Total Posts:53|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Pascal's wager

Smithereens
Posts: 5,512
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/13/2013 2:06:20 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Is it rational to believe in the Christian God?

I would like to hear your thoughts on Pascal's wager and arguments against it.
For those who are not familiar:

Pascal's wager
P1 It is possible that the Christian God exists and it is possible that the Christian God does not exist.
P2 If one believes in the Christian God then if he exists then one receives an infinitely great reward and if he does not exist then one loses little or nothing.
P3 If one does not believe in the Christian God then if he exists then one receives an infinitely great punishment and if he does not exist then one gains little or nothing.
P4 It is better to either receive an infinitely great reward or lose little or nothing than it is to either receive an infinitely great punishment or gain little or nothing.
Therefore:
P5 It is better to believe in the Christian God than it is not to believe in the Christian God.
P6 If one course of action is better than another then it is rational to follow that course of action and irrational to follow the other.
Therefore:
C: It is rational to believe in the Christian God and irrational not to believe in the Christian God.

Any objections? I personally do not believe this is a strong argument for believing in God, although many theists do. However, if there is no good objection to it and all the premises are sound, then the conclusion necessarily follows and belief in God is rational. If you would like to post an objection, I may or may not try and pick it apart, to make myself feel more open-minded than I am, since in all honesty, I'm simply looking for a good rebuttal for it.

Any thoughts?
Music composition contest: http://www.debate.org...
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/13/2013 2:10:15 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/13/2013 2:06:20 AM, Smithereens wrote:
Is it rational to believe in the Christian God?

I would like to hear your thoughts on Pascal's wager and arguments against it.
For those who are not familiar:

Pascal's wager
P1 It is possible that the Christian God exists and it is possible that the Christian God does not exist.
P2 If one believes in the Christian God then if he exists then one receives an infinitely great reward and if he does not exist then one loses little or nothing.
P3 If one does not believe in the Christian God then if he exists then one receives an infinitely great punishment and if he does not exist then one gains little or nothing.
P4 It is better to either receive an infinitely great reward or lose little or nothing than it is to either receive an infinitely great punishment or gain little or nothing.
Therefore:
P5 It is better to believe in the Christian God than it is not to believe in the Christian God.
P6 If one course of action is better than another then it is rational to follow that course of action and irrational to follow the other.
Therefore:
C: It is rational to believe in the Christian God and irrational not to believe in the Christian God.

Any objections? I personally do not believe this is a strong argument for believing in God, although many theists do. However, if there is no good objection to it and all the premises are sound, then the conclusion necessarily follows and belief in God is rational. If you would like to post an objection, I may or may not try and pick it apart, to make myself feel more open-minded than I am, since in all honesty, I'm simply looking for a good rebuttal for it.

Any thoughts?

Well, some interesting mathematical results occur when you restate the argument but with the god of every known religion as an option as well as every possible version of god humans are not familiar with. Namely, there are an infinite amount of possible Gods and thus possible afterlifes.

Only a sub-set of these religions will be mutually compatible, meaning choosing Buddhism won't help if Allah is in heaven, and Muslims are screwed if they're greeted by Sadist God, a possible creator god who simply sends everyone to hell.
Smithereens
Posts: 5,512
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/13/2013 2:21:09 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/13/2013 2:10:15 AM, Wnope wrote:
At 2/13/2013 2:06:20 AM, Smithereens wrote:
Is it rational to believe in the Christian God?

I would like to hear your thoughts on Pascal's wager and arguments against it.
For those who are not familiar:

Pascal's wager
P1 It is possible that the Christian God exists and it is possible that the Christian God does not exist.
P2 If one believes in the Christian God then if he exists then one receives an infinitely great reward and if he does not exist then one loses little or nothing.
P3 If one does not believe in the Christian God then if he exists then one receives an infinitely great punishment and if he does not exist then one gains little or nothing.
P4 It is better to either receive an infinitely great reward or lose little or nothing than it is to either receive an infinitely great punishment or gain little or nothing.
Therefore:
P5 It is better to believe in the Christian God than it is not to believe in the Christian God.
P6 If one course of action is better than another then it is rational to follow that course of action and irrational to follow the other.
Therefore:
C: It is rational to believe in the Christian God and irrational not to believe in the Christian God.

Any objections? I personally do not believe this is a strong argument for believing in God, although many theists do. However, if there is no good objection to it and all the premises are sound, then the conclusion necessarily follows and belief in God is rational. If you would like to post an objection, I may or may not try and pick it apart, to make myself feel more open-minded than I am, since in all honesty, I'm simply looking for a good rebuttal for it.

Any thoughts?

Well, some interesting mathematical results occur when you restate the argument but with the god of every known religion as an option as well as every possible version of god humans are not familiar with. Namely, there are an infinite amount of possible Gods and thus possible afterlifes.

Only a sub-set of these religions will be mutually compatible, meaning choosing Buddhism won't help if Allah is in heaven, and Muslims are screwed if they're greeted by Sadist God, a possible creator god who simply sends everyone to hell.

Therefore it is rational to believe in the most likely religion. You can cross of Paganism and Pantheism since they don't have an afterlife, unless you count reincarnation, and they contradict themselves since their god is supposed to be eternal but is also the universe, we now know the universe had a beginning, so their belief is unlikely but not impossible, which leaves the 3 main religions. Judaism, Islam and Christianity. All believe in the same God, however, picking one of the 3 at random is mathematically infinitely more reasonable than not picking any. I do believe that Islam can be successfully refuted, which I might try in a new forum, and Judaism is incorrect. I do not believe that the other 2 religions can be completely refuted but instead made unlikely. However you want to look at it, it is more rational to be religious than not to be.
Music composition contest: http://www.debate.org...
muzebreak
Posts: 2,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/13/2013 2:28:19 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/13/2013 2:21:09 AM, Smithereens wrote:
At 2/13/2013 2:10:15 AM, Wnope wrote:
At 2/13/2013 2:06:20 AM, Smithereens wrote:
Is it rational to believe in the Christian God?

I would like to hear your thoughts on Pascal's wager and arguments against it.
For those who are not familiar:

Pascal's wager
P1 It is possible that the Christian God exists and it is possible that the Christian God does not exist.
P2 If one believes in the Christian God then if he exists then one receives an infinitely great reward and if he does not exist then one loses little or nothing.
P3 If one does not believe in the Christian God then if he exists then one receives an infinitely great punishment and if he does not exist then one gains little or nothing.
P4 It is better to either receive an infinitely great reward or lose little or nothing than it is to either receive an infinitely great punishment or gain little or nothing.
Therefore:
P5 It is better to believe in the Christian God than it is not to believe in the Christian God.
P6 If one course of action is better than another then it is rational to follow that course of action and irrational to follow the other.
Therefore:
C: It is rational to believe in the Christian God and irrational not to believe in the Christian God.

Any objections? I personally do not believe this is a strong argument for believing in God, although many theists do. However, if there is no good objection to it and all the premises are sound, then the conclusion necessarily follows and belief in God is rational. If you would like to post an objection, I may or may not try and pick it apart, to make myself feel more open-minded than I am, since in all honesty, I'm simply looking for a good rebuttal for it.

Any thoughts?

Well, some interesting mathematical results occur when you restate the argument but with the god of every known religion as an option as well as every possible version of god humans are not familiar with. Namely, there are an infinite amount of possible Gods and thus possible afterlifes.

Only a sub-set of these religions will be mutually compatible, meaning choosing Buddhism won't help if Allah is in heaven, and Muslims are screwed if they're greeted by Sadist God, a possible creator god who simply sends everyone to hell.

Therefore it is rational to believe in the most likely religion. You can cross of Paganism and Pantheism since they don't have an afterlife, unless you count reincarnation, and they contradict themselves since their god is supposed to be eternal but is also the universe, we now know the universe had a beginning, so their belief is unlikely but not impossible, which leaves the 3 main religions. Judaism, Islam and Christianity. All believe in the same God, however, picking one of the 3 at random is mathematically infinitely more reasonable than not picking any. I do believe that Islam can be successfully refuted, which I might try in a new forum, and Judaism is incorrect. I do not believe that the other 2 religions can be completely refuted but instead made unlikely. However you want to look at it, it is more rational to be religious than not to be.

I propose a god that sends atheists to heaven and Christians to hell. And I have 10 friends that propose a god that does the same but are all slightly different. Therefore atheism is supported by Pascal's wager

And that is why Pascal's wager does not work.
"Every kid starts out as a natural-born scientist, and then we beat it out of them. A few trickle through the system with their wonder and enthusiasm for science intact." - Carl Sagan

This is the response of the defenders of Sparta to the Commander of the Roman Army: "If you are a god, you will not hurt those who have never injured you. If you are a man, advance - you will find men equal to yourself. And women.
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/13/2013 2:29:21 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
I should believe in God otherwise he will torture me for all eternity?

Sorry, Im with the US here, I don't negotiate with terrorists.
bossyburrito
Posts: 14,075
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/13/2013 2:29:38 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
http://www.youtube.com...
#UnbanTheMadman

"Some will sell their dreams for small desires
Or lose the race to rats
Get caught in ticking traps
And start to dream of somewhere
To relax their restless flight
Somewhere out of a memory of lighted streets on quiet nights..."

~ Rush
muzebreak
Posts: 2,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/13/2013 2:32:20 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/13/2013 2:29:21 AM, Ramshutu wrote:
I should believe in God otherwise he will torture me for all eternity?

Sorry, Im with the US here, I don't negotiate with terrorists.

Lol
"Every kid starts out as a natural-born scientist, and then we beat it out of them. A few trickle through the system with their wonder and enthusiasm for science intact." - Carl Sagan

This is the response of the defenders of Sparta to the Commander of the Roman Army: "If you are a god, you will not hurt those who have never injured you. If you are a man, advance - you will find men equal to yourself. And women.
Smithereens
Posts: 5,512
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/13/2013 2:32:38 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/13/2013 2:28:19 AM, muzebreak wrote:
At 2/13/2013 2:21:09 AM, Smithereens wrote:
At 2/13/2013 2:10:15 AM, Wnope wrote:
At 2/13/2013 2:06:20 AM, Smithereens wrote:
Is it rational to believe in the Christian God?

I would like to hear your thoughts on Pascal's wager and arguments against it.
For those who are not familiar:

Pascal's wager
P1 It is possible that the Christian God exists and it is possible that the Christian God does not exist.
P2 If one believes in the Christian God then if he exists then one receives an infinitely great reward and if he does not exist then one loses little or nothing.
P3 If one does not believe in the Christian God then if he exists then one receives an infinitely great punishment and if he does not exist then one gains little or nothing.
P4 It is better to either receive an infinitely great reward or lose little or nothing than it is to either receive an infinitely great punishment or gain little or nothing.
Therefore:
P5 It is better to believe in the Christian God than it is not to believe in the Christian God.
P6 If one course of action is better than another then it is rational to follow that course of action and irrational to follow the other.
Therefore:
C: It is rational to believe in the Christian God and irrational not to believe in the Christian God.

Any objections? I personally do not believe this is a strong argument for believing in God, although many theists do. However, if there is no good objection to it and all the premises are sound, then the conclusion necessarily follows and belief in God is rational. If you would like to post an objection, I may or may not try and pick it apart, to make myself feel more open-minded than I am, since in all honesty, I'm simply looking for a good rebuttal for it.

Any thoughts?

Well, some interesting mathematical results occur when you restate the argument but with the god of every known religion as an option as well as every possible version of god humans are not familiar with. Namely, there are an infinite amount of possible Gods and thus possible afterlifes.

Only a sub-set of these religions will be mutually compatible, meaning choosing Buddhism won't help if Allah is in heaven, and Muslims are screwed if they're greeted by Sadist God, a possible creator god who simply sends everyone to hell.

Therefore it is rational to believe in the most likely religion. You can cross of Paganism and Pantheism since they don't have an afterlife, unless you count reincarnation, and they contradict themselves since their god is supposed to be eternal but is also the universe, we now know the universe had a beginning, so their belief is unlikely but not impossible, which leaves the 3 main religions. Judaism, Islam and Christianity. All believe in the same God, however, picking one of the 3 at random is mathematically infinitely more reasonable than not picking any. I do believe that Islam can be successfully refuted, which I might try in a new forum, and Judaism is incorrect. I do not believe that the other 2 religions can be completely refuted but instead made unlikely. However you want to look at it, it is more rational to be religious than not to be.

I propose a god that sends atheists to heaven and Christians to hell. And I have 10 friends that propose a god that does the same but are all slightly different. Therefore atheism is supported by Pascal's wager


And that is why Pascal's wager does not work.

to discern which is the more likely religion, you must present evidence for your case
Music composition contest: http://www.debate.org...
Smithereens
Posts: 5,512
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/13/2013 2:35:08 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/13/2013 2:29:21 AM, Ramshutu wrote:
I should believe in God otherwise he will torture me for all eternity?

Sorry, Im with the US here, I don't negotiate with terrorists.

the decision for the US not to negotiate with terrorists is more on a cultural basis than rational reasoning, in short, irrelevant to pascal's wager.
Music composition contest: http://www.debate.org...
muzebreak
Posts: 2,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/13/2013 2:39:20 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/13/2013 2:32:38 AM, Smithereens wrote:
At 2/13/2013 2:28:19 AM, muzebreak wrote:
At 2/13/2013 2:21:09 AM, Smithereens wrote:
At 2/13/2013 2:10:15 AM, Wnope wrote:
At 2/13/2013 2:06:20 AM, Smithereens wrote:
Is it rational to believe in the Christian God?

I would like to hear your thoughts on Pascal's wager and arguments against it.
For those who are not familiar:

Pascal's wager
P1 It is possible that the Christian God exists and it is possible that the Christian God does not exist.
P2 If one believes in the Christian God then if he exists then one receives an infinitely great reward and if he does not exist then one loses little or nothing.
P3 If one does not believe in the Christian God then if he exists then one receives an infinitely great punishment and if he does not exist then one gains little or nothing.
P4 It is better to either receive an infinitely great reward or lose little or nothing than it is to either receive an infinitely great punishment or gain little or nothing.
Therefore:
P5 It is better to believe in the Christian God than it is not to believe in the Christian God.
P6 If one course of action is better than another then it is rational to follow that course of action and irrational to follow the other.
Therefore:
C: It is rational to believe in the Christian God and irrational not to believe in the Christian God.

Any objections? I personally do not believe this is a strong argument for believing in God, although many theists do. However, if there is no good objection to it and all the premises are sound, then the conclusion necessarily follows and belief in God is rational. If you would like to post an objection, I may or may not try and pick it apart, to make myself feel more open-minded than I am, since in all honesty, I'm simply looking for a good rebuttal for it.

Any thoughts?

Well, some interesting mathematical results occur when you restate the argument but with the god of every known religion as an option as well as every possible version of god humans are not familiar with. Namely, there are an infinite amount of possible Gods and thus possible afterlifes.

Only a sub-set of these religions will be mutually compatible, meaning choosing Buddhism won't help if Allah is in heaven, and Muslims are screwed if they're greeted by Sadist God, a possible creator god who simply sends everyone to hell.

Therefore it is rational to believe in the most likely religion. You can cross of Paganism and Pantheism since they don't have an afterlife, unless you count reincarnation, and they contradict themselves since their god is supposed to be eternal but is also the universe, we now know the universe had a beginning, so their belief is unlikely but not impossible, which leaves the 3 main religions. Judaism, Islam and Christianity. All believe in the same God, however, picking one of the 3 at random is mathematically infinitely more reasonable than not picking any. I do believe that Islam can be successfully refuted, which I might try in a new forum, and Judaism is incorrect. I do not believe that the other 2 religions can be completely refuted but instead made unlikely. However you want to look at it, it is more rational to be religious than not to be.

I propose a god that sends atheists to heaven and Christians to hell. And I have 10 friends that propose a god that does the same but are all slightly different. Therefore atheism is supported by Pascal's wager


And that is why Pascal's wager does not work.

to discern which is the more likely religion, you must present evidence for your case

See, that's the thing though. I can propose an innumerable amount of gods that all send theists to hell. Therefore nullifying any odds. Just like you could do the same with gods who send atheists to hell. And can be done with gods who send no one to hell. Or only people who have at some point used the name smithereens. Pascal's wager just doesn't work, because it relies on the existence of a small number of choices.
"Every kid starts out as a natural-born scientist, and then we beat it out of them. A few trickle through the system with their wonder and enthusiasm for science intact." - Carl Sagan

This is the response of the defenders of Sparta to the Commander of the Roman Army: "If you are a god, you will not hurt those who have never injured you. If you are a man, advance - you will find men equal to yourself. And women.
muzebreak
Posts: 2,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/13/2013 2:42:52 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/13/2013 2:37:03 AM, Smithereens wrote:
At 2/13/2013 2:29:38 AM, bossyburrito wrote:
http://www.youtube.com...

This doesn't refute the argument

I would disagree. Any argument that can be turned back on someone is useless. It would be like if we both ride bikes, and we are arguing over who gets a slice of cake. I say I get it because I ride a bike, and then you say the same. But in this case, you're saying that because the risk of going to hell isn't worth it we should believe and I'm saying the same thing right back at you. That's the point Dawkins is making.
"Every kid starts out as a natural-born scientist, and then we beat it out of them. A few trickle through the system with their wonder and enthusiasm for science intact." - Carl Sagan

This is the response of the defenders of Sparta to the Commander of the Roman Army: "If you are a god, you will not hurt those who have never injured you. If you are a man, advance - you will find men equal to yourself. And women.
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/13/2013 2:44:44 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/13/2013 2:35:08 AM, Smithereens wrote:
At 2/13/2013 2:29:21 AM, Ramshutu wrote:
I should believe in God otherwise he will torture me for all eternity?

Sorry, Im with the US here, I don't negotiate with terrorists.

the decision for the US not to negotiate with terrorists is more on a cultural basis than rational reasoning, in short, irrelevant to pascal's wager.

I like the way you are not arguing that it is not terrorism. On that note I think you'll find its very relevant.

Your asking me to believe in a loving, caring and just God who holds a gun to my head if i have come to the conclusion that i don't believe in him on the weight of evidence and the rational brain he has chosen to provide. If you invoke pascals wager, your idea of God refuses itself.
Smithereens
Posts: 5,512
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/13/2013 3:00:46 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/13/2013 2:39:20 AM, muzebreak wrote:
At 2/13/2013 2:32:38 AM, Smithereens wrote:
At 2/13/2013 2:28:19 AM, muzebreak wrote:
At 2/13/2013 2:21:09 AM, Smithereens wrote:
At 2/13/2013 2:10:15 AM, Wnope wrote:
At 2/13/2013 2:06:20 AM, Smithereens wrote:
Is it rational to believe in the Christian God?

I would like to hear your thoughts on Pascal's wager and arguments against it.
For those who are not familiar:

Pascal's wager
P1 It is possible that the Christian God exists and it is possible that the Christian God does not exist.
P2 If one believes in the Christian God then if he exists then one receives an infinitely great reward and if he does not exist then one loses little or nothing.
P3 If one does not believe in the Christian God then if he exists then one receives an infinitely great punishment and if he does not exist then one gains little or nothing.
P4 It is better to either receive an infinitely great reward or lose little or nothing than it is to either receive an infinitely great punishment or gain little or nothing.
Therefore:
P5 It is better to believe in the Christian God than it is not to believe in the Christian God.
P6 If one course of action is better than another then it is rational to follow that course of action and irrational to follow the other.
Therefore:
C: It is rational to believe in the Christian God and irrational not to believe in the Christian God.

Any objections? I personally do not believe this is a strong argument for believing in God, although many theists do. However, if there is no good objection to it and all the premises are sound, then the conclusion necessarily follows and belief in God is rational. If you would like to post an objection, I may or may not try and pick it apart, to make myself feel more open-minded than I am, since in all honesty, I'm simply looking for a good rebuttal for it.

Any thoughts?

Well, some interesting mathematical results occur when you restate the argument but with the god of every known religion as an option as well as every possible version of god humans are not familiar with. Namely, there are an infinite amount of possible Gods and thus possible afterlifes.

Only a sub-set of these religions will be mutually compatible, meaning choosing Buddhism won't help if Allah is in heaven, and Muslims are screwed if they're greeted by Sadist God, a possible creator god who simply sends everyone to hell.

Therefore it is rational to believe in the most likely religion. You can cross of Paganism and Pantheism since they don't have an afterlife, unless you count reincarnation, and they contradict themselves since their god is supposed to be eternal but is also the universe, we now know the universe had a beginning, so their belief is unlikely but not impossible, which leaves the 3 main religions. Judaism, Islam and Christianity. All believe in the same God, however, picking one of the 3 at random is mathematically infinitely more reasonable than not picking any. I do believe that Islam can be successfully refuted, which I might try in a new forum, and Judaism is incorrect. I do not believe that the other 2 religions can be completely refuted but instead made unlikely. However you want to look at it, it is more rational to be religious than not to be.

I propose a god that sends atheists to heaven and Christians to hell. And I have 10 friends that propose a god that does the same but are all slightly different. Therefore atheism is supported by Pascal's wager


And that is why Pascal's wager does not work.

to discern which is the more likely religion, you must present evidence for your case

See, that's the thing though. I can propose an innumerable amount of gods that all send theists to hell. Therefore nullifying any odds. Just like you could do the same with gods who send atheists to hell. And can be done with gods who send no one to hell. Or only people who have at some point used the name smithereens. Pascal's wager just doesn't work, because it relies on the existence of a small number of choices.

This is where maths helps us. The most probable religion is the one we should follow.
Music composition contest: http://www.debate.org...
Smithereens
Posts: 5,512
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/13/2013 3:03:24 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/13/2013 2:42:52 AM, muzebreak wrote:
At 2/13/2013 2:37:03 AM, Smithereens wrote:
At 2/13/2013 2:29:38 AM, bossyburrito wrote:
http://www.youtube.com...

This doesn't refute the argument

I would disagree. Any argument that can be turned back on someone is useless. It would be like if we both ride bikes, and we are arguing over who gets a slice of cake. I say I get it because I ride a bike, and then you say the same. But in this case, you're saying that because the risk of going to hell isn't worth it we should believe and I'm saying the same thing right back at you. That's the point Dawkins is making.

Dawkins argument is basically that the view point of the person questioning is invalid since he/she would have to know the answer in order to use the question as an argument. He says that Hinduism is just as likely as Christianity which is his main premise. I have already asserted why this doesn't matter.
Music composition contest: http://www.debate.org...
Smithereens
Posts: 5,512
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/13/2013 3:05:10 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/13/2013 2:44:44 AM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 2/13/2013 2:35:08 AM, Smithereens wrote:
At 2/13/2013 2:29:21 AM, Ramshutu wrote:
I should believe in God otherwise he will torture me for all eternity?

Sorry, Im with the US here, I don't negotiate with terrorists.

the decision for the US not to negotiate with terrorists is more on a cultural basis than rational reasoning, in short, irrelevant to pascal's wager.

I like the way you are not arguing that it is not terrorism. On that note I think you'll find its very relevant.

Your asking me to believe in a loving, caring and just God who holds a gun to my head if i have come to the conclusion that i don't believe in him on the weight of evidence and the rational brain he has chosen to provide. If you invoke pascals wager, your idea of God refuses itself.

hell is not a threat he makes, or else this is very confusing. He sends his Son to die for us in an attempt to prevent us from going to a place He is trying to send us to? Your logic is just.. wrong. And what is this weight of evidence you talk about?
Music composition contest: http://www.debate.org...
muzebreak
Posts: 2,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/13/2013 3:06:02 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/13/2013 3:00:46 AM, Smithereens wrote:
At 2/13/2013 2:39:20 AM, muzebreak wrote:
At 2/13/2013 2:32:38 AM, Smithereens wrote:
At 2/13/2013 2:28:19 AM, muzebreak wrote:
At 2/13/2013 2:21:09 AM, Smithereens wrote:
At 2/13/2013 2:10:15 AM, Wnope wrote:
At 2/13/2013 2:06:20 AM, Smithereens wrote:
Is it rational to believe in the Christian God?

I would like to hear your thoughts on Pascal's wager and arguments against it.
For those who are not familiar:

Pascal's wager
P1 It is possible that the Christian God exists and it is possible that the Christian God does not exist.
P2 If one believes in the Christian God then if he exists then one receives an infinitely great reward and if he does not exist then one loses little or nothing.
P3 If one does not believe in the Christian God then if he exists then one receives an infinitely great punishment and if he does not exist then one gains little or nothing.
P4 It is better to either receive an infinitely great reward or lose little or nothing than it is to either receive an infinitely great punishment or gain little or nothing.
Therefore:
P5 It is better to believe in the Christian God than it is not to believe in the Christian God.
P6 If one course of action is better than another then it is rational to follow that course of action and irrational to follow the other.
Therefore:
C: It is rational to believe in the Christian God and irrational not to believe in the Christian God.

Any objections? I personally do not believe this is a strong argument for believing in God, although many theists do. However, if there is no good objection to it and all the premises are sound, then the conclusion necessarily follows and belief in God is rational. If you would like to post an objection, I may or may not try and pick it apart, to make myself feel more open-minded than I am, since in all honesty, I'm simply looking for a good rebuttal for it.

Any thoughts?

Well, some interesting mathematical results occur when you restate the argument but with the god of every known religion as an option as well as every possible version of god humans are not familiar with. Namely, there are an infinite amount of possible Gods and thus possible afterlifes.

Only a sub-set of these religions will be mutually compatible, meaning choosing Buddhism won't help if Allah is in heaven, and Muslims are screwed if they're greeted by Sadist God, a possible creator god who simply sends everyone to hell.

Therefore it is rational to believe in the most likely religion. You can cross of Paganism and Pantheism since they don't have an afterlife, unless you count reincarnation, and they contradict themselves since their god is supposed to be eternal but is also the universe, we now know the universe had a beginning, so their belief is unlikely but not impossible, which leaves the 3 main religions. Judaism, Islam and Christianity. All believe in the same God, however, picking one of the 3 at random is mathematically infinitely more reasonable than not picking any. I do believe that Islam can be successfully refuted, which I might try in a new forum, and Judaism is incorrect. I do not believe that the other 2 religions can be completely refuted but instead made unlikely. However you want to look at it, it is more rational to be religious than not to be.

I propose a god that sends atheists to heaven and Christians to hell. And I have 10 friends that propose a god that does the same but are all slightly different. Therefore atheism is supported by Pascal's wager


And that is why Pascal's wager does not work.

to discern which is the more likely religion, you must present evidence for your case

See, that's the thing though. I can propose an innumerable amount of gods that all send theists to hell. Therefore nullifying any odds. Just like you could do the same with gods who send atheists to hell. And can be done with gods who send no one to hell. Or only people who have at some point used the name smithereens. Pascal's wager just doesn't work, because it relies on the existence of a small number of choices.

This is where maths helps us. The most probable religion is the one we should follow.

Ok, let's assume whatever religion you follow is the most probable. Now I propose 100 trillion other religions that all say you will go to hell if you don't follow them. Therefore, you are, according to the odds in play, now officially guaranteed to go to hell.
"Every kid starts out as a natural-born scientist, and then we beat it out of them. A few trickle through the system with their wonder and enthusiasm for science intact." - Carl Sagan

This is the response of the defenders of Sparta to the Commander of the Roman Army: "If you are a god, you will not hurt those who have never injured you. If you are a man, advance - you will find men equal to yourself. And women.
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/13/2013 3:27:40 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/13/2013 3:05:10 AM, Smithereens wrote:
At 2/13/2013 2:44:44 AM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 2/13/2013 2:35:08 AM, Smithereens wrote:
At 2/13/2013 2:29:21 AM, Ramshutu wrote:
I should believe in God otherwise he will torture me for all eternity?

Sorry, Im with the US here, I don't negotiate with terrorists.

the decision for the US not to negotiate with terrorists is more on a cultural basis than rational reasoning, in short, irrelevant to pascal's wager.

I like the way you are not arguing that it is not terrorism. On that note I think you'll find its very relevant.

Your asking me to believe in a loving, caring and just God who holds a gun to my head if i have come to the conclusion that i don't believe in him on the weight of evidence and the rational brain he has chosen to provide. If you invoke pascals wager, your idea of God refuses itself.

hell is not a threat he makes, or else this is very confusing. He sends his Son to die for us in an attempt to prevent us from going to a place He is trying to send us to? Your logic is just.. wrong. And what is this weight of evidence you talk about?

Hell is a punishment for not doing what he wants. On what planet is outlining punishment and torture for not obeying someone's will not a threat?
Smithereens
Posts: 5,512
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/13/2013 3:33:12 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/13/2013 3:06:02 AM, muzebreak wrote:
At 2/13/2013 3:00:46 AM, Smithereens wrote:
At 2/13/2013 2:39:20 AM, muzebreak wrote:
At 2/13/2013 2:32:38 AM, Smithereens wrote:
At 2/13/2013 2:28:19 AM, muzebreak wrote:
At 2/13/2013 2:21:09 AM, Smithereens wrote:
At 2/13/2013 2:10:15 AM, Wnope wrote:
At 2/13/2013 2:06:20 AM, Smithereens wrote:
Is it rational to believe in the Christian God?

I would like to hear your thoughts on Pascal's wager and arguments against it.
For those who are not familiar:

Pascal's wager
P1 It is possible that the Christian God exists and it is possible that the Christian God does not exist.
P2 If one believes in the Christian God then if he exists then one receives an infinitely great reward and if he does not exist then one loses little or nothing.
P3 If one does not believe in the Christian God then if he exists then one receives an infinitely great punishment and if he does not exist then one gains little or nothing.
P4 It is better to either receive an infinitely great reward or lose little or nothing than it is to either receive an infinitely great punishment or gain little or nothing.
Therefore:
P5 It is better to believe in the Christian God than it is not to believe in the Christian God.
P6 If one course of action is better than another then it is rational to follow that course of action and irrational to follow the other.
Therefore:
C: It is rational to believe in the Christian God and irrational not to believe in the Christian God.

Any objections? I personally do not believe this is a strong argument for believing in God, although many theists do. However, if there is no good objection to it and all the premises are sound, then the conclusion necessarily follows and belief in God is rational. If you would like to post an objection, I may or may not try and pick it apart, to make myself feel more open-minded than I am, since in all honesty, I'm simply looking for a good rebuttal for it.

Any thoughts?

Well, some interesting mathematical results occur when you restate the argument but with the god of every known religion as an option as well as every possible version of god humans are not familiar with. Namely, there are an infinite amount of possible Gods and thus possible afterlifes.

Only a sub-set of these religions will be mutually compatible, meaning choosing Buddhism won't help if Allah is in heaven, and Muslims are screwed if they're greeted by Sadist God, a possible creator god who simply sends everyone to hell.

Therefore it is rational to believe in the most likely religion. You can cross of Paganism and Pantheism since they don't have an afterlife, unless you count reincarnation, and they contradict themselves since their god is supposed to be eternal but is also the universe, we now know the universe had a beginning, so their belief is unlikely but not impossible, which leaves the 3 main religions. Judaism, Islam and Christianity. All believe in the same God, however, picking one of the 3 at random is mathematically infinitely more reasonable than not picking any. I do believe that Islam can be successfully refuted, which I might try in a new forum, and Judaism is incorrect. I do not believe that the other 2 religions can be completely refuted but instead made unlikely. However you want to look at it, it is more rational to be religious than not to be.

I propose a god that sends atheists to heaven and Christians to hell. And I have 10 friends that propose a god that does the same but are all slightly different. Therefore atheism is supported by Pascal's wager


And that is why Pascal's wager does not work.

to discern which is the more likely religion, you must present evidence for your case

See, that's the thing though. I can propose an innumerable amount of gods that all send theists to hell. Therefore nullifying any odds. Just like you could do the same with gods who send atheists to hell. And can be done with gods who send no one to hell. Or only people who have at some point used the name smithereens. Pascal's wager just doesn't work, because it relies on the existence of a small number of choices.

This is where maths helps us. The most probable religion is the one we should follow.


Ok, let's assume whatever religion you follow is the most probable. Now I propose 100 trillion other religions that all say you will go to hell if you don't follow them. Therefore, you are, according to the odds in play, now officially guaranteed to go to hell.

If you fail to justify each religion as a valid religion, with evidence to increase the likelihood of each one, each religion will merit a probability score of 0.
100 trillion x 0 = 0. Problem solved.
Music composition contest: http://www.debate.org...
muzebreak
Posts: 2,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/13/2013 3:33:28 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/13/2013 3:05:10 AM, Smithereens wrote:
At 2/13/2013 2:44:44 AM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 2/13/2013 2:35:08 AM, Smithereens wrote:
At 2/13/2013 2:29:21 AM, Ramshutu wrote:
I should believe in God otherwise he will torture me for all eternity?

Sorry, Im with the US here, I don't negotiate with terrorists.

the decision for the US not to negotiate with terrorists is more on a cultural basis than rational reasoning, in short, irrelevant to pascal's wager.

I like the way you are not arguing that it is not terrorism. On that note I think you'll find its very relevant.

Your asking me to believe in a loving, caring and just God who holds a gun to my head if i have come to the conclusion that i don't believe in him on the weight of evidence and the rational brain he has chosen to provide. If you invoke pascals wager, your idea of God refuses itself.

hell is not a threat he makes, or else this is very confusing. He sends his Son to die for us in an attempt to prevent us from going to a place He is trying to send us to? Your logic is just.. wrong. And what is this weight of evidence you talk about?

Ok, smithereens. I assume you would agree that god has the ability to not send people to hell. And that he outlines the laws, or as the ability to nullify them. So if he has those abilities then he is condemning people to hell, at the very least through inaction, if not through direct action. If he can't do either of the things mentioned above, then he isn't all powerful, and isn't much of a god.
"Every kid starts out as a natural-born scientist, and then we beat it out of them. A few trickle through the system with their wonder and enthusiasm for science intact." - Carl Sagan

This is the response of the defenders of Sparta to the Commander of the Roman Army: "If you are a god, you will not hurt those who have never injured you. If you are a man, advance - you will find men equal to yourself. And women.
Smithereens
Posts: 5,512
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/13/2013 3:35:40 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/13/2013 3:27:40 AM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 2/13/2013 3:05:10 AM, Smithereens wrote:
At 2/13/2013 2:44:44 AM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 2/13/2013 2:35:08 AM, Smithereens wrote:
At 2/13/2013 2:29:21 AM, Ramshutu wrote:
I should believe in God otherwise he will torture me for all eternity?

Sorry, Im with the US here, I don't negotiate with terrorists.

the decision for the US not to negotiate with terrorists is more on a cultural basis than rational reasoning, in short, irrelevant to pascal's wager.

I like the way you are not arguing that it is not terrorism. On that note I think you'll find its very relevant.

Your asking me to believe in a loving, caring and just God who holds a gun to my head if i have come to the conclusion that i don't believe in him on the weight of evidence and the rational brain he has chosen to provide. If you invoke pascals wager, your idea of God refuses itself.

hell is not a threat he makes, or else this is very confusing. He sends his Son to die for us in an attempt to prevent us from going to a place He is trying to send us to? Your logic is just.. wrong. And what is this weight of evidence you talk about?

Hell is a punishment for not doing what he wants. On what planet is outlining punishment and torture for not obeying someone's will not a threat?

If God were human then human culture would apply to Him too. However, in light of the fact that you can only go to hell over God's dead body destroys the notion of it being an act of terror. A convicted criminal cannot declare the court 'terrorist.'
Music composition contest: http://www.debate.org...
Smithereens
Posts: 5,512
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/13/2013 3:40:08 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/13/2013 3:33:28 AM, muzebreak wrote:
At 2/13/2013 3:05:10 AM, Smithereens wrote:
At 2/13/2013 2:44:44 AM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 2/13/2013 2:35:08 AM, Smithereens wrote:
At 2/13/2013 2:29:21 AM, Ramshutu wrote:
I should believe in God otherwise he will torture me for all eternity?

Sorry, Im with the US here, I don't negotiate with terrorists.

the decision for the US not to negotiate with terrorists is more on a cultural basis than rational reasoning, in short, irrelevant to pascal's wager.

I like the way you are not arguing that it is not terrorism. On that note I think you'll find its very relevant.

Your asking me to believe in a loving, caring and just God who holds a gun to my head if i have come to the conclusion that i don't believe in him on the weight of evidence and the rational brain he has chosen to provide. If you invoke pascals wager, your idea of God refuses itself.

hell is not a threat he makes, or else this is very confusing. He sends his Son to die for us in an attempt to prevent us from going to a place He is trying to send us to? Your logic is just.. wrong. And what is this weight of evidence you talk about?

Ok, smithereens. I assume you would agree that god has the ability to not send people to hell. And that he outlines the laws, or as the ability to nullify them. So if he has those abilities then he is condemning people to hell, at the very least through inaction, if not through direct action. If he can't do either of the things mentioned above, then he isn't all powerful, and isn't much of a god.

God does not have the ability to do something unjust, however, that doesn't mean He isn't omnipotent.

There are 3 things you must consider:
Justice
Injustice
Mercy

Justice is where you are punished where you deserved to be punished,
Injustice is where you are punished for something you didn't do
Mercy is where you are not punished for something you did.

For your claim about God to be correct, you must somehow prove that God is unjust.
Music composition contest: http://www.debate.org...
muzebreak
Posts: 2,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/13/2013 3:40:17 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/13/2013 3:35:40 AM, Smithereens wrote:
At 2/13/2013 3:27:40 AM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 2/13/2013 3:05:10 AM, Smithereens wrote:
At 2/13/2013 2:44:44 AM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 2/13/2013 2:35:08 AM, Smithereens wrote:
At 2/13/2013 2:29:21 AM, Ramshutu wrote:
I should believe in God otherwise he will torture me for all eternity?

Sorry, Im with the US here, I don't negotiate with terrorists.

the decision for the US not to negotiate with terrorists is more on a cultural basis than rational reasoning, in short, irrelevant to pascal's wager.

I like the way you are not arguing that it is not terrorism. On that note I think you'll find its very relevant.

Your asking me to believe in a loving, caring and just God who holds a gun to my head if i have come to the conclusion that i don't believe in him on the weight of evidence and the rational brain he has chosen to provide. If you invoke pascals wager, your idea of God refuses itself.

hell is not a threat he makes, or else this is very confusing. He sends his Son to die for us in an attempt to prevent us from going to a place He is trying to send us to? Your logic is just.. wrong. And what is this weight of evidence you talk about?

Hell is a punishment for not doing what he wants. On what planet is outlining punishment and torture for not obeying someone's will not a threat?

If God were human then human culture would apply to Him too. However, in light of the fact that you can only go to hell over God's dead body destroys the notion of it being an act of terror. A convicted criminal cannot declare the court 'terrorist.'

Yes it can.

Watch this video. It explains the point we are trying to make.

http://m.youtube.com...
"Every kid starts out as a natural-born scientist, and then we beat it out of them. A few trickle through the system with their wonder and enthusiasm for science intact." - Carl Sagan

This is the response of the defenders of Sparta to the Commander of the Roman Army: "If you are a god, you will not hurt those who have never injured you. If you are a man, advance - you will find men equal to yourself. And women.
muzebreak
Posts: 2,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/13/2013 3:41:53 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/13/2013 3:40:08 AM, Smithereens wrote:
At 2/13/2013 3:33:28 AM, muzebreak wrote:
At 2/13/2013 3:05:10 AM, Smithereens wrote:
At 2/13/2013 2:44:44 AM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 2/13/2013 2:35:08 AM, Smithereens wrote:
At 2/13/2013 2:29:21 AM, Ramshutu wrote:
I should believe in God otherwise he will torture me for all eternity?

Sorry, Im with the US here, I don't negotiate with terrorists.

the decision for the US not to negotiate with terrorists is more on a cultural basis than rational reasoning, in short, irrelevant to pascal's wager.

I like the way you are not arguing that it is not terrorism. On that note I think you'll find its very relevant.

Your asking me to believe in a loving, caring and just God who holds a gun to my head if i have come to the conclusion that i don't believe in him on the weight of evidence and the rational brain he has chosen to provide. If you invoke pascals wager, your idea of God refuses itself.

hell is not a threat he makes, or else this is very confusing. He sends his Son to die for us in an attempt to prevent us from going to a place He is trying to send us to? Your logic is just.. wrong. And what is this weight of evidence you talk about?

Ok, smithereens. I assume you would agree that god has the ability to not send people to hell. And that he outlines the laws, or as the ability to nullify them. So if he has those abilities then he is condemning people to hell, at the very least through inaction, if not through direct action. If he can't do either of the things mentioned above, then he isn't all powerful, and isn't much of a god.

God does not have the ability to do something unjust, however, that doesn't mean He isn't omnipotent.

There are 3 things you must consider:
Justice
Injustice
Mercy

Justice is where you are punished where you deserved to be punished,
Injustice is where you are punished for something you didn't do
Mercy is where you are not punished for something you did.

For your claim about God to be correct, you must somehow prove that God is.

Should be easy. How do you justify infinite punishment for a finite crime.
"Every kid starts out as a natural-born scientist, and then we beat it out of them. A few trickle through the system with their wonder and enthusiasm for science intact." - Carl Sagan

This is the response of the defenders of Sparta to the Commander of the Roman Army: "If you are a god, you will not hurt those who have never injured you. If you are a man, advance - you will find men equal to yourself. And women.
muzebreak
Posts: 2,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/13/2013 3:45:02 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/13/2013 3:41:53 AM, muzebreak wrote:
At 2/13/2013 3:40:08 AM, Smithereens wrote:
At 2/13/2013 3:33:28 AM, muzebreak wrote:
At 2/13/2013 3:05:10 AM, Smithereens wrote:
At 2/13/2013 2:44:44 AM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 2/13/2013 2:35:08 AM, Smithereens wrote:
At 2/13/2013 2:29:21 AM, Ramshutu wrote:
I should believe in God otherwise he will torture me for all eternity?

Sorry, Im with the US here, I don't negotiate with terrorists.

the decision for the US not to negotiate with terrorists is more on a cultural basis than rational reasoning, in short, irrelevant to pascal's wager.

I like the way you are not arguing that it is not terrorism. On that note I think you'll find its very relevant.

Your asking me to believe in a loving, caring and just God who holds a gun to my head if i have come to the conclusion that i don't believe in him on the weight of evidence and the rational brain he has chosen to provide. If you invoke pascals wager, your idea of God refuses itself.

hell is not a threat he makes, or else this is very confusing. He sends his Son to die for us in an attempt to prevent us from going to a place He is trying to send us to? Your logic is just.. wrong. And what is this weight of evidence you talk about?

Ok, smithereens. I assume you would agree that god has the ability to not send people to hell. And that he outlines the laws, or as the ability to nullify them. So if he has those abilities then he is condemning people to hell, at the very least through inaction, if not through direct action. If he can't do either of the things mentioned above, then he isn't all powerful, and isn't much of a god.

God does not have the ability to do something unjust, however, that doesn't mean He isn't omnipotent.

There are 3 things you must consider:
Justice
Injustice
Mercy

Justice is where you are punished where you deserved to be punished,
Injustice is where you are punished for something you didn't do
Mercy is where you are not punished for something you did.

For your claim about God to be correct, you must somehow prove that God is.

Should be easy. How do you justify infinite punishment for a finite crime.

Oh, and why is unbelief a crime.
"Every kid starts out as a natural-born scientist, and then we beat it out of them. A few trickle through the system with their wonder and enthusiasm for science intact." - Carl Sagan

This is the response of the defenders of Sparta to the Commander of the Roman Army: "If you are a god, you will not hurt those who have never injured you. If you are a man, advance - you will find men equal to yourself. And women.
Smithereens
Posts: 5,512
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/13/2013 4:11:26 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/13/2013 3:40:17 AM, muzebreak wrote:
At 2/13/2013 3:35:40 AM, Smithereens wrote:
At 2/13/2013 3:27:40 AM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 2/13/2013 3:05:10 AM, Smithereens wrote:
At 2/13/2013 2:44:44 AM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 2/13/2013 2:35:08 AM, Smithereens wrote:
At 2/13/2013 2:29:21 AM, Ramshutu wrote:
I should believe in God otherwise he will torture me for all eternity?

Sorry, Im with the US here, I don't negotiate with terrorists.

the decision for the US not to negotiate with terrorists is more on a cultural basis than rational reasoning, in short, irrelevant to pascal's wager.

I like the way you are not arguing that it is not terrorism. On that note I think you'll find its very relevant.

Your asking me to believe in a loving, caring and just God who holds a gun to my head if i have come to the conclusion that i don't believe in him on the weight of evidence and the rational brain he has chosen to provide. If you invoke pascals wager, your idea of God refuses itself.

hell is not a threat he makes, or else this is very confusing. He sends his Son to die for us in an attempt to prevent us from going to a place He is trying to send us to? Your logic is just.. wrong. And what is this weight of evidence you talk about?

Hell is a punishment for not doing what he wants. On what planet is outlining punishment and torture for not obeying someone's will not a threat?

If God were human then human culture would apply to Him too. However, in light of the fact that you can only go to hell over God's dead body destroys the notion of it being an act of terror. A convicted criminal cannot declare the court 'terrorist.'

Yes it can.

Watch this video. It explains the point we are trying to make.

http://m.youtube.com...

that's not a video and I can't play it for some reason
Music composition contest: http://www.debate.org...
Smithereens
Posts: 5,512
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/13/2013 4:12:34 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/13/2013 3:41:53 AM, muzebreak wrote:
At 2/13/2013 3:40:08 AM, Smithereens wrote:
At 2/13/2013 3:33:28 AM, muzebreak wrote:
At 2/13/2013 3:05:10 AM, Smithereens wrote:
At 2/13/2013 2:44:44 AM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 2/13/2013 2:35:08 AM, Smithereens wrote:
At 2/13/2013 2:29:21 AM, Ramshutu wrote:
I should believe in God otherwise he will torture me for all eternity?

Sorry, Im with the US here, I don't negotiate with terrorists.

the decision for the US not to negotiate with terrorists is more on a cultural basis than rational reasoning, in short, irrelevant to pascal's wager.

I like the way you are not arguing that it is not terrorism. On that note I think you'll find its very relevant.

Your asking me to believe in a loving, caring and just God who holds a gun to my head if i have come to the conclusion that i don't believe in him on the weight of evidence and the rational brain he has chosen to provide. If you invoke pascals wager, your idea of God refuses itself.

hell is not a threat he makes, or else this is very confusing. He sends his Son to die for us in an attempt to prevent us from going to a place He is trying to send us to? Your logic is just.. wrong. And what is this weight of evidence you talk about?

Ok, smithereens. I assume you would agree that god has the ability to not send people to hell. And that he outlines the laws, or as the ability to nullify them. So if he has those abilities then he is condemning people to hell, at the very least through inaction, if not through direct action. If he can't do either of the things mentioned above, then he isn't all powerful, and isn't much of a god.

God does not have the ability to do something unjust, however, that doesn't mean He isn't omnipotent.

There are 3 things you must consider:
Justice
Injustice
Mercy

Justice is where you are punished where you deserved to be punished,
Injustice is where you are punished for something you didn't do
Mercy is where you are not punished for something you did.

For your claim about God to be correct, you must somehow prove that God is.

Should be easy. How do you justify infinite punishment for a finite crime.

a finite crime against an infinitely good being is infinitely bad. Therefore all crimes warrant an infinite punishment.
Music composition contest: http://www.debate.org...
Smithereens
Posts: 5,512
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/13/2013 4:13:24 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/13/2013 3:45:02 AM, muzebreak wrote:
At 2/13/2013 3:41:53 AM, muzebreak wrote:
At 2/13/2013 3:40:08 AM, Smithereens wrote:
At 2/13/2013 3:33:28 AM, muzebreak wrote:
At 2/13/2013 3:05:10 AM, Smithereens wrote:
At 2/13/2013 2:44:44 AM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 2/13/2013 2:35:08 AM, Smithereens wrote:
At 2/13/2013 2:29:21 AM, Ramshutu wrote:
I should believe in God otherwise he will torture me for all eternity?

Sorry, Im with the US here, I don't negotiate with terrorists.

the decision for the US not to negotiate with terrorists is more on a cultural basis than rational reasoning, in short, irrelevant to pascal's wager.

I like the way you are not arguing that it is not terrorism. On that note I think you'll find its very relevant.

Your asking me to believe in a loving, caring and just God who holds a gun to my head if i have come to the conclusion that i don't believe in him on the weight of evidence and the rational brain he has chosen to provide. If you invoke pascals wager, your idea of God refuses itself.

hell is not a threat he makes, or else this is very confusing. He sends his Son to die for us in an attempt to prevent us from going to a place He is trying to send us to? Your logic is just.. wrong. And what is this weight of evidence you talk about?

Ok, smithereens. I assume you would agree that god has the ability to not send people to hell. And that he outlines the laws, or as the ability to nullify them. So if he has those abilities then he is condemning people to hell, at the very least through inaction, if not through direct action. If he can't do either of the things mentioned above, then he isn't all powerful, and isn't much of a god.

God does not have the ability to do something unjust, however, that doesn't mean He isn't omnipotent.

There are 3 things you must consider:
Justice
Injustice
Mercy

Justice is where you are punished where you deserved to be punished,
Injustice is where you are punished for something you didn't do
Mercy is where you are not punished for something you did.

For your claim about God to be correct, you must somehow prove that God is.

Should be easy. How do you justify infinite punishment for a finite crime.


Oh, and why is unbelief a crime.

unbelief=disobedience
Music composition contest: http://www.debate.org...
muzebreak
Posts: 2,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/13/2013 4:15:17 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/13/2013 4:11:26 AM, Smithereens wrote:
At 2/13/2013 3:40:17 AM, muzebreak wrote:
At 2/13/2013 3:35:40 AM, Smithereens wrote:
At 2/13/2013 3:27:40 AM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 2/13/2013 3:05:10 AM, Smithereens wrote:
At 2/13/2013 2:44:44 AM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 2/13/2013 2:35:08 AM, Smithereens wrote:
At 2/13/2013 2:29:21 AM, Ramshutu wrote:
I should believe in God otherwise he will torture me for all eternity?

Sorry, Im with the US here, I don't negotiate with terrorists.

the decision for the US not to negotiate with terrorists is more on a cultural basis than rational reasoning, in short, irrelevant to pascal's wager.

I like the way you are not arguing that it is not terrorism. On that note I think you'll find its very relevant.

Your asking me to believe in a loving, caring and just God who holds a gun to my head if i have come to the conclusion that i don't believe in him on the weight of evidence and the rational brain he has chosen to provide. If you invoke pascals wager, your idea of God refuses itself.

hell is not a threat he makes, or else this is very confusing. He sends his Son to die for us in an attempt to prevent us from going to a place He is trying to send us to? Your logic is just.. wrong. And what is this weight of evidence you talk about?

Hell is a punishment for not doing what he wants. On what planet is outlining punishment and torture for not obeying someone's will not a threat?

If God were human then human culture would apply to Him too. However, in light of the fact that you can only go to hell over God's dead body destroys the notion of it being an act of terror. A convicted criminal cannot declare the court 'terrorist.'

Yes it can.

Watch this video. It explains the point we are trying to make.

http://m.youtube.com...

that's not a video and I can't play it for some reason

Search on YouTube Atheist life preserver
"Every kid starts out as a natural-born scientist, and then we beat it out of them. A few trickle through the system with their wonder and enthusiasm for science intact." - Carl Sagan

This is the response of the defenders of Sparta to the Commander of the Roman Army: "If you are a god, you will not hurt those who have never injured you. If you are a man, advance - you will find men equal to yourself. And women.
muzebreak
Posts: 2,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/13/2013 4:16:33 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/13/2013 4:13:24 AM, Smithereens wrote:
At 2/13/2013 3:45:02 AM, muzebreak wrote:
At 2/13/2013 3:41:53 AM, muzebreak wrote:
At 2/13/2013 3:40:08 AM, Smithereens wrote:
At 2/13/2013 3:33:28 AM, muzebreak wrote:
At 2/13/2013 3:05:10 AM, Smithereens wrote:
At 2/13/2013 2:44:44 AM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 2/13/2013 2:35:08 AM, Smithereens wrote:
At 2/13/2013 2:29:21 AM, Ramshutu wrote:
I should believe in God otherwise he will torture me for all eternity?

Sorry, Im with the US here, I don't negotiate with terrorists.

the decision for the US not to negotiate with terrorists is more on a cultural basis than rational reasoning, in short, irrelevant to pascal's wager.

I like the way you are not arguing that it is not terrorism. On that note I think you'll find its very relevant.

Your asking me to believe in a loving, caring and just God who holds a gun to my head if i have come to the conclusion that i don't believe in him on the weight of evidence and the rational brain he has chosen to provide. If you invoke pascals wager, your idea of God refuses itself.

hell is not a threat he makes, or else this is very confusing. He sends his Son to die for us in an attempt to prevent us from going to a place He is trying to send us to? Your logic is just.. wrong. And what is this weight of evidence you talk about?

Ok, smithereens. I assume you would agree that god has the ability to not send people to hell. And that he outlines the laws, or as the ability to nullify them. So if he has those abilities then he is condemning people to hell, at the very least through inaction, if not through direct action. If he can't do either of the things mentioned above, then he isn't all powerful, and isn't much of a god.

God does not have the ability to do something unjust, however, that doesn't mean He isn't omnipotent.

There are 3 things you must consider:
Justice
Injustice
Mercy

Justice is where you are punished where you deserved to be punished,
Injustice is where you are punished for something you didn't do
Mercy is where you are not punished for something you did.

For your claim about God to be correct, you must somehow prove that God is.

Should be easy. How do you justify infinite punishment for a finite crime.


Oh, and why is unbelief a crime.

unbelief=disobedience

So, unbelief is a crime because it is wrong to not follow the law that says no unbelief? Circular much?
"Every kid starts out as a natural-born scientist, and then we beat it out of them. A few trickle through the system with their wonder and enthusiasm for science intact." - Carl Sagan

This is the response of the defenders of Sparta to the Commander of the Roman Army: "If you are a god, you will not hurt those who have never injured you. If you are a man, advance - you will find men equal to yourself. And women.