God Vs Science

I get the point now Smile

Thanks for pointing out Very Happy

Hmmm..... some people I know hold on to the "be safe" notion, the notion more or less look like this:

1. If I don't believe in God and He exists, I'm screwed once I die

2. If I believe in God and He does exist, I'm good.

3. If I believe in God and He doesn't exist, no big deal.

4. Therefore choosing to believe is the most logical way of living since it's the safest.

Is there any ilogic on the conclusion made? Or does it make sense and everyone should hold this view? comments?

0 Replies

I see a few.

If you believe and god doesn't exist, you spend over your lifetime a large quantity of time, money, and energy on what ends up being a futile wager, whereas you could have spent it on something more worthwhile.

You let a non-existent being play a significant role in most of your moral decisions, thus biasing them,.

More than likely, you didn't treat some people as well as they probably deserved because they didn't believe in the same god as you.

This unsubstantiated belief also served to reinforce poor critical thinking habits that effected decisions you make.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The argument you are using is called Pascal's wager, and it's a poor reason to believe in a god. Not only does it not account for the negative effects of religiousity, but it also discourages further exploration and investigation. To see why this is a problem, think about a similar argument for the earth being flat:

If I believe the earth is flat, so I never venture to the ends of the map, and the earth is flat, I am safe.

If I believe the earth is flat, so I never venture to the ends of the map, and the earth isn't flat, no harm done.

If I don't believe the earth is flat, and it is, I go over the edge and die.

If I don't believe the earth is flat, and it isn't, nothing happens at the edge of the map. (well, there is that whole positive aspect of discovering the rest of the globe, having to redefine phsyics which in turn leads to better technology, etc., but we don't really care about that, do we?)

0 Replies

Not to mention all the other possible Gods you might be upsetting by following your stupid monotheistic God. You don't even know that you are following the correct doctrine of your own God, seeing as the bible has been altered so many times by man.

The actual chance of ending up in heaven is infinitely small.
Deal with it. Smile

0 Replies

lex884 wrote:

I get the point now

Thanks for pointing out

Hmmm..... some people I know hold on to the "be safe" notion, the notion more or less look like this:

1. If I don't believe in God and He exists, I'm screwed once I die

2. If I believe in God and He does exist, I'm good.

3. If I believe in God and He doesn't exist, no big deal.

4. Therefore choosing to believe is the most logical way of living since it's the safest.

Is there any ilogic on the conclusion made? Or does it make sense and everyone should hold this view? comments?

You'd better be prepared to believe in

Unicorns, wizards, and several other god too then.

By this logic, you could be judged by any of these, not just your idea of god.

But what happens if two or more of these ideas conflict?

T
K
O

0 Replies

@fungotheclown,

Thanks for pointing out the name is Pascal wager Smile

Why pascal anyway is it the name of the person who created the notion?

Regarding large quantity of time, money and energy, isn't it worthed considering the safety that we get? Think of it like insurance, we spend a lot of money to pay our health insurance (for example) for something that could possibly never ever happened in our life (like terminal illness, etc), we do that because of the safety feeling that we get.
Besides, is it really that large amount? I mean can I argue that someone can become a casual believer, not the nut job that goes around bugging people in the street, and still going to heaven? We can minimize the amount of money, time and energy spent.

The thing about treating other people differently, again if one just become a casual believer, I don't think it will affect how one treat other people. It could simply be spending 2 hours on Sunday at church (an example) and nothing more.

@ Coolwhip

Well.... one can do research about various different belief system and weighs which one is more probable and adopt the most possible one. Let's face it there aren't that many belief going around are there? We got christian, Islam, Judaism, and few others, thats it.

Or maybe just randomly pick one Twisted Evil

that still better than none Smile

(see risk calculation below)

@ TKO

Exactly, and in fact they are in conflict with each other. One religion could requires something for requirement to get to heaven and the other say different thing. That's why we should do our research and make a rational decision on choosing with one we choose. Or maybe just randomly pick one will do too Razz

If we calculate the risk, believing in none will carry the most risk.

Believe in none:
God doesn't exist SAFE
God A exists Screwed
God B exists Screwed
God C exists Screwed

Believe in God A:
God doesn't exist SAFE
God A exists SAFE
God B exists Screwed
God C exists Screwed

Still better right? if confused which belief is right, just randomly pick one will boost the safety one level, don't you aggree? Shouldn't we make our decision to reach the safest? that's why we pay insurance right? for safety.

0 Replies

lex884 wrote:

@ TKO

Exactly, and in fact they are in conflict with each other. One religion could requires something for requirement to get to heaven and the other say different thing. That's why we should do our research and make a rational decision on choosing with one we choose. Or maybe just randomly pick one will do too
If we calculate the risk, believing in none will carry the most risk.

Believe in none:
God doesn't exist SAFE
God A exists Screwed
God B exists Screwed
God C exists Screwed

Believe in God A:
God doesn't exist SAFE
God A exists SAFE
God B exists Screwed
God C exists Screwed

Still better right? if confused which belief is right, just randomly pick one will boost the safety one level, don't you aggree? Shouldn't we make our decision to reach the safest? that's why we pay insurance right? for safety.

No it's not better. And there is no rational method for evaluating supernatural claims against each other, so claiming that we should choose a god by ration is impossible.

I don't think that your method is actually playing it safe. I see a great consequence in subscribing to an artificial system in efforts to be safe. It's just an illusion. You are actaully comprimising your life in order to address your fear of the unknown.

If you really wanted to use rationality, you wouldn't wait until you were at the point when you are choosing which god to worship etc.

T
K
O

0 Replies

lex884 wrote:

@ Coolwhip

Well.... one can do research about various different belief system and weighs which one is more probable and adopt the most possible one. Let's face it there aren't that many belief going around are there? We got christian, Islam, Judaism, and few others, thats it.

Or maybe just randomly pick one that still better than none (see risk calculation below)

Tool - Jerk-Off wrote:

Consequences dictate our course of action
And it doesn't matter what's right.
It's only wrong if you get caught.

0 Replies

When I said I was behaving morally relative to the situation all they did was change it from a moving violation to a non-moving violation and drop the fine by $60. But if I wasn't moving when I went through that red light and doing so in violation of the law what was I doing?

The lawyer was in a seersucker suit too, and I was sitting in a stackable polycarbonate lawn chair inside a room where I'd been told to take off my hat.

My point was that the law and enforcement thereof was a bunch of crap.

So you say - in a world where everything is relative to God there must be a God? Eat me.

0 Replies

Quote:

Regarding large quantity of time, money and energy, isn't it worthed considering the safety that we get? Think of it like insurance, we spend a lot of money to pay our health insurance (for example) for something that could possibly never ever happened in our life (like terminal illness, etc), we do that because of the safety feeling that we get.
Besides, is it really that large amount? I mean can I argue that someone can become a casual believer, not the nut job that goes around bugging people in the street, and still going to heaven? We can minimize the amount of money, time and energy spent.

The thing about treating other people differently, again if one just become a casual believer, I don't think it will affect how one treat other people. It could simply be spending 2 hours on Sunday at church (an example) and nothing more.

There is a huge difference between insurance and religion. Insurance protects against real, known risks. You know that people get sick, get hit by cars, have accidents, etc. Thus you know that you might be one of them. Thus, it makes sense to protect yourselves as much as possible. With the afterlife, this risk is hypothetical. It would be like insuring yourself against alien abductions, or time-traveling sociopaths. Sure, it might happen, but it doesn't make sense to address the threat until it shows itself to be an actual one.

As far as the commitment of resources, I would argue that 2 hours a week over a lifetime ends up being a significant amount. Regardless of that, though, you would still be making decisions based on an assumption that all the evidence at hand suggests is incorrect. Even a casual believer is going to pray for a sick loved one (which studies have shown to have a negative effect on patient health when it has one at all), or have instances where they rely on god when they should have relied on themselves.

As for Pascal's Wager, it is in fact named after the guy who proposed it, Blaise Pascal, a 17th century philosopher and mathematician.

0 Replies

If I am going to be intolerant it will be with myself and not applied outside the self. I can only change myself to be a better person and possibly then others will follow that example. If I am going to believe in God or a higher Diety I will do it without imposing it upon others and I will act in accordance with what my God asks of me and again maybe others will see the fruits of what comes from my heart and take away something of value. If not however, it is their choice. If I choose to believe that there is good and evil I will decide what is good and what is evil and avoid anything that will hurt my heart, my soul and others just for the sake of mankind if not for God as well. God exists within me and others like me who choose to believe. He/She is not sitting atop a throne in some surreal place with the Angels singing. It is all here among us and with us. It is all here for the taking.
As for me it is not my place to be anything but loving for the sake of loving to others - even those who choose not to believe in anything.

0 Replies

Mary Andersen wrote:

If I am going to be intolerant it will be with myself and not applied outside the self. I can only change myself to be a better person and possibly then others will follow that example. If I am going to believe in God or a higher Diety I will do it without imposing it upon others and I will act in accordance with what my God asks of me and again maybe others will see the fruits of what comes from my heart and take away something of value. If not however, it is their choice. If I choose to believe that there is good and evil I will decide what is good and what is evil and avoid anything that will hurt my heart, my soul and others just for the sake of mankind if not for God as well. God exists within me and others like me who choose to believe. He/She is not sitting atop a throne in some surreal place with the Angels singing. It is all here among us and with us. It is all here for the taking.
As for me it is not my place to be anything but loving for the sake of loving to others - even those who choose not to believe in anything.

Yup, it seems pretty simple and straight forward doesn't it.

How so many religions get is so screwed up is just amazing.

0 Replies

Yes for me personally it does seem very straight forward and simple but the God I believe in didn't make it very complicated in the first place. It all comes down to being your best, loving at all times even when I feel like Iwant to bust someone upside the head, and keeping the reason for why I believe I exist in the forefront of my thoughts. As far as I am concerned I am in "heaven" and if someone cares to share it with me then great. I do believe in community so to be honest I do attend Holy Mass as often as possible - not because of any human dictate (i.e. the Pope - all due respect), but because I am among others whose objectives are similar to my own and I am raised up and strengthened by my community to press on.
No, life here isn't about any argument about good vs. evil, God vs. no God, it is about each individual and the responsibility I have to being as loving a person as possible so that others might feel loved.

0 Replies

If God is almighty and can do everything then that means he can good AND evil because evil is a posiblity and He is able to do anything. Yet as I belive he is not evil but we can not say he can't create it but if he did create evil He himself is evil well not if He create it indirectly. He created freewill, that is the solution, Satan was created by God and so was Gabriel, and both were given freewill which accounts for satan becoming evil and Gabriel staying good, therefore evil was the result of freewill. Now you may say that since freewill resulte in evil and God created freewill then its the same as if He himself created evil but without freewill there cannot be justice so it's like saying good cannot exist without evil because then if everything was good how can we say it's good since we have no reference, everything would just be "non-good-non-evil"

freewill is the ability to choose for oneself without God's intervention and that is why we can say God didnt really created evil, it came from us. God is not evil because he also has freewill has chose not to be evil. (this was a long explanation)

0 Replies

answer to argument
fongothaclown said

If you believe and god doesn't exist, you spend over your lifetime a large quantity of time, money, and energy on what ends up being a futile wager, whereas you could have spent it on something more worthwhile.

this quote states that obeying basic biblical principles is a waste of time. Many would say that committing "good deeds" brings long lasting pleasure.

0 Replies

Mary Andersen wrote:

Yes for me personally it does seem very straight forward and simple but the God I believe in didn't make it very complicated in the first place. It all comes down to being your best, loving at all times even when I feel like Iwant to bust someone upside the head, and keeping the reason for why I believe I exist in the forefront of my thoughts. As far as I am concerned I am in "heaven" and if someone cares to share it with me then great. I do believe in community so to be honest I do attend Holy Mass as often as possible - not because of any human dictate (i.e. the Pope - all due respect), but because I am among others whose objectives are similar to my own and I am raised up and strengthened by my community to press on.
No, life here isn't about any argument about good vs. evil, God vs. no God, it is about each individual and the responsibility I have to being as loving a person as possible so that others might feel loved.

It is impossible for her to believe in what she just wrote and also believe in the God of the Bible. Because what she believes is clearly contradicting what is stated in the Bible. And if she denies that there is a God than she denies that there is a heaven.

0 Replies

Coolwhip wrote:

Not to mention all the other possible Gods you might be upsetting by following your stupid monotheistic God. You don't even know that you are following the correct doctrine of your own God, seeing as the bible has been altered so many times by man.

The actual chance of ending up in heaven is infinitely small.
Deal with it.

First off there is evidence proving that the Bible hasn't been altered in at least 2100 years. Second according to Christianity it is not our works that get us into heaven it is God forgiving us on what we have done. Even if very few people made it into heaven does that make it unreal.

0 Replies

@MC Kruger,

God is all mighty, why carry on like a two year old if someone doesn't believe in you? It seems God's love is very selective. God can't love all....
On the statement that the you can compare students not seeing the professors brain to faith is ridiculous.
Throughout the ages people have disected humans and human anatomy. In all of the cases they have found that everyone had a brain beneath their skulls. Although the conclusion may be inductive it is still safe to assume that we all have brains. Faith is illogical reasoning that is based more on an emotional platform (such as fear).
Finally, God must be the root of all evil, because he is the origin of evil. How can you even refute that?

0 Replies

This damn cut and paste... again.

What contrived BS.

T
K
O

0 Replies

@agrote,

Good points; most on this planet, past, present, and future, had no "freedom" to choose to believe or not believe. They were indoctrinated by their parents, peers, and church that the parents attended. It's obvious from observing the obvious; look at the different cultures in this world, and you'll find that the majority of its citizens believe in the same religion. Very few on this planet are actual atheists.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

Quote:

Very few on this planet are actual atheists.

Totally agree with you, Tak. Whenever someone tells me they don't "believe in god," I always ask them what they mean by "god." 99 % of the time I have to agree with them that I don't believe that tripe either. But that doesn't make me an atheist. What most people mean when they say they "don't believe in God" is that they don't believe in whatever they were taught at a young age by their parents, clergy or peers. Those early childhood myths are just a pop version of what I call God. And the only reason I use the word God is because it's such an easy three-letter word, much easier to say than Yaweh or Allah or The Force. I don't know anything whatever about God and I don't think this Force is knowable to us in any intellectual sense because human understanding has definite limits. It might be possible to intuit it, but not to understand. But that doesn't make me an atheist either.

There should be no "war" between faith and science. I firmly believe that religious fundamentalists -- whether Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Shinto or whatever -- make a fundamental mistake in reading their scripture as though it were anything more than allegory and a guide to an ethical life-style. The two disciplines -- science and theology -- use two different vocabularies. You can't possibly express a scientific fact by means of a parable or metaphor. But that is precisely the language of religion and has been since ancient times when a wise shaman explained the renewal of earth's bounty each Spring by creating a charming myth of the death and rebirth of a god. I doubt he ever intended his hearers to believe the story in a literal sense.

2 Replies

God Vs Science

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know