Question for the Resident Athiests

[Dark Virtue]

God has recently shed some Light on this matter, so I will now continue this debate


Just fourteen posts down

I also quoted you as saying MORE than just this saying of yours..

And can add to that from your own words if you like...

You may want to try actually reading it in context.

 

[aka Ash]

A prime example of this is your belief in God. It's based on faith, not logic.

How very untrue.
When My son's life was saved, in prayer, His fever dropping from 106.5 down to 103 in the matter of seconds (it is a long story, I can elaborate), logic deems that there is a greater power at work, one that listened to 3 peoples prayers.

 

[aka Ash]

And please, don't pray for me. Pray for the starving children in Africa or those dying of AIDS or wounded in battle. They need God's help more than I do.

Again, untrue. This world is just a stopping place. What comes after is eternity. You may not want prayer, but our wants and needs are often times different.

 

[Dark Virtue]

How very untrue.
When My son's life was saved, in prayer, His fever dropping from 106.5 down to 103 in the matter of seconds (it is a long story, I can elaborate), logic deems that there is a greater power at work, one that listened to 3 peoples prayers.

You may want to give me your definition of logic, because yours doesn't fit the generally accepted scientific definition.

While I'm happy that your son is fine, there's actually no way to logically prove it was prayer and not anything else. Prayer is not scientifically, and therefore logically, supportable.

Please don't take this personally, but why would God listen to three people and heal your son, when there have been larger prayers made by more people that have gone unanswered. I know, I know, God works in mysterious ways, right? The way God supposedly answers prayers is indistinguishable from random chance.

I'd like your thoughts on this website when you get the chance.

 

[Dark Virtue]

Again, untrue. This world is just a stopping place. What comes after is eternity. You may not want prayer, but our wants and needs are often times different.

What, exactly, about my post was UNTRUE?

My point stands; starving children, those dying of AIDS, those in pain and suffering need God's help far more than I do. There is nothing untrue about that statement.

 

[aka Ash]

You may want to give me your definition of logic, because yours doesn't fit the generally accepted scientific definition.

While I'm happy that your son is fine, there's actually no way to logically prove it was prayer and not anything else. Prayer is not scientifically, and therefore logically, supportable.

Please don't take this personally, but why would God listen to three people and heal your son, when there have been larger prayers made by more people that have gone unanswered. I know, I know, God works in mysterious ways, right? The way God supposedly answers prayers is indistinguishable from random chance.

I'd like your thoughts on this website when you get the chance.

You are right DV, I concede . It might have been the air conditioner that brought his temperature down. Did I mention that my wife insisted on taking him to the hospital when he regained consciousness? Or that by the time we got there he had no fever at all. Or that the Doctor said we were imagining things and he never had that high a fever? No I don't think I did. You're right. Probably the AC helped.

Why would God listen to 3 people? It's inconcievable, right?. Faith maybe, To prove something maybe. Perhaps He has plans for my son. I don't know, nor really care why personally. HE lived, that was what matters, And I praise God for it.
Whether or not you believe it, also doesn't matter. Because He cares, my son lives.

I'll read your article later and comment on it. I'll try after Church tomorrow, after praying and worshipping. Cool?

 

[aka Ash]

What, exactly, about my post was UNTRUE?

My point stands; starving children, those dying of AIDS, those in pain and suffering need God's help far more than I do. There is nothing untrue about that statement.

Why would they need prayer more than you? Maybe some of them have a place reserved in heaven. Yes they need prayer, of course...but Maybe we feel so do you.

 

[aka Ash]

I'd like your thoughts on this website when you get the chance.

Hmmm...ok.I woke up early to check out your article.

I started reading the article, and decided to quit. Why would I quit reading it? Because it is what I believe to be a tool of the devil. Used to try and cast doubt into a Christians mind. Do I know that an amputee has never been healed? I don't know Maybe not miraculously, by making something appear from nothing. I know a man who was a carpenter that actually had a finger cut off. I also know that prayer reattached his finger, with no scar. *shrugs*. Not quite the miracle you were hoping for I guess, evidentally tiny spiders must have sowed his finger together with spider webs until the skin grafted itself. Now I have neither the time or desire to search the internet until I find a case where an amputee has been healed. I do not know if it has ever happened, so I cannot answer why or why not. My personal life is proof enough to me and the Christians around me. The retarded girl that never spoke from down the street, that in the blinking of an eye began speaking full complete sentences at her age level (She was 8), The baby in the womb that was severly deformed during ultrasounds that now plays the drums at his Father's church without any deformity...and is a straight A student, My sisters broken leg, healed instantly, the carpenter and his finger, I could go on.

But why?

After going through these posts I have noticed something. No matter what we say DV, you will never accept. You would make an incredible lawyer. There is NO proof that God exists, answers prayers, etc...except through One's Own Personal Experience. One day there will be proof, but there will also be gnashing of teeth. And truthfully, none of my answers are for you in retrospect. God tells us not to cast our pearls before the swine. I do not mean this as an insult, I assure you. What that means is do not waste your time. I know that my words will never convince you (I am sorry about this, maybe you are right about praying for you, God will either have to intervene or not) BUT, they will help other Christians that read your replies and begin to question God's existence. My purpose is to remind them to look at their lives, and see God. Never to forget his promises. Brothers and Sisters do not fall prey to the lies of the Master Of Deciet. He got Adam and Eve, don't let him get you. And that one day he will be coming for his people, I will gladly be one of them How About You?

 

[Dark Virtue]

Why would they need prayer more than you? Maybe some of them have a place reserved in heaven. Yes they need prayer, of course...but Maybe we feel so do you.

This shouldn't be this difficult to comprehend.

It's because they have immediate, lifethreatening needs. I do not.

While I understand that you feel I need prayer, I fail to understand why you can't comprehend why my needs and the needs of someone in pain, starving or dying would need them MORE.

 

[Dark Virtue]

Hmmm...ok.I woke up early to check out your article.

I started reading the article, and decided to quit. Why would I quit reading it? Because it is what I believe to be a tool of the devil. Used to try and cast doubt into a Christians mind. Do I know that an amputee has never been healed? I don't know Maybe not miraculously, by making something appear from nothing. I know a man who was a carpenter that actually had a finger cut off. I also know that prayer reattached his finger, with no scar. *shrugs*. Not quite the miracle you were hoping for I guess, evidentally tiny spiders must have sowed his finger together with spider webs until the skin grafted itself. Now I have neither the time or desire to search the internet until I find a case where an amputee has been healed. I do not know if it has ever happened, so I cannot answer why or why not. My personal life is proof enough to me and the Christians around me. The retarded girl that never spoke from down the street, that in the blinking of an eye began speaking full complete sentences at her age level (She was 8), The baby in the womb that was severly deformed during ultrasounds that now plays the drums at his Father's church without any deformity...and is a straight A student, My sisters broken leg, healed instantly, the carpenter and his finger, I could go on.

But why?

After going through these posts I have noticed something. No matter what we say DV, you will never accept. You would make an incredible lawyer. There is NO proof that God exists, answers prayers, etc...except through One's Own Personal Experience. One day there will be proof, but there will also be gnashing of teeth. And truthfully, none of my answers are for you in retrospect. God tells us not to cast our pearls before the swine. I do not mean this as an insult, I assure you. What that means is do not waste your time. I know that my words will never convince you (I am sorry about this, maybe you are right about praying for you, God will either have to intervene or not) BUT, they will help other Christians that read your replies and begin to question God's existence. My purpose is to remind them to look at their lives, and see God. Never to forget his promises. Brothers and Sisters do not fall prey to the lies of the Master Of Deciet. He got Adam and Eve, don't let him get you. And that one day he will be coming for his people, I will gladly be one of them How About You?

While I might make a good lawyer, you would not.

Personal experience, is not proof or evidence. What you THINK you see, what you PERCIEVE, may not actually be what occured. You claim that I will never accept what you say. This is true if all you have to offer me is anecdotal evidence. This is NOT true if you can actually furnish me with evidence, proof or logical reason. You, however, are doing far worse by outright refusing to examine logical arguments that are offered to you, hiding under the guise of calling them "tools of the devil". That's like me putting my fingers in my ears and saying I won't listen to you. You are being hypocritical. You expect me to be open to your ideas and arguments, but you refuse to be open to mine. If that is the case, let me know and I will ignore any further posts from you.

If you are even remotely interested in continuing this discussion, I will make a simple point regarding the website. It calls into question prayer because the healings you describe are not observable or testable. I could go on, but if you're not willing to offer me the same respect I offer you, then we need to part ways.

 

[aka Ash]

While I might make a good lawyer, you would not.

Personal experience, is not proof or evidence. What you THINK you see, what you PERCIEVE, may not actually be what occured. You claim that I will never accept what you say. This is true if all you have to offer me is anecdotal evidence. This is NOT true if you can actually furnish me with evidence, proof or logical reason. You, however, are doing far worse by outright refusing to examine logical arguments that are offered to you, hiding under the guise of calling them "tools of the devil". That's like me putting my fingers in my ears and saying I won't listen to you. You are being hypocritical. You expect me to be open to your ideas and arguments, but you refuse to be open to mine. If that is the case, let me know and I will ignore any further posts from you.

If you are even remotely interested in continuing this discussion, I will make a simple point regarding the website. It calls into question prayer because the healings you describe are not observable or testable. I could go on, but if you're not willing to offer me the same respect I offer you, then we need to part ways.

You know as well as I do, and every Christian here, that God's existance and power cannot be proven except through personal experience (oh...and of course at the end of times). I do not expect you to be open to my ideas, I actually expect you to be closed to them. I said before, my posts are not always directed to you, but are directed to other Christians that know God's power, as a witness. Because I don't have a Video Camera and Jesus standing physically next to me in a picture, does not mean that he doesn't exist. Just reminding other Christians to not give up. Faith is all the proof we have as Christians, I am happy to accept that, I have been honored for my faith countless times over. *shrugs* Your belief or lack of doesn't affect what I've seen, nor my walk with the Lord personally. I am just doing my best to help everyone else remember that. I do not need to be a good lawyer in this fact, I have the greatest lawyer, Jesus.

 

[aka Ash]

I do have an interesting question for our resident athiests.

Can you prove that God does not exist? (as we Christians proclaim that he does)

I would have to say that you cannot. So neither one of us can prove our point, beyond a shadow of a doubt, correct?


So...
If He does not exist, and Christians have spent their lives worshipping him, and were wrong, what happens when we die? Do we get punished?

If He does exist, what happens to the person that was exposed to the truth, yet denied Him?

 

[Zeena]

You may want to give me your definition of logic, because yours doesn't fit the generally accepted scientific definition.

While I'm happy that your son is fine, there's actually no way to logically prove it was prayer and not anything else. Prayer is not scientifically, and therefore logically, supportable.

Please don't take this personally, but why would God listen to three people and heal your son, when there have been larger prayers made by more people that have gone unanswered. I know, I know, God works in mysterious ways, right? The way God supposedly answers prayers is indistinguishable from random chance.

I'd like your thoughts on this website when you get the chance.

DV, your scientific method leaves a LOT to be desired.. If fact, I would even go so far as to say it's antiscience

The true definition of scientific methodology is found here --> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

Many prayer "studies" have come forth within society, as key, factual evidence of the health benefits, both to soul, then body --> One such example

This is in no means a difficult study.. And since you claim, quite often to rely on logic.. I for one would like to see that logic based upon factual evidence instead of just your word..

 

[Dark Virtue]

You know as well as I do, and every Christian here, that God's existance and power cannot be proven except through personal experience (oh...and of course at the end of times). I do not expect you to be open to my ideas, I actually expect you to be closed to them. I said before, my posts are not always directed to you, but are directed to other Christians that know God's power, as a witness. Because I don't have a Video Camera and Jesus standing physically next to me in a picture, does not mean that he doesn't exist. Just reminding other Christians to not give up. Faith is all the proof we have as Christians, I am happy to accept that, I have been honored for my faith countless times over. *shrugs* Your belief or lack of doesn't affect what I've seen, nor my walk with the Lord personally. I am just doing my best to help everyone else remember that. I do not need to be a good lawyer in this fact, I have the greatest lawyer, Jesus.

Uh, but your last post WAS directed at me and that is what I was specifically addressing.

Let's assume that you are correct and God does, indeed, exist. You know he exists because you have personal experience that he does.

How then, do you treat others, like myself, that sought God but failed to have any personal experience to prove that he exists? How then, should I treat you, when I try and logically understand why you believe what you believe? If you EXPECT me to be closed minded, then why bother conversing with me? Since respect is reciprocal, should I, in turn, live down to your expectations and BE closed minded? Should I treat you as closed minded, and expect you to always be so?

 

[Dark Virtue]

I do have an interesting question for our resident athiests.

Can you prove that God does not exist? (as we Christians proclaim that he does)

I would have to say that you cannot. So neither one of us can prove our point, beyond a shadow of a doubt, correct?

This is a logical fallacy known as Negative Proof or the Proof of Impossibility. Feel free to google the terms since you are unfamiliar with them.

This fallacy basically states that it's impossible to prove a negative. Can you prove to me that leprechauns or unicorns don't exist? Since you can't prove that they don't, does that automatically mean they do?

In this case the onus (the burden of proof) is on the party claiming the positive, in this case, you since you are the one stating that God positively exists.

So...
If He does not exist, and Christians have spent their lives worshipping him, and were wrong, what happens when we die? Do we get punished?

Logic dictates that there is no punishment awaiting anyway. It's simply a candle being snuffed out. The end. This is simply a logical conclusion since there is no evidence, reason or proof to believe otherwise.

If He does exist, what happens to the person that was exposed to the truth, yet denied Him?

This is another point entirely. This is assuming that a person was given unquestionable proof that God exists and still turned their back on God. This is NOT the case for the vast majority of non-Christians as we have never been furnished with this proof. What you have defined is an apostate, one who has renounced their religious faith. I, and the majority of atheists out there, are infidels, one who acknowledges no religious belief.

 

[Dark Virtue]

DV, your scientific method leaves a LOT to be desired.. If fact, I would even go so far as to say it's antiscience

The true definition of scientific methodology is found here --> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

Many prayer "studies" have come forth within society, as key, factual evidence of the health benefits, both to soul, then body --> One such example

This is in no means a difficult study.. And since you claim, quite often to rely on logic.. I for one would like to see that logic based upon factual evidence instead of just your word..

Erm, isn't this the post calling the kettle black. You made a big accusation but did nothing to back it up. Would you mind explaining why "my" scientific method equates, to you, to antiscience?

Moreover, please explain how, using the scientific method, you would go about proving any of your beliefs. Pick one; the existence of God, prayer, etc.

As I understand it, the scientific method is defined as, "principles and procedures for the systematic pursuit of knowledge involving the recognition and formulation of a problem, the collection of data through observation and experiment, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses". That definition culled from Merriam Webster.

Also, you quoted my post, but failed to remark on the website I listed. Is there a reason for that?

The article that you linked to does nothing to support your view, especially since the artile was a CRITIQUE on the validity of the study in general.

This is an article that I have posted before that is far more to the point: http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2006-03-30-prayer-study-qanda_x.htm

Question: What does the study find about prayer?

Answer: Its authors say the study found that prayer by others has a neutral effect on the risk of complications after bypass surgery. They say that their second finding – that people fare worse if they know others are praying on their behalf – deserves more study.

And the related story: http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2006-03-30-prayer-study_x.htm

n the largest study to examine the effects of this profoundly personal activity, researchers found that asking strangers to pray for heart-bypass patients had no effect on their recovery. In fact, patients who were told that study volunteers were praying for them were actually more likely to suffer a medical complication.

 

[Zeena]

The merits of computating data are indeed straightforward..

The link you posted contains relevant data against the merits of prayer, and the relevant data for the link I posted contains a link for the merits of prayer..

To be truly scientific one must computate ALL relevant links, witness's and testimonies..

How many are FOR Jesus, and how many are against Him...Hrmm?

There will come a time (hopefully in my lifetime) when ALL Christians will be taken from the earth...Then you will have it YOUR way-haha

In the meantime, statistics are quite revealing FOR Christianity =P

 

[Dark Virtue]

The merits of computating data are indeed straightforward..

The link you posted contains relevant data against the merits of prayer, and the relevant data for the link I posted contains a link for the merits of prayer..

To be truly scientific one must computate ALL relevant links, witness's and testimonies..

How many are FOR Jesus, and how many are against Him...Hrmm?

There will come a time (hopefully in my lifetime) when ALL Christians will be taken from the earth...Then you will have it YOUR way-haha

In the meantime, statistics are quite revealing FOR Christianity =P

Zeena, you haven't done anything to answer my questions. You say things and then fail to back them up. As I stated before, the link you posted does NOT contain "merits for prayer". The page you linked to was a CRITIQUE of a study, not a study in and of itself. If you would like me to believe that there are, indeed, true, logical, objective studies that show that prayer works, then by all means post some links. Up to this point, you have not done so.

You keep talking about being "truly" scientific, but you are failing to do so. According to your analogy, I should believe in Bigfoot, ghosts, and ufos, because there are many people that claim they exist. Just because there are many people that claim something does not make that claim positive. That, in and of itself, is a logical fallacy known as ad populum, or an appearl to popularity.

If you are going to play the logic card, you have to be willing to play by the rules of logic. As I have previously stated, you are making a ton of claims, but are doing nothing to back them up.

So, to get back on track, please show me a link to a scientific study that shows prayer works in any scientific or medical journal.

 

[aka Ash]

Uh, but your last post WAS directed at me and that is what I was specifically addressing.

Let's assume that you are correct and God does, indeed, exist. You know he exists because you have personal experience that he does.

How then, do you treat others, like myself, that sought God but failed to have any personal experience to prove that he exists? How then, should I treat you, when I try and logically understand why you believe what you believe? If you EXPECT me to be closed minded, then why bother conversing with me? Since respect is reciprocal, should I, in turn, live down to your expectations and BE closed minded? Should I treat you as closed minded, and expect you to always be so?

My biggest issue here is in myself now. How many people have I missed witnessing to because I spend my time discussing whether God is real or not with someone that is afraid to step out in faith first and then let God reveal himself?
Like I said, there is no proof except through personal experience. Peter walked on water because he had faith and focused on Jesus. When he took his focus off Jesus he began to sink.
How you treat me is irrelevent. Personally you could call me stupid, ignorant, foolish, etc. I wouldn't take offense or care. God knows me, and knows I try my best to witness. Do I fall short? Always, but that's the beauty of his gift. He knows we are not perfect.
One day everyone will have their proof of God's existence, and I am sorry for those that I didn't help, that I could have. I did my best and God will know that and forgive me. That is why Jesus came here.
What is your purpose here...honestly? Do you want proof of God? Or do you want to disprove him? If you want proof...then we do need to pray for you. If you want to disprove him, then we are wasting time. I have my proof, for me and my family, and I thank God daily for all that he has done.

 

[aka Ash]

1 Corinthians 1:25
For the foolishness of God is wiser than man's wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than man's strength.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Just an interesting article I read once. WOW...imagine that, I know who Blaise Pascal was.(have ever since I was a sophmore in HS, at least that's when I was in Calculus, I may have known him before that even.) And some of you assumed, because I refused to "surf the net" for information that was irrelevant, that I was ignorant.

The Argument from Pascal's Wager
Most philosophers think Pascal's Wager is the weakest of all arguments for believing in the existence of God. Pascal thought it was the strongest. After finishing the argument in his Pensées, he wrote, "This is conclusive, and if men are capable of any truth, this is it." That is the only time Pascal ever wrote a sentence like that, for he was one of the most sceptical philosophers who ever wrote.

Suppose someone terribly precious to you lay dying, and the doctor offered to try a new "miracle drug" that he could not guarantee but that seemed to have a 50-50 chance of saving your beloved friend's life. Would it be reasonable to try it, even if it cost a little money? And suppose it were free—wouldn't it be utterly reasonable to try it and unreasonable not to?

Suppose you hear reports that your house is on fire and your children are inside. You do not know whether the reports are true or false. What is the reasonable thing to do—to ignore them or to take the time to run home or at least phone home just in case the reports are true?

Suppose a winning sweepstakes ticket is worth a million dollars, and there are only two tickets left. You know that one of them is the winning ticket, while the other is worth nothing, and you are allowed to buy only one of the two tickets, at random. Would it be a good investment to spend a dollar on the good chance of winning a million?

No reasonable person can be or ever is in doubt in such cases. But deciding whether to believe in God is a case like these, argues Pascal. It is therefore the height of folly not to "bet" on God, even if you have no certainty, no proof, no guarantee that your bet will win.



Atheism is a terrible bet. It gives you no chance of winning the prize.



To understand Pascal's Wager you have to understand the background of the argument. Pascal lived in a time of great scepticism. Medieval philosophy was dead, and medieval theology was being ignored or sneered at by the new intellectuals of the scientific revolution of the seventeenth century. Montaigne, the great sceptical essayist, was the most popular writer of the day. The classic arguments for the existence of God were no longer popularly believed. What could the Christian apologist say to the sceptical mind of this age? Suppose such a typical mind lacked both the gift of faith and the confidence in reason to prove God's existence; could there be a third ladder out of the pit of unbelief into the light of belief?

Pascal's Wager claims to be that third ladder. Pascal well knew that it was a low ladder. If you believe in God only as a bet, that is certainly not a deep, mature, or adequate faith. But it is something, it is a start, it is enough to dam the tide of atheism. The Wager appeals not to a high ideal, like faith, hope, love, or proof, but to a low one: the instinct for self-preservation, the desire to be happy and not unhappy. But on that low natural level, it has tremendous force. Thus Pascal prefaces his argument with the words, "Let us now speak according to our natural lights."

Imagine you are playing a game for two prizes. You wager blue chips to win blue prizes and red chips to win red prizes. The blue chips are your mind, your reason, and the blue prize is the truth about God's existence. The red chips are your will, your desires, and the red prize is heavenly happiness. Everyone wants both prizes, truth and happiness. Now suppose there is no way of calculating how to play the blue chips. Suppose your reason cannot win you the truth. In that case, you can still calculate how to play the red chips. Believe in God not because your reason can prove with certainty that it is true that God exists but because your will seeks happiness, and God is your only chance of attaining happiness eternally.

Pascal says, "Either God is, or he is not. But to which view shall we be inclined? Reason cannot decide this question. [Remember that Pascal's Wager is an argument for sceptics.] Infinite chaos separates us. At the far end of this infinite distance [death] a coin is being spun that will come down heads [God] or tails [no God]. How will you wager?"



We are like ships
that need to get home.



The most powerful part of Pascal's argument comes next. It is not his refutation of atheism as a foolish wager (that comes last) but his refutation of agnosticism as impossible. Agnosticism, not-knowing, maintaining a sceptical, uncommitted attitude, seems to be the most reasonable option. The agnostic says, "The right thing is not to wager at all." Pascal replies, "But you must wager. There is no choice. You are already committed [embarked]." We are not outside observers of life, but participants. We are like ships that need to get home, sailing past a port that has signs on it proclaiming that it is our true home and our true happiness. The ships are our own lives and the signs on the port say "God". The agnostic says he will neither put in at that port (believe) nor turn away from it (disbelieve) but stay anchored a reasonable distance away until the weather clears and he can see better whether this is the true port or a fake (for there are a lot of fakes around). Why is this attitude unreasonable, even impossible? Because we are moving. The ship of life is moving along the waters of time, and there comes a point of no return, when our fuel runs out, when it is too late. The Wager works because of the fact of death.

Suppose Romeo proposes to Juliet and Juliet says, "Give me some time to make up my mind." Suppose Romeo keeps coming back day after day, and Juliet keeps saying the same thing day after day: "Perhaps tomorrow." In the words of a small, female, red-haired American philosopher, "Tomorrow is always a day away. And there comes a time when there are no more tomorrows. Then "maybe" becomes "no". Romeo will die. Corpses do not marry. Christianity is God's marriage proposal to the soul. Saying "maybe" and "perhaps tomorrow" cannot continue indefinitely because life does not continue indefinitely. The weather will never clear enough for the agnostic navigator to be sure whether the port is true home or false just by looking at it through binoculars from a distance. He has to take a chance, on this port or some other, or he will never get home.

Once it is decided that we must wager; once it is decided that there are only two options, theism and atheism, not three, theism, atheism, and agnosticism; then the rest of the argument is simple. Atheism is a terrible bet. It gives you no chance of winning the red prize. Pascal states the argument this way:

You have two things to lose: the true and the good; and two things to stake: your reason and your will, your knowledge and your happiness; and your nature has two things to avoid: error and wretchedness. Since you must necessarily choose, your reason is no more affronted by choosing one rather than the other. That is one point cleared up. But your happiness? Let us weigh up the gain and the loss involved in calling heads that God exists. Let us assess the two cases: if you win, you win everything: if you lose, you lose nothing. Do not hesitate then: wager that he does exist.

If God does not exist, it does not matter how you wager, for there is nothing to win after death and nothing to lose after death. But if God does exist, your only chance of winning eternal happiness is to believe, and your only chance of losing it is to refuse to believe. As Pascal says, "I should be much more afraid of being mistaken and then finding out that Christianity is true than of being mistaken in believing it to be true." If you believe too much, you neither win nor lose eternal happiness. But if you believe too little, you risk losing everything.

But is it worth the price? What must be given up to wager that God exists? Whatever it is, it is only finite, and it is most reasonable to wager something finite on the chance of winning an infinite prize. Perhaps you must give up autonomy or illicit pleasures, but you will gain infinite happiness in eternity, and "I tell you that you will gain even in this life "—purpose, peace, hope, joy, the things that put smiles on the lips of martyrs.



Christianity is God's marriage proposal to the soul.



Lest we take this argument with less seriousness than Pascal meant it, he concludes: "If my words please you and seem cogent, you must know that they come from a man who went down upon his knees before and after."

To the high-minded objector who refuses to believe for the low motive of saving the eternal skin of his own soul, we may reply that the Wager works quite as well if we change the motive. Let us say we want to give God his due if there is a God. Now if there is a God, justice demands total faith, hope, love, obedience, and worship. If there is a God and we refuse to give him these things, we sin maximally against the truth. But the only chance of doing infinite justice is if God exists and we believe, while the only chance of doing infinite injustice is if God exists and we do not believe. If God does not exist, there is no one there to do infinite justice or infinite injustice to. So the motive of doing justice moves the Wager just as well as the motive of seeking happiness. Pascal used the more selfish motive because we all have that all the time, while only some are motivated by justice, and only some of the time.

Because the whole argument moves on the practical rather than the theoretical level, it is fitting that Pascal next imagines the listener offering the practical objection that he just cannot bring himself to believe. Pascal then answers the objection with stunningly practical psychology, with the suggestion that the prospective convert "act into" his belief if he cannot yet "act out" of it.

If you are unable to believe, it is because of your passions since reason impels you to believe and yet you cannot do so. Concentrate then not on convincing yourself by multiplying proofs of God's existence but by diminishing your passions. You want to find faith, and you do not know the road. You want to be cured of unbelief, and you ask for the remedy: learn from those who were once bound like you and who now wager all they have. . . . They behaved just as if they did believe.

This is the same advice Dostoevsky's guru, Father Zossima, gives to the "woman of little faith" in The Brothers Karamazov. The behavior Pascal mentions is "taking holy water, having Masses said, and so on". The behavior Father Zossima counsels to the same end is "active and indefatigable love of your neighbor." In both cases, living the Faith can be a way of getting the Faith. As Pascal says: "That will make you believe quite naturally and will make you more docile." "But that is what I am afraid of.'' ''But why? What have you to lose?"

An atheist visited the great rabbi and philosopher Martin Buber and demanded that Buber prove the existence of God to him. Buber refused, and the atheist got up to leave in anger. As he left, Buber called after him, "But can you be sure there is no God?" That atheist wrote, forty years later, "I am still an atheist. But Buber's question has haunted me every day of my life." The Wager has just that haunting power.



From Fundamentals of the Faith by Ignatius Press.

This text is also available as an audio lecture under:
Arguments for God's Existence

here was the link: Argument from Pascal's Wager by Peter Kreeft