Pascal’s Wager Revisited

Whenever you debate a Believer on X, try this.

“In order to agree with your contention that X, you require me first to believe in your God because your contention X supervenes on your belief that God also contends X. Since you cannot provide evidence for God, I am not required to accept X.

My contention Y requires you believe nothing except the evidence for Y. Since we can both observe and agree on this, it should follow that you accept Y. The reason you still reject Y is that your belief in God, and X, precedes the requirement for evidence.


You do not believe in your God because I am your God. This is a Test. You, in fact, died some 10 minutes ago, just before we started this conversation. I have erased your memory of dying as part of your Test. I am your God, and I am Testing you, now, this very moment, as we speak. If you believe in Me, I will grant you paradise. If you doubt Me, I will condemn you to hell.

Do you believe I am your God?

If you ask Me for evidence by requiring Me to demonstrate My divinity, I will send you to damnation, for, “blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed” (John 20:29). You either believe that I am your God wholly, truly, completely, as I am, and without evidence, or you doubt Me because I offer no proof.

You take the first? Then you must take any man who professes to be God, as God, and so I condemn you as a blasphemer for taking Gods before Me.

You take the second? Then you have no faith at all. You require as much evidence as the character I played in your Test, whom you rejected as faithless, and so I condemn you as an apostate.

So. Do you believe I am your God?”

Therefore Y.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *