The burden of proof is on believers to prove God exists (according to atheist philosphers)

[Tomdstone]

As I have pointed out to rossum, Pascal may be a Christian, but his wager is an argument for theism - not Christianity specifically. He argues for Christianity elsewhere.

Pascal does argue that because our eternal destination depends upon a choice which we cannot avoid making, it is wise for us to pursue the matter diligently.

The common argument put forward by some atheists (I have actually heard it expressed in atheist forums) is that because there are so many different religions teaching contradictory things, it is not possible/plausible that God exists because God would not allow such confusion about Him to exist. This, of course, presumes that the one offering the opinion knows better than God does about what He should and should not permit.

However, on a roulette wheel, there are 37 wrong numbers and one right number. Similarly, millions of lottery tickets are sold while only one (usually) contains the winning series of numbers.

Just because there are many WRONG ideas about God, it does not mean that there is no right combination of doctrines or that we cannot know it.

In Euclidean geometry everyone agrees that the base angles of an isosceles triangle are equal. How come there is so much disagreement and so many wrong ideas about God? Why did God reveal Himself to the Jews, but not to the Indian Hindus who worship Vishnu and many other gods?

 

[STT]

Cause and effect includes many causes. Gravity causes us to be unable to fly like birds. One of the many causes is ourselves. We form part of the (name removed by moderator)ut, the cause, to the process. We can decide to drown the puppies or not to drown the puppies. We have limited control over our actions. The limits are set by the environment we have constructed round ourselves by our previous actions. We are only free to act within those limits.

A murderer who is in prison is constrained in his freedom of action. A non-murderer who is not in prison is, generally, less constrained and has more freedom of action.

There is no room for decision in a causal universe.

The zygote is part of the chain of cause and effect. The zygote is not yet a human being, since it still lacks some of the five parts of a human being. Those parts develop before birth.

I cannot believe that you accept this. It is physically impossible.

There is no problem with having a non-human entity in the chain, since many different non-human entities can be part of the chain: gods, animals, hell-beings and others. We do not have to be reborn as humans.

To be born as gods? Do gods mate and give birth?

Does your cat avoid rotten meat? Animals have a level of intellect and judgement.

I meant you need a perfect judgment in place and for that you need a perfect judge who cannot be you and me.

I can attach a result to an action. If I throw a rock straight up in the air, then I will be hit on the head by that falling rock. The result is attached to the action by cause and effect.

Cause and effect attaches the result to the action.

Yes, but you have an intellect which judge the action. In another world the judgment is only exist in mind of the judge rather than being attached to an action through Karma.

 

[Randy_Carson]

In Euclidean geometry everyone agrees that the base angles of an isosceles triangle are equal. How come there is so much disagreement and so many wrong ideas about God?

That is the simpler question to answer: There are many wrong ideas about God because WE were separated from God when our first parents disobeyed Him.

Why did God reveal Himself to the Jews, but not to the Indian Hindus who worship Vishnu and many other gods?

God created the universe out of nothing. Then He formed one man (Adam) out of the dust of the earth. Finally, He formed one nation (Israel) out of one man (Abraham).

So, it’s not the case that God revealed Himself to an existing nation; He revealed Himself to one man, and then built his descendants into a nation that would play a special role in the salvation of all mankind.

Keep this formation process in mind when reading this Internet response (substituting “form” and “formed” for “choose” and “chose”):

Question: "Why did God choose Israel to be His chosen people?"

Answer: Speaking of the nation of Israel, Deuteronomy 7:7-9 tells us, “The LORD did not set His affection on you and choose you because you were more numerous than other peoples, for you were the fewest of all peoples. But it was because the LORD loved you and kept the oath He swore to your forefathers that He brought you out with a mighty hand and redeemed you from the land of slavery, from the power of Pharaoh king of Egypt. Know therefore that the LORD your God is God; He is the faithful God, keeping His covenant of love to a thousand generations of those who love Him and keep His commands.”

God chose the nation of Israel to be the people through whom Jesus Christ would be born—the Savior from sin and death (John 3:16). God first promised the Messiah after Adam and Eve’s fall into sin (Genesis chapter 3). God later confirmed that the Messiah would come from the line of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob (Genesis 12:1-3). Jesus Christ is the ultimate reason why God chose Israel to be His special people. God did not need to have a chosen people, but He decided to do it that way. Jesus had to come from some nation of people, and God chose Israel.

However, God’s reason for choosing the nation of Israel was not solely for the purpose of producing the Messiah. God’s desire for Israel was that they would go and teach others about Him. Israel was to be a nation of priests, prophets, and missionaries to the world. God’s intent was for Israel to be a distinct people, a nation who pointed others towards God and His promised provision of a Redeemer, Messiah, and Savior. For the most part, Israel failed in this task. However, God’s ultimate purpose for Israel—that of bringing the Messiah into the world—was fulfilled perfectly in the Person of Jesus Christ.

gotquestions.org/why-God-choose-Israel.html

 

[goout]

In Euclidean geometry everyone agrees that the base angles of an isosceles triangle are equal. How come there is so much disagreement and so many wrong ideas about God?

The simplest answer might be that a triangle is a thing and God is a person.
You don’t have a relationship with a triangle.
You might know from personal experience that coming to know a person is messy and uncertain, and there is some mystery involved that can’t simply be proved like geometry. .
Learning math is pretty straightforward.

Why did God reveal Himself to the Jews, but not to the Indian Hindus who worship Vishnu and many other gods?

That’s been covered earlier in the thread.

 

[tonyrey]

As I have pointed out to rossum, Pascal may be a Christian, but his wager is an argument for theism - not Christianity specifically. He argues for Christianity elsewhere.

Pascal does argue that because our eternal destination depends upon a choice which we cannot avoid making, it is wise for us to pursue the matter diligently.

The common argument put forward by some atheists (I have actually heard it expressed in atheist forums) is that because there are so many different religions teaching contradictory things, it is not possible/plausible that God exists because God would not allow such confusion about Him to exist. This, of course, presumes that the one offering the opinion knows better than God does about what He should and should not permit.

However, on a roulette wheel, there are 37 wrong numbers and one right number. Similarly, millions of lottery tickets are sold while only one (usually) contains the winning series of numbers.

Just because there are many WRONG ideas about God, it does not mean that there is no right combination of doctrines or that we cannot know it.

The multiplicity of ideas about God shows it is an important subject based on the need for an adequate explanation of our existence. People aren’t concerned about beliefs about our destiny like atheism of which there is only one version - that we are insignificant freaks of nature…

 

[tonyrey]

Tomdstone

It is also far more important and deeply affects our attitude to ourselves and others.

 

[tonyrey]

In that case we’re not responsible for what we believe or how we live and law courts are based on a false distinction between guilt and innocence because we have no control over ourselves or our behaviour. In other words it is a fantasy to think we are rational beings and it is foolish to trust any of our conclusions such as:

Our beliefs, values, principles and attitude to others.

In fact we would be incapable of seeking the truth…

How this could be related to conscience?

Conscience is based on the ability to discover the truth, assess the value of other beings and recognise their rights.

 

[tonyrey]

Surely the persuasive burden rests on the person who wants to persuade.

If atheists don’t want to persuade people there’s no God(s) that’s their choice.
I don’t care if they choose to remain unpersuasive.

The truth is not determined by what people choose. If you don’t care about the value, purpose and meaning of life you are being unrealistic… Why are you participating on a philosophy forum?

 

[rossum]

Your argument has been that Pascal’s Wager is an argument for Christianity.

I have shown this to be false.

Pascal’s Wager is an argument for theism.

Pascal’s wager is an argument for the narrowest and most restrictive form of theism. Wahhabi Islam restricts salvation to Wahhabis only. Catholicism allows that some non-Catholics can be saved. Hence Pascal’s argument says that you are better off following Wahhabi Islam because it is the more restrictive choice.

A non-Catholic Wahhabi has two ways to be saved; a Catholic only has one way to be saved.

I made this same point upthread, so it is obvious that I did not see it as an argument for Christianity. Wahhabi Islam beats Catholic Christianity.

rossum

 

[rossum]

There is no room for decision in a causal universe.

I prefer the word “conditioned” to “causal”. We are constrained and conditioned by our pasts. There is room for limited decisions.

I cannot believe that you accept this. It is physically impossible.

Do you deny the existence of non-material components of a human being? Your argument is correct if only the material component is considered. It fails if the non-material components are included.

To be born as gods? Do gods mate and give birth?

There are many different heavens, and the gods in them originate in different ways. An animal may be born, hatch or split off from its parent. Gods also have many and various ways.

I meant you need a perfect judgment in place and for that you need a perfect judge who cannot be you and me.

You are personalising an impersonal process. Does gravity need a “God of Gravity” to ensure that the rock you throw straight up in the air comes down on your head? There are many processes in the universe than do not need a personality to intervene to run them. Gravity is one such process; karma is another.

Yes, but you have an intellect which judge the action.

My judgement is in advance of the action. I might make a mistake about the wisdom of the action. Part of life is improving one’s judgement of one’s actions before you act.

In another world …

I am living in this world, here and now. Other worlds are not relevant here and now.

rossum

 

[Randy_Carson]

Pascal’s wager is an argument for the narrowest and most restrictive form of theism. Wahhabi Islam restricts salvation to Wahhabis only. Catholicism allows that some non-Catholics can be saved. Hence Pascal’s argument says that you are better off following Wahhabi Islam because it is the more restrictive choice.

A non-Catholic Wahhabi has two ways to be saved; a Catholic only has one way to be saved.

I made this same point upthread, so it is obvious that I did not see it as an argument for Christianity. Wahhabi Islam beats Catholic Christianity.

rossum

 

[STT]

Our beliefs, values, principles and attitude to others.

You are correct. What we learn also shapes conscience. I forgot to mention that.

Conscience is based on the ability to discover the truth, assess the value of other beings and recognise their rights.

That is only true if you accept the fact that we can equate conscience to wisdom and the fact that wisdom can help us to discover the truth. Wisdom however act as a vision which partially help us to find the truth hence your argument is invalid. We need logic, intuition and instinct also to find our way toward the truth.

 

[STT]

I prefer the word “conditioned” to “causal”. We are constrained and conditioned by our pasts. There is room for limited decisions.

Cosmos including us is governed with five Niyamas. These are set of laws which determine how Cosmos evolves hence the behavior of Cosmos is causal (since we are dealing with a set of laws). This means that there is no room left for intelligence that can allow decision.

Do you deny the existence of non-material components of a human being? Your argument is correct if only the material component is considered. It fails if the non-material components are included.

I don’t think that immaterial components of human beings can help you to validate arguments. Could you please elaborate?

You are personalising an impersonal process. Does gravity need a “God of Gravity” to ensure that the rock you throw straight up in the air comes down on your head? There are many processes in the universe than do not need a personality to intervene to run them. Gravity is one such process; karma is another.

You need an intellect to require responsibility. There is no room left for intellect when Cosmos evolves based on five Niyamas. Please note the discussion in the first comment.

My judgement is in advance of the action. I might make a mistake about the wisdom of the action. Part of life is improving one’s judgement of one’s actions before you act.

I don’t understand what you are saying here.

 

[Tomdstone]

That is the simpler question to answer: There are many wrong ideas about God because WE were separated from God when our first parents disobeyed Him.

God created the universe out of nothing. Then He formed one man (Adam) out of the dust of the earth. Finally, He formed one nation (Israel) out of one man (Abraham).

So, it’s not the case that God revealed Himself to an existing nation; He revealed Himself to one man, and then built his descendants into a nation that would play a special role in the salvation of all mankind.

Keep this formation process in mind when reading this Internet response (substituting “form” and “formed” for “choose” and “chose”):

Question: "Why did God choose Israel to be His chosen people?"

Answer: Speaking of the nation of Israel, Deuteronomy 7:7-9 tells us, “The LORD did not set His affection on you and choose you because you were more numerous than other peoples, for you were the fewest of all peoples. But it was because the LORD loved you and kept the oath He swore to your forefathers that He brought you out with a mighty hand and redeemed you from the land of slavery, from the power of Pharaoh king of Egypt. Know therefore that the LORD your God is God; He is the faithful God, keeping His covenant of love to a thousand generations of those who love Him and keep His commands.”

God chose the nation of Israel to be the people through whom Jesus Christ would be born—the Savior from sin and death (John 3:16). God first promised the Messiah after Adam and Eve’s fall into sin (Genesis chapter 3). God later confirmed that the Messiah would come from the line of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob (Genesis 12:1-3). Jesus Christ is the ultimate reason why God chose Israel to be His special people. God did not need to have a chosen people, but He decided to do it that way. Jesus had to come from some nation of people, and God chose Israel.

However, God’s reason for choosing the nation of Israel was not solely for the purpose of producing the Messiah. God’s desire for Israel was that they would go and teach others about Him. Israel was to be a nation of priests, prophets, and missionaries to the world. God’s intent was for Israel to be a distinct people, a nation who pointed others towards God and His promised provision of a Redeemer, Messiah, and Savior. For the most part, Israel failed in this task. However, God’s ultimate purpose for Israel—that of bringing the Messiah into the world—was fulfilled perfectly in the Person of Jesus Christ.

gotquestions.org/why-God-choose-Israel.html

So it was all right for Hindus in India to be left in the dark and to worship their various gods and goddesses? Why didn’t these wonderful people deserve to know something about the true God?

 

[Tomdstone]

There are many wrong ideas about God because WE were separated from God when our first parents disobeyed Him.

But people were separated from the Pythagorean theorem for many centuries, and yet they were eventually able to come to the truth about right triangles.

 

[Lion_IRC]

Lion IRC;14224367:

Surely the persuasive burden rests on the person who wants

to persuade.

If atheists don’t want to persuade people there’s no God(s) that’s their choice.
I don’t care if they choose to remain unpersuasive.

The truth is not determined by what people choose.

It is true that people can choose to remain unpersuasive.
Eg. A person who shirks their burden of proof.

…If you don’t care about the value, purpose and meaning of life you are being unrealistic.

Are you specifically referring to me when you say that? Or do you mean to say
…if one doesn’t care about the value and meaning of life then one is being unrealistic
Death is very real. And some terminally ill lose interest in life. Are they being ‘unrealistic’?

…Why are you participating on a philosophy forum?

Because I want to find someone who has totally nailed down the one true epistemology and can give me a slam dunk explanation of the nature of reality/existence/consciousness without reference to personal ontology and subjective experience.

Generally what I find is that one brain in a vat cannot explain “the value, purpose and meaning of life” to another brain in a vat. But you seem pretty confident in your pronouncements.
Mind if I follow you?

 

[Aloysium]

What else can we know but personal ontology?
Intellectually, I assume the other exists.
Can experience be anything other than subjective?
It’s all about relationality: the knower, the knowing and the known.
And love, communion in the giving of oneself.

 

[tonyrey]

…If you don’t care about the value, purpose and meaning of life you are being unrealistic.

You stated “I don’t care if they choose to remain unpersuasive” as if it’s not an important matter…

Death is very real. And some terminally ill lose interest in life. Are they being ‘unrealistic’?

It is understandable that they lose interest in** this** life but not whether there is an afterlife.

.

Why are you participating on a philosophy forum?

Because I want to find someone who has totally nailed down the one true epistemology and can give me a slam dunk explanation of the nature of reality/existence/consciousness without reference to personal ontology and subjective experience.

Then you are seeking the impossible because absolute certainty is unattainable for beings with limited knowledge and intelligence.

Generally what I find is that one brain in a vat cannot explain “the value, purpose and meaning of life” to another brain in a vat. But you seem pretty confident in your pronouncements. Mind if I follow you?

You seem pretty confident about “the brains in a vat” hypothesis! Do you have direct knowledge of the vat - or your brain for that matter? Or do you** infer** the existence of your body? How would you prove the brain exists?

 

[tonyrey]

Our beliefs, values, principles and attitude to others.

Conscience is based on the ability to discover the truth, assess the value of other beings and recognise their rights.

That is only true if you accept the fact that we can equate conscience to wisdom and the fact that wisdom can help us to discover the truth. Wisdom however act as a vision which partially help us to find the truth hence your argument is invalid.

It doesn’t follow that wisdom consists **solely **of our conscience which is concerned with only one aspect of life: moral issues.

 

[rossum]

Cosmos including us is governed with five Niyamas. These are set of laws which determine how Cosmos evolves hence the behavior of Cosmos is causal (since we are dealing with a set of laws). This means that there is no room left for intelligence that can allow decision.

Not all laws have exact outcomes. A great many of the laws of quantum mechanics are statistical; they only prescribe a chance of something happening. A half-life is a good example.

I don’t think that immaterial components of human beings can help you to validate arguments. Could you please elaborate?

That which passes over from one life to the next is one of the immaterial components – the one which carries accumulated karma. Your argument about a new zygote is irrelevant since the zygote is indeed new.

I don’t understand what you are saying here.

You required a personal judge to run the system. The only person involved is oneself. The results of your actions are your own responsibility:

Mind precedes all conditions,
mind is their chief, they are mind-made.
If you speak or act with an evil mind then suffering will follow you,
as the wheel follows the draught ox.

Mind precedes all conditions,
mind is their chief, they are mind-made.
If you speak or act with a pure mind then happiness will follow you,
as a shadow that never leaves.

– Dhammapada 1:1-2

If you speak or act…

Christianity does not have this direct connection. God may, or may not, remit punishment for sin depending… where “depending” varies between different Christian denominations. That is one of my problems with the Christian system; it is dependent on the whims of God. Emo Philips’ bicycle joke applies here:

When I was a little boy, I used to pray every night for a new bicycle. Then I realised, the Lord, in his wisdom, doesn’t work that way. So I just stole one and asked Him to forgive me.

Putting God into the process breaks the link between action and consequences. I do not find that a useful approach.

rossum