Pascals Wager

[mrdevious]

Just for the sake of confusing philisophical discussion, I'm going to introduce:

MrDevious' Wager:

There are alien beings in this universe of astounding power. They can travel to any point in this universe in a matter of seconds. They can destroy worlds with the utmost ease, they can whipe out galaxies if it so tickles their fancy.

And it just so happens, they don't believe in god. In fact, they are so offended by the notion of god that they destroy any and all alien life they encounter that worship a diety. While there are billions of galaxies full of life-inhabiting planets, they'll eventually come across ours.
So, whether or not it may be rational to believe in these creatures, can we really take that chance? It's therefor only reasonable that we take the safe road and stop believing in god, lest the creatures should find Earth one day and kill us all.

[delusionsofNORMALity]

we are already here and we're giving you 24 hours.:vader1:

[Coelho]

i think dont belive in God is arrogance from us... we are only another animal specie, as doomed to die as the meanest bactery, living in a small planet lost in the unending space full of zillions of stars and galaxies bigger and older than our understanding... just cause we can think, we illude ourselves thinking we are the most important things in the entire universe! we think we know everything... when in truth all we know is only a drop in an endless ocean... so i think we should realize how small we are... and realize there is an unlimited amount of things far beyond our comprehension...
and may the Lord have mercy of us all...

[delusionsofNORMALity]

i think don't believe in God is arrogance from us...

isn't it the ultimate in arrogance to believe that a divine being would have any interest in an insignificant species such as us.

[afghooey]

isn't it the ultimate in arrogance to believe that a divine being would have any interest in an insignificant species such as us.

I have to question whether a divine being would have any need for concepts such as 'significant' and 'insignificant'. Looking at things from an objective viewpoint, why should size determine anything's significance? The appearance of humanity being a tiny speck in an unimaginably vast universe is just an effect of our perspectives and concepts of size. A deity, especially one that is omnipresent and omniscient, would no doubt transcend such limits of perception.

[Oneironaut]

Pascal's Wager has too many flaws for this atheist to take it seriously. Basically, Pascal's Wager says "If you don't believe in the Christian God, and the Christian God exists, you will go to Christian Hell. If you do believe in the Christian God and there is a Christian God, you will go to Christian Heaven. If you do not believe in the Christian God and Christianity is false, you get nothing and lose nothing. Therefore, it is in your best interests to believe in the Christian God no matter how unlikely it is." Here are the five main problems with this argument:

1) It assumes that the Christian God is the only God worth worrying about. There are lots of other religions that threaten you with hell if you don't believe in them too. Pascal's Wager applies equally to Christianity and Islam, so what am I supposed to do, flip a coin?

2) It assumes that God will send me to hell if I don't believe in him. It rejects the idea that God might judge us on our actions rather than our metaphysical beliefs. It rejects the idea that there might be a non-Christian God who likes atheists (who worship no gods) more than Christians (who worship the wrong god). It rejects the idea that God might respect intellectual honesty, admiring an atheist who admits there isn't sufficient evidence for gods more than he admires a Christian who believes out of fear or out of a selfish desire to get to heaven.

3) Pascal's Wager ignores the fact that I cannot consciously change my beliefs. If somebody tells me there's a unicorn who will burn me for all eternity unless I believe in unicorns, that can't change the fact that I have never seen any evidence for unicorns and hence will not believe in unicorns until I see some evidence compelling enough to change my mind. I can't choose my beliefs at will. I can't just wake up and say "Today I feel like being a conservative pro-war Hindu anti-abortionist who believes in the Loch Ness Monster."

4) Pascal's Wager is not an argument for believing in God. It is an argument for pretending to believe in God. No part of Pascal's Wager affects the likelihood of God's existence. Even if I go on believing that God's existence is extremely unlikely, Pascal's Wager says I should act as though I believe in God anyways. I am not willing to be that dishonest, and besides, wouldn't an omniscient God see right through the act?

5) Any God who tortures people for all eternity because they don't believe in something for which there is insufficient evidence is an asshole who is not worthy of worship. If Adolf Hitler gave me the choice between converting to Nazism or burning in a gas chamber, I'd gladly take the gas chamber. Same goes for God; I'd rather burn and keep my dignity than submit to a childish egomaniacal cosmic dictator.

[mrdevious]

Sorry Oneironaut, there's one thing you haven't considered that completely deconstructs your entire argument.



LOGIC IS JUST THE DEVIL WHISPERING IN YOUR EAR!

[delusionsofNORMALity]

LOGIC IS JUST THE DEVIL WHISPERING IN YOUR EAR!

and independent thought is the cause of all the world's woes.

[Oneironaut]

Sorry Oneironaut, there's one thing you haven't considered that completely deconstructs your entire argument.



LOGIC IS JUST THE DEVIL WHISPERING IN YOUR EAR!

If that's the case, then HAIL SATAN, PRINCE OF DARKNESS (and logic)!

[Coelho]

if bush is with satan, more a reason to run to the church!

(how would be the hell if satan starts governing it like bush???)