Freethought & Rationalism Archive

MRM · 02-02-2006, 11:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

I
But that is exactly what an evil, lying, deceptive God would want the Bible to say. The odds are just as good that the Bible describes an evil God who is masquerading as a good God and intends to send everyone to hell. 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.�? Mark 13:22 says “For false Christs and false prophets shall rise, and shall shew signs and wonders, to seduce, if it were possible, even the elect.�? The problem for Paul and Mark is that they didn’t tell believers how to tell the difference between a good God and an evil God.

I would say even worse than 50/50 - just look at all the attrocities sanctioned by the bibel god in the OT ...

So there are good reasons for the claim that this is an evil god.

JPD · 02-02-2006, 12:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhutchin

Pascal's purpose for the Wager was not to identify the god in which a person should believe. The purpose of the Wager was only to guide a person to the rational conclusion that he should believe in God. After having rationally determined that the correct action to take was to believe in God, the person would then have to determine which of the many religions offering a god was espousing the one true God.

But Pascal's wager doesn't guide a person to this "rational" conclusion at all.

The effect of believing or not believing in any God is unknown. The results of any test that might have taken place are unknown. Of all the Gods that could exist no clue is given as to which should be believed in, or what the effects of belief or non-belief could be. It could be that one believes in every God but the one that actually is, so you cannot reduce this to singular God when the possibility exists of many different Gods. The decision to base belief, in any case, upon this soup is far from rational.

There is no evidence that the correct action to take IS to believe in "God" in the first instance. Unless you can establish this you cannot say that belief is safer than non-belief.

Ubercat · 02-02-2006, 12:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhutchin

Maybe, but the question here is whether you could be bribed to admit to your beliefs (no matter how absurd) for some financial (or other) reward.

I'd be willing to tell you my beliefs for free, but uhhh.... how much cash are we talking here?

-Ubercat

Ubercat · 02-02-2006, 12:52 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by JPD
It is an absolute mystery how this discussion has lasted this many pages. God...isn't there in the first place.

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhutchin

If only it were possible for you to prove it to be true. Then no one would spend so many pages discussing the uncertainty inherent in such a bold, but unprovable, assertion.

The opposite would be the easiest thing in the world to prove. god is sadly silent however. The convenient excuse of course, is "He doesn't have to prove anything to you." That's even more convenient than the excuse of faith. "Believing when you have zero evidence makes you an even bigger saint." Many of us would pick a better word than saint.

-Ubercat

Ubercat · 02-02-2006, 12:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhutchin

The reward is, of course, not defined at this point. You are just letting your emotions run rampant. Better keep control of your emotions. One time they got out of control, you were ended up running around pretending that you were a Christian.

Stop trying to tell people what they were and weren't, and what they are and aren't. You only know yourself and can only speak for yourself. To do otherwise is to show yourself ignorant, pompous, arrogant and rude. If he or anyone here was ever a "make believe" christian, then why do some of these guys know the bible better than you do? Also, if you're a "true" christian, why can't you demonstrate the least logic or rationality behind your position?

-Ubercat

Ubercat · 02-02-2006, 12:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhutchin

Ahhh, but there is evidence -- the experiences of many men over many years that have been collected for easy reference in the Bible. People plan for a retirement that is not guaranteed nor certain. Should they not plan for a death that is certain?

What about the experiences of the people in the Qu'ran? They don't count?

-Ubercat

Ubercat · 02-02-2006, 01:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhutchin

Pascal's purpose for the Wager was not to identify the god in which a person should believe. The purpose of the Wager was only to guide a person to the rational conclusion that he should believe in God. After having rationally determined that the correct action to take was to believe in God, the person would then have to determine which of the many religions offering a god was espousing the one true God.

Now you're asserting that Pascal took all other religions seriously, as well as his own. Where is your evidence for this?

-Ubercat

Sauron · 02-02-2006, 07:51 PM

Quote:

Ahhh, but there is evidence -- the experiences of many men over many years that have been collected for easy reference in the Bible.

The problem with that, of course, is that you have no proof that these "men" ever lived, or wrote about their experiences. There are books about Paul Bunyan - that does not mean he ever lived.

Dlx2 · 02-02-2006, 11:58 PM

Rhutchin still has not addressed the problem of life being an infinite set of moments with finite temporal bounds.

Alf · 02-03-2006, 01:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhutchin

The Wager has two options--

1. Believe in God.
2. Do not believe in God.

The conclusion is to believe in God.

Above, you have not argued for the Do not believe in God option (as your citation also avoids doing) and rightfully so. Instead you argue that God can be any of a many alleged gods or beliefs. That is not a flaw in the Wager. You merely have described the situation a person faces after having applied the Wager and correctly determined that the rational action is to believe in God.

The point is that the conclusion is based on faulty reasoning and premises.

I gave you a wager. You could either believe there is no tiger lurking behind you or you could believe there IS a tiger lurking behind you ready to attack you at my command.

Following Pascal's wager you should believe it exist and follow my wishes and command whenever I make it known to you. The reasoning is simple.

If you believe there is a tiger there and that lead you to follow my command and do as I say, then there are two options. If there is a tiger there you will live a joyful life - the tiger will function as your body guard and protect you. If there is no tiger, you will still live a joyful life althogh in this case you are on your own.

If you do NOT believe there is a tiger there and you do not follow my command and do as I say then there are also two options. If there is a tiger there, he will devour you and you will die in pain and agony. If there is no tiger then you will live a joyful life on your own.

Clearly then, the safest option is to believe there is a tiger there and follow my command and do as I say because that lead you to a long life guaranteed.

Yet, in this case you make a sudden appeal to evidence and call for evidence is fair enough but then you must call for evidene in all such cases. Clearly, the lack of evidence in favor of your god and the eternal torment indicate that it is irrational to follow him. So, if you decline the tiger belief the rational thing would be to also decline Pascal's wager. However, and this is why you are irrational, you choose to decline the tiger belief but not the god belief. You somehow say there is one rule for tigers and another rule for god. Why is that? This is the irrationality of your decision. It should be the same rules for all cases.

Alf

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

02-02-2006, 11:58 PM	#1119
Dlx2 Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2005 Location: Boulder, CO Posts: 2,546	Rhutchin still has not addressed the problem of life being an infinite set of moments with finite temporal bounds.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.