god debates?

[mexistaniX]

It's perfectly fine you remain adamant, but Pascal's argument still remains more logically beneficial than yours even if 50.01%(religion) vs 49.99%(atheism) (not in a confrontational sense, just in the sense of simply a>b)

 

[SuF]

But you do, nonetheless, have the authority to choose the most "logical" religion.
But I forgot to agree with your statement about not being able to back your prior religion.

The argument is not saying Christanity vs. Atheism.

The basis is religion vs. atheism.

Which is worse with these conditions:
-50/50 chance of higher power
-1/x chance of choosing correct religion if chosen at random (x being greater than 1, however many religions there are)
-Correct religion if God= gain all/lose none
-Incorrect religion/disbelief if God= lose all
-No belief in God/belief in God if no God= lose nothing/gain nothing

Simple math dictates your chances are better at gaining benefits if belief in God simply based on probability/outcomes.

The correct religion might have not been discovered yet. That makes your 1/x chance = 1/infinity which = 0, essentially. It also hinges on the belief that not believing in a particular religion will make you go to hell even if you are a perfect saint. If this is the case I'd rather live my life not believing in a god and go to hell because he / she is an egotistical, psychopathic, maniac.

 

[mexistaniX]

The correct religion might have not been discovered yet. That makes your 1/x chance = 1/infinity which = 0, essentially. It also hinges on the belief that not believing in a particular religion will make you go to hell even if you are a perfect saint. If this is the case I'd rather live my life not believing in a god and go to hell because he / she is an egotistical, psychopathic, maniac.

You can deduce your options because if for any chance there is God, the choice in one current religion that is closest, based on all fundamental "rules" and beliefs, then the attribute that is associated with the major religions(and minor religions as well) of a merciful infinitely powerful God would result in there still being one answer.

i.e. God cannot create human and not create closest possible religion(s). There the chance increases by getting closer if choosing correct basis of belief in the current time.

Yes these are "illogical terms" but if the chance is 50/50, then the above applies to the 50% possibility in which, of course, metaphysical standards are taken into account.



Discussion got off topic, no intentions of this.



God debate yes or no
^(directed to anyone reading this)

 

[Herman Li]

Actually, the three main religions of the world: Judaism, Christianity and Islam were created for the betterment of society. They were manipulated soon after the founders died for personal gain.

Just because a majority of people follow it, doesn't mean it's true at all. And yeah, they were extremely manipulated, therefore I doubt what we read/know today is even CLOSE to what the actual 'truth' is.

 

[Jimmy]

It's perfectly fine you remain adamant, but Pascal's argument still remains more logically beneficial than yours even if 50.01%(religion) vs 49.99%(atheism) (not in a confrontational sense, just in the sense of simply a>b)

Where are you getting these nonsense statistics from?

 

[mexistaniX]

"if" and "possible"

Smallest chance equals still greater benefit

 

[Herman Li]

"if" and "possible"

Smallest chance equals still greater benefit

Not in my opinion. This is the only life I'm going to live as far as my knowledge goes, therefore wasting it on religion sounds worse than the 1/infinity chance that a god exists and will torture me if I don't believe in him.

 

[Ivy Bridge]

"if" and "possible"

Smallest chance equals still greater benefit

People have gone over this in the pascal's wager thread. You obviously do not understand the dynamics that go into getting true statistics.

 

[mexistaniX]

But here we go to the point that statistics do not actually apply to this, and everything that I have just said is based off of an anti-reason concept in which reasoning does allow for but without quantity.

I am a pro at stats, & quite large on Six Sigma, mind you

This furthers my conclusion for THIS article that all arguments with the concept of God are illogical to the fullest extent.

 

[Ivy Bridge]

But here we go to the point that statistics do not actually apply to this, and everything that I have just said is based off of an anti-reason concept in which reasoning does allow for but without quantity.

I am a pro at stats, & quite large on Six Sigma, mind you

This furthers my conclusion for THIS article that all arguments with the concept of God are illogical to the fullest extent.

This is more or less a reply to both this thread and the Pascal's wager thread. None of your arguments have any ground to stand on. They are all heavily biased towards there being a God. All of your made up on the spot statistics prove this. I'd like you to break it down for me how in the world you drew the conclusions you did in a numerical format. You just throw these numbers around but never explain where they come from or why you consider the chances of there actually being a God to be equal to or greater than there not being a God. Your logic is about equal to me saying that I have 50/50 odds to go out with Megan Fox if I ask her out simply because there are two outcomes, one with the benefit of going out with Megan Fox. In reality, my odds are NOWHERE NEAR 50%. How you fail to see this, I do not know.

And yes I know the post previous to this one was saying you're not relying on statistics but in reality you are. Maybe not for the point in your original post, but as any discussion develops topics will change and so will the points being made. It's like you started this topic expecting everybody to just outright agree with you and now that people are opposing you you're reverting back to your OP as a means to preserve your original point rather than actually developing the conversation/debate any. You are literally becoming the person you have described in the OP of this thread. You initiate a conflict, refuse to concede or consider any other point of view other than your own dogmatic view of religion and theism.

 

[mexistaniX]

Ahh, I am simply digressing to the original post because I KNOW it is impossible.

As aforementioned, the only reason you do not perceive this is because you relate everything to finite information that you know of, and I do as well, but the relative perception that you have on life is quite different than mine.

While I did bring this conversation up in this one, I did, for a reason, create another thread on Pascal's wager and chose to discontinue this one, as this would not have been any debate at all, and so it does not make me a conformist as to give up my argument that is inarguable, but rather it is simply transferring an argument to another thread.

& I am religious, but religious to the extent that I would rather live a life based on logic vs. religion, but keep religion in mind to the limit of what I perceive as right/wrong.

So, mind you, my "dogmatic" views are solely based off a prior agnostic outlook I had on life with certain experiences that you have not experienced, while yours is based on your logical mind, which is correct, and your experiences, which is correct to your mind.

Your view on religion as an antagonist upon it as a whole is that of disdain towards the illogical practices and ill-perceived methods of belief. It is based on what you believe has torn apart the world and what continues to tear apart the world. & as much as I would argue my point to you, you simply do not see relative angles.

I can tell you that religion is what brought humans together and, although did not allow them to expand, it lasted long enough to cause a sense of grouping because of related beliefs, and it eventually dissipated after rule got out of order, but slowly regained because humanity relies on order and "hope" in order to retain increased morale. You may or may not agree with me, but the second I bring up a certain God, the term of "logic" comes to play in which you are simply stating your knowledge. That is not wrong, but you are limited to your own experiences and your own readings/knowledge base.

Therefore any argument you have to say is invalid per claim to me, while everything that I have written above is just as invalid per my own claim to you. The claim being our own belief in God/disbelief in God.

 

[Ivy Bridge]

Ahh, I am simply digressing to the original post because I KNOW it is impossible.

As aforementioned, the only reason you do not perceive this is because you relate everything to finite information that you know of, and I do as well, but the relative perception that you have on life is quite different than mine.

While I did bring this conversation up in this one, I did, for a reason, create another thread on Pascal's wager and chose to discontinue this one, as this would not have been any debate at all, and so it does not make me a conformist as to give up my argument that is inarguable, but rather it is simply transferring an argument to another thread.

& I am religious, but religious to the extent that I would rather live a life based on logic vs. religion, but keep religion in mind to the limit of what I perceive as right/wrong.

So, mind you, my "dogmatic" views are solely based off a prior agnostic outlook I had on life with certain experiences that you have not experienced, while yours is based on your logical mind, which is correct, and your experiences, which is correct to your mind.

Your view on religion as an antagonist upon it as a whole is that of disdain towards the illogical practices and ill-perceived methods of belief. It is based on what you believe has torn apart the world and what continues to tear apart the world. & as much as I would argue my point to you, you simply do not see relative angles.

I can tell you that religion is what brought humans together and, although did not allow them to expand, it lasted long enough to cause a sense of grouping because of related beliefs, and it eventually dissipated after rule got out of order, but slowly regained because humanity relies on order and "hope" in order to retain increased morale. You may or may not agree with me, but the second I bring up a certain God, the term of "logic" comes to play in which you are simply stating your knowledge. That is not wrong, but you are limited to your own experiences and your own readings/knowledge base.

Therefore any argument you have to say is invalid per claim to me, while everything that I have written above is just as invalid per my own claim to you. The claim being our own belief in God/disbelief in God.

I don't really remember mentioning anything about influence religion has had on humans in the past. You have done absolutely nothing to further your objective, which at this point I can only assume it is to prove that debates in favor of God are more logical than debates in favor of no God. Your experiences, based on your DMT thread, seem to be largely unreliable. You base your experience with God on an experience you had while under the influence of a HEAVY psychedelic. How you can even begin to correlate that with a logical view of religion is beyond me. I've done some crazy psychedelics as well and I will admit they can unlock parts of your mind that you never knew existed, maybe even in a spiritual way, but after the trip is over if you can't realize that what you saw, felt, or thought was the result of a drug and not God then you are far more deluded than I care to try to point out.

 

[mexistaniX]

Ah, but you see, this is where you have failed to read what I have read(in terms of religious content). & again, it only proves that logic overcomes religion in the normal case.

My experiences in siding a certain religion are actually not based off of psychedelics. Quite inversely, it was by personal understanding. I was raised Catholic to begin with, then in a very religion-free household. All personal experiences are different than from what you have experienced in your life time, and I mean no disrespect as I am sure you're more knowledgeable than me since I am only in university, but I have gone through certain places around the world and seen places that normally people don't see(Most Southeast Asian countries) that have had experiences that caused me to gain a certain understanding. Logically, I cannot compete, but if this were to be an argument, it would have to be by personal conversation.

I do not have anything to lose in believing in God, but I do have more to gain. & the likelihood of God existing is just a tad bit more likely than a unicorn saving me from a cliff fall.

 

[Ivy Bridge]

I do not have anything to lose in believing in God, but I do have more to gain. & the likelihood of God existing is just a tad bit more likely than a unicorn saving me from a cliff fall.

Ignoring everything else you said because it has no relevance to the interesting part of this topic

As for this statement, you keep repeating it and people have asked time and time again where you drew this conclusion from but you keep coming up empty or at the very least highly ambiguous. Gonna keep this one nice and short so you can't just avoid the question like you have been.