Freethought & Rationalism Archive

rhutchin · 02-18-2006, 08:39 AM

Quote:

rhutchin
You are ignoring that conclusion to which the Wager leads a person. The belief in any god (or one of the infinite schemas) is predicated on the desire of the person to escape eternal torment. Where one is uncertain about the reality of eternal torment, the Wager leads the person to the conclusion that the rational action is to escape eternal torment.

wyzaard
Oh... so you're still stuck with this presupposed criteria; it's an irrelevent one when there are infinite possibilities, including what could count as 'eternal punishments' and 'eternal blisses' under any number of conditions; probability of any one chance is unknowable at best, infantessimal at worst. If this is the motivation you're hinging all of this on... oh well, so much for Pascal; why would anyone fear something so pointlessly miniscule and remote, especially when the default position could be the key to escaping said trap?

It is true that one can devise countless possibilities. However, at some point, we take what is on the table and deal with those. All you establish with infinite possibilities is the difficulty of selecting the truth at random. To remove the Wager from consideration, you need to show that one should not be concerned with the truth at all (no matter how small the chance of finding the truth).

Quote:

rhutchin
Having made this decision, the person is faced with two choices, belief in X (undefined for now) or nonbelief where belief would provide an escape from eternal torment and nonbelief would not.

wyzaard
Says who? Nonbelief is a prerequisite for escaping eternal torment in one possible schema. Case closed.

There can be a number of paths to escape eternal torment that can include belief in god A and non-belief in god A all of which can be lumped together and called X. There would still be the “nonbelief�? that excludes a belief in eternal torment and any action to escape that torment.

Quote:

rhutchin
The choice here is to believe in an X even though the person has no idea who or what this might be. All he knows is that (a) he wants to escape eternal torment

wyzaard
Which one and why?

That is for the person to determine. The Wager can be used to determine that one should escape eternal torment but it does not tell the person which belief leads to escape.

Quote:

rhutchin
and (b) belief offers the only means to escape eternal torment. At this point, the person specifically rejects nonbelief because it offers no escape from eternal torment.

wyzaard
Excepting the possibility that I mentioned that renders your position untenable.

You have conceived of a belief that offers an escape from eternal torment. That is to be distinguished from the belief that does not offer an escape from eternal torment. You don’t seem to want to make that distinction even though you conceived it.

JPD · 02-18-2006, 12:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhutchin

Why not? There is no choice if a person must pick a certain option. So long as there are two options, there is choice. Increasing the number of options to infinity does not remove choice.

Evidently the concept of infinity escapes you.

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhutchin

Fine. You only have to worry about being wrong in your valuation of the evidence that exists.

And what evidence might that be? We're not back to the inconsistent and erroneous Bible again are we?

JPD · 02-18-2006, 01:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhutchin

OK, so you still don’t understand the Wager.

That's an interesting assertion given that its shortcomings have been pointed out endlessly throughout this thread. If you regard it as useful in any way then you should be worried about how this will impact on the outcome of your beliefs. It should be painfully obvious by now that we do not regard it as having any validity at all in determining a suitable set of beliefs. If you wish to go ahead and utilise it as a tool in your own life, however, please do so.

JamesBannon · 02-18-2006, 01:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhutchin

All historical texts (especially eyewitness accounts) are by their nature questionable. Even though one may question the reliability of a document, absent sufficient prove of unreliability, this should not be a reason to reject an historical document altogether. Nonetheless, you are free to view historical documents in this manner.

Whether the Bible is superior to other religious texts may be in the eye of the beholder. That would be an interesting research project -- to look at what others have decided about the Bible when comparing it to other religious documents.

Calvinists understand the value of the Wager as an exercise in intellectual honesty. From the Calvinist perspective, if one were honest, he would say, "I understand the Wager and agree that its conclusion is the rational outcome, but I just don't care." Equally compelling to Calvinists is the effort expended by people to explain away the Wager's conclusion. Either way, Calvinists see strong support for the doctrine of Total Depravity in the manner in which people react to the Wager.

The Wager is an exercise in self-interest, no more no less. Why people seem compelled to make it something else escapes me. The Wager, while presented by Pascal in a specific framework, is nonetheless flexible enough to accommodate many supreme beings/belief systems. It is, at heart, a mathematical exercise and its components can be variables.

How does one determine whether it is “Might makes Right,�? or “Might enforces Right.�? If God, who has established right, uses His power to enforce that which is right, why is that a problem? On what basis is God to be faulted for judging sin?

It is not for unbelief that God will judge you; it is for your sin. Why is it that many like you, who reject God, can never admit that they have sinned and that God is within His rights to judge their sin? Why is it unjust for God to tell you that He will not allow you into heaven if you sin, and then actually do what He has said? On what basis is God to be faulted?

1. The bible does not qualify as a historical document; it is mytholog, not history. There is not one shred of corroborative evidence for any of the described events, even the Exodus is of questionable validity.

2. Calvinists do not understand the wager and the Calvinist doctrine of total depravity (some call it total inability) is also junk. There is no way you can use Calvinist doctrine to defend the wager since it is totally antithetical to the idea behind it - choice.

3. We should behave in a moral manner because it is right to do so, not merely because it is in our self interest. Besides this you have not even established that it is in our self interest to avoid eternal torment even if it does exist. Being in the presence of your God for eternity would be, for me, the worst thing imaginable so it would be in my interest to avoid that.

4. What "sins" have I, or anyone, committed that deserve infinite punishment? If you cannot understand why subjecting someone to infinite torment as punishment for a finite crime is unjust then I cannot help you. if we are to take the bible seriously then God is to be faulted because he is a tyrannical monster.

Johnny Skeptic · 02-18-2006, 04:13 PM

Message to rhutchin: Actions can be observed, but motives cannot be observed. If God is evil, deceptive, omnipotent, and omnipresent, then by definition, he could duplicate anything that is attributed to the God of the Bible, right?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

Even if intelligent design is a given, and even if the supernatural acts that are attributed to God are a given, there are not any reliable criteria for determining what the true nature of God really is.

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhutchin

But there are criteria. You can develop criteria and I can develop criteria. If we could agree on criteria, then we could judge the nature of God by our criteria. If not, then separately by our different criteria.

Ok, what are your criteria? I don’t know of any criteria that could expose an evil, deceptive, omnipotent, omnipresent God. Any notion that there are such criteria is based upon emotions, not logic.

How do you suppose that an amoral God would act?

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?�?

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhutchin

The odds that God is good are 100% because that is how the Bible describes Him.

How did you arrive at that conclusion? Upon what evidence did the Bible writers base their assertions? Please quote chapter and verse.

So the odds are also 100% that a donkey talked because that is what the Bible says, right? Numbers 22:28 says “And the Lord opened the mouth of the ass, and she said unto Balaam, What have I done unto thee, that thou hast smitten me these three times?�? Are you an inerrantist? If so, you lose. Revelation 22:18-19 say “For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.�? If tampering were not possible, there would have been no need for the warnings. Aside from that, today, it would be a simple matter for skeptics to rewrite parts of the Bible, go to remote jungle regions, and pass the revisions off as “the real thing.�? That would have been much easier centuries ago.

You conveniently refuse to consider my hypothetical scenarios any longer, but you were quite content to discuss them until you got into trouble. Here is the proof:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

But I proved that you are only interested in evidence 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.

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JS

That most assuredly IS NOT your position because it would not be in your self-interest to choose the alien. First of all, there would not be reasonable proof at that time that the evil being would eventually have his way. There might be powerful good beings who are more powerful than he is who would prevent him from having his way. Second of all, being B might not actually be Jesus. Third of all, since the evil being said that he would send everyone to hell whether they chose him or not, while it would not be of any benefit to you whatsoever to choose the evil being, if it eventually turned out that the Bible is true, that would benefit you quite a lot. Your position is based entirely upon emotion, not logic and reason.

In the absence of empirical evidence, hypothetical arguments are excellent tools for exposing illogical, inconsistent arguments.

Please reply to those arguments.

rhutchin · 02-18-2006, 05:21 PM

Quote:

Johnny Skeptic
Actions can be observed, but motives cannot be observed. If God is evil, deceptive, omnipotent, and omnipresent, then by definition, he could duplicate anything that is attributed to the God of the Bible, right?

Yes. As you say, “If.�?

Quote:

Johnny Skeptic
Even if intelligent design is a given, and even if the supernatural acts that are attributed to God are a given, there are not any reliable criteria for determining what the true nature of God really is.

rhutchin
But there are criteria. You can develop criteria and I can develop criteria. If we could agree on criteria, then we could judge the nature of God by our criteria. If not, then separately by our different criteria.

Johnny Skeptic
Ok, what are your criteria? I don’t know of any criteria that could expose an evil, deceptive, omnipotent, omnipresent God. Any notion that there are such criteria is based upon emotions, not logic.

How do you suppose that an amoral God would act?

I don’t know of any criteria either. I guess that eliminates us from Mensa.

An amoral god would act from neither a moral nor an immoral desire. An amoral god would then act without feeling (maybe we could use that as a criterion).

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?�?

rhutchin
The odds that God is good are 100% because that is how the Bible describes Him.

Johnny Skeptic
How did you arrive at that conclusion? Upon what evidence did the Bible writers base their assertions? Please quote chapter and verse.

Mathew 19
17 So …No one is good but One, that is, God. But if you want to enter into life, keep the commandments.�?
Acts 10
38 “how God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Spirit and with power, who went about doing good and healing all who were oppressed by the devil, for God was with Him.
Ephesians 2
10 For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand that we should walk in them.
2 Timothy 3
17 that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.
1 Peter 2
15 For this is the will of God, that by doing good you may put to silence the ignorance of foolish men--
3 John 1
11 Beloved, do not imitate what is evil, but what is good. He who does good is of God, but he who does evil has not seen God.

Quote:

Johnny Skeptic
So the odds are also 100% that a donkey talked because that is what the Bible says, right? Numbers 22:28 says “And the Lord opened the mouth of the ass, and she said unto Balaam, What have I done unto thee, that thou hast smitten me these three times?�?

The odds are 100% that the Bible records an event where a donkey talked.

Quote:

Johnny Skeptic
Are you an inerrantist? If so, you lose. Revelation 22:18-19 say “For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.�? If tampering were not possible, there would have been no need for the warnings. Aside from that, today, it would be a simple matter for skeptics to rewrite parts of the Bible, go to remote jungle regions, and pass the revisions off as “the real thing.�? That would have been much easier centuries ago.

Why would you conclude that tamperings were not possible? Skeptics are always trying to change and rewrite the Bible. That is why people spend so much time delving into the oldest Bible fragments and maintaining the integrity of the texts in the original languages.

Quote:

Johnny Skeptic
You conveniently refuse to consider my hypothetical scenarios any longer, but you were quite content to discuss them until you got into trouble. Here is the proof:

Quote:

Johnny Skeptic
But I proved that you are only interested in evidence 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.

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.

Johnny Skeptic
That most assuredly IS NOT your position because it would not be in your self-interest to choose the alien. First of all, there would not be reasonable proof at that time that the evil being would eventually have his way. There might be powerful good beings who are more powerful than he is who would prevent him from having his way. Second of all, being B might not actually be Jesus. Third of all, since the evil being said that he would send everyone to hell whether they chose him or not, while it would not be of any benefit to you whatsoever to choose the evil being, if it eventually turned out that the Bible is true, that would benefit you quite a lot. Your position is based entirely upon emotion, not logic and reason.

In the absence of empirical evidence, hypothetical arguments are excellent tools for exposing illogical, inconsistent arguments.

So, what is your point? Are you about to present a hypothetical argument that will expose an illogical, inconsistent argument that you found somewhere?

rhutchin · 02-18-2006, 05:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JamesBannon

...Besides this you have not even established that it is in our self interest to avoid eternal torment even if it does exist...

Hmmmmm! Is this really something that you need to be convinced of???

rhutchin · 02-18-2006, 05:29 PM

Quote:

rhutchin
OK, so you still don’t understand the Wager.

JPD
That's an interesting assertion given that its shortcomings have been pointed out endlessly throughout this thread...

I have not seen anyone spending any time on shortcomings of the Wager. The discussion has centered exclusively on difficulties in identifying what a person should believe in order to escape eternal torment. The Wager, of course, does not speak to this issue. Many people have mistakenly assumed that the Wager speaks to such issues, but do so apparently because they are not clear on what the Wager does (as seems to be the case with you).

rhutchin · 02-18-2006, 05:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JPD

And what evidence might that be? We're not back to the inconsistent and erroneous Bible again are we?

Yep. Evidence can be inconsistent and erroneous and still be evidence. Evidence can also be a challenge for some to understand as is the case with the Bible.

aa5874 · 02-18-2006, 05:52 PM

Message to rhutchin: Your wager is irrational, especially when you try to link the outcome of the wager to christian Gods. Christian Gods are fabricated by unknown writers. The Christian Gods are not real, they are fabrication. The Wager does not apply to fabrication.
How can Gods that are not real promise eternal life or eternal damnation.
Not even JESUS knows who is his father .
Read MATTHEW 22 :42-45 and Revelation 22:16.
I will wager on another God.

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

02-18-2006, 05:52 PM	#1700
aa5874 Contributor Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: the fringe of the caribbean Posts: 18,988	Message to rhutchin: Your wager is irrational, especially when you try to link the outcome of the wager to christian Gods. Christian Gods are fabricated by unknown writers. The Christian Gods are not real, they are fabrication. The Wager does not apply to fabrication. How can Gods that are not real promise eternal life or eternal damnation. Not even JESUS knows who is his father . Read MATTHEW 22 :42-45 and Revelation 22:16. I will wager on another God.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.