What if we are wrong?

[Tuck!]

Simple question: do you ever contemplate what may happen if what we believe and how we live is indeed wrong? For example, denying the existence of God only to realize that God is our creator after it is too late. I think this hypothetical could lead to an interesting discussion.

[Derek]

God by definition is bigger than a religion. Maybe you're right and maybe you're wrong, but the point is what would God care if God is God by definition of God.

[Tuck!]

God by definition is bigger than a religion. Maybe you're right and maybe you're wrong, but the point is what would God care if God is God by definition of God.

Different religions take different interpretations of God though. Those interpretations could be wrong. What if they are?

[Derek]

I know but if God is God then God could not be defined. God is outside of and above a definition. I know that's a little off topic for this forum. God to me is all being. That which is greater than conception and understanding. God is the most being. While us humans have potential, God just is actual or the highest form of what one strives for in the good sense.

[Joe Republic]

I know but if God is God then God could not be defined. God is outside of and above a definition. I know that's a little off topic for this forum. God to me is all being. That which is greater than conception and understanding. God is the most being. While us humans have potential, God just is actual or the highest form of what one strives for in the good sense.

And supposing you're completely wrong, and there is no 'God' at all?  That's the point of this discussion.

[Derek]

Then how does something come from nothing? However that is is what we know to be God. A source for all being or All Being.

[Joe Republic]

That's a discussion for another place (even if such discussions have taken place pretty much everywhere all over the internet since not long after it was invented).

The point that Tuck has raised is to ask yourself: what if you're wrong?  Think about it.  Were the Ancient Greeks wrong for being polytheists?  The Vikings?  Pagans?  Are Hindus wrong now?  Buddhists?  Are they all doomed to some kind of eternal punishment after death because they got it all wrong?

Again, what if you're wrong?

[Associate Justice PiT]

     If I'm wrong, then I'm wrong. It would be unpleasant, but life is too short to spend my time worrying that I might be wrong.

[John Dibble]

Every now and then I think about it, but it's not worth thinking about too hard. You can't decide your beliefs on fallacies like Pascal's Wager which are based on false dichotomies. All anyone can do is examine the evidence they have available and come to their beliefs based on that.

[afleitch]

Best not to be concerned with 'what if's.' There are so many choices made in life you can't reflect on missed opportunities.

[k-onmmunist]

Well. I'll just calmly explain why I chose not to believe in him. And if I go to hell, poop.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

Best not to be concerned with 'what if's.' There are so many choices made in life you can't reflect on missed opportunities.

Amen

[Derek]

Maybe this isn't the discussion for me. In all my years of study I have rationalized that while my religion my not be perfect, my theories are scholarly and supported by sources. I should go through one of my papers and touch up.

[Gustaf]

Someone mentioned Pascal's Wager, but it is such an obvious point to make in this thread that I still feel obliged.

The basic point of it is that there are four possible outcomes:

A: You believe in God, God exists
B: You believe in God, God doesn't exist
C: You don't believe in God, God exists
D: You don't believe in God, God doesn't exist

Outcome A is eternal glory in paradise
Outcome B may be a small loss of comfort in life due to following religious rules, but on the other sense of purpose and all that may provide you with a boost as well.
Outcome C is eternel torture in hell or something along those lines.
Outcome D is the opposite of outcome B.

Pascal then argues that given the infinite good of outcome A and the infinite bad of outcome C, even assigning a very small probability to God existing speaks in favour of believing in Him.

The standard counter is of course that the choice might not be between God and atheism but between a multitude of religions. Even so it would seem that one would be better off picking a religion at random than going with atheism.

[Antonio the Sixth]

If god exists, he is infinitely good and fair. Thus, he will judge me for my actions, and not on my faith in him. That's why I find rather dumb the idea that we should "bet" on God's existence, because we have nothing to lose and a heaven to win : God would know the sincerity of faith and the reason which motivate it.

[Tetro Kornbluth]

Never Believe anything. Then you can't be wrong just not right.

Or Pascal's Wager ftw.

[John Dibble]

Someone mentioned Pascal's Wager, but it is such an obvious point to make in this thread that I still feel obliged.

The basic point of it is that there are four possible outcomes:

A: You believe in God, God exists
B: You believe in God, God doesn't exist
C: You don't believe in God, God exists
D: You don't believe in God, God doesn't exist

Outcome A is eternal glory in paradise
Outcome B may be a small loss of comfort in life due to following religious rules, but on the other sense of purpose and all that may provide you with a boost as well.
Outcome C is eternel torture in hell or something along those lines.
Outcome D is the opposite of outcome B.

Pascal then argues that given the infinite good of outcome A and the infinite bad of outcome C, even assigning a very small probability to God existing speaks in favour of believing in Him.

The standard counter is of course that the choice might not be between God and atheism but between a multitude of religions. Even so it would seem that one would be better off picking a religion at random than going with atheism.

That is once again a fallacy because it presupposes that if a god exists it wouldn't prefer atheists. But what if it does? What if there is a god but it prefers the skeptics, atheists, and agnostics, rewarding them for whatever reason and giving nothing to or outright condemning the believers?

[Gustaf]

Someone mentioned Pascal's Wager, but it is such an obvious point to make in this thread that I still feel obliged.

The basic point of it is that there are four possible outcomes:

A: You believe in God, God exists
B: You believe in God, God doesn't exist
C: You don't believe in God, God exists
D: You don't believe in God, God doesn't exist

Outcome A is eternal glory in paradise
Outcome B may be a small loss of comfort in life due to following religious rules, but on the other sense of purpose and all that may provide you with a boost as well.
Outcome C is eternel torture in hell or something along those lines.
Outcome D is the opposite of outcome B.

Pascal then argues that given the infinite good of outcome A and the infinite bad of outcome C, even assigning a very small probability to God existing speaks in favour of believing in Him.

The standard counter is of course that the choice might not be between God and atheism but between a multitude of religions. Even so it would seem that one would be better off picking a religion at random than going with atheism.

That is once again a fallacy because it presupposes that if a god exists it wouldn't prefer atheists. But what if it does? What if there is a god but it prefers the skeptics, atheists, and agnostics, rewarding them for whatever reason and giving nothing to or outright condemning the believers?

I suppose, but it seems to be a bit of a stretch.

[John Dibble]

Someone mentioned Pascal's Wager, but it is such an obvious point to make in this thread that I still feel obliged.

The basic point of it is that there are four possible outcomes:

A: You believe in God, God exists
B: You believe in God, God doesn't exist
C: You don't believe in God, God exists
D: You don't believe in God, God doesn't exist

Outcome A is eternal glory in paradise
Outcome B may be a small loss of comfort in life due to following religious rules, but on the other sense of purpose and all that may provide you with a boost as well.
Outcome C is eternel torture in hell or something along those lines.
Outcome D is the opposite of outcome B.

Pascal then argues that given the infinite good of outcome A and the infinite bad of outcome C, even assigning a very small probability to God existing speaks in favour of believing in Him.

The standard counter is of course that the choice might not be between God and atheism but between a multitude of religions. Even so it would seem that one would be better off picking a religion at random than going with atheism.

That is once again a fallacy because it presupposes that if a god exists it wouldn't prefer atheists. But what if it does? What if there is a god but it prefers the skeptics, atheists, and agnostics, rewarding them for whatever reason and giving nothing to or outright condemning the believers?

I suppose, but it seems to be a bit of a stretch.

How is it any more of a stretch to think that god exists and prefers anyone in particular?

[Tuck!]

Gustaf, are you arguing that in this hypothetical, God would prefer a believer to a non-believer? To me, I see this as, say, a math problem. You can either get it right, get it wrong, or not answer it at all. Whether you get it wrong or don't answer it, you still haven't solved the problem and reached the correct solution.

[Gustaf]

Someone mentioned Pascal's Wager, but it is such an obvious point to make in this thread that I still feel obliged.

The basic point of it is that there are four possible outcomes:

A: You believe in God, God exists
B: You believe in God, God doesn't exist
C: You don't believe in God, God exists
D: You don't believe in God, God doesn't exist

Outcome A is eternal glory in paradise
Outcome B may be a small loss of comfort in life due to following religious rules, but on the other sense of purpose and all that may provide you with a boost as well.
Outcome C is eternel torture in hell or something along those lines.
Outcome D is the opposite of outcome B.

Pascal then argues that given the infinite good of outcome A and the infinite bad of outcome C, even assigning a very small probability to God existing speaks in favour of believing in Him.

The standard counter is of course that the choice might not be between God and atheism but between a multitude of religions. Even so it would seem that one would be better off picking a religion at random than going with atheism.

That is once again a fallacy because it presupposes that if a god exists it wouldn't prefer atheists. But what if it does? What if there is a god but it prefers the skeptics, atheists, and agnostics, rewarding them for whatever reason and giving nothing to or outright condemning the believers?

I suppose, but it seems to be a bit of a stretch.

How is it any more of a stretch to think that god exists and prefers anyone in particular?

Well...no one believes in this atheist-loving God. He is completely pulled out of thin air. I understand that to an atheist or agnostic the concept of, say, the Christian God might seem ridiculous, but still...there is at least something in the way of evidence however circumstantial for the existence of the Christian God (like people claiming to have had contact with him, all testimonials in the Bible, etc).

The hypothetical God you posted has no basis at all, no one even believes that. So I'd say it is more of a stretch.

One way of looking at it is that it seems extremely odd to suppose that there is a God who has given no sign at all of his intentions or ideas. The Gods of mainstream religions supposedly tell us stuff about how to get to heaven, etc.

Tuck, I'm not sure what you mean. What does getting it wrong or not answering mean here?

[John Dibble]

Well...no one believes in this atheist-loving God.

Isn't that how an atheist-loving god would want it?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Can we really say that other gods people worship aren't the same?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

None of which can actually be considered evidence by itself. It's all contradicted by other religions, and the people in those religions who claim to have had experiences with their own God. If I have to consider that evidence for one religion, I have to consider it evidence for all religions, and since that means it's pretty much all contradictory it has no value in determining truth.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The existence or non-existence of things does not change just because nobody believes in them. Nobody believed in black holes 1000 years ago, and nobody had any reason to. Does that mean black holes didn't exist until someone thought them up? No, of course not.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Why is that odd? Maybe the universe is some grand experiment to such a god, and interfering in any way would ruin the experiment. I could think of any number of other reasons why a god might not interfere. It seems to me that you are thinking it's odd because you are humanizing this god thing - you seem to expect it to behave something like a human might behave, but that's entirely baseless.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Which does not tell us anything about whether or not those claims are true.

[Tuck!]

Tuck, I'm not sure what you mean. What does getting it wrong or not answering mean here?

I'm looking at this through three possibilities.

A: The belief set is true. [your religion is right]

B: The belief set is untrue. [your religion is wrong]

C: The belief set is apathetic or nonexistent. [you don't adhere to a religion]

C may be a bit misleading, since atheism and agnosticism are still arguably belief sets, but for the purposes of this analogy it makes the connection easier because I would translate it to:

A: The solution to the problem is correct.

B: The solution to the problem is incorrect.

C: The problem is ignored or left unsolved.

[Gustaf]

Well...no one believes in this atheist-loving God.

Isn't that how an atheist-loving god would want it?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Can we really say that other gods people worship aren't the same?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

None of which can actually be considered evidence by itself. It's all contradicted by other religions, and the people in those religions who claim to have had experiences with their own God. If I have to consider that evidence for one religion, I have to consider it evidence for all religions, and since that means it's pretty much all contradictory it has no value in determining truth.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The existence or non-existence of things does not change just because nobody believes in them. Nobody believed in black holes 1000 years ago, and nobody had any reason to. Does that mean black holes didn't exist until someone thought them up? No, of course not.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Why is that odd? Maybe the universe is some grand experiment to such a god, and interfering in any way would ruin the experiment. I could think of any number of other reasons why a god might not interfere. It seems to me that you are thinking it's odd because you are humanizing this god thing - you seem to expect it to behave something like a human might behave, but that's entirely baseless.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Which does not tell us anything about whether or not those claims are true.

I understand what you're saying, but I still think you're being a bit ridiculous here. Do you actually believe what you're saying here? Black holes isn't really much of an analogy, for instance, since God isn't a scientific discovery.

And I didn't say it was solid evidence but it's something which is at least better than nothing. The fact that there are several religions with this sort of circumstantial evidence doesn't weaken my case, it just illustrates how extremely out there your atheist-god-idea is. If at least one person claims that something is true I'm more inclined to believe that than something that no one believes in. Of course I know just as well as you or any other rational person that something can be true even though no one believes in it, but it seems pretty far-fetched.

You don't even believe in this atheist-God yourself, so why would anyone else believe in it? I'm not saying that Pascal's Wager shows that you should be a Christian, there is a decent case for belonging to other religions.

Let me put it this way - you may not see any reason for believing in the Christian God. But clearly millions and millions of people do. You may disregard all of those people as idiots but I personally find that unconvincing. The atheist-God you propose is a concept that no one believes in so I can't really put them on the same level.

[John Dibble]

I understand what you're saying, but I still think you're being a bit ridiculous here. Do you actually believe what you're saying here?

Do I believe it? No, but it's as much of a possibility as any other suggestion for god.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Whether it can be discovered scientifically or not again does not change whether or not it exists. Also, it is an assumption that God can't be discovered scientifically. It may very well be possible. We may simply lack the tools right now. Then again it might not be possible, but we don't know for sure.

Also, it's a perfect analogy - the entire crux of your argument is because nobody believes in it makes the idea less likely to be true! Nobody has to believe in something to make it exist. Not one single person. There was zero evidence for black holes 1000 years ago, and not one person believed it. How is that any different from anything else there is no evidence for that nobody believes?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No, it's just as good as nothing. If it's worthless as evidence to show the truth of the claim then you might as well have nothing. So yes it does weaken your case, and no it doesn't make it more far-fetched.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

People believing in something, regardless of their number, does not make something more true.

But if this is the logic by which you live, then know that while I did think up this idea independently (quite a while ago) I am not the only one to think of it. Does the fact that I'm not the only person who thinks of it as a possibility make it any more or less likely to be true? No, of course not, and that applies to every other claim.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Again, how is it any more far-fetched than any of the other god claims?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You're missing the point.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No, it's not a decent case. Do you think any god that actually cares about faith would accept faith based on what is essentially a gamble rather than a deeply held real belief? That's not faith, it's an out and out lie.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Again, the number of people who believe or don't believe in something does not affect it's actual truth status.

Also, believers aren't necessarily idiots - I know quite a few are quite intelligent. Even smart people can be wrong, including atheists and agnostics.