Dlx2

The Wager only applies to people who are uncertain:

People who are uncertain how infinity works

People who are uncertain about how probability works.

People who are uncertain about how inductive reasoning works.

People who are uncertain about how deductive reasoning works.

People who are uncertain about the existence of other religions.

People who are uncertain about how you establish premises for an argument.

People who are uncertain about what makes a cogent inductive argument.

People who are uncertain about what makes a sound deductive argument.

knotted paragon

You were doing well until the last sentence. You are only one myth away from rational thinking rhutchin.

Rational people discount ancient myths and superstitions since those accounts do not correspond with reality. You, rhutchin, have discounted a great number of myths and superstitions in your life, and done so rationally. It's just that last one you're still having trouble with.

Before a risk analysis needs to be performed, a person needs to recognize a threat. Myths and fairy tales do not present a threat. If the god you continue to insist threatens us won't provide any more evidence of its existence than any other myth or superstition, then we aren't going to recognize any credible threat - exactly the same as you don't recognize any danger from failing to sacrifice to the Greek or Egyptian gods.

In the same manner that you do not have to "prove with certainty" that Osiris does not exist, we do not have to "prove with certainty" that your god does not exist. Your god is just another tired and lame old myth, toothless in its ability to threaten anybody except those deluded enough to fall for an ancient superstition.

The sky is not falling rhutchin. Your insistence that the wager is valid illustrates that you are incapable of rational deliberation due to your belief in ancient myths and superstition. Deliberate the following rhutchin:

P1. Wagering for Osiris superdominates wagering against Osiris.
P2. If Osiris exists, the result of wagering for Osiris is strictly better than the result of wagering against Osiris.
C. Rationality requires you to wager for Osiris.

And so, we've completed another loop around the wager and deepened the groove in the dirt of your mental back yard; returning yet again to the conclusion that rational people recognize that the wager is, in fact, invalid.

Johnny Skeptic

I have never said that such was not the case, but your position is that such is the case. So, is your only argument that “the Bible is true because it says that it is true”? Do you not know that actions do not necessarily indicate motives?

If Jesus had performed miracles, and had risen from the dead, but had never spoken with anyone about anything, either before or after he rose from the dead, would you conclude that he was perfect, sinless, and the Son of God? In addition, is it your position that if a being has supposedly supernatural powers, and gives a message, no matter how he uses his powers, and no matter what his message is, he should be trusted?

Regarding Calvinism and predestination, you are right back to saying that “the Bible says so,” or “the Bible is true because it says that it is true.” Whether a Christian is a Calvinist or not, the arguments are still “the Bible says so,” or “the Bible is true because it says that it is true.” So, Calvinism is clearly NOT the main issue here. The main issue here is the authority of scripture, and so far, you have not offered any good reasons why the Bible should be considered authoritative regarding the issue of the nature of God.

If you were a Christian but not a Calvinist, how might you answer the following question?: Is it your position that 1) if a being has supposedly supernatural powers, and gives a message, no matter how he uses his powers, and no matter what his message is, he should be trusted, or that 2) if a being has supposedly supernatural powers, and gives a message, he should be trusted only if he is moral and promises to reward people who accept him?

HRG

"What the Bible says" is an ill-defined expression. All we have are claims that the Bible text has a specific interpretation.

Regards, HRG.

rhutchin

Yep. Nothing comes easy. But. you have to start somewhere.

rhutchin

Let me rephrase your first statement. The Bible claims to be true and it is possible for it to be true. To a great extent motives express themselves as actions. It is true that one can disguise their motives to prevent a person from understanding his motives but to disguise them 100% of the time, as God would be doing if His motives were evil, seems to be counterproductive to God achieving that which He wants. Regardless, we can only know that which God tells us or that which we observe Him to do, so, whatever His motives, we can only act on what we know.

I agree. The Bible is authoritative because it says it is. The only good reason to accept this is if it is true. The only reasons for believing the Bible is the Bible itself and that which it says. Based on that, a person needs to decide whether to believe it is true. It may not be all that a person wants, but it is all that a person has.

The being should be trusted only if he is telling the truth. The message matters. That truth (expressed in the message) will determine his morality and the promises he makes.

JPD

Actually, no, you don't have to "start" anywhere at all since you have already "started" by being born. Everything else is filler.

And in terms of filler quality the Bible is the economy pack in the Poundland store. It is only during it's application that the cracks start to reveal themselves.

rhutchin

OK. So all we need is a good, sound argument to show that the Bible is myth. Have you seen one?

No problem. If you see no threat, then the Wager means mothing to you. I have not seen any person describe a threat from the Greek or Egyptian gods. Certainly those gods are not exciting people to go out and warn people. The same cannot be said for the Biblical god.

Again, no problem. To the extent that you (or someone) can prove your claims, then the Biblical god is toothless.

Go back and rework your argument and identify the threat. I had never heard that failure to worship Osiris would result in anything bad. However, let's assume that it did. If it were true that both Osiris and the Biblical god threatened eternal torment, then the Wager arrives at the same conclusion as it did when only the Biblical god was considered to threaten eternal torment. The conclusion is that one would seek to escape eternal torment either by proving that the threat was malarky or by belief. The Wager would not tell a person which god to believe in order to escape eternal torment.

rhutchin

It boils down to uncertainty about what happens after death. People do not know whether death means oblivion or eternal life in heaven or torment. After this, the process for deciding what to do about this uncertainty can itself contain uncertainties as you describe above. So, what else is new?

If you could tell a person what happens after they die, you could avoid all the uncertainties you list. You do not seem to be able to do this. Is that incorrect?

JPD

You have just provided one - the Bible itself. Please provide a good, sound argument to show that the Bible is not full of myth. At its foundation is belief in that which is non-existent on any plane that we can perform experiements in. Any claim can be made but there is nothing against which to check it. Demonstrate that the alleged miracles are anything other than myth.