From the Atheist Debates Patreon project (tinyurl.com/prnfbx5):A detailed look at Pascal's Wager as originally presented and in its modern, colloquial forms.
There’s never been a more complete dismantling, and demolishing of the Wager out there. Awesome. Will pass this on.
Excellent synopsis, analysis and criticism. Thanks, Matt. Very educational.
Pascal's wager is at its core is a variation of the black/white fallacy that we could call the black/all other colors fallacy.
Religious people don't like atheists because they know we're the chosen one.
very good explanation, thanks for posting
I didn't believe in god until I saw Matt Dillahunty oozing his steamy male sexuality all over that babbling brook.
WHERE IS THE DEBATE?
this whole video only confirms that religion is a pure tool of control. Especially as so many self-titled "religious" people do anything but live after the word of their god. So many christians constantly doing stuff that would ensure them going to hell but either they dont see it or they dont care
It shocked me that you debated this guy. He seems nice but is too stupid to be genuine. It was painful to listen to him try and reason. Totally pathetic. And it makes me think if his followers. Yes these people exist. I guess it shouldn’t be surprising that there are still trump supporters after all the lies and attempts to cheat. It’s a bit ironic that most of his supporters are also fans of Christ or the idea of him. Just as pathetic and stupid
@Origami Swami __ Wrong. Unless you are a nutcase Moon-landing denier, you know very well there already exists a precedent for transporting life from one celestial body to another. You also know that within the next thousand years, though perhaps it will be as little as a hundred, humanity will be well on its way to becoming an interplanetary species. Within a few centuries, humanity itself will become the "life-seeding aliens" that use technology to scout the universe relentlessly for candidate planets. Auto-piloted spacecraft equipped with sophisticated AI can transport the genetic codes of life to those candidate planets. These spacecrafts can survive multimillion year journeys, and along the way AI guided machinery can tweak various genomes to ensure life on a candidate planet can get started. You know very well that once a virus infects a host, it can then infect many more hosts. In this manner, a single virus can multiply itself significantly. Likewise, when intelligent life gets set up on a candidate planet, it can then "infect" other planets with life. In time, the odds of life on a particular planet existing because the genetic codes for life got transported there become significantly higher than the odds of life "accidentally forming all by itself" via the unobserved and wholly speculated phenomenon of "abiogenesis". No doubt you accept the universe is at least 13.7 billion years old. This is ample time for a life-form with a technological jump on humanity to reach many candidate planets. A mere 0.5% technological jump on humanity (half a percent) is a 68.5-million-year technological advantage. If you reflect on the technological progress made over the past thousand years, just imagine what another thousand years will bring in terms of interstellar travel, artificial intelligence, and genome editing. Even today these technologies are possible or on the horizon. In ten-thousand years' time, these technologies will have advanced significantly. The problem of immense distances means only that living humans will not try to make the journey to these far-away candidate planets. But there is no need for anyone to make the journey because technology can transport genomes tailored for a candidate planet's gravity, atmosphere, climate, and so forth. In 2021, no one takes "abiogenesis" occurring on Earth seriously. Abiogenesis occurring on Earth is an antiquated idea that came from an era when the best scientific minds promoted bloodletting as a worthwhile therapy for many diseases. The only people who continue clinging to abiogenesis are atheists who think there are just two possibilities for life's origin on Earth: God or abiogenesis. If you listen to sophists such as Dillahunty, Ra, or TJump, then you will make no meaningful intellectual progress on this critical issue. Although you are free to cling to the antiquated explanation of abiogenesis occurring on Earth all you want; the more time that passes, the more likely it is that the reason scientists have not observed abiogenesis on Earth is because abiogenesis is not possible on Earth. Of course, just because scientists have never observed abiogenesis occurring on Earth, it does not mean abiogenesis is impossible. Abiogenesis may be possible on another planet - which would explain how another planet with intelligent life got a technological jump on humanity. After all, lightning is a genuine phenomenon, but we never observe lightning occurring on the Moon because it is not possible for lightning to occur on the Moon. In the same way, abiogenesis may be a genuine phenomenon that can occur on other planets, but not on Earth. On those other planets we may readily observe abiogenesis occurring, just as we readily observe lightning occurring on Earth; but just as we do not observe lightning occurring on the Moon (because it cannot occur on the Moon), the reason scientists never observe abiogenesis occurring on Earth may be because abiogenesis cannot occur on Earth. Nothing I have pointed out is difficult to understand nor controversial to think about in 2021; though you are free to disregard common sense if you feel you must cling to abiogenesis for dogmatic reasons. Your brief and worthless reply made it clear you have not given this matter an iota of serious thought. Perhaps after reflexion you agree with the outlined points - that is fine. However, if you wish to double-down and argue, then respond to the points I have made as a mature, unbiased, and intellectually honest adult. If you cannot do that, then do not bother responding as I am not interested in babysitting yet another Internet atheist as he acts out his oppositional defiance disorder.
@SpongeBob Imagination They’ve never observed God or life-seeding aliens creating life on earth either, so I guess that’s off the table as well.
@Damon __ No one cares about your feelings. It is reasonable to think either God or life-seeding aliens established life on Earth because scientists have never observed “abiogenesis” occurring naturally on Earth.
Pascal's Wager is actually an insult to God (if there is one) as it implies God is an unjust, unfair, cruel, unkind, irrational, thoughtless, and savage dictator that punishes those who didn't believe based on bad evidence (faith).
Really good talk! Right on!
I happen to believe there is a creator or source or force behind everything but I don't believe in parables or analogies or metaphors so I wouldn't believe that God has a long beard sits on a throne with golden streets around him and gates made from pearls. For the muslims say that imparadise you can walk in walk as far as you wish and always there will be gigantic trees to give you Shade and keep you cool and paradise.I just happen to believe each according to their individual understanding if you happen to believe in an afterlife. If someone is religious and favorite only their religion is the right religion that can be problematic if they're right but once again very some truth to all religions I do believe. Honestly I don't understand why certain things take place in the universe Or even wildbad things may happen to good people. Why was I born in a country at a certain time into a certain family when I could have easily been born and Africa where a famine is happening? To somewhat up I just tell people if I knew the answers to these things or if anyone knew the answers to A God? CS Lewis is a beautiful version of someone that went from atheist to a Christian apologist. I can't remember word-for-word but it's something like don't come at me with this condescending patronizing nonsense That cheeses was a good and wise teacher alone. S up person such as Jesus cleaned the things he claimed he would either be an absolute crazed mad lunatic or he would be who he said he was which is messiah, Son of God. So once again don't come at me with this patronizing nonsense that Jesus was a good holy teacher . There's nothing good or wholly if I had person makes claims like Jesus did and he did not leave an option for you to believe he was a lunatic or the Son of God. That option is not left and he never intended it to be left open. Now those are my words &c S Lewis obviously was a Christian but I like that way of thinking. It's true that either Jesus was a raving lunatic or he was the son of a God or messiah because no one can make the claims he made in not be 1 of these 2 because he never left that option open. Again the CS Lewis who I considered to be a pretty brilliant guy. I have my own personal beliefs but that was an interesting argument concerning Jesus I thought
At the end of the day the normal argument would be the big Bang started the universe and there is no God because I cannot prove there is a God. And then the police over and some sort of creator would say or what created the big Bang because I say it was God that created the big Bang. Them course the other person's going to say well who created God say you go back-and-forth and as far as I'm concerned no one can prove there is not a God and no 1 can prove there is a God. I even tell people there's no one there can prove there is not a soul or spirit that lives on but there's also no when they can prove there is because there simply isn't enough technologically advanced medical apparatus to the tete a soul or spirit yet. An example would be someone in fantod the radio but everyone knows the waves have always existed. So someone was to tell a person 200 years ago about a radio and explain it they would scoff. Just because there's no scientific apparatus to detect the spirit or a so doesn't mean there is not a spirit or a soul but only means there's no technology advanced enough to detect it yet. I tell people again the radio and the waves but the waves were always there but the apparatus to identify and catch your connect didn't exist. People look at me like I'm a fool because they're wondering what are you mean and they were always here but there was no piece of equipment that could catch those waves if you will? I don't think people even think about stuff like that too often. So my argument is I happen to believe we do have something that last afterlife any it can be Tyrell whatever one name a person chooses . I can't prove it and no one can Disprove. A person can say we haven't detected a soul or a spirit but that doesn't necessarily mean that so or spirit doesn't exist just like the waves
I remember there was a neighbor shoe was in mental health. We were just tossing stuff back-and-forth for a couple minutes about the different religions in their belief in God and so on so forth. I unknowingly Tossed out the cliff notes version of Pascal's wager. I was probably Mid teens. I had never of Pascal's wager. So he comes back with something that I haven't heard since or before. Now how do I know this is it a test to Separate the wise from the unwise if you will ? How do I know that it won't turn out to be a wonderful thing that I didn't follow a particular religion? I didn't answer because quite honestly I didn't really care one way or the other. No one's ever mention that sense and out thought that was a unique argument because he apparently believed in some sort of afterlife or he could have just been playin devil's advocate. So now I'm a student and once again I've never heard anyone toss that out and in hindsight it is probably because he was a psychiatrist or in some form of mental health. I just thought it was so Unique and hindsight because I've never heard anyone Use that thinking Save that 1 time
Thanks Matt. Informative
Dont forget the physiological effects on following the bible where if you dont follow all the rules and may still go to hell. That a lot of stress.
that wedger is fallacious because teh smae way an atheist looses eternuty if god exists, a believer looses it because wont have it if there is no god...the simple fact oof employing apseudo logical arguments in order to demonstrate gods means that the theology is no convinving enough
Are these theists stupid enough to think that us humans could trick a god? What a joke
Religion is like betting on an imaginary horse in an imaginary race. ~ _Quote I've heard somewhere_
Here's dreadnoughts wager. According to the Old Testament Yahweh advocated smashing infants against rocks until they were Torn to Pieces. He also ripped infants out of the wombs of their mothers while they were still alive, advocated firing arrows at young men and children until they are ripped to pieces, killed thousands upon thousands of innocent first born children in Egypt, made parents so hungry that they devoured their own children. And the list goes on and on. Here's a new wager for you. What if this thing is an actual demon and if you acknowledge it as your master it tortures your ass for all eternity after you die? How's that for a wager?
ignore other gods: This is not a problem as there can be only one God. All who believe in God, believe in the same God. Of course people believe in different "gods", and "goddesses". But, gods and goddesses are not "God", and you will not find any scripture that says as much. It is not surprisin to find that polytheists believe in God, but worship gods. ignores other heavens and hells: You are asuming that Pascal is referring to "Christian" doctrine. In all Pascals quotes specifically on God, I never see him refer to God as the "Christian God". Tht said the ideas of heaven and hell, are varied, in much the same way as prison sentences, or rewards, or wages, are. According to the individuals actions. I think Pascal believes that,if anyone takes his wager seriously enough, they will come to realise that God Is, as opposed to God Isn't, without having to contemplate any ideas of hell, heaven, or die to find out.
Assumes belief is a choice Many different gods Confuses possibility with probability Assumes nothing/little is lost by believing in a fake religion Hmmmm, great argument
@Matt Dillahunty *Actually there's something key you missed in Pascal's Wager* which I believe even he himself overlooked. And that is he did not ask the right question. *After pondering Pascal's wager* I decided to ask myself: *What are the chances that an Eternal, All knowing, All Powerful, God who never lies condemning me to the lake of fire for sinning?* _Probability of this = 100%_ ...not a God I'd like to bet against... And after searching among the different gods the only one I could find that fit this description is the God in the Bible. This implies that everything in the Bible is true and doesn't contradict itself. After doing my own research I found this to be true except in two cases: *1) Additions to what was said.* *2) Subtractions from what was said.* In both cases I found that what was added onto or subtracted from the Word of God always caused the Bible to contradict itself. Once these additions were removed and the subtractions restored, the contradictions disappeared. *In conclusion* this means that believing God doesn't exist, being unsure of His existence, or believing in anything other than God, is a guaranteed trip to an eternity in the lake of fire. *The house always wins.*
How did you determine that the probability of God sending sinners to the lake of fire is 100%?
Tell me the name of a religion and I will tell you the name of a cult!
I have been doing everything in my power to learn everything I can to be a part of this movement...I dont know if I'll ever be on this level but I'll certainly try
Er .. what movement? Atheism is not a movement. Ricky Gervais once said that the word "atheism" shouldn't even exist. This is the default position of every human born on this planet. There aren't Christian, Muslim or Buddhist babies, just babies born to Christian, Muslim or Buddhist parents. People only become religious because of indoctrination and lack of understanding of the world. So atheism can't really be called a movement, a belief or as religious nuts try to absurdly label it - another religion. It's just the normal state of the human perception of the reality. Simple as that.
I subscribe to Matt and Grace to You. I guess i just find religious philosophy on both sides interesting.
Waterfall is too distracting.
Matt Dillahunty Can't. I need to learn all your arguments to use against theists.
Go watch something else.
A pathetic argument that assumes 1. The god you're "believing in" is the Christian god 2. This god will agree with your line of thinking, and will grant you access to "heaven" vs sending you to "hell". What a pathetic way to live. And what a horrible notion for a supposedly "loving" god, to punish someone for not being afraid to take the risk of thinking for one's self and thinking logically. Also, another point : if one is going to hold reservations about believing in the first place, how can one honestly believe? One would be going through the motions, and wouldn't god know the truth? To what extent does one believe? Because to consider this wager in the first place means one cannot be fully invested.
Excuse my tautology, but I thought my emphasis was necessary.
I can already see myself about to enter through the pearly gates, thinking: 'They have nice gates here in heaven, I wish mine would have been as pearly as those, and whoops there you go... all for nothing...' That 10th commandment on coveting is a killer, nobody gets around that one... you'll need stronger stuff than belief. Heaven is only having people with lobotomies.
The real definition of Pascal's wager Give God narcissistic Supply or burn in hell Just goes to show there's no free will Free Will wings without cause If you do God's work Side of fear Fear is a Cause Not only that but it's a gun to your head What's the difference in me walking up to the somebody whose religious putting a gun to their head and tell him to suck my dick or die? Must be God's work then Cuz of God doesn't do nothing about it Well then it's God's conspiring Hand of God punishes you later Obviously God still wanted it allow it to happen God is not bound by God's law Called hypocrisy plclip.info/show/X2ijr2zaiam7j6A/wideo
My version of Pascal's Wager for Christians: If you're already a Christian, you're already saved, and have gained the most important thing already, right? So why not leave the faith, like I did, and thus gain more freedom to explore other ideas? You have nothing to lose, since you've already been saved, and you have the potential to gain everything if you happen to find out some other religion was actually correct. Not necessarily a great argument, since a Christian may have reason to believe they lose many things, but I think it's at least a little more convincing to me than Pascal's Wager.
"What if you're wrong!" No, what if you're wrong! You wouldn't put food on your roof just in case dragons exist would you
Thank you Matt for making this your life's work (A major part).
Once you define something, you limit it to your understanding.......and your understand needs validation
I have other things to do..... Not sure I will get back to this critique.... We will see...... Not even sure it is worth my time...
At 10:28 Scientific facts...... He He he..... Like the earth centered solar system the scientific consensus held for hundreds of years or the scientific consensus of spontaneous life proven wrong by Louis Pasteur that lasted for generations. Or how about the massive holes and assumption one must overlook to accept evolution (pond scum to man) and the faulty radio Isotope dating... Here is the most often used equation for getting the age of an igneous rock from the results of an AMS (Accelerator Mass Spectrometry) data set. D = D0 + N(t) (eλt − 1) t is age of the sample, D is number of atoms of the daughter isotope in the sample, D0 is number of atoms of the daughter isotope in the original composition, N is number of atoms of the parent isotope in the sample at time t (the present), given by N(t) = Noe-λt, λ is the decay constant of the parent isotope, equal to the inverse of the radioactive half-life of the parent isotope times the natural logarithm of 2. Tell me how can anyone know D0 "The number of the daughter isotopes in the original composition", when the origin of the original composition supposedly took place millions or even billions of years ago before anybody was around to take the measurement? I must also point out that the D0 in this equation is not a product of the equation but a requirement of the equation. Without it, it won’t work. When testing modern rocks; rocks whose formation was observed, the daughter isotope percentages at formation vary wildly and are in fact never zero. If the daughter isotope levels at rock formation in modern observed samples vary then one must accept that rocks from the past acted in like manner. Making the assumption that there are no daughter isotopes at formation for older samples is not supported by the modern evidence. If the starting ratios are not known then there is no math that can find the date. The dates used and accepted by supporters of evolution are in fact nothing but guesses based off of unproven assumptions. Show me an equation that can give an accurate date from the results of an AMS without relying on the unverifiable daughter isotopes being zero at solidification. If you cannot then your belief in the dates it provides is called faith. Isochron methods use the same data from the equation above to make their plots and as such suffer from the same dilemma... *The goal of the isochronic method is to identify and eliminate samples with possible contamination in situ or during handling and does nothing to eliminate the mathematical errors inherent in math in first place.* All that has been achieved by Isochron methods is a plot made of even more errors. There is no mathematical way one can determine the level of a coefficient without knowing the starting values of the variables used. The only reliable constants in the equations used are the decay rate of the isotopes and the rate of the passage of time. Without the starting ratios of parent and daughter isotopes math cannot determine an accurate date. You can find the oldest and youngest possible date that a sample could be by plugging in starting ratios at both of the extremes. But the dates obtained would give such a wide spread as to be useless. In fact you can obtain just about any date by simply plugging in whatever starting ratios will give you the date you want. Assuming that the ratios are zero for older unknown samples when every modern sample shows this to be wrong is..... Self induced ignorance. The level of self dilution displayed by those promoting the accuracy of radio dating is absurd.
At 10:07 According to atheism, any time or money spent on any religion or theology becomes completely moot to you the moment you cease to exist. In fact when all of mankind ceases to exist and the universe dies of heat death then everything every man has ever done will be erased as if it never happened. If the end result is exactly the same no matter what you do then what you do does not matter. So why does an atheist care about how he spent his life, he won't be around afterwards to give a S#%$#. Or do I detect a hint of doubt in this atheistic world view?
Then I guess it won't matter to you if you get tortured for the next 100 years, so long as your soul is annihilated at the end. After all, why should you care, nothing matters if you eventually cease to exist. If what you mean is that I won't care when I'm dead, then obviously. But, I'm not dead yet, and so long as a I'm alive things will matter to me (like avoiding pain!). If what you mean is that the universe doesn't care about your existence (i.e. no objective meaning), then also obviously. If you don't like that, then too bad for you. The universe doesn't owe you objective meaning.
@C Northam How is this true if you cease to exist?
A thing is not beautiful because it lasts. "If the end result is exactly the same no matter what you do then what you do does not matter." Really, who are you to tell me what matters to me! This only tells me something terrible about your own psychology and nothing else.
Since you clearly don't understand what atheism is, why should anyone care about your laughably misguided criticisms of it?
At 8:42 Granted their are many interpretations of the biblical texts but just because some people can not agree on the meaning of an old text is not evidence that it is not true.... I am quite sure that Matt is aware of this fallacy why he continues to use it is perplexing.
You first have to demonstrate that the bible is anything other than an old book.
At 7:44 Again.... What if, what if, what if..... A simple tertiary examination of all the what if's will eliminate the vast majority of those what if's making this argument moot.
Pascal's wager is literally a "what if".
At 7:04 As stated before......If you tell all possible god’s that you want nothing to do with any of them or reject all possible alternatives you lose by default regardless of which one turns out to be real. Accepting only atheism limits your alternatives to just one, atheism.
At 6:30.... Comparing the God described in the bible to a Mafia Boss has got to be about one of the biggest Strawman arguments I have ever herd in my life...... If that is his understanding of the Christian God then I don't blame him for opposing it or even hating the very idea of a God like that. I would do the same.
At 5:49 "No prof that God exists......" Predictability is the strongest evidence in science... There are well over 200 predictions stated in the bible? Predictions that can be proven were made hundreds of years before the results were observed. The odds of getting even a hand full of those predictions correct by a natural process is astronomical. Well beyond statistical odds. Now unless you can give a natural explanation of how those predictions were made. Then those predictions themselves are the best evidence of the existence of something extra- natural...AKA: God, the God who climes to be the author of those predictions presented in the bible. The writers of those predictions profess that they got those predictions from the God of the bible. Now, one could question the honesty or integrity of those writers about where they got the predictions from. *BUT THAT WOULD STILL LEAVE YOU WITH THE ASTRONOMICAL PROBLEM OF HOW DID THEY GET ALL THOSE PREDICTIONS CORRECT IN THE FIRST PLACE?* Can you provide a demonstrable and reasonable naturalistic explanation for those correct predictions? If not, then the most reasonable explanations as to how and where those predictions came from would be the ones given by those that professed/wrote them. So please..... Let us all hear your hypothesis as to how those predictions were made through natural processes....We are all waiting.. Let's start with the largest and most obvious prediction. The prophet Moses foretold (with some additions by Jeremiah and Jesus) that the ancient Jewish nation would be conquered twice and that the people would be carried off as slaves each time, first by the Babylonians (for a period of 70 years), and then by a fourth world kingdom (which we know as Rome). The second conqueror, Moses said, would take the Jews captive to Egypt in ships, selling them or giving them away as slaves to all parts of the world. Both of these predictions were fulfilled to the letter, the first in 607 BC and the second in AD 70. God's spokesmen said, further, that the Jews would remain scattered throughout the entire world for many generations, but without becoming assimilated by the peoples or of other nations, and that the Jews would one day return to the land of Palestine to re-establish for a second time their nation (Deuteronomy 29; Isaiah 11:11-13; Jeremiah 25:11; Hosea 3:4-5 and Luke 21:23-24). This prophetic statement sweeps across 3,500 years of history to its complete fulfillment in 1948 when the state of Israel was reinstated by the League of Nations. This one fulfilled prophecy alone is undeniable and more than enough to prove that the author who claims to be the authority behind the bible is authentic. (Probability of chance fulfillment of just this one prophecy is more than = 1 in 10 to the 20th) *SO AGAIN ....PLEASE..... LET US ALL HEAR YOUR HYPOTHESIS AS TO HOW THESE PREDICTIONS WERE MADE THROUGH NATURAL PROCESSES....WE ARE ALL WAITING.* Let us also take a look at some of the archaeological and historical evidence supporting the stories in the bible. Last I checked fairy tales don’t go around leaving archaeological and historical evidence just lying around. plclip.info/show/fpqHqKypenCpq4Y/wideo plclip.info/show/ZpiAz6TOjKCdZZw/wideo It took me less than 5 seconds to find this information on PLclip. A Google search gave 116,000 results in .44 seconds. To dismiss the evidences supporting the information found in the bible is paramount to self induced ignorance.
Book predicts event. Same book claims prediction was fulfilled. Mind BLOWN
At 5:04 If the end result is exactly the same no matter what you do, then what you do does not matter. If athiesam is indeed true then upon your death you cease to exist and what you may have done in your life at leas for you becomes moot. In fact when all of mankind ceases to exist and the universe dies of heat death then everything every man has ever done will be erased as if it never happened. How are these facts lost on this so called "smart" man Matt Dillahunty?
At 4:23 Where in the Christian doctrine does it say that God will punish anybody for not believing he exists? Is this an attempt at a strawman or simply because Matt simply has no clue what he is talking about? One will simply be punished for their crimes and their denial of those crimes. If one rejects the offer of a pardon for the crimes they are guilty of then they still have crimes to be payed for. That is the reason for the punishment.
At 3:33 What if, what if, what if..... A simple tertiary examination of all the what if's will eliminate the vast majority of those what if's making this argument moot.
Pascal's wager is not a proof of God..... Never was it's intention... It simply points out how stupid making the bet the there is no God truly is..... The results of the wager will be true whether you like it or not, whether there is a God or not. Simply dismissing it does not remove the outcome. “But what if the real God is not the one from the bible?” What? Are you saying that you have no clue which horse will win the race so you will chose not to even place a bet? Let me make this perfectly clear, your odds of picking the winning horse drops to absolutely ZERO if you deny the very existence of any of the horses and refuse to make a bet. If you tell all possible god’s that you want nothing to do with any of them you lose by default regardless of which one turns out to be real. And if none turn out to be real then you simply stop existing and can’t possibly win or lose. According to your own world view, any time or money spent on any religion or theology becomes completely moot to you the moment you cease to exist. In fact when all of mankind ceases to exist and the universe dies of heat death then everything every man has ever done will be erased as if it never happened. If the end result is exactly the same no matter what you do then what you do does not matter. So why all the concern?
Who are you trying to convince? Seriously, I'm confused.
I've found in my own experience that declaring that "belief is not a choice" shuts down the sentiment of this wager. Christians I know, do know you can't fool God, so they realize their futility in making this declaration.
5:44 our lady of nonsense??!!
If Pascal is a genius, I'm not sure if that word has meaning. It smacks of using the term enlightenment when referring to a philosopher who discriminated against and owned people.
A. Ah, Grasshopper; Pascal’s wager is “so 1600s,” an outdated idiom. docs.google.com/document/d/1LUS5DQwGm9j4DotHP4BO8AP0q71B9DF-rr2F-c1x1FI/edit?usp=sharing | Chrys George. B. "Which god?" 1. Of course the same human cerebral cortex will, independently across cultures, develop the prime-deity; and a virgin birth of those major gods. As well as, independently, the bow and arrow. A God continued in that same human brain furrow? 2. The God-man. A Christ Jesus - Lord of the constellations, Who humbled Himself to nurse mother's milk-like us.[Greek Orthodox Nativity Eve hymn lyric] To the lowercase 'g,' and ‘m’ - of the, say, Norse god pantheon in Valhalla; or, a messiah in Talmudic Judaism. (quality classical, btw) The Norse thunder god, Thor; plclip.info/show/nYKkwnzNa3yvj5Q/wideo.
I have that polo, but in red. Therefore, Matt and I are equally just as likely to host the Atheist Experience at some point in 2020.
Believe it just in case because you have nothing to lose. lol
What ultimately makes your life happy and fulfilled will NOT be your systematic arguments. You'll SEE brother Matt.
@Joe Hinojosa Thanks for sharing!
@Casey Sammich Truth. Sometimes it can be DEFINED as cold,hard,brutal,merciless,cruel,facts or Reality ,with no seeming logic,meaning,Reason or purpose, yet Undeniable in it's deathly grip on your body and soul. Man is ultimately vulnerable,weak,terminally mortal and finally helpless. The problem of evil ultimately will become HIS problem ,with no hope,no salvation to preserve the best that he has learned , mastered,to give love selflessly,with wisdom and compassion ,all to disappear at death. His ultimate significance to become insignificant, forgotten,of no value to those he leaves behind. How much nobler,regal,Royal ,to hear the words of a man who transcended all men. Who dared to assure those dying, suffering,"Truly,truly, I say to you,THIS DAY,you will be with ME in Paradise".
@Joe Hinojosa I agree! We may not see the same way of finding a fulfilled life, but this looks like our common ground. Can I ask if there is a guide you use to find your truth in situations? I know that is a complicated ask. I can't think of a better way to ask at the moment. Feel free to add qualifiers, caveats, and exceptions with the question. This is just curiosity speaking and asking your opinion.
@Casey Sammich I'm glad you made a thorough search for yourself. Your conscience is CLEAR,your mind SET on your destination. I understand. I still have a problem with evil ( theodicy) I hear and feel you in your stand. Integrity is NOT owned by just "believers".
@Joe Hinojosa Ruminations are just that. Some years back I was evaluating if my faith was worth holding on to. It turns out there was no evidence indicating a deity. What I am indicating is faith standing in the way of science education via flat earth, anti-vax, creationism, and other such topics. Those are just off the top of my head. I could really dig in to find more, if you like.
The psychological misunderstanding that belief can be changed by force or threat is the whole problem with all the monotheisms.
I remember thinking this up when I was around the age of 8. If your argument for a god can be re-invented by an 8 year old, it probably isn't a good one.
What Pascal forget to consider is the possibility that God is a huge D-bag. What if God exists but thought it was infinitely more humorous to allow all non-believers into heaven instead of the believers?
He also forgot to consider that consciousness is itself an illusion. Consciousness can only be an internal artefact of the complex processing of concepts. It's not even a bug *or* a feature, just a curious side effect.
thankyou for this video
First of all Matt, I'm I big fan of yours, this is only a minor critique. Not everyone defines the word "belief," the same way. When you say that you have to either believe or not believe in Pascal's specific version of God, that can be confusing, and/or very off-putting to people who don't think there is sufficient evidence to support the idea that there is a god and also not sufficient evidence to support the idea that there is no god. Personally I think that the fact that you would classify such a position as un-belief, or dis-belief should be made clear, so as to not confuse or off-put people not familiar with your definition of the word "believe." Other than this one minor point though, I desperately wish that your content was mandatory in public schools, keep up the good work!
Wait..... life has "joys to offer"? What are they???
Pascal's wager: pretend to believe in gGod. gGod is so stupid he won't know the difference.
No matter what you believe, your religion is a gamble too.
What if I don't buy into gods? That's like "not collecting stamps" is called a hobby.
The same can be said about atheists in regards to recurring arguments.
If A Supreme Being were to exist, what attributes would be in greater accord with Its deity 1) Being testable and falsifiable or 2) Having agency?
@Simon Wright Would you like help understanding it? Are you unfamiliar with pop psychology (despite your initial reference to it)? Or are you content to write it off as "unintelligible?" :D
@Verumnondominatus It's not wrong, it's just unintelligible.
@Simon Wright Is it _wrong_ to point this out as a beta-narcissist, flying monkey attack?
3) Being a dude with the psychological hang-ups of contemporaneous human mammals
Here, look at this urinating rock vagina while I set up my next shot. Isn't it neat? Okay, back to calmly destroying our simpleton neighbors. Enjoy!
Uncompelling "refutation" of Pascal's Wager. More along the lines of a series of objections that fall prey to obvious counter-objections.
@BelGarath What's your point? Do explain!
@Verumnondominatus Theists have quite few apologistics to rely on, the cosmological argument, pascels wager and the "prophecies" are frequent flyers in most discussions with them.
@Salnsd Heh. Are you trying to mimic southern American dialect, every urban American's go-to cliche for dumb? Or were you trying for West Frisian? Please help my poor little pea brain understand, you big ol' smart atheist you!
@Matt Dillahunty Heh. Forgive me for being coy but @0:56 or thereabouts you state something to the effect that "If a Christian doesn't begin discussion with a variant of Pascal's Wager, they will certainly end the discussion that way." So the overarching assumption is that Pascal's Wager is _always_ used? Perhaps, but I need evidence of such a global claim and remain agnostic on the point, lest I be convinced by a bald assertion
If only you'd made something more than a bald assertion...
The man who got it right. plclip.info/show/oKyT1ZWeeJC-h4I/wideo
I would hardly think a god would be so easily conned by such cynical insincerity.
What do you risk taking on Pascal's wager? Spending this one and only life without intellectual integrity and carrying the burden of belief which needs to be constantly proped up by other falsehoods for reassurance. (Seems tiring). More plainly, it means that you have just spent the ONE and ONLY life you have in a delusion.
His vision was probably in REM sleep.
It's fear mongering.
Do not think that my spiritual life is strewn with roses--that is the flower which I hardly ever find on my way. Quite the contrary, I have more often as my companion "darkness." And when the night becomes very thick--and it seems to me as if I will end up in hell--then I simply offer myself to Jesus. If He wants me to go there--I am ready--but only under the condition that it really makes Him happy. I need much grace, much of Christ's strength to persevere in trust, in that blind love which leads only to Jesus Crucified. But I am happy--yes happier than ever. And I would not wish at any price to give up my sufferings. But do not, however, think that I am only suffering. Ah no--I am laughing more than I am suffering--so that some have concluded that I am Jesus' spoiled bride, who lives with Jesus in Nazereth--far away from Calvary. ... Pray, pray much for me--I really need His love. [Mother Teresa,Come Be My Light, p. 20]
5 years on and religion still treats Pascals Wager as the answer to every atheist. Bah!
Please help me
Am big fan of you matt
Pascal's Wager is a good argument for certain contexts. I'll elaborate why one particular atheistic criticism fails. That failed criticism is this: "It's irrational to only consider Christianity vs non-Christianity. What about XYZ other religions that demand the same thing?" Matt's critique listed off a bunch of religions, which I'll address in order along with other ones he missed: Islam: This is the only remotely reasonable alternative option for the Pascal's Wager. They claim there's a pop-quiz you have to answer correctly, and you might have to say certain words just before dying, and that your good and bad actions get weight on a scale. However, ultimately the Moslems themselves believe only their false idol Allah knows who will be granted a good afterlife. Hinduism: they claim reincarnation grants infinite retries; so getting it wrong carries no risk. Jainism: more infinite retries, plus they say not to worry about it, so no risk. Buddhism: infinite retries, no risk. Scientologists: infinite retries, no damnation, no risk. Zeus(Greek Mythology): They believed everyone went to Hades, and only the really bad guys get torment, no risk. Norse Mythology: No reward or punishment, but possibility of eternal war in Valhalla or eternal spa-day with Frig, no risk. Egyptian: Get a pop-quiz and must have a heart lighter than a feather to get the good afterlife. If your heart outweighs a feather, you get eaten and destroyed. A hearts weighs more than a feather, so you can't win but losing ain't so bad. Zoroastrianism: Your deeds are reviewed and you get a good or bad afterlife, no risk for non-belief. Confucianism: they don't even know, no risk. Taoism: they don't even know, most likely nothing to worry about, no risk. Judaism: they don't even know, but might be something to worry about, no risk. Atheism: they don't know, most likely nothing to worry about, no risk. Unknown other religion: probability and requisite actions are incalculable, no known risk. Now finally, Christianity: Must admit to certain true facts, must repent of your sins, and accept Jesus Christ's gift of salvation that he may enter and transform you and your life. Failure to do so causes you to be tossed into the lake of fire where you will otherwise be tormented day and night without rest. Pascal's Wager works here, because there is a huge risk which is easily avoided. Like me, it may take you multiple tries to truly accept Christ's gift and be granted repentance. You probably have a whole bunch of doubts, rebellious tendencies, and habits of mind that make it harder for you to accept his gift. Thus you may have to reconsider dogmas like scientism, like verificationism, like Karl Popper's dogma of falsifiability. And like me, you might also have to very sincerely investigate metaphysics. Physics categorically cannot explain existence; you need metaphysics.
@Tshaa Thomas It doesn't matter what those racial supremacists and Christ deniers prefer to be true. When you reject Christ you reject truth, reject logos, reject God, and you come to believe harmful fantasies like Judaism, Islam, humanism, or scientism.
@Xander P Then you need to learn more. You are lacking knowledge. The Jews people don't believe in Jesus, they prefer direct communication with God and there's nothing wrong with that.
@Tshaa Thomas There is no "current fact" indicating you can get to the Father any other way than through his son Jesus Christ. The entire point of the Bible, if taken as a whole, is that Jesus Christ is our Lord and Savior, the only way we sinful human beings can be saved from eternal damnation. Anyone who denies the Son denies the Father, and you seem to be a Christ denier.
@Xander P I go by current facts. You go by an outdated book of which has been translated and interpreted numerous times. This is not to say the Bible is wrong but Jesus is not the only way through God. Yhwh/Allah is Jesus's father (God), that's what it is but you failed to understand it.
@Tshaa Thomas No I think you're confused, because you don't seem to understand anything Christ taught us. There is no way to the Father but through Christ. Thus anyone who does not worship Christ as God's only begotten son, does not know or worship the Father either. Yhwh/Allah are false idols made up by Christ deniers in their own images.
I wouldn't worry too much. If there's nothing there, you won't know it. If there is, you'll be pleasantly surprised.
In my old beleif I used Pascal s wager a lot. Even for myself. I was agnostic and went back based on the wager. It doesnt work. Its a way of shoving the big questions away and using fear to drive a point. Eventually the questions will get to hard, the defence will falter and you'll begin to question. You cant fake it till ya make it. Just gonna waste time.
Brilliantly taken apart!!! Thank you sooo much Matt!!
Pascal's Wager and religion in general would make a lot more sense if they actually provided a method for HOW to believe. As it stands the best we could do would be to pretend.
@Tshaa Thomas I've read the Bible more than once, now go fuck yourself!
@Martin Cooper Read the Bible and talk to a pastor.
I fully agree! I also look at padcal's wager that way. It provides nothing, it basically tells you to believe, which is not something one can do without really believing... I don't believe in God, even if it would be a safer bet to believe, how can I just start believing!!
Funny story...I've used the Mob Boss comparison when folks try to persuade me with the whole "Perfect Loving God" bit...
Simple,you have brain,you can somehow chose who is the right god.
Well there are genius Christians, there are brilliant jews, Muslims, Hinduists cetera, that's only because they grew up and were brainwashed with that mindset, how is it relevant to how you use your brain?? If they would truly use it, they wouldn't believe in God on poor evidence and reasoning though.
This video is invaluable! Thanks for putting it together. The natural setting is a lovely touch.
The set up scenes are ironic right?!
Hey guys. You all don't know me, but actually I am God. Since you can't falsify that claim lets just move on an view it as a possibility. Now then please transfer 100$ to my bank account for your eternal salvation. Given that what you loose is finite but what you potentially gain is infinite is is only reasonable to issue the transaction despite the odds. Best regards Erik (god)
If the afterlife is nothing, then we are all just careening into nothingness.....
@Matt Dillahunty that's absolutely correct! Atheism doesn't "need" to provide anything! It's just fact!!
Hi Matt Dillahunty! You are my favorite counter-apologist and I love The Atheist Experience and watch every Sunday! (I also watch Talk Heathen, please tell Eric I think he's cute.)
@Matt Dillahunty Hmm. I thought this was your line of work. I expected more.
@Andrew Packard you're confusing "what is" with "what I want". Goodbye
@Matt Dillahunty No I think it does. If I was seriously struggling to make sense of the world, why would I choose atheism? It not only answers nothing, the answers it does attempt to provide are bland, meaningless, and possibly horrifying. You are saying life matters to you, I am simply asking why? I understand you left a Faith, but did you really replace it with anything substantive? An impersonal cold world where you are insignificant? An animal, a primate, in fact a whole species that is just headed for extinction. Even if I thought this were true, which I don't, I'm not sure how I could live with it...
"You are suggesting I give up valuable aspects of my life..." What is it that Matt thinks he has to give up?
@Mark Stone I think therefore it is ;)
Andrew Packard “I would characterise it as insightful perspective not opinion” and therein lies the problem. You think your opinion is worth more than it is.
@Mark Stone I would characterize it as insightful perspective not opinion. As far as meaninglessness, If it's a worldview devoid of meaning that I wanted, I would certainly jump on the atheist bandwagon! And I beat you to the punch anyway on the subject of opinion, all you need to do is scroll up but I will quote it here again for you. It also explains why I was addressing independence (because I already dealt with the other objections, again scroll up and look) "As for integrity and honesty, they beg the question as well, they are only lost if christianity is not true, and obviously that is the question that people have to decide for themselves. "
Andrew Packard everything you just said is opinion. None of it is evidenced. Therefore, in relation to my earlier points, it’s meaningless.
@Mark Stone Having come out of a strict religious background myself, I can see why your argument falls flat on its face. You are painting christianity with the broadest brush imaginable. Your description of christianity simply is inaccurate, it is not the case. The fact that there are over 3,000 different denominations and brands and kinds of christianity out there in the real world is proof that no one loses anything they want to lose, no less their independence. On the contrary, everyone does and believes, exactly what they want to. If what you are saying is true, it would be like saying political parties tell and dictate to people what to believe. Once again you have it completely backwards. I see political parties as nothing more than labels, the same way that a scientist would go out into the woods and label different animals with different names. We as people are like different animals with different beliefs, we might join organizations with platforms or mission statements that happen to align to what we believe, but those organizations don’t dictate what we believe, you have it backwards. Christianity is not one monolithic organization as you so straw man-like describe it. There is extremely liberal christianity, as far liberal as you can get with all that liberalism entails, and everything in between, all the way down to strict zealot fundamentalism. But whichever version of christianity you choose, it is the individual that chooses that for themselves, they don’t lose any independence, that is who they are. Now I chose to leave a very strict fundamentalist Baptist church because I could no more accept the bully pulpit crossing the line over into my personal life. But this is not by any means the norm for christianity, this in an aberration and an example that you can find bad people in any organization. But as much as they tried to bully me about ridiculous personal issues, one thing they didn’t seem to ruin for me, or bully me out of was my belief in god (my faith in christ.) And the reason that wasn’t shaken was because of critical thinking, not in spite of it! Simple critical thinking, logic, and reason all point to the conclusion of a purposeful divine creation. So if you really study contemporary religion, you’d see what you are describing isn’t going on at all. The phenomenon of christianity is so vastly different than what you describe. In fact if what you say is true and critical thinking was throw out the window, we would’t have all the plethora versions of christianity. In fact to imply that you cannot have independence without being godless, is pretty presumptuous and elitist on your part, not to mention can be shown to be wrong.
What happens to those who spend a lifetime as good christians, and when they die, they find out god is Allah?
That's exactly why pascals wager is a false analogy.
According to Islam, they'll suffer eternity in hell!!!!
For Pascal's wager you would be basing this entire idea upon belief alone. However, there are holy books with very specific ways to live your life, thus eliminating your freedom. So, once you put everything else into the equation, you're actually looking at enslavement and not solely a belief. It's dishonest to say that there is no risk in belief in this context. Unless! You're interested in being a slave. In which case religion will suit you perfectly.
Pope Francis said that Atheists can go to heaven too. Well thank you Pope Francis for telling the world that I can go to somewhere that I don't believe exists. Is Pope Francis right? How does he know that there is a heaven?
I like watching Matt not telling people to go fuck themselves. Mind you, I also like it when he does. It's a win win.
Wow this video was truly amazing. Thank you for this
The fake it til you make it, requires me to live in fear that I am not a "TRUE" Believer. I'd prefer to live with integrity and honesty in what I believe!
Is Pascal's point about watching and diving as believers do untill you become one similar to Aristotle's point in how to become excellent, by doing what those with a disposition do until that disposition also becomes a personal trait? Pascal's argument would seem valid to him if thought of this way. While l do not think 'faith' is an Excellence, l rekkin Pascal did.
pascal sounds the worst person that could be born at the time of scratch and win XD also if god existed, he would be my equal, just like my daad and mom are my equals
You really should have ended this episode with some banjo dueling. Maybe next time.
In Catholic doctrine, the efficacy of the priest's uttering the Eucharistic words used to transubstantiate bread and wine into the body and blood of Jesus is in no way impacted by his personal belief or disbelief that it will. Similarly, following the path to salvation provided by the Church requires no faith in its efficacy, but only that it be followed - the ends are guaranteed. So, too, with Pascal suggesting the process itself irrespective of one's belief in is efficacy. Works have consequences, Faith does not. (James 2:17)