I'm not Christian, but the following argument has been made which is very intriguing. I forget the name of the person who first proposed it at the moment (It starts with a "P" I believe). I figured that given the general ignorance of some of the basic philosophical arguments that have been proposed, I'd enlighten the unknowing.

The question here is not whether or not God (in the Christian sense) exists, but whether or not you should believe in Him.

If one believes in God, and He does exist, then you are given the ultimate reward - Heaven. An eternity of bliss and happiness.

If one believes in God, and He does NOT exist, you won't even know you're wrong. Your mind will be snuffed out, and you gain or lose nothing other than adhering to a doctrine that teaches some good things.

If one does not believe in God, and He does not exist, then you don't even get the satisfaction of being correct. You're dead, gone, kaput.

If one does not believe in God and He DOES exist, well then you're fucked. You're going to Hell, and you gonna burn (Amen).

So, by believing in God, you have everything to gain, and nothing to lose, while not believing in Him, you have everything to lose and nothing to gain.

it was Pascal who said that.

If you have no principles, go ahead and follow it.

[This message has been edited by Bogey Man (edited 12-24-2002).]

interesting point of view.

well why don't we all, out of fear of burning in "hell", believe in an invisible being and completely refute all the logical processes of our minds

Now you're implyng that fear and logic contradict each other. The statement is logical, in that it follows the rules of a logic statement. In order to refute it, you must say that one of the four points is invalid.

I'm not refuting the logic at all. What I am saying is that believing in god is illogical--it goes against rational thought to worship a being that has no empirical evidence of existence--regardless of the fact that one has nothing to lose in believing in god. I would be just as justified in worshipping the boogey man or santa claus.

lets say there is no god and we are all powerful(us men). then why r we so fucked in every way possible. god, as i see it, is basically whatever exsistence itself(including you, nature, earth and everything else (YOU DONT UNDERSTAND). Being as ignorant as saying since we dont understand is as ignorant as saying the earth is flat. so we cant understand it all, so what if it really isnt called "God", but something else, open your minds, all the religions believe in a higher being from man, are because, we arent the bestest in the whole wide world! personally i dont think ur good u go to heaven, i think that meant to find heaven on earth for true happeiness, maybe im wrong, but ill do what i have to do to be happy, or to "be in the kingdom of heaven" maybe there is life after death, ill never pretend to know the answer tho. il just do the best i can do, what happenes later happens later. its not about right or wrong. Were all different in every way, instead of fighting for being right lets work together, but we wont, too much insecurities were afraid to face. oh well i hope i die happy, im sick of telling the rest of the world hate and war wont work, so ill live under not gods rule but my own, through truth happiness and love. peace to you all, im crazy, but to all the rest of the conformists, you are.

quote:

---

Originally posted by shadowboxer187:
well why don't we all, out of fear of burning in "hell", believe in an invisible being and completely refute all the logical processes of our minds

---

"It seems to me that the idea of a personal God is an anthropological concept which I cannot take seriously. I also cannot imagine some will or goal outside the human sphere.... Science has been charged with undermining morality, but the charge is unjust. A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death."

- Albert Einstein

quote:

---

Originally posted by shadowboxer187:
I'm not refuting the logic at all. What I am saying is that believing in god is illogical--it goes against rational thought to worship a being that has no empirical evidence of existence--regardless of the fact that one has nothing to lose in believing in god. I would be just as justified in worshipping the boogey man or santa claus.

---

Though God's existence cannot be proven, it also cannot be empirically disproven. If it's true intellectual honesty we're shooting for here, simple agnosticism is the way to go here.

What if the god you are believing in just to avoid hell is the wrong one and takes offense to your creeping posturing?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Armed&Angry:
Though God's existence cannot be proven, it also cannot be empirically disproven. If it's true intellectual honesty we're shooting for here, simple agnosticism is the way to go here.

---

Something that doesn't exist will neither have any evidence for or against it unless it makes a specific falsifiable claim (which Godcrafters are usually quick to avoid). The claim that the Invisible Pink Unicorn (IPU) created the universe is unfalsifiable because it happened in the past and all we can do now is observe the effects of the universe coming into existence, whatever caused it.

You will never be able to disprove the IPU if there is anything you don't know. Such a proposition for a deity is useless because it doesn't exist from any proof of it's own, but simply due to the fact that it can't be disproven. It's a logical nuisance, a speed bump in the path of rational thought rather than an actual force to contend with. Such beings are arbitrary, superfluous, and pointless.

Eh . . . since you asked, and since I am currently in a very giving mood, I will oblige.

**refutes**

quote:

---

Originally posted by ProphetOfCod:
The question here is not whether or not God (in the Christian sense) exists, but whether or not you should believe in Him.

If one believes in God, and He does exist, then you are given the ultimate reward - Heaven. An eternity of bliss and happiness.

If one believes in God, and He does NOT exist, you won't even know you're wrong. Your mind will be snuffed out, and you gain or lose nothing other than adhering to a doctrine that teaches some good things.

If one does not believe in God, and He does not exist, then you don't even get the satisfaction of being correct. You're dead, gone, kaput.

If one does not believe in God and He DOES exist, well then you're fucked. You're going to Hell, and you gonna burn (Amen).

So, by believing in God, you have everything to gain, and nothing to lose, while not believing in Him, you have everything to lose and nothing to gain.

---

Counterpoint:

Take all the statements you made, substitute "Zeus" or any other godform in the place of "God", and the corresponding "Heaven" and "Hell" archetypes in the appropriate places.

You will find you have argued against your own theory. The mutability of this line of argument discounts it as a logical argument for the point you are trying to make. Find something that can only specifically be applied to Christian theology and you may have a whole new ballgame.

Until then, I remain...

Unconvinced

The basic rebuttal of Pascal's Wager goes something along these lines:

If you were to 'believe' in a God simply for the sake of going to heaven, then you'd know, deep down inside, that this belief was indeed a load of bullshit.

Since belief is entirely a personal thing, the only person you'd be fooling was yourself.

Now assuming God knows what you believe, deep down inside, he would then know that you're in fact trying to cheat your way into heaven.

So to take full advantage of Pascal's Wager, you'd need some sort of method of selective memory removal.

First, I would like to just say that I'm not trying to prove anything. The way I look at it, if someone has choosen a religion they feel comfortable with, an online message shouldn't change their mind. I don't want to change anyone's mind anyways. However, there is something that can be applied specifically to Christianity. That is the calendar. This doesn't prove the existence of god by any means, but I think most people who post here would accept the fact that we are almost in the year 2003. One very important thing that Christian theology has working for it is Jesus. You can argue that he was just a regular man, but the fact is there was a man named Jesus.

This thread is made every couple months.

Using logic against theists, even some agnostics, becomes boring and redundant.

quote:

---

Originally posted by realeyesrealize:
However, there is something that can be applied specifically to Christianity. That is the calendar. This doesn't prove the existence of god by any means, but I think most people who post here would accept the fact that we are almost in the year 2003.

---

2003 Common Era.

The problem with this line of thought, this thread, is that it separates the object of belief, God, from the process of believing. God is bigger than being just an entity, or being just a process. "He" necessarily has to be both, because He cannnot be limited by any ideas.

We talk about the the process and the object as different things because we are limited, and therefore have to.

So if God is true, the process of believing in him will be just as true, and we don't have to wait for some later date to find out if we are right or not. The process will prove it to us.

If the process isn't proving it to you, then there is no question that you have the wrong God, and that is blind faith.

quote:

---

If one believes in God, and He does NOT exist, you won't even know you're wrong. Your mind will be snuffed out, and you gain or lose nothing other than adhering to a doctrine that teaches some good things.

---

You will LOSE your life. Though it is true that if there is no God that nothing in life matters after death, we don't take on this attitude because we want to use our chance at 'life', even if it doesn't matter when we die (what does?). So if we give our lives to a 'God' for fear of going to 'hell', we lose the chance to live our lives the way we want to. Instead we must conform to the principles dictated by the religion. So if you're going to believe in God, do so not because you want an easy ride into heaven when you die, but because you feel you want to live your life in a certain way.

The belief of 'believe or go to hell' makes God sound like a sick being.

In our day in age, it is hard to believe in a God, especially with everything happening around us.

And we have no real proof. Just because we are told something, doesn't make it true. Believing in anything without proof is foolish.

If God is real, I think he would be MUCH more understanding then you make him out to be.

Strange, how someone who states he is 'not a Christian' can know anything about God? What is wrong with that Picture? Thats like someone who isn't a fish, telling us what it is to live in the ocean with all the other fishes! If that isn't Bull, I don't know what is! HOW about you read the Bible, only a few verses, Jeremiah 29:13 and Romans 10:9,10 and then get back with me! I would like to see if your logic, is really logic or just plain, run your mouth off, BULL S--T! Perhaps you just can't take the TRUTH? Try the TEST? ROGER459@ATT.NET

quote:

---

Originally posted by ProphetOfCod:
I'm not Christian, but the following argument has been made which is very intriguing. I forget the name of the person who first proposed it at the moment (It starts with a "P" I believe). I figured that given the general ignorance of some of the basic philosophical arguments that have been proposed, I'd enlighten the unknowing.

The question here is not whether or not God (in the Christian sense) exists, but whether or not you should believe in Him.

If one believes in God, and He does exist, then you are given the ultimate reward - Heaven. An eternity of bliss and happiness.

If one believes in God, and He does NOT exist, you won't even know you're wrong. Your mind will be snuffed out, and you gain or lose nothing other than adhering to a doctrine that teaches some good things.

If one does not believe in God, and He does not exist, then you don't even get the satisfaction of being correct. You're dead, gone, kaput.

If one does not believe in God and He DOES exist, well then you're fucked. You're going to Hell, and you gonna burn (Amen).

So, by believing in God, you have everything to gain, and nothing to lose, while not believing in Him, you have everything to lose and nothing to gain.

---

How can someone that claims not to be a Christian, know about GOD? Thats like someone who is not a fish, telling us how it is to live in the Sea? Bull! Get real, who are you trying to fool, but yourself? Lets have some real dialogue if you are not afraid of the Real Truth! Thanks, RR

I'm confused, are you an overzealous Christian?

quote:

---

Originally posted by town_drunkard:
...if you're going to believe in God, do so not because you want an easy ride into heaven when you die, but because you feel you want to live your life in a certain way.

---

Why would you need to believe in a god in order to live your life a certain way? Atheists such as myself can live the same way that a Christian does without professing belief in any god. For instance, as an Atheist I can live by a strict ethical code, not stealing or murdering, treating others with kindness and respect, loving my enemies, etc., and the only thing separating myself from a Christian is my lack of belief in a superior being.

Another point I'd like to bring up is that there are over 2500 gods that have been worshipped over the years by various religious groups. Christians deny the existence of over 2499 gods, meaning that they only make an exception for belief in one of those gods. The only difference between an Atheist and a Christian in this respect is that Atheists maintain consistency and don't make an exception for the Christian god.

One last thought I have is this... if the Christian god exists and is omniscient (all-knowing), that means that the god knew upon creation of mankind the outcome of every human's life. And if that god knew the outcome of every human's life before we even began living our lives, that means that humans have no free will and there is only fate. Therefore, if an omniscient god exists, we have no power to control our futures and whatever faith we choose, we are really only going along with the Christian god's knowledge of what we were supposed to choose in accordance with fate. That being the case, my decision to be an atheist really wasn't my choice at all, it was what the Christian god knew was going to happen.

Also, if the Christian god is benevolent and omnipotent, wouldn't he use his power to change the course of my life so that I worship him rather than no god? He would know of my lack of belief because he is omniscient, and being that he is benevolent he would be incapable of ignoring my "need" to be saved, and using his omnipotencce he would save me. Wouldn't the Christian god also use his power to redirect all non-believers in order to save their souls from hell?

My final comment refutes Pascal's theory:

Suppose that, in addition to the two options Pascal offered that either (1) God exists and punishes all non-believers eternally while rewarding believers eternally or (2) God does not exist and neither believers nor non-believers are rewarded or punished, a third option is offered in which (3) A supernatural being exists who punishes all those who believe in supernatural beings with eternal suffering and rewards those who do not believe in supernatural beings with eternal bliss. Therefore, if (3) were true, atheists would be rewarded eternally while Christians would be punished for their belief. That being the case, it is most benefitial to believe that no supernatural beings exist rather than believing in a supernatural being.

[This message has been edited by shadowboxer187 (edited 12-30-2002).]

Like all of the arguements for the existance of God, Pascals wager is easy to refute.

Consider this claim: There is no God but there is a heaven and hell. You will go to heaven if you are an atheist and you will go to hell if you believe that there is a God.

Now apply Pascals wager to it and see if you can "prove" that atheism is true.

There are two main mistakes that Pascal makes. First is he never even deals with the issue if God exists or not. It is just a sales pitch to get you to accept it. You can make up any infinite reward and punishment and claim to tie it to any issue with no proof whatsoever and make the same sales pitch. I am not buying.

The second is that he makes the "Christian" mistake of thinking that life in the theoretical heavan has meaning while life here on earth does not. This cannot be true even if there is a heavan. The difference between life on earth and in heavan would just be a matter of degree, not nature. There is pleasure and pain on earth. There would just be more pleasure in heavan and more pain in hell. Life on earth has duration, immortality would just be more duration. Now relativly speaking, heavan and hell would be so much more than anything life on earth could be that it would be worth a shitty life to make it to heavan if you knew that was your choice. But if life here has no meaning, then neither would more of it in heavan or hell. You can lose something here on earth and you should not give it up for a lie no matter how big the lie is. Keep in mind that a lie can always get bigger. Even bigger than the lie about the existence of God. If you cannot prove that the lie (or claim) is true, then you should not believe it. Otherwise you will be at the mercy of whoever comes up with the next bigger lie.