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

[InterestedAtheist]

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.

Sounds like your personal view. Also, this is possibly the clearest case of projection I have ever seen.
Accuse you of wrongdoing? All I've said is that you're wrong, and shown why.
Pascal's Wager is fatally flawed in many ways. If you choose to keep using Pascal's Wager, knowing what those flaws are, feel free to keep exposing your ignorance. I'm just trying to help you from doing that.

 

[Kenny'sID]

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

Many Atheists are constantly doing just as this one does, they lay down a set of rules the Christian must follow...something like, no personal opinions will be considered, and right after they give you a list of their personal opinions. I guess they make such things up on the fly, out of desperation, and never stop to think about what they are doing.

It seems that is the only way the can at least think they can win an argument. Anyway, next time you back them into a corner, wait for it.

 

[InterestedAtheist]

Many Atheists are constantly doing just as this one does, they lay down a set of rules the Christian must follow...something like, no personal opinions will be considered, and right after they give you a list of their personal opinions. I guess they make such things up on the fly, out of desperation, and never stop to think about what they are doing.

It seems that is the only way the can at least think they can win an argument. Anyway, next time you back them into a corner, wait for it.

On the contrary. Christian apologetics are invariably based on fallacies, and it's usually a fairly simple job to point them out.
Getting Christians to admit that they see the logical fallacies is quite another story. I am not a miracle worker.

 

[Kenny'sID]

Sounds like your personal view.
Accuse you of wrongdoing? All I've said is that you're wrong, and shown why.
Pascal's Wager is fatally flawed in many ways. If you choose to keep using Pascal's Wager, knowing what those flaws are, feel free to keep exposing your ignorance. I'm just trying to help you from doing that.

Again, you have discreted yourself, proven yourself unreasonable, and it would not be a good use of time debating such an individual. I'll give you a bit of a time out, and maybe give you another chance in the near future...maybe.

 

[InterestedAtheist]

Again, you have discreted yourself, proven yourself unreasonable, and it would not be a good use of time debating such an individual. I'll give you a bit of a time out, and maybe give you another chance in the near future...maybe.

(edited)
Well, no need for us to get personal, as I said.
I think that some time to think about the arguments might benefit you. Do let me know if you have any more things you'd like to discuss.

 

[Gene2memE]

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

Which is precisely why Pascal's Wager is such a poor apologetic. And why when you actually analyse it and apply it equally, you either have to accept mutually contradictory positions/beliefs or engage in hypocrisy.

Is Pascal's Wager the reason why you're Christian? And if so, why don't you accept other religion's eternal reward/eternal punishment claims?

 

[Jesse Dornfeld]

Which is precisely why Pascal's Wager is such a poor apologetic. And why when you actually analyse it and apply it equally, you either have to accept mutually contradictory positions/beliefs or engage in hypocrisy.

Is Pascal's Wager the reason why you're Christian? And if so, why don't you accept other religion's eternal reward/eternal punishment claims?

Yes, I already solved this problem which was to pick the religion you find most probable of being True because the rewards far outweigh the negative things.

 

[Kenny'sID]

Which is precisely why Pascal's Wager is such a poor apologetic. And why when you actually analyse it and apply it equally, you either have to accept mutually contradictory positions/beliefs or engage in hypocrisy.

Thing is, when I analyzed the problems you found with the wager, to me they were preposterous. Both idea's are merely opinion, yet you all came off from the start making is seem like there is little doubt the wager is a flop. Honestly, I think you were being very dishonest with how things stood.

Is Pascal's Wager the reason why you're Christian? And if so, why don't you accept other religion's eternal reward/eternal punishment claims?

Simple, I go with the one that makes the most sense to me, the one that seems to be the real deal, not a knock off. That is a very common reason for making up ones mind about many things.

 

[Yttrium]

What Pascal's Wager can do is bring people closer to the Truth.

The Truth as far as Christianity is concerned? How would it? Christians don't believe that simple belief in God saves people. They believe that faith in Jesus saves people. From that standpoint, Pascal's Wager seems to me to be fatally flawed.

 

[Jesse Dornfeld]

The Truth as far as Christianity is concerned? How would it? Christians don't believe that simple belief in God saves people. They believe that faith in Jesus saves people. From that standpoint, Pascal's Wager seems to me to be fatally flawed.

Because if you decide on A theistic framework to believe in, Christianity is probably going to be the one with the most evidence behind it. You might come to a different conclusion, but that's no excuse not to take is seriously. I've seen atheists here say more or less, "Well, I could guess wrong so it's not worth guessing" which is completely besides the point. You miss 100% of the shots you don't take.

 

[Moral Orel]

The Truth as far as Christianity is concerned? How would it? Christians don't believe that simple belief in God saves people. They believe that faith in Jesus saves people. From that standpoint, Pascal's Wager seems to me to be fatally flawed.

Well, the idea is to "fake it till you make it". If you immerse yourself in church, you'll start believing it, no matter which religion you pick (most people). For humans, things that are familiar are good, things that are good are true. I know that isn't a good way to be accurate about reality, but that's how we are. Think about something you love to eat that most folk also love to eat. When you meet someone who hates it, isn't your first response "What, are you crazy? That thing is delicious!" Sure, when you really think about it you know that taste is purely subjective, but the natural human response is to think that things that you like are actually good.

So if you surround yourself with Christians, read all the uplifting parts of the Bible, and attend church like crazy, it probably will cause you to have "faith in Jesus" whether any of it is true or not.

 

[Yttrium]

So if you surround yourself with Christians, read all the uplifting parts of the Bible, and attend church like crazy, it probably will cause you to have "faith in Jesus" whether any of it is true or not.

Hmm. Probably for most people. I was raised in Christianity, but I seem to be incapable of faith, so it just didn't take. Pascal's proposed method of coming to a belief in God wouldn't work for me. Been there, done that, not convinced.

 

[Yttrium]

Because if you decide on A theistic framework to believe in, Christianity is probably going to be the one with the most evidence behind it.

That doesn't really address the problem. Regardless of whether or not Christianity is the most likely one to pick, one could still pick Deism or Judaism or Islam or something, become convinced that God exists, and be completely unable to be saved by Christian standards.

And I don't think salvation is even an issue for Deism or Judaism.

 

[Pommer]

Yes, I already solved this problem which was to pick the religion you find most probable of being True because the rewards far outweigh the negative things.

How convenient that the “correct” religion just happens to be the dominant one in the country in which you live!

 

[2PhiloVoid]

How convenient that the “correct” religion just happens to be the dominant one in the country in which you live!

Abraham apparently didn't think so in the Old Testament. And also, Paul didn't think so in the New Testament.

So, what gives in these cases?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Hmm. Probably for most people. I was raised in Christianity, but I seem to be incapable of faith, so it just didn't take. Pascal's proposed method of coming to a belief in God wouldn't work for me. Been there, done that, not convinced.

Pascal's Wager method isn't meant to 'work,' it's meant to encourage. But being that with the modern press and all, Pascal rarely enjoys the hermeneutical benefit of the doubt these days.

 

[InterestedAtheist]

Pascal's Wager method isn't meant to 'work,' it's meant to encourage. But being that with the modern press and all, Pascal rarely enjoys the hermeneutical benefit of the doubt these days.

Then a great many Christians are using it wrongly, as I have frequently encountered it presented as a logical argument in favour of Christianity.
Since the argument is flawed, it would seem most likely to encourage people not to listen to the apologists who use it.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Then a great many Christians are using it wrongly, as I have frequently encountered it presented as a logical argument in favour of Christianity.
Since the argument is flawed, it would seem most likely to encourage people not to listen to the apologists who use it.

You're citing what you perceive to be as two flaws here rather than merely one. I'd say there's only one ...

... and it's not Pascal's.

 

[BNR32FAN]

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.

Where is the logic in assuming it all just happened?

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

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.

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.

I agree, there’s too much order and balance in the universe, not to mention the monumental complexity of all living things to be the result of random chance. Intelligent design, while it may not be provable, is not an impossible or implausible explanation. There was a time when man thought that the earth was flat and the lack of evidence at that time to support the idea that the earth is sphere shaped didn’t negate the fact that it is. So just because we can’t prove something to be a fact doesn’t necessarily mean that it’s not, it could just mean that we have insufficient evidence to fully understand it.

 

[Jesse Dornfeld]

That doesn't really address the problem. Regardless of whether or not Christianity is the most likely one to pick, one could still pick Deism or Judaism or Islam or something, become convinced that God exists, and be completely unable to be saved by Christian standards.

And I don't think salvation is even an issue for Deism or Judaism.

So, does that mean you are not even going to pick something? Because that seems to be what you are saying. Christianity has the most evidence behind it. If you pick something else in good faith, then that is up to you. That is what you should do is actually take the argument seriously. What you are doing is bringing up excuses why you shouldn't take it seriously.