B
Bradski
Guest
It couldn’t be clearer.
But maybe you have experienced a situation where you didn’t accept the evidence and still believed. Or did accept it and did not believe.
The burden of proof is on believers to prove God exists (according to atheist philosphers)
- Status
But maybe you have experienced a situation where you didn’t accept the evidence and still believed. Or did accept it and did not believe.
T
Tomdstone
Guest
OK, but my point was that Catholics do not have the burden of proof to show that the Hindu gods do not exist, so why should atheists have the burden of proof to show that God does not exist? And secondly, IMHO, Pascal’s wager argument fails.
P
ProdglArchitect
Guest
In my opinion, Pascal’s wager succeeds.
See, it’s easy to just state an opinion. Supporting your opinion, on the other hand, is not so easy.
R
rossum
Guest
Pascal’s wager fails because you do not know how many gods there are. Does believing that Jesus is God put you on the bad side of the Jewish YHWH or the Muslim Allah? What does Ishtar think if you do not believe in her but instead believe in a different god?
The choice offered is too narrow, a false dichotomy. The real choices are: no god; god #1, god #2, god #3 … With different rewards and penalties for believing or not believing in any specific god. Some gods allow you to believe in other gods as well, such as the Hindu gods. The various versions of the Abrahamic God do not. Failure to believe in Odin and to train for Ragnarok will ensure that you end up in Helheim.
The wager only appears to work if it is reduced to two choices. In reality there are more than just two choices.
rossum
P
ProdglArchitect
Guest
You alternates do not carry any real weight behind the decision though.
I’ll start with the Hindu deities. If they are the true source of creation and afterlife, then failure to believe in them does not hold any real consequence. You will simply be reincarnated until you live a life in keeping with their tenants. Only the truly horrific and evil person will be sentenced to eternal loss, and that is a position shared by pretty much all religions, so it does not factor into the discussion. Correct me if I’m wrong, but most forms of Buddhism also hold to reincarnation. Pascal’s wager is not necessary here because there is no true consequence for a lack of belief beyond a temporary imprisonment and a lesser reincarnation.
Moving on to Ishtar, Odin, or any other past Pagan deities. Most pagan creation stories I’m aware of hold that humanity was created to be in a servile state, and tend to the planet for the gods, or to tend more directly to the gods’ needs, or even to be gods incarnate (as was the case with the pharaoh in ancient Egypt.) If this were accurate, and if those gods really did exist, then it stands to reason that they would not have allowed their servants to stop believing in them, especially given the accounts of their displays of power. Furthermore, even if you claim that YHWH defeated these other gods and that is why they no longer have dominion over humanity, does it not stand to reason that it is best to worship the deity who freed us from other, oppressive deities who treated us as servants?
Then we can move into the Judeo-Christian God, (and, arguably, the Muslim Allah). Since all three of these groups purport to believe in the same single entity known commonly as God, it becomes a matter of determining which of them has the strongest claim to Truth. This is probably the trickiest part of the whole equation, because it really requires the seeker to delve into pretty much all of human history to examine Judaism, Christianity, and Islam in depth. While which of the three you determine to be most true does have a profound effect on the form of your worship, Judaism, Christianity, and (again, arguably) Islam all hold out hope for any honest seekers of God. We all believe that salvation is possible for those people who truly and earnestly seek out Truth in their lives, even if they do not necessarily arrive at the correct conclusion. As such, a truth-seeker of any of the three could theoretically fulfill the requirements for pascal’s wager, should any of them prove to be right.
Given all of this, Pascal’s wager remains an effective tool for arriving at the conclusion that belief itself is important, and, when examined closely, can lead one to conclude that belief in the God of Abrahama is the most rational decision one can make.
R
rossum
Guest
Do you like dying? Do you like seeing your friends dying? Again and again and again and again… Here is a Buddhist scripture on the subject, though it is consistent with the Hindu approach:
[The Buddha said:] “What do you think, monks: Which is greater, the tears you have shed while transmigrating and wandering this long, long time – crying and weeping from being joined with what is displeasing, being separated from what is pleasing – or the water in the four great oceans?”
“As we understand the Dhamma taught to us by the Blessed One, this is the greater: the tears we have shed while transmigrating and wandering this long, long time – crying and weeping from being joined with what is displeasing, being separated from what is pleasing – not the water in the four great oceans.”
"Excellent, monks. Excellent. It is excellent that you thus understand the Dhamma taught by me.
"This is the greater: the tears you have shed while transmigrating and wandering this long, long time – crying and weeping from being joined with what is displeasing, being separated from what is pleasing – not the water in the four great oceans.
"Long have you (repeatedly) experienced the death of a mother. The tears you have shed over the death of a mother while transmigrating and wandering this long, long time – crying and weeping from being joined with what is displeasing, being separated from what is pleasing – are greater than the water in the four great oceans.
"Long have you (repeatedly) experienced the death of a father… the death of a brother… the death of a sister… the death of a son… the death of a daughter… loss with regard to relatives… loss with regard to wealth… loss with regard to disease. The tears you have shed over loss with regard to disease while transmigrating and wandering this long, long time – crying and weeping from being joined with what is displeasing, being separated from what is pleasing – are greater than the water in the four great oceans.
Yes. Buddhism is also universalist, every living thing (animals and devils included) will attain nirvana eventually. Though “eventually” may take hundreds of billions of years.
You cannot lump so many different religions into one category.
Here I disagree. You can deal with non-exclusivist groups more broadly, but there are plenty of very exclusive versions of the Abrahamic God. Feeneyites and others on the Christian side explicitly state that anyone not in their specific denomination is damned. There are Protestants who consign Catholics to damnation wholesale. Wahhabi Islam seems to do the same to all who do not follow that specific interpretation of Islam. Not only do you have to deal with all the non-Abrahamic religions, you have to deal with all the exclusivist sects within the Abrahamic religions. Do Jehova’s Witnesses allow non-JWs to be saved? You need to deal with every exclusivist sect that exists in order to support the wager.
Catholicism allows some non-Catholics to be saved; Wahhabi Islam does not. Therefore Pascal’s Wager tells my to follow Wahhabi Islam, which gives me two chances at being saved, versus only one if I follow Catholicism. Pascal’s Wager drives one towards exclusive sects.
rossum
A
Aloysium
Guest
You are assuming the Hindu god’s do not exist. A more appropriate question to my mind would ask about who and/or what they are.
In such a quest, if we were to begin with the Ancient Greek gods, we could understand them to be personifications of the weather, knowledge and wisdom, the sun, the earth, etc. These things do exist, and we can easily wonder and fear their beauty and power. The mythology takes form with the projection onto these “persons”, the interactions we see within our families and communities. This allows us to conceptualize and understand some of the enduring patterns of behaviour basic to the nature of relational beings. These god’s are certain specific complex realities that are revealed through the mythology.
In the Upanishads, there is the story that involves God’s (my translation of who is involved) meeting the various god’s who are the forces of nature. Asked about themselves, they are unable to manifest their powers in His presence. One of them finally recognizes God as the Source of his being. The system of Hindu belief is ontological, describing the structure of spiritual reality. Here is a story that tells how all, including the physical, is grounded in God. There being no magisterium, we are met with a multitude of ways to interpret their scripture. Within the culture, the ontology of Christianity can be easily fit into the Hindu framework.
God has a relationship with all of us individually and as one mankind. Christianity presents the revelation of His Word within the relationship He has had with mankind in time, beginning with one people, and spreading throughout the world.
Christianity depersonalizes the forces of nature, seeing them as the false gods they are. In nature there is no one to reveal themselves, but rather constitutes something which may be forced opened and manipulated. This approach to knowledge and existence itself has had some unfortunate consequences, having been taken beyond its limits. The cause of this trend is nothing new, but is the same as in all generations. It is an attitude based on the flesh, worldly pleasure, power, wealth and honour, the gratification and empowerment of the self. The original Garden scene is replayed in perpetuity as what belongs to God is usurped by mankind. At the centre of the garden which is ourselves-in-relation-to-the-world, we ourselves, replace God. Within that world view, we in ourselves become the only persons. And the outcome, paradoxically, is to depersonalize even ourselves. We do not cause ourselves to be, so that in a purely material universe we see ourselves reflected back as merely an emergent quality of blind physical processes.
Having no magisterium, atheism is elusive presenting us with many faces. However, like Islam has its Shiites and Sunnis, atheism appears to have what I term lightheartedly its nerds and feminists, after the elevatorgate incident. Some variation of materialism on the one hand Is at odds with humanism on the other. Humanism, I see in my crystal ball, as a slippery slope that, especially with abortion and now euthanasia, will see itself devolving from the Christian values it has appropriated, into the philosophy of power on which it is founded. My buddy Freddy Nietzsche may have been enthralled by power, but he wasn’t wrong about how this world works when it is disconnected from the Divine.
TLDNR - It not a matter of proving anything, but trying to understand different perspectives, the different types of relationships we have with reality. The closer to God, the more it all makes sense, because one thereby connects evermore with the Truth. We must open our hearts and minds and pursue the truth!
A
Aloysium
Guest
P
ProdglArchitect
Guest
This doesn’t change the fact that there is no eternal consequence if any belief structure that believes in reincarnation is true.
You can when what I was referencing is a common thread found throughout all of them, which is what I said.
The question in this case becomes which of these is actually True. The acceptance of one of these is not just a matter of blindly selecting one, it’s a matter of a lifetime of study and consideration.
Regardless, Pascal’s wager is more an argument for belief, rather than an argument for one specific belief, and in that regard it is still effective.
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
So, does this mean that it is your opinion that although it appears to be unlikely that God exists due to the lack of evidence to the contrary, it is at least possible that He exists?
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
You’re right; therefore, that is not a claim I would be foolish enough to make in a debate setting.
Rather, I would ask you to present any positive evidence you may have for Vishnu’s existence, and I would then evaluate the strength of that evidence relative to the strength of the evidence for the divinity of Jesus Christ.
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
There is one God comprised of three persons, and Jesus is the second person of the Holy Trinity. Believing in Jesus does not put Christians “on the bad side” of YHWH or Allah since they are the same God.
The God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob declared through the prophet Isaiah, "I am God, and there is no other; I am God, and there is none like me. (Is 46:9), and then He backed up His claim time and again by performing miracles for the people to see.
In contrast, Ishtar is figure of ancient mythology who does not actually exist – but I will not be drawn into attempting to prove a negative.
So what? The burden is upon you to sort it out. While there are a variety of claims made by practitioners of all faiths, these claims are contradictory and conflicting. They cannot ALL be true. It is up to you to decide which is correct.
I think Pascal’s wager is often misunderstood. Here is an explanation from Peter Kreeft:
Suppose a typical mind lacked both the gift of faith and the confidence in reason to prove God’s existence; could there be a third ladder out of the pit of unbelief into the light of belief?
Pascal’s Wager claims to be that third ladder. Pascal well knew that it was a low ladder. If you believe in God only as a bet, that is certainly not a deep, mature, or adequate faith. But it is something, it is a start, it is enough to dam the tide of atheism. The Wager appeals not to a high ideal, like faith, hope, love, or proof, but to a low one: the instinct for self-preservation, the desire to be happy and not unhappy. But on that low natural level, it has tremendous force. Thus Pascal prefaces his argument with the words, “Let us now speak according to our natural lights.”
Imagine you are playing a game for two prizes. You wager blue chips to win blue prizes and red chips to win red prizes. The blue chips are your mind, your reason, and the blue prize is the truth about God’s existence. The red chips are your will, your desires, and the red prize is heavenly happiness. Everyone wants both prizes, truth and happiness. Now suppose there is no way of calculating how to play the blue chips. Suppose your reason cannot win you the truth. In that case, you can still calculate how to play the red chips. Believe in God not because your reason can prove with certainty that it is true that God exists but because your will seeks happiness, and God is your only chance of attaining happiness eternally.
Pascal says, “Either God is, or he is not. But to which view shall we be inclined? Reason cannot decide this question. [Remember that Pascal’s Wager is an argument for sceptics.] Infinite chaos separates us. At the far end of this infinite distance [death] a coin is being spun that will come down heads [God] or tails [no God]. How will you wager?”
gnostic says, “The right thing is not to wager at all.” Pascal replies, “But you must wagThe most powerful part of Pascal’s argument comes next. It is not his refutation of atheism as a foolish wager (that comes last) but his refutation of agnosticism as impossible. Agnosticism, not-knowing, maintaining a sceptical, uncommitted attitude, seems to be the most reasonable option. The aer. There is no choice. You are already committed [embarked].” We are not outside observers of life, but participants. We are like ships that need to get home, sailing past a port that has signs on it proclaiming that it is our true home and our true happiness. The ships are our own lives and the signs on the port say “God”. The agnostic says he will neither put in at that port (believe) nor turn away from it (disbelieve) but stay anchored a reasonable distance away until the weather clears and he can see better whether this is the true port or a fake (for there are a lot of fakes around). Why is this attitude unreasonable, even impossible? Because we are moving. The ship of life is moving along the waters of time, and there comes a point of no return, when our fuel runs out, when it is too late. The Wager works because of the fact of death.
peterkreeft.com/topics/pascals-wager.htm
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
They don’t, Tom. Not to me, anyway. But that’s not the end of the matter, because while there is no burden of proof for the atheist vis-a-vis the believer, there is the necessity of knowing whether God exists or not - and this is a burden that falls upon all men equally.
IOW, you don’t have anything to prove to me, but you need to know in your own heart of hearts what the truth is.
1
1Lord1Faith
Guest
Does Buddism teach that people are effected by the past pain of losing loved ones (or anything that is “displeasing” for that matter)? Or is your quote simply referring to the volume of tears, not necessarily the level of anguish, from repeatedly seeing loved ones dying.
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
:nope:
Either God exists, or He doesn’t. Those are the only two choices under consideration here.
(And frankly, I don’t give a rip what some alleged demigod thinks about me or what I do. If he, she or it is not the ultimate creator, then he, she or it is not worth my praise and adoration. But I digress.)
Pascal’s Wager is not about which God exists but rather about how a reasonable person should respond to the possibility that some god does exist at all.
So, there is no false dichotomy contained within the Wager; it’s all about theism v. atheism.
Sorting out which concept of God is correct is another discussion, of course.
R
rossum
Guest
Which version? The Wahhabi version of the Abrahamic God is not going to save Catholics. The JW version of the Abrahamic God is not going to save Catholics either.
You not only have to pick the right God among many; you have to pick the right version of that God among many.
Indeed: choice 1 Vishnu exists, choice 2 Vishnu does not exist.
The wager also makes assumptions about the nature of the God is offers. It sweeps a great many assumptions under the carpet.
Why? Picking the wrong God is as bad as picking no God. The wager is the same if you are picking between the Wahhabi God, who sends all non-Wahhabis to hell or the Catholic God who does save some non-Catholics. The wager tells you to pick the Wahhabi God. See you at your local Sunni Mosque on Friday.
rossum
R
rossum
Guest
Suffering (dukkha) is the first of the Four Noble Truths. The Buddha defined it as:
“Now this, monks, is the Noble Truth of Suffering: Birth is suffering, aging is suffering, death is suffering; sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief and despair are suffering; association with the unbeloved is suffering; separation from the loved is suffering; not getting what is wanted is suffering. In short, the five clinging-aggregates are suffering.”
– Samyutta Nikaya, 56.11
The other three truths cover the Origin of suffering, its Cessation and the Path to that cessation.
We are affected by our past actions, (karma), not by our past pain. We can of course learn from our pain not to repeat the actions that caused it. The volume of water is irrelevant to the text, it is more about the volume of suffering that you can avoid by attaining enlightenment earlier rather than later. Tears make a good stand-in for suffering.
rossum
1
1Lord1Faith
Guest
I’m trying to see the logic (not that there has to be any) in this long suffering. My problem with the logic of it is this:
If my past suffering has no effect on me, why would I consider it in relation to the enlightenment I’m attaining now? Considering future suffering seems burdensome and counter to the point of enlightenment.
Wouldn’t karma be the motivator in achieving enlightenment?
Why even mention suffering in different lifetimes if there is no consequence to it in the current life?
Do the monks say, *“As we understand the Dhamma taught to us by the Blessed One, this is the greater: the tears…” * because they have to take Budda’s word for it or can they experience it (see it) for themselves?
B
Bradski
Guest
Yes.
But then if you asked me if it is at least possible that Vishnu exists or I will be reincarnated or I am a brain in a vat, I would say the say the same.
Obviously, to all intents and purposes, I live my life as if these things are not true.
S
STT
Guest
How could you reincarnate if you don’t have any soul?
- Status