Mageth

Your point above, and Pascal's Wager in general, rests on the assumption that whether one believes in God or does not believe in God is of any actual (eternal) consequence. Which rests on the additional assumption that there is an afterlife.

Why should one believe in God (or an afterlife)? Because the Bible says so? Well then, why should one believe the Bible? Because it's the "Word of God"?

Pascal's Wager becomes Pascal's Circle.

Your arguments here simply move the necessity for "belief" back one step, from God to the Bible.

There are few arguments for belief that are less compelling than the Wager.

rhutchin

We can't so let's include all churches in a democratic process to determine the laws that are to be enacted. Atheists can have their own church of the Notgod and participate also.

Johnny Skeptic

Your problem is that there are not any non-religious arguments at all that work regarding prohibiting homosexuality, same sex marriage, physician assisted suicide and divorce except in cases of adultery. You have changed your Pascal's Wager based "just to be safe" argument into a fallacious "argumentum ad populum" argument, otherwise stated, that whatever the majority of people want must be right, and the the courts should not protect the rights of minority groups. Of course, you are well aware that you would never get anywhere with your approach, even among the vast majority of Christians.

Your problems with that approach are as follows:

Let's assume that the good being in a battle with an evil being for the supremacy of the universe has told you that he will send you to hell if you choose the evil being and he defeats the evil being. Let's also assume that after the battle has gone on for a couple of weeks you believe that the evil being has a slight edge so you choose to worhip him. Let's also assume that hundreds of millions of other people are observing the battle and that 50.0000001% of them disagree with you that the evil being has a very slight edge, and choose the good being because they believe that he has a very slight edge. Please also consider the possibility that 90% of the people choose the good being because they believe that he has a very slight edge. Please also consider the possibility that there is a general tendency for people with higher IQ's to assume that the evil being has a slight edge, and that there is a general tendency for people with lower IQ's to assume that the good being has a slight edge. Please also consider that women will generally assume that the good being has a slight edge, and that men will generally believe that the evil being has a slight edge.

In Kosmin and Lachman's book that is titled 'One Nation Under God,' the authors cite documented research that shows that in the U.S., a substantially higher percentage of women are Christians than men, and that other major factors that influence religious beliefs are geography, family, race, ethnicity, and age.

Let me state my arguments in another way. In order for your arguments to be valid, they must make sense under any possible future scenarios, not just under the present scenarios, and as I have just shown, your arguments do not make sense under the aformentioned possible scenarios.

It seems to me that if the Bible is true, you have put yourself at great risk because it is not actually the God of the Bible that you follow, but your own self-interest, in other words, that you do not follow him because you believe that he is good and perfect, but because you believe that he will give you a comfortable eternal life completely irregardless of his supposed goodness. In other words, you worship eternal comfort regardless of who provides it, and if you believed that you could have eternal comfort in this life due to human effort you would not follow any religion.

rhutchin

The purpose for the Wager was specifically to address the issue you raise, "Why should one believe in God (or an afterlife)?" The answer is that there is a risk to a person in deciding not to believe the Bible and being wrong in that decision. The rational conclusion reached using Pascal's analysis is that one should not take that risk and should believe in God.

rhutchin

Absent the Bible, there is no argument against any sexual activity including any heterosexual, homosexual, animal, or whatever sexual activity. Further, there is no natural prohibition against any human activity that a person might imagine to do.

If one wants to be ruled by the Bible and adhere to the laws specified by God, that is one way to go. Absent that, it is either rule by the majority or rule by might (the minority). Take your pick.

Mageth

Jiminy Christmas, the only place one gets the notion for such a risk in not believing the Bible is from the Bible itself! So you have to first believe the Bible that there is a risk in not believing the Bible!

You're presenting a totally circular, and useless, argument. As Pascal's Wager is useless. Pascal's Wager is not in the least compelling.

Nope. The rational conclusion upon reviewing Pascal's Wager is that it is bunk.

rhutchin

If a so-called "good" being told you that he will not show mercy, then he would not be a "good" being. The choice is then between two evil beings. That choice can be made by flipping a coin.

Mageth

That is plainly false.

That is also false.

I have to laugh at this. "Ruled by the Bible and adhere to the laws specified by God", and the implied threats you've mentioned for "not believing" (in reference to Pascal's Wager) is a sterling example of "rule by might".

Johnny Skeptic

Your problems with that approach are as follows:

Let's assume that hundreds of millions of other people are observing the battle and that 50.0000001% of them disagree with you that the evil being has a slight edge, and choose the good being because they believe that he has a very slight edge. Please also consider the possibility that 90% of the people choose the good being because they believe that he has a very slight edge.

Please also consider the possibility that there is a general tendency for people with higher IQ's to assume the the evil being has a slight edge, and that there is a general tendency for people with lower IQ's to choose the good being. Please also consider that women will generally believe that the good being has a slight edge, and that men will generally believe that the evil being has a slight edge.

In Kosmin and Lachman's book that is titled 'One Nation Under God,' the authors cite documented research that shows that in the U.S., a substantially higher percentage of women are Christians than men, and that other major factors that influence religious beliefs are geography, family, race, ethnicity, and age.

In order for your arguments to be valid, they must valid under all possible scenarios. I previously showed that you would definitely be at great risk under the aforementioned possible scenarios, and that you wouldn't have a clue which being would be best for you to choose. You might tell someone that you accept your human father because he is the most powerful father in the world based upon your own personal investigations, but John Smith could easily ask you what would happen if your father were to have a fight with a powerful man and that after the fight had gone on for a few minutes the combatants paused for rest and it appeared to you that the man that your father was fighting might have a very slight edge, but your two very intelligent best friends disagreed with you, and at that point you would be required to choose which combatant to accept.

It seems to me that if the Bible is true, you have put yourself at great risk because it is not actually the God of the Bible that you follow, but your own self-interest, in other words, that you do not follow him because he is good and perfect, but because you believe that he will give you a comfortable eternal life. In other words, you worship eternal comfort regardless of who provides it.

So, rhutchin, you have a number of insurmountable problems, not the least of which is that many people with low intelligence would not be able to make any sense at all out of your arguments. In fact, we skeptics can't make any sense out of them either. If the God of the Bible exists, and if he wishes to demonstrate that he can convert energy into matter, he could easily show up anytime that he wants to and prove that he can convert energy into matter. If he really wants people to follow him, and if he really wants as many people to go to heaven as possible, that would be the only rational and logical approach for him to choose.

From a Christian viewpoint, if God didn't want to ever prove that he had supernatural powers, he wouldn't have ever demonstrated that he has supernatural powers. God told Moses that he would show pharoah who he was. Matthew 4:24-25 say "And his fame went throughout all Syria: and they brought unto him all sick people that were taken with divers diseases and torments, and those which were possessed with devils, and those which were lunatick, and those that had the palsy; and he healed them. And there followed him great multitudes of people from Galilee, and from Decapolis, and from Jerusalem, and from Judaea, and from beyond Jordan." In the New International Version of the Bible, John 10:37-38 say "Do not believe me unless I do what my Father does. But if I do it, even though you do not believe me, believe the miracles, that you may know and understand that the Father is in me, and I in the Father." The verses cite "tangible" evidence of Jesus' power. It is important to note that the texts say that "both sides" were aware that Jesus had supernatural powers. Matthew 12:24 says "But when the Pharisees heard this, they said, 'It is only by Beelzebub, the prince of demons, that this fellow drives out demons.'" Today, both sides "are not" aware of God's supernatural power. Therefore, we don't have nearly the "evidence" today that people with "varying" world views supposedly had back then. The book of Acts says that the disciples went about confirming "the message of his grace" by performing miracles.

And of course, there is not any evidence at all that Jesus was conceived by the Holy Spirit, was born of virgin, never sinned, and that his shed blood and death remitted the sins of mankind. Since Deuteronomy 13 says that bad people can predict the future too, it is not a question of who can accurately predict the future, but of who has good character, in your case, rhutchin, who is the most powerful. Incredibly, you have subverted and made a mockery out of the very essence of the Bible, including God's love, motives, the sacrifice of his only begotten son, and all of the spiritual/emotional experiences that are so meaningful to Christians.

rhutchin

One does not have to believe the Bible or believe that the claims made in the Bible are true. One need only know that the Bible exists and that the claims have been made.

Let’s say that the idea that a person is personally accountable to a living entity called God is the most preposterous idea that you have ever heard. You still have two choices, Believe in God or Not believe in God. If you believe in God and you are proved correct in originally thinking that the idea of God is preposterous, then the loss to you is not significant. If you do not believe in God and you are proved wrong, the loss to you is immeasurable. As a consequence, it would be in your interest to avoid an immeasurable loss, so you would rationally choose to believe God.

Let’s use an example to illustrate the point. Let’s say that you are offered a lottery ticket. You are told that if you do not buy the lottery ticket, you will put into eternal torment. If you buy the ticket, your chances are 1 in a billion of escaping eternal torment. Would you buy the lottery ticket? Of course you would because you have nothing to lose and much to be gained.

Now, if you are told that buying a lottery ticket would make it certain that you would escape eternal torment, would you buy the lottery ticket?