The God Thread

TheSimilier wrote

I see myself somewhere between agnostic and atheist. I don't believe in god, but I don't rule his/her/their existent out either, mostly due to the 5-minute hypothesis. I naturally don't mind people actually believing in the existet of god/gods, because as Pascal said 'Belief is a wise wager. Granted that faith cannot be proved, what harm will come to you if you gamble on its truth and it proves false? If you gain, you gain all; if you lose, you lose nothing. Wager, then, without hesitation, that He exists.'

As someone has said, Pascal's Wager is flawed in that it bases itself on a very specific set of standards.

See, if you do believe, you have to wager on a CHRISTIAN God that is in HUMAN image that is OMNISCIENT and BENEVOLENT and operates by a VERY SPECIFIC set of standards, that HEAVEN AND HELL are both real things and that there is indeed some sort of JUDGMENT.

If we're to use the analogy of a wager, Pascal's Wager is just as hazardous as it is to not believe at all. As a result, the more practical belief, with this equality, is to just not believe. At least for me.

Few quick reads;

[spoiler=Assumptions]

1. He assumed that if God exists then
   1a. humans are immortal (as a necessary condition for 1b)
   1b. God decides whether they are tortured eternally or happy eternally (one of them is enough to profit infinitely, though)
   1c. God bases his decision on whether they believe in him (if this is not the case, the wager does not work, because believing in God or believing in God because of the wager might cause infinite torture)
   1d. God bases his decision on whether they follow religious law (again, the wager does not work if God does not like people following religious law)
   1e. God is the Christian God and you have to believe in exactly the right doctrinal points and those are the points that Pascal was raised with (again, the wager does not work if God does not like people to follow a particular religious law)

2. It is not true that you have nothing to lose if there is no afterlife and you have spent all your life following the instruction of the religion even though you would have preferred to do something else.

3. He also assumed that he can rationally decide to believe.

Summary: The wager assumes that there is a positive probability for God rewarding a particular behaviour with eternal bliss and a zero probability for God punishing this very behaviour with denial of eternal bliss. There is no reason for this assumption.
If the probability for a reward is in fact zero, it does matter if you sacrifice all the life you have for a non-existing reward.
If the probability for God disliking the behavious is not zero, then you have to weigh more than one infinite expectance values.
Even if everything works fine, you would have to be able to believe or disbelieve just because you want to. (Like, say, an atheist who reads a study that believers have a better healing chance for a particular cancer and decides to become a believer as a therapy.)
It's logically fine if someone believes all the assumptions and then says that it is a good idea to believe. But this person believes in the first place, they do not believe because of the assumptions, they are just happy with their belief because of what they believe.[/spoiler]
[spoiler]1. With a choice of many Gods, some of which make it clear that one cannot believe in more then one of them, one must pick which God to follow in order to get the best of rewards and avoid the worst of the punishments.

2. If God can see into people’s hearts, then will such a god be pleased by a believer who merely believes out of fear and greed?
3. Is it really, "no harm, no fowl?" I don’t think it is. Christopher Hitchens wrote a book a few years back called, “God is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything.” As the title suggests, Hitchens claims that religion poisons everything. There is some merit to his claim and that is one of the strongest criticisms of Pascal’s Wager. Believing in religion does indeed cause great harm not only to the believer but also to the rest of society. This changes the whole dynamic of the wager.
4. This wager concerns itself with belief, but it doesn’t really address the issue of whether or not God is real, which god is real, or even how many gods are real. We could substitute God for any other imaginary construct and the argument would not be the least convincing to anyone. Let’s say that the issue is about whether or not Elvis is God. One either believes Elvis is God or you don’t. If you believe that Elvis is God (and he is) you get a big reward. If you don’t believe (and he is) you get a big punishment. If Elvis isn’t God then there is no harm in believing he is God so one might as well believe. Do you believe Elvis is God? Of course you don’t. Don’t you want the big reward and want to avoid the big punishment if you are wrong? "You might as well believe... because if we are wrong we will be tortured by Elvis for all eternity."
   I have a little wager of my own. In my wager, God either exists or he doesn't and we either choose to believe or we don't. But does the God we choose to believe in have superior morality? First, If God does exist and does have superior morality, then by the logic of superior morality as best as we can understand it, it would be unjust for a just God to punish a just person. Therefore, the only criteria that God could use as grounds for entrance into Heaven would be living a moral and just life as best as we can.
   The second possibility is if God exists but does not have superior morality. In this case, God could use any criteria at all as entrance to Heaven. Some possible criteria might be but are not limited too, wearing pink pockadot socks every other Thursday, praying in a certain direction at a certain time, believing that his son is your personal Lord and savior, or maybe it is watching Desperate Housewives. In any case, Socrates once told his student Crito that it was always better to receive an injustice than it was to do an injustice. With that same logic, it would be better to be a good person in hell than be an immoral person in heaven. So once more we are left to the conclusion that we ought to live a moral life to the best of our ability.
   Lastly we have the third possibility. God doesn’t exist. If this is the case, Aristotle makes a very good argument that the best way to be happy is to be moral.
   In all three cases, the best outcomes come when we live a moral life to the best of our ability. Therefore, as long as we do that, it really doesn’t matter if God exists, which god exists, how many gods exist, or if no gods at all exist. All that really matters is living a moral life with morality grounded in empathy and compassion for others.

[/spoiler][spoiler]Pascal's Wager Refuted

Theodore M. Drange

The argument (call it "PW") may be formulated as follows:

(a) If God exists, then whoever doesn't believe in him will end up being eternally tormented or at least annihilated. 
(b) If God exists, then whoever believes in him will gain eternal life. 
(c) If God doesn't exist, then whether or not people believe in him can't matter very much. 
(d) Hence [from (a)-(c)], nontheists are running a grave risk. At the very least, the expected utility of their belief situation is infinitely worse than that of theists. 
(e) But such people are able to self-induce theistic belief. 
(f) Therefore [from (d) & (e)], all nontheists ought to change their beliefs and become theists.

Here are some objections to PW:

1. It is possible to prove that God does not exist. [See the atheism section of the Secular Web.] Hence, premises (a) & (b) of PW are moot or irrelevant.
2. There is no good reason to believe PW's premise (a), and there are many theists who would deny it. Furthermore, if that premise were true, then that would provide a basis for the Argument from Nonbelief, which is a strong argument for God's nonexistence. Thus, the given premise is weak and conceptually problematic.
3. According to the Bible, more is required for salvation than mere belief in God. One also needs to believe in God's son (Mark 16:16; John 3:18,36, 8:21-25, 14:6; Acts 4:10-12; I John 5:12), repent (Luke 13:3,5), be born again (John 3:3), be born of the water and of the Spirit (John 3:5), believe everything in the gospel (Mark 16:16), eat the flesh of Jesus and drink his blood (John 6:53), be like a child (Mark 10:15), and do good deeds, esp. for needy people (Matt. 25:41-46; Rom. 2:5-10; John 5:28-29; James 2:14-26). Therefore, premise (b) of PW is not generally true, so far as the Bible is concerned. And, furthermore, apart from the Bible, there is no reason whatever to believe that premise. Thus, PW's premise (b) can reasonably be doubted.
4. Most people who believe in God devote significant time to prayer and church activities. Such people presumably also contribute money, perhaps a tithe (10% of their income). Without that belief, most of them would not do such things. In addition, many such people go through life with inhibitions on both thought and behavior. (Consider, for example, inhibitions regarding sexual practices, marriage & divorce, birth control, abortion, reading material, and association with other people.) In many cases, those inhibitions are quite extreme and may have great effects on one's life and the lives of others. In some communities, women are oppressed on the basis of theistic belief. Also, some theists have persecuted and even killed others (as in inquisitions, religious wars, attacks on homosexuals, abortionists, etc.) because of their belief that that is what God wants them to do. Furthermore, some people (e.g., clergymen) devote their entire lives to God. For these various reasons, even if God does not exist, it would indeed matter a great deal whether or not one believes in God, at least for most such believers. It follows that premise (c) of PW is false.
5. It may be that God does not exist and, instead, some other being rules the universe. That being may dislike intensely and may inflict infinite punishment on anyone who believes in God or who believes anything out of self-interest (as recommended in PW). But a person who comes to believe in God on the basis of PW would in that case be in "a heap of trouble," even though God does not exist. The expected utility of the theist's belief situation would be infinitely worse than that of the nontheist. It follows that premise (c) of PW is false.
6. To believe in God, one must believe propositions that are, from the standpoint of most nontheists, impossible (or at least very hard) to believe. For that reason, PW's premise (e) can be rejected.
7. Belief is not directly subject to the will. So, it is impossible (or at least very difficult) for nontheists to self-induce theistic belief. This also renders PW's premise (e) false.
   For all of these reasons, PW ought to be rejected.

[/spoiler]

TheSimilier wrote

27565
This was certainly a very interesting read and I'm most grateful that you went out of your way to make this well-written and in-depth post. It is most logical and I agree with pretty much all of it. I don't regret having used Pascals wager in my earlier statement tho, since it allowed me to enjoy this read. My thanks for giving me the opportunity to change my opinion on something I haven't spend many thoughts on thinking it through to the end.

I'm glad I helped. I'm often presented with Pascal's Wager as a fearsome 'Trump Card' and, admittedly, it did have me stumped for quite a few months until ISIS began doing their shenanigans in the name of their one true God.

Some research later, and yes, I feel like my belief (or lack thereof) still strikes true considering the various flaws brought up by the wager.

COUPLED WITH U wrote

I hate religious discussion carried mainly by emotion. I just can't like it in any way. I hate emotional arguments for atheism, or for theism. I don't like this thread very much. Maybe some arguments that aren't on religion emotion can definitely be a factor for enjoyment. You can just nickpick things from everywhere it's so stupid, and that's what it comes down to with "debates" like these.
Uzinero and tn have a great outlook on things.

also i didn't read this entire thread but i think there was an interesting response :o

11859
 
 Time is our measurement and that's it.
 
 What exactly we're measuring is a foundation of our dimension and completely insane
 to even explain, at least for me. Fact is, it just seems like something beyond our
 comprehension and, without meaning any offense

Does religion mean any offense when it doesn't impose in any way?

20151
 TL;DR: God is a bunch of bullshit, so is religion, don't be guided by false hope.

How do you know that everything you believe in right now is true anyway? How do you actually know anything? A lot of it is faith. Faith in what people tell you is true. think upon that
Also in the bible it states that marriage is between a man and a woman, not what relation you can't have roflmao kek rip there is no explicit condemnation of homosexuality in the bible

anyway, there are a lot of things that you have to find out and believe for yourself, as there isn't a correct way for anything. I live like this. As long as it's not harmful or imposing to anyone, i don't mind.
WHAT IS LABELED AS HARMFUL IS TO MY OWN DISCRETION, I DONT NEED ANY OF YOUR PUSSY SHIT

I HAVE MY OWN SET OF BELIEFS AND I KEEP THEM TO MYSELF UNLESS ASKED OR IS A PART OF THE DISCUSSION.

tell  me you don't believe in a god, tell me you do, don't try to shove your useless links and explanations on what you think backs your argument up to me. I'll make my own decisions

to discredit anyone who thinks they can fuck up my argument: Believe you want, I'm only stating that i dislike conflict stemming from religion
FUCK OFF IF YOU THINK THERE CAN'T BE CONFLICT WITHOut RELIGION. CONFLICT ARISES WHEN PEOPLE HAVE DIFFERENT OPINIONS ON EVERYTHING AND ANYTHING

there is always the ever so slight possibility, of a world we can live in, coexisting with different beliefs. Not saying i'd like to live in that world or not, but ya you get it

believe what you want, not something someone wants you to believe

Yes, while we all have a right to our beliefs, this thread is made for those who want to discuss it.

If you don't want to, then I am unaware of what's forcing you to. You're saying that information is being forced down your throat, but this is your first post and you haven't been even acknowledged beforehand.

If anything, you're the very first person who displayed hostility/aggression on the subject, and I kindly ask you to nip that at the bud.

Saikou wrote

Waifu wrote

Saikou wrote

Waifu wrote

In the words of Fry, if God does exist, there can only be one proper response;

“I’d say: ‘Bone cancer in children? What’s that about? How dare you! How dare you create a world where there is such misery that is not our fault. It’s not right. It’s utterly, utterly evil. Why should I respect a capricious, mean-minded, stupid God who creates a world which is so full of injustice and pain?’ That’s what I’d say.”

This quote is flawed; a quick read of Genesis 2 and 3 would explain why.

Feel free to explain how the current state of affairs of our world can be justified in any way shape or form under the rule of a presumably benevolent God.
Ultimately either God ignores us ( Apathy ), doesn't exist ( Fantasy ), or he torments us ( Malice ).

The Bible contradicts itself on multiple occasions, so as a source it can also be stated as flawed because, religious or not, discrepancies/inconsistencies must always  be met with scrutiny.

My point was that suffering came to the world through Adam and Eve's sin (and additionally our own, as not a day goes by without someone sinning).

A few helpful links:

http://www.gotquestions.org/Bible-suffering.html
http://www.openbible.info/topics/suffering
http://www.new-life.net/growth/other-articles/eight-explanations-for-suffering-found-in-the-bible/

Should you present these contradictions, I would be pleased to refute your claims.

Yet Adam and Eve have never sinned themselves. You can see why the supposedly stringent rules that apply to us now but didn't apply to our primordial's seem ridiculous. Especially since we're afflicted with a sin we had no part in. For a creature who most consider the father of humanity, that is unnecessarily cruel in setting up every individual to fail, considering that even some acts of benevolence are 'sins',.

The explanations just can't live to the impracticality and injustice being inflicted upon us. No scripture or writing can say what is being done to us is just, which means either your benevolent lord does not exist or he's petty and capricious, making him borderline malicious in nature.

I worship no capricious god, so even if I had doubts, I still wouldn't believe simply out of that standard. My inferior in maturity does not deserve my respect, let alone worship.

The other reasoning is that mayhaps he goes by another moral code we're not aware of and just seems to be psychopathic which, honestly, most bibles seem to imply he is anyways.