Who created God, how did he come into existence?

[Charlemagne_II]

As to why we should believe in God, I will take Pascal over Aquinas any day. The reasons of the heart are a good deal more persuasive than the reasons of the head. An atheist can always find fault with Aquinas’ five proofs. He can find fault with Pascal only if he gambles foolishly.

 

[LibralAteoJesus]

As to why we should believe in God, I will take Pascal over Aquinas any day. The reasons of the heart are a good deal more persuasive than the reasons of the head. An atheist can always find fault with Aquinas’ five proofs. He can find fault with Pascal only if he gambles foolishly.

What is exactly foolish about the arguments against Pascal’s wager? Do you really think that the belief in a god is a bet? Or that you can convince yourself into believing in something when you actually don’t? What if you believe in the wrong god? Should we worship much more gods as possible just in case that we could be wrong?

Pascal’s wager isn’t a reason of heart, it’s a reason of irrational fear.

 

[dshix]

What is exactly foolish about the arguments against Pascal’s wager? Do you really think that the belief in a god is a bet? Or that you can convince yourself into believing in something when you actually don’t? What if you believe in the wrong god? Should we worship much more gods as possible just in case that we could be wrong?

Pascal’s wager isn’t a reason of heart, it’s a reason of irrational fear.

Pascal’s wager is not intended to be a philosophical proof for God, or even an argument by reason. It is intended to be thought provoking; to bring a person who doesn’t understand God to a better understanding.

If the wager is not helpful for you, don’t worry. There’s another path for you.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Libral
**
Do you really think that the belief in a god is a bet?**

Yes. And since he can never know for sure, it is also a bet by the atheist that there is no God. Foolish bet.

 

[meltzerboy]

What is exactly foolish about the arguments against Pascal’s wager? Do you really think that the belief in a god is a bet? Or that you can convince yourself into believing in something when you actually don’t? What if you believe in the wrong god? Should we worship much more gods as possible just in case that we could be wrong?

Pascal’s wager isn’t a reason of heart, it’s a reason of irrational fear.

Actually Pascal’s wager is a reason based on faith; that is what he means when he uses the word “heart.”

“Le coeur a ses raisons que la raison ne connait point.” Faith has its reasons that reason never understands.

 

[LibralAteoJesus]

Pascal’s wager is not intended to be a philosophical proof for God, or even an argument by reason. It is intended to be thought provoking; to bring a person who doesn’t understand God to a better understanding.

If the wager is not helpful for you, don’t worry. There’s another path for you.

Pascal’s wager brings possibilty about the existence of a personal god who has Heaven and Hell; a possibility out of many other possible beliefs that one could say. He thinks that it’s enough to take this characterized God into considerarion just because it’s one of the possibilities and if we don’t and that kind of god exists, we are doomed, this looks like a very irrationel dishonest bet which can be said about any other possible characterized belief, “if it happens to be true we are destroyed for not accepting it” .

It is similar to proposing that Aliens who will do experiments on those who disbelieve in them exist, and that it is better to believe in them just in case, a game to be played where we must wager:

1- To believe in them, be on their side, so we could gain some supernatural powers if they happen to exist.

or

2- To disbelieve in them and be in their experiment project in case they were real.

This approach is used by those who have a specific faith to others who don’t, you have nothing to lose if you believe in my faith! Therefore believe in Personal God/Baf Aliens or lose, it’s your “choice”.

This analogy however does not offer any better understanding for aliens, just like Pascal’s wager, it doesn’t offer any better understanding for God.

 

[LibralAteoJesus]

Pascal’s wager is not intended to be a philosophical proof for God, or even an argument by reason. It is intended to be thought provoking; to bring a person who doesn’t understand God to a better understanding.

If the wager is not helpful for you, don’t worry. There’s another path for you.

Pascal’s wager brings possibilty about the existence of a personal god who has Heaven and Hell; a possibility out of many other possible beliefs that one could say. He thinks that it’s enough to take this characterized God into considerarion just because it’s one of the possibilities and if we don’t and that kind of god exists, we are doomed, this looks like a very irrationel dishonest bet which can be said about any other possible characterized belief, “if it happens to be true we are destroyed for not accepting it” .

It is similar to proposing that Aliens who will do experiments on those who disbelieve in them exist, and that it is better to believe in them just in case, a game to be played where we must wager:

1- To believe in them, be on their side, so we could gain some supernatural powers if they happen to exist.

or

2- To disbelieve in them and be in their experiment project in case they were real.

This approach is used by those who have a specific faith to others who don’t, you have nothing to lose if you believe in my faith! Therefore believe in Personal God/Bad Aliens or lose, it’s your “choice”.

This analogy however does not offer any better understanding for aliens, just like Pascal’s wager, it doesn’t offer any better understanding for God.

 

[LibralAteoJesus]

Libral
**
Do you really think that the belief in a god is a bet?**

Yes. And since he can never know for sure, it is also a bet by the atheist that there is no God. Foolish bet.

Agree you can’t know for sure that there is no god, as much as you cannot disprove other probably non existent beings or things ( Russell’s teapot), but you can have an ability to know for sure whether a personal god and a mind controlling religion is a myth and lie base or not.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Libral

**Agree you can’t know for sure that there is no god, as much as you cannot disprove other probably non existent beings or things ( Russell’s teapot), but you can have an ability to know for sure whether a personal god and a mind controlling religion is a myth and lie base or not. **

How is it that you know for a certainty Christianity is a myth and a lie? For various and sundry reasons you may want to believe that is so, but wanting to believe it is so does not make it so.