Surely ‘Eternal’ relates to time? Which started with the Big Bang? (IIRC - IAN Stephen Hawking…)
‘God’ is a convenient way of explaining everything we don’t understand about the universe and coincidently(?) has proved a very useful way for those in power to control the rest of the population.
hehe, I love you too, blowero. 
Yes, I was around for it, but I generally avoid these god discussions like the plague. I really only popped in to take a quick snipe at Alde, as I know he frequents these, and I just wanted to tweak his nose some…then got interested in the discussion.
Yes, I understand that the beginning was a singularity and that time did not exist prior to the big bang. I’m also aware that everything we see today was ‘squeezed’ into that singularity as well. I suppose you could say (and I guess you ARE saying) that this aspect of the Universe could be eternal, as time had no meaning (i.e. timeless). Honestly I hadn’t considered that. We certainly can’t measure what took place BEFORE the big bang (the term itself, as you said, is meaningless) just as we can’t measure god.
So, I’ll conceed that you are right (and admit this is something that never occured to me)…the Universe COULD be considered ‘eternal’, just like ‘god’ is. I’m not sure how this relates to whether or not there is a god though. I’m staring at deep waters here I think…
-XT
Unfortunately, Pascal’s Wager only works if God can be fooled by someone who is only going through the motions “just in case”. I would assume that any entity that is capable of the creation of the universe would not be so easily hoodwinked.
Perhaps the word ‘eternal’ is throwing you off. How about ‘timeless’? The point is that the universe is not required to have been created, since there was no time during which there wasn’t a universe. For every point in time, the universe exists. There is no point in time where there was, is, or will be no universe, and during which time a god might say, “Hmmm…guess I’ll create a universe”. Does that help?
now you just have to prove that you have the ability to imagine and analyze anything you wish, and i’ll believe you have free will. >8]
My dull $0.02, nothing nobody’s ever said or thought before…
The universe is subject to certain natural laws (of motion, of chemistry, etc.) Since nothing can work outside of these rules, the Sunday school God (worker of miracles, things that could never happen without divine intervention) cannot be.
The existence of natural laws that govern the universe cannot be denied. Right? Right. Since they are responsible for all that is and can ever be, one might as well call that God. The physics class God, if you will. From here it’s just a matter of definitions.
perhaps even more unfortunately, pascal’s wager doesn’t work at all.
if we grant that there is an equal chance, and indeed we have no reason to doubt (based on the way the wager is set up), that < if there is a god, he will reward you eternally if you go around and murder everyone you meet with an axe >, then we might logically conclude that we should go around and murder everyone with axes.
this is based on improper assumptions in the wager. there is no reason to believe that god will reward believers. indeed, it may be the case that he rewards nonbelievers. or axe murderers. if god doesn’t exist, then any “if god exists…” statement is true. so no matter what, we should both believe and not believe.
in other words, pascal’s wager only works if we accept the premise: if god exists then he will eternally reward believers. and no reason is given to accept that premise.
Very convincing argument that.
(matter can’t create it’self so the logical answer is an all powerful sentient being did it)
In that case - who/what created God?
:rolleyes:
How powerful does an individual have to be before he is “a god?” I mean, right now, I can draw upon more power than Zeus was supposed to be able to toss around. (I work in a high-voltage facility…)
Is George Bush a god, because he has it within his power to destroy cities?
What if there were “Q” blokes, as in Star Trek? Not “The” God (Yahweh/Allah/etc.) but gods enough.
Trinopus
Pascal’s Wager may be based on a fallacy, but it wasn’t about “fooling” God. Pascal assumed that if one applied themselves resolutely to living a pious life, even if the intention was only to play the Wager according to Pascal’s recommendations, one would come to be faithful, because religiosity can beget faith.
Again, there’s no proof of this, though I believe it probably works for a lot of people. However, it’s still worth trying, because even if you fail to become faithful, you’re no worse off than you were before.
You don’t have to accept the premise: God rewards the pious, and punishes the impious. You just have to accept the premise that if this is true, the consequences for living impiously are so severe that any other choice is unacceptably risky. IF there is even the REMOTEST chance that God will send you to Hell forever for being impious, then that’s all the justification you need. The problem may break down in how you define “pious”, but perhaps not, if you are acting sincerely with the best information you can get at your disposal. In other words, if you truly mean to follow what you have good reason to believe are the prescribed pieties. Pascal obviously was working off of a Christian paradigm, and in that respect he could have been too limited. But your axe murderer example doesn’t negate Pascal’s premise, because if someone tells you God wants you to be an axe murderer, and you do it, you’re being pious. And if God maybe rewards the impious with eternal Damnation, then it behooves you to axe as many people as you can. It’s the only rational choice.
My biggest beef is that eternal damnation or salvation is itself irrational because it involves juxtaposing the infinite consequence with the finite action. God simply can’t work that way and avoid being arbitrary. If God is arbitrary (there are no rules), then no recommendation has any hope of being more valid than another. Pascal should have caught that. His logic breaks down completely when confronted with this paradox. But then again, so does the logic of any faith that says piety is infinitely rewarded, which perhaps didn’t occur to him, as it negates the validity of any faith he was likely to be familiar with.
that’s the point. you do have to accept pascal’s premise in order for belief to be the main factor in your attempt to enjoy eternal salvation.
the fact is, the premise is arbitrary; one could imagine any god that defines any behavior as pious, and find the greatest expected value to determine the rule to follow.
if becoming an axe-murderer, or even disbelieving in god, is just as likely to provide you with salvation as believing in god, there is no reason to follow the original concept of the wager and believe in god.
indeed, as brilliant a fellow as pascal was, it is a wonder he didn’t come up with this. granted, he was almost definitely insane, so perhaps he discarded it with the belief that no one else would come up with it.
Not only that, but:
The fundamental flaw in Pascal’s wager is that the person is doing this out self-interest. However, God is supposed to be right within himself; that is, not only is he always right and should not be questioned, true belief in him is the right way. To put it in other words, you are supposed to believe in God for the sake of believing in God. But this necessitates God being a self-justification. This means that a person must know that he is doing the right thing by believing in God. But how can he know? If we are to accept the Bible (or, for that matter, any other holy text) as a rule of God and believe in it (and him) then why doesn’t it always make sense (the supposedly good are sometimes punished, the supposedly evil are sometimes rewarded). The obvious counter-argument is that one cannot know what God knows, which is acceptable–to a point.
Seeing as how, in this day and age, people can agree that early experience is most influential in people’s lives how can one expect someone to believe in God when he has been raised as an atheist? Perhaps, he needs to be open-minded. But, then it is this open-mindedness that is being rewarded, not the belief in God. (Not to mention open-mindedness itself being the product of a person’s experiences.)
We could eschew the idea of conflicting idealogies by adding an existentialist wrinkle: that belief itself is more important (so that, as long as someone truly believes in their religion, and follows it, they are doing right). As Kierkegaard explained, it is better to truly worship a false idol than to falsely worship a real God.
However, we must note that not everyone has the chance to influenced by any religion. What if a boy’s parents prevent him from having any contact with religion? Is it his choice? How can he know? Only if Belief is innate. But if it is really innate then there would be no such thing as an unbeliever since one cannot escape that which is a fundamental component of oneself.
One might say that it could be acknowledged or denied by a person. But if it is a fundamental component it is true in itself. Outside affirmation or negation of it by factors that are insignificant (if, for argument’s sake, we assume it to be true [that God exists and is fundamental to the human psyche] ) would necessarily be insignificant. Therefore, not only religion, but–much more importantly–choice cannot exist if there is a God. If it did, it would make no sense with any notion of a supreme being.
[posted by me in an earlier thread about Pascal’s wager]
**Short answer to the OP-- **
No.
Long answer–
Some people imagine that there is a god, and of course their thoughts really exist. One could say there is a god in the same sense that there are Invisible Pink Unicorns–they exist, but only in our imagination.
Damn you,I Love Me, Vol. I,
No was my answer… 
Naw, that God doesn’t exist. We’re holding out for a nicer one.
So you came to a predominantly atheist forum? I do love irony. 
Maybe I’m not understanding what you’re saying, but I think there may be problems. It could be a false premise, but I think Pascal was operating under the assumption God cares what you do. If he doesn’t, there’s no point in worrying. Pascal was confronted with the possibility that God may very well care, so that’s something to worry about. Anyhow, it’s hard to imagine any logical way disbelief in God and an assertion about what God does or doesn’t want you to do can go together. I don’t know how “piety” and atheism could be equated under any circumstance, so I don’t know how disbelief or belief can in any way be a wash.
Now, you are right that there are many belief systems and you could pick any one, hence the basic idea of “piety”, within a theistic belief system, seems arbitrary. But I think its possible that sincere belief in a particular model of piety, even if the “real” God prescribes the exact opposite, is still worthy of reward. For instance, the Apostle Paul was given the question: “What about the people who don’t hear Christ’s message before Judgement Day? It’s not their fault they didn’t know!” Paul answered “Those who never knew the Word of God, but lived a pious life according to their beliefs will be given an opportunity for salvation in the afterlife.” (not quoting verbatim chapter and verse, but you get the idea).
In other words, as long as you are sincerely pious, you can’t go wrong. As long as you come to truly believe that what you’re doing is right, even if it isn’t, you’re innocent. If you willfully disobey your god, even if it’s not GOD, you’re impious. But if you obey your god, even if your god doesn’t exist and prescribes behaviors that are contrary to the real God’s commandments, you still have an in, because it’s possible, after you die, you’ll get an opportunity to accept the real God.
And since there’s a possibility the real God will send you to Hell for A) being impious within your given belief system and/or B) being impious within the real belief system when confronted with it (be it in this world or the next), you had better be pious, because it’s still too risky to not be.
I guess you could get into trouble if, in this life, you believe something, and an evangelist of the Real God speaks to you the Truth. According to Paul, if you refuse the call, you’re damned. But I think Paul hits a logical problem here: What if your god says you’ll be damned if you take any god but Him? Along comes Paul, and tells you “Jesus is Lord.” “Well, no He isn’t”, you piously reply, “and my god tells me not to listen to the likes of you, so begone you infidel!” It seems to me, according to Paul, you both did the right and the wrong thing. You were pious within your belief system, which required you to refuse his message of the Good News. It’s a catch 22. But Paul specifically made an allowance for pious non-believers in the event they never heard the Gospel. How do you define “hearing the Gospel”? Merely the physical act of hearing it, or truly listening, comprehending, and refusing? I think Paul really blows it with this one; however, he does get it right in that if God were fair, He’d never cosign non-believers to perdition of they never had a chance to hear the Word. I take this to mean they never were in a position to take the Gospel seriously, which is how I would (and I’m guessing Paul would, if pressed for clarification) define “hearing”.
So, I assert again, just be sincerely pious, within your given belief system. The rest takes care of itself. Plurality does not necessarily negate the logic of Pascal’s Wager.
In response to the OP,
I don’t know how anyone could not believe a God exists. Of course I’m not trying to convince you or anyone here that God does exist, just giving my 2 cents. But for me, the fact we exist in and of itself is enough to convince me. When I try to give the idea that everything just exists for no good reason, humans included, some consideration I just laugh. Individual elements and atoms came together billions of years ago, and for some reason, through some miracle (sorry), life just magically appeared, because that is it’s nature, to form intelligent life? Now that requires faith to believe. And tell me how does something like love exist? I can’t even mention all the things that make me believe in a God, there are too many. Honestly, and I mean it, I don’t know how people can believe there is no God. I mean, don’t believe in Jesus, don’t believe in Christianity or any other religion, fine, that is a entirely other argument, but no God? How is this in question? I guess I’m the kind of person who says “just look at the Sun every morning, or your son or daughter and tell me there is no God,” (and thats exactly what some people believe :rolleyes: who is this dense?) unfortunately though, I understand these things will never be good enough for most people. One thing is for sure, there’s really no point trying to convince anyone who has their mind made up. No one could ever convince me there is no God, and I probably could never convince anyone here there is a God.
Sleeping, I think I addressed the problem of religious plurality and habituation in my reply to Ramanujan. Also, the whole thing about choice seems to run contrary to the idea of Free Will. How Free Will and the existence of God can be reconciled is beyond the scope of this discussion, but I think it’s fair to say many of come up with logically sound arguments that run counter to your assertion.
Now, as to your first point:
Self interest can be negated as soon as you come to believe. Here’s an example: I, following Pascal’s recommendation, even though I don’t believe a damn word of it, go dutifully to the local Catholic church every Sunday. I say my prayers. I go to confession and do penance. Now, according to Pascal (and it’s possible he’s right in some circumstances) my religiosity leads to sincere belief through habituation. So, I have an epiphany: Oh, Loopy, you damned fool, instead of loving God because He loves you and is Good, you only pretended to believe, and came to pray only out of your own cynicism. Oh I shall burn! Just as always, I go to confession: “Father” I say “I have sinned!” and I tell him the nature of my sin. “Son,” says the padre, “why do you feel this is a sin?” “Because,” I wail, “I lied to you and to the Holy Church; I came to pray not for the sake of God, but for the sake of myself; because I feared I might burn, not because I had faith in His salvation!” “My Son!” cries the priest “This is indeed a grave sin, as you have said yourself! But it seems to me your remorse is genuine.” “Oh, Father, it is!” I weep. “I have betrayed you, and my dear Lord Jesus Christ. I am not worthy of His Kingdom.” “Son,” says the Priest “the Scriptures tell us that none are worthy: Only through Christ are we saved, so we must believe in Him. Do you believe?!?” “YES father, I do believe!” (and I really do, I’m not kidding around this time) “Do you ask with an open heart to be forgiven for your sins, and do you see the error of your ways?” “Yes! Oh Jesus Christ forgive me!” (and I really REALLY mean it). “Son, for the graveness of your sin, you will have to do great penance; but know, that if you do this penance, and if you have confessed your belief in Christ to me in truth, then you shall be forgiven, and the Kingdom be open even to you, as it is to all sinners who take Christ into their hearts!”
So, I’m all set.
And if I never get to this point…well, as Pascal says, to avoid an eternity in Hell it’s worth a try.
Now back to my problem with infinity!
[QUOTE=Maggy May]
In response to the OP,
I don’t know how anyone could not believe a God exists."
I also believe that there has to be a God. How can this all just be a coincidence? It’s too perfectly assembled, I think. But I’d bet that this diety we(I am a Christian, so I guess “we” doesn’t apply to most.) believe in is probably nothing like the “character” that we’ve come to expect–history usually shows us that most of mankind’s presumptions are false.
I still doubt whether there is a ‘personal God’. I just can’t see the reality in a diety who bothers to manipulate the every day lives of human beings. Has anyone reading this ever experieced something that made you believe that there is a ‘personal God’?
-gunner