CSflim

It occurs to me, that we cannot absolutely know whether or not God exists. So rather than making up our minds based on the evidence that is available, we should objectively look at the situation from a "what's in it for me" point of view.
From this, we will be able to deduce whether a belief in God is a beneficial thing or not, and model our belief system around that.

Now, in addition to our proposal for the existence of God, we will also consider the afterlife, and the existence of Heaven and Hell. God will allow into heaven, those people whom he finds congenial, and will cast into Hell, those whom he dislikes. Obviously, as part of belief system, we want to aim for Heaven.

Now, looking around the universe, we see very little, to no evidence of the existence of God, in fact, quite the opposite. It seems almost that God, if he exists, is being purposely elusive. The conclusions to be drawn from this are that God doesn’t want you to believe in him. Perhaps he would find it arrogant of a mere mortal to claim that he can even begin to fathom the power of God. Believers are obviously not what God wants, and as such, he will cast them into the fiery pits of Hell!

Non believers on the other hand, are much more likable in God’s eyes. These dull creatures have not attempted to destroy His great illusion. They have not been so arrogant as to claim to possess some divine hotline to Him. These dim witted mortals will the ones taken into God’s kingdom.

So from this, we can conclude, that without the need for further evidence, we should in fact not believe in God. It appears to be a win-win situation. If God doesn’t exist, you have not wasted countless hours in pointless prayer. If he does exist, you are to be brought straight into eternal bliss.

__________________

chavos

Good grief... you trying to troll?

phukraut

is this meant to satirize pascal's wager and show how silly it is, or is this a serious wager?

rogue49

It all depends on your definition of God.
Yours is just one.

I see proof all the time.

Killconey

Umm...yeah...about that...

Wow. You sure know how to drive all thoughts from a guy's head. That argument is the exact opposite of a wager that Christian's use to convince people to convert to Christianity. Did this god that you describe come from your own head or does he have another religion or philosopher to back him up?

__________________
Look out for numbers two and up and they'll look out for you.

cliche

CSFlim - I like it. Lots of routes to be attacked, sadly, but probably has a similar number of assumptions to Pascal's wager.

(before I get bashed, I'm not arguing for or against the existence of God - and I don't think CSFlim is either (for the moment... ) - but I think this is a good example for those agnostics or believers who try to use Pascal's wager)

__________________
I can't understand why people are frightened of new ideas. I'm frightened of the old ones. -- John Cage (1912 - 1992)

Moonduck

Frankly, this is too well thought out to be a troll in my opinion. CSFlim is presenting an argument sans comment. The forum will likely provide comment as it is wont to do. To an extent, this is argument ad absurdum, as it argues the point from a few posits that seem, prima faciae, to be absurd, or at least contraintuitive.

I would suggest attempting to read it objectively, then comment. I don't personally have a dog in this fight, else I would.

Jynx

i have a few questions concerning your assumtions - some of them are purely devil's advocate, some aren't.

why do you choose these criteria? i maintain that there may be other criteria - for example, according to the Bible, all you need is to believe in and confess Jesus and get baptized, and the grace of God will get you there. conversely, buddhism says (i believe, please correct me if i'm wrong) that the path to heaven is enlightenment. in order to continue with this line, you should clear up this assumption.

this also requires discussion - who says there is no evidence? many people will say that our very existance is proof in itself. additionally, some will say that the fact that the fact that life moved from less to more complex in direct (apparent) violation of the second law of thermodynamics is further proof.


if the assumption is false, so is this, and honestly, throws your entire argument out. in addition, what if god made up this grand puzzle, and only wants those folks who can "solve" the puzzle in heaven? this last argument is making several assumptions about god that have no basis.

but no evidence was provided.

i am on the edge of my seat awaiting further clarification. i'll try not to fall completely off, but no promises.

CSflim

No, I'm not trying to troll.
While I think to call it satire is the wrong word, I was indeed referring to Pascal's wager.
Pascal's wager is an abomination of pseudo-logical thought. Anyone whose beliefs are based on this, I can only hope to be meeting quite soon in hell. If your god really is all-knowing, he will certainly be able to penetrate your selfish mentality, and realise the fakeness of your beliefs. But that is not my argument.
My point is, that Pascal's wager is ridiculously flawed.
First of all, why would a god actually care if you believed in him or not? Why would that be a factor in deciding on your eligibility for entrance into heaven?
Further more, if it were indeed a factor, why is it "logical" to make the conclusion that it will weighted positively in making your case? Surely it is just as plausible that God would dislike believers as it is that he would like them? (Both situations seem equally implausible as far as I'm concerned)

On this board, few people would use Pascal’s argument, yet I do know that quite a lot of people believe on a “yeah, but what if...” basis. This, I think, is not just downright silly but also positively grotesque.

__________________

cliche

I've always wondered - why would a God prefer someone who was good/kind/thoughtful only because he was scared ****less of going to hell to someone who didn't believe, and was good/etc all on their own?

I've had this debate with some of the God squad before; no-one's ever been able to give a decent answer...

__________________
I can't understand why people are frightened of new ideas. I'm frightened of the old ones. -- John Cage (1912 - 1992)

phukraut

just out of curiosity, this line of reasoning isn't still used to counter evolutionary theory, is it? i thought the misunderstanding of the second law was cleared up. do you know of any opponents of evolution that still use it?

sipsake

Well, as someone who's recently returned to Christianity, I guess I could be on the God squad. Go team.

My answer would be... God wouldn't prefer A over B.

__________________
When life hands you a lemon, say "Oh yeah, I like lemons. What else you got?"

Henry Rollins

cliche

sipsake - which is A, which is B?

I'd be interested to hear what you have to say; my basic argument has always been that it's very difficult to choose what you believe (whichever way you go); but it's easy to choose your actions. An atheist can decide to behave in a good/etc way; and I just wonder if it is actions or beliefs that count more. I've had so many discussions which end up as 'if you don't believe, you go to hell' and just wondered if it's really a good thing that the prospect of hell be used as a motivation for good behaviour.

__________________
I can't understand why people are frightened of new ideas. I'm frightened of the old ones. -- John Cage (1912 - 1992)

sipsake

Oops, sorry.

I don't believe God would prefer someone who did good because of a fear of hell over someone who did good with no belief in God.

The reason for this is that a crucial belief in Christianity, as well as many other religions, is that we are judged by the way we treat others. Christ went one step further by insisting we treat even our enemies with the same love we treat our friends. He comments later that there is no differentiation between the way we behave towards others and him.

Maybe it's heretical, but I can't stop believing that the best way to show love for God is to love his creation.

I left the church years ago because to me it seemed the messenger became more important than the message. I returned because I realised the message was what the messenger was all about.

He has told you, O mortal, what is good;
and what does the LORD require of you
but to do justice, and to love kindness,
and to walk humbly with your God?
Micah 6:8

__________________
When life hands you a lemon, say "Oh yeah, I like lemons. What else you got?"

Henry Rollins

hiredgun

Because the Scripture says that you should believe in God. I'm not saying I believe it, but that's the answer to your question.

I totally agree that Pascal's wager is a ridiculous argument. One (unconvtroversial portion) the kind of "belief" it describes isn't real faith. Two (controversial portion), virtue is more important than faith anyway.


Edit: sipsake, I couldn't agree more.

chavos

it's a strawman! While this might have been a good response to a use of pascal's, just posting it on it's own isn't a good idea...not one person has posted to defend that theological defense, and so you're putting words in to a hypothetical mouth, then remarking on what a dumb arguement them theists use...

I want my 3 minutes back. meh.

CSflim

It was not a strawman. it was not directed at anyone in particular. I didn't try to "derail" someone elses thread, or take away from the focus of a different argument.

Pascal's wager is a serious argument used by many theists.

I have indeed seen this argument used here on this board.

__________________

CSflim

Yes it has been debunked. Doesn't stop creationist from using it though.

__________________

Killconey

As someone who has used Pascal's Wager in conversation with friends before (not to witness, but merely to stimulate discussion), I would like to say that I've never heard anyone use this argument as anything but a last resort justification for faith. My faith doesn't come from a want of heaven or a fear of hell, it comes because I believe that Christ is worthy of praise and service whether there is an afterlife or not.

Granted, I do believe that Pascal's Wager is in some ways true and that the Christians do have an advantage in that regard. It should never be a serious argument, though because it does draw people to God for all the wrong reasons.

__________________
Look out for numbers two and up and they'll look out for you.

Jdoe

Believing in God has nothing to do with salvation. Satan and the demons believe, but guess where they are for eternity.

I usually try to just read a few in this side of the Tiltedness without posting. Things tend to be very anti-Christian to the point of crossing the line. But I might as well say a little bit I guess.

Jdoe