John A. Broussard

A wild non-sequitur.

The next step would be to believe in god, according to Pascal's Wager.

Why would anyone seek god until they found god if they already believe god exists?

Johnny Skeptic

But if the Bible is true, it is not logical to conclude that person can become a Christian without keeping the greatest commandment. Pascal’s Wager essentially suggests that a person should become a Christian even if they believed that there was only one chance in a billion that the Bible is true (I doubt that anyone ever became a Christian based upon such a small probability. It seems to me that most people who believe that Pascal’s Wager is valid arrived at that conclusion AFTER they became Christians.), but as I proved, Matthew 22:36-40 directly contradicts Pascal.

Matthew 7:21 says “Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.� More than anything else, God requires that Christians keep the greatest commandment, and it is impossible to keep that commandment and at the same time become a Christian based upon a one in a billion chance that it might be true. It seems that Pascal was not aware of the greatest commandment, and if he was, he did not understand it.

But if God logically thought that is was in his best interest for the greatest possible number of people to go to heaven, and in the best interests of humans for the least possible number of people to go to hell, he would have clearly showed himself to everyone. That way, no skeptic could claim that he had not made a fully informed decision. By clearly revealing himself to everyone, God would have increased the odds to 100% that everyone would have made a fully informed decision. Since the texts say that God chose on some occasions to encourage people to accept him by demonstrating his supernatural powers, not the least of which was the bodily resurrection of Jesus, we can logically conclude that God is illogical because he has not consistently demonstrated his supernatural powers. Here is some of the proof that God is consistent only on some occasions, and most certainly not on most occasions:

John 2:23 says “Now when he was in Jerusalem at the passover, in the feast day, many believed in his name, when they saw the miracles which he did.� John 3:2 says “The same came to Jesus by night, and said unto him, Rabbi, we know that thou art a teacher come from God: for no man can do these miracles that thou doest, except God be with him.�

Well-known pastor, radio Bible teacher, and author Dr. John MacArthur once basically said that significant numbers of miracles are only mentioned in three places in the Bible. That provides further proof that God is inconsistent, and hence illogical.

If the Bible is true, it is my position that you have angered God, and that you will go to hell along with all of the other advocates of Pascal’s Wager. You speak of odds and probabilities, but if the Bible is true, you have made the worst bet possible because there was no need whatsoever for you to risk angering God and possibly go to hell. Your completely unnecessary risks are even greater than you know. Gary Habermas is widely acknowledged as the chief defender of the Resurrection. He co-authored a book with Michael Licona that is titled ‘The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus.’ The authors say:

“Therefore, when it comes to proving any historical event, we must remember that we are looking for whether we can ascertain with a reasonable amount of certainty that the event occurred. Surprisingly, Jesus’ resurrection has quite a bit going for it in terms of the data, which makes it an interesting topic for historical investigation. The fact that the evidence for it is quite good, is striking.

“We would like to point out that, for the Christian, there is a difference between knowing that Jesus rose from the dead with reasonable historical certainty and living on the PERSONAL [emphasis mine] assurance that Christianity is true. Paul wrote in Romans 8:16 that ‘the Spirit Himself testifies with out spirit that we are children of God.’

“The Christian has the Holy Spirit who testifies to her that Christianity is true and that she belongs to God. The historical certainty we have of Jesus’ resurrection ONLY REINFORCES [emphasis mine] [in other words, reinforces what we ALREADY have] that God’s Spirit has indeed spoken to us.�

You have left the Holy Spirit out of the equation, and that is risky business indeed if the Bible is true.

If I contact Gary Habermas, and if he tells me that he is opposed to Pascal’s Wager, and I can assure you that he does, will you still support Pascal’s Wager?

Matthew 7:21-23 say “Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.� From a Christian viewpoint, the verses are definitely talking about Christians. We know this because the people that Jesus was talking about were able to cast out devils, and Jesus said elsewhere that Satan cannot cast out Satan.

Matthew 7:13-14 Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat: because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.�

If the Bible is true, I suggest that you not take needless risks and greatly increase the odds that you will go to heaven and abandon your support for Pascal’s Wager before it is too late.

Johnny Skeptic

Message to rhutchin: As you know, Matthew 22:36-38 say "Master, which is the great commandment in the law? Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment." In his 'Believer's Bible Commentary,' William MacDonald says "This means that mans' FIRST [emphasis mine] obligation it to love God with the TOTALITY of his being. As has been pointed out, the heart speaks to the emotional nature, the soul of the volitional nature, the mind of the intellectual nature, and strength of the lphysical nature." Therefore, it is completely impossible to be true to Matthew 22:36-38 and Pascal's Wager at the same time. Pascal's Wager by no means deals with totality. Rather, to the contrary, it emphasizes that the only logical choice is to become a Christian even if one only believes that there is a very small chance that the Bible is true.

And of course, as I have pointed out to you before, if Jesus returned to earth, you couldn't be reasonably certain that it was him. The texts attribute great power to the Devil, including his ability to deceive people.

Many Christians do not approve of Pascal's Wager, so by what means to you suggest that they back up their claim that God's authority is legitimate?

rhutchin

Pascal’s Wager leads one to the conclusion that they should believe in God. That would require that they seek out God (which, to Pascal, was the Biblical God). To believe in God does not make one a Christian. We read in James--

Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble. (James 2:19)

Then, John tells us that he wrote his gospel in order that one might believe that Jesus is the Christ and thereby become a Christian.

But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name. (John 20:31)

I doubt that Pascal sought to present the whole gospel in his Wager.

Again Pascal’s Wager only leads one to the conclusion that he should believe in God. It is possible for one to believe in God (even as the devils do) and not be saved.

You have correctly found those verses that tell us that more is involved then a simple belief (knowledge) that God exists. Pacal would probably have said that if one comes to the logical conclusion that he should believe in God, then it would only be logical for the person to believe God when God tells him that Christ is the propitiation for his sins.

Pascal's Wager leads one to the logical conclusion that they should believe in God. Belief in God can lead to salvation but does not have to.

rhutchin

In the course of this thread others have pointed out that there are many gods in whom one might believe. Thus, if one comes to the logical conclusion that he should believe in God, he still needs to sort out who is the true and living God (from among, the Biblical god, Allah, the Mormon god, the JW god, etc.)

It seems to follow logically to me that if one has determined the logic of believing in God, then one would also want to identify the true and living God.

Johnny Skeptic

I will be happy to accept the God of the Bible if he will come out of hiding and clearly show himself to everyone.

Do you know of anyone living today who would willingly go to hell? I don't. I told you in my previous post that the texts say that on some occasions God demonstrated his supernatural powers in order to convince people to follow him. If that was logical, then it is illogical, inconsistent, and unfair that God normally does not choose to demostrate his supernatural powers.

If God were to clearly reveal himself to everyone, surely a lot of people would become Christians. Most people would find supernatural powers to be quite convincing, just like the texts say happened during the time of Jesus and the disciples.

One thing that refutes Pascal's Wager is that it does not require anything more than the belief that there is only a small probablity that the God of the Bible created the universe. That excludes following the greatest commandment, which basically says to love God with all of your heart, and all of your soul, and all of your mind, and surely if the Bible is true a person cannot go to heaven without keeping the greatest commandment.

As I have told you before, many [possibly most] Christians do not like Pascal's Wager. How do you suggest that Christians who do not like Pascal's Wager justify the legitimacy of his authority? I asked you this question before, but you didn't answer it? I also asked you if Gary Habermas does not like Pascal's Wager, will you concede defeat? You didn't answer that question either. Habermas is widely acknowledged as the chief defender of the Resurrection. Do you have any other arguments that defends the legitimacy of the authority of the Bible besides Pascal's Wager? If not, you are in trouble because not only do all non-Christians reject it, but a lot of Christians as well.

Your arguments have a small degree of validity regarding agnostics, Muslims, Hindus, etc., but it is impossible for a died in the wool atheist to accept something that he believes is impossible. Telling a died in the wool atheist that intelligent design is the most probable explanation for the existence of the universe would be like telling him that 2+2 = 5. It could not possibly be of any advantage whatsoever to God to refuse to clearly reveal himself to died in the wool atheists, and it most certainly is not of any advantage whatsoever to atheists for God to refuse to clearly reveal himself to them. Rational minded people want to know whose best interests God is really looking out for, his own interests, or mankinds' best interests? The latter cannot possibly be the case. If the God of the Bible exists, he could easily show up and convince atheists that intelligent design is a reality.

If the God of the Bible exists, why doesn't he want to do that? Surely a truely loving God would want everyone to make a fully informed decision if heaven and hell are actually at stake.

A couple of days ago you mentioned that if "a purely logical approach" is used, the rational approach is to accept the Bible. However, a good percentage, if not the majority of the most logical people in the world, have rejected Christianity. Only 7% of the members of the prestigious National Academy of Sciences are Christians, and the vast majority of the non-Christian members would most certainly score higher on logic tests than you would. Why would some of the most logical people in the world get out of character and be illogical only where the Bible is concerned?

You attempt to make these debates an issue of probabilities, but probabilties are not what is most important here. Some people are better at figuring out probabilities than other people are, so if the Bible is true, there must be something more to it than who is the best at calculating probablities. The Bible frequently mentions bad motives, or an attraction to evil, as the reason for unbelief, most certainly not the inability of some people to properly calculate mathematical probabilities. I can quote numerous scriptures for you if you wish.

John 2:23 says "Now when he was in Jerusalem at the passover, in the feast day, many believed in his name, when they saw the miracles which he did."

John 10:37-28 say "If I do not the works of my Father, believe me not.
38 But if I do, though ye believe not me, believe the works: that ye may know, and believe, that the Father is in me, and I in him." The NIV translates the word "works" as miracles.

John 3:2 says "The same came to Jesus by night, and said unto him, Rabbi, we know that thou art a teacher come from God: for no man can do these miracles that thou doest, except God be with him."

Acts 14:3 says "So Paul and Barnabas spent considerable time there, speaking boldly for the Lord, who confirmed the message of his grace by enabling them to do miraculous signs and wonders."

Since the texts definitely claim that God used the miracles for the express purpose of encouraging people to accept him, logical and rational minded people have more than enough reasons to distrust the truthfulness of the Bible. First of all, no loving God would ever play favorites and reveal his supernatural powers only to a select few people, especially is heaven and hell are actually at stake. Second of all, any logical and powerful being who wanted people to accept him would use all of the means at his disposal to insure that as many people as possible would accept him. If naturalism is true (I am not reasonably certain one way or the other), then it is to be expected that no god would ever show up and clearly reveal himself to everyone. If intelligent design is true, and if a designer wanted as many people as possible to follow him (and in the case of the God of the Bible, as few people as possible to go to hell), then it is to be expected that he would use every means at his disposal to insure that everyone had every advantage of knowing of his existance. The fact that the texts claim that God did just that, but only on limited occasions, is reason enough for rational minded people to reject the Bible.

Johnny Skeptic

Message to rhutchin: Our legal system is built upon punishing wrongdoers.
What is wrong about being a skeptic? What harm do skeptics cause to society? Over the past 2,000 years, many Christians have persecuted and/or murdered millions of people, while many skeptics haven't persecuted or murdered anyone.

Otherwise stated, if a skeptic rejects the God of the Bible but never harms anyone, and leads an exemplary life that is better than the lives of most Christians, who is the injured party? God cannot be physically or emotionally harmed, and he can't claim that skeptics have rejected him because you can't reject someone whose existance you are unaware of. If God and the Devil exist, and the Devil rejected God, that is one matter, but skeptics who are unaware of God's existance is another matter entirely.

Do you love God with all of your heart, and all of your soul, and all of your mind? If so, where is your proof? Do you always put everyone else ahead of yourself? Do you not have some extra assets that can be sold to help feed starving people and spread the Gospel message. This life is quite brief, and while earthly pleasures are fleeting, eternity is forever, and according to the Bible, what happens throughout eternity depends upon what happens in this life. The texts say that each man will be judged according to his works, and that believers should lay up treasures for themselves in heaven. How many treasures have you laid up for yourself in heaven? In my opinion, if the Bible is true, no one can break that commandment and go to heaven. Jesus said that that is the greatest commandment, and he also said that only people who do the will of God will be saved.

If I recally correctly, the texts say that Paul said that he would give up his salvation if God would allow some skeptics to go to heaven. Would you do that? What if God would allow one billion skeptics to go to heaven if you would give up your salvation?

Am I correct that if you believed that an evil God created the universe, you would follow him? If so, if he demanded that you love him with all of your heart, and all of your soul, and all of your mind, would you be able to do it? If so, where is your proof?

enemigo

Is that right? Then would you mind addressing this earlier post of mine?
http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.p...44#post3013044

rhutchin

The best neighbors that one can have would be a Mormon and a Jew. Although both claim to believe in a god, neither believes that Christ is God, but both have high moral standards. Nothing prevents a skeptic having equally high moral standards and being good neighbors to all.

Those who are not Christian, and make no claim to be, have done their share of destruction in the world. Whether “Christians� have truly persecuted and/or murdered millions of people as a consequence of their faith in Christ is debatable. Certainly, evil people are able to easily put on the cloak of religion in order to justify their evil. Wars tend to be waged for reasons other than religion even though they may be justified on the basis of religion.

It’s a good point. However, if Skeptic John does not want to tell his children about God thus keeping them unaware of God, then God is under no obligation to make the skeptic's children aware of His presence. God allows people to drink and drive killing many people each year. God allows serial killers to do their thing. God allows people to profane His name and tell people that there is no heaven or hell. So long as the skeptic (or any one else) does not sin, he has nothing to worry about. Those people who have been forgiven their sins will be allowed entry into heaven. If you teach your children that seeking forgiveness for sin is a waste, and they believe you, then they are condemned. If a skeptic really cared about his children, why wouldn’t he tell his children about God and let them make up their own mind?

The Bible is very clear in telling us that no one is perfect and no one does what you describe. That is why the Bible emphasizes the readiness of God to forgive people to do not meet His expectations. When God saves a person, He guarantees to preserve the salvation that He has given them. If getting into heaven depended on the person and what he can do, then no one would get into heaven.

Have to say that I would not. The prospect of spending an eternity in hell (i.e., separated from God) is not something that I would do no matter what. I would find very small consolation in knowing that a billion skeptics were allowed entry into heaven in trade. I am amazed that Paul, or anyone, would seriously think to do this.

It is hard to speculate about an “evil� God because such a God would not save anyone. However, the rational decision of any person would be to follow any God if the trade-off was between worship of that God and eternal torment. The only way to reach any other conclusion is to ignore eternal torment. If a person accurately accounts for eternal torment, he cannot reach any other conclusion. At least, I don't see a way to do it.

rhutchin

Until He does, you will not be saved (as is true for all whom God has saved). You accurately describe the manner in which a person must be saved. If the decision were left up to the person, no one would be saved.

I know a lot of people who are willing to go to hell, because, like you, they don’t think that there is a hell. God has made His presence known to you through the Bible and you are free to accept the testimony of those who wrote the books of the Bible and free to reject that testimony. You, like all people, require more of God. At this point, God is free to have mercy on whom He will have mercy. I don’t see where you have anything to complain about if God leaves you alone.

I agree. You have an Arminian background and it is obvious that you have doen a lot of thinking about God from an Arminian-based interpretation of the Bible. Arminians who do as you have done end up as either univeralists or atheists. I guess you are heading in the atheist direction.

I think you are requiring Pascal’s Wager to do more than it was meant to do or can do. The question that Pascal sought to answer was whether one should believe in God. Rationally, a person should believe in God. However, even the devil believes in God, so belief in God does not save a person. One must believe in God before he will acknowledge his sin and seek forgiveness for that sin. Unless a person believes in God, why would he believe that he must be saved from his sin?

People say that they do not like Pascal’s Wager probably because they do not understand it. I do not know what problem Habermas has with it.

God’s authority is not based on anything except Himself. God has authority over everything because He created everything.

I should have said, “the rational approach is to believe that God exists.� In rejecting the Bible, many people err in rejecting Christ as God.

Probability has nothing to do with it.

The reason for unbelief is that people are totally depraved – There is none that seeks God, no not one.