Forum Home
PC World Chat
Thread ID: 128074	2012-12-02 05:30:00	Pascal's Wager	Cicero (40)	PC World Chat

Post ID	Timestamp	Content	User
1315920	2012-12-02 22:53:00	So you think I should fake it? That doesn't sound very rational. If I'm atheist, and the god is benevolent, I'm fine. If the god isn't benevolent, I'm no worse off (and possibly better off) than someone who picked the wrong god. Atheism sounds like a rational path for me. .... and remember, there aren't too many gods who aren't jealous gods (if they exist at all - and I haven't seen any decent proof offered in this area)!!! I'm with you on this one Zara.	johcar (6283)
1315921	2012-12-02 22:55:00	Pascal's wager is silly but atheism is sillier Atheism is equivalent to a folder in a directory structure saying "There is no folder above me" I am surprised that intelligent people (and you have to be a little bit intelligent in IT... ;) ) don't realise that it is logically impossible to see a folder above you. It really is stupid to say that it doesn't exist on the basis that you can't see it Similarly it is logically impossible to see or know of the existence of God. But it is something you might believe You might not be able to see a folder above you, but haven't you seen the command "cd .."???	johcar (6283)
1315922	2012-12-02 23:13:00	I guess the Atheisms Wager makes sense and has more merit *provided* that all benevolent Gods allowed you into their heaven based on works and deeds alone, working on the basis that any God exists at all. If you worship a God and it turns out to be the wrong one, you're no better off than an Atheists if the God doesn't go for deed-based eternal reward. If he does, however, and you lived worshipping another God, but still performed good deeds, are you not still in the same boat as an Atheist who performed good deeds? I guess the Atheists Wager makes sense if you follow the assumption that deeds are enough for eternal reward, yet worshipping the *wrong* God even if you perform "Good deeds" are enough for eternal damnation. With that, I wager: If a God is benevolent enough to provide you with eternal reward based on your good deeds alone, and lack of belief, would he not also be benevolent enough to reward you eternally even if you believed in the *wrong* God? NOTE: Not trying to convince anybody to change religion here or anything, I actually find it fascinating to have a logical discussion about it without things going ad-hominem within a few minutes of a discussion starting...	Chilling_Silence (9)
1315923	2012-12-02 23:33:00	I guess the Atheisms Wager makes sense and has more merit *provided* that all benevolent Gods allowed you into their heaven based on works and deeds alone, working on the basis that any God exists at all. If you worship a God and it turns out to be the wrong one, you're no better off than an Atheists if the God doesn't go for deed-based eternal reward. If he does, however, and you lived worshipping another God, but still performed good deeds, are you not still in the same boat as an Atheist who performed good deeds? I guess the Atheists Wager makes sense if you follow the assumption that deeds are enough for eternal reward, yet worshipping the *wrong* God even if you perform "Good deeds" are enough for eternal damnation. I think the Atheist's wager came about because of Pascal being Catholic, so presumably seeing works/deeds as the primary route. Having said that, of course Atheists would take works/deeds, since faith is a non-starter from an atheistic perspective. A little from Column A, and a little from Column B? With that, I wager: If a God is benevolent enough to provide you with eternal reward based on your good deeds alone, and lack of belief, would he not also be benevolent enough to reward you eternally even if you believed in the *wrong* God? Yep, that sounds about right. (For me, personally, that would mean faking it when I didn't need to. If they are benevolent, they'll take me regardless.) But it means that, as long as the god/deity is benevolent, it really doesn't matter much what you believe, as long as you do good. NOTE: Not trying to convince anybody to change religion here or anything, I actually find it fascinating to have a logical discussion about it without things going ad-hominem within a few minutes of a discussion starting... Yeah, totes. I mean, I'm happy with my position. I assume you're happy with yours. I sincerely hope that you're on the right path. I don't mind if I'm not. (There may be someone trying to save my eternal soul, but ... I'm good, thanks.)	Zara Baxter (16260)
1315924	2012-12-03 00:22:00	haven't you seen the command "cd .." Why would the folder issue that command? Its position is that there is nothing above It's a bit like telling an atheist to "become converted" and they'll see the deity. The atheist's position is that there is nothing to be converted to	BBCmicro (15761)
1315925	2012-12-03 02:30:00	Trust in the force Luke Oldi one KENobi (Retired Jedi) :clap	kenj (9738)
1315926	2012-12-03 02:56:00	Trust in the force Luke Oldi one KENobi (Retired Jedi) :clap No taking the lords name in vain now Ken..	Cicero (40)
1315927	2012-12-03 03:12:00	My online gaming handle is gobe1kenobi.... funny that	Gobe1 (6290)
1315928	2012-12-03 03:26:00	I don't mind if I'm not. (There may be someone trying to save my eternal soul, but ... I'm good, thanks.) Just think Hell will be warm and you'll know people there :devil Er, note I'm not damning you to an eternity of burning or anything... :xmouth:	lordnoddy (3645)
1315929	2012-12-03 03:34:00	Pascal's wager is silly but atheism is sillier Atheism is equivalent to a folder in a directory structure saying "There is no folder above me" I am surprised that intelligent people (and you have to be a little bit intelligent in IT... ;) ) don't realise that it is logically impossible to see a folder above you. It really is stupid to say that it doesn't exist on the basis that you can't see it Similarly it is logically impossible to see or know of the existence of God. But it is something you might believe Well, when you are referring to the root directory of a physical drive, you know there is no folder above it, which is why you can't see it. So I don't see how your example is supposed to make sense. With that, I wager: If a God is benevolent enough to provide you with eternal reward based on your good deeds alone, and lack of belief, would he not also be benevolent enough to reward you eternally even if you believed in the *wrong* God? But all the religions well tell you they are the correct one and that you will only be saved if you follow them. So assuming that a God exists and that one of the many religions picked the correct God, then all the other religion followers are doomed since they are not on the correct path! Of course, ALL the religions may be wrong, even if there was God, they may all have picked the wrong one or may all be doing something else wrong. If you're confused, just remember this: Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?	Agent_24 (57)
1 2 3 4 5 6