The Brilliance of Pascal's Wager

[A Vestigial Mote]

All you have are reasons not to believe in specific human depictions and conceptualizations of deity. You have nothing regarding the existence or nature of deity, itself.

I would admit that I have more to go on when a specific deity is presented, but as for "deity in general" here are a few off-the-top-of-my-head points to be raised:

• If the deity resides within this realm, it has either purposefully made it such that, or by its nature there is no way to detect it, or it has not been detected yet
• If the deity resides within another realm altogether, then the realm it exists within has not been found, or provides no way to be detected
• If the deity is responsible for the creation of the universe, it has hidden its "brush strokes" or "chisel marks"
• You could insert any fictional entity in place of ANY "deity" in all stories/scenarios we have ever established are "of a deity", attribute the fictional entity the same properties, and NOTHING ABOUT REALITY AS IT PRESENTS ITSELF CHANGES.
• People believe and get along just fine with their lives. People also disbelieve and get along just fine with their lives
• Claims of anything ANY deity can do to a person who doesn't believe involve either clandestine effects played out on their lives without the deity making himself/herself known, or they are claimed to affect the person only after death

Anything else that met the above criteria with no other demonstration or evidence to be brought forward YOU WOULD VERY LIKELY DISMISS OUT OF HAND.

 

[Thief]

It's like speaking to a distracted child.

or having one tuck on your pant leg......
why why why

 

[PureX]

I would admit that I have more to go on when a specific deity is presented, but as for "deity in general" here are a few off-the-top-of-my-head points to be raised:

• If the deity resides within this realm, it has either purposefully made it such that, or by its nature there is no way to detect it, or it has not been detected yet
• If the deity resides within another realm altogether, then the realm it exists within has not been found, or provides no way to be detected
• If the deity is responsible for the creation of the universe, it has hidden its "brush strokes" or "chisel marks"
• You could insert any fictional entity in place of ANY "deity" in all stories/scenarios we have ever established are "of a deity", attribute the fictional entity the same properties, and NOTHING ABOUT REALITY AS IT PRESENTS ITSELF CHANGES.
• People believe and get along just fine with their lives. People also disbelieve and get along just fine with their lives
• Claims of anything ANY deity can do to a person who doesn't believe involve either clandestine effects played out on their lives without the deity making himself/herself known, or they are claimed to affect the person only after death

Anything else that met the above criteria with no other demonstration or evidence to be brought forward YOU WOULD VERY LIKELY DISMISS OUT OF HAND.

All you're saying here is that if God exists you should be able to know it. And since you don't know it, then God must not exist.

Wow! And atheists accuse theists of circular, tautological reasoning!

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

All you're saying here is that if God exists you should be able to know it. And since you don't know it, then God must not exist.

Wow! And atheists accuse theists of circular, tautological reasoning!

I'm saying there is no good reason to simply assume God exists, especially since there is no clear way to know either way. That's what I am saying.

The same can be said for unicorns, or leprechauns, or fairies, or goobabochac monsters (which I just made up). See, watch:

There is no good reason to simply assume that unicorns exist, especially since there is no clear way to know either way.

Does the above statement about unicorns sound irrational to you? If not, then WHY does the same statement made about God seem so irrational?

 

[Rational Agnostic]

That specific conception of deity is irrelevant to this discussion. But I realize you have no other argument to offer but to pit one concept of deity against another, as if depictions and names were the issue, here.

It is very relevant. You said that rejecting a positive possibility is foolish.

 

[PureX]

I'm saying there is no good reason to simply assume God exists,...

There are many. Which is why so many humans choose to do so. What there isn't, is evidence. At least not that we humans can discern. But no evidence means that the possibility remains open, and we can choose to hope in that possibility if it enables us. And most humans find that it does enable them.

You foolishly think this is all about whether or not God exists. It's not. What it's about is the possibility of God existing, and what that means for us. And the value that can be gained by clarifying and living for that possibility.

 

[PureX]

It is very relevant. You said that rejecting a positive possibility is foolish.

The names and depictions of others are irrelevant to the nature and possibility of that's available to you. Rejecting the conceptions of others is just a wast of time and an exercise in foolish egotism. If you want to address the possibility of God, honestly, you'll have to create an ideal that works for you. But of course you can't do that because you've rejected the possibility before having explored it. Perhaps it was easier and more inviting to slander other people's ideas than to formulate your own.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The question is which god to believe in and why. Do we believe in the one with the worst hell so that we can avoid that, or the one with the best heaven.

i am an optimist.

Ramen.

 

[PureX]

The question is which god to believe in and why.

Only if you are incapable of imagining God for yourself.

 

[sojourner]

I don't agree with the Cthulhu worship. He's (It's? She's?) clearly limited. The FSM will hug me in her/his/its noodly tendrils and we'll soar over the futility grasping Cthulhu always keeping away from her/its/his grasp.

I love the FSM. May marinara be yours eternally...

 

[sojourner]

You also forgot to mention our book of spells for rituals called the Necronomicon

Wasn’t that a convention held in Flint, MI last year for dead comic book characters?

 

[Samael_Khan]

Wasn’t that a convention held in Flint, MI last year for dead comic book characters?

I have no idea..... but it the naming is hilarious. Necronomicon sounds like the words "necromancy", "comic" and "convention" combined.

It would certainly fit the convention because lots of comics and comic characters are influenced by Lovecraft.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

You foolishly think this is all about whether or not God exists. It's not. What it's about is the possibility of God existing, and what that means for us. And the value that can be gained by clarifying and living for that possibility.

It is my opinion that people who are willing to engage in beliefs based on articles as tenuous as those that prompt the "religious" or "spiritual" to believe those types of beliefs are also willing to engage in all sorts of other behavior and thought processes that are not conducive to some of the simplest and (again, in my opinion) most productive human-to-human interactions. From what I have seen and experienced, beliefs like this open one up to being discriminatory, more tribal, judgmental, cock-sure and baselessly confident, credulous, short-sighted and unable to even entertain certain other ideas without feeling threatened or insulted. Sure, you may see some "benefit" to yourself, but I truly believe that the majority of theists (at least those that I have come in contact with most often throughout my life) continually allow their ability to interface with others outside their religion to degrade. The only ones who escape are those open enough to contemplate other things without curling into a fetal position, with hands over their ears and crying their eyes out.

 

[Rational Agnostic]

The names and depictions of others are irrelevant to the nature and possibility of that's available to you. Rejecting the conceptions of others is just a wast of time and an exercise in foolish egotism. If you want to address the possibility of God, honestly, you'll have to create an ideal that works for you. But of course you can't do that because you've rejected the possibility before having explored it. Perhaps it was easier and more inviting to slander other people's ideas than to formulate your own.

You rejected the possibility of Cthulhu without exploring it. Why?

 

[PureX]

It is my opinion that people who are willing to engage in beliefs based on articles as tenuous as those that prompt the "religious" or "spiritual" to believe those types of beliefs are also willing to engage in all sorts of other behavior and thought processes that are not conducive to some of the simplest and (again, in my opinion) most productive human-to-human interactions. From what I have seen and experienced, beliefs like this open one up to being discriminatory, more tribal, judgmental, cock-sure and baselessly confident, credulous, short-sighted and unable to even entertain certain other ideas without feeling threatened or insulted. Sure, you may see some "benefit" to yourself, but I truly believe that the majority of theists (at least those that I have come in contact with most often throughout my life) continually allow their ability to interface with others outside their religion to degrade. The only ones who escape are those open enough to contemplate other things without curling into a fetal position, with hands over their ears and crying their eyes out.

That sort of bigotry is quite irrational. There are literally BILLIONS of theists on the planet, many of whom you interact with every day, and yet have no idea what they believe or practice regarding the subject of "God". And yet here you are declaring with the same arrogance and "cock-suredness" that you claim to disdain in them, how theists are all a bunch of irrational zealots believing in all sorts of superstitious nonsense and religious gibberish, and are trying to force everyone else to do the same. One would think the irony of this would become overwhelming!

 

[PureX]

You rejected the possibility of Cthulhu without exploring it. Why?

Artifice is neither to be accepted nor rejected. It's just artifice. Ronald McDonald is an example of corporate artifice. How would I "accept" or "reject" Ronald McDonald? What would even be the point?

 

[sojourner]

I'm saying there is no good reason to simply assume God exists, especially since there is no clear way to know either way. That's what I am saying.

The same can be said for unicorns, or leprechauns, or fairies, or goobabochac monsters (which I just made up). See, watch:

Does the above statement about unicorns sound irrational to you? If not, then WHY does the same statement made about God seem so irrational?

Because things like unicorns, aliens, Bigfoot, and leprechauns (if such exist) are merely singular eccentricities of nature. Their existence doesn’t bring transformation.

But there is good reason to hope God is and to believe God is, because God sets the bar for our being. God, in the least, provides a standard to which we aspire, because our anthropomorphosis of God is an embodiment of our highest hopes and aspirations for ourselves — especially as a race, but also as individuals. Those who believe in God imagine that our being comes from God and abides in God. So God defines us in very significant ways. Unicorns don’t do that. Bigfoot doesn’t do that. Leprechauns don't do that.

 

[PureX]

Because things like unicorns, aliens, Bigfoot, and leprechauns (if such exist) are merely singular eccentricities of nature. Their existence doesn’t bring transformation.

But there is good reason to hope God is and to believe God is, because God sets the bar for our being. God, in the least, provides a standard to which we aspire, because our anthropomorphosis of God is an embodiment of our highest hopes and aspirations for ourselves — especially as a race, but also as individuals. Those who believe in God imagine that our being comes from God and abides in God. So God defines us in very significant ways. Unicorns don’t do that. Bigfoot doesn’t do that. Leprechauns don't do that.

I would like to add that science does NOTHING for us along these lines. It can do nothing to further our quest to become better people than we are. Or to identify what it means to be better than we are. Science is fantastic at providing us with functional tools that we can use to alter the world around us according to our own desires, but it gives us nothing at all in terms of helping us determine what those desires ought to be, or ought not to be, or even how to judge which from which. We need philosophy, art, and religion to help us with that. And especially, we need the ability to hope and believe in a benevolent, morally superior raison d'etre.

 

[sojourner]

If the deity resides within this realm, it has either purposefully made it such that, or by its nature there is no way to detect it, or it has not been detected yet

The Deity is “this realm.”

If the deity is responsible for the creation of the universe, it has hidden its "brush strokes" or "chisel marks

and yet we each contain the breath of life. Our hearts beat with the rhythm of the universe. WE are each made of “star matter.”

You could insert any fictional entity in place of ANY "deity" in all stories/scenarios we have ever established are "of a deity", attribute the fictional entity the same properties, and NOTHING ABOUT REALITY AS IT PRESENTS ITSELF CHANGES

Coming face-to-face with the utter truth of ourselves is profoundly life-changing.

People believe and get along just fine with their lives. People also disbelieve and get along just fine with their lives

We’re not meant to “get along.” We’re meant to live abundantly.

Claims of anything ANY deity can do to a person who doesn't believe involve either clandestine effects played out on their lives without the deity making himself/herself known, or they are claimed to affect the person only after death

Revenge isn’t in the universe’s game plan.

 

[Rational Agnostic]

Artifice is neither to be accepted nor rejected. It's just artifice. Ronald McDonald is an example of corporate artifice. How would I "accept" or "reject" Ronald McDonald? What would even be the point?

I don't understand what you are saying. Cthulhu is a god worshiped by many around the world. There are several religions dedicated to worshiping him. Now, I'm guessing you immediately dismissed his existence after reading my OP. But what if you are wrong? Then you'd be in some serious trouble when Cthulhu returns to earth from his throne a million miles away. After all, he's an immensely powerful god; much more powerful than us. It would be wise to research the evidence for his existence.