The More We Evolve, the Less We Need God

[carpedm9587]

I think it often goes over their heads, we really want them to repent and be in heaven with us. Eternity with Carp! And Tass, and Jim L, even Star!

Actually, it does NOT go over my head. Thought it has been over 3 decades, I do indeed remember the desire for those who did not believe as I did to be "saved," and the concern that they would not be. While I have sympathy for those feelings, they have no meaning for me anymore. No one is "saved." No one is "damned." We just live our lives as best we can, enjoying what we have while we have it, and then we end.

[Sparko]

Actually, it does NOT go over my head. Thought it has been over 3 decades, I do indeed remember the desire for those who did not believe as I did to be "saved," and the concern that they would not be. While I have sympathy for those feelings, they have no meaning for me anymore. No one is "saved." No one is "damned." We just live our lives as best we can, enjoying what we have while we have it, and then we end.

How can you be sure?

[seer]

Yeah theologyweb in heaven would be boring without them.

So Star wasn't a bridge too far?

[Sparko]

So Star wasn't a bridge too far?

The great thing about being saved is

2 Corinthians 5:17 Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation. The old has passed away; behold, the new has come.

In fact, that is what convinced me God is real. I saw my dad changed from a mean alcoholic to a loving father. In fact, his change convinced most of his drinking buddies and several other family members to be saved. Over 15 in all I think. It was that much of a change.

[carpedm9587]

How can you be sure?

We all live with a degree of uncertainty in life, Sparko, and the possibility of being wrong. I believe the sun will come up tomorrow. I believe it because it has every other morning, and I understand the physics at play. But I could be wrong. I believe I will get through the day without being hit by a meteor. I could be wrong. We take the preponderance of evidence, form a belief, and move ahead with it until a new tidbit comes along to make us re-examine the belief. We hold those beliefs more certainly or less certainly depending on the evidence. I am more certain that the sun will come up tomorrow than I am that my chair will not collapse under me. I am more certain my chair will not collapse under me than I am that I will find some milk left in the fridge when I go downstairs.

The preponderance of evidence tells me that god is a fabrication of the human mind; not a self-existent reality. So those are my beliefs until I have cause to change them.

[Sparko]

We all live with a degree of uncertainty in life, Sparko, and the possibility of being wrong. I believe the sun will come up tomorrow. I believe it because it has every other morning, and I understand the physics at play. But I could be wrong. I believe I will get through the day without being hit by a meteor. I could be wrong. We take the preponderance of evidence, form a belief, and move ahead with it until a new tidbit comes along to make us re-examine the belief. The preponderance of evidence tells me that god is a fabrication of the human mind; not a self-existent reality. So those are my beliefs until I have cause to change them.

Yeah but if I am wrong, I just cease to exist. If you are wrong...ouch.

Unless I am right about once saved always saved

[carpedm9587]

Yeah but if I am wrong, I just cease to exist. If you are wrong...ouch.

Unless I am right about once saved always saved

I am not big on Pascal's Wager. It's not an argument about truth. It's an argument about fear. And reason tells me I have very little to be concerned about, with or without a god.

[Sparko]

I am not big on Pascal's Wager. It's not an argument about truth. It's an argument about fear. And reason tells me I have very little to be concerned about, with or without a god.

Sure it is about fear. If you are wrong and end up in hell, that is pretty scary. That doesn't make it an invalid argument. In fact, it makes it very relevant.

If I argued that you shouldn't murder someone because you will spend the rest of your life in prison, does that make it invalid because I am arguing the fear of prison to you?

[seer]

I am not big on Pascal's Wager. It's not an argument about truth. It's an argument about fear. And reason tells me I have very little to be concerned about, with or without a god.

It is a little more involved than that:

1.God is, or God is not. Reason cannot decide between the two alternatives.

2.A Game is being played... where heads or tails will turn up.

3.You must wager (it is not optional).

4.Let us weigh the gain and the loss in wagering that God is. Let us estimate these two chances. If you gain, you gain all; if you lose, you lose nothing.

5.Wager, then, without hesitation that He is. (...) There is here an infinity of an infinitely happy life to gain, a chance of gain against a finite number of chances of loss, and what you stake is finite. And so our proposition is of infinite force, when there is the finite to stake in a game where there are equal risks of gain and of loss, and the infinite to gain.

6.But some cannot believe. They should then 'at least learn your inability to believe...' and 'Endeavour then to convince' themselves.

It is actually a rather logical argument.

[carpedm9587]

Sure it is about fear. If you are wrong and end up in hell, that is pretty scary. That doesn't make it an invalid argument. In fact, it makes it very relevant.

Again, we come back to evidence, Seer. Try it from the perspective of meteor hits. A basketball-sized meteor may strike the place on earth where I am standing, or it may not. I can live in a deep cave, or I can live in my house.

Outcomes:

Meteor hits - I live in a deep cave: Safe, but uncomfortable!
Meteor hits - I live in my house: Dead!
Meteor doesn't hit - I live in a deep cave: Safe but uncomfortable!
Meteor doesn't hit - I live in my house: Safe, and comfortable!

Pascal's wager would have me living in a cave, because all it pays attention to is fear. When you add in the probability of that kind of meteor actually hitting where I am standing, the risk is so small as to be ridiculous to spend time even thinking about. Evidence and reason are far more relevant than fear.

If I argued that you shouldn't murder someone because you will spend the rest of your life in prison, does that make it invalid because I am arguing the fear of prison to you?

That is not a Pascal's wager construct. Fear does indeed drive us to protect ourselves. It's kind of like insurance: it depends on the probability of the event in question, and the outcome if it does.

High Risk; High impact: Fear is justified.
High Risk; Low Impact: Fear is not justified
Low Risk; High Impact: Fear is often not justified
Low Risk; Low Impact: Fear is not justified

There are few places where I am driven by fear, and a fear-based argument will seldom convince me. You're on more solid ground with an evidence-based argument.

[carpedm9587]

It is a little more involved than that:

It is actually a rather logical argument.

...based on fear. It says nothing about truth.

[seer]

...based on fear. It says nothing about truth.

So where is his logic off?

[carpedm9587]

So where is his logic off?

I did not say the logic was off. I said it was rooted in fear - not truth.

There is nothing about the proposition that has to do with the truth of whether or not god exists - just the fear of outcomes based on whether or not god exists.

Truth trumps fear, in my world.

[Sparko]

Again, we come back to evidence, Seer.

again? look closer.

Try it from the perspective of meteor hits. A basketball-sized meteor may strike the place on earth where I am standing, or it may not. I can live in a deep cave, or I can live in my house.

Outcomes:

Meteor hits - I live in a deep cave: Safe, but uncomfortable!
Meteor hits - I live in my house: Dead!
Meteor doesn't hit - I live in a deep cave: Safe but uncomfortable!
Meteor doesn't hit - I live in my house: Safe, and comfortable!

Pascal's wager would have me living in a cave, because all it pays attention to is fear. When you add in the probability of that kind of meteor actually hitting where I am standing, the risk is so small as to be ridiculous to spend time even thinking about. Evidence and reason are far more relevant than fear.

Except Christianity isn't a cave. It is a mansion. My life is much better than it was before I was a Christian. I gain on Earth whether or not I gain after death.

That is not a Pascal's wager construct.

Why not? You are asking someone to act based on "fear" of consequences.

Fear does indeed drive us to protect ourselves. It's kind of like insurance: it depends on the probability of the event in question, and the outcome if it does.

High Risk; High impact: Fear is justified.
High Risk; Low Impact: Fear is not justified
Low Risk; High Impact: Fear is often not justified
Low Risk; Low Impact: Fear is not justified

There are few places where I am driven by fear, and a fear-based argument will seldom convince me. You're on more solid ground with an evidence-based argument.

I never said an evidence based argument was not needed. Just that it is foolish to bet your soul that you are correct when you have so much to lose. It behooves you to make sure on the topic. If it were a meteor, I would not casually dismiss it if there were millions who were claiming it is so. I would do everything in my power to find out if it were real or not.

[carpedm9587]

again? look closer.

Yeah, I'm ping-ponging between the two of you. And you are amazingly similar in your styles and discourse maturity.

Except Christianity isn't a cave. It is a mansion. My life is much better than it was before I was a Christian. I gain on Earth whether or not I gain after death.

Sparko - you definitely have a hard time with analogies. The point was not to compare Christianity to caves. The point was to show the weakness of an argument from fear.

Why not? You are asking someone to act based on "fear" of consequences.

Because Pascal's wager has a very simple 2x2 assessment matrix. I actually DO use the same construct for basic decision making, and have taught my boys how to use it. But it is always with an emphasis on likelihood, evidence, and consequences - not just consequences.

I never said an evidence based argument was not needed. Just that it is foolish to bet your soul that you are correct when you have so much to lose.

I don't believe I have a "soul" to bet. However, if I do, I am reasonably sure I am on safe ground one way or the other.

It behooves you to make sure on the topic. If it were a meteor, I would not casually dismiss it if there were millions who were claiming it is so. I would do everything in my power to find out if it were real or not.

Which I have done, and have concluded it is not. At the end of the day, Sparko, it's not about the number of people holding the belief - it's about the quality of the evidence. I don't care if 2 billion people are telling me a meteor is going to hit and 100 are telling me it's not, if the 2 billion are basing their fear on a passage in a 2-3.5K year old book that prophecies "meteor strikes unsuspecting man," and the other 100 have telescopes, computer analysis capabilities, and assure me that there is no such object in the night sky, I'm going to go with the solid evidence.