Does God exist? (16 Viewers)

[Where's the Funny?]

 

[braintic]

No idea who that is??

Looks like you got your answer.

 

[Qeru]

Honestly, knowing we will probably not get any non-biblical evidence of the existence of any religious figure anytime soon (God, Jesus, etc), I choose to embrace Pascal’s wager as a Christian.

My personal problem with Pascal's wager is that there is a 2x2 square for every religion. Every religion rejects every other religion and many of these religions have 'perks' of joining (going to heaven, enlightenment etc.). So really you are only in one 2x2 square out of millions.

 

[jimmysmith560]

My personal problem with Pascal's wager is that there is a 2x2 square for every religion. Every religion rejects every other religion and many of these religions have 'perks' of joining (going to heaven, enlightenment etc.). So really you are only in one 2x2 square out of millions.

The way I see it, as long as the core belief in God is there, Pascal's wager would be viable, regardless of one's religion. At the end of the day, it's the person's relationship with God that matters. This works pretty well with Abrahamic religions as they share this core belief (of course there are differences between other minor beliefs within those religions).

 

[SylviaB]

The way I see it, as long as the core belief in God is there, Pascal's wager would be viable, regardless of one's religion. At the end of the day, it's the person's relationship with God that matters. This works pretty well with Abrahamic religions as they share this core belief (of course there are differences between other minor beliefs within those religions).

no its not viable lmao you are a blasphemer under Islam and will go to hell if islam is true

 

[jimmysmith560]

no its not viable lmao you are a blasphemer under Islam and will go to hell if islam is true

That could be the case regardless of Pascal's wager.

My initial point was aimed at the uncertainty of the existence of God and how Pascal's wager would be a better option than atheism (for me). Which religion is true (if any) is a completely different issue.

 

[SylviaB]

That could be the case regardless of Pascal's wager.

My initial point was aimed at the uncertainty of the existence of God and how Pascal's wager would be a better option than atheism (for me). Which religion is true (if any) is a completely different issue.

Except you didn't demonstrate that pascal's wager is a better option.

 

[jimmysmith560]

Except you didn't demonstrate that pascal's wager is a better option.

A better option than atheism? I mean, if one chooses to be an atheist rather than embracing Pascal's wager and a religion like Chrisitanity or Islam turns out to be true, I don't think the outcome will be favourable for that person. On the other hand, there is no actual considerable loss if one acknowledges the existence of God. I guess that's where agnosticism becomes relevant, due to the ambiguity of this thread's main topic and the lack of conclusive evidence that could be used to permanently silence a particular side.

Also, can you elaborate on how I would be considered a blasphemer and be sent to hell if Islam turns out to be the true religion? I'm pretty sure that in Islam, non-Muslim people are forgiven in such circumstances, provided they were at least acknowledging the existence of God and being good people throughout their life.

It would be great if any Muslim people here can provide some info about the accuracy of that statement

 

[B1andB2]

no its not viable lmao you are a blasphemer under Islam and will go to hell if islam is true

A better option than atheism? I mean, if one chooses to be an atheist rather than embracing Pascal's wager and a religion like Chrisitanity or Islam turns out to be true, I don't think the outcome will be favourable for that person. On the other hand, there is no actual considerable loss if one acknowledges the existence of God. I guess that's where agnosticism becomes relevant, due to the ambiguity of this thread's main topic and the lack of conclusive evidence that could be used to permanently silence a particular side.

Also, can you elaborate on how I would be considered a blasphemer and be sent to hell if Islam turns out to be the true religion? I'm pretty sure that in Islam, non-Muslim people are forgiven in such circumstances, provided they were at least acknowledging the existence of God and being good people throughout their life.

It would be great if any Muslim people here can provide some info about the accuracy of that statement

To claim that a blasphemer will go to hell if islam is true also implies that muslims are saved from hell. This dichotomy is not true.

So, those who argue this would question: What then, is the point of being a muslim; making daily prayers, ongoing fasts, charity, and such ? Isn't it unfair for someone who fulfils all the core obligations (righteousness, belief in god, etc) to be granted the same afterlife as someone who fulfils not only the core obligations but much more than that?

Firstly, this argument assumes that you are going to be held to account according to someone else’s standards. Each of us will be held to account according to a unique standard applied to us, according to our personal circumstances.

Secondly, Heaven and Hell are not two simple categories. As the Quran alludes to in its reference to various levels of Heaven and Hell, punishment and reward differ according to a person’s faith and deeds.

However, If a person rejects Islam after knowing Islam and fully understanding its truth he will be asked about it by God. Otherwise he will be judged according to his own religion and his understanding of right and wrong. Simply being a Muslim is not enough to enter paradise. It is the righteous who are rewarded by God

{Chapter 2. Verse 62}

"Surely, those who believed in Allah, and those who are Jews, and Christians, and Sabians, -whosoever believes in Allah and in the Last Day, and does good deeds - all such people will have their reward with their Lord, and there will be no reason for them to fear, nor shall they grieve"

Hope this clears it up @jimmysmith560 !

 

[jimmysmith560]

To claim that a blasphemer will go to hell if islam is true also implies that muslims are saved from hell. This dichotomy is not true.

So, those who argue this would question: What then, is the point of being a muslim; making daily prayers, ongoing fasts, charity, and such ? Isn't it unfair for someone who fulfils all the core obligations (righteousness, belief in god, etc) to be granted the same afterlife as someone who fulfils not only the core obligations but much more than that?

Firstly, this argument assumes that you are going to be held to account according to someone else’s standards. Each of us will be held to account according to a unique standard applied to us, according to our personal circumstances.

Secondly, Heaven and Hell are not two simple categories. As the Quran alludes to in its reference to various levels of Heaven and Hell, punishment and reward differ according to a person’s faith and deeds.

However, If a person rejects Islam after knowing Islam and fully understanding its truth he will be asked about it by God. Otherwise he will be judged according to his own religion and his understanding of right and wrong. Simply being a Muslim is not enough to enter paradise. It is the righteous who are rewarded by God

{Chapter 2. Verse 62}

"Surely, those who believed in Allah, and those who are Jews, and Christians, and Sabians, -whosoever believes in Allah and in the Last Day, and does good deeds - all such people will have their reward with their Lord, and there will be no reason for them to fear, nor shall they grieve"

Hope this clears it up @jimmysmith560 !

This is great! I actually found this same verse you included today while doing some research, along with some other information. Thanks!

 

[Queenroot]

you should probably look into that haha, its a life or death decision literally

wat lmao

However, If a person rejects Islam after knowing Islam and fully understanding its truth he will be asked about it by God. Otherwise he will be judged according to his own religion and his understanding of right and wrong. Simply being a Muslim is not enough to enter paradise.

Or lack thereof?

 

[Queenroot]

Why does this thread even exist anymore, I cringe everytime

 

[Where's the Funny?]

specsavers would like to know your location

 

[B1andB2]

Or lack thereof?

?

 

[jimmysmith560]

Assuming a religion is true, I believe that the general outcome of being irreligious/atheist would be even less favourable than that of someone who followed the wrong religion.

 

[Drdusk]

Assuming a religion is true, I believe that the general outcome of being irreligious/atheist would be even less favourable than that of someone who followed the wrong religion.

That would be if god exists which it doesn’t. So the initial proposition is itself flawed!

 

[jimmysmith560]

That would be if god exists which it doesn’t.

To each their own.

 

[dan964]

The way I see it, as long as the core belief in God is there, Pascal's wager would be viable, regardless of one's religion. At the end of the day, it's the person's relationship with God that matters. This works pretty well with Abrahamic religions as they share this core belief (of course there are differences between other minor beliefs within those religions).

Pascals wager is not very logically sound, nor is it what God desires.
People shouldn't be believing in God merely to escape hell or judgement, because the alternative (to judgement) is to spend eternity with God which is good, but for those who dislike or even hate God, then that is a terrible thing too.
Nor does it prove the existence of anything. Reason does not prove the existence of God, because what we can prove about God is limited, and even then not all accept it.

Abrahamic religions have in common some shared history, some shared ideas, that's probably the main way they are in common. But their understanding of God and Jesus, and what is Scripture is different between Christians and Jews, and even more different between Islam and Christianity/Judaism.

Also, Islam kind of does a retcon on what Christian and Jewish scriptures (Jewish scriptures are the Old Testament part of Bible) say. The versions of the events of Moses in Quran and Bible are very different in their details and in their message.

 

[jimmysmith560]

Pascals wager is not very logically sound, nor is it what God desires.
People shouldn't be believing in God merely to escape hell or judgement, because the alternative (to judgement) is to spend eternity with God which is good, but for those who dislike or even hate God, then that is a terrible thing too.
Nor does it prove the existence of anything. Reason does not prove the existence of God, because what we can prove about God is limited, and even then not all accept it.

Perhaps I should clarify my position:

Pascal's wager is not and will never be the reason why I'm Christian.

My initial point was that Pascal's wager, when compared to atheism, presents a more viable alternative.

I don't personally believe that one's relationship with God should be built solely to avoid hell and punishment and enter heaven. This is not a business deal, nor is it what Pascal suggested it should be. On the contrary, he was encouraging people to believe in God.

Pascal's wager not proving anything isn't exactly relevant either. It was never aimed at proving anything to begin with since Pascal literally considered the idea of believeing in God to be a probability game.

Abrahamic religions have in common some shared history, some shared ideas, that's probably the main way they are in common. But their understanding of God and Jesus, and what is Scripture is different between Christians and Jews, and even more different between Islam and Christianity/Judaism.

Abrahamic religions' understanding of Jesus (seen as a prophet in Islam, not the Messiah in Judaism, the son of God in Christianity) and scripture (go back a few posts, I mentioned the difference in beliefs between the 3 religions) is perhaps different, but their understanding of God remains the same: God/Allah/Yahweh is the one eternal creator of all.

Also, Islam kind of does a retcon on what Christian and Jewish scriptures (Jewish scriptures are the Old Testament part of Bible) say. The versions of the events of Moses in Quran and Bible are very different in their details and in their message.

Are the differences between what the Quran and the Old Testament say about Moses significant to the point where they overshadow the most important messages of the Abrahamic religions? There are differences, sure. However, there is no conflict as to the existence of God in the Abrahamic religions (which is what we're arguing in this thread).

 

[Drdusk]

I have one question about these Abrahamic religions.

Say you’re a member of one of those tribes who have basically not been contacted and as such never been introduced to the idea of religion(Christianity, Islam etc). Are you still going to hell even when you don’t even know about these religions?

Don’t just say it’s because everyone is born into it no matter what by god so their inner self knows about it, because I certainly had no dam clue about it until I started going to a school where Christianity was taught.