Best argument FOR God that you've heard....

I think there is some word play here. Belief in God is predicated on the belief that God exists. You cannot separate belief in God and acceptance of God's existence.

 

There was a popular movement in the early church among a group of people called Marcionites after Marcion. They believed that Jesus was a different God altogether apart from the God of the Old Testament. Is that what you are saying here? Or do you believe Jesus was not God but the Old Testament God was the true God? What do you mean when you make a distinction between the, "Biblical God and the Biblical Jesus?"

 

"No man can serve two masters." Think I read that somewhere once.

 

What do you mean by "argument FOR God"?

1) Whether it exists?

2) Whether it is a "good" entity based on the assertions from the Bible (and assuming, for the sake of argument only, that those assertions are true)?

3) Whether its plan for humans and other species is "good", again based on the assertions from the Bible (and again assuming, for the sake of argument only, that those assertions are true)?

4) Something else?

 

Sure you can. I conclude the Abrahamic God exists in the minds of its believers, but withhold any belief that it exists in reality (i.e., outside of the minds of believers). How does that affect your claim?

 

No wordplay at all. Inherent in Pascal's Wager (and it's variations) is agnosticism, otherwise it wouldn't be a wager at all. It just says, SINCE WE DON'T KNOW, we should err on the side of believing. But this is in no way an argument that God ACTUALLY exists, only that believing in God is a better "bet", in the sense that you lose less if you're wrong and gain more if you're right.

Example: Choose heads or tails. You win $1000 if you pick heads and are correct, you win 5$ if you pick tails and are correct. Heads is obviously the better bet, but this in no way means that heads is more likely than tails to be the actual result.

 

You said, "the Biblical God and the Biblical Jesus are very different entities", but you didn't explain what you meant by saying it. Who do you mean by saying that?

 

You are talking about acknowledging the beliefs of others. You don't believe what they believe. You don't believe God exists so you wouldn't have that belief personally. But they do. You're acknowledging their belief doesn't disprove that belief by your lack of belief.

 

Beliefs exist so if people believe in God then God exists. The fundamental problem with religions generally, save perhaps Buddhism, is the compulsion to think of God as a human-like entity.

- - - Updated - - -

I mean the Biblical God and the Biblical Jesus

 

Do you believe Jesus is God? That's what I'm driving at.

 

I was responding to your claim that, "You cannot separate belief in God and acceptance of God's existence." I demonstrated that I do exactly that. I stated that I believe the Abrahamic God exists in the minds of believers but I withhold belief the entity exists in reality. I'm not trying to disprove their belief. I'm actually acknowledging that they believe.

Some folks, myself included, separate (i) "belief in God" and (ii) "acceptance of God's existence" quite easily. Therefore, your claim only applies to theists, not to everyone.

 

The earth is flat.

 

I think you could have come up with something better than comparing a wager about belief in God and a wager about a head or tail...unless it was for illustrative purposes. I don't disagree that it is a wager. My contention is that there is a bit of wordplay going on between believing in God and accepting his existence as fact. I don't deny Pascal's Wager for what it is. My point is that saying you believe in God, by definition, is also saying you believe God exists.

 

No, beliefs exist, so if people believe in God then the belief in God exists, not God itself. Believing in a thing does not make that thing real.

No argument there.

 

I'm not talking about your belief that belief in God exists in other people's minds. If I ask you if you personally believe in God and you say yes, then I can reasonably conclude that you believe God exists, no?

I think there might be some confusion on both our parts as to what is being meant. I'm talking about a personal faith and not your faith or belief that other people believe in God. Im stating that to the believer, they both believe in God and that he actually exists in reality. They are one and the same in that sense.

 

Yes, it clearly was for illustrative purposes, and the point was to illustrate that you are simply betting on an unknown. You are not gaining any insight into the reality of the situation, and so the unknown remains an unknown.

Of course "believing in God" is the same as "believing God exists". The point is that belief doesn't mean anything in itself; it isn't an argument for God actually existing, only for people believing that God exists. And in the case of Pascal's Wager, I don't really know if it is even an argument which would produce true belief anyway. To use the coin flip analogy, the bigger payout for heads would certainly entice people to BET on heads, but anyone with the capacity for reason knows that heads is still no more likely to show in reality, no matter how much the payoff is increased.

 

The OP references God of the Bible, not Deckel's God. The Bible has a whole big section with no Jesus in it at all, and then the God of that secton begotted a son. Seems pretty clear the Bible has two different actors.

 

One of the three Abrahamic religions claim this. When I studied this in some detail, I noted that the claims regarding Jesus in the various NT books, once put in the actual chronological order of their writing, subtly changed/elevated from Jesus as man/prophet to Jesus as divine sky fairy. Of course, the redactions, additions and changes made to those books in the subsequent centuries afterwards (but before the invention of the printing press) certainly enhanced that fundamental theological shift. The adoption of the Christian religion by the Roman Empire also had a major influence - compelling its citizens to adopt Orthodox Christianity or die.

I observe that the Christian religion evolved in the early centuries towards creating a tenet that Jesus was God and this has survived to the present day. Other sects of the religion, which did not follow this particular tenet, did not survive and indeed were suppressed by the others.

 

I agree that belief in God is not an argument for existence. And I can agree that believing something doesn't make it true. And I don't believe Pascal's Wager would be an effective tool for producing true believers. A few, maybe. And I disagree that belief doesn't mean anything. Maybe not in a tangible sense but surely it means something. Beliefs basically run our lives and how we interact with each other. Not totally, of course, but you get my point.

 

Bart Ehrman has many fine books on how Jesus became God. It indeed appears to have been an evolution-if you will, of some sorts. I mentioned Marcion in an earlier post. I appreciate the insight.

 

I didn't mean to say that belief literally means nothing at all. Beliefs clearly inspire actions and have consequences. What I was getting at with that statement was essentially what you agreed to in your first two sentences. It was also the point of my original statement.

Original statement: And yet it is not an argument for God; it is merely an argument for believing in God.

Your statements in agreement: belief in God is not an argument for existence. Believing something doesn't make it true.

With this understanding, hopefully you can now see that there was no wordplay in my post.

 

Covert to our god as the one true faith or we will kill you! - ISIL

Pretty damned effective marketing.

 

I think we have a winner. Coincidentally, the Christian church used that same argument in the past.

 

No confusion, just a subtle difference, but a significant difference.

You are saying, I think, that, "If I ask you if you personally believe in God [existing in reality] and you say yes, then I can reasonably conclude that you believe God exists [in reality], no?"

Of course, I agree, once the bolded text is added for clarification. It is in essence a tautology.

However, if I say "If I ask you if you personally believe in God [existing in the minds of believers] and you say yes, then I can[not] reasonably conclude that you believe God exists [in reality], no?"

You should agree with this. It is not a tautology.

 

Ehrman exhibits mature restraint in his textual criticism yet still explores the edges. Richard Carrier is a bit less restrained, and I note a bit of bias enters some of his arguments, but he certainly is well read and versed in the subject matter and certainly does not feel obliged to the Orthodoxy. Price has his moments, many of which are quite insightful, but I have to plow through much speculation to see those gems.