V
- Status
K
Kristopher
Guest
I know that this question is not for me, but in order for Catholicism to be regarded as false, then only one of the following articles, within The Apostles Creed, would need either to be denied, or refuted:
- I believe in God, The Father, Creator of heaven, and earth,
- and in Jesus Christ, his only son, our Lord.
- Who was conceived by the Holy Spirit,
- born of the Virgin Mary;
- Suffered under Pontius Pilate;
- was crucified;
- buried,
- and descended to Hell.
- The third day he rose from the dead;
- ascended into heaven,
- and is seated at the right hand of The Father,
- from thence he shall come again
- to judge the living and the dead.
- I believe in the Holy Catholic Church,
- the communion of saints,
- the forgiveness of sins,
- the ressurrection of the dead,
- and in life everlasting.
A
anEvilAtheist
Guest
This assumes that the only possibilities are atheism and Catholicism. But it’s also possible that there’s a different God who rewards rationality and gives infinite happiness to those who do not worship a false God. There are also infinitely many other possible gods. So if you have no idea what God, if he even existed, would reward or punish, it’s irrational to make sacrifices that could just as easily hurt you as help you in the afterlife (if there is one). I believe it is very unlikely that there is a personal God, but even if there was, this fact alone would not be enough to make me behave any differently.
Also, I do not think I could force myself to believe something that I am pretty sure is not true. Even if someone offered me $1 trillion dollars, I do not think I could force myself to genuinely believe that invisible unicorns exist. I could say I believed in them, but an omniscient god could not be so easily fooled.
V
VociMike
Guest
No it doesn’t.
So you are living your life keeping all the Commandments? That is very commendable if true.
Anyway, yours is a common objection, and no really objection at all. Picking the right God for you is not our task, it is your task. But unless you find a God who thinks more highly of outright rejection than of believing and/or living in a mistaken version of him, you’re not off the hook. And in fact, there is no God among the likely candidates who rewards atheism more than mistaken but sincere belief and life lived along those lines. So do your homework, but don’t hide behind this difficulty. Deciding the best candidate God is precisely part of the finite effort that leads to infinite reward, so rationally you must do it.
As an analogy, if you are bitten by a poisonous snake, you may drive down the wrong road looking for a doctor, but you won’t just throw up your hands and say “I’m not sure which road to go down, so instead I’ll just sit here and face certain death.”
But you could at least live as though you believed. Live as though you understand God would want you to live.
But you’re right in pointing out that humans do not always behave in a rational manner.
K
Kristopher
Guest
God, typically, is defined as infinite: an infinite God leaves room for no other God. What makes the existence of other gods, possible, or even limitless? An infinite God must be recognized as the origin of all, that exists. Those with freewill have souls: angels, demons, gods, and people. However, the freewill of such beings is limited by the immortality of the soul. A being with a soul may choose a belief in God, or a denial in God, and God may mercifully allow entrance of a soul into heaven, or condemn such souls to Hell. Just the same, the freewill of a soul, cannot choose to be mortal. It must be immortal. A soul upon entering heaven will continue to have the freewill to choose Hell.
It is not the fact there is a personal God, which necessitates a change in behavior, but an understanding, that we are the miserable creatures, that we are and therefore, in need of salvation, and adherence to the will of God, then becomes important, because it is greater than our own will, that has the concupiscense, or inclination to sin.
Limitless possibilities? According to whom, or what? Yes means only yes. No means only no. There are no infinite possibilities, even the word “maybe” is limited to either yes, or no. Is there a God: yes or no? Upon what is the answer “yes” based? On what is the answer “no” based. Is it wise to rebel against God; when the answer: “God exists.”, is provided. Satan knowingly rebelled against God, and it is put forward, that Satan’s powers are granted to Satan by God, and they will one day, end. Will this terminate Satan’s existence as a god to that of a soul, condemned to Hell, without any ability whatsoever to deceive souls into Hell. I recently heard, that Satan will provide us with diamonds, that we may in turn, pick-up rocks.
A
anEvilAtheist
Guest
I wasn’t saying there could be other gods in addition to the Christian one; I was saying that there are infinitely many possible other gods that could exist instead.
I think the statement that we are all miserable creatures is false. There is some good and some bad in all of us, but that doesn’t mean we’re miserable.
You’re right that either there is a God or there is not. But merely knowing that there is something supernatural tells you nothing about how you should act.
A
anEvilAtheist
Guest
I meant that Pascal’s wager doesn’t work unless you make that assumption (and others).
My point was that merely knowing that there is a personal God of some sort does not immediately give you a set of moral laws. So I don’t see any reason why I should attach any significance to the Ten Commandments. But yes, I follow most of them because most of them make sense. For example, I have yet to kill somebody. Obviously I do not follow all of them: I do not do anything special for the Sabbath day.
Believing there are likely candidates means you think we actually have some knowledge of God. I do not think there is a God, and I definitely don’t think we have any evidence that makes the Christian God more likely than other theoretically possible gods.
Also, from what I have heard, even many of the most devout Christians occasionally have moments of doubt. I think that most of us would have to admit that it is at least theoretically possible that we might be wrong. But, by your logic, such people should devote every single waking moment (aside from essential things like working in order to have money for food) researching Christianity and other religions to be as certain as they possibly can. Even if someone was so incredibly confident that Christianity was correct that they would be more surprised if it was wrong than if they got 1000 straight royal flushes (with a fair deck), the reward of choosing correctly is infinite, so he should spend all his time finding out as much information as possible. However, I think most people who are this confident that the Christian god exists do not bother to do a comprehensive investigation of every single other religion. By your logic, this would seem irrational, and everyone should spend every free moment of their lives searching for evidence of God.
But in your example, you know that there aren’t an infinite number of roads. It’s also impossible to take a road that will make things worse in your example.
To illustrate one problem with infinite reward logic, imagine that some guy approached you on the street and told you that if you gave him half your life’s savings, he would give you an infinite reward (but refuses to give any more information). Now it’s theoretically possible that he could be right (maybe he received a message from God), but I think it would be ridiculous to accept his offer without some additional evidence. However, by your logic, if the guy made me that offer, I should accept.
And finally, I do not think that a god who gives so little evidence of his own existence and sends people to hell for not believing in him could really be omnibenevolent. I just don’t think a truly omnibenevolent god would send anyone to hell who would have happily worshiped him had they been given better evidence. But if this is the case, then the wager breaks down, because you’d get the same outcome either way.
I’d be really interested if you can find some way of salvaging Pascal’s wager. It just seems like a horrible argument in so many ways.
K
kall
Guest
It’s not a misconception, it’s basic logic.
You’re an Atheist in terms of Krishna, it isnt up to you to disprove the Hindu God, it’s up to them to prove it, same thing.
This is why I call my faith…faith and not absolute truth
S
Shredderbeam
Guest
I disagree with Pascal’s conclusion for the following reasons:
- I might choose the wrong God.
- God might be able to see through my act.
- God might not be impressed by bet-hedging.
B
budgie2
Guest
I went through a period of doubt in my life where I believed in a Creator as I didn’t believe that the Earth with it’s complexity could be here for nothing. However, I wasn’t sure about Christ. If Christ lived 2000 years ago, how can I prove that? How can I prove what he said was true when it was so long ago and have never met the man myself? The thing is that Christ did not just live 2000 years ago, he is still alive now and is resurrected from the dead. I felt Christ’s presence in the Eucharist and that he was still alive and that he knew every detail of my life. Pray for proof.
V
VociMike
Guest
But I have just as much of an obligation to offer evidence for my accounting for the universe and our position in it. Let me repeat the situation. Each of us must attempt to account for the existence of the universe and for the human situation. To not make that attempt is to be less than human. So it is not enough to deny the existence of the Christian God or the Hindu god or any other god. We must offer a compelling case for whatever it is that we believe does account for the universe and the human situation. We cannot, if we are to be truly human, simply ignore those two facts.
V
VociMike
Guest
There is no wrong God. There are only imperfect understandings of him. And there is no more imperfect understanding of him than to deny that he even exists, so any move away from atheism is a move in the right direction.
To live a life according to the natural law is not an act, it is a life. Actions speak more powerfully than words.
You are not hedging your bet, you are using the powers of reason that God has given you.
Besides, Pascal’s conclusion is not the end of the earthly journey but only the beginning. Nobody expects one to be stuck at the beginning point for their whole lives.
V
VociMike
Guest
It is merely a matter of reason that if God is truly omnipotent and omniscient and desires union with us, he would not be entirely invisible to us. One can immediately rule out most of the gods of history on that score as being quite incompetent gods when it comes to making themselves known to humans throughout the world.
You can’t avoid the rational conclusion regarding your own behavior by looking for examples where others don’t do what you think they should do. This is between you and a possibly existing God. He won’t be impressed if you justify your own behavior by calling out “but what about all those others?!” It’s between you and God.
Nonsense, there are not an infinite number of gods, and certainly not an infinite number of gods who might actually be the one God of all. In fact, of course, there can only be one God who is the cause of all, and we merely have some different, distorted visions of him. Again, it makes no sense to do nothing because if you do something it might be the wrong thing. I know that down deep you can see this.
We’re not talking about some guy on the street, we’re talking about the possible existence of a God who by definition accounts for everything. I think there’s a hint of desperation in your argument when you have to fall back on such a weak rebuttal.
You can claim that there is too little evidence, and I can claim in return that I find the evidence overwhelming. I find evidence of God everywhere. So which of us is right?
S
Shredderbeam
Guest
Then my objection just becomes “I might choose to worship the wrong conception of God”.
That presumes that the more perfect one’s understanding of God is, the more God is pleased. Perhaps God does not care how we view him, but cares how we act or think?
It is an act if I don’t believe in a God, and if I am just doing good deeds “just in case”.
All right, God might not be impressed by my good deeds if I do them “just in case” God exists.
Where does the journey lead, if Pascal’s Wager is the beginning?
V
VociMike
Guest
You would not make any of these objections if you actually believed that the possibility of perfect eternal happiness or perfect eternal unhappiness were at stake. My conclusion can only be that either you don’t believe in that possibility (in which case you are an atheist, which is no more defensible a position on evidence than you think theism is), or that you have other reasons for not wanting to try, however you might, to conform yourself to God.
The journey leads to perfect union with God, who is Truth and Life and Goodness and Beauty. The journey leads to becoming fully human, fully alive, free of the shackles of untruth, of attachment to sin (say “evil” if you prefer), of attachment to that which has no true and everlasting value.
K
Kristopher
Guest
Thank you for acknowledging, either God exists, or does not exist.
I am confused by the point, "there could be other gods … there are infinitely many possible other gods … ". You sound like you are stating, that it is possible for polytheistic beliefs, to replace monotheistic beliefs, which may not even be a moot point, but even within polythesitic systems of belief, such as Hinduism, there exists only one God, and such a God is infinite: it is a contradiction of terms, that a possible existence of many gods, can replace the existence of one God, that is infinite.
Agreed: there is some good and bad in most of us, however, in order that a person’s behavior should change according to the existence of God, in the monotheistic sense of the word “God”, behavior will change according to the admission, that one is sinful; to be sinful is to some extent, an admission of misery. Without this admission of misery, of sin, what need is there for a change in behavior?
Your last statement to myself, is difficult to understand: as a Catholic, I hold the belief, that God created me. I hold the belief, too, that through the sacrament of Baptism, I am separated against Original Sin: disobedience against God in terms of a story, that humankind’s first parents were disobedient and therefore, all their progeny–save Jesus, and his mother–have been condemned to a sinful nature. Additionally, the significance of this, is this: I exist as a soul–immortal, intelligent, and able to act according to my own freewill. As I am able to act of my own freewill, I am of course, as you say, unable to act according to the dictates of some extant supernatural being–God, or gods / godesses. Now, what additionally goes with myself, and yourself, existing as a soul is the following: ourselves as created immortal beings outside the condemnation of Original Sin, is the intrinsic inclination of a soul, toward God, or the willingness to do what is good–for ourselves, and for others as well, and this intrinsic inclination toward God, and goodness, is restored through Baptism, and other sacraments as well, according to freewill, consent to God’s love, graces, in our life. This is where your statement is false: the existence of something not only supernatural, but also against evil–does in fact, leave us with an intrinsic inclination to behave in a wise manner, as opposed to a foolish manner. Jesus made a comment about this, when he stated: no man hates his own body. This point is moot, arguable, nonetheless, on the whole, I think, that as you say, people are a mix of good and bad, and it may be said, in part, the good in us, is the will to be wise–if not for the sake of another, then for our own sake, but this may be furthered with forgiveness and hence, the need for a Messiah, Jesus.
I know that was somewhat of an awkward explanation, but I hope the main point did come across, not to be lost in the awkwardness. The main point being we, as immortal souls, apart from Original Sin, and sins by omission, or commission–we are intrinsically wired to behave wisely.
K
Kristopher
Guest
I believe, that people deduce from creation, God’s existence; additionally, I believe, that atheism is an acceptance of the freewill, to deny belief–I may seem to be begging the question–evidence(s) denied, that God exists; this is what substantiates an atheist’s ethical behavior. It should be without much surprise, those who are atheists behave ethically in accord, with the Ten Commandments, or another ethical structure, because as a Catholic I may assume, reasonably, an atheist is in the clutches of the Devil, and therefore, what need is there for Satan, to challenge the moral behaviors of an atheist? It is the moral behaviors of an atheist, which confound the morality of a Catholic. In the end, what are the moral behaviors of an atheist, except rocks, mistaken for diamonds?
E
estesbob
Guest
How did something arise from nothing?
How did life spring from non-life?
You can choose to believe that all the compexity of life and all wonders we see around us are the result of some massive primordial fart some 4.5 billion years ago or you can beleive that everything we see is the result of a loving God-IMO it takes more faith to beleive in the former than it does in the latter.
Once one accept the existence of God i cant see how anyone could unbaisely look at the evidence and not believe that Catholicism is the one true faith.
J
jimmy
Guest
I think anon gave the best response. If you want to know if Christianity is true you must experience it. It is the pursuit of communion with God. If that is what you seek then it can’t be received through proofs.
A
anEvilAtheist
Guest
I’m not a physicist so I’ll leave that to them. Although it would seem absurd, I will not completely rule it out until I see why it would be impossible. But don’t forget, the universe (and by universe I mean the entire natural world) could be eternal.
Well I wasn’t there billions of years ago when life formed so I don’t know exactly what happened. Scientists have a lot of theories, but at this point I don’t think we have enough information to say for sure. But science has always worked this way. We have something we don’t know, and after a lot of research, we figure it out. I don’t think that the sun moving across the sky was proof of God back when we had no natural explanation, and I don’t think the origin of life is proof of God now.
Sure, all beliefs can be mocked, though I don’t really get why you call it a fart. But if you think that sounds ridiculous, you should see how ridiculous Christian beliefs sound when atheists mock them. But as far as my actual beliefs versus actual Catholic beliefs, I think my version is a lot more likely.
Maybe, as long as you assume that God wants us to know of his existence and already has sent us a sign.
- Status