knotted paragon

Sure, I realize it's special to you. But its varied sources and timespan probably aren't the reason you consider it special. For instance, the body of Vedic literature comprised of the four original collections (Rig, Sama, Yajur, and Atharva Vedas), the Brahmanas, the Aranyakas, and the Upanishads - trump the biblical collection in all those categories: timespan, sources, (complexity, oral tradition, and on and on...). Your special consideration of the bible probably results from having observed people acting as if its characters were real as you were developing. It is probable, had you grown up in India, that you would be a devout, conservative Hindu, or Muslim if in Arabia, or, well, you get the idea.

Having observed people acting as if those fictional biblical characters were real, it's quite natural that you would also act as if they were real. But let's face it, there's no way Shiva could be real, that's obviously a myth, isn't it? After all, nobody acted as if some crazy dancing god could really create or destroy worlds, did they? Only YHWH could do that! But why?

Or maybe you grew up in an open, cosmopolitan environment and had comparative religion studies as a youngster, and decided to embrace Christianism after having studied many other mainstream religions and mythological accounts - due to all the evidence you found that supports the bible, and refutes all those other religions - maybe so? But if that's the case, why haven't you been able to relate that evidence to us?

Can't you see that there's obviously more evidence for Shiva's existence? His trident is proof! The tips represent the creation, protection (or sustainment), and destruction of the universe! What more could you ask for? Tartarus isn't a he or a god; it's the underworld of Greek mythology, the equivalent of hell in Christian mythology. If we evaluate biblical claims compared to Vedic claims, or Koranic claims, or Greek claims, or Sumerian claims, or Canaanite, or Mesopotamian, or Korean, we find a common theme throughout - that they lack merit and are unsupported. The evidence for rejecting the bible is the existence of competing contradictory claims that are embraced just as fervently as those made in the bible. They can't all be right, but they can all be wrong.

You aren't scared of the biblical threat of eternal torment just because you see some people excited about it, are you?

knotted paragon

Heh heh heh, I'm not the one that shot myself in the foot. Your foot's bleeding rhutchin, you need to understand that standing there staring at it isn't helping! That's what your version of the wager started out as before you shot yourself in the foot. Now that your foot's bleeding, you need to realize that the inclusion of the unbelief and indifference schemas change 'eternal torment' to 'threats in the afterlife' and hence, what one is actually uncertain about. Wrong, flat wrong. At this point in the decision process, the do nothing approach (unbelief and indifference) accomplish salvation if god despises credulity or idolatry. Your argument hinges on assuming the rationale of the consigning agent, when you've already conceded that it is no longer proper to do so. Stop thinking eternal torment, and start thinking afterlife threat - since we don't know the motivations of any possible consigning agent.

Your "run-off decision theory" defense is not a valid response to the many gods objection. First, you have no justification to exclude those possibilities in which unbelief or indifference is the prudent choice (Mageth's gods, enemigo's Prof./God Z, Jack's customized afterlife, MRM's honest god, etc...). Second, your next step, choosing a religion, is contrived - you haven't shown that any religion merits belief of any sort, so any epistemic consideration would be begging the question.

So, the person applies the wager and determines that she doesn't possess enough information to act, that unbelief is the only rational choice. Only in your contrived scenario before you shot your foot. Now you should realize that only the misguided or uninformed might have made it to this point. A rational person would have realized that the same uncertainty that applied to whether or not eternal torment existed would also apply to the motives of the consigning agent, and that it would not have been prudent to change from her default position of unbelief. You never allowed that unbelief might be included in the set of beliefs that are also alleged to provide an escape. And you shot yourself in the foot when you didn't consider the ramifications to your run-off decision theory defense. Heh heh heh. Your foot's still bleeding rhutchin; seek aid quickly! The threat is inherently unquantifiable as are the motives of the consigning agent. Therefore, the costs of seeking a solution may indeed exceed the benefits of doing nothing (remaining in the default position of unbelief).

So, we might have some people who don't consider mythological accounts threatening, like those in Christian mythology. The wager is irrelevant to them, since p=0 absent credible evidence.

We might have some people who recognize that all aspects of the afterlife are inherently unknowable. The wager can't get started for them, since they refuse to assign p.

We might have some people who are already adherents of one sort of religion or another and consider themselves safe from eternal torment. They won't use the wager.

As Mageth pointed out, we might have some people who presume God's existence but suspect they haven't jumped through enough hoops to be really safe from damnation. They might use the wager, just not in the same manner or fashion that you've been preaching, since their use results in reinforcement, not change.

Or, we might have some people who are uncertain whether eternal torment is real. The wager is useless for them, since they are equally as uncertain of the motives behind the consigning agent. After all, it would be foolish for someone to conclude that they should act if they hadn't first proved with certainty that God didn't despise credulity or idolatry.

The only prudent choice is unbelief. Unless, of course, you have absolute proof that God doesn't admire intellectual integrity and despise credulity?

DMW

Your limited quote doesn't even come close to what I said or even meant... unless you are saying that "if we use the wager, we must conclude that there is no threat" is a true statement... in which case, you merely prove that the wager wasn't necessary in the first place, since it supposedly hinges on a perceived threat.

DMW

aa5874

Rhutchin, the Wager we have before us, bears the name of Pascal, hence Pascal's Wager. If Pascal argued for the rejection of all gods except the Biblical god, then that argument must be taken into account in PASCAL'S WAGER. We are not just dealing with any arbitrary wager, we are discussing PASCAL'S WAGER.

Pascal's argument has distorted the Wager that bears his name. The error has virtually eliminated Gods that have been believed long before the Christian Gods. A devout Hindu, a devout Muslim or a devout Mormon would discard Pascal's Wager.

Pascal's Wager only has validity when one God is believeable and the others are false. An uncertain person does not know if one are any Gods are believeable , if any Gods exist or if Hell is a real place, it is therefore irrational to use Pascal's Wager.

The very evidence before our eyes shows us, in the real world, that the Christian Gods have been rejected by the majority. Pascal's Wager has suffered the same fate.
Rhutchin you have failed, Pascal's Wager is useless rubbish.

DMW

This is now the second post by knotted paragon that utterly destroys - beyond any doubt - both the actual wager and rhutchin's interpretation of it in less than 24 hours. Whether in English or ASL, I think the best way to say what I'm thinking is "amazing" (see here for the ASL version).

DMW

aa5874

Rhutchin, belief in any God entails a cost, even if that God does not exist. We are aware of that fact in the real world. Pascal erred in his Wager.

aa5874

Rhutchin, can I just accept one more thing without first verifying it is true?You may be eternally tormented in this life and the one to come by the same God you believe in. In this case, you can accept the Bible because it cannot be verified and you assume the risk if you are wrong.

Rhutchin, using your own words, you have destroyed the Wager. Pascal's Wager has no predictable outcome. Belief does not gaurantee escape from eternal torment.

We cannot conduct an experiment where we also create Eternal Torment. My guess is that you prabably accept Eternal Torment without first verifying that it is true.

Rhutchin, you have failed miserably, you have destroyed the Wager.
Pascal's Wager is useless garbage.

Johnny Skeptic

Message to rhutchin: In order to properly discuss the Bible, we first have to be reasonably certain what writings comprise it. By what means have you determined that the Bible is the word of God? Are you an inerrantist? If so, why?

You frequently mention risk assessment, but where loving God is concerned, which is definitely a requirement for believers, risk assessment is not an issue at all. In order for a rational person to love God, such a person must have sufficient reasons to do so. Unfortunately for Christians, there are not sufficient for people to love God, that is, unless we change the widely accepted definitions for love, tolerance, consistency, and fairness. Many books have been written on this subject, but I will list some of my reasons for you:

1 - 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?” Such behavior on God’s part is detestable and unnecessary.

2 - God allows animals to suffer, even though no animal has ever committed a sin. Such behavior on God’s part is detestable and unnecessary.

3 - In the Old Testament, God ordered the death penalty for a Jew who killed another Jew, but not for a Jew who killed a slave. Such behavior on God’s part was detestable and unnecessary.

4 - God created Hurricane Katrina and sent it to New Orleans. Such behavior on God’s part was detestable and unnecessary.

5 - Today, the best evidence indicates that good things and bad things are not distributed to those who are in greatest need. Such behavior on God’s part is detestable and unnecessary.

6 - There is not sufficient evidence that God provides evidence of his existence and love on a personal, tangible, daily, first hand basis. Such conduct cannot possibly be of any benefit to God, and it most certainly is not of any benefit to humans. God’s perennial absence has led to millennia of wars and doubt, even causing wars and hatred within Christianity, the Protestant Reformation being a good example. Without God’s direct, personal guidance, Christian nations have accounted for the largest colonial empire in history by far, an empire taken by means of persecution, murder, and theft of property. In addition, for about 90% of the time since Christianity was founded, the majority of Christians endorsed slavery and the subjugation of women. This is what happens when a supposed God relies upon human proxies instead of speaking for himself. James 1:5 says "If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him." Either the verse is not true, or Christians do not ask God for wisdom, receive it, and act upon it.

God would have nothing whatsoever to lose if he were to clearly reveal himself to everyone, and mankind would have much to gain if he did so. The fact that God does not choose to do so indicates that he does not exist, or that if he exists, he is not worthy of love and respect.

You have mentioned the miracles that Jesus supposedly performed, but your claim is not at all convincing. Today, millions of Christians disagree as to what constitutes a miracle healing. Why do you believe that it was any different back then?

You have also mentioned the words that Jesus supposedly spoke, but we can’t be reasonable certain what he said. The anonymous Gospel writers always wrote in the third person, so they never personally witnessed anything that they wrote about. In addition, they never mentioned who their sources were, which were second hand at best.

Regarding Resurrection, if there was a Resurrection, why do you assume that the supposedly risen Jesus was not Satan in disguise? 2 Corinthians 11:14-15 say “And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light. Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also be transformed as the ministers of righteousness; whose end shall be according to their works.” In other words, why would you find it at all unusual if such was actually the case?

7 - God clearly shows himself in tangible ways to some people, but not to everyone. Such behavior on God’s part is detestable and unnecessary, as well as God’s refusal to explain himself regarding this matter.

8 - God has never provided sufficient reasons for his actions and allowances. Adam and Eve eating forbidden fruit is most certainly not a sufficient reason. If Adam and Eve had no knowledge of good and evil, they were treated unfairly by God.

9 - Since it cannot be reasonably proven that God is perfect, his judgments do not have any validity as far as fairness is concerned. If he has the power to enforce his judgments, that does not automatically mean that his judgments are fair.

10 - 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.” The verses preclude any reasonable possibility that the God of the Bible exists AND is someone who should be loved and respected.

11 - You are a Calvinist. I will at least give the majority of Christians credit for knowing that Calvinism is patently absurd. If God chooses who will be saved, then why are you asking people to make a wager? If God chooses who will be saved, how do you explain a book that was written by Kosmin and Lachman that is titled One Nation Under God. Billy Graham endorses the book, but I do not have any idea why. The authors cite a lot of documented evidence that shows that in the U.S., the major factors that influence religious beliefs are geography, family, race, ethnicity, gender, and age. This precludes any reasonable possibility that Calvinism is true because the aforementioned factors are secular. God would not likely make his choices based upon predictable and analyzable factors. In addition, the factors also apply to other religions.

So, Rhutchin, you are wasting your time discussing risk assessment since even if everyone believed that the God of the Bible exists, it is impossible for rational, fair minded people to love God based upon the evidence that we have to consider at this time.

aa5874

Rhutchin, I quote you, "Pascal reasoned that the rational person could decide to believe in God (Jesus) and be wrong or the rational person could decide not to believe in God and be wrong".

Rhutchin, once a person believes in God(Jesus) and is wrong, such a person cannot determine the penalty. It is up to the other Gods, if they exist. We know , in the real world, that a person who believes in God(Jesus) can be executed by believers of other Gods. These other Gods may then torment that unbeliever. Double jeopardy.

Rhutchin,in the real world, unbelievers in God(Jesus) have also been executed and burnt to the stake by believers of God(Jesus). God(Jesus) may then torment those unbelievers. Double jeopardy.

All positions , in the real world, involve significant penalty, even if the Gods do not exist. Once there exist believers in any God,real or unreal, those very same believers may inflict penalties on other unbelievers.

Rhutchin, you have failed miserably. Pascal's Wager is useless garbage.

rhutchin

I agree. What does all this have to do with the Wager?

What does this have to do with the preceding statements?