{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
6/11/2013 7:06:06 PM
6
Consider this:
If you think as an Atheist does, you have but two outcomes when you die, because we ALL die, including you:
Scenario 1: When you die, you will lose your consciousness. This also implies that everything you ever did is meaningless, and you will never see any of your friends, family, loved ones, pets, etc. ever again. Can you even fathom not having a consciousness? Doesn't feel good to think about that, does it. Surely this is a type of hell.
Scenario 2: When you die, there IS an afterlife, and you just spent your earthly existence denying God. Another hell.
OR... you could be optimistic, and believe that there IS a God, and that God set up this world in His infinite wisdom to test us and see what we would do out of His presence. This means that you will be together with your family in heaven, and will be able to enjoy a world far better than this one we live in now and everything you did had meaning.
On one hand, you have only one of two hells and nothing to gain. On the other, you have everything to gain and nothing to lose. The things you can gain by belief include (but are certainly not limited to): Peace, joy, happiness, afterlife, etc...
SO. Which of these two options is undeniably better? I think we all know the answer.
English
-
Bearbeitet von Winy: 6/11/2013 8:14:27 PMYou just posted a drawn-out explanation of Pascal's Wager, an argument that hasn't been taken seriously for centuries. It is a fundamentally flawed argument.
-
What if the Muslims are right? Everything you said is irrelevant because you're going to hell either way.
-
Very well said.
-
So... we should hold back scientific advancement because there might be a dragon in the cave?
-
Bearbeitet von Arrogant Bastard: 6/11/2013 7:14:06 PMPascal's Wager'd. [quote]The first problem lies in the implicit yet unstated assumption that we already know which god we should believe in. That assumption, however, is not necessary to the argument, and thus the argument itself does not explain which religion a person should follow. This can be described as the “avoiding the wrong hell” dilemma. If you happen to follow the right religion, you may indeed “go to heaven and avoid hell.” However, if you choose the wrong religion, you’ll still go to hell.[/quote] [quote]A second problem is that it isn’t actually true that the person who bets loses nothing. If a person bets on the wrong god, then the True God (tm) just might punish them for their foolish behavior. What’s more, the True God (tm) might not mind that people don’t bother believing in it when they use rational reasons — thus, not picking at all might be the safest bet. You just cannot know.[/quote] [quote]A third problem is the unstated premise that the two choices presented are equally likely. It is only when two choices are equal in probability that it makes sense to go with the allegedly “safe bet.” However, if the choice of a god is revealed to be a great deal less likely than the choice of no god, then god ceases to be the “safe bet.” Or, if both are equally likely, then neither is actually a “safe bet.”[/quote]
-
Bearbeitet von RC5908: 6/11/2013 8:12:29 PMSorry, wrong reply :P
