If there is no evidence for creation...

[LittleLambofJesus]

...then why should we believe it? Because the Bible said so? That begs the question, why should we believe the Bible?

Oh. Right. There is no reason.

Yep. Only us delusional Christians and Jews.

 

[Gracchus]

Yep. Only us delusional Christians and Jews.

Admitting that your delusions are delusions is the first step toward recovery of your reason.

 

[mpok1519]

life spontaneously forming with a kajillion to one odds is still pretty good odds considering the universe is probably one billion million kajillion years old, and possibly older.

 

[thaumaturgy]

Just fyi, I believe Paschal's Wager is based on Hedonistic Calculus.

That would be a miracle! Because Blaise Pascal died in 1662, while Jeremy Bentham (who came up with the idea of the "hedonistic calculus" as I'm sure you no doubt know) wasn't born until 1748.

Perhaps what you meant was Pascal's wager, as a game theory concept, leverages humanity's innate desire to minimize pain and maximize pleasure as a payoff.

 

[AV1611VET]

That would be a miracle! Because Blaise Pascal died in 1662, while Jeremy Bentham (who came up with the idea of the "hedonistic calculus" as I'm sure you no doubt know) wasn't born until 1748.

Good point ---

Perhaps what you meant was Pascal's wager, as a game theory concept, leverages humanity's innate desire to minimize pain and maximize pleasure as a payoff.

If that's what you want to go with, then salvation cannot be accepted on Paschal's Wager, as salvation is a gift, not a payoff.

 

[atomweaver]

There are good reasons to hold to your faith. These aren't them.

Good point --- If that's what you want to go with, then salvation cannot be accepted on Paschal's Wager,

Glad you've caught up to page 14 of the conversation, AVVET. If this goes another ten pages, you might only be two pages behind...

 

[thaumaturgy]

that's what you want to go with, then salvation cannot be accepted on Paschal's Wager, as salvation is a gift, not a payoff.

That has been my main point all along. WHile many point to questions around the logic of the Wager, personally I always felt that the Wager was theologically weak. God, to my knowledge, doesn't want to give you salvation simply because you mouth the words or force yourself to believe that which you don't actually believe or accept.

And that is precisely why I don't understand those Christians who feel that God is love but he's also willing to punish his most beloved creatures eternally if they fail to see him when he hides so well.

You see, the whole salvation vs eternal punishment thing just reaks of "humanity". God is presumably not bound by anyone's rules but his own. So why would He, being infinitely loving, patient and kind, not to mention infinitely merciful and infinitely just, set up a game in which we, lesser beings, are put in a reality which has ambivalent at best data in support of God's existence, place us here for on average about 70-80 years and if we fail to make "the right choice" on limited to no information, have the negative pay-off be eternal punishment.

That's like some dude coming up to you in the street, telling you to kiss him on the lips or he'll kill you. But he's sure to promise you he's a really, really good kisser.

It isn't a balanced game.

And that is yet another reason why I don't see evidence for this particular conception of God. I find that as life goes along I lose more conceptions of God until I'm left with none.

As the saying goes, as an atheist I merely fail to believe in one less god than you do.

 

[AV1611VET]

You see, the whole salvation vs eternal punishment thing just reaks of "humanity". God is presumably not bound by anyone's rules but his own. So why would He, being infinitely loving, patient and kind, not to mention infinitely merciful and infinitely just, set up a game in which we, lesser beings, are put in a reality which has ambivalent at best data in support of God's existence, place us here for on average about 70-80 years and if we fail to make "the right choice" on limited to no information, have the negative pay-off be eternal punishment.

God knows a lot more about us than we do ourselves, and I can assure you His judgments are just. You call it "ambivalent data," but do you realize that, ambivalent or not, it isn't going to matter to some? Was it "ambivalent" when God shouted from the sky in John 12, and some of the people said it "thundered" that day?

28 Father, glorify thy name. Then came there a voice from heaven, saying, I have both glorified it, and will glorify it again.
29 The people therefore, that stood by, and heard it, said that it thundered: others said, An angel spake to him.

Okay, you don't like "ambivalence," and you seem to think that removing it will make a difference.

How much Dispensational Theology do you know?

Do you realize that after we've been here for 1000 years, with Jesus Himself ruling and reigning on the earth with a rod of iron, that when that last dispensation comes to an end, there will still be some who will follow Satan in what we call the Final Rebellion?

And I saw the beast, and the kings of the earth, and their armies, gathered together to make war against him that sat on the horse, and against his army.

Ambivalence can take a hike.

 

[thaumaturgy]

God knows a lot more about us than we do ourselves, and I can assure you His judgments are just.

And you know that because....?

I suspect you "know" that because you would admit we can't really understand God. It's amazing that we are asked to love with all our hearts that which is so totally un-understandable.

Of course to the simple folks God is easy to understand, he's just as, loving, intolerant, accepting, bigotted, deeply philosophical and anti-intellectual as they are. He looks like a mirror which is to say he looks like your own thoughts, be they complex and subtle or simple and crude.

But when someone comes up with a reasonable question around how someone else's god would act under a given circumstance, well then suddenly "God works in mysterious ways!"

You call it "ambivalent data," but do you realize that, ambivalent or not, it isn't going to matter to some?

I don't give a hang how it matters to others. In my attempt to understand God I found the data lacking. I am obviously not alone.

Was it "ambivalent" when God shouted from the sky in John 12, and some of the people said it "thundered" that day?

Do you believe everything you read? How about when you don't know who wrote it or why?

What about when someone tells you:

The tradition that John the Apostle, son of Zebedee, was the author goes back at least to the end of the 2nd century. (SOURCE)

If I told you today that "The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn" was written by Grover Cleveland would you take it and run with it? It's only about 114 years or so after the fact that this "tradition" started, but hey, who's counting? And Grover Cleveland was president of the U.S. in 1885!

This isn't ambivalent, this is just taking someone's word for something. Turtles all the way down...

Okay, you don't like "ambivalence," and you seem to think that removing it will make a difference.

Why does God have difficulty making himself plain as day to all people. Remember, if he's real, and hell is real, well, then he's found a great way to guarantee that many of his most beloved creatures will wind up being punished (by him) for eternity based on choices that he could have made easier for us during a non-eternity lifespan.

How much Dispensational Theology do you know?

Enough to realize that it's was largely codified in the 1800's and acts as a post hoc justification for a cobbled together mish-mash of sometimes jarringly different theologies that were crammed into the same religion after a schism that would effectively have rendered the two religions incompatible.

But I also realize it has a history of sorts going all the way back to Augustine and the Seven "Ages", waaay back in the 4th century AD (what only about 300 years or so after Jesus was on the scene and all the Bible Books had been written?)

For me, the main criticism of Dispensationalism as far as I can tell may come from the mouth of Jesus:

Luke 16:17 And it is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than one tittle of the law to fail.

(Now in a similar statement in Matthew Jesus claims to fulfill the law but makes a similar comment about the earth passing but the laws remaining until fulfillment. But the Lukan description seems somewhat less "ambivalent".)

Did Jesus get the "Dispensationalist" memo?

Do you realize that after we've been here for 1000 years, with Jesus Himself ruling and reigning on the earth with a rod of iron, that when that last dispensation comes to an end, there will still be some who will follow Satan in what we call the Final Rebellion?Ambivalence can take a hike.

It is so easy to "dispense" with ambivalence and questions when you have no curiosity about what you believe. I sort of envy you that minimalist intelligence. There are times when I wish I could be that simple and just not care. I wish I could just believe whatever the big preacher man told me so I could get on with living without fear. Living with questions is living with fear that there's always an unknown.

However, most times I'm quite happy to face the unknown realizing that in reality none of us know much. But what I normally find offensive is a lack of curiosity.

I won't listen to people who can't bother to question themselves. They can take a hike.

If God really is this anti-intellectual who hides in smoke and mirrors waiting for the chance to punish those weaker than himself and who demands this be called "love", well then I have to wonder why one worships that being.

That is why I find the more "love-centric" God concepts harder to debate against, but that isn't what is necessarily taught in large portions of the Judeo-Christian Bible.

So you see, my quandry: I don't see any evidence for any God, but if I had to follow one, I'd prefer to follow the one who isn't whipping out the iron rod to whack me when he sees fit.

But if your faith gives you comfort, then by all means have at it! It's yours. I don't have to believe what you believe. I'm just saying why I don't believe what you believe. Your type of faith leaves me cold not only because it is devoid of actual "thought", but because it also seems somewhat sloppy with the explanations. A more liberal faith leaves me cold because it smacks of just trying to hold onto the "pleasant" parts of an older, more hardened faith that doesn't fit in the world.

As a scientist I'm most interested in those ideas that are testable and can produce useful information moving forward. Superstition and blind faith serve me not at all in that realm.

But as I said, by all means, believe what you wish. Don't bother learning about Leibniz or Pascal or Bentham or anything...just live in your one book. The only problem I really have with people like you, AV, is when you tell us how science should be done based on your interpretation of your book which has no bearing on science. Don't bring your baggage to the science party unless it has something testable and isn't all faith-based.