Thinking of becoming a creationist...

[Arikay]

Isn't it nice when people ignore the majority of the off topic posts to repeat the post that the majority of the off topic posts are about, just to say good job, even though the majority of the off topic posts argue against the first off topic post and the basic argument in the off topic post is a very common on topic post in general apologetics.

Do we need to repeat the thread or is it readable? Especially the parts about evolution not being atheism, Pascals wager, or that creationism is often a good deconversion tool.

 

[Philosoft]

In 1945, five million Jews had just been exterminated. Two years later, a Jewish state was reborn after they fought off attacks from six surrounding Middle Eastern countries. That's a freakin' miracle if I ever saw one.

Not for the 5 million dead Jews. And not with an England-driven UN intent on ensuring the survival of Israel.

Almost every end times prophecy requires a Jewish state to have a prayer of being accurate. Well, now we've got one. I would agree with you that unfulfilled prophecies are very, very vague. But prophecies that have been fulfilled are crystal clear.

I'm sorry, but you can't metaphysically divorce the Israel prophecy from history. Hitler was aware of the Bible passages in question. England/UN were aware of the Bible passages in question. There is plenty of reason to doubt that the prophecy was fulfilled via some kind of epistemological vacuum.

 

[Pete Harcoff]

Isn't it nice when people ignore the majority of the off topic posts to repeat the post that the majority of the off topic posts are about, just to say good job, even though the majority of the off topic posts argue against the first off topic post and the basic argument in the off topic post is a very common on topic post in general apologetics.

It is, however, good from a market research standpoint. Like AirPo said, just tell 'em what they want to hear... *cha-ching!*

All I need is a good marketing scheme and I'm set...

 

[Mistermystery]

Brahe, when you post next, I would appreciate it if you defined what a lie is, and then explained exactly how I (or God??) lied. Attacking my ethics does not advance your argument and it makes you come across as very emotional.

As I said before, the presence of other religions does not obviate Pascal's Wager. Someone mentioned Islam. I'm about 1/3 of the way through the Qur'an and have yet to read a single clear prophecy, let alone a fulfilled prophecy. The Bible has about 6000 of them, and something like 4000 have been verifiably fulfilled. The Jewish state's birth in 1947 is a recent spectacular example (fulfilled Exekiel 37). If you compare Judeo/Christianity against Islam (and most any other religion) just on the basis of prophecy alone, Islam doesn't hold a candle. You have to use good common sense and reasoning to eliminate the weak philosophies and religions out there, and use Pascal's Wager to compare what's left.

Physics Guy, you say God may condemn only theists to eternal suffering, and leave atheist all alone. Again, there's no point in applying a Pascal's wager analysis to ideas that don't make sense. If God exists, and if God lets people into Heaven who hold a particular set of beliefs, it makes sense to suppose that one of those beliefs is faith and belief that God actually exists. That pretty much has to be the foundation....

Jet Black, you say, what if lets only tall people in with green eyes. Again, toss out all the ideas/religions/philosophies that don't make sense and compare what's left. If you think any of the examples you cite make sense, then more power to you.

Compared to most other religions, I don't think atheism is particularly weak. You guys are all very intelligent and informed, and you're generally doing a good job backing up what you say. Just ask yourself if atheism is really worth it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal's_Wager

Pascal's wager can be said to suffer from the logical fallacy of false dilemma, relying on the assumption that the only possibilities are:

1. the Christian God exists and punishes or rewards as stated in the Bible, or
2. no God exists.

The wager cannot rule out the possibility that there is a God who instead rewards skepticism and punishes blind faith, or rewards honest reasoning and punishes feigned faith. In societies where faith is often rewarded by economic and social benefit, its potential moral significance is dubious. It also assumes faith costs nothing, but there may be both direct (time, health, wealth) costs and opportunity costs: those who choose to believe in, say, scientific theories that may contradict scripture may be able to discover things and accomplish things the believer could not.

The "many-gods" argument points out that we can find indefinitely many other possibilities offering eternal bliss and threatening eternal torment. For example, non-Christian gods might exist, and punish Christian believers for their failure to believe in them. Or some powerful entity might decide to punish those who believe in a god while rewarding non-believers. Even if (contrary to Pascal's original argument) we can assign greater probability to one of the possible outcomes, it makes no mathematical difference. As the previous section mentions, any non-zero probability multiplied by infinity yields an infinite expected value.

In this way, Pascal's Wager could be used to deduce that it would be advisable to believe in any or all of a variety of gods; however the belief systems of some religions are exclusive, leading to theoretical contradictions with Pascal's Wager for those practicing an exclusive faith. This is the argument from inconsistent revelations. Those who have an all encompassing religion (Sanathana Dharma or Pantheism for example) do not suffer from such a criticism. There is also the Jewish faith to consider, which expects a non-Jew only to obey the Noachide Laws in order to receive reward in afterlife. In addition, some religions do not require a focus on a deity, such as Buddhism.

 

[Mistermystery]

 

[Arikay]

I don't have the energy to do it right, but I have been meaning to write a christian pascal wager. To figure out which version of christianity offers the best chance to go to heaven (Most likely the most constrained version would be the best choice. This might include a Young earth creationist geocentric flat earth version ). Then propose it to christians that use Pascals wager and see if it converts them or if they would try to refute it.

 

[Mistermystery]

I've used the gif. THREAD IS THEREFOR OVER !

 

[Sopharos]

I've used the gif. THREAD IS THEREFOR OVER !

 

[Jet Black]

sing then

 

[Mistermystery]

Truman doesn't agree.

 

[rjw]

Hello True Blue,

Thanks for your response.

Your reply shows why I take PW in such a dim light. How can either you or I assign some kind of numerical probability value to any of this. For example, you might not die a painless death. By some “miracle” you may be pulled from the wreckage of your house with 10th degree burns to 500% of your body and spend the next 15 years a miserable broken wretch, slowly and painfully descending into death. And if perchance you choose to live in a cardboard box rather than a house, then why are you not evacuating that – just in case? Whatever you answer, I shall chase you with PW.

Our notions of reality are much too precious to be driven by spurious bargains such as that offered by PW. (Don’t get me wrong. I have heard numerous Christians appeal to it and have sat through a sermon or two as a child where the Wager was used. Obviously, an argument that is so well used must be effective to some degree. An honest merit may not be its strong point though.)

Given that I acknowledge that god(s) may exist and that it could be God and that God could be your very specific version, then clearly the Wager has a kind of peculiar merit to it.

But how on earth can I really believe in your god, when I genuinely doubt his existence? Hence my point about the airplane. You do not apply PW to that situation even though you presumably acknowledge that the terrible scenario does have some possibility. Why don’t you apply PW? Mostly because the reality of that possibility makes little sense to you. You understand the meaning of the possibility. But you will not act on the Wager, simply because you doubt the reality of it occurring.

I do not accept the Wager because I doubt the reality of your scenario. If the supernatural exists then there is no reason to believe that your specific version of it is the correct one. Hence, who says that Hell is infinitely painful? Only another human as far as I can see – and you accept his word for it. But why should I?

I see your religious beliefs as no more than a religious belief like any other. I do not apply the Wager to those beliefs. Nor do I apply it to your belief. Why should I only apply it to your belief?

A poster wrote that maybe God is going to send all Christians to Hell and all atheists to Heaven. A bit ridiculous perhaps but there is possibly an element of sense behind the joke. If a Christian worships God because he takes the punt and accepts the Wager then how honest is that Christian? If the atheist denies the existence of the Christian god because he cannot see any evidence for its existence just as he cannot see any evidence for the existence of the Hindu god(s), then who are you to question the honesty of that atheist?

What I am getting at is maybe God prefers an honest atheist to a dishonest Christian. (Edited note added. I am not arguing that you are dishonsest because you see the Wager as having some sense. Please do not get me wrong )

IOW, if there is any hint of merit behind the Wager, honesty is not it. And given that we generally do not operate according to the rules of the Wager, consistency is not it either.

Regards, Roland

 

[True_Blue]

The point was, when is something a real prophecy fullfilment or just luck?
Does your prophecy have constraints? Does it say, "In the future" or does it say, "in the 20th century."?

Arikay, the Jewish state formation in '47 was a "real prophecy fullfilment." The question is, was the cause of the real prophecy fullfilment due to God's foreknowledge of the future and His control of human events, or what it just luck? I can't answer that for you, Arikay. Choose the answer that makes the most sense. I don't happen to think that the Jews have been particularly lucky, but that's just my opinion.

 

[True_Blue]

Roland, you made several points in your last post. I'll try to address each of them.

1. I took your example and applied Pascal's Wager to it. PW is nothing more than economic analysis applied to religion, and in the real world, economic analysis generally does a good job at explaining the behavior of a rational person. Atheists, if you say that Pascal's Wager is flawed fundamentally, you're saying that all of economics is flawed. I don't buy that. We award Nobel Prizes in economics for a reason.

2. In economic analysis, you generally start by making assumptions. If you don't like the assumptions or the topic the assumptions are applied to, pick new ones. You can't attack the analysis itself. Scientists generally don't like economics for precisely that reason--they have to assume things. I see that all the time when I interview engineers to gather data for a cost estimate--engineers hate making the assumptions needed for a cost estimate. I think think engineers and scientists have the same mentality.

3. My point is that the conclusion of my comparison of atheism and Christianity is not sensitive to the values assigned to the probabilities in question. You can pick any values you want, but in the end, an atheist thinks he will become nothing when he dies, and a Christian thinks he's going to Heaven when he dies. That's the bottom line. At least a Hindu thinks he might be a horse after he dies, but that's still better than disappearing into a void. You can ask yourself whether reincarnation is plausable, but that's a different topic.

4. What do you mean by a "dishonest Christian?" I don't happen to think that anyone can become a Christian because an economic analysis supports the idea. You become a Christian by having faith in Jesus and his death, then accepting the Holy Spirit into your life. Faith is largely independent of logic and reason. I only bring up economic analysis in this discussion because I want to take issue with those who claim that Christianity isn't logical or reasonable. I need to convince you that Christianity isn't stupid before I can convince you that Christianity is right.

5. C.S. Lewis's Mere Christianity does an outstanding job of describing the theoretical underpinnings of the Christian God. I can't do a better job of describing it than him. Email me your mailing address and I'll send you a copy.

What are your thoughts?

 

[True_Blue]

Mistermystery, you're right--there are lots of opportunity costs to being a Christian. If you're a Christian in Iraq, it means getting threatened by terrorists and being forced to leave the country by the tens of thousands. It might mean being crucified. It definitely means being asked to tithe. Those are all costs, and they have to be considered. Jesus demanded that his disciples consider those costs...

I don't think you're right about the scientific discovery thing. I went to the Grand Canyon once, and the tour guide said that the Colorado River carved out the Grand Canyon over millions of years. I looked at the Grand Canyon and thought, "Nah!!" I think the book "Men of Science, Men of God" does a pretty good job debating that point.

Pascal's Wager is not a false dilemma. You make a false dilemma when you falsely claim there are fewer options than there actually are. I acknowledge that there are lots of religions, but for simplicity's sake am asking the reader to consider two of those religions. No logical fallacies here, just economic reasoning at work.

 

[Moo]

I don't have the energy to do it right, but I have been meaning to write a christian pascal wager. To figure out which version of christianity offers the best chance to go to heaven (Most likely the most constrained version would be the best choice. This might include a Young earth creationist geocentric flat earth version ). Then propose it to christians that use Pascals wager and see if it converts them or if they would try to refute it.

lol, good idea, I'd like to hear some the replies.

 

[Philosoft]

Arikay, the Jewish state formation in '47 was a "real prophecy fullfilment."

Negative. I've already explained why you can't make such an a posteriori claim about prophecy fulfillment when the prophecy itself is both widely known and acheivable.

The question is, was the cause of the real prophecy fullfilment due to God's foreknowledge of the future and His control of human events, or what it just luck? I can't answer that for you, Arikay. Choose the answer that makes the most sense.

False dichotomy. As I previously indicated, there is at least one more possibility - a self-fulfilling prophecy.

I don't happen to think that the Jews have been particularly lucky, but that's just my opinion.

Eh? Aren't you the one who called it a "miracle" not too many posts ago? I can visually refresh your memory if need be.

 

[Physics_guy]

1. I took your example and applied Pascal's Wager to it. PW is nothing more than economic analysis applied to religion, and in the real world, economic analysis generally does a good job at explaining the behavior of a rational person. Atheists, if you say that Pascal's Wager is flawed fundamentally, you're saying that all of economics is flawed. I don't buy that. We award Nobel Prizes in economics for a reason.

Wrong - don't try to group up with economic analysis when you clearly do not understand how to use it properly. Game Theory is a useful tool, but when you add infinite values to the outcomes you mess witht he analysis.

2. In economic analysis, you generally start by making assumptions. If you don't like the assumptions or the topic the assumptions are applied to, pick new ones. You can't attack the analysis itself. Scientists generally don't like economics for precisely that reason--they have to assume things. I see that all the time when I interview engineers to gather data for a cost estimate--engineers hate making the assumptions needed for a cost estimate. I think think engineers and scientists have the same mentality.

Don't know much about science do you? Furthermore, any economic professor worth his salt would fail you for that last statement. In every endeavor we make assumptions, but the the trick is to make warranted assumptions. You have made poor and unsupported assumptions in your Wager "analysis" and somehow think that you have provided meaningful insight. That is laughable.

BTW - both scientists and engineers would be insulted by you assuming they are similar.

3. My point is that the conclusion of my comparison of atheism and Christianity is not sensitive to the values assigned to the probabilities in question. You can pick any values you want, but in the end, an atheist thinks he will become nothing when he dies, and a Christian thinks he's going to Heaven when he dies. That's the bottom line. At least a Hindu thinks he might be a horse after he dies, but that's still better than disappearing into a void. You can ask yourself whether reincarnation is plausable, but that's a different topic.

But the reasonable person's reply is that you have made a false dicotomy with simply atheism and Christianity and have ignored the myriad of other possibilities that would also have infinite rewards/losses. The Capricious God example that only punishes theists that choose another god than him. Given those possibilities even the smallest of probabilities, which you cannot rationally deny, then you are faced with picking between infinite values on your matrix.

4. What do you mean by a "dishonest Christian?" I don't happen to think that anyone can become a Christian because an economic analysis supports the idea. You become a Christian by having faith in Jesus and his death, then accepting the Holy Spirit into your life. Faith is largely independent of logic and reason. I only bring up economic analysis in this discussion because I want to take issue with those who claim that Christianity isn't logical or reasonable. I need to convince you that Christianity isn't stupid before I can convince you that Christianity is right.

But you haven't done that - all you have done is convince the logical and reasonable readers that you are neither logical or reasonable. Bad use of game theory makes you look like a fool.

There are many arguments you could use to support Christianity that can be effective. Pascal's Wager is not one of them - it is only convincing to the the uncritical.

 

[aeroz19]

I was thinking... Hovind's got his dino adventure land, AiG's got their museum, ICR has... something, I'm sure... Plus, the hordes of books, videos, speaking engagements, etc, these guys do. Basically, creationism looks like a pretty lucrative racket.

So how does one get started with creationism? Write a book or two, set up a web site, that sort of thing? Or should I try to preach locally and build up a following here before I start getting bigger?

I really figure it can't be *that* hard (heck, look at Hovind). And with an est. audience of around 100+ million in North America alone, creationism is clearly a market that has not been fully tapped.

lol--huh? Are you insane????

 

[Aeothen]

He sounds perfectly sane to me. If people are willing to pay good money to listen to these ideas, why not get in on it?

 

[Mistermystery]

Mistermystery, you're right--there are lots of opportunity costs to being a Christian. If you're a Christian in Iraq, it means getting threatened by terrorists and being forced to leave the country by the tens of thousands.

The media has you man. omgomgomg terrists.

It might mean being crucified. It definitely means being asked to tithe. Those are all costs, and they have to be considered. Jesus demanded that his disciples consider those costs...

Sweet Jesus on a pogo-stick. We're talking about Pascal's wager and how stupid it is, and you somehow bring crusifiction into this?

I don't think you're right about the scientific discovery thing. I went to the Grand Canyon once, and the tour guide said that the Colorado River carved out the Grand Canyon over millions of years. I looked at the Grand Canyon and thought, "Nah!!" I think the book "Men of Science, Men of God" does a pretty good job debating that point.

I have no words... they should... have send... a brick wall to talk to.

I asume you are telling me that the global flood was responsable for the grand canyon? besides being the stupidist thing ever, please explain how a flood can do this:

note how the side arms are curling through the land. I'd really want to know how water can do this under 100 days. Nah a global Flood never happend because there is no evidence for one that happend all over the globe. It's physically impossible, and creationists can't even explain where the water comes from in a natural matter. I'm sorry chums, but besides drifting off-topic you are out of your league here.

Click here if you want to learn about 2 simple problems the global flood has. Not that you want to know, because I don't think you came here to learn.

Pascal's Wager is not a false dilemma. You make a false dilemma when you falsely claim there are fewer options than there actually are. I acknowledge that there are lots of religions, but for simplicity's sake am asking the reader to consider two of those religions. No logical fallacies here, just economic reasoning at work.

I've given you an explaination why pascal's wager is a false dillema in the nicest way possible. If you can only retribute with a "i don't like it when you call it a false dillema" responce, I'm not going to invest more time into you. Please prove me wrong and come up with an educated counterresponce.