Wayne Delia

So you were only bullshitting when you said above, "You [Mageth] are unusual in that you can prove with certainty that God does not exist," right? What you evidently meant was that Mageth can't prove it with certainty, which is not what you wrote. Was it a typo?

Such a proof is not only possible, I even provided one above. Assuming the Bible is true, we have the following three premises:

"God is love." (1 John 4:8)
"Love is not envious (jealous)." (1 Corinthians 13:4)
"I, the Lord thy God, am a jealous God." (Exodus 20:5)
(Roget's Thesaurus shows "jealous" as the primary definition of "envious", and some Bible versions actually use the term "jealous".)

Such a God cannot logically exist.

I notice you failed to refute that disproof of the Judeo/Christian God. Rather, you backpedalled into a "poisoning the well" logical fallacy (similar to "Everyone else agrees with me") which is clearly not true. Rather, your defense is nothing more than "I'm ignoring that disproof, and I assume that everyone else in the world will also ignore it as well," which is obviously less than satisfactory.

WMD

Mageth

Back at ya.

No, it fails miserably on that one.

First, and primarily, because there is no rational reason to believe in the possibility of eternal torment (not to mention an afterlife). Belief in an afterlife, and belief in the possibility of eternal suffering in an afterlife, are irrationally-held beliefs. They're superstitions, nothing more. In the same class as breaking mirrors, walking under ladders, and tossing spilled salt over your shoulder.

You can't come to a "rational conclusion" based on an irrational fear of "eternal torment in an afterlife."

Again, it's a fear-based, emotional argument from superstition from the get-go. You're not providing anything close to a rational argument.

You have failed miserably in establishing that position.

Again, your argument is little, if any, different from the "hellfire-and-brimstone" sermons I heard as a kid.

No, thanks. As I said, I reject the emotional, fear-based appeal to superstition that is the Wager.


Oh, make sure you do the "rational" thing and don't walk under ladders, don't cross the path of a black cat, avoid going out on Friday the 13th, and toss a pinch of spilled salt over your shoulder. And be careful that you break no mirrors.

Mageth

You left out superstition and fear.

Mageth

Easy. Belief in eternal torment is an irrational belief; a superstition. Nothing more. Thus, "deciding to seek to escape eternal torment" is a decision based on an irrationally-held belief. Thus, it is not a rational decision.

It's really that simple.

You need to establish that belief in eternal torment is a rationally-held belief. You cannot.

Wayne Delia

Damn. That was my last Irony-o-meter, and it exploded all over the carpet. Those things are expensive.

WMD

Mageth

And one more thing, rhutchin.

Again, your religion invents the notion of an eternal torment that your religion offers an escape plan from. It's all part of your religion. Pascal's Wager, as you present it, is no more than a marketing scam for your religion (but is adaptible to other religions).

You're asking us to accept your religion lock, stock and barrel. Accept the disease and swallow the cure. You're in no way presenting a rational argument for escaping eternal torment (which, as I have said, is nothing more substantial than a superstition, and thus belief therein is not rational). You're selling a religion.

And again, I have no rational reason to believe your religion is true, or to put any stock whatsoever on the ancient texts it's based upon. I have plenty of ratoinal reasons to reject the whole kit-and-kaboodle.

JPD

Religion is one of the best non-existent solutions to a non-existent problem. It really tackles whatever it is with something or other.

Johnny Skeptic

But emotion is the only evidence that you have. Self-interest is emotional. You claim that the Bible is the most logical world view because of the evidence that is offers, but you aren't really concerned with evidence. You
accept the Bible by faith without any firsthand evidence at all, and yet if an advanced alien being came to earth, claimed to be God, but not the God of the Bible, demonstrated to your satisfaction first hand that he had supernatural powers, and told you that was planning to send everyone to hell, you would reject his claim. If he said that he was planning on sending everyone to heaven, would you accept his claim or choose to remain a Christian?

What if two aliens showed up, one claiming to be good, and one claiming to be evil, and began a battle supposedly for control of the universe? Assume that the battle shifted back and forth for a few days with no apparent winner emerging, but that the odds looked favorable that the evil combattant would win. Assuming that after a few days, the combattants paused for a rest, and the good combatant insisted that you make a choice whether to accept him or not before the battle resumed, and insisted that you love him before the battle resumed, what would you do? You would only have his word for it that he loved you, and we only have the Bible's word for it that God loves you. What evidence do you have that God loves you? What evidence do you have 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? Regarding the Resurrection, there is no logical correlation that can be made between the ability to rise from the dead an goodness. In addition, the risen Jesus might have been an advanced alien whose intent was to deceive people.

The Bible definitely requires that a person must love God in order to go to heaven, but logically and rationally, it is impossible to love anyone, a God or anyone else, based upon the paltry evidence that the Bible provides. Regarding the claim that Jesus healed people, today, millions of Christians disagree as to what constitutes a miracle healing. Why should anyone believe that it was any different back then.

What specific evidence convinced you to become a Christian?

Sauron

One of the best ways to examine arguments such as those of rhutchin, is to see if the proponent is willing to apply them to other religions.

For example, rhutchins has told us that nonbelief in God must be an emotional response (since it is not a rational response in the face of uncertainty). So let's assume that someone were to be presented with a description of the Islamic view of hell. They examine the claim, and reject it. Would rhutchins say their rejection was irrational and emotion-based?

What about Buddhism? Assume someone were to be presented with a description of the Buddhist view of hell. They examine the claim, and reject it. Would rhutchins say that such a rejection was irrational and emotion-based?

How about the Hindu hell? Egyptian hell? Any hell from any other religion? Would rhutchins say that rejecting these concepts of hell and/or not acting upon them was irrational or emotionally based decision?

Of course not. In rhutchins view, it is only when a person rejects the christian God and version of hell, that they are "irrational" and "emotional". Rejecting the visions of judgment/hells from other religions would be the rational and smart thing to do; after all, they are false gods, from the christian viewpoint.

So at the bottom of pascals wager (and rhutchins' defense of it) is nothing more than a case of special pleading; a conditional appeal resting upon the barely concealed assumption that christianity is correct, and consequently the wager need not address the reality of other religions and choices. But it is a double standard that does not withstand scrutiny.

But let's assume that rhutchins wants to avoid the double standard. Fine. Then in order to be consistent and avoid invoking a double standard, rhutchins position would have to basically boil down to this: anyone who rejects any hell from any religion whatsoever, even if they examine the claims and find them lacking, must necessarily be rejecting that vision of hell irrationally and based upon emotion.

Is he willing to state that position?

Wayne Delia

rhutchin has an extensive history at iidb asserting that "You cannot explain X," even after X has been explained several dozen times. I can point out many examples, such as the incompatibility of free will and omniscience (refuted by "I use my free will to choose to do something that God knows I won't"). That refutation was presented, oh, about fifty times, after which he claimed he was unaware of any such refutation.

WMD