Denying the existence of God is illogical

[findingfaith]

 From my point of view anyway. so let me explain my meaning.
I will be keeping it to the most base argument for length's sake. and predominently from an unsure (Agnostic?) point of reference.
so lets look at the two choices, deny the existence of God or believe.

there is no overwhelming evidence to prove the existence or non existence of God. no smoking gun so to speak.
so without conclusive proof either way, the choice you are making is based on theory/assumption/speculation, and inconclusive evidence.
but at the same time logic dictates that if no conclusive evidence exist's, you have to leave the possibility open for the existence of God.
and i know the same could be said the opposite. but it's not relevant (at least to me) to the final decision.

so how can you choose, and be sure you've made the right choice? for me it's as simple as looking at the possible consequences of the final choice.
not just weighing the evidence provided, since it's not conclusive.

 1. choose to believe. possibility of eternal life in the Kingdom of Heaven. possibility of failing and eternal damnation.
left up to me, to do as asked. left up to the Lord, if i'm worthy of Heaven or damned to Hell.

 2. not believe. here's the illogical part. choosing this is a bad choice, since you have to leave open the possibilty for God's existence,
to deny God and not do as was asked is an almost certain ticket to hell. (not guaranteed, as the Lord will save whom he see's fit.)
but extremely risky IMO. since you can't prove he's not real, erring this way is illogical, when the other choice, is the safest choice based on the possible consequences.

playing with fire is baaaaad, it can burn you, literally, doin so is illogical based on the possible consequences.
playing with your soul is illogical based on the possible consequences, when you cannot prove, it, and God, do not exist.

why anyone would choose to take the choice with the worst possible outcome is beyond me. again it's not the logical choice IMO.

on a side note IIRC logic is a major tenant of atheist's argument against God. go figure if i'm wrong on this please forgive my ignorance.

nonbelievers please feel free to post your reasoning behind your decision and how you logically arrived at it. if you used logic that is.

[Asteriktos]

As a sometime nonbeliever I find it most logical* to believe that which best reflects reality--whether there is or isn't a God as part of that reality.


*Though I would prefer the word sensible

[findingfaith]

As a sometime nonbeliever I find it most logical* to believe that which best reflects reality--whether there is or isn't a God as part of that reality.


*Though I would prefer the word sensible

Explain the logic behind this please.

since reality is merely ones own perception of the world around them. but what one perceives may infact not be reality.
believing what best fits without taking into account the possible consequences of that belief compounds the flaw. which seems illogical to me.

[Asteriktos]

since reality is merely ones own perception of the world around them. but what one perceives may infact not be reality.

I agree with this. We should try to discern what is real, but leave open the possibility that we are wrong.

believing what best fits without taking into account the possible consequences of that belief compounds the flaw. which seems illogical to me.

Here is where we seem to disagree. I don't think you should believe something or not believe something because of potential consequences. Truth is truth, regardless of consequences. So I seek the truth, and take the consequences as they happen to be. Now fwiw, with regard to believing in God and the consequences of rejecting him and hell and all that, I consider such a conception of God to be illogical, and think that such a God would not be worthy of respect, much less worship.

[deusveritasest]

Pascal's Wager? Really?

[minasoliman]

Pascal's Wager? Really?

Exactly what I thought.  Essentially what we're saying is that believe in God or you'll go to hell (or cease to exist in your belief, either way it's bad for you).  I have trouble trying to convince people to believe in a dictator God, or even believing it myself.

[deusveritasest]

Also, the OP was contingent on the idea that belief is a simple choice, which I think is far from the truth.

[findingfaith]

Here is where we seem to disagree. I don't think you should believe something or not believe something because of potential consequences. Truth is truth, regardless of consequences. So I seek the truth, and take the consequences as they happen to be.

I didn't say we should, i said we should take them into account when making the decision. but not the only factor in the equation so to speak. but one i see as important.
negating them altogether again seems illogical.

I consider such a conception of God to be illogical, and think that such a God would not be worthy of respect, much less worship.

lol based on what? when you sign a contract are you not subject to penalties and possible punishment if you breach that contract?
and since you breached that contract are you not the one responsible for the penalies and punishment to begin with? you sentence yourself to punishment not God

@ minasoliman
i'm not saying god is a dictator where anywhere did i say god is the one who punishes us? i tried my best to avoid this happening and obviously failed

[Asteriktos]

Wait, when did I sign a contract with God?   Now, based on my entertainment choices, you might argue that I've signed a deal with the devil...

[findingfaith]

Also, the OP was contingent on the idea that belief is a simple choice, which I think is far from the truth.

belief is not a simple choice, it's a life choice, that is extremely weighty when taken in context big picture.

my point in the op is to show how negating the possible consequences when trying to make this decision is not a logical decision.
not the only means to reach it. in fact it never played into my own choice but it has reinforced it.

[Asteriktos]

Also, the OP was contingent on the idea that belief is a simple choice, which I think is far from the truth.

belief is not a simple choice, it's a life choice, that is extremely weighty when taken in context big picture.

Exactly one of the reasons that pascals wager fails. You don't "lose nothing" for betting on God, you actually lose quite a bit, whether there is a God or not. And it's only if there is a God that you'll get a pay off (unless you just dig the religion thing, in which case I guess you might be happy here).

[deusveritasest]

I didn't say we should, i said we should take them into account when making the decision.

I do not agree that the sort of consequences you are talking about should at all be taken into account when making the "decision", which I don't even believe exists. You can decide which faith you regard to be the truth based off of it being reasonably convincing, but you cannot choose on the basis of what the possible consequences of the reality being true or not are.

[findingfaith]

Wait, when did I sign a contract with God?   Now, based on my entertainment choices, you might argue that I've signed a deal with the devil...

I like you your funny in a good way:)

well if you haven't decided to follow the lord and do as he asked you haven't.
if you have, and you sin, you breach the contract in part. and any penalty you may recieve (if any) is your own doing not God's
look were all fallible, and because of this i don't think God would let us sentence ourselve's to any type of punishment without giving us the means to prevent it.
which i believe he has in our Lord Jesus Christ. it's up to us to use this defense.

[deusveritasest]

belief is not a simple choice, it's a life choice, that is extremely weighty when taken in context big picture.

I don't think that believing is really a choice at all, at least not in the way you are thinking and for the type of belief you are talking about. I think it is a determination of what one finds to be the sufficiently convincing truth.

[IsmiLiora]

Exactly one of the reasons that pascals wager fails. You don't "lose nothing" for betting on God, you actually lose quite a bit, whether there is a God or not. And it's only if there is a God that you'll get a pay off (unless you just dig the religion thing, in which case I guess you might be happy here).

Not to defend Pascal's Wager, but I once said that after I die, if nothing happens, then A: I'm dead, so as long as I felt like I 'won' while I was alive, I technically won. If I can't feel anything, I won't know either way.

(If I discover that there isn't a God, I have no faith in humanity whatsoever, so that would probably just be a giant loss.)

I think that the only true loss, for me at least, is if I find out that my FAITH is wrong. For instance, if I get to heaven and see a suicide bomber surrounded by a bunch of virgins, I'm making a run for the exit...

[minasoliman]

@ minasoliman
i'm not saying god is a dictator where anywhere did i say god is the one who punishes us? i tried my best to avoid this happening and obviously failed

Here's the part that I find troubling and somewhat ambiguous:

not believe. here's the illogical part. choosing this is a bad choice, since you have to leave open the possibilty for God's existence,
to deny God and not do as was asked is an almost certain ticket to hell. (not guaranteed, as the Lord will save whom he see's fit.)

At first you say, if you don't believe, you'll go to hell, and then you say, although you might go to heaven anyway because it's God's decision in the end.  It's a good argument if you're talking to simple-minded people.  But you're dealing with adults.  And adults have creative analogies:

The king's messenger comes to a group of people who are outside the king's jurisdiction.  He exlaims, "Good people around me.  I bring to you great news.  If you live under the king's rules, and follow the laws and pay your taxes, you will achieve great pleasures and protections from him.  But if you do not, you will be burned forever, unless the king has mercy on you.  Choose the logical route, and submit to the king.

Wouldn't that be a tyrant king?

I personally would stick with an argument more akin to how much we need God in our spiritual lives, as divine food for the spirit, and to live an exemplary Christian life that they see God in you.  This is more fitting of a good argument for the belief in God, "that you also love one another. By this all will know that you are God's disciples, if you have love for one another" (John 13:35).

[orthonorm]

There is nothing "logical" regarding the (non)existence of God.

See the history of greater thinkers than all of us and their "conclusions".

[orthonorm]

Poor Pascal gets abused once again.

[deusveritasest]

For instance, if I get to heaven and see a suicide bomber surrounded by a bunch of virgins, I'm making a run for the exit...

LOL

[findingfaith]

@ minasoliman
i'm not saying god is a dictator where anywhere did i say god is the one who punishes us? i tried my best to avoid this happening and obviously failed

Here's the part that I find troubling and somewhat ambiguous:

not believe. here's the illogical part. choosing this is a bad choice, since you have to leave open the possibilty for God's existence,
to deny God and not do as was asked is an almost certain ticket to hell. (not guaranteed, as the Lord will save whom he see's fit.)

At first you say, if you don't believe, you'll go to hell, and then you say, although you might go to heaven anyway because it's God's decision in the end.  It's a good argument if you're talking to simple-minded people.  But you're dealing with adults.  And adults have creative analogies:

The king's messenger comes to a group of people who are outside the king's jurisdiction.  He exlaims, "Good people around me.  I bring to you great news.  If you live under the king's rules, and follow the laws and pay your taxes, you will achieve great pleasures and protections from him.  But if you do not, you will be burned forever, unless the king has mercy on you.  Choose the logical route, and submit to the king.

Wouldn't that be a tyrant king?

I personally would stick with an argument more akin to how much we need God in our spiritual lives, as divine food for the spirit, and to live an exemplary Christian life that they see God in you.  This is more fitting of a good argument for the belief in God, "that you also love one another. By this all will know that you are God's disciples, if you have love for one another" (John 13:35).

i see in my attempt to keep it to the most basic analogies i left it open to too much self interpretation in the meaning.
thank you for pointing this out to me i have learned something new today

[orthonorm]

For instance, if I get to heaven and see a suicide bomber surrounded by a bunch of virgins, I'm making a run for the exit...

LOL

What I don't get is the emphasis on virgins. I mean really. You think they would get rewarded with people who know what they are doing, if you are going to go the sensual reward route.

[minasoliman]

For instance, if I get to heaven and see a suicide bomber surrounded by a bunch of virgins, I'm making a run for the exit...

LOL

What I don't get is the emphasis on virgins. I mean really. You think they would get rewarded with people who know what they are doing, if you are going to go the sensual reward route.

It turns their bombs on.

[minasoliman]

For instance, if I get to heaven and see a suicide bomber surrounded by a bunch of virgins, I'm making a run for the exit...

LOL

What I don't get is the emphasis on virgins. I mean really. You think they would get rewarded with people who know what they are doing, if you are going to go the sensual reward route.

In all seriousness, I did hear at an MSA meeting once that Allah included these rewards because He knows what men like.  Women are more complicated, so the reward is unknown. (jokingly he said it, but if jokingly answering, he did dodge the question successfully).

[orthonorm]

For instance, if I get to heaven and see a suicide bomber surrounded by a bunch of virgins, I'm making a run for the exit...

LOL

What I don't get is the emphasis on virgins. I mean really. You think they would get rewarded with people who know what they are doing, if you are going to go the sensual reward route.

It turns their bombs on.

*zing*

[deusveritasest]

For instance, if I get to heaven and see a suicide bomber surrounded by a bunch of virgins, I'm making a run for the exit...

LOL

What I don't get is the emphasis on virgins. I mean really. You think they would get rewarded with people who know what they are doing, if you are going to go the sensual reward route.

There's supposedly also 28 young boys. So clearly there is a preference of youth over experience for some reason.

[orthonorm]

For instance, if I get to heaven and see a suicide bomber surrounded by a bunch of virgins, I'm making a run for the exit...

LOL

What I don't get is the emphasis on virgins. I mean really. You think they would get rewarded with people who know what they are doing, if you are going to go the sensual reward route.

In all seriousness, I did hear at an MSA meeting once that Allah included these rewards because He knows what men like.  Women are more complicated, so the reward is unknown. (jokingly he said it, but if jokingly answering, he did dodge the question successfully).

Islamic apologetics a big topic at the Microscopy Society of America?

[IsmiLiora]

For instance, if I get to heaven and see a suicide bomber surrounded by a bunch of virgins, I'm making a run for the exit...

LOL

What I don't get is the emphasis on virgins. I mean really. You think they would get rewarded with people who know what they are doing, if you are going to go the sensual reward route.

In all seriousness, I did hear at an MSA meeting once that Allah included these rewards because He knows what men like.  Women are more complicated, so the reward is unknown. (jokingly he said it, but if jokingly answering, he did dodge the question successfully).

I expect:
-A fully stocked Sephora
-Limitless KFC
-My own personal gym (without skinnier women watching me and my flub hit the weights)
-Free access to the Pepsi factory
-My own personal library
-Free Netflix
-A harem of men that I am not involved with. They are there just for the sole purpose of making other women jealous of me.
-A canopy bed with sheets from Macys, no wait. I want satin sheets and a big fluffy white comforter...

No, we aren't complicated! Jeez.

[orthonorm]

For instance, if I get to heaven and see a suicide bomber surrounded by a bunch of virgins, I'm making a run for the exit...

LOL

What I don't get is the emphasis on virgins. I mean really. You think they would get rewarded with people who know what they are doing, if you are going to go the sensual reward route.

In all seriousness, I did hear at an MSA meeting once that Allah included these rewards because He knows what men like.  Women are more complicated, so the reward is unknown. (jokingly he said it, but if jokingly answering, he did dodge the question successfully).

I expect:
-A fully stocked Sephora
-Limitless KFC
-My own personal gym (without skinnier women watching me and my flub hit the weights)
-Free access to the Pepsi factory
-My own personal library
-Free Netflix
-A harem of men that I am not involved with. They are there just for the sole purpose of making other women jealous of me.
-A canopy bed with sheets from Macys, no wait. I want satin sheets and a big fluffy white comforter...

No, we aren't complicated! Jeez.

If you are married, please tell your husband that he is in my prayers.

[IsmiLiora]

He needs none of your prayers! 

[Achronos]

You have everything to gain and nothing to lose.

Sorry but there is something special about sleeping with a virgin.

[Tags:]

OrthodoxChristianity.net > Moderated Forums > Free-For-All > Non-Religious Topics (Moderator: Pravoslavbob) > Topic: Denying the existence of God is illogical