Pascal's Wager

TheMightyAnonym

Pascal's wager is indeed flawed for more reasons than one (or a dozen),
though the basic principal of it could be made sound (but even then it
wouldn't be all that great to use in argument).

Main flaws:

• It is very one dimensional (it ignores possibilities other than a specific flavor of Christianity and hard atheism).
• It isn't fully comprehensive of potential risks and gains.
• It can be used to argue in favor of anything (which means that it gives us almost zero knowledge).
• It is biased depending on who is using it.
• It's based on justification, rather than upon truth.
• It assumes that pursuing salvation will be totally easy to do... when you are pursuing it because of a gamble.
• It
  forgets some key points within scripture, specifically that conversion
  is done by the Holy Spirit, not by the arguments of man.

Although,
some or perhaps even all of these flaws can be dealt with (except the
last one), given enough thought. Doing so would be very complicated,
however.

Gelzo

With that many flaws, I have to ask anyone working with the argument what the point of keeping it around to adjust in the first place is.

I would call it worse than useless.

TheMightyAnonym

Pretty much. It is an interesting thing to think about though.

If one were to rebuild it, they'd be better off just dumping the whole thing and rebuilding from the ground up.

Gelzo

That's not what I would call rebuilding, though. It's just making a different argument.

TheMightyAnonym

Spiritual sequel?

Chagen

Jesus, I'm like the only one who supports this argument.

Gelzo

There're several good reasons why that's the case.

TheMightyAnonym

^^I see what you did there.