rhutchin

Each additional author corroborates the other authors. Mark writes his gospel. Matthew takes that gospel and builds on it by adding additional information. Luke writes a separate gospel by interviewing people who knew Jesus and corroborates Mark and Matthew. John writes a separate gospel supporting the previous three.

You are the jury that must determine the truth and validity of the witnesses that have provided testimony. You determine whether the witnesses are telling a consistent story and you render your verdict. You seek to avoid making the wrong decision.

Yep. The threshold that one requires for belief reflects many factors because the level of verification (or certainty) is not always what we might want.

If the Bible is true, it impacts you directly and posits a future that you might want to avoid, so you have a basis to care. However, if you have no desire to get into heaven (and thereby avoid hell), you will not care.

rhutchin

If you are willing to consider the evidence that the God of the Bible created the universe, then you are willing to consider the evidence provided in the Bible. You may similarly consider the evidence for the pink unicorn, an advanced alien, or any other god. If, originally, all you have is the Bible, then you should believe in God because that is the information you have. As you gain more information (about pink unicorns, advanced aliens, and other gods), you incorporate that information into your analysis. Pascal’s Wager says that you will never gather any additional information that would cause you to change your original conclusion to believe in God that was based only on that information provided to you in the Bible.

They may say that, but those who evangelize are basically providing information to unbelievers for those unbelievers to consider in making a decision. Unbelievers consider all the information provided to them. All Pascal said was that if one who went through a rational analytical process in considering the information in the Bible and all other information then he would come to the conclusion that he should believe in God. That is the basic argument that all believers use when witnessing to unbelievers.

There are only the four positions. By default, you start from the position of believing that God does not exist as does everyone else. You then decide whether you will move to the position of believing that God exists. Either you believe that God exists or you do not believe that God exists; there is no third position as any position other than belief in God is, by definition, non-belief in God.

True. Pascal’s experiences and the information available to him led him to the conclusion that one should believe in God. It is the absence of complete information (from which we all suffer) that leads one to analyze the situation in the manner described by Pascal in his Wager. We all deal with limited information and the uncertainty that comes with limited information. You can say that a person cannot reliably evaluate the information that they have, so in the face of that uncertainty, one should come to the same conclusion as Pascal did. As one gains more experience and more information, he is constantly re-evaluating that original decision.

You are correct, but now you are getting into a Calvinist/Arminian theological argument. However, Pascal’s argument describes a process that you, as a non-believer, can and should follow. You should come to the same conclusion that Pascal did given the information that is available to you.

Pascal’s Wager is the basis for evangelistic efforts. If you are familiar with the “Roman Road� or the “Four Spiritual Laws� approaches to evangelism, you will recognize that they are designed to lead a person through a Pascal analysis of his/her situation. The basic outline of such methods is (1) here is information (you are a sinner); (2) options (accept/reject Christ); (3) impacts (heaven/hell); (4) make a decision.

It’s not roulette. You have two doors. You have already walked through the first door (unbelief) just be being born. Your decision is whether to walk through the second door (belief).

Their ability to exercise that authority and you cannot stop them.

Pascal developed an analytical process that anyone could use with any amount of information to make a decision about believing in God. That analytical process is not dependent on one having a certain set of information (Jansenian theology) or a certain teaching. One starts with the information provided in the Bible and nothing else.

What it comes down to is that a person has the information provided to him/her in the Bible. Obviously, that information is not complete and leaves room for uncertainty. Pascal describes an analytical process that a person should follow to decide whether to believe in God in the face of uncertainty. If one were to follow that process in considering the uncertainties together with the benefits and risks, one would rationally conclude that they should believe in God.

Johnny Skeptic

What about your inability to show that the Biblical God's authority is legitimate?

So are you saying that you would worship and obey any being who you believed was the most powerful being in the universe no matter what he told you to do, including, lying, stealing, and committing murder just so you would be able to enjoy a comfortable heaven and not go to hell?

Consider the following hypothetical scenario: Two powerful beings arrive on earth. Each one claims to be the creator of the universe. One being claims that he is good, and the other being claim that he is evil. They tell you that they are going to have a battle to decide which one will rule the universe. They begin their battle, and after a few days it appears to you that the evil being has a very slight edge over the good being. At that point the beings pause and insist that before they continue their battle you pick which one of them you will follow. Which being would you choose to follow?

Regarding Pascal's Wager, faith does not work that way. I was a fundamentalist Christian for over 35 years. I was pretty sure that I would go to heaven. Pascal's Wager reduces pretty sure to not very sure at all. No loving God would ever ask people to follow himself unless they were able to make fully informed decisions. It couldn't possibly be advantageous to a loving God to refuse to clearly reveal himself to everyone, but it would be quite advantageous to skeptics if he would clearly reveal himself to everyone. I must ask you whose best interest God is looking out for, his own best interests, or the best interests of humans?

If Jesus wanted to reasonably prove that he could rise from the dead, why did he limit his appearances to as the texts imply less than 600 people? It seems to me that the only two rational approaches would have been for Jesus to appear to no one, or to everyone. Logically and fairly, if even one single person had the privilege of seeing tangible proof that Jesus had risen from the dead, then everyone else should have the privilege of seeing tangible proof that Jesus has risen from the dead. The Gnostics were quite content to believe that Jesus spiritually rose from the dead. Why do you require a physical Resurrection in order to accept Christianity, or do you actually require a physical Resurection in order to accept Christianity?

rhutchin

My inability to show that the Biblical God's authority is legitimate does not negate the Biblical God’s ability to exercise that authority. We both find ourselves confronted with the same problem. There is uncertainty about whether the Biblical God has the ability to exercise the authority that He is claimed to possess. What do we do? I have chosen to believe that God has authority over me and will act accordingly. You have chosen not to believe that God has authority over you and will act accordingly. Each of us assumes a risk of making a wrong decision. The risk to me, of being wrong, is inconsequential. The risk to you, of being wrong, is significant. Consequently, the burden is on you to make certain that you have made a correct decision since you have the most to lose.

No. Your question was, “What makes anyone’s authority legitimate or illegitimate?� You did not ask, “Would you worship such a God?� However, you pose a good question. If God required one to lie, cheat, steal, and murder as a condition for receiving eternal bliss and avoid eternal torment, what would a person do? I think it would be prudent for a person to worship such a being.

The rational action is to worship the evil being. If he wins, you win. If he loses, you fall on the mercy of the good being who, being good, would understand the position in which you had been placed and might show mercy. You have leveraged your position to the greatest extent.

If you were a fundamentalist Christian for 35 years, then, considering that which you write above, you had to be an Arminian. My sympathies. Arminians are some of the most Biblically illiterate people I have encountered. Arminians who really dwell on what they believe (which basically seems to amount to free will theism) eventually figure out that Arminainism is logically bankrupt and they end up subscribing to universalism or atheism. In recent years, disenchanted Arminians have been embracing Open View Theology (under which God is not omniscient and does not really know what people will choose to do until they do it).

Mageth

Pascal's Wager, anyone? You present the game as if it were a binary choice, a coinflip, with your particular God and your particular way to "act accordingly" as the only choice, and not as it really is: a roulette wheel with countless possibilities.

And thus, your risk is not inconsequential.

You have chosen not to believe that Allah (or fill in the blank with other countless and various gods) has authority over you and act accordingly. You assume a risk of making a wrong decision. (Not to mention other denominations and sects that believe in a version of the "Christian" God but believe there are different ways to "act accordingly"). The risk to you of being wrong is, therefore, not inconsequential, if you've settled on the wrong god, or "act accordingly" in the wrong way. Consequently, the burden is on you as well, as you have every bit as much to lose if wrong. (If not more to, for it is possible that the results might be worse for those that believe in the wrong god than those that believe in no god at all).

Other possibilities? A god who does not assign consequences for acting or not acting "accordingly" is one. Another is a god who actually rewards those that do not believe in particular versions of God that would punish people for not believing in some particular version of God!

wyzaard

Ummm... you seem to have missed what I was saying: As there are an INFINITE # of possible gods/goddesses/spirits/karma/etc. that could exist with corrisponding rules for how to live in this life in order to qualify for the next, and ALL of them are inaccessible, then the wager is a POINTLESS endeaver... there are more than two choices; the odds of being right are one in infinity, with unknown probabilities... and the chance that being who you are is ok in the yes of one or more of those possibilities.

The rational person therefore has no choice but to live THIS life as they so choose, because any other is up in the air.

wyzaard

I mean who supports their accounts? All we have is their word... and that isn't worth much.

Ummm... who says we could make a 'right' decision? All we can do is make contingent judgements concerning contingencies.

So... why should we care?

Ummm... there are more than two choices, and no verification. So... why should anyone care?

Johnny Skeptic

Let's assume that the good being has told you that he will not show mercy if you choose the evil being and he defeats the evil being. Let's also assume that hundreds of millions of other people are observing the battle and that 50.0000001% of them disagree with you that the evil being has a slight edge, and choose the good being because they believe that he has a very slight edge. Please also consider the possibility that 90% of the people choose the good being because they believe that he has a very slight edge.

Please also consider the possibility that there is a general tendency for people with higher IQ's to assume the the evil being has a slight edge, and that there is a general tendency for people with lower IQ's to choose the good being. Please also consider that women will generally believe that the good being has a slight edge, and that men will generally believe that the evil being has a slight edge.

In Kosmin and Lachman's book that is titled 'One Nation Under God,' the authors cite documented research that shows that in the U.S., a substantially higher percentage of women are Christians than men, and that other major factors that influence religious beliefs are geography, family, race, ethnicity, and age.

It seems to me that if the Bible is true, you have put yourself at great risk because it is not actually the God of the Bible that you follow, but your own self-interest, in other words, that you do not follow him because he is good and perfect, but because you believe that he will give you a comfortable eternal life. In other words, you worship eternal comfort regardless of who provides it.

Gooch's dad

What "witnesses"? We have a bunch of anonymous writings, that are claimed to be from certain writers. But the burden of proof IS on you if you want to actually show that the NT writings are by known authors. We have no autographs of any of the gospels, as you well know. Because of that, the NT documents wouldn't qualify as anything resembling evidence in a court of law.

The burden of proof is still on you. I look at a bible, and I see a bunch of ancient writings by anonymous authors--authors who appear to not be the least bit credible as historians, on the most casual inspection of those writings.

It is entirely irrational to take threats such as "you might not want to make the wrong decision" into account when considering this supposed evidence.

Johnny Skeptic

You misunderstand our legal system. A court trial begins with a plaintiff making assertions. While the prosecution is required to prove it assertions beyond a reasonble doubt, the defedant is not required to prove his innocence beyond a reasonable doubt. Legislators of laws properly assumed that it is better to let some criminals go free than to send innocent people to prison. Some innocent people do go to prison, but the legal system is definitely weighted in favor of defendants, especially in murder trials where a unanimous vote by jurors is required for a conviction.

The Bible is full of original, primary assertions from cover to cover. It is not up to skeptics to try to disprove it. There is no logic that states that all assertions should be considered to be true unless reasonably proven to be false. Rhutchin, I can't disprove that a man saw a pig sprout wings and fly. Can you? Well of course you can't. You attempt to change the widely accepted burden of proof into the burden of disproof. That is ridiculous. It is impossible for anyone to disprove that the God of the Bible can create planets, but if the God of the Bible exists, he could easily show up and demonstrate that he can create a planet. In other words, while it it often impossible to prove a negative, it is often possible to prove a positive. It is completely impossible for anyone to reasonably prove that Jesus was conceived by the Holy Spirit, was born of a virgin, never sinned, and that his shed blood and death remitted the sins of mankind. It is also questionable that Jesus ever healed anyone. Today, millions of Christians disagree as to what constitutes a miracle healing. Why should anyone believe that it was any different back then. Deuteronomy 13 says the bad people can predict the future too, so it is not a question of who can predict the future, but who has good character. Of course, character doesn't matter to you, ruthchin. All that you are interested in is obtaining eternal comfort, even from an evil God, although you currently choose to socialize with people of good character.

In short, Bible apologetics is faith in disguise.