Pascal's Wager

[2ndRateMind]

So, it seems that the mathematician Blaise Pascal thought it is more rational to believe in God, than not believe. But the reason he gave is, to say the least, a little controversial. Basically, he weighed up this mortal life with the promised (or threatened) immortal hereafter.

He thought it better to believe now, and suffer short-term privations to be rewarded with eternal bliss, than disbelieve now, for short-term abundance of sensual satiation, to be rewarded with either eternal torment or oblivion.

If you choose the former, and are right, and God exists in some form Christians might recognise, you lose a little satisfaction now, but stand to gain a lot later. If you are wrong, and God does not exist, you lose nothing more.

If you are right about the latter, and God does not exist, you may gain a little satisfaction now. But if you are wrong, you've messed up big time, and mortal satisfactions are soon forgotten, and will not compensate you in Hell.

So, either you stake a little, and stand to gain everything, or you stake nothing, and stand to lose everything. The rational choice, according to Pascal, is to stake a little, and believe, and act out that belief.

I have to say, this is not a line of argument I find entirely persuasive. I can find several criticisms, but for me, the central issue lies in choosing to believe what is expedient irrespective as to whether it is true. One can believe a true proposition for bad reasons, and a false proposition for good reasons. And which is closer to virtue is a debatable point. Pascal was no fool, and must have understood this, which makes me think his wager was meant humorous, rather than serious.

But I'm wondering if you all have opinions on this hoary old chestnut, and whether you would like to share them.

Best wishes, 2RM.

[Divine Insight]

Here's the general point. Christianity basis itself on Jesus and a relationship with Jesus. God is who Jesus said God is. Another author claims something that contradicts Jesus? The author is wrong no matter who thought they were correct. Jesus is the authority.

I understand that many Christians take this view. However, for me this view does not stand. For one thing Yahweh cannot depend on Jesus because Jesus totally depends on Yahweh. Jesus can't change the entire Old Testament.

You need to understand that I have concluded that Yahweh (i.e. the Old Testament God) is necessarily a false story. Therefore, the idea that Jesus is the son of a God that has already been demonstrated to be false makes no sense. So Jesus cannot save Yahweh.

Also, keep in mind that it's Jesus himself who contradicts himself. Although, that's not really true since we don't have anything from Jesus at all. All we have about Jesus is hearsay writings from other authors.

However, Mathew has Jesus proclaiming that not one jot or tittle shall pass from the Old Testament law. So does Matthew represent what Jesus stands for? If not, then who does? If we can't trust the writings of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John then what can we say about Jesus? Absolutely nothing.

Keep in mind also that even in the New Testament we have Matthew claiming that Jesus said that not one jot or one tittle shall pass from law. Well jots and tittle refer to the written law, and the only written law that Jesus could have been referring to was the Old Testament. So even Jesus isn't suggesting that there could be errors in these texts. To the contrary he's suggesting that every jot and tittle of it is correct.

In Matthew 5:18, Jesus says "not one stroke of a letter, will pass from the law until all is accomplished." This doesn't seem to say anything directly about the historical accounts in the Tanakh (things like the story of the Canaanites). And in Matthew 7:12, Jesus says "In everything do to others as you would have them do to you; for this is the law and the prophets." And Matthew, in 22:37-40, has Jesus saying that to love God and love your neighbor as yourself is what all the law and the prophets hang on. So, all Jesus is saying in 5:18 is to not break the commandments of loving God and loving others. He's not saying the Tanakh is inerrant.

He's saying that not one stroke of a letter will pass from law. That requires that the laws written in the OT must be correct in every stroke of the letter. So that's a serious problem for me. If other people want to ignore this and claim that it's not a problem that's there business, but it won't fly for me.

You could even just say that Matthew got it wrong.

Well, if you claim that Matthew can't be trusted to correctly represent Jesus, then who can be trusted? People like Matthew is all you have concerning the rumors of Jesus. You don't have anything at all from Jesus himself.

Again, I'm not necessarily advocating these kinds of moves or conclusions, but trying to fully think this through. It seems to me logically possible (maybe not that reasonable, but possible) for someone to say God is who Jesus says God is and the Bible contains some errors. For your critique to go through, you need there to be no logical possibility of this.

I claim that this is not a possibly because if you want to allow that Jesus is the ultimate authority and knew the real truth, then he should have made that clear. Can you show me where the Gospels have Jesus suggesting that anything in the Old Testament might not be correct?

In other words, if Jesus is trustworthy and speaks truth, and the truth is that the Old Testament is errant and cannot be trusted to be truthful, then why wouldn't Jesus point that out to us and make that crystal clear?

In fact, I have major problems with stories of Jesus. Especially the story of the woman at the well where Jesus supposedly tells the mob that he who is without sin should cast the first stone. This is extremely problematic. The reason it's problematic is because this raises the question of whether this God commands us to stone sinners to death or not? Everyone seems to think that Jesus' answer here was so clever, but I see it as being extremely problematic. So that only makes things worse, not better.

So the idea that we as Christians, could just ignore an errant Bible and basically pretend that God might be different from what the Bible actually says, is simply not going to fly. If that were the case, then what would we be basing Christian theology on? The mere opinions of hopeful believers who have no choice but to reject many parts of the Bible simply because they may or may not be in error?

The basis would be direct experience of God. If God exists it is possible that this God directly reveals Himself to some and not others, for whatever reason. To that kind of believer, if the Bible contains a contradiction, then the person who wrote that was not getting it from God.

I reject this claim as being absolutely absurd. The reason being that I have never had any direct experience from any supernatural "God". And I simply don't buy into the claim that God reveals himself to some and not to others. I see no reason to believe such an absurd claim. Also, those who claim that God has revealed himself to them do not exhibit any special or consistent characteristic. In short, there is absolutely no credible evidence that any mortal human has had any direct experience with any supernatural entity. The people who claim they have simply aren't convincing. Moreover, I believe if what they claim is true they would be able to prove this easily, but thus far no one has been able to do this. So I'm convinced that anyone who makes this claim is either delusional, or dishonest.

At the very best it would represent an inept God who has no control over his own message to humanity, and a God that we cannot trust in terms of making certain that we get the correct information.

To that kind of believer, God controls His message through direct experience. And that God gives humans free will, so they can compile a collection of books that they think contains only truth about God, yet be wrong. God, through direct experience, will make sure His followers get the correct information.

I personally think a person needs to be extremely naive to believe a claim like this.

The promises that Jesus made in the Gospels concerning what his followers should be able to do is quite clear. Yet I have never met anyone who could do what Jesus had promised. So based on what the Gospels have to say I can only conclude that Jesus has no true followers at all. And those who claim to be followers of Jesus are only fooling themselves. Either that, or Jesus does not exist as a supernatural entity, which I feel is the most likely explanation.

I reject your above proposal because there is a huge difference between evaluating historical writings that we know were written by fallible humans with "Holy Texts" that are supposed to be the inspired word and commandments of an omnipotent God.

To the kind of believer we are talking about, the Bible is not a "Holy Text" inspired by God, but an historical writing by fallible humans that have gotten some things right about God and some things wrong about God.

Again, I dismiss those kinds of believers as not being able to recognize the problem with this.

The problem they don't seem to recognize is that this religion is about a God who condemns people who don't obey his directives and commandments. Therefore there simply is no room for errors in the Bible.

Are you supposed to stone sinners to death or not? It certainly not clear. Even Jesus excuse that only those who are without sin are supposed to cast the first stone is extremely problematic.

After all, those who have accepted Jesus as their savior are supposed to have their sins all washed away by the blood of Jesus. So are they now without sin? If so, then according to Jesus they are the ones who are supposed to be casting the first stone at sinners.

And we can't say that nobody is supposed to stone sinners to death, because that violates the original LAW. Why would a God have commanded us to stone sinners to death if he never wanted anyone to ever do it?

This religion contains self-contradictory instructions on how we should even behave.

If go by what Jesus teaches, you then need to reject the commandments of Yahweh. And Jesus himself supposedly said that not one jot or tittle of the old law shall pass until heaven and earth pass.

So this is a contradictory religion that can never be made clear.

The Bible is supposed to be telling us what our supposed omnipotent creator expects us to do, and it threatens us with eternal damnation should we fail to do what he says.

The core of traditional Christianity says that we are damned if we fail to put our trust in Jesus who forgives us of our sins. We can be wrong about some things and not be damned. We just need to be right about trusting that Jesus died for our sins.

Exactly. Traditional Christianity ignores Yahweh and all the contradictions associated with that, and instead tries to turn Jesus into GOD.

That cannot be made to work. Jesus depends on Yahweh being God, not the other way around.

Keep in mind that the only thing that give Jesus any clout at all is the claim that he is the Son of Yahweh. Without that claim Jesus has absolutely no authority at all.

So you can't place Jesus above Yahweh. That can't be made to fly.

You can't excuse Yahweh by trying to make Jesus more important.

In short, Christians need to stop talking about Jesus and go back and make a compelling argument for Yahweh. If they can't defend Yahweh as God, then Jesus is meaningless.

The moment they try to define God through Jesus they already have an indefensible theology.

[The Tanager]

He's saying that not one stroke of a letter will pass from law. That requires that the laws written in the OT must be correct in every stroke of the letter. So that's a serious problem for me. If other people want to ignore this and claim that it's not a problem that's there business, but it won't fly for me.

But they can agree with your stated requirement: "that the laws written in the OT must be correct in every stroke of the letter." That, in itself, is not a problem for them. Jesus is talking about the laws written in the Tanakh. He's not including in this the story of the Canaanites or other areas that weren't the written laws (or the prophetic passages for that matter). Matthew 5:18 may not directly address the kind of story you say has a contradiction.

Now, they may try to disagree that there is a contradiction, but let's say they agree with you that you have an airtight case and a contradiction exists. This story of the Canaanites, if true, shows Yahweh to be unloving. But Jesus taught Yahweh was loving. The dilemma is either go with Jesus or hold onto Biblical inerrancy. A person can give up inerrancy and still be with Jesus and still hold a Christian understanding of God as one that is all-powerful, all-loving, that sent His Son, etc.

This doesn't contradict Matthew 5:18 because Jesus wasn't clearly addressing the historical stories of the Tanakh. In fact, this conforms to Matthew 5:18, because Jesus thinks the law and the prophets have it right about God and Jesus sums up the law and the prophets as loving others. If a story in the Tanakh truly depicts God not loving others, it cannot be true because of verses like Matthew 5:18.

Unless you respond to what is specifically said above, you may still think your understanding is more reasonable, but you haven't proven that the above view is illogical. But that is the conclusion you are trying to prove. If you can't do that, Pascal's point that you are contesting remains.

I reject this claim as being absolutely absurd. The reason being that I have never had any direct experience from any supernatural "God".

I haven't had a direct experience of typhoid fever, but that doesn't mean typhoid fever isn't a real thing. It only means I haven't had such an experience.

And I simply don't buy into the claim that God reveals himself to some and not to others. I see no reason to believe such an absurd claim.

Not having a compelling or even a good reason to believe something is not the same thing as showing such a belief to be necessarily false. And you are claiming that Christian theism is necessarily false.

Moreover, I believe if what they claim is true they would be able to prove this easily, but thus far no one has been able to do this.

This seems vague. Why should this be an easy thing to prove?

Again, I dismiss those kinds of believers as not being able to recognize the problem with this.

The problem they don't seem to recognize is that this religion is about a God who condemns people who don't obey his directives and commandments. Therefore there simply is no room for errors in the Bible.

But this assumes that God only gives directives and commandments through the Bible. You say God does; they say God doesn't. So, it's not a logical problem for their view. In their view there is room for errors in the Bible, if they exist.

Whatever examples you want to come up with, all I'm saying is that the kind of believer we are talking about has a non-irrational way out: reject inerrancy and trust one's own personal experience of God. You doubt that experience is true, but you can't prove 100% it is untrue. And you have claimed you can prove it is 100% untrue. I haven't seen that proof yet.

[Divine Insight]

I reject this claim as being absolutely absurd. The reason being that I have never had any direct experience from any supernatural "God".

I haven't had a direct experience of typhoid fever, but that doesn't mean typhoid fever isn't a real thing. It only means I haven't had such an experience.

These are the kind of illogical arguments that Christians make on a continual basis.

You are living in a world where you can see other people suffering and dying from typhoid fever. Therefore typhoid fever is real in your world. You don't personally need to suffer from typhoid fever to know this.

When it comes to an invisible God that you can see, touch, feel, smell, hear, or sense in any way, you can't compare that with any real-world phenomena.

So your analogy of God with the reality of typhoid fever fails. It's an extremely bad analogy that does not represent the truth of the situation in any way.

In fact, this is actually a "evangelical cheat" because you are attempting to compare a God that cannot be known with real world phenomena that can be known. And that is definitely a dishonest comparison.

If you want to compare your God with a disease you'll need to come up with a disease that no one has ever heard of and has never seen any evidence for.

And I simply don't buy into the claim that God reveals himself to some and not to others. I see no reason to believe such an absurd claim.

Not having a compelling or even a good reason to believe something is not the same thing as showing such a belief to be necessarily false. And you are claiming that Christian theism is necessarily false.

I claim that the Bible cannot be true as written. I don't claim that a God cannot exist because he has never revealed himself to me. Keep in mind that it's the Christians who attempt to use that evangelical trickery to accuse people that it's only them who the Christian God has not revealed himself to.

That's actually an underhanded proselytizing tactic IMHO. Plus it can be shown that Christians who claim to know God or have experienced God can't even agree on what they have experienced or claim to know about God.

In short, the fallacy of their claims shows pretty blatantly.

So the idea that they can just belittle non-believers by claiming that God simply hasn't revealed himself to the nonbeliever is utter nonsense. This is just a derogatory tactic used by Christian theist in an effort to disqualify the non-believer as merely being someone who hasn't yet experienced God.

It's a cheap shot, IMHO.

And don't forget, for the Christians to be right everyone who is a non-Christian needs to also be ignored by God. Mulisms, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, you name it. And even disagreeing Christian sects need to be godless.

It's just not a workable accusation.

Moreover, I believe if what they claim is true they would be able to prove this easily, but thus far no one has been able to do this.

This seems vague. Why should this be an easy thing to prove?

If you were in communication with Jesus or Yahweh, then you should be able to explain precisely which parts of the Bible are valid, and which parts are not without any hesitation or question at all.

And far more importantly than this, if there actually existed people who were in contact with a living Jesus then they would know who is and who is not. They could all group together and be in 100% complete agreement with each other proving beyond any shadow of a doubt that they are indeed all in contact with the very same consistent and truthful supernatural entity.

But there are no Christian groups that exhibit this characteristic.

So actually the non-existence of such a unique group of people actually proves that Jesus doesn't exist.

Again, I dismiss those kinds of believers as not being able to recognize the problem with this.

The problem they don't seem to recognize is that this religion is about a God who condemns people who don't obey his directives and commandments. Therefore there simply is no room for errors in the Bible.

But this assumes that God only gives directives and commandments through the Bible. You say God does; they say God doesn't. So, it's not a logical problem for their view. In their view there is room for errors in the Bible, if they exist.

Well, keep in mind that my position is that the God described in the Bible cannot be true.

If they want to claim that they are following some OTHER God, that's a whole different ballgame.

This is just Christian's way of evading the actual problem. The problem is the Bible. If you want to create an imaginary non-Biblical God in your imagination that's a whole different topic.

I may not even be able to disprove that imaginary God. I don't claim that I can disprove all notions of God.

I'm just saying that the Biblical God cannot exist as described in the Bible.

Whatever examples you want to come up with, all I'm saying is that the kind of believer we are talking about has a non-irrational way out: reject inerrancy and trust one's own personal experience of God. You doubt that experience is true, but you can't prove 100% it is untrue. And you have claimed you can prove it is 100% untrue. I haven't seen that proof yet.

I have never met a religious "believer" who was convincing in their claim to have knowledge of an actual supreme being.

And again, my position is that the God described in the Bible cannot be true as described in the Bible.

If you want to claim to have experienced a supernatural entity that is unlike the God described in the Bible I'm open to hearing about it.

And if you want to claim to be in communication with Jesus or the Biblical God, I'm open to hearing about that too. But if there is any truth to that then you should be able to explain away every single problem in the Bible with no problem at all. I have yet to meet anyone who can do that.

The problem is Tanager, all Christians can seem to come up with are endless excuses for why their invisible God supposedly can't be proven to not exist. Including pretending that they can dismiss the Bible entirely and just make up their own imaginary version of this God. But they can't come up with any compelling or convincing evidence at all that this God actually exists.

And Christianity certainly has no more credibility than Islam. Both of these wildly divisive religions are based on the very same God mythology.

If there was a benevolent loving God associated with these underlying stories shouldn't it have been his responsibility to keep things clear?

Even Christianity itself has fallen into a myriad of disagreeing sects and demoninations. That doesn't say much for any God that might be behind it.

How can anyone trust a God who can't even keep his own story in order?

You are basically suggesting that I should believe in a Creator who is apparently extremely inept when it comes to communicating with the objects of his very own creation.

[The Tanager]

The problem is Tanager, all Christians can seem to come up with are endless excuses for why their invisible God supposedly can't be proven to not exist. Including pretending that they can dismiss the Bible entirely and just make up their own imaginary version of this God. But they can't come up with any compelling or convincing evidence at all that this God actually exists.

Let's take a broad look at what my critique was and start with some terms.

Atheism (Pascal's understanding of the term): God does not exist

Christian God: God is all-loving, non-arbitrary, Trinitarian, Incarnated as Jesus to save us from our sins, etc.

Biblical God (assuming your interpretations are correct): God is unloving, arbitrary, etc.

Above you seem to be saying that Christians can't prove through reason that Christian God exists. Pascal agrees. Pascal is also saying that non-Christians cannot prove through reason that atheism (as defined above) is true. You seemed to agree with him there.

If all you are doing is proving that Biblical God doesn't exist, then I withdraw my critique and would ask you to remind me what philosophical problem you see in Pascal's argument since he doesn't say anything about Biblical God as you describe that concept.

You have seemed to me, however, to also be arguing that Christian God can be 100% proven to not exist because the only thing it could be based on is the Bible and the Bible does not give us Christian God, if properly understood.

If that is your argument, then my counter-argument is that a person can believe in Christian God and base it on direct revelation. But what about the Bible? Why do they need to make sense of it? Their authority is direct revelation. To them, the Bible is not God's story to keep in order, it's man's half-assed attempt to keep God's story in order. That some humans get it wrong isn't a reason to not trust God; it's a reason to not trust those humans.

To dispute these believers you would need to prove 100% that they cannot have had a true direct experience of God.

These are the kind of illogical arguments that Christians make on a continual basis.

You are living in a world where you can see other people suffering and dying from typhoid fever. Therefore typhoid fever is real in your world. You don't personally need to suffer from typhoid fever to know this.

It wasn't an argument from analogy. It was a counter-example that possibly arose out of a misunderstanding. So, let's make sure we don't keep talking in misunderstandings. In post 71 you quoted a part of my post where I made three statements (about the Christian view we have been analyzing, not one I completely agree with):

1. The basis [of Christian theology] would be direct experience of God.
2. If God exists it is possible that God reveals himself to some and not others.
3. If the Bible contains a contradiction, the person didn't get it from God

You responded in post 71 that you rejected this claim as absolutely absurd because "I have never had any direct experience from any supernatural 'God'." Which claim does your lack of direct experience refute?

Plus it can be shown that Christians who claim to know God or have experienced God can't even agree on what they have experienced or claim to know about God.

In short, the fallacy of their claims shows pretty blatantly.

So, you are saying that since they disagree on what God is like, none of them is telling the truth, right? If not, what are you saying?

If you were in communication with Jesus or Yahweh, then you should be able to explain precisely which parts of the Bible are valid, and which parts are not without any hesitation or question at all.

So, let's say they do give you an explanation without any hesitation. Are you saying that you now cannot not be convinced? You can't make an error?

And far more importantly than this, if there actually existed people who were in contact with a living Jesus then they would know who is and who is not. They could all group together and be in 100% complete agreement with each other proving beyond any shadow of a doubt that they are indeed all in contact with the very same consistent and truthful supernatural entity.

But there are no Christian groups that exhibit this characteristic.

So actually the non-existence of such a unique group of people actually proves that Jesus doesn't exist.

Remember you are saying you can show it is 100% irrational. Christianity talks of free will. It also says that sanctification is a process and that we do not immediately become inerrant. If those beliefs are true, then the disagreements you speak of is absolutely consistent with Christianity.

So, now you would have to argue that one of those two beliefs is untrue. If you think free will is, what is your 100% proof of that? If you think Christians must become inerrant at salvation, what is your 100% proof of that?

[Divine Insight]

If all you are doing is proving that Biblical God doesn't exist, then I withdraw my critique and would ask you to remind me what philosophical problem you see in Pascal's argument since he doesn't say anything about Biblical God as you describe that concept.

This is fine. I still see problems with Pascal's Wager in general.

First off, if Pascal's Wager applies to any and all religions, then Christians can't point to is as support for believing in their God. In fact, I would argue that there are far better religions to "wager" on if we are going to become religious on a bet.

If I were going to wager on a religion as a bet, I would place my bet on Buddhism. That's the most likely winner as far as I can see.

Unless, the idea is to avoid the greatest possible threat of damnation. Then Islam would probably be the best bet.

Also if we want to guarantee the approval of a God and entrance into Seventh Heaven, then betting on Islam and going out to kill heathens in the name of Allah would be the best bet.

Betting on Jesus would be an extremely poor bet, because even Jesus said that there would be people who claim to know him but that he would deny knowing them. So betting on Jesus will most likely get you condemned anyway.

So if Pascal's wager applies to all religions, then I would either bet on Buddhism (although I confess to using reason there), if I abandon reason entirely and just go with what's the most attractive to me I would bet on Wicca.

But even so, at this point doesn't Pascal's wager basically boil down to the utterly ignorant idea that it would be better to "bet" on a worldview that offers an afterlife, versus a worldview that doesn't.

Why are we "betting" in any case? Because Pascal claims that we are all necessarily agnostics and don't have enough information to make an informed rational decision.

Do Christians really agree with Pascal on that point?

You have seemed to me, however, to also be arguing that Christian God can be 100% proven to not exist because the only thing it could be based on is the Bible and the Bible does not give us Christian God, if properly understood.

The Biblical stories are self-contradictory and therefore cannot be true. The idea that there can even be a "Christian God" that is not described by the Bible is nonsense. Christianity is totally founded on the idea that Jesus is the Son of Yahweh. That the only thing that gives Jesus' promises any clout. Who is Jesus to promise anyone eternal life if he's not the Son of Yahweh?

So Christianity has no room to try to sneak out from underneath the Bible.

If that is your argument, then my counter-argument is that a person can believe in Christian God and base it on direct revelation. But what about the Bible? Why do they need to make sense of it? Their authority is direct revelation. To them, the Bible is not God's story to keep in order, it's man's half-assed attempt to keep God's story in order. That some humans get it wrong isn't a reason to not trust God; it's a reason to not trust those humans.

If the Christians want to play that game let them. But they aren't going to convince me that their "Direct Revelation Theology" holds any water. That's a whole different ballgame.

Keep in mind that I'm not trying to convince Christians to become non-believers. I'm simply stating my case for why I don't buy into their theological arguments.

To dispute these believers you would need to prove 100% that they cannot have had a true direct experience of God.

I don't need to prove anything about them. All I need to do is show reasonable rational reasons why I don't buy into their evangelical nonsense.

Keep in mind that I'm not trying to convince them of anything. I'm simply explaining why I'm not buying into their nonsense.

These are the kind of illogical arguments that Christians make on a continual basis.

You are living in a world where you can see other people suffering and dying from typhoid fever. Therefore typhoid fever is real in your world. You don't personally need to suffer from typhoid fever to know this.

It wasn't an argument from analogy. It was a counter-example that possibly arose out of a misunderstanding. So, let's make sure we don't keep talking in misunderstandings. In post 71 you quoted a part of my post where I made three statements (about the Christian view we have been analyzing, not one I completely agree with):

1. The basis [of Christian theology] would be direct experience of God.
2. If God exists it is possible that God reveals himself to some and not others.
3. If the Bible contains a contradiction, the person didn't get it from God

You responded in post 71 that you rejected this claim as absolutely absurd because "I have never had any direct experience from any supernatural 'God'." Which claim does your lack of direct experience refute?

You are arguing with a fabricated imaginary opponent in your mind.

I'm not arguing that Christians can't believe in a God. Nor am I even trying to convince any Christians to abandon their religion. I'm simply giving my reasons why I don't buy into their theology.

I have never had any direct experience from their God. Therefore, if that's what is required to become a Christian, then all I can say is that I'm WAITING!

When I have the direct experience of the Biblical God I too will then become a Christian. Until that happens this evangelical argument is meaningless to me.

It's not going to fly as a compelling theology to those who haven't had the experience that is being claimed.

And far more importantly than this, if there actually existed people who were in contact with a living Jesus then they would know who is and who is not. They could all group together and be in 100% complete agreement with each other proving beyond any shadow of a doubt that they are indeed all in contact with the very same consistent and truthful supernatural entity.

But there are no Christian groups that exhibit this characteristic.

So actually the non-existence of such a unique group of people actually proves that Jesus doesn't exist.

Remember you are saying you can show it is 100% irrational. Christianity talks of free will. It also says that sanctification is a process and that we do not immediately become inerrant. If those beliefs are true, then the disagreements you speak of is absolutely consistent with Christianity.

So, now you would have to argue that one of those two beliefs is untrue. If you think free will is, what is your 100% proof of that? If you think Christians must become inerrant at salvation, what is your 100% proof of that?

Your argument above is not consistent with the claim that Christians are actually in direct contact with a supernatural God. It's only consistent with a "Faith-Based" view of Christianity where Christians are merely doing their best on their best personal guess of what they should place their faith in.

If Christians were actually in direct communication with a living Jesus they wouldn't need to guess.

So your argument is not consistent with this scenario. You are confusing what "faith-based" Christians believe with an imaginary "Christianity" where the Christians are actually in direct communication with an actual living Jesus. Those two belief systems are totally different.

[The Tanager]

This is fine. I still see problems with Pascal's Wager in general.

First off, if Pascal's Wager applies to any and all religions, then Christians can't point to is as support for believing in their God. In fact, I would argue that there are far better religions to "wager" on if we are going to become religious on a bet.

Pascal would disagree with you, but that is beside the point. Assume you are right and the wager would actually point to another religion. It wouldn't matter to Pascal's main argument because he's not advising you to actually answer the God question through the wager. The wager is meant only to show that even if you took the wager to believe, you would still say that you can't believe. Your heart is not in it. Pascal isn't using the wager to say "this is why you should be a Christian." Pascal uses the wager as one part of his actual argument that says the way we answer the God question (whether you are theist or atheist) is not by reason, but by the heart.

Because Pascal claims that we are all necessarily agnostics and don't have enough information to make an informed rational decision.

Do Christians really agree with Pascal on that point?

Pascal seems to at least say that we don't have enough information to say with 100% certainty. To that I agree.

But if Pascal means that we don't have enough information to see one worldview as more reasonable than another, I disagree with him.

I am unsure of whether he means this second point or not because he says elsewhere that the doctrine of original sin, although a shock to our reason, is more reasonable than explaining the human situation without original sin. Now, don't miss the point and start talking about how silly original sin is or how the human situation is better explained by something else. My point is that I'm not sure Pascal didn't think we actually did have enough information to see Christianity as more reasonable than other worldviews. He just doesn't think we get certainty from reason alone.

The idea that there can even be a "Christian God" that is not described by the Bible is nonsense. Christianity is totally founded on the idea that Jesus is the Son of Yahweh. That the only thing that gives Jesus' promises any clout. Who is Jesus to promise anyone eternal life if he's not the Son of Yahweh?

So Christianity has no room to try to sneak out from underneath the Bible.

Christianity is founded on the actual person and life of Jesus. The claim is that God exists and that Jesus is God incarnated and came and died on the cross for the forgiveness of sins. And then Jesus rose again on the third day. That is the foundation of Christianity whether or not humans decided to write something about those events or not. History happens even if it doesn't get written down correctly.

I don't need to prove anything about them. All I need to do is show reasonable rational reasons why I don't buy into their evangelical nonsense.

Keep in mind that I'm not trying to convince them of anything. I'm simply explaining why I'm not buying into their nonsense.

If all you are doing is trying to show theism isn't rationally proven to be 100% true, then Pascal agrees with you. But you don't seem to be stopping there.

You also are saying that Christian theism is irrational nonsense and that you can prove 100% that Christian theism is false. Not only that Christian theism is not proven true, but you can prove it is false. If you are continuing to claim that, then, yes, you do need to prove something about them. If you aren't claiming to prove anything about them, then you can't be claiming to prove 100% that Christian theism is irrational nonsense. Which one is it?

I have never had any direct experience from their God. Therefore, if that's what is required to become a Christian, then all I can say is that I'm WAITING!

In no way have I talked about whether or not you are a Christian. The issue under discussion is whether someone in general could be a Christian believer through direct experience rather than by trusting the Biblical documents. They are not offering their direct experience of God as a reason for you to become a Christian.

Your argument above is not consistent with the claim that Christians are actually in direct contact with a supernatural God. It's only consistent with a "Faith-Based" view of Christianity where Christians are merely doing their best on their best personal guess of what they should place their faith in.

If Christians were actually in direct communication with a living Jesus they wouldn't need to guess.

So your argument is not consistent with this scenario. You are confusing what "faith-based" Christians believe with an imaginary "Christianity" where the Christians are actually in direct communication with an actual living Jesus. Those two belief systems are totally different.

Where is the inconsistency? You seem to define a direct experience of God as necessarily including the negation of free will or, at least, the lack of a process from lack of knowledge to perfect knowledge. You are saying they would no longer be capable of error immediately. Christians don't believe that.

You can say they have the burden of proof. Okay, and if they don't carry that burden you may be reasonable to believe that the Christian view is not proven 100%. I'm not contesting that right now.

But you don't seem to be stopping there. You are actually claiming that the Christian view can be proven 100% false. You are saying the Christian view described is logically inconsistent, which would mean it is 100% false. You now have the burden to prove that claim.

[Divine Insight]

Christianity is founded on the actual person and life of Jesus. The claim is that God exists and that Jesus is God incarnated and came and died on the cross for the forgiveness of sins. And then Jesus rose again on the third day. That is the foundation of Christianity whether or not humans decided to write something about those events or not. History happens even if it doesn't get written down correctly.

You have just defined a theology that is impossible.

You claim that Jesus is God incarnated. There are huge problems with this idea.

Not the least of which is the claim that he then "died" on the cross. If God had died, then who brought God back to life? It's basically silly to claim that an eternal omnipotent God even could die.

Also you seem to be ignoring the whole "Sacrifical Lamb" thing. The idea that a God would need to die for the forgiveness of sins doesn't even make any sense outside of the previous Old Testament God proclaiming that death is the wages of sin.

There are even more problems. If God was willing to forgive sinful humans by dying for them, then why not just do this for Adam and Eve in the first place? Why wait for thousands of years drowning out countless sinners in the interim? That would have been futile and done nothing useful at all if the only possibility for salvation was for God to die before he could forgive humans.

The whole religion is senseless based on the theology you've just offered.

You can't just ignore the entire Old Testament and pretend to start from scratch with Jesus. It's just not a workable theology.

Also, if Jesus was God incarnated, then there would be nothing special about God resisting sin. Keep in mind that sin is simply things that God hates. So for God to restrain from doing the things he hates would be a piece of cake and hardly serve to take the place of humans who supposedly can't resist sin.

In short, the "Nutshell" abstract you have just given for "Christianity" fails miserably and amounts to nothing more than a failed attempt to try to get out from under the entire Old Testament.

Christianity is not a religion based on Jesus. It's a religion that is based on the idea that Jesus is the "Only Begotten Son of God".

Jesus even talked about the Father God as being separate from him. He even supposedly called out to the Father God offering an argument for why he felt the people who crucified him should be forgiven for they know not what they do.

If Jesus was God he wouldn't need to be giving himself instructions on how to judge humans.

Jesus as God himself incarnated as a mortal man, is never going to fly.

Keep in mind also that at the end of the Gospels Jesus ascends to heaven to sit at the right-hand of God.

He doesn't ascend to heaven to return to being God once again. So whoever told you that Jesus was God incarnated clearly wasn't paying attention. The story doesn't even allow for that ending.

[The Tanager]

You have just defined a theology that is impossible.

You claim that Jesus is God incarnated. There are huge problems with this idea.

Yes, if you can show God incarnated is logically impossible, then you will have carried your burden that Christian theism (at least Pascal's Christian theism) is 100% false.

Not the least of which is the claim that he then "died" on the cross. If God had died, then who brought God back to life? It's basically silly to claim that an eternal omnipotent God even could die.

I think this is an unintended straw man on your part. What does a Christian mean when they speak of death? They don't mean that the entity completely ceases to exist (which is what you are working off of above). They mean the body dies. Jesus' human body ceased breathing and all of that, but Jesus still existed. Even us mere humans don't cease to exist when the body dies, according to Christianity. At the cross, God didn't cease to exist and, therefore, could bring life back to a material body.

Also you seem to be ignoring the whole "Sacrifical Lamb" thing. The idea that a God would need to die for the forgiveness of sins doesn't even make any sense outside of the previous Old Testament God proclaiming that death is the wages of sin.

If your point is that the Christian we are talking about ignores the Bible, you didn't understand the point there correctly. They can believe the Bible got that part correct based off their direct relationship with God. While not accepting everything in the Bible, they can accept these points as true.

If your point is something else, I missed it, so please clarify.

There are even more problems. If God was willing to forgive sinful humans by dying for them, then why not just do this for Adam and Eve in the first place? Why wait for thousands of years drowning out countless sinners in the interim? That would have been futile and done nothing useful at all if the only possibility for salvation was for God to die before he could forgive humans.

The chronology is only a problem if God is restricted by time. The Christian view is that God is not. Those who lived before Jesus can still be saved through the efficacy of Jesus' death and resurrection even though it came chronologically after their life on earth. Those before Jesus still exist (although their body is dead) and will have Jesus' death and resurrection imparted to them at the resurrection.

Again, you can ask where is the support for such a belief. But it doesn't matter. I'm not defending that their Christian view is 100% true. You are not only defending the position that their Christian view is not 100% proven true. You are also claiming that their Christian view is 100% false. The burden there is yours.

Also, if Jesus was God incarnated, then there would be nothing special about God resisting sin. Keep in mind that sin is simply things that God hates. So for God to restrain from doing the things he hates would be a piece of cake and hardly serve to take the place of humans who supposedly can't resist sin.

You seem to be saying that person B can't be helped by person A, if person A is really good at what person B needs help with. Do you mean that? If that is not what you are saying, then what are you saying? I'll respond after this clarification.

If Jesus was God he wouldn't need to be giving himself instructions on how to judge humans.

I thought we already talked about this, but maybe I cut it from another response. The doctrine of the Trinity would provide an explanation for that, but the Christian would not have to appeal even to that. Jesus could have been saying what He did simply for the benefit of those around him.

Keep in mind also that at the end of the Gospels Jesus ascends to heaven to sit at the right-hand of God.

He doesn't ascend to heaven to return to being God once again. So whoever told you that Jesus was God incarnated clearly wasn't paying attention. The story doesn't even allow for that ending.

Jesus' ascension isn't about a once-God becoming God-again. Jesus' incarnation is about one Person of the Triune God taking on a human nature. Remaining God the whole time. This story doesn't contradict Trinitarian theology. Jesus the Son joins the Father and the Spirit, whom later is sent to dwell within all believers, yet remain in fellowship with the other Persons of the Godhead.

Since this story isn't a contradiction (at least for the reason you just claimed) you must give another reason this story contradicts Trinitarian theology (which is the Christian theism you have been critiquing) or give a reason that proves 100% that the Trinity is logically impossible.

In short, the "Nutshell" abstract you have just given for "Christianity" fails miserably and amounts to nothing more than a failed attempt to try to get out from under the entire Old Testament.

Nothing you've said so far seems to show that it has failed 100%. You must respond to the critiques above and then we'll analyze again if you have made your case that Christian theism is 100% proven false.

You also seem to have dropped points about:

(1) wagering on other religions
(2) disproving Christians have had a direct experience with God
(3) the impossibility of disagreements among Christians

[Divine Insight]

You have just defined a theology that is impossible.

You claim that Jesus is God incarnated. There are huge problems with this idea.

Yes, if you can show God incarnated is logically impossible, then you will have carried your burden that Christian theism (at least Pascal's Christian theism) is 100% false.

I already did. If a God is said to have died, then he could hardly resurrect himself. A dead God wouldn't be able to do anything if he had truly died. The only resolution to this contradictions would be for the Christians to confess that their God never actually died. In which case his entire drama would have clearly been nothing more than a deceitful pretentious trick.

But their God is supposed to be above those kind of immoral tactics, remember?

So the theology is proven to be false.

Not the least of which is the claim that he then "died" on the cross. If God had died, then who brought God back to life? It's basically silly to claim that an eternal omnipotent God even could die.

I think this is an unintended straw man on your part. What does a Christian mean when they speak of death? They don't mean that the entity completely ceases to exist (which is what you are working off of above). They mean the body dies. Jesus' human body ceased breathing and all of that, but Jesus still existed. Even us mere humans don't cease to exist when the body dies, according to Christianity. So, God didn't cease to exist and, therefore, could bring life back to a material body.

In that case then 'death' is a meaningless concept in Christianity. And the idea that since could be paid for via a death would also be meaningless.

So once again the theology fails via self-contradiction.

Also you seem to be ignoring the whole "Sacrifical Lamb" thing. The idea that a God would need to die for the forgiveness of sins doesn't even make any sense outside of the previous Old Testament God proclaiming that death is the wages of sin.

If your point is that the Christian we are talking about ignores the Bible, you didn't understand the point there correctly. They can believe the Bible got that part correct based off their direct relationship with God. While not accepting everything in the Bible, they can accept these points as true.

If your point is something else, I missed it, so please clarify.

Cherry picking a theological doctrine is already an open confession that the theology is extremely problematic. It may not prove it to be false, but it's certainly sufficient reason to reject the theology as clearly being desperately apologetic.

There are even more problems. If God was willing to forgive sinful humans by dying for them, then why not just do this for Adam and Eve in the first place? Why wait for thousands of years drowning out countless sinners in the interim? That would have been futile and done nothing useful at all if the only possibility for salvation was for God to die before he could forgive humans.

The chronology is only a problem if God is restricted by time. The Christian view is that God is not. Those who lived before Jesus can still be saved through the efficacy of Jesus' death and resurrection even though it came chronologically after their life on earth. Those before Jesus still exist (although their body is dead) and will have Jesus' death and resurrection imparted to them at the resurrection.

Sorry, but this doesn't fly either because the Christians also claim that there God is unchanging in his character. And this is extremely important because a God who changes character cannot be trusted. After all if this God changes his mind on a whim concerning how he might treat humans, then how could be be confident that he hasn't already changed his mind again over the past 2000 years?

So the Christians can't claim that their God is both trustworthy and randomly changes his mind on how he might treat humans at different times in human history.

Again, at best an unconvincing theology. At worst, it's a contradiction to the claim that the Christian God is dependable or trustworthy.

Also proclaiming that God lives outside of time doesn't help. The chronology of Adam and Eve, the Flood, and Jesus would still need to be as it is for humans. So this is actually an apology that contradicts itself.

Again, you can ask where is the support for such a belief. But it doesn't matter. I'm not defending that their Christian view is 100% true. You are not only defending the position that their Christian view is not 100% proven true. You are also claiming that their Christian view is 100% false. The burden there is yours.

My Position:

The Bible cannot be true AS WRITTEN.

What you are arguing for are anti-Biblical so-called "Christian theologies" that have, by the way, already confessed to my position (i.e. the Bible cannot be true AS WRITTEN)

So you are no longer even arguing against my position. To the contrary you are conceding it and supporting it.

Also, if Jesus was God incarnated, then there would be nothing special about God resisting sin. Keep in mind that sin is simply things that God hates. So for God to restrain from doing the things he hates would be a piece of cake and hardly serve to take the place of humans who supposedly can't resist sin.

You seem to be saying that person B can't be helped by person A, if person A is really good at what person B needs help with. Do you mean that? If that is not what you are saying, then what are you saying? I'll respond after this clarification.

That's not even close. If God can't sin, then the whole drama was again nothing more than a scam. Also, are you forgetting that Satan supposedly temps God? And KNOWS that this is indeed God?

It's a failed mythology, face it.

If Jesus was God he wouldn't need to be giving himself instructions on how to judge humans.

I thought we already talked about this, but maybe I cut it from another response. The doctrine of the Trinity would provide an explanation for that, but the Christian would not have to appeal even to that. Jesus could have been saying what He did simply for the benefit of those around him.

Then Jesus would have been giving a false statement. Instead of pretending to be addressing some God why not just say to the people directly, I will forgive you for you know not what you do?

Again, it's just a very poorly written myth. A myth that is so terribly written that many Christians have devoted their entire lives to continually apologizing for the endless absurdities and self-contradictions contained within it. And they can't even convince each other of their own apologetic arguments. This is why they have broken up into so many disagreeing factions.

Yet they still expect that even people who do not believe in the religion at all should consider their endless apologies?

My position on this is simple. If there truly was an all-wise God associated with these fables there would be no need to apologize for them at all. They would have actually made sense without any need for endless apologies.

Keep in mind also that at the end of the Gospels Jesus ascends to heaven to sit at the right-hand of God.

He doesn't ascend to heaven to return to being God once again. So whoever told you that Jesus was God incarnated clearly wasn't paying attention. The story doesn't even allow for that ending.

Jesus' ascension isn't about a once-God becoming God-again. Jesus' incarnation is about one Person of the Triune God taking on a human nature. Remaining God the whole time. This story doesn't contradict Trinitarian theology. Jesus the Son joins the Father and the Spirit, whom later is sent to dwell within all believers, yet remain in fellowship with the other Persons of the Godhead.

The concept of a Triune isn't even in the Bible at all. In fact this entire concept is already a Christian apology for why the Bible doesn't make any sense.

Since this story isn't a contradiction (at least for the reason you just claimed) you must give another reason this story contradicts Trinitarian theology (which is the Christian theism you have been critiquing) or give a reason that proves 100% that the Trinity is logically impossible.

I don't even need to consider "Trinitarian Theology" at all. Trinitarian theology is not Biblical. To the contrary the Bible has Jesus as the SON of God not God incarnated.

In short, the "Nutshell" abstract you have just given for "Christianity" fails miserably and amounts to nothing more than a failed attempt to try to get out from under the entire Old Testament.

Nothing you've said so far shows it to have failed 100%. You must respond to the critiques above and then we'll analyze again if you have made your case that Christian theism is 100% proven false.

But your arguments for what you are calling "Christian Theism" already concede my position that the Bible cannot be true AS WRITTEN.

You already require that I am correct, before even making your case for a NON-Biblical theology.

[Kevin Cross]

[Replying to post 3 by Divine Insight]

I have only been on this site for a couple weeks and I see a lot of hostility toward God, especially the Judeo-Christian God. It's like the Atheists don't just disagree with the idea that there is (or could be) a God, you are down-right hostile to the idea (or reality) your very lives depend on defeating Christians and Jews intellectually and otherwise.

Now DI, Piscal's waiver is quite easy to understand. Take the syllogism:

The afterlife (good or bad) depends on the potential of God existing.
God exists
Therefore, the afterlife exists

or

The afterlife (good or bad) depends on the potential of God existing.
God does not exist
Therefore, the afterlife does not exist.

Kind of messy because I had to accommodate two propositions but you get the idea. The problem is Atheism and intellectuals like to make religious topics too complex. They like to say they don't understand what somebody said what they did trying to make religious people out to be kooks. This what you just did. Calm down and take things at face value. That's all for now.