Based on probability, if one had to make a choice, is it more reasonable to be an Atheist or a Theist

[Randy_Carson]

Disclaimer: Not a Catholic opinion, obviously…

Ah yes, Pascal’s Wager. The real problem is that there are way mute than just two choices.

Nope. Either you choose to act as if God exists or act as if he does not. There are only two choices.

How would you choose the “correct” God and the “correct” religion and denomination?

How would you choose the “correct” spouse or college to attend, or job offer to accept?

You study the information available and pray.

Christianity is based upon a historical event, the resurrection, for which there is substantial indirect evidence that a reasonable person may conclude is beyond a reasonable doubt.

 

[HerCrazierHalf]

“…if one had to make a choice…” We make the choice each day to believe or not believe in some way or ways small or large. I make the choice each day as I ponder what I’m learning to say I don’t know. I could easily on some days make the choice to completely not believe and some days make the choice to believe Christianity or any other tradition.

Some of us have tried but found it impossible to convince ourselves of something we believe to be false or uncertain at best.

 

[HerCrazierHalf]

Nope. Either you choose to act as if God exists or act as if he does not. There are only two choices.

Wouldn’t acting as if God exist but without sincere belief yield the same result as nonbelief?

How would you choose the “correct” spouse or college to attend, or job offer to accept?

You study the information available and pray.

But as we know by divorce rates, over 40% pick the “wrong” spouse, and we know of those who finish college with few job prospects.

 

[Bradski]

How would you choose the “correct” spouse or college to attend, or job offer to accept?

You study the information available and pray.

Maybe you could give us a quick run down on all the information for theism that you investigated. The resurrection only refers to Christianity.

 

[CB_Catholic]

Wouldn’t acting as if God exist but without sincere belief yield the same result as nonbelief?

But as we know by divorce rates, over 40% pick the “wrong” spouse, and we know of those who finish college with few job prospects.

The divorce rate reflects the fact that people cannot work with each other enough to reconcile their differences (although in some cases there is severe abuse, etc.) and do not take their marriage vows as seriously as the should, IMO, not that they picked the wrong spouse.

Job prospects depend largely on the state of the economy, and that varies over the years.

Acting as if God existed without a sincere belief can be a prelude for real belief, as long as one keeps oneself open to God. Look, plenty of Christians at one time or another have doubts about God’s existence, but hang in there with faith and in most cases have their faith strengthened and their doubts resolved. Atheists do not seem to believe that one can most certainly have direct experiences with God, that these experiences are life-changing and real. Just because you can’t see something does not mean it does not exist.

I had such an experience myself that came unexpectedly and it changed my life forever. I knew God was real after that, and whenever I may have a doubt, I look back on certain experiences in my life that cannot be explained other than by Divine Intervention. But no atheist would even consider something like this as a legitimate experience. Yet at the time I was converted I was living a life without a true belief, yet I kept myself open rather than outright deny because of the sheer illogic of something coming from NO THING. And God came into my life in a very real way. If one sincerely seeks, they will find, but in God’s timing, not theirs.

Also, many people don’t like being bound by the moral law, thus the easiest way to escape that is to deny God’s existence.

 

[Bradski]

Why don’t Australian Aborigines experience this?

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Based on probability, if one had to make a choice, is it more reasonable to be an Atheist or a Theist. Which is more likely to be true given human experience and the evidence.

Which way does the pendulum of probability swing and why.

Here is William Lane Craig’s reply to your question.

reasonablefaith.org/fine-tuning-and-the-prior-probability-of-theism

 

[Partinobodycula]

…is it more reasonable to be an Atheist or a Theist.

Given that neither the Atheist nor the Theist can EVER know if they’re right, the only reasonable position would seem to be agnosticism, because unlike the first two, the agnostic will ALWAYS be right.

So if your goal is to make the reasonable choice, then there really is only one. But then again, people usually decide what’s right, first, and only afterward do they decide what’s reasonable.

 

[inocente]

Based on probability, if one had to make a choice, is it more reasonable to be an Atheist or a Theist. Which is more likely to be true given human experience and the evidence.

Leaving out deist, pantheist, polytheist and all the other beliefs might make for a better debate but turns it into a false dichotomy. An animist, for instance, might argue that neither of your options is reasonable or probable.

 

[Bradski]

Don’t forget that everyone starts off without a belief. Although I’m not sure you could class a child as an atheist. I’d suggest that you need to make an informed decision in order to claim that you don’t believe X.

 

[HerCrazierHalf]

The divorce rate reflects the fact that people cannot work with each other enough to reconcile their differences (although in some cases there is severe abuse, etc.) and do not take their marriage vows as seriously as the should, IMO, not that they picked the wrong spouse.

Doesn’t one or two spouses who can’t work it out indicate either a bad choice of spouse or misjudging one’s preparedness for life long marriage?

Also, many people don’t like being bound by the moral law, thus the easiest way to escape that is to deny God’s existence.

Wouldn’t ignoring God be easier? Or forming a different understanding of God?

 

[Entwhistler]

Given that neither the Atheist nor the Theist can EVER know if they’re right, the only reasonable position would seem to be agnosticism, because unlike the first two, the agnostic will ALWAYS be right.

Although, if we are going to be technical, an agnostic can never be right because he makes no claims either way. He only states that he does not know. I suppose an agnostic can’t be wrong though.

 

[MatthewTrainor]

Based on probability, if one had to make a choice, is it more reasonable to be an Atheist or a Theist. Which is more likely to be true given human experience and the evidence.

Which way does the pendulum of probability swing and why.

Pascal’s Wager is the best answer. I can guarantee that no theist will feel stupid believing in God after they die . The same guarantee cannot be made to the atheists.

However the question should not be so quickly dismissed. When one enters the range of any being more powerful than oneself (and therefore capable of doing harm) it is reckless to casually disregard that being’s existence and what may cause it to take interest in your behavior.

For instance, whenever I go camping in the woods I always make sure to keep any food I’ve brought along in a bear bag at night well away from my camp site. I’ve heard many horror stories of what happened people who have failed to do so. Most recently was a tale about a bear who pried open the trunk of a Honda Civic and smashed open a steel box just to get at a package of uncooked hotdogs. Another more tragic example was recently in the headlines from Florida related to a family frolicking near a habitat that contained alligators.

A significant number of theists (if not a majority) believe in an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent God. Omnipotent = more powerful than you. Omniscient = has already taken an interest in your behavior. Omnipresent = you are always in range. Rationally it is utterly reckless not to closely investigate the reality of such a being and how to avoid incurring its displeasure.

 

[HerCrazierHalf]

Pascal’s Wager is the best answer. I can guarantee that no theist will feel stupid believing in God after they die . The same guarantee cannot be made to the atheists.

However the question should not be so quickly dismissed. When one enters the range of any being more powerful than oneself (and therefore capable of doing harm) it is reckless to casually disregard that being’s existence and what may cause it to take interest in your behavior.

For instance, whenever I go camping in the woods I always make sure to keep any food I’ve brought along in a bear bag at night well away from my camp site. I’ve heard many horror stories of what happened people who have failed to do so. Most recently was a tale about a bear who pried open the trunk of a Honda Civic and smashed open a steel box just to get at a package of uncooked hotdogs. Another more tragic example was recently in the headlines from Florida related to a family frolicking near a habitat that contained alligators.

A significant number of theists (if not a majority) believe in an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent God. Omnipotent = more powerful than you. Omniscient = has already taken an interest in your behavior. Omnipresent = you are always in range. Rationally it is utterly reckless not to closely investigate the reality of such a being and how to avoid incurring its displeasure.

But those examples are not extraordinary in that most of us who have been near the woods have seen a bear before. At the very least video of bears exists in areas similar to most forest.

A problem with Pascal’s Wager is that presumes only two choices. What about God as interpreted by other denominations which claim those not worshipping their way are lost?

What if someone told you to beware of alien abductions? Should you don a foil hat and follow whatever other anti abduction measures they profess in case they are right?

Other than the difficulties in forcing oneself to believe what didn’t seem true, perhaps when a possibility is perceived as very remote it is difficult to be motivated by the consequences of being wrong regardless of magnitude.

 

[tonyrey]

A problem with Pascal’s Wager is that presumes only two choices. What about God as interpreted by other denominations which claim those not worshipping their way are lost?

What people claim has no bearing on whether God exists…

What if someone told you to beware of alien abductions? Should you don a foil hat and follow whatever other anti abduction measures they profess in case they are right?

There is a vast difference between the two issues.

Other than the difficulties in forcing oneself to believe what didn’t seem true, perhaps when a possibility is perceived as very remote it is difficult to be motivated by the consequences of being wrong regardless of magnitude.

A reasonable person cannot be so dogmatic on whether God exists. Why should it be a remote possibility? It seems far more unlikely that everything exists for no reason or purpose.

 

[tonyrey]

Although, if we are going to be technical, an agnostic can never be right because he makes no claims either way. He only states that he does not know. I suppose an agnostic can’t be wrong though.

He is wrong in his assumption that there is no evidence for the existence of God. The issue is not whether we can be certain but which alternative is more reasonable. Camus and Sartre made it quite clear that a Godless universe is dominated by absurdity. We can’t conjure up purpose and meaning out of mindless molecules…

 

[tonyrey]

Pascal’s Wager is the best answer. I can guarantee that no theist will feel stupid believing in God after they die . The same guarantee cannot be made to the atheists.

However the question should not be so quickly dismissed. When one enters the range of any being more powerful than oneself (and therefore capable of doing harm) it is reckless to casually disregard that being’s existence and what may cause it to take interest in your behavior.

For instance, whenever I go camping in the woods I always make sure to keep any food I’ve brought along in a bear bag at night well away from my camp site. I’ve heard many horror stories of what happened people who have failed to do so. Most recently was a tale about a bear who pried open the trunk of a Honda Civic and smashed open a steel box just to get at a package of uncooked hotdogs. Another more tragic example was recently in the headlines from Florida related to a family frolicking near a habitat that contained alligators.

A significant number of theists (if not a majority) believe in an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent God. Omnipotent = more powerful than you. Omniscient = has already taken an interest in your behavior. Omnipresent = you are always in range. Rationally it is utterly reckless not to closely investigate the reality of such a being and how to avoid incurring its displeasure.

Or to deprive ourselves of the consolation that divine love is not an illusion but the best explanation of the power of reason, compassion and self-determination as well as the source of truth, goodness, freedom, justice, beauty and love…

 

[MatthewTrainor]

But those examples are not extraordinary in that most of us who have been near the woods have seen a bear before. At the very least video of bears exists in areas similar to most forest.

True, it was proposed to demonstrate that once one acknowledges the presence of a more powerful being, they are motivated to learn more about that being.

A problem with Pascal’s Wager is that presumes only two choices. What about God as interpreted by other denominations which claim those not worshipping their way are lost?

No one would spend any resources investigating which religious denomination was more true if they believed that all were false. Pascal’s Wager only gets one past the question of whether there is a God or not. As noted above, an affirmative answer to that question provides the motivation to investigate the various denominations to uncover which has the most truth.

What if someone told you to beware of alien abductions? Should you don a foil hat and follow whatever other anti abduction measures they profess in case they are right?

I am rather agnostic on the question of extraterrestrial aliens and whether they abduct people or not. If 85-90% of all humanity firmly believed in the phenomenon I would take it more seriously and spend more time investigating the matter. At any rate, alien abductions are not claimed by even the most fervent believers to be universally visited upon every single human being, but to only a very few who appear to be selected at random. From what I know about alien abductions, the more you know about the phenomenon, the more likely it is to happen to you. On the other hand, those religions that have a concept of Judgment Day all claim that applies to everyone whether they believe or not.

Other than the difficulties in forcing oneself to believe what didn’t seem true, perhaps when a possibility is perceived as very remote it is difficult to be motivated by the consequences of being wrong regardless of magnitude.

I have difficulty believing that there is any evidence to support the proposition that the existence of God is a “very remote” possibility. The mere fact that over 85% of humanity believes in some sort of supernatural phenomena and hard core atheists constitute maybe 5% of the population at best should push the needle towards theism.

 

[Partinobodycula]

He is wrong in his assumption that there is no evidence for the existence of God. The issue is not whether we can be certain but which alternative is more reasonable.

Please point out where I stated that there’s no evidence for the existence of God. Evidence however, tends to have varying degrees of ambiguity. And so it is that men disagree.

What I said was that there’s no way that you can EVER be certain that God exists. This has as much to do with the nature of you, as it does with the nature of God. There are certain things that you simply cannot know. Such things will always be a matter of faith. Remember, you’re trying to convince people that things are true, which you cannot possibly know are true. You cannot know that Jesus Christ was the Son of God, no matter how diligently you try to rationalize it. And so there’s a point where reason ends, and faith begins. What people fail to realize, is just how much of what they believe, is based upon the latter, and not the former.

In the end, men believe what they choose to believe. And what’s reasonable for one man, may not be reasonable for another. The challenge therefore doesn’t lie in finding the most reasonable answer, but in finding the most reasonable way to live, without the answer.

 

[Strydersroom]

Please point out where I stated that there’s no evidence for the existence of God. Evidence however, tends to have varying degrees of ambiguity. And so it is that men disagree.

What I said was that there’s no way that you can EVER be certain that God exists. This has as much to do with the nature of you, as it does with the nature of God. There are certain things that you simply cannot know. Such things will always be a matter of faith. Remember, you’re trying to convince people that things are true, which you cannot possibly know are true. You cannot know that Jesus Christ was the Son of God, no matter how diligently you try to rationalize it. And so there’s a point where reason ends, and faith begins. What people fail to realize, is just how much of what they believe, is based upon the latter, and not the former.

In the end, men believe what they choose to believe. And what’s reasonable for one man, may not be reasonable for another. The challenge therefore doesn’t lie in finding the most reasonable answer, but in finding the most reasonable way to live, without the answer.

I agree with this. It’s all based upon faith, but the real answer is: NO ONE KNOWS for certain what happens when you die. No one.
I was born and raised Catholic and I surely hope there’s a beautiful Heaven and afterlife and that I’m reunited with my loved ones.

But also I’d like to add that
based on probability: 100% of children believe in Santa Clause