Mageth

I lack belief in god(s). I lack belief in an afterlife. I lack belief in eternal punishment in an afterlife. I lack belief in even the possibility of eternal punishment in an afterlife. Further, I completely, totally lack belief in the notion that believing in the existence of a certain God is the medicine I need to escape an eternal punishment which I completely, totally lack belief in. I see no reason whatsoever to believe in the fantastical ramblings of some ancient religious text, even to grant it the status of a "possibility".

Besides, as has been pointed out, if it's just about "possibilities", and one accepts such possibilities, then one can't rule out any sort of God. So Pascal's Wager fails miserably on that note, as there are all sorts of possible ways that may appease the innumerable "possible" Gods. E.g., not believing in the God of the Bible is another "possible" way to escape eternal damnation - equally as possible as believing in the God of the Bible, if one is simply dealing with "possibilities".

As you have stated it, Pascal's Wager is hopeless. We're up shit creek if it's about possibilities. It's way more likely that you'll guess wrong than guess right. So why bother guessing at all?

Johnny Skeptic

That is really good, Julian. The very best approach would definitely be to conclude “If there is somebody out there who created the universe, I accept him whoever he might be since I want to enjoy a comfortable eternal life and not go to hell.� If the possible creator of the universe wants people to accept him, he most certainly would not limit knowledge of himself in any way. Limiting knowledge of himself would not be in his best interests, nor in the best interests of humanity. In addition, he most certainly would not let hundreds of millions of people die without ever knowing about his specific existence and will.

As I said in one of my previous posts:

But you could be at great risk even if the God of the Bible exists. At http://www.infidels.org/library/mode...n/martin1.html, Michael Martin, Ph.D., philosophy, says,

"Dr. Fernandes claims that he cannot prove the existence of God with rational certainty but that the cumulative case for theism is far superior to the case for atheism. On the contrary, his case for theism is extremely weak: his three main arguments fail completely and his other points are based on misunderstandings of atheism. He may realize this for in the last paragraph of his opening statement he beseeches his readers to choose God by utilizing Pascal's Wager--a pragmatic argument for God that is normally used when rational epistemic arguments fail. However, Dr. Fernandes seems to be unaware of the many problems with this argument--one of them being that God might reserve a special place in Hell for those people who choose God because of Pascal's Wager!"

If the God of the Bible exists, and if he showed up and proved that he could convert energy into matter, a lot of non-Christians would become Christians. Surely you would be quite pleased if that happened, just like you would have been quite pleased to see people accept Jesus because of the miracles that he performed.

Since “a purely logical approach� is what you prefer, then surely the most logical approach for a possible creator who wanted people to accept him would be to clearly show himself to everyone so as to greatly increase the odds that more people would accept him instead of decreasing the odds that more people would accept him.

Matthew 4:24-25 say “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. And there followed him great multitudes of people from Galilee, and from Decapolis, and from Jerusalem, and from Judaea, and from beyond Jordan.� Did those events not increase the odds that more people would become Christians?

If Jesus really did appear to over 500 people after he rose from the dead, did that not increase the odds that more people would become Christians? The book of Acts says that the disciples went about confirming “the message of his grace� by performing signs and wonders. Did that not increase the odds that more people would become Christians?

In other words, rhutchin, the most logical approach possible for a creator would be to take faith completely out of the equation and let logic prevail, thereby increasing the odds to 100% that everyone in the world would be able to make fully informed decisions, and greatly increase the number of his followers in the process.

Pascal’s wager most certainly does not appeal to some of the most intelligent and logical people in the world. Two good examples are Marilyn Savant and Dr. Stephen Hawkings, neither of whom are Christians. Marilyn has an IQ of 230, and is in the Guiness Book of World Records under “highest IQ.� She has a weekly question and answer column in Parade Magazine. Hawkings is widely acknowledged as the top physicist in the world.

The most prestigious scientific organization in the U.S. is the National Academy of Sciences. Only 7% of its members are Christians.

Surely the logical abilities of Marilyn Savant, Dr. Stephen Hawkings, and the members of the NAS far exceed your logical abilities.

Of course, you lose hands down no matter what because you would never have any way of identifying Jesus if he returned to earth. The Bible attributes great power to the Devil, and if he exists, you do not have any idea how extensive his powers are.

Orthodox_Freethinker

Mr. Skeptic, you don't know the first thing on what the authority of the Bible is dependent upon. Otherwise, you would not have started this thread.

Johnny Skeptic

Well by all means, please tell us what the authority of the Bible is dependent upon. Many Christians, including rhutchin, have stated at this forum and elsewhere that God's authority is legitimate because he created the universe, and because he has the ability to enforce rules of his own choosing.

Johnny Skeptic

The following excerpts are from one of my previous posts. I am posting it again because rhutchin has brought up logic and I want to make a post that deals only with the issue of logic.

Rhutchin has yet another insurmountable problem. Matthew 22:36-40 say "Master, which is the great commandment in the law? Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment.
And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets." Regarding the greatest commandment, it would be completely impossible for a man to love God with all of his heart, soul, and mind if his belief was merely the product of logic and probabilties. The verse speaks of total committment, not playing odds like gamblers do.

So, if logic should be the sole basis for belief in Christianity, logic dictates that 1) if Bible is true, it is impossible to become a Christian based upon calculating probablities and still keep the greatest commandment (Jesus basically said "Only he who does the will of my father shall be saved," and if God exists it is most certainly his will that believers keep the greatest commandment about all others.), and 2) as some skeptics have said, if the Bible is true, it is best not to take the risk of angering God by basing one's faith upon calculating probablities, and 3) if the Bible is true, God has not used the best and most logical methods of encouraging the greatest possible number of people to become Christians. In other words, if God wants as many people as possible to go to heaven, it would be illogical for him to on a limited number of occasions to demonstrate his supernatural powers to help achieve this purpose, but limit deomonstrating his supernatural powers on most occasions. In order to be most effective, spiritual/emotional evidence must be confirmed by tangible evidence, and according to the texts, God did exactly that on some occasions.

Johnny Skeptic

Message to rhutchin: Following is more evidence that a good percentage of Christians do not approve of Pascal's Wager:

http://www.explorefaith.org/questions/afterlife.html

Dr. Marcus Borg

"When the afterlife is emphasized as the primary reason [for being a Christian], it inevitably turns Christianity into a religion of requirements and rewards: [With this type of thinking] if there is an afterlife, it doesn't seem fair to most people that everybody gets to go there regardless. One must have to do or believe something [in order to experience life after death]. Suddenly we're focusing on requirements and rewards.

"Secondly, when the afterlife is emphasized, it tends to divide the world into those who are saved and those who are not. An emphasis on the afterlife also directs our attention to the other world or the next world rather than to transformation within this world. I see transformation within this world to be the primary meaning of the Christian gospel. An invitation to relationship with God is what begins to transform our lives in the here and now, and as that relationship deepens, it also leads us to become concerned about the transformation of society and the world itself.

"I see Christianity, and its roots in Judaism and the Hebrew Bible, as very much a this-worldly religion. There's no denial of an afterlife in my saying that. But it's a way of saying that we leave the afterlife up to God. Our task is the transformation of ourselves and of the world this side of death."

Rhutchin, if you doubt that Dr. Borg opposes the use of Pascal's Wager, I suggest that you contact him and find out for yourself. As I continue to conduct research, I will post more evidence that lots of Christians, possibly the majority of Christians, do not approve of Pascal's Wager. It is a fact that the vast majority of people in the world became Christians because of the major influences of geography and family, and of course, in the U.S., a much higher percentage of women are Christians than men.

Is it your position that the more logical a person is, the more likely he is to become a Christian?

Johnny Skeptic

I started a thread at the GRD forum on Pascal's Wager. It attracted immediate interest, including from three moderators, and one of the moderators gave the following link of refutations of Pascal's Wager:

http://www.infidels.org/library/mode...ism/wager.html

One of rhutchin's biggest problems is that many of his opponents are Christians.

It is quite amusing that rhutchin favors legislating the Bible just to be safe, and that which particular interpretations of the Bible should be used (liberal, conserative, etc.) should be decided by majority vote. Over the past few decades, the percentage of Christians who support physician assisted suicide and same sex marriage has increased substantially, especially in the under 40 age group, so rhutchin's preference to favor what the majority wants will certainly not be the case when in the numbers are against him.

It is interesting to note that if the majority of people favored legislating the Koran, rhutchin would immediately run to the ACLU and ask them to file a separation of church and state lawsuit. In other words, the rights of minority groups do not make any difference at all unless he is in the minority group. This is quite typical of fundamentalist Christians, and of fundamentalists of some other religions as well.

rhutchin

Any person who lives in a democracy and sides with the minority on issues will not be happy and will work to become a majority. However, all people should believe in basic truths that he does not compromise to reach a majority.

Fundamentalist Christians would not like a nation that legislates "only" from the Koran (along with many other groups), however, even fundamentalist Christians understand how a democracy works. The biggest complaint from fundamentalist Christians is that they are working to gain a majority on specific issues and those minorities who oppose them are seeking to exclude fundamentalist Christians from the democratic process simply because they are being successful.

The ACLU has its own agenda and it is not what fundamentalist Christians are seeking.

rhutchin

Borg writes like a liberal Arminian and given that I am a Calvinist, there is bound to be disagreement. In the above quote, Borg seems to be arguing against Universalism. I don't read Borg, have not read any of his books, and may have misunderstood his position from the brief quote you provide. My guess, though, is that he is using Pascal's Wager to argue a position that has nothing to do with Pascal's Wager.

It is interesting that the Arminians have incorporated a Pascal's Wager format into their evangelistic efforts. They always emphasize the heaven/hell, reward/penalty aspect of salvation, so it is no wonder that the Arminians tend to be focused on works (even thought they deny it).

rhutchin

I agree with the points that you make. Pascal's Wager argues that a person would believe in God if he thought through the issue in a logical manner. That a person understands logically that he should believe in God does not mean that he will believe in God. People make decisions and do things that are illogical all the time. If one were to decide that it was in his interest to believe in God, then his next step would be to seek God until he found God.

As to your point 3, your conclusion reflects your Arminian upbringing. As Matthew said, Jesus came "to shall save his people from their sins." There is nothing in the Bible that God ever intended to save all people (although God is willing for all to believe in Him and be saved). God has always known whom He will save and never said He was going to do any more than that.