Pascal's wager (Should we believe in God- or god?)

[Upforit]

Simply put, Pascals's wager suggests that belief in god (God) is logical. If we believe, and god exists, we attain eternal paradise. If we do not believe in god, and he exists, we attain eternal damnation. If we believe in god and he doesn't exist, we lose nothing (except, perhaps our humanity. And, maybe, a little fun along life's dreary path!). But there is one flaw in his argument. In which god (or God) should we believe? Discuss.

[RATTER15]

This such a boring subject that has been covered so many times!! Move on!!

[jno]

it's not boring, and it has been discussed fewer times than the Marlboro competition. But I think Pascal had in mind only the Christian god, because he's the only one who demands to be believed in. Jupiter couldn't care less.

[dundana66]

belief in invisible sky fairies (of any creed or denomination)is illogical.there is something wrong with people who need invisible friends to get them through life.If i'm wrong and god exists then a creature who eternally dams people is not worthy of my respect anyway.To hell with all gods

[Clanad]

Unfortunately, dundana66 makes the common error of accusing Adonai of actively condeming people to hell. Scripture is quite clear that, just as in life here on Earth, God gives absolutely free will and if one chooses not have a relationship with Him, that desire is honored, however painful it is to Him. The wish to have no God is ones free will choice which the God of creation will not countermand, now or for eternity. Additonally, to state that there is no God is to claim omniscience, a characterisitic of an eternal God, in essence making the one who so states God. Uh... I highly doubt you are such... in my opinion...

[Upforit]

Well, RATTER15, may I apologise for being boring? I had a few drinks when I posed this question, and didn't think to check for previous posts. You might, however, have been a little more polite. It is so easy to be aggressive with the anonymity of the web. We should always consider, before sending messages to anybody in any format on the web, �would I say this in person?� If so, wait until the following morning. If you still feel the same, go ahead.
Thank you, jno for being supportive. Yes, Pascal probably did have in mind the Christian God. But this does not alter the fact that those who have little or no faith are still entitled to ask 'Which God?' Perhaps we should ask why a person who has neither faith nor a wish to have faith would even consider this at all. Those with faith need not consider it because they are certain in their beliefs. Those without faith, nor the need for faith would equally not need to consider it, as they are equally certain that they are correct in their assertion. It is those who are unsure that need to ask the question. But how do we answer them?
I take your point, dundana66. But I also agree with Clanad to a certain extent. If Adonai is omnipotent, then He surely is aware that there are many who will exercise their free will and refuse to accept his existence. So the free will is not really free will. God knows that people will reject Him at the point of creation. He made us that way. Or He is not omnipotent and didn�t know who would believe and who would not. Which means He is not so much of a God as the scriptures would have us believe.

[Upforit]

Yes, tonyted many humanist philosiphers have suggested that man created God, not the other way round. But this still doesn't answer the 'don't knows' who want to hedge their bets under Pascal's wagerwhen they ask 'which God?' To help, I have a christian friend with whom I have discussed the existence of God. We had to agree to disagree. She is adamant that God exists as a sentient, omnipitant being. I agree that there is a more powerful entity controling to a lesser extent all of creation. It may or may not be sentient or omnipitant. i don't know. Her ending response to all of our many discussion was, particularly in view of my refusal to acccept the christian version of God, 'God knows what is in your heart and he will forgive you'. This, I might add so as not to confuse the issue, was a personal response to my belief, and not intended to be a general 'catch-all' for non christians.

[dundana66]

upforit....The freewill issue is always a thorn in the side of bible god believers.The fact is that i CANNOT believe in such stupid,ridiculous and contradictory writings that we call the bible,therefore i cannot believe in the god that it portrays.According to christion theology i am therefore going to hell.WHY???? It is akin to making my son believe that their are little pink fairies hiding under his bed and when he finds out differently putting him in an oven on full blast "as punishment"...ridiculous. And if this god is so "loving" why would it want to punish people forever anyway.it could simply annhiliate them.A quick question to christians who use pascals wager...how would you feel if upon your death you woke up in hell--with an arabic voice berrating you for not following islam when all the evidence you needed was there for you to see?

[Upforit]

dundana66 I didn't start this thread to be a discussion of the existence god, or I would have simply asked �Is there a God?� While God�s existence must be considered, it is meant to argue the veracity of Pascal�s wager. You may as well believe in God as you have nothing to lose. As I said earlier, those who believe do not need to consider this on a personal level, and as you make clear neither do you as a non believer. But that still leaves agnostics, who are unsure to ask �which God?� It still doesn�t answer the question: Yes, I accept the premise of Pascal�s wager. But which God?
I might turn this on its head, to show you dundana66 that I am not promoting belief in God, but discussion as to the truth of Pascal�s wager. Supposing we have a soul (I use the term loosely to mean a non physical aspect of our personality that survives physical death. I don�t want to start a discussion of the soul here!), but it is a natural product of existence and not the creation of a superior being. My argument might be if we do not believe, and our soul survives death, we will not have been tied in our physical life to religious demands, and might live a more enjoyable life. If we believe and our soul survives death, we might wish we had not wasted so much time praying to a non existent entity and had a little more fun along the way. I know this might open up a whole new can of worms, but that is my purpose.
To state my position, I do not believe in an omnipotent god. I do believe in survival of physical death. There may be a sentient being controlling us, but this creator probably has a sense of humour and cannot condemn us to an eternity of hell fire. Either way we all go to the same place, and won�t we laugh when we continue our discussion there! I am a don�t know, but my observations suggest there is no superior being as described by any religion.

[dawkins]

Upforit

A very interesting question. A major problem from the christian point of view is that a person would be professing to believe in god for selfish reasons. I don't think that deciding to believe in god "just in case" would cut much muster with the christian god. Christian scripture makes a big deal about having god within you all oneness and such. I don't think it counts to make an intellectual decision I think one needs to make a spiritual commitment.

True agnostics believe that it is impossible to know if there is a god and that being the case think religion is irrelevant to life. Pascal's wager would not apply to a true agnostic. It is sometimes said that a weak agnostic is someone who is hedging their bets and somebody who is noncommittal or unsure would be the best candidate to take up the wager even though they may not be enthusiastic and would also fall foul of the spiritual test.

I think pretty much the same arguments would apply to any of the monotheistic religions

D

[dawkins]

also, and sorry to come back in so quickly:

Would there be additional commitments tied to this belief that the gambler would have to comply with to ensure a safe passage into heaven? Presumably if he gambled that christianity was the correct religion (based on largest number of adherents) he would also have to live to a strict biblical code in order to safeguard his place. This would entail giving up some pleasures in this life. Would he take this into consideration when making his decision?

D

[Clanad]

A point of disagreement with dawkins (unusual, I know)... The statement that "according to a strict Biblical code..." would only apply if the person decided to be a Jewish convert. A Christian is only required to understand and believe in their heart that Yeshua is the Son of God and as such died (and rose on the third day) in payment for the person's sins making him/her in right standing before Adonai...

[Upforit]

What a very good and intelligent response dawkins! This is the reason I hold the belief that there is no omnipotent god, if god exists at all. And it is quite probable, given my belief in survival after physical death that the forces that control our being are not even sentient. These forces are merely a result of the same creation that made us, and are bound by laws that we still do not and possibly never will understand. It is also why I do not go with the �just in case� reasoning. As stated earlier, a friend and I have had many deep discussions on this subject. And she said, from her point of view �God knows what is in you heart�. To elaborate, in one of our discussions I said I could not �find the spark� that gave her faith and would not become a devotee of any religion merely because it seemed right to do so. Before I would commit myself, I would have to feel that the doctrines of the religion were right, and that I could believe without doubt and without proof, to be touched by the Holy Spirit and know he/she/it existed. This is what faith is all about, and I have not found it. This was what prompted her to say �god knows what is in your heart and he will forgive you�. I really cannot get my head around the Christian all good, all loving, all forgiving god. How could this god condemn us to eternal torture? Even if I genuinely regretted my disbelief at the point of being thrown into the eternal fire, this good god would forgive me?

[dawkins]

Clanad I'll learn more from friendly debate than friendly agreement. ! understand what you are saying Judaism but am I correct in thinking that within christianity:

1. he would truly have to believe in his heart, not just pay lip service to believing?

2. If he did really believe but was still sinful he would have to repent before his death in order to get into heaven?

Or is it just point 1 required because of the new covenant?

D

[Clanad]

I agree as to debate, dawkins... to your query... The New Covenant simply requires, as you state, a sincere, heart-felt belief... In the Book of Revelation, Yeshua says "Here I am! I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in and eat with him, and he with me." Then He clearly states what's required for the "new birth"...Romans 10:9 says, "That if you confess (admit) with your mouth, 'Jesus is Lord,' and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved." That's all... Your reference to confession is a Catholic view and possibly Church of Englan, but I'm not familiar with that branch... Fact is, we all have commited sins that we aren't even aware of when compared to a Holy God... we can't possibly 'measure up' on our own. Thankfully, the gift of salvation is completly free fpr the asking...