GenesisNemesis

Hey everyone. Just thought I'd share this awesome site with you if you don't know about it.

Rejection of Pascal's Wager

Bede

Actually, this site is awful. Don't believe a word it says. It's just a rehash of endless anti-Christian myths and legends.

Best wishes

Bede

TonyBozo

Quite the contrary Bede. Upon first perusal, this site appears to be an extremely accurate account and comprehensive, educated analysis of Pascal's Wager (and further, it accurately and objectively details many other aspects of Christianity on its other pages). I felt it worthy of being bookmarked for future reference against hollow, brainless arguments in favor of illogical absurdities such as Pascal's Wager.

Steven Avery

Since I believe that Pascal's Wager is not a valid Christian apologetic I would not be at all concerned if Paul Tobin is effective in his counter thereof. From my understanding it suffers from various flaws such as thinking that biblical Christianity is a matter of intellectual assent. I remember one time on a radio show Sid Roth (evangelical) was offerring a variant of the wager to Tovia Singer (anti-mish) and I cringed in response.

(Do we have Christians on this forum who defend the Pascal's wager approach? I am curious to know.)

That being said, Paul's site has other problems as in the recent discussion -

http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=179133
Domestication of Camels: Proof of Anachronism?

Note that Tobin makes a very elementary logical blunder, leaping from what was suggested to a definitive conclusion, even putting aside the weak and incomplete evidentiary base of the suggestion itself. And even putting aside how all contrary evidence was improperly dismissed.

Shalom,
Steven Avery
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Messianic_Apologetic

Johnny Skeptic

I am not sure what you mean. The Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary defines the word "intellectual" as follows:

"1 a : of or relating to the intellect or its use b : developed or chiefly guided by the intellect rather than by emotion or experience : RATIONAL c : requiring use of the intellect <intellectual games>

"2 a : given to study, reflection, and speculation b : engaged in activity requiring the creative use of the intellect <intellectual playwrights>"

The first definition that the dictionary gives for the word "intellect" is as follows:

"1 a : the power of knowing as distinguished from the power to feel and to will"

It is my understanding that all religions must be accepted solely based upon emotion or experience.

Let’s assume the following for the sake of argument:

1 - Being A created the universe.

2 - Being A is omnipotent and omnipresent.

3 - Being B inspired the writing of the Bible.

Ok, can we be reasonably certain that Being A and being B are the same being? I submit that we cannot. This is because we cannot be reasonably certain whether or not Being B has revealed his true intentions. 2 Corinthians 11:14-15 say “And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light. Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also be transformed as the ministers of righteousness; whose end shall be according to their works.” Now who told Paul that, a being who wished to reveal his true intentions, or a being who wished to conceal his true intentions? Well, it depends upon how well the being was able to reveal or conceal his true intentions. Being A would certainly be able to easily reveal his true intentions if that is what he wished to do, but we cannot be reasonably certain whether or not Being A and Being B are the same being. So, the question is, if Being B is not the creator of the universe, does he have sufficient power to deceive whoever he wishes to deceive? It would not be logical for anyone to assume that they know whether or not Being B has sufficient power to deceive whoever he wishes to deceive.

Being A might very well be planning to reveal his specific existence and will to humans, but he might choose to do so after humans die. Many if not most Christians claim that since all humans have sinned, God is not obligated to save anyone. They sometimes use Romans 3:23 as a reference. The verse says “For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God”. If God is not obligated to save anyone, then he is not obligated to reveal his specific existence and will to human in this life either, or ever for that matter.

Since the God of the Bible allowed hundreds of millions of people to die without revealing his specific existence and will to them, it is a reasonable possibility that the creator of the universe plans to eventually reveal his specific existence and will to humans in the next life.

In the NIV, Isaiah 55:8 says "'For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways', declares the Lord." Christians typically refer to this verse when they cannot explain some of the strange things that God does that many people find to be questionable. So, I am now using the same verse to support my position that the creator of the universe might not be the supposed God of the Bible, and that his ways might be strange, including not revealing his specific existence and will to humans in this life.

Luke 10:25-28 say “And, behold, a certain lawyer stood up, and tempted him, saying, Master, what shall I do to inherit eternal life? He said unto him, What is written in the law? how readest thou? And he answering said, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind; and thy neighbour as thyself. And he said unto him, Thou hast answered right: this do, and thou shalt live.” The word “all” requires a commitment that is not possible based upon the evidence that is available to us. Therefore, regarding people who believe that an intelligent being created the universe, the logical approach is to conclude that there is insufficient evidence to conclude that Being A has OR has not revealed his true intentions to humans. Any notion one way or the other is nothing more than unsupported speculation and guesswork.

Hypothetical arguments are acceptable. Christians frequently use hypothetical arguments when they feel that it suits their purposes to do so. C.S. Lewis’ Lord, Liar, or Lunatic is a good example.

Praxeus, simply stated, if faith is all that there is to accepting a belief system, then one belief system is as good as another. If logic and reason are initially used instead of faith, or in addition to faith, if Christianity is more logical than other belief systems, that is not sufficient evidence because there are not any reliable means of determining whether or not the possible being who inspired the Bible writers revealed his true intentions.

By the way, the thread that you started on marine fossils at high elevations that was transferred to the Science and Skepticism Forum has been easily refuted on a number of occasions. One example is at a web site at http://antiquity.ac.uk/ProjGall/jeck/index.html. If you wish to debate this issue at the Science and Skepticism Forum, just let me know. You said "Hi Gakusei .. trying to find an explanation for those pesky marine fossils on high mountains has truly been a puzzle through the ages..."

As the link that I provided shows, it was only pesky until modern geologists solved the puzzle. Consider the following from the link:

The world-wide occurrence of marine fossils in high elevations can explain why stories of a great flood are found in the folklore or legends of ancient peoples in diverse places around the globe (Bright 1961; Wickersham 2000: 66-69). It is understandable that primitive peoples had no other conclusion to draw than that a deep flood, one like no other in their experience, must have put those seashells way up there. They did not know about mountain building and the geological processes that can raise fossil-bearing, sedimentary rock strata to great heights. In their minds, the mountains and hills had always been there, just as they saw them, from the beginning of time. The mountains never changed over their lifetime or even over generations. They had no way of knowing about the slow geological processes that we know about today.

S.C.Carlson

Personally, I think the first step toward a great website is to move one's site off of the pop-up rich Geosites.

Roller

He's getting this published in a book looks like. Ludemann will write foreword?

Steven Avery

The world-wide occurrence of a great flood can explain why marine fossils in high elevations are found in the mountains in diverse places around the globe.

Shalom,
Steven Avery
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Messianic_Apologetic

GenesisNemesis

So can contintenal drift. :banghead:

gregor

High altitude fossils - magic fairies would explain it with equal dignity.

The problem with a flood over fairies is that you cannot square a worldwide flood with even the rudimentary fundamentals of physics, meteorology, mechanics, structural engineering, biology, botany, geology, paleontology, and a half-dozen other disciplines.