Lee Strobel (1952- ) Quotes:
"Atheist-turned-Christian Lee Strobel, the former award-winning legal editor of The Chicago Tribune, is a New York Times best-selling author of nearly twenty books and has been interviewed on numerous national television programs, including ABC's 20/20, Fox News, and CNN. After a nearly two-year investigation of the evidence for Jesus, Lee received Christ as his forgiver and leader in 1981."
"It was the evidence from science and history that prompted me to abandon my atheism and become a Christian."
"In short, I didn't become a Christian because God promised I would have an even happier life than I had as an atheist. He never promised any such thing. Indeed, following him would inevitably bring divine demotions in the eyes of the world. Rather, I became a Christian because the evidence was so compelling that Jesus really is the one-and-only Son of God who proved his divinity by rising from the dead. That meant following him was the most rational and logical step I could possibly take."
Originally posted by Grampy BobbyHow to trap a theist:
"How to trap an atheist: Serve him a fine meal, then ask him if he believes there is a cook." -Author Unknown
"God is more interested in your future and your relationships than you are." -Billy Graham
Note: Two additional posts of new quotes you may enjoy on the previous page.
Serve him a fine meal and tell him the recipe is lost - therefore god must have done it.
Author - Wolfie
Originally posted by Grampy BobbyA more realistic Pascal's Wager:
"Belief is a wise wager. Granted that faith cannot be proved, what harm will come to you if you gamble on its truth and it proves false? If you gain, you gain all; if you lose, you lose nothing. Wager, then, without hesitation, that He exists."
-Blaise Pascal
http://i.imgur.com/aVSVQ.png
beside all the other issues with it:
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Pascal%27s_wager
It's really weird that believer keep bringing this one up!
--- Penguin.
Originally posted by PenguinPlease forgive the alliterative lead in but I'm curious as to what the Penguin's Wager would propose?
A more realistic Pascal's Wager:
http://i.imgur.com/aVSVQ.png
beside all the other issues with it:
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Pascal%27s_wager
It's really weird that believer keep bringing this one up!
--- Penguin.
Originally posted by Grampy BobbyPenguin would not propose any wager at all since the whole concept is a nonsense: it is not possible to choose to believe something that is clearly just one of an infinite number of possibilities, all of which have equal evidence to support them.
Please forgive the alliterative lead in but I'm curious as to what the Penguin's Wager would propose?
If I roll a dice, I cannot choose to believe it will land on a '3'.
<edit>The RationalWiki link I gave gives a good rundown of the many problems with Pascals Wager. I suggest you give it a read and think hard before ever proposing the argument again.</edit>
--- Penguin.
Originally posted by PenguinOriginally posted by Penguin
"A more realistic Pascal's Wager:
http://i.imgur.com/aVSVQ.png
beside all the other issues with it:
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Pascal%27s_wager
It's really weird that believer keep bringing this one up!
--- Penguin.
A more realistic Pascal's Wager:
http://i.imgur.com/aVSVQ.png
beside all the other issues with it:
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Pascal%27s_wager
It's really weird that believer keep bringing this one up!
--- Penguin."
_____________________________________
> http://i.imgur.com/aVSVQ.png displays an elaborate matrix of dozens of world religions; curiously, it omits simple, unencumbered faith alone in Christ alone as the only possible access to God the Father. Christianity= Relationship.
>http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Pascal%27s_wager offers numerous block paragraphs of analysis and argumentation:
"Pascal's wager: Believing in and searching for Kryptonite on the off chance that Superman exists and wants to kill you. Pascal's wager is an argument based on probability theory and game theory as for why one should live as if God exists, even though this cannot be proved or disproved through reason. It was formulated by Blaise Pascal.
Formulation: Pascal's original formulation of the wager was written down as a fairly short paragraph in Pensées amongst several other notes that could be considered "wagers". Its argument is rooted in game theory and that the best course of action is to believe in God regardless of any lack of evidence, because that option gives the biggest potential gains. Pascal's original text is long-winded and somewhat convoluted philosophy-speak, but it can be distilled more simply:
1. If you believe in God and God does exist, you will be rewarded with eternal life in heaven: thus an infinite gain.
2. If you do not believe in God and God does exist, you will be condemned to remain in hell forever: thus an infinite loss.
3. If you believe in God and God does not exist, you will not be rewarded: thus a finite loss.
4. If you do not believe in God and God does not exist, you will not be rewarded, but you have lived your own life: thus a finite gain.
The gains and losses associated to outcomes 3 and 4 can be thought of as the opportunity costs of feigning belief and living in accordance with religious norms, since these are typically more restrictive than secular laws. These costs are finite because of human mortality. Mathematically, a finite gain or loss is negligible compared to an infinite gain or loss as would be incurred during an eternal afterlife. Therefore, Pascal concluded that it was a much better choice to believe in God rather than not. The Wager can also be seen in table form and it becomes clear that belief gives you a reward or (practically) nothing, while disbelief gives you punishment or nothing:
God exists..... God does not exist
Believe in God: Infinite gain in heaven... Insignificant loss [zero loss]
Disbelieve in God: Infinite loss in hell... Insignificant gain"
> May I ask why you assert that "It's really weird that believer keep bringing this one up!" Interesting wiki capitalizes "God".
Originally posted by Penguin"If I roll a dice, I cannot choose to believe it will land on a '3'." --- Penguin
Penguin would not propose any wager at all since the whole concept is a nonsense: it is not possible to [b]choose to believe something that is clearly just one of an infinite number of possibilities, all of which have equal evidence to support them.
If I roll a dice, I cannot choose to believe it will land on a '3'.
<edit>The RationalWiki li ...[text shortened]... u give it a read and think hard before ever proposing the argument again.</edit>
--- Penguin.[/b]
Of course not; there is no absolute authority in a cup of dice nor in their random roll outcomes in a finite period of time.
Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
Originally posted by Penguin
A more realistic Pascal's Wager:
http://i.imgur.com/aVSVQ.png
beside all the other issues with it:
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Pascal%27s_wager
It's really weird that believer keep bringing this one up!
--- Penguin."
_____________________________________
> http://i.imgur.com/aVSVQ.png displays an elab ...[text shortened]... "It's really weird that believer keep bringing this one up!" Interesting wiki capitalizes "God".
> http://i.imgur.com/aVSVQ.png displays an elaborate matrix of dozens of world religions; curiously, it omits simple, unencumbered faith alone in Christ alone as the only possible access to God the Father. Christianity= Relationship.
Well ok then, imagine one more row and column, each headed "Faith alone in Christ alone". In the intersecting cell, put the "Reward" symbol. In the rest of the column, put the 'Punishment or unpleasant afterlife' symbol and in the rest of the row, put the corresponding majority symbol for that cell's column.
Actually, you don't need to do that at all, it's already there under Abrahamic Variations.
Of course, if you are complaining that the table is not complete, then you also have to imagine an infinity of other rows and columns for all the other religions that have been or could be conceived of. There, fixed.
May I ask why you assert that "It's really weird that believer keep bringing this one up!" Interesting wiki capitalizes "God".
Because Pascal's Wager has been thoroughly demolished so many times.
--- Penguin
Originally posted by Penguin"Because Pascal's Wager has been thoroughly demolished so many times."> http://i.imgur.com/aVSVQ.png displays an elaborate matrix of dozens of world religions; curiously, it omits simple, unencumbered faith alone in Christ alone as the only possible access to God the Father. Christianity= Relationship.
Well ok then, imagine one more row and column, each headed "Faith alone in Christ alone". In the intersectin ...[text shortened]... .[/quote]
Because Pascal's Wager has been thoroughly demolished so many times.
--- Penguin
--- Penguin
If "thoroughly demolished so many times", why not ignore those who continue to regard it as having value? Appears that Pascal's Wager is beginning to take on the shape and contours of the micro version of "If God didn't exist, what possible difference would it make whether or not people put their faith in Him?" -JV Why waste time with an innocuous quotation?
A Dozen Observations on Human Behavior from W. H. Auden
"A real book is not one that we read, but one that reads us." [One reason people are threatened by God's Word]
"All that we are not stares back at what we are." [Result: A lifetime devoted to erecting defense mechanisms]
"Among those whom I like or admire, I can find no common denominator,
but among those whom I love, I can; all of them make me laugh."
"Behind the corpse in the reservoir, behind the ghost on the links,
Behind the lady who dances and the man who madly drinks,
Under the look of fatigue, the attack of migraine and the sigh
There is always another story, there is more than meets the eye."
"We would rather be ruined than changed. We would rather die in our
dread than climb the cross of the moment and let our illusions die." [Wow!]
"Whatever you do, good or bad, people will always have something negative to say." [Ever consider the reasons why?]
"Every man carries with him through life a mirror, as unique and impossible to get rid of as his shadow." [Often unflattering]
"Choice of attention--to pay attention to this and ignore that--is to the inner life what choice of action is to the outer. In both cases, a man is responsible for his choice and must accept the consequences, whatever they may be."
"False enchantment can last a lifetime." [... with eternal consequences]
"Thus, if a painter tries to portray the Seven Deadly Sins, his experience will furnish him readily enough with images symbolic of Gluttony, Lust, Sloth, Anger, Avarice, and Envy, for all these are qualities of a person’s relations to others and the world, but no experience can provide an image of Pride, for the relation it qualifies is the subjective relation of a person to himself. In the seventh frame, therefore, the painter can only place, in lieu of a canvas, a mirror." [blurred by denial]
"God is Love, we are taught as children to believe. But when we first begin to get some inkling of how He loves us, we are repelled; it seems so cold, indeed, not love at all as we understand the word." [Because we equate divine with human love]
"As readers, we remain in the nursery stage so long as we cannot distinguish between taste and judgment, so long, that is, as the only possible verdicts we can pass on a book are two: this I like; this I don't like. For an adult reader, the possible verdicts are five: I can see this is good and I like it; I can see this is good but I don't like it; I can see this is good and, though at present I don't like it, I believe that with perseverance I shall come to like it; I can see that this is trash but I like it; I can see that this is trash and I don't like it." [Acid Quality, Astringent Objectivity... rare, indeed]
Originally posted by Grampy BobbyYes, I should have ignored it, but I couldn't resist. Just in case you might actually read and understand the counter arguments (your response implies you have at least read it). Then you would have no reason ever to use the argument again.
"Because Pascal's Wager has been thoroughly demolished so many times."
--- Penguin
If "thoroughly demolished so many times", why not ignore those who continue to regard it as having value? Appears that Pascal's Wager is beginning to take on the shape and contours of the micro version of "If God didn't exist, what possible difference would it make whether or not people put their faith in Him?" -JV Why waste time with an innocuous quotation?
--- Penguin
Originally posted by PenguinThanks for your reply.
Yes, I should have ignored it, but I couldn't resist. Just in case you might actually read and understand the counter arguments (your response implies you have at least read it). Then you would have no reason ever to use the argument again.
--- Penguin
One question remains unanswered:
"If God didn't exist, what possible difference would it make whether or not people put their faith in Him?" -JV
Originally posted by Grampy BobbyReplace "God" with any other deity or any other supernatural
Thanks for your reply.
One question remains unanswered:
"If God didn't exist, what possible difference would it make whether or not people put their faith in Him?" -JV
being or the FSM, Tooth Fairy etc.
then
you will be able to answer the question.
It really is as simple as that!
(And readily comprehended even by you if you give it a chance)