rhutchin

Technically, X includes all beliefs that purport to provide an escape from eternal torment. So, your belief would not be a nonbelief in X but a nonbelief in X(1)...X(n) and believe in your position X(a). Your position is just one of many “beliefs� that are included in X.

You may have wanted to argue for not believing in X because there is no eternal torment. That is find where you can prove that there is no eternal torment. If you cannot prove that there is no eternal torment, then you can propose the belief that nonbelief in the other gods/beliefs in X is the only way to escape eternal torment.

Given that the nonbelief option (as a means to escape eternal torment) is no better or worse than the other options, one would stand an equal chance choosing any option as that one. Again, the Wager determines that a person should “believe� in something in order to escape eternal torment and if a person “believes� that nonbelief provides an escape from eternal torment, then he has the option to believe in that.

You are not arguing for nonbelief in eternal torment as a valid option where one is not certain whether there is eternal torment. You are arguing for nonbelief as one means to escape eternal torment.

JPD

You would think, wouldn't you, that all this mathematical treatment might enhance the validity of the wager. But no, you're just erecting a few chocolate fenders in front of the fire of rationality. They don't last very long and the carpet is starting to smell.

Alf

You have to differentiate between two things.

The bible can be accepted as evidence that the events in the bible really took place provided that the bible is otherwise found acceptable as evidence.

However, it cannot be accepted as evidence that the bible is true. No witness testimony can be taken as evidence that the witness testimony is true. Let me explain.

If a witness says "Yes, I saw that man hold the gun in his hand on the way out" then that is a statement submissable to the court as a piece of evidence. However, if he state "I am telling the truth your honor" that is NOT counted as a piece of evidence in particular it is not counted as evidence if the honesty of the witness is under dispute.

In other words: you must FIRST establish that the bible is true and THEN you can submit it as evidence.

Failing that first step render the bible useless as evidence. Specifically it cannot be used as evidence over the question "is the bible true". I.e. "the bible is true because it says so" isn't acceptable evidence.

Also, in order to be credible the document cannot contain any contradictions. I.e. before you submit the bible as evidence - as a minimum - you must reconcile a substantial portion of the appearant contradictions in the bible. Further, your reconciliation must be coherent. I.e. you cannot explain one chapter by assuming X and another by assuming not-X. This render most of the christian web-sites' "explanations" of the contradictions invalid, thus simply referencing them or referring to them is not acceptable. You must provide the list on your own.

I personally want to hear how you settle the question on when Jesus was born. Was he born while Herod was king or was he born while the census in Judea decreed by Augustus was held?

I also want to know what was the name of Joseph's father. Joseph being Jesus' father.

To you those questions may seem irrelevant or unimportant but if you claim the bible as evidence they are of extreme importance and relevance.

Alf

JPD

Nice bit of work there Alf.

rhutchin

Evidence does not have to be true. The jury decides if it is true. The witness merely provides information that he believes to be true and this is evidence that the jury considers. The Biblical writers provide evidence that they believe is true (usually because they were eyewitnesses to that which they recorded).

The appearance of contradiction does not negate information as evidence, but it can negate the usefulness of the evidence. The Bible may appear to have contradictions in the face of insufficient information.

Jesus is alleged to have been born in 7 BC. Augustus seems to be famous for conducting censuses, one of which occurred around 7 BC and is recorded in the gospels and another that occurred around 8 AD that is recorded in historical sources other than the Bible.

Both Matthew and Luke make it clear that Joseph was NOT the biological father of Jesus. Matthew is careful NOT to say that Joseph begat Jesus and says, "And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus." Here, we see that Jacob begat Joseph making Jacob the father of Joseph. In Luke, we also find language that shows that Joseph was not the father of Jesus where it says - "And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, - being, as was supposed, the son of Joseph - which was of Heli." The KJV version has, in Luke, the term, "son of," but this term appears in italics to indicate that it was not in the greek text and was introduced by the translator to clarify what he though was meant. When Luke records that Jesus was of Heli, some commentators believe this to mean that Heli would have been His grandfather on His mother's side.

Johnny Skeptic

That is not true. NONE of the anonymous Gospel writers EVER claimed to have witnessed a miracle. They ALWAYS wrote in the third person. At best their evidence was second hand, and possibly third hand, fourth hand etc. Of course, you are only interested in evidence if it appeals to your own self interest. If a powerful evil being showed up, did not identify himself, demonstrated what you believed were supernatural powers, said that he planned to send everyone to hell, and left the earth, you would hope that he either lied or would be unable to send everyone to hell. Under that scenario, I would hope the very same thing.

I notice that you did not reply to my post #1452, so here it is again:

Not at all. If a powerful being came to earth, proved that he had abilities that were God-like, otherwise stated, far beyond the abilities of humans, did not identity himself, claimed that he planned to send everyone to hell, and left the earth, just like you, I would hope that he would be unable to carry out his threat to send everyone to hell. You are only interested in the evidence in the Bible because it appeals to your self-interest, most certainly NOT because you find it to be convincing.

But the information that the elect and everyone else have does not indicate that the odds are better than 50/50 that God will send believers to heaven and not to hell.

There might be other beings in the universe who can convert matter into energy, and one of them might have created the universe. Regarding “God is that which the Bible describes him to be, no more, no less,� upon what evidence do you base your assertion?

But is God is evil and deceptive, he would inspire the very same writings that you find to be appealing.

Yes, exactly what an evil, deceptive God would want it to say.

That is fine as long as you do not claim that the odds are better than 50/50 that God is good.

Sauron

And I am saying that the rule has already been nailed down.

Your problem is that you cannot meet the definition of evidence that already exists, so you seek to re-open the discussion about what constitutes evidence.

It doesn't surprise me at all that you agree to such a flimsy offering as napkin scribbling. If you can get the bar lowered far enough, you hope to get the bible admitted.

Sauron

You seem to have the burden of proof reversed. You need to develop the argument in favor of admitting your evidence. I do not have to create a counter-argument. You are the one arguing before the court, trying to convince it of the alleged truth of something. So when you present your "proofs", you need to have all the problems, kinks and discrepancies worked out before you arrive.

When you do this work, then we'll have something to discuss. But until you do, you are no better than the wandering vagabond who walks into a court and claims to have seen a giant pink rabbit. I've seen far, far better debaters with more experience on the topics at hand unable to survive the scrutiny of their submissions. So if you think you can do better, then be my guest.

Incorrect.
The question is not about what the bible says. The question is whether or not the statements are accurate or not.

I know what the Iliad and the Odyssey say. That is an entirely different question than whether the Iliad and Odyssey are accurate or not.

If such obvious distinctions apparently fly over your head, how do you expect to support your case here?

Moreover, relevancy is connected to the question of whether the proof offered to the court is connected to, and actually substantiates, whatever claim is being argued. I can present proof that I paid my electric bill last month. But if I'm trying to argue that the world is only 6,000 years old, then the question arises: how in the world does your electric bill relate to the age of the earth? Why does an electric bill support an argument like that? The problem with christians is that they offer A in support of B. But they never succeed in connecting A to B in any chain of relevancy.

None of which apply here. The "proofs" offered in the bible are worse than hearsay. At least with hearsay, we have the second-hand witness in the courtroom, and we can ask him/her questions about what they claim to have heard. With the bible, we cannot even do that. Indeed, the bible doesn't even rise to the standard of hearsay. The bible is 5th or 6th hand, with unknown authors in many cases, and makes claims about what someone else allegedly said or did.

And by the way: the hearsay rule is hardly your friend, either.
http://profs.lp.findlaw.com/litigation/evidence12.html

Arguing your case based upon exceptions in the hearsay law only shows how capricious the hearsay law is. It varies from state to state, jurisdiction to jurisdiction. If that is the best case you can make for the bible -- a scavenger hunt for the appropriate exception to the hearsay rule -- then you don't have much of a case in the first place.

Now you've resorted to lying; I did explain them. Let me refresh your deliberately omissive memory:

3. Plus, notice the term "other technicalities". If someone tried to claim in a court of law that they saw dancing leprechauns or an invisible tiger, do you think that testimony might be excluded from evidence based upon "technicalities"? Yeah, I think you do know that it would be. Those same kind of technicalities also prevent the bible claims from being considered evidence.


1. lack of supporting evidence
2. availability of contradictory evidence

That's what would be offered - and that's why the dancing leprechauns and invisible tiger testimony would be tossed out. Any reason why your bible shouldn't be grouped with them?

Sauron

Wrong again. What did I tell you about making up things about topics you don't understand?

What the extreme example does is show you the parallels to your own heaven/hell scenario. I have no more evidence for Pizza Aliens from Galaxy 9 than you do for your own heaven/hell scenario. And without such evidence, both of them will be rejected as risks. They are figments of the imagination, until such time as actual evidence is brought forth to support them. Vague musings without supporting evidence don't deserve any consideration at all. Vague musings written down in a book also don't qualify, since they are merely the written form of the same internal musings that used to be in someone's head.

Evidence. The only thing that matters. And you don't have any.

The problem for you is that the same reasons we dismiss extreme scenarios like the Pizza Aliens also apply to your heaven/hell scenario.

As usual, you guess incorrectly on both counts. I do prepare risk management plans; I work for an engineering firm. And no, I do not work for the government.

The bottom line here is that you guessed about something you had no experience dealing with, and are now unwilling to admit that you goofed. In this thread, there have been several occasions when you have simply been incorrect - no shades of debate or wishy-washy relativism, just flat out wrong. But your ego cannot seem to accept that fact. Well, it's just happened again, with the project management assumptions that you made here.

You're ducking and weaving. That is not what my original scenario was. I said that the mere fact that a child has a nightmare does not alter the certainty that boogeymen do not exist. And by like extension, just because you say "uncertainty exists" about something, that does not mean that it actually exists. To repeat:

Uncertainty about boogeymen does not exist merely because a 4 year old child had a bad dream.

The parent calmed an unreasonable fear that was not based in facts or evidence. Fears not based in facts or evidence are irrational, by definition. If that is what you call "uncertainty", then your heaven/hell scenario probably fits in quite well.


The problem is that uncertainty does not exist just because the wager says it does. Just like the child above, uncertainty does not exist just because he/she has a nightmare about boogeymen.


Well, no - not really true. What gives rise to actual uncertainty about the facts of a sitaution is new evidence or contradictory evidence. Irrational fears - by definition, those fears not based in evidence -- are not proof of uncertainty. They are proof of irrationality.

So? Some people become nervous or indecisive as a result of reading their horoscopes; we aren't talking about what particular irrational fears make a person nervous. We're talking about whether or not uncertainty, in the sense of being unsure about the facts of a situation, can be changed merely because someone conjures up a hypothetical scenario in their mind. It cannot.

The fact that people can be made indecisive by silly things like fortune-telling, bad dreams, or a lunatic claiming to have seen martians does not really mean that uncertainty exists in any universal sense. It merely means that irrational behavior is more commonplace that people like to admit.

Sauron

Incorrect. You need to establish the bona fides of whatever proof you offer. The jury decides if the case you are building using that proof is believable or not.

This is analogous to a theory in science. In order to pull together a theory in science (or a case before the jury), you need to demonstrate that the various data points you are relying upon to weave your tale are true and accurate. If your foundational claims are not true, then your final assumptions will be flawed as well. So it is up to you to demonstrate that to the court.

And by the way: science is a more appropriate framework to judge the bible claims with anyhow, since we use the scientific framework when juding other texts from antiquity. And since the rules of evidence vary by state, juridisction, country, etc. there is less room for ambiguity or "wiggle" on the part of christians.

1. In point of fact, you need to establish that they were eyewitnesses. You have not done so.

2. Moreover, you have not even defined who these "witnesses" are. In a courtroom, if you call John Jones to the stand to have him testify about a murder, the first step is to validate the identity of the witness. You have not done that either.

1. The contradictions are real, not apparent. As such, you need to reconcile them before you can introduce the proof into the court. If you tried to present a claim that John Jones killed someone in Chicago, but then your witness said he was in Los Angeles at the same time, you wouldn't be allowed to present the evidence until you got the problem straightened out.

2. If you think that insufficient information exists, then fill in the gaps for us. But claiming that there is missing information, without proof that such information does exist, is simply wishful thinking. "Your honor, I can't explain the apparent contradiction, but really, truly, honest injun - I know it's out there. Please grant me my request." Not bloodly likely.

The problem is that doesn't work. There was no census at 7 BCE
http://www.infidels.org/library/mode...us.html#census