enemigo

see the numbers in the upper right hand corner of a post? those are links to that specific post.

Wayne Delia

Then there's no need to consider that it's real.

Again, you wouldn't know "simple logic" if it hit you across the head with a 2x4.

At least a tenth of his income, according to you. It's called a "tithe". Other costs involve time, energy, and compromised intellectual integrity, and I am strongly persuaded by Barefoot Bree's addition to that list - there is a considerable cost in lost happiness. Pascal mistakenly (or dishonestly) described it as "If you lose, you lose nothing."

As illustrated by the so-called "God Z" proposal, eternal torment (which is real) would be avoided by non-belief in any gods.

Also, as illustrated by the Christian paradigm, the cost could be an eternity in hell for trying to get into heaven by way of a "hedged bet," a "cover-your-ass" belief based entirely on greed, fear, guilt, and what you admit is "self-interest". That's a risk that Pascal didn't even whisper about.

Just about every religious decision is emotional and irrational.

WMD

Wayne Delia

He did identify which god, though - it was the Roman Catholic God.

You're making a mistake in characterizing it as "rational". It's not rational, because it depends on the logical fallacy of "false dichotomy" - it presents only two options, while ignoring many, many other options which are at least as plausible as one of the original two.

You're still making the same mistake, as I have demonstrated in the previous paragraph.

Then the conclusion wouldn't be rational, because the risks (eternal torment) do not line up with the wide variety of possible religions.

Your oversimplified syllogism is as follows:
1) Believe in God, or
2) Not believe in God.

The 1) premise can be broken down as follows:
1A) Believe in God A (Allah),
1B) Believe in God B,
1C) Believe in God C,
...
1Y) Believe in God Y (Yahweh),
1Z) Believe in God Z,
... (list continues on for several tens of thousands of defined gods)

There is a punishment associated with believing in God Y, the Judeo/Christian God, if it turns out that God A, the Islamic god Allah, actually exists. That's a risk that is not even mentioned in Pascal's Wager for the "If God exists" option, and that's why it fails.

WMD

Sauron

Good question.

Since you can't discount the possibility of the Islamic hell, why aren't you preparing for it?

Sauron

That's true. His purpose was to provide a narrow evangelical tool that only works if a person ignores alternative scenarios.

Believing in something for which no evidences exists is not a rational act.

1. Pascal's Wager says nothing about "one true god" - that's your own fundamentalist editorializing at work again.

2. There may be many gods - why aren' you preparing for all of them?

Mageth

There's the cost of acting irrationally based on superstition, and all the other costs (e.g., tithing) that go along with it.

And then there's Mageth's Hellish Wager, which you apparently choose to ignore. It is possible that believing eternal torment is real (and that God would mete out such torment) will anger God and result in great cost to you. That risk is significant - in fact, to paraphrase your own words below, the cost of believing that eternal torment is real when it is superstitious is enormous.

Bullshit. Eternal torment is superstition, until demonstrated otherwise. I don't believe it is a superstition, I know it is a superstition.

You're asking us to accept a premise of the superstition (that "recognizing eternal torment as superstition and being wrong will cost you enormously") so that we will accept the superstition. And that, in addition, is based on the superstition from your belief system that "not believing in my particular God (the one who will mete out eternal torment for non-belief) is sufficient to obtain eternal torment."

It's circular as hell. And superstitions all the way down.

You're invoking the superstition to try to make the superstition sound rational. It's not. It's superstition. Superstition is not rational. Acting on superstition is irrational.

Further, even if a God exists, believing that eternal torment is superstition when it is real may incur no cost. For example, one could believe in God but not believe in eternal torment. A reasonable God is unlikely to punish you for that. As another example, simple non-belief may not be a "sin" worthy of eternal punishment. Again, that is an element of your particular belief system.

You present "Pascal's Wager" as a general argument as to why it is "rational" to believe in God. It is not. In reality, it's all about one particular God, one particular superstitious belief system. One has to accept the tenets of that particular superstitious belief system to even consider the Wager.

That's one of the most irrational statements I've ever heard.

"Absent proof, one would not rationally choose to believe that seven years' bad luck for breaking a mirror is a superstition."

Either you believe in seven years' bad luck for breaking a mirror, or you violate your own reasoning.

Wow. You just trumped that other statement.

I don't "choose to believe" that eternal torment is a superstition. I know it is a superstition. It is so because it is totally and completely unsubstantiated. Neither you nor anyone else has ever provided one shred of evidence that would elevate it above the most basic level of superstition. There is absolutely no reason at all to put any stock at all in the superstition. It's no more rational to believe in it than it is to beleive in monsters under your bed or seven years' bad luck for breaking a mirror. Less rational, actually.

Again, the superstition of eternal torment (which is a fact, not a "chosen belief"), and your presentation of it through the Wager, asks one to act emotionally (based on fear) and irrationally (based on superstition).

Not acting on superstition is rational, and is not at all emotional.

Sauron

Using your standards, the same can be said about:

* black cats
* broken mirrors
* Friday the 13th
* vampires

These are all superstitions and using your logic, you cannot prove they aren't. So why aren't you preparing for these things?

Here is the reason that you are too cowardly to answer this question: you realize that whatever reason you offer as a basis for ignoring these superstitions can also be used by skeptics to ignore your religion and its threat of hell. You have not been able to think of a basis that allows you to reject superstitions like these above, without leaving yourself open to the charge of being a hypocrite.

You are trapped. Caught in a dead-end position, and you haven't been able to figure a way out of the dilemma.

* You cannot reject them upon the basis of science - since skeptics reject christianity on that same basis;
* You cannot reject them on the basis of lack of supporting evidence - since skeptics do the same with regard to hell;
* You cannot reject them based upon being oudated beliefs of a more primitive era - since skeptics reject the bible on those same grounds

You refuse to answer this question, because you see the checkmate coming in the very next move. And since you cannot come up with such a reason, you refuse to answer the question, and you hope that nobody notices.

You hope in vain.


Edited to add: and I see that right on cue, just as I raise this question you predictably log off. This evening or tomorrow you'll be back to repeat the same refuted arguments, and hope that nobody looks back a page or two and notices that you still have unanswered questions waiting for you.

Mageth

Nope. The first premise of Pascal's Wager defines what type of God it is. A God that would subject one to eternal torment for the "sin" of unbelief.

That matches perfectly with one notion of the RC God, or Christian God, and a few other such Gods (mostly Abrahamic Gods).

Pascal's Wager, in its first premise, asks one to believe in a certain type of God.

Mageth

It's more than that:

Believing in something for which no evidences exists based on the fear of something for which no evidences exist (the threat of eternal torment) is not a rational act. If possible, it's even more irrational than simple belief in God not motivated by belief in eternal torment.

Johnny Skeptic

Included in this post is proof that rhutchin contraticted himself.

That is a contradiction. I said:

You replied:

I replied:

Then you reversed your position and agreed with me when you said:

Would you care to try again?

[quote=JohnnySkeptic] No you wouldn’t. The evil being might not be God, and the good being might not be Jesus. You would hope that the evil being wasn't God, that he wouldn't be able to send everyone to hell as he promised, that the supposedly good being impersonated Jesus, and that the God the Bible will eventually send you to heaven. If I were confronted with the same scenario, I would also hope that the evil alien would not be able to send everyone to hell as he promised, and I most certainly would not conclude that he was the uncaused first cause. The same applies if a being claiming to be Jesus returned to earth in the manner that is described in the Bible. I most certainly would not conclude that he was the uncaused first cause. Of course, you or anyone else with any world view would accept a comfortable eternal life from any being, whether from a being claiming to be a God or from an advanced alien. Eternal comfort is the goal. Whoever provides it is completely irrelevant.

[quote=Johnny Skeptic] I asked you “Do you dispute that the odds that God is good are no better than 50/50? If so, where is your evidence?�? Please answer my question. As I said, “If God is evil, he could easily duplicate anything that is attributed to the God of the Bible, and he could easily deceive anyone who he chose to deceive.�? Do you dispute this?

But that is exactly what an evil, lying, deceptive God would want the Bible to say. The odds are just as good that the Bible describes an evil God who is masquerading as a good God and intends to send everyone to hell. 2 Corinthians 11:14-15 say “And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light. Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also be transformed as the ministers of righteousness; whose end shall be according to their works.�? Mark 13:22 says “For false Christs and false prophets shall rise, and shall shew signs and wonders, to seduce, if it were possible, even the elect.�? The problem for Paul and Mark is that they didn’t tell believers how to tell the difference between a good God and an evil God.

But until you address something to the contrary, you must first reasonably prove what already is, and you have not reasonably proven that God is good. In addition, if God is evil, that would be impossible for us to reliable determine at this time if he is trying to deceive us.

But under the present set of conditions, God might be an evil God who is masquerading as a good God.

The point is that it is impossible to tell whether God is good, evil, or amoral by using my hypothetical scenario or by using the evidence that is available in the Bible.