I disagree, I think it is important.

Again I value reason and rationality though, and like I said before I don't see these things as something that must conflict with the other values in life.

If this is true then no faiths, even those that are different from your own, are wrong or bring about spiritual consequences.

So who endowed humanity with the capacity to reason and be rational if not god?

And if god does not will or intend for us to use this capacity then why does he not rid us of these things?

That appllies to you as well.

Do you believe your faith is infallible, that you know fully the scope of god's intent and will?

Or is possible that you could also be wrong?

The difference is a reasonable and rational god forgives the fallible for being wrong, and irrational and unreasonable god...well maybe that god would forgive, but maybe it would not, we simply could not know if we would be saved for being wrong.

No, I am presuming that if I am reasonable and rational it is a capacity from god.

So you begged god to save you?

Doesn't that seem to imply that the fate of your soul is a thing which god, and not yourself, ultimately decides?

If so, then wouldn't you have greater comfort from faith that god is reasonable and rational, rather than irrational and unreasonable?

My main point is that the wager fails if god is unreasonable and irrational and that if god is reasonable and rational the wager is not needed.

The wager undermines itself if you are expected to believe irrational and unreasonable things.
Because if god expects me to believe in irrational and unreasonable things before god rewards me with salvation, then god is unreasonable and irrational and I cannot be sure that I will have any salvation at all.

The common definition of this term applies.

If some group declares war on a religion it will likely be seen as a controversial thing, unless that declaration is trivial and meaningless such that it will come of no consequence.

Who get's to decide what is good for god, you?

What makes you think that it is not good to be reasonable and rational?

The wager fails if it assumes that reason and rationality are mutual exclusive of good.

Who, besides yourself, claims it is not controversial to declare war on a religion, never mind if that religion is islam or christianity?

I did not presume this, I presumed that if god exists, then we are endowed with these capacities by gods intent and will.

Just because you say so?

You actually did not answer my questions.

I asked what if god also values reason and rationality?

I also asked what power does god have over me if I control the fate of my soul instead of god?

I also don't agree with that this argument only has those two options.

It can be about logic and values, especially if the individual or god values both.

If god does not decide this who does?

If I decide the fate of my soul, then what power does god have over me?

In reality there is no if.

It is often in the news the controversial of an alleged war declared on christmas and on christianity.

So back to my question.

What makes you think it is controversial to declare war on the christian religion, but not islam?

Yes I understand what you value, but what I asked you to do was imagine that there are those that have different values from yourself.

What if god exists, and intends for us to use our capacity to reason and our capacity of rationality?
After all, if god exists, it will be god that has endowed us with this capacity.

In that case your desire to control what does not belong to you (god decides the fate of your soul, not you), would cause you to sacrifice a gift god has bestowed upon you.

To this point then.

Imagine that you value rationality and reason and the Pascal's wager is posed to you?

Do you see how the person that values reason and rationality has something to lose from believing in a god that is irrational and unreasonable?

This is simply not true.

A physicalist maintains that matter/energy as well as time and space are real.

No I am making a point of my own.

There are four results that are possible.
You do not believe and gain nothing.
You do believe and gain nothing.
You do believe and gain salvation.
You do not believe and gain salvation.

The only way you gain something from belief is if god is reasonable and rational and does reward salvation for belief, and in which case god would not expect me to believe in irrational and unreasonable things before that god rewards me with salvation.

If it is not a logical argument then how is that you can claim Pascal's wager is valid?

The wager fails if god does not provide salvation, which we would have no way to be sure if god is unreasonable and irrational.

We do lose something if we are expected to believe in irrational and unreasonable things.
We lose reason and rationality.

Thanks.

We can't know if god is consistently good if god is unreasonable and irrational.

I have pointed out that belief in god brings you nothing if god is unreasonable and irrational.
You gain nothing if that is true, which would mean Pascal's wager fails.

My point was if some said they declared war on christmas, it is regarded as controversial.

I am asking why that does not also hold true for the religion of Islam.

Which is what you seemed to imply, that declaring a war on Islam is not controversial?

Who declared war on Islam?

I am pointing out that belief in god is not enough.
You have to also believe god is reasonable and rational and will save you.

Believing in an irrational and unreasonable god brings you nothing.

And if god expects you to believe in irrational and unreasonable things then god is not reasonable and rational.

If there is no benefit to your belief then Pascal's wager fails, and if god is unreasonable and irrational you cannot be sure there is any benefit to your belief.

That is a bummer, mind if I ask why?

If god is unreasonable and irrational you have no way to know if there will be any salvation from belief.

So what does it mean to declare war on Islam?

Is like a war on christmas?

If so why is controversial to declare war on christmas but not when there is a war declared on Islam?

Thanks, yeah I meant lose.

A free to play causal game I rather enjoy is wormax.io.

I think you are missing the point a bit.

There is something to loose from believing in an irrational and unreasonable god.

You loose the assurance that you will get to experience the bliss you are talking about.

So god can either be rational and reasonable, in which case he won't have irrational and unreasonable expectations of me.

Or god can be irrational and unreasonable, in which case I cannot be sure what are that god's expectations of me.

So Pascal's wager is not needed, if god is reasonable and rational, because you are not being expected to believe in unreasonable or irrational things.
Pascal's wager is only needed when you are expected to believe irrational and unreasonable things, and in that case god is unreasonable and irrational and Pascal's wager fails because you have no assurance that such a god will uphold his bargain.

So, I do have something to loose if I believe in an unreasonable and irrational god.

The only way I have nothing to loose is if I believe in a rational and reasonable god that doesn't expect me to believe in silly things.

OK, I am on my deathbed (eventually I will die).
If I decide there is a god then I can only accept Pascal's wager if that god is reasonable and rational.

So if god is reasonable and rational then that god won't expect me to accept things without good evidence and compelling logic.

If god does expect me to accept things without good evidence and compelling logic, then Pascal's wager fails.
Pascal's wager fails because then I would be dealing with an irrational and unreasonable god and I would then no longer have any assurance that such a god would hold up it's end of the bargain.

Pascal's wager only works if god is rational and reasonable, and in which case Pascal's wager is not necessary.

This is my response to Pascal's wager.

Pascal's wager is only valid if we assume god is reasonable and rational and thus will hold up his end of the bargain.

But if god is reasonable and rational then god would not then expect you to believe something without good evidence or compelling logic.

If god expects you to accept something is true without good evidence or compelling logic, then god is not being reasonable and rational and we cannot be sure that Pascal's wager is valid at all.

It could be completely invalid because god has irrational and unreasonable expectations.

Comments need a thumbs up button

I like small talk.
It cheers me up and I have a sense of community when I chit chat with the passerbys I encounter.

To me small talk is a way to connect with strangers, and to me it seems small talk is how you segue into deeper subjects.

Also it is often the case that I don't have time to discuss things deeply, on break between classes for example, but I still want to converse with my fellow students about trivial things, like what is going in their classes. To me discussing trivial things can be a way to unwind and get out of my own head for awhile.

I guess I don't feel intellectually insecure so I don't feel a need to constantly prove myself by discussing deep subjects.

What country do you believe has declared war on the religion?

This was cool, I learned something from it thanks.
I also see how it applies to politics.

If you think you know what other people believe that does have some impact on your own beliefs.

For example I was particularly surprised how many people in the US believe sex before marriage is immoral...especially considering how often it occurs.

I did alright I guess, and scored only slightly better than the national average for the survey.