T
tonyrey
Guest
People often accuse others of their own defects. You seem to think you are wiser and have greater faith than Pascal…
The burden of proof is on believers to prove God exists (according to atheist philosphers)
- Status
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
And what passes for “love” among many marriages is not a genuine, lifelong commitment but a mere passing lust that withers under pressure.
But there is no reason to think that a “suitable” marriage cannot blossom into genuine love.
I’m done with this silly line of discussion. You may have the last word.
A
Aloysium
Guest
An odd conversation: admittedly not knowing much of anything about Hinduism, but using one’s vague notions about it to agree with someone who evidently knows even less.
Perhaps a variant of Pascal’s wager is in order. Not knowing much about the transcendent, pick a religion, any one, and follow where it leads to the reality it describes.
A
Aloysium
Guest
We all have a relationship with God. The proof lies within that dialogue. If one runs from it, one cannot expect there to be any proof.
I don’t know much about Pascal. However in general, someone speaking as he does about his envy, suggests that the person is likely struggling with his doubts. He knows the truth is out there just out of his mind’s reach. It always is until you reach it. This particular cross, as are they all, is the means by which God would help free him from the constraints of “cleverness”.
The truth is to be found in God, and it is by His grace that we find Him. Our human nature, decided in the Garden, to become gods without God, in this case manifests itself as a reliance on our intellect rather than a surrender to the Truth, consequently leaving us prone to doubts in the darkness of our ignorance.
It is very easy; ask and it will be given us. Going it alone, one will move only in circles.
:twocents:
L
Lion_IRC
Guest
I’m pretty sure most people know that no actual money changes hands and that the term ‘wager’ is a figure of speech.
Yes - atheism. The unsupported hypothesis that there is no God(s)
Pascal is baffled as to why the atheist won’t give God the benefit of the doubt.
No. He asks them to be open-minded.
There’s only three options.
God - yes.
God - no.
Or God - maybe.
If the atheist thinks there is no God they should support their ‘belief’ with evidence and reasoning. But if they are actually agnostic what’s wrong with being open-minded to Pascal?
Being open-minded isn’t dishonesty.
This thread is about intellectual honesty.
If atheism asserts itself as some sort of default truth position with respect to the yes or no question of God(s) existence (and the soul and that parallel universe we call the afterlife,) and if atheists reject any and every single instance of proposed evidence for same, then one is entitled to question the intellectual honesty of such a universal and methodological commitment to scepticism/atheism.
C
Cheiron
Guest
I know. I was talking about your analogy of a $50 bet.
I see atheism as the default position. If I accept the existence of the Abrahamic God without evidence, then I have to accept all gods. Otherwise it’s a case of special pleading, without supporting evidence. But if I believe in all gods, then I would be a monotheist and a polytheist at the same time. That’s a contradictory worldview.
I have a different understanding of the wager. Pascal asks atheists to believe because there is everything to gain and nothing to lose. He asks atheists not to be open-minded, but to be believers.
Agnosticism implies (to me) that we don’t know and that the odds are roughly 50-50. That’s not how I think about God. I don’t think the odds are 50-50 because I haven’t seen convincing evidence that points to the existence of a god or gods.
That’s true.
The evidence that I’ve read about so far just doesn’t meet my criteria. Ofcourse I’m open to the idea that I could be wrong and perhaps there is evidence out there that I haven’t seen yet. Your second point about the commitment to scepticism is something sceptics have struggled with since Classical Antiquity. Is the rejection of dogma in itself a dogma? I don’t know enough about the philosophy of scepticism to answer this paradox and fundamental contradiction. Perhaps it has been resolved, I don’t know.
In any case, my beef with Pascal’s Wager is that it isn’t about evidence at all. He says it’s better to believe in God or act as if you do, because there are no repercussions if you’re wrong and there is everything to gain if God does exist. Pascal is a brilliant Catholic philosopher, but I consider his wager a really bad argument for Christianity.
I want to add that my atheism is not a choice. I can’t believe in God if I don’t see evidence, in the same way I can’t believe it’s dry when it’s raining.
B
Bradski
Guest
But why not back the unicorn to win? There’s no effort on your part and think what good you could do with the money?
Surely you are not saying you wouldn’t do it just because you don’t believe unicorns exist. Just choose to believe.
What have you got to lose?
G
goout
Guest
Because a unicorn is not worth my time or effort. It adds no meaning to my life, does not say anything about where I came from or where I am going, and does not tell me anything about who I am. A unicorn has no promise of hope, love, or faith.
If all those things are a possibility, I have something to lose. A unicorn, not so much.
I’m sorry, but you think like a fundamentalist.
B
Bradski
Guest
The first sentence is not correct. He wants atheists to give Christianity the benefit of the doubt, not God. There is a big difference.
And the three options aren’t correct as far as an atheist is concerned. God exists or not independent of what I believe. So the three options are:
I believe God exists.
I don’t believe God exists.
I’m not sure if God exists.
Pascal’s wager is this: If you find yourself in the second group, put yourself in the first. Now the only way I can do that is by being convinced of God’s existence. In which case I am not in the second group in any case, so there’s nothing for me to do.
B
Bradski
Guest
Well let’s say that the prize for winning is a cure for cancer. And this is a hypothetical, so please, accept it as such.
You still wouldn’t bet because you don’t believe that unicorns exist. It would be nonsensical to do so, whatever the prize.
Similarly, I don’t bet on God for the same reason. Whatever the prize.
R
rossum
Guest
That is a false trichotomy. How about:
Allah - yes.
Allah - no.
Or Allah - maybe.
Or there again:
Amaterasu - yes.
Amaterasu - no.
Or Amaterasu - maybe.
etc.
There are a great many options available.
rossum
G
goout
Guest
I not only don’t believe they exist, it doesn’t matter much even if I did believe. The payoff for the wager is inconsequential when compared with find meaning, being, purpose, identity, love. Etc…
B
Bradski
Guest
Sheesh. OK. Let’s say the prize in the Unicorn Stakes is actually meaning, being, purpose, identity, love etc (which, incidentally, do not require a belief in unicorns in any case), then you STILL wouldn’t bet on it.
I
inocente
Guest
Tony, these days you seem unable to stick to the subject and not make fanciful personal remarks.
Your views on David Attenborough, on the occupational hazards experienced by programmers, on freaks of nature, etc., are on record and indicate you may well be mistaken in believing you have superpowers to psychoanalyze other posters over the internet.
Just this once, why not try to remember to discuss the subject and not other posters, Mr Forum Elder?
G
goout
Guest
Brad, your analogy doesn’t work.
So there is no sheesh of amazement here. Wake up.
You take words and ideas in fundamentalist ways…insisting they fit literalist meanings, rigidly conforming to unicorn equations. It doesn’t work.
If I have the option of taking the plunge for meaning, being, purpose, identity, love, peace, joy, why wouldn’t I take the plunge? Why wouldn’t you? Only a fool would sit with his arms folded.
You don’t believe those things are available. Fine. But your attempt to equate the whole thing with the unicorns is silly, just like the mashed turnip thing.
I
inocente
Guest
Neither of which is a response to having every reason to think that marrying someone for money, just like making a bet for selfish motives, will not turn into love.
Not sure why my quoting Pascal deserved that, but I guess his supporters might find it hard to see him say it’s a silly line of discussion to try to prove the existence or even the nature of God.
Regarding the OP, Pascal says he has no proof and it’s foolishness to even try.
“If there is a God, He is infinitely incomprehensible, since, having neither parts nor limits, He has no affinity to us. We are then incapable of knowing either what He is or if He is. This being so, who will dare to undertake the decision of the question? Not we, who have no affinity to Him”. - ccel.org/ccel/pascal/pensees.iv.html
I
inocente
Guest
The thing which struck me is not that Pascal knows he can’t prove the existence of God, which with the exception for a few Thomists and fellow travelers
is something everyone agrees, but that he thinks God is completely and utterly alien (as per the quote above in post #217). Presumably when he wrote that he was having a really bad hair day.
T
tonyrey
Guest
I leave you with Pascal’s words:
“Thus I stretch out my arms to my Saviour, who, after being foretold for four thousand years, came on earth to die and suffer for me at the time and in the circumstances foretold. By his grace I peaceably await death, in the hope of being eternally united to him, and meanwhile I live joyfully, whether in the blessings which he is pleased to bestow on me or in the affliction he sends me for my own good and taught me how to endure by his example.”
T
tonyrey
Guest
T
tonyrey
Guest
Almost all of the world religions are united in the belief that there is one Creator.
- Status