George W.

Categories 3 and 4 do not make sense from the point of view justice/fairness.

1. If there is a God, who is conscious, intelligent, and omniscient.

2. If this God demands recognition and worship from humans.

3. Justice would require that God inform each and every human individually of his existence and intense desire to be worshipped along with any penalties for failure to render due homage.

If God required absolute worship and recognition from all humans, he would not hide behind a cloak of invisibility. He would not hide behind a cloak of rational implausiblility. He would not hide from all manners of investigation and searching for him by humans who are then required to believe in him. Such would be terrible injutice.

Category 3: would be unjust because it would reward a lucky few who believed in and worshipped God despite a total lack of evidence for his existence.

Category 4: would be grossly unjust to the point of evil. Punishment for a human who fails to believe in something that is invisible, inaudible, intangible, insensible, unnecessary as a creator of the universe, and who has not a shred of evidence supporting his existence.

A sane, and just God would not reveal himself only to 30 some odd (and I mean odd) tribal shamans out behind the camel barn and whisper. "I am God, and you are my prophet. Tell everyone that I exist and if they don't believe I will fry their arses in hell forever."

Then off goes this shabby, smelly, old fart, ranting and raving, cursing women, then saying that "I am the prophet of God", "Believe me or else." Yet from that is exactly what Judeo-Christianity developed.

Incidentally, why should an omnipotent and omniscient creator be jealous? Why would some being of such immense grandiosity feel the need to be worshipped by a bunch of talking apes on a tiny planet orbitting a mid-sized sun on a distal arm of a so-so galaxy among billions of galaxies? That is grandiose insecurity.

If there is a conscious god, which I doubt, he/she/it would be so self-confident that he/she/it would have no need for our worship nor likely even care.

Those who put themselves in category 4 as in Pascal's Wager, say that if one is going to believe in a god, be sure to pick the bloody worst monster of the cosmos, the one most likely to inflict hideous torture on unbelievers. I think it should be called the Worst God Method of Salvation.

George W.

long winded fool

All Smith's wager seems to say is that IF reason leads you to atheism, then you ought to be an atheist. (Though reason led Smith atheism, it is still possible that his reason is misapplied or incomplete.) It basically gives atheists who are afraid of eternal punishment (???) the ok to not believe in God. So the wager is: believe whatever you think is right and everything will be okay. Not much of a wager, I'd say. At least Pascal had the nerve to say that EVERYONE should be Christian.

I agree, Smith's wager is a parody.