For Christians. [Archive I] - Page 2

rhutchin

December 12, 2005, 11:46 AM

rhutchin
I guess one could say that physics trumps metaphysics anytime, everytime. That’s like saying, What a person does not know doesn’t hurt him.

Alf
No, it isn't.

In some situations what a person doesn't know CAN hurt him. For example in europe there was this black plague. People were in general ignorant about how this worked and what caused one person to get the disease when he was close to other people with the disease. They could still get hurt though.

However, it still is true that real world beat fantasies every time. Not really sure if you can say physics beats metaphysics any time. At its core, physics rely upon certain metaphysical principles. In so far as they appear reasonable and since we so far has been able to use those principles to piece together a world view that is amazingly consistent and coherent, I would say that it beats mindless speculations and fantasies any time and since much of metaphysics is nothing but groundless and mindless speculations and fantasies such as pondering over the question of how many angels can dance on the tip of a needle without first asking for evidence for said angles the answer is obvious - yes, physics beat metaphysics any time. However, metaphysics is a lot, in addition to the mindless speculations it also have some questions and answers that make some sense and which science is built upon. You simply cannot lump all of metaphysics into the same sack.

All right, if that which a person does not know can hurt him, then I guess we can say that physics does not trump metaphysics.

I guess we need to throw out the mindless speculations and fantasies and deal with what is left. So, let’s deal with the Bible unless you can prove it to be a mindless speculation or fantasy and have it thrown out.

rhutchin

December 12, 2005, 11:55 AM

AZSuperman
You mentioned drive by shootings, and incurable diseases... Why don't you inject yourself with HIV, then we'll all drive past and shoot at you.

rhutchin
Not nice. And Wayne holds up people like you as examples for his children. The man must be mad.

AZSuperman
You really are confusing rhutchin. You become offended when I offer you the perfect opportunity to prove the existence of your God. I even used methods you yourself had mentioned as things God could fix.

Why is it that you can call WMD prideful for not putting his children at risk, when you're afraid to take the risk yourself?

How are we supposed to believe in your God, when you don't have enough faith in him to use your own test?

I wasn’t offended.

WMD has stated that he cannot provide 100% protection for his children. If he takes no action (to call on God for help) then it would seem that he is putting his children at risk of harm (in those areas where he cannot protect them). If he acts (by calling on God), he would be seeking to remove his children from risk (by having God protect them when he cannot). It is WMD’s pride that keeps him from calling on God and thereby puts his children at risk.

I am willing to test God in those areas where God has instructed people to test Him. Doing other than that is foolishness.

rhutchin

December 12, 2005, 12:00 PM

rhutchin
The problem we have with the Bible is that it describes things that cannot be observed or empirically tested.

John A. Broussard
Again, another weird, weird generalization.

We can easily observe and/or test empirically what the bible describes.

We can test to find out if the sun goes around the earth, the way the bible describes.

Or whether the earth is flat, or whether rabbits chew their cud, or how many legs on an insect, or how old the earth is, or----on and on and on.

Keep up with your false generalizations. There's a lot of entertainment value in them.

You mean you can test whether there is a judgment after this life.

You can test whether Jesus raised Lazarus from the dead.

Somehow, I just don’t believe you.

rhutchin

December 12, 2005, 12:05 PM

rhutchin
Boy, you’re in trouble is you pick no god and then you are in trouble if you pick the wrong god. Life just is not fair.

However, in this case, WMD is not appealing to a god on his own behalf but on behalf of his children for whom he is unable to provide 100% protection. If WMD picks the wrong god, he loses nothing and his children have to fend for themselves anyway. He ought to make a reasoned choice if he really cares about his children.

AZSuperman
I think rhutchin is saying WMD should search out all religions, see which one has the WORST possible afterlife for non-believers, then join.

Join because the eternal torment described is worse than what you want your children to be subjected to.

That's pure nonsense. Having the worst possible Hell, doesn't make a religion any more likely to be true.

True, but if one is to begin somewhere, it would seem prudent to start the investigation with those religions that claim that something bad will happen to you, starting with the worse. Why waste time with religions that say that all people go to heaven?

rhutchin

December 12, 2005, 12:12 PM

rhutchin
Boy, you’re in trouble is you pick no god and then you are in trouble if you pick the wrong god. Life just is not fair.

However, in this case, WMD is not appealing to a god on his own behalf but on behalf of his children for whom he is unable to provide 100% protection. If WMD picks the wrong god, he loses nothing and his children have to fend for themselves anyway. He ought to make a reasoned choice if he really cares about his children.

John A. Broussard
So picking the wrong god for one's children isn't as serious as picking the wrong god for oneself?

Please explain.

It depends on the outcome that one is seeking. If WMD’s concern is to protect his children, then picking the wrong god means that he places his children at risk.

If WMD’s concern is his own welfare, then picking the wrong god places himself at risk.

Both seem serious to me, the difference being the outcome one seeks.

Tuvar Ane Ingolenen

December 12, 2005, 01:14 PM

If they told you that the plane you are getting on will get you to your destination safely, would you believe it?Direct and indirect evidence (including personal experience) indicates that this is usual. Assuming that what will happen is what usually happens is not unreasonable.People believe what they want to believe. Some turn out to be wrong. Even you could be wrong in your belief about the Bible.Is it unreasonable to assume that something that looks like myth (even after closer examination), is in fact myth?

But, the point of my question was: Is belief really a choice. Can you simply choose to believe anything?

Tuvar Ane Ingolenen

December 12, 2005, 01:23 PM

It depends on the outcome that one is seeking. If WMD’s concern is to protect his children, then picking the wrong god means that he places his children at risk.

If WMD’s concern is his own welfare, then picking the wrong god places himself at risk.

Both seem serious to me, the difference being the outcome one seeks.
It seems to me that the best we can hope for is, that whatever God (if any) is real, turns out to be fair. Obviously, a fair god will not condemn anyone for not choosing when they truly cannot choose.
If God is not fair, we're all in trouble, whatever we do.

John A. Broussard

December 12, 2005, 01:24 PM

Wayne Delia

December 12, 2005, 01:32 PM

So, OK nothing finite has any relationship to anything infinite. Why ask the question in the first place if it is irrelevant?
That's demonstrably wrong; lately, everything you write is demonstrably wrong. Numbers such as "one" are finite; the concept of adding two finite numbers together to obtain a third finite number is, itself, finite, yet those number 1 and that concept of addition form what is known as inductive reasoning: given P(1) is true, then if it can be shown that P(n+1) is true assuming for the moment that P(n) is true, we have established P(n) is true for all n. There's an infinite number of whole numbers n, so we've just used two finite concepts to prove an infinite concept.

You speak in generalities way too often, and because of that, it's very easy to show you're wrong.

No, you have missed the point. Truth does not have to be established.
The point you've missed is that a hidden truth, not established, does not have to be assumed to be true.

Truth is established by itself. Truth is truth regardless of anything else. It is simply because truth is truth that there is an imperative to accept it.
Bullshit. You're just claiming your religious fantasy is truth, in order to avoid having to establish it. Somebody else is claiming his entirely different conflicting non-Christian religious fantasy is truth, and you're rejecting it because you don't prefer it. There is no imperative to accept anything as truth just because some religious wacko like you claims it's truth.

A successful scam takes the truth and mixes it with error to create a sleight of hand that is perceived true.

As is certainly the case in Christianity; in fact, Paul occasionally bragged for "the pious lie", stretching the truth in order to win converts.
The problem is not to prove that which is true but to prove that which is false.
Wrong. You need to prove that which you claim to be true as true, before you can reasonably expect anyone else to accept it as true.

The Bible presents itself as truth.
The Bible is often wrong in the stuff we can check (i.e. Mark 16:17-18), so there's no reason whatsoever to assume that the stuff we can't check is necessarily right.

The problem is to prove it false.
Bullshit. You don't even believe that. I'll demonstrate: I present the claim "You owe me ten thousand dollars" is true. The problem, according to your line of reasoning, is not that I need to prove that truth is true; rather, it's up to you to prove it false. So, either prove it false, or pay up, deadbeat.

One essential is to understand that which one reads.
You not only fail to understand it, you make up shit that's not even in the Bible. For example:

Jesus is reported by the writer of Mark to have said (recorded earlier in Mark) that He (Jesus) always spoke in parables.
Is "parable" another word for "intentional bullshit?" You are attempting to provide an excuse for why the special super-human abilities Jesus promised in Mark 16:17-18 don't work, and the reason you're giving is that Jesus spoke in "parables"? Then nothing Jesus said at all can be taken to be true. I don't see how you can expect Jesus to be happy with you calling Him a compulsive liar.

A careful investigator would not ignore that point as you want to do.
A careful investigator who did not ignore that point would conclude that Jesus was a compulsive liar. Jesus always spoke in parables (as you claim), and the powers don't actually work because what Jesus taught was a parable - therefore, what is said in a parable doesn't correspond to what happens in the real world.

Damn.

Still, analysis does not appear to be your strong point.
The analysis you're begging for here is to excuse Jesus's dishonesty, excuse His bait-and-switch false advertising, by simply claiming it was a "parable". Further claiming that everything Jesus said was in the form of a parable makes Him as untrustworthy as can be imagined. But I see how that kind of personal quality would appeal to you.

Atheists tend to be biased when looking at that which the Bible says. They have their assumptions, too.
So what makes the Christian assumptions and biases correct, and the atheist assumptions and biases necessarily incorrect? You cannot determine that with any accuracy, so you always sidestep the question.

WMD

Wayne Delia

December 12, 2005, 01:48 PM

What makes it poor planning or ineffective? The Bible is clear that the plan is completely effective and accomplishes everything God wanted. Seems to me the plan was good judging by its effectiveness.
It's easy to demonstrate that you're wrong; you don't have to help us out by contradicting yourself. In post 201, this exchange happened:
AZSuperman
What if there are 100 different police men, all shouting different orders? All threatening to shoot you if you disobey!

Or to bring the example closer to home, what if there are hundreds of people, all claiming to represent a different police man who will shoot you if you don't do what they claim he said to do? If there are no police men in sight, would you listen?

rhutchin
Good question. To further develop the illustration, let’s have one of the people telling the truth. Further, let’s make the one person telling the truth also saying that there is a way to avoid being shot while all the others don’t know a way to avoid being shot even if you do what they say. It is a difficult situation to be in.

I agree. That is what makes the illustration so good. It mirrors that situation in which people find themselves today. People are engaging in wrongful acts for which they are accountable to a “policeman.�? That policeman has written down conditions to avoid being shot and has given it to his messenger to deliver to you. On the way, a hundred false messengers crowd around the true messenger and cry out conditions to confuse you and prevent you from easily identifying the true messenger. I think it is a great illustration. It puts the burden on you to sort everything out.
The analogy was set up in a scenario of mass chaos and confusion, with the layman unable to determine truth from fiction from all the contradictory instructions being shouted out by self-proclaimed messengers. You agreed that was a reasonable illustration. But later, in order to avoid admitting you're wrong, you now characterize the same scenario as "the plan was good, judging by its effectiveness." The point of the analogy, to which you agreed, was that the method was completely ineffective and confusing.

WMD

AZSuperman

December 12, 2005, 02:05 PM

WMD has stated that he cannot provide 100% protection for his children. If he takes no action (to call on God for help) then it would seem that he is putting his children at risk of harm (in those areas where he cannot protect them). If he acts (by calling on God), he would be seeking to remove his children from risk (by having God protect them when he cannot). It is WMD’s pride that keeps him from calling on God and thereby puts his children at risk.
Which God should WMD call to? The God you proclaim? The God other theists proclaim? As we've already established, there are THOUSANDS of religions, and THOUSANDS of denominations within a given religion... meaning there are THOUSANDS of God's, or versions of God's to call out to.

But here's something for you to think about rhutchin, WMD has probably done more religious investigation into Christianity and other religions than you have. He's probably read more books (each espousing a different point of view) about religion than you have. He's probably prayed for guideance from God several times... And he has, through diligent investigation, come to the conclusion that there is no God.

I say this about WMD because it seems to be the story most atheists on this board share... myself included.

Why, after we've all diligently searched for the truth and we've all come to the conclustion that there is no God, do you feel you have a better understanding of God? Especially when you admit you have done NO searching yourself?

(WMD, if I'm wrong about your story, I appologize)

Wayne Delia

December 12, 2005, 02:05 PM

While I admit that I have not examined other religions, that does not mean that other religions have not been examined. There are organizations (e.g., the Christian Research Institute) that do examine other religions and make their results publicly available.
That's amazing! A Christian research group has analyzed the claims of all religions, and somehow arrived at the conclusion that Christianity was the correct claim! WOW!

One does not have to do it all themselves (but one does have to trust the thoroughness of others).
Why does one trust the biases and assumptions of a Christian research group which somehow concludes that Christianity is correct, and distrust the biases or assumptions of others who arrive at a different conclusion? Sounds like you simply picked the opinions of whoever seemed to agree with you. You are very intellectually lazy.

On my part, I do study the Bible personally and do not rely on that which others tell me (although I do read and confirm what others say).
You don't even rely on what Jesus is reported to have said in the Bible. You need to misrepresent it in order to avoid admitting you're wrong, or that your bigotry and prejudice is unjustified.

Basically each person has to sort out what they will believe.
Again, you're sidestepping the question of how you can demonstrate that what you believe is true. You can't do that, so you back-pedal to the non-issue of "People believe what they believe; I believe that what I believe is true; you believe something different; therefore you are wrong.

The problem comes in believing that which is false. If I have done that, then I will suffer (perhaps) because of it.
You don't seem terribly worried about that possibility, though. For what turns out to be a very similar reason, we're not at all worried about the possibilities implied by your religion.

WMD

TomboyMom

December 12, 2005, 02:30 PM

That is irrelevant. The truth of the claims is at issue and the claims can be true even when the Bible presents those claims and external evidence of the claims does not exist. The Bible does not have to prove that those claims it presents are true; it only has to present the claims. If the claims are true, they are true regardless of the manner presented or the evidence provided for their truth. Wow, that's a doozy. Well, yeah, but how would you know? If something is true, then it's true even if there is no evidence for its truth. But without evidence, how would you know it was true? by the same token, if something is false, it's false regardless of the evidence, but how would you know? Don't you think there's some relationship between the truth of a statement and the evidence in support of it? Otherwise we're kind of wandering in the desert of post-modernist relativism, don't you think?
It seems like you're saying, "If it's true, then it's true." Well yeah, but how do you establish the "if" part?
We can limit the information we consider to that which is in the Bible because unique claims are made about the information in the Bible that are not made for information in other written documents. 1. What unique claims?
2. Claims don't exempt anything from anything. I can claim that I am the one true source of all knowledge and authority, but that doesn't exempt me from subjecting my claims to scutiny.

I kind of get the impression that you're saying that we should believe the bible without any of the usual corroboration or basis that we subject other stuff to. Are you? Why? (Try to avoid circular argument in responding.)

John A. Broussard

December 12, 2005, 05:47 PM

I kind of get the impression that you're saying that we should believe the bible without any of the usual corroboration or basis that we subject other stuff to. Are you? Why? (Try to avoid circular argument in responding.)
From what I can make out, rhutchin is gradually becoming aware that the bible is a garbage heap of myth, droll tales, historic fragments and platitudes.

However, he likes some of those platitudes and wants to hold onto them. So, what he sees as "good" in the bible, he inisists is true, correct, certain, while the rest is merely material that doesn't need proof.

He may not be demonstrating the finest of reasoning by saying this, but he's come a long way from his first posts where he was preaching an inerrant bible.

rhutchin

December 12, 2005, 06:48 PM

rhutchin
That is irrelevant. The truth of the claims is at issue and the claims can be true even when the Bible presents those claims and external evidence of the claims does not exist. The Bible does not have to prove that those claims it presents are true; it only has to present the claims. If the claims are true, they are true regardless of the manner presented or the evidence provided for their truth.

TomboyMom
Wow, that's a doozy. Well, yeah, but how would you know? If something is true, then it's true even if there is no evidence for its truth. But without evidence, how would you know it was true? by the same token, if something is false, it's false regardless of the evidence, but how would you know? Don't you think there's some relationship between the truth of a statement and the evidence in support of it? Otherwise we're kind of wandering in the desert of post-modernist relativism, don't you think?
It seems like you're saying, "If it's true, then it's true." Well yeah, but how do you establish the "if" part?

I agree on your points. However, concepts relating to the existence of God, His characteristics, and His works are not subject to scientific inquiry. Considering that God interacted with a small number of people in a small, historically irrelevant country, without CNN broadcasting 24 hours a day, we are fortunate to have any record at all. People had to go to great lengths to preserve the records that we have. The Bible is a collection of writings that argue for the existence of a god who created the universe and interacted with selected individuals over an extended period of time. That the accounts of these interactions were collected and protected over time seems remarkable to me. Regardless, it purports to be the truth but it offers no real evidence other than the word of the writer (unless you want to accept the word of those who claim to have been saved by God).

rhutchin
We can limit the information we consider to that which is in the Bible because unique claims are made about the information in the Bible that are not made for information in other written documents.

TomboyMom
1. What unique claims?
2. Claims don't exempt anything from anything. I can claim that I am the one true source of all knowledge and authority, but that doesn't exempt me from subjecting my claims to scutiny.

I kind of get the impression that you're saying that we should believe the bible without any of the usual corroboration or basis that we subject other stuff to. Are you? Why? (Try to avoid circular argument in responding.)

What claims? That omnipotent God created the universe,…, covered the earth in a flood,…, created the nation of Israel,…, took the form of a man and lived among us,…, and so forth. What other god has claimed to have done all those things?

However, your argument is correct. Corroboration is the sticking point as would be expected. The Bible makes two statements about this.

John 20
30 And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book:
31 But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.

Hebrews 11
3 Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.
4 By faith Abel offered…
5 By faith Enoch was translated…
6 …he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.
7 By faith Noah…prepared an ark to the saving of his house;…
8 By faith Abraham…went out, not knowing whither he went.

In the end, belief in any god is not a matter of corroboration but of faith.

rhutchin

December 12, 2005, 06:52 PM

From what I can make out, rhutchin is gradually becoming aware that the bible is a garbage heap of myth, droll tales, historic fragments and platitudes.

However, he likes some of those platitudes and wants to hold onto them. So, what he sees as "good" in the bible, he inisists is true, correct, certain, while the rest is merely material that doesn't need proof.

He may not be demonstrating the finest of reasoning by saying this, but he's come a long way from his first posts where he was preaching an inerrant bible.

Just to make sure that there is no confusion on where I stand.

I am NOT, gradually or otherwise, and have not been moving to the position where I might be aware that the bible is a garbage heap of myth, droll tales, historic fragments and platitudes.

I continue to maintain that the Bible is inerrant.

rhutchin

December 12, 2005, 07:08 PM

rhutchin

December 12, 2005, 07:43 PM

Which God should WMD call to? The God you proclaim? The God other theists proclaim? As we've already established, there are THOUSANDS of religions, and THOUSANDS of denominations within a given religion... meaning there are THOUSANDS of God's, or versions of God's to call out to.

But here's something for you to think about rhutchin, WMD has probably done more religious investigation into Christianity and other religions than you have. He's probably read more books (each espousing a different point of view) about religion than you have. He's probably prayed for guideance from God several times... And he has, through diligent investigation, come to the conclusion that there is no God.

I say this about WMD because it seems to be the story most atheists on this board share... myself included.

Why, after we've all diligently searched for the truth and we've all come to the conclustion that there is no God, do you feel you have a better understanding of God? Especially when you admit you have done NO searching yourself?

(WMD, if I'm wrong about your story, I appologize)

Sounds like WMD needs to do some more searching. Given his claim to really care about his children, I am confident he will not stop until he finds that true and living god who can provide the protection for his children that he cannot.

rhutchin

December 12, 2005, 07:53 PM

rhutchin
People believe what they want to believe. Some turn out to be wrong. Even you could be wrong in your belief about the Bible.

Tuvar Ane Ingolenen
Is it unreasonable to assume that something that looks like myth (even after closer examination), is in fact myth?

But, the point of my question was: Is belief really a choice. Can you simply choose to believe anything?

Truth is sometimes stranger than fiction. It is unwise to assume that something that looks like myth (even after closer examination), is in fact myth if it actually is the truth.

I think belief is a choice. A person can choose to believe anything although some, like you, may be more likely to believe some things and not others.

rhutchin

December 12, 2005, 07:56 PM

It seems to me that the best we can hope for is, that whatever God (if any) is real, turns out to be fair. Obviously, a fair god will not condemn anyone for not choosing when they truly cannot choose.
If God is not fair, we're all in trouble, whatever we do.

If God is just and not fair, everyone is in trouble.

Barefoot Bree

December 12, 2005, 08:42 PM

Truth is sometimes stranger than fiction. It is unwise to assume that something that looks like myth (even after closer examination), is in fact myth if it actually is the truth.

I think belief is a choice. A person can choose to believe anything although some, like you, may be more likely to believe some things and not others.
rhutchin, I am living disproof of your claim about choosing to believe. I did not choose not to believe in God after growing up with a minister father, rather I realized that I never did believe. Ever. It never reached beyond the level of "let's pretend" for me. And I did try, oh how I tried, to please Dad. But I could never make myself believe something when that belief did not come naturally from within.

Wayne Delia

December 12, 2005, 10:31 PM

Possibly, but the alternative is to live for eternity without God and that is described as an unpleasant situation.
It's described as an unpleasant situation in a book which can't demonstrate it actually exists. There are plenty of books like that; we call them "fiction".

One, through his pride, might say that it is better to go hungry that to submit to the authority of another, but if one cares that his children be fed, then swallowing one’s pride may not be a bad thing.
You're again missing the point: any authority who claims we must submit to it in order to obtain food for children is not worth worshipping as being all-loving. At best it's a false dichotomy; at worst, the authority is a fascist.

WMD

Wayne Delia

December 12, 2005, 10:37 PM

What makes it poor planning or ineffective? The Bible is clear that the plan is completely effective and accomplishes everything God wanted. Seems to me the plan was good judging by its effectiveness.
The analogy, which you agreed was accurate, showed the mass chaos and confusion arising from a hundred different messengers from absent policemen on what to do to avoid getting shot, and how to distinguish true information from false information. That is hardly a case of being "completely effective." You're just wearing your God Cheerleader costume and waving your pom-poms, because if the plan was actually "completely effective" and "good, judging by its effectiveness" then the world would have been 100% Christian instead of only about 33% Christian. To claim that God wanted it that way is to claim nothing, since the proponents of other religions could just as easily say that their god wanted things exactly the way they are, which proves their god exists. You're just not very good at this apologist's gig.

WMD

Wayne Delia

December 12, 2005, 10:41 PM

While I admit that I have not examined other religions...

[...]

The incentive to study Christianity is that it imposes the most accountability on people and if it is the truth, then people are in the most trouble. For many other religions, one does not suffer because they do not know what God has said.
How the hell would you know, given your disclaimer above?

WMD

Wayne Delia

December 12, 2005, 11:02 PM

With regard to the Amalekites, Saul warned the Kenites who were living among them, to leave less they be destroyed along with the Amalekites.
That's "lest", and I notice that Saul did not warn the Amalekites.

If Saul had not wanted the Amalekites to know what was happening, I don’t think that was a good move.
Luckily, Saul's military stupidity isn't our problem to defend.

However, whatever knowledge the Amalekites had would have been indirect (the sight of Saul’s army massed outside the city, the Kenites packing up, and Israel’s warring against all the other inhabitants of the land).
So what? Again, you're trying to justify a genocide of an entire nation based on the speculation that they were warned in advance. The people killed at the hands of the Hebrews did nothing to deserve their entire nation being wiped out. Are you that desensitized to graphic descriptions of violence that you are incapable of placing any blame on God and the Hebrew armed forces?

On the other points, Child sacrifice would not have saved the Amalekites.
So what? Weren't they free to practice their own religion, even if different from the religion of the Hebrews? If the practice was actually happening, the Amalekites would quickly learn that it would severely stunt the growth and survival of their tribe. This could just as easily be a careless, hypocritical, fictional justification for killing the Amalekites and taking their land - hypocritical, in fact, because Yahweh demanded human sacrifices from the Midianite hostages in Numbers 31. No kidding - God said that 32 of the 32,000 Midianite virgin girls had to be sacrificed to Him, in Numbers 31:40 (full context of the "spoils of war" is Numbers 31:36-40).

David’s sin prevented God from saving the baby
Isn't God smart enough to punish David for David's sin, instead of punishing the baby? And what happened to God being omnipotent? If that was actually the case, there would be no such thing as anything preventing God from doing anything else.

(God is, effectively, the cause of all defects with which children are born without having to be the active cause).
Oh. Well, then, on behalf of all the parents of severely ill newborn babies with congenital illnesses, "Fuck you, God."

No. I have actually searched and studied the Bible and have “found�? it to be trustworthy.
Yet you continuously misrepresent what is actually in the Bible, so your conclusion here is worthless.

WMD

John A. Broussard

December 12, 2005, 11:13 PM

I continue to maintain that the Bible is inerrant.
That's strange. I thought you changed your mind about the world having been created in six days.

Have you changed your mind about that?

Wayne Delia

December 12, 2005, 11:45 PM

The only way your children can be saved from their sin and enter heaven is for God to save them. They can be comforted to know that you never once cared enough for them to ask God to save them.
Here's the source of your problem: you've equivocated on what the children are being saved from. Earlier, you indicated God could and would save people, presumably including my children, from natural disasters such as drive-by shootings, HIV, and even Hurricane Katrina. Now, all of a sudden, it's bait-and-switched to some sort of religious fantasy salvation after death. Clearly, God can't save anyone from actual, real, physical danger, so it was extremely foolish of you to suggest that my children be used as guinea pigs in order to test whether God can save them from actual, real, physical danger.

I merely point out that you cannot care for your children very much.
And I merely point out that you are completely wrong, and you cannot admit being wrong. You've totally lost track of the argument, so I will summarize it for you here:

Theist: "God protects those who cry out to Him for help."
Atheist: "That's crazy talk. It doesn't work at all. God doesn't exist."
Theist: "Let's test God's protection by putting your children in harm's way."
Atheist: "Fuck that noise. That's bullshit. No religious wacko is going to use my children as guinea pigs to test a religious fantasy."
Theist: "You don't care for your children."

Do you even have a hint why nobody takes you seriously? And can you see where you equivocated God saving people from actual, physical, real-world natural disasters into God saving people after they're already dead?

If you did not have so much pride, you would appeal to God at least for the lives of your children.
If you did not have so much ignorance, you would understand that in order to cry out to someone or something with any degree of sincerity, one must believe in God, which is not a characteristic of atheists. That's been explained to you several times, and you have not understood it or are intentionally ignoring it (thus the epithet "ignorant").

But, no, you want to take them with you.
Take them with me where? All I want to do is everything in my power to prevent religious wackos like you from testing out their God fantasies by placing my children in harm's way. And I do apologize for my comment about you withdrawing a bloody stump if you place a hand on either of my kids - that was entirely an understatement.

Then you justify yourself as if you really know the truth.
Isn't that sort of exactly what you're trying to do with your religious bullshit?

What harm would come from having you appeal to God to save your children.
Seriously? First, they could die, without any need or reason to die. Second, they could become seriously injured. That's plenty enough reason for me to discard that experiment as a legitimate possibility of ever happening. Jesus made promises in Mark 16:17-18 which flat out don't work at all, which you now defend on the assertion that Jesus was being intentionally deceptive by calling it a "parable". Your God either doesn't exist, or is functionally equivalent to not existing. Suppose, for illustration, that my kids are in a bad car crash and the paramedics arriving on the scene claim they want to pray to Jesus or lay hands on the kids to heal their wounds, or just claim as you did, "I'm going to appeal to God to save your kids." Wouldn't it be a little bit more effective if the paramedics would apply the heathen, satanic ritual known as "First Aid" instead of praying to your God? Sure, you might prefer that they'd do that if you or your kids were involved, in a "just-so" story which turns out the way you want to believe it will, but in real life, the paramedics could be criminally and civilly liable if the children die, so they don't pray to God because it flat out doesn't work. So, you won't get your chance to use my kids as disposable lab specimens in your hit-or-miss-and-most-likely-miss testing of your God's abilities, and I imagine you won't get many volunteers for that experiment.

If God does not exist (as you say) then nothing happens.
Bullshit. If God doesn't exist, and the test fails, then the kids are killed or injured. How can you possibly equate that to "nothing happens?" Are you really having this much trouble with your own argument?

If God exists and does save your children, where is the harm?
The harm comes in placing my children in danger for the sake of experiment on your religious fantasy deity. Let's give you an example of your own line of reasoning and how stupid your argument is. Suppose I'm a big fan of Zeus, and I believe as true something I once read about Zeus protecting anyone who calls out to him for help. So I decide to test that proposition. I tie you to a stake, place some kindling under you, set it on fire, and tell you to call out to Zeus for help. According to your own line of reasoning, "If Zeus doesn't exist then nothing happens. If Zeus does exist and saves you, then where is the harm?" Would you sign up for that experiment? Any hesitation on your part pretty much correlates to the hesitation I have to allow my children to participate in your own abusive experiment.

If you cared for your children, it seems that you would act in their interests and not your own.
I do care for my children, and I am acting in their best interests by doing whatever I can to prevent religious wackos like you from putting them in harm's way to test out whether their God fantasies are capable of protecting them. You don't seem to understand that at all, so I must conclude that you don't have any children of your own. And, probably more likely, all your favorite arguments have been demolished, and you're reduced to a pitiful state of wishing all manner of tragedy on unbelievers so that they will shit their pants and call out to your God, which could very well be what set you off the garden path of sanity. It ain't gonna happen.

The verse is a perfect description of you and your pride.
So if I read a fictional novel of the Old West, and claim that a particular sentence describing a "Snidely Whiplash" style villain with a black cowboy hat is a perfect description of you and your dishonesty, would that be valid? If you don't think so, you've refuted your own line of reasoning, and if you do think so, man, I'm not professionally qualified to assist you in your struggle, but there are professionals who can.

The brackets around your name mean that I substituted a specific term for a general term.
HEY HEY HEY now just whoa, wait a minute, there, pardner! I thought you claimed a few posts back there that you never added anything to the Bible verses you reference? Were you taking the opportunity to stretch the truth then?

That was done merely to help you understand the verse.
You think Jesus will buy that excuse when He condemns you to hell for misrepresenting Scripture? Actually, according to the list of Biblical criteria you posted about who qualifies as a "True Christian," Jesus has several other reasons for sending you to hell.

You are just in denial about your pride.
And, I suppose, you would just be in denial about your dishonesty, if I was to paraphrase your name into the "Snidely Whiplash" villain character in the Old West novel I spoke of before, right?

Do you have much education past high school? (That's a serious question. Where did you get your reasoning from?)

If you don’t care about your children, <braaaap>
Wow. You really have a serious attention deficit problem. Once again (sigh), I will summarize the argument for you.

Theist: "God protects those who cry out to Him for help."
Atheist: "That's crazy talk. It doesn't work at all. God doesn't exist."
Theist: "Let's test God's protection by putting your children in harm's way."
Atheist: "Fuck that noise. That's bullshit. No religious wacko is going to use my children as guinea pigs to test a religious fantasy."
Theist: "You don't care for your children."

Nobody views that as a logical syllogism. You're making up your own rules of logic on the way, and it's not a pretty sight.

why should anyone else?
I care for my children, and many other people care for my children, for many reasons, not the least of which is society tends to survive, improve, and flourish through the protection, encouragement, and nurturing of children. It's only the very poor religious apologists, whose arguments are trampled into the ground, who wish calamity and catastrophe on the children of unbelievers in order to scare the unbelievers into crying out to their preferred version of God. If the shoe fits...

You can leave me out of this.
I'll take that as the only graceful way you can manage to concede the argument. Having read ahead, I can see you've already been stomped.

Let it be between you and God.
Existentially speaking, God is at a huge disadvantage. No kidding. I once challenged God to a full contact karate fight, no pads. He failed to show up, thus losing by default. True story!

WMD

Wayne Delia

December 12, 2005, 11:53 PM

Let's see. Your friend was 93, blind and deaf, and God takes him to heaven (presumably) where he will no longer be blind or deaf and you are complaining!!
Sure. He was killed in a natural disaster during evacuation. Being a devout Christian, he most likely called out to God for help, but the hurricane was too strong for God to prevent, putting the lie to your claim that God helps those who cry out to Him.

What morbid reason could you have for keeping him here?
I suppose you could use that as a wacko justification for murdering anyone - that they'll be better off in Heaven - but please don't. It's illegal, and people won't invite you to parties if you start doing that.

What do you think Ducky would have wanted?
I think Ducky would have wanted exactly what he said he wanted at last year's Grand Chapter convention: "I wish I could spend a little more time with the fraternity boys." That not being possible, he certainly would have wanted to meet his death in the arms of his loving sister Mary, but instead, they were separated at the time of the evacuation.

In short, God said to Dr. Karlem Riess: "Tough shit, Ducky."

WMD

Wayne Delia

December 13, 2005, 12:01 AM

You mentioned drive by shootings, and incurable diseases... Why don't you inject yourself with HIV, then we'll all drive past and shoot at you.Not nice.
You missed the point. You think it's "Not nice" for people to suggest you run your own experiments to test whether your God helps you. However, you didn't hestiate at all to ask me to substitute my children as guinea pigs in your bizarre experiment. That's a clear hypocrisy, an obvious double standard.

And Wayne holds up people like you as examples for his children.
Actually, no, I've never made that claim at all. You cannot produce a cite where I've even implied that. <edit>

The man must be mad.
Well, <edit>, I'm confident that the intent is that I'm quite sane.

<edit> all your arguments have been stomped and trampled - arguments which may, at one time, have persuaded you to adopt the Christianity that you recently discarded in favor of your <edit> inability to admit you're wrong. <edit>

WMD

Wayne Delia

December 13, 2005, 12:30 AM

Alf
Bad analogy. The point is they all claim they know a way you can do to avoid getting shot and although many of these ways appear similar to each other they are also ultimately contrary so you cannot follow them all, if you listen to one guy, you will immediately be told by the others that you will get shot if you continue this way.

You have no idea if any of them are telling the truth, if we assume one of them is telling the truth, we have no way of finding out which one of them and most likely none of them are telling the truth.

This is the situation.

rhutchin
I agree, but I think that is what makes it a good analogy. That is essentially the situation that people face today.
Yet you earlier described that analogy to total chaos and confusion as "The Bible is clear that the plan is completely effective and accomplishes everything God wanted. Seems to me the plan was good judging by its effectiveness." Make up your mind, or as they say, "Pick a lane." Is it total chaos and confusion, or is it completely effective? (Keep in mind it's easy to demonstrate this "completely effective" plan isn't even half effective.)

Although many religions appear to be the same, they are all somewhat different (although for many, I am not sure that there are eternal penalties for disobedience, so why bother about them).
That's the logical fallacy of "argument from ignorance." You are dismissing possible consequences simply because you are not aware of them (thus, the term "ignorance".) Earlier, you verified that you had not done much comparative study of religions; in fact, you claimed you hadn't studied any religion other than Christianity, so your casual dismissal based on your own admitted self-ignorance is highly suspect. But don't take that as a hint that anyone actually takes you seriously in that regard.

However, the problem each person faces is to determine which is telling the truth. The analogy may not be perfect, but it is a good start.
Again, the classic backpedalling - "You believe what you believe, and I believe what I believe. I believe that what I believe is true, you believe something different, therefore, you are wrong." Unless and until you can demonstrate that what you believe is valid, there's no obligation to assume it is. So put up or shut up.

I agree. Nonetheless, it is as Peter told the people in the 1st century who said the same thing – a thousand years is as a day to God.
Technically, the author of 2 Peter is anonymous, and overwhelmingly unlikely to have been actually written by Peter. According to www.bible.org at this link (http://www.bible.org/page.asp?page_id=707), Hampton Keithley IV, Th.M writes the following:

There has been much debate over the authorship of 2 Peter. Most conservative evangelicals hold to the traditional view that Peter was the author, but historical and literary critics have almost unanimously concluded that to be impossible. For example: K�semann states that 2 Peter is “perhaps the most dubious writing�? in the New Testament. Harris says, “virtually none believe that 2 Peter was written by Jesus’ chief disciple.�? And Brevard S. Childs, an excellent rhetorical critic, shows his assumption when he says, “even among scholars who recognize the non-Petrine authorship there remains the sharpest possible disagreement on a theological assessment.�?
Here, though, is an instance where you beg for literal acceptance of what could very possibly be a hyperbole or an exaggeration for dramatic purposes. There is another verse in the Bible that indicates that God is compared to man as a man would be compared to a grasshopper, which, if taken literally, would mean that God is nearly a thousand feet tall if the ratios are calculated out. Would that be legitimate? If so, it would explain the appearance of the "900-foot tall Jesus" to Oral Roberts several years ago. This ratio of a thousand man-years to one God-day, though, needs to be taken literally, while you've just recently asserted that all the words of Jesus - every one of the words of Jesus - are to be taken as parables, which are all necessarily not reflective of reality, in order to explain why the specific abilities Jesus promised would be characteristics of all who believe in Mark 16:17-18 don't work at all. Do you have some sort of objective standard about which parts in the Bible are literally true, and which parts (apart from all of Jesus's words) are necessarily bullshit? Seems like those "Red-Letter Bibles" are actually useful, in that the bullshit Jesus spoke is highlighted in red.

When God says something will happen soon, He can mean soon from His perspective.
The trouble is, all we have for evaluating anything is a human perspective, since we're human. And from the human perspective, God looks like He either doesn't exist, or is a bald-faced liar, since His timing estimates are off by several millennia. So, "God's perspective" is nothing more than "However long it takes in order to force-fit it into real-world validity." And the clock is still ticking...

Hmmm. That must mean that more people are being deceived every day. Maybe it just means that the population of the world is increasing and a certain small percentage are deceived and become atheists.
That's incredible hubris, coming from you: your arguments lately depend on very transparent dishonesty. You cannot demonstrate any deception on the part of any atheist, nor can you demonstrate anything is actually responsible for deceiving anyone else (or why God doesn't feel it is necessary to do anything about it); you simply have to assert it, hope it sticks, and duck the refutation.

WMD

Wayne Delia

December 13, 2005, 12:31 AM

That's nice. So... why should WE trsut him under these bloody circumstances? How would we know?
I'm reminded of the joke about a customer service policy: "We screw the other guy... and pass the savings on to you."

WMD

Wayne Delia

December 13, 2005, 12:37 AM

rhutchin
The only way your children can be saved from their sin and enter heaven is for God to save them. They can be comforted to know that you never once cared enough for them to ask God to save them.

wyzaard
Why would he give over his children to live for eternity with such a filthy beast as your god? It is in his children's interests not to cow up to cosmic madmen, but to hold their heads up high and show defiance to such tyranny.
Yea, verily. Although they do deserve to spend eternity in hell for that incident with the pudding, the sofa, and the subsequent cover-up attempt when they were 5 and 3 years old, respectively, Joe and Lisa (now 12 and 10) understand quite well the nature of the empty threats tossed out by those who are simply frustrated because their ridiculous religious fantasies are not being believed uncritically. They're quite bright kids, actually.

WMD

Wayne Delia

December 13, 2005, 12:39 AM

Possibly, but the alternative is to live for eternity without God and that is described as an unpleasant situation.
Right now, my whole family lives our lives as if there is no God, and it's quite pleasant - sometimes embarrassingly so. What would be the difference after we're dead, if we live the same way? The only applicable argument (which, of course, is unfalsifiable) is that God is a terrorist who will inflict this eternal torture in hell for the sin of failing to believe the bullshit of weak religious apologists.

WMD

Wayne Delia

December 13, 2005, 12:45 AM

OK, so what do we have? It seems that we have the Bible and that which it says. What else is there? -- Finite human knowledge!!!
The problem you're sweeping under the carpet is that there are certain testable claims in the Bible - such as the magic super-powers promised to all believers in Mark 16:17-18 which clearly don't work. From that observable, repeatable, reliable, testable fact, our "finite human knowledge" can conclude that 1) God doesn't exist, or 2) God exists, but everything Jesus said was bullshit in the form of "parables".

I used my finite human knowledge to arrive at the first conclusion. You used your finite human knowledge to arrive at the second conclusion (I can refer you to your own post if you forgot what you wrote already).

Finite human knowledge, however limited, trumps these testable claims of the Bible, rendering it untrustworthy and dishonest. You promote it as if it was nevertheless trustworthy and honest (despite admitting that Jesus's "parable" of Mark 16:17-18 does not work in the real world because it's a "parable"), probably because you might think that kind of grovelling will get you in a little better with God. That's pathetic.

WMD

Wayne Delia

December 13, 2005, 12:47 AM

OK. Let everyone read the Bible himself.
I have read the Bible, five times, cover to cover. I know it better than you do, if your recent (and older) posts are any indication of your scholarship.

if a person wants to judge the writers as prideful men who thought that they wrote o the authority of God and then reject that which was written, let him. The worse that could happen is that he could be wrong.
Yawn. Again with the standard back-pedalling. "People believe what they believe; I believe that what I believe is true; since you believe something different, you are wrong." That's getting stale.

WMD

Wayne Delia

December 13, 2005, 12:55 AM

On your first point, God did this. He also explained it to you and you seem to understand. So, what is the problem?
The problem is you are intentionally misunderstanding the analogy, because you are virtually cornered. First, God did no "explaining" at all. God is analogous to the absent policeman with the gun, not the messenger who threatens people that the absent policeman will shoot them if they do not follow the messenger's list of rules. There are a hundred different messengers, all shouting different instructions about what to do to avoid getting shot.

Second, the lists of instructions from many of the messengers - including the one analogous to the Christian apologist - are all fraught with errors and contradictions, owing to what appears to be carelessness or ignorance on the part of the messengers who transcribed the message.

Third, many of the messengers - including the one analogous to the Christian apologist - are insisting that their lists of instructions are the truth, despite the errors and contradictions, which are never resolved.

Fourth, the list of instructions are certainly understandable, but there is no objective method given with which one can determine which list of instructions is necessarily true. "X understands Y" does not imply "X accepts Y as true."

The main problem appears to be your inability to admit you're wrong - when it's relatively easy to demonstrate where you're wrong, as I've done above.

WMD

Wayne Delia

December 13, 2005, 01:01 AM

It has not been substantiated (except by itself). So what?
Well, one problem which immediately comes to mind is my claim that you owe me ten thousand dollars. That claim has not been substantiated (except by itself.)

The issue is whether the Bible provides us with truth regardless whether that truth can be substantiated.
The corresponding analogy is whether my claim provides us with truth regardless whether I can prove you owe me ten thousand dollars.

You're in a nasty dilemma here: if you insist on your current line of reasoning, you must accept that you owe me ten thousand dollars with at least as much sincerity as you expect anyone else to accept your claim about the Bible being true. In that case, please make payment out to the Joseph and Lisa Delia College Fund.

But if you decline, then it's not the case that "truth is truth regardless whether that truth can be substantiated," and your current argument falls apart.

I believe that you owe me ten thousand dollars is true. Would you like to see my justification for that claim?

The same justification as your belief - faith.

Hey, your words, not mine. If your belief is true, then so is mine; if mine is not true, then neither is yours.

Game, set, and match. Again, please make that certified bank check out to the Joseph and Lisa Delia College Fund.

WMD

Wayne Delia

December 13, 2005, 01:11 AM

Finite human truths beats infinite christians fantasies any time.
While I generally don't engage in bumper sticker theology, this one does make a lot of sense. The Bible contains some testable stuff, most of which is trivial, but some of which can be shown to be wrong. "Finite human knowledge" in a scientific sense is testable, and that which is shown to be wrong is discarded in favor of that which better explains the evidence. Further, the Bible contains claims of untestable stuff, undetectable in our universe, which for all intents and purposes is useless. Meanwhile, with the extent of current scientific research in just a single issue of "Discover" magazine, this "finite human knowledge" is a veritable shitload of facts. On that basis, as you say, I'll take finite human truths over infinite christian fantasies on any day that ends with "y".

WMD

Wayne Delia

December 13, 2005, 01:12 AM

Scientific tests are able to verify truth but they do not establish truth. The problem with science is that a truth may exist for which science, through empirical tests on finite information, is unable to provide verification. That must be why Aristotle got all wrapped up in metaphysics.

The Bible can be true regarding its claim that God exists even if science cannot verify that God exists.
I'm guessing - hoping, actually - that you're not a scientist. Am I right?

WMD

Wayne Delia

December 13, 2005, 01:16 AM

Fantasy or truth? Which is it? Do we believe the Bible or don’t we? I will believe it. You can choose not to believe it.
Again, the convenient back-peddling. I don't actually "choose" to believe anything. Read that sentence again, as I'm certain that you've misunderstood it. I don't use the mechanism of "choice" to believe anything; rather, I believe what can be established to be the truth. I believe what the evidence compels me to believe. You cannot establish that the Bible is the truth; in fact, you constantly misrepresent what's actually in the Bible, possibly hoping that nobody will look up the actual context to see that you're being very creative - too creative, in fact. On that basis, and as a result of a shitload of Bible study and scientific review, I confidently withhold belief in the Bible and accept the peer-reviewed, tested, verified, retested, reliable, repeatable findings of the scientific method.

Nothing personal, but science done the proper way doesn't lie; it doesn't even have to lie.

WMD

Wayne Delia

December 13, 2005, 01:27 AM

Let's see, if he calls to the Christian God, and the Muslims are right, his children will burn in Hell. If he calls to the Muslim God, and the Christians are right, then his children will burn in Hell...
The 2001 edition of Barrett's World Christian Encyclopedia, identifies 10,000 distinct religions, of which 150 have 1 million or more followers. Within Christianity (counted as just one religion), 33,830 different denominations are counted. This would include denominations as large as Catholicism and as small as Shakers.

www.adherents.com
:eek: Almost thirty-four THOUSAND different denominations? I often use the figure of more than twenty thousand different denominations from the now-outdated Time Magazine survey several years ago.

That's no too bad... WMD has about a 1 in 43,000 chance of calling to the "right" God to save his kids.
That, of course, assumes that at least one of the gods is the True God. But that fails to account for the atheist position (that the odds are more like 0 in "whatever" chance), nor does it account for all logically possible proposable gods not popularly believed in. I used that example to demolish rhutchin's claim that we should believe in the religion with the worst afterlife threat, which through his extensive research of precisely one religion, turned out to be Christianity. My counter-example is the "God of Seven", which is a god who rewards all those who worship the number 7 with eternal bliss 7 times as nice as the Christian heaven, and condemns all unbelievers to the eternal torture seven times worse than the Christian hell.

Using this logic, WMD should join the religion which claims the worst possible Hell... just in case.
And obviously, that religion is the one which worships the "God of Seven," as I have just demonstrated - wait a second, hang on there - somebody just defined the "God of Eight." Time for another religion change. The point, obvious as it is, but being mentioned now for rhutchin's sake, since the point will no doubt escape him, is that there can always be an as-yet-undefined-or-undiscovered god with a worse punishment than Christianity. In fact, in the earlier discussion, rhutchin dismissed all the other religions on the basis that he was short of time and couldn't study them all.

WMD

Wayne Delia

December 13, 2005, 01:39 AM

WMD’s problem is that, in order to protect his children, WMD needs to call out to the true God and not one of the false gods.
rhutchin's problem is that many people in New Orleans affected by Hurricane Katrina - many now-homeless survivors who can verify it - called out to his version of God for help, and no help came. The hurricane was not stopped or abated for anyone. Even according to the Bible - a test of Yahweh against a false god - the lack of results indicates it's a false god.

Tough position to be in.
Not at all. Should any gods decide to show up with evidence of their existence, I'll evaluate the evidence and place belief in that god, if the evidence compels that belief. Obviously, though, the common handwaving and smokescreening of the Christian, Muslim, and Hindu theists about "look at the fluffy clouds, the tall mountains, the distant stars, therefore my particular God exists" does not qualify as "compelling evidence."

Given the difficulty of that task, WMD chooses to deny that there is a true God.
More honestly, given the lack of evidence of the existence of anything remotely resembling a "true God," WMD withholds belief in the existence (or, alternatively, stipulates that "not existing" is functionally equivalent to "existing, but undetectable.") That doesn't fit your agenda, though, so you need to streeeeeeetch it a bit.

Not a bad ploy unless he is wrong.
It's much more intellectually honest than your "ploy", too.

WMD

Wayne Delia

December 13, 2005, 01:50 AM

If they told you that the plane you are getting on will get you to your destination safely, would you believe it?
It depends. If it's a standard FAA-managed flight, with competent pilots, ground crew, technicians and mechanics, and air traffic controllers, and the airplane passes the extensive safety and security checkpoints in the applicable procedures, then yes, I would believe it - based on the confidence of an extremely high success rate in previous flights. On the other hand, if some jerk is out on the tarmac saying "Take my plane! Take my plane or you'll DIIIIIIE!!!" and points to an empty hangar, then that poor sap's out of luck.

People believe what they want to believe.
I believe I'll go with the actual, physical, safety-inspected, competently-operated, professionally managed airplane flight, and will ignore the stupid bastard out there on his knees with his eyes closed, mumbling a prayer to a plane that isn't there.

Some turn out to be wrong.
The idiotic dullard with the imaginary plane is as wrong as a turtle fucking a rock, and the supreme comic element is that the poor guy doesn't even realize it.

Even you could be wrong in your belief about the Bible.
"Believe in the Bible? Hell, I've even SEEN one!" The punch line to the classic joke here shows there's a significant difference between "Bible" and "claims made in the Bible." The claims themselves are not in any way evidence of the validity of the same claims. Some of the testable claims in the Bible are shown to be wrong and fail with more frequency than the number of FAA-supervised airplane flights, so your analogy is pretty well cooked.

WMD

Wayne Delia

December 13, 2005, 02:01 AM

Boy, you’re in trouble is you pick no god and then you are in trouble if you pick the wrong god.
Assuming you made at least one typo in that sentence, since it does not parse in conversational English. We're actually comparing the difference in trouble, since the Bible threatens severe punishment for those who worship the wrong god. You ducked the question.

Life just is not fair.
Tough shit. Suck it up.

However, in this case, WMD is not appealing to a god on his own behalf but on behalf of his children for whom he is unable to provide 100% protection.
I have conceded that I am not able to protect them completely from natural disasters, for example, like a tornado, hurricane, earthquake, or flood.

If WMD picks the wrong god, he loses nothing and his children have to fend for themselves anyway.
WMD is an atheist, and you still seem to have difficulty understanding the meaning of that term: essentially, it means no gods are picked at all, due to lack of belief, and a strong resistance to using my children as guinea pigs in any kind of peril as a test of some religious wacko's fevered imagined idea of God.

"Loses nothing?" Are you insane? I stand to lose my children, by allowing religious wackos like you to put them in harm's way as the result of an experiment to test their God fantasy. Ain't gonna happen, so don't count on it or it'll break your heart.

As foreign as this concept might be to you, there are people out there (including me) who actually love their children and will do anything in their power to protect their children from threats, whether those threats are from natural disasters, or from religious wackos trying to test out their God's effectiveness. This must be part of that dark set of Christian family values commanded by Jesus in Luke 14:26, in which He instructs would-be followers to hate their parents, their spouses, their children, and themselves. Not everybody buys into that. That behavior is "dysfunctional" and "sociopathic".

He ought to make a reasoned choice if he really cares about his children.
I have done so. Reason is the opposite of faith, and faith is entirely what you base your religious choice on. If you like, I could help you jam your foot a little further into your mouth, but it's in there pretty deep already.

WMD

Wayne Delia

December 13, 2005, 02:04 AM

How are we supposed to believe in your God, when you don't have enough faith in him to use your own test?
Indeed! It is an excellent illustration of a fairly large amount of hypocrisy: the weak religious apologists, especially Christian apologists, condemn unbelievers for not having faith in their God, when they demonstrate that even they don't have the required amount of faith in their God to validate the claims made in the Bible. It's pretty amusing, actually.

WMD

Wayne Delia

December 13, 2005, 02:09 AM

So picking the wrong god for one's children isn't as serious as picking the wrong god for oneself?

Please explain.
It's a complicated explanation, and it requires an assumption that anyone who would not pick the Christian God is not worth having his children live. That speaks volumes about Christianity; volumes which don't portray God in a very flattering light.

Psalm 137:8-9 "O Daughter of Babylon, doomed to destruction, happy is he who repays you for what you have done to us - he who seizes your infants and dashes them against the rocks."

We've insulted, belittled, and refuted his arguments, so according to this pearl of wisdom from the Bible, maybe we should have our kids bashed into the rocks or something. <chuckle>

WMD

Wayne Delia

December 13, 2005, 02:10 AM

I think rhutchin is saying WMD should search out all religions, see which one has the WORST possible afterlife for non-believers, then join.

Join because the eternal torment described is worse than what you want your children to be subjected to.

That's pure nonsense. Having the worst possible Hell, doesn't make a religion any more likely to be true.
Again, in an earlier discussion, he actually did suggest choosing the religion with the worst possible hell, but when challenged on comparative differences with many other religions, he dismissed virtually all of them on the basis that he didn't have enough time to study them. Islam, for example, was dismissed because rhutchin thought that Moslems didn't get as "excited' over their religion as Christians did. That was a hoot!

WMD

Wayne Delia

December 13, 2005, 02:14 AM

The problem we have with the Bible is that it describes things that cannot be observed or empirically tested (such as judgment after death).
And, as such, there's no compelling reason to accept it as necessarily valid.

The Bible tells you that you are accountable to God for your actions and must stand before Him and give an account of those actions after you die.
The Bible is full of all sorts of bullshit.

Does one believe this or treat it as a fantasy? A person can do either. The problem comes if he treats as fantasy that which is truth.
Again, the stale back-peddling: "People believe what they believe. I believe in the Bible, you believe something else. Since I believe that the Bible is true, and you believe something different, therefore you're wrong." Sheesh. Nobody buys into that shit. Give it a rest!

WMD

Alf

December 13, 2005, 02:37 AM

If they told you that the plane you are getting on will get you to your destination safely, would you believe it?

Generally speaking yes. Flying an airplane is in modern times rather safe. Especially compared with other forms of transportation such as driving by car.

Of course, if I were about to board a plane from a country and company that is on the top list of accidents I wouldn't be so sure but I would generally try to avoid those planes anyway.

People believe what they want to believe.

Let's see... I would want to believe I have a 100 million dollars. Do I believe I have a 100 million dollars? Nope. Sorry, you're wrong again.

Speak for yourself. YOU believe what you want to believe and you won't allow reality to get in your way. The rest of us do not necessarily share that problem.

Some turn out to be wrong. Even you could be wrong in your belief about the Bible.
True. Even you could be wrong in your belief about the bible. In fact we can be very certain that there are parts of the bible that is wrong. If you believe in all the contradictions we can be very sure you are wrong even if we do not know which alternative if any is right.

Alf

Alf

December 13, 2005, 02:38 AM

Boy, you’re in trouble is you pick no god and then you are in trouble if you pick the wrong god. Life just is not fair.

However, in this case, WMD is not appealing to a god on his own behalf but on behalf of his children for whom he is unable to provide 100% protection. If WMD picks the wrong god, he loses nothing and his children have to fend for themselves anyway. He ought to make a reasoned choice if he really cares about his children.

An excellent idea. My reasoned choice would be atheism of course. Since I have every reason to think there is no god and no reason to think there is any god.

I suspect WMD would agree with me.

Alf

Alf

December 13, 2005, 02:43 AM

Science is hardly stable. It is the physical laws of the universe that are stable. The quest by scientists to understand those laws causes science (the product of that quest) to change constantly. Scientists are at their best when they are able, not only to observe, but to conduct empirical tests that duplicate that which they observe.

The problem we have with the Bible is that it describes things that cannot be observed or empirically tested (such as judgment after death). The Bible tells you that you are accountable to God for your actions and must stand before Him and give an account of those actions after you die. Does one believe this or treat it as a fantasy? A person can do either. The problem comes if he treats as fantasy that which is truth.

The problem can also arise if you treat as truth that which is fantasy.

Just incase nobody has told you yet - we don't buy Pascal's wager around here.

And btw, there are several things in the bible that can be tests as what John says.

Alf

Alf

December 13, 2005, 02:48 AM

All right, if that which a person does not know can hurt him, then I guess we can say that physics does not trump metaphysics.

I guess we need to throw out the mindless speculations and fantasies and deal with what is left. So, let’s deal with the Bible unless you can prove it to be a mindless speculation or fantasy and have it thrown out.

Nice try in shifting the burden. I do not claim the bible is not a fantasy - you do. You prove to me that it is not a fantasy and we'll be on the right path :-)

And yes, I do have some evidence that the bible is mindless speculation. For example it claims that pi = 3 - we know that isn't true or extremely inaccurate. Now, you can claim that was a very rough estimate but it does indicate it was written by ignorant people and not by divine inspiration.

What about the birth of Jesus? Was he born while Herod was king as Matthew claim or was he born during a census decreed by Augustus as Luke claim? Both of them cannot be wrong and so one of both of them have to be mindless speculation. QED.

There, I managed to prove that the bible contain mindless speculation.

Alf

Alf

December 13, 2005, 03:04 AM

If God is just and not fair, everyone is in trouble.

If he is not fair he is not just. That is what "just" entails.

Alf

Alf

December 13, 2005, 03:37 AM

I'm guessing - hoping, actually - that you're not a scientist. Am I right?

WMD

Does rhutchin strike you as very scientifically minded?

I think I would have better chances at passing off as a preacher than he is at passing off as a scientist.

This is true even if what I preached were contrary to religious dogma - it would pass off as "liberal interpretation". However, any scientist would spot rhutchin the moment he tried to write a thesis or lab report and call his bluffs.

Alf

rhutchin

December 13, 2005, 06:20 AM

rhutchin
Possibly, but the alternative is to live for eternity without God and that is described as an unpleasant situation.

Wayne Delia
It's described as an unpleasant situation in a book which can't demonstrate it actually exists. There are plenty of books like that; we call them "fiction".

That the Bible cannot prove to your satisfaction that what it says is true does not mean that it is not true. Your contention that the Bible is fiction is also unsupportable.

rhutchin
One, through his pride, might say that it is better to go hungry that to submit to the authority of another, but if one cares that his children be fed, then swallowing one’s pride may not be a bad thing.

Wayne Delia
You're again missing the point: any authority who claims we must submit to it in order to obtain food for children is not worth worshipping as being all-loving. At best it's a false dichotomy; at worst, the authority is a fascist.

Nonetheless, it is the authority to whom you must give account of all that you do. Your pride prevents you from submitting to that authority in order to protect your children. That makes you a rebel and to rebels, all authorities are fascist.

rhutchin

December 13, 2005, 06:30 AM

rhutchin, I am living disproof of your claim about choosing to believe. I did not choose not to believe in God after growing up with a minister father, rather I realized that I never did believe. Ever. It never reached beyond the level of "let's pretend" for me. And I did try, oh how I tried, to please Dad. But I could never make myself believe something when that belief did not come naturally from within.

If everyone were honest, they would say the say thing. One's choices reflect one's true desires. You could never choose to believe because you had no desire to believe. When faced with the choice between believing or not believing, you did that which you desired - you chose not to believe.

Some people do pretend for awhile (and appear to choose to believe) so we see them doing that which they have no desire to do (even calling themselves a Christian and even fervently doing all that Christians are supposed to do), but sooner or later, they stop pretending and start doing that which is their true desire.

rhutchin

December 13, 2005, 06:35 AM

rhutchin
What makes it poor planning or ineffective? The Bible is clear that the plan is completely effective and accomplishes everything God wanted. Seems to me the plan was good judging by its effectiveness.

Wayne Delia
The analogy, which you agreed was accurate, showed the mass chaos and confusion arising from a hundred different messengers from absent policemen on what to do to avoid getting shot, and how to distinguish true information from false information. That is hardly a case of being "completely effective." You're just wearing your God Cheerleader costume and waving your pom-poms, because if the plan was actually "completely effective" and "good, judging by its effectiveness" then the world would have been 100% Christian instead of only about 33% Christian. To claim that God wanted it that way is to claim nothing, since the proponents of other religions could just as easily say that their god wanted things exactly the way they are, which proves their god exists. You're just not very good at this apologist's gig.

It appears to be confusion, but in the end the “elect�? are saved. God is always in control and chaos and confusion are for those who are not among the elect.

JPD

December 13, 2005, 06:39 AM

If everyone were honest, they would say the say thing. One's choices reflect one's true desires. You could never choose to believe because you had no desire to believe. When faced with the choice between believing or not believing, you did that which you desired - you chose not to believe.

Some people do pretend for awhile (and appear to choose to believe) so we see them doing that which they have no desire to do (even calling themselves a Christian and even fervently doing all that Christians are supposed to do), but sooner or later, they stop pretending and start doing that which is their true desire.

So when are you going to do that? Or is that you believe that this is your true desire? Problem here - those people (and we) believed that that was our true desire at that point in time that you are currently in. You would appear to be a true Christian only for the time that you tell yourself that this is what you believe. After that, well the stars will fall from your eyes and you will see that things just are. There is no good or bad really to existence, just differing states with alternate views. Certainly no afterlife rewarder/punisher - how bizarre is it that it works on mature adults? Haven't they grown out of that and put away their toys? Just BE.

JPD

December 13, 2005, 06:39 AM

It appears to be confusion, but in the end the “elect�? are saved. God is always in control and chaos and confusion are for those who are not among the elect.

But you don't know who the elect are do you? As for this chaos and confusion, who and where exactly? I don't feel at all confused.

rhutchin

December 13, 2005, 06:42 AM

rhutchin

December 13, 2005, 06:47 AM

rhutchin
I continue to maintain that the Bible is inerrant.

John A. Broussard
That's strange. I thought you changed your mind about the world having been created in six days.

Have you changed your mind about that?

No way. The historical account in the Bible does not allow for anything other than a six-day creation.

rhutchin

December 13, 2005, 06:51 AM

...
I think Ducky would have wanted exactly what he said he wanted at last year's Grand Chapter convention: "I wish I could spend a little more time with the fraternity boys." That not being possible, he certainly would have wanted to meet his death in the arms of his loving sister Mary, but instead, they were separated at the time of the evacuation.

In short, God said to Dr. Karlem Riess: "Tough shit, Ducky."

If that were the case, he would have have been rejected from entering heaven.

JPD

December 13, 2005, 06:51 AM

Even you study Christianity. You do so in this forum. How many discussion groups do you participate in involving Islam, Hindu, or other religions. My guess is none. You are always searching for answers to Christianity because you basically know that the truth of Christianity spells doom for you.

Study it to confirm that it is a collection of deranged nonsense, yes. But interesting all the same. It provides great entertainment for us, in particular when we hear the words "doom"! The truth of Christianity is a strange two-faced fish that can't agree with its fellow schoolers when to interpret literally and when not. The truth of Christianity is the doom of intelligence, straight and good thinking, not to mention all those fish who find themselves constantly unable to provide a straight answer to pretty much any question they are asked. It often starts with "Well, I believe" or "Well, the Bible tells us" and is followed by "this is a particularly challenging set of verses", "one cannot interpret this literally" (apart from all those Christians who are, unfortunately for the rest of the world, doing just that), and "learn to look more deeply for what this would appear to say is in fact the opposite of what it is". Ooohh, Tao Te Ching...that's the Bible stripped back to basics - no slop, no mess.

JPD

December 13, 2005, 06:56 AM

How many discussion groups do you participate in involving Islam, Hindu, or other religions. My guess is none. You are always searching for answers to Christianity because you basically know that the truth of Christianity spells doom for you.

You aren't going to like the reason that this is invariably the case. It isn't for the reason that you think it is I am afraid.

Oh and before you trim the "I am afraid" from the end and respond with something infantile like "Well, so you should be, but if you embrace Jesus you will find salvation and everlasting life". Even if you can't work out precisely who is on that dratted list. Come on rhutchin, tell us who is on the list of the elect and prove it, lest you be off to your own hell. You believe that you are not destined for hell but you don't actually know. You may not care whether you can convince us that you are on this list, but your assertions are fairly appalling thus far and you couldn't be less convincing if you tried.

rhutchin

December 13, 2005, 06:59 AM

rhutchin
Even you study Christianity. You do so in this forum. How many discussion groups do you participate in involving Islam, Hindu, or other religions. My guess is none. You are always searching for answers to Christianity because you basically know that the truth of Christianity spells doom for you.

JPD
Study it to confirm that it is a collection of deranged nonsense, yes. But interesting all the same. It provides great entertainment for us, in particular when we hear the words "doom"! The truth of Christianity is a strange two-faced fish that can't agree with its fellow schoolers when to interpret literally and when not. The truth of Christianity is the doom of intelligence, straight and good thinking, not to mention all those fish who find themselves constantly unable to provide a straight answer to pretty much any question they are asked. It often starts with "Well, I believe" or "Well, the Bible tells us" and is followed by "this is a particularly challenging set of verses", "one cannot interpret this literally" (apart from all those Christians who are, unfortunately for the rest of the world, doing just that), and "learn to look more deeply for what this would appear to say is in fact the opposite of what it is". Ooohh, Tao Te Ching...that's the Bible stripped back to basics - no slop, no mess.

The Bible has passages that are easy to understand and passages that are difficult to understand. Many people read it with their biases wanting it to say that which they want to believe. So, people do to the Bible what they do to everything else.

You find the discussions of the Bible entertaining, but God provides them for your education. God has been generous to you not allowing you to stand before Him without you knowing what is to happen to you.

JPD

December 13, 2005, 07:06 AM

The Bible has passages that are easy to understand and passages that are difficult to understand. Many people read it with their biases wanting it to say that which they want to believe. So, people do to the Bible what they do to everything else.

You find the discussions of the Bible entertaining, but God provides them for your education. God has been generous to you not allowing you to stand before Him without you knowing what is to happen to you.

So Bible study is an elitist pursuit. Seems to run counter to its intentions.

If I relied on the Bible for education I would be depriving my brain of actual information and it wouldn't thank me for it. Indeed, it would unscrew my skull and leap out to run off and join the others huddling around your copy.

God has been generous? In having me sit here reading your halfwit assertions? Oh well that's just great. I find your last sentence vile, pretentious and sickening. You clearly, badly, need mental assistance. Imagine then, how much more twisted your God must be. You give the impression that he is going to punish me for not believing in him, but not believing in God is the only intelligent position to take when equipped with a mind that demands some basis to back up a ridiculous assertion. Clearly you settle for second best without a thought.

rhutchin

December 13, 2005, 07:10 AM

rhutchin
How many discussion groups do you participate in involving Islam, Hindu, or other religions. My guess is none. You are always searching for answers to Christianity because you basically know that the truth of Christianity spells doom for you.

JPD
You aren't going to like the reason that this is invariably the case. It isn't for the reason that you think it is I am afraid.

Oh and before you trim the "I am afraid" from the end and respond with something infantile like "Well, so you should be, but if you embrace Jesus you will find salvation and everlasting life". Even if you can't work out precisely who is on that dratted list. Come on rhutchin, tell us who is on the list of the elect and prove it, lest you be off to your own hell. You believe that you are not destined for hell but you don't actually know. You may not care whether you can convince us that you are on this list, but your assertions are fairly appalling thus far and you couldn't be less convincing if you tried.

Whether I am of the elect is immaterial. Why I should have to convince you that I am or why it would matter if I could makes no sense to me. What matters is whether you are on the list. Do you see any indication that God has any desire to save you? If not, you can conclude that you are not on the list. In that case, I think you should do whatever you desire.

JPD

December 13, 2005, 07:11 AM

Whether I am of the elect is immaterial. Why I should have to convince you that I am or why it would matter if I could makes no sense to me. What matters is whether you are on the list. Do you see any indication that God has any desire to save you? If not, you can conclude that you are not on the list. In that case, I think you should do whatever you desire.

Oh dear. You really have no idea at all do you? You don't know three key things:

(1) Whether a list of the elect actually exists.
(2) Whether this list is static or dynamic.
(3) Who is on the list.

Good luck! Spend a few more pages drowning in your own logic.

One cannot but do whatever it is that one desires. You have chosen to fill your mind with hateful, deluded and decaying reading matter. That's great for you.

Ojuice5001

December 13, 2005, 07:14 AM

You find the discussions of the Bible entertaining, but God provides them for your education. God has been generous to you not allowing you to stand before Him without you knowing what is to happen to you.

But we don't know it. Our evidence for the Christian heaven and hell is mere hearsay. And a specimen of hearsay, especially if it sounds rather implausible, is not knowledge or even, in the case of a non-Christian, belief.

And, what about those who have heard even less of the Gospel than we have? Why is God even less "generous" to them than he is to us?

rhutchin

December 13, 2005, 07:14 AM

...You give the impression that he is going to punish me for not believing in him, but not believing in God is the only intelligent position to take when equipped with a mind that demands some basis to back up a ridiculous assertion. Clearly you settle for second best without a thought.

God is not going to punish you for not believing in Him. God is going to punish you for sin. If you have not committed any sin, you will not be punished. The punishment for your sin is to be excluded from heaven, which may not be much of a punishment for you, since you probably don't want to be there anyway.

Ojuice5001

December 13, 2005, 07:19 AM

The punishment for your sin is to be excluded from heaven, which may not be much of a punishment for you, since you probably don't want to be there anyway.

Euphemism alert!

Hell has traditionally been portrayed as a state of intense positive suffering, not merely being "excluded from heaven." That's why the Christian afterlife system strikes people as horrendously unjust; not the claim that some are excluded from heaven, but the claim that the only alternative is the tortures of hell.

rhutchin

December 13, 2005, 07:19 AM

rhutchin
You find the discussions of the Bible entertaining, but God provides them for your education. God has been generous to you not allowing you to stand before Him without you knowing what is to happen to you.

Ojuice5001
But we don't know it. Our evidence for the Christian heaven and hell is mere hearsay. And a specimen of hearsay, especially if it sounds rather implausible, is not knowledge or even, in the case of a non-Christian, belief.

And, what about those who have heard even less of the Gospel than we have? Why is God even less "generous" to them than he is to us?

Even if hearsay, you still can understand that which is being presented.

As to others, God has mercy on whom He will have mercy. He has been generous to you where He has not been generous to others.

JPD

December 13, 2005, 07:20 AM

God is not going to punish you for not believing in Him. God is going to punish you for sin. If you have not committed any sin, you will not be punished. The punishment for your sin is to be excluded from heaven, which may not be much of a punishment for you, since you probably don't want to be there anyway.

Good grief this is weak stuff rhutchin. Got any good arguments in there? No, I thought not. You flip this way, you flop that. And you still haven't been able to explain how the elect fits into this. Are you saying that the elect doesn't mean much? Looking at what you have said here, sin is bound up with being the unelect and not having committed any sin makes you one of the elect? Yet you have said that the elect and the unelect are not interchangeable, and so a member of the elect can sin and still get into heaven, and a member of the unelect could spend their whole life not sinning, yet be sent to hell because God had a bit of a think and wanted to get a reduction on his stationery order.

Try actually holding a position that means something. As it stands, your assertion is a poor quality joke. But it also stands as a glowing testament to the inferior and baseless realm of Christianity. I don't think you are even aware of what you are saying. I don't think you even recognise when your argument shoots itself clean between the eyes. At the risk of being censored, are you a bit thick?

JPD

December 13, 2005, 08:18 AM

You have this whimsical idea, based on absolutely nothing concrete that, regardless of how you behave, but because of what you believe, that you are one of the elect. You consistently fail to provide any justification for this – you don’t know whether such a list exists, whether it was created once or continues to be updated, or whether you are on it. But, putting all of that to one side, your positon here is that the elect go to heaven and the unelect go to hell and one cannot become the other regardless of what they do or say, or what they believe during their lives. So being one of the elect is the route to heaven but cannot actually be chosen.

Now you bring in sin and you use this as your guide to who is going to heaven and who is going to hell. So your previous theory (I hate to use such a word here), that the elect are going to heaven, even if they sin, is suddenly invalidated. One can choose whether or not one sins (which is a heavily subjective question) and all will be well if one does not. So that all sounds great, absolutely marvellous. Well, utterly ridiculous bunk actually but never mind.

So which is it to be? You cannot hold both positions simultaneously. To hold two ridiculous and contradictory views is worse than one which is inherently without basis. Good luck.

John A. Broussard

December 13, 2005, 09:05 AM

Even if hearsay, you still can understand that which is being presented.

As to others, God has mercy on whom He will have mercy. He has been generous to you where He has not been generous to others.
Is this an example of divine justice?

John A. Broussard

December 13, 2005, 09:13 AM

No way. The historical account in the Bible does not allow for anything other than a six-day creation.
Do you truly, honestly, with no compunctions whatsoever believe that the fourteen billion year old universe--where we now know that light has been tavelling for all that time--was created by your god in six twenty-four hour periods a few thousand years ago?

Wayne Delia

December 13, 2005, 09:36 AM

I guess we need to throw out the mindless speculations and fantasies and deal with what is left. So, let’s deal with the Bible unless you can prove it to be a mindless speculation or fantasy and have it thrown out.
The Bible would be a myth if it included elements common to typical myths - epic tales, supernatural claims, unfalsifiable assertions - which it does contain, so I consider it a myth. Further, the Bible contains definitive statements about that which cannot possibly be known with any certainty by humans, yet some of these statements are contradictory or errors of fact. On that basis, I consider it to be fantasy, and not quite mindless speculation, but rather speculation based on superstition and ignorance of scientific principles when the material was written, and on that basis, I feel no obligation to assume it's necessarily true.

WMD

Wayne Delia

December 13, 2005, 09:58 AM

I wasn’t offended.
Perhaps you were too confused to understand the point. You had a terrific chance there to demonstrate how effective it would be to call out to God for help by putting yourself in harm's way. That's no good, of course, because I suppose you do understand that it won't work at all. You're much more comfortable suggesting I use my children as guinea pigs than stepping up to the plate and performing that test yourself.

WMD has stated that he cannot provide 100% protection for his children.
That's correct. Specifically, I can't guarantee complete safety in the case of large scale natural disasters, such as tornadoes, earthquakes, hurricanes, or floods.

If he takes no action (to call on God for help) then it would seem that he is putting his children at risk of harm (in those areas where he cannot protect them).
Of course not. They'd ALREADY be at risk of harm, silly, since they're put at risk in order to test whether God will help them. If I take no action, they'll get seriously hurt or die; your God doesn't exist, so He cannot help them at all. You won't even get the opportunity to try that out with my children. You ran away from a chance to use yourself to demonstrate that proposition as well.

If he acts (by calling on God), he would be seeking to remove his children from risk (by having God protect them when he cannot).
That removal from risk won't happen, because your God doesn't exist. It is illustrated in the complete and continuous devastation caused by Hurricane Katrina in New Orleans; there were no "pockets of protection" among the ten-foot-high flood waters at all. It covered the entire inner city, killing many people who were devout Christians. Faced with that abject failure, you have previously made up alibis and excuses why the test failed as illustrated in New Orleans: God will only save people like them if every single one of them calls out to Him for help, or God will help someone's children but will not help individual people who ask for help on their own behalf, or whatever lame excuse du jour appeals to you. You will not get a chance to use those kind of lame excuses to explain the failure of a test involving my children.

What I CAN do is take action to prevent religious wackos like you from using my children in such an experimental test of their God fantasy, especially in cases where you're too cowardly to run the test with yourself as a guinea pig.

It is WMD’s pride that keeps him from calling on God and thereby puts his children at risk.
You've got the cart before the horse. The children would already be placed at risk in order to determine whether God would help them, so there's no "thereby" involved at all. Fortunately, I have enough COMMON SENSE, not "pride", to prevent that from happening.

I am willing to test God in those areas where God has instructed people to test Him. Doing other than that is foolishness.
In Mark 11:22-23, Jesus says that anything you ask for in faith and prayer would be delivered - anything at all, including relocating a mountain and depositing it into a remote lake. The lame excuse you gave in that case is that Jesus always spoke in parables, which do not necessarily correlate to real-world validity - in other words, Jesus is a compulsive bullshit artist. So which is more foolish - suggesting that another person use his children in a test of your God which you are too cowardly to carry out using yourself as a test subject, or calling Jesus a compulsive liar?

WMD

AZSuperman

December 13, 2005, 10:05 AM

:eek: Almost thirty-four THOUSAND different denominations? I often use the figure of more than twenty thousand different denominations from the now-outdated Time Magazine survey several years ago.
I love using the source above, because it's from a Christian book... Christians are less likely to argue with their own sources... And it does a great job of showing just how divided God's "true church" really is.

That, of course, assumes that at least one of the gods is the True God. But that fails to account for the atheist position (that the odds are more like 0 in "whatever" chance), nor does it account for all logically possible proposable gods not popularly believed in.
Very true! I didn't include that possibility because I wanted to demonstrate how unlikely it is that someone will find the "true" church just from the options currently available... even if it actually existed.

I used that example to demolish rhutchin's claim that we should believe in the religion with the worst afterlife threat, which through his extensive research of precisely one religion, turned out to be Christianity. My counter-example is the "God of Seven", which is a god who rewards all those who worship the number 7 with eternal bliss 7 times as nice as the Christian heaven, and condemns all unbelievers to the eternal torture seven times worse than the Christian hell.

And obviously, that religion is the one which worships the "God of Seven," as I have just demonstrated - wait a second, hang on there - somebody just defined the "God of Eight." Time for another religion change. The point, obvious as it is, but being mentioned now for rhutchin's sake, since the point will no doubt escape him, is that there can always be an as-yet-undefined-or-undiscovered god with a worse punishment than Christianity. In fact, in the earlier discussion, rhutchin dismissed all the other religions on the basis that he was short of time and couldn't study them all.

WMD
Looks like rhutchin will be changing religions frequently! :rolling:

Wayne Delia

December 13, 2005, 10:18 AM

You mean you can test whether there is a judgment after this life.
No. Broussard produced several counter-examples to your claim that the Bible describes only things which cannot be tested. To that list, I'd add the special powers Jesus promised Christians would have in Mark 16:17-18. Those can be tested, but rarely are, even by Christians, because those abilities obviously do not work. Your excuse for that was that it was only a "parable", since the author of Mark indicates that Jesus only spoke in parables, and your use of that excuse implies that Jesus never necessarily told the truth. Still, those Bible claims are testable, and on the rare occasions when the tests are carried out, they fail miserably and spectacularly.

You can test whether Jesus raised Lazarus from the dead.
Don't have to. It only takes one white crow to disprove the assertion "All crows are black." Broussard gave a list of four or five "white crows," to which I added the three magical super-powers promised by Jesus in Mark 16:17-18, to disprove your idea that there's nothing testable in the Bible.

Somehow, I just don’t believe you.
Imagine the level of credibility we assign to you.

WMD

Wayne Delia

December 13, 2005, 10:21 AM

True, but if one is to begin somewhere, it would seem prudent to start the investigation with those religions that claim that something bad will happen to you, starting with the worse. Why waste time with religions that say that all people go to heaven?
Thanks for verifying what I observed last night: you actually did claim that you can dismiss all other religions which postualte a lesser hell, and you've assumed that the Christian hell is the worst, simply in order to save time.

That reasoning, on the face of it, is a fallacy. Christianity could be false, but one of the assumed "lesser hell" religions turns out to be true (for the sake of argument). Spending eternity in a "lesser hell" is still eternity in hell.

WMD

Wayne Delia

December 13, 2005, 10:29 AM

It depends on the outcome that one is seeking. If WMD’s concern is to protect his children, then picking the wrong god means that he places his children at risk.
You really don't understand your own scenario. Your idea is to place my children at risk, then call out to God to help them as a test. They'd ALREADY be at risk in order to start the experiment. Threatening that condition as an experimental consequence has the cart before the horse. Do you really ever give these things any sincere thought?

If WMD’s concern is his own welfare, then picking the wrong god places himself at risk.
Yet none of the religious fanatics, including yourself, is able to demonstrate that their preferred god is the right god - as illustrated by the analogy of a hundred different messengers shouting out a hundred different lists of instructions to avoid being shot by an absent policeman. My welfare, then, will consist of me doing whatever I can to protect myself and my family from actual real-world threats, instead of using my family as test subjects to test one of those arbitrary lists of instructions from one of the contradictory messengers. The aftermath of very recent natural disasters already shows that your suggested God simply doesn't work, and instead of results, all you have are lame excuses.

Both seem serious to me, the difference being the outcome one seeks.
Tell that to the victims of Hurricane Katrina, who appealed to your God for help. There were a lot of them.

WMD

Wayne Delia

December 13, 2005, 10:32 AM

What in the world does Lazarus have to do with the sun standing still? Are you going to explain why we can't test whether or not the sun is moving around the earth?
Well, we can, and it doesn't. A better question would be if we can test whether the earth can stop in its rotation which would provide the illusion of the sun stopping in its apparent path through the sky. Short answer: if the earth did stop rotating, the sun would appear to stop, but the earth would be sheared off in two or three large pieces due to inertia of motion, ending life on earth as we know it - and, that apparently didn't happen.

I answered your questions, but you refuse to deal with my answers.
All too typical these days!

WMD

Wayne Delia

December 13, 2005, 10:43 AM

Which God should WMD call to? The God you proclaim?
I'm guessing that every apologist and evangelist for any religion would answer "Yes".

The God other theists proclaim?
The apologist would claim, as rhutchin has claimed, that he has faith that the god he believes in is the true god, and anyone else with a competing opinion is therefore wrong.

As we've already established, there are THOUSANDS of religions, and THOUSANDS of denominations within a given religion... meaning there are THOUSANDS of God's, or versions of God's to call out to.
Additionally, there are millions, billions, or more potentially as-yet-undefined, undiscovered gods out there as well.

But here's something for you to think about rhutchin, WMD has probably done more religious investigation into Christianity and other religions than you have.
Most likely, yes. Read the Bible cover to cover five times, and used the Bible as a reference countless thousands of times.

He's probably read more books (each espousing a different point of view) about religion than you have.
Again, yes, quite likely - Biblical apologetics (i.e. Gleason Archer, Josh McDowell, David "Cross and the Switchblade" Wilkerson, etc.) and criticism (Thomas Paine, Robert Ingersol, George Smith, Dan Barker, Michael Miller, C. Dennis McKinsey, etc.) are all evaluated with no prerequired, presupposed bias toward the truth of any position.

He's probably prayed for guideance from God several times...
MANY times, as a born-again Christian for about a dozen years.

And he has, through diligent investigation, come to the conclusion that there is no God.
Aye - mainly through the realization that this "guidance" promised actually consisted of my own common sense.

I say this about WMD because it seems to be the story most atheists on this board share... myself included.
Many of us are "twin sons of different mothers."

Why, after we've all diligently searched for the truth and we've all come to the conclustion that there is no God, do you feel you have a better understanding of God? Especially when you admit you have done NO searching yourself?
rhutchin's lack of research in comparative religious history, he admits, is due to laziness or lack of time. But in general, in the apologist's opinion, any conclusion which is complimentary toward God is approved, and any other conclusion is wrong.

(WMD, if I'm wrong about your story, I appologize)
No, you're quite correct, and I am glad that I convey the image consistent with my actual experiences. You need only apologize for misspelling "apologize". :)

WMD

rhutchin

December 13, 2005, 10:59 AM

rhutchin
It depends on the outcome that one is seeking. If WMD’s concern is to protect his children, then picking the wrong god means that he places his children at risk.

Wayne Delia
You really don't understand your own scenario. Your idea is to place my children at risk, then call out to God to help them as a test. They'd ALREADY be at risk in order to start the experiment. Threatening that condition as an experimental consequence has the cart before the horse. Do you really ever give these things any sincere thought?

Your original contention is that you are not omnipotent and cannot protect your children 100% of the time. I responded that, if you cared about your children, you would appeal to God to protect your children when you are unable to do so. There is no need to place your children in any more risk than that which naturally occurs.

rhutchin
If WMD’s concern is his own welfare, then picking the wrong god places himself at risk.

Wayne Delia
Yet none of the religious fanatics, including yourself, is able to demonstrate that their preferred god is the right god - as illustrated by the analogy of a hundred different messengers shouting out a hundred different lists of instructions to avoid being shot by an absent policeman. My welfare, then, will consist of me doing whatever I can to protect myself and my family from actual real-world threats, instead of using my family as test subjects to test one of those arbitrary lists of instructions from one of the contradictory messengers. The aftermath of very recent natural disasters already shows that your suggested God simply doesn't work, and instead of results, all you have are lame excuses.

My inability to demonstrate (beyond referral to the Bible) that the Biblical god is the true and living God makes your chore more difficult. Your response (equivalent to putting your head in the sand) evidences no real regard for your children and suggests that you just don’t want to be bothered (you will do what you want for them and they are on their own after that).

Wayne Delia

December 13, 2005, 11:01 AM

Just to make sure that there is no confusion on where I stand.

I am NOT, gradually or otherwise, and have not been moving to the position where I might be aware that the bible is a garbage heap of myth, droll tales, historic fragments and platitudes.

I continue to maintain that the Bible is inerrant.
Bullshit. You offered an excuse that the abilities Jesus promised in Mark 16:17-18 didn't work because it was a "parable", and that any competent investigation into those claims would take that into account. Essentially, "parable" is functionally equivalent to "bullshit". If the Bible was inerrant, those promised abilities would work, but they don't. You seem to have a huge, insurmountable case of cognitive dissonance.

WMD

Wayne Delia

December 13, 2005, 11:03 AM

rhutchin
While I admit that I have not examined other religions, that does not mean that other religions have not been examined. There are organizations (e.g., the Christian Research Institute) that do examine other religions and make their results publicly available.

Wayne Delia
That's amazing! A Christian research group has analyzed the claims of all religions, and somehow arrived at the conclusion that Christianity was the correct claim! WOW!

rhutchin
Yes, it is pretty incredible, and it shows that one person does not have to do it all.
That "whooshing" sound you heard was the point sailing right over your head. Didn't you detect even a hint of sarcasm? Do you think a similarly-biased Muslim group would arrive at the same conclusion? Are you that naive?

WMD

JPD

December 13, 2005, 11:04 AM

Hi rhutchin

Good luck in working your way out of my posts 331 & 332. As it stands you are inconsistent and your argument falls over itself. Good luck.

JPD

Wayne Delia

December 13, 2005, 11:08 AM

Sounds like WMD needs to do some more searching.
That's another lame apologist technique: "You need to keep studying the Bible and assuming it's true until your brain turns to oatmeal like mine did, then you'll understand." Forget it - I have too much intellectual integrity to stoop that low.

Given his claim to really care about his children, I am confident he will not stop until he finds that true and living god who can provide the protection for his children that he cannot.
"God X exists" necessarily precedes "God X provides protection." There's no evidence that "God X exists" for any X, including your God. You can't establish that as a fact, so you try to duck the burden of proof by appealing to others to make the same ignorant leap of faith you made. That's a poor strategy when debating people who see that dishonesty coming from a mile away.

WMD

rhutchin

December 13, 2005, 11:08 AM

rhutchin
True, but if one is to begin somewhere, it would seem prudent to start the investigation with those religions that claim that something bad will happen to you, starting with the worse. Why waste time with religions that say that all people go to heaven?

Wayne Delia
Thanks for verifying what I observed last night: you actually did claim that you can dismiss all other religions which postulate a lesser hell, and you've assumed that the Christian hell is the worst, simply in order to save time.

That reasoning, on the face of it, is a fallacy. Christianity could be false, but one of the assumed "lesser hell" religions turns out to be true (for the sake of argument). Spending eternity in a "lesser hell" is still eternity in hell.

Correct, hell is hell, so the Christian hell would be equivalent to any other hell. It does not have to be the worse hell. Obviously (as I suspect you may have figured out), if a religion does not espouse hell as the punishment for doing wrong, we don’t have to spend time with it. If you did figure this out, then you can see where you erroneously saw a fallacy where there is none.

JPD

December 13, 2005, 11:09 AM

That "whooshing" sound you heard was the point sailing right over your head. Didn't you detect even a hint of sarcasm? Do you think a similarly-biased Muslim group would arrive at the same conclusion? Are you that naive?

WMD

That is absolutely priceless. Just when you fear that Christian fundamentalists are about to start getting a grip on reality.......

I think we were all amazed at their findings weren't we? :D

JPD

December 13, 2005, 11:19 AM

Correct, hell is hell, so the Christian hell would be equivalent to any other hell.

But hell is a figment of your imagination. This would make sense since I could have sworn I smelt something burning through over-exertion earlier in this thread. Is hell hell in the same way that every other element floating around in your whimsical mind is?

It does not have to be the worse hell.

Indeed, Allah's hell awaits you. And me apparently. Hey, I'll bring the sausages. You bringing some fuel in paper form.

Obviously (as I suspect you may have figured out), if a religion does not espouse hell as the punishment for doing wrong, we don’t have to spend time with it. If you did figure this out, then you can see where you erroneously saw a fallacy where there is none.

I see, so because you define the value of one set of delusions on the basis of another set of delusions, we should spend time enriching ourselves with your petty, poorly constructed and ill informed nonsensical ramblings?

John A. Broussard

December 13, 2005, 11:20 AM

Since you must have missed this, I'm repeating it again:

Originally Posted by rhutchin
The historical account in the Bible does not allow for anything other than a six-day creation.

Do you truly, honestly, with no compunctions whatsoever believe that the fourteen billion year old universe--where we now know that light has been tavelling for all that time--was created by your god in six twenty-four hour periods a few thousand years ago?

rhutchin

December 13, 2005, 11:32 AM

rhutchin
You mean you can test whether there is a judgment after this life.

Wayne Delia
No. Broussard produced several counter-examples to your claim that the Bible describes only things which cannot be tested. To that list, I'd add the special powers Jesus promised Christians would have in Mark 16:17-18. Those can be tested, but rarely are, even by Christians, because those abilities obviously do not work. Your excuse for that was that it was only a "parable", since the author of Mark indicates that Jesus only spoke in parables, and your use of that excuse implies that Jesus never necessarily told the truth. Still, those Bible claims are testable, and on the rare occasions when the tests are carried out, they fail miserably and spectacularly.

Again you have misread a message. I did not say, “...the Bible describes only things which cannot be tested...�? (as you state above). I said, “The problem we have with the Bible is that it describes things that cannot be observed or empirically tested.�? You inserted the word, “only.�? The Bible says things that can be tested, also.

rhutchin
You can test whether Jesus raised Lazarus from the dead.

Wayne Delia
Don't have to. It only takes one white crow to disprove the assertion "All crows are black." Broussard gave a list of four or five "white crows," to which I added the three magical super-powers promised by Jesus in Mark 16:17-18, to disprove your idea that there's nothing testable in the Bible.

Wasn’t my idea. Maybe you just made it up.

JPD

December 13, 2005, 11:37 AM

Post 332 awaits you rhutchin. I don't care whether you like the look of it or not. I can see you wandering off under the pretence of being oh so busy that you can only possibly answer a selection of your fanmail. But you previously claimed that you work through the posts in order. Hey, here is another example of your inconsistency! Way to go! I notice now that you appear to be back on track. Good for you if so. Let's see if you can't save a little face here.

rhutchin

December 13, 2005, 11:37 AM

rhutchin
I guess we need to throw out the mindless speculations and fantasies and deal with what is left. So, let’s deal with the Bible unless you can prove it to be a mindless speculation or fantasy and have it thrown out.

Wayne Delia
The Bible would be a myth if it included elements common to typical myths - epic tales, supernatural claims, unfalsifiable assertions - which it does contain, so I consider it a myth. Further, the Bible contains definitive statements about that which cannot possibly be known with any certainty by humans, yet some of these statements are contradictory or errors of fact. On that basis, I consider it to be fantasy, and not quite mindless speculation, but rather speculation based on superstition and ignorance of scientific principles when the material was written, and on that basis, I feel no obligation to assume it's necessarily true.

Yep, you consider it this or you consider it that. That is your personal opinion and you are entitled to it. What if you are wrong?

JPD

December 13, 2005, 11:39 AM

Again you have misread a message. I did not say, “...the Bible describes only things which cannot be tested...�? (as you state above). I said, “The problem we have with the Bible is that it describes things that cannot be observed or empirically tested.�? You inserted the word, “only.�? The Bible says things that can be tested, also.

The things which can be tested do not excuse those that cannot. If things cannot be observed or empirically tested they are of no use nor interest to intelligent people. Surely your God isn't that brainless? Actually, of course he is everything-less, which is why nothing you claim has any substance and fails to stand up to the lightest scrutiny.

rhutchin

December 13, 2005, 11:41 AM

rhutchin
No way. The historical account in the Bible does not allow for anything other than a six-day creation.

John A. Broussard
Do you truly, honestly, with no compunctions whatsoever believe that the fourteen billion year old universe--where we now know that light has been travelling for all that time--was created by your god in six twenty-four hour periods a few thousand years ago?

Yep, if you have no problem with scientists finding galaxies that are too young to account for the distance from earth estimated using light.

JPD

December 13, 2005, 11:44 AM

Yep, you consider it this or you consider it that. That is your personal opinion and you are entitled to it. What if you are wrong?

We all give our opinions - this isn't much of a counter. If he is wrong then your God is one messed up fuckwit son of a bitch freakzone. I understand that he is very loving.

rhutchin

December 13, 2005, 11:44 AM

rhutchin
Even if hearsay, you still can understand that which is being presented.

As to others, God has mercy on whom He will have mercy. He has been generous to you where He has not been generous to others.

John A. Broussard
Is this an example of divine justice?

No. Divine justice would relate to punishment for one’s sin and will occur after death. We could call this divine mercy, maybe even divine generosity.

rhutchin

December 13, 2005, 11:49 AM

rhutchin
Whether I am of the elect is immaterial. Why I should have to convince you that I am or why it would matter if I could makes no sense to me. What matters is whether you are on the list. Do you see any indication that God has any desire to save you? If not, you can conclude that you are not on the list. In that case, I think you should do whatever you desire.

JPD

Oh dear. You really have no idea at all do you? You don't know three key things:

(1) Whether a list of the elect actually exists.
(2) Whether this list is static or dynamic.
(3) Who is on the list.

Good luck! Spend a few more pages drowning in your own logic.

One cannot but do whatever it is that one desires. You have chosen to fill your mind with hateful, deluded and decaying reading matter. That's great for you.

Actually, I believe we are told that a book exists with the names of those whom God saves. That book is static, the names having been written down from the foundations of the world. However, it is true that I am not privy to who is on the list.

I do think it is great, but the Bible does not appear at all hateful, deluded and decaying to me.

JPD

December 13, 2005, 11:52 AM

No. Divine justice would relate to punishment for one’s sin and will occur after death. We could call this divine mercy, maybe even divine generosity.

Once again answer post 332. According to your assertions in other threads being one of the elect is the key regardless of sin. But here you are holding that sin is the key. So what of the elect? Is sin committed by one of the elect somehow okay and not really a sin? Thus the reality of fundamentalist Christian hypocrisy is shown.

John A. Broussard

December 13, 2005, 11:53 AM

Yep, if you have no problem with scientists finding galaxies that are too young to account for the distance from earth estimated using light.
That is truly amazing!

Then all of the telescopes, microscopes, volumes upon volumes of work done in biology, astronomy, geology, physics that have the view that the universe is billion of years old; all the evidence supporting continental drift; all the ice cores from Greenland going back hundreds of thousands of years; all the predictions based on these discoveries that are supported over and over again by observation; all that effort that has resulted in fantastic achievements in the control of illness--it's all garbage!!

It amazes me that your god would allow human beings to waste so much time and energy pursuing a totally false view of the world.

But, then, I see far more people believing in the bible (though the number of young earthers are dwindling) and I really can't understand why your god would allow that foolishness to continue.

So, I guess I have to bow to your opinion. Modern scientists, as a whole and with very few exceptions, are a gullible breed. They just don't realize that the universe was created in six twenty-four hour periods, and they continue to pursue the willow-the-wisp of empirical observation.

JPD

December 13, 2005, 11:54 AM

Actually, I believe we are told that a book exists with the names of those whom God saves. That book is static, the names having been written down from the foundations of the world. However, it is true that I am not privy to who is on the list.

I do think it is great, but the Bible does not appear at all hateful, deluded and decaying to me.

Thankyou rhutchin. So you don't know who is on the list. More to the point you don't know whether you are or not. You believe that you are, as would every other Christian who believes in the existence of this list I would think, but you cannot produce an argument in support of your belief. So your belief is entirely without foundation.

rhutchin

December 13, 2005, 12:02 PM

JPD
...You give the impression that he is going to punish me for not believing in him, but not believing in God is the only intelligent position to take when equipped with a mind that demands some basis to back up a ridiculous assertion. Clearly you settle for second best without a thought.

rhutchin
God is not going to punish you for not believing in Him. God is going to punish you for sin. If you have not committed any sin, you will not be punished. The punishment for your sin is to be excluded from heaven, which may not be much of a punishment for you, since you probably don't want to be there anyway.

JPD
Good grief this is weak stuff rhutchin. Got any good arguments in there? No, I thought not. You flip this way, you flop that. And you still haven't been able to explain how the elect fits into this. Are you saying that the elect doesn't mean much? Looking at what you have said here, sin is bound up with being the unelect and not having committed any sin makes you one of the elect? Yet you have said that the elect and the unelect are not interchangeable, and so a member of the elect can sin and still get into heaven, and a member of the unelect could spend their whole life not sinning, yet be sent to hell because God had a bit of a think and wanted to get a reduction on his stationery order.

Try actually holding a position that means something. As it stands, your assertion is a poor quality joke. But it also stands as a glowing testament to the inferior and baseless realm of Christianity. I don't think you are even aware of what you are saying. I don't think you even recognise when your argument shoots itself clean between the eyes. At the risk of being censored, are you a bit thick?

I merely meant to correct you on one point: that you thought God would punish you for not believing in him. He will not. He will punish you for your sin.

The difference between the elect and the unelect is not that one has sinned and the other has not. Both have sinned. God saves the elect (forgives them of their sin) but not the unelect. If the unelect never sinned, there would be no basis for God to exclude that person from heaven. Those who do not sin are joyfully welcomed into heaven. The elect and unelect designations apply only to those who have sinned.

John A. Broussard

December 13, 2005, 12:07 PM

rhutchin

December 13, 2005, 12:07 PM

You have this whimsical idea, based on absolutely nothing concrete that, regardless of how you behave, but because of what you believe, that you are one of the elect. You consistently fail to provide any justification for this...your positon here is that the elect go to heaven and the unelect go to hell and one cannot become the other regardless of what they do or say, or what they believe during their lives. So being one of the elect is the route to heaven but cannot actually be chosen.

That is what the Bible says. Have you been sneaking out and reading it??

Now you bring in sin and you use this as your guide to who is going to heaven and who is going to hell. So your previous theory (I hate to use such a word here), that the elect are going to heaven, even if they sin, is suddenly invalidated. One can choose whether or not one sins (which is a heavily subjective question) and all will be well if one does not. So that all sounds great, absolutely marvellous. Well, utterly ridiculous bunk actually but never mind.

So which is it to be? You cannot hold both positions simultaneously. To hold two ridiculous and contradictory views is worse than one which is inherently without basis. Good luck.

I tried to clear up your confusion about sin in my response to your earlier msg. If you are still confused, bring it up again.

Tuvar Ane Ingolenen

December 13, 2005, 12:46 PM

...As to others, God has mercy on whom He will have mercy. He has been generous to you where He has not been generous to others.
Which is neither fair nor just.
OOOPS....

Stephen T-B

December 13, 2005, 02:45 PM

I wonder if rhutchin ever ponders the question (actually, I am certain he doesn't) what his God was doing before he had human beings to judge and punish.
God presumably has existed for ever. Human beings haven't (only for the last 6,000 or years so according to the True Believers).
That leaves lots of time for God to have been twiddling his thumbs, or playing games. An infinite amount of time, in fact. And in an infinite amount of time, an infinite number of things is possible.
So where does that leave Creation, God's promises to the Jews and his splitting himself up into a god-and-semi-god, plus that Holy Spirit thing?
rhutchin, in terms of infinity, doesn't this strike you as being just one of an infinite number of scenarios which your god is setting up - for the sheer hell ovit?

Wayne Delia

December 13, 2005, 03:36 PM

And yes, I do have some evidence that the bible is mindless speculation. For example it claims that pi = 3 - we know that isn't true or extremely inaccurate. Now, you can claim that was a very rough estimate but it does indicate it was written by ignorant people and not by divine inspiration.
Technically, there's an assertion made in 1 Kings 7:23 that King Solomon's "molten sea" was round, with a diameter of ten cubits, and a circumference of thirty cubits. Such a geometric object cannot exist; if the measurements were accurate, the shape would be noticeably out of round. That directly implies pi = 3, but no explicit claim is made in 1 Kings 7:23 about the mathematical constant "pi".

What about the birth of Jesus? Was he born while Herod was king as Matthew claim or was he born during a census decreed by Augustus as Luke claim? Both of them cannot be wrong and so one of both of them have to be mindless speculation. QED.
That was probably a typo or a Freudian slip; should be "both of them cannot be RIGHT." In fact, that is correct - the Matthew claim puts Jesus's birth at around 4 BCE, while the census mentioned in Luke - identified at the time of Quirinius being governor of Syria, which was not until the year 6 CE. They both cannot be correct.

WMD

AZSuperman

December 13, 2005, 04:04 PM

Your response (equivalent to putting your head in the sand) evidences no real regard for your children and suggests that you just don’t want to be bothered (you will do what you want for them and they are on their own after that).
You have done nothing to show that his children are in any more danger now then they would be if he prayed to your God. You have done nothing to substantiate your God's existence other that throw the Bible on the table.

Well, I'll throw down the Qu'ran.

If it's true, then it's true whether I can prove it or not (to use one of your own arguments), so I'm not going to prove it. I'll just declare it: The Qu'ran is true.*

Now what should WMD do? You've declared the Bible is true (and provided no evidence) and I'ved declared the Qu'ran is true (and also provided no evidence). Should WMD pray to both Gods to protect his children? Both God's warrant death as the pealty for praying to a false God... if WMD prays to both Gods he'll be risking his life.

What if Bob comes by and throws a Book of Mormon on the table and declares it's true (and also provides no evidence).

Now what? We have three contradictory books, all declared (but not proven) to be God's word. WMD has three different options, and nothing to back any of them up.

Since none of us has done anything to show that WMD's children are in any danger, other than pointing out (unproven) threats in our God-books. He has no real reason to believe his children are in any danger. Therefore has no reason to call out for protection from any of the proposed Gods.

There are people out there who would pray to all three God's, just in case. These people would also: buy a "lucky rabbits foot" for each of their kids; buy four leafed clovers for their kids; call psychics; send chain letters; wear magic crystals; avoid the number 13; use tarot cards; etc.

In other words: Praying to an unproven God is nothing more than meaningless superstition.

You think praying to God is any more effective than holding a lucky rabbits foot? Prove it.

*For demonstration purposes only. :)

AZSuperman

December 13, 2005, 04:11 PM

And that's why it pays to die at birth. Since the baby can't have sinned, then he/she is "joyfully welcomed into heaven."

A more benign god would see to it that everyone died at the moment of birth.

I know that presents logistical problems, but rhutchin's god could have done it had he/it/she put its mind to it.
Let's open a Christian abortion clinic so we can "save" as many souls as possible, before they get old enough to sin!

Wayne Delia

December 13, 2005, 04:15 PM

That the Bible cannot prove to your satisfaction that what it says is true does not mean that it is not true.
It remains an unsupported assertion, and those are a dime a dozen. By the same line of reasoning, "What the Bible says is false" could be a true statement that might not be proved to your satisfaction. In fact, your own words are about to bite you in the butt right here:

Your contention that the Bible is fiction is also unsupportable.
"That I cannot prove to your satisfaction that the Bible is fiction does not mean that it is not fiction." Do those words sound familiar? That's paraphrased from the same line of reasoning you used above. So, if you want to assert that the Bible is true without being able to demonstrate it, you should be willing to accept that the Bible is fiction without me being able to demonstrate it. You won't, of course, because you're using a double standard.

Nonetheless, it is the authority to whom you must give account of all that you do.
And I assert that I am God's authority figure, and He must give account of all the atrocities He committed in the Old Testament. Obviously, I'm not about to demonstrate that, just as God cannot demonstrate that He's my authority as you claim. The difference is I exist and God seems to have a really hard time demonstrating that He exists, so I figure I'm ahead of Him on that score, and I should be acknowledged as God's authority instead of the other way around.

The moral of the story is: unless you can demonstrate your claims, or accept the burden of proof for your claims, anything you assert can be turned around on itself with equal validity.

Your pride prevents you from submitting to that authority in order to protect your children.
Wouldn't you agree that God's got a problem with pride if He fails to accept me as His authority? That would be a bad thing, right?

As for the problem with the children, you don't understand your own argument (that the kids are to be placed in danger in order to test out God's help, rather than calling on God for help in order to avoid the kids being placed in danger) and if you don't understand your own argument, you're just prattling.

That makes you a rebel and to rebels, all authorities are fascist.
So, assuming you don't want to be considered a rebel, you'd submit to any damn authority that comes down the pike? If so, you'd be extremely gullible.

WMD

Wayne Delia

December 13, 2005, 04:19 PM

If everyone were honest, they would say the say thing.
Poison the well much? Not everybody has the exact same experiences.

One's choices reflect one's true desires.
In order to accept that, you'd have to concede that God is not omniscient. You got clobbered in that debate a few weeks ago.

Some people do pretend for awhile (and appear to choose to believe) so we see them doing that which they have no desire to do (even calling themselves a Christian and even fervently doing all that Christians are supposed to do), but sooner or later, they stop pretending and start doing that which is their true desire.
Sorta like you, when you gave up being a Christian when the list of Biblical criteria disqualified you from being a "True Christian" on two of four qualifications?

WMD

Wayne Delia

December 13, 2005, 04:21 PM

It appears to be confusion, but in the end the “elect�? are saved. God is always in control and chaos and confusion are for those who are not among the elect.
Yet you once thought you were one of "the elect," until you posted a list of Biblical criteria which disqualified you from being a "true Christian." How could you be that confused if God's plan supposedly works so well?

WMD

Wayne Delia

December 13, 2005, 04:31 PM

rhutchin
While I admit that I have not examined other religions...

[...]

The incentive to study Christianity is that it imposes the most accountability on people and if it is the truth, then people are in the most trouble. For many other religions, one does not suffer because they do not know what God has said.

Wayne Delia
How the hell would you know, given your disclaimer above?

rhutchin
Even though I have not examined other religions, other people have, and it is from such people that I know of these religions. I cited the Christian Research Institute as one of those organizations doing research on other religions. If I remember correctly, you were quite impressed.
Assuming you're being honest (and I admit, that's a stretch in itself), I cannot believe you actually missed the sarcasm. It is a confirmation of bias and presupposed assumptions that a Christian group would investigate all manner of other religions and arrived at the conclusion that, hey presto, Christianity turns out to be the correct one. Would you accept a website by Moslem scholars that makes the same claim of extensive research, arriving at the conclusion that Islam is the true religion, as persuasive proof?

Either you are being intentionally disingenuous and dishonest, or else you are incredibly naive.

Even you study Christianity. You do so in this forum. How many discussion groups do you participate in involving Islam, Hindu, or other religions. My guess is none. You are always searching for answers to Christianity because you basically know that the truth of Christianity spells doom for you.
Lately, you are parading the entire spectrum of Really Stupid, Often Debunked, Completely Illogical Apologist Fallacies. This one is in the general form of "Deep in your heart you know I'm right," which we just laugh at. If you think that has any means of persuasion, how would you react if I claimed "Deep in your heart, you know that God does not exist?" If you don't accept that as valid, then what you've written above is equally invalid.

WMD

Wayne Delia

December 13, 2005, 04:36 PM

No way. The historical account in the Bible does not allow for anything other than a six-day creation.
Many Biblical apologists try to equivocate on the Hebrew word "yom" in Genesis, translated to "day", to mean a long epoch of many thousands or millions of years, in order to stretch the age of the universe more toward something that would fit better with the facts of reality. Seems like your argument is with them, not us, because our position is the Bible is a crock of shit any way you look at it, and nothing in there lines up with actual natural history as we have observed and confirmed it.

WMD

Wayne Delia

December 13, 2005, 04:41 PM

Wayne Delia
...
I think Ducky would have wanted exactly what he said he wanted at last year's Grand Chapter convention: "I wish I could spend a little more time with the fraternity boys." That not being possible, he certainly would have wanted to meet his death in the arms of his loving sister Mary, but instead, they were separated at the time of the evacuation.

In short, God said to Dr. Karlem Riess: "Tough shit, Ducky."

rhutchin
If that were the case, he would have have been rejected from entering heaven.
You've missed the point entirely. You began by saying that God helps those who cry out to Him for help, and the scenario is the death, injury, pain, suffering, and displacement inflicted by Hurricane Katrina, which God could certainly have prevented or provided protection. When that hypothesis fell flat, in the face of specific counter-examples, you equivocated from the potential and actual damage of the hurricane, to the question of whether an unprotected victim gets to go to heaven or not. That's a huge, dishonest equivocation - one which does not make God look very loving or helpful, all at the expense of your refusal to admit you are wrong.

You can't possibly take yourself seriously, do you?

WMD

Wayne Delia

December 13, 2005, 04:45 PM

You are always searching for answers to Christianity because you basically know that the truth of Christianity spells doom for you.
Oh, I'm terrified, for sure. Shakin' in my boots. But lately, there is another, much larger threat I have been made aware of that is even more terrifying. It's a commercial on Cartoon Network for a series of Invader Zim cartoons in December, called "DeZIMber", and the theme song haunts my dreams, turning them into nightmares. Set in a minor key, the lyrics to the song are as follows:

"Bow down, bow down
Before the power of Santa
Or be crushed, be crushed
By.... his jolly boots of doom!"

That must be the true nature of Santa Claus, and that's much more horrifying than anything in the Bible, so God'll have to wait.

Since you are nearly completely humor-impaired, I'll let you know that this entire post was sarcasm, lampooning your idea that imaginary, empty threats of any kind implies any kind of "doom".

WMD

Barefoot Bree

December 13, 2005, 04:46 PM

We interrupt this fine program for the regularly scheduled reminder to keep the conversation civil, and the excess sarcasm in your pocket. Thank you. We now return you to the program. Carry on.

Wayne Delia

December 13, 2005, 04:53 PM

Study it to confirm that it is a collection of deranged nonsense, yes. But interesting all the same. It provides great entertainment for us, in particular when we hear the words "doom"!
"Bow down, bow down
before the power of Santa
Or be crushed, be crushed
By.... his jolly boots of doom!"

That song cracks me up every time I hear it.

The truth of Christianity is a strange two-faced fish that can't agree with its fellow schoolers when to interpret literally and when not.
I actually disagree. I think there'd be a lot of consensus among Bible apologists that the Bible is to be interpreted literally when it suits the current agenda, and interpreted metaphorically or figuratively when that suits the agenda. The verses themselves tend to shift between literal and figurative as the agendas change, but the method is pretty standard.

WMD

Wayne Delia

December 13, 2005, 05:19 PM

The Bible has passages that are easy to understand and passages that are difficult to understand. Many people read it with their biases wanting it to say that which they want to believe. So, people do to the Bible what they do to everything else.
Really? So, do you think that Christian research group which studied a large number of religions and came to the conclusion that Christianity was the correct faith was operating with any kind of bias? Were you acting with any bias when you accepted the word of a Christian research group which happened to agree with what you preferred to believe? Take the plank out of your own eye before complaining about the speck in your neighbor's eye.

You find the discussions of the Bible entertaining, but God provides them for your education. God has been generous to you not allowing you to stand before Him without you knowing what is to happen to you.
"Worship my invisible sky-daddy, or He'll kick your ass!"

WMD

Wayne Delia

December 13, 2005, 05:40 PM

Whether I am of the elect is immaterial.
Actually, it's quite relevant. You posted a list of four Biblical criteria of who qualifies as a "true Christian", and you failed to qualify on two of the four criteria in your own list. Yet you identified yourself as a "true Christian." That's a big contradiction which seriously undermined your credibility.

Why I should have to convince you that I am or why it would matter if I could makes no sense to me.
You can't convince us that you are, because your list of criteria excluded yourself. In order to re-qualify, you would have to acknowledge, apologize, and repent for tarring all atheists with the broad "Atheists are Thieves" brush. You can't do that, because you're too proud to admit you're wrong; and because of that, you can't convince anyone that you're on the list.

What matters is whether you are on the list.
Doesn't matter to me; it's nothing more than somebody else's religious fantasy.

Do you see any indication that God has any desire to save you?
I don't even see any indication that God exists.

If not, you can conclude that you are not on the list.
"He's making a list, and checking it twice
Gonna find out who's naughty or nice
Santa Claus is coming to town.

Bow down! Bow down!
Before the power of Santa
Or be crushed, be crushed
By... his jolly boots of doom!"

In that case, I think you should do whatever you desire.
Actually, we do, where it doesn't break the law or cause any harm. That tends to piss off a lot of Christian proselytizers, who seem to think we ought to live by their rules instead of doing what we want.

WMD

Wayne Delia

December 13, 2005, 05:46 PM

God is not going to punish you for not believing in Him.
Riiiight. John 3:18 is just a "parable" (i.e., bullshit).

WMD

Wayne Delia

December 13, 2005, 05:52 PM

rhutchin
You find the discussions of the Bible entertaining, but God provides them for your education. God has been generous to you not allowing you to stand before Him without you knowing what is to happen to you.

Ojuice5001
But we don't know it. Our evidence for the Christian heaven and hell is mere hearsay. And a specimen of hearsay, especially if it sounds rather implausible, is not knowledge or even, in the case of a non-Christian, belief.

And, what about those who have heard even less of the Gospel than we have? Why is God even less "generous" to them than he is to us?

rhutchin
Even if hearsay, you still can understand that which is being presented.
And, of course, "X understands Y" means "X accepts Y as unconditionally true." I don't think so.

As to others, God has mercy on whom He will have mercy. He has been generous to you where He has not been generous to others.
God sounds borderline schizophrenic.

WMD

Wayne Delia

December 13, 2005, 06:09 PM

Do you truly, honestly, with no compunctions whatsoever believe that the fourteen billion year old universe--where we now know that light has been tavelling for all that time--was created by your god in six twenty-four hour periods a few thousand years ago?
You're leading in very effectively to a religion known as "Last Thursdayism".

One apologetic here for the unmistakable age of the universe (actually closer to 13.5 billion years than 14 billion according to the latest estimates) is that God created the universe 6K or 10K years ago, in accordance with the Bible, with all this light and other physical evidence already in place. But that argument can apply just as well to God having created the universe "last Thursday," with all physical evidence and even our thoughts and memories of a fictional past all created intact.

There are all sorts of amusing consequences from that proposal.

WMD

Wayne Delia

December 13, 2005, 06:21 PM

No. Divine justice would relate to punishment for one’s sin and will occur after death. We could call this divine mercy, maybe even divine generosity.
What kind of punishment you figure you're going to get for breaking the Ninth Commandment? You can't even bring yourself to address that issue.

WMD

rhutchin

December 13, 2005, 08:08 PM

rhutchin
No. Divine justice would relate to punishment for one’s sin and will occur after death. We could call this divine mercy, maybe even divine generosity.

Wayne Delia
What kind of punishment you figure you're going to get for breaking the Ninth Commandment? You can't even bring yourself to address that issue.

I have the promise, “If we confess our sins, [God] is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.�? Unfortunately, your pride prevents you from taking advantage of this promise.

rhutchin

December 13, 2005, 08:17 PM

rhutchin
God is not going to punish you for not believing in Him.

Wayne Delia
Riiiight. John 3:18 is just a "parable" (i.e., bullshit).

Let me help you with the context here.

John 3
18 He that believeth on him is not condemned [for his sin]: but he that believeth not is condemned [for his sin] already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

It is belief in Christ that allows people to escape condemnation for sin. (See also Romans 8 for more on this.) This is one of the elementary concepts of the Christian faith. How is it that you claim to have been a Christian and do not know this? (I guess you used to be a pretend christian (small c)).

Wayne Delia

December 13, 2005, 10:27 PM

I have the promise, “If we confess our sins, [God] is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.�?
The problem is, you haven't confessed your sins. You haven't acknowledged you broke the Ninth Commandment by accusing all atheists of being thieves, you haven't repented, you haven't apologized to anyone you've offended. You can't do that, because your pride is insurmountable.

Unfortunately, your pride prevents you from taking advantage of this promise.
My pride, to whatever extent, has absolutely nothing to do with the sins you've committed. And when you commit those sins, you go after it in a big way! You don't break one of the minor ritual instructions, you broke one of the "Big Ten"!!!

WMD

Wayne Delia

December 13, 2005, 10:43 PM

Let me help you with the context here.
In order for you to do that, you'll no doubt make up shit that's not in the verse. I will put those made-up parts in bold, so you can see where you're misrepresenting what's in the verse.

John 3
18 He that believeth on him is not condemned [for his sin]: but he that believeth not is condemned [for his sin] already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.
Again, the stuff in bold is the shit you made up and put in the verse to suit your current agenda. It turns out that even your additions to the verse don't make sense. Let's take another look at the verse, without your dishonest additions:

John 3
18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.
The material following the comma explains why an unbeliever is condemned: because he hath not believed, not for any unmentioned other sin he might have committed.

It is belief in Christ that allows people to escape condemnation for sin. (See also Romans 8 for more on this.)
How much of Romans 8 contains shit you made up that's not actually in there?

This is one of the elementary concepts of the Christian faith. How is it that you claim to have been a Christian and do not know this? (I guess you used to be a pretend christian (small c)).
You've been hammered pretty badly over the past few days. Each of your arguments has been demolished, and you're unable to respond to any of the criticisms of your poor reasoning, your dishonesty, and (even in this post) your misrepresentation of what's in the Bible. You empty threats of "DOOM" have been laughed off the stage. You're now reduced to trying to imitate the insults you've so richly deserved, and it's really comical in a pathetic sort of way.

WMD

John A. Broussard

December 13, 2005, 11:38 PM

I decided to run this by you again since I'm eager to read your answer.

Originally Posted by rhutchin
Yep, if you have no problem with scientists finding galaxies that are too young to account for the distance from earth estimated using light.

That is truly amazing!

Then all of the telescopes, microscopes, volumes upon volumes of work done in biology, astronomy, geology, physics that have the view that the universe is billion of years old; all the evidence supporting continental drift; all the ice cores from Greenland going back hundreds of thousands of years; all the predictions based on these discoveries that are supported over and over again by observation; all that effort that has resulted in fantastic achievements in the control of illness--it's all garbage!!

It amazes me that your god would allow human beings to waste so much time and energy pursuing a totally false view of the world.

But, then, I see far more people believing in the bible (though the number of young earthers are dwindling) and I really can't understand why your god would allow that foolishness to continue.

So, I guess I have to bow to your opinion. Modern scientists, as a whole and with very few exceptions, are a gullible breed. They just don't realize that the universe was created in six twenty-four hour periods, and they continue to pursue the willow-the-wisp of empirical observation.

***

I would definitely like to read your comments on the above.

JPD

December 14, 2005, 02:13 AM

JPD

December 14, 2005, 02:18 AM

I actually disagree. I think there'd be a lot of consensus among Bible apologists that the Bible is to be interpreted literally when it suits the current agenda, and interpreted metaphorically or figuratively when that suits the agenda. The verses themselves tend to shift between literal and figurative as the agendas change, but the method is pretty standard.

WMD

I did a double-take there. :D I read it and thought "hmmm..rhutchin is making about as much sense as usual"!

In this case we are returned to the wonderous blank canvas with multicoloured pens which is interpretation. The Bible seems to provide its own escape hatch of which it is oblivious.

rhutchin

December 14, 2005, 05:55 AM

rhutchin
I merely meant to correct you on one point: that you thought God would punish you for not believing in him. He will not. He will punish you for your sin.

The difference between the elect and the unelect is not that one has sinned and the other has not. Both have sinned. God saves the elect (forgives them of their sin) but not the unelect. If the unelect never sinned, there would be no basis for God to exclude that person from heaven. Those who do not sin are joyfully welcomed into heaven. The elect and unelect designations apply only to those who have sinned.

JPD
So God forgives the elect for their sins but not the unelect for their sins. The fact of who appears in this list only becomes apparent during the time of judgment. Neither the elect nor the unelect can confirm their status prior to this "event". So those who think they are elect do whatever they want. What we have here is a double standard and the foundation of Christianity - do as I say and not as I do. Thorughly repellent and much in keeping with the quality of your posts in general. The joke of course - within the sick and barren context of your position - is that a Christian can behave like a jackass and proclaim this, that and the other about others whilst engaging in the practice that they appear to abhor but still potentially end up in heaven, or in hell. Is this anything more substantial than an excuse to be a hypocrite and a thin veneer upon a rotten and vacant interior? I cannot think of many things that a creator would find more abhorrent than such an abuse of (an unknown) position. "So, they have assumed that they are one of the elect but cannot rationalize why or how they came to be on that list, and are dooming others for the very activities that they regard as sinful themselves but yet engage in as if it won't count against them. Oh goody!!!"

Not really. The Bible is clear when it says that a person is known by their actions. The person who claims that God has saved him will not behave as a person whom God has not saved. Obviously this allows people to pretend that God has saved them and act accordingly for awhile as some on this board seem to have done. There is no double standard (certainly not with God). Atheists and hypocrites both go to hell with the difference being that hypocrites think that God owes them heaven.

The essential difference between the elect and the unelect is that the elect ask God to forgive their sins and the unelect do not. God forgives the sins of all who ask for forgiveness. If there is an exception to this, it is for the hypocrite who makes a pretense of asking for forgiveness as if to fool God.

rhutchin

December 14, 2005, 06:07 AM

That is truly amazing!

Then all of the telescopes, microscopes, volumes upon volumes of work done in biology, astronomy, geology, physics that have the view that the universe is billion of years old; all the evidence supporting continental drift; all the ice cores from Greenland going back hundreds of thousands of years; all the predictions based on these discoveries that are supported over and over again by observation; all that effort that has resulted in fantastic achievements in the control of illness--it's all garbage!!

It amazes me that your god would allow human beings to waste so much time and energy pursuing a totally false view of the world.

But, then, I see far more people believing in the bible (though the number of young earthers are dwindling) and I really can't understand why your god would allow that foolishness to continue.

So, I guess I have to bow to your opinion. Modern scientists, as a whole and with very few exceptions, are a gullible breed. They just don't realize that the universe was created in six twenty-four hour periods, and they continue to pursue the willow-the-wisp of empirical observation.
***
I would definitely like to read your comments on the above.

One of the core positions often taken by scientists is that what we observe today is that which occurred in the past. Let's look at some of your observations above.

1. Ice cores from Greenland. How many layers of ice are laid down each year. I understand that the number is variable and that thousands of layers can accrue in a given year. If science assumes that only one layer is laid down each year, then it gets estimates of time that would be exaggerated.

2. The age of the universe is based on the speed of light. Was the speed of light always that which we observe today? I understand that the Big Bang proponents say that the speed of light was much faster when the universe popped into existence. Thus, the observation of light from galaxies that are billions of light years from the earth do not mean that the universe is billions of years old.

3. Was the nuclear decay of elements always that which we observe today? If not, then dating methods would given exaggerated ages for objects.

A lot of good science is done today. That science is only applicable to what we observe today. It is not necessarily a good indicator of what happened in the past and is always subject to misinterpretation.

rhutchin

December 14, 2005, 06:17 AM

rhutchin
Let me help you with the context here.

Wayne Delia
In order for you to do that, you'll no doubt make up shit that's not in the verse. I will put those made-up parts in bold, so you can see where you're misrepresenting what's in the verse.

rhutchin
John 3
18 He that believeth on him is not condemned [for his sin]: but he that believeth not is condemned [for his sin] already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

Wayne Delia
Again, the stuff in bold is the shit you made up and put in the verse to suit your current agenda. It turns out that even your additions to the verse don't make sense. Let's take another look at the verse, without your dishonest additions:

rhutchin
John 3
18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

Wayne Delia
The material following the comma explains why an unbeliever is condemned: because he hath not believed, not for any unmentioned other sin he might have committed.

rhutchin
It is belief in Christ that allows people to escape condemnation for sin. (See also Romans 8 for more on this.)

Wayne Delia
How much of Romans 8 contains shit you made up that's not actually in there?

rhutchin
This is one of the elementary concepts of the Christian faith. How is it that you claim to have been a Christian and do not know this? (I guess you used to be a pretend christian (small c)).

Wayne Delia
You've been hammered pretty badly over the past few days. Each of your arguments has been demolished, and you're unable to respond to any of the criticisms of your poor reasoning, your dishonesty, and (even in this post) your misrepresentation of what's in the Bible. You empty threats of "DOOM" have been laughed off the stage. You're now reduced to trying to imitate the insults you've so richly deserved, and it's really comical in a pathetic sort of way.

Your basic contention is that sin has nothing to do with whether a person is condemned. To get to that conclusion, one must totally ignore sin in the Bible and completely misunderstand that which the Bible says about sin. You are kinda like Thomas Jefferson only you cut out everything in the Bible about sin so that you can misunderstand what is left.

rhutchin

December 14, 2005, 06:26 AM

rhutchin
I have the promise, “If we confess our sins, [God] is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.�?

Wayne Delia
The problem is, you haven't confessed your sins. You haven't acknowledged you broke the Ninth Commandment by accusing all atheists of being thieves, you haven't repented, you haven't apologized to anyone you've offended. You can't do that, because your pride is insurmountable.

OK. I guess that makes me your equal. In each case, it is our pride that prevents us from seeking forgiveness. Interestingly, that is what the Bible would lead us to believe also. It seems that you and I agree with the Bible on this point.

rhutchin
Unfortunately, your pride prevents you from taking advantage of this promise.

Wayne Delia
My pride, to whatever extent, has absolutely nothing to do with the sins you've committed. And when you commit those sins, you go after it in a big way! You don't break one of the minor ritual instructions, you broke one of the "Big Ten"!!!

True. And my pride has absolutely nothing to do with the sins you've committed. Each of us is responsible for our own sin. Of course, I believe that it is our sin that condemns us while in other messages, you make the pouint that your sin has nothing to do with your condemnation. Then you make a big deal about a person sinning by breaking one of the commandments as if sin does mean something. Very confusing.

Alf

December 14, 2005, 07:22 AM

That was probably a typo or a Freudian slip; should be "both of them cannot be RIGHT." In fact, that is correct - the Matthew claim puts Jesus's birth at around 4 BCE, while the census mentioned in Luke - identified at the time of Quirinius being governor of Syria, which was not until the year 6 CE. They both cannot be correct.

WMD
Sorry, yes, it was a typo.

They cannot both be right, although both of them can be wrong

or some such was what I was planning to say. The point is, it is quite possible they are both wrong.. What we can say for certain is that they cannot both be right. One or both of them MUST be wrong.

This is why the christian's position is so hopeless. They assert the bible is God's word but the simple fact is that an infallible god would never make such a slip as to allow two such contradicting gospels be put together into one canon. So the simple truth is that this infallible god cannot exist.

Alf

AZSuperman

December 14, 2005, 07:27 AM

Let me help you with the context here.

John 3
18 He that believeth on him is not condemned [for his sin]: but he that believeth not is condemned [for his sin] already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

It is belief in Christ that allows people to escape condemnation for sin. (See also Romans 8 for more on this.) This is one of the elementary concepts of the Christian faith. How is it that you claim to have been a Christian and do not know this? (I guess you used to be a pretend christian (small c)).
rhutchin, your additions to John 3:18 make no difference.

You added the words "for his sin" to make the verse state that Christians are not judged for their sins while everyone else will be, presumably so you could leave a window for some non-Christians to be saved (since your arguing against the idea of someone being saved just because they believe). Unfortunately, your changes make NO DIFFERENCE.

Romans 3:23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God.
Romans 5:12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:

WMD's argument is that people are condemned because they didn't believe the right thing... Your argument is that they're condemned for their sins... but that those who believe are forgiven.

IT'S THE SAME ARGUMENT! YOU'RE AGREEING WITH WMD!

If all have sinned, and some are forgiven and some are not, and the ONLY difference is the people who are forgiven BELIEVE, while the others do not, THEN THEY'RE BEING PUNISHED BECAUSE THEY DON'T BELIEVE.

Everyone sinned, so we're all on equal footing there... it boils down to being saved if you believe, and being punished if you don't. PLAIN AND SIMPLE.

AZSuperman

December 14, 2005, 07:34 AM

rhutchin

December 14, 2005, 08:07 AM

rhutchin, you haven't responded to an earlier post of mine, so I'll repeat it here... I'm interested to know how you address this dilemma.

****
You have done nothing to show that his children are in any more danger now then they would be if he prayed to your God. You have done nothing to substantiate your God's existence other that throw the Bible on the table.

Well, I'll throw down the Qu'ran.

If it's true, then it's true whether I can prove it or not (to use one of your own arguments), so I'm not going to prove it. I'll just declare it: The Qu'ran is true.*

Now what should WMD do? You've declared the Bible is true (and provided no evidence) and I'ved declared the Qu'ran is true (and also provided no evidence). Should WMD pray to both Gods to protect his children? Both God's warrant death as the pealty for praying to a false God... if WMD prays to both Gods he'll be risking his life.

What if Bob comes by and throws a Book of Mormon on the table and declares it's true (and also provides no evidence).

Now what? We have three contradictory books, all declared (but not proven) to be God's word. WMD has three different options, and nothing to back any of them up.

Since none of us has done anything to show that WMD's children are in any danger, other than pointing out (unproven) threats in our God-books. He has no real reason to believe his children are in any danger. Therefore has no reason to call out for protection from any of the proposed Gods.

There are people out there who would pray to all three God's, just in case. These people would also: buy a "lucky rabbits foot" for each of their kids; buy four leafed clovers for their kids; call psychics; send chain letters; wear magic crystals; avoid the number 13; use tarot cards; etc.

In other words: Praying to an unproven God is nothing more than meaningless superstition.

You think praying to God is any more effective than holding a lucky rabbits foot? Prove it.

****

I look forward to reading your reply.

The issue here is whether there is a true and living god.

1. We can assume that there is when there may not be.
2. We can assume that there is not when there is.

There is no penalty for doing (1) and there is a penalty for doing (2), so let's do (1).

Now there is no penalty for praying to the true and living god (one actually benefits) and there is a penalty for praying to the false god. Therefore, the rational decision is to pray to the true and living god.

At this point, all that one has are various books espousing one god or the other as the true and living god -- Bible, Koran, Book of Mormon, etc. The individual is left to sort all this out.

The threat to WMD's children is that which results from his inability to provide 100% protection for them. If we assume that WMD cares for his children, then he would seek to provide 100% protection for his children. One way to do this is to appeal to the true and living god to protect his children when he is not able to do so. The problem for WMD is to identify the true and living god from among all those gods being promoted as the true and living god. All he has available to him to identify the true and living god are the "Holy" books purported to have been written by the true and living god's prophets in order to allow WMD to identify the true and living god.

Praying to a god that is real is never superstitious.

everettf

December 14, 2005, 09:58 AM

rhutchin:
You do realize this is atheist board and preaching to us will get you no where. That is not discussing the subject. I know you have been told that before, just a reminder.

John A. Broussard

December 14, 2005, 09:58 AM

A lot of good science is done today. That science is only applicable to what we observe today. It is not necessarily a good indicator of what happened in the past and is always subject to misinterpretation.
Thanks for the clarification.

According to you, god makes the universe seem to have a regularity which it actually doesn't have--all of which induces scientists to make ridiculous assumptions--that there is in fact regularity in the universe. That we can assume that light travelled at the same speed yesterday as today, that Plasmodium falciparum is the source of malaria--yesterday, today and tomorrow, that the earth travels around the sun and that it has been doing so for billions of years as indicated by Christian Newton's calculations.

Can you explain why your god has misled scientists in this way?

CFDL

December 14, 2005, 09:59 AM

The issue here is whether there is a true and living god.

1. We can assume that there is when there may not be.
2. We can assume that there is not when there is.

There is no penalty for doing (1) and there is a penalty for doing (2), so let's do (1).

This assumes that there is only one penalty and it hinges on belief. We haven't analyzed all religions and what they require. The true and living god might punish those who worship him insincerely and reward those with honest convictions. The god might punish everyone whether they believe or not simply because they haven't gone through a certain ritual.

Now there is no penalty for praying to the true and living god (one actually benefits) and there is a penalty for praying to the false god. Therefore, the rational decision is to pray to the true and living god.

At this point, all that one has are various books espousing one god or the other as the true and living god -- Bible, Koran, Book of Mormon, etc. The individual is left to sort all this out.

The threat to WMD's children is that which results from his inability to provide 100% protection for them. If we assume that WMD cares for his children, then he would seek to provide 100% protection for his children.

WMD acknowdleges that he can't save his children from freak accidents, nuclear weapons etc. WMD established that the "true and living God" whether he exists or not does not provide protection for those things either. At least to many of those who appeal to him. Unless "protection" means WMD can't save his children from a threat you can't show to exist. Should he drop his pride and give credence to any stranger making threats about uncomfirmable punishments and entities?

One way to do this is to appeal to the true and living god to protect his children when he is not able to do so. The problem for WMD is to identify the true and living god from among all those gods being promoted as the true and living god. All he has available to him to identify the true and living god are the "Holy" books purported to have been written by the true and living god's prophets in order to allow WMD to identify the true and living god.

Praying to a god that is real is never superstitious.

How would you identify the true religion if all claim to be true?

John A. Broussard

December 14, 2005, 10:02 AM

rhutchin:
You do realize this is atheist board and preaching to us will get you no where. That is not discussing the subject. I know you have been told that before, just a reminder.
We'd be hard put to find a more entertaining theist than rhutchin, so don't be so hard on him. If he wants to throw in a bit of preaching with his unsupported generalizations I think it's only fair to allow him that leeway. It helps to keep him posting.

John A. Broussard

December 14, 2005, 10:08 AM

The issue here is whether there is a true and living god.

1. We can assume that there is when there may not be.
2. We can assume that there is not when there is.

There is no penalty for doing (1) and there is a penalty for doing (2), so let's do (1).

You evidently have never heard of Pascal's wager, since the above is a poorly phrased expression of that fire insurance.

I'll be happy to point out in detail the serious flaws in this reasoning. If you want to do it on your own, just google Pascal's Wager.

If you still have trouble finding the difficulties with the wager, let me know.

rhutchin

December 14, 2005, 11:25 AM

rhutchin
A lot of good science is done today. That science is only applicable to what we observe today. It is not necessarily a good indicator of what happened in the past and is always subject to misinterpretation.

John A. Broussard
Thanks for the clarification.

According to you, god makes the universe seem to have a regularity which it actually doesn't have--all of which induces scientists to make ridiculous assumptions--that there is in fact regularity in the universe. That we can assume that light travelled at the same speed yesterday as today, that Plasmodium falciparum is the source of malaria--yesterday, today and tomorrow, that the earth travels around the sun and that it has been doing so for billions of years as indicated by Christian Newton's calculations.

Can you explain why your god has misled scientists in this way?

I don’t think God has misled anyone. God maintains physical laws that scientists use every day. The problem has come from scientists who have sought to reconstruct the past. Here the Bible describes what happened in the past so everyone knows it. The problem has come from people who do not want to accept that which the Bible says but they have no basis for making assumptions about the past so they say, “Let’s assume that every physical law we observe today operated exactly the same in the past.�? Those who accept the Bible refrain from making that assumption. As a consequence, people say, “I have never observed a worldwide flood so let’s ignore the worldwide flood recorded in the Bible.�? It would be like looking at a part of the Indianapolis 500 and assuming that the racetrack always existed in the past and the cars always drove the recorded speed as if one did not know that the race only covers a few hours.

Wayne Delia

December 14, 2005, 11:26 AM

I merely meant to correct you on one point: that you thought God would punish you for not believing in him. He will not. He will punish you for your sin.
The difference between the elect and the unelect is not that one has sinned and the other has not. Both have sinned. God saves the elect (forgives them of their sin) but not the unelect. If the unelect never sinned, there would be no basis for God to exclude that person from heaven. Those who do not sin are joyfully welcomed into heaven. The elect and unelect designations apply only to those who have sinned.So God forgives the elect for their sins but not the unelect for their sins. The fact of who appears in this list only becomes apparent during the time of judgement. Neither the elect nor the unelect can confirm their status prior to this "event". So those who think they are elect do whatever they want. What we have here is a double standard and the foundation of Christianity - do as I say and not as I do. Thorughly repellent and much in keeping with the quality of your posts in general.
Exactly, and I'd go further to point out that within Christianity, apologists often excuse and condone God's behavior, especially when God orders nations to be killed or otherwise when He breaks His own commandments (such as the argument that Jesus actually broke four of the Ten Commandments) on exactly that basis: God is so much greater than man, the excuse "Do as God says, not as God does" somehow becomes valid. In fact, the reason God condemned all of humanity for Adam and Eve acquiring the knowledge of good and evil, and potentially acquiring eternal life from the Tree of Life, the explicit reason was so that A&E did not become like "us" (evidently referring to a plurality of gods), essentially, "Do as I say, not as I do."

The joke of course - within the sick and barren context of your position - is that a Christian can behave like a jackass and proclaim this, that and the other about others whilst engaging in the practice that they appear to abhor but still potentially end up in heaven, or in hell.
Again, that's correct, it's a nasty little stereotype which Christians generally don't deserve, that of a constant cycle of sin: go confess the sin to the God they believe in, receive forgiveness from their God (or so they think), and sin again, where the cycle begins anew. Most Christians don't behave that way, but rhetorich from rhutchin strengthens that stereotype.

Is this anything more substantial than an excuse to be a hypocrite and a thin veneer upon a rotten and vacant interior? I cannot think of many things that a creator would find more abhorent than such an abuse of (an unknown) position. "So, they have assumed that they are one of the elect but cannot rationalise why or how they came to be on that list, and are dooming others for the very activities that they regard as sinful themselves but yet engage in as if it won't count against them. Oh goody!!!"
Aye, exactly. rhutchin does not hesitate to casually imply a death threat and tortuous afterlife for people who commit the same sins (or less) that he's committed on this forum alone.

WMD

rhutchin

December 14, 2005, 11:33 AM

rhutchin
The issue here is whether there is a true and living god.

1. We can assume that there is when there may not be.
2. We can assume that there is not when there is.

There is no penalty for doing (1) and there is a penalty for doing (2), so let's do (1).

John A. Broussard
You evidently have never heard of Pascal's wager, since the above is a poorly phrased expression of that fire insurance.

I'll be happy to point out in detail the serious flaws in this reasoning. If you want to do it on your own, just google Pascal's Wager.

If you still have trouble finding the difficulties with the wager, let me know.

Pascal’s Wager assumed that there was one god, God, and one had to decide what to do about Him. The alleged problems came from those who assumed that there were many gods. That made the problem more complicated (since one first had to determine which god was the real God) however, I am not aware that the logic behind the wager was ever challenged.

Have you read something different?

rhutchin

December 14, 2005, 11:36 AM

We'd be hard put to find a more entertaining theist than rhutchin, so don't be so hard on him. If he wants to throw in a bit of preaching with his unsupported generalizations I think it's only fair to allow him that leeway. It helps to keep him posting.

Yeah, don't be so hard on me!

I had a chance to go to Hawaii over Christmas. I should have gone. I could have treated you to dinner. Maybe next year.

John A. Broussard

December 14, 2005, 11:43 AM

rhutchin

December 14, 2005, 11:56 AM

rhutchin
The issue here is whether there is a true and living god.

1. We can assume that there is when there may not be.
2. We can assume that there is not when there is.

There is no penalty for doing (1) and there is a penalty for doing (2), so let's do (1).

CFDL
This assumes that there is only one penalty and it hinges on belief. We haven't analyzed all religions and what they require. The true and living god might punish those who worship him insincerely and reward those with honest convictions. The god might punish everyone whether they believe or not simply because they haven't gone through a certain ritual.

I don’t think the number of penalties matters. However, it hinges on what is true and not what one believes is true. Once one determines which god he thinks is the true god, he can then determine the penalties by reading the appropriate holy book or writings.

rhutchin
Now there is no penalty for praying to the true and living god (one actually benefits) and there is a penalty for praying to the false god. Therefore, the rational decision is to pray to the true and living god.

At this point, all that one has are various books espousing one god or the other as the true and living god -- Bible, Koran, Book of Mormon, etc. The individual is left to sort all this out.

The threat to WMD's children is that which results from his inability to provide 100% protection for them. If we assume that WMD cares for his children, then he would seek to provide 100% protection for his children.

CFDL
WMD acknowdleges that he can't save his children from freak accidents, nuclear weapons etc. WMD established that the "true and living God" whether he exists or not does not provide protection for those things either. At least to many of those who appeal to him. Unless "protection" means WMD can't save his children from a threat you can't show to exist. Should he drop his pride and give credence to any stranger making threats about uncomfirmable punishments and entities?

I don’t agree that WMD established that the "true and living God" does not provide protection. What does one do about drunks on the road, drive-by shootings, etc. Does one depend on “luck�? to protect one’s children? The alternative is to ask God for help. Of course, for WMD, it can be difficult to appeal to someone that you don’t believe exists.

rhutchin
One way to do this is to appeal to the true and living god to protect his children when he is not able to do so. The problem for WMD is to identify the true and living god from among all those gods being promoted as the true and living god. All he has available to him to identify the true and living god are the "Holy" books purported to have been written by the true and living god's prophets in order to allow WMD to identify the true and living god.

Praying to a god that is real is never superstitious.

CFDL
How would you identify the true religion if all claim to be true?

That is the problem. Having read the Bible and almost all the Koran, I am impressed with the Bible. Having talked to Mormons and JWs, I don’t see where they have much to offer. Everyone has to come to their own conclusion on this. The ones who reach the wrong conclusion lose out.

rhutchin

December 14, 2005, 12:07 PM

I refer you to: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/pascal-wager/#5, the first item in a google search of Pascal's Wager for an extensive critique of the wager.

For my money, Russel's comment says it all. Suppose your god rewards sincerity. If you decide to believe solely in order to be rewarded (or to avoid punishment) your belief is obviously insincere. A god who values sincerity could then plunge you into the very depths of hell.

So much for fire insurance.

From that section, "Is the Argument Valid?": "A number of authors who have been otherwise critical of the Wager have explicitly conceded that the Wager is valid — e.g. Mackie 1982, Rescher 1985, Mougin and Sober 1994, and most emphatically, Hacking 1972. That is, these authors agree with Pascal that wagering for God really is rationally mandated by Pascal's decision matrix in tandem with positive probability for God's existence, and the decision theoretic account of rational action."

I don't think the coin toss argument works because Pascal envisioned a biased decision (i.e., one would not be indifferent to the outcome) whereas a coin toss presupposes an unbiased decision.

In this case, WMD wants to protect his children and has a definite bias toward asking God since he is looking for a specific result (i.e., that his children receive protection).

The other arguments concern problem definition and not the logic followed to resolve the problem.

Stephen T-B

December 14, 2005, 12:10 PM

So you're talking about a self-selecting process here?
If you come to the right conclusion, it's because God intended you to, and into his arms you fall?
If you come to the wrong conclusion (no matter how sincere you are, how "Godly") it's into the fires of hell you fall?

This "self-selecting" doctrine might be criticised as being somewhat self-serving. And it suffers from the disadvantage of having nothing to substantiate it except "faith."

Wayne Delia

December 14, 2005, 12:19 PM

Not really. The Bible is clear when it says that a person is known by their actions.
Are you aware that what you did with the throw-away insult that all atheists are thieves, followed by you looking in the Bible for obscure references to a search term "thief" for justification, and even misrepresenting Jesus's words to cover your ass, are the "actions" by which people consider you to be a known as a Christian <edit>?

The person who claims that God has saved him will not behave as a person whom God has not saved.
Duh. That's obvious. Those who think they're on God's elect list will sin while thinking there's no difficulty in getting forgiven, while those who are not so self-secure will take more responsibility in their actions.

Obviously this allows people to pretend that God has saved them and act accordingly for awhile as some on this board seem to have done.
And all attempts to get you to see that irony - that you identified yourself as a member of "the elect," then producing a list of criteria from the Bible that disqualified you from "the elect" list - have failed. We understand it quite well enough, though. Lately, you've been reduced to "Whoever doesn't agree with me was never a True Christian like I am," which is even more comical.

There is no double standard (certainly not with God).
If there wasn't, then God would punish "elect" and "non-elect" sinners the same way. But you're trying to argue that He doesn't, with the only benefit of doing so being that you can sin as you did with the Ninth Commandment fiasco, and still pretend that there's a heavenly reward for you.

Atheists and hypocrites both go to hell with the difference being that hypocrites think that God owes them heaven.
"Worship my invisible sky-daddy, or He'll kick your ass!" In your statement here, I'm not sure you understand what hypocrisy is. It refers to professing a belief (i.e. your belief in the legitimacy of the Bible criteria of what makes a person a "True Christian") that a person doesn't actually hold (since you claimed to be a "True Christian" despite not qualifying on two of the four criteria you presented).

But lately, in order to avoid admitting you were wrong, you added material to John 3:18 in order to pretend that atheists were not sent to hell for their unbelief (which is what John 3:18 claims, and even verifies) but rather for their sin. Believers who sin are not condemned, unbelievers who sin are condemned, and the obvious functional difference is belief vs. unbelief. That's the double standard, and that's why you're wrong about John 3:18, even after doctoring it up with extra shit you made up and stuck in the verse.

The essential difference between the elect and the unelect is that the elect ask God to forgive their sins and the unelect do not.
Exactly. But you were forced to butcher John 3:18 in order to avoid acknowledging you made a mistake when you claimed "God is not going to punish you for not believing in Him" - your exact words. You'd prefer it was punishment "[for your sins]" - remember adding that to John 3:18, even though the verse goes on to say "because of disbelief?" Turns out you now want to pretend that everyone sins, but God doesn't punish certain people like you who imagined you were above the law. Those "certain people" are distinguished by being believers. So you broke the Ninth Commandment with no qualms at all, no acknowledgement at all, no apology at all, and you even misrepresented Jesus's words in order to avoid admitting to the atheists that you sinned. Those are your works, your actions, your "fruits of the tree" which indicate to everyone you're a supreme hypocrite.

God forgives the sins of all who ask for forgiveness.
If you can't acknowledge that calling atheists "thieves" was a huge sin, specifically prohibited by one of the Ten Commandments, how can you possibly ask God for forgiveness? Why can't you bring yourself to apologize to the real, actual people you've offended by your sin, instead of just squeezing your eyes shut and mumbling an apology to your fantasy invisible sky-daddy?

If there is an exception to this, it is for the hypocrite who makes a pretense of asking for forgiveness as if to fool God.
Seriously, you've GOT to stop speaking as if you know anything at all about the Bible. According to Matthew 12:31-32, God forgives every sin, with a single exception: blasphemy, which is described as a word spoken against the Holy Spirit. Your imagined "exception" is not mentioned at all. I suppose your excuse once again will be that Matthew 12:31-32 was spoken by Jesus, and the author of Mark identified in Mark 4 that Jesus "always" spoke in parables, so therefore this is a parable, and therefore (according to your silent implication to excuse the powers promised in Mark 16:17-18 not working) is equivalent to "bullshit."

Generally, the more you post, the more demonstrably wrong you are.

WMD

Wayne Delia

December 14, 2005, 12:42 PM

Your basic contention is that sin has nothing to do with whether a person is condemned.
Actually, that's the basic contention of John 3:18 - the difference between salvation and condemnation hinges on whether one believes or disbelieves.

To get to that conclusion, one must totally ignore sin in the Bible and completely misunderstand that which the Bible says about sin.
Not at all. To get to that conclusion, one must merely read John 3:18, and not add anything to it like you did.

You are kinda like Thomas Jefferson only you cut out everything in the Bible about sin so that you can misunderstand what is left.
To be compared to Thomas Jefferson is a very high compliment which you no doubt did not intend to convey. The rest of your screed is useless, as usual. Don't you feel the least bit of hypocrisy accusing me of "cutting out everything about sin" when you had to insert your own made-up shit into John 3:18 in order to avoid admitting you are wrong?

WMD

Wayne Delia

December 14, 2005, 01:42 PM

OK. I guess that makes me your equal.
Absolutely not. Don't even joke about it. I have too much intellectual integrity and honesty to even be considered remotely similar to you. Specifically, here are just a few of the differences between us which I am extremely grateful for:
1) I don't toss out casual, prejudicial, stereotypical, unsupported, false charges like your claim that "atheists are thieves." In fact, several times over the past few days, I've noted that Christians in general do not deserve the unflattering stereotypes which you are personifying and perpetuating through your behavior.
2) Should I offend someone with such a broad tar-brush, I take personal responsibility for my own actions, and apologize to those whom I've offended.
3) I am always willing to learn new things, and where that new knowledge contradicts a previously-held principle or a cherished belief with compelling evidence, I am more than willing to modify or discard that principle in favor of theories which better fit and explain the evidence.
4) I make much better use and application of logic in determining that which is true, rather than "This could have happened as written in this ancient book of myths, therefore it did happen, therefore we should dedicate our lives to believing in the central character."
5) My threshold of evidence is much higher than yours. A logical, unassailable argument or tangible, physical evidence is necessary to accept something as valid, while you seem to blindly accept anything which appears to agree with your position (such as the Christian research group which concluded that Christianity was true, or the recent "ice core samples, speed of light, nuclear decay" tall tales which have long since been debunked.
6) I love my parents, my wife, my children, and myself, and feel no need whatsoever to put any conditions or restrictions on that love in order to toe the line with Jesus's requirement of Luke 14:26 to hate my family members.
7) I can analyze a claim in the Bible by assuming it to be true for the sake of argument, and develop logically sound (yet demonstrably absurd) conclusions about the implications if the premise verse is assumed to be true. On the other hand, you misrepresent the words of Jesus, and you insert bracketed additions into verses in order to twist them to say what you want them to say.
8) I take seriously only those threats which can be demonstrated to exist, while you use the imaginary, unsupported, unevidenced Bible claim of eternal torture in hell to attempt to scare people into grovelling toward your God, and at the same time, you casually dismiss the threats of hell from other non-Christian religions by sweeping them under the carpet or claiming you don't have enough time to study them.

I realized I could probably continue for several dozen counter-examples to your claim that we are equals, but this is enough. I do appreciate you brightening up an otherwise difficult day by drawing my attention to our differences.

In each case, it is our pride that prevents us from seeking forgiveness.
Not really. I contend that you need to ask for forgiveness for your offenses from the people you've offended. Perhaps you have pretended to mumble repentence to God, which you can't admit because you are too proud to acknowledge that you were wrong. But those you've offended see that action as useless and self-serving, especially when you cannot bring yourself to acknowledge or apologize for your sin. Your pride is insurmountable.

Meanwhile, you seem to think that I need to seek forgiveness from your preferred idea of God, without bothering to demonstrate that your God even exists, or acknowledging the futility of asking anything from a character one does not believe exists.

The obvious difference is that we have your posts here on IIDB as actual evidence of your wrongdoings, along with people who are offended by them, even though you don't care to address the issue at all. It is a real problem involving real actions of yours with real consequences, including the (probably inadvertent) refutation of your own argument in the "What is a True Christian" thread. On the other hand, the offenses you claim we are committing are arbitrarily defined, not uniformly enforced, contradictory, and pointless - the greatest sin, it seems, is failing to believe in a God who cannot establish His own existence much less any qualification to be worshipped for anything.

Interestingly, that is what the Bible would lead us to believe also.
It's anyone's guess what your interpretation is of any random Bible verse at all. Your argument fails, you get backed into a corner, you are too proud to admit your were wrong, so you insert crap into the Bible that isn't originally there, and you misrepresent the words of Jesus when trying to defend yourself. If God actually existed, and Jesus was correct about the fate of the false teachers, you'd be burning in hell.

It seems that you and I agree with the Bible on this point.
Indeed.

True. And my pride has absolutely nothing to do with the sins you've committed.
Again, the imagined sins I've committed, whether real or imaginary, are irrelevant. The subject is your sins, particularly you breaking one of the "Big Ten" by bearing false witness of crimes committed by all atheists which you cannot substantiate. You cannot hope to excuse your own sins by pointing to the imagined sins of anyone else; even Jesus isn't that stupid to accept that crappy defense.

Each of us is responsible for our own sin.
The difference is, as I pointed out above, that I take responsibility for my actual (not imagined) offenses, including apologizing to people I've offended. On the other hand, the most you've possibly done is to mumble a prayer to a God who is not recognized by the people you've offended, and leave it at that as if all is well. Again, there are many good, well-behaved Christians who do not deserve the bigoted stereotype of Christianity which you are acting out: the endless cycle of sin, confess to God, and sin again.

You really need to address this issue, as it will not go away on its own.

Of course, I believe that it is our sin that condemns us while in other messages, you make the pouint that your sin has nothing to do with your condemnation.
Right. The difference between salvation and condemnation hinges on belief or disbelief, as confirmed by the (unaltered!) verse John 3:18.

Then you make a big deal about a person sinning by breaking one of the commandments as if sin does mean something. Very confusing.
It's not confusing at all, if you permit yourself to not make up your mind to be confused. Assume John 3:18 is a true premise (WITHOUT any of your additional crap, thank you very much), that people are condemned if they disbelieve ("because of their disbelief," as the verse explicitly says), and people are granted salvation if they believe. If everyone sins, then some sins are punished, and some are not, according to whether or not they believe. It is then clear that Christianity is an arbitrary, unjust, unfair system which dispenses punishment (or not) based not on your actual good works or sins, but rather on how willing one is to grovel to an imaginary God fantasy - one which cannot be shown to actually exist. To those of you who are already grovelling and boot-licking, that's perfectly reasonable, since you sold out your intellectual integrity to the possibility that you won't get punished for the offenses you've committed - and which you continue to commit. That, I would imagine, would be an attractive option, if I had no self-responsibility. But I acknowledge that many Christians do not behave in that cycle of sin, ask forgiveness, and continue to sin as you do. (You continue to sin by continuing to fail to apologize for breaking Commandment IX, by misrepresenting the words of Jesus and other Bible verses in "bluffs" to those whom you hope will not take the time to examine the actual content, but rather just take you at your dishonest word.)

In short, Christianity as you present it, and as you act on it, is demonstrably ludicrous. I don't hold out any hope of you understanding why; I am just using you as a rhetorical foil to demonstrate that there actually are people like you out there who act that way. And the more you "amplify" the Bible, the more you condemn people for their disbelief, the more you commit obvious sins without remorse, the more you refuse to admit you're clearly wrong - the more you strengthen my conclusion.

WMD

Wayne Delia

December 14, 2005, 01:44 PM

rhutchin, your additions to John 3:18 make no difference. [...]

WMD's argument is that people are condemned because they didn't believe the right thing... Your argument is that they're condemned for their sins... but that those who believe are forgiven.

IT'S THE SAME ARGUMENT! YOU'RE AGREEING WITH WMD!
<shudder> For some reason, I feel the need to take a shower. :)

WMD

John A. Broussard

December 14, 2005, 02:00 PM

From that section, "Is the Argument Valid?": "A number of authors who have been otherwise critical of the Wager have explicitly conceded that the Wager is valid — e.g. Mackie 1982, Rescher 1985, Mougin and Sober 1994, and most emphatically, Hacking 1972. That is, these authors agree with Pascal that wagering for God really is rationally mandated by Pascal's decision matrix in tandem with positive probability for God's existence, and the decision theoretic account of rational action."

As ususal, you didn't deal with the points raised in my post. You simply cited some "authorities" without even giving their solutions to the problem.

OK. Here goes:

How can one decide which god to believe in? My OED has ten fine-print columns defining "god." Pascal's argument is meaningless, since he didn't define the central term in his argument.

Can one lose by believing? Pascal says no. That, of course, is an outright lie. One might believe in a god, spend a life of misery flagellating oneself (perhaps literally) with that belief, miss out on the genuine pleasures of this life and then go out like a candle.

There is, of course, the fundamental flaw in the argument, and that is tying an afterlife to the existence of a god. Pascal assumes that is true. There's no reason--other than the views of some religionists--that there is necessarily an afterlife just because there happens to be a god.

And, of course, there's Russell's argument cited above. Note that I, unlike you, don't just mention someone and let it go at that. I gave you the gist of his argument.

There's much more wrong with Pascal's wager, but that should be a good beginning for you to address each of the above points--keeping in mind that a deductive argument is sound only if it's premisses are true and its form is valid.

You, and apparently the people you cite, confuse validity and soundness.

If you need an explanation of the distinction, I'll be happy to provide.

Wayne Delia

December 14, 2005, 02:24 PM

Pascal’s Wager assumed that there was one god, God,
Which, I suppose, is similar to a family which owned a dog named "Dog".

and one had to decide what to do about Him. The alleged problems came from those who assumed that there were many gods.
Wrong. The actual (not "alleged") problems came, only in part, from people who pointed out that there were many possibilities of other gods, not that they necessarily believed in many gods. Vishnu is a possibility; Zeus is a possibility, Yahweh is a possibility.

That made the problem more complicated (since one first had to determine which god was the real God)
That's life in the big leagues. In any case, Pascal's Wager is not meant to be a logical, inductive proof that belief in the Christian God is compelled; rather, it preaches to those who already believe, using their assumptions as the exclusive truth. The "leap of faith" has already been made, so it is much easier to sell to those who already believe the same thing. Pascal's Wager has also been modified to apply to faith in Allah by Moslem apologists.

however, I am not aware that the logic behind the wager was ever challenged.
There's little challenge to the validity of the syllogism; the logic behind the wager is rejected because it's unsound. Here's an explanation:

Premise 1: There is either the Roman Catholic God, or no god at all.
Premise 2: Belief in the RC God brings eternal salvation.
Premise 3: Disbelief in the RC God brings eternal condemnation.

Step 1: Assume the RC God exists.
Step 2: Believers receive salvation based on Premise 2.
Step 3: Unbelievers receive eternal condemnation based on Premise 3.

Conclusion 1: If the RC God exists, then it is better to believe in Him than not.

Step 4: Assume the RC God does not exist.
Step 5: Believers receive neither salvation nor condemnation.
Step 6: Unbelievers receive neither salvation nor condemnation.

Conclusion 2: If the RC God does not exist, belief or disbelief makes no difference.

Combining Conclusion 1 and Conclusion 2 results in the following:

Conclusion 3A: Believers gain salvation if the RC God exists, and receive nothing if the RC God does not exist.
Conclusion 3B: Unbelievers receive nothing if the RC God does not exists, and are condemned if the RC God does exist.

Therefore,

Conclusion 4: It is more profitable to believe in the RC God than not to believe at all.

Here's where you are confused: The logic of the syllogism is SOUND (i.e. the conclusions follow from the premises, if the premises are assumed to be true) but the logic of the syllogism is INVALID (since the truth of the premises cannot be demonstrated.)

Particularly, it cannot be demonstrated that the Roman Catholic God is the only possible God that exists, which is what Pascal assumed in the Pensee's. That premise is refuted by the actual proposed gods of other non-Christian religions. Including them in the matrix of God-belief geometrically increases the complexity. As well, the more gods which are involved, the more attractive the atheism option becomes.

The standard apologetic, as you have presented it here, is to sweep the other non-Christian gods under the carpet and pretend they're not a possibility. But to do that, based on Pascal's belief that only the Roman Catholic God could possibly exist or not exist, is to commit the logical fallacy of "affirming the consequent," or assuming your own conclusion. In fact, I am persuaded by arguments that Pascal included that in the Pensee's as what should have been an obvious joke - that kind of logic is trivially sound, but obviously invalid.

Have you read something different?
Evidently. I've refuted Pascal's Wager from just the one weakness of failure to account for multiple gods of mutually exclusive characteristics (i.e. believe in God, and Allah sends you to the Islamic hell; believe in Allah, and God sends you to the Christian hell). Meanwhile, you're basing your argument on conjecture, which is necessary because you're too lazy to do the actual research.

WMD

Alf

December 14, 2005, 03:13 PM

Pascal’s Wager assumed that there was one god, God, and one had to decide what to do about Him. The alleged problems came from those who assumed that there were many gods. That made the problem more complicated (since one first had to determine which god was the real God) however, I am not aware that the logic behind the wager was ever challenged.

Have you read something different?

That is exactly the problem!

Let's say we have three people. Andy tells Carl: You should believe in the god I believe in.

Now, in comes Barry and he tells Carl: No, that god is fake, you should believe in the god I believe in.

Which God should Carl believe in?

Let's try an expanded Pascal's Wager:

1. If Carl believe in Andy's god and this is the true god the he is all fine.
2. If Carl believe in Andy's god and this is not the true god then he is most likely in trouble.
3. If Carl believe in Barry's god and this is the true god he is again all fine.
4. If Carl believe in Barry's God and this is not the true god then he is most likely in trouble.
5. If Carl do not believe in either God and one of them is the true god then he will go to hell and surely end up in trouble.
6. If carl do not believe in either god and none of them are the true gods then it is all open (it can be good, bad or neutral).

Of course, situation 2 can be split in 2a, the true god send him to hell because he believe in Andy's god and 2b, the true god forgive him and doesn't send him to hell even if he believed in the wrong god and 2c, there is no true god and nothing happens.

Ditto for case 4.

Similarly, case 6 also split up in 3 cases.

6a, Barry believes in some third god and this happen to be the true god and he end up in heaven.
6b, Barry believes in some third god or he doesn't believe in any god but the true god allow him into heaven anyway.
6c. Barry believes in some third god or he doesn't believe in any god and that was the wrong choice so he end up in hell.
6d. Barry believes in some third god but there is no god so nothing happens.

NOw, there are more cases and so it is more complicated. However, we also see that believing in either god is no safe bet. Thus, Pascal's wager is flawed. It assumes there is a true god and so you start with the premise there is a god and it is a big no no in logic to start with as premise that which you want to argue for.

In fact I haven't covered all cases. It could be that he believed in the right god and that god was a mean SoB who still send him to hell just because he enjoy watching people suffer. Christians claims their god is just so he won't do that but reading the bible reveal that concluding this god's as just might be a bit hasty. He does not appear just at all, if the bible is true. True, he might appear just to a bronze age people where a "just" king might do the things that god supposedly did, but we in a modern society won't consider such actions to be "just".

So let us examine Pascal's Wager again.

He assume there is at most one god and the question is if you want to believe in this god or not. What about the muslim who claim his god is the true god? You might say this is the same god but that in turn leaves the question open how you are supposed to worship this god.

Should you worship this god by praying to Jesus or should you worship by kneeling 5 times towards Mecca?

Perhaps God accept all forms of worship, so you get to heaven either way, why then be a christian? Perhaps even being an atheist and not believing would be ok to such a just and liberal god?`Perhaps he draw a line on believers so you can worship anyway you want but you must believe? If so, he really should provide some evidence for himself so that rational people can get justification for believing in him.

However, this is all speculation. It is also quite possible that God insist on a particular form of worship and if you do not follow the exact ritual you will get to hell. If so, the question is still open and Pascal Wager is yet again of no help to you.

It is also alas quite possible that God might send you to hell no matter which way you worship. If you say that he expect us to worship him without evidence it is also quite reasonable to assume that he wants us to worship him in a way that no human as of yet have thought of worshipping him. Thus, we all go to hell. It won't help that we say "you didn't give us any sign" because he appearantly refuses to give us sign of his existence today and why then should we expect him to give us any hint of how we should worship him? Perhaps he just wait for one of us to come up with a lucky guess and that guy and all those who follow him will go to heaven but so far no person has managed to come up with that lucky guess so we are all destined to hell?

If you think it is unfair and a just god would give us a sign how to worship him, then likewise a just god would give us some evidence as to which god belief is real and which is fake. Just claiming that "There will be fake prophets after me" doesn't quite cut it here - that reduces to a simple argument between children where one says "My dad is bigger than yours" and the other says "No, My dad is biggers than yours" and a third child is none the wiser.

Of course, to figure out which god is the real god and which are the fake gods we need EVIDENCE. That is exactly what is lacking here. Until such evidence is present you really have a weak case.

So, Pascal's Wager is utterly useless and the logic of it is utterly flawed.

Alf

Wayne Delia

December 14, 2005, 04:00 PM

The issue here is whether there is a true and living god.
Not really. The question is what am I supposed to do when a Christian claims God is the one true god, and a Moslem shows up claiming that Allah is the one true god. How is the one true god identified? That's the real issue.

1. We can assume that there is when there may not be.
2. We can assume that there is not when there is.

There is no penalty for doing (1) and there is a penalty for doing (2), so let's do (1).
Notice how you're entirely evading the issue. How am I supposed to determine which one is the true god? Now is usually the time when you backpedal and make a non-response such as "Different people believe in different gods" or "The individual is left to sort all this out." That gives no indication of any objective criteria concerning how to identify the one true god.

Now there is no penalty for praying to the true and living god (one actually benefits) and there is a penalty for praying to the false god. Therefore, the rational decision is to pray to the true and living god.
That's the watered-down version of Pascal's Wager, which I've shown is a sound argument (assume A, argue "If A, then B", and conclude "Therefore, B") but it is also an invalid argument (the assumption of A is never demonstrated or established to be true). You've already been clobbered on it. The question is how to determine which one is the one true god.

At this point, all that one has are various books espousing one god or the other as the true and living god -- Bible, Koran, Book of Mormon, etc. The individual is left to sort all this out.
Exactly as I predicted: "The individual is left to sort all this out." It's a non-response to the question of how to determine that.

The threat to WMD's children is that which results from his inability to provide 100% protection for them.
Actually, in your proposal, the threat was that a religious wacko like yourself who suggests that they be intentionally placed in harm's way as a test for the wacko's preferred God fantasy. I can, and certainly will, protect my children against such threats. If you do not have a karate rank of black belt or higher, you will be at a disadvantage.

If we assume that WMD cares for his children, then he would seek to provide 100% protection for his children.
100% protection for the children is not possible, since 1) humans are not omnipotent, 2) you cannot show that your God exists, and 3) we observe that your God does not respond even to believers calling out to Him for help, in matters such as Hurricane Katrina.

One way to do this is to appeal to the true and living god to protect his children when he is not able to do so.
You've fallen way behind in this argument. You cannot establish that any gods exist at all, much less that any such god would respond to requests for help. As well, you failed to respond to the example I gave of a paramedic on the scene of an accident, who attempts to pray for help from whatever god he believes in instead of administering first aid. If the paramedic followed your advice, he'd be sued for malpractice and criminal neglect.

The problem for WMD is to identify the true and living god from among all those gods being promoted as the true and living god.
The reason you lost this current argument is that you have established no way to correctly identify this "true and living god." All you do is mention which god you believe in as the "true and living god," even though we can observe that your version didn't lift a finger to stop Hurricane Katrina even though people called out to Him for help.

All he has available to him to identify the true and living god are the "Holy" books purported to have been written by the true and living god's prophets in order to allow WMD to identify the true and living god.
No evidence exists to compel my belief in gods of any kind, and it is obviously foolish to depend on such an unsupported source for help in emergencies and disasters. The "Holy" books are merely claims, not evidence of the claims themselves.

Praying to a god that is real is never superstitious.
Did you notice how you never got around to identifying a method of how to identify the "true and living god" at all? Sure, you believe it, but I'm certainly not going to believe something because you believe it - although, given that you believe X, I am willing to assign a high probability of Not-X being true. :)

WMD

rhutchin

December 14, 2005, 04:02 PM

...
Let's try an expanded Pascal's Wager:

Pascal's Wager applies only in the case where one has decided that God exists and is faced with the decision of serving or not serving God. If there is more than one god from which to choose, then on the assumption that one of the gods is the true and living god, the issue is still whether to serve that god. The problem is then compounded by the need to determined which is the true God. Even with many gods, Pascal's Wager still provides direction in that one must determine whether it is beneficial to serve the true God (assuming one can discover which god is God) or not.

All you have demonstrated in your explanation is that the problem is more complicated than originally posed by Pascal.

rhutchin

December 14, 2005, 04:12 PM

rhutchin
The issue here is whether there is a true and living god.

Wayne Delia
Not really. The question is what am I supposed to do when a Christian claims God is the one true god, and a Moslem shows up claiming that Allah is the one true god. How is the one true god identified? That's the real issue.

OK – Two issues.

1. Is there a true and living god?
2. How is the one true God identified?

Wayne Delia

December 14, 2005, 08:24 PM

I don’t think the number of penalties matters. However, it hinges on what is true and not what one believes is true. Once one determines which god he thinks is the true god, he can then determine the penalties by reading the appropriate holy book or writings.
Do you notice how your second sentence contradicts your third? You can't have it both ways. In the second sentence, you're emphasizing that which is true (but possibly undiscovered, undetermined, or unnoticed), but in the third sentence, you've reverted back to determining courses of action based on what a person prefers to believe, instead of what's actually true.

I don’t agree that WMD established that the "true and living God" does not provide protection.
That was pretty much obvious, and established by the fact that Hurricane Katrina produced very consistent, continuous, thorough coverage of damage and suffering, instead of pockets of protection or safety for those who call out to God for help. All that was in an area with a high concentration of believers, many of whom actually did call out to God for help, to no avail. Some, to be fair, credit God for allowing them to think they have the strength to deal with the aftermath, but the idea was to prevent any aftermath at all by overcoming the hurricane. To ignore this huge catastrophe and its devastation would be... well... ignorant.

What does one do about drunks on the road, drive-by shootings, etc.
We don't pray to God to ask that these threats do not happen, because we notice that they actually do happen with alarming frequency. Any God who knows about these kind of threats, has the power to prevent them from happening, but intentionally does not unless the potential victim grovels and licks His boots is not really a God worth worshipping.

Does one depend on “luck�? to protect one’s children?
No, but depending on "luck" will probably bring more success than depending on "God". One way in which I protect my children is to refuse to allow a religious wacko like you to use them as guinea pigs in an experiment to test the efficacy of their religious fantasy.

The alternative is to ask God for help.
It's by no means the only alternative. For example, my kids and I completed a family-based karate program (American TaeKwondo Association) in which Joe and I got black belts, and Lisa ended with a second-degree brown belt. This program taught the kids a lot of valuable lessons and techniques, including when to fight and when to back off from fighting. That has nothing to do with luck, grovelling to God, or me following them around 100% of the time. So, there are many other more reasonable alternatives which you failed to address.

Of course, for WMD, it can be difficult to appeal to someone that you don’t believe exists.
That's true for anyone, and it's why you get laughed off the stage when you suggest we should "swallow our pride" and do exactly that. For example, assuming you don't believe in Vishnu, it would be ridiculous to suggest that you sit down and have a heartfelt, personal conversation with Vishnu.

That is the problem. Having read the Bible and almost all the Koran, I am impressed with the Bible. Having talked to Mormons and JWs, I don’t see where they have much to offer. Everyone has to come to their own conclusion on this. The ones who reach the wrong conclusion lose out.
Again, you back off from establishing your argument with a non-response such as "I believe what I believe; you believe something else; I believe that what I believe is true; since you believe something else, you're wrong." It's not working unless you can establish the truth or validity of any of your claims, in the way I'm establishing that calling out to your God for help doesn't work, as dramatically illustrated by Hurricane Katrina.

WMD

Wayne Delia

December 14, 2005, 08:24 PM

OK – Two issues.

1. Is there a true and living god?
2. How is the one true God identified?
Fair enough. You've addressed neither issue.

WMD

Wayne Delia

December 14, 2005, 08:40 PM

From that section, "Is the Argument Valid?": "A number of authors who have been otherwise critical of the Wager have explicitly conceded that the Wager is valid — e.g. Mackie 1982, Rescher 1985, Mougin and Sober 1994, and most emphatically, Hacking 1972. That is, these authors agree with Pascal that wagering for God really is rationally mandated by Pascal's decision matrix in tandem with positive probability for God's existence, and the decision theoretic account of rational action."
Each of those authors would be de facto wrong: as previously demonstrated, Pascal's Wager is sound (the logical syllogism is consistent) but not valid (in that the premises are not established to be true.)

In this case, WMD wants to protect his children and has a definite bias toward asking God
WTF??? Are you confused on the definition of "atheist" again?

since he is looking for a specific result (i.e., that his children receive protection).
We don't need to put my kids in harm's way as test subjects to see whether God offers help to those who call out to Him. We have already seen that He was unable or unwilling to provide help to many thousands of victims of Hurricane Katrina.

The other arguments concern problem definition and not the logic followed to resolve the problem.
As I said before, the logic of Pascal's Wager is sound (in that the syllogism is logically consistent) but invalid (since the assumed premises have not been demonstrated to be true).

WMD

John A. Broussard

December 14, 2005, 11:41 PM

Pascal's Wager applies only in the case where one has decided that God exists

Please do a little reading, and it help you to avoid coming up with utterly false statments such as the above.

"God is, or He is not." But to which side shall we incline? Reason can decide nothing here. There is an infinite chaos which separated us. A game is being played at the extremity of this infinite distance where heads or tails will turn up... Which will you choose then? Let us see. Since you must choose, let us see which interests you least. You have two things to lose, the true and the good; and two things to stake, your reason and your will, your knowledge and your happiness; and your nature has two things to shun, error and misery. Your reason is no more shocked in choosing one rather than the other, since you must of necessity choose... But your happiness? Let us weigh the gain and the loss in wagering that God is... If you gain, you gain all; if you lose, you lose nothing. Wager, then, without hesitation that He is."

The wager is most certainly not applied only where one has decided that god exists. In fact it starts with the question, does god exist or not?

Read it again.

Alf

December 15, 2005, 05:23 AM

Pascal's Wager applies only in the case where one has decided that God exists and is faced with the decision of serving or not serving God. If there is more than one god from which to choose, then on the assumption that one of the gods is the true and living god, the issue is still whether to serve that god. The problem is then compounded by the need to determined which is the true God. Even with many gods, Pascal's Wager still provides direction in that one must determine whether it is beneficial to serve the true God (assuming one can discover which god is God) or not.

All you have demonstrated in your explanation is that the problem is more complicated than originally posed by Pascal.

That is called circular reasoning since you put up as premise that which you seek to conclude.

So then we can relax since Pascal's Wager do not apply to the world where we live where we cannot easily establish that one true god exist.

You just announced your own argument does not apply to the real world.

Congratulations.

Alf

rhutchin

December 15, 2005, 05:55 AM

rhutchin
Pascal's Wager applies only in the case where one has decided that God exists and is faced with the decision of serving or not serving God. If there is more than one god from which to choose, then on the assumption that one of the gods is the true and living god, the issue is still whether to serve that god. The problem is then compounded by the need to determined which is the true God. Even with many gods, Pascal's Wager still provides direction in that one must determine whether it is beneficial to serve the true God (assuming one can discover which god is God) or not.

All you have demonstrated in your explanation is that the problem is more complicated than originally posed by Pascal.

Alf
That is called circular reasoning since you put up as premise that which you seek to conclude.

So then we can relax since Pascal's Wager do not apply to the world where we live where we cannot easily establish that one true god exist.

You just announced your own argument does not apply to the real world.

Congratulations.

You do not say, “...we cannot establish that one true god exist.�? Instead you said, “...we cannot easily establish...�? whereby you are only stating that the problem is more difficult and complicated than originally conceived.

However, the problem is not whether we can establish that God exists but whether it is true that God exists. If it is true that God exists, then Pascal’s Wager is logical. Even if one cannot establish the identity of the true and living God, the individual would still want to pick a god to serve on the chance that he would choose the true and living god. Consequently, Pascal’s Wager does apply to the world in which we live.

Alf

December 15, 2005, 06:20 AM

You do not say, “...we cannot establish that one true god exist.�? Instead you said, “...we cannot easily establish...�? whereby you are only stating that the problem is more difficult and complicated than originally conceived.

Nice try. If you think you can establish that this god exist do so. Don't get hung up in the fract that I said we cannot easily establish it. We cannot establish it even after hard work either.

However, the problem is not whether we can establish that God exists but whether it is true that God exists.

Smart kid. How did you get that conclusion? Now. how do we figure out if God exist or not? Oh yeah, right, we establish it...

If it is true that God exists, then Pascal’s Wager is logical.

True, but the validity of Pascal's wager assume you know which god this is. Since we do not all bets are off.

Even if one cannot establish the identity of the true and living God, the individual would still want to pick a god to serve on the chance that he would choose the true and living god.

False. It is meaningless to talk about the chance that the chance that something is or not.

What is the probability that the probaility of heads on a coin is 50 percent?

If you figure out that the answer is "bullshit question with no answer that makes sense" you got he right guess. If you answered anything else you would be wrong.

So, what is the chance that you pick the right god? Near zero so no matter which god you eventually bow down to, Pascal's Wager won't help you since you have a near 100 percent chance of bowing down to the wrong god and the right god if one such exist would get mighty upset and send you to hell.

Consequently, Pascal’s Wager does apply to the world in which we live.

Does it bother you to be wrong so often?

Alf

Wayne Delia

December 15, 2005, 06:25 AM

You do not say, “...we cannot establish that one true god exist.�? Instead you said, “...we cannot easily establish...�? whereby you are only stating that the problem is more difficult and complicated than originally conceived.
So difficult and complicated, in fact, that it has never been overcome: nobody has ever established that one true god exists. So, it's functionally equivalent.

However, the problem is not whether we can establish that God exists but whether it is true that God exists. If it is true that God exists, then Pascal’s Wager is logical.
You haven't been listening to the criticism of your line of reasoning. Pascal's Wager is logically sound (the conclusion follows from the premise, assuming the premise is true) but logically invalid (the premise cannot be established as true). Arguments of the form of Pascal's Wager are useless. For example, an argument of "Assume I own the Brooklyn Bridge. If I own the Brooklyn Bridge, I can legally sell it to you. Therefore, I can offer you this incredible price to purchase the Brooklyn Bridge" is similarly logically sound but invalid. The premise implies the conclusion, but the premise cannot be established as true, simply because I do not own the Brooklyn Bridge.

Even if one cannot establish the identity of the true and living God, the individual would still want to pick a god to serve on the chance that he would choose the true and living god.
If one cannot establish the identity of the true and living god, then Pascal's Wager becomes exponentially complex as a function of the number of possible "true and living gods" considered. With the options of the RC God and no god, there are four outcomes: 1) believe/true = salvation, 2) believe/not-true = no outcome; 3) not-believe/not-true = no outcome, 4) not-believe/true = condemnation. But when the God of Islam, Allah, is introduced into the argument, and the options are the RC God, Allah, and no god, the matrix of outcomes goes from four to nine. Add another possible god, Zeus, and the matrix goes from nine outcomes to sixteen. And as the number of gods in the mix increases, the argument for the Christian God becomes much weaker.

Consequently, Pascal’s Wager does apply to the world in which we live.
Sure, like any scam by any con artist applies to this world, but it only applies to those gullible enough to fail to realize it's logically invalid.

WMD

rhutchin

December 15, 2005, 06:30 AM

rhutchin
Pascal's Wager applies only in the case where one has decided that God exists

John A. Broussard
Please do a little reading, and it help you to avoid coming up with utterly false statments such as the above.

"God is, or He is not." But to which side shall we incline? Reason can decide nothing here. There is an infinite chaos which separated us. A game is being played at the extremity of this infinite distance where heads or tails will turn up... Which will you choose then? Let us see. Since you must choose, let us see which interests you least. You have two things to lose, the true and the good; and two things to stake, your reason and your will, your knowledge and your happiness; and your nature has two things to shun, error and misery. Your reason is no more shocked in choosing one rather than the other, since you must of necessity choose... But your happiness? Let us weigh the gain and the loss in wagering that God is... If you gain, you gain all; if you lose, you lose nothing. Wager, then, without hesitation that He is."

The wager is most certainly not applied only where one has decided that god exists. In fact it starts with the question, does god exist or not?

Read it again.

Let me rephrase. Pascal's Wager applies only in the case where it has been agreed that God can exist. If one is not convinced that God can exist, then the wager loses force (but then you go through the analysis of the cost of believing that something does not exist when it does exist). The presupposition, then, is that God can exist. The wager, then, concerns whether it is more beneficial for the individual to believe in the god who might not exist as opposed to not believing in a god who might exist. Pascal concluded that the costs of not believing in a god that does exist are greater than the costs of believing in a god that does not exist, so a person should do that which imposes the least costs on himself.

Let’s apply it to WMD and his claimed desire to want to protect his children. If we presuppose that God can exist (regardless whether we are convinced that God does exist), then the cost to WMD of believing in that God and appealing to that God for protection of his children are less than the cost of not believing, so WMD should take that action which costs him the least.

JPD

December 15, 2005, 06:50 AM

rhutchin

December 15, 2005, 07:04 AM

rhutchin
You do not say, “...we cannot establish that one true god exist.�? Instead you said, “...we cannot easily establish...�? whereby you are only stating that the problem is more difficult and complicated than originally conceived.

Wayne Delia
So difficult and complicated, in fact, that it has never been overcome: nobody has ever established that one true god exists. So, it's functionally equivalent.

Except that no one has established that one true god does not exist. It cannot be established that God exists or does not exist although the preponderance of the evidence (presented in the Bible) is that God exists.

rhutchin
However, the problem is not whether we can establish that God exists but whether it is true that God exists. If it is true that God exists, then Pascal’s Wager is logical.

Wayne Delia
You haven't been listening to the criticism of your line of reasoning. Pascal's Wager is logically sound (the conclusion follows from the premise, assuming the premise is true) but logically invalid (the premise cannot be established as true). Arguments of the form of Pascal's Wager are useless. For example, an argument of "Assume I own the Brooklyn Bridge. If I own the Brooklyn Bridge, I can legally sell it to you. Therefore, I can offer you this incredible price to purchase the Brooklyn Bridge" is similarly logically sound but invalid. The premise implies the conclusion, but the premise cannot be established as true, simply because I do not own the Brooklyn Bridge.

Pascal’s argument, I believe, focused more on possibility (and probabilities) than actuality. If it is possible for one to own the Brooklyn Bridge, then what does one do when offered the opportunity to purchase the bridge very cheap. One argues that he can pay the price and then find out that he gets nothing or he can pay nothing and find out that he could have had everything. The actual costs paid for potentially getting no bridge are less than the potential lost revenue (a cost) of not getting the bridge.

rhutchin
Even if one cannot establish the identity of the true and living God, the individual would still want to pick a god to serve on the chance that he would choose the true and living god.

Wayne Delia
If one cannot establish the identity of the true and living god, then Pascal's Wager becomes exponentially complex as a function of the number of possible "true and living gods" considered. With the options of the RC God and no god, there are four outcomes: 1) believe/true = salvation, 2) believe/not-true = no outcome; 3) not-believe/not-true = no outcome, 4) not-believe/true = condemnation. But when the God of Islam, Allah, is introduced into the argument, and the options are the RC God, Allah, and no god, the matrix of outcomes goes from four to nine. Add another possible god, Zeus, and the matrix goes from nine outcomes to sixteen. And as the number of gods in the mix increases, the argument for the Christian God becomes much weaker.

The more gods you throw into the mix, the more complicated it gets.

rhutchin
Consequently, Pascal’s Wager does apply to the world in which we live.

Wayne Delia
Sure, like any scam by any con artist applies to this world, but it only applies to those gullible enough to fail to realize it's logically invalid.

If it is true that God exists, then what’s the scam? It is only if God does not exist, that we have a scam, but the costs imposed by the scam are negligible.

rhutchin

December 15, 2005, 07:07 AM

You are overcomplicating things. Pascal's wager operates on the understanding that the existence of God can be neither proven nor disproven. If God's existence could be proved or disproved then the wager would not exist. Is the chance that a vengeful God is waiting to punish non-believers greater than the chance of positive outcomes or no outcome at all?

I like simplicity. I can go with that.

AZSuperman

December 15, 2005, 08:40 AM

Except that no one has established that one true god does not exist. It cannot be established that God exists or does not exist although the preponderance of the evidence (presented in the Bible) is that God exists.
You have a strange idea of what constitutes a "preponderance of evidence." The Bible is internally contradictory, and frequently the ONLY "record" of the events recorded.

For example, the exodus account describes God completely desecrating the Egyptian people. He destroys their crops, kills all the fish, kills their livestock, infests the country with frogs and lice, causes everyone to break out in boils, and kills the first-born of all Egypt, then drown the pharaohs chariots when they pursued Moses through the Red Sea... even in modern times, such destruction would leave any country in ruins. Now we have learned to read heirogyphs, and we have discovered thousands of Egyptian writings. We've found letters from regular citizens in which they talk about the weather, taxes, etc. In all the documents and artifacts recovered, NONE of them mention ANY of the Biblical plagues. The preponderance of evidence actually shows that the event probably never occurred.

Pascal’s argument, I believe, focused more on possibility (and probabilities) than actuality. If it is possible for one to own the Brooklyn Bridge, then what does one do when offered the opportunity to purchase the bridge very cheap. One argues that he can pay the price and then find out that he gets nothing or he can pay nothing and find out that he could have had everything. The actual costs paid for potentially getting no bridge are less than the potential lost revenue (a cost) of not getting the bridge.
Great to hear! I've got a great deal for you on a bridge...

If it is true that God exists, then what’s the scam? It is only if God does not exist, that we have a scam, but the costs imposed by the scam are negligible.
So if I offer to sell you the bridge for a negligible amount, you'll pay me requiring proof from me?

What if three of us all offer to sell you the same bridge for a negligible amount? Will you pay all of us? What if there are a hundred people offering the bridge for a negligible amount? At what point do you determine that there are too many people? At what point does the negligable amount compounded by the number of people demanding it become too much?

Perhaps one person may really own the bridge, but if you end up paying 100x the value of the bridge, due to paying a negligible price to hundreds of other people, then you loose the benefit. Just as, if you pray to the "one true God," but he damns you anyway because you also prayed to the false Gods, then you loose the benefit.

John A. Broussard

December 15, 2005, 09:33 AM

John A. Broussard

December 15, 2005, 09:36 AM

I like simplicity. I can go with that.
I, too, value simplicity.

It can be furthered here by answering posts, and dealing with the issues rather then engaging in lengthy evasiveness.

rhutchin

December 15, 2005, 11:01 AM

rhutchin
Let me rephrase. Pascal's Wager applies only in the case where it has been agreed that God can exist. If one is not convinced that God can exist, then the wager loses force (but then you go through the analysis of the cost of believing that something does not exist when it does exist). The presupposition, then, is that God can exist.

John A. Broussard
Ah, yes. Rephrasing. It needs rephrasing, since you're previous statement was completely false.

And, of course, your rephrasing fails. The presupposition that god can exist obviously applies the moment one engages in a discussion regarding god's existence.

What in the world are you arguing about here?

If one is a diehard atheist, I am not sure that he would buy into the presupposition that God exists. Actually, from Pascal’s perspective, we could further restrict the presupposition to, “Pascal's Wager applies only to the Biblical God.�? If one can accept the idea that the Biblical God can exist, then Pascal’s wager is off and running.

rhutchin
The Wager, then, concerns whether it is more beneficial for the individual to believe in the god who might not exist as opposed to not believing in a god who might exist. Pascal concluded that the costs of not believing in a god that does exist are greater than the costs of believing in a god that does not exist, so a person should do that which imposes the least costs on himself.

John A. Broussard
So now you tell me what the wager says. Since I just quoted it, your replay is completely unneccessary and is an obvious attempt to avoid dealing with the Wager, itself.

Let's deal with the actual issue. Pascal's Wager is seriously flawed. I listed several such flaws which you asked me to present. I can list more if necessary, but there's not much point since you ignored my post.

How about dealing with those flaws instead of just repeating the Wager?

I look forward to your answer.

Many of the alleged flaws disappear if we accept the proposition that Pascal had the Biblical God in mind. The notion of other gods gets subsumed into the “[The Biblical] God is not�? side of the argument. In addition, there is only one real reward in view and that is eternal life/hell. Thus, there are not more columns or more rows to add to the problem.

I am not sure what the infinite/finite arguments are all about because I have not read Mackie and the others. Can you explain them? Basically, we have two outcomes, heaven and hell. Each reward can be considered as being finite (received at a point in time) even though each has infinite value.

The probability arguments do not apply, because the wager requires a probability of God’s existence to be between 0 and 1 (the presupposition is that God can exist (P>0) but that God does not have to exist (P<1)).

Wayne Delia

December 15, 2005, 11:02 AM

Let me rephrase. Pascal's Wager applies only in the case where it has been agreed that God can exist. If one is not convinced that God can exist, then the wager loses force (but then you go through the analysis of the cost of believing that something does not exist when it does exist).
Actually, Pascal's Wager is often used (with very little to no effect) by Christian apologists to persuade atheists to believe in their God. It doesn't work, precisely because it is invalid, so it is employed instead to bolster the faith of those who already believe, but who aren't too terribly concerned that the syllogism is invalid.

The presupposition, then, is that God can exist.
No. The presupposition is that the RC God either exists or doesn't exist; if He doesn't exist, it could very well be because God cannot exist (by being logically disproved, such as combining 1 John 4:8, 1 Corinthians 13:4, and Exodus 20:5) so you'd be wrong in what you think the presupposition is. The other presupposition is that if a God can exist, then it must necessarily be the Christian God, specifically the Roman Catholic God.

The wager, then, concerns whether it is more beneficial for the individual to believe in the god who might not exist as opposed to not believing in a god who might exist.
While ignoring all other gods at the same time, which is not a good logical strategy.

Pascal concluded that the costs of not believing in a god that does exist are greater than the costs of believing in a god that does not exist, so a person should do that which imposes the least costs on himself.
In order to arrive at that conclusion, Pascal made some very dubious assumptions. First, as has already been pointed out, it's not just "a god" but rather "THE Roman Catholic God," and there are many, many more versions of the Christian God alone, that are not considered, before we get into all the non-Christian gods currently proposed. The Jehovah's Witnesses believe in the same Christian God, but they believe the Catholics will be sent to hell for the way they worship using idols and intermediaries. Catholics believe a similar condemnation awaits the Jehovah's Witnesses simply for their differences. Second, Pascal presumed that God would not be offended at someone who believed not out of sincere faith, but rather as a "hedged bet" for, as you identified, nothing more than personal gain - "that which imposes the least costs on himself." Third, Pascal assumed there was virtually no cost to believing a concept which one chooses to profess to believe out of self-interest, but who does not actually hold that belief. The cost, of course, is becoming a hypocrite, selling out one's personal intellectual integrity completely, and potentially wasting a good amount of time and money on something which might turn out to be untrue. Pascal never even considered any of those points.

Let’s apply it to WMD and his claimed desire to want to protect his children.
That's an ACTUAL desire, not a "claimed" desire. The longer you insist it is only claimed, the more you strengthen your reputation as having an attention deficit (and honesty) problem.

If we presuppose that God can exist (regardless whether we are convinced that God does exist), then the cost to WMD of believing in that God and appealing to that God for protection of his children are less than the cost of not believing, so WMD should take that action which costs him the least.
Believing in God costs more, especially in light of the costs I mentioned above: personal integrity sell-out, being a hypocrite, intellectual dishonesty, time, and money. Not believing in God requires none of the above. Remember, we are discussing "protection of my children," and all I have to do is turn on a televised news documentary on the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina to observe that your God does not actually protect anyone from harm, much less anyone who calls out to Him for help. If your intent was to equivocate from protecting my children from the harm of natural disasters and uncontrollable situations into protection from an empty death threat of hell, that would be irrelevant to the current discussion.

So, you have persuaded me, using Pascal's Wager, that it is much more beneficial to NOT believe in your God. In fact, on the infidels.org site, Richard Carrier has written a piece about Pascal's Wager for Atheists, using the same line of reasoning as the actual Wager to promote disbelief instead of belief.

WMD

John A. Broussard

December 15, 2005, 11:16 AM

Many of the alleged flaws disappear if we accept the proposition that Pascal had the Biblical God in mind. The notion of other gods gets subsumed into the “[The Biblical] God is not�? side of the argument. In addition, there is only one real reward in view and that is eternal life/hell. Thus, there are not more columns or more rows to add to the problem.

I see. You're going to do to Pascal what you do to the bible. If he doesn't say what you want, you simply "accept" a different "proposition."

How about dealing with the Wager?

I've listed the "alleged" flaws. Do they or do they not exist. If they don't, present your arguments showing that they don't.

If they do exist, admit it and we can move on with no further evasions or rephrasings on your part.

John A. Broussard

December 15, 2005, 11:19 AM

I am not sure what the infinite/finite arguments are all about because I have not read Mackie and the others. Can you explain them? Basically, we have two outcomes, heaven and hell. Each reward can be considered as being finite (received at a point in time) even though each has infinite value.

The probability arguments do not apply, because the wager requires a probability of God’s existence to be between 0 and 1 (the presupposition is that God can exist (P>0) but that God does not have to exist (P<1)).
What in the world does this have to do with anything? If this was somehow an answer to any of my posts, please point that out.

Thank you.

ThorsHammer

December 15, 2005, 11:47 AM

Originally (as the historical account reads) Adam and Eve had the ability to refrain from sinning. That ability translated to inability when they sinned. While this is the situation people find themselves in, it is also true that God provides a means to escape this situation. One need only ask for help. Judgment for sin is inevitable but one can escape that judgment in the manner described in the Bible.

Maybe a better analogy would be putting a dog in a room with a plate of food and leaving the room. The dog immediately eats the food (at least mine would) and then slinks out when you return. The dog could not overcome its nature. That is the nature of a dog. Humans are the same way. They cannot keep from sinning even when they know that it is wrong (much like the drug addict takes drugs knowing that he is destroying himself). That is the nature of a human.

I guess the issue is how to make a human without giving them the nature of a human. God made people with the desire to please themselves. If He had not made us that way, we wouldn’t really be human. God doesn’t have to throw a person into the lake; they will jump in on their own. Would you want to be a human (knowing what you know about human nature) or a robot? The logical choice, it seems, is to be a robot. Maybe God should have made robots instead of humans.
Let's not forget, then, that god made man in his own image. Does that imply anything to you?

ThorsHammer

December 15, 2005, 11:51 AM

Maybe God is not the one inflicting the suffering. Maybe further investigation would discover the involvement of others and determine that those other people were responsible for the suffering of the toddlers.
Would this include genetic defects, or natural disasters? Would you blame people on these?

ThorsHammer

December 15, 2005, 11:59 AM

It is only your perception that God isn't just because you cannot understand or comprehend why God would do some of the things He is attributed to doing (such as ordering the complete destruction of every man woman and child in this instance). Sure, I agree, it seems very difficult to swallow, and does not sound "in character" to what God is understood to be. However, IF it is true (and since it is in the bible, I have believe it is true), then I say to you that there is somthing else we do not know or understand here that God does know and understand. It may be somthing along the lines of genetic inherent traits in regards to violence and insane behavior. Like they suggest a smoker tends to have children who smoke, or aclholics tend to have alcholoc children, perhaps then violence , murder, and generally anti-social and depraved natures are also passed along, and TAUGHT to their subsequent generations. Perhaps these people who were entirely slaughtered was one of the most degenrate societies the world has ever known, and perhpas it was propogating itself both genetically and traditionally. I couldn't say, but that is my speculation. Perhaps it is somthign else entirely, but the real poitn here is that God is trustworthy, so if God says such a thing needs be done, then it surely needs be done as God said it. God is not only just, but He is entirely trustworthy as well, and personally, I trust Him.
No, you don't have to believe what's in the bible. In fact, you shouldn't. And "god works in mysterious ways" really doesn't cut it for us. How is god trustworthy, when you place your trust in god to make sure your newborn child grows into a healthy adult, and has a happy life, and suddenly, through a natural disaster, or through a genetic mishap, your child winds up dead before its first year? Admit it, no matter how hard you try, you'll never be able to explain away the problem of evil.

rhutchin

December 15, 2005, 12:32 PM

What in the world does this have to do with anything? If this was somehow an answer to any of my posts, please point that out.

Thank you.

You referred me to the page of arguments against Pascal's Wager. I was addressing those. Do you have arguments in addition to those?

John A. Broussard

December 15, 2005, 01:59 PM

You referred me to the page of arguments against Pascal's Wager. I was addressing those. Do you have arguments in addition to those?
Here are the arguments again. Please show me where you addressed them.

How can one decide which god to believe in? My OED has ten fine-print columns defining "god." Pascal's argument is meaningless, since he didn't define the central term in his argument.

Can one lose by believing? Pascal says no. That, of course, is an outright lie. One might believe in a god, spend a life of misery flagellating oneself (perhaps literally) with that belief, miss out on the genuine pleasures of this life and then go out like a candle.

There is, of course, the fundamental flaw in the argument, and that is tying an afterlife to the existence of a god. Pascal assumes that is true. There's no reason--other than the views of some religionists--that there is necessarily an afterlife just because there happens to be a god.

And, of course, there's Russell's argument cited above. Note that I, unlike you, don't just mention someone and let it go at that. I gave you the gist of his argument.

***

In addition to the above, you might try reading up a bit on Pascal. He was born a Catholic, flirted with Jansenism, was obviously a cynic--perhaps even a skeptic--and there is absolutely no evidence that his Wager was limited only to belief or non-belief in a biblical god.

rhutchin

December 15, 2005, 03:39 PM

John A. Broussard
How can one decide which god to believe in? My OED has ten fine-print columns defining "god." Pascal's argument is meaningless, since he didn't define the central term in his argument.

“"God is, or He is not." But to which side shall we incline?�?

Let’s keep it simple. Either there is a true God or there is not. Pascal’s Wager tells us that the logical thing to do it to believe in the true God rather than not believe. Which god?, you ask. Why do you care? You care because Pascal’s Wager leads you to the conclusion that you should care. The complex part is to determine which of the many gods one should believe but that is beyond Pascal’s Wager. Pascal’s Wager leads to the conclusion that you should believe in the true God but does not help you identify that true God.

John A. Broussard
Can one lose by believing? Pascal says no. That, of course, is an outright lie. One might believe in a god, spend a life of misery flagellating oneself (perhaps literally) with that belief, miss out on the genuine pleasures of this life and then go out like a candle.

There is, of course, the fundamental flaw in the argument, and that is tying an afterlife to the existence of a god. Pascal assumes that is true. There's no reason--other than the views of some religionists--that there is necessarily an afterlife just because there happens to be a god.

Of course, at the end, you may find that all was for naught. However, Pascal’s Wager applies up front where it is uncertain what the outcome will be. I explained this situation earlier.

JPD

December 15, 2005, 05:15 PM

“"God is, or He is not." But to which side shall we incline?�?

Let’s keep it simple. Either there is a true God or there is not. Pascal’s Wager tells us that the logical thing to do it to believe in the true God rather than not believe. Which god?, you ask. Why do you care? You care because Pascal’s Wager leads you to the conclusion that you should care. The complex part is to determine which of the many gods one should believe but that is beyond Pascal’s Wager. Pascal’s Wager leads to the conclusion that you should believe in the true God but does not help you identify that true God.

Of course, at the end, you may find that all was for naught. However, Pascal’s Wager applies up front where it is uncertain what the outcome will be. I explained this situation earlier.

But you - and everyone else who believes - is incapable of identifying that/those which cannot be proved to exist or not exist. It is futile to speak of "true" and "false" in this context as there is nothing to verify or validate the accuracy of your belief statement. The Bible offers nothing greater than the recorded beliefs of others who have attempted to do what you are doing but failed to comprehend the (if it exists) incomprehensible. It is clear that they failed because of the endless problems that arise when attempting to work out quite which interpretation is suitable at a particular time and in a particular place. Its claimed universal application is nothing more than a claim and the suggestion that some will gain more than others as a result of an invisible list makes it even sillier.

Wayne Delia

December 15, 2005, 05:21 PM

Except that no one has established that one true god does not exist.
Well, certain specific gods can be eliminated. For example, the Christian God is eliminated if 1 John 4:8, 1 Corinthians 13:4, and Exodus 20:5 are assumed to be true. But that leaves Pascal's Wager in its original form with only one available option - atheism.

It cannot be established that God exists or does not exist although the preponderance of the evidence (presented in the Bible) is that God exists.
You've been watching way too many daytime courtroom drama shows, like "Judge Joe Brown" or "People's Court." You don't understand what "preponderance of the evidence" actually means. The Bible presents claims only, and the missing "preponderance of the evidence" would be evidence that tended to support the claims.

Pascal’s argument, I believe, focused more on possibility (and probabilities) than actuality.
No probabilities are mentioned, other than some people interpreting that the "chance" for God existing is 50%, since it's one of two options among existing and not existing. That, of course, is ridiculous, and is rightly laughed off the stage. For example, the chance of being dealt a royal flush in poker would also be 50%, since it's one of two options among being dealt a royal flush or not being dealt a royal flush.

If it is possible for one to own the Brooklyn Bridge, then what does one do when offered the opportunity to purchase the bridge very cheap.
Applying Pascal's Wager, you jump at the chance and purchase it immediately. By coincidence, I own the Brooklyn Bridge which I will sell to you for ten thousand dollars. You could make that much money back in tolls very quickly! Especially with the upcoming threatened transit strike scheduled for tomorrow.

One argues that he can pay the price and then find out that he gets nothing or he can pay nothing and find out that he could have had everything.
Well, not "everything", just the Brooklyn Bridge, which I own, and you should jump at the chance to purchase it at the attractive price of $10,000.

The actual costs paid for potentially getting no bridge are less than the potential lost revenue (a cost) of not getting the bridge.
Right. So, if you believe that Pascal's Wager is a sound and valid argument, you need to pay me $10,000, and I'll give you a deed for the Brooklyn Bridge. Do not be taken in by anyone else offering to sell it to you, because they don't own it. I own it. "It's left up to you to sort it out." <snicker>

The more gods you throw into the mix, the more complicated it gets.
No shit! That's why Pascal got lazy and didn't carry the decision matrix any further than the God he believed in, and no god. It didn't suit his agenda, so he swept it under the carpet.

If it is true that God exists, then what’s the scam? It is only if God does not exist, that we have a scam, but the costs imposed by the scam are negligible.
Same scenario with the Brooklyn Bridge. I am a trustworthy fellow, but it could be a scam. The costs imposed by my scam - er, business offer - are negligable compared to the total taxable worth of the Brooklyn Bridge. There's also the possibility that, despite all appearances of a scam, this could somehow be a totally legitimate proposition. So, if you actually put any stock in the Pascal's Wager "sound but invalid" syllogism, you'll pay me ten thousand dollars to buy the Brooklyn Bridge. I suspect you won't, not because you don't necessarily have the ten grand, but because you would reject an obvious scam just as we reject the obvious scam of Pascal's Wager.

WMD

Wayne Delia

December 15, 2005, 05:28 PM

Great to hear! I've got a great deal for you on a bridge...
See, that's a prime example of a scam. You're giving those of us who actually own the Brooklyn Bridge a bad name, by pretending you own it. Actually, I own it, and I am offering it to rhutchin at a very attractive price.

So if I offer to sell you the bridge for a negligible amount, you'll pay me requiring proof from me?
No Way. You can't prove you own the bridge, therefore I own it, since you can't prove I don't own the bridge. rhutchin, our deal is still on, right?

What if three of us all offer to sell you the same bridge for a negligible amount? Will you pay all of us? What if there are a hundred people offering the bridge for a negligible amount? At what point do you determine that there are too many people? At what point does the negligable amount compounded by the number of people demanding it become too much?
There's only one true owner of the bridge, and "it's up to everyone to sort it out for themselves." I happen to believe I am the one true owner of the bridge, and I know it is true by faith, so I should be perfectly free to sell the bridge to whomever I choose. And I choose to sell it to rhutchin.

Perhaps one person may really own the bridge, but if you end up paying 100x the value of the bridge, due to paying a negligible price to hundreds of other people, then you loose the benefit. Just as, if you pray to the "one true God," but he damns you anyway because you also prayed to the false Gods, then you loose the benefit.
I won't damn anyone to hell for buying the bridge from me, the one true owner. That's gotta count for something. But if empty threats of eternity in hell carry any persuasive weight with any prospective customer, I can include one at no extra cost.

WMD

Wayne Delia

December 15, 2005, 05:48 PM

If one is a diehard atheist, I am not sure that he would buy into the presupposition that God exists.
Why wouldn't you be sure of that? Are you still confused about the definition of "atheist"?

Actually, from Pascal’s perspective, we could further restrict the presupposition to, “Pascal's Wager applies only to the Biblical God.�? If one can accept the idea that the Biblical God can exist, then Pascal’s wager is off and running.
No, it isn't. One could also accept the idea that the Islamic god Allah could exist, and Pascal's Wager falls down at the starting gates. Restricting the choices to simply two among many is the logical fallacy of "false dichotomy," the presentation of two and only two options when there are demonstrably many more options available.

Many of the alleged flaws disappear if we accept the proposition that Pascal had the Biblical God in mind.
The one you are hoping will disappear doesn't, though: there are still many other non-Christian gods which many people actually believe in, and Pascal is ignoring all those other gods in favor of laziness and simplicity.

The notion of other gods gets subsumed into the “[The Biblical] God is not�? side of the argument.
No, absolutely not. If Allah exists, then according to your assumption here, there would be a huge penalty (on "[The Biblical] God is not" side) for Christians. But in the original form of Pascal's Wager, there's no penalty at all if "[The Biblical] God is not" side happens to be true. Your paraphrase here is a clear contradiction. Don't you give these issues any thought at all?

In addition, there is only one real reward in view and that is eternal life/hell. Thus, there are not more columns or more rows to add to the problem.
That would require the assumption that the Islamic god, Allah, does not assign punishment to any Christian losers of Pascal's Wager. Sadly, though, the Qu'ran promises roasting in hell for anyone who thinks Jesus is the Son of God. So, obviously, there needs to be a third column for "Christians who Believe in Yahweh But It Turns Out Allah Is The True God." It's really quite simple; you're really quite wrong.

I am not sure what the infinite/finite arguments are all about because I have not read Mackie and the others. Can you explain them?
Not in any way you'd understand, or be willing to accept. For others, though, the finite costs of belief are said to be negligable, but eternities in heaven or eternities in hell are said to be infinite in duration.

Basically, we have two outcomes, heaven and hell.
I understand you said you like simplicity, but you're setting yourself up as a simpleton. There are not two outcomes. There are three outcomes, and they're explicitly stated in Pascal's Wager: heaven (for believers, if God exists); hell (for non-believers, if God exists) and annihilation (for believers and non-believers, if God doesn't exist.)

I'm getting the impression you're not very familiar with Pascal's Wager at all.

Each reward can be considered as being finite (received at a point in time) even though each has infinite value.
That's just stupid. Anything with infinite value, for an infinite length of time, cannot possibly be finite. It would also be infinitely boring.

The probability arguments do not apply, because the wager requires a probability of God’s existence to be between 0 and 1 (the presupposition is that God can exist (P>0) but that God does not have to exist (P<1)).
You've already been shown that it's not necessary that God "can" exist; the possibility that He doesn't exist could be based in a logical disproof of His existence. For example, if 1 John 4:8, 1 Corinthians 13:4, and Exodus 20:5 are assumed to be true, the Judeo/Christian God cannot logically exist. Pascal's Wager can still be applied if God cannot exist; the results turn out neutral for both the believer and non-believer.

WMD

Wayne Delia

December 15, 2005, 05:50 PM

Let's not forget, then, that god made man in his own image. Does that imply anything to you?
Uhhh... God is ruggedly handsome?

WMD

Wayne Delia

December 15, 2005, 06:12 PM

“"God is, or He is not." But to which side shall we incline?�?

Let’s keep it simple. Either there is a true God or there is not.
To make it even more simpler, either there is a Roman Catholic God or there is not. To say anything else would be to misrepresent Pascal, and I'm sure you would never do that. :rolleyes:

Pascal’s Wager tells us that the logical thing to do it to believe in the true God rather than not believe.
Not at all. The logic is invalid. The "true God" is not even established to exist, much less to be the one Pascal identified. The premise is not established, therefore the logic is invalid. Pascal's Wager uses a syllogism to persuade belief in God based on expected value for personal gain and self-interest, but logically it proves nothing.

Which god?, you ask.
The Roman Catholic God, I answer.

Why do you care?
Because to postulate any other god would be changing the parameters of Pascal's Wager, and if that's allowed, then Pascal's Wager is open to use by any other non-Christian religious apologist. It's frequently used to support belief in Allah by ignorant Muslims.

You care because Pascal’s Wager leads you to the conclusion that you should care.
Again, that conclusion (it's not really the actual conclusion) is invalid, because the premise - that a particular God exists, and He is the one true God - has not been established at all. And because the premise isn't established, I honestly don't give a rat's ass. It's just a poor argument to bolster the faith of people who already believe in a particular religious fantasy.

The complex part is to determine which of the many gods one should believe but that is beyond Pascal’s Wager.
You've got the cart before the horse. It's the other way around. Pascal's Wager is beyond the task of determining which of the many gods one should believe in. Blaise Pascal seems to have done the work for us, and he arrived at the Roman Catholic God, which he used as an assumed premise, much to the delight of Roman Catholics, but to the dismay of any of the world's five billion non-Catholics. Other religions, most notably Protestant Christianity, appropriate the Wager and fit it to their own gods, but in each case, the syllogism is woefully incomplete since no other gods or possible afterlife fates are considered.

Pascal’s Wager leads to the conclusion that you should believe in the true God but does not help you identify that true God.
It's the FUCKING ROMAN CATHOLIC GOD! Didn't you even read the Pensee's? The RC God is fairly clearly identified.

Of course, at the end, you may find that all was for naught. However, Pascal’s Wager applies up front where it is uncertain what the outcome will be. I explained this situation earlier.
Frankly, that was a crappy explanation. You danced around and avoided the question of considering different gods of different religions with different results, the question of actual cost of belief, and the question of whether any particular God would know that the belief is merely a hedged bet for pure self-interest.

WMD

John A. Broussard

December 15, 2005, 06:20 PM

Of course, at the end, you may find that all was for naught. However, Pascal’s Wager applies up front where it is uncertain what the outcome will be. I explained this situation earlier.
I'm torn. Should I tell you again that you haven't dealt with the flaws in Pascal's Wager or shall I just give up.

You seem totally incapable of giving a straight answer.

Oh, well. What's a little more bandwith.

Here are the arguments again. Please show me where you addressed them.

How can one decide which god to believe in? My OED has ten fine-print columns defining "god." Pascal's argument is meaningless, since he didn't define the central term in his argument.

Can one lose by believing? Pascal says no. That, of course, is an outright lie. One might believe in a god, spend a life of misery flagellating oneself (perhaps literally) with that belief, miss out on the genuine pleasures of this life and then go out like a candle.

There is, of course, the fundamental flaw in the argument, and that is tying an afterlife to the existence of a god. Pascal assumes that is true. There's no reason--other than the views of some religionists--that there is necessarily an afterlife just because there happens to be a god.

And, of course, there's Russell's argument cited above. Note that I, unlike you, don't just mention someone and let it go at that. I gave you the gist of his argument.

C'mon, rhutchin, give it a try.

911

December 15, 2005, 07:43 PM

Wayne Delia

December 15, 2005, 07:45 PM

Just for the fun of it I want to see my handle as the last post on the first five topics in EoG so I can print screen and make a lasting copy of the evidence - I sincerely hope mods can see the humour in this.
I hope they can, because I can't. What's so funny about it? You might be using a non-standard definition of the term "humor".

WMD

911

December 15, 2005, 07:51 PM

surely humour means different things to different people just as God means different things to different people?

wyzaard

December 15, 2005, 08:32 PM

Possibly, but the alternative is to live for eternity without God and that is described as an unpleasant situation. One, through his pride, might say that it is better to go hungry that to submit to the authority of another, but if one cares that his children be fed, then swallowing one’s pride may not be a bad thing.

Unless to give over to the crude cruelty of an absolute bully's 'flee-from-pain' methods is a worse fate from the standpoint of a moral, freedom-loving human.

wyzaard

December 15, 2005, 08:34 PM

OK, so what do we have? It seems that we have the Bible and that which it says. What else is there? -- Finite human knowledge!!!

Then check yourself from making metaphysical claims that you cannot satisfy as per your finiteness, before you wreck yourself.

wyzaard

December 15, 2005, 08:35 PM

OK. Let everyone read the Bible himself. if a person wants to judge the writers as prideful men who thought that they wrote o the authority of God and then reject that which was written, let him. The worse that could happen is that he could be wrong.

Read it, tossed it. Where's the necessity here?

wyzaard

December 15, 2005, 08:40 PM

On your first point, God did this. He also explained it to you and you seem to understand. So, what is the problem?

Assuming he exists as you claim:

He's being a cosmic madman, that's the problem; making us suffer, blaming us for nonexistant crimes, sending most of us to be tortured for eternity for nothing...

He's insane. No rational and moral person acts in such a way.

In short... as you describe god, we appear to be better than him. Perhaps he should worship us?

On your second point, I agree that there is no relationship. My question is, so what? Metaphysical absolutes cannot be derived from finite facts. There are no metaphysical absolutes unless someone defines them for us. The Bible does this as it defines God even though God cannot be proved from a limited empirical perspective (i.e., physics cannot prove God because it only has a limited number of facts to work with).

The bible is a set of finite facts of whose veracity in events and/or methodologies is wanting.

(poof) There went that pseudoargument...

wyzaard

December 15, 2005, 08:45 PM

It has not been substantiated (except by itself). So what? The issue is whether the Bible provides us with truth regardless whether that truth can be substantiated.

Who knows? You haven't provided any reason for anyone to believe one way or another... and circular logic will not help you, no.

Maybe. However, their are empirical questions that one can ask such as--

- If I do not follow this religion, how does that impact me?

You could ask that with an infinite number of possible belief systems... but as this is a completely unverifiable question, why bother asking over and over?

Well, it seems that if there are two different positions, only one can be true (although both can be wrong). Do you know of a situation where there can be two different positions and both are true?

The evening star and the morning star are both venus, although it's easy to say that they are different planetary bodies altogether. Various facets, same stone... and with an infinite god, who knows? Lots more than two different positions out there!

The same justification as your belief - faith.

What belief?

Alf

December 16, 2005, 02:23 AM

Many of the alleged flaws disappear if we accept the proposition that Pascal had the Biblical God in mind. The notion of other gods gets subsumed into the “[The Biblical] God is not�? side of the argument. In addition, there is only one real reward in view and that is eternal life/hell. Thus, there are not more columns or more rows to add to the problem.

Ah, but then the wager becomes flawed again.

You, see, he assumes that if the biblical god does not exist nothing happens.

This is not necessarily so. If the biblical god does not exist but Allah exist, then you end up in a terrible hell if you make the mistake of believing in the biblical god.

Ditto for all the tens of thousands other gods.

This seriously disturbs the wager so that the risk you take when believing in that biblical god becomes huge while the risk of believing or not becomes practically the same. That is, it makes no difference from a wager point of view whether you believe or not, you take huge risks in either case.

Thus, the argument is false.

Alf

rhutchin

December 16, 2005, 05:53 AM

rhutchin
Many of the alleged flaws disappear if we accept the proposition that Pascal had the Biblical God in mind. The notion of other gods gets subsumed into the “[The Biblical] God is not�? side of the argument. In addition, there is only one real reward in view and that is eternal life/hell. Thus, there are not more columns or more rows to add to the problem.

Alf
Ah, but then the wager becomes flawed again.

You, see, he assumes that if the biblical god does not exist nothing happens.

This is not necessarily so. If the biblical god does not exist but Allah exist, then you end up in a terrible hell if you make the mistake of believing in the biblical god.

Ditto for all the tens of thousands other gods.

This seriously disturbs the wager so that the risk you take when believing in that biblical god becomes huge while the risk of believing or not becomes practically the same. That is, it makes no difference from a wager point of view whether you believe or not, you take huge risks in either case.

Thus, the argument is false.

When I use the term, “Biblical God,�? I always mean the true and living God. That does not work here because you don’t have that same mindset. So, for you, I should have said, “The notion of other gods gets subsumed into the ‘[The True and Living] God is not’ side of the argument.�?

The Wager leads one to conclude that he should believe in the true and living God rather than not believing. Then the person encounters the separate problem of identifying the true and living God.

If we apply this to WMD, then it is in his interest to appeal to the true and living God for help to protect his children, but then he is faced with the task of identifying that true and living God.

Alf

December 16, 2005, 05:58 AM

When I use the term, “Biblical God,�? I always mean the true and living God. That does not work here because you don’t have that same mindset. So, for you, I should have said, “The notion of other gods gets subsumed into the ‘[The True and Living] God is not’ side of the argument.�?

The Wager leads one to conclude that he should believe in the true and living God rather than not believing. Then the person encounters the separate problem of identifying the true and living God.

If we apply this to WMD, then it is in his interest to appeal to the true and living God for help to protect his children, but then he is faced with the task of identifying that true and living God.

The problem is that you then assume that it doesn't matter how you worship or believe in this true god as long as you worship some god.

So even if you figure out that "yes, I need to worship this god" you are still clueless as to whether you should bow down five times towards mecca or you should instead pray to Shiva or any of the other gods.

It is of course the chance that this god accept you whatever you worship as long as you worship some god and in that case you get to heaven if you worship a god - any god but there is really no basis for that assumption. One might as well assume that the god will send you to hell even if you do not believe in any god either and so all bets are off and you are back at square one.

Alf

rhutchin

December 16, 2005, 06:08 AM

rhutchin
It has not been substantiated (except by itself). So what? The issue is whether the Bible provides us with truth regardless whether that truth can be substantiated.

wyzaard
Who knows? You haven't provided any reason for anyone to believe one way or another... and circular logic will not help you, no.

I do not have to provide a reason for a person to believe one way or the other. I do not have to provide a reason for a person to believe any truth. Truth stands on its own. That which the Bible tells us would be true even if we had no Bible to tell us what truth is. There is only one reason for you to believe what the Bible says and that is because you have come to the conclusion that you will believe what the Bible says and you have basically done it all on your own.

rhutchin
Maybe. However, their are empirical questions that one can ask such as--

- If I do not follow this religion, how does that impact me?

wyzaard
You could ask that with an infinite number of possible belief systems... but as this is a completely unverifiable question, why bother asking over and over?

That was my point. You would ask this question of any and all belief systems. You can determine those impacts but they cannot be scientifically verified through an empirical test. That just makes it all the more difficult for you because it is that religion that is telling you the truth that you should be concerned about but everyone is claiming to tell you the truth. You are left with sorting everything out.

rhutchin
Well, it seems that if there are two different positions, only one can be true (although both can be wrong). Do you know of a situation where there can be two different positions and both are true?

wyzaard
The evening star and the morning star are both venus, although it's easy to say that they are different planetary bodies altogether. Various facets, same stone... and with an infinite god, who knows? Lots more than two different positions out there!

OK. A person can be named John and people call him Jack. That is not what is in view here.

rhutchin
The same justification as your belief - faith.

wyzaard
What belief?

Whatever determines your system of values and how you behave.

rhutchin

December 16, 2005, 06:16 AM

rhutchin
On your first point, God did this. He also explained it to you and you seem to understand. So, what is the problem?

wyzaard
Assuming he exists as you claim:

He's being a cosmic madman, that's the problem; making us suffer, blaming us for nonexistant crimes, sending most of us to be tortured for eternity for nothing...

He's insane. No rational and moral person acts in such a way.

In short... as you describe god, we appear to be better than him. Perhaps he should worship us?

Regardless what you think about God, the problem is that you are accountable to Him and have no power to hold Him accountable to you (the presumption here is that He is the true and living God). You have been dealt the hand and you have to play the cards you get. Just because you don’t like it doesn’t change anything.

rhutchin
On your second point, I agree that there is no relationship. My question is, so what? Metaphysical absolutes cannot be derived from finite facts. There are no metaphysical absolutes unless someone defines them for us. The Bible does this as it defines God even though God cannot be proved from a limited empirical perspective (i.e., physics cannot prove God because it only has a limited number of facts to work with).

wyzaard
The bible is a set of finite facts of whose veracity in events and/or methodologies is wanting.

(poof) There went that pseudoargument...

Only if that which the Bible says is not truth. The problem for you is not to have someone prove that the Bible is true but for you to prove that the Bible is false (particulary where it says that God is a true and living God and you are accountable to him for your behavior).

rhutchin

December 16, 2005, 06:21 AM

rhutchin
When I use the term, “Biblical God,�? I always mean the true and living God. That does not work here because you don’t have that same mindset. So, for you, I should have said, “The notion of other gods gets subsumed into the ‘[The True and Living] God is not’ side of the argument.�?

The Wager leads one to conclude that he should believe in the true and living God rather than not believing. Then the person encounters the separate problem of identifying the true and living God.

If we apply this to WMD, then it is in his interest to appeal to the true and living God for help to protect his children, but then he is faced with the task of identifying that true and living God.

Alf
The problem is that you then assume that it doesn't matter how you worship or believe in this true god as long as you worship some god.

So even if you figure out that "yes, I need to worship this god" you are still clueless as to whether you should bow down five times towards mecca or you should instead pray to Shiva or any of the other gods.

It is of course the chance that this god accept you whatever you worship as long as you worship some god and in that case you get to heaven if you worship a god - any god but there is really no basis for that assumption. One might as well assume that the god will send you to hell even if you do not believe in any god either and so all bets are off and you are back at square one.

Again the problem you face is to determine who among all the possible gods (Biblical God, Allah, Shiva, etc) is the true and living God. Then, you have to worship the true and living God exactly as He has prescribed in His holy books. If you worship a false god (one who does not exist), it does you no good.

rhutchin

December 16, 2005, 06:25 AM

rhutchin
OK. Let everyone read the Bible himself. if a person wants to judge the writers as prideful men who thought that they wrote o the authority of God and then reject that which was written, let him. The worse that could happen is that he could be wrong.

wyzaard
Read it, tossed it. Where's the necessity here?

OK. There is no necessity unless you see one. If that which you have discarded is the truth, then you have discarded the truth. If you believe that you should always adhere to the truth, then the necessity is for you to accurately identify truth so that you will not discard it.

rhutchin

December 16, 2005, 06:27 AM

rhutchin
Possibly, but the alternative is to live for eternity without God and that is described as an unpleasant situation. One, through his pride, might say that it is better to go hungry that to submit to the authority of another, but if one cares that his children be fed, then swallowing one’s pride may not be a bad thing.

wyzaard
Unless to give over to the crude cruelty of an absolute bully's 'flee-from-pain' methods is a worse fate from the standpoint of a moral, freedom-loving human.

It all hinges on what the truth is.

rhutchin

December 16, 2005, 06:32 AM

surely humour means different things to different people just as God means different things to different people?

True if you mean, "...god means different things to different people." We need to distinguish between that living entity known as God and the perceptions of people of a concept known as god. "God" cannot be different things but "god" can be anything a person wants it to be.

JPD

December 16, 2005, 06:39 AM

True if you mean, "...god means different things to different people." We need to distinguish between that living entity known as God and the perceptions of people of a concept known as god. "God" cannot be different things but "god" can be anything a person wants it to be.

There is no living entity known as God but you are right in saying that people have different concepts of God. Concepts are all they do have. If God was a living entity you wouldn't need faith.

rhutchin

December 16, 2005, 06:44 AM

Here are the arguments again. Please show me where you addressed them.

How can one decide which god to believe in? My OED has ten fine-print columns defining "god." Pascal's argument is meaningless, since he didn't define the central term in his argument.

Can one lose by believing? Pascal says no. That, of course, is an outright lie. One might believe in a god, spend a life of misery flagellating oneself (perhaps literally) with that belief, miss out on the genuine pleasures of this life and then go out like a candle.

There is, of course, the fundamental flaw in the argument, and that is tying an afterlife to the existence of a god. Pascal assumes that is true. There's no reason--other than the views of some religionists--that there is necessarily an afterlife just because there happens to be a god.

And, of course, there's Russell's argument cited above. Note that I, unlike you, don't just mention someone and let it go at that. I gave you the gist of his argument.

C'mon, rhutchin, give it a try.

Pascal's Wager does not address the issue of which god one should believe in. Pascal's wager merely leads to the conclusion that it is beneficial for one to believe in the true and living God rather than not believe.

Can one lose by believing. The answer is, No. One cannot lose by believing in the true and living God. What would one lose?

If Pascal assumes an afterlife then the presumption of the afterlife is an integral part of the wager. The wager works from it presumptions. Is that not true in all arguments? The logical argument is always of the nature, "If presumptions a, b, c,...x hold, then conclusion Y results."

Alf

December 16, 2005, 06:49 AM

Again the problem you face is to determine who among all the possible gods (Biblical God, Allah, Shiva, etc) is the true and living God. Then, you have to worship the true and living God exactly as He has prescribed in His holy books. If you worship a false god (one who does not exist), it does you no good.

The problem for the person who decide to go with Pascal's Wager is then that it doesn't help him one bit to figure out which god to worship and if he worships the wrong one - which is the most likely outcome since there are tens of thousands of false gods and only one who is the true god, so the odds are really more than 10000 to 1 against that he will end up in hell together with the guy who chose to not follow Pascal's Wager. In other words, the wager didn't help him one bit. It is utterly useless.

It is very much similar to me giving you this offer:

Hey, you can offer to purchase a ticket in my lottery. The ticket cost you 5000 dollars but if you win you will wiin 10 million bucks. There are 10000 tickets and if you are lucky to pick the right ticket you win the 10 million bucks. Wanna buy a ticket? Oh, I forgot, if you do not pick the winning ticket or you don't pick a ticket at all there is another lottery going on where there is some chance that you get thrown in jail for 20 years. Anyone who doesn't buy our ticket or doesn't win the 10 million dollars are automatically eligible for that other lottery.

The one who say no to Pascal's wager is the one who doesn't buy a ticket. Yes, he cannot win the 10 million dollars. He does risk joining that other lottery but the chances for being thrown into jail is not known - nor is it proven that such a lottery takes place, the guy claimed it is taking place but there is no proof.

The one who says yes to Pascal's wager is the one who buy a ticket. Yes, he risk a lot and will most likely not win. He spend a lifetime worshipping some god and the odds are the god he is worshipping is the wrong one since there are so many and only at most one of them is the right one. However, if he did happen to stumble upon the right god he win the big prize.

The odds for that is microscopic though.

No wonder so many christians are buying bridges in Brooklyn all the time.

Of course, you can say the odds for each god isn't the same. You read one holy book and this god appear more likely than another holy book, right?

Problem is that such a reading will always be biased. You claim the bible is "clearly" at advantage here. For some reason most of us on this board don't see those advantages. We see a book full of errors and contradictions and would rather say the opposite, that the biblical god is clearly at disadvantage. The odds of him being the right god is 0 - impossible. I know you will still insist that he is the most likely but I hope I can get through to you that that is a very subjective assessment. A muslim will claim the Qu'ran clearly shows that Allah is the most likely god etc etc.

The point is that Pascal's Wager is utterly useless for anyone except those who believe already. If you talk to a christian who might start doubting and is considering leaving the church, then the wager might keep him there a little longer. It might also work on attracting some person who is intellectually challenged and win him over to you but it will not and cannot work on non-believers who have their intellectual capacity still functional to some degree due to the flaws we have explained to you here.

Alf

JPD

December 16, 2005, 06:56 AM

Pascal's Wager does not address the issue of which god one should believe in. Pascal's wager merely leads to the conclusion that it is beneficial for one to believe in the true and living God rather than not believe.

Can one lose by believing. The answer is, No. One cannot lose by believing in the true and living God. What would one lose?

If Pascal assumes an afterlife then the presumption of the afterlife is an integral part of the wager. The wager works from it presumptions. Is that not true in all arguments? The logical argument is always of the nature, "If presumptions a, b, c,...x hold, then conclusion Y results."

The assumption is that God rewards belief. You have previously stated that it is behaviour rather than belief that is taken into account by God so what importance could belief have? How is belief based on the expectation of reward valid? I understand that Calvinists hold belief to be something that cannot be chosen as it is God that makes the decision to accept some individuals and reject others.

If one true God exists, and if that one true God wants you to believe in his/her/its existence, and if you have identified the one true God from amongst the various models going, then you might potentially gain something. Lot of ifs there - its insubstantial. Simply claiming that you believe in the one true God is bunk. You haven't provided a single sentence that washes thus far. We simply don't believe that you have any idea what it is that you do believe. If you do think that you know what it is that you believe you are doing a terrible job of explaining it. Perhaps you should work it out in your own mind first. As it stands it looks like you are trying to reach an understanding by having us chip away at the crap presented.

Alf

December 16, 2005, 07:00 AM

OK. There is no necessity unless you see one. If that which you have discarded is the truth, then you have discarded the truth. If you believe that you should always adhere to the truth, then the necessity is for you to accurately identify truth so that you will not discard it.

False.

You assume that the bible is true so anyone who discard the bible discards the truth and anyone who want to seek the truth will seek the bible.

You forgot to show that this premise is true before you jumped to that conclusion.

People might still hold to the truth and seek the truth and still discard the bible for the simple reason that they do not consider the bible to hold the truth.

Now, I know you will say that the truth is the truth regardless of how people consider it and that is sort of true but the problem is that it doesn't help one bit to say it. If I do not consider the bible to be the truth but instead consider some other book or ideas to hold the truth then I will hold unto those and disregard the bible.

True, if we assume for a moment that you are somehow outside of this and you can "see" that the bible IS the truth, then you will see that the person discarding the bible as "not truth" will be wrong.

However, if we again assume you are somehow outside of this and you can "see" that the bible is NOT the truth, you will see that it is people who hold on to the bible who is mistaken.

Now, back to reality, you are not outside of anything and you cannot see anything. You are simply one of those who try to figure out which is which. Now, what do you think? Yes, the truth is the truth still but it really doesn't help one bit to say that. I might as well have said "white is white". It is true but it really doesn't help the poor guy who is contemplating if he should pick up the bible or discard it.

The only thing that can help that guy is that he actually picks up the bible, read it and then makes up his mind and if the guy then toss the bible away because he find it unconvincing then that is a good hint that it really IS unconvincing to him.

Considering that most atheists here know more about other religions than you do who has only checked up one I would think it is obvious that you should listen to their wisdom and not they to yours. If someone say they picked up the bible and discarded it, it probably was because the bible didn't gave the appearance of being truth in any way. Why didn't it give such an appearance? Could it be the contradictions? The errors? The immorality? The lies? The obviously dissonnance between what is in the bible and what christians claims concerning their god? Maybe it was the vagueness?

All of these indicate that the bible is NOT the truth.

Try again.

Alf

Alf

December 16, 2005, 07:17 AM

It all hinges on what the truth is.
'
Exactly.

It would all be so much easier if the bible had been clear, consistent and perhaps contained a true prophecy - doesn't have to be big prophecy, just something that is unquestionably true and unquestionably could not otherwise be foreseen or guessed by people at the time.

For example if the bible had contained a line "And Jesus said: Verily verily, I say unto you. A day will come when rluchin will try to convince the unbelievers the truth of my words on a place called "the internet"'

True, this is not perfect. People would go for 2000 years before the prophecy would come true and in that meantime people would wonder what he meant by those funny words "rluchin" and "internet" etc. However, if you could point a bible verse that said this we would all bow down and worship your god by now.

Or he could have said "E = mc^2". It is something that none at the time would understand but we would know that it was indeed a prophecy. Or perhaps he could say that Israel would disappear but never forgotten and then one day all nations would go together and give the land back to the jews. That is something that happened shortly after WW2 and would indeed be a prophecy.

Perhaps something a little closer to his own time so people at the medival ages would know he was the true god? He could have said that "Rome will fall and many nations will rise and my church will dominate europe even if unbelievers will take hold over Judea".

True, this is a weak prophecy because stating that "Rome will fall" is something anyone can say - sooner or later any nation will fall and it is obvious that other nations will then rise in place of that which fell. However, that non-christians take hold over Judea wouldn't be so obvious, in particular not if other places were dominated by christians and so I would accept such a prophecy as genuine.

The problem is of course that Jesus never said any of those things. Instead, the bible is full of contradictions, errors, vague prophecies and prophecies after the fact and other non-sense.

Another problem is the ethics and morale taught by the bible. As I said in another post in some other board. To the extent that the bible tells us something smart, it doesn't tell us anything original or new and to the extent that the bible tells us something original or new it doesn't tell us anything smart.

This is perhaps the biggest problem with the bible. Find a quote that really is good and wisdom and it is something that other people have thought of before the bible. Find something that is truly specific to the bible and is particular to christian thinking and it is not very wise.

So no, the bible as "the true word of the true god" is simply not credible. If there really existed a very smart, very powerful god out there he would have come up with something better than the bible. It really is that simple. As such the bible is very good evidence that the biblical god does not exist.

Alf

AZSuperman

December 16, 2005, 07:30 AM

See, that's a prime example of a scam. You're giving those of us who actually own the Brooklyn Bridge a bad name, by pretending you own it. Actually, I own it, and I am offering it to rhutchin at a very attractive price.

No Way. You can't prove you own the bridge, therefore I own it, since you can't prove I don't own the bridge. rhutchin, our deal is still on, right?

There's only one true owner of the bridge, and "it's up to everyone to sort it out for themselves." I happen to believe I am the one true owner of the bridge, and I know it is true by faith, so I should be perfectly free to sell the bridge to whomever I choose. And I choose to sell it to rhutchin.

I won't damn anyone to hell for buying the bridge from me, the one true owner. That's gotta count for something. But if empty threats of eternity in hell carry any persuasive weight with any prospective customer, I can include one at no extra cost.

WMD
LOL!!! :rolling:

Too bad WMD, I have a letter written by an anonymous person (whom I've never met), and it says I'm the one true owner.

Not only that, but I'll sell it to rhutchin for $9,000. Now, if he really believes in Pascals wager he'll pay me, because he'll need to do that which "imposes the least costs" on him.

AZSuperman

December 16, 2005, 08:17 AM

Only if that which the Bible says is not truth. The problem for you is not to have someone prove that the Bible is true but for you to prove that the Bible is false (particulary where it says that God is a true and living God and you are accountable to him for your behavior).
We the rest of us here can expect a very detailed review of every other religious Holy Book to be posted by you, showing why those books are false?

The problem for you is not to have someone prove that the [Qu'ran] is true but for you to prove that the [Qu'ran] is false
The problem for you is not to have someone prove that the [Book of Mormon] is true but for you to prove that the [Book of Mormon] is false
The problem for you is not to have someone prove that the [Vedas] is true but for you to prove that the [Vedas] is false
The problem for you is not to have someone prove that the [Upanishads] is true but for you to prove that the [Upanishads] is false

Without first disproving all other scripture, you can't declare the Bible to be the truth.

I look forward to reading your review of every other holy book ever written.

John A. Broussard

December 16, 2005, 08:37 AM

Pascal's Wager does not address the issue of which god one should believe in. Pascal's wager merely leads to the conclusion that it is beneficial for one to believe in the true and living God rather than not believe.

Can one lose by believing. The answer is, No. One cannot lose by believing in the true and living God. What would one lose?

If Pascal assumes an afterlife then the presumption of the afterlife is an integral part of the wager. The wager works from it presumptions. Is that not true in all arguments? The logical argument is always of the nature, "If presumptions a, b, c,...x hold, then conclusion Y results."
Again, you've totally avoided the questions I posed and you refuse to read the Wager, itself.

Pascal's Wager is flawed because it does not address the issue of which god to believe in.

You most certainly can lose by believing if god doesn't exist. READ THE WAGER. That's one of the alternatives which you seem incapable of understatnding.

Pascal's Wager does NOT, I repeat NOT assume an afterlife. Read it again. It has two possibilities, one which includes an afterlife, and one which doesn't. The flaw in the Wager is that it equates a god and an afterlife.

And, of course, you completely ignor Russel's critique which I've repeated at least twice.

Why do you refuse to read the Wager? Do you want me to repeat it for you?

Nevermind. It wouldn't do a bit of good.

AZSuperman

December 16, 2005, 09:11 AM

To paraphrase rhutchin:
Pascal's Wager does not address the issue of which [lottery ticket] one should [buy]. Pascal's wager merely leads to the conclusion that it is beneficial for one to [buy a lottery ticket] rather than not [buy one].

Can one lose by [purchasing a ticket]? The answer is, No. One cannot lose by [buying a lottery ticket]. What would one lose?

If Pascal assumes [a cash prize] then the presumption of the [prize] is an integral part of the wager. The wager works from it presumptions. Is that not true in all arguments? The logical argument is always of the nature, "If presumptions a, b, c,...x hold, then conclusion Y results."

I really hope this illistrates just how idiotic Pascals Wager really is. It's like assuming you have a 50% chance of wining the lottery because "either you win or you don't."

rhutchin

December 16, 2005, 09:48 AM

To paraphrase rhutchin:
Pascal's Wager does not address the issue of which [lottery ticket] one should [buy]. Pascal's wager merely leads to the conclusion that it is beneficial for one to [buy a lottery ticket] rather than not [buy one].

Can one lose by [purchasing a ticket]? The answer is, No. One cannot lose by [buying a lottery ticket]. What would one lose?

If Pascal assumes [a cash prize] then the presumption of the [prize] is an integral part of the wager. The wager works from it presumptions. Is that not true in all arguments? The logical argument is always of the nature, "If presumptions a, b, c,...x hold, then conclusion Y results."

I really hope this illustrates just how idiotic Pascals Wager really is. It's like assuming you have a 50% chance of wining the lottery because "either you win or you don't."

Looks good to me except for the end. You would not have a 50% chance of winning the lottery -- you are guaranteed to win if you purchase the real lottery ticket and not a counterfeit.

John A. Broussard

December 16, 2005, 09:56 AM

Looks good to me except for the end. You would not have a 50% chance of winning the lottery -- you are guaranteed to win if you purchase the real lottery ticket and not a counterfeit.
Absolutely and totally amazing!

After all this discussion of Pascal's Wager, after having it actually printed and presented to you, you still haven't the least idea of what it's all about.

Phew!

rhutchin

December 16, 2005, 10:03 AM

Pascal's Wager is flawed because it does not address the issue of which god to believe in.

As I understand the wager, it was not designed to address the issue of which god to believe in.

You most certainly can lose by believing if god doesn't exist. READ THE WAGER. That's one of the alternatives which you seem incapable of understanding.

To quote from the wager, "Let us weigh the gain and the loss in wagering that God is... If you gain, you gain all; if you lose, you lose nothing. Wager, then, without hesitation that He is." So, what do you see that you can lose?

Pascal's Wager does NOT, I repeat NOT assume an afterlife. Read it again. It has two possibilities, one which includes an afterlife, and one which doesn't. The flaw in the Wager is that it equates a god and an afterlife.

If no afterlife, what then is be be gained by believing in God?

And, of course, you completely ignor Russel's critique which I've repeated at least twice.

How about spelling out Russel's critique?

John A. Broussard

December 16, 2005, 10:16 AM

As I understand the wager, it was not designed to address the issue of which god to believe in.

That's exactly the point. It fails to address the issue of which god to believe in. How many times do you have to be told this?

To quote from the wager, "Let us weigh the gain and the loss in wagering that God is... If you gain, you gain all; if you lose, you lose nothing. Wager, then, without hesitation that He is." So, what do you see that you can lose?

And, again, that's the point. One's behavior can be devoted to the enjoyment of this world in contrast to being constantly concerned about a non-existent afterlife. So you can lose if you believe and god doesn't exist.

If no afterlife, what then is be be gained by believing in God?

Yup. You're coming close to understanding. That's yet another flaw in the Wager. Pascal simply takes it for granted that if there's a god, there's an afterlife. What's the guarantee of that?

How about spelling out Russel's critique?

Sure, for the second time. Let's suppose that god rewards integrity, sincerity, honesty. He may actually punish an individual who simply believes because he's afraid of what may be in store for him if he doesn't. Pascal makes absolutely no provision for this possibility. That is a very serious flaw, since betting that god exists may doom the bettor.

Do you still have questions?

rhutchin

December 16, 2005, 10:18 AM

We the rest of us here can expect a very detailed review of every other religious Holy Book to be posted by you, showing why those books are false?

The problem for you is not to have someone prove that the [Qu'ran] is true but for you to prove that the [Qu'ran] is false
The problem for you is not to have someone prove that the [Book of Mormon] is true but for you to prove that the [Book of Mormon] is false
The problem for you is not to have someone prove that the [Vedas] is true but for you to prove that the [Vedas] is false
The problem for you is not to have someone prove that the [Upanishads] is true but for you to prove that the [Upanishads] is false

Without first disproving all other scripture, you can't declare the Bible to be the truth.

I look forward to reading your review of every other holy book ever written.

Not me. You have to do it. It's your life that is at stake. Choose wrong and you lose your life.

rhutchin

December 16, 2005, 10:29 AM

rhutchin
As I understand the wager, it was not designed to address the issue of which god to believe in.

John A. Broussard
That's exactly the point. It fails to address the issue of which god to believe in. How many times do you have to be told this?

We both agree on that point. What we seem to disagree on is what this has to do with Pascal’s Wager.

rhutchin
To quote from the wager, "Let us weigh the gain and the loss in wagering that God is... If you gain, you gain all; if you lose, you lose nothing. Wager, then, without hesitation that He is." So, what do you see that you can lose?

John A. Broussard
And, again, that's the point. One's behavior can be devoted to the enjoyment of this world in contrast to being constantly concerned about a non-existent afterlife. So you can lose if you believe and god doesn't exist.

Why would concern about an afterlife affect one’s enjoyment of this world (unless you mean to say that sin is necessary to the enjoyment of life).

rhutchin
If no afterlife, what then is be gained by believing in God?

John A. Broussard
Yup. You're coming close to understanding. That's yet another flaw in the Wager. Pascal simply takes it for granted that if there's a god, there's an afterlife. What's the guarantee of that?

Again, the Wager does not guarantee that either God exist or that the fruit of one’s belief in God is an afterlife. It merely says that the rational person would choose to believe in God because he loses nothing by not believing and potentially gains an afterlife by believing.

rhutchin
How about spelling out Russel's critique?

John A. Broussard
Sure, for the second time. Let's suppose that god rewards integrity, sincerity, honesty. He may actually punish an individual who simply believes because he's afraid of what may be in store for him if he doesn't. Pascal makes absolutely no provision for this possibility. That is a very serious flaw, since betting that god exists may doom the bettor.

Implicit in the definition of “belief in God�? is that one cannot believe as a hypocrite. The belief must be founded in integrity, sincerity, and honesty or else it is not belief. There is no flaw here, only ignorance about what belief is.

John A. Broussard

December 16, 2005, 10:30 AM

Not me. You have to do it. It's your life that is at stake. Choose wrong and you lose your life.
Isn't it strange that someone may read the Quran, be just as absolutely sure about it as you are about the bible, and yet be completely wrong?

Do you ever wonder about that?

John A. Broussard

December 16, 2005, 10:36 AM

Implicit in the definition of “belief in God�? is that one cannot believe as a hypocrite. The belief must be founded in integrity, sincerity, and honesty or else it is not belief. There is no flaw here, only ignorance about what belief is.
And that's exactly the point made by Russell--that a belief based on Pascal's Wager may run afoul of the god you describe. What more serious flaw could there be than a bet where, if you make it, you lose?

If nothing else, you are now beginning to see all the flaws in Pascal's Wager that you originally denied existed.

Stephen T-B

December 16, 2005, 10:47 AM

John A. Broussard

December 16, 2005, 10:56 AM

Now, in the fantasy world of Believers, "death" merely signifies a physical death. A spirutal life, of which the evidence is exceedingly poor, is said to continue -
Believers have even more problems with death than non-believers. E.g., Jesus died and then came back to life. But was his a spiritual death or a physical death?

And Adam and Eve, who weren't supposed to know death, were suddenly condemned to death. Was that a spiritual death or a physical death?

And believers are promised that they will achieve eternal life, which means no death. Spiritual or physical?

It's very difficult to keep track of which death believers are talking about since they keep switching back and forth from one to the other.

Selsaral

December 16, 2005, 11:07 AM

Believers have even more problems with death than non-believers. E.g., Jesus died and then came back to life. But was his a spiritual death or a physical death?

And Adam and Eve, who weren't supposed to know death, were suddenly condemned to death. Was that a spiritual death or a physical death?

And believers are promised that they will achieve eternal life, which means no death. Spiritual or physical?

It's very difficult to keep track of which death believers are talking about since they keep switching back and forth from one to the other.

I can't stop myself from automatically translating 'spiritual' into 'fictional' in this context.

rhutchin

December 16, 2005, 11:19 AM

"Choose wrong and you lose your life." (rhutchin)

Really?

Are you talking about the "life" your religion teaches some may enjoy after they are dead?
There is, of course, a total contradiction here.
We know things/people are dead when they cease to be alive. Tests can be carried out to prove it, and when they are dead, irreversible corruption starts.
Now, in the fantasy world of Believers, "death" merely signifies a physical death. A spirutal life, of which the evidence is exceedingly poor, is said to continue - but no-one can say in what form. Because no-one knows. So people guess. They use their imagination and think up plausible (to them) non-material entities. But to the question, can such entities add one-and-one, there doesn't seem to be an answer. Because if such entities can, the next question is how? Lacking the neurological functions of a physical brain, which enables living human beings to do that sum, must clearly be a handicap.
And if, despite that handicap, they can still perform this task, the next question is: what do we have brains for if we can get along quite well without them?
So are the things which survive us when we're dead brainless? And if so, of what can they be aware? What can they do? Can they communicate? And those which "live" and go to heaven, how long will they exist? For all eternity?
Is this at all an attractive proposition - surving as a brainless entity for ever and ever and ever?
I'd ask rhutchin, what's the big deal here?

The person is said to be a soul (or spirit) that inhabits a physical body of flesh and bone. That physical body will die one day at which time the true person (his soul or spirit) departs and stands before God. The person who has sinned is said to have a spirit that is dead (metaphorically) and unable to enter heaven. The person who has been forgiven of their sin is said to have a spirit that has been given life and is qualified to enter heaven. This passage kinda describes what will happen but the Bible does not give us a lot of information about this.

1 Corinthians 15
51 Behold, I shew you a mystery; We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed,
52 In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed.
53 For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality.
54 So when this corruptible shall have put on incorruption, and this mortal shall have put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written, Death is swallowed up in victory.