by BurnTheShips 79 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
Maybe even our universe is eternal. It always strikes as very odd to what extent our perception of the origin of the universe is influenced by mythology.
It is possible, however I am going from the premise that it had a beginning, which is what the best cosmology available indicates. Besides, logically, if there was infinite regress we would never be here. It is impossible to cover an infinite amount of time and therefore the world had a beginning.
BTS
Thanks, your subtle reasoning has me convinced.
What's there to reason about Pascal's Wager. You have nothing to lose and everything to gain by believing in God. I think it's ludicriss because that wager applies to every God. There are far more severe consequences than hell from pagan Gods. So actually you have more to lose if those pagan ancient Gods are actually the ones that exist and you don't worship them. There's equal consequences for not worshipping Allah, so by Pascal's Wager I should actually worship Allah over the Christian God because I have more to lose by not worshipping Allah than not worshipping Jehovah/Yahwey. Then again you can look at it another way too, from that of the Atheist. You actually have more to lose by worshipping God than not worshipping God, sure the consequences of not worshipping God is death and possibly hell. But the one thing you're guaranteed is this one life, so by worshipping God you're costing yourself the one thing you're guaranteed Life. You'll spend it desperately trying to please some Sky Daddy which you have no guarantee of doing so. Regardless both worshippers and non-worshippers will die, guaranteed. Therefore the cost is far greater in worshipping God than not worshipping God based on the guarantee.
Bear in mind this is a wager, either way it's a gamble. Sometimes player A wins, sometimes player B wins, and sometimes the house wins. The one thing everyone seems to forget in this Wager is that both premises could be wrong in which case we both lose.
That's why I said it's drek. I tried to be nice and say drek instead of saying what I really think it is, but I'll give you a hint....it smells really bad and rhymes with twit.
I pick number 16, but that argument could be just as much an argument for atheism as it is for God imo. was cs lewis a christian atheist?
Well, that's better Tuesday.
I think it's ludicriss because that wager applies to every God.
Well I think ludicriss is a rapper but I think Pascal's wager still works even under your scenario. The "cost" is the same with believing in the incorrect God as not believing in God at all. You are still mathematically better off than in not believing in God at all. There are two possible sets of circumstances:
Example A: You believe in an "incorrect" god
If there isn't a God, then nothing's changed. If there is a God, then you suffer an infinite cost but you would have suffered the same infinite cost if you hand't believed at all. So, nothing has changed.
Example B: You believe in a "correct" God
If there is a God, you are better off (however "correct" has no meaning if there is no God.) If there is not one, nothing has changed. So on the whole, you are better off from the standpoint of the wager.
So in Example A, your belief in God doesn't change anything, and in Example B your belief in God changes something for the better if God exists and doesn't change anything if he doesn't. So Pascal's wager still works.
It potentially doesn't work if you say that believing in the incorrect God could leave you worse off than not believing in God at all. However since few religious theologies say that (at least none that I have heard of), you are still on the safer side of the wager.
BTS
Who shows there are, may I subject your speculation to the same evidence claims? You merely posit an alternative.
I provided an alternate possibility simply to show that other options exist besides falling back on the "god" answer. I was not presenting it as if there is evidence for it. But it is a simpler answer than invoking "god".
We can invoke Occam's Razor here. God is perfectly simple, and explains everything about the universe. The universe is incredibly complex, and explains nothing about itself. So Occam's Razor would seem to favor God over some infinite set of universes, existing forever.
Do you not see what is circular here? You are basically stating that the universe is too complex to have originated on its own means (whatever that may be), so it must have a creator. This creator by definition will be more complex and more amazing than anything it creates. But for some magical reason you do not apply the same rule that "complexity requires creation" to this being. Perfect example of special pleading.
You are actually going against Occam's Razor by introducing an even more complex element (god) in order to explain the universe. It's not necessary. The fact is something must have been eternal. What does Occam's Razor tell you: that the unintelligent universe (its energy, whatever) is eternal or some even more complex intelligent being is the eternal cause?
You want scientific evidence, something that scientists themselves know they will never be able to get, because science cannot go past the beginning. In fact, science can't even observe all the way to the beginning, since we cannot see any earlier than the first Planck second; the laws of physics not holding before that point.
Actually I am OK with never knowing. But why is it ok to break the rules and claim "god" just because science cannot currently (and may never be able to) answer a question?
First research what eternal means. It does not mean lasting an infinite amount of time. Time came into existence along with energy and matter in the Big Bang. Something that existed before Time, is not in Time, is eternal by definition.
I understand that. Isn't that what you are claiming God to be? Existing out of time? Where is your evidence?
Sigh...Pascal's Wager? REALLY? *shakes head*
I've read through those arguments and didn't find even one that was in any way logical or convincing. Pascals wager? That is the best you have? I noticed the holes in that particular argument when I was a child.
It is possible, however I am going from the premise that it had a beginning, which is what the best cosmology available indicates. Besides, logically, if there was infinite regress we would never be here. It is impossible to cover an infinite amount of time and therefore the world had a beginning.
This is indeed a tricky thing to think about. But "god" doesn't fix the problem of where everything came from. Not at all; not logically. All you are doing is pushing the problem out further. Now you must answer where did this god come from? What caused god?
Of course at this point most theists just say "god is not bound by the same rules" and "he is etneral" and "he had no cause." Very convenient! The fact is there is no proof of this god, no way to test it or posit hypotheses that you can test. Therefore there is no way to know its nature, no way to show that this god is in fact not bound by the same rules that govern our universe.
This creator by definition will be more complex and more amazing than anything it creates.
Not so. This may hold true for natural things, but an uncaused Cause could be of a different nature alltogether and this argument not hold true. And really, this argument does not even hold true even for natural things. Even in the scientifically observable universe, we see complexity emerge from simplicity. In biology, it is the theory of evolution. We see the same process in the cosmos, the universe was in a simpler state when it was younger, it is now much more structured and complex. So no, God does not need to be more complex than the Universe.
Now you must answer where did this god come from? What caused god?
Cause and effect is something that exists in Time. How can there be causality without before and after?
Therefore there is no way to know its nature, no way to show that this god is in fact not bound by the same rules that govern our universe.
So if you can't fully understand it, it can't exist? I would call that hubris.
BTS
Pascal's wager would not be my first choice, my playful defense notwithstanding, however there are some good logical arguments in there.
