Well, I understand your thinking, but dogs have personality and spirit, but not souls. I do think they will be present in heaven and they will know us and us them . It is not a matter of fear, it is a matter of truth. I'm not sure of what you mean by control. The bible states that if the Son (Christ) sets you free, you are free indeed. (John 8:36) That means one is set free from the law of sin and death, as explained in scripture. In fact, "For God has not given us a spirit of fear and timidity, but of power, love, and self-discipline." (2nd Tim.: 1:7) If you are one who is prone to probability and gambling, and enjoy such things as lotteries, betting on horse races, etc. I suggest that you ponder upon Pascal's wager. Pascal was a famous and brilliant mathematician, as well as a Christian adherent, and I often used his work in my teachings while working as a math instructor. In short, his conjecture is based upon the premise that a person who is placing his destiny upon a wager. One should know what's at stake, and consider very carefully the odds, and what the outcome is if one were to lose. Its worth thinking about.
The control I'm referring to is simply setting rules for behavior to control the masses, such as the Ten Commandments. As for placing destiny upon a wager... so people should believe or they will suffer the consequences? Suffering eternal damnation if they do not accept the teachings of organized religion? I'm not a betting person and I fully expect death to simply be the end of consciousness; that is my destiny. I do not fear death or expect to burn in hell. I feel I am a good person, if a bit misguided. So I suppose "what's at stake" isn't a viable concern of mine. ETA--as for dogs, I don't believe you know whether they have a soul. But I believe I do know.
I have a rule never to challenge anyone's religious beliefs. If I ever actually caused anyone to lose their belief in God I'd feel terrible.However, this is more a philosophy discussion than a religious one. For those (including myself) who need to refresh their memory of what Pascal's Wager is : Pascal's wager is an argument in philosophy presented by the seventeenth-century French philosopher, theologian, mathematician and physicist, Blaise Pascal (1623–1662).[1] It posits that humans bet with their lives that God either exists or does not. Pascal argues that a rational person should live as though God exists and seek to believe in God. If God does not actually exist, such a person will have only a finite loss (some pleasures, luxury, etc.), whereas if God does exist, he stands to receive infinite gains (as represented by eternity in Heaven) and avoid infinite losses (eternity in Hell).[2] Pascal's Wager was based on the idea of the Christian God, though similar arguments have occurred in other religious traditions. The original wager was set out in Pascal's posthumously published Pensées ("Thoughts"), an assembly of previously unpublished notes.[3] Historically, Pascal's wager was groundbreaking because it charted new territory in probability theory,[4] marked the first formal use of decision theory, existentialism, pragmatism, and voluntarism.[5] One difficulty I have is with the term 'seek to believe'. Is what we believe under our control? Can we choose our beliefs? I contend that the answer is largely no. An absurd example: I believe my wife's name is Delores because of all kinds of evidence. One day I go to a gypsy who tells me my wife's name is really Belinda.. Is it rational of me to 'seek to believe' that my wife's name is Belinda? Obviously not. One's fundamental belief system about God is at stake here.To further quote from the above summary: If God does not actually exist, such a person will have only a finite loss. (as opposed to an infinite loss ). Finite vs. infinite is a misleading dichotomy here. To cease believing because of evidence in favor of 'seeking to believe' a more comforting view of reality is a loss- a huge loss. It's surrendering our highest capabilities of thought, mind and rationality to achieve a questionable goal. Whether to describe that loss as finite or infinite is a matter of irrelevant semantics.. As an agnostic, I do not seek to believe. I don't, on the other hand, resist belief. I occasionally pray for things I want or out of gratitude. I find no inconsistency in this. I don't know if God exists. I don't know if he doesn't. I may wish to believe in God rather than believe there is no God, but because I go by evidence the matter is out of my hands. I don't, however, pray for belief. This is an important distinction. If God exists and wants me to believe in Him he might do one of two things: 1) present me evidence of His existence 2) overwhelm me with undeniable revelation.. In neither case have I sought to believe, as is necessary in Pascal's wager.
Way back in my younger days I ran across an interesting notion regarding our ideas about life after death. If I can phrase it properly: Human beings are greatly bothered by the idea of non-existence after their short life. Yet they do not even think about the immeasurable time before they existed on earth. It's as if, to them, the universe did not exist before they were born but continues after their death. . I stopped bothering myself with abstract.things.like this a long time ago, though.
Just in case someone doesn’t follow, here is the wager: There is a God, or there isn’t. So, suppose we form the mathematical chart: what’s at stake is either eternal life with God in joy and ecstasy, or an eternity “in outer darkness”. If one is not a believer, then he has no moral lawgiver, and so he/she is not accountable for any act, good or bad. If one is a believer, then he/she lives in a manner to please their Creator (sinful acts occur, but forgiveness is available). If God doesn’t exist, then at death, both are the same, no matter what life was lived (just go to your front yard and kick a tree trunk- no feeling, no cares, no future, no past, no nothing) – both are in this condition. It is clear to me that the first has an edge on the second, for if this was just a wager, then the second seems to be at a far worse advantage (or should I say disadvantage)
"If one is not a believer, then he has no moral lawgiver, and so he/she is not accountable for any act, good or bad." We have a terminology problem here. The non-believer may not have a 'moral lawgiver' as from a supernatural being outside himself, but does that mean he has no source for morals at all? Possibilities are from intuition within himself or rules from his community or rules from his own observation and education. Aquinas' contention that for morals to exist God must exist came up in another discussion I had. I can't resolve that issue or any others along these lines. People have been discussing these things for, literally, thousands of years. For me to think that I, personally, have anything new to add would be arrogance. It's a good thing, however, that we can discuss things like belief as civilized folks. Hugh, I don't begrudge you your faith. I think the world is a better place when people believe in a higher law. Atheists don't give us good societies, witness the Soviet Union and present day China.
I wanted to add something further about Pascal's wager that may be clarifying for some. You can roughly split it in two parts. The first, that one should live as if God existed is simple enough. I think I do that myself. The second, that one should seek.to believe is more problematic and raises the issue of whether or not we should rely on evidence we see to form our view of the universe. That's all from me.
The graphic simply illustrates my point. Fear of "eternal suffering" does not entice me to "believe." And as Mad Max said, believing is not a choice; one simply believes or does not. We agnostics fall somewhere in the middle, hopeful but not convinced.
Thank you, Dwight, that was a good thing to say. My favorite apologist was Ravi Zacharias, who unfortunately passed away recently. I used to listen to him faithfully every Sunday on his weekly broadcast. He often gave lectures on morality and spoke at universities and churches around the world - a great thinker. His website is still available, and one can read his lectures and sermons. Once he said “The denial of an objective moral law based on the compulsion to deny the existence of God results ultimately in the denial of evil itself.” I have often thought about this: (this has actually happened several times): A Chicago gang is driving around looking for someone in a rival gang, and accidentally shoots and kills a young innocent girl playing on the front porch. The shooter has never been found. Suppose the atheists are right, and the shooter dies, there with no penalty for this crime. Can we call this justice? I think justice is another facet that is built into our nature – and here it says to us “This in not right!” The atheist says to me “morality is a built-in facet that has evolved from eons for survival of the species”, but that surely does not seem to apply to this (and many other events that we see taking place today). As for evidence that the unbelievers always ask for, there is plenty, but it would take too much space beyond what is allowed here to give it. Here is just one example. Look at Israel, and God's promise in Isaiah 66:7-8 (written about 2800 yr ago, between 700 and 600 B.C.) God promised that he would cause a nation to be born in one day (speaking of Israel) '"...7 Before she was in labor,she gave birth;before she was in pain,she delivered a boy. 8 Who has heard of such as this? Who has seen such things? Can a country be born in a day or a nation be delivered in an instant? Yet as soon as Zion was in labor, she gave birth to her children.… This happened in 1948 (in 1 day) - when "the world" briefly felt sorry for the Jews and returned Israel to them and they were able to declare independence for Israel as a united and sovereign nation for the first time in 2,900 years, just as God promised.
I don't believe that truly evil people have any thoughts about religion whatsoever, so in that regard they are not necessarily atheists; just psychopaths. And how many wars have been fought over religion since the beginning of time? It troubles me that some killing is apparently A-OK. You can pull out all the philosophers and Bible verses, but in the end those are just another man's opinion.
As for evidence that the unbelievers always ask for, there is plenty, but it would take too much space beyond what is allowed here to give it We can allow ourselves as much space as we want until we get kicked out. LOL I will listen to what Ravi Zacharias has to say. Justice. That's a hard one. Does it exist outside of ourselves or is it a human invention? I think we invented the idea. It's a goal but not a fact. In pursuing that goal we become better people and build better societies. You offer evidence from scripture. How can I disagree without offending you? You believe the Bible is the word of God and I don't. Again, I have not the slightest desire to dissuade anyone from their religious convictions. As I think I've hinted at, I'm a little envious .of people with strong religious faith. My perception of the universe is often quite uncomfortable to live with. The denial of an objective moral law based on the compulsion to deny the existence of God results ultimately in the denial of evil itself. I pose myself as an exception. I'm an agnostic who knows that evil exists. I can't fully explain that.
For those of you who don't accept the bible, all I can say is that there is not much basis for my arguments at all, and I admit to that. If I just gave my opinions, I would expect everyone to totally dismiss my thoughts, and I wouldn't blame you at all. Opinions are a dime a dozen, and worth nothing. So then that pretty much is the end of it. I love to debate biblical issues, if it can be done in a friendly fashion, without any scoffing, sneering or vitriolic accusations, and I appreciate that, so far, everyone here has been very courteous and respectful. So I thank you for that. If I have said anything to offend anyone, I am sorry, its just that I have an enthusiasm for the written word and try (often fail) to live by it.
The whole affair of the “wager” creates a rather disingenuous attitude in that if one’s beliefs are based solely on the threat of hell or the reward of heaven, there is no indication of a personal relationship with God. Question: Why do you believe in God? Answer: Because I’ll go to heaven for eternity How about: Because I want to be with God, whom I love, for an eternity. It’s like someone you have been at war with is knocking at your door. You can choose to answer or leave the door closed. If you open the door, do you invite the person in or leave him outside to say whatever it is he wants to say? Now, in my world, I do not trust anyone so we would have bridge that trust issue and if warranted, then I might invite him in to speak further, and more comfortably. So, now that the visitor is in the house, do you allow him to walk about the house? Certainly NOT. The bed isn’t made, there’s dishes in the sink, the litter box hasn’t been emptied in 2 days and there’s a whole big basket of laundry sitting and waiting to be laundered. Who would indeed allow a visitor to roam about the house to see such a mess? Besides, you still haven’t figured out what that visitor is offering. How about if it is only friendship? In my case (and others) it’s not a matter of rewards. It’s about having a fully trusting relationship with He whom I was at war with for so long. I questioned Him when I opened the door, I questioned Him when I allowed him into my house but eventually, after some time, I gave him the run of the whole house no matter how messy, loathsome or seemingly clean I think it is. If my laundry needs folding, he helps me fold it, if the bed isn’t made properly, He helps me make it and yes, if the litter box is full, sometimes He empties it Himself if He thinks I can’t handle it. He whom I call the Father, is my friend and as a Father and a friend, I wouldn’t intentionally do anything that might give him pause to end our relationship. It’s really that simple. Get the rewards out of the equation and you either have a relationship with God, or you do not.
Thanks Bobby, those are some very insightful thoughts, and good points to make. I only brought up the Pascal wager because of the original post of unfailingly believing that there is no God. I know its a weakness on my part, but I am concerned that many who feel this way have not carefully considered what's at risk. Believe me, when I was working with youth (for 38+ yrs) in teaching, I ran into many, many atheists and had many discussions, as I was the faculty sponsor of a weekly bible study, where a Campus Crusade person led the discussions. We even had at one time, some Muslims who attended back when the Shah was in power and a great many Iranians were taking courses at American community colleges. I would only say that my concept of heaven is to do exactly what you said, and that is to be with God and enjoy His presence forever. It saddens me to think that some will miss it. I do not say that arrogantly or smugly, but with contriteness and humility.