No thanks. I go by evidence and reason rather than faith. I’ve found that opinions based on evidence are right rather more frequently than those which are not based on evidence.

I will try a lucky guess. He wants us to believe in Him according with His revelation to us.
Logical fallacy #2.
There are lots of different claims of revelations from God. You happen to be familiar with only one of them. But there are more. Christian scriptures themselves warn against following false prophets, which suggests there must be some means of distinguishing false prophets from true ones. In other words, some way of verifying one particular revelation, some evidence that it is true. It would be nice to see that evidence. You are treating the truthfulness of your particular revelation as being self-evident. It isn’t.

Buddha, Chrishna even Allah have noting to offer.
How would you know? What fatal flaws are there in their revelations which are absent from yours? What is the evidence that enables you to discern this?

In general, religions present a set of practices for those who are born into them, and their authorities expect those who are born into them to adhere to them not their gods.
Correct. So why should I regard the religion you were born into as being true while all the others are false?

God may not be knowable by only objective means because God is not an object, but a person above all categories. Consequently, the knowledge of God is ultimately a personal knowledge.
Logical fallacy #3. Persons are knowable, and knowledge of what they are and do can be obtained by objective means. It takes more than mere assertion to demonstrate whether (and if so, why) God should be regarded as an exception.

I realise that you genuinely believe in all this business of “personal evidence” and so on. But I rather suspect that this kind of talk only satisfies you as evidence on the specific subject of God, and that only because you have been told from a very young age to do so, and you accepted it before you were of an age to have developed your critical faculties properly. On all other topics, I rather expect that you look for rather more tangible bits of evidence. Might I suggest that you are, probably quite unintentionally, apply a double standard here? Try evaluating evidence for God as you would evidence for anything else. For instance, you wouldn’t regard the line of argument described in this video as being persuasive. It is a caricature, but I’m sure you will recognise what it is a caricature of.

Pascal’s Wager is more of a proposal for action in a specific situation. It does not pretend to be a syllogism Start with a situation in which you are called upon to make one decision or the other. The true state of affairs isn’t known and cannot be known by you. However, if you take one side, and it’s true, you gain everything–and if it’s false, you lose nothing. However, if you take the other side, and it’s true you gain nothing–but if it’s false, you lose big time. In that case, it is suggested, the sensible course of action is to make the decision that offers the reward.
How makes this a logical fallacy? Beats me.

- “The wager depends on you knowing what God wants of you.
Let me see???? Hmmm..I will try a lucky guess. He wants us to believe in Him according with His revelation to us. He did revealed to us you know. To discern which god to chose it up to us. Buddha, Chrishna even Allah have noting to offer. Why would I chose them? That’s why christian God is a reasonable one. To help us to discern.

Whether the Wager applies to other religions could be debated. Have you ever noted the crying lack of Hindu, Buddhist, Jewish and Muslim evangelists? They have their share of assorted holy figures, no question–but the person who goes around an area inviting people to be “saved” is rather a (Protestant) Christian phenomenon . In general, religions present a set of practices for those who are born into them, and their authorities expect those who are born into them to adhere to them not their gods.

God may not be knowable by only objective means because God is not an object, but a person above all categories. Consequently, the knowledge of God is ultimately a personal knowledge.

And with this I really want to wish you all the best. Like I said I would like to move on some different topics.
It has been a real pleasure talking with you.

You have no understanding of the originally intended meaning of the term “survival of the fittest” and are applying a Social Darwinist interpretation, very popular amongst evangelical Christians to justify killing those they believe to be inferior to them. As I said, your morals stink.

And if you have now said enough on this issue, I notice that you have made no attempt to answer my points on the question of Pascal’s wager. This is as I expected.

What I meant to say and you misinterpreted was that we have intrinsic values because we are made in the image of God. If we are accidents who/what gives you value?

It is not my belief in God that keeps me for killing people. It is in me and you and all the people on the planet. It is God’s imprinted conscience in every human being on the planet not to murder other people either you believe or not in Him.
With this I think I have said enough on this issue.
Best Regards

If that is the case, then I am pleased that you believe in God, and I sincerely hope for their sake that your belief never wavers.

But I must say that if what you have said is an accurate representation of your beliefs, then I think your morals stink.

1. “We are valuable to each other. Why would you need more”?

You are not valuable to me whatsoever and I am not valuable to you either. Let’s face it. How valuable are all 1.7 billion muslims to us in USA. We can get their oil without them. I think a few neutron bombs will take care of them. We do not want to spoil the earth, we just want to get rid of the people.

2. “The good you can decide to do along the way”.

How do you define good? In some parts of the world it is good to “love thy neighbor” in other parts it is good to “eat thy neighbor”.
I do not do good in hope of a reward, I do good because it is in me and in every human being as a result of the fact we are made in the image of God. Evolution, atheism cannot explain it. Why should I jump on a stream to save a child if it is not mine and I cannot swim?

If life is all it is this contradicts all the laws of physics, thermodynamics, logic. Where is justice for millions of people killed and abused by tyrants that have it all the way. Check Idi Amin Dada for this, although the list is endless. Again ………”there was nothing, and nothing happened to nothing and then nothing exploded for no reason”……. (see my previous comment), make sense to you?

I cannot spend more time on this because I have to work and why should I care what you think or do because you are not valuable to me after all. (I am playing the devils advocate of course)

1. What gives us value in a world without God? What makes us more valuable than a moth or a fly or a monkey or a horse?
We are valuable to each other. Why would you need more?

2. What does it matter if you are a pauper or a king if the end is the same for all?
The good you can decide to do along the way. You are very close to suggesting that if you didn’t believe in a godly reward at the end of your life, you wouldn’t bother doing any good at all. I suggest that if you genuinely believe that, then you can’t make any claim to moral virtue, since you are entirely in it for yourself – for one thing only, your hope of heavenly reward. I doubt very much that this is really the case, but if it is, it would cause me to have an extremely low opinion of you.

Look at life. Is this all it is?
Why can you not decide that the garden is beautiful without needing to believe that there are fairies at the bottom of it? (Or if you prefer, without believing that God made it?)

It seems overwhelmingly probable that this life is all that there is. This doesn’t bother me, I know what kinds of good I want to do in this life – in essence I want to do what I can to leave the world a better place than I found it. If I spend all my life worrying what will happen to me in an afterlife I know nothing of, then I will spend my whole life looking over my shoulder worrying which version of Pascal’s wager I ought to follow, and won’t be able to live fully in this one life I have. It’s a bit like trying to drive a car with the parking brake permanently on.