The "holes" in your argument are conjectures. You make up hypothetical scenarios based on absolutely nothing. There is nothing to support your claim that God is a bastard of a God. You're basing your entire opinion on a hypothetical personality.
Second, your talking down to me as if I'm not smart enough to understand what you're talking about. "It's for my own good?" lol. Hardly...
Even Socrates understood that we all don't know jack-shit about anything. You, on the other hand, act as if you've got it all figured out and want to spread your knowledge of God and religion, or lack there of...
The fact is, you're arguing hypotheticals with NO sources. I simply answered a question.
What if athiests are right? Then we all rot in a box or in the ground, or whatever.
Then I countered a quesiton..."What if athiests are wrong?" ANSWER: Whether God is bastard of a God(No sources to even suggest so--keeping in mind that the destructions of life in the Bible were punishments for wrong-doing) or not, Athiests will still be in trouble.
All sources of faith suggest that God WANTS you to believe in him, therefore, whether he's mean or not will not matter...the fact that Athiests don't believe will inevitable put them on his shit list.
.
That's where you're wrong. You see, you admit that "All sources of faith suggest..." which implies that you are familiar with
all sources of faith. Furthermore, by recognizing that your premise (god wants people to believe) comes from an assertion of faith- you exhibit the problem I was illustrating in the first place. If
one does not already accept what you acknowledge is an article of faith- i.e. that god wants us to believe- then the wager argument is completely inadequate.
Yes, I presented a hypothetical god. It was to illustrate a flaw. Here is the wager argument presented.
1. If god does not exist, it does not matter if we believe or not.
2. If god does exist, believing will be rewarded and disbelief will be punished.
Conclusion: It is riskier to not believe, so belief is the rational choice.
This is one of the most philosophically childish arguments in existence. I used a hypothetical god to illustrate the fact that in the argument above, as stated, there is no reason or support for the statement that belief will be rewarded and disbelief punished. It is
an assumed premise based on beliefs already held. So it is foolish to think this argument would be convincing or accepted as sound by a non-believer, since it already requires an inherent belief. Only those who already believe could find it reasonable. This was the point of the hypothetical god- to point out your own subjective assumptions as a major flaw in the argument.
This does not even get into the question of whether belief is a choice. I personally do not think one can rationally and honestly choose to believe something. This is a weak argument on many levels.
I wasn't trying to talk down to you. My efforts were simply an attempt to encourage you to seek other, better arguments that haven't been rehashed and dismissed as flawed for many years now. If you would consider it for a moment, you would realize this means I was operating under the assumption that you were intelligent and reasonable enought to accept constructive criticism and develop stronger arguments. I did not take you for the dogmatic type to stubbornly stick to a flawed argument. But you seem determined to prove me otherwise.
As far as having it all figured out...I have never claimed such. You would be hard-pressed to find a definitive theological claim I have made. I consider myself an atheist, but readily concede that I would not claim absolute certainty that this is the case. Beyond that, most of my criticism takes the form of questioning certain statements and beliefs others put forth, or answering questions and criticisms directed at me. I have thought a great deal about the topic, and studied a great deal as well. Included in this is a large amount of my life spent studying the bible. So I may have some knowledge, some questions, some insights, or some doubts- but I don't claim to dispense wisdom. By asking questions, I give the opportunity for others to answer. And in the course of my search for truth, I have come across the wager argument you put forth and have seen many criticisms of it and know it is rarely used in philosophical debate because of its flaws. I was just trying to share this information with you.
