Wayne Delia

That is true; there's a material difference between "You (OrbitV2) are unable to explain why it's a fallacy" and "I (rhutchin) am unable to understand your (OrbitV2's) explanation of why it's a fallacy." In previous threads, rhutchin has maintained a demolished position, even after it was shot down more than 50 times by different people explaining the same basic logical fallacies.

I notice he's not come close to addressing my sincere question of how many people he thinks he's persuaded that he's correct in these threads.

WMD

aa5874

Rhutchin, you're right. Who knows what the future holds? There is even hope that one day one of the Non-christian Gods might save Rhutchin from eternal torment. Who knows.

knotted paragon

Do you buy into the myth argument of Tartarus? How 'bout the myth argument for Allah? Zeus? Osiris, Baal, Shiva, no? Why aren't you considering and addressing their threats? After all, belief in Jesus won't save you if Allah is God. Are you saying that you don't consider any extraordinary claim made throughout history to be a myth or superstition? Then I reckon you are risking it. Why is the bible special? Why didn't you dismiss its threats and promises the same way you dismissed all the other claims made throughout history that you've been exposed to? While the first sentence is true, you have said that before; the second one is different from past statements, and amounts to capitulation. In the past, you've always maintained that indifference and unbelief were irrational absent proof of the non-existence of hell, so this is a marked change in your thinking. If unbelief can (or must as you say) compete with all the other gods/beliefs when deliberating uncertainty, then it erodes your imposed binary limitation. The addition of unbelief as a valid option has severe repercussions for the wager, since it restructures the initial decision matrix with extra rows and columns.

You see rhutchin, what you've been doing for the last months is responding to the many gods argument against the wager with the "run-off decision theory" defense, in which you’d like a person to use one type of reasoning (in your case, prudential considerations) to choose religion over non-religion, and then another type of reasoning (for you epistemic concerns) to sort among the set of religious beliefs. But unbelief throws a wrench into your reasoning if allowed into the 'religion' category - it would be a viable option on both sides of your initial choice. Since the wager is asking us to evaluate the realized utility of choices in the face of uncertain threats in the afterlife, prudence would dictate we choose the option which provides the greatest utility on the only side of the equation we can reliably evaluate: the moments of our lifetime. In this case unbelief is the clear winner by default, since it covers both sides of the prudential question and results in the least cost to the moments of our lifetimes while at the same time not offending any possible gods who might despise credulity or idolatry.

And so, your question of last January 3rd: is now answered. If you allow unbelief into your initial decision matrix it is the only rational conclusion, and you are forced to concede that your belief in YHWH is irrational.

DMW

Rhutchin, you act as though this has never - in all of history - been an issue and that you don't know how to use Google to find the millions of pages that address the issue.

In that case, you should consider the possibility of my cockamamie example of an alien spacecraft behind the moon... after all, you have to fully believe it in order to not be shipped to a planet where you will have your fingernails and toenails removed, and the consequences of not fully believing it are severe.

You don't seem to be getting it. Absolutely anything is possible. It's possible that you are a talking monkey. However, absent evidence, no one can know if such is the case. If it's ok to believe that your god might be real and might torment people, it is equally ok to think that you are nothing more than a talking monkey.

Hence, the problem. Even if we assume there is such a thing as eternal torment or a means of escaping it (thus giving you credit in TWO places, for the sake of argument), you still have NO WAY of determining which is the correct path to escape eternal torment... making the wager as useless as it has been throughout this thread.

The number of gods is relevant... specifically the number of gods threatening eternal torment for various contradictory reasons. Unless you know which god is threatening eternal torment for which reason, the wager is entirely useless.

DMW

DMW

I have only one thing to say about this... bravo. That pretty much sums up why rhutchin is wrong and why the wager is useless.

DMW

rhutchin

Yes, I agree. It all depends on who the real God is. God knows the future and has already determined that which He will do. God might have even determined that He will save you as well as Wayne Delia.

rhutchin

There has been the allegation of a fallacy in the Wager, and the only way people have explained that fallacy is by making the Wager to be something that it is not. That hardly qualifies as an explanation. Where's the logic in that?

JPD

Or if indeed it exists in the first instance.

Inconsistent with your first statement. But non-demonstratable in any case.

Have you performed a risk analysis for speaking on behalf of deities, ie. being presumptive? Aware of God's representative on earth consideration but you seem to be extending it to deciding what it is that God will do.

rhutchin

Sure, within the context of the Bible God exists and is that which the Bible says He is.

That may be circular reasoning, but aren't you responding with circular reasoning? You say that there is no God because you say that there is no God. What is your source of objective truth that might make your reasoning any less circular than that which you allege to be a fault of those who accept the Bible? When it comes to arguments about God, what is not circular reasoning?

JPD

To say that there is no God is correct since the individual stating it has recognised - and is asserting - that the criteria he or she has set for establishing whether or not (whichever particular) God exists have not been met - knowingly by the God that you believe exists. Your God knew that he/she/it would fail this test and cannot blame anyone but itself for failing to meet the criteria set.