rhutchin

Short answer -- Your inability to show that the Biblical God's authority is not legitimate.

We have a collection of historical documents written by various men over an extended time that have been collected in a book we call the Bible. Those writings make the claim that God (as described in those writings) exists and that all people are accountable to Him and must one day give accout of all that they have done. That accounting will determine whether the person is allowed entry into heaven (a place of eternal bliss) or refused entry into heaven (and consigned to a place described to be as terrible as heaven is wonderful).

Are these writings authoritative? Only to the extent that they cannot be disproved. Since they cannot be disproved, their claims concerning the authority of the Biblical God are legitimate and the rational person (using Pascal's analytical framework) would accept those claims rather than reject them.

Julian

(emphasis mine)

You're mistaken. As I emphasized in your post, the bible is making the claim, therefore the burden of proof lies with it or, rather, its believers. Anyone can make a claim, backing it with evidence is the real test. You have yet to do so.

We non-belivers have nothing to disprove or prove or whatever. It is your task to show that the bible is factually correct in its claims. We have already shown that the bible is a questionable piece of literature.

When you say, "Only to the extent that they cannot be disproved," you are failing to understand that that is not our task, rather it is your task to prove them true. The person making the positive claim has the burden of proof. That is all.

Julian

Doug Shaver

We have a collection of documents. A handful of people say they are historical. There is much evidence to the contrary.

rhutchin

From Dictionary.com

his·tor·i·cal adj.

1. a. Of or relating to the character of history.
b. Based on or concerned with events in history.
c. Used in the past: historical costumes; historical weapons.
2. Important or famous in history. See Usage Note at historic.
3. Diachronic.

I see no reason not to describe any ancient documents as "historical" including those collected and placed in the Bible.

rhutchin

The claim and the evidences for that claim are all contained in the writings collected in the Bible. The burden of proof, as is true in a court of law, is for others to disprove the testimony given by witnesses. The final say to believe rests with the jury. In this case, you may identify yourself with the jury. You have the testimony of the witnesses (the authors of the Biblical writings) and the comments of those who do not believe. You get to decide. You just want to avoid making the wrong decision.

wyzaard

Huh?

Explain.

Johnny Skeptic

But I have never claimed that is it most probable that the God of the Bible “did not�? create the universe, but surely your position is that “it is�? most probable that the God of the Bible “did�? create the universe. I am an agnostic, and I am perfectly willing to consider any evidence that the God of the Bible created the universe.

No it doesn’t. I am finding more and more evidence at the Internet that a good number of Christians do not approve of using Pascal’s Wager to proselytize non-Christians. In one Internet article a skeptic writer said that a number of Christians had told him that they do not like Pascal’s wager.

As an agnostic, I have not accepted either premise, nor do I intend to unless I become aware of convincing evidence one way or the other.

Pascal could not possibly have reliably evaluated the potential for loss because his only experiences about the universe were limited to his experiences on only one heavenly body in the entire universe.

I doubt that Pascal’s Wager was the reason that you became a Christian, and I doubt that you could find even several people who became Christians mostly or solely because of Pascal’s Wager.

The proof is in the testing. How many well-known Christian authors, preachers, teachers, and evangelists do you know of who became Christians because of Pascal’s Wager, and use it to proselytize non-Christians? Is seems to me that the chief advocates of Pascal’s Wager are people who were “already�? Christians when they became advocates of Pascal’s Wager. In other words, it seems to me that Christian advocates of Pascal’s Wager, few as that might be, are mostly trying to convince themselves, not non-Christians.

A lack of information does not lead to making properly informed choices, most especially if heaven and hell are actually at stake. If you played roulette, and you didn’t know how many slots there were, you wouldn’t play the game.

Let me put it this way: What makes anyone’s authority legitimate or illegitimate?

Pascal did not base his opinions on historical documents, but upon Jansenism. As I told you in one of my previous posts, Pascal said that the only way that a person could become a Christian was to follow Jansenism, which taught that free will does not exist.[/quote]

You have misunderstood my position. Let me try again. Unlike most skeptics, I am not disputing the Resurrection, or that Jesus healed people, or that God is good, at least not in this thread. What I am disputing is the notion that a given being’s authority, whether a human, a God, or an alien, is automatically legitimate just because he is powerful and benevolent, and is more powerful than anyone else who is around at the moment. Put in another way, I dispute the notion that a given being’s authority is automatically legitimate just because he is able to enforce rules of his own choosing, no matter what the rules are.

Pascal appeared to be exclusively endorsing the God of the Bible, but unknown to him, he really wasn’t, nor is any other Christian. Revelation 21:4 says “And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away.�? Eternal comfort is what Christians are after, completely irregardless of who provides it. If someone gave you a million dollars, would you care who gave it to you? Of course you wouldn’t. If it turns out that you are wrong, and eternal comfort is available from some other being, you would conclude that you had made an honest mistake and begin to enjoy your comfortable eternal life, but if some being other than the God of the Bible sends you to hell, without any explanations whatsoever, you will protest. Christians are interested solely in what happens to them. They will not defend skeptics no matter what God does to skeptics as long as they themselves get to enjoy a comfortable eternal life.

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.�?

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?

Based upon the preceding references, rational minded people have no choice but to conclude that at best, God is inconsistent, and that he is bi-polar. God is usually quite willing to cure the common cold, but he is never willing to restore a lost arm of leg, and never willing to heal people who have serious cases of multiple sclerosis or cerebral palsy. According to Pat Robertson, God sometimes cures backaches, but Robertson never explains why God’s healing abilities are so limited. Creating and sending Hurricane Katrina to New Orleans was one of God’s bi-polar moments. Any human do deliberately killed people would be sent to prison.

Rhutchin, you believe that you have a
comfortable eternal life waiting for you. However, there is not any credible evidence at all that God ever publicly promised anyone a comfortable eternal life. That is what happens when a supposed God chooses to deal with mankind by means of human proxies instead of making personal appearances so as to eliminate doubt. If heaven and hell are actually at stake, the only proper decision would be a “completely informed�? decision. No loving God would require anything else. There could not possibly be any undesirable consequences for God if he were to clearly reveal himself to everyone, and if he did clearly reveal himself to everyone, there could not possibly be any undesirable consequences for humans.

By the way, there is another thread on homosexuality at the GRD forum. I am participating, and I invite you to participate too. I believe that you embarrassed yourself in various other threads on homosexuality at the GRD forum. For instance, you brought up the issue of homosexuals who are child pedophiles, but most homosexuals are not child pedophiles, and you were told that among homosexuals who are child pedophiles, most are gay men, not lesbians. You said that more research on homosexuality needs to be conducted, but a good deal of research has already been conducted, and most of the research that we have so far is not favorable to your position. A parent or a heterosexual sibling of a homosexual, or a longtime heterosexual co-worker, doesn't need to conduct any research at all in order to observe firsthand whether or not a given homosexual is an acceptable person. The best way to assess a person's character is most certainly not to
take into account what they do in their bedrooms, but what they do in society. The vast majority of Muslims, Hindus, and Buddhists are heterosexuals, but surely you would never become a close friend of a Muslim, Hindu, or Buddhist, even if they were some of the most wonderful people who you had ever met.

wyzaard

How so? Cooberating evidence?

But a lack of verification especially does not confirm truth. At best, we have an in assessable unknown which the bible cannot resolve due to its questionable authority.

Usually due to the fact that we have prior experience and confirmed models for patterning empirical events... which are still within a realm of doubt, as these are contingent events. But...

Absolute metaphysical claims, and whatever dubious authorities they are based on, are both experientially vacuous and inherently unframable. Infinite unverifiable, incomprehensible possibilities, and no reason or need to choose any one over another.

So... why should we care?

wyzaard

The cost in any particular belief is the narrowing of the only life that is verifiable... the one you are living now. And as there are an INFINITE number of inaccessable metaphysical possibilites, all of which with different requirements and consequenses... what's the point in choosing ANY? (which indeed could be a requirement in one or more possible systems)

rhutchin

Such is the uncertainty that Pascal addressed in his Wager. In the face of uncertainty of the future, what does one do? The Wager leads one to conclude that the narrowing of the life one is living now (if it is actually narrowed) is a small cost to pay to gain the promised benefit. One sets aside current income in a retirement account (and thereby narrows ones's present life) because he expects to live a long life and he wants a good life in his golden years. The person who believes in God does the same thing. The alternative is to deny God and take the view that one should eat, drink, and be merry for tomorrow we die. The rational person allows for contingencies.