rhutchin

I guess there is a risk of choosing the wrong god to believe in.

rhutchin

Go for it. Start a thread.

rhutchin

I made them accurate. Your original statements were not right.

OK. I can buy into that.

Hmmm. Trying to avoid decisions.

It’s part of risk. Factor it in.

Low risk; not zero risk. Of course, then the only issue is whether you made a bad decision.

rhutchin

Except in a court of law. I guess that's the only place it really matters.

Angra Mainyu

You cannot prove Christianity in a court of law, just as you cannot use witnesses to prove any claims that challenge what we normally observe in the world (i.e., a natural world, not a mystical one).

That’s why no religion could even be proven in court, unless it’s a religious tribunal, in which case only one religion is accepted, and witnesses cannot prove a different one.

Johnny Skeptic

Not "you are facing death", but "the odds are no better than even that you are facing death." Jesus said that in order for a man to become saved, he must love God with all of his heart, soul, and mind. Logically, a committment like that cannot be achieved based upon the belief that the odds are no better than even that God is who the Bible says he is. What you need is evidence that it is probable that God is not masquerading as an angel of light. Of course, you don't have it. You can speculate and guess if you wish, but only naive and gullible people will believe you.

Johnny Skeptic

But fewer people would be held accountable if everyone had the information that they need in order to make the best informed decisions. If heaven and hell are actually at stake, a loving God would make certain that no man could ever claims that he was not aware of all of the rules.

But you have said that the Devil knows that God exists, but has rejected God, so you have refuted your own argument. In addition, millions of decent people would not be able to accept God even if they believed that he exists.

But God is able to provide additional information that would convince some people to become Christians were not previously convinced, which means that he is not nearly as loving and merciful as you claim he is. In addition, no loving, merciful God would ever endorse eternal punishment without parole. If a man tells his son on numerous occasions not to drive when intoxicated, you would probably claim that the son had been provided with sufficient information, but you most certainly would not claim that if the father saw his son try to drive when intoxicated that the father would not still tell his son not to drive when intoxicated. It is called love and compassion.

But human effort alone could never let everyone know about the Gospel message. In the first century, there is no way that anyone who lived in China could have known about the Gospel message. In addition, if God provided me with additional evidence, I might become a Christian.

But God has sinned on numerous occasions according to his own rules.

Actually, no moral good done by God can erase the numerous, needless, unexplained atrocities that he has committed against mankind.

But choice is not involved where decent people are concerned. They cannot will themselves to love the God of the Bible .

But I did not say that you did. Are you not aware of what a hypothetical argument is?

Believe as you wish. Rational minded and fair minded people know that you are wrong. Morally, there is little difference between committing an atrocity and allowing an atrocity to be committed. Exodus 4:11 says that God makes people blind, deaf, and dumb. It would be impossible for anyone to ever become blind, deaf, and dumb unless God caused it or allowed it. Standing idly by and allowing atrocities to occur is an example of negligence. God is much better able to prevent atrocities from occurring than anyone else. God killed babies at Sodom and Gomorrah. In the Old Testament, God ordered the death penalty for Jew who killed a Jew, but not for a Jew who killed a slave. God kills people with hurricanes, including babies. Surely you will not claim that the weather originally created itself, and became harsh all by itself after Adam and Eve ate the forbidden fruit.
God punishes people for sins that their ancestors committed, reference Exodus 20:5.

James 2:14-22 say "What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? can faith save him? If a brother or sister be naked, and destitute of daily food, And one of you say unto them, Depart in peace, be ye warmed and filled; notwithstanding ye give them not those things which are needful to the body; what doth it profit? Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone. Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works. Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble. But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead? Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar? Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect?"

James says that if a man has food and refuses to feed a hungry person that he is vain, and that his faith is dead. Obviously, God is a hypocrite. He tells Christians that if they refuse to feed hungry people that they are vain and that their faith is dead, but hypocritically has allowed millions of people, including millions of Christians, to die slow, painful deaths from starvation. If God does not want to feed people himself, he most certainly would not have told Christians to feed people. If feeding people is a good and worthy goal, then surely it is a good thing for humans AND for God to feed hungry people. I am not aware of any legitimate purpose that is served by telling people to feed hungry people but refusing to feed hungry people yourself. If you claim that there is plenty of food in the world to feed everyone, I will tell you that God frequently destroys food supplies with hurricanes, and locusts that he created have caused many famines. As a result, many people starved to death.

It tells a lot about your character that you consider lying to wrong, but not anything that God has ever done or allowed. You could never love a human who acted like God often acts, but somehow, in God's case, you have been able to abandon your principles and morals.

Surely the many atrocities that God has committed and allowed against mankind have not provided him and mankind with any benefits whatsoever.

Sure, commitments are logically possible, but not the kind of commitment that Jesus required, and not based upon no better than even odds. Jesus required that in order to be saved, a man must love God with all of his heart, soul, and mind. A commitment like that is not possible based upon no better than even odds. The logic here is very simple. I assume that the average sixth grader can understand this issue. Do you believe that the odds are considerably better than even that God is not masquerading as an angel of light? If so, where is your evidence?

The point is, the distribution of wealth does not indicate the presence of a loving, caring God. While wealth is frequently distributed to people who are not in greatest need, it is frequently withheld from people who are in greatest need. This gives millions of people the impression that tangible benefits are distributed entirely according to the laws of physics, or that if God exists, he has gone out of his way to make it appear to millions of people that tangible benefits are distributed entirely according to the laws of physics, and that if God exists, he distributes tangible benefits without any regard for a person’s worldview, and frequently without any regard for a person’s needs.

Would you claim that hurricanes do not operate in a random manner?

The Evil One

I said, "It is an objective fact about the nature of evidence that the word of a human being, taken alone, does not count for much..."

No, even in a court of law it is universally recognised that the word of a human being, taken alone, does not count for much.

Please not: TAKEN ALONE.

That is why there are laws against perjury - a threat to lock up liars adds to the (initially slim) reliability of human testimony.

This is why multiple, independent witnesses are sought - several independent pieces of human testimony are mroe reliable collectively than any are alone.

That is why physical evidence is always brought in wherever possible, and will trump human testimony every time. (Imagine that Bob and Joe are suspected of murder. Jane says she saw Bob do it, but Joe's fingerprints are on the gun, and traces of the victim's blood and gunpowder are found on joe's clothes. Do you think the jury will aquit Joe based on Jane's testimony?)

This is why there are extensive systems for guaranteeing the reliability of evidence brought to the court. (Officer Pete saying, "Yes, your honour, I'm sure that's the gun I found at the murder site", doesn't count for much, so there is a complex and mostly-foolproof chain-of-custody record system).

No, the courts are with me on this one. I repeat: It is an objective fact about the nature of evidence that the word of a human being, taken alone, does not count for much.

ETA: I note, incidentally, that you didn't address any of the actual arguments I presented against assuming the reliability of human testimony. You just asserted the contrary with the non-sequitur about the law courts, which I had ALREADY ADDRESSED, to whit "The unreliability of unsupported human testimony is so well-established a fact that nations have actually enshrined it, in one form or another, in their laws of evidence, where it is used to decide the most serious of matters (guilt or innocence, life or death)". Do you have any actual arguments relating to the reliability of human testimony as evidence, or do you just have assertions?

Alternatively, we could adopt some method of choosing which gives appropriate probabilistic weighting to what is known about the two options, rather than adopting 50-50 as a default. The poor quality of the evidence that supports your favoured option makes the probability of it being true much, MUCH less than 50% (actually much less than 1%), so I'm not surprised that you favour the coin toss method.

Angra Mainyu

No, that’s mistaken. I’ve explained why on the other thread, as well as on this one. A person cannot “choose” to believe, but even if they did, your assessment of the odds is inaccurate. I don’t know if I can be more clear than before, by I’ll try:

Now, as I explained, it’s possible to come up with any number of “possible” beliefs, but I’ll restrict my argument to only a few ones, hoping it will be more clear.

Your argument is:

0) “I guess there are two basic positions that a person can take. A person can decide to believe the Bible or decide not to believe. At the very least, I guess a person should flip a coin to decide and have a 50 percent change of being right.”

Suppose instead of the Bible, I say “the Quran”. If your argument is correct (which is not the case), and given that your argument is not based on any assessment of the odds other than claiming that without evidence either way, it's 50%/50%, then the following arguments are just as valid:

1) I guess there are two basic positions that a person can take. A person can decide to believe the Quran or decide not to believe. At the very least, I guess a person should flip a coin to decide and have a 50 percent change of being right.


2) I guess there are two basic positions that a person can take. A person can decide to believe the Book of Mormon or decide not to believe. At the very least, I guess a person should flip a coin to decide and have a 50 percent change of being right.

3) I guess there are two basic positions that a person can take. A person can decide to believe the tales about Odin or decide not to believe. At the very least, I guess a person should flip a coin to decide and have a 50 percent change of being right.

Now, let’s consider:

4) Either the Bible (in your interpretation) is right, or the Quran is right, or the Book of Mormon is right, or Odin exists.

Now, based on that, there’s a 50% (1/2) chance that the Bible is right, a 50% (1/2) chance that the Quran is right, a 50% (1/2) chance that the Book of Mormon is right, and a 50% (1/2) chance that Odin is the real deal. Given that these alternative exclude each other, we conclude there’s a 200 % change (4 in 2), that 4) is true, that is, that at least one of the options is correct.

Obviously, that is impossible.

militant agnostic

No in a court of law what matters is the physical evidence that the one person brings. People are not accepting what they are saying simply because they are saying it. The person is either a witness (whitch means they can prove that they were there, and that there is good reason to believe them trust worthy and competent), or someone who is representing a piece evidence that can be scientifically evaluated in some way.

That one pearson whom you think is only as important as the people who you believe in about God carries with them WAY more reasons to take seriously that just the word of one person. They merely represent the evidence. they are not the actual evidence itself.