Quote:

---

Orginally posted by DiogenestheCynic

Thanks for the definitions mercury. But I wonder what is keeping people from voicing their views!? Come on I am sure there are a lot of hard core theists around here! What makes you believe that there is a deity or God? Do you think man was created by God? How do you explain the theory of evolution and also beleive in the theory of man made by God? Does your so called God control the events of the universe? Are do you think deism makes sense? If there is a universal God how come so many different religions? Is he good God or a bad God? What is your take on Pascal's wager?
Or is the subject too complicated to handle??

---

Well I hadnt heard of it or maybe not paid attention. I am remotely aware of other ontological arguements.

But I did read up on the Wager and now I think I have heard it from people in simpler ways...i.e. It woul be better to wager for god than against.
----------
If you Wager for him and he exists, all is well.
If you wager against god and he exists, then well you know....hell and eternal damnation await thee....
If you wager for god and he does not exist, well no loss no gain.
If you wager against god and he does not exist, well no loss no gain.
-----------

Decision theory, probability all comes into the picture.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/pascal-wager/

Makes for great reading.

I will be damned If I could come up with an argument against mr Pascal himself, except to say you cannot prove god's existence without making assumptions (which are debatable in themselves).

If I am right Pascal was an Athiest at some stage in his life and later became a believer.

BTW, a side question based on the prev statement is:

Have you always been a believer (or not) or at some point in your life ther was a change?

In my case as far as I can remember and started having a semblance of independent thought I have been like I am now. So I have never believed.

I have a small book hidden somewhere I got from a used store that lists all the ontological arguments...still trying to find it.

* till then Mercury6 googles furiously for other arguments *

Quote:

---

Orginally posted by mercury6
BTW, a side question based on the prev statement is:
Have you always been a believer (or not) or at some point in your life ther was a change?

---

I have never been a true believer really. When I was much younger, I used to go along with the other folks performing rituals, but never did any on my own. Later, after having gained capacity if rational thinking I could not but consider mysef an atheist or at least a deist!

Quote:

---

Orginally posted by mercury6
I will be damned If I could come up with an argument against mr Pascal himself, except to say you cannot prove god's existence without making assumptions (which are debatable in themselves).

---

Disclaimer: I have liberally used stuff from someone else's post in another thread on another board in the following:

Pascal's Wager Revisited

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now, it has been many years since I studied Pascal and his wager, so I may be a bit rusty on the specifics, but I do remember being able to completely discredit it to my own satisfaction at the time.

If memory serves, Pascal's wager was essentially as follows:
Quote:
Assuming there is a 50/50 chance that God exists, and assuming that the reward for believing in God (if he exists) is eternal salvation, and assuming that the penalty for NOT believing in God (if he exists) is eternal damnation, and assuming that there is no downside to believing in God even if he doesn't exist, then the only logical course of action is to believe in God.

Now, assuming that I haven't completely misrepresented Pascal's argument, here's my response. Basically, I think that all of his assumptions are false, or at least not verifiably true, To wit:

Assuming there is a 50/50 chance that God exists:

Why assume that there is a 50/50 chance that God exists? Given the complete lack of empirical data to prove his existence, and given the many counterarguments to his existence (the existence of evil in the world, the fact that different people have claimed to receive conflicting messages from God, the fact that many so-called "miracles" have been proven to be the result of natural forces or merely delusions, etc.), maybe there is only a one in a million chance that God exists, or perhaps a one in a billion chance. Of, perhaps even a zero chance that God exists. Pascal's wager could just as likely be used to prove the rationality of believing that a flock of pink elephants will fly into my window one night and grant my heart's fondest desires. Since it's possible, then according to Pascal the safest best is to believe in them just in case, right?

Assuming that the reward for believing in God (if he exists) is eternal salvation:

What proof is there that believing in God will automatically result in eternal life, let alone eternal salvation? Different religions have different beliefs, and not all religions believe in an afterlife. Assuming there is a God of some sort, maybe he has simply created us as playthings and has no desire to let us return to his presence. Or maybe the whole purpose of life is to enjoy ourselves fully while we can, since the rest of eternity will be mind-numbing boredom as we sit on a cloud and strum a harp all day long.

Assuming that the penalty for NOT believing in God (if he exists) is eternal damnation:

Who is to say that the penalty for NOT believing is eternal damnation. Again, assuming there is a God of some sort, maybe he really doesn't care what we do here on earth. Claiming that all nonbelievers will have eternal torment and misery is pretty cruel and heartless when you think of all the BILLIONS of people who are raised in societies where a belief in God is not taught. God is the one who decides where somebody will be born, so why would he then condemn that person to Hell for never hearing about him?

Assuming that there is no downside to believing in God even if he doesn't exist:

Who's to say that there is no downside to believing in a non-existent God? Perhaps if you are a born again Christian who thinks that it is enough to simply 'accept Jesus into your heart" to be saved, then this assumption is valid. The religion in which Iw as raised, however, tought that God demands a life of self-sacrifice and obedience; no premarital sex, no alcohol, 10% of your income donated to the church, significant amounts of time devoted to performing various tasks (attending meetings, visiting other members, preparing lessons, performing sacred ordinances, etc.) If you beliueve that all of this is required of you to gain the promised reward and there ISN'T really a God, you will have essentially wasted your entire life.

An additional downside to believing in a nonexistent god is the sacrifice of my capacity to rationally distinguish between what is real and what is fantasy. If I'm willing to believe in God simply because it's a "safe bet", then why not also believe in UFOs, psychics, ghosts, etc.? Maybe the UFOs will only rescue those who believe in them when the day or Armegeddon is at hand. Or maybe the TV psychics can only convey messages from the loved ones of whose who believe in psychic powers. Or maybe ghosts only visit those who are willing to see them? Forcing myself to believe in something for which there is no evidence and plenty of counterevidence can only diminish my ability to think rationally.

Then the only logical course of action is to believe in God:

Basically, I think the argument boils down to "the theoretical reward is so great, and the cost to play is so minimal, that it is in your best interest to play." I suppose an analogy could be made, perhaps, to one of those multi-state lotteries where the prize has risen to $300 million and the chance of wining is 1 in 100 million. If the tickets are only $1 each, it only makes sense to play, since the potential gain is enormous and the potential loss is trivial.

However, I don't think that analogy is really accurate. For a closer analogy, you would be required to sell everything that you own in order to enter the lottery with the same 1 in 100 million chance of winning. And if you lost (which is likely), your whole life would be ruined as a result

To sum up, since there is really a very small chance that God exists (not 50/50), and since there is no guarantee that God would reward belief with eternal life if he did exist, and since there's no guarantee that God would reward disbelief with eternal damnation, and since the penalty for believing in a nonexistent God is potentially very high, the only logical thing is to not believe in God.

Quote:

---

Orginally posted by YoursTruly

The evolution theory is the outcome of countless hours of painstaking research work done to substantiate its fundamental postulates. However, the non-believers, while unquestioningly accepting the remaining scientific theories, find it very difficult to digest this theory. Why?

---

Do you mean non-believers or believers there? I thought it was the atheist who believes in the theory of evolution and the theist believes in the theory of creation.

Quote:

---

Orginally posted by DiogenestheCynic

Quote:

---

Orginally posted by YoursTruly

The evolution theory is the outcome of countless hours of painstaking research work done to substantiate its fundamental postulates. However, the non-believers, while unquestioningly accepting the remaining scientific theories, find it very difficult to digest this theory. Why?

---

Do you mean non-believers or believers there? I thought it was the atheist who believes in the theory of evolution and the theist believes in the theory of creation.

---

When I say non-believers I refer to those who do not believe in the theory of evolution.

Quote:

---

Orginally posted by YoursTruly
When I say non-believers I refer to those who do not believe in the theory of evolution.

---

I stand corrected.
Yeah you rquestion is very valid. Unfortunately I don't think there will be any answers.