I’d have thought it’s simple logic that if there is no evidence for something, don’t believe it. Otherwise you’d have to believe everything on the internet, just in case.
I don’t think Pascal ever said there is no evidence for God. My memory of Pensees is that he acknowledged that the arguments for God are not convincing to the atheist.
That’s a tautology.
So he had no evidence that his bogie man exists, and no convincing argument that his bogie man exists. But insisted we must act as if his bogie man exists or be tortured for ever and evermore.
He didn’t!
Self-contradiction! “any state of affairs, as long as it is not contradictory” implies **consistency with previous and subsequent states of affairs **…
False! To give us free will and then prevent us from exercising it is an example of inconsistency. For God every blueprint is feasible if it doesn’t defeat the purpose of the blueprint.
Indeed. “current” is the key word. The** current **state of affairs could be improved but not the entire process.
Exactly! It is irrational not to care about what happens after death. To rule life after death as impossible is an excellent example of unjustified dogmatism which amounts to stupidity. Pascal was no fool and far more perceptive than his critics. Anyone who claims to have no self-interest at all is guilty of self-deception. If you’re not concerned about yourself you’re forgetting that others will be adversely affected by your misfortune. “No man is an island”…
To equate Pascal’s God with “a bogie man” is unreasonable and unChristian…
It is an evil act to appeal to an evil trait.
Play nice Tony, playground name-calling is no substitute for a rational argument.
“Agnostic atheist” is an oxymoron**:Ouch. There is a first time for everything - a serious disagreement between you and I
Theist: someone who believes that a god or gods exist.
Atheist: someone who does not believe that a god or gods exist. “A”+“theist” = non-theist.
These are both metaphysical terms, describing a “belief” or the “lack of belief”. The reason, why someone believes or does not believe is irrelevant. They can differentiate between “strong” and “weak” types of atheists, but that is not important at this moment.
Gnostic: someone who expresses knowledge about the existence of non-existence of a god or gods.
Agnostic: somewhat who expresses ignorance in the matter, who says: "I don’t know if a god (or gods) exist or not.
These are both epistemological terms, describing the knowledge or the lack of knowledge in the matter. Obviously, the one who professes knowledge should be able to defend his position, bring up proof or very strong, compelling evidence.
So, there are 4 possible scenarios:
Agnostic theist: someone who believes in the existence of a god or gods.
Agnostic atheist: someone who does NOT believe in the existence of a god or gods.
Gnostic theist: someone who actually asserts that he knows that a god of gods exist.
Gnostic atheist: someone who actually asserts that he knows that a god of gods DO NOT exist.
It would be nice to have this made into a sticky, and everyone should agree. Otherwise there is confusion and misunderstanding.
Where did you get the idea that Pascal speaks of God as a bogie man?
It always amazes me when I hear people refer to Pascal’s argument as an argument from selfishness or fear. In every aspect of our lives we act from the motive of self interest. Even our concern for others is directed toward self interest.
What is the evil trait?
It seems impossible to argue with people who really haven’t read Pascal’s “Pensees”. They probably got their explanation of Pascal’s Wager from the internet.
I wouldn’t have imagined it possible that someone could consider that an example of self interest.
What goes around comes around.
No, it does not. One can change one’s mind without creating a contradiction. A “married bachelor” is a contradiction. A bachelor who changes his mind, and marries is NOT a contradiction. According to the scriptures, God liked his creation. But when he saw the problems, he decided to wipe out the result in the Deluge. An inconsistent behavior, if I ever saw one.
Inconsistency is not a contradiction. It would be wonderful if only God would realize how irrational it is to give unbridled freedom to those who abuse it, and then simply place reasonable restrictions on that freedom. Oh, and you are way above your “pay-grade” if you think that you know the purpose of that “blueprint”. A touch of humility would be in order.
How would you know that?
Only according to your incorrect understanding.
More to the point:
And yet, somehow you are not called “knowers”, you are called “believers”. Still elementary linguistics.