Freethought & Rationalism Archive

rhutchin · 12-29-2005, 02:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mageth

BTW, rhutchin, I can guarantee that you will escape eternal torment if you send me $10,000. If you don't, it's eternal hellfire for you! PM me for my name and address so you can mail me a check.

Note that I might cut a deal with you. $10 a month for the next 20 years, perhaps?

Note that my offer might be true. Therefore, you'd better not risk refusing it! Even $10,000 is a small price to pay in exchange for escaping eternal torment!

Hmmm. Either you will judge me and condemn me to torment or you are working for the god who will. I guess you probably have additional information like that contained in the Bible to back up your claim that you are a god or you represent god. Also, I have an offer from Christ that He will pay the price for me to escape judgment. Can I get Him to pay you since He would also know if you are telling the truth?

Mageth · 12-29-2005, 02:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhutchin

If there is the risk that one could face eternal torment, then the rational response is to not take that risk.

I expect to receive my $10000 check forthwith.

Quote:

Your question relates to deciding which god to follow among all those who threaten eternal punishment. So far we have two gods that we know threaten eternal punishment, the Biblical god and the Koranic god.

Allah and BibleGod are two examples of gods that allegedly, according to some anyway, threaten eternal punishment.

Quote:

Both require that you believe them and no other god. At least one of them is a fraud. The challenge before you now is to determine which god is the fraud.

Or, of course, both could be frauds. You left that out of the challenge.

And, of course, if one lacks belief in the afterlife, or in eternal punishment in the afterlife, there are other "challenges" before you as well.

Quote:

In this case, the prophet Muhammed accepted the Bible but claimed that Jesus was just a prophet and not God. You have his lone testimony to this over against the testimony of the apostles and Paul that Jesus was God. Since the Bible that Muhammed accepted stated that one was not to accept a claim without the word of 2-3 witnesses, there is no basis to accept the word of Mohammed. The rational decision is to believe Jesus and not Muhammed.

I assume you meant to say to believe Paul and the Apostles and not Mohammed, as otherwise you're back to one witness for each.

In any case, this argument for believing in BibleGod over Allah is very weak. Jesus had disciples and apostles that are presented as "witnesses" to his claims. Likewise, Mohammed had disciples and followers that can be presented as "witnesses" to his claims.

I fail to see the difference.

Mageth · 12-29-2005, 02:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhutchin

Hmmm. Either you will judge me and condemn me to torment or you are working for the god who will. I guess you probably have additional information like that contained in the Bible to back up your claim that you are a god or you represent god. Also, I have an offer from Christ that He will pay the price for me to escape judgment. Can I get Him to pay you since He would also know if you are telling the truth?

Why risk it? If you think I should buy a lottery ticket to escape the possible risk of eternal punishment, then likewise you should pay me the $10000. Or else admit that your lottery ticket analogy was pointless and irrelevant.

rhutchin · 12-29-2005, 02:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mageth

Umm, the question is one of belief - whether the implied threat of Hell is sufficient to motivate one to believe. The argument fails before it gets off the ground - one has to believe (in the implied threat) to believe (in the escape plan).

Of course, the other problem is that the actual possibilities are countless; it's simply not a binary choice as rhutchin presents it. This gets back to the problem of having to first believe the Bible - you have to believe it's a binary system (and to thus believe the Bible is true). It's a circular argument.

Again one does not have to belief that there is a God or that He will judge you for your actions. The question posed by Pascal was, Why should a person believe in God? The original position of the person is one of not believing. The risk to the person in not believing and being wrong greatly exceeds the risk of believing and being wrong. It is the evaluation of that risk that leads one to make the logical decision to believe in God.

Julian · 12-29-2005, 02:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhutchin

Again one does not have to belief that there is a God or that He will judge you for your actions. The question posed by Pascal was, Why should a person believe in God? The original position of the person is one of not believing. The risk to the person in not believing and being wrong greatly exceeds the risk of believing and being wrong. It is the evaluation of that risk that leads one to make the logical decision to believe in God.

But using your logic one would be better off believing in all possible gods, not just one particular one. Just to be safe, right...?

Mageth · 12-29-2005, 02:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhutchin

It is true that the presence of competing scenarios complicates the matter. However, the fundamental decision that one makes is always to believe in God. There is never a situation where one would decide not to believe in God if one were taking a purely logical approach to the issue.

I lack belief in an afterlife, and of course also belief in eternal punshment (or reward) in an afterlife.

Logically, therefore, the threat of eternal punishment for lack of belief is not motivation for me to believe in a God that metes out eternal punishment for non-belief in said God.

Believing a threat made in and supported only by THE BIBLE as motivation for belief in a GOD DESCRIBED IN THE BIBLE because the BIBLE SAYS THAT BELIEF IN THAT GOD IS THE ONLY WAY TO ESCAPE THE PUNISHMENT DESCRIBED IN THE BIBLE is circular and, well, not particularly logical.

Your arguments are anything but logical.

Mageth · 12-29-2005, 02:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhutchin

Again one does not have to belief that there is a God or that He will judge you for your actions. The question posed by Pascal was, Why should a person believe in God? The original position of the person is one of not believing. The risk to the person in not believing and being wrong greatly exceeds the risk of believing and being wrong. It is the evaluation of that risk that leads one to make the logical decision to believe in God.

Once again, I completely, totally, 100% lack belief in any such risk. The ONLY motivation for having belief in any such risk comes from the Bible itself. You have to believe the Bible, in other words, to believe in the risk alluded to therein, and to thus have motivation for the necessity of belief in the God of the Bible.

If you believe there is risk, however small, of eternal punishment from (lacking belief in) a God, then you already, to some degree, believe in that God.

There is no logic in your argument. Well, a bit of circular logic, but that's about it.

Mageth · 12-29-2005, 02:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Julian

But using your logic one would be better off believing in all possible gods, not just one particular one. Just to be safe, right...?

That's where the circle really starts. You gotta believe the BIBLE, you see...

enemigo · 12-29-2005, 03:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhutchin

If there is the risk that one could face eternal torment, then the rational response is to not take that risk.

Your question relates to deciding which god to follow among all those who threaten eternal punishment. So far we have two gods that we know threaten eternal punishment, the Biblical god and the Koranic god. Both require that you believe them and no other god. At least one of them is a fraud. The challenge before you now is to determine which god is the fraud.

The choices are not limited to two Abrahamic gods. Many more jealous gods than just Yahweh & Allah have been proposed. But even so, Pascal's Wager is not sufficient to get us to the point of believing in a generic god who threatens eternal punishment if you don't believe in him.

This excerpt from The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy gives a couple good examples of situations where it would be better to reject Pascal's Wager than accept it:

Quote:

First, it disregards theological possibilities such as the Professor's God. The Professor's God rewards those who humbly remain skeptical in the absence of evidence, and punishes those who adopt theism on the basis of self-interest (Martin 1975, 1990; Mackie 1982).

I've seen no reason to believe that the existence of Yahweh is any better supported than Martin's "Professor's God." Since that is my assessment of the evidence, then what good is Pascal's Wager to me?

more:

Quote:

Second, the claim that Pascal’s wager yields generic theism assumes that all religions are theistic. But consider the following sort of atheistic Buddhism: if you clear your mind then you will attain nirvana and otherwise you won't -- i.e. if you fill your mind with thoughts and desires, e.g. if you believe that God exists or if you love God, then you will not attain salvation (Saka 2001).

enemigo · 12-29-2005, 04:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mageth

Once again, I completely, totally, 100% lack belief in any such risk. The ONLY motivation for having belief in any such risk comes from the Bible itself. You have to believe the Bible, in other words, to believe in the risk alluded to therein, and to thus have motivation for the necessity of belief in the God of the Bible.

If you believe there is risk, however small, of eternal punishment from (lacking belief in) a God, then you already, to some degree, believe in that God.

It doesn't matter if you lack belief in eternal punishment. Pascal's Wager only requires the belief that there is a possibility that a god who threatens eternal damnation for non-belief could exist.

Then from assumption, it says that because of this possibility, we should believe in that God just in case that possibility describes reality.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.