Feeling

Originally posted by Doward
1."God is, or He is not"

Have you played the same game with the greek gods, Islaam and other religions? What about playing it with the spaghetti monster?
Did you always bet on the god? How many religions are you now a member of?

Originally posted by RJHinds
For we know in part, and we prophesy in part; but when the perfect comes,
the partial will be done away. When I was a child, I used to speak as a
child, think as a child, reason as a child; when I became a man, I did away
with childish things. For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to
face; now I know in part, but then I shall know fully just as I also have
been fully known. (1 Corinthians 13:9-12 NASB)

That's not a very clear answer to the question. Are you saying that you know your beliefs are the truth because it says so in the bible?

Originally posted by Doward
1."God is, or He is not"

2. A Game is being played... where heads or tails will turn up.

3. According to reason, you can defend neither of the propositions.

4. You must wager. It is not optional.

5. Let us weigh the gain and the loss in wagering that God is. Let us estimate these two chances. If you gain, you gain all; if you lose, you lose no ...[text shortened]... to stake in a game where there are equal risks of gain and of loss, and the infinite to gain.

Pascal's Wager is often oversimplified. The way to "bet" in favor of a god or God existing is to live a moral life. It is not to concentrate on changing your belief about a particular god's existing, which is well, just silly, and Pascal was not stupid.

Originally posted by JS357
Pascal's Wager is often oversimplified. The way to "bet" in favor of a god or God existing is to live a moral life. It is not to concentrate on changing your belief about a particular god's existing, which is well, just silly, and Pascal was not stupid.

But the wager itself is fundamentally flawed. What if we make the wager that Satan (or someone like him) rules the universe and the best reward is to be obtained by living an immoral life?
Pascal was a typical Christian trying to justify his illogical beliefs. But no, it doesn't mean he was stupid, just deluded.

Originally posted by twhitehead
But the wager itself is fundamentally flawed. What if we make the wager that Satan (or someone like him) rules the universe and the best reward is to be obtained by living an immoral life?
Pascal was a typical Christian trying to justify his illogical beliefs. But no, it doesn't mean he was stupid, just deluded.

I agree that as a supposedly rational argument for belief, PW is flawed. It only appeals to those already convinced.

Originally posted by twhitehead
But the wager itself is fundamentally flawed. What if we make the wager that Satan (or someone like him) rules the universe and the best reward is to be obtained by living an immoral life?
Pascal was a typical Christian trying to justify his illogical beliefs. But no, it doesn't mean he was stupid, just deluded.

To me it says that there is something greater in living a moral,good life than just betting on any old thing. Something unseen which only the individual observer can appreciate.

Originally posted by JS357
Pascal's Wager is often oversimplified. The way to "bet" in favor of a god or God existing is to live a moral life. It is not to concentrate on changing your belief about a particular god's existing, which is well, just silly, and Pascal was not stupid.

Yes but Pacal theorized that living like there was a God would lead to an eventual belief in such.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Have you played the same game with the greek gods, Islaam and other religions? What about playing it with the spaghetti monster?
Did you always bet on the god? How many religions are you now a member of?

There is one God, many avatars, so yes it works in every instance

Originally posted by twhitehead
What gave you the incorrect idea that I am angry?

I think an informal straw poll of forum contributors would agree that there is an angry edge about you

Originally posted by Doward
Yes but Pacal theorized that living like there was a God would lead to an eventual belief in such.

I'll grant that he believed living as though God exists could increase the probability that the person would come to believe God exists. My point was that sometimes people on one or both sides of the argument interpret it too simplistically.

Originally posted by twhitehead
But the wager itself is fundamentally flawed. What if we make the wager that Satan (or someone like him) rules the universe and the best reward is to be obtained by living an immoral life?
Pascal was a typical Christian trying to justify his illogical beliefs. But no, it doesn't mean he was stupid, just deluded.

your argument here is fundamentally flawed. Satan is a created being, God is the creator. The definition of God used by Pascal is as follows:

If there is a god, He is infinitely incomprehensible, since, having neither parts nor limits, He has no affinity to us. We are then incapable of knowing either what He is or if He is....

so you see Pascal has already seen far past your feeble attempts.

Originally posted by JS357
I'll grant that he believed living as though God exists could increase the probability that the person would come to believe God exists. My point was that sometimes people on one or both sides of the argument interpret it too simplistically.

that may be true, Pascal says that we can know nothing with 100% certainty

Originally posted by Doward
I think an informal straw poll of forum contributors would agree that there is an angry edge about you

He's the angry dad that comes along and says "no,no kids, your talking tosh" 🙂
(just a little joke at your expense twitey-your shot)

Originally posted by JS357
Pascal's Wager is often oversimplified. The way to "bet" in favor of a god or God existing is to live a moral life. It is not to concentrate on changing your belief about a particular god's existing, which is well, just silly, and Pascal was not stupid.

Pascal's wager is based on the assumption that believing in God carries with it an infinite benefit to the individual. Theistic belief may result in moral behavior, but it is the belief itself which procures the reward.

Originally posted by RJHinds
Please, spare me all these idiotic comments. Can't anyone on the side
of the atheist carry on an intelligent conversation?

It's a hopeless case. Bill Maher tries mightily, but even he can't make the atheist case with any intelligence.