Does It Require More Faith [I] Not [I] To Believe In A Creator Than To Believe In One?

[Khandro]

The scientific, mathematical facts, seem to say so;

[jim360]

No. Naive probabilistic arguments prove nothing.

[naomi24]

No faith required to disbelieve. To attribute the unknown to the unknown is entirely illogical. Therefore a simple exercise in logic is all that is required.

[Gizmonster]

I don't usually get involved in philosophical and religious topics ..... but just to go off at a slight tangent, I like "Pascal's Wager"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal%27s_Wager

In a nutshell,

//// Pascal argues that a rational person should live as though God exists and seek to believe in God. If God does not actually exist, such a person will have only a finite loss (some pleasures, luxury, etc.), whereas he stands to receive infinite gains (as represented by eternity in Heaven) and avoid infinite losses (eternity in Hell) ////

[Khandro]

Your speedy response jim, (3 minutes) belies the fact that you haven't
listened to the mathematical probabilities of accidentally stumbling on a protein, either on Earth or anywhere else in the universe.

[Mamyalynne]

That video was posted over three years ago, perhaps Jim has seen it.

My baseline answer is - no.

[Zacs-Master]

Yet, here we are. Life.

[naomi24]

If God exists and is, as alleged, omniscient, then he can’t be fooled. Therefore Pascal’s Wager can’t work. If God doesn’t exist then Pascal was worrying for nothing, so whichever way you look at it, Pascal’s Wager is nonsense.

[jim360]

Indeed I didn't watch the whole video, but I didn't need to in order to recognise the argument it was making. It's been often cited before, in various forms. In its naive form there is even a fairly good point: the probability of a protein spontaneously forming is roughly speaking equal to the probability of kicking a ball at a brick wall and seeing it pass through and emerge on the other side unscathed -- which is to say, vanishingly small.

The problem is that it's also roughly speaking equivalent to the probability of *any* chemical reaction happening -- if there were no process driving that reaction. As it happens, there is. Chemical reactions release energy and the resulting product is at a lower energy state than what came before. Essentially the same logic will apply to proteins.

[Gizmonster]

Naomi, I don't understand your reply:


//// If God exists and is, as alleged, omniscient, then he can’t be fooled. Therefore Pascal’s Wager can’t work ////

..... Where does it say that Pascal's Wager involves fooling God?? Pascal's Wager simply implies that it makes more sense to believe, rather than not .... as your choice will determine whether you receive an infinite gain or loss; or a finite gain or loss.


//// If God doesn’t exist then Pascal was worrying for nothing, so whichever way you look at it, Pascal’s Wager is nonsense. ////

...... If God doesn't exist, then your loss or gain is only finite (depending on whether you chose to believe in God or not) .... which is what Pascal is saying, so I don't understand how this is nonsense.

[nailit]

Why do people still trot out Pascal's wager as though it has some kind of philosophical merit?

Its clearly bonkers.

[nailit]

Pascal wager doesn't specify WHICH God to believe in.
Would it be the Christan God by any chance?
What about Shiva, or Odin, or Oiris?
Would that count?

[jim360]

Pascal's wager belongs on a separate thread -- but, for what it's worth, I'm in a rare agreement with Naomi on the analysis (at least of the basic version of Pascal's Wager).

[Theland]

Nailit - Which God to believe in?
For me that is simple. The God of the Bible.
Why?
Because of the relevance of the Bible to the affairs of men throughout history.
Even today, more relevant than ever, Bible prophecy is describing extremely accurately, the unfolding events in the Middle East.
The ancient names of the various peoples in the Bible turn out to be modern Russia, Iran, Turkey and Syria, to name just a few.
Israel is threatened, as predicted, by a coalition of these nations, and threatened by Hezbollah in the north, and Hamas in the south.
Israel has already attacked Hezbollah targets in and around Damascus, and it will escalate further if the prophecies are true.
The whole history of Israel is foretold in the Bible, most significantly from 1948.
Plenty of evidence there on which I confidently base my faith.

[Theland]

https://youtu.be/MIF_WIoM7aU

The point is made within the first seven minutes of this video, echoing what I said above.

[vetuste_ennemi]

The mathematical probability of an intelligible universe containing sentient creatures, some of whom are capable of understanding bits of the world they inhabit, occurring "accidentally" may be extremely low. But not, I suggest, as low as the probability that the Universe has an intelligent and moral architect.

[steg]

//Pascal wager doesn't specify WHICH God to believe in.
Would it be the Christan God by any chance?
What about Shiva, or Odin, or Oiris?
Would that count? //

I think it could be any you mentions and or others

[Theland]

https://youtu.be/PD_DPd99rTk

And little by little the prophecies unfold.

[Theland]

Vetuste - Bill Gates' computers are rubbish until they are programmed with information that originates in a mind.
All information originates in a mind.
DNA requires information to replicate and produce proteins, and proteins are required to produce DNA, the whole circular process dependent on information.
This information did not evolve from nothing, it was given by the intelligence that created the universe.
No scientist can ever disprove this, and account for the origin of information.

[vetuste_ennemi]

You didn't read my answer, Theland.

You and the OP are saying that's well near impossible that the world withoiut an intellugent designer, and I'm saying that it's well near impossible that the designer (if He exists) is a a moral being.

[vetuste_ennemi]

...that it's well near...