Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[dattaswami]

This space is infinite and neither you nor I can find its boundary. I cannot show you the existence of hell, heaven or God in this infinite space. But you too cannot show me their absence in this infinite space by taking me up to the boundary of space. Hence, hell may exist or it may not exist.
Here is where a 50-50 probability has to be accepted. Suppose, I believe in the existence of hell and hence, I do not commit sins. Even if, after my death, I find out that there is no hell, there is no loss for me. While I am still alive, I have already enjoyed the benefit of living a tension-free life and not having to bother about the police and courts, since I have not committed any sins. On the other hand, if you commit sins believing that hell does not exist and after your death, if you find out that unfortunately, hell does exist, you are totally lost!

So, whenever there is a 50-50 probability, a wise man always errs on the safe side. One must always choose the side with a lower risk. Let us say there is a blind person walking on the road. One person tells him that there is a fire ahead in his path and another person tells him that there is no fire ahead. Whom should the blind man choose to follow?

Certainly, if he is a wise blind man, he will turn back because even if the fire is absent, there would be no loss to him. But if the blind man is foolish, he will choose to disregard the warning and take the risk of going forward. If unfortunately, there is actually a fire ahead, he will get burnt!
Therefore, choose the side of lower risk given the 50-50 probability and believe in the existence of the unimaginable God, heaven and hell. Worship God with devotion and do meritorious deeds without committing any sins. Even if God, heaven and hell are absent, you will get enough benefit of believing in God, heaven and hell, which is a life of happiness, peace and freedom from even a trace of tension of the police and the courts.
After all, whether a person is a theist or an atheist, all the efforts the person makes in life is only to get this benefit of a peaceful and happy life. Apart from this benefit in this world, there is also the possibility of you getting a huge benefit in the upper worlds after your death, which is very clearly stated by several Godmen and divine scriptures.

If the atheist leads a worldly life following justice and avoids sins (pravṛtti), it is more than sufficient. Devotional life (nivṛtti) is not mandatory for him. But accepting at least the existence of the unimaginable God is essential for everybody because it controls sins by instilling the fear of punishment from God. God and His ways of punishment being unimaginable, one can never escape from them, even though one might be able to escape from the police and the courts in this world. The concept of the Human Incarnation is not necessary for an atheist. The atheist should also have open mind to observe the genuine miracles in this world. The observed genuine miracles are essentially unimaginable events and they prove the existence of their source, who is the unimaginable God. The concept of the Human Incarnation is only essential for nivṛtti, which is the path chosen by devotees who aspire for the extreme grace of God.

[LuckyR]

This space is infinite and neither you nor I can find its boundary. I cannot show you the existence of hell, heaven or God in this infinite space. But you too cannot show me their absence in this infinite space by taking me up to the boundary of space. Hence, hell may exist or it may not exist.
Here is where a 50-50 probability has to be accepted. Suppose, I believe in the existence of hell and hence, I do not commit sins. Even if, after my death, I find out that there is no hell, there is no loss for me. While I am still alive, I have already enjoyed the benefit of living a tension-free life and not having to bother about the police and courts, since I have not committed any sins. On the other hand, if you commit sins believing that hell does not exist and after your death, if you find out that unfortunately, hell does exist, you are totally lost!

So, whenever there is a 50-50 probability, a wise man always errs on the safe side. One must always choose the side with a lower risk. Let us say there is a blind person walking on the road. One person tells him that there is a fire ahead in his path and another person tells him that there is no fire ahead. Whom should the blind man choose to follow?

Certainly, if he is a wise blind man, he will turn back because even if the fire is absent, there would be no loss to him. But if the blind man is foolish, he will choose to disregard the warning and take the risk of going forward. If unfortunately, there is actually a fire ahead, he will get burnt!
Therefore, choose the side of lower risk given the 50-50 probability and believe in the existence of the unimaginable God, heaven and hell. Worship God with devotion and do meritorious deeds without committing any sins. Even if God, heaven and hell are absent, you will get enough benefit of believing in God, heaven and hell, which is a life of happiness, peace and freedom from even a trace of tension of the police and the courts.
After all, whether a person is a theist or an atheist, all the efforts the person makes in life is only to get this benefit of a peaceful and happy life. Apart from this benefit in this world, there is also the possibility of you getting a huge benefit in the upper worlds after your death, which is very clearly stated by several Godmen and divine scriptures.

If the atheist leads a worldly life following justice and avoids sins (pravṛtti), it is more than sufficient. Devotional life (nivṛtti) is not mandatory for him. But accepting at least the existence of the unimaginable God is essential for everybody because it controls sins by instilling the fear of punishment from God. God and His ways of punishment being unimaginable, one can never escape from them, even though one might be able to escape from the police and the courts in this world. The concept of the Human Incarnation is not necessary for an atheist. The atheist should also have open mind to observe the genuine miracles in this world. The observed genuine miracles are essentially unimaginable events and they prove the existence of their source, who is the unimaginable God. The concept of the Human Incarnation is only essential for nivṛtti, which is the path chosen by devotees who aspire for the extreme grace of God.

Not every binary choice has a 50% chance of each option occuring.

[dattaswami]

Not every binary choice has a 50% chance of each option occuring.

If you toss a coin it can be either head or tail hence 50:50% probability for each. Hence existence or non-existence of hell has 50:50% probability.

[skeptic]

Is not all probability subject to knowledge? The more we know about the coin being flipped, method of flipping, ect., the more the probability percentages move, in one direction or the other. Are not probability percentages simply an assumption or best guess based on our current and limited knowledge of a thing?

[Count Lucanor]

This space is infinite and neither you nor I can find its boundary. I cannot show you the existence of hell, heaven or God in this infinite space. But you too cannot show me their absence in this infinite space by taking me up to the boundary of space. Hence, hell may exist or it may not exist. Here is where a 50-50 probability has to be accepted.

Just because you imagine something, it suddenly wins a 50% chance of existing? I'm telling you there's an invisible dragon in my garage, do you think it has a 50% chance of existing?

Suppose, I believe in the existence of hell and hence, I do not commit sins. Even if, after my death, I find out that there is no hell, there is no loss for me. On the other hand, if you commit sins believing that hell does not exist and after your death, if you find out that unfortunately, hell does exist, you are totally lost!

Pascal's wager. So, imagine that unlike you, I don't believe in the existence of hell and hence, I commit, among other forbidden things, the sin of eating fat or blood:

• Leviticus 3:17
  King James Version
  17 It shall be a perpetual statute for your generations throughout all your dwellings, that ye eat neither fat nor blood.

But after we die, it turns out hell doesn't exist, so you didn't get to enjoy many things in your entire life for nothing. You lost!!

While I am still alive, I have already enjoyed the benefit of living a tension-free life and not having to bother about the police and courts, since I have not committed any sins.

How can you be living a tension-free life if you have to live every minute worried about committing a sin that will send you to rot in hell for eternity? Even worse, you have to be extremely cautious to learn what is a sin and what is not, given that it is a matter of opinions.

So, whenever there is a 50-50 probability, a wise man always errs on the safe side. One must always choose the side with a lower risk. Let us say there is a blind person walking on the road. One person tells him that there is a fire ahead in his path and another person tells him that there is no fire ahead. Whom should the blind man choose to follow?

So, if I tell you that everything ever written by religious folks is a great fraud devised by an evil supernatural entity, and that the true path to a happy, fulfilling eternal life is to do everything that religions have forbidden for centuries, and that all the characters that these religions have portrayed as villains, are actually the true virtuous characters, would you agree that my statement automatically gets a 50-50 probability of being true, and therefore, playing on the safe side, will you start following the characters portrayed as evil and disobeying those portrayed as virtuous? Following your logic, it seems that it only takes for me to make a statement for it to get a 50-50 chance of being true.

[...] believe in the existence of the unimaginable God, heaven and hell. Worship God with devotion and do meritorious deeds without committing any sins. Even if God, heaven and hell are absent, you will get enough benefit of believing in God, heaven and hell, which is a life of happiness, peace and freedom from even a trace of tension of the police and the courts.

Which god? There have been around 4,000 of them claimed to exist. What if you live your entire life trying to please Yahweh, but it turns out that when you get to heaven, it is ruled by Quetzalcoatl, the Mayan god. You are going to hell, mister!! Why not play on the safe side and worship the feathered serpent god then?

After all, whether a person is a theist or an atheist, all the efforts the person makes in life is only to get this benefit of a peaceful and happy life. Apart from this benefit in this world, there is also the possibility of you getting a huge benefit in the upper worlds after your death, which is very clearly stated by several Godmen and divine scriptures.

If the atheist leads a worldly life following justice and avoids sins (pravṛtti), it is more than sufficient. Devotional life (nivṛtti) is not mandatory for him. But accepting at least the existence of the unimaginable God is essential for everybody because it controls sins by instilling the fear of punishment from God. God and His ways of punishment being unimaginable, one can never escape from them, even though one might be able to escape from the police and the courts in this world. The concept of the Human Incarnation is not necessary for an atheist. The atheist should also have open mind to observe the genuine miracles in this world. The observed genuine miracles are essentially unimaginable events and they prove the existence of their source, who is the unimaginable God. The concept of the Human Incarnation is only essential for nivṛtti, which is the path chosen by devotees who aspire for the extreme grace of God.

The problem with this is pretty obvious to anyone with enough room in their skull to house a functioning brain: if any god, directly, as a matter of fact, actually showed in plain sight and was heard saying all these things about what to do and what not to do, then it would be a matter of deciding whether to comply or not with a clear mandate from an unquestionable figure. But the only fact is that the only ones saying these things are just ordinary people like you and me, who just happen to claim they know stuff they have learned from entities that apparently only reveal themselves through them. So actually it is your blind faith in divine revelation that is at stake here.

[skeptic]

The problem with this is pretty obvious to anyone with enough room in their skull to house a functioning brain: if any god, directly, as a matter of fact, actually showed in plain sight and was heard saying all these things about what to do and what not to do, then it would be a matter of deciding whether to comply or not with a clear mandate from an unquestionable figure. But the only fact is that the only ones saying these things are just ordinary people like you and me, who just happen to claim they know stuff they have learned from entities that apparently only reveal themselves through them. So actually it is your blind faith in divine revelation that is at stake here.


It's an interesting phenomenon that he actually did show in plain sight and spoke and still the disbelief exist. An interesting question is what actually could God do to convince a person? If you think about it you will find it a very difficult thing.

[Sculptor1]

The problem with this is pretty obvious to anyone with enough room in their skull to house a functioning brain: if any god, directly, as a matter of fact, actually showed in plain sight and was heard saying all these things about what to do and what not to do, then it would be a matter of deciding whether to comply or not with a clear mandate from an unquestionable figure. But the only fact is that the only ones saying these things are just ordinary people like you and me, who just happen to claim they know stuff they have learned from entities that apparently only reveal themselves through them. So actually it is your blind faith in divine revelation that is at stake here.


It's an interesting phenomenon that he actually did show in plain sight and spoke and still the disbelief exist. An interesting question is what actually could God do to convince a person? If you think about it you will find it a very difficult thing.

Indeed.
It's like god expects me to actually abandon my reason and rationality; dispense with my empirical sense, common sense and intellect so that I can have Faith in the words of other people who are often less intelligent than me.

[Sy Borg]

Dattaswami, preaching is not allowed on the forum. You need to raise philosophical issues, not preach. The forum rules make this clear. The OP was approved in error.

This thread would have been locked, but for the pertinent post by new member, skeptic, which opens up some possibilities. If the thread becomes just a pulpit for preaching, it will be locked.

Cheers

SB

[Count Lucanor]

The problem with this is pretty obvious to anyone with enough room in their skull to house a functioning brain: if any god, directly, as a matter of fact, actually showed in plain sight and was heard saying all these things about what to do and what not to do, then it would be a matter of deciding whether to comply or not with a clear mandate from an unquestionable figure. But the only fact is that the only ones saying these things are just ordinary people like you and me, who just happen to claim they know stuff they have learned from entities that apparently only reveal themselves through them. So actually it is your blind faith in divine revelation that is at stake here.

It's an interesting phenomenon that he actually did show in plain sight and spoke and still the disbelief exist. An interesting question is what actually could God do to convince a person? If you think about it you will find it a very difficult thing.

Really? When did any god actually show in plain sight and spoke for anyone to see and listen?

[dattaswami]

The problem with this is pretty obvious to anyone with enough room in their skull to house a functioning brain: if any god, directly, as a matter of fact, actually showed in plain sight and was heard saying all these things about what to do and what not to do, then it would be a matter of deciding whether to comply or not with a clear mandate from an unquestionable figure. But the only fact is that the only ones saying these things are just ordinary people like you and me, who just happen to claim they know stuff they have learned from entities that apparently only reveal themselves through them. So actually it is your blind faith in divine revelation that is at stake here.

It's an interesting phenomenon that he actually did show in plain sight and spoke and still the disbelief exist. An interesting question is what actually could God do to convince a person? If you think about it you will find it a very difficult thing.

Really? When did any god actually show in plain sight and spoke for anyone to see and listen?

God comes to this world in human form to preach and uplift us through His divine knowledge and He also perform miracles which are unimaginable events. God is unimaginable and beyond space and space came from Him. God do not possess any spatial coordinates in Him. Such God comes to this world in human form to give His presence to us like Rama, Krishna, Buddha, Jesus, Muhammad, Shankara, Sai Baba etc to preach divine knowledge. Since God is impartial He comes to this world in every human generation to preach and uplift us in human form.

[Count Lucanor]

The problem with this is pretty obvious to anyone with enough room in their skull to house a functioning brain: if any god, directly, as a matter of fact, actually showed in plain sight and was heard saying all these things about what to do and what not to do, then it would be a matter of deciding whether to comply or not with a clear mandate from an unquestionable figure. But the only fact is that the only ones saying these things are just ordinary people like you and me, who just happen to claim they know stuff they have learned from entities that apparently only reveal themselves through them. So actually it is your blind faith in divine revelation that is at stake here.

It's an interesting phenomenon that he actually did show in plain sight and spoke and still the disbelief exist. An interesting question is what actually could God do to convince a person? If you think about it you will find it a very difficult thing.

Really? When did any god actually show in plain sight and spoke for anyone to see and listen?

God comes to this world in human form to preach...

No kidding!! So you're basically confirming what I said: a god will not show himself directly, but only indirectly through human preachers. So you just got to have faith in preachers and that's it.

He also perform miracles which are unimaginable events. God is unimaginable and beyond space and space came from Him. God do not possess any spatial coordinates in Him. Such God comes to this world in human form to give His presence to us like Rama, Krishna, Buddha, Jesus, Muhammad, Shankara, Sai Baba etc to preach divine knowledge. Since God is impartial He comes to this world in every human generation to preach and uplift us in human form.

You might want to believe all of that and I'm not going to stop you. But other than you believing it, is there something else worth discussing? Something like a statement that is necessarily true by its own merits?

[skeptic]

It's an interesting phenomenon that he actually did show in plain sight and spoke and still the disbelief exist. An interesting question is what actually could God do to convince a person? If you think about it you will find it a very difficult thing.

Really? When did any god actually show in plain sight and spoke for anyone to see and listen?

I guess I was leaning to my own belief that Jesus was God manifested in the flesh, hence seen and heard. I recognize that this is not a universal belief and as such should maybe not be stated here in the manner I used.I can see where it would lead to a much larger conversation rooted more actually in theology than philosophy. I apologize for that. Your main topic does contain many points that really would have to be addressed through theology. Were we instead to just address the probability point, I would have to wonder if probability were not subject to knowledge. In a sense, a best guess, based on ones available knowledge and further subject to the integrity of that knowledge.

[LuckyR]

Not every binary choice has a 50% chance of each option occuring.

If you toss a coin it can be either head or tail hence 50:50% probability for each. Hence existence or non-existence of hell has 50:50% probability.

If I play Roger Federer in tennis, either he or I will win. It's not a 50:50 chance, though.

One reason why knowledge of statistics and psychology is helpful (actually should be mandatory IMO) in philosophy.

[Samana Johann]

There are many reasons why one should stick to right view, "there are fruits of good and bad actions (heavens, hells), there are Gods...", what ever reasoning one thinks is good to follow. It's also very detailed explained by argumentation to go after the safe bet, good householders.

Once an angry farmer next was eager to proclame "there is no heaven, no hell". Exhausted, thin, red of anger, working by hands, day and night, he was asked: "If that is the case, why, having already fallen into hell, burn like fire, why than day in day work that much in desire to grow higher, to reach heavens." Certain he could not replay but even more angry headed after more lower realms, here and here after, for long.

Modern world, west, is not aware that eager working on the highway to hell by rejecting right view and hold on grave wrong view and even when they are soon even bodily touched, people resolved in sensuality, harm and conflict, are not able to ever find even little peace.

[Samana Johann]

The helpful reasoning for those not knowing yet, to overcome doubts, in short here:

[ur=https://sangham.net/en/tipitaka/sut/an/ ... 3.065.soma]The Four Solaces[/url]

17. “The disciple of the Noble Ones, Kalamas, who has such a hate-free mind, such a malice-free mind, such an undefiled mind, and such a purified mind, is one by whom four solaces are found here and now.

”'Suppose there is a hereafter and there is a fruit, result, of deeds done well or ill. Then it is possible that at the dissolution of the body after death, I shall arise in the heavenly world, which is possessed of the state of bliss.' This is the first solace found by him.

”'Suppose there is no hereafter and there is no fruit, no result, of deeds done well or ill. Yet in this world, here and now, free from hatred, free from malice, safe and sound, and happy, I keep myself.' This is the second solace found by him.

”'Suppose evil (results) befall an evil-doer. I, however, think of doing evil to no one. Then, how can ill (results) affect me who do no evil deed?' This is the third solace found by him.

”'Suppose evil (results) do not befall an evil-doer. Then I see myself purified in any case.' This is the fourth solace found by him.

“The disciple of the Noble Ones, Kalamas, who has such a hate-free mind, such a malice-free mind, such an undefiled mind, and such a purified mind, is one by whom, here and now, these four solaces are found.”