Why do you believe in God?
He doesn't seem to be much in evidence over the past two thousand years, so why?
naomi24 Wed 28/05/08 23:49
To subscribe to this question you need to
sign in to the AnswerBank or register
if you are not already a member. All you need is a valid email address to register.
|
|
You let me know when that is, and I'll tell you if I've got enough time.
|
|
|
Wel if you keep it short and sweet, you'll have plenty of time.
Just one sebtence would do. A short one.
|
|
|
Okay:
"There are a great many reasons I don't believe in God."
How's that..?
|
|
|
Perfect, thats all you need to say.
Ta ta.
|
|
|
Waldo, reading the Pascale quote you supplied, he's not saying 'Pretend to believe in god and go through the motions just in case, then you'll go to heaven if there is one'. More like..
'Behave as if you believe and you will eventually come to believe - and even if you don't, you've lost nothing - and probably made yourself a better person'.
That's how I read it anyway. Stephen Fry is finding a fault in something Pascale didn't say.
|
|
|
If there is a God, He is infinitely incomprehensible, since, having neither parts nor limits, He has no affinity to us. We are then incapable of knowing either what He is or if He is....
..."God is, or He is not." But to which side shall we incline? Reason can decide nothing here. There is an infinite chaos which separated us. A game is being played at the extremity of this infinite distance where heads or tails will turn up. What will you wager? According to reason, you can do neither the one thing nor the other; according to reason, you can defend neither of the propositions.
Do not, then, reprove for error those who have made a choice; for you know nothing about it. "No, but I blame them for having made, not this choice, but a choice; for again both he who chooses heads and he who chooses tails are equally at fault, they are both in the wrong. The true course is not to wager at all."
Yes; but you must wager. It is not optional. You are embarked. Which will you choose then? Let us see. Since you must choose, let us see which interests you least. You have two things to lose, the true and the good; and two things to stake, your reason and your will, your knowledge and your happiness; and your nature has two things to shun, error and misery. Your reason is no more shocked in choosing one rather than the other, since you must of necessity choose. This is one point settled. But your happiness? Let us weigh the gain and the loss in wagering that God is. Let us estimate these two chances. If you gain, you gain all; if you lose, you lose nothing. Wager, then, without hesitation that He is.
|
|
|
"That is very fine. Yes, I must wager; but I may perhaps wager too much." Let us see. Since there is an equal risk of gain and of loss, if you had only to gain two lives, instead of one, you might still wager. But if there were three lives to gain, you would have to play (since you are under the necessity of playing), and you would be imprudent, when you are forced to play, not to chance your life to gain three at a game where there is an equal risk of loss and gain. But there is an eternity of life and happiness. And this being so, if there were an infinity of chances, of which one only would be for you, you would still be right in wagering one to win two, and you would act stupidly, being obliged to play, by refusing to stake one life against three at a game in which out of an infinity of chances there is one for you, if there were an infinity of an infinitely happy life to gain. But there is here an infinity of an infinitely happy life to gain, a chance of gain against a finite number of chances of loss, and what you stake is finite."
That's the actual wager itself.
|
|
|
I prefer the Harry Hill version.
|
|
|
Did you hear about the dyslexic athiest ...
... he didn't believe in Dog.
|
|
|
Wast so funee baout htat?
|
|
Debt Consolidation | Free Advertising | Guitar Books | Cheap Magazines | Free phpBB forum
