FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.


Go Back   FRDB Archives > Archives > Existence of God(s)
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Yesterday at 03:12 PM

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 04-20-2006, 04:55 AM   #2681
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: https://soundcloud.com/dark-blue-man
Posts: 3,526
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rhutchin
There has been the allegation of a fallacy in the Wager, and the only way people have explained that fallacy is by making the Wager to be something that it is not. That hardly qualifies as an explanation. Where's the logic in that?
Quote:
Originally Posted by OrbitV2
But please continue. You fool no one but yourself, and speak volumes against Xianity.
You may yet swim that river in Egypt but don't hold your breath for too long :huh: :banghead: :banghead:
Hedshaker is offline  
Old 04-20-2006, 04:58 AM   #2682
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Silver Spring, MD
Posts: 9,059
Default

Quote:
rhutchin
The “hypothetical person” who is uncertain about the reality of eternal torment would rationally seek to address the uncertainty that he/she experiences especially where that uncertainty involves negative impacts to them. That the person is uncertain means that they do not buy into your myth argument. [...] I don’t see any reason to consider the threats to be different. Each should be considered. Each should be addressed.

knotted paragon
Do you buy into the myth argument of Tartarus? How 'bout the myth argument for Allah? Zeus? Osiris, Baal, Shiva, no? Why aren't you considering and addressing their threats? After all, belief in Jesus won't save you if Allah is God. Are you saying that you don't consider any extraordinary claim made throughout history to be a myth or superstition? Then I reckon you are risking it. Why is the bible special? Why didn't you dismiss its threats and promises the same way you dismissed all the other claims made throughout history that you've been exposed to?
Actually, I do consider the Bible to be special. It represents a unique compilation of documents from many sources and written over a span of time that I do not think is equaled by any other religious documents. That may not be true, but it is the impression that I have.

However, you make a good point in saying that the Bible may not be telling me about the real God and some other source may do so. I will accept that as a valid hypothesis. However, I think we can start with the Bible as a beginning point and then look at the other religious documents and make a decision about which to follow. We can address everything that we can find. Let’s consider the argument for Tartarus. Is there anything in the religious documents telling us about Tartarus that should be considered as evidence for rejecting the Bible and accepting the Tartarus douments? There seem to be few people who embrace Tartarus or who are making a big deal about Tartarus as if he is something. If no one else gets excited about Tartarus, why should we?

Quote:
rhutchin
As I have said many, many, many times before, the person always assumes the risk of having chosen the wrong god/belief and can end up in torment. Indifference and unbelief must compete with all the other gods/beliefs for the mind of the person who is uncertain.

knotted paragon
While the first sentence is true, you have said that before; the second one is different from past statements, and amounts to capitulation. In the past, you've always maintained that indifference and unbelief were irrational absent proof of the non-existence of hell, so this is a marked change in your thinking. If unbelief can (or must as you say) compete with all the other gods/beliefs when deliberating uncertainty, then it erodes your imposed binary limitation. The addition of unbelief as a valid option has severe repercussions for the wager, since it restructures the initial decision matrix with extra rows and columns.
You are confusing the arguments that have occurred in this thread.

The Wager starts out with the position that a person is uncertain that eternal torment is real. He has two choices, do something about his uncertainty by seeking a way to escape eternal torment or do nothing.

At this point in the decision process, the do nothing approach (unbelief and indifference) accomplishes nothing and is to be rejected (unbelief and indifference also contradict the uncertainty that the person has - is he uncertain or not?). The person applies the Wager and determines that he should seek to escape eternal torment.

At this point in the decision process, the Wager is laid aside because it has accomplished its purpose, and the person begins to seek a way to escape eternal torment. It is here that indifference and unbelief are offered to him as two possible ways to escape eternal torment. He considers these along with all the other gods/beliefs that also are alleged to provide an escape from eternal torment.

There is no capitulation or change in my argument. I have maintained this position consistently through this thread.
rhutchin is offline  
Old 04-20-2006, 05:03 AM   #2683
JPD
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: London, UK
Posts: 5,322
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rhutchin
Actually, I do consider the Bible to be special. It represents a unique compilation of documents from many sources and written over a span of time that I do not think is equaled by any other religious documents. That may not be true, but it is the impression that I have.
The span of time is not a positive aspect - it may have permitted the contradictions to creep in. However, the time available should have enabled more thorough cross checking to be carried out to enable the contradictions to be identified and dealt with (whatever form that process might take).

The "unique compilation of documents" could apply to other texts, religious or otherwise.
JPD is offline  
Old 04-20-2006, 05:04 AM   #2684
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Silver Spring, MD
Posts: 9,059
Default

Quote:
knotted paragon
Since the wager is asking us to evaluate the realized utility of choices in the face of uncertain threats in the afterlife, prudence would dictate we choose the option which provides the greatest utility on the only side of the equation we can reliably evaluate: the moments of our lifetime. In this case unbelief is the clear winner by default, since it covers both sides of the prudential question and results in the least cost to the moments of our lifetimes while at the same time not offending any possible gods who might despise credulity or idolatry.

DMW
I have only one thing to say about this... bravo. That pretty much sums up why rhutchin is wrong and why the wager is useless.
How do you conclude that the Wager is useless when it is a tool to do the evaluation that KP describes and to which you say - bravo?
rhutchin is offline  
Old 04-20-2006, 05:11 AM   #2685
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Silver Spring, MD
Posts: 9,059
Default

Quote:
rhutchin
Actually, I do consider the Bible to be special. It represents a unique compilation of documents from many sources and written over a span of time that I do not think is equaled by any other religious documents. That may not be true, but it is the impression that I have.

JPD
The span of time is not a positive aspect - it may have permitted the contradictions to creep in. However, the time available should have enabled more thorough cross checking to be carried out to enable the contradictions to be identified and dealt with (whatever form that process might take).

The "unique compilation of documents" could apply to other texts, religious or otherwise.
Span of time can be a positive aspect. However, a person may make the argument that span of time argues against the reliability of the Bible. I am not aware that anyone has made that argument (other than with regard to the deterioration of manuscripts and the problems created by that deterioration).

I agree that the "unique compilation of documents" could apply to other texts, religious or otherwise. Again, I don't see those arguments being made for other texts in the religious venue.
rhutchin is offline  
Old 04-20-2006, 05:14 AM   #2686
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: https://soundcloud.com/dark-blue-man
Posts: 3,526
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rhutchin
Sure, within the context of the Bible God exists and is that which the Bible says He is.
I rest my case

Quote:
That may be circular reasoning, but aren't you responding with circular reasoning? You say that there is no God because you say that there is no God.
No. I say I do not believe your bible God exists because there is no evidence to suggest she does. It's perfectly reasonable to reserve belief in the absence of evidence. Nothing circular about it.

Quote:
What is your source of objective truth that might make your reasoning any less circular than that which you allege to be a fault of those who accept the Bible? When it comes to arguments about God, what is not circular reasoning?
More fallacies, see: Begging the Question and Strawman.

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/
Hedshaker is offline  
Old 04-20-2006, 05:16 AM   #2687
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Silver Spring, MD
Posts: 9,059
Default

Quote:
rhutchin
Sure, within the context of the Bible God exists and is that which the Bible says He is.

That may be circular reasoning, but aren't you responding with circular reasoning? You say that there is no God because you say that there is no God. What is your source of objective truth that might make your reasoning any less circular than that which you allege to be a fault of those who accept the Bible? When it comes to arguments about God, what is not circular reasoning?

JPD
To say that there is no God is correct since the individual stating it has recognised - and is asserting - that the criteria he or she has set for establishing whether or not (whichever particular) God exists have not been met - knowingly by the God that you believe exists. Your God knew that he/she/it would fail this test and cannot blame anyone but itself for failing to meet the criteria set.
Garbage; real garbage. Those criteria are used by a person to conclude that which he wants to conclude and are nothing more than a means to do it. It's circular reasoning.
rhutchin is offline  
Old 04-20-2006, 05:23 AM   #2688
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Silver Spring, MD
Posts: 9,059
Default

Quote:
rhutchin
That may be circular reasoning, but aren't you responding with circular reasoning? You say that there is no God because you say that there is no God.

OrbitV2
No. I say I do not believe your bible God exists because there is no evidence to suggest she does. It's perfectly reasonable to reserve belief in the absence of evidence. Nothing circular about it.
OK, you are saying that you do not believe in the Biblical god based on the available evidence. That's fine.

However, if you were to then argue that the Biblical God does not exist, you would have to employ circular reasoning to make that argument.
rhutchin is offline  
Old 04-20-2006, 06:16 AM   #2689
JPD
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: London, UK
Posts: 5,322
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rhutchin
Garbage; real garbage. Those criteria are used by a person to conclude that which he wants to conclude and are nothing more than a means to do it. It's circular reasoning.
Then by the same token yours is garbage too. QED.
JPD is offline  
Old 04-20-2006, 06:40 AM   #2690
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: https://soundcloud.com/dark-blue-man
Posts: 3,526
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rhutchin
OK, you are saying that you do not believe in the Biblical god based on the available evidence. That's fine.
Small correction, I do not believe in the Biblical god based on the LACK of available evidence. And I consider that reasonable, yes. You agreeing that circular reasoning is not evidence is good progress :thumbs:

Quote:
However, if you were to then argue that the Biblical God does not exist, you would have to employ circular reasoning to make that argument.
All I can tell you rhutchin, is there appears to be no such entitiy in the reality I experience. But if anyone ever presents any plausible evidence I'm willing to examine it

Can't say fairer than that, can I :huh:
Hedshaker is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 09:17 PM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.