Pascal's Wager: What Have I Lost?

[JonathanL]

I don't know how many different ways I can try to make this clear to you. Allow me to underline it: I don't oppose the Christian God. Just like you don't "oppose" the Islamic concepts of God, I do not oppose the Christian God. It's kind of hard to oppose something you have every reason to believe is mythology, and no reason to think is reality. You guys always try to categorize nonbelief as some sort of disobedience, instead of just drawing the simple conclusion that I don't believe because I sincerely do not find Christianity to be backed by evidence.

Being in opposition to God and having a sincere lack of belief in His existence are not mutually exclusive. Your position has been quite clear for me from the beginning.

By definition it is those animals that reproduce the most that carry the species further evolutionary - it's pretty simple to understand. Animals that do not reproduce in sufficient numbers eventually go extinct. So, no, humans wouldn't have survived if great multitudes of our ancestors had not sought out multiple partners to reproduce with. It's a biological reality I'm afraid.

And being in a monogamous relationship means you wouldn't be able to reproduce in sufficient numbers? I find that hard to believe.

I say if something is the key ingredient to a species survival, it is perfectly natural and moral by nature.

You're a very long way from showing that it is indeed a key ingredient to humanity's survival.

And countless of people never did, have, or will, so what's your point? God creates these beings knowing full well ahead of time that their minds would not grasp his existence as being real, and so they were doomed before they were even born.
Sorry, the whole thing about God giving us free will to reject him, yet knowing before we are even born that such is our destiny by his own design, is not something that can be reconciled with anything I'd call moral and good.

You're not the arbiter of what's moral and good, though.

Maybe if God had planned things out a little bit better divinely, and not worried so much about his ego being stroked, more people would recognize his existence.

1. I'm 100% certain that you're not even capable of determining whether or not a better version of reality than the one we have right now is possible.
2. As the highest possible Being, we are obligated to, as you so crudely put it, stroke His ego. If God exists then the only proper way to relate to Him is to praise Him and give Him glory.

[JonathanL]

"The more I read of Hume, the less impressed I get" - Chrawnus

[JonathanL]

Behaviour that consciously chooses between what is acceptable or unacceptable to the group shows the existence of a moral code within that group.

This is just a restatement of your previous assertion. You haven't introduced any supporting arguments.

[JonathanL]

What is it with all of these deities so concerned about whether they're worshiped or not? What kind of conciseness could be so ego centered and obsessed with themselves, that they are more concerned with whether they are loved and adored than even the most basic welfare of the world they are responsible for - look around. No person is entitled to love and worship. Not your partner, not your parents, not your friends, not your children, and not even God. Every relationship is based on each persons presence within that relationship, and what they bring to the table - not if they are related in some way.

So, what you're saying is that if Someone existed who was the Creator and Upholder and Sustainer of the universe and all who are in it He wouldn't deserve love and worship? That sounds quite ridiculous in my ears...

[Tassman]

So, what you're saying is that if Someone existed who was the Creator and Upholder and Sustainer of the universe and all who are in it He wouldn't deserve love and worship? That sounds quite ridiculous in my ears...

What is ridiculous is that the "Creator and Upholder and Sustainer" of the universe DEMANDS love and worship.

"The more I read of Hume, the less impressed I get" - Chrawnus

Well I'm sure that Hume would have been be devastated by your assessment.

[Starlight]

What is ridiculous is that the "Creator and Upholder and Sustainer" of the universe DEMANDS love and worship.

He's like Trump, just even more insecure. And he gets upset when his ratings aren't tremendous.

[Tassman]

Originally Posted by Chrawnus

This is just a restatement of your previous assertion.

Why mess with perfection?

You haven't introduced any supporting arguments.

[Tassman]

He's like Trump, just even more insecure

...only much more "YUGE".

[JonathanL]

What is ridiculous is that the "Creator and Upholder and Sustainer" of the universe DEMANDS love and worship.

It's not ridiculous to demand something which you are owed. If you're indebted to someone then he would be within his rights to demand that you pay that debt to him, would he not?

Well I'm sure that Hume would have been be devastated by your assessment.

If Hume was alive right now he would probably be about as much concerned with my opinion as I am impressed by his arguments.

[JonathanL]

Why mess with perfection?

A perfect mess, perhaps.

I'm taking issue with the terms acceptable and unacceptable. This is just you begging the question. It's in no way self-evident that the animals who engage/refrain from engaging in these sorts of behaviours do so because they somehow have the notions that they are doing something acceptable/unacceptable. And in any case, a distinction between acceptable and unacceptable isn't enough to establish morality, you also need a notion between good and evil.

[JonathanL]

Maybe if Hume didn't have his head so far up his own butt he'd have realized that the very reason why humans seeking excessive glory and adoration is a shameful thing is the very reason why God deserves it.

[Roy]

Yes. They do not understand the moral implications of good and evil. That doesn't mean animals can't behave in good or bad ways, but the judgement of their actions being "bad" or "good" is our interpretation of them not theirs. They can feel emotions and react to them but they don't know that they are good or bad actions, morally speaking.

Aren't you just applying human/Christian morality to dolphins here? You're judging their actions on your terms, not on their own. Why would a dolphin moral code be the same as a human one?

[Roy]

The bolded doesn't follow at all from what was stated before it. Behaviour in itself is not enough to show the existence of a moral code.

That's begging the question of what is enough to show the existence of a moral code.

Writing isn't needed, unless you think humans couldn't have a moral code unless it was written down. Communication would seem to be necessary, but dolphins have that. Sophisticated language may or may not be required.

[Tassman]

I'm taking issue with the terms acceptable and unacceptable. This is just you begging the question. It's in no way self-evident that the animals who engage/refrain from engaging in these sorts of behaviours do so because they somehow have the notions that they are doing something acceptable/unacceptable. And in any case, a distinction between acceptable and unacceptable isn't enough to establish morality, you also need a notion between good and evil.

Morality is a system of ideas about right and wrong conduct and it developed over the course of human evolution. It is an instinctive survival strategy for a social species such as us. And although human social behaviours are complex, the precursors of modern human morality can be traced to our own Stone Age ancestors and can be seen inthe behaviours of many other social animals, including dolphins.

Maybe if Hume didn't have his head so far up his own butt he'd have realized that the very reason why humans seeking excessive glory and adoration is a shameful thing is the very reason why God deserves it.

[Roy]

Being in opposition to God and having a sincere lack of belief in His existence are not mutually exclusive.

Sure they are. You can't oppose something that doesn't exist and never will. You can oppose the idea of god, or oppose those who believe in a god, but you can't actually oppose God.

It'd be like pulling up non-existent weeds, or painting slogans on a wall that hasn't been built.

If you insist otherwise, I'll ask you to critique the 85th amendment to the US constitution.