A Logical Person Would Believe In God

Unfortunately, my opponent appears as if he cannot read because several of his objections he raised in the previous round I had already addressed thoroughly. However, I will refute them again. My Opponent: "Many of Pro's attacks on my case concern how "this debate isn't about the problem of evil, it's about Pascal's Wager", as stated several times by my opponent. " He also cannot count because I said that once. And its true, this debate isn't about the evidence for or against the existence of God, it is about Pascal's Wager. My opponent seems so upset about the problem of evil that I will supply him with a theodicy, hopefully he might get his panties out of a wad about it. SOUL MAKING God has provided the conditions necessary for character development and growth among his creatures. God's intent in creating the world was not to provide a paradise or heaven on earth. God wanted to provide an environment in which beings with moral and spiritual potential could develop and grow in the direction of completeness. But this requires that we be able to cultivate virtues that can't result from a trouble-free existence. Thus God had to allow trouble into the world. The purpose of this world is soul-making. And that is an enterprise that results from grappling with sin, suffering, and pain. Four distinct factors are required for this theodicy. (a) There must be free-willed beings. Moral character cannot be stamped on a person from outside; it must be freely cultivated. (b) There must be an environment in which these beings can exercise their freedom in morally significant ways. That means there must be real moral choices. And there mjst be stable natural laws as the backdrop and stage for moral decision making. A world in which the laws of nature changed all the time would not be context in which rational decisions could be made about how to act. How would you help a thirsty man man if the glass of water you give him could burst into flames? Or How could you feed a starving child if the sandwich you give her could turn into a snake or stone? Stability provides for moral decision making and moral action. But in a stable world, wrong choices can have bad results. (c) There must be challenges to the characters of the free beings who have been created. In a morally frictionless universe, no one would grow. We grow through conflict and difficultly. So problems must exist. (d) There must be opportunities for these free beings to respond virtuously as well as viciously to their challenges. The suffering in the world can't thus all be utterly overwhelming. And we can't be led by the hand, metaphysically speaking. We need elbow room for making mistakes as well as for doing good. TA-DA! !! My opponent said that the problem of evil severely makes a God less likely, however, I could stand here all day stating philosophical arguments for a god's existence: a) Ontological Argument b) Cosmological Argument c) Argument from Design d) Religious Experience e) Near Death Experiences f) The Law of the Conservation of Engery g) Etcetra, etcetra, etcetra So, therefore, since the idea of a God cannot be credited or discredited we should believe in God based on Pascal's Wager. My Opponent: "Let's say that I choose to live in the 1400s and believe that I will fall off the edge of the earth and plummet to my death if I sail too far offshore. Using the same principles as Pascal's wager, I should refrain from boating because there is a "0.000001% chance" of me falling to my death. This, however, is ridiculous, as it is scientifically proven that the earth is not flat. Likewise, if the existence of God can be logically proven false, Pascal's wager is rendered useless. " If you lived in the 1400s that wouldn't be bad of a course of action. If I lived back then I would certainly refrain from sailing all the way around the world. However, this isn't comparable with Pascal's Wager because via the voyage of Christopher Columbus we learned indisputably 150% that the world is not flat. However, as of July 17, 2009, we have not been able to prove 150% indisputably that a God does not exist. My Opponent: "How does the gambler benefit in Pascal's wager if: -God is malevolent? -God bases judgment upon good works instead of faith? -God, being omniscient, knows that the gambler's belief is dishonestly founded? -God bases judgment upon the search towards truth about the world? " First of all, we have no evidence of a God with the above criteria (no holy book, no prophet, etc) and if a God of that nature wanted us to worship him he would at least send us some sort of evidence that he exists. And how does the atheist benefit any more than the theist in the above scenario? CON cannot answer that. My Opponent: "However; his argument in favor of self-interest is opposed my many religions. " No, religion only frowns about self-interest that is above all other interests. My Opponent: "The Wager states that it is best to fake a belief in God, not that it is best to "believe in God and subtly have your psychology convert you to true belief". This is logic, not psychoanalysis. " However, if we become a Christian on Pascalian grounds and you inject yourself into a religious environment, you are going to find it incredibly difficult to NOT become a person of faith. If you sat in a church for at least 6 months you would probably agree with me. The wager is a message to people who are on the fence, it doesn't praise a false belief. It just helps people interject themselves into a religious community where there faith, love, and communion with God can grow. And that is what God will look at when we are judged. It doesn't matter how we got the job, it matters what we did on the job. My Opponent: "Once again, Pro has completely missed the point. This was not a contention but a response to your shrugging off religious beliefs as a triviality in the first round; the gamble Pascal suggests we take is a choice of enormous, world-changing significance, and if Pascal's flip of the coin is wrong, all those who have died in the Crusades and on 9/11 have died to no real purpose. " There will always be violence and wrongful death in this world, and some of it may be a result from religion. But a religion-less society would fair no better, it might actually fair worse. While religion can divide the world, it can also unite. If it wasn't for religion, I think morality would be a very different thing than it is today. Through religion the human race has gained some of its very important beliefs, such as the belief that certain things (such as murder) are wrong. All religions very frankly object to murder, and this is why many people (rightfully so) object to the taking of human life. Without religion, our views on moral issues could be vastly different. ==Conclusion== My opponent has still not challenged the very underlying nature of the Wager. Quite frankly he hasn't because he can't. No matter what criticisms are made about the wager, based on what we know about several religions and Gods, theists will be rewarded and atheists will be punished. If you on the fence, why take the gamble. TO all y'all atheists out there: If you turn out to be wrong, HAVE A NICE TIME IN HELL!