New member, looking for discussion

[jmcrae]

but you said earlier that anyone of any religion (or no religion) can get into christian heaven. Therefore no-one is relying on blind luck, because their current supernatural beliefs are sufficient.

I said that it is possible, under certain conditions (and they would have no way of knowing what the conditions are - hence “blind luck”).

I didn’t say that it was guaranteed, or even that it is likely.

 

[wasmit]

I said that it is possible, under certain conditions (and they would have no way of knowing what the conditions are - hence “blind luck”).

Yes, that is why I used the word (can), not the word (will).

here are the conditions you mentioned: I know what they are - they are written below. Therefore there is no (blind luck) in knowing the conditions.

So, does this mean that if someone sincerely believes in a god(s), and sincerely believes that they have chosen the right religion (on the information that they have available), and acts in accordance with that religion, they will go to heaven?

Actually, if they act in accordance with the natural law that He has written on all of our hearts (do not murder, do not steal, etc.) and do their best to live their lives for the benefit of humanity, and being honest with themselves and with whatever they understand as “God” they will - yes - go to Heaven.

 

[jmcrae]

There are the conditions you mentioned: I know what they are - they are written below. Therefore there is no (blind luck) in knowing the conditions.

You are not in the same situation as those people. You have been exposed to the actual teaching itself, which means that you no longer come under the heading of “invincible ignorance.”

Such ignorance as you may still have has become vincible because you now have the ability to learn what the Church teaches, and to choose to believe it.

 

[wasmit]

That contradicts what you said here:

So, does this mean that if someone sincerely believes in a god(s), and sincerely believes that they have chosen the right religion (on the information that they have available), and acts in accordance with that religion, they will go to heaven?

Actually, if they act in accordance with the natural law that He has written on all of our hearts (do not murder, do not steal, etc.) and do their best to live their lives for the benefit of humanity, and being honest with themselves and with whatever they understand as “God” they will - yes - go to Heaven. Assuming they do nothing during their lives that would amount to “mortal sin” - something they know is wrong, which they do anyway, without being forced into it.

This says that someone of a different religion has the potential to go to christian heaven.

However, in your previous post, you imply that someone who has seen the teachings of catholicism, but chosen another worldview does not have the potential to go to christian heaven.

 

[StevenFrancis]

Hi,

I created an account here to get some viewpoints on god and the beliefs of others.

Some background about me: from ages 5 – 17 I went to christian(Roman catholic) schools, then to a secular university. I am in my mid 20’s. I believed in god, jesus, the bible, etc… until I was about 15 because authority figures (parents, teachers) told me that it was true. Around that time I looked more closely and critically at the religion and dismissed it as silly for many reasons. The reasons mainly centred around proof, evidence, feasibility, reality, etc…

I would describe myself as a 99% atheist; i.e. agnostic but leaning heavily towards atheism.

I am looking for clear, rational, arguments for the existence of a god, or the christian god, or to show that something in the bible is true. I have an open mind, and if you show something to be true, or almost certainly true, I must believe it.

I have recently read Aquinas’ 5 proofs, but counter-arguments have dismissed them.

I am coming here in good faith, hoping to be convinced or persuaded, looking at both sides of the argument.

I hope this is in the right section.

Thanks for your time.

Hi, and welcome:

What are your counter arguments to Aquinas? I guess that’s as good of place to start as any.

Peace,

Steven

 

[jmcrae]

That contradicts what you said here:

This says that someone of a different religion has the potential to go to christian heaven.

If they are doing the best they know.

However, in your previous post, you imply that someone who has seen the teachings of catholicism, but chosen another worldview does not have the potential to go to christian heaven.

Because once they know the teachings of Catholicism, following the lesser religion is no longer the best they know.

 

[anon5216]

If they are doing the best they know.

Because once they know the teachings of Catholicism, following the lesser religion is no longer the best they know.

Reality check.

Just because a person is told the tenets of the Catholic religion does not mean that person now “knows” something better than whatever other religion they may be familiar with.

That’s a completely ridiculous claim.

I was raised Catholic and compared to certain forms of Indian spirituality, Catholicism seems elementary and contrived.

To start, you would have to prove the entire bible as divinely inspired and you can’t do that to someone who doesn’t already believe that to be the case.

 

[steve_b]

One cannot sincerely believe something that one suspects to be false, just to be on the “safe side”

That also works in reverse.
was:

If a person does accept Pascals wager, which sect of which religion does he choose to practice his faith? There are many thousands to choose from. Even within a particular sect, there are belief/doctrinal variations. Which one is correct? There are millions of possibilities.

I think it’s easy to narrow down possibilities considerably without too much effort.
was:

Pascals wager proposes that, comparatively, nothing is lost. However, what do we have to lose? Intellectual integrity, self-esteem, and a passionate, rewarding life for starters. In short, everything that makes life worth living. Far from being a safe bet, Pascal’s wager requires the wager of one’s life and happiness.

If there is no God, then when you die, you won’t be lamenting over what your life and happiness COULD have been anyway…true?

The bigger question is, how do you avoid gambling everything you are, on one roll of the dice?

What’s the cost benefit analysis?
was:

According to the bible, to achieve salvation, more is required than docile belief. Some examples include: believe in God’s son (Mark 16:16; John 3:18,36, 8:21-25, 14:6; Acts 4:10-12; I John 5:12), repent (Luke 13:3,5), be born again (John 3:3), be born of the water and of the Spirit (John 3:5), believe everything in the gospel (Mark 16:16), eat the flesh of Jesus and drink his blood (John 6:53), be like a child (Mark 10:15), and do good deeds for needy people (Matt. 25:41-46; Rom. 2:5-10; John 5:28-29; James 2:14-26).

was:

Some proponents of Pascals wager propose that there are only two alternatives (as steve b did above) – Catholocism or Atheism. In fact there are millions of alternatives, corresponding to each religious belief system that exists in the world.

When Al Capone was looking for an accountant, he asked each applicant 1 question on the job interview.

• How much is 1 + 1?
  The guy who got the job was not the one who answered 2. The guy who got the job answered,
• how much do you want it to be?
  How many accountants did he have to go through till he got the answer HE wanted? dozens? hundreds?

Capone wasn’t looking for truth. He was gaming the system.

The interesting thing is, the govt never convicted Capone on murder and all the racketeering he did. They got him on tax evasion. just a simple 1 + 1 = 2. argument. He couldn’t game that.

Anyway,

There is truth. And it’s knowable if one is willing to investigate the evidence sincerely.
was:

When we consider their respective credentials, it appears that every religion has alleged evidence to cite in support of its truth-claims: evidence in the form of miraculous events on the public stage, of great changes wrought in the lives of believers, of answered prayers, of divine revelations, and the like. In addition, if each religion is contrary to all of the others, any evidence that might be cited in support of the truth-claims of one must thereby be taken to undermine the truth-claims of every other. But since the adherents of any given religion are outnumbered by those of all the others combined, the experiential evidence that undermines any given religion must then be greater than the evidence that supports it. If one “estimates the chances,” as Pascal recommended, one will have to conclude–on the basis of experiential evidence–that the chance of any single religion being the one true religion is vastly outweighed by the chance of it being false. Hence, the odds of having “wagered” correctly and being “on the winning side” are poor. And the very idea of there being any winner at all begins to look far-fetched.

I think you’re setting up false comparisons.

you’re giving too much credit to untested “claims” as if they are equal to that which is true, when they are probably totally false, rather than only insisting on accepting proven events backed up with evidence… and by lumping together what is unproven / false with proven, you reject ALL including the proven, and assume your odds of getting what is right are slim.

That’s a function of setting up an example to fail

 

[wasmit]

Hi, and welcome:

What are your counter arguments to Aquinas? I guess that’s as good of place to start as any.

Peace,

Steven

Just quickly:

I’m happy to discuss further.

1 - FIRST MOVER: Some things are in motion, anything moved is moved by another, and there can’t be an infinite series of movers. So there must be a first mover (a mover that isn’t itself moved by another). This is God.

2 - FIRST CAUSE: Some things are caused, anything caused is caused by another, and there can’t be an infinite series of causes. So there must be a first cause (a cause that isn’t itself caused by another). This is God.

3 - NECESSARY BEING: Every contingent being at some time fails to exist. So if everything were contingent, then at some time there would have been nothing – and so there would be nothing now – which is clearly false. So not everything is contingent. So there is a necessary being. This is God.

1, 2 and 3 are the first cause argument.

If everything must have a cause, then god must have a cause also. If god can be without cause, then it is plausible that other things can be without cause.
Who created god?

If god does have a creator, then isn’t it God’s creator that should be worshipped rather than God? And who created God’s creator? The danger of an infinite regress of creators, each postulated in order to explain the existence of that subsequent to it, looms. If there is an infinite regress of creators, though, then there is no first creator, no ultimate cause of the universe, no God.

If god doesn’t have a creator, he is an uncaused cause. If uncaused existence is possible, though, then there is no need to postulate a God that created the universe; if uncaused existence is possible, then the universe could be uncaused.
The first cause argument makes the unfounded assumption that if the first cause exists, it must be the Christian god.
The first cause argument makes the unfounded assumption that the rules after the universe started applied beforehand

4 - GREATEST BEING: Some things are greater than others. Whatever is great to any degree gets its greatness from that which is the greatest. So there is a greatest being, which is the source of all greatness. This is God.

The epitome of any particular class off things need not exist.

Some things are stinkier than others. Whatever is stinky to any degree gets its stinkiness from that which is the stinkiest. So there is a stinkiest being, which is the source of all stinkiness. This is Vishnu.

5 - INTELLIGENT DESIGNER: Many things in the world that lack intelligence act for an end. Whatever acts for an end must be directed by an intelligent being. So the world must have an intelligent designer. This is God.

“Whatever acts for an end must be directed by an intelligent being.” Is clearly false. E.g. insects, bacteria, viruses, humans, evolution.

ID is merely creationism dressed up differently. At the core it is the same, and has been thoroughly debunked.

 

[wasmit]

If they are doing the best they know.

Because once they know the teachings of Catholicism, following the lesser religion is no longer the best they know.

lol, that is absurd.

it is also a completely unsubstantiated claim.

 

[jmcrae]

Just quickly:

I’m happy to discuss further.

1 - FIRST MOVER: Some things are in motion, anything moved is moved by another, and there can’t be an infinite series of movers. So there must be a first mover (a mover that isn’t itself moved by another). This is God.

Right. Assuming there is not infinite regression (and there is scientific evidence that the Creation has an age, which means it had a beginning - which means that at some point prior to that, it did not yet exist) then there is a First Mover, and this First Mover is called “God.”

God might be just a random explosion that happened and then disappeared. It doesn’t have to be the Christian God. (Although I consider it much more likely to have been the Christian God, myself. But the possibility remains that God was just a random explosion that happened and then disappeared.)

 

[Cam-masta]

i have no idea what you are talking about.

you sound crazy and delusional.

thanks for the reply, though.

Labeling someone ‘crazy and delusional’ isn’t kind. Furthermore, it sounds like a narrow-minded dismissal of everything this person took the time to write you.

 

[wasmit]

I think it’s easy to narrow down possibilities [in pascals wager] considerably without too much effort.

how?

If there is no God, then when you die, you won’t be lamenting over what your life and happiness COULD have been anyway…true?

Assuming that after a person’s death, there is a moment in which they can compare the situaton after death with their actions before death (this is the only way in which pascal’s wager works), then your statement is false. One will regret the tens of thousands of wasted hours, the unfounded emotional distress, and the uncountable waste of physical resources, especially money.

Anyway,

There is truth. And it’s knowable if one is willing to investigate the evidence sincerely.

I have been sincerely investigating the available evidence, and have found no reason to more closer to “a god does exist” on the (does exist)/(doesn’t exist) spectrum. I am keen to look at any evidence you or anyone presents.

When we consider their respective credentials, it appears that every religion has alleged evidence to cite in support of its truth-claims: evidence in the form of miraculous events on the public stage, of great changes wrought in the lives of believers, of answered prayers, of divine revelations, and the like. In addition, if each religion is contrary to all of the others, any evidence that might be cited in support of the truth-claims of one must thereby be taken to undermine the truth-claims of every other. But since the adherents of any given religion are outnumbered by those of all the others combined, the experiential evidence that undermines any given religion must then be greater than the evidence that supports it. If one “estimates the chances,” as Pascal recommended, one will have to conclude–on the basis of experiential evidence–that the chance of any single religion being the one true religion is vastly outweighed by the chance of it being false. Hence, the odds of having “wagered” correctly and being “on the winning side” are poor. And the very idea of there being any winner at all begins to look far-fetched.

I think you’re setting up false comparisons.

you’re giving too much credit to untested “claims” as if they are equal to that which is true, when they are probably totally false, rather than only insisting on accepting proven events backed up with evidence… and by lumping together what is unproven / false with proven, you reject ALL including the proven, and assume your odds of getting what is right are slim.

That’s a function of setting up an example to fail

My quote above does not give each religious truth-claim the credit of being true, but does give each an equal unstated persuasive value.

I am not lumping proven* with unproven. As far as i know, there are no religious truth-claims that are proven. Your argument is sound in saying that unproven and proven should not be mixed in this manner. Do you know of any religious claims that are proven, that would lead to a belief in a god? Can you please provide articles/links/personal discussion, etc?

I do only “accept proven events backed up with evidence”.

*Proof in the loose sense of the word, in as much as anything outside mathematics can be proven.

 

[wasmit]

Right. Assuming there is not infinite regression (and there is scientific evidence that the Creation has an age, which means it had a beginning - which means that at some point prior to that, it did not yet exist) then there is a First Mover, and this First Mover is called “God.”

God might be just a random explosion that happened and then disappeared. It doesn’t have to be the Christian God. (Although I consider it much more likely to have been the Christian God, myself. But the possibility remains that God was just a random explosion that happened and then disappeared.)

at the big bang, there was no “before” or “prior”. time did not exist.

 

[wasmit]

Labeling someone ‘crazy and delusional’ isn’t kind. Furthermore, it sounds like a narrow-minded dismissal of everything this person took the time to write you.

that post was crazy and delusional. Whether the person that wrote it is, I don’t know.

 

[jmcrae]

lol, that is absurd.

it is also a completely unsubstantiated claim.

Not at all; it is completely logical. One cannot be “invincibly” ignorant who not only thinks he might be (since thinking you might be invincibly ignorant shows an awareness of some information lacking), but also knows how to overcome his ignorance (thus, it is vincible, rather than invincible). God gave us minds and intellects because He expects us to make use of them.

 

[BCH]

If God actually does exist and Jesus is who he claims to be, would YOU really want to know, love and serve him?

 

[gtaliente]

How come no one who has said that they want proof that God exists can never provide proof that he doesn’t?

 

[Swan]

How come no one who has said that they want proof that God exists can never provide proof that he doesn’t?

There are many possible answers to this question. A couple spring to mind:

I would like to ask if you can “prove” that the gods of other religions do not exist? The Hindu gods, pagan gods, etc? Can you, or anyone, actually offer conclusive proof that these gods don’t exist?

Taking the question from another point, I would like to offer the below with a link to the original, which is much too long to quote here but which in many ways does answer the original question:

infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/theory.html

*Christians attempt to preserve their proposed theory by moving it into the set of unprovables that lack all evidence. They do this arbitrarily, and for no other reason than to save the proposed theory, by creating impassable barriers to observation, just as requiring us to look in every corner of every universe creates an impassable barrier for one who is asked to decisively disprove the statement “there are big green Martians.” For instance, the advanced theory holds that God alleviates suffering in heaven, which we conveniently cannot observe, and he has reasons for waiting and allowing suffering to persist on Earth, reasons which are also suitably unobservable to us, because God chooses not to explain them, just as he chooses, again for an unstated reason that is entirely inscrutable, to remain utterly invisible to all my senses, external and internal, despite being always around and inside me and otherwise capable of speaking to me plainly…

The fact is that Christianity is the proposal of a theory, and like all theories, it entails predictions–but these predictions are not being born out. So Christians invent excuses to save the theory–excuses which have absolutely no basis in any evidence or inference, except the sole fact that they rescue the theory. … As for all the other theories–all the other possible gods–there is no more evidence for them than for this incredibly complex deity with a dozen strange and mysterious reasons that only too conveniently explain why we never observe him or his actions in any clear way…*

 

[wasmit]

How come no one who has said that they want proof that God exists can never provide proof that he doesn’t?

Russell's teapot - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org