Upon talking with Atheists and reflecting on why I believe in God.

[Gene2memE]

Not just terrible but invalid.

P1. A -> B
P2. B
C. Ergo, A

Classic error.

You know that. And I know that. But does he?

 

[Tinker Grey]

You know that. And I know that. But does he?

Dunno. Just wanted to point it out.

 

[Gene2memE]

Some more thoughts..

The universe and all in it are here, and until anyone can show me a creator doesn't exist, it's perfectly logical to assume he does.

No, it isn't.

Until there's valid and sufficient evidence, the rational stance is to suspend belief in a proposition.

Simply asserting you don't know is fine until that point.

And since no one actually saw the beginning, that is all either Atheist or Christian can do is assume.

Well, no.

You could actively investigate the start of the universe (or at least our local space time presentation of it). That's what cosmology does.

That's why we no longer believe in an eternal, static universe. Or an oscillating universe. Or any one of a thousand of other models that have been proposed.

Many Atheists today, after falling short with their logical explanations, choose the "I dont know" option because its safe, and presents at least the possibility there is no God. Why would they want to do that? In order to avoid the possibility of the death and destruction that comes with God.

Well, no.

I do it because it's the honest answer. I don't know. And, of all the possible answers presented to me, a creator deity appears to be the least realistic option.

Also, I'm not avoiding the possibility of death and destruction that comes with God. A long time ago, I reevaluated my beliefs and realised that I didn't believe any of the supernatural claims of Christianity. As I didn't believe any other religion's claims at that point, it was a small step to atheism.

For me it's much safer to logically conclude there is a God, and risk the possibility of being wrong, than to assume there is no God and risk being wrong.

Pascal's Wager.

Nice immortal soul you got there, would be a shame if anything happened to it. Like, eternal punishment sort of a shame. That kind of thing? Works really well with an omnitriune deity, doesn't it?

Here's something to ponder: What if there is a deity out, but it punishes those who believe in a different god?

 

[Kenny'sID]

You could actively investigate the start of the universe (or at least our local space time presentation of it). That's what cosmology does.

Then you do that and let us know how it goes. As of yet, we have found nothing with science one way or another so, the next logical step would be to go with what we have...logic.

No, it isn't.

Until there's valid and sufficient evidence, the rational stance is to suspend belief in a proposition.

Well, no, the rational stance is to use logic since it may be to late if we wait. "The dog is growling and showing his teeth. Will he attack? I don't know, so, instead of waiting till I do know, I'll go with the logical, and get ready for an attack." A very very logical stance.

No, it isn't.

Is too. I see no reason to take the gamble.

Simply asserting you don't know is fine until that point.

Not for the cautious among us, not fine at all. For them, it's logical to use what we have and be as safe as we possibly can be. Atheists can wait to be sure if they like, but in my view it makes no sense at all to take chances with eternity, even if one feels it's just a possibility we'll have one.

Nice immortal soul you got there,

Thank you, and think I'll take care of that soul the best I possibly can and see that it enjoys it's eternity. Besides, all that is asked of me is to be good, something that is good for everyone...nothing to lose.

So many reasons not to take the wait and see approach.

 

[Occams Barber]

For me it's much safer to logically conclude there is a God, and risk the possibility of being wrong, than to assume there is no God and risk being wrong.

That's known as Pascal's Wager.

OB

 

[Kenny'sID]

That's known as Pascal's Wager.

OB

So? I could calI yours reply a known cop out, but if that's the best you can do, I'm fine with it...

 

[InterestedAtheist]

So? I could calI yours reply a known cop out, but if that's the best you can do, I'm fine with it...

He's quite right. Pascal's Wager is a flawed argument. It's been exposed and discredited often enough. Just google "Problems with Pascal's Wager" and you'll find plenty of people pointing them out.
For example: Pascal’s Problem: A Mathematical Disproof of Pascal’s Wager
And look - even Christians think it's a bad idea: What is Wrong with Pascal's Wager?

 

[Kenny'sID]

He's quite right. Pascal's Wager is a flawed argument. It's been exposed and discredited often enough. Just google "Problems with Pascal's Wager" and you'll find plenty of people pointing them out.
For example: Pascal’s Problem: A Mathematical Disproof of Pascal’s Wager
And look - even Christians think it's a bad idea: What is Wrong with Pascal's Wager?

What is your problem with it?

 

[InterestedAtheist]

What is your problem with it?

It's a thoroughly discredited idea, with errors that are many and obvious.

We used to see people saying the kind of thing you're saying very, very often. And atheists, and occasionally Christians, would point out the many flaws in Pascal's Wager. And gradually, they stopped doing it. I haven't seen anyone use it for some time now.

You've had some time to think about your response now. Perhaps you've had second thoughts? Can you see anything wrong with saying "For me it's much safer to logically conclude there is a God, and risk the possibility of being wrong, than to assume there is no God and risk being wrong."

 

[Kenny'sID]

Perhaps you've had second thoughts?

No, my thoughts are the same, exactly what is your problem with my post? Back up what you are telling me, should be simple enough for you to do.

 

[Gene2memE]

What is your problem with it?

It's not an argument for Christianity, per se. It's more of a sop to those who already believe. Or a block to those thinking of leaving the faith.

To accept Pascal's Wager, you need to have already accepted its premises (There is a God, there is a heaven and a hell, not believing in God results in eternal punishment, believing in God results in eternal reward).

There's no actual logical or evidentiary support in Pascal's Wager for the Christian god (or any god for that matter). None. It's telling that Pascal's original formulation starts with "If there is a God...".

Nor is there any support for any of the Christian concepts presented.

In order to accept the wager and the existence of the Christian God, I would need to drop my evidentiary bar so low that I would have no choice but to accept that all the other Gods exist as well. Or, at least, all those that have doctrines of non-finite punishment and/or reward.

Afterall, from my perspective, the evidence presented for non-Christian gods is just as strong as that presented for the Christian God. As is the evidence for their heavens and hells.

So, I would be required to accept the premises of pretty much all monotheistic religions and a fair few pantheistic ones as well. There are underworld/hell ansd heaven analogs in Zorostrianism, Hinduism, Judaism, Islam, Jainism, a range of the pre-monotheism Mesopotamian and Persian religions, pre-Colombian South American religions and some Asiatic religions, along with Greek, Egyptian and Roman pantheistic religions. And probably thousands or tens of thousands of others I'm not aware of.

 

[Jesse Dornfeld]

You know that. And I know that. But does he?

The thing you are ignoring is P1 and P2. P3 is an explanation of P1 and P2. Now, if you want to say P3 is a conclusion of P1 and P2 I don't really care if you do. In which, I would probably have to amend my whole argument to say P3 would now be the C would mean which would be P4 and the current C would be the explanation of the now C.

 

[InterestedAtheist]

No, my thoughts are the same, exactly what is your problem with my post? Back up what you are telling me, should be simple enough for you to do.

You haven't? Well, never mind. @Gene2memE has already done an excellent job of setting the problem out.
I'll just add that even many Christians think it's a very poor apologetic, since "I decided to believe in you, God, since it seemed the most logical option," doesn't sound very likely to convince God to let you in to heaven.

 

[Jesse Dornfeld]

I'll just add that even many Christians think it's a very poor apologetic, since "I decided to believe in you, God, since it seemed the most logical option," doesn't sound very likely to convince God to let you in to heaven.

That's a complete strawman of my argument.

Also, you'll notice that no Christians have actually had a problem with my argument because they understand it and Atheists seem not to.

 

[InterestedAtheist]

That's a complete strawman of my argument.

Also, you'll notice that no Christians have actually had a problem with my argument because they understand it and Atheists seem not to.

Are you saying you're not using the Pascal's Wager argument after all? Then what is your argument?

And here - a Christian who disagrees with Pascal's Wager: What is Wrong with Pascal's Wager?

 

[Jesse Dornfeld]

Are you saying you're not using the Pascal's Wager argument after all? Then what is your argument?

And here - a Christian who disagrees with Pascal's Wager: What is Wrong with Pascal's Wager?

What do you think the first two premises actually mean? Because it isn't pascals wager.

 

[InterestedAtheist]

What do you think the first two premises actually mean? Because it isn't pascals wager.

Quite right, I'm sorry. I got you mixed up with Kenny.
but since we're on the subject, do you have an opinion on Pascal's Wager?

 

[Jesse Dornfeld]

Quite right, I'm sorry. I got you mixed up with Kenny.
but since we're on the subject, do you have an opinion on Pascal's Wager?

I think Pascal's Wager "makes sense" if put in the right language, but it isn't something by itself that can actually "save" someone if that makes sense. I think it is useful for getting (some) skeptics to think about the idea of God, but it alone has no "saving power".

 

[Jesse Dornfeld]

@InterestedAtheist,

I don't believe you have commented on my proposition (but I haven't checked recently). What do you think of my proposition?

 

[Jesse Dornfeld]

Well, this is of course the argument that atheists make for the nonexistence of God.
If God really existed, He would want us to be saved and (your point 4) he would know exactly what experiences we need to know that He exists.
The problem is, it's only Christians who have such experiences.
People of other religions have experiences from their gods, thus proving that their religion is true and Christianity is not.
And atheists have no experiences, proving that God does not exist (because if he did, they would have had such experiences, as asserted by your points 3 and 4).

I just caught this as I went to check as per my last post in this thread.

Now, notable, is that what people of other religions have that atheists do not is a belief in the supernatural. In this way, Theists and Polytheists believe something that atheists do not, namely, in the existence of the supernatural. Further, I would say in some sense, science is beginning to find things that may allude to a supernatural experience of mind, namely, the double slit experiment. Science just classifies this differently than the supernatural.