The debate "Pascal's Wager is still convincing even as a false dichotomy and appeal to emotion fallacy." was started by
July 9, 2019, 4:50 am.
6 people are on the agree side of this discussion, while 5 people are on the disagree side.
People are starting to choose their side.
It looks like most of the people in this community are on the agreeing side of this statement.
Allirix posted 1 argument to the agreers part.
JDAWG9693 posted 1 argument to the disagreers part.
Allirix and 5 visitors agree.
5 visitors disagree.
its convincing until someone says "ok, which god/rules should I follow?".
the thing about fallacious arguments is that they are all convincing, until someone points out the fallacy. this is true well beyond this wager.
Oh, that's my bad. I misunderstood it to be, like, "valid" instead of just convincing.
In that case, yes but only for two reasons. One: most people are conditioned only around one religion so the false dichotomy is less easily realized. And, two: most people are, in my humble opinion, idiots in regards to most things. Part of that being that appeals to emotions work too often.
So, yes, to many it is convincing, though it shouldn't be.
An argument can still be convincing even if it's invalid. By appealing to my emotions I find it difficult to completely dismiss the argument and understand when people give in to it. It's not a proof or evidence to help one's wise mind believe, but on one's deathbed the fear of the unknown might be enough to give in to Pascal's Wager and cause a conversion.
You just described why it's not a valid argument. If an argument is fallacious, it can no longer be used as is. Even if the conclusion is correct, that argument to achieve the conclusion was incorrect. The argument must be refined until it holds no fallacies or abandoned