Hedshaker

You may yet swim that river in Egypt but don't hold your breath for too long :huh: :banghead: :banghead:

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.

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?

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.

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.

rhutchin

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

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.

Hedshaker

I rest my case

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.

More fallacies, see: Begging the Question and Strawman.

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/

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.

rhutchin

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.

JPD

Then by the same token yours is garbage too. QED.

Hedshaker

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:

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: