The "then who created god?" uncompelling argument and why Pascal was right
First off, I have a degree in Mathematics, and working towards my masters in Physics, so feel free to use all the bad science you want, as if I dont have the answer I know where to get it.
Second, the more I understand about the nature of the universe the more I know a God exists, (although I have always been uncertain as to God's beliefs). The problem with most of your threads on this subject is that you guys do not argue against a God existing, you argue on the nature of what God thinks, Which I see constantly in Atheist arguments.
Such as: "pascal arguements fail because we dont know which religion to believe in" Okay that doesnt mean his argument fails. That is like saying you only have a 1 in 100 chance of getting it right, so the best thing to do is to gaurnatee failure and not even pick one. Pascal was saying that taking a chance, any chance, was better then taking no chance at all. Also you argue that all religions tell you that you must believe in their God otherwise you will go to hell, and sense all religions tell you that, and all religions cant be right then they must all be wrong. This, of course is a logical fallicy, and you guys should be better then that. In fact the assumptions are wrong too, The jewish community actually believes that all good people go to heaven regardless of actual practice, as is the case with most religions.
Also you fail because you fail to see that God and what people attribute to God are two different things. Just because someone says "your going to hell if your not a christian" does mean you are going to hell. This is a "side-track" argument most atheist make because it does not actually argue whether God exists, in only argues about the nature of what God is. It is impossible to argue that God does not exist.
Second bad arguement against Pascal wager's "pascal says you have nothing to lose, but you do lose your life..etc...etc." Well the point Pascal was making if that there is no God then there is no after life...which means there is no infinity of the soul. In mathematics this would be a limit problem. In the presence of Infinity then the finite becomes zero. So yes your life becomes nothing if it does not have infinity, so infact you do lose nothing by believing in God or following some sort of life rules.
Finally...the last bad argument is "Wouldnt God know you were just faking it to live in heaven"....of course he would otherwise he would not be omniscent, but what your really arguing is whether not God would care if you were faking it. This again argues about the nature of God, not whether God exists. I dont know if God cares if you only pretend to be a good person or whether you actually are a good person. My personal opinion is that God doesnt care whether you fake being good or you actually are just being good for good's sake, as the outcome is the same. But whatever your argument still does not argue whether God exists or does not exist. So this attack on Pascal fails, because you are attacking the nature of what God thinks, and does nothing to show Pascal wrong.
Finally the worse argument any atheist can make is "then who created God?" argument, this is most overused and worse arguement there is. God is not "created" as this implies he exists in the dimension of time, which of course as Einstein proved, is relative and based on perception. An omniscent being could not have such a constraint. As being subjected to any dimensional constraints would make him less the omniscent. Therefor If God was created he would not be God. So Congrats! you proved that God can not exist in time! I see a lot of people true argue this point but it is really uncompelling. Its the same problem I face when people try to ask me "How much time was before the big bang", This question doesnt makes about as much sense, because there was no time before the big bang. We are such linear thinkers that it really takes math to show that time is not seperate from the universe but a part of it.
Another bad science interpretation I saw on some you tube debate, is that Energy and Mass have always existed...therfore God does not exist. Ummmmmm....what? First off mass and energy are the same thing E=Mc^2, in Physics we can use the "natural" units and set constants equal to one....therfore E=M. Energy is Mass. So What you are arguing is there is a finite amount of Energy/mass in the universe and always has, and not that mass has always existed, or energy always existing. Also your misinterpreting the law, as we know are universe began with a Big Bang, before that there was no time. So to say something has always existed, means that they have existed since the Big Bang. Which isnt the same as arguing that God exists outside of time, and energy/mass has always existed. One is still subject to time constraints and the other isnt. Are you starting to see the difference?
If you dont understand what I am saying than please ask. I would be happy to explain it to you guys. Eventually you will come to realize that it takes far more faith to believe God does not exist then it does to believe God does exist. The reason I phrase it this way, is because you cannot prove God's existance, and you cannot prove that God does not exist, but the debate is still inetersting.
Cogito ergo sum