Hey you evolutionists...

[Flipx99 5,000+ posts]

no one cares. Ca.com is mostly atheist anyways.

Or bet hedgers.

But I think I am the only one that admits I believe because of the potential payoff. I also believe that God doesn't care why we believe, just that we do. It's so easy to make God work around what I believe. //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/biggrin.gif.d71a5d36fcbab170f2364c9f2e3946cb.gif

 

[galacticmonkey 5,000+ posts]

So Pascals Wager.... I think thats why most people believe.

 

[Flipx99 5,000+ posts]

So Pascals Wager.... I think thats why most people believe.

Indeed. I just admit it.

 

[newusername 10+ year member]

The fundamental problem with Pascal's Wager is the context of the god you're wagering on.

First, you must identify the suspected qualities of the god you're wagering. The assumption you're making is that god wants you to believe in him, which is an assumption for which we have no evidence; this idea comes from religious dogma, not from logical reasoning. Again, there is no reason to believe that a god that exists likes belief in him any more than he likes wondering about the natural universe.

If you're wagering on him using a specific religious dogma, then there is of course the question of whether you've chosen the right one.

 

[newusername 10+ year member]

To put it philosophically....

Pascal's Wager is a logical fallacy, because it presents a false dichotomy:

1. God exists and requires belief in him,

2. God doesn't exist.

God could exist and not give a **** about whether we believe in him; instead, he might prefer that we think rationally. Better yet, he might not care about anything we do.

 

[Flipx99 5,000+ posts]

Neil, I recognize this for the most part. I call it semi-logical, whereas there is some underlying thought. I try to ignore the fact that it's rather flimsy when examined.

 

[perfecxionX 10+ year member]

so when you talk about bet hedging your pretty much just rationalizing something that you would believe regardless?

 

[Flipx99 5,000+ posts]

so when you talk about bet hedging your pretty much just rationalizing something that you would believe regardless?

In a sense, yes. It seems better than blind faith. Like I said, it's a very flimsy argument, but it is what it is.

 

[newusername 10+ year member]

It is not a flimsy argument; it is a wrong argument. It's not like the taste of food, where you can just chalk it up to a difference in opinion. It is the exact same as blind faith.

 

[Flipx99 5,000+ posts]

It is not a flimsy argument; it is a wrong argument. It's not like the taste of food, where you can just chalk it up to a difference in opinion. It is the exact same as blind faith.

Not really. I have made some assumptions about what God is and what God prefers, given those assumptions, I reasoned my way into a belief system.

 

[Flipx99 5,000+ posts]

Hell, even scientific inquiry requires assumptions, does it not?

 

[galacticmonkey 5,000+ posts]

Hell, even scientific inquiry requires assumptions, does it not?

Assumptions about constants, such as the speed of light or the force of gravity. Assumptions about things that can be tested and restested, and give the same solid, concrete answer each time. Not just an opinion about what some supreme being might like.

What I dont understand is how a logical human being like yourself (who can see that your argument doesnt make sense) still believes it anyway. You believe just because its right? Even though it doesnt make sense?

If it doesnt make sense, and you can see that, cant you see that there is no heaven/hell/afterlife, and that belief gets you nowhere? Because in the end, deep down your logic makes you question this, since you are a logical, thinking being.

 

[galacticmonkey 5,000+ posts]

If God is all powerful, all knowing, and perfect in every way, why should we even thank him and pray to him? If he is already perfect, he wont be gaining anything.

Flip, do you believe in the Big Bang?

 

[newusername 10+ year member]

Hell, even scientific inquiry requires assumptions, does it not?

Assumptions that can be confirmed or falsified, either directly or indirectly. Totally different type of assumption.

If Step A is making a false assumption, and Step B is building on the premise of Step A, and neither Step is testable or knowable (or logical), then it is utterly and completely a position of blind faith. That is what your position is.

 

[squeak9798 5,000+ posts]

If God is all powerful, all knowing, and perfect in every way, why should we even thank him and pray to him? If he is already perfect, he wont be gaining anything.

Because he is a jealous and narcissistic god.

Amazingly virtues we find distasteful in humans beings are though to be a part of that which is "perfect" and infallible. In following god's example, I think we all should be jealous, selfish and narcissistic.