Tony’s Wager
It is better not to believe in God, since if he does not exist, you lose nothing, but if he does exist, you are going to hell, where it is nice and warm. Winter sucks.
It is better not to believe in God, since if he does not exist, you lose nothing, but if he does exist, you are going to hell, where it is nice and warm. Winter sucks.
July 29th, 2008 at 9:14 am
It’s interesting, that comes close to something I’ve always said, which is that they’ll never prove that there’s no consciousness after death/leaving the material world (as there’s nothing there to prove) but it is theoretically possible for it to be proved false.
I agree on temperature though, warm is where it’s at. At least you’re in a more temperate part of the country than melbourne
July 29th, 2008 at 6:18 pm
I’m always amazed how Xians can be so sure to serve the right deity. My standard answer to conversion attempts is: I’ll believe right here and now in god as soon as you can prove that the FSM is *not* the ruler of the universe.
July 30th, 2008 at 10:49 am
I enjoy the layout improvement. Thanks.
July 31st, 2008 at 8:59 am
Ooops - I wanted to enjoy the layout improvement while looking at the code (next entry).
Apropos believe - I believe there has been an article about osiris (or which name did the egyptian god have?) which is gone - wasn’t that article over here somewhere - maybee two months ago - maybe 3 or 4?
July 31st, 2008 at 1:36 pm
Yes, it has been retracted pending my further investigation.
August 15th, 2008 at 3:38 am
Tools of proof which are available for physical concepts are by themselves not useful in proving spiritual concepts, such as life after death or the existence of God. We simply cannot send a probe out to the afterlife for it to bring back any samples. The inability of these tools to prove that God exists is not proof that he doesn’t exist.
Other human faculties can be used to suggest that there IS a God. Learning how to use these faculties begins once we are open to the possibility of his existence. Pascal’s Wager, which Tony bastardizes above, is certainly not a proof, but it is an invitation.
Regards,
John
August 15th, 2008 at 8:26 am
Interestingly, I’ve never heard Pascal’s Wager described as anything but a degenerate philosophical proposition with inherent logical fallacies (such as the obvious one, begging the question). Actually I have, but I block those events out of my mind since I assign them to absurdity (my brain is only so big).
I’m don’t think I’m about to shift position. I didn’t bastardise Pascal’s Wager any more than it already is.