Pascal's wager is not practical

[rossum]

Are Buddhists pro life?

All forms of injury to life are to be avoided. That includes abortion, the death penalty, starting wars, killing animals etc. In modern times, a health system that does not cover as much as possible of the population is also included.

There is a lot more to “Pro-life” than just being anti-abortion. Life continues after birth.

 

[rossum]

So you read the Scriptures like Christian fundamentalists then.

Some Christians do; others do not. You will note that I said a “big flood”, not ‘worldwide flood’. Even non-literalists generally accept that there was a large flood in ancient Mesopotamia. See the Epic of Gilgamesh for confirmation.

If the Bible is the genuine word of a god, then we have to accept that there is a level of truth behind those parts presented as history.

 

[Elf01]

There is a lot more to “Pro-life” than just being anti-abortion. Life continues after birth.

I agree. I just prioitize not having it legal to kill people.

 

[goout]

goout:

So you read the Scriptures like Christian fundamentalists then.

Some Christians do; others do not. You will note that I said a “big flood”, not ‘worldwide flood’. Even non-literalists generally accept that there was a large flood in ancient Mesopotamia. See the Epic of Gilgamesh for confirmation.

If the Bible is the genuine word of a god, then we have to accept that there is a level of truth behind those parts presented as history.

Yes inspired truth is the point of scripture.
But you seem to read some parts as a literalist fundamentalis. We (Catholics) do not believe that it’s in God’s nature to literally kill people with malicious intent, and we do not believe that God orders one human being to kill other innocent human beings.

So we read those passages in the context of the writers and the community they wrote within, taking into account their understanding of God’s will and God’s action.
The Catholic Church (which compiled and nurtured the bible) reads the bible as a whole, with Christ as the fulfillment of it, and as the “hermeneutical key” to it.

I hope that makes sense in light of your erroneous belief that God “kills people, unborn babies included”.

 

[rossum]

I agree. I just prioitize not having it legal to kill people.

Which is where I disagree with the Abrahamic God:

“You must completely destroy the Amalekites and everything that belongs to them. Don’t let anything live; you must kill all the men and women and all of their children and little babies. You must kill all of their cattle and sheep and all of their camels and donkeys.”

– 1 Samuel 15:3

If God makes morality, then that slaughter was ‘legal’. To me that is a ‘might makes right’ morality, which I disagree with.

 

[rossum]

we do not believe that God orders one human being to kill other innocent human beings.

Have you read Numbers 31:17? “Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him.”

That is an order to kill all male children, of any age, and all married women, including all pregnant women.

I see young children and babies as innocent. I see unborn children as innocent.

The Abrahamic God orders the killing of innocents.

 

[STT]

Yes, lie is an opposite of truth. But error is also an opposite of truth. And telling truth is a kind of telling something meaningful, the opposite of which is saying some nonsense. And it is also a kind of telling something, the opposite of which is being silent.

So, four opposites of telling the truth (lie, error, nonsense, silence) which are incompatible. So, why choose one and not some other?

You can also see that the account of evil as a privation of good handles all those cases easily: a good action of telling the truth can have such and such defects etc.

But your Manichaeism does not handle those cases all that well. So, why is “Evil God” lying? Why can’t “Evil God” be mistaken all the time instead?

And that’s why “Evil God” is not possible: “Evil God” would have to be defective in every way, and those ways are incompatible.

Or otherwise we’d have “Evil God” that is good in some ways and evil in other ways.

Lie is not an error or nonsense. Lie has an intended effect on victim. According to the Bible we are here for the lie of Satan. Error is unintended so it is not like Lie which is intended. Nonsense is the result of ignorance. Nonsense is not lie too.

 

[STT]

It’s hard to imagine a more pessimistic and backward way of thinking. If you can’t appreciate the reality of your existence as a good, then why are you even here talking about it?

What is the point of feeling good if it leads to eternal punishment. It is not about what I am thinking or feeling good. It is about God who dictates what is right, evil or good, I have to obey. My problem is that I haven’t seen any argument to prove that God is good and not evil.

Current state of beliefe of people does not take me anywhere. People believe different God.

So, sometimes it feels that I am lonely in searching right.

This is a serious question that you should answer (along with all others who are atheists or skeptics)
What are you doing here?
Why are you here debating what is real, good, and true, with a bunch of Catholics on a Catholic forum?

I am interested in discussiong about reality in order to know what is right.

At the very least, you ought to consider that you are wasting your life with things you consider to be foolish, and/or trivial.

I am not offended. I am doing things for a purpose, being right and encourge right.

So why are you here? A rational person ought to give some meaning to this question, since your engagement here is sucking up a lot of your life.

It takes sometimes from me. But I am interested and the lengh of my discussion depends on the situation. I think I worth it. I think it is the most fruiteful part of my life.

This sort of disingenuous incongruity makes it difficult to take you and your positions seriously. There are an army of non-believers across the street from me right now, occupying barstools watching re-runs of baseball games. But they at least know who they are, and are honest with themselves , and they own their indifference to anything “God”. They are living their non-belief and indifference with integrity and gusto.

I am serious and I think my point is valid. I am so sorry that you feel so negative about me.

Why are you here…
And I want to emphasize that it is good you are here. Can you admit that your inquiries here are proof that transcendental truth is available to you, and that you are seeking it, and that your search is “good”?

To know what is right and do right.

 

[MPat]

Lie is not an error or nonsense.

So, I write that error and lie are incompatible (yet both opposite to truth) and you “answer” that a lie is not an error?

That’s just a repetition of one part of what I said!

So, what happened? Is it that you do not know English well enough to know what “incompatible” means?

Or did you just imagine God as a bearded man on a cloud, then imagined that “Evil God” would be an evil bearded man on a cloud, and decided that a liar would be more evil than someone mistaken?

Is this how most believers came to believe?

So, again, why don’t you write down your thesis? What exactly is that “this”?

Also, your question does not look relevant in discussion about changes in the contrary direction.

But you we’re correct in implying that I do not have the burden of proof. You seem to treat this as if faith is the default.

And you clearly treat this as if atheism was the default.

The difference is that, I can explain why faith is to be default (Pascal’s Wager demonstrates just that - if you do not know, it is reasonable to choose faith).

Also, here you are supposed to explain why you think existence of God is much less likely. That is, to support this:

In a nutshell, God just isn’t believable to me. It is not a 50-50 chance. The possibility seems incredibly remote.

Given the wording, I expect you to argue for at least chances of 90:10, perhaps 99:1.

Mere “burden of proof” does not seem to be adequate here, to say the least.

So, what do you present?

More philosophically, the argument morality doesn’t work

The fine tuning argument doesn’t work

That doesn’t work. We start at 50:50, arguments for God’s existence are advanced. Even if you somehow managed to show them to be completely worthless, that would only get us back to “square one” - 50:50.

You need arguments of your own.

I’m no biblical scholar, but a few issues are around the narratives in Scripture that seem to conflict with God’s 3 omnis and/or free will.

So, at least some caricature of Protestantism, where anyone can effortlessly see what Bible says, has been kinda defeated.

Unfortunately for you, Catholics do not believe that anyone can understand all what Bible says on his own. You need Tradition and Magisterium before you can do much.

And even if you somehow managed to deal with Bible, Christianity is not the only kind of theism. You would still have to deal with Islam etc., and I don’t see how such an approach could get you anywhere close to that 90:10 or 99:1 any time soon.

 

[goout]

goout:

we do not believe that God orders one human being to kill other innocent human beings.

Have you read Numbers 31:17? “Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him.”

That is an order to kill all male children, of any age, and all married women, including all pregnant women.

I see young children and babies as innocent. I see unborn children as innocent.

The Abrahamic God orders the killing of innocents.

IF you’re a fundamentalist who reads the scriptures in literalist fundamentalist fashion.

Show us the hammered metal dome please.
We’ll wait.

 

[goout]

If you believe that life and anything good lead to eternal punishment, why are you here? What’s the point of inquiring as to what is right? Why bother?
I think any observer would have to admit that you don’t really believe in eternal punishment.
So if your words and your actions are not well integrated, what is missing?

Here’s my suggestion, and you can take it, or you can discard the suggestion and reflexively object (you’ve been reflexively objecting here for about 3 years now):
Try listening to what others are saying and ponder it in “good faith”. Listen and assume that it might be trustworthy.
Anyone reading your posts might conclude that you know that there is good worth knowing and pursuing, and that God exists, because your continual presence here witnesses to that fact. Maybe you are the last to know that you are seeking God.
It’s ok. Been there/done that.

 

[rossum]

IF you’re a fundamentalist who reads the scriptures in literalist fundamentalist fashion.

What is the problem with reading an ancient history text as if it is describing history. One tribe massacring another tribe is not uncommon in history, ancient and less ancient.

In this case, what is described is believable and well within the bounds of possibility.

Are you telling me that it is the duty of Christians not to believe what the Bible says?

 

[goout]

goout:

IF you’re a fundamentalist who reads the scriptures in literalist fundamentalist fashion.

What is the problem with reading an ancient history text as if it is describing history. One tribe massacring another tribe is not uncommon in history, ancient and less ancient.

In this case, what is described is believable and well within the bounds of possibility.

Are you telling me that it is the duty of Christians not to believe what the Bible says?

That’s a classic fundamentalist point of view.
No, history/allegory/metaphor/spiritual truths are not at odds.
We can accept the Truth contained in the Scriptures without believing a hammered metal dome exists.
We can believe the Israelites went to war, and slayed innocent people believing it was God’s will, without believing that God commands human beings to slaughter innocents. The writers lived in an entirely different cultural context and understanding than the followers of Christ.

We don’t read the scriptures as court reporters, hinging on the accuracy of every syllable, or using tape recorders to play “gotcha” like modern news journalists.

I am curious how you came to adopt a fundamentalist view of scripture.

 

[rossum]

That’s a classic fundamentalist point of view.

No, it is a historian’s point of view. Tribes killing each other was not unusual; we have similar records from other ANE peoples.

No, history/allegory/metaphor/spiritual truths are not at odds.

This is where we differ: “spiritual truths”. Your spiritual truths are different from my spiritual truths. You believe that your God cannot kill innocents, so you interpret the passage according to your spiritual truth. My spiritual truth says that all gods, unless enlightened, are capable of killing innocents, and I interpret the passage according to my spiritual truth.

 

[goout]

goout:

That’s a classic fundamentalist point of view.

No, it is a historian’s point of view. Tribes killing each other was not unusual; we have similar records from other ANE peoples.

No, history/allegory/metaphor/spiritual truths are not at odds.

This is where we differ: “spiritual truths”. Your spiritual truths are different from my spiritual truths. You believe that your God cannot kill innocents, so you interpret the passage according to your spiritual truth. My spiritual truth says that all gods, unless enlightened, are capable of killing innocents, and I interpret the passage according to my spiritual truth.

Ok yes. The historical aspects are what they are.
You are then making the conclusion that God directly wills and participates in these wars and immoral actions because the text “says so”.
That is fundamentalist thinking. Fundamentalists read scripture narrowly, in their own langauge, according to their own understanding, in isolated texts separated from the whole of the bible.

And your interpretation of the passage is not the Christian way, as centered in Christ.

Before we keep going round in circles, if this is important to you please go to some good Catholic sources on Scripture interpretation and exegesis.

 

[STT]

If you believe that life and anything good lead to eternal punishment, why are you here? What’s the point of inquiring as to what is right? Why bother?

As I said, I live to seek what is right and do what is right.

I think any observer would have to admit that you don’t really believe in eternal punishment.

I have never seen Hell but people talk about it so I am cautious since I am rational being. I would do anything, whether good or evil, which is need to avoid it. I think you would do it too. Aren’t you afraid of eternal Hell?

So if your words and your actions are not well integrated, what is missing?

I am very integrated.

 

[STT]

So, four opposites of telling the truth (lie, error, nonsense, silence) which are incompatible. So, why choose one and not some other?

God cannot do error. God is omniscient therefore He cannot say or do nonsense.

 

[Gorgias]

You believe that your God cannot kill innocents, so you interpret the passage according to your spiritual truth.

There’s a critical distinction between “cannot” and “will not”, wouldn’t you say?

 

[MPat]

I am very integrated.

How do you know?

Have you done some formal checking? Examination of conscience?

As I said, I live to seek what is right and do what is right.

OK, so, (concentrating on “I live to seek what is right” part at first) what are you actually doing and what are the results?

For example, let’s look at this:

God cannot do error. God is omniscient therefore He cannot say or do nonsense.

Until now you have not said that “Evil God” was supposed to be omniscient.

For that matter, omniscience is good, so why would “Evil God” have it?

So, let’s apply that “what are you actually doing and what are the results?”: how did you come up with this scenario?

There’s obviously more to it than you show, for you have not said anything about omniscience before.

My guess was that you imagine God as “bearded man on a cloud”, then you imagine “Evil God” as “evil bearded man on a cloud”. An evil man would be a liar, so you conclude that “Evil God” would be a liar.

Is my guess accurate?

If you really want to seek truth, allow us to help.

 

[STT]

How do you know?

I do always check my system of belief.

Have you done some formal checking? Examination of conscience?

Yes. I always ask questions. My world view is not complete though since I don’t have answer to all my questions.

OK, so, (concentrating on “I live to seek what is right” part at first) what are you actually doing and what are the results?

First, I know how to look at reality. Things can be divided into four categories: Right, wrong, good and evil. Right is not good as wrong is not evil. I am open to good and evil. I lie if I can save my life or avoid eternal punishment.

Until now you have not said that “Evil God” was supposed to be omniscient.

For that matter, omniscience is good, so why would “Evil God” have it?

Is knowing how to torture people is good? No, it is evil yet it is a sort of knowledge.

So, let’s apply that “what are you actually doing and what are the results?”: how did you come up with this scenario?

Evil God? Evil exists. As simple as that.

There’s obviously more to it than you show, for you have not said anything about omniscience before.

God has to have specific attributes, such as omniscience, otherwise He is like one of us.

My guess was that you imagine God as “bearded man on a cloud”, then you imagine “Evil God” as “evil bearded man on a cloud”. An evil man would be a liar, so you conclude that “Evil God” would be a liar.

Is my guess accurate?

No, I don’t think like that. God is a mind. Mind has no location.

If you really want to seek truth, allow us to help.

I am open to the discussion.