It is entirely possible God is smarter than dogma assumes and He can figure out what to do with individuals that desire His righteousness.
Possible, yes, but that doesn't really address the question. What if he isn't? What if he's a mean old one-eyed bastard who created the world in an act of murder, calls slain warriors to a "paradise" that consists of unending battle, and leaves those who die in bed to descend to a realm of mist, cold, and darkness?
Seems reasonable to not encroach upon the welfare of others unless the evidence is incontrovertible.
Consider Gideon. When he thought God was calling him to arms against an oppressor, he tested himself with signs.
This is contrasted to the people who objected to Jesus and asked Him for miraculous signs. Asking for signs wasn't at issue; Jesus had publicly done miracles. It was their motives for asking that was the problem.
The logic is absolutely terrible. Zeus and his friends would not be pleased with you if you spent your life worshipping the Christian version of god. More people believe in the Christian god, but that doesn't make it any more likely to be correct.
Zeus and his friends would not be pleased with you if you spent your life worshipping the Christian version of god.
Again we come to an issue of motives.
If one truly rejects one god due to the fear of another god, one god has been chosen as superior.
If there is a god that insists on the usage of specific incantations for salvation, regardless of our knowledge, then that god is indifferent to our motives. The idea that there is one correct religion is often common ground for both adherents of particular faiths and those who reject the pursuit of religious truth as pointless. On either side, theology is often used to rationalize other motives.
If there is a god that judges on the basis of motives, only the person that chooses among those motives and that god will have insight into its judgment.
I've spent a lot of time thinking about Pascal's Wager and it seems pretty easy to rebut.
1) Let's bypass the absurdity of "choosing to believe just in case", including whether a choice to believe in case you're wrong is mentally possible or whether a god would accept the charade. All these things are problems, but it isn't the fundamental problem with the argument.
2) It's not a choice of "Christianity or atheism" - without evidence to support any specific religion - all religions currently proposed have equal weight as a possibility, including a religion in which only atheists get to heaven (maybe that god hates the concept of faith as much as Christopher Hitchens). If you don't create a false dichotomy of possibilities between "Oblivion" and, "The Christian Concept of Heaven and Hell" for potential afterlifes - then Pascal's Wager completely falls apart. There is no benefit whatsoever to picking Christianity for fire insurance.
There are multiple reasons for God to write the Bible:
a) You pass God's test by reading the book and worshiping him, and fail God's test by not hearing that the book exists, or by reading the book and concluding it's stupid.
b) You pass God's test by reading the book and concluding it's stupid, and fail God's test by reading the book and worshiping him.
Given that the book in question doesn't make too much sense and says God is evil, (b) is obviously more likely to be correct than (a). Pascal's Wager is a statistical reason to want to be an atheist.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Standard: [leftovers from booster drafts]
Modern: U M'Olk; B Goodstuff
As an atheist, I've had this question thrown at me a few times: "What if you're wrong and when you die, you discover that God is real?"
And as an atheist, my response to God would be something like this: I've led a good, honest life and my lack of belief in you was a result of the gifts of logic and reason that you gave me.
If I was a theist, my response would be more like this: I discarded the gifts of logic and reason that you gave me so I could live my life telling lies about you. I spread the word that you were a genocidal monster, because that is how the bible portrays you. I've been insulting you without realizing it for decades because I believed that you would reward me in the afterlife for doing so.
If there really is a god, being an atheist would be the safest bet.
Seems reasonable to not encroach upon the welfare of others unless the evidence is incontrovertible.
Consider Gideon. When he thought God was calling him to arms against an oppressor, he tested himself with signs.
This is contrasted to the people who objected to Jesus and asked Him for miraculous signs. Asking for signs wasn't at issue; Jesus had publicly done miracles. It was their motives for asking that was the problem.
Again we come to an issue of motives.
If one truly rejects one god due to the fear of another god, one god has been chosen as superior.
If there is a god that insists on the usage of specific incantations for salvation, regardless of our knowledge, then that god is indifferent to our motives. The idea that there is one correct religion is often common ground for both adherents of particular faiths and those who reject the pursuit of religious truth as pointless. On either side, theology is often used to rationalize other motives.
If there is a god that judges on the basis of motives, only the person that chooses among those motives and that god will have insight into its judgment.
1) Let's bypass the absurdity of "choosing to believe just in case", including whether a choice to believe in case you're wrong is mentally possible or whether a god would accept the charade. All these things are problems, but it isn't the fundamental problem with the argument.
2) It's not a choice of "Christianity or atheism" - without evidence to support any specific religion - all religions currently proposed have equal weight as a possibility, including a religion in which only atheists get to heaven (maybe that god hates the concept of faith as much as Christopher Hitchens). If you don't create a false dichotomy of possibilities between "Oblivion" and, "The Christian Concept of Heaven and Hell" for potential afterlifes - then Pascal's Wager completely falls apart. There is no benefit whatsoever to picking Christianity for fire insurance.
Remaking Magic - A Podcast for those that love MTG and Game Design
The Dungeon Master's Guide - A Podcast for those that love RPGs and Game Design
Sig-Heroes of the Plane
There are multiple reasons for God to write the Bible:
a) You pass God's test by reading the book and worshiping him, and fail God's test by not hearing that the book exists, or by reading the book and concluding it's stupid.
b) You pass God's test by reading the book and concluding it's stupid, and fail God's test by reading the book and worshiping him.
Given that the book in question doesn't make too much sense and says God is evil, (b) is obviously more likely to be correct than (a). Pascal's Wager is a statistical reason to want to be an atheist.
Modern: U M'Olk; B Goodstuff
And as an atheist, my response to God would be something like this: I've led a good, honest life and my lack of belief in you was a result of the gifts of logic and reason that you gave me.
If I was a theist, my response would be more like this: I discarded the gifts of logic and reason that you gave me so I could live my life telling lies about you. I spread the word that you were a genocidal monster, because that is how the bible portrays you. I've been insulting you without realizing it for decades because I believed that you would reward me in the afterlife for doing so.
If there really is a god, being an atheist would be the safest bet.
My G Yisan, the Bard of Death G deck.
My BUGWR Hermit druid BUGWR deck.