knotted paragon

As I said, the argument is invalid on its face unless one assumes the probability of god's existence -- which you and Pascal do, in order to make claims about uncertainty, and which you have been so kind to provide yet another example of.

Your claims of uncertainty, and the claims you assign to Pascal having concluded, are all the more pale, since the analysis you continue to demand that Pascal presented would only take place if there were credible evidence that souls, gods, christs, hell, or any supernatural being or state of affairs existed. In the absence of such evidence, rational people can recognize immediately that the wager is, in fact, invalid.

Why do rational people discount ancient myths and superstitions? As usual rhutchin, you do a most excellent job of answering yourself. The reason rational people discount ancient myths and superstitions is: We have no evidence.

Johnny Skeptic

You asked “why would an evil God demand that His followers do good and prohibit them from entering heaven if they are not perfect?” Why should anyone assume that a supernatural being ever made such demands? If a supernatural being did make such demands, that might have been part of his deceptions, and that would be in keeping with Paul’s description of Satan transforming himself into an angel of light. Demands made and promises given need not necessarily be honest. An evil, deceptive God might be planning to send everyone to hell, in which case he wouldn’t really be prohibiting anyone from doing anything, and in which case he most certainly would not tell anyone about his true intentions.

You can admit that at best, the odds are only 50/50 that God is good.

Believing that God exists and believing in Him (accepting him) are two entirely different issues. Regarding God’s existence, that would be easy for him to reasonably prove to most peoples’ satisfaction. For instance, one way that he could easily prove his existence would be to show up in say New York City, predict in front of the world media that he would heal everyone in the world at a specific time, and do so. In such a case, will you agree that some people would become Christians who were not previously convinced?

Regarding believing in God (accepting him), I and many if not most other skeptics would not choose to accept him without first having had the opportunity to hear God’s explanations for some of his actions and allowances. For example, 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?” Another example is that God told Moses that if a Jew killed Jew, he would be put to death, but if he killed a slave, he would only be punished. Another example is that God created Hurricane Katrina and sent it to New Orleans.

For some strange reason, you have on some occasions discussed comparing various religions, but if God is evil, comparing various religious would be useless.

No religion is any better than its foundation. Such being the case, do you believe that the story of Adam and Eve is literally true? If so, upon what evidence did Adam and Eve make their wagers that God is good and not an evil imposter? If not, upon what evidence did the first believers, whoever they were, make their wagers that God is good and not an evil imposter?

rhutchin

In the case of the Biblical god, these are the demands that are made on people if they want to enter into heaven.

I guess that a person can speculate pretty much anything they want. When we look at the information in the Bible, we do not find anything to substantiate such speculation.

If God’s nature is to be determined by the flip of a coin some time in the future, then the odds are only 50/50 that God is good. I am convinced that God’s nature will not be determined in this manner. I think God’s nature has already been determined and the information in the Bible gives us an inkling into that nature. If God’s nature has already been determined, then that nature would be certain (100%).

I agree. Even Satan believes that God exists.

Yes, I guess so. Some would be convinced that God exists. I am not certain that they would be convinced enough to submit to Him. My suspicion is that God could make a big impression if He allowed people to spend a minute in hell and then decide if they want to escape that future.

This is a product of God being omnipotent. Because God is omnipotent everything happens either because God allows it (e.g., water flowing over a waterfall, tornados, car accidents, robberies, rape, etc.) or because He causes it directly (e.g., the destruction of Sodom, the flood, the conception of Christ, the end of the world, etc.)

We can compare religions using the information that we have about those religions. If God is something other than what has been revealed, there is nothing we can do about it because we don’t know it.

Adam/Eve appear to have communicated directly with God (at least Adam did). They did not have to wager since they would not have been uncertain about God. However, you raise a good point in that they seem to have been uncertain about the punishment for disobeying God and eating the fruit. Too bad Pascal was not around then to walk them through their situation. Still, they believed in God regardless.

JamesBannon

That's because most people who read the story are blind and this statement is bollocks. God boasts to Satan - there's no doubt about that. When Job, quite rightly, begins to get just a bit pissed off at being used as a plaything, does God offer an apology? Certainly not, that would be a bad thing for a "perfect" being to do wouldn't it? Instead what He offers is a justification which boils down to "I'll do as I please and you're only role is to worship Me and play the role I assigned to you!". Enough with this twaddle anyway. Why do you still insist on supporting an argument your own doctrinal stance views as completely worthless?

Johnny Skeptic

You did not answer my question. I asked you “Why should anyone believe that the texts that you are referring to were divinely inspired?” Please answer my question. You state the obvious. Demands were made, but who made them? Was it the God who is depicted in the Bible, was it an evil, lying God who made demands that he did not intend to keep and plans to send everyone to hell, or did the Bible writers dream up the demands out of their own imaginations?

You said it, now prove it.

Why is that? If God clearly revealed his supernatural powers to everyone, human nature being what it is, surely people would accept him.

Consider the following scriptures:

John 2:23 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 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.

John 6:2 And a great multitude followed him, because they saw his miracles which he did on them that were diseased.

John 10:37-38 If I do not the works of my Father, believe me not. But if I do, though ye believe not me, believe the works: that ye may know, and believe, that the Father is in me, and I in him.

If those events were true, then Jesus’ words were not enough to convince some people. For those people, subjective emotional experiences did not confirm objective tangible experiences. Rather, first hand objective tangible experiences confirmed subjective emotional experiences. There are not any good reasons for anyone to assume that people today are any less impressed with supernatural powers than some people supposedly were back then. Edgar Cayce and Nostradamus have a lot of followers, and they did not anything near what is attributed to the God of the Bible.

If Jesus actually performed many miracles if front of many thousands of people, and if between 500 and 600 people actually saw him after the rose from the dead, if the Holy Spirit actually came to the church, would you expect that all of the still living eyewitnesses and the ministry of the Holy Spirit would have been sufficient evidence for believe in Christianity? 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.” Why were further confirmations necessary. If Acts 14:3 is true, we are not entitled to any fewer confirmations than people supposedly had back then.

aa5874

Pascal's wager is utterly useless. If one examines Matthew ch 24 v5 and Mark ch13 v6 by the unknown authors, we see these words; 'For many shall come in my name, saying; I am Christ and shall deceive many'. I do not know if those were the words of the true Christ or the Deceiver. Rhutchin can you help me? Don't bother because I would not know if you are a Deceiver.

I am in a dilema, Christ himself maybe the Deceiver, rhutchin too,and maybe Pascal's wager is off and Iam being deceived. Not even Jesus can be trusted nowadays.

rhutchin

In the end, everyone has to trust something. When it comes to the Bible, one has to look at what it says and not what people claim it says.

rhutchin

One would believe that the Bible is divinely inspired simply because the Bible makes that claim. You can complain of circular reasoning, but circular reasoning does not make a claim false. It only means that the claim has no independent verification. People can read the Bible and accept that which it says or not. We all will die one day and none of us knows whether death is followed by nothingness or whether it is followed by judgment before God. The Bible states that people will stand before God. Who is to say that such will not be the case?

Let me rephrase. According to the Bible, even Satan believes that God exists.

Where some believed, obviously some did not. God has provided a certain amount of information in the Bible so that all could believe and be saved. That the information in the Bible is not sufficient to sway all to believe suggests that God does not plan to save all people. The issue is whether anyone believes because of what they read in the Bible or because of God changing them in some way. The Arminians says that people can believe because of what they read in the Bible. The Calvinists say that no one believes based on that which they read in the Bible, and a person only believes after God changes them.

If God revealed Himself supernaturally to many, would any believe? As I am a Calvinist, I don’t think any would. I think God has to change a person before they will believe anything the Bible says or as a result of any supernatural work that God might reveal to them.

rhutchin

I would not describe it as completely worthless. It is one logical argument constructed to address one particular circumstance. It accomplishes that which it was intended to accomplish.

rhutchin

Yes, that has been agreed to already. The Wager applies only to those who accept the possibility of God’s existence. If a person is able to prove with certainty that there is no God (and therefore no eternal torment), then the Wager has no purpose.