This is a philosophical argument presented by the 17th century famous French mathematician, physicist, and philosopher [[Blaise Pascal]]. --- | | God exists | God doesn't exist | | -------------- | ----------------------------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------ | | Believe in God | Infinite gain (heaven, eternal life) | Small loss (time spent studying religion, certain pleasures) | | Do not believe | Infinite loss (hell, separation from God) | Small gain (Life without religious boundaries) | A rational person should bet on the existence of God. Even if the probability of God existing is tiny, the infinite reward makes it the only logical choice. --- Starting from this point it's not [[Blaise Pascal]] speaking anymore. I will now refute common objections to this wager. #### 1. The "Many Gods" Objection **Objection**:  The wager assumes there are only two options: The Christian God or No God. However, history has seen thousands of religions and thousands of conceptions of God. What if you bet on the wrong one? If you choose the Christian God but the "true" god is someone else, you might still end up being punished. **Refutation**: A rational person, after betting on the existence of God will study how to distinguish between what's true and what's false. The time spent studying is included in the "small loss" quadrant. See [[How would we know if God exists]]. #### 2. The Problem of "Insincere Belief" **Objection**: Can you simply choose to believe something just because it is beneficial? Critics argue that belief is not a switch you can flip. If you try to believe in God only to "win the bet," is that true faith? Many argue that an omniscient God would know if you were only pretending to believe for selfish gain. **Refutation**: Yes but maybe not instantaneously. Belief is a model of the world with which you go about your life. For example, if you believe that the floor won't suddenly collapse under you in a building that you lived in for the past 10 years, it is not a "given". You built that confidence and belief you have in the floor by experimentation, extrapolation and observation. You may have observed others walk on that floor, people much larger than you. You may have stepped in and noticed a squeak and it may have caused your confidence in the floor to lessen, or you have extrapolated from the other floors being ok in that building that this one would probably be okay too. The same way you observe, experiment, and build faith in everything else, not excluding God. #### 3. The "Value of Life" Objection **Objection**: Some argue that the wager is cynical. (1) It suggests that if God does not exist, religious life is a "loss." Many believers argue that living a life of faith is rewarding in itself, regardless of whether there is an afterlife, (2) while non-believers argue that living a life based on false premises is a significant loss of intellectual integrity. **Refutation**: Since this one is double-sided, let's separate them. 1. Yes, religious life is not a loss, just look at stoicism, dopamine detox and fasting outside of religion. However, we are giving the benefit to the other party by assuming a conservative and less defensible position. This is a core technique in practicing intellectual integrity. 2. Yes, living a life on false premises is not a good way to do things, but the premise here isn't false. --- Final thoughts - this doesn't prove that God exists, it can only do two things: - identify that the person values vices more than logic - identify that the person is not rational