One thing that bothers me about the argument that people would rather believe in god "just in case", rather than not believe in god and find out too late that they were wrong and go to hell, is that they assume that god would be a petty, selfish, human-like being who even gives a crap about whether or not puny little humans believes in him. With respect to the whole entire universe and all other life on this planet, what does it really matter if someone believes in god, or believes in one particular god but not another? Seriously everyone! Why would a god with the whole universe as his creation care what each individual person thinks is true, when if he was real he would know that he is real and that his existence does not depend on one persons belief or disbelief?! i think we all know the answer, whether you admit it or not - the only way that god "exists" is in people's minds, and if no one believes, then god really doesn't exist. Religious believers need more believers in order to keep up the facade.
That is my rant for the day.
2007-09-07 06:47:35
·
answer #1
·
answered by daisy mcpoo 5
·
0⤊
0⤋
Worse - selecting ANY god is bad if it has any impact at all on your quality of life if he does not exist. The wager assumes that the only consequence of choice is salvation, and this is clearly false as the Christian martyrs can attest.
2007-09-07 06:48:39
·
answer #2
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
you do no longer look to comprehend Pascal's wager. the excellent component is to stay as though God existed in spite of if He does not, considering in case you reside as though He did no longer and and you're incorrect you have greater to lose than in case you reside as though He did and you're incorrect. In no case does the actual life or non-life of God discern in, nor do any needs that God, if there replaced into one, ought to have, because of the fact Pascal did no longer have confidence those to be questions that must be meaningfully resolved. considering God replaced into no longer in touch interior the wager in any way, He could no longer win or lose, purely we are in a position to.
2016-10-10 03:34:29
·
answer #3
·
answered by ? 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
We argued this my Philosophy of Religion class. Logically you're still better off choosing a faith. Yes, if you're wrong their is a chance the true god will do something mean and nasty with your afterlife. However, if you choose no faith you have no chance. For Pascal's argument it is all about the odds.
2007-09-07 06:47:01
·
answer #4
·
answered by Lew 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
God is not about selecting. You don't chose God.....Who do you think you are to think you can or get to choose god. You choose your paths of right or wrong, you choose what to do now or later on, you don't choose God.
You are far from God hence you can't comprehend. As far as pascal, the blind lead the blind is all there is for both of you.
The older you are the wiser I used to think. Truly a sad example you turned out to be.
2007-09-07 06:44:55
·
answer #5
·
answered by lam_9 3
·
0⤊
3⤋
I don't see why. Virtually every religion is constructed around the belief of 'be a good person' with just alot of padding and variations on everything else. You'd think you'd be judged on your merits as a human being and not on who you believe in.
2007-09-07 06:39:41
·
answer #6
·
answered by moddy almondy 6
·
0⤊
0⤋
I select Zeus
I wish to Heracles to be real and answer my prayers and be there for me in the after life
2007-09-07 06:39:49
·
answer #7
·
answered by voice_of_reason 6
·
1⤊
0⤋
that is the biggest problem with Pascals wager
he didnt take that into account
2007-09-07 06:40:51
·
answer #8
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
0⤋
Probably, since both selections lead nowhere.
Is a bad mother better than no mother? Nah
2007-09-07 06:37:34
·
answer #9
·
answered by Veritas 7
·
2⤊
1⤋
Allow me to answer with an analogy:
"What does god need with a starship?"
-McCoy's Wager.
2007-09-07 06:38:07
·
answer #10
·
answered by kent_shakespear 7
·
1⤊
1⤋