steamer

Nope, I can't either, but the evidence for god and the Easter bunny are equal and if one can choose to believe in one, then it must be possible to choose to believe in the other. When RH shows me how to choose to believe in the Easter bunny as the Wager seems to imply he can then I'll be able to choose to believe in his god.

Mageth

I've asked several times that RH tries choosing to not believe in God for a week.

Amaleq13

Michael Martin addresses this issue (which has the fancy title of "strong doxastic voluntarism") in Craig's Holy Spirit Epistemology from The Secular Web homepage.

Wads4

You are still shifting the buden of proof, which is not a valid way to argue.
I never said all faith is wrong,-just faith in silly unprovable propositions. I have faith in scientific rationality as the only way to discover new knowledge.
Fallacy of Presupposition,-you are assuming eternal torment as a fact,-it isn't.
The point of my little Osiris judgement story was, as you have now grasped, that Gods are invented every day. If we don't need to worry about Osiris we don't have to worry about Yahweh either,-or any other man-made God.
It is not so much Yahweh that you worship,-instead you worship a book, the Bible,--which is idolatrous sacrilage; how can you escape the flames of hell?


No one has to prove that God exists. It is only the proof that God does not exist that matters. If I refuse to prove that God exists, you still face the problem that your decision to put your faith in science could be a wrong decision resulting in you losing everything. If you are able to prove that God does not exist, then you have nothing to worry about.[/QUOTE]

No, you are still burden-shifting. Faith in science is justified true belief. If I drop a lump of potassium into water, I know from the justified true belief which we call knowledge of chemistry,--that it will go bang.[quote]

Johnny Skeptic

Pascal's Wager is not valid because while it DOES NOT require that believers love God and obey him in order to go to heaven, the Bible DOES require that believers love God and obey him in order to go to heaven, and the Bible has made it impossible for skeptics to love God. The proof is as follows:

What makes it fair and just for any given being to enforce rules of his own choosing? Some Christians claim that 1) the most powerful being is by necessity the most fair, just, and perfect being (which of course is impossible to reasonably prove), in their case the God of the Bible, and some claim that 2) since the odds are more favorable that he can enforce his rules than anyone else, it is logical to accept him.
Regarding item 1, I am not aware of any good reasons to believe that the God of the Bible is fair, just, and perfect.

Regarding item 2, even if the odds are more favorable that God can enforce his rules than anyone else, the Bible has made demands of skeptics that make it impossible for them to accept God.

Matthew 19:17 says "And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments."

Matthew 7:21-22 say "Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity." Because casting out devils is mentioned and Jesus said elsewhere that Satan cannot cast out Satan, we know that the verses are talking about people who are Christians and will lose their salvation, in other words, Christians who deliberately and repeatedly refuse to keep God’s commandments.

Sins of omission and sins of commission are two entirely separate issues. While God will forgive sins of omission, he will not forgive deliberate and repeated sins of commission, as clearly proven by Matthew 7:21-22 which I quoted previously.

Now that I have established that believers are definitely required to obey God’s commandments in order to go to heaven, let’s take a look at the two commandments upon which all of the law and the prophets depend:

Matthew 22:35-40 say “Then one of them, which was a lawyer, asked him a question, tempting him, and saying, Master, which is the great commandment in the law? Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment.
And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.�

Considering the following scriptures, those are impossible and unfair requirements for God to demand of skeptics if they wish to go to heaven:

Exodus 4:11 says "And the Lord said unto him, Who hath made man's mouth? or who maketh the dumb, or deaf, or the seeing, or the blind? have not I the Lord?" If a human caused a person to become deaf or blind, he would be sent to prison, and with Christians’ blessings I might add.

Revelation 9:1-6 say "And the fifth angel sounded, and I saw a star fall from heaven unto the earth: and to him was given the key of the bottomless pit. And he opened the bottomless pit; and there arose a smoke out of the pit, as the smoke of a great furnace; and the sun and the air were darkened by reason of the smoke of the pit. And there came out of the smoke locusts upon the earth: and unto them was given power, as the scorpions of the earth have power. And it was commanded them that they should not hurt the grass of the earth, neither any green thing, neither any tree; but only those men which have not the seal of God in their foreheads. And to them it was given that they should not kill them, but that they should be tormented five months: and their torment was as the torment of a scorpion, when he striketh a man. And in those days shall men seek death, and shall not find it; and shall desire to die, and death shall flee from them."

Revelation 14:9-11 say "And the third angel followed them, saying with a loud voice, If any man worship the beast and his image, and receive his mark in his forehead, or in his hand, The same shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is poured out without mixture into the cup of his indignation; and he shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels, and in the presence of the Lamb: And the smoke of their torment ascendeth up for ever and ever: and they have no rest day nor night, who worship the beast and his image, and whosoever receiveth the mark of his name."

To require of skeptics that in order for them to go to heaven they must love and obey the God who is described in the aforementioned scriptures would be as impossible a task for them as it would be for them to believe that 2+2=5. In other words, God has stacked the deck against skeptics.

There are literally thousands of good reasons for people not to trust the Bible. One very good reason is that any rational and/or loving being who wanted people to accept him and not go to hell would makes the odds 100% that everyone would know about his existence and that he had their best interests at heart. He would confirm subjective spiritual/emotional experience with objective tangible experiences. Some of the texts claim that God did exactly that, but we know that for some strange and unexplained reason he has used that approach only at selected times. In other words, God is not consistent. John 2:23 says “Now when he was in Jerusalem at the passover, in the feast day, many believed in his name, when they saw the miracles which he did.� John 3:2 says “The same came to Jesus by night, and said unto him, Rabbi, we know that thou art a teacher come from God: for no man can do these miracles that thou doest, except God be with him.� In the NIV, John 10:37-38 say "Do not believe me unless I do what my Father does. But if I do it, even though you do not believe me, believe the miracles, that you may know and understand that the Father is in me, and I in the Father." In the KJV, Matthew 4:24 says "And his fame went throughout all Syria: and they brought unto him all sick people that were taken with divers diseases and torments, and those which were possessed with devils, and those which were lunatick, and those that had the palsy; and he healed them."

It is interesting to note that the texts say that BOTH SIDES acknowledged that Jesus had supernatural powers. The Pharisees believed that Jesus had supernatural powers, but that his powers came from Beelzebub. Today, both sides DO NOT acknowledge that God has supernatural powers, so the evidence that we have today is not nearly the same as it supposedly was back then.

It is quite suspicious that God on some occasions maximized the odds to 100% that people would know about his existence and his supernatural powers, only to completely abandon his supposed purpose of giving humans sufficient evidence of his existence and supernatural powers. This evidence alone is all that rational minded people need to reject the God of the Bible.

In spite of the supposed facts that Jesus performed many miracles, and that after he rose from the dead was seen by over 500 people, in the NIV, Acts 14:3 says "So Paul and Barnabas spent considerable time there, speaking boldly for the Lord, who confirmed the message of his grace by enabling them to do miraculous signs and wonders." Do Christians not find it strange that there was a need for such confirmations?

At best, if the God of the Bible exists, he is inconsistent, bi-polar, or amoral. At worst, he is a monster and should be rejected. One of God’s bi-polar or amoral moments was when he created Hurricane Katrina and sent it to New Orleans.

Creating the universe most certainly does not give anyone a license to act like God acts, and creating the universe most certainly does not give a supposedly loving God the right to make impossible demands of skeptics when he is easily able to clearly show himself to everyone so that everyone who rejected him would have to admit that they had made fully informed decisions. If heaven and hell are actually at stake, the only kinds of decisions that would be fair would be fully informed decisions. God could not possibly have anything to lose by clearly showing himself to everyone, and mankind would have everything to gain if he did so. True love, tolerance, and forgiveness could never do anything less.

enemigo

Acceptance that it would be possible for nonbelief to save one from eternal torment (if God Z exists) is not the same as believing that those circumstances actually exist in reality (ie. believing that God Z actually exists). Calling the former a "belief" implies that it no different than the latter. Stop equivocating.

The difference between those two, is the exact same difference between accepting that leprechauns might exist and believing that they do exist.


But the possibility that God Z exists (belief punished, nonbelief rewarded), means that belief also carries uncertainty and the possibility of being wrong. So if you exclude nonbelief on the basis of uncertainty, then you must exclude belief too.


But you're not calculating that risk. You are assuming the risk. You are just asserting that that nonbelief is too risky, and that for that reason, it should be excluded from risk assessment.

If you don't think you are, then please put your argument (why nonbelief is too risky to be considered during risk analysis) in simple syllogistic form and show me how I am mistaken.


Yes, the possibility that God Z might exist allows nonbelief to be considered in risk analysis as a potential way of escaping eternal torment.


Is it any wonder then that your risk analysis didn't lead to the conclusion that nonbelief could provide a means to escape eternal torment?

Nonbelief would provide escape from eternal torment if God Z exists, in the exact same way that belief would provide escape from eternal torment if God Y exists. Accepting that those are possibilities does not equal belief that one of those actually exist in reality.


It does not make it a belief. The fact that nonbelief would be safe if God Z existed, does not require you to believe that God Z exists.

enemigo

Damn it... I went back to edit my post to make some points clearer, and then after I had written it all out and hit save, the edit time limit had just expired and I lost the changes I was going to make. So I'll just make another post as an addendum to my last, covering some of the same ground...


Your argument here is this:

A. if nonbelief is unable to provide a person to escape eternal torment, then it is not a viable option
B. nonbelief is unable to provide a person to escape eternal torment
=> C. nonbelief is not a viable option

But nonbelief is not unable to provide a person to escape eternal torment if God Z exists. That possibility negates B.


Your argument here is not that nonbelief is unable, but that it is uncertain and possibly wrong, and because of that, it is too risky and therefore not a viable option. Your argument is something like this:

A. If nonbelief is uncertain and possibly wrong, then it is too risky to be a viable option.
B. nonbelief is uncertain and possibly wrong.
=> C. nonbelief is too risky to be a viable option.

I don't think that you have established that A is true. So, if you think you have, then show me how you arrive at that conclusion by filling out 1 & 2 below.

1.
2.
=> A. If nonbelief is uncertain and possibly wrong, then it is too risky to be a viable option


Now, when you provide justification for A above, you need to account for the fact that the possibility of God Z makes "belief" uncertain and possibly wrong too, because if God Z exists then he punishes belief and rewards nonbelief. So safety isn't certain with belief either.


If you believe I have misrepresented your arguments above, then please reconstruct your arguments in syllogistic form as I have.

Alf

The point is - and I realize you have problems to get this - is that it doesn't show that at all.

Why is it irrational? If you choose to believe in some god and you still most likely end up in hell you are no better off compared to the atheist who do not believe in any god in the first place. So, assuming there is a god out there and you must believe in this god in order to escape hell, you most likely end up in hell regardless. The only way to escape that hell would be if you happened to stumble upon the right god and the chance for that is so small that it can safely be ignored.

How can it then be irrational to do something when the outcome is the same regardless of what you do? Sure, you can still believe hoping in the off chance that you against all odds did happen to stumble upon the right god but the chance for that is small and in fact the chance that an atheist might end up in heaven because the right god would send any decent person to heaven regardless of what he believes is much higher than that.

Given that the outcome is basicaly the same in both cases it is hardly irrational to choose one of the other based on this argument alone. Indeed other arguments indicate that it is believing that is the irrational choice. Occam's razor indicates that for example.

An argument cannot "show" something to be correct if it is in fact wrong. Since Pascal''s wager lead to a conclusion that is wrong (that it is irrational to not believe in god), one must conclude that either Pascal's wager is based on faulty premises or its logic is per se faulty. My bet is on faulty premises.

Alf

rhutchin

OK. You have the option of believing in the “faulty premises� argument. You are now in the position of having to prove that the “faulty premises� argument is absolutely certain. If you cannot do so, then you must deal with the uncertainty that comes with that position and the possibility that you could end up in eternal torment. It is the possibility of making a bad decision (no matter how small the likelihood of this) plus the potential loss (eternal torment) from that decision that would then lead you to seek to escape eternal torment. If the “faulty premises� argument does not provide a means to escape eternal torment, then there is no rationale for adhering to that argument. The rational course of action is to pursue a course that offers the promise of escape from eternal torment. It is true that one could still choose the wrong option but it is always rational to pursue that course that one “thinks� will allow them to escape eternal punishment against that course that one “knows� cannot help them escape eternal torment. Since the “faulty premises� argument does not provide a means for a person to escape eternal torment, it is never rational to adhere to that position and always rational to seek a position that claims to offer escape from eternal torment.

rhutchin

I agree. So what exactly did you do? You started with the argument A,B then C which is correct and then said, Let’s add the additional information that a God Z can exist. If you do not know that God Z exists, then the original argument cannot be voided. If you speculate about God Z, you change premise B from “nonbelief is unable� to “nonbelief is able� to provide an escape. So yes, by adding new information that changes premise B, you negate the original argument. You have done this by changing the entire argument from an unbelief argument to a belief (in God Z) argument. In the end, you have not negated the unbelief argument. It still exists.

The argument goes like this.

1. One cannot prove that God cannot exist so it is possible that a person is subject to eternal torment.
2. Eternal torment is such a severe outcome that, assuming even the smallest likelihood that it could happen, it generates the greatest risk to the individual.
3. Nonbelief does not provide a means to escape eternal torment.
A. If nonbelief is uncertain and possibly wrong, then it is too risky to be a viable option.
B. nonbelief is uncertain (from 1) and possibly wrong.
=> C. nonbelief is too risky (from 2) to be a viable option.

When you introduce God Z, you introduce new information (even if just speculation) such that you change the above to get—

3. Nonbelief does not provide a means to escape eternal torment except in the case where God Z exists.
A. If nonbelief is uncertain and possibly wrong (and God Z does not exist), then it is too risky to be a viable option.
B. nonbelief is uncertain and possibly wrong.
=> C. nonbelief is too risky to be a viable option (except in the case where God Z exists).

But we still have

3. Nonbelief does not provide a means to escape eternal torment.
3a. Belief in God Z provide a means to escape eternal torment.
A. If nonbelief (negation of 3a) is uncertain and possibly wrong, then it is too risky to be a viable option.
B. nonbelief (negation of 3a) is uncertain and possibly wrong.
=> C. nonbelief is too risky to be a viable option.

If one accepts 3a then one has moved from nonbelief to belief. If one has no knowledge of God Z, then there is no effect on the nonbelief argument.