Freethought & Rationalism Archive

rhutchin · 03-14-2006, 04:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

The Bible is irrelevant. Even if you had been alive during the time of Jesus, had seen him perform what you believe are miracles, and had heard him speak, you would still have the same problem. He might have been an evil God who was masquerading as a good God.

Is it your position that any being who shows up who has powers that are beyond the abilities of humans should be loved and trusted?

Let's see. If we had been there and had seen the miracles and heard Jesus preach, you are saying that we should have thought, "Gee this guy might be evil. I wonder what he is up to." Somehow, I just can't buy into that.

No, it is not my position that any being who shows up who has powers that are beyond the abilities of humans should be loved and trusted. Why would I or anyone think that? Let the guy earn people's love and trust.

rhutchin · 03-14-2006, 04:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dlx2

Why is the Bible an authority we can and should trust?

It isn't automatically to be trusted. It is an authority that one can and might trust. If the Bible provides accurate information, then you can conclude that it can be trusted.

JPD · 03-14-2006, 04:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhutchin

Let's see. If we had been there and had seen the miracles and heard Jesus preach, you are saying that we should have thought, "Gee this guy might be evil. I wonder what he is up to." Somehow, I just can't buy into that.

Yeah...If....the point is that you have no idea what your reaction would be. Bear in mind that you would not have the "benefit" of having read the Bible - how would Jesus waffling be any different to a quack doctor offering miracle cures?

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhutchin

No, it is not my position that any being who shows up who has powers that are beyond the abilities of humans should be loved and trusted. Why would I or anyone think that? Let the guy earn people's love and trust.

Who CLAIMS that they have....I wouldn't love or trust someone who claimed to have powers that they were unable to explain. First thing I would demand would be a thorough examination of their alleged powers.

JPD · 03-14-2006, 04:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhutchin

It isn't automatically to be trusted. It is an authority that one can and might trust. If the Bible provides accurate information, then you can conclude that it can be trusted.

That's a good one - do you mean that when the right and wrong information has been added up, and the sum of the correct column is greater, we're all systems go? Bullshit.

rhutchin · 03-14-2006, 04:46 AM

Quote:

rhutchin
Taken as a whole, the Bible says that God is good. You can always cherry-pick a verse here or there and try to get the opposite conclusion. Whether God is good or evil, the Bible says that people must be good to enter heaven, perfect even, and everyone will be judged by the bad they do. The Wager then says that those people who have done bad and think that there could be judgment in their future should do something about it.

JPD
It makes no difference - what part of "an all powerful God could give the impression that it is the opposite of what it's alleged activities lead its believers to regard it as". But we can't even get that far - the Bible merely makes the claim that God is good. It is insufficient and the wager cannot be any better.

Whether God is good or evil is immaterial to the Wager. All the Wager takes into account is that God threatens a person with eternal torment and the only way to escape that torment is through belief. That situation is not affected by God's nature or motives since the only information we have says that a person must do good (be perfect) in order to escape eternal torment. If that is not correct, we have no way to know it.

JPD · 03-14-2006, 04:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhutchin

Whether God is good or evil is immaterial to the Wager. All the Wager takes into account is that God threatens a person with eternal torment and the only way to escape that torment is through belief. That situation is not affected by God's nature or motives since the only information we have says that a person must do good (be perfect) in order to escape eternal torment. If that is not correct, we have no way to know it.

You must be joking. Whether God is good or evil would be the wager's clincher - what kind of idiot would accept an argument without establishing the validity of its foundations?

Jack the Bodiless · 03-14-2006, 05:03 AM

...Uh, why is this thread still going?

rhutchin, you have already admitted that unbelief is a valid outcome of the Wager: that an unbeliever can use the Wager to conclude that unbelief is safer than (for instance) Christianity (as I did).

So, are you simply restating the Wager even though you no longer accept it as valid?

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhutchin

It isn't automatically to be trusted. It is an authority that one can and might trust. If the Bible provides accurate information, then you can conclude that it can be trusted.

And, of course, it doesn't: it is wrong about many things. Therefore it cannot be trusted?

enemigo · 03-14-2006, 06:15 AM

am i typing in invisible pixels?

rhutchin · 03-14-2006, 08:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jack the Bodiless

...Uh, why is this thread still going?

rhutchin, you have already admitted that unbelief is a valid outcome of the Wager: that an unbeliever can use the Wager to conclude that unbelief is safer than (for instance) Christianity (as I did).

So, are you simply restating the Wager even though you no longer accept it as valid?

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhutchin

It isn't automatically to be trusted. It is an authority that one can and might trust. If the Bible provides accurate information, then you can conclude that it can be trusted.

And, of course, it doesn't: it is wrong about many things. Therefore it cannot be trusted?

Someone presented the unique situation where "unbelief" would provide an escape from eternal torment. Thus, this "unbelief" was actually the belief in "unbelief" as a means to escape torment.

Straight unbelief -- in God and/or eternal torment -- would not be a rational outcome for the Wager. It would be an irrational outcome from the Wager.

There seems to be debate about your contention that the Bible is wrong about many things.

rhutchin · 03-14-2006, 09:04 AM

Quote:

rhutchin
Whether God is good or evil is immaterial to the Wager. All the Wager takes into account is that God threatens a person with eternal torment and the only way to escape that torment is through belief. That situation is not affected by God's nature or motives since the only information we have says that a person must do good (be perfect) in order to escape eternal torment. If that is not correct, we have no way to know it.

JPD
You must be joking. Whether God is good or evil would be the wager's clincher - what kind of idiot would accept an argument without establishing the validity of its foundations?

JS' point was that the claim by the Bible that God is good is based on actions and can be a false indicator of motive. My point is that we have no way of knowing God's true motives. We only know that which He does and can assume motive from His actions.

Since we have no way of vaildating God's true motive, we are left with that motive to be assumed from His actions and that which the Bible tells us. The Wager depends on that which the Bible expresses about God (which JS claims could be false indicator of true motive).

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

03-14-2006, 06:15 AM	#2118
enemigo Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: atlanta, ga Posts: 691	am i typing in invisible pixels?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.