What If You're Wrong

[viole]

so, there would be two propositions.
1) loving Creator-God
2) non-loving Creator-God.
Anyone may chose what he thinks is more compelling.

Both are Creator Gods, btw.

BTW, who is that lady in your photo?

No matter what the propositions are, you cannot use anything observable to make a case for any of them.

the lady is a Sami girl in traditional costume.

Ciao

- viole

 

[thomas t]

No matter what the propositions are, you cannot use anything observable to make a case for any of them.

Actually there was the beauty in nature we talked about.
For others, there are instances of illness that, for them, point to another God.
So we had beauty and illness.

This isn't just anything. It was a) and b).
If it's a) and b), make your choice which hypothesis to believe in more, both of them pointing to Gods. That's what I call Pascal Wager situation.

Thomas

 

[Starlight]

To be a good person is the most important, not what you believe. So do not be afraid you believe in wrong religion or have wrong beliefs about God, because God think it is your heart that matters most.

 

[Starlight]

I like the video
What If You're Wrong

To me, it is not important whether or not one is wrong believing in what one believes
More important it is, that one learns to become a loving person, with or without religion

Agree!

 

[PureX]

Yeah, kind of like this entire thread... which is all about What If Your Wrong.

Exactly. There are enough REAL threats in this life to worry about. We don't need to be making up more!

 

[Revoltingest]

Methinks you should be talking to Neil Turok about this insight into the unknown

I have no insight.
It's just obvious.

 

[Starlight]

I have no insight.
It's just obvious.

What is Bokononism?

 

[thomas t]

So if you happen to pick the wrong one you're just as screwed as the atheists, right?

( I missed that one...)
in my opinion, in any case you're mistaken.
If there is a real Creator God, atheism is just as wrong as a religion for another God, I think.

 

[Revoltingest]

What is Bokononism?

It's a fictional religion in Kurt Vonnegut's book, Cat's Cradle.
Ref...
Cat's Cradle - Wikipedia

 

[thomas t]

If there is a god of different religion and/or unlike the Panentheistic God I personally believed in AND this God wants to punish me for mistakes that I am bound to make due to the very frail nature and flawed, limited brain [and other short-comings] He Designated for me, well, such a god is not worthy of worshipping.

the Christian standpoint is like this (from my understanding):
when you know that you have a frail nature and a flawed limited brain, why not seek God and a solution?

 

[QuestioningMind]

( I missed that one...)
in my opinion, in any case you're mistaken.
If there is a real Creator God, atheism is just as wrong as a religion for another God, I think.

That's precisely what I said. If you happen to pick the wrong god you're just as wrong - just as screwed - as the atheist.

 

[ChristineM]

I have no insight.
It's just obvious.

But what if you're wrong?

See how i neaty put the thread back on track?

 

[Revoltingest]

But what if you're wrong?

It'll knock down my grade on the test.

See how i I neaty neatly put the thread back on track?

Neatly fixed.

 

[Hellbound Serpiente]

But we can't be absolutely sure that the "God" and the "solution" we found is actually the true "God" and real, true "solution" BECAUSE to our weaknesses.

 

[ChristineM]

It'll knock down my grade on the test.

Neatly fixed.

Test? What test?

 

[Revoltingest]

Test? What test?

You're not ready?
You didn't study?
It's next period!

 

[halbhh]

Yes, everyone can make up a theology that explains everything.

fact is, showing evidence of God because of the good things is useless, since the explanation of the bad things requires a priori theology. Ergo, pre-existing belief.

i could equally prove (an evil) God because of kids cancer and such, and then explain the cool stuff by some made up theology too.

ergo, such sort of arguments fail completely, to convince anyone with a minimum of logical sophistication. And immune to emotions.

ciao

- viole

One of the assumptions non believers naturally bring (can't help it) to thinking about God is to quite reasonably just assume (most everyone has) that death is real -- that the death of this mortal body is a final end, a real death.

But that's only a form of just assuming God does not exist.

The assumption about death though is so basic and so natural that it takes some real thought to discover how one incorporates the assumption into various topics around talking about God, such as you just did re "i could equally prove (an evil) God because of kids cancer and such".

Of course if God existed and then just let everyone die a final real death without saving at minimum the innocents (even before one addresses how he might redeem and change and save the guilty), such a God that let everyone just die would indeed be extremely evil (at least by any normal human point of view), in that imagined scenario.

But it's just an imagined scenario, since by definition God is -- from the start -- something that transcends the appearance, makes death an illusion, and so on.

Just from the start, by definition.

Why bother to stay with a notion of "God" which is trivially wrong, and then try to use it to think about a possible transcendent God? (It's presuming your conclusion, before you even start, basically)

 

[ChristineM]

You're not ready?
You didn't study?
It's next period!

Opps

 

[Quetzal]

It's just not pleasant to come to an environment in which people want to kill.

A close contact of mine once told me this story: when she went on holiday to a country in which women dress up conservatively... all men stared at her breasts. After the third day it really got on her nerves. I think God feels the same when half (or so) of mankind wants to kill him!

Man reacting like this certainly is not God's fault, I think. Even if man is in His image.

Fair enough, man is responsible for their own actions afterall.

 

[Subduction Zone]

No, I do believe in it. I just haven't seen evidence for it.
Philosophy of science - Wikipedia
"...
Naturalism is the implicit philosophy of working scientists.[47] The following basic assumptions are needed to justify the scientific method.[48]

1. that there is an objective reality shared by all rational observers.[48][49] "The basis for rationality is acceptance of an external objective reality."[50] "Objective reality is clearly an essential thing if we are to develop a meaningful perspective of the world. Nevertheless its very existence is assumed." "Our belief that objective reality exist is an assumption that it arises from a real world outside of ourselves. As infants we made this assumption unconsciously. People are happy to make this assumption that adds meaning to our sensations and feelings, than live with solipsism."[51] Without this assumption, there would be only the thoughts and images in our own mind (which would be the only existing mind) and there would be no need of science, or anything else."[52]

..."

I am a skeptic and I don't believe in knowledge, truth and evidence like some people do. I believe differently.

Actually a skeptic follows the evidence, and you may not understand the concept. It is well defined in the sciences and there is evidence for reality.