B
Booger
Guest
Okay, I wasn’t sure. It is difficult for one to admit a mistake, but I try to avoid that problem by admitting that I could be wrong in the first place before I make a choice.
- Status
E
Ellen_Marie
Guest
May I interject into this wonderful discussion with a related question? Most atheists I have met have a rather strong sense of ethics and morality, as well as justice. From your comments, it seems likely that you share this characteristic. On what do you base this value, if you do not believe that a loving creator has built it into you?
Ellen
M
Maggie
Guest
Nope. I think (but no promises) that I see the flaw in the argument. I can’t honestly say, but I can try to explain it the best I am able. Try to reach beyond the human dimension. God is infinite, we are finite. Our measurements and capacities are finite, his capacities are infinite. I think in calling Him omniscient and omnipotent there is a judgment that His powers would always work to our understanding or to the benefit that we could perceive. So to say that there is predetermination would be to impose upon God a limitation… that His omniscience and omnipotence is limited to the dimension of time… that our actions and decisions must be linear for Him to understand or comprehend them, that they must follow a certain order that He has already laid out. He is bigger than time for He created it. Any good? I can’t do better than that I don’t think. I wish I could, because I truly believe you want to believe, and I think He’s pushing you, but I don’t know how better to say that to operate outside of time, that the decisions we make are all inside of time, finite, with repercussions, but correctable, and that He guides us and helps us, that it is within that window that He allows us freedom so that He may have children born of love rather than fear, friends rather than slaves.Do I really have a chance to choose B, when an omniscient being KNOWS I will choose A?
Let’s assume your God exists (you won’t have a philosophical problem with that, would you?). I make my choices from what I observe. If the world around me and my perception of it was created by God, he deliberately built it in a way that I MUST choose A, because otherwise (universe different or my perception different) I would have chosen B. He must have known that I will choose A, when he constructs the universe that way. That is the same as predetermine the WHOLE cause of the universe.
There is of course a solution of the “God and free will exists”-dilemma: God is NOT omniscient/omnipotent, and the whole world is some miserable experiment of his. But then he isn’t the christian god anymore.
A
AnAtheist
Guest
You have a point there. Omnipotence is beyond human comprehension, in fact it is logically impossible. If you place a god beyond logic, it works out, but just not logical.
A
AnAtheist
Guest
Yes, absolutely correct. And all those sub-choices insist on holding the absolute truth only, a notion that hardly accounts for a sub-choice.
From the catholic encyclopedia:
(Late Lat. limbus) a word of Teutonic derivation, meaning literally “hem” or “border,” as of a garment, or anything joined on (cf. Italian lembo or English limb).Yes I did, I just didn’t know the English expression, thanks for the lesson :bounce:.
Not necessarily. There might be an afterlife but no god. An afterlife might just be an intrinsic part of this universe.
Pascal’s wager leads to four possible scenarios:
God & I believe → good
God & I don’t believe → bad
no God & I believe → neutral
no God & I don’t believe → neutral
That’s a 50% chance that no harm is done by believing, but a 25% chance that something bad happens for non-believing.
D
Drew98
Guest
Since I haven’t received a single answer yet, I certainly haven’t been rejecting his answers “over and over”. So this really doesn’t apply to me.
It’s hard for me to understand why the fact of the existence or nonexistence of God needs to be obscured in order to avoid violating our free will. It’s especially baffling when I take the initiative and of my own volition make it clear that I want to know if he exists. How can it be a violation of my free will if he’s giving me something I’ve asked for?
So when we’re dead, we no longer have free will?
If I can’t know that God exists how can I know he created good things in the world?
This prayer is saying things I don’t really believe so it wouldn’t be appropriate for me to say it at this time. However, here is a prayer I’ve said that really shows where I’m at:
God, I, Drew, humbly invite you to communicate with me. To reveal any information you wish, to point out any flaws you feel I should correct, to request changes to my life, etc. I do this of my own free will and hereby renounce any rights I may have to be free of your presence. I also pray that you will break down any barriers I have put up that inhibit this communication.
Is that sufficiently humble?
D
Drew98
Guest
I’ve tried praying to Jesus as well with the same result.
Similar to what “AnAtheist” said above…
If sin is “disobeying God” then the concept doesn’t mean much for the atheist. You can’t really disobey God if he doesn’t exist. So you pretty much have to acknowledge that God exists before you can acknowledge that sin exists.
Whatever he wants to give to me. I’m mostly following the advice of those Christians who claim that God wants to have a personal relationship with me. But that I have to take the first step. This is my attempt at a first step. Also, some claim that God will not intrude in someone’s life against their will. So I want to make it clear that God would not be intruding.
C
cradlecatholic
Guest
Your prayer sounds like a good one. I’m not God, but it sounded sufficiently humble to me. Given that you seem properly disposed to belief in God, the fact that you have not yet been given the gift of faith may be that, at this time in your life, God does not feel it is what is best for you. I have learned that God is the best Father there is. And good Father’s don’t give their children gifts unless they know the gift will not harm their children. As the children, we must trust that God know’s what is best for us, even if we don’t understand why. I will pray that circumstances will change such that God will grant you the gift of faith.
M
Maggie
Guest
Would you be open to some suggestions to change it in a way that might make it more ammenable to being answered in a way that you would hear? If so, I’ve ammended it in purple above. Far be it from me, for your relationship with God is between you and Him, but I can only suggest that which I know. I think if you remove the break down (which asks Him to act rather than for the grace to help you act) it might produce a better framework. He gives us the grace to do the hard things in our lives (like believe in Him
) which is different than doing those things for us. Maybe that will help? And yes… you are being sufficiently humble, even to be here. I did not mean to assume or imply anything different. I myself have trouble with humility, it is something I constantly have to turn over to God and recognize that I cannot achieve on my own. If I appeared to accuse you of anything else it was not my intention. I do truly believe that you are seeking, and that He is calling you. As to free will on death, I don’t know the answer there (I’m alive as far as I know 
) but if we are in His presence, I would guess that we would still have the free will to reject His authority (as satan did) but we would know then that He exists. I don’t know the truth of that statement though since it is not currently in my frame of reference.
P
PaulAckermann
Guest
I disagree. Evolutionists believe adamantly in evolution. Although they would be uncomfortable to phrase it this way, but to them evolution is an absolute truth. This does not mean that evolutionist do not disagree among themselves in certain details of evolution. Absolute truth having sub-choices does not negate absolute truth, otherwise evolution would be false simply because scientists disagree in the details.
That does not matter. Even if a person believed in an afterlife, he would not believe in a Limbo or a heaven as they are traditionally defined. And even if an atheist believed in an afterlife, he would not even consider that requirement of accept Jesus as his Savior in order to either enter into this afterlife or to have a better position in the afterlife. If you look at my original argument, you would see it is irrelevant whether an atheist believed in an after-life.
I see now how the “statistics” came from. But in reading on the Pascal’s Wager, I did not find this formula actually being used. Pascal did not seem to be a percentage on things. Possibly you were reading from someone who was not sympathetic to Pascal. That is not going to give you an accurate portrayal of Pascal. Here is a reference of someone who is looking at Pascal symphatically:
peterkreeft.com/topics/pascals-wager.htm
Now here is a reference from a theist who is critical of Pascal.
philosophyofreligion.info/pascalswager.html
Of his objections, I would only agree with #2. You raised objection #1 and objection #3, but I see holes in those objections. #2 is a valid objection, but I believe that other arguments for the existence of God neutralize this objection.
L
Little_Mary
Guest
Don’t remember where I heard this but…“Athiests swear there’s no heaven and pray there’s no hell…”
Do remember where I heard this “Blessed are they who believe but do not see”
I’ve known a few athiests in my life, and one of their favorite topics is talking about what they don’t believe. I find this charming because it tells me they are, on some level, struggling with their beliefs…um…er…non-beliefs.
So, to all the athiests reading these boards, welcome, and keep talking and questioning. It’s better than apathy.
I might also re-iterate advice I read from someone else in an earlier post in this thread: Do try the rosary. It is very powerful. Just try it. Go on. We’ll wait.
Do remember where I heard this “Blessed are they who believe but do not see”
I’ve known a few athiests in my life, and one of their favorite topics is talking about what they don’t believe. I find this charming because it tells me they are, on some level, struggling with their beliefs…um…er…non-beliefs.
So, to all the athiests reading these boards, welcome, and keep talking and questioning. It’s better than apathy.
I might also re-iterate advice I read from someone else in an earlier post in this thread: Do try the rosary. It is very powerful. Just try it. Go on. We’ll wait.
M
Moani
Guest
To Drew98,
There was a man, who like you searched for truth - his name was Thomas Merton. You might find some of your answers by reading his books. He spent 27 years of his life searching for God. Because you are here, there must be a side of you that questions your own beliefs.
Moani
There was a man, who like you searched for truth - his name was Thomas Merton. You might find some of your answers by reading his books. He spent 27 years of his life searching for God. Because you are here, there must be a side of you that questions your own beliefs.
Moani
D
Drew98
Guest
Sounds kind of sneaky to me. First you tell someone the only thing they need to do to be saved is profess a belief that God exists. Then, once you have that you tell them a simple profession of belief is not sufficient.
I disagree, I would argue that Pascal’s Wager asks the reader to ignore the likelihood of God’s existence. Instead, it focuses on the consequences of not believing and says that even if there’s only a slight chance of God existing you should still believe because the risk of non-belief is so great.
The latter. I call myself an atheist because I am not a theist. A theist is someone who believes God exists and I am not one of those. I don’t think I am “absolutely convinced” of anything but my own fallibility.
The main point of my praying is to make it clear that no force is necessary.
B
Booger
Guest
I had a Muslim try Pascal’s Wager on me once in a message forum. He insisted that it was only to make me believe (out of fear) in a general god concept (whatever that means exactly). But wouldn’t you know it that he was right there with his “truth”, waiting for somebody to take the bait.
Pascal’s Wager focuses on a false belief out of fear. But somebody cannot change to a belief that they may know to be false or just don’t believe due to lack of substantial evidence out of fear. The Wager operates under the assumption that if you just belief, you’ll be alright. After all, what do you have to lose by just believing? The person who accepts the Wager based on this logic has actually not found a belief, but rather their own deception against god. Simply saying, “I believe in God because I don’t want to go to hell” is very different than saying “I believe in God because I know God to be real, I have faith, personal relationship etc. . .” If one can think that he/she can trick the creator of the universe by simply professing belief just to be safe and avoid consequences, then he/she must be stupid.
I always refer to myself as an agnostic atheist. I do not believe in a god. I do believe that several god concepts that I know of probably do not exist, but I could be wrong. As far as being agnostic, there is no way I can know of all of the possible god concepts out there (even the ones that don’t exist yet), so I lack knowledge of those gods, one of which may be true.
P
PaulAckermann
Guest
The Catholic Church teaches that the closer you are to the truth, the better chance you have of heaven. Think of it as a bulls eye, with concentric circles. The outer circle would be father from the truth. The inner circle would have the most assurance. Let’s say the outer circle is Atheism. The next inner cicle may be something like Buddhism and Hinduism. The next may be Judaism or Islam. The next inner circle may be Protestantism. The inner one would be Catholicsm. I am just guessing how this is laid out. Only God knows that. I just know that Catholicsm is in the inner circle. That is just part of my Catholic belief.
The point is that it is better to be a Muslim or a Jew than an atheist. It is better to be a Protestant than to be a Muslim. And it is better to be Catholic.
To throw a monkey wrench into this, these concentric circles work the exact opposite for people who are living immorally. It is better to face God as an immoral Atheist than an immoral Catholic, all things being equal. At least an immoral Atheist can appeal to God concerning his ignorance.
The Catholic Church avoids the extremes of fundelementalism and relativism. Fundementalists believes in absolute truth and judge others outside their view of truth as going to hell. They come across with a self-righteous attitude. They are right and everyone else is going to hell. Relativism tries not to judge anyone, but they do this by denying absolute truth. The do not judge those who are wrong - simply because there is no wrong. Relativists, though, turn out to be hypocrites, because no one can actually live in relativism. A relativist always believes in one truth - that relativism itself is true. A relativist would say that there is no right and wrong - and then say that the fundementalist is wrong.
The Catholic Church teaches that there is absolute truth, but will not say that the person who does believe in the truth will go to hell. There is objectively mortal sin, but no one should condemn that person who committed mortal sin. The Catholic Church is both dogmatic and tolerant. It avoids the extremes of fundementalism and relativism. The Church preaches against what it is wrong, but also teaches that God’s mercy MAY extend to those who do wrong.
Getting back to your original argument, it is not being sneaky to first tell a person to be a theist, and then to be a Catholic. It is merely encouraging one to get to the next closer circle to the truth.
C
_Christopher
Guest
The fact that you are attempting to find Him is evidence in and of itself that He is calling you, as He does all men.
N
ncgolf
Guest
I said nothing about salvation. Pascal’s wager goes back to sort of lowest common denominator argument. The contemporary thinking of his time was to deny even the existance of god, eternal punishment etc. The argument was to engage people in a dialogue. Pascal was smart enough to know he had to engage them on their terms. He knew he could not go in and say you are all damned to hell. REPENT. So he started at a very low level. He did not do it to convert everyone. He knew he didnt have too, all he needed was a few. And it worked in his day.
You dont need to be absolutely convinced. That is putting your trust entirely on your own intelligence and you have admitted it is falliable. For me personally, I have taken my human fallibility and placed it at the feet of Christ and asked him to guide me, help me during my lifetime. I must say when first tried it is sort of an experiment. The amazing thing is it works … not just once but over and over. Dont get me wrong it’s not always rosy … I may be laid off in the next couple months but I have a trust that everything, I dont know how yet will work out. One of the shortest prayers one can say is “Jesus I trust you”. It’s that simple.
D
Drew98
Guest
I’m definitely open to suggestions and that’s a good one. I’ll say the prayer with your modification from now on.
Thanks,
Drew.
M
Maggie
Guest
I know you are, that is why I continue to come back . I’ll check in again and continue to pray for you. I’m really glad you are here.
T
Traveler74
Guest
Maybe I’m just too simple-minded but I find it harder to deny the existence of God than to accept it. The evidence, to me, seems overwhelming. I can walk outside and explore an almost infinite variety of different plants, animals, features, landscapes and in a greater sense people. There is just a whole lot of “stuff” out there that works together relatively seemlessly and it all meshes together too precisely for me to dismiss it all as chance. Sure it’s a possibility…but it’s more logical to accept the most likely source of everything around us came from a creator.
I heard or read somewhere that all theories of creation can be dissected into four distinct possibilities. Apologies to the guy that came up with this failing to give credit.
I heard or read somewhere that all theories of creation can be dissected into four distinct possibilities. Apologies to the guy that came up with this failing to give credit.
- The universe has always existed.
- The universe isn’t really here at all but is an illusion.
- The universe created itself spontaneously.
- The universe was created by something outside of itself.
- Status