Does God exist?

[Chiki]

I notice that this topic keeps coming up in threads and derailing them, so it's probably best to just make a thread on it so that other threads won't get derailed.

Let's start this post with a proof that God doesn't exist!

First of all, it is widely accepted by theist philosophers that God is not merely omnipotent (maximally powerful within the laws of logic and omniscient (has knowledge about everything). He is also omnibenevolent )he's maximally good, all good, has no evil in him, whatever):

Conceptions of maximal greatness differ but theists believe that a maximally great reality must be a maximally great person or God. Theists largely agree that a maximally great person would be omnipresent, omnipotent, omniscient, and all good.

It's helpful to get this out of the way before people say stuff like "have you ever talked to a theist in your life?"

Second, we also see a bunch of needless disasters killing people that have nothing to do with people and free will. For example, the recent earthquake in Nepal killed a bunch of people and we're pretty sure that wasn't caused by people. The 2011 earthquake and tsunami in Japan killed around 16000 people and caused 230000 people to relocate due to the damage. According to theists, life on Earth is a test for us to see if we'll go to Heaven or Hell. But what's the point of this test if we just get killed off by random natural disasters that have nothing to do with people whatsoever? So these natural disasters seem not only to be wrong simply because they kill a bunch of people, but because they also prevent the people who die from being tested by life on Earth. God has all the reason in the world to stop it, so why doesn't he? Since he's omnipotent and omniscient, he knows when the natural disasters are going to come and kill people, and he can stop them with his power.

If God does exist, and he knowingly lets people die from natural disasters, then that is something one would call "evil." For example, suppose I'm walking around with a gun, and I see a person about to get murdered on the street, and I'm the only person around to help that person out. Suppose I could just take out my gun, and at no harm to myself, shoot the murderer (or at least shoot in the air to chase away the murderer). I'm the only person who can prevent this murder from happening. Suppose I choose to walk away and let that person die. Would that make me evil? Yes it would.

This case shows that it's wrong to let people die if someone can prevent it from happening. God is in this exact same situation. With his omniscience and omnipotence, he is the only one who can stop natural disasters, yet he chooses not to, and lets people die anyway. Why? Maybe because he's not omniscient after all.

Maybe a better example would be something like this: suppose there's an ultra rich scientist who actually has knowledge of and power over the Earth's tectonic plates. Suppose the Japan earthquake and tsunami happened again, killing 10000 people. In the real world, this ultra rich scientist would probably be locked up and hated for allowing something like that to happen, since it was in his power to stop this natural disaster. Yet he chose not to save a bunch of people's lives. We would hate the ultra rich scientist for doing this, but how come we don't hate God?

Since God is omnibenevolent, he has to be all good and have no evil in him. Yet, if he allows natural disasters to happen, he is not omnibenevolent. So this proof shows that a God which is omniscient, omnipotent and omnibenevolent cannot possibly exist.

[Klokinator]

“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?”

― Epicurus

(I know that's exactly what you said, but as they say "Brevity is the soul of wit")

Incidentally, these topics always get locked. 100% of the time. Not because it's against the rules, but because of the cancerous arguments they bring forth.

Edited June 22, 2015 by Klokinator

[Phoenix Wright]

don't know, don't really care.

black holes used to defy logic, but we figured out how they work (roughly). all god should do, if he exists, is let us know so that we can understand how he works. but as long as god requires faith, i can't say i believe.

that said, i do find many theist scientists to be extremely interesting. whether a believer can do good science is a contentious subject, but i say one doesn't need to look further than that scientist's published writings to decide.

[Dr. Rudy Mjølnir]

I always said that if God were truly 'omnipotent', then why doesn't He simply reveal Himself? Such a thing is but a trifle to a truly All-Powerful deity, no more than me being able to scratch my nose. And please don't tell it is because of the whole "God cannot directly interfere in mortal lives" or some malarkey like that.

Edited June 22, 2015 by King Gilgamesh

[feplus]

It'll be interesting to see if this thread can remain civil. Fingers crossed.

@Klok: The "atheist's wager" is typically handled via free-will theodicy. God is willing and able to prevent evil, but chooses not to in order to preserve moral autonomy. What about this response is unsatisfying to you?

@Gilgamesh: The hiddenness of God is a problem as old as the Old Testament. Simple answers don't work well. Here is a good overview which gives a fair shake to both sides.

[Chiki]

@Klok: The "atheist's wager" is typically handled via free-will theodicy. God is willing and able to prevent evil, but chooses not to in order to preserve moral autonomy. What about this response is unsatisfying to you?

Doesn't work for natural disasters. Read first post.

Edited June 22, 2015 by Chiki

[Raven]

I don't know, but I'm leaning more towards "probably not".

But in short, I don't care either way.

[feplus]

Doesn't work for natural disasters. Read first post.

I was not addressing the first post. I was addressing Klok.

But fine. Free will theodicy does address human evils. It does not immediately address natural evils. Here's a possible explanation: natural evils are part of some greater plan. For example, a tsunami abroad might lead to charity and missionary work, which might save the souls of many who would not otherwise be saved.

[deleted35362]

i don't believe in any gods, but OP.....how is that proof god doesn't exist? what if people read the bible wrong and god isn't supposed to be benevolent all the time? you say it's "widely accepted" by theists but how do they know?

[Chiki]

Here's a possible explanation: natural evils are part of some greater plan. For example, a tsunami abroad might lead to charity and missionary work, which might save the souls of many who would not otherwise be saved.

This wasn't valid 69000-77000 years ago during the population bottleneck, which killed the vast majority of humans in the world. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toba_catastrophe_theory

[feplus]

This wasn't valid 69000-77000 years ago during the population bottleneck, which killed the vast majority of humans in the world. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toba_catastrophe_theory

Why not? That could've been part of a greater plan, too.

[Freohr Datia]

My issue with this type of debate is that atheists always accuse theists of having no proof, but some atheists themselves have no proof either and I think it's just a topic that shouldn't matter to them so much. It's not like anything ever comes out of them anyway... Nothing useful, nothing helpful, not even any end results period.

BUT despite that, some people (well, lots of them) are pretty upset seeing this topic exists (yet another~). They're ignoring it at least, but I still thought I'd step in real quick (hopefully ^o^)... as has been said, I don't think your point proves anything, Chiki. And it only takes one perspective, I think is the phrasing I'm looking for? But there exist many reasons to do stuff in this world, and you are only considering one of them (being good/evil and preventing deaths). There are probably many reasons for this that you haven't even considered. I for one can only think of one reason why a God might let natural disasters happen atm, and that is if they think that method could help with overpopulation. Sounds like a cruel way to make that happen... but hey, wouldn't any method to try keep that in check be cruel? And what if many deaths or... disasters.... that could have been caused from natural disasters got prevented and we just can't tell because they were prevented? =O

Now I'm not saying that PROVES anything, I'm just trying to imply this kind of debate is pretty much impossible, because it relies on a thing you can't really find any proof for or against...

Which is why I wonder: why can't people live the lives they want to live in peace?? As long as it doesn't get to affecting everybody around them negatively... Also for some religious people, that goes for them as well. Let atheists live their lives peacefully and in the way THEY want to. Thankfully, there are people on both sides who do just that and they are good people. Because this is a very touchy topic that can really get to some people.

Idk if it needs to be specified or not, but I am not a theist >_> Because my post may or may not have made it sound like I am...

Edited June 22, 2015 by Freohr Datia

[Dr. Rudy Mjølnir]

My issue with this type of debate is that atheists always accuse theists of having no proof, but some atheists themselves have no proof either and I think it's just a topic that shouldn't matter to them so much. It's not like anything ever comes out of them anyway... Nothing useful, nothing helpful, not even any end results period.

BUT despite that, some people (well, lots of them) are pretty upset seeing this topic exists (yet another~). They're ignoring it at least, but I still thought I'd step in real quick (hopefully ^o^)... as has been said, I don't think your point proves anything, Chiki. And it only takes one perspective, I think is the phrasing I'm looking for? But there exist many reasons to do stuff in this world, and you are only considering one of them (being good/evil and preventing deaths). There are probably many reasons for this that you haven't even considered. I for one can only think of one reason why a God might let natural disasters happen atm, and that is if they think that method could help with overpopulation. Sounds like a cruel way to make that happen... but hey, wouldn't any method to try keep that in check be cruel? And what if many deaths or... disasters.... that could have been caused from natural disasters got prevented and we just can't tell because they were prevented? =O

Now I'm not saying that PROVES anything, I'm just trying to imply this kind of debate is pretty much impossible, because it relies on a thing you can't really find any proof for or against...

Which is why I wonder: why can't people live the lives they want to live in peace?? As long as it doesn't get to affecting everybody around them negatively... Also for some religious people, that goes for them as well. Let atheists live their lives peacefully and in the way THEY want to. Thankfully, there are people on both sides who do just that and they are good people. Because this is a very touchy topic that can really get to some people.

Idk if it needs to be specified or not, but I am not a theist >_> Because my post may or may not have made it sound like I am...

I agree with your post. I am an Atheist, but I realize the futility of these kind of arguments because no matter what, both sides cannot truly prove or disprove God's existence. I say believe what you want as long as you don't shove your beliefs down people's throats.

[Chiki]

The theist gets into a very tough position if they admit that God might have reasons for doing actions that we can't understand.

Suppose I'm playing Fire Emblem fog of war, trying to LTC 3-6 with Jill. I'm currently trying to bring my 7 turn down to 6 turns (let's say it is possible to bring the 7 turn down to 6 turns but extremely hard), and I come up with a giant list of theories on how the enemies move in the swamp, in order to rout the map for a 6 turn. Suppose none of them worked and I wasn't able to get a 7 turn. In that case, wouldn't all of my theories be inadequate and reliable? Yes. Also, in that case, wouldn't I be ignorant about how to 6 turn 3-6, if I can't come up with any theories which would allow me to 6 turn 3-6? Yes. I'd be massively ignorant about 6-turning 3-6.

Let's see how this analogy works, and instead of talking about LTCing FE, let's replace it with doing the right thing. Suppose a religious person has in his hand a machine that can stop any earthquake in the world from happening. The common sense theory of morality would indicate that the right thing to do is to prevent an earthquake from killing any people, and I'm pretty sure even the Pope would prevent that earthquake from happening if he could. But these judgments are inconsistent with what God does: he lets earthquakes happen and kill millions of people. And the religious person isn't God, so he can't possibly know what the right thing to do is. Apparently, his common sense morality gives him the wrong answers, so he can't press the button on the machine to stop the earthquake. But he also should press the button because it's wrong to let people die. What should he do? He's completely morally paralyzed, unable to do anything at all.

This problem doesn't just apply to the issue of natural disasters. Take any moral action you have in mind; say, killing and eating your own parents. How do you know it's the right thing to do to not eat them? Maybe God would say that it's the right thing to do because it leads to something good happening overall in the future. So how do you know it's the wrong thing to do? You literally know nothing at all: you can't decide whether or not any action is right or wrong because you're not God. And then you can't make any moral decision whatsoever.

Here's the problem in a nutshell: if you admit that God might have reasons for allowing natural disasters, then you must also admit that you can't make any moral decision whatsoever. And if you can't, then you just have to let people die from cancer by leaving them untreated (how do you know it's right or wrong?), let people bleed to death from getting into a traffic accident, let people shot by a gun die, and so on. To say the least, this is a complete disaster.

It's more eloquently put here:

Let’s begin by considering an example far from theology. Suppose someone is watching what appears to be a poker game. The observer knows the standard ranking of hands and is familiar with many varieties of poker. In the game before her, sometimes things turn out as she expects—i.e., the player who appears to have the best hand takes the pot. But it often happens that the player who takes the pot did not seem to have the highest ranked hand. Our card-watcher considers various hypotheses: maybe the standard ranking does not apply, maybe the cards a player holds are not the ones that count as part of her hand, or maybe there are some communal cards that she can’t see. But no hypothesis seems to make sense of the game. No matter how hard the card-watcher tries, she cannot formulate a theory that successfully correlates with the data about who takes the pots. Now somebody joins the card-watcher and sees the following three hands being played: a full house, two pair, and king high. The person asks who is going to win, but the card-watcher must honestly reply, “I have no idea; I thought I knew a lot about poker, but after watching for the last hour, all I can say is that there must be much more to this game than I am able to see. Maybe these are super-intelligent beings, and I should not expect to understand the rules. It would be foolhardy for me to venture a guess about any particular hand.” And if the card watcher were asked to join the game, she would certainly decline; it would be foolish to take such risks if you don’t understand the rules. I take this example to illustrate two fairly simple points about theories. When our observer started watching the card game, she had a theory about how the game was likely to be played. But her theory didn’t work. There were many instances where the person who took the pot was not the one the theory predicted. So the card-watcher reasonably concluded that the initial theory must be wrong. Put as a general principle, if T is a theory about subject matter S:

If many states of affairs involving S are inconsistent with T then we should regard T as inadequate and unreliable with respect to S.

After the card-watcher gave up on the initial theory, she tried others, but none seemed to work; any theory she could think of was also inadequate and unreliable. So the card-watcher concluded that she really did not know what was going on. The general principle is this:

If all plausible theories we can think of about S are inadequate and unreliable with respect to S, then we should admit that we are massively ignorant about S, and we should not, with any confidence whatsoever, make any judgments about particular cases.

My claim is that the theist, who believes in an omnipotent and completely good personal God, begins in a position very much like that of the card-watcher. Like all of us, the theist judges her own actions and the actions of others in accord with some sort common sense moral theory. The theist has seen many situations where her moral theory would yield apparently obvious answers about what to do: anyone who can easily save 130,000 lives from a cyclone should do so; anyone who can easily stop a huge earthquake would do so; and any sane, moral person would give people three minutes warning with which to escape a building that is about to collapse. But these judgments are, on their face, inconsistent with the theist’s data about what agents in general ought to do, for God is a completely good agent, and God did not do those things. Thus, there are many states of affairs in which the theist’s moral theory apparently gives wrong answers; so, in accord with (I1), she should regard her moral theory as inadequate and unreliable. Of course, things are different if the theist has a theodicy, whereby she can explain why God allows the suffering caused by natural evil, even though we ourselves should try to limit it. With an adequate theodicy, the theist can still hold onto her moral theory of how agents in general should act. But the skeptical theist tells us that there will be no such theodicy, and that we should expect not to understand the reasons God allows horrendous suffering from natural evil. So the skeptical theist seems to be stuck with the conclusion that any plausible theory we can think of about how agents in general ought to behave is inadequate and unreliable. And given (I2), it follows that we should admit that we are massively ignorant about what agents in general ought to do. At the analogous point in the dialectic, when the card-watcher rightly concluded that she must be massively ignorant about the card game, she wisely declined to make judgments about which hand ought to win. Similarly, in accord with (I2), the skeptical theist should admit that she is massively ignorant about when agents should prevent or not prevent suffering, and she should not have any confidence whatsoever in the moral judgments she is inclined to make. Thus, if the theist takes seriously the claim that God has good reasons for allowing so much suffering, then the theist should be the victim of moral paralysis: she should have no confidence in her moral judgments; she should have no idea when to allow suffering and when not to allow it, and she should also be unwilling to make moral judgments concerning the actions of others.

Edited June 22, 2015 by Chiki

[Espinosa]

It's helpful to get this out of the way before people say stuff like "have you ever talked to a theist in your life?"

As a matter of fact, yeah, you should probably talk to theists (and I'd say just people in general, because you miss a lot of obvious things when you subject the little details to such scrutiny) more often to get the full picture of their views. I don't know why the 'goodness' part of that equation needs to be emphasised or argued however, because people believing both that God exists and at the same time isn't good are either polytheist (in which case there's no 'g' in God to be capitalised and the whole issue sorta fades away), conscious theomachists or really marginal sectarians. You don't seem to be arguing with any of these groups (and I'd advise against that enterprise for the sake of one's sanity tbqh), so it seems like a largely pointless distraction unless logical mindgames are the sole reason for such an activity.

If God does exist, and he knowingly lets people die from natural disasters, then that is something one would call "evil." For example, suppose I'm walking around with a gun, and I see a person about to get murdered on the street, and I'm the only person around to help that person out. Suppose I could just take out my gun, and at no harm to myself, shoot the murderer (or at least shoot in the air to chase away the murderer). I'm the only person who can prevent this murder from happening. Suppose I choose to walk away and let that person die. Would that make me evil? Yes it would.

This case shows that it's wrong to let people die if someone can prevent it from happening. God is in this exact same situation. With his omniscience and omnipotence, he is the only one who can stop natural disasters, yet he chooses not to, and lets people die anyway. Why? Maybe because he's not omniscient after all.

Maybe a better example would be something like this: suppose there's an ultra rich scientist who actually has knowledge of and power over the Earth's tectonic plates. Suppose the Japan earthquake and tsunami happened again, killing 10000 people. In the real world, this ultra rich scientist would probably be locked up and hated for allowing something like that to happen, since it was in his power to stop this natural disaster. Yet he chose not to save a bunch of people's lives. We would hate the ultra rich scientist for doing this, but how come we don't hate God?

Could've quoted the rest of the post, but it's bulky and the idea is more or less clear (you've been repeating it all over the forums too).

One problem here is that you imagine God as a person who at some point in time discovers there's trouble brewing and casualties to be had if nothing is done. There's all sorts of trouble happening in the world (I personally wouldn't care to distinguish too much between grief caused by somebody's will or natural causes for reasons that I won't go into right now) without end, and the idea of a god you're trying to propose implies a very awkward concept of a world that is nothing but Superman's stage, where one great person solves and rescues and saves, and everybody is in complete safety. Such a concept is not particularly compatible with the Christian view of virtue, as people would take all the endless rescuing for granted and have no motivation to grow spiritually in the way expected of them by the set tradition of ascesis. This is also very much connected with God's arguable invisibility - if God's presence were physical and obvious, men would make no effort in forming any connection with God. on Christianity, a huge gap stands between man and God, one that isn't passed by just learning and understanding certain things with the mind alone.

Then there's another really erroneous supposition that longevity equals goodness. Even without going into whether people's morality is God's morality (to a certain extent is has to be as long as we believe we've been created in God's image), do we (we can readily answer this part while we never can do the same with the matters divine) believe that it's always good to live the longest? Would everyone like to live beyond 100 years? You said you were quite concerned with what theists really think - take Mother Teresa as an example that's culturally familiar to you: do you think she valued people's longevity more than their salvation, valued both equally or valued their salvation and orthodoxy in the Christian faith more?

There are more important details that I'm sure you've just forgotten. On Christianity, a person's death doesn't mark such a significant milestone as it does in a secular viewpoint where existence expires quite literally upon one's death. It is believed that God does not distinguish between the living and the dead, and all are equally important to Him. We do care about the vitality of our loved ones, but what about God? God is not passionate in the sense of passion being a weakness.

One more thing. Christians don't see God as existing in any restriction of time (and space), therefore a situation where God's omniscience enables him to literally -find out- about trouble brewing, because God isn't located anywhere in particular on the timeline for that scenario to be possible. What is such an existence even like? My imagination doesn't help my mind conceive it, personally. In Christian theology, there's a distinction between apophatic and cataphatic theology, one describing what God is not and the other what God is. In the Christian tradition, God hasn't revealed Himself sufficiently and there seems to have been more success in describing what God is not, giving a more negative account of God's essence.

This applies to traditional Christianity and should differ considerably in the case of Judaism (where it's really "okay" to be an atheist and still be a Jew, while the worldview of actual religious Jews differs greatly from that of Christianity considering the sharp change Christ's teaching brought upon in human history) and Islam - in the latter case, Allah is believed to re-create the universe every instant and the implications of that on free will and the issue you raised are such that I cannot defend anything from this point of view. I do not have the information about how Muslims interested in the issue resolve this problem.

Why I brought that up is that the kind of god you're conjuring with your ideal tools is not the God of Christianity. If you do not account for the whole picture, such as some of the aspects I brought up above, you cannot claim that you've found an inner contradiction in a system of thinking - you simply show that you probed a belief system (rather superficially) and failed to make sense of it, showing the great limitation of your own tools and failure to remember vital aspects of the belief system you're examining more than anything.

Edited June 22, 2015 by Espinosa

[Shin]

Truth be told, Chiki's line of logic makes sense. From a logical perspective, either god is absent or does not act as he is generally described. There's always the "god acts in mysterious ways" argument, but I don't personally find it very convincing. Either way, I'm not terribly fussed as an individual. I don't think it's possible to prove beyond a doubt that there is not some sort of higher power but I believe it's not unreasonable to follow the arguments suggesting it. I mean, it makes sense.

[Tryhard]

Which is why I wonder: why can't people live the lives they want to live in peace?? As long as it doesn't get to affecting everybody around them negatively... Also for some religious people, that goes for them as well. Let atheists live their lives peacefully and in the way THEY want to. Thankfully, there are people on both sides who do just that and they are good people. Because this is a very touchy topic that can really get to some people.

End of topic please.

[EricaofRenais]

I have problems with most religions, because they are all founded by humans and humans write the rules, I do believe something started everything going but weather or not there is a god I don't know. I suppose you could say I tend towards Buddhism with a bit of Christianity, I personally believe Christ was a real person even if he was just a man he had a pretty good way of living. I have a friend who is a very religious person and while she has had many bad things happen to her, her faith is one of the things that has helped her through the hard times in her life. My personal favorite quote on gods is what Ike says to Yune at the end of Radiant Dawn I don't think I can quote it very well, but the gist of it is that people need to have something to believe in and look up to otherwise if people don't have that they will become heartless. I have met bad people who believed in god and wonderful people who believed in god as well, I have only known one person who claims to not believe in anything and he seems to be completely miserable. It just seems to me that the people who believe in something and try to be good people because of it seem to be happier in the long run, I like to believe in heaven because would like to believe that karma catches up with the bad people and that there is a hell, plus I have lost too many pets to not hope that they at least get to go to a place where they can be happy and young again, so I will keep trying to be a good person in the hopes that I will see the people and pets that I love again someday and I know I won't be hurting anyone doing it. Believe what you want it is your choice.

[Moira]

But fine. Free will theodicy does address human evils. It does not immediately address natural evils. Here's a possible explanation: natural evils are part of some greater plan. For example, a tsunami abroad might lead to charity and missionary work, which might save the souls of many who would not otherwise be saved.

Does it really seem fair to sacrifice thousands of people in order to allow charity work to save others? As for people who died from natural disasters, but didn't lead good enough lives to go into heaven, are they just acceptable losses?

[MacLovin]

I look at it this was:

I can't prove that God does or doesn't exist.

Believing that He exists doesn't do any harm.

If He doesn't exist, and I believed in Him, it also doesn't really mean anything bad.

the cost of believing in God is minimal.

(I'm not exactly the religious type)

[Balcerzak]

Pascal's wager is terrible. If your faith in God is at that minimal level, do you honestly beleive it is enough to lead to your salvation?

[Phoenix Wright]

the rules only require faith, there are no levels to it.

@ olwen, first post: when i was a child, i reasoned that earth simply doesn't matter to god. nowhere in the universe does. if god cared, people wouldn't die in unfair ways. people wouldn't be born in unfair circumstances. moral beings don't have to act morally for things they don't care about. (if you've ever stepped on an ant, did you feel bad, good, or nothing at all?)

if god's real, and life is just a test, my test is a lot easier than most peoples' on the planet. why make my test easier?

there's a lot of reasons why committing myself to a god is inexcusable.

[Balcerzak]

James 2 (NIV)

14What good is it, my brothers and sisters, if someone claims to have faith but has no deeds? Can such faith save them? 15Suppose a brother or a sister is without clothes and daily food. 16If one of you says to them, “Go in peace; keep warm and well fed,” but does nothing about their physical needs, what good is it? 17In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead.

18But someone will say, “You have faith; I have deeds.”

Show me your faith without deeds, and I will show you my faith by my deeds. 19You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that—and shudder.

20You foolish person, do you want evidence that faith without deeds is uselessd ? 21Was not our father Abraham considered righteous for what he did when he offered his son Isaac on the altar? 22You see that his faith and his actions were working together, and his faith was made complete by what he did. 23And the scripture was fulfilled that says, “Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness,”e and he was called God’s friend. 24You see that a person is considered righteous by what they do and not by faith alone.

25In the same way, was not even Rahab the prostitute considered righteous for what she did when she gave lodging to the spies and sent them off in a different direction? 26As the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without deeds is dead

To elaborate, so that this post is not simply a quote: I feel that my earlier point about minimal faith being insufficient is properly sustained by scripture.

Edited June 22, 2015 by Balcerzak

[Phoenix Wright]

what are deeds here? is it acting morally? generously (giving to the poor, things like that)? or spreading the word of god (showing your faith)?

[MacLovin]

Pascal's wager is terrible. If your faith in God is at that minimal level, do you honestly beleive it is enough to lead to your salvation?

I don't really have it at that minimal level tbh.

I just don't really go to Church and whatnot because it's not really safe for me to go to one in the Philippines.