Freethought & Rationalism Archive

JamesBannon · 02-18-2006, 06:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhutchin

Hmmmmm! Is this really something that you need to be convinced of???

I know I don't deserve it, no man does no matter what the crime. I will not grovel to a tyrant, so if I'm going to be hung I might as well be hung as a sheep rather than as a lamb.

Let's say it's a human tyrant who is going to inflict unimaginable suffering on you as a victim unless you do exactly as he demands. Would you comply simply in order to save your own skin? That is after all what Pascal's Wager says is the prudent thing to do. Just imagine being ruled by that kind of fear.

Johnny Skeptic · 02-18-2006, 07:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

Actions can be observed, but motives cannot be observed. If God is evil, deceptive, omnipotent, and omnipresent, then by definition, he could duplicate anything that is attributed to the God of the Bible, right?

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhutchin

Yes. As you say, “If.�?

And “if�? the Bible is true, God is good, but that is a big “if.�? You assume facts that are not in evidence. Beneficial actions can be observed, but the motives behind them cannot be observed.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

Even if intelligent design is a given, and even if the supernatural acts that are attributed to God are a given, there are not any reliable criteria for determining what the true nature of God really is.

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhutchin

But there are criteria. You can develop criteria and I can develop criteria. If we could agree on criteria, then we could judge the nature of God by our criteria. If not, then separately by our different criteria.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

Ok, what are your criteria? I don’t know of any criteria that could expose an evil, deceptive, omnipotent, omnipresent God. Any notion that there are such criteria is based upon emotions, not logic.

How do you suppose that an amoral God would act?

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhutchin

I don’t know of any criteria either.

Then why do you believe that God is good?

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhutchin

An amoral god would act from neither a moral nor an immoral desire. An amoral god would then act without feeling (maybe we could use that as a criterion).

But I need some specific examples of how an amoral God would act.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

I asked you “Do you dispute that the odds that God is good are no better than 50/50? If so, where is your evidence?�?

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhutchin

The odds that God is good are 100% because that is how the Bible describes Him.

But you just said that you don’t know of any criteria for determining what the true nature of God really is.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

How did you arrive at that conclusion? Upon what evidence did the Bible writers base their assertions? Please quote chapter and verse.

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhutchin

Mathew 19:17 So …No one is good but One, that is, God. But if you want to enter into life, keep the commandments.

Acts 10:38 how God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Spirit and with power, who went about doing good and healing all who were oppressed by the devil, for God was with Him.

Ephesians 2:10 For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand that we should walk in them.

2 Timothy 3:17 that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.

1 Peter 2:15 For this is the will of God, that by doing good you may put to silence the ignorance of foolish men

3 John 1:11 Beloved, do not imitate what is evil, but what is good. He who does good is of God, but he who does evil has not seen God.

But I asked you “Upon what evidence did the Bible writers base their assertions?�? Please answer my question. What tangible, first hand evidence did the Bible writers have that God is good?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

So the odds are also 100% that a donkey talked because that is what the Bible says, right? Numbers 22:28 says “And the Lord opened the mouth of the ass, and she said unto Balaam, What have I done unto thee, that thou hast smitten me these three times?�?

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhutchin

The odds are 100% that the Bible records an event where a donkey talked.

Obviously, but does that automatically mean that a donkey talked?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

Are you an inerrantist? If so, you lose. Revelation 22:18-19 say “For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.�? If tampering were not possible, there would have been no need for the warnings. Aside from that, today, it would be a simple matter for skeptics to rewrite parts of the Bible, go to remote jungle regions, and pass the revisions off as “the real thing.�? That would have been much easier centuries ago.

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhutchin

Why would you conclude that tamperings were not possible? Skeptics are always trying to change and rewrite the Bible. That is why people spend so much time delving into the oldest Bible fragments and maintaining the integrity of the texts in the original languages.

The point is, do you believe that the original Bible is inerrant? If so, where is your evidence? If not, then there are not any good reasons for you to believe that God is good.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

You conveniently refuse to consider my hypothetical scenarios any longer, but you were quite content to discuss them until you got into trouble. Here is the proof:

Quote:

Johnny Skeptic

But I proved that you are only interested in evidence if it appeals to your own self interest, and that your choice to become a Christian was based solely upon emotions. Under the scenario that I presented, you surely would choose to remain a Christian even though the evidence indicated that being B, the being who said that he would send everyone to hell, was more powerful than being A, who claimed that he was Jesus.

rhutchin

No, that is wrong. One always looks at the evidence. In your hypothetical, you would choose the most powerful being because that is the one who will have his way.

Johnny Skeptic

That most assuredly IS NOT your position because it would not be in your self-interest to choose the alien. First of all, there would not be reasonable proof at that time that the evil being would eventually have his way. There might be powerful good beings who are more powerful than he is who would prevent him from having his way. Second of all, being B might not actually be Jesus. Third of all, since the evil being said that he would send everyone to hell whether they chose him or not, while it would not be of any benefit to you whatsoever to choose the evil being, if it eventually turned out that the Bible is true, that would benefit you quite a lot. Your position is based entirely upon emotion, not logic and reason.

In the absence of empirical evidence, hypothetical arguments are excellent tools for exposing illogical, inconsistent arguments.

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhutchin

So, what is your point? Are you about to present a hypothetical argument that will expose an illogical, inconsistent argument that you found somewhere?

I said:

Quote:

Originally Posted by JS

But I proved that you are only interested in evidence if it appeals to your own self interest, and that your choice to become a Christian was based solely upon emotions. Under the scenario that I presented, you surely would choose to remain a Christian even though the evidence indicated that being B, the being who said that he would send everyone to hell, was more powerful than being A, who claimed that he was Jesus.

You replied:

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhutchin

No, that is wrong. One always looks at the evidence. In your hypothetical, you would choose the most powerful being because that is the one who will have his way.�? I replied “That most assuredly IS NOT your position because it would not be in your self-interest to choose the alien. First of all, there would not be reasonable proof at that time that the evil being would eventually have his way. There might be powerful good beings who are more powerful than he is who would prevent him from having his way. Second of all, being B might not actually be Jesus. Third of all, since the evil being said that he would send everyone to hell whether they chose him or not, while it would not be of any benefit to you whatsoever to choose the evil being, if it eventually turned out that the Bible is true, that would benefit you quite a lot. Your position is based entirely upon emotion, not logic and reason.

You have yet to reply to the arguments in the preceding paragraph even though I have posted them a number of times. Why is that?

knotted paragon · 02-18-2006, 08:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kp

So the answer is "yes," you do wish to continue in light of your emotional attachment to your ancient superstition rhutchin? Fine, off we go...

Your argument from emotional appeal is boring rhutchin.

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhutchin

I have not seen anyone spending any time on shortcomings of the Wager.

An emotional, irrational statement. Or perhaps you're just having a hard time keeping up? Here then, a review of just a few of them, right off the top of my head:

1. The wager fails to account for foundational beliefs.

2. Pascal's own premise that god is infinitely incomprehensible cripples the wager. An infinite number of equally probable theologies about god render the wager useless as a tool to choose.

3. The theological doctrine of predestination renders the wager meaningless since reward is an arbitrary choice of god.

4. Megath's Hellish Wager negates the wager a priori based on Pascal's own premise that we cannot understand god.

Item one, the wager's failure to account for foundational beliefs, is really the only item required though. Since Pascal asks for us not to consider the evidence, there is zero chance that his wager will convey any meaning whatsoever to a rational individual without an a priori belief in the supernatural.

To date, your entire case has been a rather poorly executed special pleading of the bible. Your own (supposed rational) rejection of the Koran renders your argument laughable.

If you, rhutchin, were honest, and actually used the wager to choose a theology, you would immediately choose some form of Hinduism, since, on a probability basis alone, you would have a better chance of escaping eternal torment.

The wager is just another con. I have no soul to be tormented rhutchin. Threatening an unbeliever with the god of the bible is exactly equal to threatening them with the tooth fairy.

rhutchin · 02-19-2006, 04:58 AM

Quote:

rhutchin
Hmmmmm! Is this really something that you need to be convinced of???

JamesBannon
I know I don't deserve it, no man does no matter what the crime. I will not grovel to a tyrant, so if I'm going to be hung I might as well be hung as a sheep rather than as a lamb.

Let's say it's a human tyrant who is going to inflict unimaginable suffering on you as a victim unless you do exactly as he demands. Would you comply simply in order to save your own skin? That is after all what Pascal's Wager says is the prudent thing to do. Just imagine being ruled by that kind of fear.

Let's see. That which the "tyrant" wants you to do is to lay aside your pride and selfishness and treat others better than yourself. You don't want to do this. Then you object that it is unfair for the "tyrant" to refuse to give you good things - the good things that He promises to give to those who do as He says. You are free to do as you desire.

rhutchin · 02-19-2006, 11:30 AM

Quote:

rhutchin
I have not seen anyone spending any time on shortcomings of the Wager.

knotted paragon
Here then, a review of just a few of them, right off the top of my head:

Quote:

knotted paragon
1. The wager fails to account for foundational beliefs.

Could you give an example and explain how it affects the Wager?

Quote:

knotted paragon
2. Pascal's own premise that god is infinitely incomprehensible cripples the wager. An infinite number of equally probable theologies about god render the wager useless as a tool to choose.

How did you reach this conclusion?

Quote:

knotted paragon
3. The theological doctrine of predestination renders the wager meaningless since reward is an arbitrary choice of god.

How does it render the Wager meaningless?

Quote:

knotted paragon
4. Megath's Hellish Wager negates the wager a priori based on Pascal's own premise that we cannot understand god.

How does it do this?

rhutchin · 02-19-2006, 11:55 AM

Quote:

Johnny Skeptic
Actions can be observed, but motives cannot be observed. If God is evil, deceptive, omnipotent, and omnipresent, then by definition, he could duplicate anything that is attributed to the God of the Bible, right?

rhutchin
Yes. As you say, “If.�?

Johnny Skeptic
And “if�? the Bible is true, God is good,…

I agree. If the Bible is true, God is good. If something else reveals that the Bible is not true, then God is not good.

Quote:

Johnny Skeptic
Even if intelligent design is a given, and even if the supernatural acts that are attributed to God are a given, there are not any reliable criteria for determining what the true nature of God really is.

rhutchin
But there are criteria. You can develop criteria and I can develop criteria. If we could agree on criteria, then we could judge the nature of God by our criteria. If not, then separately by our different criteria.

Johnny Skeptic
Ok, what are your criteria? I don’t know of any criteria that could expose an evil, deceptive, omnipotent, omnipresent God. Any notion that there are such criteria is based upon emotions, not logic.

How do you suppose that an amoral God would act?

rhutchin
I don’t know of any criteria either.

Johnny Skeptic
Then why do you believe that God is good?

I believe that the Bible is true (as I have seen nothing to reveal otherwise) and (as we both agreed above) if the Bible is true, God is good.

Quote:

rhutchin
An amoral god would act from neither a moral nor an immoral desire. An amoral god would then act without feeling (maybe we could use that as a criterion).

Johnny Skeptic
But I need some specific examples of how an amoral God would act.

Without feeling or incentive to act, an amoral god might do nothing or anything. An amoral god could do the same things as a moral god or an immoral god. We have the Bible arguing that God is moral. Is there something that argues that God is amoral? Let’s move beyond speculation and look at what exists.

Quote:

Johnny Skeptic
I asked you “Do you dispute that the odds that God is good are no better than 50/50? If so, where is your evidence?�?

rhutchin
The odds that God is good are 100% because that is how the Bible describes Him.

Johnny Skeptic
But you just said that you don’t know of any criteria for determining what the true nature of God really is.

As we agreed above, God is good “IF�? the Bible is true. There is no need for criteria.

Quote:

Johnny Skeptic
How did you arrive at that conclusion? Upon what evidence did the Bible writers base their assertions? Please quote chapter and verse.

rhutchin
Mathew 19:17 So …No one is good but One, that is, God. But if you want to enter into life, keep the commandments.

Acts 10:38 how God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Spirit and with power, who went about doing good and healing all who were oppressed by the devil, for God was with Him.

Ephesians 2:10 For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand that we should walk in them.

2 Timothy 3:17 that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.

1 Peter 2:15 For this is the will of God, that by doing good you may put to silence the ignorance of foolish men

3 John 1:11 Beloved, do not imitate what is evil, but what is good. He who does good is of God, but he who does evil has not seen God.

Johnny Skeptic
But I asked you “Upon what evidence did the Bible writers base their assertions?�? Please answer my question. What tangible, first hand evidence did the Bible writers have that God is good?

The Bible writers either reported that which Jesus said (and He claimed to be God) and through personal observation of Jesus and that which He did. The evidence was what they heard and saw.

Quote:

Johnny Skeptic
So the odds are also 100% that a donkey talked because that is what the Bible says, right? Numbers 22:28 says “And the Lord opened the mouth of the ass, and she said unto Balaam, What have I done unto thee, that thou hast smitten me these three times?�?

rhutchin
The odds are 100% that the Bible records an event where a donkey talked.

Johnny Skeptic
Obviously, but does that automatically mean that a donkey talked?

If the Bible is true, then the donkey talked. Within the context of the Bible, there is nothing to prevent God from enabling the donkey to talk.

Quote:

Johnny Skeptic
Are you an inerrantist? If so, you lose. Revelation 22:18-19 say “For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.�? If tampering were not possible, there would have been no need for the warnings. Aside from that, today, it would be a simple matter for skeptics to rewrite parts of the Bible, go to remote jungle regions, and pass the revisions off as “the real thing.�? That would have been much easier centuries ago.

rhutchin
Why would you conclude that tamperings were not possible? Skeptics are always trying to change and rewrite the Bible. That is why people spend so much time delving into the oldest Bible fragments and maintaining the integrity of the texts in the original languages.

Johnny Skeptic
The point is, do you believe that the original Bible is inerrant? If so, where is your evidence? If not, then there are not any good reasons for you to believe that God is good.

The evidence for the Bible being inerrant are the claims made in the Bible. This is predicated on the Bible being true as is everything else. If the Bible is true, then it is inerrant and it is accurate when it says that a donkey talked.

Quote:

Johnny Skeptic
You conveniently refuse to consider my hypothetical scenarios any longer, but you were quite content to discuss them until you got into trouble…You have yet to reply to the arguments in the preceding paragraph even though I have posted them a number of times. Why is that?

I do not know what you want me to reply to. Can you summarize your point?

JamesBannon · 02-19-2006, 01:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhutchin

Let's see. That which the "tyrant" wants you to do is to lay aside your pride and selfishness and treat others better than yourself. You don't want to do this. Then you object that it is unfair for the "tyrant" to refuse to give you good things - the good things that He promises to give to those who do as He says. You are free to do as you desire.

I'm not the one who believes purely out of self-interest to avoid a threat am I? I will not treat others better than myself because they are not and nor am I better than them. The thing your God wants has nothing whatever to do with this anyway. BTW How's about answering my question? I repeat, if a human tyrant demanded you obey his will on pain of unimaginable tormnet, would you?

Dlx2 · 02-19-2006, 02:54 PM

I'm just confused...why is this still an issue?

Pascal arbitrarily chooses one holy book out of many.

Even if this holy book is the correct choice, it's not clear whether the specific portions of the book arbitrarily selected by Pascal for emphasis are the important passages.

Even if Pascal's selection is the important passage, it's not clear whether the interpretation that Pascal arbitrarily selects is the proper interpretation.

Even if this interpretation is the proper interpretation, it's not clear that coerced belief can constitute true belief.

Even if coerced belief can constitute true belief, it's not clear whether true belief is sufficient to save you from damnation.

Even if true belief is sufficient to save you from damnation, it's not clear whether God even exists.

And even if God exists, it's not clear whether the God which exists is in fact the God arbitrarily described by the wager.

And even if the God that exists is in fact the God described by the wager, the reward for believing is no better than the cost of believing.

I just don't see the point of Pascal's Wager. There's literally no way to win, and there's every way to lose.

Ubercat · 02-19-2006, 03:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhutchin

Let's see. That which the "tyrant" wants you to do is to lay aside your pride and selfishness and treat others better than yourself. You don't want to do this. Then you object that it is unfair for the "tyrant" to refuse to give you good things - the good things that He promises to give to those who do as He says. You are free to do as you desire.

You complaining about pride is the funniest thing I've heard all day. You're the guy arrogant enough to tell us our own business, and too proud to admit that he's wrong. Otherwise, you would have gracefully and honorably exited this thread a long time ago. You have no position remaining. Every "point" you've raised has been convincingly blown to ribbons before your very eyes. So you close them and pretend that nothing happened, and we're all too stupid to see that we've won the debate. And some how, some way, you hope this gives you the moral high ground.

-Ubercat

Ubercat · 02-19-2006, 03:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhutchin

I agree. If the Bible is true, God is good. If something else reveals that the Bible is not true, then God is not good.

I believe that the Bible is true (as I have seen nothing to reveal otherwise) and (as we both agreed above) if the Bible is true, God is good.

Without feeling or incentive to act, an amoral god might do nothing or anything. An amoral god could do the same things as a moral god or an immoral god. We have the Bible arguing that God is moral. Is there something that argues that God is amoral? Let’s move beyond speculation and look at what exists.

As we agreed above, God is good “IF�? the Bible is true. There is no need for criteria.

The Bible writers either reported that which Jesus said (and He claimed to be God) and through personal observation of Jesus and that which He did. The evidence was what they heard and saw.

If the Bible is true, then the donkey talked. Within the context of the Bible, there is nothing to prevent God from enabling the donkey to talk.

The evidence for the Bible being inerrant are the claims made in the Bible. This is predicated on the Bible being true as is everything else. If the Bible is true, then it is inerrant and it is accurate when it says that a donkey talked.

I'm not sure who agreed with you that the bible being true means that god is good. I missed that/those posts, since I sometimes do a fast skim of the longer posts, but anyways... the evidence for god being evil is drawn largely from the bible itself. (yawn) You've only to READ the old testament to see overwhelming evidence that god is evil. (yawn) Check out that evilbible website if you want a pointer to some of the juicier stuff. Then you can jump forward to the NT and read about predestination to put the icing on the cake. (sigh) But we've been over this and over this. Anyone who can read the bible and maintain that god is good, is not someone I'd care to meet in a dark alley. (shudder)

-Ubercat

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

02-19-2006, 02:54 PM	#1708
Dlx2 Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2005 Location: Boulder, CO Posts: 2,546	I'm just confused...why is this still an issue? Pascal arbitrarily chooses one holy book out of many. Even if this holy book is the correct choice, it's not clear whether the specific portions of the book arbitrarily selected by Pascal for emphasis are the important passages. Even if Pascal's selection is the important passage, it's not clear whether the interpretation that Pascal arbitrarily selects is the proper interpretation. Even if this interpretation is the proper interpretation, it's not clear that coerced belief can constitute true belief. Even if coerced belief can constitute true belief, it's not clear whether true belief is sufficient to save you from damnation. Even if true belief is sufficient to save you from damnation, it's not clear whether God even exists. And even if God exists, it's not clear whether the God which exists is in fact the God arbitrarily described by the wager. And even if the God that exists is in fact the God described by the wager, the reward for believing is no better than the cost of believing. I just don't see the point of Pascal's Wager. There's literally no way to win, and there's every way to lose.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.