| Revision as of 08:12, 22 November 2005 editASigIAm213 (talk | contribs)153 editsNo edit summary← Previous edit | Revision as of 04:16, 24 December 2005 edit undoImmanuel Amori (talk | contribs)1 editm Why Pascal is rightNext edit → | ||
| Line 8: | Line 8: | ||
| I think that Pascal's wager could be stated more fully. It seems odd to spend one sentence describing it followed by five or more refuting it. ] 18:12 Mar 5, 2003 (UTC) | I think that Pascal's wager could be stated more fully. It seems odd to spend one sentence describing it followed by five or more refuting it. ] 18:12 Mar 5, 2003 (UTC) | ||
| == Why Pascal is right == | |||
| The only reason that anyone would reject God has to do with his or her way of life. Because, according to Pascal--and his assertions are correct--one whoives a good life need only follow the path of God, because they are already living well. Why deny God and then follow the rules? Therefore, one makes a conscious decision, because of their choices in life, to merely reject Pascal because he or she does not live well, and therefore cannot afford to accept such a Truth. | |||
| Think about it; laws can only exist if we believe that there is a reason for those laws. If we believe that our Reason--that is God--is not reasonable, then how can we truth those who say that they have reason, but deny how they received that. Murder is a perfect example. You cannot say that murder is wrong, but then say it is because there is no ultimate point to life--that there is no Divine Truth. Ultimately, you decide whether or not you want to believe, because you decide whether you can handle the Truth with your lifestyle. Pascal is 100% correct. The article should spend more time speaking the truth, and less time trying to pick it apart. I wonder what kind of person could have possibly written something like that? | |||
Revision as of 04:16, 24 December 2005
Simply writing Pascal’s wager off as a false dilemma shows how clearly opinionated this article is, and shows clearly that the writer DOES NOT BELIEVE IN GOD. God the Creator is One, and is the God described in all the monotheistic beliefs, such as Islam and the Jewish faith alongside Christianity.
Claiming that a different kind of god may exist than the God, who has presented Himself to mankind through the prophets, is even more preposterous that claiming that there is no God at all.
Therefore Pascal’s assertion that to deny the existence of God one loses everything (i.e. will abode in Hell for eternity) is clearly true, when God exists. And indeed, as long as one is not forced to martyr oneself for one’s faith, one loses nothing by believing in God.
- I'm not sure I understand your argument, but if you have something to add to the article, feel free to do so. Specifically, I don't see what makes you certain that the God of Abraham is the only god that could exist. What proof is there than Hinduism or Shintoism isn't the correct religion? In addition, plenty of people believe in the God of Abraham but don't believe that nonbelievers will be damned to Hell for all eternity. What proof is there that any of these belief systems are correct? None, they are all based on faith. Tuf-Kat
I think that Pascal's wager could be stated more fully. It seems odd to spend one sentence describing it followed by five or more refuting it. Wesley 18:12 Mar 5, 2003 (UTC)
Why Pascal is right
The only reason that anyone would reject God has to do with his or her way of life. Because, according to Pascal--and his assertions are correct--one whoives a good life need only follow the path of God, because they are already living well. Why deny God and then follow the rules? Therefore, one makes a conscious decision, because of their choices in life, to merely reject Pascal because he or she does not live well, and therefore cannot afford to accept such a Truth.
Think about it; laws can only exist if we believe that there is a reason for those laws. If we believe that our Reason--that is God--is not reasonable, then how can we truth those who say that they have reason, but deny how they received that. Murder is a perfect example. You cannot say that murder is wrong, but then say it is because there is no ultimate point to life--that there is no Divine Truth. Ultimately, you decide whether or not you want to believe, because you decide whether you can handle the Truth with your lifestyle. Pascal is 100% correct. The article should spend more time speaking the truth, and less time trying to pick it apart. I wonder what kind of person could have possibly written something like that?