JPD

But it won't be a chat - me and God will communicate by telepathy while Aphex Twin plays. I'll notice a menu board where today's special is fillet of Pascal. Kenny Everett will be pushing a wheelbarrow full of squirrels.

rhutchin

Actually, there are good, sound arguments for the Bible being different than myths. Much of this information is on the internet, so have fun googling.

From what I can find, Osiris really doesn’t care about you or anyone else. At least the Biblical god cares about you (even if you don’t care about Him).

Not necessarily. One can make the claim that the holocaust occurred in WWII, that Ted Williams hit .400, and that a man named Jesus lived in the first century. The evidence for these things are the accounts written by people who claimed to be eyewitnesses of those events. Such is all history. If I show you a newspaper account that claims that Ted Williams hit .400, is that evidence that he did? If I show you an account of a man named Jesus being crucified, is that evidence that he was?

You don’t seem to accept historical accounts as evidence or you treat some historical documents (those that speak of a man named Jesus) differently than other historical accounts.

There is no levitation here. Where history is concerned, effort must be exerted by both sides of an issue to prove their positions about the validity of the historical evidence.

Oblivion is preferred to eternal torment, I think.
Let’s assume that there is an equal amount of historical evidence for Osiris, and for other gods, as there is for the Biblical god. The Wager merely says that one should rationally seek to escape eternal torment. It does not tell a person which god to believe. Your only argument against the Wager is that you have proof that there is no eternal torment after death. The competing gods argument says nothing about the Wager.

Well, theists have the Bible and it makes specific claims about life after death. Do skeptics have something somewhat comparable to that will opposite claims?

rhutchin

You are obviously a man of great faith.

JPD

If I have faith then it is in my belief that that which is only presented to me in text form, with no verification, has insufficient value to be seriously considered. I only deal with what is real. If something (which is naturally not a thing) is considered to have characteristics that we cannot have actual knowledge of, I am not particularly intrigued by any outcomes that may or may not be related to that "thing".

Dlx2

There is significant credible evidence to suggest that this is the case. There is no credible evidence to suggest that any alternative is the case.

Next you're going to be telling me that 2+2=4 is a nice myth, too.

rhutchin

The interesting thing about myths is that they can include truth. Thus, you can state 2+2=4 as a truth and then say, "Thus, when you die, it's all over," which sounds like a myth. Does any truth make the statement, "When you die, it's all over," true? The answer must be, No. You have no idea what happens to you when you die because you have never died and no one who has ever died has come back to tell you what happens (with one debatable exception, of course). Consequently, whatever you imagine to happen after you die cannot be anything other than imagination and myth. You can state all the truths that you want, but your imaginations about life after death can be no more than imaginations.

knotted paragon

Negative rhutchin. I have never stated that there is or isn't an afterlife. I lack belief, and faith, in an afterlife. Apply your incoherent babble to others. Negative rhutchin. The bible's failure as evidence has been explained to you exhaustively. The bible is no different than The Iliad or the Book of the Dead. Please provide evidence to support the assertions that YHWH exists, or has any concern or interest in humanity. Your failure to realize just how much Osiris cares about people has no bearing on whether it is so. Negative rhutchin. Accounts about WWII and Ted Williams' batting average are dissimilar to accounts of Jesus in that I can verify the chain of evidence reliably, and that accounts of WWII and Ted Williams are accessible outside one newspaper. If there were only one newspaper available that claims WWII happened, and that Ted Williams hit .400, and that newspaper said it was true because it says it is true - then I would have a hard time believing in either situation. You have failed to provide evidence for the six items I listed in Message #1947. If you wish the bible to even be considered as hearsay on a National Enquirer level, you would first have to address those six items. The bible is no historical account, it is the same as The Iliad and the Book of the Dead - an ancient account of myth and superstition. Negative rhutchin. That's the problem that you have failed to understand in this whole giant thread. I treat all ancient accounts the same - they all require the same rigorous validation before any extraordinary claims they make can be believed. You attempt to foist off one ancient text as a special case, claiming it is has some special significance and should be believed over all other ancient texts when there is no evidence that it is any different than any other account of myths and superstitions. Negative rhutchin. The bible's extraordinary claims are not historical evidence. Address the above six items before they would even be considered as hearsay. The bible has the same evidentiary weight as The Iliad and the Book of the Dead. This assumption is correct.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.

You should cease making statements about rational results gained from the wager until you can prove with certainty that the above conclusion is false. Negative rhutchin. This is another lie or mistake. I have never claimed, not once, that I have proof of any such thing. I asked you to retract your claim once before and did not press the issue since you said "OK." I am pressing the issue this time. Stop lying about me - I have never made this claim. Retract your statement.

My argument against your claim of what the wager asks us to deliberate is:

There is insufficient evidence of any threat that a person will be consigned to eternal torment for finite crimes. It is irrational to wager based on insufficient evidence of a threat. Correct deliberation on the wager can result in unbelief in god(s).

You are not arguing the wager, you are making claims based on the argument from superdominance. Your position is weaker than Pascal's Wager, of which Dlx2 did an excellent job of summarizing its failure. Claims made in ancient texts about other gods illustrates the irrationality of believing in any given god without evidence of its existence. Negative rhutchin. The set of theists is not comprised entirely of only bible believers. There are many more ancient texts that make extraordinary claims than just the bible.

My evidence is the great number of people who die and stay dead. I do not have to reference an ancient mythological account to observe this phenomenon. This is a true statement rhutchin. Why can't you see that it completely and utterly destroys anything you might say about the wager? Placing god in a risk analysis is a deliberation in imagination and myths. It is irrational.

Barefoot Bree

Pascal's Wager is good for one group of people only: those who already believe in the god of the bible, and the bible's claims for eternal torment.

It will never convince an atheist.

It will never convince a believer in another religion.

It has no real weight for a believer in the god of the bible except to reinforce his belief.

Ergo, it is worthless.

I would like to meet one person who did not already believe in the god of the bible, who was actually and truly swayed to belief by the Wager. I'd "wager" plenty that such a person will never be found.

knotted paragon

Correct, this has direct bearing on whether the wager is pragmatically valid. However, when asked to present such a person, rhutchin responds that he has described such a person, and that they can present themselves.

Barefoot Bree

Amazing how that just fits right in with all the other proffered "proof". For some reason, it's always promised, but never really appears.