God is in one of three boxes, if I show you one option is false, do you switch?

[PsychoSarah]

Touche.

But I would still believe in something related to a deity, correct?

In certain circumstances a believer will accept even that, for a time.

Pretty sure the Christian god emphasizes punishing people who worship other deities more than those who don't worship any at all. Kinda flips out about it, actually.

 

[Radagast]

Pretty sure the Christian god emphasizes punishing people who worship other deities more than those who don't worship any at all. Kinda flips out about it, actually.

As a guest on a Christian forum, you could be just a little more respectful, hmmm?

And the limited discussion of atheism in the Bible reflects its rarity in ancient times.

 

[PsychoSarah]

As a guest on a Christian forum, you could be just a little more respectful, hmmm?

And the limited discussion of atheism in the Bible reflects its rarity in ancient times.

sorry, but I had to laugh a little, seeing as I am considered one of the more polite atheists on here. I didn't intend any offense by my statement, it was only an observation, and your explanation of it is fair. However, I do still think it is fair enough to say that as far as Christianity goes, worshipping the wrong deity and not worshipping any deity result in roughly equivalent end results, wouldn't you say?

 

[Paradoxum]

Touche.

But I would still believe in something related to a deity, correct?

In certain circumstances a believer will accept even that, for a time.

Well it depend how you understand what it is you're trying to find. If you want the truth about reality, then that would include possibilities like humanistic atheism, nihilistic atheism, or believing we are in the matrix.

So you might not believe in a deity in that case.

Either way, I wouldn't say that randomly picking belief systems is a good way to live life, or get to the truth.

 

[niye]

Touche.

But I would still believe in something related to a deity, correct?

In certain circumstances a believer will accept even that, for a time.

So you're not thinking of putting Jesus, Dionysus, and Thor in the three boxes, but something like theism, atheism, and deism? You'd then ask someone to pick a box in which the meaning of life resides. They pick one, then you expose one of the remaining boxes, and out pops deism. At that point, you'd have to explain why deism is a false. How would you do that? I think you're left where you started.

...or I'm just not getting this

 

[keith99]

The point is

If you think God is behind door A but then you are shown He is definitely not behind door C, do you switch your choice to door B?

Or not?

The Christian God?

I switch to door C.

Unlike most Christians I do not suffer from extreme hubris and I have read Scripture.

 

[variant]

While an intelligent invocation of God to refute an argument for belief in that God, I find your tone depressing.

If Pascal is what motivated you to believe then it should be depressing.

I am only proposing that we examine the idea of a being with an intimate knowledge of our motivations.

Is treating belief like a game where I bet for my personal gain going to satisfy such a being?

I say obviously not. It is much more likely to be very insulting.

 

[keith99]

They wouldn't.

See: Monty Hall problem.

The correct answer is: switch.

To increase your chances of getting the door with God and dying as soon as you see Him?

 

[Gottservant]

Pretty sure the Christian god emphasizes punishing people who worship other deities more than those who don't worship any at all. Kinda flips out about it, actually.

I just mean that in order to keep the conversation going, a believer will at least say they can see how one god is like another (to begin with - let's not kid ourselves here (selah)).

Are you saying it would be wrong to choose one of the doors at all, if there was a chance you would end up with the wrong God?

 

[Gottservant]

Well it depend how you understand what it is you're trying to find. If you want the truth about reality, then that would include possibilities like humanistic atheism, nihilistic atheism, or believing we are in the matrix.

So you might not believe in a deity in that case.

Either way, I wouldn't say that randomly picking belief systems is a good way to live life, or get to the truth.

I get the feeling people are not interested in grasping the principle, specifically "God", specifically "increasing your chances of finding Him".

Unless you misconstrue what I said, what I said shows that there is a good reason to believe that there is a) a probability of believing something and b) a real possibility that that something is God and therefore c) we are obliged to do what we can to make that possibility a reality.

I know it doesn't make you comfortable, but disbelieving in God is not simply a case of hating some disliked hologram of God that you've created or anyone that associates with it, it's actually a matter of saying "well no, since I don't want to find God, there are certain things that would mean I would ultimately find Him, that I must at all costs avoid and even fear, maybe even to the point that I lose my soul"

You can always pray - a few wasted words never hurt anyone - but how likely is it that even that won't change something?

 

[Gottservant]

So you're not thinking of putting Jesus, Dionysus, and Thor in the three boxes, but something like theism, atheism, and deism? You'd then ask someone to pick a box in which the meaning of life resides. They pick one, then you expose one of the remaining boxes, and out pops deism. At that point, you'd have to explain why deism is a false. How would you do that? I think you're left where you started.

...or I'm just not getting this

Sometimes you lose, is that your point?

I think this is sanguine, but if it points to the failure of deism, don't you think that in the context of other religions and not the desirability of finding God - which was the original example - is more of a warning that tolerance can fail even something perfect?

You have to understand that I provided an example and a context and a lesson to be learned from that context, by shaping the nature of the choice provided. If you distort that, you get varied perspectives on the truth but not necessarily the point. The point is, I don't think that negates the point, it just stresses that the lesson being learned may change.

 

[Gottservant]

The Christian God?

I switch to door C.

Unlike most Christians I do not suffer from extreme hubris and I have read Scripture.

Ah, now, that is what I was wondering.

You would do this, even though, doing it as a rule would make you more unlucky and doing it every time the prize was God would make you tired?

 

[Gottservant]

If Pascal is what motivated you to believe then it should be depressing.

I am only proposing that we examine the idea of a being with an intimate knowledge of our motivations.

Is treating belief like a game where I bet for my personal gain going to satisfy such a being?

I say obviously not. It is much more likely to be very insulting.

Yes but you beg the question.

If you say its an insult, you are obviously implying that you know what God thinks and that you have therefore found Him.

But if you have found God, why wouldn't you share how you found Him?

Why would you immediately insist that everyone not do, what you just did?

 

[Gottservant]

To increase your chances of getting the door with God and dying as soon as you see Him?

Blessed are the pure of heart, for they shall see God (Jesus)

 

[variant]

Yes but you beg the question.

If you say its an insult, you are obviously implying that you know what God thinks and that you have therefore found Him.

I don't beg anything, I've implied that I can have a conception of what I think God would be like if it existed.

But if you have found God, why wouldn't you share how you found Him?

Why would you immediately insist that everyone not do, what you just did?

I'm not saying I found God, I'm saying that I don't think Pascals conception of God makes sense within his argument.

Basically I am saying that I can't consistently bet that a God exists for the chance at being rewarded and also think that if a God existed with enough power to reward me, it would know my motivations.

It cancels out.

 

[Gottservant]

You are neglecting that God is good.

He is not merely an argument that can be refuted or denied.

So choose, either you are shallow or there is a God who can be approached logically and as an exercise of the will.

 

[PsychoSarah]

I just mean that in order to keep the conversation going, a believer will at least say they can see how one god is like another (to begin with - let's not kid ourselves here (selah)).

Are you saying it would be wrong to choose one of the doors at all, if there was a chance you would end up with the wrong God?

No, more like given how statistically probable it would be to pick the wrong god amongst the many thousands of options that exist, you would be better off crossing your fingers and hoping that if deities exist they don't care about worship than taking a shot in the dark. Heck, the "right" religion could have died out for all we know.

 

[niye]

Sometimes you lose, is that your point?

I think this is sanguine, but if it points to the failure of deism, don't you think that in the context of other religions and not the desirability of finding God - which was the original example - is more of a warning that tolerance can fail even something perfect?

You have to understand that I provided an example and a context and a lesson to be learned from that context, by shaping the nature of the choice provided. If you distort that, you get varied perspectives on the truth but not necessarily the point. The point is, I don't think that negates the point, it just stresses that the lesson being learned may change.

Say we're playing a game. You show me three scraps of paper, labelled theist, deist, atheist. You then hide them in three boxes, and tell me that if I pick the box that has the "theist" scrap, I win a candy bar. We play, I guess correctly, I win my candy bar. In that case, what's written on the scraps of paper is meaningless.

OR: You tell me that a word describing your own belief system is hidden in one of three boxes, and if I guess correctly, I win a candy bar. I pick a box. You show me what's in one of the other boxes. Say it is "deism." I look at you, as idk what you believe. You then tell me that you're not a deist. I pick the right box--"theism." I get my candy bar, and I've learned something about you: You're a theist. Cool.

Now if you tell me that the meaning of life is truly in one of those three boxes, and if I pick the right one, I win eternal life, I'd assume you were a maniac with a god complex, and leave the room.

If you were God, of course, the game would be unnecessary.

This is not Pascal's Wager. This doesn't work as anything at all.

 

[variant]

]You are neglecting that God is good.[/b]

He is not merely an argument that can be refuted or denied.

That would be the standard definition of begging the question.

Under pascals argument we admit don't know if God exists or not.

So choose, either you are shallow or there is a God who can be approached logically and as an exercise of the will.

This is a false dichotomy. Whether or not God appears to existence to me, and my personal depth don't depend on one another.

If God doesn't seem to exist to me, and I try to believe in it anyway for the sake of seeking reward, I am simply holding contradictory ideas to be true.

 

[Paradoxum]

I get the feeling people are not interested in grasping the principle, specifically "God", specifically "increasing your chances of finding Him".

Well, there might be no God.

Unless you misconstrue what I said, what I said shows that there is a good reason to believe that there is a) a probability of believing something

You mean a probabilities of something being true?

and b) a real possibility that that something is God and therefore

I agree that it might be possible that there's a God.

c) we are obliged to do what we can to make that possibility a reality.

I don't know what that means. To make what possibility a reality?

I know it doesn't make you comfortable, but disbelieving in God is not simply a case of hating some disliked hologram of God that you've created or anyone that associates with it, it's actually a matter of saying "well no, since I don't want to find God, there are certain things that would mean I would ultimately find Him, that I must at all costs avoid and even fear, maybe even to the point that I lose my soul"

That isn't what it's like to disbelieve in God.

I used to believe in God, and while I slowly lost belief I tried hard to keep my faith. I deeply wanted to believe.

I don't believe in God because I see no reason to believe there's a God.

You can always pray - a few wasted words never hurt anyone - but how likely is it that even that won't change something?

I have prayed... many many times.