Replies

why would a god punish people for believing in him? Answer: He wouldn't.

Perhaps He would punish them for believing in Him, but then not behaving well enough, while he let the non-believers off because "they didn't know any better"

"Many Gods Argument"

This is a very good argument, however I really don't see much of a choice. Unless the chance of God existing is zero, then there is still a better chance of believing than not believing. Regardless of the odds, If there is no god, there is still no loss from believing.

This doesn't follow when the beliefs may be mutually exclusive. Picking none may be not as bad as picking the wrong one (and may even get you THE REWARD for reasons like the one I suggested in the last paragraph) .

"The wager may also be criticised for requiring one to choose one's beliefs."

Like I said earlier, the actual argument does not necessarily support the existence of "God" rather the existence of a god(s). The thought that it only supports the existence of a Christian god is a strawman argument, which makes it an easier target.

I think the point here is that "choosing" to believe in one of the available deities is not a true option. We don't "choose" our beliefs in any meaningful way. They enter our minds like viruses. We may be persuaded by reason or adopt faith but such actions are rarely truly volitional in the sense that we choose what to have for dinner.

"Perhaps He would punish them for believing in Him, but then not behaving well enough, while he let the non-believers off because "they didn't know any better""

Now I may be way off base here, but if I understand correctly, ignorance of the law is no excuse. Seriously, if the people had a chance to believe in him, but didn't, then the god(s) would punish the people for refusing him to begin with. Christian beliefs often teach a doctrine that covers this: If there's someone stranded on an island, and dies having never heard the gospel, would he go to hell? The general idea, is that if this person looks at his surroundings and believes there is a god, then he would receive a reward of sorts. This is only possible if someone has never had the opportunity for salvation according to some Christian beliefs.

"This doesn't follow when the beliefs may be mutually exclusive. Picking none may be not as bad as picking the wrong one (and may even get you THE REWARD for reasons like the one I suggested in the last paragraph) ."

I cannot agree with this either, why would the deity you are characterizing punish humans for at least seeking him out?
Answer: He wouldn't.

I will agree that Christian beliefs reflect that if someone has the opportunity to convert from one religion to Christianity, and never do, then they will receive eternal punishment, but I also believe that if someone never has the opportunity to convert, then they would still receive a lesser reward.

"I think the point here is that "choosing" to believe in one of the available deities is not a true option. We don't "choose" our beliefs in any meaningful way. They enter our minds like viruses. We may be persuaded by reason or adopt faith but such actions are rarely truly volitional in the sense that we choose what to have for dinner."

there are contradictions to both sides of the argument here. For example: in Israel, one might have the option of becoming Jewish, or Muslim, or perhaps even Christian, but in a place like medieval Europe, you might be forced to be a Catholic. However, in modern society, I can think of very few scenarios where this actually applies. If you can I'd be interested to hear them.

I'm not to fond of the dinner analogy you use either. Much better to use one like opening a door before you walk through it. If you don't open the door, it's gonna hurt on the other side. And if there is more than one door (I'm not saying there are necessarily, but "if") picking which door to open.

Just curious... I suppose I could figure it out from reading all your posts, but are you affiliated with agnosticism or atheism, or any religion at all?