How to present an argument for believing God
Pascal's Wager (of sorts)
I want to bring about a different way of arguing for God(s) existence. If you, like me, get very tired of hearing the same ole argument on God vs. Atheism, then you are in the right spot. I mean who doesn't get tired of regurgitated atheism? They all point to science they themselves hardly understand and expect you to believe them. Personally, I always want to point out that I can google search their arguments for them! That being said, the same is true with Christianity-and any other religion really-arguments as well. This argument brings about a possible way of arguing for any God you choose without having to deal with hearing all the same old nonsense.
I will be the first to admit, I did not come up with this idea myself. It is derived from Pascal's wager. In a very brief summary of it, Pascal wagered that it is better to believe in God vs. not believing in him because the reward is greater if you do believe. Basically, you lose nothing if you believe and you're wrong but you lose everything if you don't believe and your wrong. Now, Pascal's wager goes into different areas about probability and so forth that we are not going over here. It should also be noted, he was really arguing for Christianity as well, though the argument is not exclusive to it. I am not really interested in any other part of Pascal's wager other than the wager itself.
When we argue for God's existent, we usually do so from some point of view. Meaning, we argue from a Christian standpoint or something to that nature. I believe this is a mistake. Just as atheist argue from a there is no God of any kind perspective; I believe we should argue from there is a God perspective-just a God(s), not any particular religion/type of God. I would even go further and say supernatural and don't bring the word God into the argument at all.
I think the argument should start with a simple question (which an atheist only has one answer to): Do you believe in the possibility Supernatural? They will more than likely say, No, depending on where they fall on the scale, basically, are they agnostic Atheist or pure ones. Again, I don't want to hear their reasons, I can google them myself. I would then explain the wager. The way I see it, we all have a 50/50 shot at being right. Science cannot prove or disprove the existent of the supernatural and nobody can prove the supernatural exist. I would explain that it would seem the better to bet on the side of reward than the side of nothing.
If you wager yes to the supernatural then you give yourself the better odds at a reward later. And this still lets you choose which religion/spirit/God speaks to your own reason. When presenting the wager, you are not asking anyone to choose from numerous religions over atheism. You are only asking if the possibility of the supernatural exist. If you choose yes, then you have a bridge to choose whatever religion speaks to you. Also, I understand this includes Greek Gods/Norse myth as well. I say, if you truly believe that to be the correct religion, then go for it! I can not prove you wrong, but, personally I wouldn't agree. We are not here to judge your choice, as long as it doesn't impact any social contracts we have in place.
Now, I know the next statement here. Well if you are just treating God as a bet then you aren't really faithful, so it doesn't matter. You are right in that we are not being faithful in the Christian sense. However, remember what we said we were not going to argue for at the beginning. We are arguing for the supernatural only. There are no customs or faith to keep in this argument. Those come later, if you choose to believe in the supernatural and then choose a religion or God that professes faith.
Now, most Atheist will still say no on the wager, which is fine as it is their choice. But at least they understand better the concept of God/supernatural. At least they understand, in it's simplest form, what is really the wager here.
The most important thing we all must remember, be courteous! I honestly don't like the word argument because it typically invokes anger. Anger is a waste of time. I prefer to have an open conversation. Also, I'll try to respond to any questions I may get because, as with all things we do, there are probably spots I missed going over.