Where does morality come from?

[2PhiloVoid]

It should be the same for believers.

What should be the "same," precisely?

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

But it would be nice to hear folks actually deal with Pascal's Wager in its full context rather than being ripped out like the intestines from a gutted pig.

Here is a link to the text: https://www.york.ac.uk/depts/maths/histstat/pascal_wager.pdf

First sentence: "Our soul has been cast into the body, where it finds number, time and dimension."
This is an assertion that we have souls without any evidence.

Another assertion without evidence: "The justice of God must be as vast as His mercy."

"But we know neither the existence nor the nature of God, because He has neither extension or limits."
This should be the end of the discussion. This is the honest position of we don't know, so a lack of belief is warranted.

Another assertion without evidence: "If there is a God, He is infinitely incomprehensible,..."

"Who then can blame the Christians for not being able to give reasons for their belief, professing as they do a religion which they cannot explain by reason."
What if I said this about the moon being made of cheese? "Who then can blame Atheists for not being able to give reasons for their belief, professing as they do that the moon is made of cheese which they cannot explain by reason." This is silly.

"Let us examine this point of view and declare: ‘Either God exists, or He does not.’ To which view shall we incline? Reason cannot decide for us one way or the other: we are separated by an infinite gulf. At the extremity of this infinite distance a game is in progress, where either heads or tails may turn up. What will you wager? According to reason you cannot bet either way; according to reason you can defend neither proposition."
I agree with this. He advocates suspending reason for a belief in something, mainly god. This does not work for any other belief, why for god?

"The right thing is not to wager at all.’ Yes; but a bet must be laid."
Why? He asserts many times that we must play the game when there is no evidence there is a game to play. Why do we need to play? I don't know is the only honest answer for a non believer not choose between two things that I have no evidence for.

"Thus our proposition is of infinite force, when there is the infinite at stake in a game where there are equal chances of winning and losing, but the infinite to gain."
There is not an equal chance of winning or losing. There is a small chance of winning and a greater chance of losing. We can not believe or believe in many of the other gods that is not the correct one. This makes the chance of winning very small.

"But understand at least that your ability to believe is the result of your passions; for, although reason inclines you to believe, you cannot do so. Try therefore to convince yourself, not by piling up proofs of God, but by subduing your passions."
He thinks that we can decide what to believe. I disagree. I cannot subdue any passion I have and believe that the moon is made of cheese.

"You desire to attain faith, but do not know the way. You would like to cure yourself of unbelief, and you ask for remedies."
This seems to be for people who want to believe in the first place and not for every non believer.

"But to show that such practices lead you to belief, it is those things which will curtail your passions which are your main obstacles."
He believes I don't want to believe for some reason or that I can't believe not because of reason and evidence but because of some passion I have against belief. This is untrue for me anyway. I don't believe because there is insufficient evidence to believe. No one can choose to believe something that they are not convinced of by evidence. So even if his rationale is good we still cannot do what he says we should do.

"Now, to what harm will you come by making this choice? You will be faithful, honest, humble, grateful, generous, a sincere friend, truthful."
Really? Many Christians are hateful towards homosexuals, women, blacks, Jews, etc. because of what the bible says. Maybe you will have no harm but there has been many harm to others based on believing in Christianity.

"I tell you, you will thereby profit in this life; and at every step you take along this road you will see so great an assurance of gain, and so little in what you risk, that you will come to recognize your stake to have been laid for something certain, infinite, which has cost you nothing."
This is untrue. It will cost you your honesty and reason. Two things this world needs more of. I would have to lie to myself enough to start believing something that I have no evidence for. I would need to believe false things to convince myself. That is not a good way to come to truth.

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

Yes, I agree with you that without some level of substantive evidence, it is very difficult for non-believers to believe in the Biblical concept of God and Christ.

What should be the "same," precisely?

That believers should have sufficient evidence for their belief.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

That believers should have sufficient evidence for their belief.

Oh, brother! You're not another one of those Matt Dillahunty "Dilletaunts," are you?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Here is a link to the text: https://www.york.ac.uk/depts/maths/histstat/pascal_wager.pdf

First sentence: "Our soul has been cast into the body, where it finds number, time and dimension."
This is an assertion that we have souls without any evidence.

Another assertion without evidence: "The justice of God must be as vast as His mercy."

"But we know neither the existence nor the nature of God, because He has neither extension or limits."
This should be the end of the discussion. This is the honest position of we don't know, so a lack of belief is warranted.

Another assertion without evidence: "If there is a God, He is infinitely incomprehensible,..."

"Who then can blame the Christians for not being able to give reasons for their belief, professing as they do a religion which they cannot explain by reason."
What if I said this about the moon being made of cheese? "Who then can blame Atheists for not being able to give reasons for their belief, professing as they do that the moon is made of cheese which they cannot explain by reason." This is silly.

"Let us examine this point of view and declare: ‘Either God exists, or He does not.’ To which view shall we incline? Reason cannot decide for us one way or the other: we are separated by an infinite gulf. At the extremity of this infinite distance a game is in progress, where either heads or tails may turn up. What will you wager? According to reason you cannot bet either way; according to reason you can defend neither proposition."
I agree with this. He advocates suspending reason for a belief in something, mainly god. This does not work for any other belief, why for god?

"The right thing is not to wager at all.’ Yes; but a bet must be laid."
Why? He asserts many times that we must play the game when there is no evidence there is a game to play. Why do we need to play? I don't know is the only honest answer for a non believer not choose between two things that I have no evidence for.

"Thus our proposition is of infinite force, when there is the infinite at stake in a game where there are equal chances of winning and losing, but the infinite to gain."
There is not an equal chance of winning or losing. There is a small chance of winning and a greater chance of losing. We can not believe or believe in many of the other gods that is not the correct one. This makes the chance of winning very small.

"But understand at least that your ability to believe is the result of your passions; for, although reason inclines you to believe, you cannot do so. Try therefore to convince yourself, not by piling up proofs of God, but by subduing your passions."
He thinks that we can decide what to believe. I disagree. I cannot subdue any passion I have and believe that the moon is made of cheese.

"You desire to attain faith, but do not know the way. You would like to cure yourself of unbelief, and you ask for remedies."
This seems to be for people who want to believe in the first place and not for every non believer.

"But to show that such practices lead you to belief, it is those things which will curtail your passions which are your main obstacles."
He believes I don't want to believe for some reason or that I can't believe not because of reason and evidence but because of some passion I have against belief. This is untrue for me anyway. I don't believe because there is insufficient evidence to believe. No one can choose to believe something that they are not convinced of by evidence. So even if his rationale is good we still cannot do what he says we should do.

"Now, to what harm will you come by making this choice? You will be faithful, honest, humble, grateful, generous, a sincere friend, truthful."
Really? Many Christians are hateful towards homosexuals, women, blacks, Jews, etc. because of what the bible says. Maybe you will have no harm but there has been many harm to others based on believing in Christianity.

"I tell you, you will thereby profit in this life; and at every step you take along this road you will see so great an assurance of gain, and so little in what you risk, that you will come to recognize your stake to have been laid for something certain, infinite, which has cost you nothing."
This is untrue. It will cost you your honesty and reason. Two things this world needs more of. I would have to lie to myself enough to start believing something that I have no evidence for. I would need to believe false things to convince myself. That is not a good way to come to truth.

Alrighty then. I'll take a look at your link and your attempted expose and get back to you.

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

Oh, brother! You're not another one of those Matt Dillahunty "Dilletaunts," are you?

Your avoiding the point. Do you not believe Christians should have logical and rational reasons for their belief?

 

[FireDragon76]

Carry around a revolver filled with blanks and a pair of clean underwear.

Point the revolver at the atheist and tell him to give you a good reason why you shouldn't kill him.

Tell him that the absolute command "Thou Shalt Not Kill" comes from God and since God doesn't exist, there's no transcendent reason why you should obey it.

Pull the trigger six times.

Give him the clean pair of underwear and tell him to reconsider his life choices.

In all seriousness, atheists worship a god of their own creation - their own ability and reason. Until that idol is crushed, they will not have ears to hear. Jesus said not to cast pearls before swine.

This is nonsense. The reason you should not kill an atheist is very simple, it's found in the golden rule, which is found in many different places in the world, not just Christianity or Judaism.

"Whatever is hurtful to you, do not do to others". Something so simple is obvious to anyone with the wisdom to see it. We do not need a narrow religious ideology to justify it.

 

[Strathos]

Trying to use Pascal's Wager to convert nonbelievers is itself an act of ignoring its original context.

 

[Ken-1122]

Carry around a revolver filled with blanks and a pair of clean underwear.

Point the revolver at the atheist and tell him to give you a good reason why you shouldn't kill him.

Tell him that the absolute command "Thou Shalt Not Kill" comes from God and since God doesn't exist, there's no transcendent reason why you should obey it.

If God doesn't exist, the command "thou shalt not kill" could not have possibly come from him. Perhaps it came from someone who does exist pretending to speak for God.

 

[Kylie]

if you are burning alive, do you really care what music is playing? One could even add needles and razors in there. But being burned hurts more than being cut. Your own screams like I said make any other noise irrelevant. You can add being drawn and quartered, but like I said fire hurts more than being drawn and quartered. If all your cells are already burned, your pain receptors that is, do you really feel the pain of being drawn and quartered? I don't think so. You really cannot even hypothesize a worse punishment. This to me is evidence of its reality.

In Ouchyland, your pain receptors are prevented from overloading. You are forced to experience every horrible thing that happens.

 

[quatona]

I might go on; but you also might want to finally report in for a hearing over what you found in that reading of Pascal which you mentioned you'd be doing here a while back. Frankly, I'm still waiting for the atheist among you who has actually read the Pensees in full and who then would like to down Pascal's Wager.

It seems to me that for a thread like this it is sufficient to address the argument as it has been made.
Maybe, before atheists are called to down the Wager it would be a good call to challenge believers to present it correctly.

 

[createdtoworship]

Yup, there’s the pattern I was describing earlier. When you’re unable to engage the points, you resort to accusations of disrespect. Yawn.

Pascal’s wager fails because neither the risk nor the reward it appeals to are in any way credible, so there’s nothing there to animate any action from a rational actor. Done.

this is opinion, pascals wager is entirely based on statistics and solid logic. So when you have facts to refute it let me know.

 

[createdtoworship]

In Ouchyland, your pain receptors are prevented from overloading. You are forced to experience every horrible thing that happens.

burning hurts more than any other type of wound because 100% of the pain receptors are activated, there is literally no other type of wound that activates 100% of receptors. So even your hypothetical fails.

 

[createdtoworship]

Here is the quote from ToddnotTodd that I would like you to respond to. This logically refutes Pascals Wager.

thanks but in my case, hell is the worst case scenario evidently, that we know of. No one has provided a worst case scenario (worse than hell), so pascals wager would only work on the worst case scenario. An eternity of burning alive in fire seems to me to be far worse than any hell I have read in any of the religions I have studied. I have studied most of the 10 most popular, and nothing comes close. So this illustration fails as well to refute the logic of pascals wager.

 

[gaara4158]

this is opinion, pascals wager is entirely based on statistics and solid logic. So when you have facts to refute it let me know.

That’s utter nonsense and in no sense engages what I said. If you think it’s not logical, you have to explain why. You won’t do that, because it is. But I know better than to expect you to admit when you’re wrong, so I can take your refusal to engage for what it is: a dead giveaway that you have nothing to offer. So I remain perfectly rational not acting as though your god exists.

 

[Ken-1122]

I might go on; but you also might want to finally report in for a hearing over what you found in that reading of Pascal which you mentioned you'd be doing here a while back. Frankly, I'm still waiting for the atheist among you who has actually read the Pensees in full and who then would like to down Pascal's Wager.

As for "Todd's Wager" itself, well.................that's a difference argument, and I'm not really seeing how it directly collides with Pascal. This is not to say that Pascal was necessarily right about everything he said, particularly as it emerged out of the limited thought processes of his own times. But it would be nice to hear folks actually deal with Pascal's Wager in its full context rather ripping it out like the intestines from a gutted pig.

I pointed out the flaws in Pascal's Wager back on post #726 and nobody responded to it. Perhaps you would like to respond to what I see are it's flaws.

 

[Kylie]

this is opinion, pascals wager is entirely based on statistics and solid logic. So when you have facts to refute it let me know.

I've already done that.

It relies on the assumption that God won't notice that you are believing for purely selfish reasons, and it would have you believe in the God with the worst punishment, not neccessarily the Christian God.

 

[Kylie]

burning hurts more than any other type of wound because 100% of the pain receptors are activated, there is literally no other type of wound that activates 100% of receptors. So even your hypothetical fails.

And it's worse if you have to listen to terrible drum music while you are burning.

Ouchyland is worse than Hell.

Even if you were right, Ouchyland is just as bad as hell, but Happyville is better than Heaven, so it still makes more sense to believe in Lord Raznar.

 

[createdtoworship]

That’s utter nonsense and in no sense engages what I said. If you think it’s not logical, you have to explain why. You won’t do that, because it is. But I know better than to expect you to admit when you’re wrong, so I can take your refusal to engage for what it is: a dead giveaway that you have nothing to offer. So I remain perfectly rational not acting as though your god exists.

you didn't adress pascals wager at all in this post, so like I said if you have facts to actually refute it, let me know.

 

[createdtoworship]

I pointed out the flaws in Pascal's Wager back on post #726 and nobody responded to it. Perhaps you would like to respond to what I see are it's flaws.

I am busy, but if you repost, or link to your post, I would love to challenge you to a debate on pascals wager.

it's solid logic based on statistics.