FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.


Go Back   FRDB Archives > Archives > Existence of God(s)
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Yesterday at 03:12 PM

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 01-29-2006, 11:14 AM   #881
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Silver Spring, MD
Posts: 9,059
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic
http://www.geocities.com/paulntobin/pascal.html

In the seventeenth century the French mathematician and theologian, Blaise Pascal (1623- 1663) put forward a wager in his Pensees (Thoughts):

"...Which will you choose then?...If you gain, you gain all; if you lose, you lose nothing. Wager then without hesitation that he is."

Pascal's wager sounds deceptively simple....

But Pascal's argument is seriously flawed...But on Pascal's own premise that God is infinitely incomprehensible, then in theory, there would be an infinite number of possible theologies about God, all of which are equally probable.

First, let us look at the more obvious possibilities we know of today - possibilities that were either unknown to, or ignored by, Pascal....
The author here is NOT arguing against the idea that the Wager results in one rejecting nonbelief and accepting belief. The author only argues that ones does not know which god to believe. In this he reveals that he misunderstands the Wager. He seems to understand it enough not to argue for nonbelief in any god.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic
Second, Pascal's negative theology does not exclude the possibility that the true God and true theology is not one that is currently known to the world...
This is irrelevant. One can only evaluate that which one has information about. If deemed an issue, a person can always speculate about the variety of gods that could exist. The end result, however, does not change. The Wager still leads the person to reject nonbelief in favor of belief without necessarily identifying which god the person should believe.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic
Thus Pascal's call for us not to consider the evidence but to simply believe on prudential grounds fails. As the atheist philosopher, J.L. Mackie wrote:

"Once the full range of such possibilities is taken into account, Pascal's argument from comparative expectations falls to the ground. The cultivation of non-rational belief is not even practically reasonable."

This website then, is a call for the rejection of Pascal's wager. A call for all of us to use our reason to decide whether the central claims of Christianity are true or false. It is also a reminder that our choices have a moral dimension that cannot be ignored.

On both intellectual and moral grounds the only course for a person to take is the rejection of Pascal's wager...
Ignorance is bliss, so it is said. False arguments prove nothing and certainly are not grounds for action.
rhutchin is offline  
Old 01-29-2006, 12:00 PM   #882
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Florida
Posts: 19,796
Default Pascal's Wager started as The Resurrection is irrelevant

Quote:
Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic
Religion is about emotion, not logic. Even assuming that a version of the God of the Bible exists, that does not reasonably prove whether God is good, or whether his is an evil God who is masquerading as good God and plans to send everyone to hell. Do you dispute that the odds that God is good are no better than 50/50? If so, where is your evidence? If not, then do you suggest that Christians enter into a personal, loving relationship with God based upon 50/50 odds? 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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rhutchin
You and I just see it differently. I think anyone can read the Bible and make a rational, non-emotional decision about whether to believe in Christ. Nonetheless, I would agree that most decisions to believe or not believe reject logic in favor of emotion.
But you did not answer my question. 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?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic
You claim that you are impressed by evidence, but that is not true. Regardless of the evidence, you would always choose a world view that appeals to your own self-interest. Consider the following scenario:

A being comes to earth who claims to be Jesus. Let's call him Being A. Another being shows up with him and claims to be the creator of the universe. Let's call him Being B. Being A says that he will send Christians to heaven, and unbelievers to hell. Being B claims that he will send everyone to hell. Both beings demonstrate that they can convert energy into matter by creating a planet, but being A is not able to create as large a planet as Being B is able to create. You question being A about this, but he refuses to talk with you, just like the God of the Bible refuses to provide explanations for many of his actions and allowances, and leaves the earth along with being B. Would you give up Christianity under such a scenario? Of course not. You would have nothing to lose by remaining a Christian, and possibly something to gain by remaining a Christian.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rhutchin
You have two choices. You make a decision. What more is there? You don't mean to suggest that you completely ignore the two beings as if they never existed, do you?
But I proved that you are interested in evidence only if it appeals to your own self interest, and that your choice to become a Christian was based solely upon emotions. Under the scenario that I presented, you surely would choose to remain a Christian even though the evidence indicated that being B, the being who said that he would send everyone to hell, was more powerful than being A, who claimed that he was Jesus. If Christianity hadn’t come along, you would have chosen some other religion that appealed to your own self-interest.

You frequently mention hell, but you normally do not mention heaven. Most people become Christians do not do so because the Bible mentions hell. Their primary interest is eternal comfort. Here is the bait, and many religions have similar bait:

Revelation 21:4 And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away.

Ultimately, emotional religious minded people could not care less who provides them with eternal comfort as long as it is available. While the gods of various religions are replaceable, eternal comfort is most certainly not replaceable. Why else would people dream up so many religions, and why did the God of the Bible limit knowledge of his specific existence and will primarily to the Middle East for many centuries?

Quote:
Originally Posted by JS
The only way that skeptics can be fairly held accountable for rejecting the God of the Bible is if they know that he exists and still reject him. If God exists, if he clearly revealed himself to everyone, surely some skeptics would become Christians. Regarding skeptics who would become Christians if God clearly revealed himself to everyone, the intent of their hearts cannot be fairly questioned.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rhutchin
I have responded to this. The person is accountable to God for everything he does. God does not have to reveal Himself to anyone (although God argues that He has done so through His creation and that is sufficient). The purpose for God to reveal Himself to anyone is to save that person. Thus, God has obligated Himself to reveal Himself only to those He intends to save.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JS
But according to the texts, Jesus demonstrated his supernatural powers to many people who rejected him.
Why didn’t you reply to that argument?

Quote:
Originally Posted by JS
Now rhutchin, you need to explain why miraculous signs and wonders were needed to confirm the message of his grace, and why that evidence is not available today.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rhutchin
Actually, I don't have to explain it.
Because you know that you can’t without embarrassing yourself. Of all of the times and places during Christian history, there would have been the least need for those confirmations at that time and in the areas where Jesus lived.

Quote:
Originally Posted by rhutchin
What you see is what you get. Kinda amazing that people saw Jesus do miracles and refused to believe that which they saw and could verify. Sounds like a lot of emotion affecting those decisions.
You accept faith as fact. That is emotional, illogical, and irrational. Under my previous hypothetical scenario, I proved that even if you witnessed FIRSTHAND evidence, without any faith being required at all, that being B was more powerful than being A, you would still not give up Christianity, you are only interested in evidence if the evidence emotionally appeals to your own self-interest.

If Jesus exists, if he returned to earth and demonstrated his supernatural powers, surely some people would become Christians who were not previously convinced. Under such a scenario, your argument would work only regarding people who saw evidence that Jesus had supernatural powers and still rejected him, not people who accepted him.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic
In the KJV, Luke 24:33-34 say "And they rose up the same hour, and returned to Jerusalem, and found the eleven gathered together, and them that were with them, Saying, The Lord is risen indeed, and hath appeared to Simon." The word "indeed" indicates no doubt that Jesus had risen from the dead. The NIV translates the verses "They got up and returned at once to Jerusalem. There they found the Eleven and those with them, assembled together and saying, "It is true! The Lord has risen and has appeared to Simon." Regarding "It is true!," notice the exclamation point that the translators used for emphasis. Which does the preceding "evidence" indicate to you, logic or emotions?
Quote:
Originally Posted by rhutchin
Those making the argument for Jesus being alive are doing so from the evidence so they are making a logical argument. Those hearing the argument would believe if they were being logical about it.
Your argument is not valid. Initially, virtually no one believed that Jesus would rise from the dead. The book of John says upon seeing the empty tomb, Mary thought that the body had been moved, and Peter went away confused. Surely, given the prevailing views during that time, the testimony of just one man was not sufficient for anyone to conclude that Jesus had risen from the dead. Simon (Peter) might have had a vision, and the texts do not say that the group learned about Simon seeing Jesus from Simon.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic
Matthew 28:16-17 say "Then the eleven disciples went away into Galilee, into a mountain where Jesus had appointed them. And when they saw him, they worshipped him: but some doubted." Regarding the disciples who did not doubt, did they use logic or emotions, and regarding the disciples who did doubt, did they use logic or emotions?
Quote:
Originally Posted by rhutchin
How could a person doubt unless he had emotional issues?
Rather, without emotion, how could a person believe that Jesus had risen from the dead based solely upon the testimony of only one man, a testimony that might have been second hand or third hand?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic
John 20:19-20 say "Then the same day at evening, being the first day of the week, when the doors were shut where the disciples were assembled for fear of the Jews, came Jesus and stood in the midst, and saith unto them, Peace be unto you. And when he had so said, he shewed unto them his hands and his side. Then were the disciples glad, when they saw the Lord." Did the disciples use logic or emotion?
Quote:
Originally Posted by rhutchin
They saw; they believed. They were being logical.
But in Luke 24:33-34, the disciples and the group that were with them hadn’t seen Jesus, but they all still believed that Jesus had risen from the dead based solely upon the testimony of one man. Is that your idea of logic?

It is important to note that none of the Gospel writers ever claimed to have witnessed a miracle first hand. In addition, all of the Gospel writers wrote anonymously. Further, the Gospel writers seldom if ever revealed their sources, which at best were second hand, and at worst, third hand, fourth, hand etc. Such paltry evidence would never be admissible in a modern court of law.

Without emotions, no one would ever accept any religion. If God wanted logic to be the deciding factor, he would not have required faith. He would have made first hand evidence available for everyone. If 500 eyewitnesses was convincing, then 5,000,000 eyewitnesses would have been much more convincing, right?

Logically, the last person who you ever want to ask a question to is a person who has a perceived vested interest in the answer. From Christians' point of view, if they became skeptics and it eventually turns out that the Bible is true, they will spend eternity in hell. On the other hand, from skeptics' point of view, if they became Christians and it eventually turns out that they will become dust in the ground, they will be no worse off than before they became Christians. Therefore, while Christians are not free to follow the evidence wherever it leads, skeptics are definitely free to follow the evidence wherever it leads completely free of coercive influences.
Johnny Skeptic is offline  
Old 01-29-2006, 02:25 PM   #883
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Silver Spring, MD
Posts: 9,059
Default

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?
The odds that God is good are 100% because that is how the Bible describes Him. Now, you ask, What if the contrary were true and God were evil. IF that were true, we get a whole new set of conditions. It would be like saying, What if waterfalls flowed up the mountain and not down? Introducing the IF makes it a 50/50 proposition. Just like it would be a 50/50 proposition that a person in a canoe might go over a waterfall depending on whether it flows down or up. So, what’s the point?

Quote:
Johnny Skeptic
You claim that you are impressed by evidence, but that is not true. Regardless of the evidence, you would always choose a world view that appeals to your own self-interest. Consider the following scenario:

A being comes to earth who claims to be Jesus. Let's call him Being A. Another being shows up with him and claims to be the creator of the universe. Let's call him Being B. Being A says that he will send Christians to heaven, and unbelievers to hell. Being B claims that he will send everyone to hell. Both beings demonstrate that they can convert energy into matter by creating a planet, but being A is not able to create as large a planet as Being B is able to create. You question being A about this, but he refuses to talk with you, just like the God of the Bible refuses to provide explanations for many of his actions and allowances, and leaves the earth along with being B. Would you give up Christianity under such a scenario? Of course not. You would have nothing to lose by remaining a Christian, and possibly something to gain by remaining a Christian.

rhutchin
You have two choices. You make a decision. What more is there? You don't mean to suggest that you completely ignore the two beings as if they never existed, do you?

Johnny Skeptic
But I proved that you are interested in evidence only if it appeals to your own self interest, and that your choice to become a Christian was based solely upon emotions. Under the scenario that I presented, you surely would choose to remain a Christian even though the evidence indicated that being B, the being who said that he would send everyone to hell, was more powerful than being A, who claimed that he was Jesus. If Christianity hadn’t come along, you would have chosen some other religion that appealed to your own self-interest.
No, that is wrong. One always looks at the evidence. In your hypothetical, you would choose the most powerful being because that is the one who will have his way. If there were no Christianity, one would start all over and determine if their was the threat of an eternal punishment. If yes, a person would apply the Wager and determine that he should act to avoid eternal punishment. The person would then choose a religion that offered an escape from eternal punishment.

Quote:
Johnny Skeptic
You frequently mention hell, but you normally do not mention heaven. Most people become Christians do not do so because the Bible mentions hell. Their primary interest is eternal comfort. Here is the bait, and many religions have similar bait:
People may personally choose to want to go to heaven and not want to go to hell. That does not make them Christians (other than as a cultural designation). One can choose to go to heaven or to escape hell and pretend to be a Christian as the means to achieve that goal. So what? Certainly, I am not saying that people make emotional decisions. All I am saying is that emotional decisions do not make one a Christian.

Quote:
Johnny Skeptic
The only way that skeptics can be fairly held accountable for rejecting the God of the Bible is if they know that he exists and still reject him. If God exists, if he clearly revealed himself to everyone, surely some skeptics would become Christians. Regarding skeptics who would become Christians if God clearly revealed himself to everyone, the intent of their hearts cannot be fairly questioned.

rhutchin
I have responded to this. The person is accountable to God for everything he does. God does not have to reveal Himself to anyone (although God argues that He has done so through His creation and that is sufficient). The purpose for God to reveal Himself to anyone is to save that person. Thus, God has obligated Himself to reveal Himself only to those He intends to save.

Johnny Skeptic
But according to the texts, Jesus demonstrated his supernatural powers to many people who rejected him.
Yes. This is an example of the triumph of emotion over reason.

Quote:
Johnny Skeptic
Now rhutchin, you need to explain why miraculous signs and wonders were needed to confirm the message of his grace, and why that evidence is not available today.

rhutchin
Actually, I don't have to explain it.

Johnny Skeptic
Because you know that you can’t without embarrassing yourself. Of all of the times and places during Christian history, there would have been the least need for those confirmations at that time and in the areas where Jesus lived.

rhutchin
What you see is what you get. Kinda amazing that people saw Jesus do miracles and refused to believe that which they saw and could verify. Sounds like a lot of emotion affecting those decisions.

Johnny Skeptic
You accept faith as fact. That is emotional, illogical, and irrational. Under my previous hypothetical scenario, I proved that even if you witnessed FIRSTHAND evidence, without any faith being required at all, that being B was more powerful than being A, you would still not give up Christianity, you are only interested in evidence if the evidence emotionally appeals to your own self-interest.

If Jesus exists, if he returned to earth and demonstrated his supernatural powers, surely some people would become Christians who were not previously convinced. Under such a scenario, your argument would work only regarding people who saw evidence that Jesus had supernatural powers and still rejected him, not people who accepted him.
Go back and read the scenarios you conceived. In each case, I said that the rational action was to yield to that entity that was the strongest and would get its way (If not, I should have, because that has been my contention all along). One accepts, by faith, the evidence presented in the Bible. If Christ appeared today and worked more miracles, I am sure that people would see it and believe.

Quote:
Johnny Skeptic
In the KJV, Luke 24:33-34 say "And they rose up the same hour, and returned to Jerusalem, and found the eleven gathered together, and them that were with them, Saying, The Lord is risen indeed, and hath appeared to Simon." The word "indeed" indicates no doubt that Jesus had risen from the dead. The NIV translates the verses "They got up and returned at once to Jerusalem. There they found the Eleven and those with them, assembled together and saying, "It is true! The Lord has risen and has appeared to Simon." Regarding "It is true!," notice the exclamation point that the translators used for emphasis. Which does the preceding "evidence" indicate to you, logic or emotions?

rhutchin
Those making the argument for Jesus being alive are doing so from the evidence so they are making a logical argument. Those hearing the argument would believe if they were being logical about it.

Johnny Skeptic
Your argument is not valid. Initially, virtually no one believed that Jesus would rise from the dead. The book of John says upon seeing the empty tomb, Mary thought that the body had been moved, and Peter went away confused. Surely, given the prevailing views during that time, the testimony of just one man was not sufficient for anyone to conclude that Jesus had risen from the dead. Simon (Peter) might have had a vision, and the texts do not say that the group learned about Simon seeing Jesus from Simon.
OK. Some people required even more evidence. What is the point? Even Saul of Tarsus could not be convinced until confronted by Jesus.

Quote:
Johnny Skeptic
Matthew 28:16-17 say "Then the eleven disciples went away into Galilee, into a mountain where Jesus had appointed them. And when they saw him, they worshipped him: but some doubted." Regarding the disciples who did not doubt, did they use logic or emotions, and regarding the disciples who did doubt, did they use logic or emotions?

rhutchin
How could a person doubt unless he had emotional issues?

Johnny Skeptic
Rather, without emotion, how could a person believe that Jesus had risen from the dead based solely upon the testimony of only one man, a testimony that might have been second hand or third hand?
OK, I can go with your contention that one level of evidence may not be convincing while a greater evidence would be.

Quote:
Johnny Skeptic
John 20:19-20 say "Then the same day at evening, being the first day of the week, when the doors were shut where the disciples were assembled for fear of the Jews, came Jesus and stood in the midst, and saith unto them, Peace be unto you. And when he had so said, he shewed unto them his hands and his side. Then were the disciples glad, when they saw the Lord." Did the disciples use logic or emotion?

rhutchin
They saw; they believed. They were being logical.

Johnny Skeptic
But in Luke 24:33-34, the disciples and the group that were with them hadn’t seen Jesus, but they all still believed that Jesus had risen from the dead based solely upon the testimony of one man. Is that your idea of logic?

It is important to note that none of the Gospel writers ever claimed to have witnessed a miracle first hand. In addition, all of the Gospel writers wrote anonymously. Further, the Gospel writers seldom if ever revealed their sources, which at best were second hand, and at worst, third hand, fourth, hand etc. Such paltry evidence would never be admissible in a modern court of law.

Without emotions, no one would ever accept any religion. If God wanted logic to be the deciding factor, he would not have required faith. He would have made first hand evidence available for everyone. If 500 eyewitnesses was convincing, then 5,000,000 eyewitnesses would have been much more convincing, right?

Logically, the last person who you ever want to ask a question to is a person who has a perceived vested interest in the answer. From Christians' point of view, if they became skeptics and it eventually turns out that the Bible is true, they will spend eternity in hell. On the other hand, from skeptics' point of view, if they became Christians and it eventually turns out that they will become dust in the ground, they will be no worse off than before they became Christians. Therefore, while Christians are not free to follow the evidence wherever it leads, skeptics are definitely free to follow the evidence wherever it leads completely free of coercive influences.
OK. Following the evidence is the proper way to go. One only needs to be careful that he doesn’t make the wrong decision from that evidence.
rhutchin is offline  
Old 01-29-2006, 02:30 PM   #884
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Silver Spring, MD
Posts: 9,059
Default

Quote:
Dlx2
Consider:

Huitzilopochtli's Wager

Huitzilopochtli is an Aztec God. If he doesn't receive daily human sacrifices, the sun will cease to rise and the world will end. Now, if there is no Huitzilopochtli, then the world keeps going and the human sacrifices made to him are more or less negligible. If he does exist, and we don't make sacrifices, the world ends. So, it makes sense to chop the hearts out of human slaves every morning at dawn at the top of a pyramid to ensure that the world doesn't end.

The Aztecs certainly believed this just as much as you believe in Pascal's Wager. What makes you right and them wrong? OH RIGHT. NOTHING.

rhutchin
What happens after the world ends? Death can be a finite punishment and well worth the sacrifice of one's life. Does eternal torment follow for peple after the world ends? I read that the sacrifices would only delay the end of the world for a little while and not forever.

Dlx2
The world ends. Everything ends. Existence ends. Infinite loss.
Absent eternal punishment, you have described a finite situation. The loss may be great, but not infinite.
rhutchin is offline  
Old 01-29-2006, 02:35 PM   #885
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Silver Spring, MD
Posts: 9,059
Default

Quote:
rhutchin
You are still having trouble understanding the Wager.

Wayne Delia
Just not in any way you can demonstrate. In fact, I've corrected you on your understanding of the Wager. You claimed it did not assert there was no cost in believing, as you wanted to account for tithes; but the Wager explicitly says there is no cost in believing. Sounds like you've got a case of "sour grapes," but if you're trying to retaliate (the technique is commonly found on schoolyards in the form of "I know you are but what am I?"), you'll have to do a lot better than that.
Pascal allowed (and we can, also) that there was a finite cost to believing. However, he concluded, as we can, that a finite cost reduces to nothing (or insignificance) when compared to an infinite gain.
rhutchin is offline  
Old 01-29-2006, 03:31 PM   #886
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Boulder, CO
Posts: 2,546
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rhutchin
Absent eternal punishment, you have described a finite situation. The loss may be great, but not infinite.
No, you just don't understand the nature of infinity.
Dlx2 is offline  
Old 01-29-2006, 04:11 PM   #887
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Florida
Posts: 19,796
Default Pascal's Wager started as The Resurrection is irrelevant

Quote:
Originally Posted by 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?
Quote:
Originally Posted by rhutchin
The odds that God is good are 100% because that is how the Bible describes Him.
How about amoral? Exodus 4:11 says "And the Lord said unto him, Who hath made man's mouth? or who maketh the dumb, or deaf, or the seeing, or the blind? have not I the Lord?" If a man caused someone to become blind or deaf, he would be sent to prison, and with your approval I might add. God killed unborn children at Sodom and Gomorrah. He killed people when he created Hurricane Katrina and sent it to New Orleans. God is much more dangerous than the Devil could ever be.

No matter what the Bible says, an evil God could easily duplicate anything that is attributed to the God of the Bible. Powerful beings, whether Gods or advanced aliens, can be moral, immoral, amoral, or as some skeptics have said, there are other possibilities. The ability of any being to convert energy into matter has to do with physics, not with morality.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic
But I proved that you are interested in evidence only if it appeals to your own self interest, and that your choice to become a Christian was based solely upon emotions. Under the scenario that I presented, you surely would choose to remain a Christian even though the evidence indicated that being B, the being who said that he would send everyone to hell, was more powerful than being A, who claimed that he was Jesus. If Christianity hadn’t come along, you would have chosen some other religion that appealed to your own self-interest.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rhutchin
No, that is wrong. One always looks at the evidence. In your hypothetical, you would choose the most powerful being because that is the one who will have his way.
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.
Johnny Skeptic is offline  
Old 01-29-2006, 04:51 PM   #888
Contributor
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Cylon Occupied Texas, but a Michigander @ heart
Posts: 10,326
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rhutchin
The odds that God is good are 100% because that is how the Bible describes Him.
I don't know what bible you've been reading. Must be one of those abridged copies.

My bible says things like this:

GE 6:5 God is unhappy with the wickedness of man and decides to flood the earth to eliminate mankind. All living things including plants, animals, women and innocent children are also exterminated. (Note: This is like burning down a populated house to rid it of mice.)
GE 19:26 God personally sees to it that Lot's wife is turned to a pillar of salt
GE 32:24-30 God takes part in a wrestling match. He wins by smacking Jacob's groin.
GE 38:9 "... whenever he lay with his brother's wife, he spilled his semen on the ground to keep from producing offspring for his brother. What he did was wicked ..., so the Lord put him to death."
EX 4:24 The Lord sought to kill Moses
EX 7:1, 14, 9:14-16, 10:1-2, 11:7 The purpose of the devastation that God brings to the Egyptians is as follows:
to show that he is Lord;
to show that there is none like him in all the earth;
to show his great power;
to cause his name to be declared throughout the earth;
to give the Israelites something to talk about with their children;
to show that he makes a distinction between Israel and Egypt.
EX 9:22-25 A plague of hail from the Lord strikes down everything in the fields of Egypt both man and beast except in Goshen where the Israelites reside.
EX 12:30 The Lord kills all the first-born of Egypt and there is not a house where there is not at least one dead.
EX 17:13 With the Lord's approval, Joshua mows down Amalek and his people.
EX 21:20-21 With the Lord's approval, a slave may be beaten to death with no punishment for the person giving the beating as long as the slave doesn't die too quickly.
EX 32:27-29 With the Lord's approval, the Israelites slay 3000 men.
LE 26:22 "I will also send wild beasts among you, which shall rob you of your children."
LE 26:29, DT 28:53, JE 19:9, EZ 5:8-10 As a punishment, the Lord will cause people to eat the flesh of their own sons and daughters and fathers and friends.
NU 11:31-33 A "wind from the Lord" brings such an abundance of quail that "he who gathered the least gathered ten homers," or about 62 bushels. Unfortunately, it was immediately followed by a great plague from the Lord.
NU 12:1-10 God makes Miriam a leper for seven days because she and Aaron had spoken against Moses.
NU 15:32-36 A Sabbath breaker (who had gathered sticks for a fire) is stoned to death at the Lord's command.
NU 16:27-33 The Lord causes the earth to open and swallow up the men and their households (including wives and children) because the men had been rebellious.
NU 16:35 A fire from the Lord consumes 250 men.
NU 16:49 A plague from the Lord kills 14,700 people.
NU 21:6 Fiery serpents, sent by the Lord, kill many Israelites.
NU 21:35 With the Lord's approval, the Israelites slay Og "... and his sons and all his people, until there was not one survivor left ...."
NU 25:4 (KJV) "And the Lord said unto Moses, take all the heads of the people, and hang them up before the Lord against the sun ...."
NU 25:9 24,000 people die in a plague from the Lord.
NU 31:17-18 Moses, following the Lord's command, orders the Israelites to kill all the Midianite male children and "... every woman who has known man ...."
NU 31:31-40 32,000 virgins are taken by the Israelites as booty. Thirty-two are set aside (to be sacrificed?) as a tribute for the Lord.
DT 2:33-34 The Israelites utterly destroy the men, women, and children of Sihon.
DT 3:6 The Israelites utterly destroy the men, women, and children of Og.
DT 7:2 The Lord commands the Israelites to "utterly destroy" and shown "no mercy" to those whom he gives them for defeat.
DT 20:13-14 "When the Lord delivers it into your hand, put to the sword all the males .... As for the women, the children, the livestock and everything else in the city, you may take these as plunder for yourselves."
DT 20:16 "In the cities of the nations the Lord is giving you as an inheritance, do not leave alive anything that breathes."
DT 21:10-13 With the Lord's approval, the Israelites are allowed to take "beautiful women" from the enemy camp to be their captive wives. If, after sexual relations, the husband has "no delight" in his wife, he can simply let her go.
DT 28:53 "You will eat the fruit of the womb, the flesh of the sons and daughters the Lord your God has given you."
JS 1:1-9, 18 Joshua receives the Lord's blessing for all the bloody endeavors to follow.
JS 6:21-27 With the Lord's approval, Joshua destroys the city of Jericho men, women, and children with the edge of the sword.
JS 7:19-26 Achan, his children and his cattle are stoned to death because Achan had taken a taboo thing.
JS 8:22-25 With the Lord's approval, Joshua utterly smites the people of Ai, killing 12,000 men and women, so that there were none who escaped.
JS 10:10-27 With the help of the Lord, Joshua utterly destroys the Gibeonites.
JS 10:28 With the Lord's approval, Joshua utterly destroys the people of Makkedah.
JS 10:30 With the Lord's approval, Joshua utterly destroys the Libnahites.
JS 10:32-33 With the Lord's approval, Joshua utterly destroys the people of Lachish.
JS 10:34-35 With the Lord's approval, Joshua utterly destroys the Eglonites.
JS 10:36-37 With the Lord's approval, Joshua utterly destroys the Hebronites.
JS 10:38-39 With the Lord's approval, Joshua utterly destroys the Debirites.
JS 10:40 (A summary statement.) "So Joshua defeated the whole land ...; he left none remaining, but destroyed all that breathed, as the Lord God of Israel commanded."
JS 11:6 The Lord orders horses to be hamstrung. (Exceedingly cruel.)
JS 11:8-15 "And the lord gave them into the hand of Israel, ...utterly destroying them; there was none left that breathed ...."
JS 11:20 "For it was the Lord's doing to harden their hearts that they should come against Israel in battle, in order that they should be utterly destroyed, and should receive no mercy but be exterminated, as the Lord commanded Moses."
JG 1:4 With the Lord's support, Judah defeats 10,000 Canaanites at Bezek.
JG 1:6 With the Lord's approval, Judah pursues Adoni-bezek, catches him, and cuts off his thumbs and big toes.
JG 1:8 With the Lord's approval, Judah smites Jerusalem.
JG 1:17 With the Lord's approval, Judah and Simeon utterly destroy the Canaanites who inhabited Zephath.
JG 14:19 The Spirit of the Lord comes upon a man and causes him to slay thirty men.
JG 16:27-30 Samson, with the help of the Lord, pulls down the pillars of the Philistine house and causes his own death and that of 3000 other men and women.
JG 21:10-12 "... Go and smite the inhabitants of Jabesh-gilead with the edge of the sword and; also the women and little ones.... every male and every woman that has lain with a male you shall utterly destroy." They do so and find four hundred young virgins whom they bring back for their own use
1SA 5:8-9 God causes "emerods" (hemorrhoids or tumors) amongst the Philistines (who have captured the Ark of the Covenant, where God was thought to reside).
1SA 6:19 God kills seventy men (or so) for looking into the Ark
1SA 16:14-23 Evil spirits can come from God (and be exorcised with God's help).
1SA 11:11 With the Lord's blessing, Saul and his men cut down the Ammonites.
1SA 15:33 "Samuel hewed Agag in pieces before the Lord ...."
2SA 5:25 "And David did as the Lord commanded him, and smote the Philistines ...."
2SA 8:1-18 (A listing of some of David's murderous conquests.)
2SA 8:4 David hamstrung all but a few of the horses.
2SA 8:5 David slew 22,000 Syrians.
2SA 8:6, 14 "The Lord gave victory to David wherever he went."
2SA 8:13 David slew 18,000 Edomites in the valley of salt and made the rest slaves.
2SA 10:18 David slew 47,000+ Syrians.
2SA 11:14-27 David has Uriah killed so that he can marry Uriah's wife, Bathsheba.
2SA 12:1, 19 The Lord strikes David's child dead for the sin that David has committed.
2SA 24:15 The Lord sends a pestilence on Israel that kills 70,000 men.
1KI 13:15-24 A man is killed by a lion for eating bread and drinking water in a place where the Lord had previously told him not to. This is in spite of the fact that the man had subsequently been lied to by a prophet who told the man that an angel of the Lord said that it would be alright to eat and drink there.
2KI 1:10-12 Fire from heaven comes down and consumes fifty men
2KI 2:23-24 Forty-two children are mauled and killed, presumably according to the will of God, for having jeered at a man of God.
2KI 6:18-19 The Lord answers Elisha's prayer and strikes the Syrians with blindness. Elisha tricks the blind Syrians and leads them to Samaria.
2KI 15:3-5 Even though he did what was right in the eyes of the Lord, the Lord smites Azariah with leprosy for not having removed the "high places."
2KI 19:35 An angel of the Lord kills 185,000 men.
2KI 19:35 (KJV) "...the angel of the Lord...smote...an hundred four score and five thousand: and when they arose early in the morning ... they were all dead...."
EZ 6:12-13 The Lord says: "... they will fall by the sword, famine and plague. He that is far away will die of the plague, and he that is near will fall by the sword, and he that survives and is spared will die of famine. So will I spend my wrath upon them. And they will know I am the Lord, when the people lie slain among their idols around their altars, on every high hill and on all the mountaintops, under every spreading tree and every leafy oak ...."
EZ 9:4-6 The Lord commands: "... slay old men outright, young men and maidens, little children and women ...."
EZ 20:26 In order that he might horrify them, the Lord allowed the Israelites to defile themselves through, amongst other things, the sacrifice of their first-born children.
EZ 21:3-4 The Lord says that he will cut off both the righteous and the wicked that his sword shall go against all flesh.
EZ 23:25, 47 God is going to slay the sons and daughters of those who were whores.
JE 20:7, EZ 14:9 Jeremiah says that the Lord deceived his own prophet. God himself says that he deceives his own prophets in order to get rid of them.
MI 3:2-3 "... who pluck off their skin ..., and their flesh from off their bones; Who also eat the flesh of my people, and flay their skin from off them; and they break their bones, and chop them in pieces, as for the pot, and as flesh within the caldron."
MT 3:12, 8:12, 10:21, 13:30, 42, 22:13, 24:51, 25:30, LK 13:28, JN 5:24 Some will spend eternity burning in Hell. There will be weeping, wailing and gnashing of teeth.
MT 10:21 "... the brother shall deliver up his brother to death, and the father his child, ... children shall rise up against their parents, and cause them to be put to death."
MT 10:35-36 "For I have come to turn a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law a man's enemies will be the members of his own family."
MT 11:21-24 Jesus curses [the inhabitants of] three cities who were not sufficiently impressed with his great works.
II Thessalonians 2:11 "And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie."


Exodus 20:15 "Thou shalt not steal."
Leviticus 19:13 "Thou shalt not defraud thy neighbor, neither rob him."
vs.
Exodus 3:22 "And ye shall spoil the Egyptians."
Exodus 12:35-36 "And they spoiled [plundered, NRSV] the Egyptians."
Luke 19:29-34 "[Jesus] sent two of his disciples, Saying, Go ye into the village . . . ye shall find a colt tied, whereon yet never man sat: loose him, and bring him hither. And if any man ask you, Why do ye loose him? thus shall ye say unto him, Because the Lord hath need of him. . . . And as they were loosing the colt, the owners thereof said unto them, Why loose ye the colt? And they said, The Lord hath need of him."


Exodus 20:8 "Remember the sabbath day to keep it holy."
Exodus 31:15 "Whosoever doeth any work in the sabbath day, he shall surely be put to death."
vs.
John 5:16 "And therefore did the Jews persecute Jesus and sought to slay him, because he had done these things on the sabbath day."
Colossians 2:16 "Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holy-day, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days."


Exodus 20:4 "Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven . . . earth . . . water."
vs.
Exodus 25:18 "And thou shalt make two cherubims of gold, of beaten work shalt thou make them."
I Kings 7:15,16,23,25 "For he [Solomon] cast two pillars of brass . . . and two chapiters of molten brass . . . And he made a molten sea . . . it stood upon twelve oxen, etc., etc."


Malachi 3:6 "For I am the Lord; I change not."
Numbers 23:19 "God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent."
Ezekiel 24:14 "I the Lord have spoken it: it shall come to pass, and I will do it; I will not go back, neither will I spare, neither will I repent."
James 1:17 " . . . the Father of lights, with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning."
vs.
Exodus 32:14 "And the Lord repented of the evil which he thought to do unto his people."
Genesis 6:6,7 "And it repented the Lord that he had made man on the earth . . . And the Lord said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth . . . for it repenteth me that I have made him."
Jonah 3:10 ". . . and God repented of the evil, that he had said that he would do unto them; and he did it not."
See also II Kings 20:1-7, Numbers 16:20-35, Numbers 16:44-50.
See Genesis 18:23-33, where Abraham gets God to change his mind about the minimum number of righteous people in Sodom required to avoid destruction, bargaining down from fifty to ten. (An omniscient God must have known that he was playing with Abraham's hopes for mercy--he destroyed the city anyway.)


Psalm 145:9 "The Lord is good to all."
Deuteronomy 32:4 "a God of truth and without iniquity, just and right is he."
vs.
Isaiah 45:7 "I make peace and create evil. I the Lord do all these things." See "Out of Context" for more on Isaiah 45:7.
Lamentations 3:38 "Out of the mouth of the most High proceedeth not evil and good?"
Jeremiah 18:11 "Thus saith the Lord; Behold, I frame evil against you, and devise a device against you."
Ezekiel 20:25,26 "I gave them also statutes that were not good, and judgments whereby they should not live. And I polluted them in their own gifts, in that they caused to pass through the fire all that openeth the womb, that I might make them desolate, to the end that they might know that I am the Lord."


James 1:13 "Let no man say . . . I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man."
vs.
Genesis 22:1 "And it came to pass after these things, that God did tempt Abraham."


John 8:14 "Though I bear record of myself, yet my record is true."
vs.
John 5:31 "If I bear witness of myself, my witness is not true."


Jeremiah 32:27 "Behold, I am the Lord, the God of all flesh: is there anything too hard for me?
Matthew 19:26 "But Jesus beheld them, and said unto them, With men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible."
vs.
Judges 1:19 "And the Lord was with Judah; and he drave out the inhabitants of the mountain; but could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley, because they had chariots of iron."

Human sacrifice:
Genesis 22:2 "And he said, Take now thy son, thine only son Isaac, whom thou lovest, and get thee into the land of Moriah; and offer him there for a burnt offering upon one of the mountains which I will tell thee of."
Exodus 22:29 "For thou shalt not delay to offer the first of thy ripe fruits, and of thy liquors; the firstborn of thy sons shalt thou give unto me."
Judges 11:30-39 "And Jephthah vowed a vow unto the Lord, and said, If thou shalt without fail deliver the children of Ammon into mine hand, Then it shall be, that whatsoever cometh forth of the doors of my house to meet me, when I return in peace from the children of Ammon, shall surely be the Lord's, and I will offer it up for a burnt offering. So Jephthah passed over unto the children of Ammon . . . and the Lord delivered them into his hands. . . . And Jephthah came to Mizpeh unto his house, and, behold, his daughter came out to meet him with timbrels and with dances: . . . And it came to pass at the end of two months, that she returned unto her father, who did with her according to his vow which he had vowed."
II Samuel 21:8-14 "But the king [David] took the two sons of Rizpah . . . and the five sons of Michal . . . and he delivered them into the hands of the Gideonites, and they hanged them in the hill before the Lord: and they fell all seven together, and were put to death in the days of harvest . . . And after that God was intreated for the land."
Hebrews 10:10-12 " . . . we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ . . . But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins forever, sat down on the right hand of God."
I Corinthians 5:7 " . . . For even Christ our passover is sacrificed for us."



I've had enough. It's rather depressing to type all this...crap. This, the Old Testament, is the cornerstone, foundation upon which your religion grew out of and rest upon. Everything that describes your God is within it. I wager the odds are now somewhat smaller than 100% that your God is 100% good.
Gawen is offline  
Old 01-29-2006, 05:09 PM   #889
Contributor
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Hudson Valley, NY
Posts: 10,056
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rhutchin
The author here is NOT arguing against the idea that the Wager results in one rejecting nonbelief and accepting belief. The author only argues that ones does not know which god to believe. In this he reveals that he misunderstands the Wager. He seems to understand it enough not to argue for nonbelief in any god.
That's unnecessarily condescending and rude, even for you.

Quote:
Ignorance is bliss, so it is said.
Do you consider yourself a happy person?

WMD
Wayne Delia is offline  
Old 01-29-2006, 05:19 PM   #890
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the dark places of the world
Posts: 8,093
Default

I'm guessing that rhutchin has never answered the questions about Islamic hell, belief in vampires, or Mageth's Hellish Wager.

Am I right?
Sauron is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 09:17 PM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.