Bad idea! — Agent Smith

Boring as hell as well. :worry:

Boring as hell as well. :worry: — Sir2u

I agree!

I have still not seen any proof of that — Sir2u

The very existence of the universe constitutes the proof. Not in your very limìted sense of proof but in the broader sense that everything that has no scientific explanation for its existence is a proof of creation. There are no gaps in my fundamental, scientific understanding of the universe. It's eternal and infinìte and the laws are too dumb to create themselves. So they can only be created. Including the basic stuff in it, which is dualistic matter.

And the gods are OK with that? — Sir2u

Yes. Boring argument! "How can the gods let that happen?" I've heard it 1000 times now. WTF should they care what and how we fuck up?

I find the idea of God interesting also. ... I'm not sure how free will fits into that mix. — T Clark

Free will has nothing to do with God, in that sense. I don't actually find the idea of God interesting in itself; it's something I'd just shrug off and ignore. What I find interesting is that something that's obviously central to many a world view has no place in mine.

Free will is a similar concept. Plenty of people seem to think it's an important concept, and my reaction was originally "why?" Then, when I thought this through, I found that I didn't even quite understand what free will was supposed to be. It now feels like an oxymoron.

It's difficult to say what I'm actually interest in: concept formations, I suppose. And communication? It's a bundle of disparate topics. Basically, I'm more interested in human behaviour than spiritual beings.

Likewise, I find it fascinating that something that feels like obvious sense to me cannot be believed by so many people — EugeneW

That's good to hear. There are people out there who deny its possible to not believe in something so obvious, and thus all atheists are liars.

Jackpot! And if the gap is closed, we can nothing but conclude that the building blocks of the universe had to be created.
— EugeneW


I have still not seen any proof of that. — Sir2u

How else can it be? A physical explanation doesn't explain why the physical is there in the first place.

There are people out there who deny its possible to not believe in something so obvious, and thus all atheists are liars. — Dawnstorm

It's possible not to believe. You wouldn't be a liar but a denier.

Hello stressyandmessy! Thanks for sharing your argument. I am going to do my best to lay it out in standard form.

If Pascal's Wager shows that not believing in God is something to fear, then people who believe in God because of Pascal's Wager believe in God for the wrong reasons (fear).
Pascal's Wager shows that not believing in God is something to fear.
Therefore, people who believe in God because of Pascal's Wager believe in God for the wrong reasons (fear).

This argument is valid, yet I do not believe it is sound. Premise 1 seems incorrect. To start, fear is only part of what Pascal's Wager shows. You laid out the four scenarios that Pascal's Wager reveals. (The scenarios are below this paragraph for reference.) It is true that if you believe in God because of 2, then you probably believe in him out of fear. (Scenarios 3 and 4 give reason to not believe in God.) However, if you choose to believe in God because of scenario 1, you do not believe in God because of fear but because of hope. Perhaps, it is a matter of perspective. Let's say the net value of believing in God is 5, and the net value of not believing in God is 1. I should choose the Net value of 5 either way, but I can choose 5 because it is the better option or because 1 is a worse option. Both are true, but the first reason is because you want to experience net value 5 whereas the second reason is to avoid net value 1. In the case of Pascal's Wager, choosing to believe in God so that you can go to heaven is hope-based, whereas choosing to believe in God to avoid hell is fear-based. For these reasons, Pascal's Wager can show that not believing in God is something to fear, yet people who believe in God because of Pascal's Wager do not always believe in God for the wrong reasons (fear). Therefore, premise 1 is false.

1. If God exists and the person believes in God they will go to heaven and receive infinite pleasure.
2. If God exists and the person does not believe in God they will go to hell and suffer infinitely.
3. If God does not exist and the person believes in God they have some disadvantages in life because they are restricted to a certain life.
4. If God does not exist and the person believes in God then they do not have to live a restricted life.

The very existence of the universe constitutes the proof. Not in your very limìted sense of proof but in the broader sense that everything that has no scientific explanation for its existence is a proof of creation. — EugeneW

That is basically the reason they say that Columbus discovered America, because there was no proof of it existing before he got there. And we all know what kind of bullshit that is.
Once again no scientific explanation being available for something does not mean that there is not a scientific explanation for it.

There was once a time, and not to long ago, that man could not explain what all of the "stars" in the sky were. Many believed that they were all stars in the cluster that came to be known as the Milky Way. It turned out, about a hundred years ago, that many are separate galaxies.
Time is needed to find the properties of the universe and work out the details to explain it.

It's eternal and infinìte and the laws are too dumb to create themselves. So they can only be created. — EugeneW

Maybe you should try reading a science book or two. There are some very good ones made for 5th, 6th graders that explain a lot of things about the universe. Are you really sure that you need the greatness of a god to create dumb laws for the universe? You make it sound like he did it as a hobby.

Yes. Boring argument! "How can the gods let that happen?" I've heard it 1000 times now. WTF should they care what and how we fuck up? — EugeneW

Yes, I have heard it used many times as well, but I figured out why it keeps happening. Because no one has been smart enough to give an answer. It is impossible for anyone with half a brain and a teaspoon of intelligence to reconcile a kind, loving, supposedly super intelligent creator of the universe with the shithead that does not seem to care about his own creation.

How else can it be? A physical explanation doesn't explain why the physical is there in the first place. — EugeneW

Some people cannot explain why their kids exist, that does not mean that there is no explanation.

But what exactly do you mean when you say "physical explanation"? An explanation would surely have to be contained in some form of communication method, so I am guessing you mean a book or something similar. If there is still no known explanation of how the universe came into being, would it not be surprising to find a "physical explanation" of it in the library?

It's possible not to believe. You wouldn't be a liar but a denier. — EugeneW

Actually no, you are wrong.
I don't believe in the Spaghetti Monster so I am not a believer. But I do not be a denier either. I would just be someone that does not give a shit about it. Action is implicit in being a denier.

Once again no scientific explanation being available for something does not mean that there is not a scientific explanation for it. — Sir2u

I say if the final explanation is given. I have a final exllanation of matter and space. But do you think I know where the eternal universe comes from? No.

I have a final exllanation of matter and space. — EugeneW

I am happy for you, I really am. I just hope that they make the discovery of the origin of the universe after you have passed on to the better life. It would be a shame to have your dreams shattered and find that it was not there to go to.

I am happy for you, I really am — Sir2u

Thanks! I'm writing a book about it. There are a lot of areas in physics involved. There is a series of big bangs. The end of each expansion being the sign for a new one to occur behind it. There is no beginning. Just partial ones. But where does this eternity come from? It had to be created. The laws of nature are just to stupid to create themselves.

Thanks! I'm writing a book about it. There are a lot of areas in physics involved. There is a series of big bangs. The end of each expansion being the sign for a new one to occur behind it. There is no beginning. Just partial ones. — EugeneW

Unsupported semi-scientific theories used as evidence for a creator, what the hell is the world coming to.

Unsupported semi-scientific theories used as evidence for a creator, what the hell is the world coming to. — Sir2u

If only you would understand the science in it.. But you don'...

If only you would understand the science in it.. But you don'... — EugeneW

How do you know that? Or did an angel whisper it into your ear.

Because I was told to get the first look in nature's fundamental workings. God whispered that in my ear...

God whispered that in my ear... — EugeneW

Good bye.

Afraid your ignorance shows? Good bye.

Afraid your ignorance shows? — EugeneW

Not really, I recognize it and embrace it and work hard to overcome it.

But I am scared shitless by yours.

Don't be afraid. One day you will understand...

Don't be afraid. One day you will understand... — EugeneW

Ignorance is a curable malady, so I am not at all afraid. But stupidity is incurable and deadly.

I know that one day I will understand, because scientific investigation will explain things.
I hope your god does something about your problems though.

Ignorance is a curable malady, so I am not at all afraid. But stupidity is incurable and deadly. — Sir2u

That's why there is little hope for you my dear friend... But hey, life is incurable and deadly. And in the next big bang we'll live again. Maybe that offers solace. Take care!