I'll offer some thoughts on the existence of god.

[ZenMasterFlex]

For all the non-believers on this forum I have some things for you "thinkers" to think about. Saying that you don't believe in god based on logic is just as flawed as saying you do believe in god based on logic.

Here is why.

If you don't believe in god because of your "logic" you are a moron. Because religions exist which claim that if you don't have faith you will spend eternity in hell or hades or whatever. Don't you think that it would be logical in the way of self preservation to spend at least most of your life searching for the truth? And if not that AT LEAST not tearing into others who do believe. Just in case there is a god out there who has 3 heavens 1) for good believers complete with 41 virgins or whatever. 2) for lukewarm believers and 3)Eternal flames. And what if that is where blasphemers go? You may comprehend at best that there is a .0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 000000000000000001% chance that there is a god. But I promise you that no human mind can comprehend eternity. Especially in flames. Call god a bluff if you must, but I would offer that you think of the possibility of hell as more of a good semi bluff. Since eternity in hell is what you get for "calling" (not believing) (and making fun of godboy who does) and the more you "fold" (maybe not believe, but for the love of god at least not persecuting believers, which by the way goes that much more towards proving the bible as true) you come out ahead. Especially since all there is in the pot is this life on this earth.

I don't mind non-believers "calling down" in this spot, that is your call to make. But don't take someone who "folds" and call him a fool. Because here is what you are saying. "Hey godboy, we all think that god doesn't exist, because we can't see him" so just risk eternity in hell with us because that is the "logical" thing to do.

The bible says that all of gods children (believers) make up the body of christ. And it says that god is omnipresent.
What if this universe of ours, complete with orbiting planets, solar systems, life, is just one Atom in the eye or kneecap, or some other unimaginable appendage of the actual god. The truth is, I (WE,assuming you all exist) don't have a clue as to what existense is.
And believing that there is a god (just like many great scientists, who are far smarter than anyone who posts on this forum) is in my opinion a no lesser move than to believe that the human knowledge of Physics and science can lead us to truth.

I would however go out on a limb and say that the liklihood of a "Magic Invisible AND purple monkey" orbiting the sun on a magic string is a far less likly possibility. Than science or god being truth. That made me smile. And I'll bet if there is a god he could even smile at that one.

I have no logical answer to the question "If god exists why would he be so hard to believe in" "and on top of that how could he punish us for not believing" But I have an answer from faith. and that answer is : because that is the way he is. Fold.

[godBoy]

whoa, direct reference in a post..
I feel honoured /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[chezlaw]

when are you offering the thoughts on the existence of god?

chez

[Nielsio]

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showthreaded.php?Cat=0&Number=6100604

[ZenMasterFlex]

OP was my thoughts on the existence of god. Keep pecking away until you find at least a contradiction in my material, which I'm sure there will be, as I am really tired.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
OP was my thoughts on the existence of god. Keep pecking away until you find at least a contradiction in my material, which I'm sure there will be, as I am really tired.

[/ QUOTE ]
I think you missed the 0.1471% possibility that if god exists, the only people who get eternal flames are those who believe god would do such a thing.

chez

[Ortho]

I think that you're jibbering out a sort of poker-take on Pascal's wager, so you might want to google up on that a bit. If you work on your presentation just a bit, the others will be happy to tear you to shreds, but you haven't really met the minimum qualifying standard to merit a response.

And line breaks, please.

[ZenMasterFlex]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
OP was my thoughts on the existence of god. Keep pecking away until you find at least a contradiction in my material, which I'm sure there will be, as I am really tired.

[/ QUOTE ]
I think you missed the 0.1471% possibility that if god exists, the only people who get eternal flames are those who believe god would do such a thing.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

You are applying too high a probability to that possibility IMHO. Saying that IF god exists there is a 0.1471% probality that the people who believe he will keep his word (Hell, flames, etc. etc.)(Christains) are in fact the only ones who will have to face this wrath is a bit off.
My bet says that Murderers, rapists, thieves, serial killer types will go first, I don't know exactly how high the bar is set but I see all the blue collar criminals following closely behind that, mix blashphemers, liars, cheaters, etc. etc. On down the line to the devout christian who probably gets through the pearly gates.
But hey, maybe your right, you can sit next to John Gacy, and Ted bundy in Heaven sipping umbrella drinks with God watching all the suckers who had faith burn in flames.
But like I said IF there is a god 0.1471% seems high to me. I could be wrong.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
OP was my thoughts on the existence of god. Keep pecking away until you find at least a contradiction in my material, which I'm sure there will be, as I am really tired.

[/ QUOTE ]
I think you missed the 0.1471% possibility that if god exists, the only people who get eternal flames are those who believe god would do such a thing.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

You are applying too high a probability to that possibility IMHO. Saying that IF god exists there is a 0.1471% probality that the people who believe he will keep his word (Hell, flames, etc. etc.)(Christains) are in fact the only ones who will have to face this wrath is a bit off.
My bet says that Murderers, rapists, thieves, serial killer types will go first, I don't know exactly how high the bar is set but I see all the blue collar criminals following closely behind that, mix blashphemers, liars, cheaters, etc. etc. On down the line to the devout christian who probably gets through the pearly gates.
But hey, maybe your right, you can sit next to John Gacy, and Ted bundy in Heaven sipping umbrella drinks with God watching all the suckers who had faith burn in flames.
But like I said IF there is a god 0.1471% seems high to me. I could be wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]
Exactly you could be wrong. So could I, so could anybody.

Now you can see why pascal wager doesn't work.

chez

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
My bet says that Murderers, rapists, thieves, serial killer types will go first, I don't know exactly how high the bar is set but I see all the blue collar criminals following closely behind that, mix blashphemers, liars, cheaters, etc. etc. On down the line to the devout christian who probably gets through the pearly gates.
But hey, maybe your right, you can sit next to John Gacy, and Ted bundy

[/ QUOTE ]
If your horrible comception of god is correct then he makes Ted Bundy etc seem like angels.

chez

[Alex-db]

[ QUOTE ]

My bet says that Murderers, rapists, thieves, serial killer types will go first, I don't know exactly how high the bar is set but I see all the blue collar criminals following closely behind that, mix blashphemers, liars, cheaters, etc. etc.

[/ QUOTE ]
Why do you assume this?

[ QUOTE ]
But like I said IF there is a god 0.1471% seems high to me.

[/ QUOTE ]
What is this based on?

One thing I have been thinking about recently is why believers always assume an omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient, loving, God. If they dropped those qualities (which I can see no reason to assume in the first place, except that they like them) some of their arguments may become a little more coherent and a bit more challenging to argue against.

[Phil153]

Do you sacrifice children and virgins to Mictlantecuhtli? Cause if not, there may be a 0.0000000000000000000000001% chance your afterlife is going to suck.

Your argument is known as Pascal's wager, an embarrassing example of sloppy thinking and weak character. It's posted all the time, mostly by Christians. See here for reasons why its flawed:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal's_Wager

[ZenMasterFlex]

[ QUOTE ]
I think that you're jibbering out a sort of poker-take on Pascal's wager, so you might want to google up on that a bit. If you work on your presentation just a bit, the others will be happy to tear you to shreds, but you haven't really met the minimum qualifying standard to merit a response.

And line breaks, please.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, just my own thoughts. Tear at them if you want. But if they don't meet your "minimum standards" whatever that is, too bad. If it wasn't deep or well thought out enough for you Add this: Naked ballerina covered in jello and peanut butter running counerclockwise around the entire post. Because content-wise after 24 hrs awake, it's the best I have. Seemed like enough to get some resposes to me hmm, guess I was wrong /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

Or you could drop the I'm better than you because of an obscure reference to Pascal's wager BS and just be constructive. If you want to feel superior to someone go to an elementary school and start a shoving match you arrogant prick. You aren't above anyone here.
That little tidbit didn't meet my "minimum standard" for intellectual posturing, sorry.

[ZenMasterFlex]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

My bet says that Murderers, rapists, thieves, serial killer types will go first, I don't know exactly how high the bar is set but I see all the blue collar criminals following closely behind that, mix blashphemers, liars, cheaters, etc. etc.

[/ QUOTE ]
Why do you assume this?
I DONT. but to answer your question, because the bible says so .
[ QUOTE ]
But like I said IF there is a god 0.1471% seems high to me.

[/ QUOTE ]
What is this based on?
What is 0.1471 based on? To answer your question my opinion. One thing I have been thinking about recently is why believers always assume an omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient, loving, God. If they dropped those qualities (which I can see no reason to assume in the first place, except that they like them) some of their arguments may become a little more coherent and a bit more challenging to argue against.

[/ QUOTE ]
My religious knowledge really only extends to christianity, so to answer your question they don't assume this, it is written in the bible. And how would dropping those qualities make it more "challenging" for you argue against?

[Alex-db]

"And how would dropping those qualities make it more "challenging" for you argue against? "

Dropping omniscience would make them far more comfortable with freewill, dropping the kind and loving bits removes a lot of the contradictions created by assuming those things.

I just think it is bizzare to not only claim there is a higher power/creator etc based on no evidence, but to also specifically say he definitely has this long list of contradictory qualities.

To me, the assumptions that he is omnipotent, kind and loving only suggest more strongly that he is a human creation.

[ZenMasterFlex]

[ QUOTE ]
Do you sacrifice children and virgins to Mictlantecuhtli? Cause if not, there may be a 0.0000000000000000000000001% chance your afterlife is going to suck.

Your argument is known as Pascal's wager, an embarrassing example of sloppy thinking and weak character. It's posted all the time, mostly by Christians. See here for reasons why its flawed:



[/ QUOTE ]
I'll help you out. It's flaw would be this, Would a christian god even allow someone into heaven who simply raised his hand and said yes I believe, while really not believing. Are there other flaws in this "sloppy thinking"
Keeping in mind that nobody can disprove God?

I guess the sacrificing of women and virgins comment would be considered some of this "minimum standard" I am hearing about.

[Ortho]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think that you're jibbering out a sort of poker-take on Pascal's wager, so you might want to google up on that a bit. If you work on your presentation just a bit, the others will be happy to tear you to shreds, but you haven't really met the minimum qualifying standard to merit a response.

And line breaks, please.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, just my own thoughts. Tear at them if you want. But if they don't meet your "minimum standards" whatever that is, too bad. If it wasn't deep or well thought out enough for you Add this: Naked ballerina covered in jello and peanut butter running counerclockwise around the entire post. Because content-wise after 24 hrs awake, it's the best I have. Seemed like enough to get some resposes to me hmm, guess I was wrong /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

Or you could drop the I'm better than you because of an obscure reference to Pascal's wager BS and just be constructive. If you want to feel superior to someone go to an elementary school and start a shoving match you arrogant prick. You aren't above anyone here.
That little tidbit didn't meet my "minimum standard" for intellectual posturing, sorry.

[/ QUOTE ]

Or you could have used any of the available resources including a basic philosophy text or THE FRONT PAGE OF THIS VERY FORUM, applied a little tiny bit of thought, and not wasted everyone's time with your garbage.

I wasn't posturing. I was being polite. Because even if you learn the basics of Pascal's Wager (which another poster kindly linked you to), and learn how to write coherently, you are still going to look like a moron because this is something that everyone else heard about and dismissed (yes, even the believers) when they were 16.

Sorry if I wasn't blunt enough.

[ZenMasterFlex]

[ QUOTE ]
"And how would dropping those qualities make it more "challenging" for you argue against? "

Dropping omniscience would make them far more comfortable with freewill, dropping the kind and loving bits removes a lot of the contradictions created by assuming those things.

I just think it is bizzare to not only claim there is a higher power/creator etc based on no evidence, but to also specifically say he definitely has this long list of contradictory qualities.

To me, the assumptions that he is omnipotent, kind and loving only suggest more strongly that he is a human creation.

[/ QUOTE ]

Interesting, so instead of man being created in God's image you believe just the opposite. And I absolutly see why. It sure would be easier to write the bible that way if there is no god wouldn't it? It doesn't change Pascal's wager though unless you can prove 100% that this is what happened.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
"And how would dropping those qualities make it more "challenging" for you argue against? "

Dropping omniscience would make them far more comfortable with freewill, dropping the kind and loving bits removes a lot of the contradictions created by assuming those things.

I just think it is bizzare to not only claim there is a higher power/creator etc based on no evidence, but to also specifically say he definitely has this long list of contradictory qualities.

To me, the assumptions that he is omnipotent, kind and loving only suggest more strongly that he is a human creation.

[/ QUOTE ]

Interesting, so instead of man being created in God's image you believe just the opposite. And I absolutly see why. It sure would be easier to write the bible that way if there is no god wouldn't it? It doesn't change Pascal's wager though unless you can prove 100% that this is what happened.

[/ QUOTE ]As Pascal's wager doesn't work anyway, that hardly matters does it?

chez

[Phil153]

[ QUOTE ]
I'll help you out. It's flaw would be this, Would a christian god even allow someone into heaven who simply raised his hand and said yes I believe, while really not believing. Are there other flaws in this "sloppy thinking"
Keeping in mind that nobody can disprove God?

[/ QUOTE ]

Here are the problems with your position:

1. You don't know with 100% certainty which god to worship or doctrine to follow. There are hundreds to choose from, each with ardent followers.

2. You don't know what kind of worship or belief or actions those god(s) require in order to enter heaven. If you were Mayan, sacrificing virgins and children was required. If you're Muslim, a whole different set of behaviors is required in order to get into heaven. And similarly with the different sects of Christianity. "Belief" is not enough to avoid hell according to most doctrines.

3. Cowardly belief resulting from Pascal's Wager isn't going to earn you any brownie points in close situations. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

4. You don't consider the cost of being wrong. Imagine there is no God or afterlife, and this is all we ever get. You wasted your life and time on some sad delusion - and even according to the bible you are to be pitied more than most men. You were also active in spreading those delusions to others.

5. You haven't considered the possibility that "hell" may be just a childish myth. A God could exist without hell, therefore the probability you're talking about is just the probability that hell exists AND that god will send you there for unbelief. If you're going to deal in maybes, you may as well grow a beard and start bowing toward Mecca three times a day, since Islam might be the true religion and it may be your only way of staying out of hell. Can you prove that it isn't?

6. God may respect and reward honesty and courage over the adulation of fawning sycophants.

If you want more, use your brain or visit the wikipedia link I posted earlier.

[revots33]

[ QUOTE ]
Would a christian god even allow someone into heaven who simply raised his hand and said yes I believe, while really not believing.

[/ QUOTE ]

But... my feeling is that this is what many people sitting in church every week do anyway. At least recently I've begun to think that way. Maybe I'm just projecting my own doubts onto others.

I think you either have faith and accept that you will never have any proof until you die - or you don't. Belief can't be a way of hedging your bets in case there's a hell ("calling down the semi-bluff"). If that's the reason, then you don't really believe anyway.

I do agree with you, though, that there's no reason for non-believers to mock believers. However, I think (at least in some cases), people really have an intellectual curiosity about how others can so strongly believe in something with no tangible proof. However, this curiosity sometimes seems to devolve into battles of intellectual superiority and name-calling, which is wrong I think.

[Lestat]

You've just described Pascal's wager. It's not a good argument when presented well, and even less so here.

[Alex-db]

I actually had a mini-revalation a few weeks ago in my apparant understanding of religious people.

Basically, I don't think they use the word 'believe' correctly. I think they mean 'hope'.

If you take any given thing they say and swap the words around, it becomes logical.

e.g. I believe I will win the lottery this week vs I hope I will win the lottery this week.

e.g. Even without any evidence I really believe God exists vs Even without any evidence I really hope God exists.

Perhaps a given period of strong hoping results in the person believing they believe it.

I can certainly see why some people may hope God exists; "Maybe there is something to look forward to after this crappy 9-5 working then home to a dull family then bed then repeat till I die"

But I prefer not to bank on the imperceivably low odds of that, and work on having a good time now.

[atrifix]

[ QUOTE ]
You've just described Pascal's wager. It's not a good argument when presented well, and even less so here.

[/ QUOTE ]

I have a history of philosophy question: how did someone as smart as Blaise Pascal come up with an argument that was so obviously wrong? It's not like Paley's watch argument or Anselm's arguments, in that it doesn't need any kind of refutation, it's just obviously wrong. Perhaps someone can enlighten me.

[atrifix]

FWIW, I know that there is a God with 100% certainty. In the afterlife, those who were atheists live in infinite bliss while those who were Christians burn eternally.

[madnak]

People who are smart are still wrong 90% of the time. I don't think there was a single great genius in history who didn't have some ludicrously idiotic beliefs. Blaise Pascal was a human being, not a god. It's ironic to me that Christians are the ones who have the most trouble understanding that.

[atrifix]

[ QUOTE ]
People who are smart are still wrong 90% of the time. I don't think there was a single great genius in history who didn't have some ludicrously idiotic beliefs. Blaise Pascal was a human being, not a god. It's ironic to me that Christians are the ones who have the most trouble understanding that.

[/ QUOTE ]

True, but most people don't adamantly advocate and publish their ludicrously idiotic beliefs. You would think that the second person to review Pensees would have pointed out some of the flaws.

[madnak]

Don't they? I'm not so sure about that. Particularly where religion and politics are concerned.

[Andrew Karpinski]

O.P. : The consequences of my beliefs are not the deciding factor of my beliefs. My beliefs are shaped by logic and reason rather than 'what happens if I believe in this or not'.

[revots33]

[ QUOTE ]
I actually had a mini-revalation a few weeks ago in my apparant understanding of religious people.

Basically, I don't think they use the word 'believe' correctly. I think they mean 'hope'.

If you take any given thing they say and swap the words around, it becomes logical.

e.g. I believe I will win the lottery this week vs I hope I will win the lottery this week.

e.g. Even without any evidence I really believe God exists vs Even without any evidence I really hope God exists.

Perhaps a given period of strong hoping results in the person believing they believe it.


[/ QUOTE ]

I think you might have hit the nail on the head.

[CallMeIshmael]

OP,

There have been how many gods since the beginning of civilization?


Do you believe in Zeus? What about the sun god Ra?

Why not????????????????



Can you give a decent answer to the question: why do you believe in YOUR God? Why is yours right and others wrong?

[Lestat]

Very good thinking Alex-db

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
I have a history of philosophy question: how did someone as smart as Blaise Pascal come up with an argument that was so obviously wrong? It's not like Paley's watch argument or Anselm's arguments, in that it doesn't need any kind of refutation, it's just obviously wrong. Perhaps someone can enlighten me.

[/ QUOTE ]
First a caveat that this is outside my area of knowledge but to speculate:

1) Probability was in its infancy so people were probably unused to thinking about it and arguing against probabilistic arguments
2) Christianity was a much more dominant view in western circles and the debate was purely atheist vs christian - if only those possibilities exist then it carries much more weight
3) I have heard from an unreliable source that what is usually portrayed as pascal's wager was actually a sub-argument in a much bigger argument. He was not saying you could somehow "fool" god and fake belief or faith but was claiming that by adopting christian attitudes and behaviours in response to this position you would come to see the truth of christianity and then believe in God through personal experience.

Like I say though - more speculation than any real knowlege.

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
I actually had a mini-revalation a few weeks ago in my apparant understanding of religious people.

Basically, I don't think they use the word 'believe' correctly. I think they mean 'hope'.

If you take any given thing they say and swap the words around, it becomes logical.

e.g. I believe I will win the lottery this week vs I hope I will win the lottery this week.

e.g. Even without any evidence I really believe God exists vs Even without any evidence I really hope God exists.

Perhaps a given period of strong hoping results in the person believing they believe it.

I can certainly see why some people may hope God exists; "Maybe there is something to look forward to after this crappy 9-5 working then home to a dull family then bed then repeat till I die"

But I prefer not to bank on the imperceivably low odds of that, and work on having a good time now.

[/ QUOTE ]
I think there are certainly believers who use the words in the way you say (although obviously I dont think we all do). Having said that, I know very few believers who claim to believe with no evidence - I think it is more that they accept evidence that a non-believer would exclude.

[atrifix]

[ QUOTE ]
3) I have heard from an unreliable source that what is usually portrayed as pascal's wager was actually a sub-argument in a much bigger argument. He was not saying you could somehow "fool" god and fake belief or faith but was claiming that by adopting christian attitudes and behaviours in response to this position you would come to see the truth of christianity and then believe in God through personal experience.

Like I say though - more speculation than any real knowlege.

[/ QUOTE ]

Allow me to confirm this as a reliable source; this is exactly what Pascal said. There are a number of other problems with the view, though.

I don't know much about the history of probability or decision theory. If this was the first real use of it, then it makes more sense.

[bunny]

Pascal was one of the pioneers of probability theory.

[atrifix]

[ QUOTE ]
Pascal was one of the pioneers of probability theory.

[/ QUOTE ]


Well, I do know that much /images/graemlins/wink.gif I have heard of Pascal's triangle. But I don't know much more than that.

[bunny]

Sorry - posting at work makes me a little terse sometimes. What I meant was that since he was a pioneer anything he wrote was during probability's infancy so it would have taken quite some time before anyone else was qualified to say "Err...wait a sec."

I think the strongest point in his defence was that within his culture the only question was should you be atheist or christian? If these are the only options then his argument has a lot more power imo.

[atrifix]

[ QUOTE ]
Sorry - posting at work makes me a little terse sometimes. What I meant was that since he was a pioneer anything he wrote was during probability's infancy so it would have taken quite some time before anyone else was qualified to say "Err...wait a sec."

[/ QUOTE ]

This is possible. My feeling was that even if there wasn't a rigorous probability theory, people would still have a lot of experience with uncertainty in decision theory in a philosophical context. But perhaps I am mistaken on that.

I can't find the exact line from Pensees at the moment, but Wikipedia has this to say: "Pascal acknowledged that there would be some difficulty for an atheist intellectual persuaded by this argument, in putting it into effect. Belief may not come. But in such a case, he said, one could begin by acting as if it had come — hear a mass, take holy water. Belief might then follow."

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Sorry - posting at work makes me a little terse sometimes. What I meant was that since he was a pioneer anything he wrote was during probability's infancy so it would have taken quite some time before anyone else was qualified to say "Err...wait a sec."

[/ QUOTE ]

This is possible. My feeling was that even if there wasn't a rigorous probability theory, people would still have a lot of experience with uncertainty in decision theory in a philosophical context. But perhaps I am mistaken on that.


[/ QUOTE ]
I think so - in my experience people give terrible answers when trying to answer probabilistic questions using intuition. This despite the fact that I think people nowadays are more rational and logical than they were back then. I read pascal's wager as a teenager and remember being struck by the fact that it was wrong but it took me quite some time to work out why.

[ZenMasterFlex]

[ QUOTE ]
O.P. : The consequences of my beliefs are not the deciding factor of my beliefs. My beliefs are shaped by logic and reason rather than 'what happens if I believe in this or not'.

[/ QUOTE ]
Very good.

[ZenMasterFlex]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think that you're jibbering out a sort of poker-take on Pascal's wager, so you might want to google up on that a bit. If you work on your presentation just a bit, the others will be happy to tear you to shreds, but you haven't really met the minimum qualifying standard to merit a response.

And line breaks, please.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, just my own thoughts. Tear at them if you want. But if they don't meet your "minimum standards" whatever that is, too bad. If it wasn't deep or well thought out enough for you Add this: Naked ballerina covered in jello and peanut butter running counerclockwise around the entire post. Because content-wise after 24 hrs awake, it's the best I have. Seemed like enough to get some resposes to me hmm, guess I was wrong /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

Or you could drop the I'm better than you because of an obscure reference to Pascal's wager BS and just be constructive. If you want to feel superior to someone go to an elementary school and start a shoving match you arrogant prick. You aren't above anyone here.
That little tidbit didn't meet my "minimum standard" for intellectual posturing, sorry.

[/ QUOTE ]

Or you could have used any of the available resources including a basic philosophy text or THE FRONT PAGE OF THIS VERY FORUM, applied a little tiny bit of thought, and not wasted everyone's time with your garbage.

I wasn't posturing. I was being polite. Because even if you learn the basics of Pascal's Wager (which another poster kindly linked you to), and learn how to write coherently, you are still going to look like a moron because this is something that everyone else heard about and dismissed (yes, even the believers) when they were 16.

Sorry if I wasn't blunt enough.

[/ QUOTE ]
Why would I want or need to read anything about pascal's wager?

[ZenMasterFlex]

[ QUOTE ]
OP,

There have been how many gods since the beginning of civilization?


Do you believe in Zeus? What about the sun god Ra?

Why not????????????????



Can you give a decent answer to the question: why do you believe in YOUR God? Why is yours right and others wrong?

[/ QUOTE ]

I can't say that I don't see why you would think I am a believer after the OP but, I don't. You are the first poster who even asked. I would think that it should be the first question for me, but I guess disproving a belief I don't have should come before finding out if I even have it.

[ZenMasterFlex]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Would a christian god even allow someone into heaven who simply raised his hand and said yes I believe, while really not believing.

[/ QUOTE ]

But... my feeling is that this is what many people sitting in church every week do anyway. At least recently I've begun to think that way. Maybe I'm just projecting my own doubts onto others.

I think you either have faith and accept that you will never have any proof until you die - or you don't. Belief can't be a way of hedging your bets in case there's a hell ("calling down the semi-bluff"). If that's the reason, then you don't really believe anyway.

I do agree with you, though, that there's no reason for non-believers to mock believers. However, I think (at least in some cases), people really have an intellectual curiosity about how others can so strongly believe in something with no tangible proof. However, this curiosity sometimes seems to devolve into battles of intellectual superiority and name-calling, which is wrong I think.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree 100%. And I am pretty dissapointed in the direction this forum is going in every time I drop in for this very reason. There is so much BS to sift through. I'd really just rather have a good discussion. I would like to see another persons POV without being told that my OP is jibberish and doesn't meet the "minimum standard" this is just obsurd. I never titled the post "Pascals wager" and although I do obviously see the correlation who gives a flying [censored]? These were my original thoughts.

[ZenMasterFlex]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'll help you out. It's flaw would be this, Would a christian god even allow someone into heaven who simply raised his hand and said yes I believe, while really not believing. Are there other flaws in this "sloppy thinking"
Keeping in mind that nobody can disprove God?

[/ QUOTE ]

Here are the problems with your position:

1. You don't know with 100% certainty which god to worship or doctrine to follow. There are hundreds to choose from, each with ardent followers.

2. You don't know what kind of worship or belief or actions those god(s) require in order to enter heaven. If you were Mayan, sacrificing virgins and children was required. If you're Muslim, a whole different set of behaviors is required in order to get into heaven. And similarly with the different sects of Christianity. "Belief" is not enough to avoid hell according to most doctrines.

3. Cowardly belief resulting from Pascal's Wager isn't going to earn you any brownie points in close situations. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

4. You don't consider the cost of being wrong. Imagine there is no God or afterlife, and this is all we ever get. You wasted your life and time on some sad delusion - and even according to the bible you are to be pitied more than most men. You were also active in spreading those delusions to others.

5. You haven't considered the possibility that "hell" may be just a childish myth. A God could exist without hell, therefore the probability you're talking about is just the probability that hell exists AND that god will send you there for unbelief. If you're going to deal in maybes, you may as well grow a beard and start bowing toward Mecca three times a day, since Islam might be the true religion and it may be your only way of staying out of hell. Can you prove that it isn't?

6. God may respect and reward honesty and courage over the adulation of fawning sycophants.

If you want more, use your brain or visit the wikipedia link I posted earlier.

[/ QUOTE ]

Here is the problem with your position: You misunderstand my position. I guess I have failed. I was admittedly tired when I typed it. My position is, in a nutshell, don't make fun or put down those who believe. because, what if they are right?

[CallMeIshmael]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
OP,

There have been how many gods since the beginning of civilization?


Do you believe in Zeus? What about the sun god Ra?

Why not????????????????



Can you give a decent answer to the question: why do you believe in YOUR God? Why is yours right and others wrong?

[/ QUOTE ]

I can't say that I don't see why you would think I am a believer after the OP but, I don't. You are the first poster who even asked. I would think that it should be the first question for me, but I guess disproving a belief I don't have should come before finding out if I even have it.

[/ QUOTE ]


Alright, Ill play the game.

There have been how many gods since the beginning of civilization?

Do you believe in the God of a certain religion?


If, so... please read on.

Do you also believe in Zeus? What about the sun god Ra?

Why not????????????????



Can you give a decent answer to the question: why do you believe in YOUR God? Why is yours right and others wrong?

[ZenMasterFlex]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
OP,

There have been how many gods since the beginning of civilization?


Do you believe in Zeus? What about the sun god Ra?

Why not????????????????



Can you give a decent answer to the question: why do you believe in YOUR God? Why is yours right and others wrong?

[/ QUOTE ]

I can't say that I don't see why you would think I am a believer after the OP but, I don't. You are the first poster who even asked. I would think that it should be the first question for me, but I guess disproving a belief I don't have should come before finding out if I even have it.

[/ QUOTE ]


Alright, Ill play the game.

There have been how many gods since the beginning of civilization?

Do you believe in the God of a certain religion?


If, so... please read on.

Do you also believe in Zeus? What about the sun god Ra?

Why not????????????????



Can you give a decent answer to the question: why do you believe in YOUR God? Why is yours right and others wrong?

[/ QUOTE ]

I didn't mean for you to have to "play along". I must have really butchered my OP last night. I don't, or rather can't believe in something I have no proof of.
Granted, I did say at the end of the post that I had an answer from "faith" this was bad wording, I meant from faith, not MY faith. Believe means KNOW to me. And nobody who doesn't KNOW can't believe IMO, that said, I think we all HOPE.

[atrifix]

[ QUOTE ]
Why would I want or need to read anything about pascal's wager?

[/ QUOTE ]

Why do you care how people respond to you?

If I were teaching a class on the subject, I'd have infinite patience. I'm sure a lot of people haven't thought about it before, have unstructured intuitions, and disagreement is generally caused by a lack of understanding rather than laziness. The fact that you bring this up on a forum indicates that you are at least somewhat interested in the subject, but you don't want to read anything about it. The fact is that http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal%27s_wager offers an incredibly informative and concise treatment of both the wager and the objections and that you have offered no response to any of the objections on that page. Combine that with the fact that people have brought this argument up on this forum countless times (use the search function, if you want) and you have an explanation for why people are being so coarse.

[ZenMasterFlex]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Why would I want or need to read anything about pascal's wager?

[/ QUOTE ]

Why do you care how people respond to you?

If I were teaching a class on the subject, I'd have infinite patience. I'm sure a lot of people haven't thought about it before, have unstructured intuitions, and disagreement is generally caused by a lack of understanding rather than laziness. The fact that you bring this up on a forum indicates that you are at least somewhat interested in the subject, but you don't want to read anything about it. The fact is that http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal%27s_wager offers an incredibly informative and concise treatment of both the wager and the objections and that you have offered no response to any of the objections on that page. Combine that with the fact that people have brought this argument up on this forum countless times (use the search function, if you want) and you have an explanation for why people are being so coarse.

[/ QUOTE ]

I appreciate the link. But you seem to think I need an "authority" on the "subject" such as pascual, which I don't, This was Zenmasterflex's Wager if you will. I don't see this as a black and white issue, and I am more interested in your thoughts on this as I am Pascals.

[Ortho]

Although I am now pretty well convinced that you are trolling, the answer to this is "because Pascal's wager says exactly what you are saying, only better and more clearly." That is, Pascal's Wager makes the argument you are making better than you yourself are making it. You would have a better and stronger argument if you merely said "I assert Pascal's wager." than if you had said what OP in fact did say. That is because it is a watered-down, less clearly thought-out version of the exact same idea. It is not (your nickname's) wager, it is Pascal's wager, because he thought of and published the exact same idea hundreds of years ago. You don't need his authority to think these thoughts, of course, and you probably think that you came up with them independently. But you didn't, and what you have come up with is a question that has already been asked and answered thousands of times, and lots of times on this forum. If you care enough about a philosophical question to ask about it here and you don't care enough about that question to click your little mouse when someone links you to the answer (and this question is dead, it has been answered), then you really don't care very much about your question in the first place.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Would a christian god even allow someone into heaven who simply raised his hand and said yes I believe, while really not believing.

[/ QUOTE ]

But... my feeling is that this is what many people sitting in church every week do anyway. At least recently I've begun to think that way. Maybe I'm just projecting my own doubts onto others.

I think you either have faith and accept that you will never have any proof until you die - or you don't. Belief can't be a way of hedging your bets in case there's a hell ("calling down the semi-bluff"). If that's the reason, then you don't really believe anyway.

I do agree with you, though, that there's no reason for non-believers to mock believers. However, I think (at least in some cases), people really have an intellectual curiosity about how others can so strongly believe in something with no tangible proof. However, this curiosity sometimes seems to devolve into battles of intellectual superiority and name-calling, which is wrong I think.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree 100%. And I am pretty dissapointed in the direction this forum is going in every time I drop in for this very reason. There is so much BS to sift through. I'd really just rather have a good discussion. I would like to see another persons POV without being told that my OP is jibberish and doesn't meet the "minimum standard" this is just obsurd. I never titled the post "Pascals wager" and although I do obviously see the correlation who gives a flying [censored]? These were my original thoughts.

[/ QUOTE ]
maybe before you said:

<font color="blue"> If you don't believe in god because of your "logic" you are a moron... </font>

you should have taken care to follow with something that wasn't poorly thought out gibberish.

chez

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I have a history of philosophy question: how did someone as smart as Blaise Pascal come up with an argument that was so obviously wrong? It's not like Paley's watch argument or Anselm's arguments, in that it doesn't need any kind of refutation, it's just obviously wrong. Perhaps someone can enlighten me.

[/ QUOTE ]
First a caveat that this is outside my area of knowledge but to speculate:

1) Probability was in its infancy so people were probably unused to thinking about it and arguing against probabilistic arguments
2) Christianity was a much more dominant view in western circles and the debate was purely atheist vs christian - if only those possibilities exist then it carries much more weight
3) I have heard from an unreliable source that what is usually portrayed as pascal's wager was actually a sub-argument in a much bigger argument. He was not saying you could somehow "fool" god and fake belief or faith but was claiming that by adopting christian attitudes and behaviours in response to this position you would come to see the truth of christianity and then believe in God through personal experience.

Like I say though - more speculation than any real knowlege.

[/ QUOTE ]
I believe pascal immediately recognised that fake beliefs didn't work and so modified the argument very slightly pointing out that as long as there a chance that practice leads to belief then its rational to practice christianity.

That's the strength of the wager - any normal reason for rejecting christianity can be crushed by the tiniest possibility of an infinite reward.

Judging by the early posts we had on pascal's wager the killer refutation is not at all easy for people to grasp. I think thats because the wager gets people to think about ojections to being a christian (which are all crushed by the wager) rather than the logical structure of the argument where the flaw is pretty obvious.

As you say, I think its reasonable to believe this misdirection was even more seductive in pascal's environment and it looks natural rather than deliberate deception to me.

chez

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Would a christian god even allow someone into heaven who simply raised his hand and said yes I believe, while really not believing.

[/ QUOTE ]

But... my feeling is that this is what many people sitting in church every week do anyway. At least recently I've begun to think that way. Maybe I'm just projecting my own doubts onto others.

I think you either have faith and accept that you will never have any proof until you die - or you don't. Belief can't be a way of hedging your bets in case there's a hell ("calling down the semi-bluff"). If that's the reason, then you don't really believe anyway.

I do agree with you, though, that there's no reason for non-believers to mock believers. However, I think (at least in some cases), people really have an intellectual curiosity about how others can so strongly believe in something with no tangible proof. However, this curiosity sometimes seems to devolve into battles of intellectual superiority and name-calling, which is wrong I think.

[/ QUOTE ]

You will rarely (if ever on these boards) find a non-believer mocking a believer who admits that his belief is on faith and cannot be supported logically, and who doesnt claim that such things as "prophecies" and "miracles" are evidence of god. Eg you will never find bunny ridiculed by anyone with any intellectual honesty.

Those that are mocked (in addition to those mentioned above) also includes those that claim that non-belief requires the same suspension of logic as belief or fall back on Pascal's Wager as a reason to believe. Those christians who posit Pascals Wager only demonstrate their own lack of understanding or belief in their own religion.

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
You will rarely (if ever on these boards) find a non-believer mocking a believer who admits that his belief is on faith and cannot be supported logically, and who doesnt claim that such things as "prophecies" and "miracles" are evidence of god. Eg you will never find bunny ridiculed by anyone with any intellectual honesty.

Those that are mocked (in addition to those mentioned above) also includes those that claim that non-belief requires the same suspension of logic as belief or fall back on Pascal's Wager as a reason to believe. Those christians who posit Pascals Wager only demonstrate their own lack of understanding or belief in their own religion.

[/ QUOTE ]

Excellent reply!