Yes indeed. Pascal’s Wager is alive and well and unassailable when applied to Christianity, under which faith the concept was postulated.
Read your history better.
Christians themselves assailed Pascal’s wager. Actually, many assail it to this day.
And earlier forms of it existed in ancient Greece, Hinduism, Islam, and Christianity itself (you didn’t think Pascal was the first, did you? - though he did expound on it more than most).
Besides which, it still does YOUR argument no good. You appeal to an argument you don’t understand fully and apply poorly.
Unassailable? I kicked it’s ass, and all you had was "Only God knows… "
Antibob, general pronouncements do nothing to support your argument. I really don’t care if anybody had similar thoughts prior to Pascal. The point is that Pascal was Christian and the “wager” fits like a glove with Christian theology. If it was assailed by Christians I can only imagine that fundamentalists may have criticised it by not going further and in its limiting itself to a lowest common denominator formulation. But nevertheless, a Christian believer as all to gain and nothing to lose.
Until Zeus fries you with a thunderbolt.
Dude, seriously you need to keep that ego in check. Sounds like a legend in your own mind kind of thing there, pal!
Dude! Now that was funny. 
And in those circumstances I’ll still take my chances. All to gain and nothing to lose.
No less than an atheist.
An old TV show?
Wow, where to begin.
As I suggested earlier, read your history. The grounds on which Pascal’s Wager was assailed are well known, and it’s a simple Google search to find any of thousands of sites that go into it in detail.
Your “guess” on the arguments against are so far off the mark as to be laughable. Seriously, read the history on centuries-old arguments before attempting to apply them.
A Christian (and I say this as a Christian) has everything to lose if Christianity itself is not a correct religion. The point being that you must have faith in it to accept the wager to begin with. That’s a rather pointless argument to anybody who does not have faith to begin with. That’s simple logic.
So, again, it does YOUR argument no good, as you don’t understand the argument and apply it poorly.
And I should add that this is why I detest Intelligent Design arguments, which you are clearly attempting to apply here poorly. It’s a thin veil for Creationism and the holes in logic are so massive as to be explicitly embarrassing.
This may be your firmly held belief, but it is nothing more than in insupportable assertion. Making the claim–even believing the claim–does nothing to make it true. In fact, we have already seen self-ordering chemicals. Unless you can provide the evidence that there is something preventing intelligence from arising from natural development, you are merely whistling past the graveyard of 19th century belief.
Actually no, that’s the problem. Maybe you believe that, ok well, if there really is a God, he’ll let me slide on that? You’re certainly entitled to that. But…
If the Christological message conveyed is true, then all God asks is enough humility to tame one’s ego and recognize the limits of human knowledge, honor God by at least considering his existance with faith in him.
If you say screw it all I need is myself and “I don’t need no stinkin’ God” guess what. He will respect your free will and allow you to enter oblivion. After all it untimately honors ones free will.
There are more than two alternatives, however. If you believe in the Christian god, and it turns out that the universe is controlled by the Hindu pantheon, you are just as screwed as an atheist.
Abob if you are going to try and assail my points, then please do not make multiple pronouncements with no backup and then just say that “I” need to read history. You cannot say that a Christian has everything to lose if it is not a correct religion. The whole point is that Pascal’s wager fails only when it is applied to religions OUTSIDE Christian theology. It is flawless from within Christianity. And it provides a basis for an atheist to consider Christian theology.
In any event, you are contradicting yourself arguing from an atheist point of view and claiming to be “Christian”. Talk about poorly formed arguments!
Why not? He seems to be following your example.
Good logic, but I am ruling out everything except for Christocentric theology and for me there is only two choices.
Why do you think I asked you to actually read the arguments for and against? The year 2000 called. It’s called a simple Google search.
Even within Christianity, Pascal’s Wager was and still is not accepted as a solid argument. Simply proclaiming it is “unassailable” does not make it so.
It provides an atheist an argument to accept some theology if they already have some type of faith to begin with. That’s not really atheism to begin with.
View my post history. There’s 10 years of it that’s pretty consistent with what I’ve presented of myself here. I get that you’re a new poster, but you should really try a bit harder.
Poor logic is poor logic, no matter if you agree or disagree with the conclusions.
Then the argument cannot be elucidated and won from either side, because there neither exists any proof that random particles of matter over time can escape that randomness and form anything as complex as life itself. If you have proof that such evidence exists, then please provide a link or reference.
Then we are in almost complete agreement; the only difference between us is that I am ruling out one more god than you.