if you are wrong

[Lee M]

I think pascals wager is dumb and im not doing the same thing.

My question is considering the extent and effort of your faith, devotion, love, etc for christianity...

1. If you are wrong is it possible that you will ever learn that you are?

2. If it wasnt true would you want to learn?

 

[dysert]

I think pascals wager is dumb and im not doing the same thing.

My question is considering the extent and effort of your faith, devotion, love, etc for christianity...

1. If you are wrong is it possible that you will ever learn that you are?

2. If it wasnt true would you want to learn?

1. No, I don't think it's possible to learn that I'm wrong. Just as it's not possible to prove Christianity is correct, neither is it possible to prove it's incorrect.

2. I would want to learn that it's not true, but given my answer to #1, I don't see that happening.

 

[Lee M]

Im not asking you to consider the possibility that you are wrong. Im asking if you have the ability to comprehend it if you were.

 

[dysert]

Im not asking you to consider the possibility that you are wrong. Im asking if you have the ability to comprehend it if you were.

Well I have considered the possibility that I'm wrong. Nevertheless, I believe I have the ability to comprehend many things -- including whether I'd be wrong about Christianity. But how could I know for sure whether I have the ability to comprehend? Maybe I don't have the ability to comprehend where you're wanting this thread to go ;-)

 

[Lee M]

Man it aint like that. Ty for commenting

 

[GrayAngel]

I think pascals wager is dumb and im not doing the same thing.

My question is considering the extent and effort of your faith, devotion, love, etc for christianity...

1. If you are wrong is it possible that you will ever learn that you are?

2. If it wasnt true would you want to learn?

1. No. That's the beauty of it. If there is no afterlife, as my religious promises me, then I will never be conscious of it. Being wrong doesn't penalize me at all. If offers me hope, and it enriches my life. Even on the chance that my hope is a false hope, it doesn't make a difference to me in this life.

2. Why would I? Honestly, atheism has nothing to offer. Some people say they just want to be right. Well, first of all, how can you trust yourself to get it right, anyway? Lots of people have their own ideas, so what makes your mind so special? Second, if you want to choose not to believe in something you can't prove without a doubt is true, you're putting a handicap on your own life.

 

[Lee M]

I think what you've done is say a complete disregard of and lack of concern for knowledge and evidence is preferable over the diligent though troublesome, sometimes unrewarding search for it. As in the best way to find the truth is to not concern ourselves with it.

Thanks for commenting

oh, one thing. Why would atheism be the only alternative?

 

[christcentred]

Glad to see another rational person here!

I agree Pascal's wager is dumb. I'm also not a big fan of Christians who think that faith is opposed to reason. Unfortunately our modern word faith has come to mean "a leap of faith", against all knowledge. That isn't what it means in the Bible.

Anyway, let me answer.

1. Yes I could possibly know I was wrong. Presuming time machines (to see whether Jesus really did rise again) won't exist, I think the evidence I would need could be one of these three:

• We find conclusive evidence that Jesus did in fact die and did not rise again (i.e. a body that is genetically provable)
• We find some conclusive evidence that life began with something other than God
• Another religion is proved conclusively to be true

2. Would I want to know if I was wrong? Yeah. I'd be gutted, but I'd want to know. I'm making a lot of sacrifices to be a Christian. If this life is all there is, I'd like to know so I can't start living for pleasure here, not pleasure in eternity.

Now, I recognise that my requirements look pretty full on. But here's the reason why I need such solid evidences to disprove my faith: I think Christianity is already proven to be true. Here are the three alternative options that attract me the most.

• Atheism: Atheism has utterly failed to provide an adequate explanation for the Universe. Sidestepping the whole evolution debate, there is no scientific evidence that non-living things can become living or that there are multiple universes
• Deism: I notice you are a deist. This would be attractive except for the overwhelming evidence for the resurrection.
• Other religions: Christianity is the only major world religion that offers evidence that God exists. Jesus rose from the dead. No other religion comes close to that kind of clear cut evidence.

In the absence of convincing alternatives, Christianity remains the best option.

Can I ask in return for you to answer your two questions in relation to your deism?

1. If Christianity is true, is it possible that you will ever learn that you are?
2. If Christianity is true, would you want to learn?​

 

[Lee M]

Thanks for a thoughtful response.

Yes it is possible that i could learn it because i do consider and reconsider my mind isnt closed. Deism isnt something im obligated or devoted to.. its just a belief.
No i would not want to i would be devastated to learn christianity is true... but i would accept it.

 

[AlexBP]

My question is considering the extent and effort of your faith, devotion, love, etc for christianity...

1. If you are wrong is it possible that you will ever learn that you are?

2. If it wasnt true would you want to learn?

I'll just quote what I answered to a similar question in a different thread:

Yes, I would. However, I've never been given any convincing argument that my religion was false. Most of the arguments that atheists toss at me are so absurd and illogical that they tend to strengthen my conviction that Christianity is true.
​

 

[Lee M]

I'm not really concerned with talking about it being true or not and that's not what i'm digging for.

I am discussing the state of mind of Christians, considering the nature of faith and hope and the devotion involved... if Christianity wasn't true would you be able to realize it?

 

[madetoworship]

Yes if it was wrong I'd be able to tell if it was wrong or not.

I have already learned the sides of atheism and other religions. They don't contend with the historical validity and reliability of who Jesus was and what He taught. So to answer your second question. I already have looked at the proof of "why Christianity is wrong" and it can't refute the historical person Jesus Christ.

 

[GrayAngel]

I think what you've done is say a complete disregard of and lack of concern for knowledge and evidence is preferable over the diligent though troublesome, sometimes unrewarding search for it. As in the best way to find the truth is to not concern ourselves with it.

Thanks for commenting

oh, one thing. Why would atheism be the only alternative?

No. Christianity cannot be proven or disproven. The options are not search for truth or ignore it. It's to have faith in God versus having faith in our minds. Atheists do not choose not to believe in God because there is overwhelming evidence against Him, but because of the logic, "Why should I believe?"

I also looked at the two options and weighed their pros and cons.

Christianity: Hope, purpose, community, peace. If right, gain Heaven. If wrong, nothing lost or gained in the end.

Atheism: The pride of knowing you rely on your mind, in pursuit of knowledge that cannot be obtained. If right, you end up in the same place as everyone else (non-existence). If wrong, you miss out not only in the advantages of faith on Earth, but also in eternity.

In addition, you're assuming that because I wouldn't want to know something would mean that I'd be too blind to see the truth if it was presented to me. However, I've changed my mind plenty of times, despite not liking it.

As for how Christianity stands against other religions, I've learned about a few. Namely Mormonism and Islam. The first adds in a new religious text, which they claim to be consistent with the Bible, but it has numerous huge contradictions. Islam is similar in that they introduced their own religious texts, but they also believe in the Bible. The contradictions are one thing, but their religious leader was also a nutcase and a hypocrite. Hardly prophet of God material.

 

[ebia]

I also looked at the two options and weighed their pros and cons.

That's basically Pascal's wager. But there are more than two options.

 

[GrayAngel]

That's basically Pascal's wager. But there are more than two options.

You're in a hallway. To your right, there's a colorful room full of candy of all kinds. To your left, a dungeon room with snakes crawling on the ground, and spiders on the walls. How do you choose one over the other? By weighing what each room has to offer. That's Pascal's Wager.

I've yet to be given a single good reason why Pascal's Wager is a bad thing. They just say it is, and everyone is supposed to accept it. But science cannot prove whether or not God exists, or if the things Jesus taught were true or not. You can believe or not believe. If not, you can penalize yourself with atheism, or search other religions. Every religion carries a possible benefit from being right, but atheism carries no such advantage.

 

[madetoworship]

Side note:

Lee M, have you heard of CS Lewis? Here's a quote from him I'd like to share with you:

There are two kinds of people: those who say to God, "Thy will be done," and those to whom God says, "All right, then, have it your way."
C. S. Lewis

How I see it: The cost of following Christ is surrendering lordship over our lives to Him. To those that don't, God grants them their way - eternity without God (Hell). Eternity without God is just another way of saying an eternity of wickedness.

 

[ebia]

You're in a hallway. To your right, there's a colorful room full of candy of all kinds. To your left, a dungeon room with snakes crawling on the ground, and spiders on the walls. How do you choose one over the other? By weighing what each room has to offer. That's Pascal's Wager.

I've yet to be given a single good reason why Pascal's Wager is a bad thing. They just say it is, and everyone is supposed to accept it. But science cannot prove whether or not God exists, or if the things Jesus taught were true or not. You can believe or not believe. If not, you can penalize yourself with atheism, or search other religions. Every religion carries a possible benefit from being right, but atheism carries no such advantage.

Pascal's wager assumes there are only two choices. But there's an infinite number of choices, only one of which is Christianity. And only one of those choices is right. On that basis, the chance of choosing correctly is zero, so choose the option that's best if its wrong.

 

[ebia]

Side note:

Lee M, have you heard of CS Lewis? Here's a quote from him I'd like to share with you:

There are two kinds of people: those who say to God, "Thy will be done," and those to whom God says, "All right, then, have it your way."
C. S. Lewis

How I see it: The cost of following Christ is surrendering lordship over our lives to Him. To those that don't, God grants them their way - eternity without God (Hell). Eternity without God is just another way of saying an eternity of wickedness.

If one is going to take Lewis's quote in that way, one should also offer the Great Divorce as his view of "hell".

 

[madetoworship]

If one is going to take Lewis's quote in that way, one should also offer the Great Divorce as his view of "hell".

Rightly so.

Other quotes from "The Great Divorce" by CS Lewis on "Hell":

"Without that self-choice there could be no Hell. No soul that seriously and constantly desires joy will ever miss it. Those who seek find. Those who knock it is opened."

“Hell is a state of mind - ye never said a truer word. And every state of mind, left to itself, every shutting up of the creature within the dungeon of its own mind - is, in the end, Hell. But Heaven is not a state of mind. Heaven is reality itself. All that is fully real is Heavenly. For all that can be shaken will be shaken and only the unshakeable remains.”

 

[Lee M]

G-angel

The problem with pascals wager is that says we should base our beliefs on what we'd rather have be true rather than any sort of evidence and good reasoning, as if you can actually change your "beliefs" that easily... you don't get to believe in heaven just because you want to... that doesn't mean you actually believe it's true, it just means you approve of that idea over another... it doesn't mean you ever begin to actually believe it. Your brain can't be manipulated that easily and the cowardice involved in letting something like that determine your actual beliefs is very very bad... look to the evidence and use the best reasoning you can and if you don't know then in the end you don't know... but you look to the evidence and use the best reasoning you can and there is a difference between approving of, liking, being fond of one idea over another and actually believing an idea is true but a weak mind can't always tell the difference.