This is pure speculation, but is it possible that a high level of social security at least partly eliminates the need for security through God?

In the September 19th episode of Freethought Radio Gregory S. Paul argues that that is the case: lack of social safety nets correlated with religiosity.

It's not a God-shaped hole, it's a security-shaped hole.

That's actually an interesting point. Denmark, as I mentioned earlier, is a socialist country. You always know that if you get sick, you can see a doctor, get operations, pacemakers, etc. for free, no matter who you are. You know that if you lose your job or your home, the government will give you a place to live and money to live off. You know if you CAN'T work any more, due to any physical or mental disability, the government will help you get an easy job or a pension. As a kid or parent you know almost all schools and higher educations are completely free, so no need to worry about social heritage etc.
Same thing in Sweden and Norway, which are also very high on atheism.

- This is pure speculation, but is it possible that a high level of social security at least partly eliminates the need for security through God?

WLC and Pascal would have to fight this one out, I think.

Round. One. Fight!

Anyhow, one might plausibly object that the infinitude of the abyss was rhetorical (the abyss itself is a metaphor), while Pascal actually thought that God was infinite. That would be an acceptable, if unusual, bit of parallel construction.

And even if WLC and Pascal do contradict each other in terms of infinity denial, is there really a problem in citing both of them in support of an argument? I, for one, have no problem quoting both Werner "Uncertainty" Heisenberg and Albert "No Dice" Einstein in the same sentence.

Does the apologist who cites Pascal and William Lane Craig note the contradiction? Pascal says the "hole" is an infinite abyss--which he must, because he already has a Plug in mind: God, who is also, he says, infinite. WLC, on the other hand, in Kalam insists there's no such thing as an actual infinite--not even God.

The contradiction can be wriggled out of by claiming that Pascal was employing a rhetorical device, much in the same way that somebody might claim "Michael Owen is and infinitely better striker than Didier Drogba" (if they had never seen either of them play and were fuzzy on what sport we're talking about). Pascal, being a mathematician, would have known quite well that you can't really have an infinite amount of mental hole.

Does the apologist who cites Pascal and William Lane Craig note the contradiction? Pascal says the "hole" is an infinite abyss--which he must, because he already has a Plug in mind: God, who is also, he says, infinite. WLC, on the other hand, in Kalam insists there's no such thing as an actual infinite--not even God.