I have come up with an inverse Pascal’s
Wager, as follows:
1. God does not seem to exist.
(I mean this in the crude no-proven-miracles
sense; but in also there’s theodicy, scriptural contradictions, god-of-the-gaps,
etc.)
2. If there is no God, then God’s
seeming nonexistence would be a reflection of reality; and atheism would be
realistic.
3. If there is a God, then God’s seeming
nonexistence would be a miracle, due only to the will of God; and atheism would
be in accordance with God’s will.
4. Therefore there is no downside to
atheism. If there is no God, then the atheist would be no further behind with
God than the theist, and would in addition be realistic. If there is a God, and
God wills to seem nonexistent, then the atheist would be pious, and the theist
impious!
A God who exists, but does not seem
to exist, would be practicing a curious miracle. Some say that would be a test
of faith; shall the believer believe without evidence? I retort that the real
test of faith is; will you play along?
No comments:
Post a Comment