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

[Randy_Carson]

Wagering is gambling, there are no prudent bets.

Do you object to all forms of gambling? And all forms of drinking alcohol? What about dancing?



Gambling is only a problem if it risks money that is needed for the support of the family, etc. Otherwise, it is a harmless form of entertainment.

Pascal says we cannot rationally determine whether God exists, but we can rationally gamble out of self-interest.

Is that what Pascal says? That it is not possible to rationally determine whether God exists? With certainty or probably?

But yes, we can rationally gamble out of self-interest. If you own any form of insurance, you are essentially doing the same thing. You’re “betting” on one outcome (I think I might get sick or have a car accident.) while your agent is “betting” on another (I won’t have to pay a claim on this person.). The winner of this wager is the one who keeps the most money in the long-run. The insurance company is the house which makes money by carefully managing their actuarial tables for a lot of customers over the long term.

His entire argument is based in self-interest on the pretense that God punishes good people for lack of belief.

Therefore if the wager is rational, the atheist should on no account try to believe in Christ, but should instead go for a deity who rewards selfishness and lack of integrity.

As a Baptist, you believe that someone should say the sinner’s prayer and accept Jesus into their heart as their personal Lord and Savior (a formula that appears nowhere in Scripture - passages in John notwithstanding). And once saved, always saved?

Even without the eternal get out of jail free card (OSAS), it is a BIG selling point of the four spiritual laws that Jesus offers eternal reward to those who confess their sins and “believe” in Jesus. “God loves you and offers a wonderful plan for your life.”

The question is, how many of the people who attended Billy Graham’s crusades REALLY understood what they were signing up for and what true discipleship was all about?

Not many. But hey, they got saved, right?

Billy Graham and Pascal were both betting on the same point: if someone who does not have much or any faith begins to ACT as if they have faith by attending church, reading scripture and praying, etc., REAL, mature faith may develop over time.

If someone responds to an altar call out of self-interest (avoiding hell) and ends up loving Jesus, that was a well-placed bet.

 

[tonyrey]

Do you object to all forms of gambling? And all forms of drinking alcohol? What about dancing?

Gambling is only a problem if it risks money that is needed for the support of the family, etc. Otherwise, it is a harmless form of entertainment.

Is that what Pascal says? That it is not possible to rationally determine whether God exists? With certainty or probably?

But yes, we can rationally gamble out of self-interest. If you own any form of insurance, you are essentially doing the same thing. You’re “betting” on one outcome (I think I might get sick or have a car accident.) while your agent is “betting” on another (I won’t have to pay a claim on this person.). The winner of this wager is the one who keeps the most money in the long-run. The insurance company is the house which makes money by carefully managing their actuarial tables for a lot of customers over the long term.

As a Baptist, you believe that someone should say the sinner’s prayer and accept Jesus into their heart as their personal Lord and Savior (a formula that appears nowhere in Scripture - passages in John notwithstanding). And once saved, always saved?

Even without the eternal get out of jail free card (OSAS), it is a BIG selling point of the four spiritual laws that Jesus offers eternal reward to those who confess their sins and “believe” in Jesus. “God loves you and offers a wonderful plan for your life.”

The question is, how many of the people who attended Billy Graham’s crusades REALLY understood what they were signing up for and what true discipleship was all about?

Not many. But hey, they got saved, right?

Billy Graham and Pascal were both betting on the same point: if someone who does not have much or any faith begins to ACT as if they have faith by attending church, reading scripture and praying, etc., REAL, mature faith may develop over time.

If someone responds to an altar call out of self-interest (avoiding hell) and ends up loving Jesus, that was a well-placed bet.

A superb reply. Since to gamble is “take risky action in the hope of a desired result” every time we make a decision we are gambling because we can never be absolutely sure we will get what we want. It is also a mistake to equate self-interest with selfishness. Pascal was justified in believing we should aim at reaching heaven and offer it as an incentive to non-believers. On the Cross Jesus told the repentant thief he would be in paradise and hoped the other thief would also repent since the purpose of His mission was that everyone should be saved…

 

[inocente]

Do you object to all forms of gambling? And all forms of drinking alcohol? What about dancing?

I didn’t offer an opinion, merely said that a wager is, by definition, gambling.

Is that what Pascal says? That it is not possible to rationally determine whether God exists? With certainty or probably?

Pascal says “Who then will blame Christians for not being able to give a reason for their belief”, “Reason cannot decide for us one way or the other”. He even says God “has no affinity to us. We are then incapable of knowing either what He is or if He is”.

Pascal sounds as if he never had a relationship with God and can only believe in a theory.

But yes, we can rationally gamble out of self-interest. If you own any form of insurance, you are essentially doing the same thing. You’re “betting” on one outcome (I think I might get sick or have a car accident.) while your agent is “betting” on another (I won’t have to pay a claim on this person.). The winner of this wager is the one who keeps the most money in the long-run. The insurance company is the house which makes money by carefully managing their actuarial tables for a lot of customers over the long term.

Insurance isn’t gambling, and salvation is a gift, not winnings from a wager.

*As a Baptist, you believe that someone should say the sinner’s prayer and accept Jesus into their heart as their personal Lord and Savior (a formula that appears nowhere in Scripture - passages in John notwithstanding). And once saved, always saved?

Even without the eternal get out of jail free card (OSAS), it is a BIG selling point of the four spiritual laws that Jesus offers eternal reward to those who confess their sins and “believe” in Jesus. “God loves you and offers a wonderful plan for your life.”*

For some unknown reason I recall that parable from Luke 18 told to “some who were confident of their own righteousness and looked down on everyone else”.

*The question is, how many of the people who attended Billy Graham’s crusades REALLY understood what they were signing up for and what true discipleship was all about?

Not many. But hey, they got saved, right?

Billy Graham and Pascal were both betting on the same point: if someone who does not have much or any faith begins to ACT as if they have faith by attending church, reading scripture and praying, etc., REAL, mature faith may develop over time.

If someone responds to an altar call out of self-interest (avoiding hell) and ends up loving Jesus, that was a well-placed bet. *

By that logic, marrying for money is morally good because although it starts out pure selfishness, there’s a chance it might turn into love.

Pascal’s wager is reconstructed from notes he made before he died. A sanitized version just includes the argument proper, but the complete notes read as if Pascal is trying to convince himself, for instance “This is what I see and what troubles me. I look on all sides, and I see only darkness everywhere. Nature presents to me nothing which is not matter of doubt and concern. If I saw nothing there which revealed a Divinity, I would come to a negative conclusion; if I saw everywhere the signs of a Creator, I would remain peacefully in faith. But, seeing too much to deny and too little to be sure, I am in a state to be pitied”.

He talks of “an angry God” and “if you die without worshiping the True Cause, you are lost” but never explains how his wager would change that.

He laments “Instability.—It is a horrible thing to feel all that we possess slipping away”.

Not exactly born again. More like Tolstoy’s Ivan Ilyich, screaming long into the night.

 

[Aloysium]

. . . Pascal sounds as if he never had a relationship with God and can only believe in a theory. . . “This is what I see and what troubles me. I look on all sides, and I see only darkness everywhere. Nature presents to me nothing which is not matter of doubt and concern. If I saw nothing there which revealed a Divinity, I would come to a negative conclusion; if I saw everywhere the signs of a Creator, I would remain peacefully in faith. But, seeing too much to deny and too little to be sure, I am in a state to be pitied”. He talks of “an angry God” and “if you die without worshiping the True Cause, you are lost” but never explains how his wager would change that. . . .

It seems to me that he had a relationship with God, full of passion, actually.
God is sometimes clearest when He turns His face from us.
The search for God and His calling us are one and the same.
When one believes in nothing, when creation is an absurdity and our meaning lies in an ultimately futile attempt at its conquest, what has one to lose but to take that first step. Existence will not always be “too much”; taking on what “troubles and concerns”, one does find the glory of the “True Cause”. One cannot but worship.
The motivation to travel down that road may lie in the recognition of what is at stake, and then daring to wrestle with those demons that keep us from the truth, apathy and complacency perhaps being the greatest.

 

[Lion_IRC]

I like to think of Pascal’s Wager as saying;
…why not give God the benefit of the doubt?
…what have you got to lose?
…the afterlife is the wrong thing to be wrong about.

It’s just a starting point. An invitation.

 

[Mort_Alz]

A superb reply. Since to gamble is “take risky action in the hope of a desired result” every time we make a decision we are gambling because we can never be absolutely sure we will get what we want. It is also a mistake to equate self-interest with selfishness. Pascal was justified in believing we should aim at reaching heaven and offer it as an incentive to non-believers. On the Cross Jesus told the repentant thief he would be in paradise and hoped the other thief would also repent since the purpose of His mission was that everyone should be saved…

I believe the Council of Trent even explicitly stated that Attrition (being sorry because one might go to hell) is an acceptable form of sorrow because it can lead to Contrition (true sorry simply because one “offended” God.)

 

[Lion_IRC]

Lion IRC;14228959:

tonyrey;14226959:

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

So what? Why should I care if the atheist chooses NOT to take up any persuasive burden?
That’s their business. Maybe it’s not important to them. And if its not important to them, why would I care? As they say, never interrupt your opponent when they are making a mistake.

Not even when it could prove fatal?

Fatal to whom?
Fatal to the atheist who claims they have no persuasive burden of proof? Or who claims that atheism is some sort of default truth position against which everyone else must do the intellectual ‘heavy lifting’?

Surely their LACK of counter-apologetics is beneficial.

 

[Bradski]

…what have you got to lose?

I seem to recall someone attempting to persuade black America to vote for him using the same term. In both cases it elicits a slow shake of the head.

 

[tonyrey]

A superb reply. Since to gamble is “take risky action in the hope of a desired result” every time we make a decision we are gambling because we can never be absolutely sure we will get what we want. It is also a mistake to equate self-interest with selfishness. Pascal was justified in believing we should aim at reaching heaven and offer it as an incentive to non-believers. On the Cross Jesus told the repentant thief he would be in paradise and hoped the other thief would also repent since the purpose of His mission was that everyone should be saved…

A very good point - inspired no doubt by the fact that God is infinitely merciful.

 

[tonyrey]

Fatal to whom?
Fatal to the atheist who claims they have no persuasive burden of proof? Or who claims that atheism is some sort of default truth position against which everyone else must do the intellectual ‘heavy lifting’?

Surely their LACK of counter-apologetics is beneficial.

For their opponents undoubtedly! As King Lear said, nothing shall come of nothing.

 

[tonyrey]

I didn’t offer an opinion, merely said that a wager is, by definition, gambling.

Pascal says “Who then will blame Christians for not being able to give a reason for their belief”, “Reason cannot decide for us one way or the other”. He even says God “has no affinity to us. We are then incapable of knowing either what He is or if He is”.

Pascal sounds as if he never had a relationship with God and can only believe in a theory.

Insurance isn’t gambling, and salvation is a gift, not winnings from a wager.

For some unknown reason I recall that parable from Luke 18 told to “some who were confident of their own righteousness and looked down on everyone else”.

By that logic, marrying for money is morally good because although it starts out pure selfishness, there’s a chance it might turn into love.

Pascal’s wager is reconstructed from notes he made before he died. A sanitized version just includes the argument proper, but the complete notes read as if Pascal is trying to convince himself, for instance “This is what I see and what troubles me. I look on all sides, and I see only darkness everywhere. Nature presents to me nothing which is not matter of doubt and concern. If I saw nothing there which revealed a Divinity, I would come to a negative conclusion; if I saw everywhere the signs of a Creator, I would remain peacefully in faith. But, seeing too much to deny and too little to be sure, I am in a state to be pitied”.

He talks of “an angry God” and “if you die without worshiping the True Cause, you are lost” but never explains how his wager would change that.

He laments “Instability.—It is a horrible thing to feel all that we possess slipping away”.

Not exactly born again. More like Tolstoy’s Ivan Ilyich, screaming long into the night.

Many of the saints had to endure the dark night of the soul. Pascal had to contend with the influence of the Jansenists and in addition to that he suffered from ill health and was obviously tempted at some stage by doubt, like most of us, but his predominant attitude was expressed in his 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.” - Pascal

This view is supported by the following considerations:

While Pascal’s wager sounds reasonable, it also seems like a very strange way to approach whether one should start living a Christian life. It could seem very cold and rational to weigh the gains and losses against each other, and say to oneself, “this is where I will potentially gain the most so that is what I am going to do.” It really is a sort of gamble. And at first glance, it seems entirely opposed to what a living faith should be, and maybe for some people it is not the way faith should be approached. But I think that for certain people, this approach could be the very thing they need to take the leap into seeking a relationship with God. In typical philosopher form, Professor Rota anticipates these types of arguments against his position, and presents strong defenses of what he has to say and explains it all very clearly. One particularly interesting point is when he uses the story of the Prodigal Son to defend one who chooses to seek a relationship with God for one’s own benefit. The selfish, destitute, son was welcomed home with open arms, and that model is precisely what Professor Rota hopes for those who take the wager and seek a relationship with God.
Taking the wager is much more than simply believing in God, but it is taking the time to do the things that a committed Christian needs to do to really live a Christian life. It is going to church on Sundays, reading the Bible, reading other works that increase one’s knowledge of God and the Christian faith, it is taking part in a Christian community, and it is seeking a relationship with God through daily, regular prayer. When one takes the wager, one becomes like the Psalmist saying, “I stretch out my hand to thee; my soul thirsts for thee like a parched land, Make haste to answer me, O Lord! My spirit fails! Hide not they face from me” (Psalm 143:6-7). God will respond to one who seeks him and transform one’s initial decision to seek God to a deeper faith.
The idea is that if one does these things, then they will experience the beauty, the truth, the fullness of having a relationship with God and will be glad that they took the plunge.

ncregister.com/blog/sspencer/taking-another-look-at-pascals-wager

 

[Lion_IRC]

I seem to recall someone attempting to persuade black America to vote for him using the same term. In both cases it elicits a slow shake of the head.

Hey. Here’s an idea.
Suppose you could place a $50 bet and no matter what - win, lose or draw - you’re guaranteed to at least get your original $50 back. If your horse loses, you get your $50 back. If it comes 2nd place you get $100 and if it wins you get $150. (I’ll even loan you the money if your ‘burden-of-proof’ bank account is empty.)

You’ve got nothing to lose.

So tell me, as a member of the rational rat pack, what possible reason would you have for NOT playing the odds - which are stacked in your favor?

The only reason I can think of is that you simply don’t WANT to. In that case, your slow shake of the head is a deliberate rejection of something you choose to deny.

 

[Mort_Alz]

Most atheists don’t require this.
They only require *enough *proof to believe.

I don’t agree. A philosopher might just say, as many do, that there is not enough evidence to prove there is a god…therefore, it is very rational not to believe in one.

How is that irrational? That’s one of the most rational trains of thought ever.

A person who is a theist is, by your argument, also is “asserting that he knows enough about the world to make a definitive judgement about such a profound notion as to wether God exists”.

.

As a firm believer myself, I can attest that belief IS a choice (and it doesn’t look anything like Bradski’s earlier illustration of CHOOSING to ignore evidence or lack thereof).

Let me explain: proof IS required in order to believe in God and atheists are right when they assert that the burden of proof lies on the religious to “prove” it. What else is evangelism and proselytizing but trying to provide enough “proof” for a person to begin a life of belief?

However, this is where New Atheism and strong atheism err. It is totally outrageous to say that there is “no evidence” for the existence of God. That’s just silly and I’m impressed that people get away with saying such an embarrassing statement at prominent speeches and conventions. There IS evidence for the existence of God. At best, an atheist may fairly say that all of the evidence FOR the existence of God is not compelling enough to move him/her to actively believe in Him. That is fair. Now, is there proof? Not beyond a reasonable doubt, no. Is there compelling evidence? Yes. And, therein lies the choice. It is one of those life questions which everyone must make a choice about.

 

[Tomdstone]

Plus…why must there be just one “god” or creator? If someone or something created us, it could be a whole team of dudes, not just one almighty one.

There may be a creator or creators…and they may be nothing like what the religions think they are.

.

I heard that the Hindus believe in many gods, at least 33 and possibly more. Whether or not they are different names of one God or possibly different incarnations of one God, I am not sure. Some Hindus say that there are 330 million different gods.

 

[Bradski]

Hey. Here’s an idea.
Suppose you could place a $50 bet and no matter what - win, lose or draw - you’re guaranteed to at least get your original $50 back. If your horse loses, you get your $50 back. If it comes 2nd place you get $100 and if it wins you get $150. (I’ll even loan you the money if your ‘burden-of-proof’ bank account is empty.)

You’ve got nothing to lose.

So tell me, as a member of the rational rat pack, what possible reason would you have for NOT playing the odds - which are stacked in your favoor?

If someone told you that you are guaranteed to not lose any money by betting on the
unicorn in the next race, but you’d win a fortune if it came first, what would you do?

 

[inocente]

Many of the saints had to endure the dark night of the soul. Pascal had to contend with the influence of the Jansenists and in addition to that he suffered from ill health and was obviously tempted at some stage by doubt, like most of us, but his predominant attitude was expressed in his 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.” - Pascal

No doubt Pascal was a good fellow, after all he disproved Aristotle’s doctrine that everything moving must be moved by something else (a bijou problemette for the unmoved mover argument) and had a programming language named after him.

 

[inocente]

It seems to me that he had a relationship with God, full of passion, actually.
God is sometimes clearest when He turns His face from us.
The search for God and His calling us are one and the same.
When one believes in nothing, when creation is an absurdity and our meaning lies in an ultimately futile attempt at its conquest, what has one to lose but to take that first step. Existence will not always be “too much”; taking on what “troubles and concerns”, one does find the glory of the “True Cause”. One cannot but worship.
The motivation to travel down that road may lie in the recognition of what is at stake, and then daring to wrestle with those demons that keep us from the truth, apathy and complacency perhaps being the greatest.

Pascal’s game (he calls it such) is a million miles from Jesus saying "For my yoke is easy and my burden is light”, and Pascal admits “I envy those whom I see living in the faith with such carelessness”.

His answer to the OP is that he can offer no proof: “God is, or He is not … Reason can decide nothing here”. He says asking for reason “is a foolishness” echoing “God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe” - 1 Cor 1.

He can’t decide what God is or even if God exists, and thinks he can post-rationalize his foolishness by inventing decision theory. Imho the demon he wrestles with is his own cleverness.

 

[goout]

If someone told you that you are guaranteed to not lose any money by betting on the
unicorn in the next race, but you’d win a fortune if it came first, what would you do?

I wouldnt waste my time wrrying about a unicorn or a fortune. Even though the odds are a no brainer.

The prospect of loving relationship without limit? That is a no brainer as well. You have everything to lose by not saying yes.

 

[tonyrey]

Many of the saints had to endure the dark night of the soul. Pascal had to contend with the influence of the Jansenists and in addition to that he suffered from ill health and was obviously tempted at some stage by doubt, like most of us, but his predominant attitude was expressed in his 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.” - Pascal*
  No doubt Pascal was a good fellow, after all he disproved Aristotle’s doctrine that everything moving must be moved by something else (a bijou problemette for the unmoved mover argument) and had a programming language named after him.

Irrelevant

 

[Cheiron]

Hey. Here’s an idea.
Suppose you could place a $50 bet and no matter what - win, lose or draw - you’re guaranteed to at least get your original $50 back. If your horse loses, you get your $50 back. If it comes 2nd place you get $100 and if it wins you get $150. (I’ll even loan you the money if your ‘burden-of-proof’ bank account is empty.)

You’ve got nothing to lose.

So tell me, as a member of the rational rat pack, what possible reason would you have for NOT playing the odds - which are stacked in your favor?

The only reason I can think of is that you simply don’t WANT to. In that case, your slow shake of the head is a deliberate rejection of something you choose to deny.

Pascal’s wager is not about money, it’s about one’s view of the world. Pascal asks atheists to be opportunistic and to be hypocrites and to act as if God exists, even though atheists don’t believe that. Let’s say I accept his wager. What happens when I die? This charade will get me into heaven if God doesn’t know what I really think or if dishonesty is not a problem for God. Both are unsafe assumptions.

It’s about intellectual honesty. That’s why I reject Pascal’s wager.