JPD

Well that's the easy bit out of the way. Anyone can claim that they are God - now the challenge starts. BTW Where did I say that I believe God under these conditions? That isn't my position.

Anyway, the alien now has to perform at least one miracle. It has to be carried out under scientific conditions. Each hypothetical miracle has to be repeated.

JPD

I see. You assume that the snake was poisonous? If it was that no-one sucked the poison out? I don't think purpose really comes into it - the hope that one would survive after accidentally drinking poison would be insufficient no matter how deeply one felt that God was "working through one". Try putting it to the test and see how long you last.

rhutchin

The locals seemed to think it was poisonous. Paul, we are told, just shook the snake off and went about his business.

Any specifics on a test that you think would work? How do you create a test for an accident without destoying the "accidental" or unforseen aspect of the test?

rhutchin

You're not carrying around a lot of religious emotional baggage like some others are you? I merely (maybe falsely) presumed you to be a rational person.

Once you find the alien, let's do your tests. The only problem is if the alien appears to someone else, does some powerful type things, and we only have that person's word for it. Lot of uncertainty there.

JamesBannon

And we only have your word that this is what your God would do. Besides this, if faced with such a threat, would you rather not fight? I would. No man, alien or god is sovereign over my own conscience. It has served me reasonably well, although it not inerrent by a long way, and I see no good reason to cede sovereignty to anyone else no matter how powerful they claim to be.

JPD

Maybe it has already been tested - although the degree to which each was an accident could be unknown. But if you looked at human death stats for different snake species and examined the religious affiliation (or not) of the deceased do you think that any pattern would emerge? I would hazard a guess that it wouldn't but if such figures could be pulled together perhaps we could see.

JPD

Logical, reasonable, intelligent? I hope so. I don't believe things automatically on the basis of assumed authority. I require some form of verification/validation.

Indeed so although it could be interesting it wouldn't be particularly useful. Personal testimony might be an accurate reflection of events but the part that chance plays could be significant. That we don't know doesn't invalidate it but it doesn't validate it either. It can't really be used.

Wiploc

I agree. And since the alien is much more plausible than Jehovah, I think you, Rhutchin, should be worshiping the alien right now. At least that's what the Wager would have you do.

crc

Wiploc

I like to think I'm a logical person. If you can show me an error in my logic, then I want to change.

I agree that it's logical to try to avoid eternal torment if eternal torment seems to be a risk. I think dead is dead---so there is no risk of eternal anything---but I suppose I could be wrong. Supposing that I am wrong about the afterlife, I see no logical reason to imagine that believing in Jehovah will reduce the risk of torment. Why isn't non-belief just as likely to save me?

With no reason to believe in an afterlife, and no reason to believe that belief would improve the afterlife if it did exist, it seems to me that logic would have me respond to the Wager with indifference.

What part of the above is the part you are calling an emotional reaction? What part do you disagree with? I thought you were going to say that we were in agreement on the wager as long as I agreed that I would try to avoid eternal torment if I thought it was an avoidable risk.





I'm with you. (With the stated caveats: the Wager only kicks in if there is reason to believe that eternal torment is possible, is avoidable, and that we know how to avoid it.)



I'm not trying to argue against it. If eternal torment is a risk, if it can be avoided, and if there is something we can do to avoid it, then we should do that something. I'm with you.

Whether it really is a risk, and what we should do to avoid it if it is, you've said you don't want to discuss in this thread. So, as near as I can tell, for the purposes of this thread, we are in complete agreement. Only now that we've agreed, you act like we haven't; so I'm confused. Why aren't you admitting that we've agreed with what you say you want us to agree with?



What emotion? What decision? You've lost me.

If you want to toss charges of emotionalism around like insults, I think you are a Christian for emotional reasons. I don't see any logical reason to believe in Jehovah, so I assume you have emotional reasons. But do I keep bringing this up in a thread about Pascal's Wager? No, I don't want to derail the logical discussion with emotional bombs, so I don't. (Hint, hint.)

crc

rhutchin

I agree, too.