Cause there isn't much to back it. These days, I just don't know what to believe. But I find the mystery of existence to be deep enough for me to ponder over and over in my head.
indeed. i've spent my fair share of being the skeptical, arrogant atheist, but after lots of thinking, reading, studying and realizations, I seem to feel that the fact that our plane of reality exists itself is enough evidence to consider a sort of higher consciousness that us humans have no grasp of.
Mostly, because in every single other circumstance, it would be considered naive if you weren't to question something that lacks any factual form of evidence.
#1: WRONG GD SECTION #2: [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YltEym9H0x4]YouTube - Richard Feynman on God[/ame] I suspect that what he would have said about the spirit world would have been that we just don't know enough about it to make a valid prediction about it. I think many here don't distinguish between the answers of "I don't know enough about the subject." and "I don't believe in the subject." I think not enough investigation has been done to give a good answer on the subject and I doubt it ever will until we all become comfortable enough with ourselves that giving an answer in the negative doesn't call into question all that we are (for those who believe) or that we might be wrong (for those who don't).
I believe that eventually, when our physics has had time to mature, the existence of higher order beings and realms of existence will become measurable. Yes I am saying I think that science will eventually find God too.
Don't you think it is more of a "leap" to suggest there is a creator of higher intelligence, than to derive from what we observe - that there is no trace/evidence of this "god"? You tell me which one is simply using their imagination.
In Pascal's Wager there is a 50% chance God exists, which is one of the reasons it is horribly flawed.
i. god exists-you dont believe in him/her/it-youre fucked ii. god exists-you believe in him/her/it-youre ok iii. god doesnt exist-you dont believe in him/her/it-neutral outcome iv. god doesnt exist-you believe in him/her/it-neutral outcome this is the essence of pascal...flawed?...dude, please
It's extremely flawed because it's basic premise is a false dichotomy. The wager assumes that the only possible scenarios are the Christian God exists or he does not. There are an infinite number of other possibilities regarding life after death. Perhaps the creator god values skepticism over blind faith, maybe it doesn't value human life at all, maybe it values evil. Truth is no one knows what happens after death, what would get one into heaven/whatever, or if an afterlife even exists.
You're assuming the only two option are either God exists with the traits ascribed by Christianity or he doesn't exists and no other deity does. The creator/God could have extremely different traits than those commonly assumed. You don't know that if a creator exists that it would value and reward faith and punish a lack thereof. The creator god might even condemn those with blind faith and reward those who were skeptical. Do you seriously not understand the point I'm trying to get across? It's based on a false dichotomy.
using big words doesnt lend credibility...no matter how you cut it, there only two possibilities about the existence of god...yes or no....dichotomy or not, the situation is a pure one (no maybes in pure situations), therefore the rest of what your saying about the "christian" god, etc really doesnt mean anything....just call him/her/it the holy chicken but again, either the holy chicken exists or not....
Right, but you're still assuming that it possesses qualities that you can't possibly know it has. I'm sorry if the words I'm using are considered "big" to you, but my intention isn't to confuse or make myself seem more credible. I've been trying to explain it to you as simply as possible, but I guess I need to dumb it down even more. Based off of your own explanation of Pascal's Wager: 1. A god exists who rewards beliefs/punishes disbelief. You believe in it. Outcome: Heaven/reward 2. A god exists who rewards belief/punishes disbelief. You don't believe. Outcome: Hell/punishment. 3. No god exists who rewards belief/punishes disbelief. You believe. Outcome: nothing 4. No god exists rewards belief/punishes disbelief. You don't believe. Outcome: nothing What you fail to grasp here is that there are other possibilities beside these four scenarios. 5. A god exists who rewards skepticism/punishes blind faith. You believe. Outcome: Hell/punishment. 6. A god exists who rewards skepticism/punished blind faith. You don't believe. Outcome: Heaven/reward. 7. A god exists who rewards pacifism regardless of belief. You are violent. Outcome: Hell/punishment. 8. A god exists who rewards violence/destruction. You are violent. Outcome: Heaven/reward. Do you see where I'm going with this? If not, let me ask you a simple question: do you understand that God might reward or punish people for actions completely unrelated to belief?
not trying to funny, but if you believe you have valid arguments, send your ideas to a journal or something because its not about dumbing down or whatever, its about whether you comperehend or not, and you say youre ready to take on blaise pascal, do it....
There's no need to send in my arguments to a journal. Serious philosophers already know Pascal's Wager is bunk. Do you understand that God could value things other than faith?
no need?....dude, people debate the relativity theory, of course pascal and other brians are to criticisized but in this particular scenario, you are the one against a theory....so the proving or disproving is your thing... and who knows, you, and other nay sayers, could turn out to be right....but, as it stands, the singular god either is, or is not...and if one cannot logically show me a "maybe", it doesnt doesnt cut it you know...
pascals wager is the theory name....like relativity theory....how else can one refer to that?....and i had mentioned pascals wager so that people knew i wasnt talking out of my ass, so that they knew my refence when i mentioned the 25% thing....