How were you created?

[Hardcore Newbie]

You're taking me out of context. Those statements came from a lot of steps before the conclusions. The reason it says the more rational person should believe in God follows from the premises before that statement.

It's not out of context. You're saying the more rational person believes yadda yadda because of these steps, but when those steps were under scrutiny, and the argument about those steps and the conclusion brought us here, with yourself not having the answers to the arguments and criticisms, then it obviously can't be more rational if you can't defend those points within a rational means yourself.

It's like me saying that a more rational person believes that dogs taste like chocolate, and showing the steps that lead to that conclusion. Someone argues a few of those steps and thus the conclusion brought about from those steps. If I can't defend the steps that I used to get to the conclusion (ie, people have different perceptions of taste), then I can't claim that I have the more rational conclusion without being a liar.

So no, it's not out of context.

It's philosophy, there's no room for flip flopping, the theories attempt to their best ability to put forward why someone can justify believing in God. It does not say 'there is a God' It says based on the premises, it is rational to hold these views that there is a God.

It'd be different if you said that it's "a" rational view, but going out of your way to say that a rational person "should" believe this, and "should" believe that. If you replaced it with "could", then I wouldn't be arguing what you're implying rational people "should" do.

I believe myself to be a rational person, and I have arguments as to why I should follow the points that you've laid out. Very specifically, the gambling part, where you assert that a more rational person does such and such in considering bets. Yes, that's true, but you claim the more rational person places his bet on God, when it's obvious that neither of us knows they expected value of the bet, nor the cost. For the sake of debate, we can assume that it's a 50/50 toss up between created vs not created, but even that we don't know for sure.

Odds are created from known information. Since we don't *know*, we shouldn't even assume the odds are 50/50.

[Reefer Rogue]

It's not out of context. You're saying the more rational person believes yadda yadda because of these steps, but when those steps were under scrutiny, and the argument about those steps and the conclusion brought us here, with yourself not having the answers to the arguments and criticisms, then it obviously can't be more rational if you can't defend those points within a rational means yourself.

It's like me saying that a more rational person believes that dogs taste like chocolate, and showing the steps that lead to that conclusion. Someone argues a few of those steps and thus the conclusion brought about from those steps. If I can't defend the steps that I used to get to the conclusion (ie, people have different perceptions of taste), then I can't claim that I have the more rational conclusion without being a liar.

So no, it's not out of context.


It'd be different if you said that it's "a" rational view, but going out of your way to say that a rational person "should" believe this, and "should" believe that. If you replaced it with "could", then I wouldn't be arguing what you're implying rational people "should" do.

I believe myself to be a rational person, and I have arguments as to why I should follow the points that you've laid out. Very specifically, the gambling part, where you assert that a more rational person does such and such in considering bets. Yes, that's true, but you claim the more rational person places his bet on God, when it's obvious that neither of us knows they expected value of the bet, nor the cost. For the sake of debate, we can assume that it's a 50/50 toss up between created vs not created, but even that we don't know for sure.

Odds are created from known information. Since we don't *know*, we shouldn't even assume the odds are 50/50.

I stated the philosophy. I didn't create it. The philosophers who created it claimed that a more rational person blah blah. Perhaps it should be mitigated into could believe. Like i said, i can't defend all the criticisms against it because i didn't create it. There are criticisms for everything, it depends on the conclusion. Do the criticisms outweigh the proposals sufficiently enough to discredit the theories? Imo, no, there are not enough criticisms to change my opinion on the matter. Imo, there are more proposals in favour of God then against, therefore, imo, more evidence that there is a God instead of there isn't. This is what we have to go by, since without definitive proof we can only speculate.

The afterlife provides an infinte reward, which a rational gamber seeks because he looks to improve his earnings or his winnings over the long run, since the afterlife is eternal, his reward is infinte. Unlike athiesm, which offers a finite reward. You die, that's it. Out of the two possibilities, i choose the infinite reward and i believe i am rational for doing so.

The odds are 50/50, either God exists or doesn't.

[40oz]

So you're saying it makes you feel better to believe there's more to life than...life itself?

I just see this whole gambling perspective where you feel the odds are better to live one way rather than another a little bit of a weird reason to hold a certain belief.

Maybe its just me

[Reefer Rogue]

It's not the only reason, it's one of many. I look forward to the afterlife, some may not.

[Hardcore Newbie]

The afterlife provides an infinte reward

may provide an infinite award, may provide infinite punishment. This is one of the faulty assumptions that you have. You don't know this, you think it.

which a rational gamber seeks because he looks to improve his earnings or his winnings over the long run, since the afterlife is eternal, his reward is infinte.

I don't want to become catty, but you're not reading a word I'm saying if you still think this way. The reward is UNKNOWN. People have made claims to a reward, but no one can know for sure.

Unlike athiesm, which offers a finite reward. You die, that's it.

Again, it seems you're not paying attention to a single word. Being right and getting the best reward are not the same. There could be a God whose requirement for an afterlife is scepticism and disbelief. So even if the atheist is wrong, in this case, they win the prize that you're going after, and you get a really bad one.

Out of the two possibilities, i choose the infinite reward and i believe i am rational for doing so.
The odds are 50/50, either God exists or doesn't.

Odds, again, are made from known information. If I asked you if I was wearing a sock, to you it would be a 50/50 guess, but in reality, I either am or I am not. Why is it that I can get the question right 100% of the time if the odds to you are 50/50? Because the odds aren't 50/50. Odds *really* only work for things that haven't happened yet. I'm pretty sure the verdict for creating the universe is already in, we just don't know that verdict.

Having said that, even if we assume the odds are 50/50 (which we have to because we have no information), belief in God doesn't guarantee the best prize, it could bank you the worst prize, being the negative infinite award.

You need to separate the idea of a GOD, with the idea of a Xian God. They share the same requirements of GOD status, but they are not the same.

Do I have to write you a flow chart or a matrix for you to stop saying that you have the best odds? You only believe you have the best odds because you aren't considering all of the information and possibilities, which I've pointed out at least three times in this thread.

[mfqr]

I guess nobody wanted to answer my question. Oh well.

[L Rag]

Wtf, everyone seems really keen on discussing their parents having sex :wtf:

[Mr. Bubbles]

To me this thread seems like a false poll. You're asking whether or not we believe in creation. I don't. I believe in evolution. I got here because of the evolution of the human race. Every birth is a step, be it a small one, to even greater and more advanced human beings. Does it not strike you odd how we've not always been gifted with electricity and indoor plumbing? These things came with time. We evolved far enough to understand and comprehend things we simply could not 1,000 years ago. That's how I see it, anyway. Sorry if I came off a little aggressive, it's early in the morning and I'm getting ready to take a nap. :jointsmile:

[Reefer Rogue]

The poll is over: Other is the winner.

I may or may not have been created by God. I personally choose to believe the teachings of Jesus Christ and Jah. Therefore i believe and have faith there is an afterlife where i will become one with God.

Thank you all for participating in this thread, i've said basically all i need to say and want to say. I don't feel like refuting anymore criticisms because it shall only end in an infinte regress.

Peace to all humanity.

[BeforeYourTime]

What makes the Christian God so much more valid than any other god? Why is it he that is real? I'd like to know why, other than "because the Bible says so." And if that is your response, I'd like to know why the Bible is more credible than any other book like it. Really, there is no reason to believe in the Christian God rather than any other god, except that it all comes down to personal preference. So considering that, Christians have no argument for why they should believe the Christian God is the right and real one, rather than Allah, or the Sun god, or some other Pagan gods. What about Zeus? Most Christians deny the existence of Zeus and many other gods within greek mythology. But why can't they be right, and your Christian God be wrong?

I'd like to know a Sane and justified answer too, without using a bible as "proof".