If you gain you gain or if you lose you lose nothing wager then without
hesitation that he is think about it Blaise Pascal asks if there is no God
whether you believe in him or not you stand to lose merely finite
pleasures you know ten minutes of groveling here in there getting up early
on a Sunday and once in awhile nodding along to a quite frankly terrifying
sermon but if there is a God and you believe in him you stand to gain
infinite pleasure heaven and avoid infinite suffering hell
given this Pascal argues you ought to wager that God exists
that my fellow Apes is Pascal's wager and this is the first in a series titled
objections to Pascal's wager now you might be thinking Steve bro you've
already covered this argument you're beating a dead horse why not make a
series on logical fallacies for example in reply I say yes you're right and in
time I will make that series but before doing so I'm going to revisit my roots
but this time ripped them entirely from the ground
I want to remaster expand and energize my older videos and in the process make
the series that my younger self so craved at least that's the plan
hence over the next few months I'm going to dedicate a series to each of the
major arguments for theism and which are delve deeply into the objections and
defenses given with that I'm Stephen Woodford thank you for joining me and
this is all on God
arguments and proofs of God such as William Paley's watchmaker analogy and
Alcon DS Kalam cosmological argument al-ghazali no Craig it's Alcon DS but
that's for another time as I was saying most fistic arguments purport to
straight-up prove the existence of God but Pascal's wager is different rather
than arguing for the existence of God it argues for belief in God now granted
many proponents wield the wager as if it does prove the existence of God but
Pascal certainly didn't and it's important that we acknowledge this to
accurately present and hopefully still man the argument talking of which would
get to the argument soon enough but first let's meet the quite frankly
brilliant man behind it Blaise Pascal born in a clermont-ferrand
company is that how it's pronounced Clair mafia bloody French born in France
Pascal was a child prodigy who displayed a particular aptitude for mathematics
impressively by the age of just 16 he published what is now known as Pascal's
theorem which was so precocious that even Rene Descartes was convinced that
Pascal's father must have written and by the age of 19 Pascal had invented a
calculator capable addition and subtraction establishing him as one of
two inventors of the mechanical calculator truly this kid was smart
unfortunately however he suffered from illness most of his life and died at the
age of just 39 from we speculate eva tuberculosis or stomach cancer
what didn't help is that he frequently rejected medical attention because he
believed quote sickness is the natural state of Christians and so yeah
Pascal went full-blown mother Teresa and as a result likely earned himself a
Darwin Award or one could put it this way he chose suffering over medical
science a matter in this man's whole career anyhow to get inside the mind of
Pascal and truly understand his argument I've digested several times several
chapters of his posthumously published work that is derived from titled
thoughts and while I still maintain that the man was mathematically brilliant I
find his theological work to be simply insufferable it's logically week
despite being written as if it's ironclad it's so mired in fear of God
and death that it reads like a Freudian wet dream and incessantly misrepresents
and mocks atheists in fact why should I suffer alone here's a taster
don't you dare skip there are only three kind of persons those who serve God
having found him others were occupied in seeking him not
having found him while the reminder lived without seeking him and without
having found him the source of his noble and happy the last of foolish and
unhappy those between are unhappy and reasonable great stuff isn't it
you unhappy unreasonable fools begin by pitting unbelievers they are edged
enough by their condition it is a great evil dose to be in doubt yeah take that
pity you wretched infidels okay no more suffering let's move on and like cure
yourself of unbelief and ask the remedy for it learn of those will have been
bound like you and who now stake all the possessions these are the people who
know the way which you would follow and who are cured of an ill of which you
would be cured okay seriously this time we're done as I hope I've made clear I
don't recommend that you read his theological work but in case like Pascal
you'd like to choose suffering over joy I've left a link in the description now
let's get to the argument already
while Pascal's wager can be presented formally it's most often done so
informally through the question off what if you're wrong
what if you're wrong knowing how the Christians believe what the consequences
really are and when the wager is wielded by laymen such as the countless horde
that call in to the Atheist experience and you're almost impressively
self-righteous aren't it tends to be trivially weak but when the wager is
willed it by a great philosopher it tends to be substantially stronger
though that being said you should know that such philosophers are very rarely
convinced by it and for many great reasons anyhow when presented formally
the wager is typically done so through a decision matrix rather than a syllogism
and so that's what we primarily do here in section 3 of thoughts under the title
off the necessity of the wager Pascal presents his argument several
times but does so much directly towards the end stating if there is a good he is
infinitely incomprehensible since having lead up thought no limits
he has no affinity to us we are then incapable of knowing either what he is
or if he is this being so who will dare to undertake the decision of this
question not we who have no affinity to him and so here we have the first
premise that being that God is utterly incomprehensible we can't know anything
about it now most proponents of the wager forego this premise they don't
include it and it's because won the wager works perfectly fine without sin
and to the premise is extremely problematic Pascal however incessantly
emphasizes his premise for out his presentation and so in respect to this I
dedicate the entire next episode to it for now however and this premise aside
here's the argument good is or he is not but to which side shall we inclined here
Pascal gives us a dichotomy in the form of two rows God exists or God does not
exist that is P or not P he continues there's
an infinite chaos which separated us a game is being played at the extremity
of this infinite distance who're heads or tails will turn up what will you
wager and fast he gives us another dichotomy in the form of two columns
belief in God and no belief in God and he asks us to place up there which will
you wager now you might be thinking as Pascal preamps that the true course is
not to wager a token the Pascal responds but you must wager it is not optional
you are embarked which will you choose them and in doing so he gives us a
fourth premise we must wager we can't walk away from the table at the time of
our death we will either believe that God exists or we will not it is that
simple and finally with the groundwork in place
Pascal gives us the crux of the argument let us weigh to gain and the loss in
wagering that God is let us estimate these two chances if you gain you gain
all if you lose you lose nothing wager then without hesitation that he is
Pascal turns over this reasoning several times over and know that we will - in
subsequent videos but simply / that's the argument the matrix is complete
welcome to the desert of the real
we have four outcomes and each has an expected utility
now since the worst outcome associated with wagering that God does exist is
negligible to the best outcome associated with wagering that God does
not exist the former simply super dominates the
latter it is objectively better to wager that God exists let's break it down
if you wagered that God does not exist at best you will have experienced finite
pleasure such as laying in on the sunday but at worse you will come to experience
infinite suffering hell and just like He Who Shall Not Be Named since thou shall
not blaspheme against the monetization gods they'll receive a pineapple a debt
but if you wager that God does exist at worse you will have fog on finite
pleasures such as that lay in and at best you will come to experience
infinite pleasures heaven you will stand at the pearly gates clutching an
all-inclusive infinite stay at God's Grand Hotel
now crucially since the finite is annihilated in the presence of the
infinite and that both infinities are associated with God existing the
rational bear indeed the only bet that stands to reason stands before you wager
then without hesitation that he is over the centuries there have been many
objections levied out and defense is given for Pascal's wager and within this
series I'm going to engage with the most influential and compelling talking of
which if you're watching this through the playlist at the end of this video
the first objection will play automatically but if you're not in the
playlist you can find a link to it in the description or comment section
anyhow I'm Stephen Woodford and as always thank you kindly for the view and
an extra special thank you to my wonderful patrons and those of you who
have supported the channel via other means from the bottom of my heart thank
you for enabling me to fight the good fight against religion superstition and
pseudoscience together we are making a difference