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

[InterestedAtheist]

I was actually baiting @InterestedAtheist to give a realistic answer.

Oh, hello there.
I have no idea how scientists would be able to test for the supernatural. Since it is beyond nature, they wouldn't be able to test it.
But before you get too excited, consider the problem you're raising for yourself. So, you find something that scientists cannot explain, yet. And you declare that this is proof of the supernatural. Alright. Which supernatural is it proof of? Did something inexplicable happen because of a Christian miracle or an Islamic one? Was it the tooth fairy or Celtic magic? Since you have no means of identifying which supernatural element was involved, it could be quite literally anything.

And since "absolutely anything" yields exactly the same results in knowledge as nothing, scientists simply disregard the supernatural until such time as some evidence beyond "we don't know why this happens" appears.

 

[All Becomes New]

Oh, hello there.
I have no idea how scientists would be able to test for the supernatural. Since it is beyond nature, they wouldn't be able to test it.
But before you get too excited, consider the problem you're raising for yourself. So, you find something that scientists cannot explain, yet. And you declare that this is proof of the supernatural. Alright. Which supernatural is it proof of? Did something inexplicable happen because of a Christian miracle or an Islamic one? Was it the tooth fairy or Celtic magic? Since you have no means of identifying which supernatural element was involved, it could be quite literally anything.

And since "absolutely anything" yields exactly the same results in knowledge as nothing, scientists simply disregard the supernatural until such time as some evidence beyond "we don't know why this happens" appears.

Which is why it takes faith and not science to believe in God. Rightly put.

Consider the last paragraph of this study on prayer...
Prayer and healing: A medical and scientific perspective on randomized controlled trials

"Where does this leave us? God may indeed exist and prayer may indeed heal; however, it appears that, for important theological and scientific reasons, randomized controlled studies cannot be applied to the study of the efficacy of prayer in healing. In fact, no form of scientific enquiry presently available can suitably address the subject. Therefore, the continuance of such research may result in the conducted studies finding place among other seemingly impeccable studies with seemingly absurd claims (Renckens et al.[42] 2002). Whereas we have attempted to be scientifically and politically correct in our critique, other authors, such as Dawkins,[43] have been humorous, nay even scathing, in their criticism.

The aim of science is not to open a door to infinite wisdom but to set a limit to infinite error (attr., Galileo[44])."

 

[InterestedAtheist]

I'll do my best. It goes something like this:

Good. That is indeed a fine summary of the logic of Pascal's Wager.

Here is why that logic is flawed:

Problem 1. Which God are we talking about? As we have seen in The Cosmic Shell Game thread currently running, there are an awful lot of them. Does it really seem such a safe bet to believe in the Christian God if it turns out the real god is another one, who gets annoyed at you for worshipping the false Jesus? Remember, you're presenting Pascal's Wager on it's own. It's no good you saying, "But there are no other gods," because you haven't yet proven this. You can't say "it's a safe bet to believe in God, and no, we're just talking about the Christian God here."
Not to mention the fact that there are an awful lot of Christians who believe that other Christians are going to hell for being the wrong kind of Christians. Not such a safe bet after all!
What would actually be logical, therefore, would be to believe in every god and religion. But a moment's thought shows that this is extremely impractical - indeed, impossible to carry out in real life - and besides, a large number of religions explicitly forbid this practice, including the Christian God.

Problem 2. Okay, let's do as you say. Forget about the other gods. Just assume there is one, and moreover, assume that you have picked the correct version of the Christian god. So, when you get to heaven, what are you going to say to Him? "Yes, I believed in you, because Pascal convinced me that it was a matter of simple probability mathematics." This, of course, is not what Christianity teaches at all.

Problem 3: Pascal's Wager states that if you believe in God and you are wrong, you have lost nothing. This is incorrect. As a practical matter, you will have lost a good deal of time and energy in the pursuit of your beliefs. Religions vary widely, of course, and even in Christianity there is a great deal of variation. Furthermore, are you a person who values the truth? Most people would probably answer that they are. Well, if you follow Pascal's Wager and it turns out that you are wrong, you have spent your whole life following a lie. Does that sound like nothing at all?
In short, if you are attempting, as a matter of mathematical logic, to present "Believing in God" as a zero-effort enterprise (as Pascal's Wager states) this is quite simply incorrect.

These are the three main flaws with Pascal's Wager.

 

[InterestedAtheist]

Which is why it takes faith and not science to believe in God. Rightly put.

Consider the last paragraph of this study on prayer...
Prayer and healing: A medical and scientific perspective on randomized controlled trials

"Where does this leave us? God may indeed exist and prayer may indeed heal; however, it appears that, for important theological and scientific reasons, randomized controlled studies cannot be applied to the study of the efficacy of prayer in healing. In fact, no form of scientific enquiry presently available can suitably address the subject. Therefore, the continuance of such research may result in the conducted studies finding place among other seemingly impeccable studies with seemingly absurd claims (Renckens et al.[42] 2002). Whereas we have attempted to be scientifically and politically correct in our critique, other authors, such as Dawkins,[43] have been humorous, nay even scathing, in their criticism.

The aim of science is not to open a door to infinite wisdom but to set a limit to infinite error (attr., Galileo[44])."

Sounds good to me!

 

[All Becomes New]

Good. That is indeed a fine summary of the logic of Pascal's Wager.

Here is why that logic is flawed:

Problem 1. Which God are we talking about? As we have seen in The Cosmic Shell Game thread currently running, there are an awful lot of them. Does it really seem such a safe bet to believe in the Christian God if it turns out the real god is another one, who gets annoyed at you for worshipping the false Jesus? Remember, you're presenting Pascal's Wager on it's own. It's no good you saying, "But there are no other gods," because you haven't yet proven this. You can't say "it's a safe bet to believe in God, and no, we're just talking about the Christian God here."
Not to mention the fact that there are an awful lot of Christians who believe that other Christians are going to hell for being the wrong kind of Christians. Not such a safe bet after all!
What would actually be logical, therefore, would be to believe in every god and religion. But a moment's thought shows that this is extremely impractical - indeed, impossible to carry out in real life - and besides, a large number of religions explicitly forbid this practice, including the Christian God.

Problem 2. Okay, let's do as you say. Forget about the other gods. Just assume there is one, and moreover, assume that you have picked the correct version of the Christian god. So, when you get to heaven, what are you going to say to Him? "Yes, I believed in you, because Pascal convinced me that it was a matter of simple probability mathematics." This, of course, is not what Christianity teaches at all.

Problem 3: Pascal's Wager states that if you believe in God and you are wrong, you have lost nothing. This is incorrect. As a practical matter, you will have lost a good deal of time and energy in the pursuit of your beliefs. Religions vary widely, of course, and even in Christianity there is a great deal of variation. Furthermore, are you a person who values the truth? Most people would probably answer that they are. Well, if you follow Pascal's Wager and it turns out that you are wrong, you have spent your whole life following a lie. Does that sound like nothing at all?
In short, if you are attempting, as a matter of mathematical logic, to present "Believing in God" as a zero-effort enterprise (as Pascal's Wager states) this is quite simply incorrect.

These are the three main flaws with Pascal's Wager.

1. So pick the religion you think is most probable. Pretty easy solution here.
2. I addressed my position on Pascal's Wager already, which addresses exactly this.
3. I get joy, for starters, being a Christian. And you are absolutely correct that being a Christian comes at a cost. In fact, it's explicit that Christianity DOES come at a cost. The thing is, I've never met a Christian, who at the end of their life, regretted their service to The Almighty, have you?

 

[Kenny'sID]

And the answer, as even some Christians see, is that this is an unconvincing argument; if the only reason you are believing in God is because it's a safe bet, God is probably not going to be impressed. He wants you to be a Christian because you love Him and have accepted the sacrifice of His Son, not because believing in Him offers a much better risk than not.

Yet it's not at all unconvincing to me, its a very intelligent choice when there is nothing to lose by going that route. How can I lose in being a Christian, even if it turned out I had no reason? Seems to me the problem is those who are foolish enough not to go the Christian way for the very reasons we are talking about. A very safe bet.

As to the Christians you claim have a problem with it, I'd guess there are fewer than you let on.

As far as God not being impressed, he'll be absolutely fine with it. I mean if he is fine with my being Christian only due to his threat of Hell, why would that bother him in the least. He is well aware we will consider what is the best choice for us, and again, he is the one who puts the choices on the table. I can see him looking his clipboard over now, and stating in a very serious/judgmental voice, "I see you only became a Christiasn because I threatened you with hell?" Then a smile comes to his face along with a "Good choice Dude! I was hoping that would light a fire under your back side".

Which is one of the reasons why Pascal's Wager is nonsense, and why I am occasionally amused when I see Christians cite it.

The reasons I mentioned in the prior paragraphs. No idea why you are amused, as you all seem to have it all wrong, and don't know a good bet when you see it, that is unless you have a problem being what God considers "good".

Giving up so little, for so short a time compared to eternity, in order to have a chance at an eternity in paradise, is a darned good wager.

 

[Gene2memE]

Is that all?!

No wonder no one was eager to jump on the question of what the problem was. See post 43.

That's just one issue. It's a fairly major one though - as to believe the wager you'd also have a standard of evidence that means you believe all other religious claims, which necessarily requires you to hold contradictory beliefs.

As the rest of my post pointed out.

Also, Pascal's Wager holds for all possible religions with divine reward/punishment. So, it's just as plausible under Christianity, Islam, Zoroastrianism, the ancient Mayan, Greek and Persian religions. Which, again, require holding incompatible/contradictory beliefs.

In addition, I don't hold belief is a choice. So a conscious decision to believe in a God would just be lying to myself.

There are other objections - from structural, to moral and probabilistic - but the above are more than sufficient for me to reject the wager as useful or valid.

 

[InterestedAtheist]

Yet it's not at all unconvincing to me, its a very intelligent choice when there is nothing to lose by going that route. How can I lose in being a Christian, even if it turned out I had no reason? Seems to me the problem is those who are foolish enough not to go the Christian way for the very reasons we are talking about. A very safe bet.

As to the Christians you claim have a problem with it, I'd guess there are fewer than you let on.

As far as God not being impressed, he'll be absolutely fine with it. I mean if he is fine with my being Christian only due to his threat of Hell, why would that bother him in the least. He is well aware we will consider what is the best choice for us, and again, he is the one who puts the choices on the table. I can see him looking his clipboard over now, and stating in a very serious/judgmental voice, "I see you only became a Christiasn because I threatened you with hell?" Then a smile comes to his face along with a "Good choice Dude! I was hoping that would light a fire under your back side".



The reasons I mentioned in the prior paragraphs. No idea why you are amused, as you all seem to have it all wrong, and don't know a good bet when you see it, that is unless you have a problem being what God considers "good".

Giving up so little, for so short a time compared to eternity, in order to have a chance at an eternity in paradise, is a darned good wager.

Goodness me. You have a lot to learn. Not least about your own religion.

I've already explained it once. Just read this, and try to think logically.

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

 

[Kenny'sID]

That's just one issue. It's a fairly major one though - as to believe the wager you'd also have a standard of evidence that means you believe all other religious claims, which necessarily requires you to hold contradictory beliefs.

As the rest of my post pointed out.

Also, Pascal's Wager holds for all possible religions with divine reward/punishment. So, it's just as plausible under Christianity, Islam, Zoroastrianism, the ancient Mayan, Greek and Persian religions. Which, again, require holding incompatible/contradictory beliefs.

In addition, I don't hold belief is a choice. So a conscious decision to believe in a God would just be lying to myself.

There are other objections - from structural, to moral and probabilistic - but the above are more than sufficient for me to reject the wager as useful or valid.

I don't care about the other religions. Read my last post... l see it as crazy not to take the bet.

 

[InterestedAtheist]

1. So pick the religion you think is most probable. Pretty easy solution here.

So easy that you seem to have missed something. In solving the problem Pascal's Wager makes for you, you have torpedoed it.
Because what you are now saying is, "I have a way to show that believing in the Christian God is the most sensible course of action. All you have to do is pick whichever God whose existence you think is the most probable, and believe in him, her or it. There! Now you're a Christia...oh dear."

2. I addressed my position on Pascal's Wager already, which addresses exactly this.

Link to the post number? I'd be interested in reading it.

3. I get joy, for starters, being a Christian. And you are absolutely correct that being a Christian comes at a cost. In fact, it's explicit that Christianity DOES come at a cost. The thing is, I've never met a Christian, who at the end of their life, regretted their service to The Almighty, have you?

The main point is that regardless of this, Pascal's Wager presents believing in God as the most rational option because if you're wrong, you've lost nothing. And as you yourself said, I am "absolutely correct in saying that Christianity DOES come with a cost." Therefore, the wager is proven to be a flawed argument. Thank you.

And by the way, I have met or heard of quite a number of atheists who used to be Christians and ow very much regret it, and say that being a Christian cost them quite a lot, and they're much happier to be atheists now.

 

[Kenny'sID]

Goodness me. You have a lot to learn. Not least about your own religion.

I've already explained it once. Just read this, and try to think logically.

Oh, I see, because I don't agree with this preposterous thing you all put out there, I must not understand.

I understand completely, and maybe it is you who doesn't understand. Also if you have any more points, as always, please cite them here, so we can keep the whole debate local, among other reasons.

 

[InterestedAtheist]

Oh, I see, because I don't agree with this preposterous thing you all put out there, I must not understand.

I understand completely, and maybe it is you who doesn't understand. Also if you have any more points, as always, please cite them here, so we can keep the whole debate local, among other reasons.

I already gave you the link. Click on it, and you'll see what I wrote. You'll excuse me if I don't want to type it all over again.

 

[Kenny'sID]

I already gave you the link. Click on it, and you'll see what I wrote. You'll excuse me if I don't want to type it all over again.

Paste it then.

 

[InterestedAtheist]

Paste it then.

Here you are:

Problem 1. Which God are we talking about? As we have seen in The Cosmic Shell Game thread currently running, there are an awful lot of them. Does it really seem such a safe bet to believe in the Christian God if it turns out the real god is another one, who gets annoyed at you for worshipping the false Jesus? Remember, you're presenting Pascal's Wager on it's own. It's no good you saying, "But there are no other gods," because you haven't yet proven this. You can't say "it's a safe bet to believe in God, and no, we're just talking about the Christian God here."
Not to mention the fact that there are an awful lot of Christians who believe that other Christians are going to hell for being the wrong kind of Christians. Not such a safe bet after all!
What would actually be logical, therefore, would be to believe in every god and religion. But a moment's thought shows that this is extremely impractical - indeed, impossible to carry out in real life - and besides, a large number of religions explicitly forbid this practice, including the Christian God.

Problem 2. Okay, let's do as you say. Forget about the other gods. Just assume there is one, and moreover, assume that you have picked the correct version of the Christian god. So, when you get to heaven, what are you going to say to Him? "Yes, I believed in you, because Pascal convinced me that it was a matter of simple probability mathematics." This, of course, is not what Christianity teaches at all.

Problem 3: Pascal's Wager states that if you believe in God and you are wrong, you have lost nothing. This is incorrect. As a practical matter, you will have lost a good deal of time and energy in the pursuit of your beliefs. Religions vary widely, of course, and even in Christianity there is a great deal of variation. Furthermore, are you a person who values the truth? Most people would probably answer that they are. Well, if you follow Pascal's Wager and it turns out that you are wrong, you have spent your whole life following a lie. Does that sound like nothing at all?
In short, if you are attempting, as a matter of mathematical logic, to present "Believing in God" as a zero-effort enterprise (as Pascal's Wager states) this is quite simply incorrect.

These are the three main flaws with Pascal's Wager.

 

[Kenny'sID]

Problem 1. Which God are we talking about? As we have seen in The Cosmic Shell Game thread currently running, there are an awful lot of them. Does it really seem such a safe bet to believe in the Christian God if it turns out the real god is another one, who gets annoyed at you for worshipping the false Jesus?

I'm very happy with the Christian God, and yes, compared to the others, Christianity does seem like a safe bet.

Problem 2. Okay, let's do as you say. Forget about the other gods. Just assume there is one, and moreover, assume that you have picked the correct version of the Christian god. So, when you get to heaven, what are you going to say to Him? "Yes, I believed in you, because Pascal convinced me that it was a matter of simple probability mathematics." This, of course, is not what Christianity teaches at all.

I already covered that. As long as I complete the requirments, Im in. What you argue is frail speculation.

Problem 3: Pascal's Wager states that if you believe in God and you are wrong, you have lost nothing. This is incorrect.

No, it is not incorrect as I see it, and I already told you why. I
could have told you, you were wasting your time with this. How is doing good and helping the poor, a waste of time? And Im thinking there are a lot more people that agree with me than you are letting on.

 

[All Becomes New]

So easy that you seem to have missed something. In solving the problem Pascal's Wager makes for you, you have torpedoed it.
Because what you are now saying is, "I have a way to show that believing in the Christian God is the most sensible course of action. All you have to do is pick whichever God whose existence you think is the most probable, and believe in him, her or it. There! Now you're a Christia...oh dear."

I'm pretty sure both you and I know I wouldn't phrase it that way. Like I said, Pascal's Wager cannot actually "save" someone. It's the Holy Spirit's job to save people. What Pascal's Wager can do is bring people closer to the Truth. Yes, I think Christianity is the religion with the most evidence behind it. But if you disagree and you go with something else because you think it has more evidence, then you've made your choice. The problem is that you are saying what I am saying doesn't give reason to believe Christianity is True, and I find that problematic.

Link to the post number? I'd be interested in reading it.

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".

The main point is that regardless of this, Pascal's Wager presents believing in God as the most rational option because if you're wrong, you've lost nothing. And as you yourself said, I am "absolutely correct in saying that Christianity DOES come with a cost." Therefore, the wager is proven to be a flawed argument. Thank you.

"You've lost nothing" wasn't included in the argument I presented you. What WAS included is that if God does not exist then the consequence is FINITE, while believing in God is INFINITE.

And by the way, I have met or heard of quite a number of atheists who used to be Christians and ow very much regret it, and say that being a Christian cost them quite a lot, and they're much happier to be atheists now.

I'm not talking about atheists. I'm talking about Christians who regret their service to Christ.

 

[InterestedAtheist]

I'm very happy with the Christian God, and yes, compared to the others, Christianity does seem like a safe bet.

Your personal views are of no interest to us. You're trying to defend a logical argument. Saying "it makes sense to me," shows you are unable to do so.

I already covered that. As long as I complete the requirments, Im in. What you argue is frail speculation.

Actually, that's exactly the wrong way round. What I am arguing - that God approves of Christians who actually love and worship Him - is based on the entire narrative of the Old and New Testaments, and two thousand years of Christianity as well. What you are arguing - that God doesn't mind how or why you are a Christian, just so long as you say the right things - is based, by your own admission, on a story you told to yourself.
Seriously. Have you no respect for your own religion? Be careful! Remember what Jesus said, in the Gospel of Matthew:
21 “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven.
22 Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not convince many people to follow you, telling them that it was a reasonable mathematical bet and plain good logic to be a Christian?’
23 Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!’

No, it is not incorrect as I see it, and I already told you why. I
could have told you, you were wasting your time with this. How is doing good and helping the poor, a waste of time? And Im thinking there are a lot more people that agree with me than you are letting on.

Nice cherry-picking!
Is it a waste of time to give up your Sundays for God, if that God doesn't exist?
Is it a waste of money to give 10% or more of everything you earn to a God who doesn't exist?
Is it a waste of time to spend a significant amount of your life tramping from door to door talking to people about a God who doesn't exist?
And, in the final analysis, is it a waste of a life to spend the whole of your time believing a lie?
What would you rather have? The truth, or a fiction, to base your life on?

Oh, and one last thought: what would you say to a person who said: "I have believed in God my whole life, and even if there is no God as the atheists say, I still think that my time believing in Him has not been wasted. I am proud to be a Muslim."

Or does it just count for the Christian God?

 

[InterestedAtheist]

I'm pretty sure both you and I know I wouldn't phrase it that way.

That's the honest thing to say, no matter what way you phrase it. The argument is watertight, I'm afraid. Your solution to it invalidates Pascal's Wager.

Pascal's Wager cannot actually "save" someone. It's the Holy Spirit's job to save people. What Pascal's Wager can do is bring people closer to the Truth.

Irrelevant. Pascal's Wager is presented by apologists as being a logical argument for believing in God. As we have seen, its logic is fatally flawed. That's all we need to say here.

Yes, I think Christianity is the religion with the most evidence behind it. But if you disagree and you go with something else because you think it has more evidence, then you've made your choice. The problem is that you are saying what I am saying doesn't give reason to believe Christianity is True, and I find that problematic.

The only question here, right now, is: does Pascal's Wager make sense?
You and I should now be in agreement that it doesn't. You don't have to stop being a Christian for this, but you should be willing to admit when a logical argument has been shown to be flawed.

Link to the post number? I'd be interested in reading it.

Sorry? Do you mean this one? #63 Upon talking with Atheists and reflecting on why I believe in God.

"You've lost nothing" wasn't included in the argument I presented you. What WAS included is that if God does not exist then the consequence is FINITE, while believing in God is INFINITE.

We're both a little mistaken, I believe.
The Classic Wager says: If the Christian God does not exist, the agnostic loses little by believing in him and gains correspondingly little by not believing. If the Christian God does exist, the agnostic gains eternal life by believing in him and loses an infinite good by not believing.
Pascal's wager | philosophy and religion
Now it can very clearly be shown that being a dedicated believer in Christ entails a certain expense. The Pascal's Wager argument is stating a logical case, and part of it it that you lose "little" by believing. This is demonstrably false. A Christian believer expends time, money and energy, undertakes duties - in short, does not lose "little". Whether you or other Christians find these duties burdensome is completely irrelevant. The argument has been shown to be invalid.
Think of it like this - you go to buy a house. The salesperson convinces you that the house is in excellent condition, and will require no repair work at all. Then, having bought the house, you find that it actually needs quite a lot of repair work. there are walls to be painted, windows to be repaired, dry rot to be eradicated.
You go back to the salesperson and complain. "Ah," he says, "But think of all the things you'll learn while repairing them! You could develop a whole new skill set and even get a new career! Honest hard work will do you good. Think how satisfied you'll be as you tick off the tasks one by one!"

Do you think he was fair when he originally presented the house as being in no need of repair?

I'm not talking about atheists. I'm talking about Christians who regret their service to Christ.

So am I. They were Christians, true Christians, believing Christians. And now they regret it.

 

[Kenny'sID]

Your personal views are of no interest to us. You're trying to defend a logical argument. Saying "it makes sense to me," shows you are unable to do so.

Those are personal views you are tossing at me. Lol You feel others personal views should be of interest to me, yet I am not supposed to give any of my own?

I undetstand it is frustrating when you're shown to be wrong, or are losing a debate, but there is no need to get mean by accusing others of wrongdoing when you yourself are guilty of the same.

Between this and your other hilarious reply, you are fast discrediting yourself.

 

[cvanwey]

@True Counterphobia I'm responding to an attached quote you provided in post #76 (i.e.)

"The main point is that regardless of this, Pascal's Wager presents believing in God as the most rational option because if you're wrong, you've lost nothing."

I see this response as virtually meaningless. Why? There exists many many many god(s) assertions for which to profess your belief. Under your rationale, one could then ague that God only cares that you have any god belief, regardless of which one it may be.

Well, this argument seems to quickly crumble, when first observing the 1st Commandment (under your belief system):

"Thou shalt have no other gods before me."

Thus, we must ask ourselves... Even if this assertion reigns true, does YHWH mean:

A. He too acknowledged that other god(s) exist, but to only worship Him?
B. He is telling the reader there exists no other god(s), only Him, and you are being a fool to state you are worshiping any other claimed god(s)
C. Put YHWH specifically first, even before yourself
D. other?.?.?...???

Regardless of which option you adopt above, Pascal's Wager looks to be quite the poor rationale, in any presented case.