sin does not count AT ALL if you have The One who already payed for it ,and you are like you never sinned even once in His eyes. Your desires change though, if you will let yourself to know how good He is

Horses4life1001 Who is “The One?”

Horses4life1001 We are told that God gave us free will and that we are able to choose good or bad. Even though He saved us, we still do sin. Just because Jesus died on the cross for our sins doesn’t mean that the devil will still not tempt us. The devil still exists and we need to fight our temptations. I’m a catholic btw

Pascal's wager is not intended to be a leading apologetic argument or proof of God's existence and it is introduced as such in this video. The speaker notes that this is usually only invoked when one believes the arguments against the existence of God are equal to the arguments against the existence of God. In this following example, what will you place your bet on? My paternal grandparent's both smoked cigarettes heavily. My grandmother died of lung cancer years ago and my grandfather is still alive, smoking, and relatively healthy in his late 80's. Shall I pickup smoking or shall I not? If I smoke, I might die of cancer or I might not. If I don't smoke I might die of cancer or I might not. Which would you recommend I do? Would you also not appeal to the consequences of smoking? Secondly, you are not picking a god, but you are accepting belief in God. You could chose to worship Zeus or Poseiden, but can you come to know they exist through reason alone? No. Even Aristotle who lived in times of rampant polytheism knew that those gods did not exist. Thomas Aquinas expanded on the Aristotelian tradition of rationalizing an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, singular God through his Five Proofs. These five proofs, expanded upon by 800 years of scientific and philosophical development stand to reason that only one God can exist. Even if other "gods" existed, they would still not be worthy of worship as they are contingent, limited in power and ability and could not have "actualized" themselves out of nothing. Yes, the Abrahamic religions are not in unison on HOW to worship the sole God or His characteristics, but they do agree that through philosophy and reason, only one can be known. Thirdly, could you please expand on your definition of a wasted life by a believer if God doesn't exist? Take an average practicing Christian in America. Do they waste an hour or two on Sundays reading a book that isn't true if God isn't out there? Yes. Do they still benefit from congregating and spending time in a community? Yes. If God isn't real, would their acts of mercy and charity be a waste of time? What about living a morally just life, is that a waste too if God isn't real? Sure, their are believers that live morally corrupt lives, but there are certainly non-believers who match them, they just don't have the pleasure of being called a hypocrite like the believers. The whole point of the wager is to propose living as though God exists is a win if God does, and a win if God doesn't, granted you are at a stalemate of evidence for and evidence against existence. I will agree with you to some extent about how poor of an apologetic argument this is. I would never present Pascal's wager to someone who was only deeply embedded in atheism, such as yourself as I assume you might be. If someone had truly heard the most compelling evidence from both sides this could be thought provoking, but by the questions you pose such as "which god would I chose to worship?", demonstrate you have not been subjected to any philosophically and intellectually sound arguments for classical monotheism.

William Swenson - PS: contrary to your cartoonist portrayal of me, I have engaged with many deep philosophical arguments for God. If you would like to participate in some of those conversations, come join me on Randal Rauser's blog (aka The Tentative Apologist). My name there is Angry_Grasshopper. (And before you misconstrue the monicker, I am not "angry" at God. That's just the name of my Fantasy Football team and I used it when I signed up for disqus about a decade ago, while I was still a preacher.)

What evidence is there or what evidence do you have?

I’d say that’s because PW is a really terrible argument.

@@KaeFwam Agreed

@@woodfamily5229 it seemed like a great argument when I was religious lol

@@KaeFwam That's funny because I am more religious right now than ever (meaning I'm actually looking at it more seriously, for once) and still think PW makes no sense. 😂

@@woodfamily5229 well I also felt my god has significantly more evidence than the others so it was 50/50 to me.

Glad I'm not the only person who heard that in his head...

If I believe in God, then that means I don't believe in the gods for all of the other religions. If one of those religions is right and God doesn't exist, I've just damned myself to that other religion's hell.

The point of the wager isn't to convince you to become a Christian or a theist in general. The purpose of the wager is simply to put into perspective the pros and cons of choosing each and determining which choice would be better simply based on the potential benefits and loses. Therefore, belief isn't really a factor.

One should believe in the religion that one thinks is most likely to be true. This is done by studying the claims. The evidence for the resurrection of Jesus is pretty solid historically. Pascal obviously knew this. The evidence for Zeus, Thor or Odin is much less. Christianity is much more credible than pagan myths.

As said in the video, Pascal's wager isn't an argument for the existence of God, it simply explains why, considering all our options, belief in God is a reasonable choice.

@@paulregier7384 ...which is exactly why people say it's a flimsy argument. It's flimsy because when you're "considering all our options" you're left with thousands of different religious beliefs to pick between and no particular reason to believe one of them over another, outside of personal bias.

​@@Cellidor Yes, to believe one thing over another need not be determined at random or by personal bias. What Pascal's wager shows us is that a reason to believe *any* faith, the Christian faith included, can stem from at least in part an enlightened sense of self-interest. Often the best evidence for choosing in this way what we put faith in is the testimony or result of the faith in others (i.e. how are they living? are they happy? is they result of their living produce something you also want?).

@@paulregier7384 Cool, well in _that_ case I'm going to "wager" that it's better to believe something once you have good reason to, instead of just how it makes you or others feel. That, and I've seen how badly believing things without adequate evidence can negatively impact the life of a person and those around them, so, all the more reason I see to not to adopt a religious belief.

@Mary Smith "adopting the Atheist, or at least Agnostic, Religion" Fella I'm an atheist by category, not by choice. I don't care about _being_ an Atheist, it's a descriptor. I haven't been convinced any gods exist, so by definition I'm an Atheist, nothing I can do about that, though I welcome folks to convince me otherwise. "The Bible says" Why should I be concerned what the bible says? "Atheism gave us 100 million innocents murdered by communists in the 20th century" Right, I remember all of those many historical documents, detailing those who killed people because 'I don't believe in a god, myself'! Following the strict tenants of the thing that has no beliefs or tenants! Right.

🤟🏽🤟🏽that was long

xavier toppo -- it doesn't matter who Ashreah is, because we don't have to worship whatever it is. Avoid yoga. Do pilates.

@Artur Ferrão Exactly. She was another god the Israelites/Canaanites often worshipped.

No, it was only obvious to you that there's a god. The idea of a god is not obvious to mamy people.

Michael McEvoy You are so welcoming. I too was praying for Ireland. God bless you all.

Marci HF Thank you GOD BLESS 😆 🕇

yep, makes me sad. ireland definitely needs another St Patrick right now. will continue to pray for them and the whole world

Ryzer Thanks and GOD BLESS 🕇 😆

Everything that happens on this Earth is either wanted by God, or allowed by God. He's sovereign. Don't forget that when things don't seem to go the 'right' way.

yeah it's like "believe in God not because you believe in him but because he's mean if you don't"

are you a catholic christian? why don't you think it's logical?

@@benedictly1571 why ask him if he's Catholic?

@@benedictly1571 maybe he's a Baptist Christian!!! Do you even know what a Christian is,,or what makes a Christian??? I hear people say that my God is a God of love so he could never destroy certain people,,,so then Muslims will be saved by that rational

It won't work at all with someone that actually thinks about it.

dan andy It’s a dreadful reason

Logic plays no part in being a Christian. Logic tells me that virgins do not give birth, & that if someone dies they cannot be resurrected. To believe in the supernatural, by definition you must suspend logic, the laws of physics & nature. That's fine as far as it goes, but please don't delude yourself.

@Paul Cassar What is “real” faith? LOL Faith is an excuse to justify unwarranted belief. What can you not believe in using faith? Is faith a reliable method to discover truth? No. Let’s assume that a god does exist. How many people using faith to believe in a god found the truth? Several billion in today’s world believe in the Christian god and almost two billion believe in Allah. It appears that some billions at least have faith in a falsehood. Maybe they all believe in a falsehood because the real god is neither one of those. The evidence, or lack thereof, suggests that no god belief is the truth thus far. I find it condemning that the number one indicator of which god one believes in is the geography of one’s birth. That suggests that the god belief is a result of indoctrination by the other people who are part of one’s life. How can one truly feel confident in those other’s beliefs when it was forced on them by a similar method? To date the scientific method is by far the most reliable method for determining the truth of claims because it follows the evidence. It doesn’t fabricate evidence to support the claim.

PhrontDoor all I want to say is look up Ravi zachirias

PhrontDoor Don’t think...look up Ravi Zacharias

@@xxsageonexx8910 So he has evidence that all the other gods don't exist? He has evidence that ONLY the non-calvinistic versions of the Judeo-christian god exist? Try looking up the fact that even Pascal thought his 'wager' was garbage, intellectually as well as philosophically. Or look up all the debunkings of Pascal's wager. No sensible apologist uses it any more because it's flawed at literally every level.

PhrontDoor I was mocking ‘Good Man’

You are responsible for your knowledge. Say you find yourself looking St. Peter in the eye and him asking you what went wrong, are you gonna say, "well, I didn't look, how was I suppose to know?". The truth still lives even if you ignore it.

Gimme your objections and I'll respond to them. :)

@@brianw.5230, writes _"Gimme your objections and I'll respond to them."_ OK, let's start with the first part of the first premise: *"Whatever begins to exist* has a cause". As far as we can tell nothing has ever begun to exist (ex nihilo). So what, specifically, is this premise referring to?

@@fred_derf I was referring to your objections of Pascal's Wager.

@@brianw.5230 Oops, sorry. Wrong apologetic. So, Pascal's Wager. Q: What if religion is a test to determine who is gullible and the gullible will not go to heaven?

@@fred_derf that's possible. Literally no one believes it, though. Many geniuses believe in Christianity: Newton, Descartes, Aquinas, Augustine, C.S. Lewis, etc.

Buddhism is a belief in the supernatural, whether practitioners admit it or not. They often say you can believe in a god or not and still be a Buddhist, but they are meditating to get in touch with "the Universe," which is a spiritual connection (to a demon or demons, whether they know it or not). Hinduism definitely worships a multitude of gods. I don't know about Confucianism, but Confucians perform rituals for their dead ancestors, so they believe in the spiritual realm. These examples don't support atheism.