Pascal's Wager Revisited

[HelenaMT]

Metaphysically speaking; if we allow your God(greylorn’s god) to exist, our existence would be impossible.

Just out of pure curiosity, how so? (I’ve never formally studied metaphysics,or philosophy, so feel free to dumb down your answer rather than use all the philosophy-speak)

 

[greylorn]

Thank God that true Love doesn’t have such arrogant egotistical prejudices. If God judged us by our intellect, we would have no chance!:

Speak for yourself, please.

Metaphysically speaking; if we allow your God to exist, our existence would be impossible.

How exactly does a human allow a God to exist?

Arrogant, egotistical prejudices could not have something to do with that remarkable power, could they?

 

[greylorn]

Maybe but the more I read on this forum the more convinced I am that god doesn’t exist.

Yours is a point echoed by many an atheist, one stated in good faith and with good reason.

Yet, consider not throwing out baby with its bathwater. The God in Whom you disbelieve is the God defined by Christianity. Presumably you disbelieved in this God before you showed up on this website. How would you expect a site populated primarily by people who believe in the same God as “He in Whom you disbelieve” to convince you otherwise?

There is another alternative. It could be that there is indeed a Creator of the universe, but that the properties of this Creator are not those which Christianity has assigned to its God-concept. Nor are they the properties of Ra, Ba-al, Zeus, Allah, or the God of the Mormons, or the God of the Ba’h’ai’s.

Have you considered such a possibility?

 

[Charlemagne_II]

greylorn

There is another alternative. It could be that there is indeed a Creator of the universe, but that the properties of this Creator are not those which Christianity has assigned to its God-concept. Nor are they the properties of Ra, Ba-al, Zeus, Allah, or the God of the Mormons, or the God of the Ba’h’ai’s.

That is not even the subject of this thread, not even close. The question is Pascal’s wager. You need to start another thread if you want to flesh out the “properties” of God. If you do, please let us know. I for one would be glad to meet you there.

Thank you in advance for honoring the integrity of this thread.

 

[Ender]

Let’s call this mysterious entity “Greylorn’s God” and think about what properties such a Creator might have, and what His purposes might reasonably be. To begin with, He just might be looking, not for believers who reiterate the teachings they were programmed with as children, but for those with enough curiosity to look at the reality of the physical universe and nature of man and find the courage to declare, if only for themselves, to refuse belief in conventional teachings.

We seem to be still stuck in the starting gate. Suppose you convinced people that you were right and that masses came over to your view. When yours becomes the conventional teaching your god would apparently look elsewhere for those who “refuse belief in conventional teachings.” There is nothing inherently wrong in believing what is common and no inherent value in believing what is unique; I think we both agree that what is valuable is believing what is right. Jettison this particular approach; I really don’t think you are arguing for a god of the novelty shop.

You make a mathematically convincing argument that God is infinitely more intelligent than man - I think we all agree on that point - but this actually seems to weaken your position that it is man’s intellect that God cares about. I’m pretty sure that what makes the chipmunk appealing to us is not its intellect. Did you weigh the possibility that moral virtue might be a more significant aspect of man’s nature?

Ender

 

[Jean_Anthony]

This thread has run its course and spawned a lengthy side discussion. Please feel free to start new threads on side issues or join exsting threads of interest. Thank you all.