Freethought & Rationalism Archive

rhutchin · 01-23-2006, 04:15 AM

Quote:

rhutchin
I am not aware that God cares about one’s motivation for seeking Him. He merely says, “Ask, and it will be given to you; seek, and you will find; knock, and it will be opened to you.�? Pure self-interest may (and should) motivate all to seek God. That self-interest would eventually disappear as the person finds God.

FFT
End justifies the means, then?

So far as jump-starting the person to save himself, Yes.

rhutchin · 01-23-2006, 04:36 AM

Quote:

rhutchin
OK. Let’s conduct a study and determine what people think about pain and especially that pain identified with eternal torment. Maybe those following this thread could chime in with their feelings about pain and whether they think it is something to be avoided (and therefore bad).

Dlx2
Let's conduct a study and determine what people think about spending their entire existence paralyzed by fear of eternal torment.

OK, let’s do both studies. The second study can be limited to the person’s physical life on earth. After a person dies, fear would become reality (if eternal torment is the person’s fate).

Quote:

rhutchin
Right. That’s like a fireman saying that getting burned in a fire doesn’t bother him. Or Maybe a person saying that the pain of bone cancer doesn’t bother him. It’s all personal puffery until you feel the pain.

Dlx2
Should the fireman have not run into the burning building to save people? No, he may be in pain and it may be uncomfortable, but he is not bothered by the choice he made.

I agree (although I suspect that all the training and equipment attest to the fireman’s desire to escape being burned during a rescue). I still think your attitude about not fearing eternal torment is nothing more than personal puffery.

Quote:

rhutchin
OK, then you know that Pascal did address the issue contrary to that which you claimed. The logic of the Wager (and of risk analysis) is sound. The valuation of variables may be debated but would not detract from the logic of the analysis.

Dlx2
The logic of the risk analysis is not solid because it relies on the cost/benefit of atheism to basically be equivalent to zero. This is not the case. If you have an existence which permanently and completely ceases upon mortality, your life is equivalent to aleph-null, a transfinite. Even if only a percentage of that experiences a loss due to belief, divide infinity by a constant and you still have infinity. Thus, you take an infinite loss either way. Thus, you should bet according to the probability of God's existence, which is the only relevant variable here.

One could go further and propose the inverse of Pascal's Wager and suggest the following:

It is best to bet against God.

This is why:

If you bet against God, and God doesn't exist:

You have infinite benefit during your mortal life (+1), no loss in your eternal life (0), but you have no eternal life (0). Total: +1

If you bet on God, and God doesn't exist:

You have infinite loss in your mortal life (-1), no loss in your eternal life (0), and you have no eternal life (0). Total: -1

If you bet against God, but God exists:

You have infinite gain in your mortal life (+1), infinite loss in your eternal life (-1), but you have an eternal life (+1). Total: +1

If you bet on God, and God exists:

You have infinite loss in your mortal life (-1), infinite gain in your eternal life (+1), and you have an eternal life (+1). Total: +1
A cost-benefit analysis assuming that the odds of God's existence are unknowable (and thus assumed to be 50/50) suggests that the average benefit for betting against God is +1, while the average benefit for betting on God is +0. Thus, it is better to bet against God than on God.

The informal way of presenting this argument is that betting against God at least leaves you a consolation prize (eternal life), while there is no consolation prize for betting on God.

As correctly outlined by Pascal, it would actually be this--

If you bet against God, and God doesn't exist:

You have finite [not infinite] benefit during your mortal life (0), no loss in your eternal life (0), but you have no eternal life (0). Total: 0 (Measuring finite gain against potential infinite loss.)

If you bet on God, and God doesn't exist:

You have finite [not infinite] loss in your mortal life (0), no loss in your eternal life (0), and you have no eternal life (0). Total: 0

If you bet against God, but God exists:

You have finite [not infinite] gain in your mortal life (0), infinite loss in your eternal life (-1), and you cannot escape eternal life (-1). Total: -2

If you bet on God, and God exists:

You have finite [not infinite] loss in your mortal life (0), infinite gain in your eternal life (+1), and you have an eternal life (+1). Total: +2

rhutchin · 01-23-2006, 04:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gawen

Pain...
Eternal torment...
Paradise...
Avoidance...
Self interest...

I prefer to think of it as simple coercion. Like in the OT, your NT God doesn't lead you with a carrot on a stick. Instead He beats you with the stick (threat of pain) and feeds you with the carrot (promise of no pain). The funny thing about it is from my POV....the carrot and the stick never existed....and the God as well.

God neither coerces you to sin nor to seek forgiveness for that sin. God does not beat you; he merely tells you what your situation is. Under your scenario, if your financial advisor tells you that you are likely to lose everything if you make a particular investment, then he is beating you and coercing you not to make that investment. Sounds like goofy logic to me. You appear to be the type to blame a person if he gives you good advice and you refuse to take it. I think that is called denial.

JPD · 01-23-2006, 04:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhutchin

God neither coerces you to sin nor to seek forgiveness for that sin. God does not beat you; he merely tells you what your situation is. Under your scenario, if your financial advisor tells you that you are likely to lose everything if you make a particular investment, then he is beating you and coercing you not to make that investment. Sounds like goofy logic to me. You appear to be the type to blame a person if he gives you good advice and you refuse to take it. I think that is called denial.

Well the day that God sorts his own head out and decides whether he is himself or his own father we'll revisit this "good advice".

Our goofy logic? Your goofy analogy? God doesn't tell us anything but that's because we choose not to hear isn't it? This argument always comes round to this point. It is one of a vast number of uncertainties. I can't base decisions on uncertainties. The financial advisor deals in something about which rather more is known. I can actually experience his advice and make decisions on its basis, the ramifications of which, as far as I am aware - or at least as far as I am concerned, deal with THIS existence and nothing else.

JPD · 01-23-2006, 04:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhutchin

All you get is the account provided in the Bible. Accept it or not; you choose...

This is really poor. Somewhere in the world a muslim is saying "All you get is the account provided in the Quran. Accept it or not - you choose" and so on. Do you have any idea how crappy your posts are?

JPD · 01-23-2006, 05:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wayne Delia

If Jesus was telling the truth in Mark 16:17-18, then there ought to be a complete lack of snakebite fatalities and injuries among all Christians. But, of course, there isn't.

WMD

Is it possible for the no true Scotsman fallacy to be pronounced at exactly the same time as the irony meter mechanism is subjected to forces wildly in excess of operating guidelines?

Dlx2 · 01-23-2006, 06:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhutchin

As correctly outlined by Pascal, it would actually be this--

If you bet against God, and God doesn't exist:

You have finite [not infinite] benefit during your mortal life (0), no loss in your eternal life (0), but you have no eternal life (0). Total: 0 (Measuring finite gain against potential infinite loss.)

If you bet on God, and God doesn't exist:

You have finite [not infinite] loss in your mortal life (0), no loss in your eternal life (0), and you have no eternal life (0). Total: 0

If you bet against God, but God exists:

You have finite [not infinite] gain in your mortal life (0), infinite loss in your eternal life (-1), and you cannot escape eternal life (-1). Total: -2

If you bet on God, and God exists:

You have finite [not infinite] loss in your mortal life (0), infinite gain in your eternal life (+1), and you have an eternal life (+1). Total: +2

As I stated before, our lives can be viewed as an infinite set with finite bounds. If eternal life is just torment or peace, then the afterlife can be viewed as a finite set with infinite bounds. There's really not a whole lot of difference there when making one's decision. Additionally, the existence of an afterlife should be considered separately from the specific afterlife one ends up with, as existence should be considered preferable to nonexistence.

In other words, my formulation is correct, and Pascal's is not. It is better to bet against God.

Wayne Delia · 01-23-2006, 06:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhutchin

As Jesus said, "Thomas, because you have seen Me, you have believed. Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.�?

Actually, the anonymous author of John attributed that quote to Jesus. Equivalently, "Here's a story about someone else a long time ago who asked for evidence and got it. In a total non-sequitor, it's a really good thing if people just accept the claims without getting the same kind of evidence." Among other things, it begs the question of why an apostle who was a close friend needed (and received) evidence to believe that which ordinary people are expected to believe without evidence. It entirely begs the question.

Quote:

Nonetheless, the fate of all people is still determined by their sin. Those who sin will be excluded from heaven.

You've sinned. You've broken the Ninth Commandment by calling atheists thieves. You've refused to retract or apologize for that comment, and you've misrepresented Jesus's words attempting to defend yourself. Do you figure you're going to hell? If not, then we won't take that threat seriously either.

Quote:

A means to escape judgment and enter heaven is available to those who believe in Christ. If one rejects that escape, he faces judgment for his sin. God is not going to evaluate whether a person believed in Him but whether that person sinned. One might argue that God could have done more to convince the skeptic that Christ was real, but what will he argue to explain his sin? If a person rejects Christ, will he be concerned about any so-called sin that he committed.

None of that addresses the fairness of condemning a person who is skeptical of God's existence based on the intentionally withheld evidence, but who would otherwise believe in God if the evidence was present. You've just implied it's a sin, and sin is bad, and people should be punished for doing bad things. That's way too simplistic, even for you.

Quote:

The skeptic has been warned.

And the person who warns the skeptics has been laughed at.

Quote:

If he is uncertain about what he should do, he should seek that which is in his self interest.

But self-interest is entirely based on greed, and greed is an emotion. Therefore, a theist who accepts the poor logic of Pascal's Wager based on self-interest is making an emotion-based decision. The funny part here, the reason we're currently laughing at you, is that you've claimed that rejection of the Christian God is bad because it's an emotion-based reaction to the Bible. And you've never actually addressed the problem of you rejecting the non-Christian religions, such as Islam. Wouldn't that be rejecting Islam based on an emotional reaction to the Qu'ran? You cannot address that, because your own argument using the same line of reasoning for Christianity would fall apart. That's what's known as a "theological blind spot," something which you cannot address or explain regarding your own religion (even as an outsider looking in), but you don't hesitate to criticize in other religions. You'll continue to be reminded of it as a reason why people don't take you seriously as long as you won't take yourself seriously.

WMD

Wayne Delia · 01-23-2006, 06:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhutchin

OK, then you know that Pascal did address the issue contrary to that which you claimed.

You've been told not to presume to speak for other people. You're not smart enough to paraphrase other people's arguments accurately, such as in this case.

Quote:

The logic of the Wager (and of risk analysis) is sound. The valuation of variables may be debated but would not detract from the logic of the analysis.

The logic of Pascal's Wager is sound, but the argument is also invalid, because the validation (not "valuation") of the premises (not "variables") is not established. Being a sound argument with invalid premises, it can therefore be applied to any other non-Christian religion with equal, uh, "validity" as the Christian version - that is to say, no validity at all. That's why you've lost the debate, without even realizing it.

WMD

Johnny Skeptic · 01-23-2006, 07:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhutchin

The problem is that the only real evidence available is that which we have in the Bible. There is no evidence for your imaginary alien and hypotheticals of this nature mean nothing without supporting documentation. It is the person, like you, who relies on illogical, irrational, and emotional desires to avoid God who refuses to consider the evidence.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

That cannot possibly be true. Self-interest appeals to emotions, not to logic. Self-interest never accepts any evidence, no matter how convincing, unless the evidence promises comfort and not punishment. As I said, “If a powerful alien showed up on earth, claimed to be God, demonstrated to you firsthand what you believed were supernatural powers, told you that he eventually planned to send everyone to hell, and then left the earth, you would still be a Christian.�? Do you dispute this?

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhutchin

Self-interest may appeal to emotion but that does not prevent it from evaluating its situation in a rational, logical manner. Self-interest can deal with the evidence that is available just as non-self-interested people can.

If your alien appears, he would negate the Bible and leave no basis for being a Christian.

That is most assuredly not true. The alien might have lied, just like human proxies presuming to speak for God might have lied about God’s nature and intentions. If it turns out that the alien will end up sending everyone to hell as he promised, if wouldn't make any difference to Christians whether they believed him or not, but if it turns out that God will end up sending believers to heaven and unbelievers to hell, it will have been in Christians' self-interest to trust the Bible. So, you definitely would not give up Christianity if such an alien came to earth.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

It is a fact that the God of the Bible cannot exist as claimed. 2 Peter 3:9 says "The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance." Such a God would clearly reveal himself to everyone. When Jesus began his ministry, God knew full well that hundreds of millions of people would die over the following centuries without ever having heard the Gospel message, but that didn't bother him at all.

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhutchin

You still seem to be confused about this verse. Did you look at this verse and trace the words used in this verse back to their antecedents? It appears that you have not. In another place the Bible tells us that Jesus came to save his people from their sins. There is no reason to think that God ever intended to save everyone.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

If is you who are confused. I don’t actually need the verse.

I have proven that it is not really evidence and love that attract you, but only your own self-interest.

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhutchin

I see that you are ready to give up your claims about 2 Peter 3:9.

Not at all. I just found it to be more useful to use another approach. I changed to the following arguments that you conveniently did not reply to:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

Consider the following scriptures:

Matthew 4:24 And his fame went throughout all Syria: and they brought unto him all sick people that were taken with divers diseases and torments, and those which were possessed with devils, and those which were lunatick, and those that had the palsy; and he healed them.

John 2:23 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 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.

John 6:2 And a great multitude followed him, because they saw his miracles which he did on them that were diseased.

John 10:37-38 Do not believe me unless I do what my Father does. But if I do it, even though you do not believe me, believe the miracles, that you may know and understand that the Father is in me, and I in the Father."

John 11:47-48 Then gathered the chief priests and the Pharisees a council, and said, What do we? for this man doeth many miracles. If we let him thus alone, all men will believe on him: and the Romans shall come and take away both our place and nation.

Acts 14:3 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. (NIV)

A loving God would be an equal access provider. The God of the Bible isn’t like that. Subjective spiritual/emotional/intuitive experiences do not corroborate objective tangible experiences. Rather, objective tangible experiences corroborate subjective tangible experiences. If heaven and hell are actually at stake, today, we have the right to have access to the same objective tangible experiences that people supposedly had back then.

Logically and fairly, the greater the stakes, the greater the burden of proof. In civil trials, where life in prison or the death sentence are never at stake, only a simply majority of jurors is necessary for a conviction, but in a criminal trial, where life in prison or the death sentence are frequently at stake, a unanimous decision required. How much more so should the burden of proof be if heaven and hell are actually at stake? While God could not possibly have anything whatsoever to lose if he clearly showed himself to everyone, a scenario that you would definitely celebrate if God did that, unbelievers would have everything to gain if God clearly showed himself to everyone. If God exists, and if he clearly revealed himself to everyone, surely many unbelievers would become Christians based upon firsthand tangible evidence, just like many people supposedly did during the time of Jesus and the disciples based upon firsthand tangible evidence.

Please reply to the preceding arguments.

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.

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.