A Refutation of Pascal's Wager

[fiat_knox]

Pascal's Wager is supposedly a claim laid by some people that, towards the end of his life, Blaise Pascal converted to Christianity, and applied spurious logic thus:

Either God exists or he doesn't. Now you can choose to believe that he exists or that he does not.

Assuming that God exists, and you believe in him, you will go to Heaven when you die. Assuming that God exists and you do not believe in him, you will go to Hell when you die. So by believing in God, you are hedging your bets.

Something like that. This spurious logic does not address the question of what happens if you believe in God and God does not exist; or what if you did not believe in God, and God's non-existence vindicated this position.

Hence my refutation of the argument posited above.

Just follow the logic through. Assertions come first, followed by conditional statements. As a result of the conditions in the statements being proven one way or the other, some of the assertions may be made false or irrelevant.

1. We (human beings) exist.
2. God exists.
3. God does not exist.
4. Humans die.
5. God created us as an act of Divine Will.
6. We came into being through some impersonal agency intrinsic to the universe.
7. The afterlife exists as a place of joy, and it lasts forever.
8. Hell exists as a place of suffering, and it lasts forever.
9. After we die, our conscious beings go to the afterlife and experience joy forever.
10. After we die, our conscious beings go to Hell and suffer forever.
11. After we die, our conscious beings cease and life is extinct. Our bodies decay and the matter of which our bodies are made returns to various geological cycles, until the Sun dies and the Earth itself becomes extinct.
12. God will send your conscious being to the afterlife as an act of Divine Will.
13. God will send your conscious being to Hell as an act of Divine Will.

14. 12 and 13 are mutually exclusive: if 12 is true, then 13 is false. If 13 is true, then 12 is false.
15. Only through believing in 2 without proof, by being grateful to God for the gift of life, and by accepting the Church as your intercessor and accepting the life’s purpose the Church assigns you (namely your obligation to worship and pay the Church money throughout your life), will 12 be true; otherwise, 13 will be true.
16. The Church holds the key to the Divine Will.

17. 2 and 3 are mutually exclusive: if 2 is true, then 3 is false; if 3 is true, then 2 is false.
18. 5 is true if and only if 2 is true.
19. 6 is true if 3 is true.
20. 5 and 6 are mutually exclusive and dependent; and one or the other is true depending upon whether 2 or 3 are true respectively.
21. 7, 8, 9 and 10 are true if and only if 2 is true.
22. 12 through 16 are relevant (and true) if and only if 2 is true.

23. 1 is true whether or not 5 is true or 6 is true.
24. 4 is true whether or not 5 is true or 6 is true.
25. 1 and 4 are true whether or not 2 or 3 are true.
26. 1 and 4 are true whether or not 6 and 11 are true.
27. 11 is true if 3, 4 and 6 are true.
28. If 11 is true, then 2 is irrelevant.
29. If 2 is irrelevant, then 5, 7 through 10 and 12 through 16 are not only false, but irrelevant.

30. Proof of 4 and 11 can be found in any mortuary, cemetery and battlefield.
31. Therefore 2 is false, and all assertions dependent upon 2 are either false or irrelevant.

QED.

Please. Poke holes in my logic. Unlike some religions, my words are up for debate.

ETA: Edited to correct the numbering of the items.

ETA: Finally located that damned book I have been hunting down to confirm the thing. It is, in fact, Pascal's Wager. Now corrected throughout this post.

But the logic still stands, until a better mind than mine can come up with something better. Or at least more interesting.

Comments

[innocent-man.livejournal.com]

Look! There's a purple unicorn behind you!

You can't disprove it. Oh, sure, you can't see it, but that's because it's invisible. Also, you can't feel it, because it's too quick for you. You can't hear it because its special fur muffles all sound it makes.

You can't prove it doesn't exist, therefore it not existing is exactly as rational as it existing.

Can you see what a total load of BS that is? If so, then you understand a smidgen of the frustration that I (and other atheists, I'm sure) feel when you make statements like the above.

[johncoxon.livejournal.com]

Show me an experiment that disproves the existence of God, and I'll believe you, old chap. I'm a scientist, and I don't make overbearing assumptions about life without evidence to back them up. If you can't handle your irrationality, that's your lookout - I am perfectly at home with mine. :)

[innocent-man.livejournal.com]

If you're a scientist, you should know that it's the person who makes the assertion that bears the burden of proof. I'm not making an assertion. The person who says "God exists" is, and it is then up to them to prove it.

[johncoxon.livejournal.com]

It is usually people who want to prove to me that I am wrong who start conversations on the subject (for instance, this LJ entry) and it is usually them who can't prove to me that I am wrong. I am irrational - I know this. I cannot prove that God exists, and thus a belief that he does is deeply illogical. But your beliefs are equally illogical, and because neither of us will ever convince the other that he is right (this being the nature of belief) this conversation is absolutely pointless. It will be the next time you have it with a theist, and the time after that, and the time after that. Just what are you trying to achieve by picking fights that you have no chance of winning?

Oh, and re:the icon - citation needed. :)