Something I find it rather obvious rationality as to the choice one make as to place our bet on believing there is or there isn't a creator behind creation.
The supporter of creation by chance acknowledge that in the view of the complexities we see that it is a very very very ( a lot of verys) small chance for it to happen. But never the less IT MUST HAPPEN THIS WAY.
So there is no meaning to life, and also no meaning after life.
Another person living believing and being accountable to a creator (he call God), had constructed a purpose as well as a hope for life after death.
If the first person is right, the second person do not suffer any worst off from his bet.
But if the second is right, the first is doomed.
I rather follow the second, it is the most rational choice.
May I bore you with this article, which refutes Pascal's Wager more articulately than I ever could
ReplyDeletehttp://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Pascal's_wager
Would love to know your thoughts and looking forward to your rebuttal in the next blog post :)
"The supporter of creation by chance acknowledge that in the view of the complexities we see that it is a very very very ( a lot of verys) small chance for it to happen"
ReplyDeleteHowever small the chance is one cannot completely rule it out. The more (seemingly) probable answer might not be the right one.
The origins of the universe is mysterious and elusive (for now and maybe forever); invoking God to explain its origin only adds complexity (not of the intellectual kind). Saying that "God did it" explains everything and nothing.
Irrational had correctly point out about the Pascalian Wager. The link in the wiki is worth going through, and it raised a few stand points. Before I throw in my hat to the arguements, I suggest a website that brings this discussion well. veritas.org, as well as RZIM
ReplyDelete