M
Milestone
Guest
I think Pascal’s wager wasn’t meant to convince ardent atheists of God’s existence. It’s more for those who are torn between two sides, not knowing which is correct but recognizing the logic of both positions.
- Status
S
STT
Guest
That the weakest point of theism too since it cannot prove that Gods do not exist either.
F
ffg
Guest
Ah reasonable.
It seems unreasonable that rational individual(s) conclude their thoughts are not theirs.
Isn’t it most reasonable that it would be in God’s hands to determine His evidence?
It seems an evaluation of reasonable is needed, if someone thinks they own the power to determine God and that their thoughts are not theirs.
#circular-reference
It seems unreasonable that rational individual(s) conclude their thoughts are not theirs.
Isn’t it most reasonable that it would be in God’s hands to determine His evidence?
It seems an evaluation of reasonable is needed, if someone thinks they own the power to determine God and that their thoughts are not theirs.
#circular-reference
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
Well, that brought a smile to my face.You wrote, “I don’t say that God doesn’t exist…I do not believe He exists.”
Which is it? Do you believe that God exists or not?
And if you “do not believe He exists”, how can you be sure of this?
Correct. So what?
The question before us at present is how we should live in light of the possibility that God exists.
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
Not if He shows up. Then His presence is evidence of His existence.
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
I disagree. I think it is sufficient to say that E* might be possible* in order to act upon it.
For example, if I tell you that a downed power line might be live, I suspect that you will not touch it. Or even go near it.
As a non-believer, you have sufficient reason to consider that God’s existence and eternal reward or loss are possible (if not probable). Consequently, you would be wise to act accordingly.
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
:yup:
R
rossum
Guest
This does not cover the full range of possibilities.
D1. If you believe in God, and you’re wrong and the atheists are right, you will never know you were wrong. When you die, you will simply cease to exist.
D2. If you believe in God, and you’re wrong, and the Muslims are right, you will suffer eternal damnation in the Muslim hell.
D3. etc. (Repeat D2 for however many other gods/religions/hells you wish.)
There are many religions offering different versions of many gods. Some of those gods are jealous and angry if you do not worship them, but instead worship other gods. If you believe in the wrong god then the right god might punish you for believing in the wrong god: “You shall have no other gods before me.” That passage is from Jewish scripture, not Christian, so if the Jews are correct about God, then Christians are in for a difficult time after they die.
Pascal assumed that the choice was between atheism and Christianity. That is a false dichotomy. The choices include atheism and all of the many different religions followed in the world today. This is a multiple-choice question.
For me, Hinduism might be the best choice. With 100,000 gods (or more) you have a much better choice of worshipping the right god(dess) in a Hindu temple than in a Christian church, with only one God available. And the Hindu gods seem a lot less jealous of the other gods than the Abrahamic God, who does not like other religions in all three of His major versions.
$0.02
rossum
C
Charlemagne_III
Guest
This is an astute observation.
The nagging question to which you refer is:
“What’s it all about?”
Or
“Is life a tale full of sound and fury, signifying nothing?”
V
Vera_Ljuba
Guest
This is only the opinion of Christians. All the other believers think that their deity is the one which is established “correctly”. But for the unbelievers all “gods” are the same, neither is established better than the rest.
V
Vera_Ljuba
Guest
Such questions are irrelevant for those who can fill up their life with meaning on their own.
C
Charlemagne_III
Guest
This is a very flawed reading of Pascal. Pascal’s wager is directed specifically at atheists.
However, throughout Pensees he goes on to demonstrate here and there why Christianity should be the best choice of all available religions from which to choose.
Aquinas could certainly be invoked as to why we should prefer Christ to Muhammad.
Mohammad, Aquinas wrote, “seduced the people by promises of carnal pleasure to which the concupiscence of the flesh goads us. His teaching also contained precepts that were in conformity with his promises, and he gave free rein to carnal pleasure.”
Such an offer, Aquinas contended, appealed to a certain type of person of limited virtue and wisdom.
“In all this, as is not unexpected, he was obeyed by carnal men,” he wrote. “As for proofs of the truth of his doctrine, he brought forward only such as could be grasped by the natural ability of anyone with a very modest wisdom. Indeed, the truths that he taught he mingled with many fables and with doctrines of the greatest falsity.”
Because of the weakness of Islam’s contentions, Aquinas argued, “no wise men, men trained in things divine and human, believed in him from the beginning.” Instead, those who believed in him “were brutal men and desert wanderers, utterly ignorant of all divine teaching, through whose numbers Muhammad forced others to become his followers by the violence of his arms.”
Islam’s violent methods of propagation were especially unconvincing to Aquinas, since he found that the use of such force does not prove the truth of one’s claims, and are the means typically used by evil men.
“Mohammad said that he was sent in the power of his arms,” Aquinas wrote, “which are signs not lacking even to robbers and tyrants.”
In his Summa contra gentiles, Aquinas ends his argument against Islam by offering a backhanded compliment to Mohammed, noting that he had to keep his followers ignorant in order for them to remain faithful.
It was, Aquinas wrote, “a shrewd decision on his part to forbid his followers to read the Old and New Testaments, lest these books convict him of falsity. It is thus clear that those who place any faith in his words believe foolishly."
R
rossum
Guest
And atheists have the wide range of choices among religions that I pointed out. Picking the wrong god is potentially as bad as picking no god. For example, an atheist has no difficulty in obeying “You shall have no other gods before me”, since the atheists treats all gods equally, not putting any one ahead of any of the others. Similarly, an atheist is guaranteed not to worship the wrong god. Both of these advanatghges are at risk when picking a god.
Given where and when Pascal lived, I very much doubt whether he gave a fair and knowledgeable account of religions like Hinduism, Buddhism or Taoism.
And I am sure there is some medieval Arab writer who can tell us why we should prefer Mohammed to Jesus. All religions can provide arguments against other religions.
rossum
B
Bradski
Guest
If you don’t understand that there is no dichotomy in the two statements, then I can’t really help you.
And if there is the possibility that God exist? Well, there is a possibility. But I try as much as the next man to live a good life. I was brought up in a Christian household but it became clear to me at a very early age that it wasn’t necessary to be a Christian to be a good person. My old grandad never went to church and didn’t believe in God - the only person I knew who didn’t, and he was the best man I ever knew.
I’m always a little concerned at the suggestion that people are good because they are Christian. I’d like to think that they are good as well as being Christian. Or Jewish. Or Muslim. Or Hindu.
P
puzzledtoo
Guest
Randy Carson: You wrote in response to my post #8(?) “A convenient conclusion…Are you sure of this?” I am sure I believe this but that is as sure as it gets. I don’t usually deal in sureties. I’m not sure I’ll wake up tomorrow morning but I believe it. I’m not sure I’ll finish this post but I believe it.
F
ffg
Guest
Certainly any person can do good acts / have good intentions and really effort to be always honest.
Problem is, if God is, and sin is real, then even those people have reasons to repent, hope for, and trust in God’s mercy.
I’m sure you’ve heard or read that a good person sins 7 times a day.
Then enters the ‘God’ logic-
If the teaching was ‘Do good acts so you can have a good laundry list of when you die’, then we wouldn’t be here because it’s not the teaching.
It’s about relationship, there are things we can do to repair and build it with God.
Which is built with efforts through good acts for others in part, but not because we need to hit a quota, rather we need the relationship and the more we act for it, the more we’ll see it’s truth and beauty.
That ‘why’ question related to acting good is tough to answer without the higher authority. We can’t point to anything in nature that is naturally giving.
For ‘giving’ to exist, it takes a will.
Problem is, if God is, and sin is real, then even those people have reasons to repent, hope for, and trust in God’s mercy.
I’m sure you’ve heard or read that a good person sins 7 times a day.
Then enters the ‘God’ logic-
If the teaching was ‘Do good acts so you can have a good laundry list of when you die’, then we wouldn’t be here because it’s not the teaching.
It’s about relationship, there are things we can do to repair and build it with God.
Which is built with efforts through good acts for others in part, but not because we need to hit a quota, rather we need the relationship and the more we act for it, the more we’ll see it’s truth and beauty.
That ‘why’ question related to acting good is tough to answer without the higher authority. We can’t point to anything in nature that is naturally giving.
For ‘giving’ to exist, it takes a will.
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
Heh. Okay.
First, Pascal’s Wager is about theism v. atheism. Not about Christianity v. Islam, etc.
Second, the merits of each major world religion should be evaluated on the strengths of their arguments and evidence. If the evidence for Islam or Hinduism were stronger, then there might some basis for considering them.
Third, how do you find that having a 1 in 100,000 chance of picking the right god to be better than simply choosing to pursue the one eternal Creator?
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
It IS the opinion of Christians, and for good reason. Christianity HAS supporting evidence and arguments for its claims. Judaism and Islam do, too, but there are problems with each. These are not relevant to this thread.
Only for simple-minded atheists. Those who are willing to consider (though not embrace, obviously) the evidence would, I believe, agree that of all the major world religions, Christianity has the most compelling case to be made in its favor.
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
lol
Like Nietzsche, for example?
But okay, Vera, what is the meaning of your life? With what have you filled it?
- Status