Freethought & Rationalism Archive

rhutchin · 01-20-2006, 04:21 AM

Quote:

rhutchin
No, you have created a separation that is not there. There is no eternal torment without God. If there is no God, then there is no eternal torment. Degree of believe is irrelevant. The person either accepts the possiblity of eternal torment (because he cannot prove otherwise) or he doesn't. The rest of your argument makes no sense. Pascal's Wager divorces emotion from the decision that one makes. It is the continuing attempt by atheists and others to introduce emotion into the decision-making process that leads to irrational arguments such as you present. The Wager provides a simple straighforward argument with a simple rational conclusion that can only be clouded by emotion.

Dlx2
Eternal torment is not a logical conclusion based on the existence of God. It's a conclusion based only on the existence of a single brand of Christian God.

If you're Jewish and follow all the commandments and you believe in God but not Jesus, do you receive eternal torment? What if you follow all the commandments except for burning witches and killing homosexuals? What if you're a Christian and believe in Jesus, but you don't honor your father and mother? What if you believe that Jesus might have been God, but you're not certain? What if you believe with all your heart in Jesus and ask forgiveness for your sins, but your sins include murder and rape?

The probability of receiving eternal torment is dependent on the existence not of God, but of a specific version of God. God is also apparently merciful, so it's not clear whether or not he's going to roast you eternally for some little mistake, like believing that an obviously absurd book written millenia ago is possibly false. The number of factors which affect the possibility of eternal torment effectively produces a binomial distribution, which is a continuous function. The degree of effect of believing in God on your mortal life is also a continuous function. So, instead of simply maximizing the chance that you're going to go to heaven, you want to maximize your chance of going to heaven but also minimize the negative effect of belief on your mortal life. Finding the break-even point basically requires deciding the probability of God. If you believe God is a very likely existence, it is more important to maximize your chance of receiving divine favor. If you believe God is unlikely to exist, it becomes more important to minimize the negative effects of belief.

Granting all that, is it in your self-interest to seek to avoid eternal torment?

JPD · 01-20-2006, 04:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhutchin

Sure. Wouldn't you??

On what basis would YOU accept him?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

If a powerful alien came to earth, claimed to be God, but not the God of the Bible

The alien is claiming to be God but NOT the God of the Bible.

rhutchin · 01-20-2006, 04:26 AM

Quote:

rhutchin
OK. Where does Sauron say that the concept of eternal torment is derived?

Sauron
Deriving eternal torment - and whether it is even possible to do so - is your problem to solve. You are the proponent of pascals wager, not I.

If Sauron can determine whether it would be in his interest to escape eternal torment (without even having to grant that eternal torment is a reality), then we can continue this discussion.

rhutchin · 01-20-2006, 04:33 AM

Quote:

rhutchin
Sure. Wouldn't you??

JPD
On what basis would YOU accept him?

Given that powerful Alien is standing in front of you telling you what he will do and you are powerless to stop him, I think that is basis enough. Wouldn’t you do the same?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

If a powerful alien came to earth, claimed to be God, but not the God of the Bible

JPD
The alien is claiming to be God but NOT the God of the Bible.

A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush, so to speak. If the god of the Bible allows a powerful alien to usurp his authority (contrary to that which he claims in the Bible), then you go with the alien.

Of course,until a person is confronted with Skeptic's powerful alien, he would rationally decide to listen to the Biblical god.

JPD · 01-20-2006, 04:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhutchin

Given that powerful Alien is standing in front of you telling you what he will do and you are powerless to stop him, I think that is basis enough. Wouldn’t you do the same?

I would ask that he demonstrates his skills - I wouldn't automatically assume that his claims were true.

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhutchin

A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush, so to speak. If the god of the Bible allows a powerful alien to usurp his authority (contrary to that which he claims in the Bible), then you go with the alien.

Of course,until a person is confronted with Skeptic's powerful alien, he would rationally decide to listen to the Biblical god.

So would you accept the alien's claim that God had allowed him? I wouldn't and I would request evidence of this AND a demonstration of his skills.

rhutchin · 01-20-2006, 04:48 AM

Quote:

rhutchin
That is the promise that we find in the Bible.

Wayne Delia
We also notice in the Bible that many promises are either broken, or they never worked at all. For example, in Mark 16:17-18, Jesus promises that Christians ("those who believe") would have all sorts of magical super-powers, including the abilities to heal any illness by laying on of hands, the ability to drink any poison without harm, and the ability to handle any venomous snakes safely. We can easily see that those promises don't work...

You seem to have a hard time understanding context which is very important when reading anything and especially the Bible. Mark does not tell us that believers have magical powers. It says that God will work through them when called for.

JPD · 01-20-2006, 04:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhutchin

You seem to have a hard time understanding context which is very important when reading anything and especially the Bible. Mark does not tell us that believers have magical powers. It says that God will work through them when called for.

God will work through them to enable them to drink any poison without harm etc? No? Then the claim is nothing more. It has nothing to do with context - it is a claim that cannot be substantiated.

rhutchin · 01-20-2006, 04:53 AM

Quote:

rhutchin
Given that powerful Alien is standing in front of you telling you what he will do and you are powerless to stop him, I think that is basis enough. Wouldn’t you do the same?

JPD
I would ask that he demonstrates his skills - I wouldn't automatically assume that his claims were true.

I’m with you there. If he is “powerful�? alien, then he should be able to demonstrate the powerful part.

Quote:

rhutchin
A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush, so to speak. If the god of the Bible allows a powerful alien to usurp his authority (contrary to that which he claims in the Bible), then you go with the alien.

Of course,until a person is confronted with Skeptic's powerful alien, he would rationally decide to listen to the Biblical god.

JPD
So would you accept the alien's claim that God had allowed him? I wouldn't and I would request evidence of this AND a demonstration of his skills.

Hmmmm! If powerful alien says that God allowed him to act, then that would mean that God exists (or at least powerful alien believes that God exists). So, I’m with you in believing God under these conditions until powerful alien proves that he is more powerful than God.

rhutchin · 01-20-2006, 04:57 AM

Quote:

rhutchin
You seem to have a hard time understanding context which is very important when reading anything and especially the Bible. Mark does not tell us that believers have magical powers. It says that God will work through them when called for.

JPD
God will work through them to enable them to drink any poison without harm etc? No? Then the claim is nothing more. It has nothing to do with context - it is a claim that cannot be substantiated.

We have the account in Acts where Paul is gathering firewood and is bitten by a snake. Paul shakes the snake off his hand and the inhabitants wait for him to die. He does not. Wayne miscontrues the passage to mean that believers should be able to purposely allow snakes to bite them.

rhutchin · 01-20-2006, 05:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mageth

...
I have no reason to believe that 1) there is an afterlife; 2) if there is an afterlife, I may be subjected to "eternal suffering in an afterlife"; 3) a god or god(s) exist; 4) that believing in a god based on a "rational" decision motivated by self-interest will provide relief from suffering in an afterlife; 5) that the bible is a reliable source of information about a god (or any more reliable than any other "source of information" about a god); 6) that any particular interpretation of the Bible (and the "means of salvation) is reliable.

For me, the key place where the Wager fails is that I find no reason whatsoever to believe the "motivating" premise of the Wager - that there is an afterlife, and that there is a threat of eternal suffering in an afterlife. (That's what the Wager rests on; not on proving or disproving a god.)....

That is the position that the Wager assumes the person to take. Now you are ready to conduct the risk analysis of your position. The immediate question is whether you can prove with certainty that you have no reason to believe or whether it is possible that you could be wrong in taking this position. If you are wrong, then you lose everything. If you reverse your position and then find out that you were right, then you lose nothing (i.e., nothing of significance). The rational action is for you to reverse your position.

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.