This week Brian defined the "Wager Argument". I've been accused in a very derogatory matter much of using this by just pointing out that if you are not sure that there is a God, then you are taking a greater risk than believing that there is a God. I still think that this is true, but I think that the power of this argument is not because of the lack of convincing evidence because I think that the evidence is very convincing. My point in following Pascal's line of reasoning is that the risk of believing that God exists and being wrong is less than rejecting God although God truly exists.
Terminology Tuesday: Wager Argument - Apologetics 315
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=1d8c97c9-977f-4bee-b966-5ab849f16c7f)
Pascal's Wager has always bothered me. There's certainly some logic to it, but in the end, there are a number of flaws that are (nearly) insurmountable. Since becoming a Christian, I've noticed what to my mind is the biggest flaw: Paul seems to reject the idea In 1Cor. 15:19 "If only for this life we have hope in Christ, we are to be pitied more than all men." If Christianity is not true, and we have built our lives around believing and spreading the Gospel, then we're nothing but a pack of pitiful liars.
ReplyDeleteNow of course I, as you, believe there is good reason to believe in Christ, and so I don't worry about this. However, what Paul says here seems to me to be in direct opposition to some of Pascal's assumptions.