The terrifying thought of no afterlife

[Achronos]

Yes it is a poor argument to use for the existence of God, but Pascal's Wager is more so about the existence of an afterlife and the repercussions of choosing one side over another. You would basically believe God exists just because there could be a chance he does exist and you'll be in heaven; it seems selfishly inclined.

As I said earlier I have to accept the wager that it's a 50% chance I'm right or wrong. One of the things I was concerned about with the concept of Heaven was the eternity factor. However if Heaven is unbounded by time, then eternity wouldn't matter for we would have no sense of time.

I guess I wouldn't have eternity to beat God in a game of Chess.

[Thumpalumpacus]

One of the things I had against Dawkin's argument on Pascal's Wager is that he asserts, correct me if I am wrong, that one who lived a life believing in God would be a waste of time versus one that rejects a God leading to a more fuller life. One can easily believe in a God, not to delve deeper into the idea, but still live a full life as one who rejects the existence of God.

I really don't care what Dawkins has to say on this matter.

Now you say what if I have the wrong God, but we have to discuss the very definition of a God. I'll use Webster's dictionary for this:
1: capitalized : the supreme or ultimate reality: as a : the Being perfect in power, wisdom, and goodness who is worshipped as creator and ruler of the universe b Christian Science : the incorporeal divine Principle ruling over all as eternal Spirit : infinite Mind
2: a being or object believed to have more than natural attributes and powers and to require human worship; specifically : one controlling a particular aspect or part of reality
3: a person or thing of supreme value
4: a powerful ruler

So if a 'God' were to exist, it must be a being that is perfect in power, wisdom and goodness. So if this 'God' is one of goodness would he reject his creation? But surely there must be justification between 'goodness' and 'badness'; surely a just separation must be made. What justice would it be then for someone such as Hitler or Stalin enter into the gates of Heaven, with no account for the events they caused on Earth? Doesn't that go against the very 'goodness' of God?

This does nothing to address my objection at all:  what if you have the wrong god?  What if the Norse sagas have it right and you get doomed because you are a peace-loving Christian?    That is the weakness of Pascal's Wager -- not the PoE and FW.

[elliebean]

Yes it is a poor argument to use for the existence of God, but Pascal's Wager is more so about the existence of an afterlife and the repercussions of choosing one side over another.

Assumes 2 'sides'; false dichotomy.

As I said earlier I have to accept the wager that it's a 50% chance I'm right or wrong.

50% chance per god. How many gods?

Even if it's 50/50 on an afterlife existing or not, we would still rely on some entity to either grant or deny access. You have to take them all into account, including any gods who would, for example, reward skepticism and punish credulity, as well as any would be indifferent, etc.

[Inevitable Droid]

Even if it's 50/50 on an afterlife existing or not, we would still rely on some entity to either grant or deny access. You have to take them all into account, including any gods who would, for example, reward skepticism and punish credulity, as well as any would be indifferent, etc.

This is why, if I were to be a theist, I would be a polytheist - or more precisely, a henotheist, which is someone who accepts the existence of multiple gods but chooses to worship only one.  In ancient Greece my henotheism would probably have fixated on Athena, who probably would reward skepticism and punish credulity.

[Achronos]

This does nothing to address my objection at all:  what if you have the wrong god?  What if the Norse sagas have it right and you get doomed because you are a peace-loving Christian?

Those gods would be what I consider to be humanist gods rather than the all encompassing God. There are a few issues regarding the existence of 2 or more gods. For example two gods are supposed to be quite independent and they both existed from eternity. Neither of them made the other, neither of them has any more right than the other to call itself God. Each presumably thinks it is good and thinks the other is bad. Either we are merely saying that we happen to prefer the one to the other, like preferring beer to Coke, or else we are saying that, whatever the two (more more) powers think about it, and whichever we humans, at the moment, happen to like, one of them is actually wrong, actually mistaken, it regarding itself as good. Now if we mean merely that we happen to prefer the first, then we must give up talking about good and evil at all. For good means what you ought to prefer quite regardless of what you happen to like at any given moment. If 'being good' meant simply joining the side you happened to fancy, for no real reason, then good would not deserve to be called good. So we must mean that one of the two powers is actually wrong and the other is actually right.

But the moment you say that, you are putting into the universe a third thing in addition to two powers: some law or standard or rule of good which one of the powers conforms to and the other fails to conform to. But since the two powers are judged by this standard, then this standard, or the Being who made this standard, is farther back and higher up than either of them, and He will be the real God. In fact, what we meant by calling them good and bad turns out to be that one of them is in a right relation to the real ultimate God and the other in a wrong relation to Him.

To be bad, he must exist and have intelligence and will. But existence, intelligence and will are in themselves good. Therefore he must be getting them from the good 'god': even to be bad he must borrow or steal from his opponent. And do you now begin to see why Christianity has always said that the devil is a fallen angel? That is not a mere story for children, it is a real recognition of the fact that evil is a parasite, not an original thing. The powers which enable evil to carry on are powers given it by goodness. All the things which enable a bad man to be effectively bad are in themselves good things like resolution, cleverness, good looks, existence itself.

After all said and done I must ask you what other god could you propose of that fits the very definition of what a God is? If there was such a God that did, I would not be a Christian.

[Achronos]

Assumes 2 'sides'; false dichotomy.

So essentially there would be endless sides, all in the various degrees of what good and evil people have done are. From what I understand you are implying is that if I did moderately good things in life but could be consistently morally wrong, then I would have some punishment but also some reward for the good things that I have done.

The issue I have with this is people make mistakes, could mistakes not be forgiven then? It would almost seem like you might as well commit suicide just so you don't make any more mistakes again which would hurt your very judgment in the after life. If you say I falsely assume 2 sides, then in its place must be an infinite number of sides for we really don't know how many sides there could be. It itself becomes too ambiguous of a concept.

And one side could not work because it would go against the very righteousness of the definition of a God

Even if it's 50/50 on an afterlife existing or not, we would still rely on some entity to either grant or deny access. You have to take them all into account, including any gods who would, for example, reward skepticism and punish credulity, as well as any would be indifferent, etc.

But see here is where we have to address these other Gods and of their nature. And as I have stated above, the very definition of God must be perfectly good and in doing so must be perfectly just. Then it becomes would punishing credulity be seen as a perfectly just characteristic or is it something that contains a flawed design.

[Thumpalumpacus]

But existence, intelligence and will are in themselves good.

Is that so?  This is a frail reed tying your argument together.  Please demonstrate the intrinsic goodness of these qualities without reference to your god.

[Inevitable Droid]

There are a few issues regarding the existence of 2 or more gods. For example two gods are supposed to be quite independent and they both existed from eternity. Neither of them made the other, neither of them has any more right than the other to call itself God. Each presumably thinks it is good and thinks the other is bad.

OK.  Or let there be a whole pantheon, as in ancient Greece.  Homer's Athena and Ares opposed one another.  Homer's Athena represented, among other things, the mental aspect of warfare, the discipline and skill of it.  Homer's Ares represented the physical and emotional aspects of warfare, the force and frenzy of it.  If I were a soldier and a henotheist, I would be faced with choosing between Athena and Ares, and thus choosing which aspects of warfare to give the most prominence in my career.

Either we are merely saying that we happen to prefer the one to the other, like preferring beer to Coke, or else we are saying that, whatever the two (more more) powers think about it, and whichever we humans, at the moment, happen to like, one of them is actually wrong, actually mistaken, in regarding itself as good.

Being a subjectivist, my henotheism would be subjective, which means, I would decide for myself between Athena and Ares, based on my own evaluation of the justice, utility, reasonableness, social appropriateness, sanity, and authenticity concerns, to the extent there were any.

Now if we mean merely that we happen to prefer the first, then we must give up talking about good and evil at all. For good means what you ought to prefer quite regardless of what you happen to like at any given moment. If 'being good' meant simply joining the side you happened to fancy, for no real reason, then good would not deserve to be called good.

I disagree, but you probably would have guessed that.

In fact, what we meant by calling them good and bad turns out to be that one of them is in a right relation to the real ultimate God and the other in a wrong relation to Him.

Yes indeed.

But existence, intelligence and will are in themselves good.

Presumably from a utility perspective.  I'm fine with that, by the way.  Utility is one of my six categories for evaluating right and wrong subjectively.

Therefore he must be getting them from the good 'god': even to be bad he must borrow or steal from his opponent.

This implies that all good must come from the same source.  Polytheism is grounded in the contrary opinion.  Each god represents something good.  The henotheist merely chooses which good is best from the henotheist's perspective.  Instead of good and evil, then, we have good, better, and best.  Ares is good in his own way and best for some mortals but Athena is better for me.

Christianity, and Zoroastrianism long before it, insisted on good and evil, whereas the Greeks were comfortable with good, better, best.  I side with the Greeks on this.

After all said and done I must ask you what other god could you propose of that fits the very definition of what a God is? If there was such a God that did, I would not be a Christian.

Presumably you mean a God must be the sole source of all good or else it isn't God.  You immunize yourself against the notion of a God who is also the sole source of all evil by insisting that evil is merely the absence of good.  Faith, hope, and charity, as you use the terms, were the natural state of man, until man abandoned them.  Sickness and death didn't exist until man abandoned faith, hope, and love.  Returning to faith, hope, and love is returning to our original nature intended all along by God, and enables the return to everlasting life and health.  It's logically consistent, at least.  Not in the least logically necessary, and very far from empirical, but consistent.

[SomewhereInND]

Why does discussing religion  often seem similar to arguing with a drunk person?  (both sides)

I am an atheist, god doesnt exist, using only logic to argue is pointless.

Pascals Wager? Reality is what it is.  Period, doesnt matter what we think.

Schroders Cat?  Reality is what it is, not what we think it is.

I think therefore I am?   Does a rock think?

The above are examples silly logic.....Using logic, without considering reality or reason.

[Inevitable Droid]

I am an atheist, god doesnt exist, using only logic to argue is pointless.

What else would you use, then?

Pascals Wager? Reality is what it is.  Period, doesnt matter what we think.

Schroders Cat?  Reality is what it is, not what we think it is.

How do you know what reality is without thinking?

The above are examples silly logic.....Using logic, without considering reality or reason.

How does logic differ from reason?

[Thumpalumpacus]

Schroders Cat?  Reality is what it is, not what we think it is.

How do you know what reality is without thinking?

Nice wordplay, but it doesn't address his point, which is that thinking can go wrong; it can lead us astray.  Reality doesn't bow to logic, no matter how cogent the logic is.  Logic is a useful tool, but when all one has is a hammer, everything tends to look like a nail (to paraphrase some famous guy).

[tunghaichuan]

but when all one has is a hammer, everything tends to look like a nail (to paraphrase some famous guy).

Abraham Maslow

http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quote ... 07087.html

[Inevitable Droid]

Nice wordplay, but it doesn't address his point, which is that thinking can go wrong; it can lead us astray.  Reality doesn't bow to logic, no matter how cogent the logic is.  Logic is a useful tool, but when all one has is a hammer, everything tends to look like a nail (to paraphrase some famous guy).

I must still be missing the point.  Thinking is the only tool we have for knowing reality.  The situation with a hammer is different, as there are screwdrivers, wrenches, hacksaws.  Reality is what it is, certainly, but I don't know what it is except by thinking.  Isn't knowing what it is, the point?

[Raithie]

Why be scared of something that, by definition, you'll never notice?

I like noticing things.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Nice wordplay, but it doesn't address his point, which is that thinking can go wrong; it can lead us astray.  Reality doesn't bow to logic, no matter how cogent the logic is.  Logic is a useful tool, but when all one has is a hammer, everything tends to look like a nail (to paraphrase some famous guy).

I must still be missing the point.  Thinking is the only tool we have for knowing reality.  The situation with a hammer is different, as there are screwdrivers, wrenches, hacksaws.  Reality is what it is, certainly, but I don't know what it is except by thinking.  Isn't knowing what it is, the point?

You're equivocating thinking and logic.  In that sense, you are indeed missing the point: not all thinking is logical, including much processing of sensory data.  When the only mode of thinking you use is logic, you will get achieve GIGO-like results if your premises are flawed, and still make perfectly logical statements.