Did Judaism Just Receive a Going Concern Opinion?

I dig Jews.

God isn't obvious. That's one of the main reasons why I'm agnostic. But if any religion can make a case for God being close to obvious, it's the Jews. Here's a quick recap of the high-profile miraculous-adjacent Jewish events in recent history.

Israel is a country. It shouldn't be. I don't mean that in a Mahmoud Ahmadinejad kind of way. I mean that in a Ripley's Believe It Or Not kind of way. Sure, 32 countries, including Djibouti, still refuse to recognize Israeli statehood. But to be fair, most Americans don't recognize Djibouti's statehood. Most American's think Djibouti is what you shake at Djiclub. 

The Six-Day War was proof of God's existence. Unless you're Muslim. In June 1967, Israel handed Egypt, Syria, and Jordan their respective asses. The last official day of the Six-Day War was Saturday, so God won the war, but the Israeli troops broke the fourth commandment. 

Hitler didn't single out Mormons in the Holocaust. Throughout the Old Testament, God threatened the Jews with brutal punishment if they turned away. I don't know if or how they may have turned away, but I can't imagine a more brutal punishments than the Holocaust. Jews make up a statistically insignificant portion of the world's population, yet they continually take center stage in human history.

Jewish exceptionalism is hard to deny. Today Jews make up about 0.2 percent of the total world population, but they make up 73 percent of the writing staff on Big Bang Theory. Jews have a outsized representation among the world's foremost scientists and entertainers. It's like they were chosen. They do suck at sports. They only make up about 0.2 percent of the professional athlete population. 

The two most successful world religions are spin-offs of Judaism. Paramount Studios didn't create Next Generation, Voyager, and Deep Space Nine because Star Trek sucked. Judaism must've gotten a lot of things right to have two blockbuster spinoffs. Also, Captain Kirk and Mr. Spock are both Jewish. I learn things from Adam Sandler songs.

Pretty damn amazing, right? Wrong. The Pew Research Center just undermined all of that with one of their god forsaken surveys.

Apparently Judaism might be going out of business because Jews (at least in America) are becoming more and more secular. According to CNN.com, nearly a third of Jews born after 1980 say they have no religion at all, almost 60 percent of Jews who have wed since 2000 have a non-Jewish spouse, and one-third of intermarried Jews say they're not raising thier kids Jewish. Top that off with the fact that Jews generally don't proselytize. It's an unsustainable religious model.

Clearly, the Jewish faith is nowhere near receiving a going concern opinion - it will undoubtedly continue to operate beyond the next 12 months. But the idea that it's in decline raises some interesting questions.

Let's say the day comes when Judaism has zero followers. Does that prove that the God of Israel does not exist? 

I haven't given the existence of the Roman pantheon serious consideration. That's because nobody believes in the Roman pantheon. Okay. I'm sure somebody does, but I assume they're being ironic.

No followers for a particular god doesn't disprove that god's existence, but it does put that religion into the neighborhood of deism which is located in agnostic county.

Assume God exists. Let's call him Preston. He's not YHWH or Jesus or Allah or Brahmin. None of those guys exist. Preston exists. He's omniscient and omnipotent. But no one believes in Preston anymore. NO ONE. And he's cool with that. He could reveal himself, but he doesn't. 

What does that tell us about Preston? It tells us (1) he doesn't want a relationship with us, (2) maybe he doesn't mean us any harm, but (3) he doesn't love us, and (4) he doesn't think we need to know what happens after we die.

Deists believe those exact same things about God, and many agnostics would affirm all four of those statements as long as each began with the disclaimer "If God exists, then since he hasn't made his existence and identity clearly known ..."

Judaism tops the leaderboard of believable religions except for the fact that it appears to be heading toward extinction.

Auditing the Occurrence Assertion of Jesus' Resurrection

Auditors are expected to look closely at large transactions and unusual transactions in order to test - among other things - whether or not the transaction actually occurred.

As for religious beliefs, I'm going to say that the founder of a religion coming back from the dead qualifies as both a large and an unusual "transaction."

I'm an agnostic, and by that, I mean I'm a doubting atheist. My agnosticism comes from a lack of sufficient, persuasive evidence for the existence of God. In the comments on this blog and on Facebook, many people have responded that God provided sufficient, persuasive evidence through the person of Jesus of Nazareth:

"You say that God should reveal more of himself than just creation, I think he did... in the person of Jesus Christ."

"If Scripture is to be believed, then God gave more proof than could be demanded of any deity by sending his Son."

"Your arguments so far have not dealt with Jesus Christ, who is the ultimate answer to the mystery of God. ... Every argument I've ever had against God cannot get around Jesus."

Does the historical Jesus of Nazareth provide us with sufficient, persuasive evidence of the existence of God?

I just finished reading Zealot: The Life and Times of Jesus of Nazareth by Reza Aslan (not to be confused with Christian rapper Reza Rection nor with a character in The Chronicles of Narnia). Aslan is a professor of religion, and his book advances his conception of the Jesus of history. "I have constructed my narrative upon what I believe to be the most accurate and reasonable argument, based on my two decades of scholarly research." His studies have led him to the conclusion that Jesus of Nazareth was 

• One of many first-century wonder workers and exorcists in Palestine (although he appears to be the only one performing wonders and exorcisms free of charge)
• A charismatic leader and teacher
• One of many at that time who claimed to be the Messiah to shake off Roman rule 
• One of many at that time to be crucified by the Romans for sedition

Although his understanding of Jesus is clearly at odds with Christianity, one very interesting concession he makes relates to the behavior of Jesus' disciples after the crucifixion. "Something extraordinary happened. What exactly is impossible to know. ... There is this nagging fact to consider: one after another of those who claimed to have witnessed the risen Jesus went to their own gruesome deaths refusing to recant their testimony." Is this "nagging fact" sufficient, persuasive evidence supporting the occurrence assertion of the resurrection?

In Lee Strobel's book The Case for Christ, we read, 

[The disciples] were willing to spend the rest of their lives proclaiming [the resurrection of Jesus Christ], without any payoff from a human point of view. ... They faced a life of hardship. They often went without food, slept exposed to the elements, were ridiculed, beaten, imprisoned. And finally, most of them were executed in torturous ways. ... You've got eleven credible people with no ulterior motives, with nothing to gain and a lot to lose, who all agree they observed something with their own eyes - now you've got some difficulty explaining that away.

I completely agree. I have difficulty explaining away the nagging fact of eleven credible people remaining terminally loyal to their eyewitness accounts of Jesus' resurrection. However, I don't believe this difficulty amounts to sufficient, persuasive evidence of the resurrection of Jesus. David Hume makes an interesting argument about miracles in An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding, Section X. He says the probability that an event has a miraculous explanation is always lower than the probability that the event has a natural explanation. Always. I believe that's why Reza Aslan says, "The resurrection is not a historical event. It may have had historical ripples, but the event itself falls outside the scope of history and into the realm of faith."

Maybe faith is the core of the problem. Maybe faith is believing in something despite insufficient persuasive evidence. But why is faith required? I see no intrinsic value in faith itself. Why would God purposely and stubbornly withhold sufficient, persuasive evidence of his existence and Jesus' resurrection? So that we're forced to have faith? Why? What is virtuous about beliefs that lack justification?

It is extremely interesting to note that, while Aslan unashamedly presents and supports the idea that Jesus was a very exceptional - but not divine - man, he also says, "For every well-attested argument made about the historical Jesus, there is an equally well-attested, equally researched, and equally authoritative argument opposing it." There are people who are smarter and better educated than me who have arrived at authoritative, well-researched conclusions about Jesus which contradict the authoritative and well-researched conclusions of other people who are also smarter and better educated than me. That by itself is enough to conclude that sufficient, persuasive evidence regarding the resurrection does not exist.

God & Cash Confirmations

For awhile there, most people thought bankers were dicks. Not me. My banker's cool. We have absolutely nothing in common, and as a result we've had some great discussions. Even though I'm his client, he's not afraid to talk to me about God, so he's got some balls. They're not gigantic balls, however, because he was too chicken to post the following comment on the blog. He emailed it to me instead.

To refresh your memory, the comment below relates to the post Auditing God's Existence Assertion. My ultimate conclusion (thanks to some thoughtful comments by bigger-balled readers) was that everyone needs to disclaim an opinion regarding God's existence because God stubbornly refuses to make his existence obvious; he's limited the scope of our fieldwork.

Here's what my banker had to say:

Lets say you're an independent, external auditor, and you go and audit a client's balance sheet, and on the balance sheet it shows $50,000,000 in cash. An agnostic auditor would ask to see the cash, and when she is told it's impossible as it is "in the bank," the auditor would provide them with an adverse opinion and assume fraud. 

How do you audit a company's cash? You can't see it. You can't touch it. I'm sure many people have sniffed it, but not you. You can't taste it, and last time I checked you can't hear it. So based on her logic it can't exist. Sure we have seen a dollar here and a hundred dollars there, but come on, a full $50,000,000?

Having been part of many audits, I receive a letter asking me to certify and provide statements of the cash balance. As a certified, robe-wearing banker, I certify the cash and provide the bank statement. 

But I didn't see it, touch it, smell it, taste it, or hear it. So why would an auditor ever believe me? Couldn't it still be a huge scam (based on the last four years it just might be) or a gigantic fraud? Who was the last person to really see, touch, or sniff $50,000,000? 

The money doesn't need to be hidden inside a bank, but it is. Why? It can't be safety, as banks are robbed everyday. It can't be practicality, as who would ever trust their life savings to blood thirsty Wall Street bankers? 

My belief is there is no tangible way for the auditor to prove the company really has $50,000,000. However, auditors seem to do it every year as they recognize bankers are honest, awesome people with no hidden agendas.

First off, I'll make another small adjustment to my conclusion. I said everyone needs to disclaim an opinion regarding God's existence. That is not true if God has revealed his existence to you directly. If God let you count his $50 million, then you can give an unqualified opinion (unless you're not independent - more on that in a later post).

I also want to address the main point he's making. He's saying that in any audit there is a lot of faith regarding the existence of cash, and he testifies to its existence even if though he himself has not necessarily seen or counted the cash. His faith is justified, and others can believe based on his testimony.

Good point. Sister Wachovia will lead us in a hymn, and then brother Citicorp will say the closing prayer.

My banker's faith is awesome because it's based on reason. Someone in his organization, at some point, saw and counted the cash. Probably a teller. Maybe a computer. And someone in the organization put the cash in the bank's cash hole.

Both the audit client and the bank are very concerned about the client's cash balance. Every month, the bank sends a statement to the client with its cash balance. Assuming the client has even minimal competence, the client reconciles the bank balance to the balance on its books. 

It's in the client's best interest for the cash balance to be artificially high. It's in the bank's best interest for the cash balance to be artificially low. Since they have opposite interests yet they have consistently agreed on the client's cash balance every month, there is sufficient, pursuasive, systemic support for the existence of the cash.

My banker has faith in his tellers' reliability, his computers's accuracy, his customers' anal-retentiveness, and his cash hole's impregnability. He has faith in a well-documented, regularly monitored, ongoing system of checks and balances.

That's the banker's perspecitive.

From the auditor's perspective, we can obtain sufficient, pursuasive evidence of the existence of cash by confirming the client's cash balance with the bank because the bank, at some time, has seen and counted the cash, and the bank's interests are opposite the client's.

Analogy fun time is over now.

Since I don't have sufficient, persuasive firsthand evidence of God's existence, can I use a confirmation process to test God's existence assertion? Who would I send confirmations to? Would I send them to everyone? 

If I sent confirmations to a large enough statistical sample, and enough confirmations were returned, and the overwhelming majority agreed regarding God's existence and identity, then I would have sufficient, pursuasive evidence to support God's existence assertion. However, atheists, Christians, Muslims, Jews, Hindus, and Buddhists would all respond with different answers; therefore, I would have to conclude a material misstatement regarding any particular God's existence.

Agnostics wouldn't bother replying at all.

Maybe God Doesn't Send People to Hell For Wrong Belief (He Does)

In my last post I claimed that if God exists, only two of the following three assertions could be true:

#1: God chooses to be hidden.

#2: God is good.

#3: God sends people to suffer eternally in hell for wrong belief.

One commenter raised some specific objections to #3. This post is a discussion of those objections.

Side Note: The commenter, Duane Morris, has a masters in philosophy of religion and apologetics from Talbot Theological Seminary, so he's not faking it like me. Funny story, Duane and I both attended youth group at North Seattle Alliance Church. In 1988 we went on a mission trip together to Bogota, Columbia, where I (1) almost got arrested by a cop with a machine gun, (2) purchased ill-fitting Colombian underwear, and (3) came home with campylobacter, a stomach bug that I thought was going to kill me. Thanks to campylobacter, I got to go to the emergency room and poop in a cup.

Here's what Duane says*: "Regarding premise #3, 'God sends people to suffer eternally in hell for wrong belief,' this is not the position of Christianity and it misunderstands 3 things." I only misunderstood one thing about Colombian underpants, so three misunderstandings necessitate a closer look.

 

Objection No. 1: "First, and most importantly, no one is going to Hell for wrong belief ... The problem is purely in our sin." 

I agree. Kind of. Christianity teaches that we go to hell because we sin. Everybody sins, so everybody's going to hell. If a person was totally sinless, that person wouldn't go to hell. That's why I agree with Duane. 

 

However, Christianity also teaches that Jesus can save us - anybody - from our sins. Specifically, "whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life." That's why I only kind of agree.

Let's say you get invited to a party. Gundrick, who's pissed that he didn't get invited to the party, sneaks in and dumps an entire bottle of Turbo Lax into the punch and locks the only available bathroom. After everybody at the party drinks some punch, Gundrick shows up again, and he's like, "I put Turbo Lax in the punch! Enjoy crapping your pants." Then he locks everyone in the toiletless party. Lucky for you, my mom is at the party, and she's a pharmacist, and pharmacists have bulk Imodium on their person at all times. (Pharmacists are bound by their professional ethics to share Imodium with anyone who will more likely than not shit their pants.) But Stacey, Brian and Kelvin don't take the Imodium. No one knows why. They just don't. And Stacey, Brian, and Kelvin crap there pants. 

 

Why did they crap their pants?

They shat their pants because they didn't take the Imodium. You could have said it was because Gundrick poisoned them - and you'd be right - but Gundrick also poisoned my mom who did not shit her pants. Lack of Imodium is a better answer because everyone had the Turbo Lax.

If Christianity is true, I'm going to hell because of my wrong belief. You can say it's because of my sin - and you'd be right - but sinfulness is everybody's predicament. Wrong belief is a better, more nuanced explanation for why people go to hell.

Objection No. 2: "God's purpose is not that people suffer, but as a result of our sin we have chosen separation from God. God designed us to live forever with Him, so there must be somewhere to be instead. Hell is specifically the 'Place of Separation,' a place where God is absent. ... [Hell] wasn't intended for us - and that is why it sucks."

I have a tough time with this for a couple reasons. First, is the idea that "God's purpose is not that people suffer." Both the Bible and the Qur'an are unequivocal in their depiction of hell as a place of immense suffering. Mark 9:47 describes hell as a place where the worm doesn't die and the fire is never quenched. The Qur'an says that hell is eternal and that "as often as their skins are roasted through, we will exchange them for other skins so that they may taste the punishment." (I know we're focusing on Christianity here, but my agnosticism extends to other religions, too.)

The best comparison Jesus can give for separation from God is that it's like being burned alive forever while maggots eat your flesh forever. If, to satisfy the requirements of justice, God has to punish me with burning and maggots, I'm okay with that. But at some point between zero and forever on the fire and maggots timeline, the punishment is not commensurate with the crime, and God needs to either extinguish my existence or give me the option to come out of hell. Otherwise, once the punishment outweighs the crime, his purpose is simply my suffering.

I'm going to repeat that. If hell is forever - if you can't get out of hell once you're in hell - then it's not rehabilitative. It's punitive. If the punishment continues after justice is satisfied, the purpose of the punisher can be nothing other than sadism. My conclusion is not that the Christian God is a sadist. My conclusion (based on the fact that God cannot be both good and a sadist) is that the Christian God does not exist. 

My other obstacle with Objection No. 2 is the choice. I'm not choosing separation from God. I just don't believe he exists. Similarly, I'm not refusing to watch the remake of Gladiator starring Chris Farley as Maximus and Will Farrell as Commodus. I just don't believe it exists. If God made his existence and identity obvious (not hidden), I'm confident I'd choose to be with him because he sounds awesome. (I would also like to watch the Gladiator reboot.)

Duane and I agree. If someone truly chooses to be separated from God, then that dumbass can go straight to hell. However, what I contend is that you can't truly choose to be apart from God if you're truly convinced that he doesn't exist. If God exists, his stubborn refusal to make his existence and identity obvious precludes me from making a choice.

Objection No. 3: "God is not sending anyone to Hell ... If sin separates us from God, then Hell is simply the place for those who are already separated from Him - sinners."

All the verses I remember indicate that God sends people to hell. "Anyone whose name was not found written in the book of life was thrown into the lake of fire" (Revelations 20:15). "He will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire'" (Matthew 25:41). That's a lot different than saying, "Okay, go ahead and remain in the eternal fire where you already are." He is telling them to depart. He's sending them there. "The angels will come and separate the wicked from the righteous and throw them into the blazing furnace" (Matthew 13:49, 50). "Fear him who, after your body has been killed, has authority to throw you into hell" (Luke 12:5). "If your hand or your foot causes you to stumble, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to enter life maimed or crippled than to have two hands or two feet and be thrown into eternal fire" (Matthew 18:8). I think you have to do a lot of mental gymnastics to circumvent the plain reading of the Bible which indicates that God sends people to eternal suffering (Matthew 25: 10-12) as punishment (Jude 7).

If hell wasn't eternal or if those who go there truly chose to be there, then we'd be good.

*To see Duane's comment in its entirety, go to The Trilemma of Hiddenness + Goodness + Hell. His comment was the very last one when this post was published.

The Trilemma of Hiddenness + Goodness + Hell

In my last post, I talked about God choosing to be hidden. By hidden, I mean that God left both his existence (is God real?) and his identity (which God is real?) up for debate.

I contend that - at most - only two of the following three statements can be true:

1. God chooses to be hidden.
2. God is good.
3. God sends people to suffer eternally in hell for wrong belief.

The first statement is true; his existence is uncertain. Therefore, one of the following two statements is true: 

1. God chooses to be hidden, and he is good, but he does NOT send people to eternal hell for wrong belief, or ...
2. God chooses to be hidden, and he sends people to eternal hell for wrong belief, but he is NOT good.

If God chooses to be hidden and he sends people to hell for wrong belief, then he's not good because his hiddenness reduces religious belief to a guessing game, and I suck at guessing games. 

GOD: What's your guess?

ME: Shinto?

GOD: Go fish! I mean ... Go, fish! As in, "The kingdom of heaven is like unto a net that was cast into the sea and gathered fish of every kind. When it was full, they drew it to shore and sat down and gathered the good fish into vessels, but cast the bad fish away." (Matthew 13: 47,48)

It's like someone sneaking up behind you, putting her hands over your eyes, and asking, "Guess who?" But when you say "Stacy," she grabs your head, snaps your neck Steven Seagal style, and says, "Wrong! It's Kelly, asshole."

Some people maintain that God is good - even though he is hidden and sends people to hell - by comparing him to a potter. God creates us just like a potter creates pots. If a potter wants to smash some of his pots just because he feels like smashing some shit, he's still a good dude. I totally agree because I love smashing shit. I also love to light stuff on fire, so I'd also be cool with comparing God to somebody who makes wicker furniture and sometimes burns an armoire just because that's awesome.

But if you change "potter" to "dog breeder" and "pots" to "puppies with eternal souls," then I'm out because I only love smashing inanimate shit. I guess I could see myself smashing a puppy if the puppy was suffering and dying and no alternate forms of euthanasia were available. However, I couldn't ever see myself sending the puppy's soul to hell no matter how many times he unrepentantly peed on my couch.

A good God can make a planet and then blow it up just for fun. As a matter of fact, if God exists and hasn't blown up a planet just for fun, then I'm not sure he's worthy of our worship. However, you're a bad god if you make a conscious, sentient being just to torture it forever. Bad God.

Another defense for how a good God can be hidden and send people to hell is that the hell-bound person has rejected God and chosen hell. People with honest intellectual problems with God's existence are not rejecting God. They are rejecting the hypothesis of his existence. I don't reject unicorns or bigfoot, but I do reject the hypothesis of their existence. If the Hogle Zoo in Salt Lake City opened a unicorn and bigfoot exhibit, I would totally go, and to commemorate my non-rejection of both unicorns and bigfoots I would purchase two overpriced t-shirts, one that says "I'm Horny" and another that says "Big Feet, Big ..."

I accept the evidence that supports the existence of God; however, I reject the hypothesis of God's existence because I do not believe the evidence is sufficient or persuasive. This does not mean that I reject God. If sufficient, persuasive evidence of a loving, omniscient, omnipotent God existed, I would want nothing more than to spend forever with him. I do not choose hell, but that's where I'm going if Christianity is true.

Auditing God's Existence Assertion

The movie Mystery Men is underrated. It's on Netflix right now, but I prefer to watch my VHS copy because I'm a purist. It's like listening to the Bee Gees on cassette.

My second favorite mystery man is Invisible Boy because his superpower is hilarious.

Invisible Boy:    I can only become invisible when no one's watching.

The Shoveler:    So you're only invisible to yourself?

Invisible Boy:    No. If I look at myself, I become visible again.

Mr. Furious:    So you can only become invisible when absolutely nobody is watching you?

Invisible Boy:    Yes.

Blue Raja:    Do forgive our incredulity, but I'm wondering how you can be certain you've achieved transparency at all?

Invisible Boy:    Well, when you go invisible ... you can feel it.

Best idea for a superhero ever. Turns out he did have the power of invisibility, and he pretty much saves the day at the end of the movie. Regardless, when he was first introduced, he made an assertion that was (seemingly) impossible to test. The natural and understandable reaction was incredulity.

God has a similar assertion—the assertion that he exists but that he can't be perceived by the five senses. It's an existence assertion, and it can't be tested. We lack sufficient persuasive evidence of God’s existence.

Let's say you're an independent, external auditor, and you go to audit a client's inventory, but the client says that nobody’s allowed see any of their inventory until after their IPO. You've got to give an adverse opinion, and you'd probably assume fraud. (And, yes, the inventory balance is material. Those kind of questions are why people don't like us.)

God doesn’t have to be hidden—doesn’t have to be intangible. Therefore, you shouldn’t test God's existence like you'd test the existence of an intangible asset because God chooses to be hidden. He's omnipotent; he's capable of revealing his existence.

Some people believe that God keeps himself hidden because we couldn't handle it if God revealed himself to us fully—our faces would melt like in Raiders of the Lost Ark. First off, I'd be okay with a partial reveal so long as it's a persuasive partial reveal. Also, in heaven, believers will be in the direct presence of God with, presumably, unmelted faces. Whatever physics God has in heaven whereby humans and their faces can withstand the magnitude of his presence—he should be able to duplicate that on earth. Pretty much the omnipotence thing again.

Some claim that since love is a choice, God doesn't reveal himself to us because if we experienced his presence firsthand, we would be overwhelmed, and we would be coerced into loving him, but since by definition coercion robs us of our free will, it's not a choice and, therefore, it's not really love. However, if experiencing God's presence firsthand coerced us into loving God, then Satan—who was like a managing partner angel with direct access to God himself—wouldn't have fallen.

Also, just because something is so unbelievably, mind-blowingly good that only a complete dumbass, whose head is lodged deep within his butt, would reject it, doesn't not constitute coercion. I'm not coerced by Red Velvet Cheesecake, even though it's so damn good, I'd punch an old lady in the neck to get a slice. Neither is my free will infringed upon by oxygen, even though breathing it is so good I can't stop even if I wanted to.

A weird corollary of the coercion argument is the Sally Kyte Corollary. My mom never hid from me as a kid just to make sure I loved her for real. She wasn't worried that I was coerced into loving her because moms naturally have that effect on their kids. Even now that I'm a big boy, she'd be a total weirdo to hide from me to make sure I loved her. She's a weirdo for other reasons, like drinking buttermilk and referring to me as a “big boy.”

If you're a CPA, specifically and auditor, Generally Accepted Auditing Standards (GAAS) dictate the following:

• "To obtain reasonable assurance, the auditor must not be satisfied with audit evidence that is less than persuasive," (AU 326.13) And ...
• "The auditor should prepare audit documentation that is sufficient to enable an experienced auditor, having no previous connection with the audit, to understand ... the conclusions reached thereon." (AU 230.08)

The only way you can give an unqualified opinion regarding God's existence is to gather sufficient, persuasive evidence of his existence - evidence such that an experienced auditor (Goditor) would arrive at the same conclusion you did. I assert that no such sufficient, persuasive evidence exists; otherwise, everyone would be convinced of his existence.

Giving God's existence assertion an unqualified opinion without that kind of evidence is just bad GAAS. Fart joke. Classy.

I don’t require 100% assurance that God's exists. I'm just looking for an unqualified opinion.

But the converse is also true. It's impossible for me to disprove the existence of anything that's imperceptible. Therefore an imperceptible God may exist. And I may have the power of invisibility when absolutely no one is watching, even though I've never felt it.

Pascal's Wager & Risk Management: Assessing and Mitigating Hell Risk

In the risk assessment phase of comprehensive existence management, I identified eternal torment in blazing hellfire as a possible risk.

Even though I'm convinced hell doesn't exist, I'm also convinced that I could be wrong. Lots of people were convinced Enron was fraud-free.

Pascal's Wager is a decision theory device to reduce or avoid hell risk. If you're not familiar, here's how it works. If Christianity is true, the Christian will spend forever in the eternal bliss of heaven, and the atheist gets eternal torment in blazing hellfire. If atheism is true, both the Christian and the atheist cease to exist. The best possible outcome for the atheist is the worst possible outcome for the Christian. Decision theory (or simply not having you head in your ass) dictates that if there's even a tiny chance that Christianity is true, we should choose Christianity over atheism.

But that's just Christianity versus atheism. You can extend Pascal's Wager into a head-to-head metaphysical death match of religious belief:

Christianity vs. Hinduism
Everyone gets reincarnated in Hinduism - Christianity wins!

Christianity vs. Buddhism
Buddhists believe in reincarnation, too - Christianity wins!

Christianity vs. Judaism
This is tougher because Jewish beliefs regarding the afterlife vary. Some Jews believe there's no afterlife - Christianity wins! Some Jews believe our admission into heaven or hell is based on proper action (orhtopraxy) rather than proper belief (orthodoxy). If you're a Christian with a kosher meal pan - Christianity wins!

Christianity vs. Islam
This is also tough because salvation is Islam requires a combination of orthodoxy and orthopraxy. If you take Ephesians 2:8,9 at face value ("It is by grace you have been saved, through faith - and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God - not by works, so that no one can boast.") then Christianity only requires orthodoxy. The risk of hell exists in both cases, but the risk is reduced with Christianity because the requirements are less stringent - Christianity wins!

Christianity vs. Unitarianism
Unitarians? Whatever - Christianity wins!

We don't need to line up Taoists, Sihks, Mormons, Baha'is or miscellaneous because hell plus Ephesians 2:8 gives Christianity the unbeatable Tekken combo of the Pascal's Wager Thunderdome. (Two religions enter! One religion leaves! Not as a result of syncretism!)

Pascal's Wager is an incredibly powerful and logical way to approach religion. It helped me stay committed to Jesus for years despite serious doubts. I found the extended version so compelling that I thought it was the silver bullet of faith: Christianity is the right choice as long as you are aware of your own mortality and recognize even a remote possibility of the existence of hell risk.

The problem with Pascal's Wager is that it's impracticable.

Let's say I choose to be a Christian based on Pascal's Wager, even though I'm convinced intellectually that it's not true. What does that mean? What does it look like? Does it mean that I simply hold myself out as a Christian? Or do I need to live like a Christian?

I could get some Vistaprint business cards that say, "Gregory M. Kyte, Christian," but never pray or worship or align my behavior with the Bible's teachings - say I'm a Christian but have no love of God nor fear of God. People who do this give religion a bad name, and nobody contends this empty choice is "saving faith." There's no Form 8832 for religious belief.

You can't fake it 'til you make it on this. You can't love or fear a God that you don't really believe in, nor can you sincerely worship or pray to a God that you don't think exists. I did that for as long as I could; but eventually, trying to love a God you don't believe in, feels like a lie - like you're lying about being a disciple of a God who commands you not to lie.

Maybe I'm getting ahead of myself, but despite the powerful argument in Pascal's Wager, "maximizing afterlife value" doesn't seem to be a tenable purpose or core ideology.