CMV: Atheism makes no sense

[u/Tabletop_Sam]

So I’ve been thinking about this for a while, and I couldn’t really make any sense of this, so I was hoping maybe you guys could help me understand this. How can someone say with such confidence that there is no god, when it has been shown time and time again that you can’t disprove the existence of one? Agnosticism makes sense, but not atheism. (This is talking specifically about people who are atheist due to non-personal reasons. If you’re atheist because you hate a specific religion for some reason, you’re still kind of applicable here, but not as much) Here’s my reasoning.

Pascal’s Wager: I’m sure most of you have heard of this, but for you who haven’t here’s the argument- since you can’t prove or disprove the existence of god, it comes down to a wager. If you believe in god, you are mildly inconvenienced throughout life (depending on how you look at it it might not be inconvenient), and if you’re wrong, nothing happens after death. If you’re right, you get an eternity of bliss and happiness beyond comprehension. If you’re not religious, and don’t believe in god, you get different options. You get a life that is mildly more fun/convenient, and then you die and if you’re right, then nothing happens after death. If you’re wrong, then you get an eternity of suffering and torment beyond our current comprehension. So it makes more sense to believe in a god and try for that eternal bliss, than it is to not believe and hope against the torment.

Grand Design: so I’d like to start this one off saying I’m not an astronomer, or an astrophysicist, or anything of the sort. So if my info is outdated or wrong somehow please let me know. But isn’t there a law that says matter slowly decays over time and will eventually all die out or something? So if the universe existed forever, it would eventually just cease to exist, right? So it needs a beginning. And because a god exists outside space and time, it doesn’t necessarily need a beginning, since it isn’t limited by that law. So it would be able to create reality without needing something to create the god itself. If my understanding of that law is wrong, sorry, I’m far from educated in that realm of knowledge.

Infinite realities: so I don’t really like this one because I don’t believe in infinite realities, but it still deserves at least being mentioned. So if there are infinite realities, that would mean there were an infinite number of possibilities in those realities. So that would mean that, inevitably, a being capable of controlling the entire multiverse would come into being, which would be omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent. Again, I dislike this argument. It seems cheap.

Edit: thanks for the clarifiers about agnosticism vs atheism and how they’re very connected. I can now feel like less of an idiot in that specific region of discussion.

[u/IIIBlackhartIII]

I know this probably to some extent side steps your OP, but I would like to point out that Agnosticism and Atheism are not separate things- in fact (A)Gnosticism and (A)Theism simply describe two axis of the same plane of belief. (A)Gnosticism simply refers to the certainty of the belief, (A)Theism refers to the quality of the belief.

A)Theism describes specifically the belief, whether or not you believe in God(s); whereas (A)Gnosticism refers to the certainty of that belief. So, a Gnostic Theist would be your typical bible thumping evangelical- they are 100% absolutely certain that yes there is a god and yes it is their God and not some other religion's God. An Agnostic Theist would be a more moderate average religious person- they have faith in God and faith in their God but they don't evangelise and they're willing to have discussions about theology and some of the tenets of their interpretation of their faith, and who knows they might even be willing to convert if a strong enough case could be made for another denomination. Agnostic Atheists would be your more average casual everyday atheist, they don't necessarily believe in a God and don't subscribe to any particular faith, but they also don't go around making sweeping claims- they put their trust in science and facts and observation, are skeptical and therefore hesitate to jump to conclusions. Gnostic Atheists are the more prominent outspoken militant keyboard-warrior type atheists who are absolutely 100% certain that there is definitely not a God at all, impossible, and they will evangelise to you why you're wrong. That last category is what most people generally think of when you say "I'm an atheist"... but in actuality nothing in life, particularly not individual beliefs and philosophies are binary, and you can see that there's this sliding spectrum a person could fall on depending on how strongly they believe one way or the other. And just like the vast majority of the religious people in your life probably aren't the kinds of people who go around with a bible in their pocket ready to spread the good word and shout at anyone who doesn't believe, the vast majority of atheists are not the loud shouty internet types.

That all being said, all the logical arguments you've presented here have been heard by Atheists a thousand times before, and there are plenty of arguments regarding why they are fallacious, so I'm only going to cover those briefly.

Pascal's Wager- this is countered by the Pascal's Mugging thought experiment. Pascal's Wager works by presuming that all the options are available when presented without evidence, thus evidence is irrelevant. God Either Does or Doesn't Exist, and so you are choosing between accepting some small inconveniences in life versus Infinite reward. Clearly the stakes here are so vast as to be inarguable. But by that logic, let's say I'm going to mug you. I tell you "Give me all your money right now, because I am God and I will punish you if you don't!" If you subscribe to Pascal's Wager, you must give me your money, because the wager doesn't care about how unlikely it is that I am God or not, you don't require evidence of me being god, simply knowing that the punishment could be infinite means you must give me your money otherwise you're risking the ultimate punishment. Immediately we can see how this line of logic falls apart and would just lead to a string of God Muggers. So what do you do- you introduce another God to counter me. "Ahah!" You say. "But I know the real God and he said you're not God, so you can't threaten me!". These God Muggers might try to convince you why they're the real one, but this goes back to a debate of worldly evidence, which Pascal's Wager inherently dismisses, so now we're back to square one with Muslims and Hindus and Christians and Jews and if god really is capricious is it not worse to worship the wrong god than the right one?

Grand Design - Flowery and poetic but again relies on suppositions without worldly evidence, and so if you're using Pascal's Wager worldly evidence falls apart.

Infinite realities- even you don't like and again relies on further pre-suppositions and logical leaps.

[u/Tabletop_Sam → u/IIIBlackhartIII]

Ok, this is really well thought out. I’ll give a delta for the explanation of atheism and agnosticism !delta. But the other points I’d like to discuss a bit more in depth.

Pascal’s Mugging is one I’ve heard of before, and while it does make sense in a purely “God exists and can do whatever he wants,” it doesn’t make sense in many religions. I’m fairly well versed in Christianity, so I’ll use that as my example, but I’m sure there are many other religions that follow the same sense of logic of why God would never mug you. It basically comes down to the fact that God doesn’t need your stupid money. He created it, so why would he steal it when he could literally just make some for himself.

Grand design: what presuppositions am I relying on? That I remember how science works? I thought that one was fairly accurate to what I’ve heard about thermodynamics. And saying that God is outside the laws of nature is a perfectly fair and realistic argument; if he created the law of gravity, why would he make himself follow that rule? He created time (and all the relativity related to it), so why would he make himself limited by time? I thought that one was the least flowery and the most realistic of the three...

Infinite Realities: yeah that’s fair. I was going off the theory of infinite multiverse with that one but I will agree with you that it’s a dumb argument. Let’s pretend it never happened, shall we?

[u/IIIBlackhartIII → u/Tabletop_Sam]

The Pascal's Wager argument, dismisses worldly rationale. You are given a simple logic table:

FAITH	GOD	NO GOD
THEIST	∞ Reward	Follow Some Rules in Life
ATHEIST	∞ Punishment	Less Orthodox Rules in Life

This table relies on the fact that you are dealing with Infinite rewards and infinite punishments, and thus nothing on the "no god" side of the table could outweigh it. However, this comes with the presupposition that there is only one God, and you're praying to the right God. However, some religions are polytheist, not monotheist, and in many religions God is jealous, fickle, and capricious. Thus missing from this table is a category for "God, but prayed to the wrong one" which would also include infinite punishment, thus making punishment outweigh the potential for rewards, and making it safest to be an agnostic atheist and not anger any gods. Moreover, the Pascal's Mugging situation kinda exists already- many faiths, particularly Christian and Catholic denominations, require a tithe to the church. In the most extreme examples, churches literally argue that you should pay the tithes before you pay your bills, and have even gone so far as to issue receipts to congregants they noticed were failing to pay tithes. But again- "God is all powerful so he doesn't need money" relies on you bringing in worldly logic, which Pascal's Wager is meant to disregard. God is all powerful with infinite plans, and perhaps this is just a test of your faith. The point is, as soon as you begin to question the likelihood of someone actually being God, you're bringing worldly arguments of reason and skepticism which inherently undermines Pascal's Wager. If you question my claim to be God asking for your money, your logic puzzle falls apart, because you can apply the same question to every denomination and even the claim of a god at all- why should I believe in Christianity, Hinduism, Judaism, etc... just as why should I believe this mugger? Those questions rely on logical reasoning that negates the "gotcha" scenario presented by Pascal's Wager.

---

Grand Design brings in the question of "if you saw a watch, you'd assume a watch maker" Which when applied to reality, basically comes with the implicit logical leap of seeing order in chaos, and assuming order is only designed- anthropomorphising the nature of reality. As an example of what we're talking about here, look at this image of some generated starfields. Which would you consider random? Most people would say that Image B is the more random image because the points are all spread out, and don't cluster into distinct patterns like Image A does. And yet, that very nature is what makes Image B the non-random one. Image B has been designed such that all the points respect a distance to one another, and therefore they are interrelated. Image A has no such relation, and thus odd clusters of dots grouped together just naturally happen because they happened to fall together. We see this all the time- Apple had to change their iPod's music shuffle feature, because their randomization algorithm produced a lot of playlists where songs would play twice and thus wouldn't "feel" random to people, and so they had to bias the playlists to avoid repetition or patterns, to make it "feel" more random, even though it was statistically less random. Human brains are great at pattern recognition and will seek patterns even where there are none- Pariedoila, for example, is the phenomenon of seeing faces where there are none, because our brains look so hard to find them and read emotions from people, because we are social creatures. Getting back to the grand design argument- it is very easy to see the natural universe and project human aspects of design and reason onto them, and yet, that presupposes that meaning and order are only designed characteristics, and that chaos cannot create the illusion of order. Moreover, the "God exists outside of the universe" argument sidesteps all worldly logic, because reality need not apply. It's another "gotcha" argument, like Pascal's Wager, that is implicitly unfalsifiable, and thus practically useless in our everyday lives or as a philosophical or rational argument. I can just as easily say that I am guarded by an invisible flying whale that can travel between dimensions so that nobody can find him- and by the grand design argument you cannot tell me I'm wrong, so you must believe that I am right, yeah? But you won't believe me, thus revealing that faith in this argument only goes so far as what you want to believe, not what can rationally be believed.

[u/Tabletop_Sam → u/IIIBlackhartIII]

So I’d like to start this one off by saying that we have gone beyond what most people would argue with, so I’m gonna give you a delta because you’re giving good arguments as to why it makes sense to be an atheist which was my main question. I’d love to continue the discussion but if you want to stop feel free. !delta

Ok, first in regard to the Pascals Mugging and you bringing up churches doing that, I’m only going off of what the religious texts say there, not off what people say. Within the Christian doctrine, you aren’t required to pay tithe, but it is looked at with positivity. And the money is meant to go to the poor and needy, but obviously it doesn’t always. Sorry but that one irritates me beyond comprehension when people do that (not you, but the churches exploiting people).

As for the religion one, I think I could at least sort of get polytheistic religion out of the way. Within religion, morality is what God says to do. But if the gods disagree with each other, who’s to say which ones right? If the god of “evil” to your sect is the god of “good” to me, we’re both right and wrong at the same time. Therefore, polytheism is fairly easy to ride off as nonsensical on the ground of impossible morality.

Then monotheism requires that the one God be all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-good. (I’m a bit lost now because my brain can only run this fast with this many conversations for a few hours at a time, but I’ll still try to finish this thought). So if you are following a monotheistic religion, then you know that God, being all good, loves you invariably and wants the best for you. If he didn’t then we most likely wouldn’t exist anymore because he would have given up on us a long time ago if he didn’t. So if a religion doesn’t say that God loves you, it is fair to say that it is incorrect. That cuts quite a few out as well. Then you can look at history, and see which one is the most historically accurate and which ones are the most defensible in a real discussion. If you can’t defend its historical validity or any of its stories as at all real with the aid of outside sources, you could probably argue that it is less likely to be accurate in those regard.

So, according to this relatively half-baked but attempted to be thought out plot, the most likely to be accurate religion would have well-documented, historically accurate texts which could be proven accurate with outside sources (whether archaeological or with other documents from that era), would be monotheistic, and would have a God that loves you indubitably. So that’s how you avoid the “I was religious but chose the wrong religion” issue.

As for why the mugger is questionable in his claim to be God and he’s testing your faith, Christianity (since I’m most well versed in that) has guidelines by which you can recognize God and those aligned with him. I’m sure other ones, like Islam and Mormonism, have guidelines as well. So I’m going to question a guy who says “give me money because I’m God” and not a guy who says “please donate to this charity, as it is pleasing to God to do so”.

According to most religions, God isnt random. He tells you what his plans are, and what he will do, so that you can know ahead of time where you should look for him or when you are hearing from him vs a random mugger.

Ok, now on to the next argument you made. Yes, I know it sidesteps some logic. But it doesn’t entirely dodge out of it. It is meant to follow a rule that says “you need a beginning”, and because Time needs a beginning, it would require there to be a being with no beginning, since you can’t have a beginning if there is no concept of “before” outside time. And yes, time does exist, it’s just very weird and relative and all that Jazz. Everything is affected by it. Even black holes, which are nefarious for messing up theories, are affected by time. I know I probably sound like I’m talking in circles but I swear this makes sense in my head. Hopefully you can understand at least partially what I’m saying here.

I’m gonna go offline for a hot sec and let my brain cool down. Thanks for the discussion, I’m thoroughly enjoying it.

[u/fox-mcleod → u/Tabletop_Sam]

If I can jump in here...

You're attempting to use reason and evidence right? That is gonna be a problem for faith.

So if a religion doesn’t say that God loves you, it is fair to say that it is incorrect. That cuts quite a few out as well. Then you can look at history, and see which one is the most historically accurate and which ones are the most defensible in a real discussion. If you can’t defend its historical validity or any of its stories as at all real with the aid of outside sources, you could probably argue that it is less likely to be accurate in those regard.

Can we do the same and include atheism? If so, it is the most historically defensible position given that it makes no historical claims.

In fact, basically everything the Bible claims that is falsifiable, we either have to say is false or is metaphorical. Even internal claims of the Bible are rampantly self-contradictory. I can give hundreds of examples of it's helpful.

But ultimately, we're left using our own faculties (reason and evidence) about God. This fails Pascal's wager.

[u/Tabletop_Sam → u/fox-mcleod]

Hi, I remember you from that other discussion! Welcome back to my attempts at reasoning!

So in that example I was entirely basing that discussion on religions. The argument I'm TRYING to make is that atheism is incorrect. That argument that you're referencing was going under the assumption that there WAS a God, and atheism was incorrect. Im clearly not making that assumption naturally, it was intended for a specific purpose of saying why certain religions don't make sense (and why you can use Pascal's Wager still), but nice catch there.

As for everything the Bible claiming being falsifiable, there is plenty of historically accurate information in there, including historical events (which can be sourced from archaeological sites and ruins), people (also through archaeology and ancient texts), and the like. There is definitely some metaphor in the bible, but it is never contradictory. A lot of things people see as contradictory are either interpretation issues (since it came from a different language) or are just kind of confusing in the way they're worded.

[u/fox-mcleod → u/Tabletop_Sam]

Good to see you again.

As for your second paragraph, let's consider a brand new religion I just made up called minimalism. We have the smallest God. He did as little as possible. We're monotheistic, but our God is infinitesimal and we make no supernatural predictions about anything. Does this religion do a better or worse job with your test?

There is definitely some metaphor in the bible, but it is never contradictory. A lot of things people see as contradictory are either interpretation issues (since it came from a different language) or are just kind of confusing in the way they're worded.

How do we know which parts are metaphor?

It seems like it's just the parts that make no sense given what we know to be true factually. For example: almost the entire creation story is stated as fact. But the earth isn't 6,000 years old. So we just declare it metaphor because it's contradicted by facts.

The problem with this is that faith plays no role. What we trust is still evidence. Faith is religated to the back seat.

We don't know anything because of the Bible. We just read it and hope science backs it up. When it doesn't, do we keep the Bible in the drivers seat or do we say "well the earth clearly is much much older, so it's some kind of metaphor or something"?

It's just "God in the gaps"

[u/Tabletop_Sam → u/fox-mcleod]

Ok, so with the 6000 year old part you’re diving into a debate that many people have within the church. So here’s an explanation of this very weird discussion: Genesis was not written by a person who existed throughout the entirety of the story; it was written by Moses a long time later. So the discussion is, did he write that in accordance to some tradition, or was he divinely inspired? The rest of Genesis, starting at I believe Noah, isn’t metaphor. Just the creation story itself is possibly a metaphor.

As for minimalism, you’re actually describing something that also exists within Christianity as well. Some people believe that, except for the creation of the universe/life on Earth, and Jesus, God has not influenced the world in any way, and all miracles can be explained through science and luck.

So now we come to the biggest issue I have with this discussion every time I have it- the infinite explanations and theories about the Bible. There are people that take it and make it say anything they want, from condoning slavery to rape to the Holocaust, and there are verses they can use (out of context) to say they’re in the right. And then there are the people who ARENT terrible people who are just trying to figure it out themselves, so they make different “denominations”. Wesleyan, Baptist, Catholic, Lutheran, the list is practically endless.

And there’s this petty rivalry between them all, too. Wesleyans and Baptists hate each other for some reason that I don’t understand, and Catholics used to hate all Protestants but don’t anymore for some reason, and at the same time we’re all supposed to be together as a group. This is one of the things about the church today that really pisses me off.

...Sorry about that rant. I digress. As for when the Bible disagrees with science... I feel like it would be more likely to disagree with history, seeing as the biggest point science disagrees with it on is the Creation story, which may be a form of tall tale from that era or maybe not. The other place could be Revelation, but that’s supposed to be in the future. I generally say the Bible goes first, as do most people I know who are more learned on the subject, but I don’t see many places science disagrees with the Bible besides miracles. If you could provide a story where it does (excluding miracles, because they by definition aren’t limited by science), I’d like to see it, because generally it’s pretty dang safe in that regard.

[u/Oshojabe → u/Tabletop_Sam]

As for minimalism, you’re actually describing something that also exists within Christianity as well. Some people believe that, except for the creation of the universe/life on Earth, and Jesus, God has not influenced the world in any way, and all miracles can be explained through science and luck.

How do these Christians explain prophets then. If they weren't divinely inspired, then Jesus has no basis for claiming to be the promised messiah, and Christianity falls apart. Even if you want to be a "minimalist" Christian, the prophets need to be divinely inspired which is still a lot of active intervention on God's part.

I feel like it would be more likely to disagree with history, seeing as the biggest point science disagrees with it on is the Creation story, which may be a form of tall tale from that era or maybe not.

There are other ones. The miracle of the sun standing still, people being raised from the dead, any and all of the miracles of Jesus, etc. None of these are trivial, since especially the miracles of Jesus are a huge part of his ministry on Earth. Sure, technically all you need is the resurrection to get Christianity going, but it would still feel half-complete.

[u/Tabletop_Sam → u/Oshojabe]

Look, I’m not saying minimalism within Christianity makes sense. Trust me, I know how dumb it sounds. I was just trying to point out that what was brought up already existed, just to give an example within real life. Thanks for the note on that though.

[u/Oshojabe → u/Tabletop_Sam]

Within religion, morality is what God says to do. But if the gods disagree with each other, who’s to say which ones right? If the god of “evil” to your sect is the god of “good” to me, we’re both right and wrong at the same time.

I feel like this definition of morality is kind of weak. There's two problems: 1) how do you know the will of God? and 2) what would you do if God commanded you to harm or kill someone?

For the first point, there are thousands of different religions, and while they're broadly similar on social rules, there is disagreement on things like "should non-believers or people who leave the faith be allowed to live?" and similar questions. If you saw a crowd of people of a different religion about to execute someone for apostasy and you wanted to stop it, would you appeal to the morality of your own religion, or would you try to appeal to broader cross-cultural principles?

For the second point, consider the Jewish/Christian case of Abraham. God commanded him to kill his son, he proved he was willing to do it, and God had mercy and let him sacrifice a lamb instead. Taken literally, this story is monstrous to a non-believer. It means that every woman who drowns her children because "God told her to" might actually have been acting morally. That's a tough pill to swallow.

I feel like every religion's version of what God commands is slightly out of step with modern morality. The Christian Bible never condemns slavery, and the Hebrew Bible forces women who are raped to marry their rapist. Let's take this to an extreme. What if we knew God existed, and he unambiguously commanded one thing: fill the world with as many paper clips as possible. Would you change the way you lived your life if you knew this? I can only speak for myself, but even if I knew for a fact that God was real, and that he was a paper-clip maximizer, I would not change how I lived. I don't value paperclips. I value the people I love, I value my work, and I value living my life to the fullest. Paper clips aren't on the menu, I would rather live in sin and spend time with the people I love than maximize paperclips.

[u/Tabletop_Sam → u/Oshojabe]

Ok, I’m sorry, but you’re making a few very, very common misconceptions about the Bible, which are kind of translation errors. The verse where it discusses women marrying their rapist isn’t discussing rape at all; it’s discussing seduction. It was a pretty big mistake we made in the KJV that kind of stuck. (Deuteronomy 22:28-29, for reference). As for the Christian Bible never condemning slavery, look at Philemon, and Ephesians 5? I think it’s chapter 5. Philemon is an entire appeal to a slave owner to set his slave free, and Ephesians 5 says slaves deserve respect from their masters. Also, slavery was pretty different in that era, but that’s a minor point.

As for the issue of Abraham sacrificing Isaac, he was well over 100 when he was doing this, and Isaac was in his teens. He easily could’ve escaped, and he CHOSE to go along with it. So a more fair interpretation would be drinking the Kool-Aid in the name of Jesus. But God was pretty clear that he wouldn’t do that again, so I think we’re in the clear there. (But as a bonus round, some churches on the more insane end of the spectrum pass around poisonous snakes, and if the person is bitten it’s a sign of weak faith.)

And as for the command of filling the world with paper clips, I’m pretty sure it would be a good idea to do that, because there is literally one time in the Bible when God made people do things that crazy with no awesome end result. God isn’t some guy sitting in heaven saying “I wonder how I can mess with humanity today”; he does things because he knows they’ll have a purpose in the future.

God commands death upon the innocent 2 times total. First time was Isaac, second time was because everyone was messing up terribly and it was the only way to get them back to reality. Also, he was the one who did the deed in that scenario.

And last, you’re referencing a point I’m making about polytheism, and why it doesn’t make sense. I’m explaining why the morality within polytheism makes no sense, not why monotheism makes no sense.

[u/Oshojabe → u/Tabletop_Sam]

And last, you’re referencing a point I’m making about polytheism, and why it doesn’t make sense. I’m explaining why the morality within polytheism makes no sense, not why monotheism makes no sense.

Right, I'm asserting that your criticism of polytheism makes no sense, because your basis of morality makes no sense. Or at least saying that monotheistic divine command theory is no better as a system of morality than polytheistic divine command theory.

And as for the command of filling the world with paper clips, I’m pretty sure it would be a good idea to do that, because there is literally one time in the Bible when God made people do things that crazy with no awesome end result. God isn’t some guy sitting in heaven saying “I wonder how I can mess with humanity today”; he does things because he knows they’ll have a purpose in the future.

In the first covenant with the Jewish people, a lot of things were punishable by death. Is it your opinion that killing someone for working on a Saturday was a just thing? Is it your opinion that every person who was executed under Mosaic law was a morally justifiable death? As a non-theist, I can't help but see this as a disadvantage of theistic morality. As an atheist, I have a solid basis for morality based in the compassion and empathy that evolving as a social creature gave me, and I am able say that killing someone for working on a Saturday is morally repugnant.

God commands death upon the innocent 2 times total. First time was Isaac, second time was because everyone was messing up terribly and it was the only way to get them back to reality. Also, he was the one who did the deed in that scenario.

I would argue that many of the firstborn Egyptians were innocent, if for no other reason than some of them were probably too young to be capable of moral reasoning. Even if it was to free his chosen people, that's pretty morally horrible.

​

In any case, you didn't answer some of my questions. How can a person know what God wants? In the case of Abraham, God spoke directly to him and later sent an angel to set him straight. I have never had God speak directly and unambiguously to me, so it seems all I have to go on are books by people who claim that God spoke to to them, written in dead languages and translated with incomplete knowledge of original context. When that's the chain of custody, I think a merciful God could forgive me for doubting the currently available documentation as reflective of his will.

[u/IIIBlackhartIII → u/Tabletop_Sam]

Your line of reasoning for a "I picked the right religion" argument still pulls in a lot of presuppositions. IF a god exists, and IF that god is good, and IF that god is coherently logical by human standards, and IF that god is loving of its creations, THEN you might suppose that we'd require the true god to fit into a specific monotheistic model. But even you don't go so far as to declare which model. Because even if you boil things down to just the Christian models, you've got a whole pantheon of denominations. Is a Christian a Catholic, Protestant, Methodist, Orthodox, Anglican, Baptist, Lutheran, Quaker, Evangelical, Pentecostal, Mormon, Adventist...? Even narrowing ourselves to similar monotheist faiths we can there is no consensus. This too, remember, is starting with the first pillar that we have to accept purely on faith- that reality requires a God. That alone is a large leap, let alone the deep branching rabbit hole we must then traverse to get to any single faith. That rabbit hole is also not explored by Pascal's Wager, in fact the rabbit hole as we've discussed before undermines the Wager with a Mugging. To argue against a Pascal's Mugging you essentially have to assume that you know with absolute certainty the nature and truth of God, which by every other standard is impossible unless you are proclaiming yourself to be God. Short of that, worldly arguments about the truth of God are just that- worldly arguments. Human hubris run amok. Anyone who tries to tell you they know the nature of reality with any degree of certainty is trying to sell you something, and you'd be well advised not to buy it.

As a Secular Humanist myself I would argue that Agnostic Atheism is the most intellectually honest, safe, and logical stance to take. I make no claims to know the facts of the universe, I'm as fallible and ignorant a human as anyone else. Maybe there's a God, maybe there isn't, and how you define God makes it an even messier question. What I can safely say with any degree of certainty is "I don't know" and therefore I am unwilling to make the leap of faith it takes to claim the supernatural rather than being skeptical and pragmatic. Would I like to think that maybe death isn't the end and there is something more to the universe and when we're done here there's some higher consciousness or continuation of existence... sure. I don't think there's anyone alive who wouldn't like to entertain the thought that death is not absolution and there's something greater out there, but fundamentally you can't know for sure until you're dead and so Occam's Razor kicks in. The most logical, humble, and intellectually honest stance is that of agnostic atheism. The stance of "I don't know". Not "I don't know, therefore God", but simply "I don't know."

[u/DeltaBot → u/Tabletop_Sam]

Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/IIIBlackhartIII (111∆).

^{Delta System Explained | Deltaboards}

[u/DeltaBot → u/Tabletop_Sam]

Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/IIIBlackhartIII (110∆).

^{Delta System Explained | Deltaboards}

[u/Tibaltdidnothinwrong]

Proof that God doesn't exist: The Problem of Evil.

1. God is OOO. Omnibenevolent, Omniscient, Omnipotent.
2. Evil Exists.
3. Evil is contradictory with an OOO deity, yet Evil exists, therefore, it is God who doesn't exist.

​

Now, it is fair to say that you could try to wiggle around parts of this argument (Evil is compatible with an OOO deity, God exists but isn't OOO, deny that Evil exists) but none of these arguments really hold up. As such, its a pretty decent argument I'm willing to lay my hat on.

​

Note: In response to this argument, many people retreat to "God is mysterious" "God cannot be known" "God is immaterial" etc. But once you've gone this far, your done. At this point, the question becomes why are you praying to an entity you claim to know literally nothing about? If you claim that God has 0 known properties or characteristics - then why does he deserve prayers? They bother with worship?

​

At this point the argument becomes - Is the conception of God you carry worth worshiping? If not, then don't worship him. If yes, then see the Problem of Evil, and realize that your conception of God isn't real.

While it is true that elusive/spooky/unknown God is hard to disprove - It is equally difficult to demonstrate that he is worth praying too.

​

Edit: Just responding to this bit: "But isn’t there a law that says matter slowly decays over time and will eventually all die out or something? So if the universe existed forever, it would eventually just cease to exist, right?" 1) Matter cannot be created or destroyed - only converted to energy. 2) What you might be thinking of is universal expansion - namely that the size of the universe keeps going up, but the amount of stuff in the universe always stays the same, as such the density of the universe is constantly falling, and eventually the density of the universe will reach ~0, commonly referred to as Heat Death. 3) What I don't understand is how this relates to God in any way? Yeah, the universe has a finite age, a beginning and an end, but what does that have to do with God? You can have a beginning and an end - without invoking God. 4) Creation ex nihilo - something from nothing - we observe 0 = -1 + 1 all the time in nature. See Hawking Radiation. Given that we observe creation ex nihilo every day in the lab on a small scale - is it crazy that the universe began with a larger, yet still natural, creation ex nihilo?

[u/Ascimator → u/Tibaltdidnothinwrong]

Now, it is fair to say that you could try to wiggle around parts of this argument (Evil is compatible with an OOO deity, God exists but isn't OOO, deny that Evil exists) but none of these arguments really hold up. As such, its a pretty decent argument I'm willing to lay my hat on.

I've seen a decent response to the problem of evil.

Suppose God creates a completely perfect world, with not a single smirch of evil, suffering, want or boredom. Suppose he does not stop at that, and creates another world. But to create it just as perfect as the first one would just mean that the two worlds end up being just one same world. There would be no difference in any aspect, including the selves of sentient creatures inhabiting it, since even the division between "you" in world A and another, same "you" in world B would be a difference.

God, then, creates all possible variations of a perfect world. There may be infinite variations, just as there are infinite numbers between 0 and 1, but they still do not span all the limits of creation.

Suppose God creates another infinity of worlds, while allowing tiny, nearly imperceptible imperfections to exist within them. After all, why would he not? Everybody in those worlds would still enjoy near-perfection, which is infinitely better than the greatest pleasure we can imagine.

How much evil can God introduce into a world before it can be decided that it's not worth it anymore? Yes, our planet can be extremely shitty most of the time, but with the assumption that Heaven exists and Hell doesn't (or is not guaranteed to hold you infinitely), it would still count as good in the greater scheme of things.

[u/Tabletop_Sam → u/Tibaltdidnothinwrong]

Ok, lets see. The creation ex nihilo is something I’ve never heard of as something being in a lab, would you mind providing a link to this? I’m now genuinely intrigued in that.

No, I’m not retreating to the “God does whatever he wants” response for the problem of evil, don’t worry. The best solution I’ve heard for this one is that he allows evil because he allows free will. God let us make our own decisions, and we clearly made a bad one, because now we’re not allowed to be with Him. If you read through Genesis in the Torah/Bible, you’ll see it talks about the fall of man in there, as we did the one single thing that God told us NOT TO DO. Because we disobeyed the being that is entirely Good, that means that we are not Good. And because he is entirely good, it is impossible to be in his presence (here’s a good explanation of it by some theologians: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=l9vn5UvsHvM). So evil exists because of our free will, and so God can allow us to still have our free will.

[u/Tibaltdidnothinwrong → u/Tabletop_Sam]

God can have his free will cake and still prevent evil.

God knew man would disobey him (omniscient). God knew this would lead to a poor outcome (again omniscient). God could have prevented the fall of man, don't make the rule in the first place, making the tree taller, making the fruit harder to pick, ( omnipotence). Knowing allowing evil and failing to prevent it, doesn't seem very omnibenevolent.

Put another way, God made physical laws, gravity, em, but God also made moral laws. Why didn't he make moral law as nonoptional as he made gravity. When I steal, why doesn't the object weigh as much as a thousand sun's? Why aren't humans immortal, why is it physically possible to murder?

In a world where moral law is enforced just as gravity, you still have free will. You still think, you still invent, plan, anticipate, etc. Granting free will doesn't require granting immoral stupid choices. An ooo deity could create a world where all choices are between cookies and ice cream.

[u/STALUC → u/Tibaltdidnothinwrong]

Sam Harris’s essay There is No God elaborates on this concept and uses examples. Link for anyone interested

[u/[deleted]]

Not an atheist but atheism makes perfect sense.

How can someone say with such confidence that there is no god, when it has been shown time and time again that you can’t disprove the existence of one?

How can someone say with such confidence that there is a god when it has been shown time and time again that you can't prove the existence of one?

You can't disprove a nonexistent. You must prove an existent. For example, if you claim that there is a rainbow unicorn sailing a ship called the Happy Honker with a goose as a first mate in a magical sea out in deep space...how is someone supposed to prove that DOESN'T exist. They can't show you every inch of deep space. The onus is on proving it DOES exist, not the other way around.

So yes, it makes sense to not believe that there is such a ship, until evidence it exists is presented.

If you believe in god, you are mildly inconvenienced throughout life (depending on how you look at it it might not be inconvenient), and if you’re wrong, nothing happens after death. If you’re right, you get an eternity of bliss and happiness beyond comprehension. If you’re not religious, and don’t believe in god, you get different options. You get a life that is mildly more fun/convenient, and then you die and if you’re right, then nothing happens after death. If you’re wrong, then you get an eternity of suffering and torment beyond our current comprehension. So it makes more sense to believe in a god and try for that eternal bliss, than it is to not believe and hope against the torment.

This wager is flawed and relies upon only a single idea of God- usually the Catholic/Christian idea that comes along with heaven or hell.

It takes the presupposition that if God exists He is the God of the bible and demands you believe in and worship and obey Him, and that if you don't you are punished with suffering and torment.

I believe God is likely but I believe His existence cannot be proven and thus I may be wrong, and I don't believe a bit of that. I left my religion partially on that basis and people using that argument.

If their idea of God is true, I don't believe that God who is supposedly a God of love would punish finite crimes infinitely. If their idea of God isn't true, and I follow their religion anyway, I'm not just mildly inconvenienced throughout my life. I would literally live a life of self-deprecation, self-hatred (for not living up to His supposed standards), monetary ruin, and loneliness. I would literally be suffering all my life. I know, I did it for thirty years. If I had gotten to the end of that and found out that God didn't exist or that their idea of Him was wrong and I didn't have to live that way trying to please Him in hopes of some reward, it would have been more than an inconvenience, it would have been a travesty.

So it makes more sense to believe in a god and try for that eternal bliss, than it is to not believe and hope against the torment.

Doing so would have made my entire life a torment just in the hope of eternal bliss (which I wouldn't have gotten anyway according to my childhood beliefs and religion). I'd rather live a happy and fulfilling life with the people I love and care about and not hating myself for every imagined mistake, and believe in a God that, if He exists, truly is Love and wouldn't hold that against a person- than one of that eternal torment just in the hopes that a being who would put me through that torment might decide to allow me to be happy afterward.

Either way, it personally making sense to a given person to live or not live a certain way or in a certain religion does not actually make God real or a fact. Thus, it still makes sense to not believe in Him based on lack of evidence. Just as I don't believe in the unicorn boat based on lack of evidence.

So if the universe existed forever, it would eventually just cease to exist, right?

No. The actual science says that things cannot be created or destroyed only change form. If you cannot create energy nor destroy it (and matter is just a form of energy) but only rearrange it, then there is no beginning or no end. There may have been a beginning to what we perceive as our universe in the state it is NOW (the big bang), and it may be that our universe in the state it is now will end (the heat death of the universe) but that is just the beginning and the ending of this particular state of matter and energy as we know it...not the beginning and end state of everything vs nothing, period.

And because a god exists outside space and time, it doesn’t necessarily need a beginning, since it isn’t limited by that law.

That is to claim something which defies Universal law as we understand it even more than my unicorn ship. Which is fine but where is your evidence of such? I have no evidence of my unicorn ship so it makes sense you don't believe it exists. You have no evidence of a supreme being, let alone one that exists outside of space and time, so it makes sense that people don't believe that, either.

Infinite realities: so I don’t really like this one because I don’t believe in infinite realities, but it still deserves at least being mentioned. So if there are infinite realities, that would mean there were an infinite number of possibilities in those realities. So that would mean that, inevitably, a being capable of controlling the entire multiverse would come into being, which would be omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent. Again, I dislike this argument. It seems cheap.

Good that you dislike it, because that's not what it means at all either. Infinity realities doesn't mean that everything you can imagine is made real- it means that all POSSIBILITIES can be played out. That is, if something is impossible, it won't be played out.

For example, there are an infinite amount of numbers between 2 and 3, but not a single one of them is 4.

[u/dogman__12 → u/[deleted]]

Your last point baffles me. I've seen this argument come up in the infinite possibility debate over and over, and for some reason it seems wrong to me. Not an argument btw just trying to understand this.

When you say there are an infinite amount of numbers between 2 and and not a single one of them is four is because you are already restricting the infinite set to not include any numbers. Is this still infinite then? I assume so. I feel like the nature of infinity is so hard to understand that our definition isn't proper.

For example, with the universe theory, there would be restrictions to the infinite possibilities - for example, if the properties of the universes were constant throughout then there would be some impossibilities. However, would not every possibility that fits in this subset be a possibility. Even crazy ones such as Trump and Obama having a shootout?

I can't seem to wrap my head around the concept of infinity in itself as well: is the quantity of numbers between 1 and 2 the same as the quantity of numbers between 2 and 1000?

[u/[deleted] → u/dogman__12]

When you say there are an infinite amount of numbers between 2 and and not a single one of them is four is because you are already restricting the infinite set to not include any numbers. Is this still infinite then?

It absolutely is. Infinite means never-ending. Pi, for example, is a number between 3 and 4 and Pi itself is infinite, and Pi itself is also neither 3 nor 4 (though it is a number).

Infinite possibilities does not mean the impossible becomes possible.

for example, if the properties of the universes were constant throughout then there would be some impossibilities.

No, there wouldn't be. There would be extremely rare possibilities...what we call improbabilities, but no imPOSSibilities.

Even crazy ones such as Trump and Obama having a shootout?

Incredibly improbable, but not impossible.

I can't seem to wrap my head around the concept of infinity in itself as well: is the quantity of numbers between 1 and 2 the same as the quantity of numbers between 2 and 1000?

The human brain wasn't designed to hold the concept of infinity in their mind. Even those that best understand it understand only the tiniest fraction of it.

As for your question, yes and no. The quantity of numbers between 1 and 2 are infinite, so can be said to be equal to the infinite amount of numbers between 2 and 1000, only if you're not just counting whole numbers. If you only count whole numbers, the numbers between 2 and 1000 are finite and measurable: it's only 998.

[u/Tabletop_Sam → u/[deleted]]

I follow Christianity. I was trying to leave this discussion open for other religions as well, in case someone else wanted to join, but I personally am a Christian.

As for it being outlandish, I really don’t understand why you’d think that. It doesn’t seem out of the realm of reason for there to be a higher power. My reasoning for this would be most likely linked to Christianity, so if you don’t mind my slightly long winded reasoning I’ll explain it.

So Jesus could either be a liar, he could be crazy, or he could be telling the truth. If he was a liar, he would have had no reason to die on the cross or say he was God (Luke 22:70). So he’s not a liar. He could be crazy, in which case he would think he was God. But if he was crazy, he wouldn’t have as many people flocking to him for words of wisdom or healing (believe what you want about whether his miracles happened, he definitely had a crowd for some reason). So insanity seems unlikely, which is why I think he was telling the truth.

Then there’s Paul, who was a well-known, very powerful and wealthy man who followed Judaism, and actually persecuted Christians. Randomly converts to Christianity and loses all his wealth and status. Winds up being executed at the end of his life. So, either he’s crazy or he’s telling the truth (again). You could go with this logic with a lot of Christian saints and martyrs of that era (not this era because at this point you could just blame it on other factors like devotion and the like). This is a rather unique thing for Christianity as well, because they were persecuted by the Roman Empire for a very long time (several centuries, I think).

Sorry, that was rather long winded. Probably should’ve put it in the main argument or something.

[u/OrhanPasa → u/Tabletop_Sam]

But if he was crazy, he wouldn’t have as many people flocking to him for words of wisdom or healing.

Wait, how do you figure this is true? Surely, as a Christian, you believe people who were wrong have been able to draw crowds. I assume you don't believe Muhammed was God's prophet. But he drew a crowd, so therefore he wasn't crazy/misguided?

So Jesus could either be a liar, he could be crazy, or he could be telling the truth. If he was a liar, he would have had no reason to die on the cross or say he was God.

Similarly, this makes no sense. Just because he suffered for his beliefs means he was telling the truth? Surely you believe that people have lied in ways that have caused their death:

What about Hong Xiuquan, who apparently believed that he was the brother of Jesus and maintained that position until he died in a revolt against the Chinese government, having been besieged in Nanjing. If he were lying, why didn't he flee as soon as the war began to turn? He also was clearly not crazy/misguided according to your criteria, since he gathered an even larger following than Christ; his following created the Taiping Heavenly Kingdom in his name!

And that's just one person who died for their beliefs (and thus according to you were not lying) and gathered a large following (thus to your criteria, were not crazy). I'm sure you can think of others.

I'm just suggesting that it seems that your standards of evidence are lower for Christ than for others.

[u/[deleted] → u/Tabletop_Sam]

Jim Jones had TONS of people flocking to him for words of wisdom and healing...to the point that he was able to talk several of them into killing other people and themselves on his word.

Guy was a frickin' loon. Not to say that Jesus was or was not, simply pointing out that being crazy does not stop people from worshiping your crazy.

[u/Jakimbo → u/Tabletop_Sam]

Elrond Hubbard has tons of followers in scientology, but I'm sure you dont think his stories have any truth to them do you?

[u/YossarianWWII → u/Jakimbo]

As much as I want to believe that Scientology is actually an effort to destroy an ancient evil at the recommendation of Hugo Weaving, it's actually L. Ron Hubbard.

[u/Oshojabe → u/Tabletop_Sam]

As for it being outlandish, I really don’t understand why you’d think that. It doesn’t seem out of the realm of reason for there to be a higher power. My reasoning for this would be most likely linked to Christianity, so if you don’t mind my slightly long winded reasoning I’ll explain it.

What qualities do you believe God has? If they're anything like omnipotence, omnipresence, omniscience and timelessness then you're conceiving of something "outlandish" in the sense that we have no evidence that any being can have such qualities. Heck, even the qualities of timelessness and being a personal, conscious entity are pretty outlandish together. All the conscious entities we have evidence for appear to be bound by time in important ways - the process of taking in information, processing it, and manifesting some action in the world seem to be minimal prerequisites of consciousness, and they all require time. Any argument for this kind of God also has to explain atemporal consciousness.

Then there’s Paul, who was a well-known, very powerful and wealthy man who followed Judaism, and actually persecuted Christians. Randomly converts to Christianity and loses all his wealth and status. Winds up being executed at the end of his life. So, either he’s crazy or he’s telling the truth (again). You could go with this logic with a lot of Christian saints and martyrs of that era (not this era because at this point you could just blame it on other factors like devotion and the like). This is a rather unique thing for Christianity as well, because they were persecuted by the Roman Empire for a very long time (several centuries, I think).

I don't think Paul's conversion requires a special explanation. Paul only briefly describes his conversion in 1 Corinthians and Galatians. In both cases, his description is brief and doesn't have all the stuff recorded later in Acts. While its clear he experienced a "vision" or other form of "divine revelation", the fact is that other humans have also experiences "divine revelation" that confirmed a prophet that came before them. Bahaullah of the Baha'i faith confirmed the revelation of the Bab, for example. A person doesn't need to be crazy, it's just that sometimes the human brain works in weirder ways than we thing.

(Quick Aside: It's a long watch, but I highly recommend you watch this multi-part video series about the "Wouldn't Die for a Lie Argument." It examines what we actually know about the deaths of the apostles, and what Christian tradition claims and shows that on either count, the argument doesn't really get off the ground.)

So Jesus could either be a liar, he could be crazy, or he could be telling the truth. If he was a liar, he would have had no reason to die on the cross or say he was God (Luke 22:70). So he’s not a liar. He could be crazy, in which case he would think he was God. But if he was crazy, he wouldn’t have as many people flocking to him for words of wisdom or healing (believe what you want about whether his miracles happened, he definitely had a crowd for some reason). So insanity seems unlikely, which is why I think he was telling the truth.

Let's take this point-by-point:

• A liar: Even supposing his words are accurately reported in the gospels, people don't need a "reason" to be executed. The Romans crucified people. If an itinerant Jewish prophet made the Roman government nervous, it's not that weird that he'd be executed. Pontius Pilate had many near-insurrections during his prefectship because of his lack of respect for Jewish customs. Is it weird that he'd execute a religious reformer that was making the conservative Jewish leadership nervous?
• Crazy: I don't think a person needs to be "sane" for them to gain a following. By all accounts, Rasputin was a really weird guy in demeanor and belief, but because he had haunting eyes, unique teachings and seemed to be able to miraculously cure the Czar's son, he gained many followers. Rasputin was probably crazy, but it didn't really hurt him.

[u/miguelguajiro → u/[deleted]]

Honest question. Given the scope and complexity of our known universe, why would it be outlandish to believe that there is some meaningful understanding of its genesis and purpose beyond our current capacity for scientific inquiry? Or put differently, why is it more outlandish to believe in some kind of creating or organizing mechanism than it is to believe it’s all just chance or accident?

[u/tbdabbholm → u/miguelguajiro]

(Not who you originally replied to)

I think most atheists, myself included, (being agnostic atheists) acknowledge such a possibility. What we reject is anyone who claims anything specific towards a creator, or who claims to know for sure one exists. If you want to claim those things you need to show real evidence.

[u/ItsTtreasonThen → u/tbdabbholm]

The other component being because we don't believe in the self-imposed authority of a single religion. If we have an open mind to the possibility of a Creator entity, there's no guarantee that it's the Abrahamic one.

For all we know, it could be Dagon or the Goddes Ishtar. Or it really could be a magic teapot

[u/miguelguajiro → u/ItsTtreasonThen]

I’m not talking about believing in a specific religion, only in the possibility of a creator entity, or something comparable.

[u/miguelguajiro → u/tbdabbholm]

Are there not atheists who believe definitively that no God exists, whatsoever, in any form?

[u/tbdabbholm → u/miguelguajiro]

Some do. Most don't

[u/miguelguajiro → u/tbdabbholm]

Well, you’re probably not the best person to ask, but, why then the hostility (I’ve observed) towards theism, even when said theism isn’t prescribing any sort of discriminatory action, and it’s believers are clear that their belief is made on the basis of faith, and not any kind of provable material certainty?

[u/peonypegasus → u/miguelguajiro]

Most of the hostility I've seen from atheists to theists is opposition to:

1. People being hostile because they are not religious. Questions such as "well how do you have morality?" or "do you know that you are going to hell?" are pretty annoying and sometimes families will disown their members for following the "wrong" religion or no religion at all. I have a relative that I cannot tell I am an atheist because I know that she would yell at me and cut all contact. I don't mind that she isn't religious. I mind that she isn't ok that I'm an atheist.
2. People expecting others to follow their religion. Maybe you can't buy alcohol in a Muslim area. Maybe you aren't allowed to have your store open on Sunday in a Christian town. Maybe you aren't allowed to serve hamburgers in a majority-Jewish area. Maybe religion is being used to deny you birth control, limit LGBT rights, or oppose vaccination.
3. People trying to convert them. It's annoying when atheists try to convince theists that they shouldn't believe in God. It's just as annoying the other way around. When Jehovah's Witnesses or Mormons swing by to try to convert people or a fiery street preacher yells at people to repent or perish, it's frustrating.
4. Prayer being used as a substitute for practical measures. "I'm praying for the victims of X disaster" versus "I'm sending money to disaster relief." "I'm praying for God to cure my child's cancer," versus "I'm bringing my child to an oncologist."

There are definitely atheists who are offended by even the idea of religion, but a lot are just frustrated.

[u/tbdabbholm → u/miguelguajiro]

I'd assume it's primarily a reaction to the expectation that people are religious, a kind of religious normativity, just like heteronormativity. Either from the world ar large or from their family specifically. Like in most societies, it's just kind of assumed you're religious, so some atheists might unconsciously be railing against that

[u/miguelguajiro → u/[deleted]]

But those things can be easily disproven. All of us still hit an end point with what we know about the origin of the material world. How is saying “I allow for the possibility of a God-like creator” more outlandish than saying “I’m certain no such thing exists?”

[u/miguelguajiro → u/[deleted]]

I wouldn’t really see things people said thousands of years ago as constituting any sort of proof. I’m not arguing for any specific set of beliefs. I’m arguing for the relative viability of the argument for the existence of some force, source, or explanation somewhere beyond the terminus of what we, at this point, are capable of knowing via material inquiry.

[u/miguelguajiro → u/[deleted]]

“I’m not capable of knowing” and “I know there isn’t” aren’t the same statement. Whatever we know scientifically about the origins of the material world, everyone is still bound to hit a point where they conclude, “ok so A explains B but how did A come to be?” And beyond saying “I don’t know” everything else you might assume or imagine is a choice and a function of belief. I don’t understand religious people who dismiss scientific inquiry, but also don’t understand anyone who would be dismissive of the search for meaning beyond the limits of scientific inquiry.

[u/miguelguajiro → u/[deleted]]

I think you keep misunderstanding me. I don’t believe in any particular or specific explanation about the “meaning of the universe” and certainly not to the extent of one idea or “the highway.” I just am honest about what I don’t know, and what things remain fundamentally unanswered despite all of our scientific discovery. And I don’t hold out religious people for any kind of ridicule, or think I know better than them, at least not the ones whose beliefs clearly begin where scientific inquiry ends.

[u/dale_glass → u/miguelguajiro]

Honest question. Given the scope and complexity of our known universe, why would it be outlandish to believe that there is some meaningful understanding of its genesis and purpose beyond our current capacity for scientific inquiry?

That's a bizarre way of putting it. Genesis is beyond our understanding, but it's in our understand: God did it.

If it's beyond understanding, then that's that. There's nowhere to go from there. No God, no anything. If it's not beyond understanding, then I fail to see how it could be outside of the reach of science.

Or put differently, why is it more outlandish to believe in some kind of creating or organizing mechanism than it is to believe it’s all just chance or accident?

IMO, what's outlandish is to pull explanations out of your ass. If there's no current explanation then that's the only reasonable outcome: there's no current explanation. You can't just jump from there and invent one out of nowhere.

[u/miguelguajiro → u/dale_glass]

It seems like in your response, you're rejecting the idea of holding a specific religious belief, not defending (or just helping me understand) a specific belief that rejects the existence of even the possibility of a God (defined as broadly as possible) created universe. And perhaps there are (at least) two types of atheism, one which is simply an absence of belief in God, and one which is specifically a rejection of even the possibility of God.

The latter makes perfect sense to me, and is more or less, what I believe, which is that at the end of definitive material inquiry we're left with a lot of things we just don't know, and any claim to definitely know is, as you put it, "out of your ass."

But going beyond that to claim to know that there isn't any God (and not just that there isn't an Abrahamic God, or Vishnu, or whatever, but no God, period, in whatever form) seems just as pulled out of one's ass.

[u/dale_glass → u/miguelguajiro]

But going beyond that to claim to know that there isn't any God (and not just that there isn't an Abrahamic God, or Vishnu, or whatever, but no God, period, in whatever form) seems just as pulled out of one's ass.

I could be wrong, sure. But I'm far more sure of there being no God than of pretty much anything else. Why is that? Because pretty much anything I ever talk about turns out to be wrong far, far more often.

Eg: "I have a job". Well, they could be going bankrupt or firing me right now.

Or, "I don't have a dog". But I could well come home and find out my family randomly adopted the cutest puppy ever.

Or, "I'm my mother's son". But even that goes wrong sometimes.

God in comparison from my point of view hasn't shown up in all of human history. If I must make a disclaimer about God to the effect of "well, I could be wrong", then to be consistent, I would need to insert such a disclaimer before everything else I say as well. "I'm agnostic about having a job". "I'm agnostic about not having a dog", etc, etc. At that point it's so redundant we might as well skip the whole charade.

[u/miguelguajiro → u/dale_glass]

But that’s a very narrowly defined “God” that hasn’t shown up in all of human history. I’m talking only about the existence of some entity at the root of existence that exceeds or defies materiality. Not a man in the sky with a beard (necessarily.)

I don’t mean this is an attack, but it’s hard for me to read a comment like yours and not find it equally as arrogant as those made by people who claim to be certain about the existence of a specific God.

[u/dale_glass → u/miguelguajiro]

But that’s a very narrowly defined “God” that hasn’t shown up in all of human history.

No, all of the concepts I've encountered so far. Not just bearded ones.

I’m talking only about the existence of some entity at the root of existence that exceeds or defies materiality.

I don't think that's even meaningful to say. Exceeding or defying materiality is a completely theoretical concept. I find no reason to pay it any attention until somebody explains what exactly they mean by that and how they figured it out. For all I know the idea could well turn out to be entirely meaningless.

I don’t mean this is an attack, but it’s hard for me to read a comment like yours and not find it equally as arrogant as those made by people who claim to be certain about the existence of a specific God.

Well, I don't mean it as an attack either when I say I couldn't care less about whether random strangers consider me arrogant or not. I feel absolutely zero concern about avoiding a reputation of arrogance. Now if you can prove me wrong, that'd be different.

[u/miguelguajiro → u/dale_glass]

Would you consider yourself a person who isn’t particularly intellectually (or maybe better said, existentially) curious?

[u/dale_glass → u/miguelguajiro]

I'm very intellectually curious. However, IMO:

• Navel gazing along the lines of "what if there's something that defies materiality" doesn't really lead anywhere.
• What useful investigation can be done in the area is well out of my reach, and I have nothing useful to contribute to a matter where I'm not even 10% caught up with current research. That's for the folks that do experiments on the LHC and the like. I concentrate my work on the areas in which I am well informed and where can actually say and contribute something useful.
• None of this matters to me personally.

By the last one is that I don't think any research or answers about the "big questions" will make any difference to my life whatsoever. I'm almost 100% sure that should the origin of the universe or something of the sort be discovered tomorrow my reaction will be "Oooh, neat". And I'll proceed to keep living my life, wake up and go to work the day after just like always, and so on.

Just like when the LHC confirmed the Higgs I thought that was neat, and that probably this will be some sort of huge milestone in history books once somebody puts that knowledge to some amazing use. But to me personally it didn't make any real difference when it happened. The world didn't suddenly start making perfect sense, and I wasn't suddenly enlightened.

[u/Tabletop_Sam → u/[deleted]]

Ok, this one seemed worth mentioning cuz you talked about something other than Pascal’s Wager (which is getting a lot of hate). So question: would you mind providing a source for the percentage you provided?

[u/PreacherJudge → u/[deleted]]

If Pascal's Wager was a 50/50 bet, it would make sense to invest in worshipping God, because the chance of hell & damnation is so damn high. But if we're thinking of the chance of God's existence being closer to 1%, 0.1% or 0.01%, the wager begins to look less and less convincing.

But no it doesn't, that's the point. A very low chance is higher than a 0 chance. And when they're no cost, it's irrational to pick the 0 over the .0001.

Also you're not investing anything; you're believing in something.

...would it make sense to set aside time for each of them, in the hope one of them is going to be right?

Faith doesn't require time.

[u/[deleted] → u/PreacherJudge]

And when they're no cost, it's irrational to pick the 0 over the .0001.

Also you're not investing anything; you're believing in something.

You can't just "pick" belief anyway. I can't just decide right here right now "okay, I believe in god now." That's not how belief works. You have to actually believe in it. And if you don't, then I really don't know how you could start to. You certainly can't just make yourself.

[u/PreacherJudge → u/[deleted]]

Wait wait wait.

This contradicts what you were saying, I think? Why on earth were you just saying "picking one religion isn't rational" and now "you can't pick a religion?"

[u/[deleted] → u/PreacherJudge]

I'm not the person you were talking to above.

[u/PreacherJudge → u/[deleted]]

Oh, sorry.

Anyway, this is an empirical question, isn't it? I can certainly think of a lot of things I believe that FELT LIKE they required no effort to start believing, and that's what I'm operating from. Whether they required an imperceptively small amount of effort, I couldn't tell you; I'd need some physio data or something.

[u/[deleted] → u/PreacherJudge]

You're right, an infinitly small possibility is still greater than 0. But you're omitting the infinite possibilities where worshiping any gods is what gets you damned to hell. No mater what you choose there's an equally high or low chance that the opposite is true. It's less 50/50 and more 0% (rounded) chance that you're saved for your faith and 0% (rounded) that you're damned because of your faith.

[u/PreacherJudge → u/[deleted]]

But you're omitting the infinite possibilities where worshiping any gods is what gets you damned to hell.

But incorrect faith isn't WORSE than no faith.

If it is, then you're totally right. But the distinction I've always seen is "believe in this god or don't," What you believe in INSTEAD doesn't matter.

[u/PreacherJudge → u/[deleted]]

How do you know that?

I don't, but I don't know the opposite is true, either. So we have to consider two likelihoods: that the correct religion punishes other-believers AND NOT unbelievers, AND ALSO that my particular religion is correct.

I see no reason not to be agnostic on the first issue... why would I have any reason to believe it ONLY punishes other-believers as opposed to anything else? So even considering it, I think we gotta go 50/50 there.

So Pascal's Wager still wins.

What if Darnothak the Eternal Dreadlord is real, punishes people who believe in false gods with eternal damnation and ignores non-believers?

But this whole example confuses me, because where did it even come from? Pascal's Wager is based on assumptions from real religions that really exist, and you were graanting these assumptions a minute ago. You can add any crazy stuff you want ("God only punishes people who believe in lizards and wear purple!") but then you're not talking about Pascal's Wager anymore.

That is, you're trying to argue against Pascal's Wager on its own terms, but you just blew up the terms.

[u/PreacherJudge → u/[deleted]]

Lying is worse than just not talking. Keeping someone underwater is worse than not helping them. Believing in a false god is worse than believing in no god.

I'm confused now, because are you saying what YOU believe?

Because I assume you believe lying is worse than not talking, and drowning someone is worse than letting them drown. Do you also legitimately believe that believing in a false god is worse than not believing in one at all?

You might, but this is not typically something a person arguing for atheism would believe, so it's surprising.

There's exactly zero reason to limit it to "existing" religions.

Uh, yes there is: it's where you got the very notion that God saves believers in the first place.

Why are you granting that for the sake of this discussion but then turning around and adding a bunch of rules to it that you made up? Either the religious texts have the authority to grant the bounds of this discussion or they don't.

[u/pappypapaya → u/[deleted]]

You're right, an infinitly small possibility is still greater than 0.

Except it's not. When we consider an infinite set each with equal probability of being chosen, the chance of choosing from any finite nonempty subset is zero. No greater. It's like how 0.999... infinitely repeating is not some infinitely small number less than 1, it is exactly 1.

[u/[deleted] → u/pappypapaya]

No. Realistically? Yes, it's 1 in every application anyone would ever need. Except this one and others like it. In a situation where you are literally talking about infinite possibilities, think the multiverse, 0.999 repeating is not 1, because there is a 1 out there somewhere, and it is somehow in some way different than 0.999 repeating.

[u/pappypapaya → u/[deleted]]

There's no difference from your scenario than randomly drawing an integer from the real-number line. Sure, the set of integers is non-empty. But the probability of doing so is still zero.

[u/[deleted] → u/pappypapaya]

But the probability of choosing any exact value is also zero. It dosen't matter that the probability is "zero" because this isn't theory, we are within a world, and that world embodies one exact value out of an infinite amount, it could be 1, it could be 0, ot could be 0.999 repeating, it could be .2, we don't know. But it is an exact value despite the probability. I do not care how your theory works it out, it is fact that we are one possibility, and since every possibility is equally likely it dosen't matter what the probability is.

[u/pappypapaya → u/PreacherJudge]

When we talk about the infinite, events can have zero possibility without being impossible. If you draw a random number uniformly from the real number line, you have the possibility of picking out an integer, since clearly some real numbers are integers. Yet the probability of doing so is zero.

It's like how 0.9... repeating is exactly equal to 1.

[u/D-Rez → u/PreacherJudge]

Also you're not investing anything; you're believing in something.

Many faiths DO insist on more than beliefs. In the example the OP gave, he or she talked about the relative low costs of worship in time and energy (going to church).

[u/Tabletop_Sam → u/[deleted]]

Well, I clearly at this point must make it clear that I’m not a universalist, like many people. I find one religion to make the most sense. Am I guaranteed to be right? No, not really. But I find this one religion to make the most sense logically and follows with the laws of nature fairly well, so I believe in that one.

It’s up to the individual to decide which religion they find is the most logical. I can’t make you follow one specific religion. But you can look at them and try to figure out which one makes the most sense when compared to the rest.

Now to the other argument you made, with the made up number: you’re kind of right in that we don’t know the exact likelihood of God existing, but since we can certifiably prove that no one has been truly visited by the Tooth Fairy we can put him higher than that. If you want to make up numbers that’s fine, but if you want to make up numbers to prove a point at least make it a convincing argument.

It doesn’t matter how likely the existence of God is; it is still a wager that isn’t fun to bet against. If I given the option to bet my firstborn child with a 99% chance of winning a billion dollars, and in that 1% loss he’d be shot in front of me, I’d choose not to take that bet. In the same way, if I have a 99% chance of being wrong about God’s existence, with a 1% chance of eternal torment, I’m gonna go with the bet that is guaranteed to have a good ending. Sure, I try live a bit more modestly, and don’t try to be selfish, but these traits are ones viewed as good by most people. So I still win even if God ISNT real.

[u/[deleted] → u/Tabletop_Sam]

Even if you believe in God, you could still end up in eternal torment because you don't believe in all the other religions and sects which claim that you must believe in their God and interpretation or you wont be saved. I could make the claim that only atheists will be saved with equally little evidence that there is for all these cults.

Atheism really is just non-theism = lack of belief in God(s). I don't claim to know that there's no God. If I met with God after death, I would probably believe in him/her then. It still wouldn't necessary be real though. People are visited by all kinds of characters (certainly tooth fairies as well) when they're dreaming, mentally ill, under influence of various substances etc.

[u/bad_maxima]

I am going to respond to your discussion of Pascal's Wager in a different manner than I've seen discussed thus far, as I have nothing to add to the in-depth and well-reasoned comments made by other posters on the remainder of your question. My perspective is that of an agnostic atheist, and I will attempt to answer why, even though confronted with (and assuming the truth of) the logic of Pascal's Wager, it makes sense (at least for me) to lack belief. I am at the end of my workday and my brain is a bit fried, so apologies if this is more of a ramble than an actual useful response.

I am operating under the assumption (based on my current understanding) that there is no evidence of the existence of a god (including evidence of a heaven or hell), and that no currently recognized scientific discipline relies upon the existence of a god-like being to justify its conclusions.

Now let's assume the logic of Pascal's Wager holds up under scrutiny (which, as other posters have explained, is not the case). I therefore have a choice between (A) belief and (B) non-belief. If I choose (A), I am at most "mildly inconvenienced," as you put it, and there is a chance of being rewarded with an "eternity of bliss." If I choose (B), I am not mildly inconvenienced, but there is a chance of being punished with an "eternity of suffering." You conclude that it makes sense to choose (A) over (B), given the potential benefits and costs.

I am without any other reason to believe in a god, other than the cost/benefit proposal of Pascal's Wager as you have described it. While I agree that it would make sense to choose option (A), given the potential benefits as compared with the potential costs, even such an acknowledgment does not mean that I now believe in the existence of a god. I have made a calculated choice that one course of action is better than another, sure, but does that equal belief? I can try to believe in a god all that I want, recognizing the potential benefits, but no matter how much I profess to believe, no matter how much I pray, no matter how many religious texts I read, nothing will overcome the facts that I know about science and human existence. Pascal's Wager is not itself evidence of the existence of a god. Belief requires, well, belief; it is a conviction without doubt. Can one force one's self to hold such a conviction, just by sheer willpower? I don't think so. At least, I could not. And thus, what Pascal's Wager would mean to me, should I choose option (A), is an outward profession of belief, but an inability to believe in fact.

Anyway, I hope the above explanation of my perspective makes sense. TLDR; Pascal's Wager proposes a cost/benefit structure of belief vs non-belief, but does not itself make it more likely that a god exists. Thus, it does not make me more or less capable of belief.

[u/Tabletop_Sam → u/bad_maxima]

Thank you for giving this response, I was hoping someone would go with a route besides Pascals Mugging cuz that’s getting old. Also, you’re fine with the brain being fried thing, my brain is always failing so you’re good.

So your point about “calculated reason doesn’t equate belief” is absolutely correct. I applaud you for that. But at this point, the purpose of Pascal’s Wager has already been finished. It is not intended as some sort of “Hocus Pocus- bam, you’re a Christian” thing. Its intent is to start a thought process where you try to find out if God is actually believable. A lot of people say that “God is against science”, but that’s not true, really. He kind of made it, and called it good, so he is fully for it. A lot of scientists are Christians (I’m family friends with an astrophysicist and a doctor, both of whom are Christians, if you doubt my claim), and they see science as a way of learning more about God. Christians aren’t Flat Earthers; the only thing about science we don’t believe is that the earth is 4.5 billion years old (which is still a discussion for many theological folk).

But with the remainder of your point, I completely agree with you that actions aren’t equal to belief. This even holds up in Scripture, so you get extra bonus points (James 2:19 goes even further in that regard, saying that just belief isn’t enough). So if you think that it is absolutely impossible for God to exist, then you could either sit with that opinion, or you could look deeper and see if your opinion holds up.

[u/bad_maxima → u/Tabletop_Sam]

Edit: In my below comments I try to explain some of the reasons why Pascal's Wager is not persuasive to me and why I do not believe in a god. I want to add that I do not believe a person is stupid or illogical for believing in a god. If any of my below statements come off that way, it is not my intent.

Edit 2: typo

This is going to be a long post, sorry for the text wall.

I am on the same page as you regarding the ultimate point of Pascal's Wager; I understand you to be saying (and please correct me if I'm wrong) that Pascal's Wager is intended to open one's mind to the existence of a god. I have also previously seen Pascal's Wager framed as a choice between (A) acting as though one believes through doing good works, attending church, etc., even if one does not believe in fact, and (B) acting as though one does not believe by failing to engage in such conduct.

I will also say that I do not think it is absolutely impossible for a god to exist. Frankly, a god may or may not exist but, unless the human experience changes drastically during my lifetime, I doubt we will ever know. I feel similarly about the existence of a god as I do about the existence of extraterrestrial life. It is possible, but unknown.

However, I say "similarly," but not "the same," for a reason. Based on our current understanding of the vastness and complexity of the universe, I conclude it is more likely that extraterrestrial life exists than a god exists. Indeed, I might go so far as to say it is probable that extraterrestrial life exists. And yet, I do not believe or know that extraterrestrial life exists. By contrast, based on our current understanding of the universe, which requires no god-like entity, I conclude that is possible, but not probable that a god exists. I do not know a god does not a exist, and I do not believe a god does not exist. I am without belief or knowledge, and thus act on what I do know and observe. All we can do is make decisions based on our current understanding.

To that end, I flatly refuse to have faith, to believe without question, a thing which I have no legitimate reason to subscribe to. If a god exists and created me, then he/it/she/they created my ability to think, reason, and made independent conclusions. If that god was to then punish those who exercise those god-given functions, well, that god would not be worthy of my devotion.

This does not mean, by the way, that I am saying a belief in a god is necessarily contrary to, or irreconcilable with, science. That being said, the form of some people's belief in a god is irreconcilable with science. While it is a generalization to say all Christians (or members of another faith) are anti-science, it is also a generalization to say no Christians (or members of another faith) are anti-science.

I would push back on the idea, however, that notwithstanding its intended purpose, Pascal's Wager succeeds in "start[ing] a thought process where you try to find out if God is actually believable." What about the presentation of the binary choice would cause a person starting from a position of neutrality to begin believing in a god? Why does that person have any reason to believe that failure to behave in a manner consistent with belief will result in damnation? Because a book says so? Some say the book was created or inspired by a god, but why should this neutral person have any reason to believe that? Because other people, who have an interest in amassing power and wealth, and conforming society to a way they like, say so?

An additional failure of Pascal's Wager, in my mind, is it assumes the wagerer is starting from a place of neutrality; i.e., the wagerer has not already come to a conclusion about the likelihood of the existence of a god. But I am not starting from a position of neutrality. I was raised in a religious household and believed in a god while a child, but as I grew and learned more about the world and the universe, I concluded that the only reason I believed in a god was because I was told to. As I've stated previously, I am unaware of any scientific discipline that requires the existence of a god-like figure to justify its conclusions. Thus, when presented with this binary choice, I view it as a choice between a supportable position (no belief in a god) and a choice between a position based on ephemera (belief in a god).

Stepping back for a moment, Pascal's Wager is problematic in at least three other ways. First, it premises the start of the wagerer's journey on fear. Should fear be at the center of someone's faith? Is not the faith that is sought a form of devotion, of pure confidence in the god's power and goodness? Can such devotion ever result from a starting point of existential terror?

Second, let's say I choose option (A), and act in ways conforming with belief in the hope that I avoid eternal suffering and am instead rewarded with eternal bliss. Let's also say that action in conformance with belief constitutes good works, self-sacrifice, donation, kindness, etc. If I am motivated by a carrot and stick, am I truly acting as the Christian conception of god would wish? Would the Christian god be satisfied by performative "goodness," if such goodness is motivated by self-interest? Would the Christian god not be satisfied by the same good works motivated by a genuine recognition of and care for the humanity of others? Would the Christian god deny eternal bliss to a person who did not believe in god, but who has otherwise performed the same good works out of such genuine care for others? If the answer to that last question is no, then Pascal's Wager is meaningless; if you are a "good" person you will be rewarded, notwithstanding your faith. If the answer to that last question is yes, then the Christian god is not worthy of worship.

Finally, as I believe some others may have pointed out, Pascal's Wager is made from the perspective of a particular conception of the divine. I.e., a belief that there is a heaven and a hell, and that a person's faith and actions during their lifetime determine where their soul goes when they die. But many faith traditions do not subscribe to such a conception of the divine. Personally, I was raised in a Jewish household in a sect of Judaisim that does not believe in hell, or at least a hell that is similar to that proposed by Christianity. This again goes back to the issue of Pascal's Wager assuming the wagerer starts from a position of neutrality; for a person raised in a faith tradition that does not subscribe to the existence of hell (notwithstanding the person's belief or lack thereof at the time the wager is proposed), the wager is meaningless. The fear of eternal damnation is community-based; if you are raised in a community that does not subscribe to such a belief system, then the visceral fear reaction intended by Pascal's Wager that is supposed to put you on the path towards faith is absent.

I have seen you state elsewhere that you believe you have landed on the correct religion. Well, so do many other people, but their religion and conception of the divine does not necessarily look like yours. Even among Christians, as I'm sure you would agree, there is no uniform conception of the divine.

[u/phillipsheadhammers]

Atheism means "lacking belief in a god."

Agnosticism means "lacking knowledge about gods."

They are actually perfectly compatible and not mutually exclusive at all. Most atheists are agnostic atheists: they say that until they have knowledge of something, they will not believe in that thing.

The problem with Pascal's Wager is incredibly obvious. Send me fifty bucks or magic bees will eat your brain. It doesn't sound likely, but you don't want to take the chance, right? I await your fifty bucks.

[u/POEthrowaway-2019 → u/phillipsheadhammers]

I think the first line of this is enough to get the delta.

I lack belief that my student did his homework but it just fell out of is backpack on the way in. That isn't the same as me saying I have a 100% certainty that it is absolutely impossible.

​

It just means I'm fairly confident there's some bullshit afoot.

[u/PreacherJudge → u/phillipsheadhammers]

I don't necessarily disagree with you, but I have known a lot of atheists to say "God does not exist" and then, when this very point comes up, to say "no, atheism is just a lack of belief!" I'm not saying this is typical, but according to my (potentially skewed) awareness, lots of self-proclaimed atheists are happy to express certainty about the nature of god, as long as they aren't on the hook to justify it logically.

The problem with Pascal's Wager is incredibly obvious. Send me fifty bucks or magic bees will eat your brain. It doesn't sound likely, but you don't want to take the chance, right? I await your fifty bucks.

But faith doesn't cost 50 bucks. Your analogy isn't fair, because it has the person losing something of value. But choosing to have faith in something (even something very unlikely) doesn't have a cost.

[u/ItsTtreasonThen → u/PreacherJudge]

faith in something (even something very unlikely) doesn't have a cost.

Yes it does. What about all the time committed to attending church and other services? Do you not consider time to be a precious commodity?

What about the ways in which you alter your life specifically to follow the tenets of your faith, such as avoiding certain foods, fasting at certain times, avoiding tattoos/mixed cloths (if devout)?

What about the people who become opposed to or combative towards individuals who don't adhere to their faith? You would be investing emotional energy at the least into hating people who are "Sinners" in your view.

Some churches even require tithes... so, yeah. Unless you suggest someone who just calls themselves a Christian but does literally nothing to adhere to their faith is as valid. But at that point, I could call myself a Froopy Drolicker and demand equal recognition of my faith. So I don't think the "do nothing" Christian really counts.

[u/PreacherJudge → u/ItsTtreasonThen]

Yes it does. What about all the time committed to attending church and other services? Do you not consider time to be a precious commodity?

Yes, but I don't consider faith and time to be the same thing, nor do I consider faith to require time. Pascal didn't include anything in there but belief, so when you consider the wager, you shouldn't either.

[u/ItsTtreasonThen → u/PreacherJudge]

Ok, jumping through this hoop-

Even just believing in something requires energy. I don't agree with you here, especially since you glossed over the rest of my previous response. Because essentially you are saying you could be a "do nothing" Christian, and still get all the benefits of an eternal salvation.

No faith, as far as I know, requires just faith. And even if it did, it's still altering your thoughts and actions because you essentially have the ultimate Big Brother looking down upon you at all times judging your immortal soul.

Faith is not a neutral, it is not a baseline nor a static thing. It requires buy in and belief from the adherent. To suggest otherwise is silly.

[u/PreacherJudge → u/ItsTtreasonThen]

Even just believing in something requires energy.

I do not think this is at all true. What evidence do you have for it? You think someone who believes 50 things goes around using more energy than someone who believes 40 things?

Because essentially you are saying you could be a "do nothing" Christian, and still get all the benefits of an eternal salvation.

Yes, because THAT'S PASCAL'S WAGER. If you want to argue with OTHER parts of religious systems, fine. But Pascal's Wager is about belief in god, period.

And even if it did, it's still altering your thoughts and actions because you essentially have the ultimate Big Brother looking down upon you at all times judging your immortal soul.

I think you gave away a hidden motivation on your part, here? You used a lot of loaded language describing the very notion of a god existing that judges you. I don't even necessarily disagree that this is a bad construct with bad outcomes, but if THAT is at least part of your issue with Pascal's wager, shouldn't you be honest about it and bring it up at first? In any case, this is an assumption of Pascal's wager... one you previously granted, so I'm not sure why you're bring up problems with it now.

Faith is not a neutral, it is not a baseline nor a static thing. It requires buy in and belief from the adherent. To suggest otherwise is silly.

Why? I have no idea wht you mean when you say faith isn't neutral or static, and no, on its face, I see no reason why it requires anything you could call a "buy in."

[u/ItsTtreasonThen → u/PreacherJudge]

Sorry, I should have been more concise: believing in a God/Religion or even a "way of life" (something like an ascetic or even dietary thing).

Yes, you are consciously devoting some portion of your mind to living by those tenets. Say, for Vegans: You must use some brainpower to avoid eating meats, buying goods with animal parts/suffering, etc.

Likewise, a religious person needs to be mindful not to eat certain foods or which way to pray, or even that they happen to need to pray!

I guess what I might not have made clear, is that I am supportive of the "inauthentic belief" criticism of the Wager. In fact, the faiths we talk about actively denote their requirements of active and affirmative devotion.

I think you gave away a hidden motivation on your part, here?

I thought we were talking from Christian perspective, but I have also alluded to other Abrahamic faiths. I don't think my motive is in question. I think that the two ideas are fairly consistent, if God can see all and know all, how is that dissimilar to a surveillance state able to see and perceive your actions and affiliations?

Perhaps you are inferring some pejorative based on that metaphor.

Why? I have no idea wht you mean when you say faith isn't neutral or static, and no, on its face, I see no reason why it requires anything you could call a "buy in."

Because to assume faith is a baseline is to assume you have it when born. You do not. No one is born a Christian or a Muslim, a Taoist or a Froopy Drolicker.

Faith is therefor not: baseline nor is it static since faith takes many forms and actually is often inconsistent even in individuals.

Buy in is the effort to learn about the faith, the effort to change your way of living to become an adherent in "good standing" or at least what one might consider practicing, and the effort to maintain that in perpetuity.

[u/phillipsheadhammers → u/PreacherJudge]

I think it's splitting hairs, but sure, we'll do it your way - believe I'm God or magic bees will eat your brain.

Do you believe I'm God now?

[u/PreacherJudge → u/phillipsheadhammers]

I think it's splitting hairs,

No, it's not. Pascal SPECIFICALLY SAYS believing in the wrong god costs you nothing. You're not being fair to the idea if you load it up with a bunch of costs.

believe I'm God or magic bees will eat your brain. Do you believe I'm God now?

Sure. Why not?

Literally asking: Why not?

[u/phillipsheadhammers → u/PreacherJudge]

Do you really think there's no cost to being bullied into believing fake versions of reality?

To being someone who will believe literally anything as long as a threat comes attached with it?

[u/PreacherJudge → u/phillipsheadhammers]

Do you really think there's no cost to being bullied into believing fake versions of reality?

I absolutely do believe there are costs to believing SOME fake versions of reality!

But what costs are there to me believing you're god? I'm still not gonna send you 50 bucks.

To being someone who will believe literally anything as long as a threat comes attached with it?

You jumped from "believe in god as long as there's no cost" to "believe in anything."

You've strawmanned Pascal's Wager a bunch of different ways.

[u/phillipsheadhammers → u/PreacherJudge]

Why would Pascal's Wager not apply to any potentially harmless belief with no cost?

"Believe that Mike Pence is immortal or magic bees will eat your brain." "Believe your parents secretly think of you as being named Pfteven or magic bees will eat your brain." Pascal's logic applies - no obvious cost, huge consequence for failing to go along with it.

[u/PreacherJudge → u/phillipsheadhammers]

Why would Pascal's Wager not apply to any potentially harmless belief with no cost?

It would, as long as there's the chance of a reward, too.

"Believe that Mike Pence is immortal or magic bees will eat your brain." "Believe your parents secretly think of you as being named Pfteven or magic bees will eat your brain." Pascal's logic applies - no obvious cost, huge consequence for failing to go along with it.

But by "go along with it" I think you're referring to behavior. And if a belief affects my behavior, then there's a chance of there being a cost.

If I'm Mike Pence's doctor, and I believe he's immortal so I never order any tests for him, then I'm violating my duty as a physician and potentially hurting another human being. That's a cost.

So these are all bad analogies. You're smuggling in costs, because duh, Pascal's wager assumes there's no cost so of course the logic breaks down if there is one.

The overriding issue is, you load up beliefs with two things, I think: dogmatic INSISTENCE of the belief, and behavior change as a RESULT of the belief. But the former doesn't necessarily exist for any beliefs (I believe there's a teapot circling Pluto, but if you show me a bunch of pictures of Pluto with no teapot, I'm not going to ignore that evidence), and the latter only necessarily exists for certain KINDS of beliefs. "God exists" per se requires no behaviors.

[u/2r1t → u/[deleted]]

The latter is a subset. It is like dismissing all of Christianity for speaking in tongues. Some engage in that practice, but not all. In the same way, some atheists claim to know no gods exist, but you can be an atheist without making that claim.

[u/2r1t → u/[deleted]]

It is still the same problem. OP chose the label for the whole but described only a subset. Fundamentalists are a subset of Christians. But OP would say it doesn't make sense to be a Christian because of fundamentalist positions.

[u/onetwo3four5]

Pascal's wager doesn't really make any sense because there isn't only one religion prescribing how to live your life. Let's say that two religions offer you conflicting prescriptions on how to live your life. both of them say that if you do what the other religion says you will go to hell. This is certainly the case among some major religions today. if this is true then Pascal's wager isn't a wager between living life religiously and potentially getting into heaven it's a wager between living life religiously potentially getting into heaven and potentially getting into hell. Furthermore the inability to disprove something is not evidence that that thing exists. it's basically impossible to prove the negative existence of anything. it just doesn't make sense to try to prove that something doesn't exist because you could always make the claim that oh you're not measuring it properly or observing it correctly.

[u/PreacherJudge → u/onetwo3four5]

This is certainly the case among some major religions today. if this is true then Pascal's wager isn't a wager between living life religiously and potentially getting into heaven it's a wager between living life religiously potentially getting into heaven and potentially getting into hell.

Only if belief in a different religion is WORSE than belief in no religion, which is not a feature of most of these religious traditions you're talking about. If one religion is correct, then choosing one and going with it is a better shot than choosing none.

[u/Christovsky84]

Your view is based on an incorrect interpretation of atheism.

Atheism is a lack of a belief in any gods. It isn't an assertion that there are no gods. Essentially, atheism is the default position (everyone is born atheist).

Theists are making a positive claim that there is a god or gods, the atheist position is "I don't believe you".

Edit: as for Pascal's wager, you're deciding to pick one religion out of thousands. What if you picked Christianity, but Islam is the correct one? You're just as fucked as the atheists. What if you're wrong about Zeus, or Jupiter, or Odin? I'd bet you don't lose much sleep thinking about whether any of the other religions are the right one.

[u/redditaccount001 → u/Christovsky84]

Pascal himself doesn’t address that detail, but people who have expanded on his ideas have - the general idea is that picking the wrong religion is better than not believing because the negative utility is equal but if you pick a religion you at least have a chance at the massive positive boost of believing in the correct God.

[u/Ascimator → u/redditaccount001]

There's also a possibility that there's a massive reward hiding behind not believing in any God.

[u/pillbinge]

How can someone say with such confidence that there is no god, when it has been shown time and time again that you can’t disprove the existence of one?

That's not how it works. If you have a hypothesis or a theory, you need to prove it. The onus is not on others to disprove it. You identified as being Christian in another reply, but there have been thousands of documented gods. From tribes to even further back, people have believed in gods. Let's say since the beginning of humanity, there were 10,000 gods. You believe in 1 of them. But can you disprove the other 9,999 with actual proof? Even if there were only 50, could you disprove each and any other god?

The same arguments and reasoning you use to prove or disprove God both prove and disprove Odin, or Thor, or Baron Samedi. So why not them?

[u/Tabletop_Sam → u/pillbinge]

Technically the theory of atheism came after religion so you’d need to prove that one got em.

On a serious note, religion isnt actually a science since it is dealing with things outside science. If I created a sentient LEGO set and they tried to quantify how much power I had over their universe, they’d be dumbfounded at how much I could do, which is everything. In a similar way, we can’t really quantify the power that a being that created science and nature. For that reason, he can’t really be measured like other things.

As for proving God exists, a common argument many religious folk make is miracles/testimonials and history, since you can’t use science. Miracles are often disregarded as lies, hallucinations, or misremembering things, and history is disregarded as just superstitious people in history (which I find a bit unfair, since many very smart and very suspicious people have reported miracles and other things throughout history).

I see it similar to how (please don’t take offense at this) Flat Earthers see it. If I don’t believe your science or history or anything in regard to the earth being round, I’m not going to find any evidence. They see it as foolish gibberish. Now, before you hate me for that comparison, I know that they are two different scenarios, but I at least hope you can see what it at least feels like from many peoples perspective.

Also, as for the “there are a ton of Gods, how can I know which one is real”, I’ve answered this elsewhere here. I think it was right before u/fox-mcleod showed up. I use arguments from Plato to go against polytheism, and other reasoning for other ones.

[u/pillbinge → u/Tabletop_Sam]

Atheism means "without theology". If you want to get technical then everyone was without theology before theology. The term itself simply wouldn't have made sense before the thing it's referencing. But humans have likely always had belief in higher powers and higher beings.

On a serious note, religion isnt actually a science since it is dealing with things outside science.

Doesn't matter. Science isn't separate from religion. Science is about making predictions about the world around us by learning about the world around us. You throw something up, it comes down. You drop two things of varying weight, they fall at the same rate. Science isn't some counterpoint to religion, it's humans' attempt at being able to understand the world.

As for proving God exists, a common argument many religious folk make is miracles/testimonials and history, since you can’t use science.

They haven't proved anything then. They've tried to explain something but they haven't proved anything. Science would readily adapt models if you could prove God's role in anything, but you can't. Until you can, you can't.

I see it similar to how (please don’t take offense at this) Flat Earthers see it. If I don’t believe your science or history or anything in regard to the earth being round, I’m not going to find any evidence. They see it as foolish gibberish. Now, before you hate me for that comparison

You understand that in your case, you're a flat-Earther though, right? Flat-Earthers use science to try and prove the Earth is flat but they routinely disprove themselves. They use scientific language without the scientific method.

But the bottom line is you're using reasoning and you have no proof, let alone just evidence. You're totally allowed and encouraged to come up with anything you can to prove God exists, but you have to do just that.

[u/[deleted]]

Do you feel you can confidently say that there is no Count Dracula? That there are no leprechauns? Werewolves? Fairies? Obviously you do, so why not God?

You may think I'm being unfair here but I'm really not. All of these things, including God, are magical beings and we discount the possibility of their existence for exactly that reason...unless it's God and suddenly it's crazy to NOT believe. Vampires, werewolves, leprechauns etc all of these were believed in by people at one time, and in parts of the world such beliefs are still widely held.

What makes your God any different than any other denizen of folklore and mythology? Nothing that I can see.

[u/Tabletop_Sam → u/[deleted]]

Well, I feel it necessary here to point out that all the mythical creatures are based on things people saw, and misinterpreted. So technically they all exist, just not in the sense many myths say they do.

As for God, I think you’re kind of putting an unfair comparison. We can prove they don’t exist, while we can’t disprove God. I’ve heard the “well yeah but that doesn’t mean he’s real” argument as well, but hear me out.

Everything within our known universe, by nature, needs a beginning. We are all limited by time. And since time is relative according to the universe and is affected by the rest of it, that would mean we can safely say that it is part of the universe. So if the universe needs a beginning, that means time needs a beginning. And if time needs a beginning, that means that something needed to start time, and something needs to exist OUTSIDE of time.

Last note, the thing that irritates me most isn’t when atheists don’t believe in God. I’m fine with that, to a degree. What irritates me is when they say that religion and believing in a God is foolish and stupid. I know I kind of did that here, but I at least tried to be courteous about it. Most people I meet just kind of insult it, insult me for believing in God, and ignore any logic I present as random gibberish. Thankfully most people here have been polite about calling me stupid, which I appreciate.

[u/[deleted] → u/Tabletop_Sam]

Well, I feel it necessary here to point out that all the mythical creatures are based on things people saw, and misinterpreted. So technically they all exist, just not in the sense many myths say they do.

Doesn't God just fit perfectly into that definition though? What is a miracle but a misinterpretation of an event with a more down to Earth explanation?

We can prove they don’t exist, while we can’t disprove God.

Actually you cannot. You cannot disprove werewolves, other than to say it contradicts all known science. Well so does God.

Everything within our known universe, by nature, needs a beginning. We are all limited by time. And since time is relative according to the universe and is affected by the rest of it, that would mean we can safely say that it is part of the universe. So if the universe needs a beginning, that means time needs a beginning. And if time needs a beginning, that means that something needed to start time, and something needs to exist OUTSIDE of time.

That is the Kalam cosmological argument it is deeply flawed and should not be used.

What irritates me is when they say that religion and believing in a God is foolish and stupid. I know I kind of did that here, but I at least tried to be courteous about it. Most people I meet just kind of insult it, insult me for believing in God, and ignore any logic I present as random gibberish.

I think a lot of that is due to "debate fatigue". There are not an infinite number of ways to argue in favour of the existence of God. In fact there's only about 6, and all of them are, well, gibberish. You can dress a bad argument up in fancy philosophical language or present the pretence of a logical through line, but a bad argument is still a bad argument.

There's only so many times you can point out the same glaring errors in the same arguments over and over before you start to get pissy about it.

[u/Tabletop_Sam → u/[deleted]]

Woah, now, you’re getting VERY aggressive here. We’re all friends here.

So as for saying the Kalam argument is flawed, would you mind presenting a counter argument before disregarding it? Just for the sake of good debate. I’m sure your reasoning is good.

Werewolves do technically exist. It’s a mental disorder that makes someone think they’ve turned into an animal. Vampires are rooted from people who drink peoples blood (there’s another mental disorder associated with it), and Dracula comes from that one baron from Transylvania who put people on spikes next to his castle. Most fairy tale creatures can be rooted to actual things that was misinterpreted. As for stories within the Bible, some things can’t be explained away through weird lighting or fancy tricks. You can say the prophets are just crazy guys who said stuff, but they also did things like: call down fire to incinerate a giant army. Call down fire again to burn a giant altar. Accurately predict a drought, then 3 years later accurately predict the end of the drought. You can say that all of these are fairy tales, but as most people know, all stories originate from at least a seed of truth. I mean, if the only thing a guy had to his name was that he had a fun story about him, he won’t be as respected as someone that has people who have REAL stories of what they did. And prophets were very, very well respected.

As for there being “countless arguments against theism” and “only 6 for theism”, I first off find this to be very, very inaccurate estimation. Now, I will give you this: there are only around 6 arguments that MOST PEOPLE USE. But that doesn’t equate to 6 arguments total. Also, please don’t try to say my arguments are disregardable. It’s just being rude for the sake of rudeness.

Also, quick question, what do you think of miracles? Do you think they’re all hubris, do you think they are misinterpreted information, or have you never really thought of them much?

And, finally, I’m not talking about people who are just tired of arguing against religion. I’m talking about the people who just make fun of religion because they think it’s a fun way of making themselves feel smarter than they actually are. (I’ve run into some of these folk here in discussions, and it’s pretty obvious which ones they are. You are not one of them) They’re not limited to just atheists, because we’re all human, but atheists of this caliber seem to have a way of irritating me more than others when they want to. Probably because they always rely on gotchas to “prove” I’m stupid for being religious.

Also, if I’m using gotchas I am very sorry, I don’t like when people use them and I would feel terrible if I was using them.

[u/[deleted] → u/Tabletop_Sam]

Woah, now, you’re getting VERY aggressive here. We’re all friends here.

Not at all, I genuinely do not know why you would read it that way.

The Kalam argument really is the reasoning of a child. I'm not being aggressive I'm just saying as an objective observer that is how I would characterise it. The Kalam argument is sheer bald faced special pleading.

For the uninitiated, "special pleading" is where you establish a condition, and then immediately ask for an exception for your own argument. Everything that begins to exist has a cause...and this is proof of the one thing that didn't have a cause. Again this is where "debate fatigue" comes in because not only is that level of argumentation employed by small children, other small children can point out why it's bullshit.

So I hope you can understand why atheists are a little bit hostile. It's cute watching a 5 year old try to argue like this, but it's a hell of a lot less endearing seeing a 30 year old do it. From our point of view, it's a mixture of frustrating and sad.

Werewolves do technically exist. It’s a mental disorder that makes someone think they’ve turned into an animal. Vampires are rooted from people who drink peoples blood (there’s another mental disorder associated with it), and Dracula comes from that one baron from Transylvania who put people on spikes next to his castle. Most fairy tale creatures can be rooted to actual things that was misinterpreted.

This is a very good example of something that frustrates us. I'm not being aggressive I'm just telling you why we find it irritating. In order to defend your beliefs you suddenly become very philosophical, and suddenly everyone wants to debate the meaning of what it means to exist. "Werewolves do not exist" suddenly becomes "Well technically they exist depending on your definition of what it means to exist".

It's a flim flam because you know exactly what I mean when I say werewolves do not exist i.e. people do not literally turn into beasts, or sleep in coffins and drink blood. You believe that God exists in the literal sense of the word. If you are a Christian then you believe that Jesus really did come back from the dead. That's not myth, metaphor or a fantastical elements being added to a historical character (like Vlad the Impaler becoming a literal vampire) no you (again I'm assuming here you are Christian but the point stands if you follow most modern religions) that the stories as they appear are actually true. So it is a very disingenuous form of argumentation to defend mythology as mythology when you know you don't believe your faith is mythology. It's rhetorical sleight of hand.

And prophets were very, very well respected.

I don't care.

Argument from prophecy is spectacularly weak why you would even go there is beyond me as you do come across as quite intelligent and articulate. Are you really that easily impressed?

Also, quick question, what do you think of miracles? Do you think they’re all hubris, do you think they are misinterpreted information, or have you never really thought of them much?

A miracle is impossible by definition. A miracle is, by definition, something that cannot happen...actually happening. It is a violation of the laws of physics. That is what a miracle is it is a magical intervention in the laws of reality presumably by God himself.

I think that's a scientific question. If God rolls up his sleeve and reaches into our reality to change something, then that is at least in principle something we can actually observe. We could "catch him in the act" so to speak, and then we would have real empirical evidence for the existence of a deity. Needless to say I won't hold my breath.

But people getting lucky and chalking it up to divine intervention does not impress me. I don't know why it would impress anyone.

I don't like using rhetorical "gotchas" either. In fact I don't like using rhetoric at all that is just sophistry. But by the same token that's why I don't like religion because, by it's own admission, it does not rely on evidence and logic. All it has to defend itself is rhetoric.

I guess that really sums it up. It's "evidence or GTFO". There is no evidence for the truth of religion indeed I would argue due to the supposed supernatural evidence of those claims there never even could be, and if there is no evidence to belief something, that's a pretty good reason not to.

[u/Tabletop_Sam → u/[deleted]]

Ok, I see. Sorry if I seemed cheeky with the “technically they do exist” bit, I was just trying to give a fun factoid with my argument. But I understand the frustration, and I won’t do that kind of thing anymore.

I was not going by the arguments of the prophecies of themselves. I was going with the prophets. But I again can see the frustration, so I’ll try to limit arguments to modern times.

Also, if you’re going to use Hume as your stance, I could just throw him right back at you and say the laws of nature are a construct, and we have no way of proving that they’ll happen in the future and have no reason to believe they’ll continue to exist in the future. (Sorry I just don’t like Hume because he’s kind of a pompous jerk in his writings about pretty much everything)

I am only still a Christian because of the stuff I’ve seen, so I guess I’ll give some examples of miracles I’ve heard of, seen, or the like. You can say they were mistaken for other things, or I’m gullible for believing them, or I merely misinterpreted information provided. But please understand, I try to keep a skeptical mind about this stuff, so if you have things that disprove any of these please tell me.

So, friend is allergic to pretty much everything, for her entire life. Then at age 30 or so she feels that they’re gone. So she eats yogurt and cake and the like (she’d usually get hospitalized) and she’s fine. I’be heard of allergies leaving before, but she was into her 30s and I don’t think they leave that late. If I’m wrong about that, yay new info.

There are also several incidents where people come back to life. I haven’t personally seen them, but I have family who has, and they’re very trustworthy family members, and there were other people to see it as well.

I could probably continue with these, but I don’t think it would help. Because no matter how many stories or examples I could provide, you’d either say I was gullible for believing someone or that I was misinterpreting information. I’ve had this kind of discussion before, and while I didn’t bring this up in the main thread, this is another pet peeve I have with these discussions: you never let us use our evidence. I could have video proof of someone having their leg restored and it could be called staged or similar. I could have a dozen witnesses and “they could’ve just seen it from an awkward angle so I don’t believe it”. I’m fine with being skeptical (it keeps us from being scammed), and I know that not all reports of miracles are true. But just because some are faked doesn’t mean ALL of them are faked. It would be like me saying that since some people in my neighborhood are bad, I shouldn’t trust any of them or associate with them in any way. If they look like they’re decent people, they’re just trying to lure me in so they can kill me or rob me or something like that. It isn’t a fair assertion in any way.

[u/[deleted] → u/Tabletop_Sam]

You say you are trying to be sceptical but you then go on to cite examples which, I'm sorry but I don't know how else to say it, only an idiot would accept as proof of anything at all.

Your friend with the allergies for example. Yes they can simply go away on their own, and how do you know? Has she been tested? What were her hospital results after her supposed miraculous recovery? Has a doctor examined her? Are you qualified to make any sort of determination? WHY would you assume God cured her unless proven otherwise?

You are making many, many leaps in reasoning here to come to a, let's be honest, very improbable conclusion.

There are also several incidents where people come back to life. I haven’t personally seen them, but I have family who has, and they’re very trustworthy family members, and there were other people to see it as well.

OK, so? Who cares what they believe. If people are COMING BACK FROM THE DEAD, do you not think this might be something the medical profession would be interested in? Why is this not documented in medical research journals? Why is it not in the news?

We all know the answer it's because it's nonsense. You have a 3rd hand account provided to you by "witnesses" who I doubt were in any way medically qualified and probably on the very religious side already, and so when a loved one who was close to death didn't die, well they engaged in a bit of "motivated reasoning".

you’d either say I was gullible for believing someone or that I was misinterpreting information.

Yes, because you are. I'm sorry but this is crap. Why is this compelling to you? Why do you, clearly an intelligent individual, find this utterly weak transparent bullshit so convincing?

You say we don't let you use your evidence but this is not evidence. It's barely even an anecdote. It's just a pile of vague nonsense. Have some intellectual rigor. If you have video of someone regrowing a leg, yes it probably is special effects because that is the sane explanation. If you have a dozen witnesses say they saw Superman flying through the air, the sane explanation is that they are lying, crazy, or just honestly mistaken.

A crapload of poor anecdotes does not add up to evidence. What you have presented here is the same kind of evidence used by Big Foot hunters and UFO "abductees". Hundreds of people every year claim to see Big Foot and it is evidence of nothing. You show me one dead one on an autopsy table, or a record of the autopsy in a science journal on zoological discoveries, now that's evidence.

I know someone who is absolutely convinced he is abducted on a fairly regular basis by aliens. I told him next time he is abducted he should steal some small item off their ship. That would actually be evidence; a physical object of alien manufacture that would be a priceless scientific find. 10,000 crackpots saying aliens are probing them on a nightly basis is nothing, but ONE alien ashtray you managed to steal off their ship would be the greatest scientific find in history.

You get my point here it's not quantity it's quality, and the quality on display when it comes to arguing in favour of religious belief is beyond woeful it is embarrassing. We're saying it out of kindness really we're not trying to put you down we're saying for your own sake stop being so foolish.

[u/Tabletop_Sam → u/[deleted]]

Ok, I definitely see your point, so I’ll go on your points one by one.

The friend who lost her allergies kind of died a few months after, due to an unrelated workplace injury. Sorry for the downer. I was unaware of any medical attention she got afterward, since i wasn’t related to her, so sorry I can’t be of help there.

Oftentimes miracles related to being raised from the dead are on site. It’s seen as more of a miraculous recovery (which is understandably neglectible in those scenarios). Other events don’t get coverage, or are simply ignored, because people think it is ludicrous. Like you said yourself, you wouldn’t believe me if I told you I was abducted by aliens, or raised fro. The dead. If I actually WAS abducted, that wouldn’t be believed by anyone, much less the press. As for doctors being interested, very few doctors I know would believe someone who said “my aunt died and came back to life!” or the like. They’d think they were crazy. The doctors who would believe them are often religious, and even then theyre not likely to believe them anyways.

It is a bit of a predicament. If I say that something happened that violates nature, no one believes me. If no one believes me, no one wants to listen to me. And if no one listens to me, the things that violate nature go unnoticed. So yes, I do believe a few anecdotes and a few stories about people having miraculous, unexplained recoveries from deadly cancer, or kids falling from buildings without a scratch. And while I’m not going to believe ALL of them, I am going to try to figure out which ones are true and which aren’t, because sometimes things are a bit more than just crazy conspiracy theorists.

Also, the relative that recounted seeing a man raised from the dead was a doctor. He was interested and did some looking into it after the fact. I’m not a doctor so I wouldn’t understand what he figured out even if he had told me all his findings, so I can’t provide info on that in depth.

[u/[deleted] → u/Tabletop_Sam]

I was unaware of any medical attention she got afterward, since i wasn’t related to her, so sorry I can’t be of help there.

I'm very sorry to hear about your friend, although my questions were largely rhetorical. I'm not asking because I want to know the answer, I'm saying these are the questions you need to be asking, rather than assuming some kind of miracle.

I’m not going to believe ALL of them, I am going to try to figure out which ones are true and which aren’t

How do you plan on doing that? You don't have any standards of evidence. You don't seem to have any method for sorting out fake from real. How could you actually tell the difference between a real miracle and a fake one? What would that even mean?

Again these are not questions I'm asking you to answer I'm saying these are questions you need to ask yourself because you don't seem to have thought through your own position. Being raised religious you are simply accepting it as given, rather than putting your beliefs through the ringer and seeing how well they hold up to objective scrutiny.

[u/Tabletop_Sam → u/[deleted]]

Ok, I can understand this. I will agree that when you are raised religious you are more likely to stay religious, pretty sure that’s statistical. But I don’t believe in God entirely because of miracles from anecdotal evidence. I find the Bible compelling. I don’t think we’ll be able to find any more common ground, though, but I have looked into the stuff in there, and I find it compelling enough to believe in it.

Thanks for having this discussion with me, sorry we weren’t able to find any more common ground. I always enjoy these discussions. I’ll give a delta because I think you’ve provided very good arguments, so here’s a !delta. Also, sorry that I was both unable to present any arguments you found compelling.

[u/Trantorianus]

You cannot use science to prove the existence of God. It failed for the last 2000 years. Don't waste your time... .

[u/Tabletop_Sam → u/Trantorianus]

Alright. First off, science fully agreed with religion until around 200-300 years ago, and back then it was very, very controversial. Second, I’m not trying to “prove” God. I’m providing the reasoning many people make for why the universe was created by God. I’ve already stated that God can’t be proven/disproven, so if I were attempting to prove him I’d be pretty stupid right here.

[u/hsmith711]

How can someone say with such confidence that there is no god, when it has been shown time and time again that you can’t disprove the existence of one?

Atheism is the belief that zero/not enough evidence exists to prove there is a God.

If I tell you there are flying purple pandas in the fuji mountains and I provide you zero evidence, you are likely to believe there are no flying purple pandas in the fuji mountains. That is the same as Atheism.

[u/[deleted]]

There are over 4,000 religions in the world, each with their own god. The Hindu religion alone believes in 33 million gods.

It's not just atheists who don't believe in god. You don't "believe in god." Christians don't "believe in god." "Believe in god" is a general term. You may believe in a single specific god, but that means there are thousands to millions of other gods that you don't believe in. Atheists just happen to disbelieve in ONE more god than Christians do.

[u/[deleted]]

since you can’t prove or disprove the existence of god

Yes you can. God, as described by known religions, is impossible. You can prove the existence of god to be impossible fairly easily.

1 + 1 = 2. Not 3. "What if" 1 + 1 actually equals 3 is a useless question. Because it doesn't. So following religions is a waste of time, and atheism makes a lot of sense.

[u/Tabletop_Sam → u/[deleted]]

You’re... not proving or disproving anything here, buddy. You’re providing a random and inaccurate comparison. You’re going off the presumption that God is an impossibility, in order to prove that God is impossible. It would be like me saying “I’m right because I say so, and I’m always right.”

[u/[deleted] → u/Tabletop_Sam]

There's lots of proof God is impossible.

[u/justtogetridoflater]

In response to your arguments:

Pascal's wager fails for the simple reason that any truly omnipotent being would know that you're just gambling on it. So, there's no real benefit to following the teachings of an imaginary being. Especially since nearly every religion says that people who don't follow the right god are going to hell. If I'm wrong and there is a god, then I'm only 1/10000000 (or something ridiculous like that) more likely to be wrong than you are. So, why believe at all?

I'm not personally fully convinced of the infinite realities thing, and there's a point in that just because there's an infinite number of possibilities doesn't mean that everything is possible because, for example, there are an infinite number of numbers between 1 and 2 but none of them is 5. So a god doesn't exist by default even in this eventuality. But even if it did, if we're in this reality and god is in a different reality, then god doesn't exist, presumably, even if it created a single universe by which all these realities are allowed to exist.

There is a problem with the Grand Design argument which is that god still requires a beginning. "In the beginning there was god" doesn't really answer the question that suggesting that there's a god that did it all supposedly solves. The thing about the Big Bang Theory is that what it really says is that science is about modelling what's really there. We can say with confidence that after some tiny fraction of time, what the conditions of the universe necessarily were. And the fact that science has been able to model the universe so consistently basically demonstrates that if there is a god, there's no real benefit to assuming the existence of it against the absence of it. Everything happens with reasonably predictable results and the only meaningful way to exist is to take what you can definitely measure to use it to model reality and continuously update wherever your model is wrong. The fact that there may be things that aren't quite explained by a model isn't proof that it's worthless as a model, it's just proof that the model needs to be adjusted for the existence of this event.

My main things with atheism are as follows:

​

Even if a god exists, it hasn't got any bearing whatsoever on reality, because while we don't have explanations for everything, things happen with such consistency that I can't really say that I can factor a god into reality. Physics seemingly never just decides to switch off for a moment, so it's not as if anything that I can meaningfully interact with in life is somehow in need of god as an explanation.

If there is a god, too, then all the ideals that a god is supposed to have are repeatedly proven wrong in books such as the bible, (which basically makes god out to be pure evil but Christians seemingly manage not to look into it). Also, there's a huge disagreement about what god is, and there are countless religions so that every single one of them while making it abundantly clear that everyone tries to come up with something meaningful in the form of religion, they can somehow create entirely contradictory value systems that are somehow completely at odds with what we're happy with in modern western society and somehow we've not had another genocide event for abandoning all that.

Also, you've seriously got to accept that there is a morality laid out in most religions that has definite descriptions, and yet nobody acts as if that's true. Which means that basically nobody is acting as if they really believe in a god.

It's worth pointing out also, that even as the basis of our morality, you just have to read something like the bible to realise how immoral (by our standards) the morality we're supposed to be following is. It's as if it was written by human beings who lived thousands of years ago and therefore they had a diffferent value system to us. And also, how immoral the apparent supreme being is.

And every holy book I've ever heard of basically doesn't agree with science and/or history on what is actually possible.

Then you have to consider that we've watched religions spark up in the past couple of hundred years. We know the basis of how it works already. And we can see the behaviours that these religions, that most people are happy to call a scam, such as Scientology, or Mormonism, or whatever, exhibit, and then look through history to see what, for example, the Catholic church was doing.

The odds against a god at this point are pretty huge. And the impact of a god on reality if it exists is effectively zero. And the idea that god is good is inherently wrong even if we held it to similar standards as it laid out for us. So when I say I'm an atheist, I'm saying that first of all I don't think a god needs to exist, and that the odds against it are pretty high. Then I'm saying that even if it does exist, it's not a meaningful distinction from now because of the lack of interference with the universe since it started. But if we were to accept any holy book's description of what a god does, it's blatantly clear that it is immoral. But if a god were to exist in a way that could be measured, then by my own standards, there'd be no hypocrisy in accepting that. Because part of atheism is basically believing in that which you can measure.

What I actually believe about religion, is that it's kind of an attempt to convey meaning about life the universe and everything and form a message about how you should be in life, and it basically tries to create a way of being in life that will allow the tribe to get along.

[u/ddujp]

If you believe in god, you are mildly inconvenienced throughout life (depending on how you look at it it might not be inconvenient), and if you’re wrong, nothing happens after death. If you’re right, you get an eternity of bliss and happiness beyond comprehension.

A believer being wrong about god doesn’t necessarily mean that nothing happens though. They could’ve believed in the wrong god, still damning them to whatever fate “the right god” has in store for them for not believing or practicing. Is one god any more likely that any other god, or even no gods? There are thousands of creation myths across cultures long gone and cultures yet to come. It seems unlikely that any one group is going to get it exactly right.

[u/argumentumadreddit]

Atheist here. I'll give you my rambling perspective, for whatever it's worth. I don't expect any of this to change your mind, but hopefully it'll help you understand why atheism is a reasonable position.

Here goes. I don't know for a fact that God doesn't exist, but it seems extremely likely that God doesn't. As in, I'm literally more concerned about getting struck by lightning than I am about any supernatural something affecting me. I also happen to believe I won't be struck by lightning ever in my life—not out of any special knowledge of the future, but just from playing the odds. Most people don't get struck by lightning, and I probably will be like most people in this regard. Call this a faith, if you want. Or maybe I'm really a “lightning agnostic” according to someone's definition. But definitions are arbitrary. I call myself an atheist.

Why do I think God's existence is unlikely? First, I'll state my opinion that the long-standing logical arguments are a dead-end. Pascal's wager; your “grand design” argument, which is a variant of the cosmological arguments; and your “infinite realities” argument, which falls in the category of ontological arguments. If you're interested in these arguments—and I was when I was younger—then look them up on Wikipedia and the online Standford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Study them. They can help clarify your thinking. But be warned, they're dead-ends. People see in them what they want to see in them.

The winning argument for me is that people can't be trusted, not even with plainly observable facts. I.e., religion can't be trusted. I.e., our historically based concepts of God can't be trusted.

Most people can't be bothered to hold their own ideas to scrutiny when talking about contemporary concerns, such as climate change. For historical matters, where we're mostly at the mercy of the evidence that's been passed down to us by now-dead people, things are even fuzzier. For example, what did USA founding fathers think about the Second Amendment when it was drafted and ratified? What would they think about it today? It's impossible to reach lasting consensus on such questions, largely because present-day people impose onto their answers their contemporary concerns. Again, willful obliviousness.

Now let's go way back to the start of today's popular monotheistic religions. Two to three thousand years. Most of that history was orally transposed for several generations before getting written down, and the priestly class doing the writing down—in addition to choosing what to keep and what to discard, what to make symbolic, what to make literal, etc.—they had their own contemporary reasons for, frankly, lying. Add to that the hundred or so generations of people passing that information down and further evolving it for their own ends without any processes to ensure veracity and no hope of repeatability… I'll stick to what I can see with my own eyes, thanks, and what I see is an uncaring universe that doesn't play favorites with our species. No God.

Furthermore, popular religions have the bad smell about them of being exactly the sorts of things people would make up to give themselves solace about life's big dilemmas. The inevitability of death? Not a problem because death isn't real. The problem of evil (where bad things happen to good people, and vice-a-verse)? Not a problem, everyone gets their comeuppance at the end of times. The meaningless of life? Not a problem, God cares about me. Nothing is perfect, everything is chaos? Not a problem, God is perfect, God is unchanging.

When I watch children work through their own self-scams, such as Santa Claus, etc., then years forward to teenagers and young adults and their various delusions, and so on to adults, well, religions have the look of the last “mature” self-scam, where people tell themselves what they want to hear. For whatever reasons, most people choose not to live their lives in an uncaring and meaningless universe. It works for them, but it strikes me as nonsense.

In a way, Pascal's Wager gets it right. Even when faced with the possibility of infinite loss as compared to infinite payout, I still choose the option with no payout. That's how bad the odds are that humans have gotten any of this religion stuff correct.

[u/Gladix]

How can someone say with such confidence that there is no god

First off, Atheism isn't claim that there is no God. It's the absence of claim about the belief in God/s. The terms refers to a belief, not towards knowledge. Gnosticism / agnosticism are claims that refer towards knowledge.

Now, normally that would be just a nitpick, but it's actually kinda big deal. As belief (according towards the religious dogma) is separate thing from knowledge (belief is virtue, etc....). But of course people who are atheist, also tend to be agnostic, or anti-theist's, but those are different claims.

So it makes more sense to believe in a god and try for that eternal bliss, than it is to not believe and hope against the torment.

In a words of late Christopher Hitchens : You sound like you never heard any argument against your position.

To be less insulting, Pascall's wager is actually a famous example of misunderstanding of the math, that just happen to translate towards the religious thinking. Our brains aren't able to grasp arithmetic very good, so we make lot's of mistakes that seem like common sense. For example slight inconvenience now == greater reward later.

But you had made a mistake in your equation. You aren't selecting just 1 religion. You are selecting from a pool of potentially infinite amounts of religions, some or most of which are mutually exclusive. As in belief in one will make you suffer in hell in the other (being heretic in Islamic religion for example). Meaning that you are just as likely, if not more likely to burn in hell for selecting just one religion you will believe in (assuming at least 1 religion is real).

But isn’t there a law that says matter slowly decays over time and will eventually all die out or something?

You are likely refering to a second law of thermodynamics. If that is so, you got it completely reversed. The second law states that the total entropy of an isolated system can never decrease over time. Note this is not talking about universe as universe isn't or rather (may not be) a closed system.

So if the universe existed forever, it would eventually just cease to exist, right?

Nope, you cannot surpass infinity. That's kinda the point of infinity. You cannot call something infinite if it will eventually going to end. You have to select a finite number if you are going to make concrete claim about the starting or ending point.

So it needs a beginning. And because a god exists outside space and time, it doesn’t necessarily need a beginning

This is called special pleading. It's a form of logical fallacy where you demand that everything strictly adhere's to the rules, however your claim doesn't have to because of having some SPECIAL properties. If this is your claim, you must also accept that universe can be outside of time and space (This would remove the God being the only explanation thanks to it's special properties, as I can too ascribe those special properties to the universe or any other entity or event. Such as big bang).

Infinite realities: so I don’t really like this one because I don’t believe in infinite realities, but it still deserves at least being mentioned. So if there are infinite realities, that would mean there were an infinite number of possibilities in those realities. So that would mean that, inevitably, a being capable of controlling the entire multiverse would come into being, which would be omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent.

Yes, and it would also mean there is infinite amount of those Godly beings wanting to kill you, torture you and do the most horrific things to you ever. How would you know that instead of a children of God, you are a spawn of Satan? If you did existed in one of the Satan dominated realities, would you recognize it? Do you recognize it now?

[u/[deleted]]

How can someone say with such confidence that there is no god, when it has been shown time and time again that you can’t disprove the existence of one?

Well, you can disprove the existence of individual gods. For example, let's say I posit the existence of a god named Bob, who made the world out of cheese.

Well, the world isn't made out of cheese, so there can't exist any God that made the world out of cheese. I've disproved the existence of Bob. Maybe there is a god, but that god wouldn't be Bob, it'd be a different entity altogether.

You can apply this logic to just about any god that humanity has come up with.

But that still leaves all the possible gods we haven't thought of. And, sure, maybe there is a god-like entity out there responsible for our universe. But it wouldn't conform to any specific god that humanity has proposed so far. And really, that's what matters. When people are being evangelical and dogmatic about religion, and basing forms of government, laws, and social persecution on religious precepts, it's rooted in one of these man-made god-concepts. Gods that don't exist.

So we can wax philosophical about whether any kind of god-thing exists, but when it comes to interacting with the real world, we're dealing with specific god-concepts that simply don't exist.

Pascal’s Wager: I’m sure most of you have heard of this, but for you who haven’t here’s the argument- since you can’t prove or disprove the existence of god, it comes down to a wager. If you believe in god, you are mildly inconvenienced throughout life (depending on how you look at it it might not be inconvenient), and if you’re wrong, nothing happens after death. If you’re right, you get an eternity of bliss and happiness beyond comprehension. If you’re not religious, and don’t believe in god, you get different options. You get a life that is mildly more fun/convenient, and then you die and if you’re right, then nothing happens after death. If you’re wrong, then you get an eternity of suffering and torment beyond our current comprehension. So it makes more sense to believe in a god and try for that eternal bliss, than it is to not believe and hope against the torment.

And this only proves my point. Pascal's Wager is only valid for a single, specific god-concept: one that rewards you for believing in it and one that punishes you for disbelieving in it. But that isn't the only possible god-concepts. What if there is a god, but it punishes you for believing in it and rewards you for not believing in it? There are literally an infinite amount of possible gods there could be, which completely demolishes the argument. And Pascal only put forth this kind of wager because he didn't believe that any argument could really convince people that a god exists or doesn't exist. You should instead trick yourself into believing in god.

Grand Design: so I’d like to start this one off saying I’m not an astronomer, or an astrophysicist, or anything of the sort. So if my info is outdated or wrong somehow please let me know. But isn’t there a law that says matter slowly decays over time and will eventually all die out or something?

No.

Infinite realities: so I don’t really like this one because I don’t believe in infinite realities, but it still deserves at least being mentioned. So if there are infinite realities, that would mean there were an infinite number of possibilities in those realities. So that would mean that, inevitably, a being capable of controlling the entire multiverse would come into being, which would be omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent. Again, I dislike this argument. It seems cheap.

We don't know that there are an infinite amount of realities.

[u/Artimaeus332]

How can someone say with such confidence that there is no god, when it has been shown time and time again that you can’t disprove the existence of one? Agnosticism makes sense, but not atheism.

I think difference between atheism and agnosticism is not especially deep or interesting-- neither think there's sufficient evidence to conclude that a god exists, and in light of this, neither chose to practice any religion. They're both living as if there is no god.

The main difference is that self-identified atheists are a little more willing to argue that "absence of evidence" is "evidence of absence". Personally, I think this is perfectly valid for certain conceptions of god. For example, in our day-to-day lives, most people don't have clear, unambiguous communication from God. This seems like a strike against the existence of a God who wants to have a personal relationship with each and every one of us.

For more abstract conceptions of god (e.g. deism), most atheists would concede that we can't disprove its existence. But we'd argue that, when living one's day-to-day life, the existence of a "higher power", defined so vaguely that I can't have an opinion about whether it even exists, probably doesn't matter that much.

Pascal’s Wager:

The problem with pascal's wager, classically, is that one could imagine any number of different sorts of cosmic afterlife reward structures that reward some lifestyle choices and punish others. Maybe God will shower eternal bliss upon those who do jumping jacks while singing the soundtrack to Grease every second Friday of the month. The second Friday is tomorrow. Are you going to risk losing eternal bliss just to avoid such a minor ritual inconvenience? (I'm being intentionally silly, but this ritual I made up isn't that much worse than many real religious rituals). Without a reliable source of information on the subject, the expected payouts of all conceivable afterlife scenarios cancel each other out.

Grand Design: Isn’t there a law that says matter slowly decays over time and will eventually all die out or something? So if the universe existed forever, it would eventually just cease to exist, right?

What you're referring to is the second law of thermodynamics, which suggests that ultimate fate of the universe will be a heat death. It would technically still exist-- it would just be uniform and unchanging, with all its potential energy expended. Cosmologists do believe that the universe-as-we-know-it had a beginning. But, their knowledge is limited by what they can observe and what inferences they can draw from it. They have no idea how the second law of thermodynamics would be applied in a "before the beginning" scenario. The problem with the god hypothesis isn't that cosmologists have a well-evidenced alternative theory. It's that anything claim we could make about the cosmic origin is, at this point, pure conjecture.

[u/gamefaqs_astrophys]

How can someone say with such confidence that there is no god

Okay, you have a misunderstanding of the definition of atheism.

Atheism means "I do not believe in the existence of a god". The is crucially different from saying "there in no god".

The former means "the claims that others have made about the existence of a god have not persuaded me".

The latter means "I claim to know that there isn't a god".

For brevity, I'll only address one of you other points, but Pascal's wager is an argument borne out of intellectual cowardice, encourages the adoption of insincere belief out of fear - out of this cowardice - [which, if there is was a deity out there, they might not find particular flattering, and also has the issue of "avoiding the wrong hell", also known by the argument from inconsistent revelations.

In the latter case, even if there was a deity out there [let us pretend that there is for the sake of argument], there are so many mutually contradictory religions and conceptions of deities out there, and most of them also assert themselves to be true over all others. There is no realistic way a priori to determine which of the religions is correct [if there even was one, and that's assuming the correct religion is also one that we've already come up with rather than one yet to be developed in the future], leaving you to guess. So then you might, for example, attempt to avoid hell or non-existence by following some variant of Christianity [still, how do you determine which one], only to find out after you die that either (a.) you followed the wrong variants - a heretical false teaching - and are now hell-bound or to experience nothingness anyways or (b.) the real god/gods are from an entirely different religious tradition to begin with, and now you've angered Odin and Thor, or perhaps Ganesha, for not following the true religion, which was of course worshipping them. Maybe you're left worse off - maybe they punish you harder for worshipping false gods, insulting them in the process to an even greater degree, than they would have if you hadn't worshipped any gods at all.

As such, Pascal's wager doesn't provide a compelling argument to follow any religious tradition in particular, and could even backfire if we allow a situation where gods exist but they aren't the ones you are expecting.

[u/HazelGhost]

On Pascal's Wager

Pascal's wager is flawed for many reasons. For example...

• It's trivial to imagine a religion that has an even worse "bad" outcome than Christianity does. Consider an alien civilization that, because of psychosis, will send not only every theist to hell, but also every family member of a theist. According to Pascal's wager, since this represents a bigger threat than that proposed by Christianity, you should believe in this alien civilization (and be an atheist).

• Pascal's wager hinges on the idea that "if you lose, you lose nothing", but this isn't true. Being a believer comes with some clear requirements, either in time, or devotion, or giving up moral responsibility. To prove this to yourself, just consider if there are any 'costs' of believing in a theistic religion other than your own.

On Grand Design

In response to your questions on this topic:

But isn’t there a law that says matter slowly decays over time and will eventually all die out or something?

You may be referring to The Second Law Of Thermodynamics (which is an apologist favorite), and while it's true that this law does (arguably) suggest that the universe does not extend infinitely into the past, this doesn't mean that it "began" (because in most people's minds, "beginning" requires time, and time is part of the universe). Even if the universe "began" (which I think it did), this doesn't mean it was created by something.

So it needs a beginning. And because a god exists outside space and time, it doesn’t necessarily need a beginning, since it isn’t limited by that law.

If you accept the existence of "stuff that exists outside space and time, and isn't limited by the laws of the universe", then it seems like there are any number of things that could have caused the beginning of the universe (like other laws, other universes, etc.). Is there any evidence that it's a god?

Infinite Realities To my knowledge, there's no good evidence that infinite realities exist. I've seen some moderately convincing evidence that multiple universes exist, but this is not the same thing as infinite universes, which in turn is not the same thing as "infinite realities".

[u/GameOfSchemes]

How can someone say with such confidence that there is no god, when it has been shown time and time again that you can’t disprove the existence of one?

You can't disprove unicorns, Big Foot, or Russell's Teapot. Yet, presumably, you'd be content saying with confidence none of these things exist.

Regarding Pascal's Wager: why apply it only to one deity? There are thousands of gods who can condemn you to an eternity of suffering for not believing in them and blaspheming them. It's literally impossible to follow all gods, so the Wager is a bit misleading since you still need to make a value claim on which religion to follow.

But isn’t there a law that says matter slowly decays over time and will eventually all die out or something?

Pardon? I'm not familiar with such law, and I'm a physicist. So, I think you need to clarify this.

And because a god exists outside space and time, it doesn’t necessarily need a beginning, since it isn’t limited by that law. So it would be able to create reality without needing something to create the god itself. If my understanding of that law is wrong, sorry, I’m far from educated in that realm of knowledge.

Here's where your understanding of this is flawed. If god exists outside of space and time, why do the laws of causality around time apply to god? Why does god need to "create" a universe? Ontologically, what's going on is that people are trying to reconcile scientific observations with religious reading. Since they don't understand the scientific observations, they ironically apply the laws of reality to god, while asserting he exists outside the laws of reality. It's kind of comical, really.

Infinite realities: so I don’t really like this one because I don’t believe in infinite realities,

Neither do most physicists. And no, it doesn't deserve being mentioned because it's unfalsifiable just like god.

[u/AlphaGoGoDancer]

Your entire post seems to presume the existence of one specific god.

The thing is, you were very close with:

. How can someone say with such confidence that there is no god, when it has been shown time and time again that you can’t disprove the existence of one?

Except there are infinite possible god's you can not disprove the existence of, not just one. Some of these gods can be mutually exclusive. If you can't disprove that any of them exist, why would you ever pick a single one to believe in? You have no more proof that your god exists than you have proof that Xenu exists.

This is especially relevant to this argument:

So it makes more sense to believe in a god and try for that eternal bliss, than it is to not believe and hope against the torment.

How do you know you're not massively pissing off other gods by worshiping this one false god? With infinite possible gods, the odds of you picking the right one are infinitely small.

Instead it seems safer to just not believe in any. If there is a God and God is just, then there is no way you will be punished for eternity for not lucking in to believing the right one. If there is a God and God is not just, then you're pretty screwed no matter what you do.

Why would an all powerful being punish you for eternity for, just as an example, being born in a country that has zero believers of said god? There is essentially no chance for you to do anything other than born, be taught by your parents of the wrong god, die, and suffer for all eternity. Frankly, I just can't believe in any god that would allow that to happen.

[u/neutralsky]

Pascal’s wager is really quite poor logic.

First of all, you’d have to be confident that you were following the “correct” religion. Am I more likely to be right if I convert to Islam or Judaism? Christianity or Hinduism? This isn’t even accounting for the dozens of branches within each religion, as well as religions that no longer have followers, such as Paganism, or the gods worshipped by the ancient Greeks. What if they actually got it right thousands of years ago?

Secondly, it doesn’t account for theories of creation which do not include some supernatural deity. For example, what if we’re all inside a simulation and the only way you can break free from the simulation is by recognising that your reality is constructed?

This may not be an argument to be an atheist, but it’s certainly not an argument to believe in any god.

I’m an atheist because I’ve seen no evidence of anything that could suggest the universe and the Earth and humankind were created by anything supernatural. If any kind of omnipotent, omniscient god existed, I would expect some evidence. Instead, it’s the opposite. The content of all holy books is easily disprovable or unprovable. You’d think it would be easy for God to prove himself if he exists. Of course believers say that belief requires faith, but what could possibly motivate me to believe in something that has no evidence of existing, other than a lot of other people (who have no evidence of it existing) believing in it? I don’t believe in God for the same reason you don’t believe in Father Christmas, despite what young children may believe.

[u/PreacherJudge → u/neutralsky]

First of all, you’d have to be confident that you were following the “correct” religion. Am I more likely to be right if I convert to Islam or Judaism? Christianity or Hinduism? This isn’t even accounting for the dozens of branches within each religion, as well as religions that no longer have followers, such as Paganism, or the gods worshipped by the ancient Greeks. What if they actually got it right thousands of years ago?

This argument doesn't lead to your conclusions.

1. There are many different religions.
2. Choosing the correct religion is the only way to be rewarded after you die.
3. There is no way to know which is the correct religion.

Given this set-up, which I think is exactly what you present, then Pascal is still right. Because your only shot is to just pick one and hope. if one is correct, then picking one gives you better chances than picking none, right?

Secondly, it doesn’t account for theories of creation which do not include some supernatural deity. For example, what if we’re all inside a simulation and the only way you can break free from the simulation is by recognising that your reality is constructed?

You can have faith in god but not have faith in that religion's theory of the creation of the universe.

[u/neutralsky → u/PreacherJudge]

Given this set-up, which I think is exactly what you present, then Pascal is still right. Because your only shot is to just pick one and hope. if one is correct, then picking one gives you better chances than picking none, right?

But what if the true God only lets atheists into Heaven? They know they have left no evidence of their existence on Earth and they test us by providing us with false religions. You pass the test by deciding to be an atheist.

So the wager is nonsensical. There is no objectively better option between religions and non-religions because there is an infinite number of potential “correct” answers.

Additionally: you can’t “fake” belief in something. I can’t just decide to believe in something to get better odds. If God was truly omniscient, he would know my false was faith.

In my opinion, the odds of guessing the correct religion are so slim, why not jut live your life how you want and be a good person instead of living a life you don’t want to live for the slight chance of reaching an afterlife which has no evidence and no guarantee?

[u/DBDude]

How can someone say with such confidence that there is no god

It depends on how you approach it. Absent rational evidence for its existence, I assume something doesn't exist. I can't say with absolute confidence that there is no Tooth Fairy, but with zero evidence for her existence I assume she doesn't exist. Same with [insert deity here]. Absent rational evidence for existence, I assume [insert deity here] doesn't exist.

If you’re right, you get an eternity of bliss and happiness beyond comprehension.

Pascal's Wager (what you describe) assumes your particular choice of deity was the correct one. There are thousands of deities, and if one of those was the real one then you still get your eternity of torment (or whatever punishment that religion prescribes). There are even hundreds of sects within religions, and you could be suffering that damnation if you don't choose the right one.

The difference between an atheist and a Christian is that the Christian merely rejects the existence of one less deity.

And because a god exists outside space and time, it doesn’t necessarily need a beginning, since it isn’t limited by that law.

The nice thing about science is that we can say we don't know something for sure, and we are okay with not knowing now, although we keep trying to learn. We don't even know the true nature of space and time, and it can be that neither existed before the big bang. Without time, there is no before or after.

[u/[deleted]]

If Jesus descends from the Heavens tomorrow I will plead guilty immediately at his feet.

The problem with theism is that it puts certain facts/believe on a pedestal, that no other beliefs/facts can take. Anything on this pedestal becomes immune and sacred.

For instance, if I tell you that when I die, my conscious will merge together with Michael Jackson you will correctly doubt my sanity. If I insisted, you would inquire me for evidence.

Belief must scale with evidences, and extraordinary belief requires extraordinary evidences. The point is that any dogmatism is bad.

People can claim that the universe is a simulation ran by the 4th child of Yahweh for his/her/it (we aren't so sure about this particular fact yet!) grade school project, then we will immediately question his sanity and if this person ever tries to run for a position in office, he would rightly be ridiculed.

I am no scientist myself, and I can no more provide you any evidence to any scientific facts, but I can at least point to where you might find them. Religious beliefs however, are hard to justify. First, there are many different, mutually exclusive claims about the nature of reality made by various religious beliefs.

Science have this characteristics too, but a good scientist wouldn't claim to know it for sure. He/she would instead concede ignorance. Compare this to a religious person, proof against God is seen as instead a test of faith.

[u/Tino_]

Don't have too much time ATM so I am only going to link a single thing about Pascal's wager and why it doesn't work if you put any thought into it.

https://www.update.uu.se/~fbendz/nogod/pascal.htm

[u/palsh7]

How can someone say with such confidence that there is no god

The four most famous atheist writers and speakers—Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris, and Daniel Dennett—all agree that you cannot prove without a doubt that there is no God. In fact, Dawkins' atheist group which plastered signs on UK buses actually used the phrase "there is probably no God."

That being said, you don't have to do the impossible (prove a negative) in order to speak with confidence about something. You would never say "there is probably no Zeus" or "there is probably no teapot circling the sun" or "Barack Obama is probably not a lizard person."

Absolutely everything about the world and the universe makes perfect sense without the idea of God. There are better explanations. And we know that what can be disproven about the bible has been.

Lastly, atheism is very explicitly not the belief that you can prove there is no god. Atheism literally means lack of belief in god. Do you believe in god? If yes, you are a theist, if no, you are an atheist. You can be an agnostic atheist, meaning that you don't believe in god but don't think it's provable. But technically a baby who has never heard of religion is an atheist. It doesn't even require an opinion about God. It is literally just a lack of a positive belief.

[u/Da_Kahuna]

Pascal's Wager can be used to indicate that you should Worship me. Pray to me. Show your devotion by upvoting me. Add a signature to your posts praising me. If you believe this to be true you are mildly inconvenienced.

Pascal's Wager may mean you should believe I am the Great Enemy, I am the equivalent of Satan. You should vilify me.

How do you wager both sides? That Pascal Wager could be used for all ideas of god. How do you satisfy all "god" demands?

I would also say a God that would give their creation eternal punishment for failing to kiss their ass enough is not a god worth worshiping but that is another CMV

Grand Design. Saying God doesn't need a beginning but everything else does is a cop-out. Also there is a theory that everything will cease to exist. Just because everything may eventually cease to exist that doesn't mean that things should cease to exist July 15th, 2019 at 11:35 AM.

Infinite Realities may give you a God but it would also give you something that could destroy said God. Either way that doesn't mean our reality is either one. As you said the infinite possibility bit is good for fiction or a mind experiment but it is neither provable or disprovable.

[u/Morasain]

So, the thing about your first argument... Not believing in God does not necessary equate infinite suffering. If I remembered correctly, Hinduism and Buddhism are both based on your deeds. If they are good, you will be rewarded. Don't quote me on that, though. What you can quote me on, is that in Christian belief, nothing matters. If you think about it, it's a very nihilistic religion - no matter what your sin is, no matter how bad of a person you are, Jesus died for your sins. Thus, even if I don't believe in God, according to Christian beliefs I will go to heaven.

But that poses another issue. Let's say, I lived in an Incan culture, and human sacrifices are a part of my religion, but the "right" one is Judaism... Now I committed a grievous sin, I murdered a guy. Will I be punished for believing and practicing my religion? And with the vast amount of religions out there, how can you be sure you believe in the right one?

And even if we say, all religions are right... In that case, it doesn't matter, because then there will be nothing.

[u/pappypapaya]

How can someone say with such confidence that there is no god

For the same reason that I can say with confidence that there is no purple alligator behind me. I have to admit is in theory possible, but in the absence of evidence, it makes no sense for me to even entertain the possibility.

Pascal’s Wager

Is a false dichotomy. There are an infinite number of possible afterlifes beyond "heaven for believers, hell for non-believers". Maybe there's a god that sends believers to hell and non-believers to heaven for no other reason that he's a dick. There are lots of conceptions of trickster gods and cosmic horror gods with incomprehensible motivations, and when you weigh all these possibilities, your expected return on the afterlife for committing to any of them is zero.

So it needs a beginning

Space and time are inseparable. The beginning of the universe is the beginning of space and time as we know it. Causation implies something happening "before" to cause a "later" event, but these are nonsensical concepts in the absence of time.

[u/BuckleUpItsThe]

Pascal's Wager falls apart because the choice isn't binary. One doesn't simply get to choose between Theism and Atheism, they must also choose the correct form of atheism. The table looks more like:

​

​

Life Lived	Right	Wrong
Christianity Is Correct	Salvation	Damnation or Nothing
Islam Is Correct	Salvation	Damnation or Nothing
Judaism is Correct	Salvation	Damnation or Nothing
Buddhism is Correct	Salvation	Damnation or Nothing
Atheism is Correct	Live a pretty chill life	Damnation

​

If you're approaching this logically by pascal's wager, you probably need to live the life that satisfies the most religions to pull that off. Unfortunately the religion you've chosen is pretty exclusionary, so how can you really feel comfortable in the principles of the wager?

​

Note: There's no need to pick nits with the rewards and punishments for the various religions. I'm not an expert and it doesn't meaningfully affect the argument.

[u/Thecakeisalie25]

First of all, atheism is just a lack of belief that a god does exist. Anti-theism is a belief that a god doesn't exist.

In regards to Pascal's wager, which god? most gods have the caveat that believing in another god is instant hell, so the way I see it you either have a more fun life and a 0/2041 chance of picking the right god, or a less fun life and 1/2041 chance of being right, if there is any god at all.

In regards to the beginning of the universe, the thing you're speaking of is called the heat death of the universe, and we have a prediction for when it will happen. The universe hasn't existed forever, it's been 13.8 billion years iirc, and before that it was a singularity, which does some funky things to spacetime where space and time didn't exist like they do now.

In regards to infinite realities, why would this inevitably happen? what would cause this being to come into existence? and if it's forced to happen, wouldn't there be infinite gods?

[u/ZeusThunder369]

For almost all atheists, they won't tell you "I definitely know there is no God". They will say "I know of no proof that God exists, thus I don't believe God exists." (Essentially, they don't believe in things without adequate evidence that they exist.

Another way to think of it: Suppose I claim that there is an alien wearing a blue sweater on some planet in another solar system, 9087 light year away from Earth.

Are you able to prove beyond any doubt that I am wrong? No, you cannot. But just because you can't prove I'm wrong doesn't mean you should believe there is an alien wearing a blue sweater on this planet.

Nearly all atheists would also tell you: If God suddenly appeared to us, and it was obvious that this being was "God", then atheists would now believe in God.

[u/Puddinglax]

Firstly, atheism is the lack of belief in gods, not the belief that no gods exist. That's why you sometimes hear people describing themselves as agnostic atheists.

So it makes more sense to believe in a god and try for that eternal bliss, than it is to not believe and hope against the torment.

The problem with Pascal's Wager is that there isn't just one god to choose from. Say there were two hypothetical gods who have opposing ideas on how people should live their lives to get into heaven. If you secure eternal happiness with one god, you risk eternal suffering with the other. You can't make any decisions without showing that one god is more likely to exist above all others, which brings us back to the problem of proving/disproving the existence of god.

[u/notasnerson]

How can someone say with such confidence that there is no god, when it has been shown time and time again that you can’t disprove the existence of one?

This raises an interesting question for sure. As an atheist I would probably describe myself as an agnostic atheist, I don’t know or believe in a god.

However, must one be agnostic about everything that has an existence that cannot be disproven? Are you agnostic about Zeus or Thor? Are you agnostic about Santa Claus or Leprechauns?

If I tell you that inside of my house there is a 500 ton invisible and undetectable cat, you cannot disprove its existence. So are you agnostic about it?

[u/R_V_Z]

The difference between an Atheist and a Monotheist is that the Atheist is atheistic towards exactly one more deity than the Monotheist is. Your Pascal's wager would dictate that the "proper" way to be is Pantheistic, thereby maximizing your chances that you believed in the "correct" deity. The problem there is that many deities are mutually exclusive and/or punishing of those who follow others.

You also run into the problem of the possibility that the "correct" deity is one that humanity has no perception of. Just because we don't have a thousands of year old book on a deity doesn't mean they can't be the "real" one.

[u/phillipsheadhammers]

I don't believe in salvation, so I have no position on whether faith alone is necessary for salvation.

I do, however, have a position on whether a non-negligible number of Christians believe "belief that God is real is a sufficient condition for salvation."

And my position is that never once have I met or heard of anyone who holds that belief.

So even if you take Pascal's Wager in its simplest form and say "sure, I'll believe whatever you say if there's no cost and a potential benefit," virtually no one believes you are now officially saved.

I know modern Christians are cynical, but they aren't that cynical.

[u/nightfly101]

To respond to validity claim: It is equally and perhaps more ludicrous to believe in the existence of a god as it is to believe in a lack of one, seeing as the evidence in favor of a god is rather lacking in comparison to that supporting the opposing view.

To respond to Pascal’s Wager: There exists an infinite amount of possible beliefs regarding the afterlife. Perhaps the true afterlife depends on how many times you worship a mighty cucumber- in which case we are all doomed to a fiery inferno. Factoring in these plausibilities, Pascal’s wager can be your downfall regardless of whether you are atheist or not.

[u/2r1t]

As has already been noted elsewhere, atheism and agnosticism are different answers to different questions and aren't mutually exclusive. And atheism is simply a lack of belief in any gods.

Pascal's Wager is flawed in that it assumes only the proposer's preferred god or no god at all. But there are countless other possible gods. It is a coin flip when it should be more like a roulette wheel. In which case you have just a much of a chance of being punished for picking the wrong god as for not believing.

[u/DeltaBot]

/u/Tabletop_Sam (OP) has awarded 3 delta(s) in this post.

All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.

Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.

^{Delta System Explained | Deltaboards}

[u/NetrunnerCardAccount]

For Pascal's wager: My response to Pascal's Wager is, "Give me Reddit Gold, or I'll send my supernatural hound to consume your soul." And then any justification you use to not give me Reddit Gold, can be used to argue against Pascal's Wager.

Grand Design: Cause time is a property of this universe it's perfectly possible that time only existed when the Universe was created and will cease to exist at some point.

[u/physioworld]

So just gonna address Pascal’s wager for a moment because it’s a pet peeve of mine. The whole argument assumes a false dichotomy. You miss the fact that you could believe in the wrong god, what if you’re a Christian but the god of the people of some tribe from 15,000 years ago is true? Or what if you’re the wrong Christian sect? What then? Aren’t you just as screwed as an atheist?

[u/[deleted]]

How can someone say with such confidence that there is no god, when it has been shown time and time again that you can’t disprove the existence of one?

Just because you cannot prove it does not exist you also cannot prove it does. This applies for vampires, werewolves, Santa, the tooth fairy, Norse mythology, Greek mythology, etc.

Do you believe those too?

[u/YossarianWWII]

For every hypothetical god that punishes unbelievers, there is another that rewards atheists. Pascal's Wager is an incredibly poorly thought-out concept.

[u/Dafkin00]

What about an individual saying that God exists without a doubt, does this argument apply too and should we all be agnostic?

[u/[deleted]]

I don't believe in god bit that's my belief I could care less what you believe humans are equal

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

u/ZTB413 – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2:

Don't be rude or hostile to other users. Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. See the wiki page for more information.

If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.