Hopefully you have all heard of the wager. It states that if the belief in the existance of God was a bet, a rational person would choose to bet on the existance of God and therefore be some sort of Theist. The wager was modeled off of Christianity, and the claim that Pascal makes is that by believing in God, an individual has nothing to lose in their own lives, and if God does exist one has everything to gain in the afterlife. I am specifically wondering what you guys think of that claim. By being a theist there is nothing to lose in this life, and everything to gain in the next. So what do you guys think?
Please entertain the thought of an afterlife and don't claim that this entire thought is crap because there is no afterlife.
Also, if you believe there are things to lose or gain in this life, please elaborate as to what they are and why.
Given that Santa Claus' origin is Saint Nicholas, who is made saint by God, I can believe in God whose saint is Saint Nicholas. However, Santa Claus is an altered image and is therefore not a saint, so I may not believe in such a character.
The comparison is totally lost to you isn't it?
You have named him, so you are supreme to it, therefore TBG is not god.
We named Yahweh, therefore Yahweh is not god.
Yes, everyone tries to find the ultimate sense of their life in hope it exists. I wonder if you have tried this.
Again you seem to be totally lost here.
Well, the first is false, as you are not supreme over ME.
How do you know that? he could just be hiding that from you, which if he is supreme over you he could do.
The second is also false, since you are proclaiming more than one god, but which of them is then a god?
Multiple gods supreme of specific aspects of reality are just as likely as a single god. So claiming multiple gods does not automatically make it false.
I have requested more than once to provide me a bit of information of a miracle without plausible scientific explanation that is attributed to any other religion than Christianity. While you fail at this, your point is hollow.
We can and have provided scientific explanations for miracles in Christianity as well. Your just not so quick to dismiss it when it comes to other religions, but all the excuses, mental gymnastics and other such dishonesty you pull to hold your beliefs are done by others for theirs.
Giving all possible outcome equal probability is acceptable only if there is no information available for this matter.
They are equal because non of them have any objective evidence to support them.
Rejecting available sources does no good to any scientist.
Your sources are nothing but a claim that has yet to be backed.
A miss. Yahweh gave His name to Moses instead of Moses giving a name to Yahweh. While here all you do is naming a something and claiming it being a god.
How do you know that? he could just be hiding that from you, which if he is supreme over you he could do.
He can't force me to do a thing I don't want to do, therefore he's not supreme over me. Also, I can use the very same logic stating that I'm supreme over him. Atheistic viewpoint follows, therefore he is wrong.
Multiple gods supreme of specific aspects of reality are just as likely as a single god. So claiming multiple gods does not automatically make it false.
This will lead to environmental contradiction in case any of these "gods" will desire to conflict with each other. Illegal environments do not exist, so either there is a perfect unity in these multiple deities, or they are not multiple but a single entity instead. But in the former case it's possible to address the complete set of "multiple gods" as single entity, since they have a perfect set of interconnections between them, and such a perfect set is by default inseparable.
We can and have provided scientific explanations for miracles in Christianity as well.
You explain several aspects of a miracle, indeed, but you didn't explain the whole of a single miracle (Fatima for example). You did, however, provide a complete scientific explanation of 25.01.1938 event. There is more for you to do. And you haven't provided me a miracle attributed to another religion, that does not have a plausible explanation form science.
Giving all possible outcome equal probability is acceptable only if there is no information available for this matter.
They are equal because non of them have any objective evidence to support them.
Rejecting available sources does no good to any scientist.
Your sources are nothing but a claim that has yet to be backed.
This will lead to environmental contradiction in case any of these "gods" will desire to conflict with each other.
So you know everything about all polytheistic religions? And they absolutely have to fight? And fighting is a problem? It seemed to work quite well for Roman and Greek mythology.
And you haven't provided me a miracle attributed to another religion, that does not have a plausible explanation form science.
So you know everything about all polytheistic religions? And they absolutely have to fight? And fighting is a problem? It seemed to work quite well for Roman and Greek mythology.
Fighting is a problem because if someone have to fight, they are not gods as they are imperfect. In case they will not fight they will either not interfere, which is impossible for gods living in the same world, or they are "local" gods aka governing one planet/solar system and not knowing any other (if so, they are irrelevant to those living here), or are part of some greater system. In the latter case one can address the entire "greater system" instead of addressing its parts. Actually both Greek and ancient Roman gods are anthropogenetic (made from humans, with all the human's flaws transferred into them), so as humans fight, they have to do that too.
Fighting is a problem because if someone have to fight, they are not gods as they are imperfect.
What you define as attributes for a god is not universal. Your idea of a god may be a perfect omnipotent being, but that is not true for all religions. And I would have to contend that a perfect god as described in the bible can exist, for he appears to be malevolent and clearly made humans imperfect.
Actually both Greek and ancient Roman gods are anthropogenetic (made from humans, with all the human's flaws transferred into them), so as humans fight, they have to do that too.
Your god supposedly made us in his image(I would say that it is the other way round). He is also vengeful and jealous. While yahweh does not necessarily fight himself, he does order the killing of non-believers. I don't really see anything to suggest that either your god or Greek gods are more likely than the other.
On the subject of flaws, It is interesting to note that Moses convinces god not to kill his people after freeing them from Egypt in Exodus 32:7-14. Kinda strange for a perfect being to be swayed by a human right?
A miss. Yahweh gave His name to Moses instead of Moses giving a name to Yahweh. While here all you do is naming a something and claiming it being a god.
Using the Bible to prove the Bible again I see. Anyway wouldn't matter Yahweh as it's spelled and pronounced today is entirely made up by us. A closer translation of the name would be YHWH, but the correct pronunciation has been lost if we ever had one to begin with.
He can't force me to do a thing I don't want to do, therefore he's not supreme over me. Also, I can use the very same logic stating that I'm supreme over him. Atheistic viewpoint follows, therefore he is wrong.
Again you don't know that, he could simply not be demonstrating such power over you.
You explain several aspects of a miracle, indeed, but you didn't explain the whole of a single miracle (Fatima for example). You did, however, provide a complete scientific explanation of 25.01.1938 event. There is more for you to do. And you haven't provided me a miracle attributed to another religion, that does not have a plausible explanation form science.
Exactly my point on how you aren't so quick to dismiss a miracle when attributed to your beliefs rather then another.
This is ignorance. Off you go.
No that's not ignorance that's just how it works. Deal with it.
Fighting is a problem because if someone have to fight, they are not gods as they are imperfect.
perfection is not a quality required to be a god. It is however a quality claimed to be possessed by specific gods, such as the one you subscribe to.
A miss. Yahweh gave His name to Moses instead of Moses giving a name to Yahweh. While here all you do is naming a something and claiming it being a god.
The TBG gave his name to me, so there. In a dream. It says so right here in this new spiritual book I am making. Until this is done, just pretend it says so.
He can't force me to do a thing I don't want to do, therefore he's not supreme over me. Also, I can use the very same logic stating that I'm supreme over him. Atheistic viewpoint follows, therefore he is wrong.
Nope, TBG gave you free will in order to make it look like no god exists so he doesn't have to eat anyone. But he also has a plan, which you are following. You just don't know it. (Sound familiar?)
This will lead to environmental contradiction in case any of these "gods" will desire to conflict with each other. Illegal environments do not exist, so either there is a perfect unity in these multiple deities, or they are not multiple but a single entity instead. But in the former case it's possible to address the complete set of "multiple gods" as single entity, since they have a perfect set of interconnections between them, and such a perfect set is by default inseparable.
So? What if god's did fight? Just look at the Greek gods, who fought all the time. They used humans as pawns much of the time, so that would explain our wars and natural disasters. They don't need to be perfect, just supreme.
Why would a perfect god have all these natural disasters? The TBG of course does this to mimic exactly what would happen if there was no TBG, once again so he doesn't have to eat anyone. Repent now!
Again you don't know that, he could simply not be demonstrating such power over you.
Well, this means I have the same powers over him. The logic stays the same. After all, I can troll him into something (though I don't like to troll). *yawns* This dialogue leads to nowhere.
perfection is not a quality required to be a god.
Really? If a god is imperfect, then it can lie. Why should I believe to someone who can lie and remain uncaught (as if it's a god, a human then cannot catch a god in lies)? I can believe a human, after all I have ways to check if he's speaking the truth in case I start to doubt. I can believe a god that is perfect and thus does not lie, so I can rely on that god's words as basis to make my life. But I cannot take words of a god that can lie, as this is not a god one would follow willingly.
A closer translation of the name would be YHWH, but the correct pronunciation has been lost if we ever had one to begin with.
For some reason Jewish language in its written form does not use vowels, though there are symbols to represent them. I expect they hid the correct pronunciation for their archpriest who once a year speaks the word before their altar. Indeed too secret IMHO, but they don't want to defile God's name even accidentally.
While yahweh does not necessarily fight himself, he does order the killing of non-believers.
Those who follow false gods will fall, when true God will arrive. That was demonstrated to Israeli. They were not just "non-believers" but created gods themselves and worshipped their creation. Sure enough they got kicked. And you say "malevolent", then? God does not to be righted, whatever God did is right by default. But we are punished by our own sins and their consequences, not by God, it's just because no sin can coexist with God, and tears up any imperfectness it's attached to. (Basically you're calling your own doom by attributing God as malevolent. Careful pal.)
The TBG of course does this to mimic exactly what would happen if there was no TBG, once again so he doesn't have to eat anyone.
This means there is no TBG due to Occam's razor being applicable. LOL.
Your religion has gods that don't provide any evidence of them existing, while my religion has God that constantly provides evidence. That's why I use Occam's razor against TBG.
Christianity might be a little more probable than the TBG because it has been around for a lot of time, but it's in no way more plausible than induism or any other ancient religion.
Your razor is a bit blunt tbh. Sorry I couldn't resist saying it
Also I agree with Kasic. I mean you can try to justify your god, but in the end it is no better than other gods. So you can't trust a lieing god? Well, too bad trust has naught to do with existence. And you seem to be under the impression that might makes right. That somehow what your god does will always be right while we are subject to scrutiny. Morality isn't handed down to me by some deity. I can judge wether a deity is good or bad tyvm.
Would you murder people if god commanded you to? How abour ****? or genocide? Don't dodge this question like every other christian I've asked has. It is not beyond god to ask this of you according to the bible.
Would you murder people if god commanded you to? How abour ****? or genocide? Don't dodge this question like every other christian I've asked has. It is not beyond god to ask this of you according to the bible.
This cannot be I think, since morals have expanded to entire humanity, I can classify such orders as not coming from God and safely ignore them. This should do. God will not order a human to do a sin.
Morality isn't handed down to me by some deity. I can judge wether a deity is good or bad tyvm.
*grins* Well, it's handed down to me, and I will abide by it. You may not follow this morale, effectively denying God (okay, *my* God).
Your razor is a bit blunt tbh. Sorry I couldn't resist saying it
Occam's principle says: "If something can be completely described without some factor, then this factor is unnecessary." So, since Kasic declared TBG as "acting as if there's no TBG", everything can be explained without TBG, so TBG is unnecessary. However in reality there are several oddities that cannot (yet, according to MGW) be explained without God, so God is not a subject to this principle.
About existance - well, it seems one has to meet God in person to actually determine the status of God's existance to himself. I did meet God on my way, and He's still with me, so God exists for me.
This cannot be I think, since morals have expanded to entire humanity, I can classify such orders as not coming from God and safely ignore them. This should do. God will not order a human to do a sin.
I recall someone being tested by God, asked to kill his son. He nearly did it but God stopped him and he passed the test. Was it Abraham? I have a religion exam in a week and I should really know this.
Why does Vesper keep saying that God 'would/does do this' and 'wouldn't/doesn't do this'? I thought God was supposed to be incomprehensible to the mortal mind and that he had some sort of divine plan - you cannot claim to know the mind of your deity and it also seems like some poorly thrown-together excuse for why you do some things but not others, if you don't like it then you can just say that God says not to do it even if the Bible or church teachings contradict when you say.
