God Is...

Post Reply New Topic

You don't like it? More's the pity on you. You'd be a good candidate for Pascal's wager.

Pascal's wager is the dumbest thing ever. Get off on emotional blackmail?

What happens when Meistersinger meets his maker and Krishna says, sorry you have been a bad Hindu you have not been following me at all, you will be sent to Naraka.

Pascal was mostly a fraud, he he famous for something the Indians invented centuries before.

He one of the most overrated philosophers and mathematicians.

The knee jerk I struggle to get my head around (hell if there weren't body metaphors crossing confusingly all over that) is that god is not necessarily religion. Wiser people than me have been trying to get this thorough to me as this subject has been everywhere recently. Religion and god could very plausibly be completely disconnected.
It's also entirely plausible that god, if one exists, has never been described or known by any religion in all of human history, and may never be known, nor described.
If you disbelieve the representation of god as described in any one religion, then that is in effect all you are disagreeing with - their theory. In the original post the author seems to be describing god as he is described in Christian and Islamic religions - a loving, intelligent, just, perfect external entity. Nowhere is it guaranteed that god, if one exists, represents nor comprehends these qualities at all.
The more I get into the issue, the more I favour the abstract of what a god may be, rather than believing any religious descriptions. And trying to stop interpreting any talk of "god" through a religiously-influenced bias.

Although as a counterpoint, the cause of the universes's formation cannot easily be construed without a supernatural intervention. The formation of mass in our universe cannot be ascribed to any physical properties or phenomenon, because the second law of thermodynamics is clear: mass (energy) cannot exceed the input energy that is added into it. Who added that initial energy? Obviously these fundamental scientific laws were breached.

I have an honors degree in physics so I do believe I can speak with some authority on this subject.

The only One who can save us.

Let's say I use Anselm's definition: God is a being greater than any which can be imagined. That is quite clearly Being itself.

I once had a statistics instructor who argued that Pascal's wager is fundamentally irrefutable because lack of a belief in God in presence of a potential existence of one, is an unnecessary folly that one can easily reverse and has no external ramifications if belief is professed.

No external ramifications? How do you know you are believing the correct version of God? What if there are more than one? And belief itself does have ramifications, potentially life-threatening ones. Plenty of people forgo medical treatment due to faith, or kill in the name of faith.

An argument from authority will get you nowhere.

...It enables me to make more informed opinions on the subject matter and augment them with evidence of whatever knowledge I gained.