Is Pascal's wager a good defense for a belief in god(s)? - The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com - Debate News And Just About Anything The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com
frame

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com. The only Online Debate Website with Casual, Persuade Me, Formalish, and Formal Online Debate formats. We’re the Leading Online Debate website. Debate popular topics, Debate news, or Debate anything! Debate online for free!


The best online Debate website - DebateIsland.com! The only Online Debate Website with Casual, Persuade Me, Formalish, and Formal Online Debate formats. We’re the Leading Online Debate website. Debate popular topics, Debate news, or Debate anything! Debate online for free!

Is Pascal's wager a good defense for a belief in god(s)?
in Philosophy

By PoguePogue 507 Pts edited March 11
Is Pascal's wager a good defense for a belief in god(s)?

Pascal's wager- an argument in philosophy presented by the seventeenth-century French philosopher, mathematician and physicist Blaise Pascal (1623–62). It posits that humans bet with their lives that God either exists or does not. This chart makes a summary of it. 
God exists (G)God does not exist (¬G)
Belief (B)+∞ (infinite gain)−1 (finite loss)
Disbelief (¬B)−∞ (infinite loss)+1 (finite gain)

It was made as a defense of Christianity but makes a number of assumptions about this god. 
Note: please do not try and post evidence of God. 
MasterofPun
  1. Is Pascal's wager a good defense for a belief in god(s)?

    15 votes
    1. Yes
      26.67%
    2. No
      73.33%
I could either have the future pass me or l could create it. 

“We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain stupid.” - Benjamin Franklin  So flat Earthers, man-made climate change deniers, and just science deniers.

I friended myself! 
«1



Debra AI Prediction

Predicted To Win
Predicted 2nd Place
22%
Margin

Details +



Arguments

  • PoguePogue 507 Pts
    It is not a good defense. It makes a number of assumptions about the god. Like they are gullible enough for you to trick them. If they are omniscient, you could not trick them. It also makes the assumption that this god is willing to punish good people for a lack of belief. I could say that if you don't get me some ice cream, my buddy Doof over here will detonate the reality bomb and it'll lead you to agonizing suffering for eternity, but you're not gonna let that influence your decision. "Pascal's wager: Believing in and searching for kryptonite — on the off chance that Superman exists and wants to kill you." One, it falsely assumes that that religion's god is the only god, two, it assumes that that god is stupid enough to be tricked by you "believing" in it just because you're scared of whatever punishment might come. If you believe just because you're scared, I don't think the god would look very favorably on you. It also makes the assumption that there are a hell and heaven. 

    This can also promote evil. These were taken off of https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Pascal's_wager.
    "More troubling than this are occasions where you might theoretically be called upon to hurt someone else to advance your worship of the superior entity. This forms a flip side to the argument that Pascal's Wager emphasizes belief over worthiness in that it suggests that outright evil people can gain reward and avoid punishment simply through belief. In the Old Testament,  there are numerous instances when worshipers had to kill and hurt others as commanded by God. In fact, there are occasions in which God was extremely displeased that they didn't take the abuse of fellow humans far enough. Even with the Pascal's Wager metric in place, one could argue that it's more moral to resist these commands for the sake of others even if it results in an infinite loss for you." 
    "If, as Pascal's Wager must assume, God is willing to punish good people simply for a lack of belief, this would preclude God being "good" by any sense that we understand the concept of "good" — and "good" is a necessary property of God, at least as understood by Christianity. As it can be demonstrated on Earth that no single specific religion has a monopoly on good and moral people, a God that causes Pascal's Wager to be valid cannot be focused on spreading good around the world. Various responses to Pascal's Wager involve pointing out that to be at the constant beck and call of such a clearly evil being would be preferable to hell, and so it is favorable to disbelieve."
    "If you ask most Christians whether children who die when they are very young will go to heaven, they will say yes. So it would be most reasonable to kill your children while young (especially since children today are much more likely to become atheists), rather than risk them leaving the Christian faith."

    The accompanying text:
       "It's just the ocean playing tricks on us. Just because it looks like we're on land, and it doesn't seem like we're moving, doesn't mean we should risk getting out."
       "Our ancestors wouldn't have sacrificed so much to stay in the boat if it wasn't really on the water. And I wouldn't feel such a dark, frightened feeling every time my doubts say we've been fooled."
       "Absolutely. There's no other explanation for it."

    The wager can also be turned around. The chart for the Agnostic Atheism Wager is as follows. 
    God existsGod does not exist
    Be a good personBelieve in GodInfinite gain in heavenYou have made the world a better place
    You've wasted your time believing
    Disbelieve in GodInfinite gain in heavenYou have made the world a better place
    Be a bad personBelieve in GodInfinite loss in hellPeople think you're a twat
    You've wasted your time believing
    Disbelieve in GodInfinite loss in hellPeople think you're a twat
    "Lord, I did the best I could with the tools you granted me. You gave me a brain to think skeptically and I used it accordingly. You gave me the capacity to reason and I applied it to all claims, including that of your existence. You gave me a moral sense and I felt the pangs of guilt and the joys of pride for the bad and good things I chose to do. I tried to do unto others as I would have them do unto me, and although I fell far short of this ideal far too many times, I tried to apply your foundational principle whenever I could. Whatever the nature of your immortal and infinite spiritual essence actually is, as a mortal finite corporeal being I cannot possibly fathom it despite my best efforts, and so do with me what you will." -Michael Shermer

    If you compare them, the AA wager adds another part of behavior. This takes into account how God would act, rather than just the blind faith. 

    If it does convince you, I ask you, how do you know that the God that you believe in is the right one and not the others. 
    someone234THEDENIERcdog1950
    I could either have the future pass me or l could create it. 

    “We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain stupid.” - Benjamin Franklin  So flat Earthers, man-made climate change deniers, and just science deniers.

    I friended myself! 
  • I believe in God(s) firmly. They are real beings at the 10-dimensional level who answer only to fate itself (which is ultimately random in nature meaning they are the actual top authority on a conscious level).

    Since you haven't allowed me to post proof of such beings, I won't.

    Pascal's wager is indeed incorrect because if you believe in the wrong God, most religions' God(s) punish you for not believing in the correct one.

    Pascal's wager would be a good wager indeed if you are gambling in a reality where the Christian God is at least 50% likely to be the actual God in my opinion. Since the Christian God itself has so many strange contradictions in the Bible about its ethics and system of punishment+reward and since there are such a huge proportion of proposed God(s) that are alternatives to the Christian God, then this wager begins to make you gamble very suboptimally indeed.
    Pogue
    Be tomorrow's hero, not today's idol.
  • Pascals Wager is a bit of seventeenth century, conceptual nonsense.

    Just like Anselms eleventh century ontological argument.

    Bulls**t may baffle brains. But bulls**t is not proof of anything.

     
    someone234anonymousdebatercdog1950
  • Pascal's wager is minuscule but still increases net gain. Let's assume that you choose to believe in God and there are three gods that are competing for the greatest amount of believers. If I choose to believe in no Gods, my chances of eternal reward are zero percent, but if I believe in one God out of three Gods, my chances of a supposed reward increase to thirty-three percent.
    someone234
  • @Fredsnephew As bizarre as this is going to sound, you just made an ad-hominem attack against Pascal by using genetic fallacy against seventeenth century philosophy which then became an indirect strawman ad-hominem fusion fallacy by comparing it to Anselm's ontological argument and saying that the credibility of that is relevant to the credibility of Pascal's Wager in any shape or form.

    Explanation links:
    https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/ad-hominem
    https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/genetic
    https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/strawman
    PogueVincent_Costanzo
    Be tomorrow's hero, not today's idol.
  • Pascal's wager is minuscule but still increases net gain. Let's assume that you choose to believe in God and there are three gods that are competing for the greatest amount of believers. If I choose to believe in no Gods, my chances of eternal reward are zero percent, but if I believe in one God out of three Gods, my chances of a supposed reward increase to thirty-three percent.
    For complete ease and not having to type a letter more:

    Pascal's wager is indeed incorrect because if you believe in the wrong God, most religions' God(s) punish you for not believing in the correct one.

    Pascal's wager would be a good wager indeed if you are gambling in a reality where the Christian God is at least 50% likely to be the actual God in my opinion. Since the Christian God itself has so many strange contradictions in the Bible about its ethics and system of punishment+reward and since there are such a huge proportion of proposed God(s) that are alternatives to the Christian God, then this wager begins to make you gamble very suboptimally indeed.

    Be tomorrow's hero, not today's idol.
  • edited March 11
    @someone234 ;

    Basically put, regardless of the significance of the chance increase, any chance is better than no chance. I agree that Pascal's wager is minimalistic as it doesn't account for many other variables such as that there are multiple religions. However, even a 5% chance of safety is better than no chance, hell even 1% chance of safety is better 0%. Is it worth the time of believing? I'm not here to make that argument, I'm just here to defend a coherent argument. Assume this, you are at a shooting range, you have a 1% chance of hitting a bullseye, and if you do, you win eternal happiness, but if you don't shoot the chances are 0%, it makes most sense that you would take the chance and shoot.
  • @PhilosopherReborn Are you going to ignore the infinite possibilities of Gods that punish worshippers/believers of other Gods harsher than doubters of all Gods?
    Be tomorrow's hero, not today's idol.
  • @someone234

    No, you are correct under that proviso, 1/∞ is 0% maybe even less than that, I would be correct if there is only a quantifiable amount of gods like 100, in that case, 1/100 is a better chance than 0. The way I look at it is that God defies the laws of physics, so what's to say there is not an infinite amount of Gods? In that case, 1/∞ is still 0%. I agree only on the proviso that there are an infinite amount of possibilities for Gods. I didn't think it would be fun if everybody agreed that it was crap, so I played devil's advocate for a moment.
  • @someone234 ;

    Lovely bit of debating.

    But I would suggest that your argument, actually helps to exemplify my point.
  • Pascal's wager is based on the assumption of a Christian god, something that is natural for a 17th century Frenchman but not so natural for ourselves in a multi-religious world.

    If we assume a finite number of possible gods the situation becomes more tricky as we don't know which one to pick, although you can argue making a selection is still better than not making a selection and it would just be a case of looking at the cost-benefit analysis of the different religions to see reward for belief and punishment for heresy is overall best. However there is no need to limit ourselves there - there are actually an infinite number of possible gods - we are talking about a mystical being we have no certain knowledge of after all. There could be a god which just wants people to be nice to each other and would damn people for eternity for taking a self-interested view like that expressed in Pascal's Wager. The only reason to follow the Wager's logic is if you've already basically already bought into Christianity or a similar religion.

    I also find it foolish that people treat belief like we're robots and there's a switch we can flick to convince ourselves of the truth. I do not believe in Jehova. Even if I was convinced it was logically more beneficial to me to follow Pascal's logic, I could not make myself start to believe in Jehova because belief is not a matter of logical self-interest. I could act like I did believe, learn scripture and attend church services but it would be a lie built to try and help myself on the miniscule chance the religion is correct rather than me having any real faith.
  • PoguePogue 507 Pts
    @someone234 ;

    Lovely bit of debating.

    But I would suggest that your argument, actually helps to exemplify my point.
    It does. His arguments are in the same position as yours. He is just saying that you committed a lot of fallacies that are unjustifiable. 
    someone234
    I could either have the future pass me or l could create it. 

    “We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain stupid.” - Benjamin Franklin  So flat Earthers, man-made climate change deniers, and just science deniers.

    I friended myself! 
  • PoguePogue 507 Pts
    Pascal's wager is minuscule but still increases net gain. Let's assume that you choose to believe in God and there are three gods that are competing for the greatest amount of believers. If I choose to believe in no Gods, my chances of eternal reward are zero percent, but if I believe in one God out of three Gods, my chances of a supposed reward increase to thirty-three percent.
    It does not because it makes many assumptions about this God. You also assumed that there are 3 when there could be 1,000,000 or higher. I will just post my argument. 

    Pogue said:
    It is not a good defense. It makes a number of assumptions about the god. Like they are gullible enough for you to trick them. If they are omniscient, you could not trick them. It also makes the assumption that this god is willing to punish good people for a lack of belief. I could say that if you don't get me some ice cream, my buddy Doof over here will detonate the reality bomb and it'll lead you to agonizing suffering for eternity, but you're not gonna let that influence your decision. "Pascal's wager: Believing in and searching for kryptonite — on the off chance that Superman exists and wants to kill you." One, it falsely assumes that that religion's god is the only god, two, it assumes that that god is stupid enough to be tricked by you "believing" in it just because you're scared of whatever punishment might come. If you believe just because you're scared, I don't think the god would look very favorably on you. It also makes the assumption that there are a hell and heaven. 

    This can also promote evil. These were taken off of https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Pascal's_wager.
    "More troubling than this are occasions where you might theoretically be called upon to hurt someone else to advance your worship of the superior entity. This forms a flip side to the argument that Pascal's Wager emphasizes belief over worthiness in that it suggests that outright evil people can gain reward and avoid punishment simply through belief. In the Old Testament,  there are numerous instances when worshipers had to kill and hurt others as commanded by God. In fact, there are occasions in which God was extremely displeased that they didn't take the abuse of fellow humans far enough. Even with the Pascal's Wager metric in place, one could argue that it's more moral to resist these commands for the sake of others even if it results in an infinite loss for you." 
    "If, as Pascal's Wager must assume, God is willing to punish good people simply for a lack of belief, this would preclude God being "good" by any sense that we understand the concept of "good" — and "good" is a necessary property of God, at least as understood by Christianity. As it can be demonstrated on Earth that no single specific religion has a monopoly on good and moral people, a God that causes Pascal's Wager to be valid cannot be focused on spreading good around the world. Various responses to Pascal's Wager involve pointing out that to be at the constant beck and call of such a clearly evil being would be preferable to hell, and so it is favorable to disbelieve."
    "If you ask most Christians whether children who die when they are very young will go to heaven, they will say yes. So it would be most reasonable to kill your children while young (especially since children today are much more likely to become atheists), rather than risk them leaving the Christian faith."

    The accompanying text:
       "It's just the ocean playing tricks on us. Just because it looks like we're on land, and it doesn't seem like we're moving, doesn't mean we should risk getting out."
       "Our ancestors wouldn't have sacrificed so much to stay in the boat if it wasn't really on the water. And I wouldn't feel such a dark, frightened feeling every time my doubts say we've been fooled."
       "Absolutely. There's no other explanation for it."

    The wager can also be turned around. The chart for the Agnostic Atheism Wager is as follows. 
    God existsGod does not exist
    Be a good personBelieve in GodInfinite gain in heavenYou have made the world a better place
    You've wasted your time believing
    Disbelieve in GodInfinite gain in heavenYou have made the world a better place
    Be a bad personBelieve in GodInfinite loss in hellPeople think you're a twat
    You've wasted your time believing
    Disbelieve in GodInfinite loss in hellPeople think you're a twat
    "Lord, I did the best I could with the tools you granted me. You gave me a brain to think skeptically and I used it accordingly. You gave me the capacity to reason and I applied it to all claims, including that of your existence. You gave me a moral sense and I felt the pangs of guilt and the joys of pride for the bad and good things I chose to do. I tried to do unto others as I would have them do unto me, and although I fell far short of this ideal far too many times, I tried to apply your foundational principle whenever I could. Whatever the nature of your immortal and infinite spiritual essence actually is, as a mortal finite corporeal being I cannot possibly fathom it despite my best efforts, and so do with me what you will." -Michael Shermer

    If you compare them, the AA wager adds another part of behavior. This takes into account how God would act, rather than just the blind faith. 

    If it does convince you, I ask you, how do you know that the God that you believe in is the right one and not the others. 

    anonymousdebaterwith_all_humility
    I could either have the future pass me or l could create it. 

    “We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain stupid.” - Benjamin Franklin  So flat Earthers, man-made climate change deniers, and just science deniers.

    I friended myself! 
  • @Pogue ;

    I was just expressing a personal opinion.

    Which by definition, cannot be regarded as fallacious.

    Actually by definition. Pascal's Wager is fallacious.
  • @Pogue ;

    Is a parent rewarding a child for doing good equal to punishing the child for not going out of his ways to do good?

    Is God rewarding those who believe in him equal to punishing those who do not?

    You also need to remove the infinite gain in heaven for good people who do not believe in God, unfortunately. And you can't be a bad person and believe in God.

    In short, the arguments are based off of a flawed understanding of Christianity. But I guess Pascal's wager applies to all religions...
    Pogue
  • @Pogue
    Basically, Pascal's wager is a free lottery ticket. The lottery may not exist, and you might get a bad ticket, but you might get something.

    If the lottery ticket is invalid, then you lose nothing.
    Poguewith_all_humility
  • PoguePogue 507 Pts
    @Pogue ;

    Is a parent rewarding a child for doing good equal to punishing the child for not going out of his ways to do good?

    Is God rewarding those who believe in him equal to punishing those who do not?

    You also need to remove the infinite gain in heaven for good people who do not believe in God, unfortunately. And you can't be a bad person and believe in God.

    In short, the arguments are based off of a flawed understanding of Christianity. But I guess Pascal's wager applies to all religions...
    @Pogue
    Basically, Pascal's wager is a free lottery ticket. The lottery may not exist, and you might get a bad ticket, but you might get something.

    If the lottery ticket is invalid, then you lose nothing.
    You lose time. You waste valuable time. No, you do not remove it. This debate is not about the non-evidenced Christianity, but about believing in God. You make multiple assumptions about this God and Pascal's wage could and does advocate for immoral acts.  
    with_all_humility
    I could either have the future pass me or l could create it. 

    “We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain stupid.” - Benjamin Franklin  So flat Earthers, man-made climate change deniers, and just science deniers.

    I friended myself! 
  • @Pogue

    If you are certain that God does not exist, then fine. Pascal's wager is most applicable to agnostics.

    I am only thinking about the Christian God when I say this, but only belief in the Christian God can get you into heaven, not good works. Good works are an inevitable consequence of true @Pogue ;

    Pascal's wager basically says: "Are you sure? If not, rethink it." If you are sure, then okay, I guess. That's all that Pascal's Wager should be used to conclude.
    Starting with fear will start your belief, but is not the goal.
    Pogue
  • PoguePogue 507 Pts
    @Pogue

    If you are certain that God does not exist, then fine. Pascal's wager is most applicable to agnostics.

    I am only thinking about the Christian God when I say this, but only belief in the Christian God can get you into heaven, not good works. Good works are an inevitable consequence of true @Pogue ;

    Pascal's wager basically says: "Are you sure? If not, rethink it." If you are sure, then okay, I guess. That's all that Pascal's Wager should be used to conclude.
    Starting with fear will start your belief, but is not the goal.
    No, it is not. It was made to make someone believe in a god. 
    I could either have the future pass me or l could create it. 

    “We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain stupid.” - Benjamin Franklin  So flat Earthers, man-made climate change deniers, and just science deniers.

    I friended myself! 
  • GooberryGooberry 521 Pts
    I am God manifest. I will destroy your soul, and torture you for eternity, unless you PayPal me $20...


    1.) If you don’t PayPal me $20, and I am God manifest you lose infinitely.

    2.) If you PayPal me $20, and I am not God manifest, you lose finitely.

    Ergo, as a result of identical logic to Pascal’s wager, intelligent, logical people should pay me $20.


    BaconToescdog1950
  • PoguePogue 507 Pts
    Gooberry said:
    I am God manifest. I will destroy your soul, and torture you for eternity, unless you PayPal me $20...


    1.) If you don’t PayPal me $20, and I am God manifest you lose infinitely.

    2.) If you PayPal me $20, and I am not God manifest, you lose finitely.

    Ergo, as a result of identical logic to Pascal’s wager, intelligent, logical people should pay me $20.


    Well then. You are still making an assumption about the god. That they will torture you for an eternity if I do not do. Also, 0.0024 Bitcoin (as of 11:16 pm on March 16th of 2018) is nothing compared to worshiping someone for a long period of time. This also an promote the idea of evil and that this god is not omnipotent because you can fool them with your fake faith.

    I was going to say that "It is Venmo, not PayPal" but I just remembered that Venmo is owned by PayPal. LOL  :grin: 
    I could either have the future pass me or l could create it. 

    “We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain stupid.” - Benjamin Franklin  So flat Earthers, man-made climate change deniers, and just science deniers.

    I friended myself! 
  • @Pogue

    Pascal's wager is only useful if based on assumptions that he specified before the wager, such as the fact that a perfect God exists. He did not try to use to this wager as a tool to convince people that God exists, but more so if there is a chance that the God of the Bible does exist, it would be astronomically better to live in light of that fact than choosing to live in ignorance.

    Furthermore, you made a few other claims that I have to disagree with, as someone who has read the entirety of the Bible and studied it on multiple different levels:
    1. You make massive assumptions about this God being "trickable." The God of the Bible is not trickable - He is omniscient.
    2. Belief is not a get-out-of-jail free card - and a person does not simply flip a mental switch to be saved. Being saved from the just punishment of sin involves repenting (recognizing error and turning from it). That's a lifestyle change, not a quick "trick".

    About the killing of children, I have thought along similar lines before. But you ignore the most obvious command of Scripture - Thou shalt not murder. We are not allowed to break God's commands irrelevant of the consequences. We are to follow by faith, and God is to be our leader. Additionally, valid argument can be made that children do not go to heaven automatically.

    God is not a cruel God. He made this world and all of us and He therefore has the right to do as He pleases with us - blessing or curses. We have no power (and therefore right) to disagree with the omnipotent Creator. Rather than whine about "what we were given" and "doing our best", let's thank God for giving as opportunity to know Him, and to live with Him forever. He didn't have to do that - but God loved us so much He sent His Son to die for us. All optional for Him: He owes us nothing. But He loved us. Bless His name.

    Your Agnostic Atheism chart is a bit busted, and is entirely unrelated to the Biblical God. I don't think it's worth expanding this debate out to there - better to just admit its irrelevant.
  • PoguePogue 507 Pts
    @Pogue

    Pascal's wager is only useful if based on assumptions that he specified before the wager, such as the fact that a perfect God exists. He did not try to use to this wager as a tool to convince people that God exists, but more so if there is a chance that the God of the Bible does exist, it would be astronomically better to live in light of that fact than choosing to live in ignorance.

    Furthermore, you made a few other claims that I have to disagree with, as someone who has read the entirety of the Bible and studied it on multiple different levels:
    1. You make massive assumptions about this God being "trickable." The God of the Bible is not trickable - He is omniscient.
    2. Belief is not a get-out-of-jail free card - and a person does not simply flip a mental switch to be saved. Being saved from the just punishment of sin involves repenting (recognizing error and turning from it). That's a lifestyle change, not a quick "trick".

    About the killing of children, I have thought along similar lines before. But you ignore the most obvious command of Scripture - Thou shalt not murder. We are not allowed to break God's commands irrelevant of the consequences. We are to follow by faith, and God is to be our leader. Additionally, valid argument can be made that children do not go to heaven automatically.

    God is not a cruel God. He made this world and all of us and He therefore has the right to do as He pleases with us - blessing or curses. We have no power (and therefore right) to disagree with the omnipotent Creator. Rather than whine about "what we were given" and "doing our best", let's thank God for giving as opportunity to know Him, and to live with Him forever. He didn't have to do that - but God loved us so much He sent His Son to die for us. All optional for Him: He owes us nothing. But He loved us. Bless His name.

    Your Agnostic Atheism chart is a bit busted, and is entirely unrelated to the Biblical God. I don't think it's worth expanding this debate out to there - better to just admit its irrelevant.
    1. They are not astronomically better. 
    2. Live in ignorance? You are assuming god exists. You are not living in the light.
    3. Pascal's wager is about believing in God. Made for the Biblical God but is not used that way anymore. You can fake belief. If you can fake it then he is able to be tricked. I am not saying that he is not omniscient. I am saying that the wager makes him not. 
    4. The wager says that belief in God will bring you to heaven. 
    5. I said most Christians say that (that I have talked to).
    6. Ha, God killed so many things.
    7. No evidence that he did. That was irrelevant. 
    8. It is not irrelevant. It is a counter to the other chart. We are arguing if it is a good defense for a belief in god. Not the Christian one. 
    I could either have the future pass me or l could create it. 

    “We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain stupid.” - Benjamin Franklin  So flat Earthers, man-made climate change deniers, and just science deniers.

    I friended myself! 
  • edited March 23
    Pogue said:
    @Pogue ;

    Is a parent rewarding a child for doing good equal to punishing the child for not going out of his ways to do good?

    Is God rewarding those who believe in him equal to punishing those who do not?

    You also need to remove the infinite gain in heaven for good people who do not believe in God, unfortunately. And you can't be a bad person and believe in God.

    In short, the arguments are based off of a flawed understanding of Christianity. But I guess Pascal's wager applies to all religions...
    @Pogue
    Basically, Pascal's wager is a free lottery ticket. The lottery may not exist, and you might get a bad ticket, but you might get something.

    If the lottery ticket is invalid, then you lose nothing.
    You lose time. You waste valuable time. No, you do not remove it. This debate is not about the non-evidenced Christianity, but about believing in God. You make multiple assumptions about this God and Pascal's wage could and does advocate for immoral acts.  
    You keep making the presumption the God is evil, you may want to actually read the bible and seek to understand what it is actually teaching.  The fallacy of Ignorance - you keep referring to the old testament examples and imply that God had done evil. You're listening to other atheist arguments that are flawed. Old Testament is no longer, we don't live under the old testament, it is there for us to gain an understanding of God's character/nature.  If a person professes to be a Christian, they live under the New Testament Law.  Read the book of Hebrews to gain an understanding.

    A fallacy of false cause: How do you preclude that living a Christian life is a loss of time or waste of valuable time. What type of life worth do you consider living that would not be a waste of time?  I'll assume that you would advocate living a good life and one that makes you happy as an individual.  If a person what lead a Christian life and it is good and makes him/her happy.  How can that be wrong?
  • PoguePogue 507 Pts
    Pogue said:
    @Pogue ;

    Is a parent rewarding a child for doing good equal to punishing the child for not going out of his ways to do good?

    Is God rewarding those who believe in him equal to punishing those who do not?

    You also need to remove the infinite gain in heaven for good people who do not believe in God, unfortunately. And you can't be a bad person and believe in God.

    In short, the arguments are based off of a flawed understanding of Christianity. But I guess Pascal's wager applies to all religions...
    @Pogue
    Basically, Pascal's wager is a free lottery ticket. The lottery may not exist, and you might get a bad ticket, but you might get something.

    If the lottery ticket is invalid, then you lose nothing.
    You lose time. You waste valuable time. No, you do not remove it. This debate is not about the non-evidenced Christianity, but about believing in God. You make multiple assumptions about this God and Pascal's wage could and does advocate for immoral acts.  
    You keep making the presumption the God is evil, you may want to actually read the bible and seek to understand what it is actually teaching.  The fallacy of Ignorance - you keep referring to the old testament examples and imply that God had done evil. You're listening to other atheist arguments that are flawed. Old Testament is no longer, we don't live under the old testament, it is there for us to gain an understanding of God's character/nature.  If a person professes to be a Christian, they live under the New Testament Law.  Read the book of Hebrews to gain an understanding.

    A fallacy of false cause: How do preclude that living a Christian life is a loss of time or waste of valuable time. What type of life worth do you consider living that would not be a waste of time?  I'll assume that you would advocate living a good life and one that makes you happy as an individual.  If a person what lead a Christian life and it is good and makes him/her happy.  How can that be wrong?
    No, I do not. I was saying that it (Pascal's wager) can and does advocate for horrific things. This is just like the God in the Old Testament. If God did it, then he has done evil. Even if it was in the Old Testament. They are not flawed. You have provided no argument to say they are flawed. Yes. God's true character is malicious. The New Testament was Jesus trying to make the prophecies of the Old Testament come true. So they are related and Christians follow both (former Christian). Why would I read a book that says there were zombies, a global flood 4k-years-ago, and the Earth being 6,000-years-old. 

    It is a waste of time because it is not truthful and therefore does nothing to advance society. Religion has actually kept us scientifically backward for centuries. What I think is not a waste of time is something that is truthful and overall helps humanity. Happiness is important but that is below what I previously mentioned. Since the rest was just your assumption of my position and a straw man of my argument, I have no need to respond to it. 
    with_all_humilityanonymousdebater
    I could either have the future pass me or l could create it. 

    “We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain stupid.” - Benjamin Franklin  So flat Earthers, man-made climate change deniers, and just science deniers.

    I friended myself! 
  • @Pogue the Earth easily can be 6k yrs old if you ignore pseudoscience and NASA
    EmeryPearson
    Be tomorrow's hero, not today's idol.
  • PoguePogue 507 Pts
    @Pogue the Earth easily can be 6k yrs old if you ignore pseudoscience and NASA
    It is not though. I do not want to get into a debate about this on this debate thread but I will just say things from my memory that prove the Earth is cannot be 6k-years-old. The easiest one is carbon dating. We have carbon dated fossils to be 20k. We also know of civilizations like Sumer which formed after the end of the last Ice Age. 
    EmeryPearson
    I could either have the future pass me or l could create it. 

    “We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain stupid.” - Benjamin Franklin  So flat Earthers, man-made climate change deniers, and just science deniers.

    I friended myself! 
  • I agree with Pascal that life is a wager. The belief or disbelief in God/deity is both made on an assumption.  In a physical world, the spiritual cannot be proven, nor disproven.   Just as pointed out by Paul...

    1Co 2:13-14  These things we also speak, not in words which man's wisdom teaches but which the Holy Spirit teaches, comparing spiritual things with spiritual. But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

    So the argument that there is a God is as old as civilization.  

                     God exists (G)                    God does not exist (¬G)

             

    Belief (B)+∞ (infinite gain)                   −1 (finite loss)   
    Disbelief (¬B)−∞ (infinite loss)                   +1 (finite gain)

    The gamble here is really about eternity thus the use of infinite gain/infinite loss. I see a missing variable in the Pascal equation. That is what is a meaningful life here on earth or the physical world. From the information given, a clear assessment of what is being lost in the physical cannot be made.  So, there are two possible outcomes.

    Assumption 1: A good life is one that results in happiness.   Assumption 2: A belief in God makes a man miserable 

    If our mission statement in life is just to simply live a happy life, then believing in God, is a win-win wager
    If however, being a Christian leads to make oneself miserable or something else that results in a negative outcome then Pascal's wager may hold true.

    So, with those two assumptions added to the mix if assumption #1 is correct, then I believe a person can live the life of a Christian and still have a happy meaningful fulfilling life. Then, God's existence is irrelevant because they will either gain eternity in heaven or obtained finite gain from living a happy life. While the nonbeliever can only obtain finite gain/infinite loss 

    If assumption #2 is correct then the God existence does become relevant and you have two outcomes as purposed by Pascal.

    I think it should be noted that a non-believer in God always results in an infinite loss. A non-believer can never bring about the possibility of infinite gain regardless of the existence of God.  Thus the point that Pascal was trying to expose.

    To the non-believers: What is the definition of a good life in context to the individual?
    EmeryPearson
  • PoguePogue 507 Pts
    I agree with Pascal that life is a wager. The belief or disbelief in God/deity is both made on an assumption.  In a physical world, the spiritual cannot be proven, nor disproven.   Just as pointed out by Paul...

    1Co 2:13-14  These things we also speak, not in words which man's wisdom teaches but which the Holy Spirit teaches, comparing spiritual things with spiritual. But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

    So the argument that there is a God is as old as civilization.  

                     God exists (G)                    God does not exist (¬G)

             

    Belief (B)+∞ (infinite gain)                   −1 (finite loss)   
    Disbelief (¬B)−∞ (infinite loss)                   +1 (finite gain)

    The gamble here is really about eternity thus the use of infinite gain/infinite loss. I see a missing variable in the Pascal equation. That is what is a meaningful life here on earth or the physical world. From the information given, a clear assessment of what is being lost in the physical cannot be made.  So, there are two possible outcomes.

    Assumption 1: A good life is one that results in happiness.   Assumption 2: A belief in God makes a man miserable 

    If our mission statement in life is just to simply live a happy life, then believing in God, is a win-win wager
    If however, being a Christian leads to make oneself miserable or something else that results in a negative outcome then Pascal's wager may hold true.

    So, with those two assumptions added to the mix if assumption #1 is correct, then I believe a person can live the life of a Christian and still have a happy meaningful fulfilling life. Then, God's existence is irrelevant because they will either gain eternity in heaven or obtained finite gain from living a happy life. While the nonbeliever can only obtain finite gain/infinite loss 

    If assumption #2 is correct then the God existence does become relevant and you have two outcomes as purposed by Pascal.

    I think it should be noted that a non-believer in God always results in an infinite loss. A non-believer can never bring about the possibility of infinite gain regardless of the existence of God.  Thus the point that Pascal was trying to expose.

    To the non-believers: What is the definition of a good life in context to the individual?
    We can prove that something exists by it interacting with our universe. If there is no evidence that it interacts with it, it does not "exist". Where we colloquially define existence as retaining some form of manifestation whereby the said object can interact with particles in our universe. 

    You still make the assumption that those will get you into heaven. So: 
    Pogue said:
    It is not a good defense. It makes a number of assumptions about the god. Like they are gullible enough for you to trick them. If they are omniscient, you could not trick them. It also makes the assumption that this god is willing to punish good people for a lack of belief. I could say that if you don't get me some ice cream, my buddy Doof over here will detonate the reality bomb and it'll lead you to agonizing suffering for eternity, but you're not gonna let that influence your decision. "Pascal's wager: Believing in and searching for kryptonite — on the off chance that Superman exists and wants to kill you." One, it falsely assumes that that religion's god is the only god, two, it assumes that that god is stupid enough to be tricked by you "believing" in it just because you're scared of whatever punishment might come. If you believe just because you're scared, I don't think the god would look very favorably on you. It also makes the assumption that there are a hell and heaven. 

    This can also promote evil. These were taken off of https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Pascal's_wager.
    "More troubling than this are occasions where you might theoretically be called upon to hurt someone else to advance your worship of the superior entity. This forms a flip side to the argument that Pascal's Wager emphasizes belief over worthiness in that it suggests that outright evil people can gain reward and avoid punishment simply through belief. In the Old Testament,  there are numerous instances when worshipers had to kill and hurt others as commanded by God. In fact, there are occasions in which God was extremely displeased that they didn't take the abuse of fellow humans far enough. Even with the Pascal's Wager metric in place, one could argue that it's more moral to resist these commands for the sake of others even if it results in an infinite loss for you." 
    "If, as Pascal's Wager must assume, God is willing to punish good people simply for a lack of belief, this would preclude God being "good" by any sense that we understand the concept of "good" — and "good" is a necessary property of God, at least as understood by Christianity. As it can be demonstrated on Earth that no single specific religion has a monopoly on good and moral people, a God that causes Pascal's Wager to be valid cannot be focused on spreading good around the world. Various responses to Pascal's Wager involve pointing out that to be at the constant beck and call of such a clearly evil being would be preferable to hell, and so it is favorable to disbelieve."
    "If you ask most Christians whether children who die when they are very young will go to heaven, they will say yes. So it would be most reasonable to kill your children while young (especially since children today are much more likely to become atheists), rather than risk them leaving the Christian faith."

    The accompanying text:
       "It's just the ocean playing tricks on us. Just because it looks like we're on land, and it doesn't seem like we're moving, doesn't mean we should risk getting out."
       "Our ancestors wouldn't have sacrificed so much to stay in the boat if it wasn't really on the water. And I wouldn't feel such a dark, frightened feeling every time my doubts say we've been fooled."
       "Absolutely. There's no other explanation for it."

    The wager can also be turned around. The chart for the Agnostic Atheism Wager is as follows. 
    God existsGod does not exist
    Be a good personBelieve in GodInfinite gain in heavenYou have made the world a better place
    You've wasted your time believing
    Disbelieve in GodInfinite gain in heavenYou have made the world a better place
    Be a bad personBelieve in GodInfinite loss in hellPeople think you're a twat
    You've wasted your time believing
    Disbelieve in GodInfinite loss in hellPeople think you're a twat
    "Lord, I did the best I could with the tools you granted me. You gave me a brain to think skeptically and I used it accordingly. You gave me the capacity to reason and I applied it to all claims, including that of your existence. You gave me a moral sense and I felt the pangs of guilt and the joys of pride for the bad and good things I chose to do. I tried to do unto others as I would have them do unto me, and although I fell far short of this ideal far too many times, I tried to apply your foundational principle whenever I could. Whatever the nature of your immortal and infinite spiritual essence actually is, as a mortal finite corporeal being I cannot possibly fathom it despite my best efforts, and so do with me what you will." -Michael Shermer

    If you compare them, the AA wager adds another part of behavior. This takes into account how God would act, rather than just the blind faith. 

    If it does convince you, I ask you, how do you know that the God that you believe in is the right one and not the others. 
    For the last part, good is subjective. My philosophy might not make someone happy. However, wasting your time on something that does not exist is a waste of time no matter what. 
    with_all_humilityEmeryPearson
    I could either have the future pass me or l could create it. 

    “We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain stupid.” - Benjamin Franklin  So flat Earthers, man-made climate change deniers, and just science deniers.

    I friended myself! 
  • "It is not a good defense. It makes a number of assumptions about the god. Like they are gullible enough for you to trick them. If they are omniscient, you could not trick them. It also makes the assumption that this god is willing to punish good people for a lack of belief. I could say that if you don't get me some ice cream, my buddy Doof over here will detonate the reality bomb and it'll lead you to agonizing suffering for eternity, but you're not gonna let that influence your decision. "Pascal's wager: Believing in and searching for kryptonite — on the off chance that Superman exists and wants to kill you." One, it falsely assumes that that religion's god is the only god, two, it assumes that that god is stupid enough to be tricked by you "believing" in it just because you're scared of whatever punishment might come. If you believe just because you're scared, I don't think the god would look very favorably on you. It also makes the assumption that there are a hell and heaven." 

    Based upon your arguement of "if they are omniscient" how do you conclude God would punish good people.  This is an illogical arguement, if a entity is all knowing, how can you determine something different from what a "omniscient deity" has concluded?  All through history god's did not punish people for being good.  Especially God in the Bible.  This line of thinking is what is meant by blasphemy.  Blasphemy can also be defined as when you elevate yourself to the same level or above the authority of a deity.  

    "One, it falsely assumes that that religion's god is the only god, two, it assumes that that god is stupid enough to be tricked by you "believing" in it just because you're scared of whatever punishment might come."

    As for God being the only God, that is stated in the Bible, as well as recorded examples of him being the one and true living God.  Pharos's gods could not replicate the miracles of God, read 1 Kings 18.20-40 the account of "The Prophets of Baal Defeated"

    It is true that if you only "game" your way into heaven, The teaches we are to have fear of God, but that fear is more of fear of disappointing Him.  The concept is if we understand what God had done for us (mankind) then when we realize how much He loved us, the we grow a strong love of God and we do these things not out of fear, but out of love.  Now don't go pulling verses say He kill these people and He had people kill thousands of animals and so on.  Those verse have to be read in context and when they are you understand there was a purpose for it and the purpose was good.

    There's only one assumption in Pascal's theory, does God exist or not...heaven and hell are consequential based upon the belief in God.

    @Pogue

    PogueEmeryPearson
  • PoguePogue 507 Pts
    "It is not a good defense. It makes a number of assumptions about the god. Like they are gullible enough for you to trick them. If they are omniscient, you could not trick them. It also makes the assumption that this god is willing to punish good people for a lack of belief. I could say that if you don't get me some ice cream, my buddy Doof over here will detonate the reality bomb and it'll lead you to agonizing suffering for eternity, but you're not gonna let that influence your decision. "Pascal's wager: Believing in and searching for kryptonite — on the off chance that Superman exists and wants to kill you." One, it falsely assumes that that religion's god is the only god, two, it assumes that that god is stupid enough to be tricked by you "believing" in it just because you're scared of whatever punishment might come. If you believe just because you're scared, I don't think the god would look very favorably on you. It also makes the assumption that there are a hell and heaven." 

    Based upon your arguement of "if they are omniscient" how do you conclude God would punish good people.  This is an illogical arguement, if a entity is all knowing, how can you determine something different from what a "omniscient deity" has concluded?  All through history god's did not punish people for being good.  Especially God in the Bible.  This line of thinking is what is meant by blasphemy.  Blasphemy can also be defined as when you elevate yourself to the same level or above the authority of a deity.  

    "One, it falsely assumes that that religion's god is the only god, two, it assumes that that god is stupid enough to be tricked by you "believing" in it just because you're scared of whatever punishment might come."

    As for God being the only God, that is stated in the Bible, as well as recorded examples of him being the one and true living God.  Pharos's gods could not replicate the miracles of God, read 1 Kings 18.20-40 the account of "The Prophets of Baal Defeated"

    It is true that if you only "game" your way into heaven, The teaches we are to have fear of God, but that fear is more of fear of disappointing Him.  The concept is if we understand what God had done for us (mankind) then when we realize how much He loved us, the we grow a strong love of God and we do these things not out of fear, but out of love.  Now don't go pulling verses say He kill these people and He had people kill thousands of animals and so on.  Those verse have to be read in context and when they are you understand there was a purpose for it and the purpose was good.

    There's only one assumption in Pascal's theory, does God exist or not...heaven and hell are consequential based upon the belief in God.

    @Pogue

    Very funny. We are talking about Pascal's wager. It is this. 

                     God exists (G)                    God does not exist (¬G)

          
    Belief (B)+∞ (infinite gain)                   −1 (finite loss)   
    Disbelief (¬B)−∞ (infinite loss)                   +1 (finite gain)

    So, even if you are a good person, you will get an "infinite loss". In the Bible, "in a blazing fire.He will inflict vengeance on those who do not knowGod and do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus.http://biblehub.com/2_thessalonians/1-8.htm. I never evaluated myself to that level. 

    So there were zombies too. The Bible has many contradictions so it is very hard to take the Bible at its word. We also should be able to see God interacting with particles in the universe. 

    List of contradictions:
    GE 1:3-5 On the first day, God created light, then separated light and darkness. GE 1:14-19 The sun (which separates night and day) wasn't created until the fourth day.
    GE 1:11-1226-27 Trees were created before man was created. GE 2:4-9 Man was created before trees were created.

    GE 1:20-2126-27 Birds were created before man was created. GE 2:719 Man was created before birds were created.

    GE 1:24-27 Animals were created before man was created.  GE 2:719 Man was created before animals were created.

    GE 1:26 Man is to have dominion over fish, birds, cattle, and all wild animals, GE 2:15-17 It is wrong to be able to tell good from evil, right from wrong.

    More https://infidels.org/library/modern/donald_morgan/contradictions.html.

    No. Many more assumptions and you just straw maned pascal's wager.It was made so that even without evidence, someone should still believe in God. 

    EmeryPearson
    I could either have the future pass me or l could create it. 

    “We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain stupid.” - Benjamin Franklin  So flat Earthers, man-made climate change deniers, and just science deniers.

    I friended myself! 
  • "So, even if you are a good person, you will get an "infinite loss". In the Bible, "in a blazing fire.He will inflict vengeance on those who do not knowGod and do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus." http://biblehub.com/2_thessalonians/1-8.htm. I never evaluated myself to that level."

    That is correct, you quoted 2 Thes 1.8, read it again and there are 2 disqualifies for heaven.

    • those who do not know God and 
    • those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus

    See that bold 3 letter word, that's a conjunction mean I have to do 2 things to receive the reward of heaven, Know God, and obey the gospel.  Just because you consider yourself a moral person does not mean you'll get in heaven.  You have to be a faithful Christian.  You may never break a gov't laws, you might be the best person at saving people who are dyeing.  But 2 Thes 1.8 as you pointed out requires you to be a obedient Christian.

    • So, I never elevated myself to any level either.  I just read the text, it's the scripture that's telling you a "good" person not going to heaven

    "So there were zombies too. The Bible has many contradictions so it is very hard to take the Bible at its word. We also should be able to see God interacting with particles in the universe."

    • You accuse me of fallacies, nothing like a good ad hominem to get your point across.
    • No, there were no zombies
    • Know as for your claim of Bible contradictions, if you will seriously give me some genuine contradictions. That YOU have found and are confusing to you. I will deconflict the contradictions. If your just going to go out to someone else's website and cut and paste. I don't have the time, I've spent all day dealing with insincere people who think their cute and that their going to stump the Bible guy with some atheist propaganda.  That's not what debate is about and I don't believe it to be honorable.
    • Your cited verse dealing with Genesis, the only contradiction that you are making is with your belief.
    • A contradiction is: a combination of statements, ideas, or features of a situation that are opposed to one another.
    • The verse you sited are not in contradiction with one another, the bible does not claim or state the idea of evolution
    • You have injected evolution into your understanding and therefore the bible is in conflict with your ideals.
    • That does not constitute a contradiction within the text of the bible
    • Now if you want to claim my argument has come contradiction point them out, but what you have stated is not statements that are opposed to one another.

    "No. Many more assumptions and you just straw maned pascal's wager.It was made so that even without evidence, someone should still believe in God."

    • Show me where the strawman is? You can't just can't claime something, what part of my arguement is a strawman?
    • How is my last statement false? or you say "No"
    • This debate is about believe in God, correct? 
    • I stated "There's only one assumption in Pascal's theory, does God exist or not...heaven and hell are consequential based upon the belief in God." What is false?
    • You can only draw one of two choices from Pascal Equation -  God exists (G)     or      God does not exist (¬G)
    • Again, we can't prove there is a spirtual dimetion in our current dimention, correct?  You beleive in mulit-dimentional theory, don't you?
    • Check this out...http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/crux/2014/12/04/multidimensional-universe/#.Wrb-LWbMxo4  
    • Scientific Artilcle right? Talks about a multi-demtional univers, says think of a ballon inflating (3D), but you only see a 2D visual, like a drawing on a piece of paper. Right before it starts to talk about a warp drive (how cool) is say...
    • We don’t see or feel more dimensions; neverthelesstheoretical physics predicts that they should exist.                                                  Interesting, but are there any practical implications? Can they become part of applied physics?
    • Wow, what does that theory sound like? What kind of people have faith now? Could this be an explanation of a Spriitual Dimention?
    • So, having shown that there is the possiblity of multi-demtions
    • Again, only one varible to decide: Does God exists, by answering this one varible, should logically drive your future outcome. How so? If you believe in God the you will realize what his requirements are for gaining the gift of eternal life (heaven) 2 Thes 1.8 as we discussed. A true believe will follow the word of God, believe in His son Jesus and live an obedient life. If there is no God, then you lived a happy Christian life 
    • You don't debeilve then your faight is sealed again, if there is a God, your going to Hell, if there is not you're good to go
    • You never answered my question on how you deamed No God but believe in God was waist of time? This personal value that we are talking about? If so, would not a good life be determined by what make the individual happy and fullfiled?  It's not money, plenty of rich people have lived a miserable life. What else constitues a good life?  I beleive it to be personal value.  Some people like baseball others like football.  Who am I to say which one is most valuable for the other two people?  Would that not be a dictatorship? Those really drive high moral... (a little sarcasim) If that is true, how do you detemine these statement to be true?
    • Disbelieve in God = Infinite gain in heaven + You have made the world a better place & No God + Believe in God = You've wasted your time believing
    • The first equation does not meet the requirement of 1 Thes 1.8, so, that a false arugement 
    • The second begs the question of who made you the dictator? Another false arguement 

    You said at the beginning of your response "Very funny. We are talking about Pascal's wager. It is this."

    • I used the same equation you did, I just explained it from another perspective, go back to my original post.

    I have answered all of your claims, assursion, presumptions and arugements, will you please answer mine or present a counter argument?

     




    @Pogue
    PogueEmeryPearson
  • In your first post you said:

    "We can prove that something exists by it interacting with our universe. If there is no evidence that it interacts with it, it does not "exist". Where we colloquially define existence as retaining some form of manifestation whereby the said object can interact with particles in our universe."
    • I believe I answered this in my last post with the question of multi-dimensional theory 
    You still make the assumption that those will get you into heaven. So:
    • I assume you are referring to the second part of your proposition. I answered those conjectures in my second post, of which you asked more questions and I've already responded to them. 
    "For the last part, good is subjective. My philosophy might not make someone happy. However, wasting your time on something that does not exist is a waste of time no matter what."
    • Yes, Good is subjective...what is good for you...may not be good for me. Correct?
    • I got what you were saying the first time in your proposition; I am asking since when in a debate forum does pressing worldview as fact a valid argument?
    • So if we are to argue your worldview as being fact...there's no sense in debating...you're always right  (or am I missing interpreting something/)


    @Pogue
    PogueEmeryPearson
  • Pogue said:
    Pogue said:
    @Pogue ;

    Is a parent rewarding a child for doing good equal to punishing the child for not going out of his ways to do good?

    Is God rewarding those who believe in him equal to punishing those who do not?

    You also need to remove the infinite gain in heaven for good people who do not believe in God, unfortunately. And you can't be a bad person and believe in God.

    In short, the arguments are based off of a flawed understanding of Christianity. But I guess Pascal's wager applies to all religions...
    @Pogue
    Basically, Pascal's wager is a free lottery ticket. The lottery may not exist, and you might get a bad ticket, but you might get something.

    If the lottery ticket is invalid, then you lose nothing.
    You lose time. You waste valuable time. No, you do not remove it. This debate is not about the non-evidenced Christianity, but about believing in God. You make multiple assumptions about this God and Pascal's wage could and does advocate for immoral acts.  
    You keep making the presumption the God is evil, you may want to actually read the bible and seek to understand what it is actually teaching.  The fallacy of Ignorance - you keep referring to the old testament examples and imply that God had done evil. You're listening to other atheist arguments that are flawed. Old Testament is no longer, we don't live under the old testament, it is there for us to gain an understanding of God's character/nature.  If a person professes to be a Christian, they live under the New Testament Law.  Read the book of Hebrews to gain an understanding.

    A fallacy of false cause: How do preclude that living a Christian life is a loss of time or waste of valuable time. What type of life worth do you consider living that would not be a waste of time?  I'll assume that you would advocate living a good life and one that makes you happy as an individual.  If a person what lead a Christian life and it is good and makes him/her happy.  How can that be wrong?
    No, I do not. I was saying that it (Pascal's wager) can and does advocate for horrific things. This is just like the God in the Old Testament. If God did it, then he has done evil. Even if it was in the Old Testament. They are not flawed. You have provided no argument to say they are flawed. Yes. God's true character is malicious. The New Testament was Jesus trying to make the prophecies of the Old Testament come true. So they are related and Christians follow both (former Christian). Why would I read a book that says there were zombies, a global flood 4k-years-ago, and the Earth being 6,000-years-old. 

    It is a waste of time because it is not truthful and therefore does nothing to advance society. Religion has actually kept us scientifically backward for centuries. What I think is not a waste of time is something that is truthful and overall helps humanity. Happiness is important but that is below what I previously mentioned. Since the rest was just your assumption of my position and a straw man of my argument, I have no need to respond to it. 

    If God did it, then he has done evil." How did you come to this conclusion?
    What are you basing this upon, give me a scriptural reference? You need to support your claims, it's starting to be like blowing your nose with wet toilet paper. By the way, Rational Wiki is not something I would call a source document. Academics 101- Wiki anything, not the best source, not always substantiated. Also, I read Rational Wiki and I would say 90-95% of the claims were not supported by external references...in other words...Is 90-95% opinion, there are 18 pages of information and only 9 sources sited and I think 2 of them might be internal arguments to paper.  Not a good foundation to support a debate with. You did state this is an open debate, not an opinion forum.

    The New Testament was Jesus trying to make the prophecies of the Old Testament come true. You have not done your homework, nor do you understand the dating of the Bible.  The last book of the Old Testament was written 400 years before Christ.  But you weren't there to see it, just like you were not at Pearl Harbor....How do you know it happened?  You weren't at the Lunar landing, how do you know that it happened? Is Elvis dead? 

    Classic "Why would I read a book that says there were zombies, a global flood 4k-years-ago, and the Earth being 6,000-years-old."
    • You are here arguing the contents of the Bible false, God is evil, and Christ was a zombie 
    • How can you defend your position when you don't know what you're talking about, I guess it's the old I heard it from a guy, who heard it from another guy, whose sister was there. (apologies for the what comes across as sarcasm, I'm just using some hyperbole to drive home the point.
    It is a waste of time because it is not truthful and therefore does nothing to advance society - Not true, complete conjecture. There are many believers who are scientists, doctors, lawyers, Presidents, Military Leaders and so on.

    Religion has actually kept us scientifically backward for centuries - Not true, don't know your history.  Some evil Popes and the Catholic church did, who in my book are false teachers

    Since the rest was just your assumption of my position and a straw man of my argument, I have no need to respond to it. - That's what throwing in the towel?


    PogueEmeryPearson
  • PoguePogue 507 Pts
    "So, even if you are a good person, you will get an "infinite loss". In the Bible, "in a blazing fire.He will inflict vengeance on those who do not knowGod and do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus." http://biblehub.com/2_thessalonians/1-8.htm. I never evaluated myself to that level."

    That is correct, you quoted 2 Thes 1.8, read it again and there are 2 disqualifies for heaven.

    • those who do not know God and 
    • those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus

    See that bold 3 letter word, that's a conjunction mean I have to do 2 things to receive the reward of heaven, Know God, and obey the gospel.  Just because you consider yourself a moral person does not mean you'll get in heaven.  You have to be a faithful Christian.  You may never break a gov't laws, you might be the best person at saving people who are dyeing.  But 2 Thes 1.8 as you pointed out requires you to be a obedient Christian.

    • So, I never elevated myself to any level either.  I just read the text, it's the scripture that's telling you a "good" person not going to heaven

    "So there were zombies too. The Bible has many contradictions so it is very hard to take the Bible at its word. We also should be able to see God interacting with particles in the universe."

    • You accuse me of fallacies, nothing like a good ad hominem to get your point across.
    • No, there were no zombies
    • Know as for your claim of Bible contradictions, if you will seriously give me some genuine contradictions. That YOU have found and are confusing to you. I will deconflict the contradictions. If your just going to go out to someone else's website and cut and paste. I don't have the time, I've spent all day dealing with insincere people who think their cute and that their going to stump the Bible guy with some atheist propaganda.  That's not what debate is about and I don't believe it to be honorable.
    • Your cited verse dealing with Genesis, the only contradiction that you are making is with your belief.
    • A contradiction is: a combination of statements, ideas, or features of a situation that are opposed to one another.
    • The verse you sited are not in contradiction with one another, the bible does not claim or state the idea of evolution
    • You have injected evolution into your understanding and therefore the bible is in conflict with your ideals.
    • That does not constitute a contradiction within the text of the bible
    • Now if you want to claim my argument has come contradiction point them out, but what you have stated is not statements that are opposed to one another.

    "No. Many more assumptions and you just straw maned pascal's wager.It was made so that even without evidence, someone should still believe in God."

    • Show me where the strawman is? You can't just can't claime something, what part of my arguement is a strawman?
    • How is my last statement false? or you say "No"
    • This debate is about believe in God, correct? 
    • I stated "There's only one assumption in Pascal's theory, does God exist or not...heaven and hell are consequential based upon the belief in God." What is false?
    • You can only draw one of two choices from Pascal Equation -  God exists (G)     or      God does not exist (¬G)
    • Again, we can't prove there is a spirtual dimetion in our current dimention, correct?  You beleive in mulit-dimentional theory, don't you?
    • Check this out...http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/crux/2014/12/04/multidimensional-universe/#.Wrb-LWbMxo4  
    • Scientific Artilcle right? Talks about a multi-demtional univers, says think of a ballon inflating (3D), but you only see a 2D visual, like a drawing on a piece of paper. Right before it starts to talk about a warp drive (how cool) is say...
    • We don’t see or feel more dimensions; neverthelesstheoretical physics predicts that they should exist.                                                  Interesting, but are there any practical implications? Can they become part of applied physics?
    • Wow, what does that theory sound like? What kind of people have faith now? Could this be an explanation of a Spriitual Dimention?
    • So, having shown that there is the possiblity of multi-demtions
    • Again, only one varible to decide: Does God exists, by answering this one varible, should logically drive your future outcome. How so? If you believe in God the you will realize what his requirements are for gaining the gift of eternal life (heaven) 2 Thes 1.8 as we discussed. A true believe will follow the word of God, believe in His son Jesus and live an obedient life. If there is no God, then you lived a happy Christian life 
    • You don't debeilve then your faight is sealed again, if there is a God, your going to Hell, if there is not you're good to go
    • You never answered my question on how you deamed No God but believe in God was waist of time? This personal value that we are talking about? If so, would not a good life be determined by what make the individual happy and fullfiled?  It's not money, plenty of rich people have lived a miserable life. What else constitues a good life?  I beleive it to be personal value.  Some people like baseball others like football.  Who am I to say which one is most valuable for the other two people?  Would that not be a dictatorship? Those really drive high moral... (a little sarcasim) If that is true, how do you detemine these statement to be true?
    • Disbelieve in God = Infinite gain in heaven + You have made the world a better place & No God + Believe in God = You've wasted your time believing
    • The first equation does not meet the requirement of 1 Thes 1.8, so, that a false arugement 
    • The second begs the question of who made you the dictator? Another false arguement 

    You said at the beginning of your response "Very funny. We are talking about Pascal's wager. It is this."

    • I used the same equation you did, I just explained it from another perspective, go back to my original post.

    I have answered all of your claims, assursion, presumptions and arugements, will you please answer mine or present a counter argument?

     




    @Pogue

    Ok. You countered your own point. Pascal's wager assumes that this will happen. So it is an assumption. We are not arguing about your fake Christian god. You take my quote out of context too. I responded that way to your argument of "Based on your argument of "if they are omniscient" how do you conclude God would punish good people.  This is an illogical argument if an entity is all knowing, how can you determine something different from what an "omniscient deity" has concluded?  All through history god did not punish people for being good.  Especially God in the Bible.  This line of thinking is what is meant by blasphemy.  Blasphemy can also be defined as when you elevate yourself to the same level or above the authority of a deity." Your holy book countered you. 


    Yes. Jesus was a zombie. A zombie is "a corpse said to be revived by witchcraft, especially in certain African and Caribbean religions." He came back from the dead because of the Holy Spirit or something. 

    There were also zombies during his crucifixion. "Mattew 27: 52 and the graves were opened, and many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised; 53 and coming out of the graves after His resurrection, they went into the holy city and appeared to many. 

    You ignore those quotes. You do know there are multiple definitions right.  The statement of a position opposite to one already made.

    "the second sentence appears to be in flat contradiction of the first". It said there was light before the sun. So again, 

    GE 1:3-5 On the first day, God created light, then separated light and darkness. GE 1:14-19 The sun (which separates night and day) wasn't created until the fourth day.

    GE 1:11-1226-27 Trees were created before man was created. GE 2:4-9 Man was created before trees were created.

    GE 1:20-2126-27 Birds were created before man was created. GE 2:719 Man was created before birds were created.

    GE 1:24-27 Animals were created before man was created.  GE 2:719 Man was created before animals were created.

    GE 1:26 Man is to have dominion over fish, birds, cattle, and all wild animals, GE 2:15-17 It is wrong to be able to tell good from evil, right from wrong.

    More https://infidels.org/library/modern/donald_morgan/contradictions.html         

    These all contradict. The first counters the second. You straw manned the wager because it argues that a person should believe in God even without evidence. You said, "does God exist or not". That is not his argument and is, therefore, a straw man.        

    No, this debate is about if the wager is enough. The burden of proof is on you and you tried to switch it. So another fallacy. Does the article have evidence of that? We live in 4 dimensions so there are multiple dimensions. Unless you are talking about pocket dimensions. You provided nothing to counter this. A physicist explained this to me. We can prove that something exists by it interacting with our universe. If there is no evidence that it interacts with it, it does not "exist". Where we colloquially define existence as retaining some form of manifestation whereby the said object can interact with particles in our universe. 

    The definition of waste I am using. Use or expend carelessly, extravagantly, or to no purpose. There is no purpose in believing in God if he does not exist. Why do you assume it is only the God of the bible. 

    I could either have the future pass me or l could create it. 

    “We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain stupid.” - Benjamin Franklin  So flat Earthers, man-made climate change deniers, and just science deniers.

    I friended myself! 
  • PoguePogue 507 Pts
    Can I just say something? Not trying to be rude but can you organize your arguments in a different way? It gets a little confusing with the bullets. 
    In your first post you said:

    "We can prove that something exists by it interacting with our universe. If there is no evidence that it interacts with it, it does not "exist". Where we colloquially define existence as retaining some form of manifestation whereby the said object can interact with particles in our universe."
    • I believe I answered this in my last post with the question of multi-dimensional theory 
    You still make the assumption that those will get you into heaven. So:
    • I assume you are referring to the second part of your proposition. I answered those conjectures in my second post, of which you asked more questions and I've already responded to them. 
    "For the last part, good is subjective. My philosophy might not make someone happy. However, wasting your time on something that does not exist is a waste of time no matter what."
    • Yes, Good is subjective...what is good for you...may not be good for me. Correct?
    • I got what you were saying the first time in your proposition; I am asking since when in a debate forum does pressing worldview as fact a valid argument?
    • So if we are to argue your worldview as being fact...there's no sense in debating...you're always right  (or am I missing interpreting something/)


    @Pogue
    Saying you answered something is not the same as doing it. I countered it because I answered everything directly. I responded to those arguments. I am not pressing my worldview as a fact. So that is a straw man of my argument. 
    I could either have the future pass me or l could create it. 

    “We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain stupid.” - Benjamin Franklin  So flat Earthers, man-made climate change deniers, and just science deniers.

    I friended myself! 
  • Sometimes I wonder if God is there arguing with himself through us.
    Be tomorrow's hero, not today's idol.
  • PoguePogue 507 Pts
    Pogue said:
    Pogue said:
    @Pogue ;

    Is a parent rewarding a child for doing good equal to punishing the child for not going out of his ways to do good?

    Is God rewarding those who believe in him equal to punishing those who do not?

    You also need to remove the infinite gain in heaven for good people who do not believe in God, unfortunately. And you can't be a bad person and believe in God.

    In short, the arguments are based off of a flawed understanding of Christianity. But I guess Pascal's wager applies to all religions...
    @Pogue
    Basically, Pascal's wager is a free lottery ticket. The lottery may not exist, and you might get a bad ticket, but you might get something.

    If the lottery ticket is invalid, then you lose nothing.
    You lose time. You waste valuable time. No, you do not remove it. This debate is not about the non-evidenced Christianity, but about believing in God. You make multiple assumptions about this God and Pascal's wage could and does advocate for immoral acts.  
    You keep making the presumption the God is evil, you may want to actually read the bible and seek to understand what it is actually teaching.  The fallacy of Ignorance - you keep referring to the old testament examples and imply that God had done evil. You're listening to other atheist arguments that are flawed. Old Testament is no longer, we don't live under the old testament, it is there for us to gain an understanding of God's character/nature.  If a person professes to be a Christian, they live under the New Testament Law.  Read the book of Hebrews to gain an understanding.

    A fallacy of false cause: How do preclude that living a Christian life is a loss of time or waste of valuable time. What type of life worth do you consider living that would not be a waste of time?  I'll assume that you would advocate living a good life and one that makes you happy as an individual.  If a person what lead a Christian life and it is good and makes him/her happy.  How can that be wrong?
    No, I do not. I was saying that it (Pascal's wager) can and does advocate for horrific things. This is just like the God in the Old Testament. If God did it, then he has done evil. Even if it was in the Old Testament. They are not flawed. You have provided no argument to say they are flawed. Yes. God's true character is malicious. The New Testament was Jesus trying to make the prophecies of the Old Testament come true. So they are related and Christians follow both (former Christian). Why would I read a book that says there were zombies, a global flood 4k-years-ago, and the Earth being 6,000-years-old. 

    It is a waste of time because it is not truthful and therefore does nothing to advance society. Religion has actually kept us scientifically backward for centuries. What I think is not a waste of time is something that is truthful and overall helps humanity. Happiness is important but that is below what I previously mentioned. Since the rest was just your assumption of my position and a straw man of my argument, I have no need to respond to it. 

    If God did it, then he has done evil." How did you come to this conclusion?
    What are you basing this upon, give me a scriptural reference? You need to support your claims, it's starting to be like blowing your nose with wet toilet paper. By the way, Rational Wiki is not something I would call a source document. Academics 101- Wiki anything, not the best source, not always substantiated. Also, I read Rational Wiki and I would say 90-95% of the claims were not supported by external references...in other words...Is 90-95% opinion, there are 18 pages of information and only 9 sources sited and I think 2 of them might be internal arguments to paper.  Not a good foundation to support a debate with. You did state this is an open debate, not an opinion forum.

    The New Testament was Jesus trying to make the prophecies of the Old Testament come true. You have not done your homework, nor do you understand the dating of the Bible.  The last book of the Old Testament was written 400 years before Christ.  But you weren't there to see it, just like you were not at Pearl Harbor....How do you know it happened?  You weren't at the Lunar landing, how do you know that it happened? Is Elvis dead? 

    Classic "Why would I read a book that says there were zombies, a global flood 4k-years-ago, and the Earth being 6,000-years-old."
    • You are here arguing the contents of the Bible false, God is evil, and Christ was a zombie 
    • How can you defend your position when you don't know what you're talking about, I guess it's the old I heard it from a guy, who heard it from another guy, whose sister was there. (apologies for the what comes across as sarcasm, I'm just using some hyperbole to drive home the point.
    It is a waste of time because it is not truthful and therefore does nothing to advance society - Not true, complete conjecture. There are many believers who are scientists, doctors, lawyers, Presidents, Military Leaders and so on.

    Religion has actually kept us scientifically backward for centuries - Not true, don't know your history.  Some evil Popes and the Catholic church did, who in my book are false teachers

    Since the rest was just your assumption of my position and a straw man of my argument, I have no need to respond to it. - That's what throwing in the towel?


    Before I get into anything, I would like to say you do not actually counter my arguments about the wager, which is what this debate is about. 

    What? Rational wiki is irrelevant. That is what the wager can entail. So using your logic, I can not write a 20-page essay based on 10 sources otherwise it would be invalid. 

    The evidence from the scripture. 
    "I make peace, and create evil" https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Isaiah+45:7&version=KJV

    "
    1. The Old Testament God is Evil
      1. God Creates Evil Regardless of Human Free Will
      2. Satan and God are Interchangeable
      3. Fear God
      4. Adam and Eve and Original Sin: The Immoral Schemes of God
      5. Violence and Murder Endorsed in the Old Testament
      6. The New Testament Tells us that the Old Testament God is Evil
    2. The New Testament God is Also Evil: More Genocides and Divine Incitements of Murder
    3. God Destroys Families
      1. Rebellious and Stubborn Sons
      2. Jesus and the New Testament
    4. Jesus and the Crucifixion - A Trick
    5. No Free Will in the New Testament
    6. Sowing Seeds of Confusion - Not the Antics of a Good God
    7. The Problem of Evil
    8. Linkshttp://www.vexen.co.uk/religion/christianity_evilgod.html
    Me. I am a former Christian and I went to Church today (because my family does not know I am truly an atheist). They said that he wanted to fulfill the prophecies of the Old Testament.

    That is not throwing in the towel because that is not my argument and why respond to it. 

    No, I do know what I am talking about. The Bible has too many contradicts just within Genesis and has false information. I did not say the people did not advance society. Straw man again (you like this one). I said that lies and untruthfulness do not advance society. 
    I could either have the future pass me or l could create it. 

    “We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain stupid.” - Benjamin Franklin  So flat Earthers, man-made climate change deniers, and just science deniers.

    I friended myself! 
  • Pascal's wager would be a good wager indeed if you are gambling in a reality where the Christian God is at least 50% likely to be the actual God in my opinion. Since the Christian God itself has so many strange contradictions in the Bible about its ethics and system of punishment+reward and since there are such a huge proportion of proposed God(s) that are alternatives to the Christian God, then this wager begins to make you gamble very suboptimally indeed.
    @someone234
    You are mixing probability with possibility. 
    "'Possibility' means something may happen, but we don't know how likely. 'Probability' means something may happen, but we believe it is more likely (i.e., more 'probable') than not."
    https://www.italki.com/question/94391
    It is possible that I will trip and fall into a volcano, but is the probabilty 50%(either I fall in a volcano or I don't) that I would fall into a volcano? 
    someone234
    i fart cows
  • @BaconToes Pascal's wager confuses the two. I do not.
    Be tomorrow's hero, not today's idol.
  • @BaconToes I am an extremely good poker player, just so you know. I understand probability very, very well.
    BaconToes
    Be tomorrow's hero, not today's idol.
  • Pascal's wager is a textbook logical fallacy.

    There is an near infinite number of behaviours in which could be rewarded by an infinite number of deities. 

    You have to assume you're already correct in order for it to make any sense.


    Pogue
  • PoguePogue 507 Pts
    Pascal's wager is a textbook logical fallacy.

    There is an near infinite number of behaviours in which could be rewarded by an infinite number of deities. 

    You have to assume you're already correct in order for it to make any sense.


    It also makes the assumption that you can trick this god. If they are omnipotent, this is impossible. 
    someone234
    I could either have the future pass me or l could create it. 

    “We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain stupid.” - Benjamin Franklin  So flat Earthers, man-made climate change deniers, and just science deniers.

    I friended myself! 
  • @someone234
    I agree
    i fart cows
  • @BaconToes u smell
    someone234PogueEmeryPearsonBaconToes
  • @Pogue
    anonymousdebater  said: @Pogue

    If you are certain that God does not exist, then fine. Pascal's wager is most applicable to agnostics.

    I am only thinking about the Christian God when I say this, but only belief in the Christian God can get you into heaven, not good works. Good works are an inevitable consequence of true @Pogue ;

    Pascal's wager basically says: "Are you sure? If not, rethink it." If you are sure, then okay, I guess. That's all that Pascal's Wager should be used to conclude.
    Starting with fear will start your belief, but is not the goal.
    I believe your position can be supported by scriptural argument/inference...Just bear with me.

    "Starting with fear will start your belief, but is not the fear described by Pogue

    Matthew10:28  "Do not fear those who kill the body but are unable to kill the soul, but rather fear Him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell

    It is true that many begin to listen to the Gospel message because they fear the thought of going to hell, but this is only the beginning of the journey, as we hear more about God and how He sent His Son to be the sacrifice for all of man's sins who call on His name. One's fear transition into a love for God and his Son.  When love enters the heart, this is what the bible is all about.

    In the Old Testament from the ten commandments sprang 613 laws.  In the book of Mathew, we find the Pharisees asking Christ, "Teacher, which is the great commandment in the Law?"  And He said to him, " 'WITH ALL YOUR HEART, AND WITH ALL YOUR SOUL, AND WITH ALL YOUR MIND.'  "This is the great and foremost commandment.  "The second is like it, 'YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF.'  "On these two commandments depend the whole Law and the Prophets." (Mat 22:36-40)

    So, fear can bring about love, and love brings about obedience unto God, but not out of fear, only in Love

    "I am only thinking about the Christian God when I say this, but only believes in the Christian God can get you into heaven, not good works. Good works are an inevitable consequence of true"
    • Can I safely assume you're referring to Eph 2.8-10
    • Salvation has more than believing as a requirement 
    • Before one can believe he/she must hear the word of God, for hear produces faith...Rom 10:17: "So faith comes from hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ
    • Faith brings about belief: 2Co 4:13: Since we have the same spirit of faith according to what has been written, "I believed, and so I spoke," we also believe, and so we also speak,
    • Then we must confess Christ is the son of God: Rom 10:9  because, if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.
    • Then we repent of our sins:  Act 2:38  And Peter said to them, "Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.
    • Mar 16:16  Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned 
    • Rom 6:3-4:  Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life. (Newness of live=Forgiven of sins)
    • Joh 3:16-18  "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.  For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him.  Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God
    • Rom 10:13  For "WHOEVER CALLS ON THE NAME OFTHE LORD SHALL BE SAVED."
    • Act 22:16  And now why are you waiting? Arise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on the name of the Lord 
    • There is therefore now no condemnation to those who are in Christ Jesus, who do not walk according to the flesh, but according to the Spirit.
    • Gal 3:27  For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ 
    • Rom 6:4  Therefore we were buried with Him through baptism into death, that just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so, we also should walk in newness of life.

       


    EmeryPearson
  • DeeDee 91 Pts
    edited March 29
    No , it’s utterly hopeless it’s based on the false dichotomy fallacy as in which god ?

    Secondly if we factor in the existence of several gods we must take into account punishments meted out for following the wrong god , we now have several options all promising something unless you’re an atheist , so it’s reward or punishment depending on which if any god you follow 

    So steps one and two are destroyed as it’s no longer a heads or tails call as in one god as it’s multiple choices 

    1: A god or many gods may exist 

    2: Thousands of gods are put forward as existing by peoples all over the world so which god , atheists have a significantly higher probability of being right 

    3: As a believer you can only defend one position 

    4:You must wager 

    5:If you wager on one god well you possibly face punishment from the other couple of thousand gods 

    6:You’re better off sticking with Atheism 



    Theists use this pathetic argument ad nauseum it’s embarrassing and totally illogical and theists using it really ought to get a new argument maybe ?

  • @Dee I'm a theist who doesn't understand Pascal's wager.
    Be tomorrow's hero, not today's idol.
  • DeeDee 91 Pts
    @someone234

    As in you agree it’s illogical ?
  • @Dee yes because it is.

    Why should you believe in God if this God is too cruel to confirm itself to you?

    God has shown herself to me. That means I am a theist.
    EmeryPearson
    Be tomorrow's hero, not today's idol.
Sign In or Register to comment.

Back To Top

DebateIsland.com

| The Best Online Debate Experience!
2018 DebateIsland.com, All rights reserved. DebateIsland.com | The Best Online Debate Experience! Debate topics you care about in a friendly and fun way. Come try us out now. We are totally free!

Contact us

customerservice@debateisland.com
Awesome Debates
BestDealWins.com
Terms of Service

Get In Touch