Why do you wish to tempt fate by publicly disavowing the existence of God? Even Blaise Pascal reckoned that, however long the odds might be against God's existence, there is an even larger asymmetry for backing the wrong horse. If you believe in God and turn out to be right, there is a goodish chance that you stand to gain eternal bliss; if you are wrong, it would not make a difference whatsoever. On the other hand, if you don't believe in God and turn out to be wrong, you would not be looked too kindly by Him after you have passed on whereas if you are right, it'd make no difference. This is the famous Pascal's Wager and we can easily derive the conclusion from the reasoning of this most logical of mathematicians.
Ah ! Le fameux Pari de Pascal... C'est une façon de voir les choses. En voici une autre : je propose aux dieux, s'ils existent, de parier sur ma propre existence. Même s'ils daignaient accepter une telle insolence de la part d'un simple mortel, ce ne serait pas un pari car l'issue est certaine : cogito ergo sum. Dans ces conditions, pourquoi m'abaisser à perdre mon temps à parier sur l'existence de créatures qui, bien qu'omniscientes & omnipotentes, ne pourraient être confrontées à la grandeur du défi lancé à tous les Êtres humains...
Liz wrote:
greg in noord-frankrijk wrote:
Yep. The last one who rang my bell certainly does remember our brief encounter...
I'm afraid to ask what you've done to him / her...
Pascal's Wager doesn't work, because at least according to some religions (e.g. many conservative forms of Christianity), generally believing in a sort of genetic supreme being is not sufficient — according to the teachings of that religion, one must believe in their God.
It also assumes that one can choose one's beliefs on a whim — i.e. that a person can wake up one morning and 'choose' whether or not to believe in God. This isn't really possibly though, because a person cannot wake up one morning and say sincerely 'today I will be a devout Buddhist', and then wake up the next and say 'today I will have faith in Christianity' etc.
Why do you wish to tempt fate by publicly disavowing the existence of God? Even Blaise Pascal reckoned that, however long the odds might be against God's existence, there is an even larger asymmetry for backing the wrong horse. If you believe in God and turn out to be right, there is a goodish chance that you stand to gain eternal bliss; if you are wrong, it would not make a difference whatsoever. On the other hand, if you don't believe in God and turn out to be wrong, you would not be looked too kindly by Him after you have passed on whereas if you are right, it'd make no difference. This is the famous Pascal's Wager and we can easily derive the conclusion from the reasoning of this most logical of mathematicians.
It's pure speculation and the worst kind of opportunism. If you adhere to these principles, it proves that your faith is not strong and sincere enough. If you truly believe in God, you are not speculating that way. And if you are speculating, and God really exists, then you'll be less welcomed in Heaven than fierce atheists.
I agree with what Benjamin said - you cannot choose your beliefs on a whim. _________________ Az alvástól megéhezem. Az evéstől elálmosodom. Az élet szép.
With respect to Pascal's Wager, I have been quoted off context. I also wrote:
Loic wrote:
Of course, to believe in God is not something which you can do overnight. It is a vocation. God is omniscient and it is foolish to adopt misleading postures towards religion. I accept that at best, Pascal's Wager is an influential argument on why one should feign a public belief in God.
_________________ Hillary Clinton is an acquired taste which I have clearly yet to acquire.
Ha, any theological debate is like the Battle of the Somme. It's because it centers around belief systems, and not something that can be quantified. If two persons believe in the bible, then one can prove his argument correct over the other other, but if the two participants don't share a full belief in the bible, then using the bible proves pointless. How can a Hindu prove a Christian wrong, and vice versa? That's why it's all vanity. _________________ Operation Northwoods - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods
Favorite languages = English/Spanish
Followed by Italian/French/Dutch
With respect to Pascal's Wager, I have been quoted off context. I also wrote:
Loic wrote:
Of course, to believe in God is not something which you can do overnight. It is a vocation. God is omniscient and it is foolish to adopt misleading postures towards religion. I accept that at best, Pascal's Wager is an influential argument on why one should feign a public belief in God.
Well if God is omniscient wouldn't "He" know that you were feigning belief in the first place? Are you suggesting God doesn't have enough integrity to care about your sincerity? Or do you think "He", in his omniscience, is duped by public posturing?
I agree that Liz and Benjamin have a point here, even in light of your contextualizing of your previous post.
I was being a bit sarky here, Lltai. I wasn't using Pascal's Wager in anyway at all to make my point - it has a very porous defence and is extremely vulnerable to counter-attack arguments which have been raised by you, Liz and Benjamin. I am very well aware of that.
I was actually trying to inject a bit of balance there by essentially saying that religion is a vocation and that it is not possible to suddenly wake up and believe in God. Maybe my sense of irony isn't unambiguous enough.
_________________ Hillary Clinton is an acquired taste which I have clearly yet to acquire.
All times are GMT + 2 Hours Page Previous1, 2, 3, 4, 5
Page 5 of 5
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Join! (free) 
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
I'm afraid to ask what you've done to him / her...
