Bookmaker offers 4-1 odds on God's existence
NC Seantor Elizabeth Dole's "Godless" ad tried to tear down Kay Hagan for associating with atheists -- but it doesn't seem to have worked.
A UK betting company is now offering 4-1 odds that God exists.
From the story:
A spokesman for Paddy Power said that confirmation of God's existence would have to be verified by scientists and given by an independent authority before any payouts were made, however.
He added: "The atheists' planned advertising campaign seems to have renewed the debate in pubs and around office water-coolers as to whether there is a God and we've seen some of that being transferred into bets.
"However we advise anyone still not sure of God's existence to maybe hedge their bets for now, just in case."
Paddy Power's book on the theological topic was only opened this year, but the notion that it is a good idea to gamble on God's existence was first put forward in the 17th Century.
The French philosopher Blaise Pascal argued that although God's existence cannot be proven through reason, it makes sense to have religious faith since a person has everything to gain – an "infinitely happy life" – and nothing to lose by doing so.
Comments (10)
To report abuse of the comment feature on this site, please use the feedback form at the bottom of any page.
Those odds must be something just short of a S.W.A.G. Obviously, a lot more serious thought would have to be put in on the problem, and a far different solution arrived at. There are billions of gods to choose odds on, after all.
Posted on November 5, 2008 1:55 PM
I hadn't thought about it that way, but I suppose you're right.
I guess I assumed that the bookmaker was using God the way Richard Dawkins does -- to mean any kind of God anywhere.
But if the existence of, say, Wotan could be confirmed but it turned out he was the only God... you couldn't really pay out to the worshippers of Yaweh/Jehova.
Posted on November 5, 2008 2:01 PM
Yeah. It all boils down to how you define the problem that affects the solution.
Posted on November 5, 2008 3:31 PM
Just a thought here,
Perhaps someone else whould like to offer odds on the "scientific " proof for the logic and reason used in the observation of the evidence.
The two are assumed and self-evident realities that escape the same "proof" requirement demanded of God's existence.
Tony
Posted on November 5, 2008 3:55 PM
Which god are they talking about ?
Posted on November 5, 2008 9:21 PM
Good morning Lakeshia,
I don't think the particular should be confused with the universal here. "Which God" is a very different question from the "if God" question. Perhaps some fear that certain particulars might logically flow from the reality of god's existence and I understand that fear. As much as our culture wants to generecize Him, certain ideas logicall flow from the idea of a supernatural being - very unplesant ideas.
For example, if modern men would admit to any degree of certainty that God did exist, then other related issues would automaticaly arise. How "should" men live, for example, may become an issue.
Just a thought.
Tony
Posted on November 6, 2008 9:27 AM
Tony, do you mean to imply that nobody need worry about how they should live unless and until they accept a supernatural being? Surely not. Atheists are, as a class, just as interested in how we shouold live as any other group. As for Pascal's wager, if the God was the Christian God Pascal believed in, I don't think he would be too impressed with the "I'm just hedging my bets" motive for one's faith.
Posted on November 6, 2008 10:24 PM
As ususal, it's all just speculative nonsense without the illumination of the Spirit of God in the new birth. The Scriptures clearly point out that man, left to himself, is utterly incapable of knowing or understanding God or supernatural things. His little peashooter brain cannot grasp the nature and personality of infinite, unique and totally personal Deity. Without this insight (which the lowliest born again peasant has) all we get is the pholosphical sophistry and cheap fishwrap blasphemy evidenced on this page.
Posted on November 9, 2008 8:28 PM
Odd that the lowly peasants squabble about the nature of God as much as, if not more than, the learned Christian scholars. Personally, I think Aristotle did pretty well, despite his peashooter brain being unillumined by the Spirit that enlightens the snake-handlers and TV evangelists like the profound Joel Osteen, not to mention Oral "give me another million or God will take me home" Roberts.
Posted on November 24, 2008 9:54 PM
Of course, entertaining the very absurd idea of an infinite, unique, perosnal god itself guarantees one will be unable to comprehend it.
Posted on December 11, 2008 6:49 PM