Does it make more sense to believe in God because it is a possibility than to not believe?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal's_Wager
Thoughts on this?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal's_Wager
Thoughts on this?
From a Christian standpoint I believe that one must accept that there was a man whom walked the earth by the name of Jesus Christ,who made claim to being the Messiah as was reflected in ancient writings, and was then crucified and reported by some to have risen from the dead. If you quantify your belief, as I have, on this then the concept of logical/illogical becomes based on more than "blind" faith.
I have come to believe that most arguments against God are illogical when the basis is what "man" believes he knows. We know a lot more then our ancestors, but are we nieve to believe we know it all. With that said I think an argument for or against God would at least be equal and illogical.
But it is my faith in what I can't see that pushes me to seek that which I can. If I was asked why it is that I believe that Christianity is the true path to God, I can only say that my relationship with Christ is real and has manifested itself in my life to the point that I believe to discount him and his love would be illogical. Or, to put it bluntly, it has worked for me.
"Blind" faith is a product of man. One of power over others. God wants our true love. It is in my relationship with God, through Christ, that I have received his many blessings. So to me, given equal arguments for or against the existence of God I must say he is real.
Now to the original post, without my personal experiences to sway me, could it be that Pascal was just noting that we all will die, no stopping it With that comes at least two general outcomes: We cease to exist, or we exist as something else that is not of this world. Which one is even remotely quantifiable? So your possible reward is nothing, or something.
To further complicate this argument, I believe that there must be more than just a belief in God to receive one's reward, but I truly hope and pray that I am wrong. It is not my say in how God distributes his rewards, and if he has something else planned than I am just as happy. But again, what I have believed in my own journey has truly worked for me and is very real.
I have come to believe that most arguments against God are illogical when the basis is what "man" believes he knows. We know a lot more then our ancestors, but are we nieve to believe we know it all. With that said I think an argument for or against God would at least be equal and illogical.
But it is my faith in what I can't see that pushes me to seek that which I can. If I was asked why it is that I believe that Christianity is the true path to God, I can only say that my relationship with Christ is real and has manifested itself in my life to the point that I believe to discount him and his love would be illogical. Or, to put it bluntly, it has worked for me.
"Blind" faith is a product of man. One of power over others. God wants our true love. It is in my relationship with God, through Christ, that I have received his many blessings. So to me, given equal arguments for or against the existence of God I must say he is real.
Now to the original post, without my personal experiences to sway me, could it be that Pascal was just noting that we all will die, no stopping it With that comes at least two general outcomes: We cease to exist, or we exist as something else that is not of this world. Which one is even remotely quantifiable? So your possible reward is nothing, or something.
To further complicate this argument, I believe that there must be more than just a belief in God to receive one's reward, but I truly hope and pray that I am wrong. It is not my say in how God distributes his rewards, and if he has something else planned than I am just as happy. But again, what I have believed in my own journey has truly worked for me and is very real.
myp, et al,
This would be, IMO, a "decision under uncertainty" (as opposed to "risk"). But then, this is arguable base on the purpose to the belief.
For one to effectively use Pascal's Wager, one has to believe and then set-up a matrix of outcomes.
IMO, Pascal's Wager is not a viable solution because it presupposes that the human understands the outcomes of the existence of a Supreme Being, as well as the outcomes if there were no Supreme Being.
How would we know what humanity would look like?
The conditions are outcome based:
What are the observable differences between the outcomes?
Can we know these answers?
Most Respectfully,
R
This would be, IMO, a "decision under uncertainty" (as opposed to "risk"). But then, this is arguable base on the purpose to the belief.
- Do you believe because of the assurance of life after death?
- Do you believe because you are conscious of a higher authority?
- Do you believe because it is the only way you see the development of humanity?
For one to effectively use Pascal's Wager, one has to believe and then set-up a matrix of outcomes.
(COMMENT)
IMO, Pascal's Wager is not a viable solution because it presupposes that the human understands the outcomes of the existence of a Supreme Being, as well as the outcomes if there were no Supreme Being.
How would we know what humanity would look like?
If we assume that a Supreme Being exists today, then the outcome of humanity would be common to us through our everyday experience.
So, what would humanity look like if we changed the Paradigm and assumed the Supreme Being does not exist. What difference would we experience?
So, what would humanity look like if we changed the Paradigm and assumed the Supreme Being does not exist. What difference would we experience?
The conditions are outcome based:
- The Supreme Being exists and has one outcome humanity.
- The Supreme Being does not exist and has an outcome on humanity.
What are the observable differences between the outcomes?
Can we know these answers?
Most Respectfully,
R
There is something to be said for someone who believes from the heart and not just out of fear or to cover their butt.
I chose to believe in God, it really makes no difference if you choose to believe in God or not. I really think it has to do with personal experience, also how you interpret existence.
But it really has no effect on how smart a person is. pascal's notion that you have nothing to loose but the chance to gain is spot on.
I lost nothing believing in a God.
But it really has no effect on how smart a person is. pascal's notion that you have nothing to loose but the chance to gain is spot on.
I lost nothing believing in a God.
If you remove the religion from the hateful people they stool will be hateful. Violence and hate are caused by humanity, regardless of religion. Most religions are supporters of peace, and love. You would know that if you read about them. Some people within religions use clauses taken out of context to persecute people. Blaming religion for it is childish.
I have read the King James, which made me read the Old and New. The Book of Mormon, The Vedas, a poor translation of the Qu'ran, Watchtower and a bit of Scientology. Delved into the kawani, Huna, and Tao...anything else you might recommend?
Most PEOPLE are supporters of peace...but religion IS an excuse to hate....period.
"
In short, 809 million people have died in religious wars. That’s nearly a billion people.
Oftentimes, a retort is that secular ideals and Godless Communism have killed many more. It is true that Stalin, among others, slaughtered his own people by the millions during the industrialization of Soviet Russia. By comparison, 209 million have died in the name of Communism. Some 62 million died during World War II, civilian and military, on all sides. Conclusively, more people have died in the name of religion than in the name of Communism or Hitler, or the two combined times two."
http://www.bookrateblog.com/2006/07/22/deaths-over-history-religious-vs-nonreligous/
I am not trying to blame your religion for these deaths and violence. But it is an important factor that cannot be ignored.
It may not be childish, but it is a bit disingenuous to pretend it does not add to the issue.
Most PEOPLE are supporters of peace...but religion IS an excuse to hate....period.
"
In short, 809 million people have died in religious wars. That’s nearly a billion people.
Oftentimes, a retort is that secular ideals and Godless Communism have killed many more. It is true that Stalin, among others, slaughtered his own people by the millions during the industrialization of Soviet Russia. By comparison, 209 million have died in the name of Communism. Some 62 million died during World War II, civilian and military, on all sides. Conclusively, more people have died in the name of religion than in the name of Communism or Hitler, or the two combined times two."
http://www.bookrateblog.com/2006/07/22/deaths-over-history-religious-vs-nonreligous/
I am not trying to blame your religion for these deaths and violence. But it is an important factor that cannot be ignored.
It may not be childish, but it is a bit disingenuous to pretend it does not add to the issue.
Hate is not part of many religions, religion is often used to justify war, but if you look at the history "holy wars" always have a secular purpose
No satanism is not about violence or hatred, it is about serving your self.
Wars are not started over defending God, name a war about defending God.
The crusades were fought to establish trade routes with the British west indies. I am at a loss as to any other so called holy war.
Currently, Muslim extremists are killing people, blowing things up, calling for Jihad (Holy War), based on perceived affronts, and hatred of those who do not follow Allah.
Defending a God.
Perhaps however, my use of the word "Defending" should be revised to "Using".
Defending a God.
Perhaps however, my use of the word "Defending" should be revised to "Using".
I'm calling BS on that (Holy War) bit. It actually means struggle and is interpreted as internal struggle by mainstream muslims. If yo ever actually read the Qur'an, you'd know that the only war that's actually allowed for is defensive and intervention on behalf of the weak. There's a reason the Jihadists always try to justify their attacks on 'Crusader' Westerners, otherwise even the most illiterate of people would call them out as murders and judging what happened in Anbar Provence and what's happening in Mili, that spin doesn't always work.
I am not trying to single out Islam..in my mind they all suck.
And I have read the Qu'ran...even have some understanding of it.
I might point this out:
"
- Slay them wherever ye find them, and drive them out of the places whence they drove you out ... if they attack you (there) then slay them. Such is the reward of disbelievers. 2:191
- Warfare is ordained for you, though it is hateful unto you. 2:216
- Fight in the way of Allah who sell the life of this world for the other. Whoso fighteth in the way of Allah, be he slain or be he victorious, on him We shall bestow a vast reward. 4:74"
The goalposts doesn't move, aside from the current middle east which I suspect is more about cultural angst than converting nonbelievers without much more than my theory I couldn't prove anything, just my suspicion.
but the current war aside, name another holy war in the past millennium.
Similar threads
