Reverse Pascals Wager

[Minimalist]

The sight system is far to complicated to have evolved in segments.

You are still capable of infinite self-delusion, I see.

Some things never change.


http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/librar...11_01.html

Through natural selection, different types of eyes have emerged in evolutionary history -- and the human eye isn't even the best one, from some standpoints. Because blood vessels run across the surface of the retina instead of beneath it, it's easy for the vessels to proliferate or leak and impair vision. So, the evolution theorists say, the anti-evolution argument that life was created by an "intelligent designer" doesn't hold water: If God or some other omnipotent force was responsible for the human eye, it was something of a botched design.

Your "designer" is a bit of an asshole.

[Godscreated]

Why do you presume you can set the rules for God's court. God has already set the rules and guess what you can not get in on your own merit it will not stand up to God's rules.

It's interesting how Christians assert that they believe in an absolute and objective standard of morality and then claim that God (or their god Yahweh) operates by a different set of standards that can't be properly understood by humans. This is how they justify the oddities that human sacrifice somehow makes everything better and how a loving god can torture people in Hell forever.

If you believe in an objective and universal standard of morality, than the same rules should apply to Yahweh as any human ruler of a country. So you can see that I'm not "setting the rules for God's court" but am simply applying the same judgment that I would to any court.

One universal standard of moral justice that I think we can agree on is that moral justice demands that the criminal alone must pay the penalty for a crime. An innocent person can't be punished in place of the criminal, even if the innocent person is willing. We would never accept this from any other country. "Jesus took our place on the cross"? Why is it OK for Yahweh to have this standard of justice?

And what about this ancient idea that blood sacrifice makes everything better? If I told you that I worshiped a volcano god and my people once sacrificed a virgin by throwing her into a volcano and that appeased the wrath of the gods, you'd probably say my belief was both ridiculous and barbaric. Even if I didn't participate in the sacrifice ritual, how could I glorify such an act of cruelty? What if instead I believed that 2000 years ago, we took a pure-hearted virgin, beat the crap out of him and nailed him to a cross to appease my god's wrath?

I'm sure you and I could also agree that a leader of a country who punished people for thought-crimes would be immoral, yes? What about when Yahweh does it? According to you, the most important aspect of our character is what our metaphysical beliefs are, at least in Yahweh's eyes. If I fail to believe that Jesus died on the cross for my sins, Yahweh will torture me forever in Hell. This is eternal torture for thought crimes.

And let's talk about the morality of Hell. The purpose of punishment is to correct bad behavior. Moral punishment is both proportional to the crime and seeks to correct the behavior or at least protect future victims. Hell is the most horrific torture imagined by humans, the kind that would be condemned by international law were it ever to be implemented by any leader of any country. Additionally, since there is no possible parole from Hell, it can't rehabilitate. It's sole purpose is for torture.

Any parent who poured gasoline on a child and burned the child alive would be rightly arrested for child abuse, no matter how naughty the child had been. What about when Yahweh does it?

By the standards that we would evaluate the morality and justice of any world leader or parent, can you honestly say that Yahweh is just?

Why would you consider that humans could ever understand an omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent God, that is not logical. Your definition of sacrifice and Christ's definition of sacrifce are very different. What you've written in your first paragraph is man killing another man to appease God. Christ plainly told the Roman soldiers that He willingly was allowing these events to take place. He also told His disciples that He was laying down His own life for mankind, this was a voluntary act of His own will, His decision and no others. Sort of like you would volunteer(sacrifice) your own time to help someone, Christ as a man volunteered His life to save all those who would choose to believe He did this for them. Yes to save people from an everlasting punishment.

This final court is not a human court and as I explained above God is not completely understandable by mans limited mind. Why do you believe that man can judge God or even apply rules to Him. God set these standards for man to help him live a moral and better life and when one is broken there are consequences, just as when a person breaks mans law that person has to pay a penilty.

This is the only way it could be, Christ said I am the way and the life without me no one can come to the Father. Christ's death is a gift to mankind, it's His way of showing us how much love He has for us. Yahwah desires that all would have eternal life and not suffer the eternal punishment.

To your forth paragraph, yes I would say you were barbaric to force a person to die at the hands of others or even to believe that would be ok and you can't glorifiy such an act of cruelty. This is not what happened in the sacrifice of Christ as I explained above.

To answer your 5th paragraph, to not believe Christ is our savior is not a thought process it is an action that is lived out physically. If someone says I believe that Christ died for my sins and continued their immoral life then thats just talk, there is no true heart change and the heart change is what happens to true believers. The actions are not our salvation they are the proof of our acceptance of Christ as our savior.

Yes let's talk about the morality of hell. First of all it's not torture that would mean God is cruel and He's not. It is however a punishment that is everlasting and not one I would want and one I do not fear anymore. You are correct in saying that hell isn't meant for rehabilitation, neither is a life sentence or the death penalty. These are punishments for crimes so horrible that they demand this type of punishment, agreed. Because of mans mortality he can't be put to death over and over and a life sentence does not continue on for ever this is why they are considered punishment from man to man.
Now we enter the realm of the eternal God and these above punishments would be no punishments at all because they have an end. In an eternal realm only an eternal punishment is logical and this is why it's a moral punishment. You have chosen to sin against the eternal God and to reject the volantary sacrifice of Christ and the life that choice intells so you have relinquished the gift of eternal life with God and acceptted an eternal punishment with yourself. I,m sure you must think the last part of the previous sentence sounds wierd but it's not. If God were to distroy all who go to hell that would in itself be immoral because that would be letting them out of a punishment in an eternal realm, that would not serve as justice to those who chose Christ as their savior. Many on this forum have said they would rather go to hell for eternity than serve the God of heaven, what truth they have spoken, God is not going to bring them in the Heavenly Realm where they or anyone else that has rejected Christ in this life to live forever, that would be torturing them and the loving God is not a torturer. So you see eternal hell is a place where those who have rejected god and cursed Him in this life can continue own for all eternity. I believe that God could not describe the real hell to man because our limited mind could not understand, I believe hell is a place of total loneliness where love is completely absent even God's love and man can continue to hate God, verbalize against God and live an eternal life away from Him just as they chose in this life. Enough said I'm out of breath.

Finally to answer your last question yes God is just we can't judge Him by our standards because we're not omniscient.

[Minimalist]

Finally to answer your last question yes God is just we can't judge Him by our standards because we're not omniscient.

There is no god but I judge his deluded followers as sadly lacking.

[DeistPaladin]

Why would you consider that humans could ever understand an omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent God, that is not logical.

At this point I need to ask you, because I shouldn't assume you think as other Christians do, whether or not you believe in an "objective standard of morality". Christians often like to rail against moral relativism and claim that absolute standards are proof that their god must exist. So do you believe in an absolute standard of morality or not?

If you do, than why not apply the same standards to Yahweh's court that we apply to the court of any world leader? Or any other god? To claim a different standard of judgment simply because we replace the words "Allah" or "Zeus" with "Jesus" is special pleading and undermines any claim you might have for an absolute standard of morals.

Your definition of sacrifice and Christ's definition of sacrifce are very different. What you've written in your first paragraph is man killing another man to appease God. Christ plainly told the Roman soldiers that He willingly was allowing these events to take place.

Oh, did I forget to mention that the virgin we sacrificed in the volcano was willing? Yeah, she was. Not coerced either. The tribe asked for a volunteer and she stepped forward. Does that really make any difference to you? Even if Christ was willing, the sadistic display in Mel Gibson's snuff flick depicted a senseless act of torture and murder/suicide, glorified as appeasing the wrath of your god.

Yes to save people from an everlasting punishment.

Saving the people from himself and his wrath.

God set these standards for man to help him live a moral and better life and when one is broken there are consequences, just as when a person breaks mans law that person has to pay a penilty.

No one disputes whether or not there should be punishments for genuine crime (for real crimes where there is a victim, not victimless crimes like blasphemy, idolatry and homosexuality). The question is whether the punishments are proportional and instructive. The kind of punishments described in Hell are beyond what I would wish on anyone and they serve no instructive purpose.

This is the only way it could be,

Why?

Does Yahweh make the rules or not? I thought he's supposed to be God. What power compels God in such a manner?

Christ said I am the way and the life without me no one can come to the Father.

And since Jesus and Yahweh are part of the same substance, he's saying "no man commeth unto me except by me".

Christ's death is a gift to mankind, it's His way of showing us how much love He has for us.

A better display of love would be to command the abolition of slavery, admonish the equality of women, provide instructions on proper hygiene and medicine, or any number of other productive things that God-incarnate could have accomplished aside from having people whip him and nail him to a cross.

Yahwah desires that all would have eternal life and not suffer the eternal punishment.

What's holding him back?

Why not just forgive us instead of sacrificing himself to himself and then demanding with no evidence that everyone believe that somehow this act made everything better.

To answer your 5th paragraph, to not believe Christ is our savior is not a thought process it is an action that is lived out physically. If someone says I believe that Christ died for my sins and continued their immoral life then thats just talk, there is no true heart change and the heart change is what happens to true believers. The actions are not our salvation they are the proof of our acceptance of Christ as our savior.

But morality is, at most, unrelated to piety. Personally, my observation, backed up by sociology studies, is that the relationship is closer to inverse. However, let that go. Let me just give you two examples: Torquemada and Gandhi. The first was a Christian who tortured in the name of Jesus. The second was a Hindu who brought positive change through peaceful protest. The first had faith but bad works. The second had the wrong faith but good works. Who's in Heaven and who's in Hell?

Yes let's talk about the morality of hell... (flimsy rationalizations and nonsense ensue)

[RachelSkates]

I used to muse on it as follows:

They say you have lost nothing if you go ahead an believe. But what if you believe and God is not a God of love but a monster? What if what you believe in is not true?

Seems basic, but it's so damn obvious. Poor Pascal. He quit math for God.

[Godscreated]

So the general form of your arguments against evolution are Arguments from Incredulity and are an informal logical fallacy, either as:

I can't imagine how X could possibly be false
Therefore, X.

I cannot imagine how X could possibly be true
Therefore, not-X.

This is a fallacy because someone else with more imagination may find a way (bioligists). This fallacy is therefore a simple variation of argument from ignorance. In areas such as science and technology, where new discoveries and inventions are always being made, new findings may arise at any time.

Now I'm sorely tempted to leave it there because even if I couldn't respond to your arguments, your arguments would still not go through. Your questions however do not have simple responses, as there are complex processes at work. I totally agree that evolution is a blind bottom up process which is mindless. But to describe it as accidental is misleading in 2 ways. Firstly some genetic mutations (perhaps most) are random, but the process of natural selection means that variation within species with positive survival results are selected for (not by a mind) but by the fact the organisms survive for longer and have better reproductive chances (as will their offspring survive more often). Secondly there are changes to the gene phenotype which permits the organism to adapt to its environment as ity grows, these are not random (see epigenetics). These changes can get passed on to offspring effectively turning stuff on and off. Other similar mechanisms can be simulated in the lab eg we can turn on the reptilian genes dormant in birds by applying chemicals during the development stages "whilst in the egg", these chemicals activate the dormant genes (junk genes present in all living creatures) and the birds will develop teeth and reptilian tails.

Of the points you raise:

DNA gaining code. Not sure what you mean by this, I know you've tried to clarify it, but DNA and for that matter RNA mutates spontaneously (and this has been observed). Over time changes accumulate via flow through and other mutational mechanisms. Are you representing the ID claim that new 'information' cannot make its way onto DNA? If so it will help me, to help you with this argument?
Why and how did the eye evolve. Ah the poster child of ID along with the blood clotting cascade and the bacterial flagellum. All very well documented. Rather than me regurgitate it you can look it up; Richard Dawkins and Ken Miller (the latter a practising catholic) has summarised the research in these areas. But there is lots more detailed research out there that back up the findings.
Why was there colour before eyesight. Not sure why this is a problem at all, or in particular for evolutionary theory?
Fabulous cuttlefish skin Random mutation combined with natural selection. Cuttlefish that could camoflage had an evolutionary advantage.
Skeletal structures in the hand. I agree if I/you were the designer and if creationism is true, then I would re-use designs whether the eye or the foot. The major flaw in this argument is that there is only evidence of design by a blind causal process. Because equally if I/you were the designer I /you would not leave useless structures in place that would lead to more suffering than add value (the human breathing and eating holes pass through the same plumbing, meaning people choke to death every day), nor imperfect designs (eg flatfish such as the flounder), nor leave junk genes in place etc.

First of all I do not side with ID because it doesn't include God. In my opinion it is another way to eliminate God.

I do believe in changes within species for survival purposes, I do not believe that one species can evolve into another species because of the enormous amount of time for all the information(coding) to come about without destructive information coming into play and ending a species change I just can not see that being a possibility. We've seen that natural destructive forces can change nature in very short order and I believe this to be inherent to the entire natural world.
I also have trouble with lab processes as you mentioned above because that is interference into what is suppose to be natural processes. The things that are done in a lab come from an intelligent being and is in no way natural or random and would not likely happen in nature.

The eye problem came along far earlier than ID. The enormous amount of information that creatures would need to develope just to have any one part of the eye is something I can not see as a possibility let lone the entire eye, then there is the optical nerve and the the most complicated part of all, the sight center of the brain, and all this to develope at the same time so that no one part of this system would become useless and fall away. Can not understand how this could ever be possible.

Useless parts or structures causing problems of suffering I do not know of any. Scientist and doctors use to believe that there were useless parts in the human body but as they learn more the less they believe that any part of the body is useless. I'm not sure what you are saying about flatfish such as the flounder it's design is of a great advantage to its survival in both feeding and hiding from it's prey. Also these junk genes you refer to could be there as a future adaptation for a species survival.

I see the plumbing of the throat as a great design, for one thing it can help to prevent accidental drowning by allowing water that enters the nose to be ejected out the mouth or into the stomach. Also helps smokers not to look foolish walking around with cigareetes sticking out their noses ha ha ha! I'll throw this out there also not sure if it's correct, wouldn't the expansion of the lungs interfer with the swallowing process. We could go on and on about this for a long time and probably never change each others mind but if you want to continue this I'm game.

---

[quote=godschild]

Explain to me if you will how it's possible for a single cell creature with limited DNA to evolve upward into a different species that has more DNA, how is it possible to gain code.

Imagine the early earth. a primordial soup of organic matter, amino acids and other complex molecules bouncing around interacting, being stimulated by ultraviolet radiation and intense bursts of lightening, its a dynamic changing environment. Into this the first life was born simple,(probably).
Over time this developed probably a sexually gradually gaining in complexity, but what is certain that eventually this simple life would have become food for later life.

If these organisms are developing upwards then the former organism is now the present organism with nothing to eat.

Why did the eye evolve if all the species were getting along without eye sight. How would it be possible to evolve eye sight with it being one of the most complicated systems.

oh for fuck sake read a book that isnt the bible for once, Darwin de-bunked this one two hundred years ago.
Creatures alive today have sensitive spots on their skin that react to light, this imparts an advantage over creatures that cant detect changes in light, (a sudden shadow might mean a predator is ovehead), from this you can evolve to where we are today, TA DA.

Darwin had no idea of the complexity of eyesight. Ta Da.

I believe the earth's systems are far to complicated for the trillions of trial and error accidents to have occurred in an order to reach today's earth systems before a disastrous occurance in the DNA coding would have at least limited the evolution of earth's systems to something far more primative.

Heres a revelation they dont have to all happen one after another, There are three trillion people on earth today each with differing DNA, theres three trillion evolutionary possibilties right there. does that help your math.(come on you can do it).

And you think I need to read a book Ta Da Ta Da!

---

I used to muse on it as follows:

They say you have lost nothing if you go ahead an believe. But what if you believe and God is not a God of love but a monster? What if what you believe in is not true?

Seems basic, but it's so damn obvious. Poor Pascal. He quit math for God.

The underlined would mean a person is looking for an insurance policy just encase there is God. This in no way represents christianity.

The italicized:If He were a monster then why would Christ have died to save us from our sins?

Why would I believe in something that's not true and what makes you think it's not true?

[DeistPaladin]

If He [Yahweh] were a monster then why would Christ have died to save us from our sins?

This is every bit as compassionate as a murderer who stops himself from killing his victim, thereby "saving the victim's life", and then threatens to kill the victim unless the victim loves and worships him.

In fact, one could say that the "love" of Yahweh is very much like the "love" an abusive husband shows for his beaten down wife. The abusive husband convinces his victim-wife that she's worthless, unworthy of genuine love (you're a worthless sinner) who deserves the abuse (we're only worthy of eternal Hell) and that somehow she has provoked the incidents of abuse that occur (we've made him angry with our sins). The perp-abuser seeks to isolate his victim from outside sources of love or support (the Bible admonishes believers to shun non-believers, a tactic found in most cults) and tries to indoctrinate his victim into a sense of dependency (we are weak and must turn to him).

[Godscreated]

<snip>

These statments show how little you know scripture, you are ignoring scripture so you can demonize God.

[Captain Scarlet]

@godschild. Thanks for your response. Your argumentation is still invalid, you still adopt arguments from incredulity to make your point. The change within/to a new species point is the micro/macro evolution point and is a great example of incredulity. You can't imagine it therefore despite the evidence you reject it. The whole argument is a massive red herring (which also evolved). Bilogists do use the term macro evolution to describe transitioning to new species. But macro evolutionary steps do not exist on there own, they are an accumulation of a large number of micro evolutionary steps. This is evidenced by tracing back how genomes of animals have changed but still share commonalities because of ancestry, the clincher is junk DNA, which when reactivated reinstates previous features. This would not happen from design (god or whomever). A unknown feature of evolutionary theory is that if it was discovered that macroevolutionary steps did occur eg a cat giving birth to a dog (a crass example but you get the point). That would invalidate evolution as it would suggest a whol new mechanism for speciation. An analogy I like is think of photocopying a document, then photocopying the photocopy, and so on. Each photocopy looks like the one before with tiny almost imperceptable variations. But if you compared the 100th copy with the 1st you would see signficant change. Then the 100th with the 1000th would probably look hugely different. If you had a rapidly changing environment you could think of a rapidly aging photocopier which would render change faster. In this anaology the paper is DNA which does not copy itself perfectly every time.

[DeistPaladin]

[This post is addressed to Godschild]

I'm beating a dead horse here but I can't resist trying to reason.

OK, so you do believe in an absolute standard of morality. Absolute means absolute, that it applies to everyone. You then say that it can't be used to evaluate the morality of your god. So which is it? You can't proclaim an absolute standard of morality and then say it doesn't apply to certain beings or even one being. That's two standards of morality that Yahweh establishes "one for me and different for thee".

Special pleading is where you demand a different set of standards for your favorite beliefs. Really, the whole concept of "faith" is inherently based on special pleading. My volcano god example is a made-up hypothetical religion (you got me there, I don't really believe that) to illustrate that point. You called the act of sacrifice "barbaric" (I agree) even though the sacrifice was willing. Essentially, all I need to do is repackage your own beliefs by changing "Jesus" to one of any other god and suddenly what was sacred becomes abhorrent.

You draw the distinction based purely on your faith, that Jesus' sacrifice was different because his blood sacrifice really was demanded as the means of salvation for all of us (a sentiment my hypothetical volcano worshipers would say about their own beliefs). I hope at the very least you can understand the perspective of one who doesn't share your faith, that the blood sacrifice depicted in the Gospels, on graphic display in Mel Gibson's flick, was cruel and barbaric (assuming it actually happened).

At the very least, I hope you or others reading this are able to ask the question "why is blood sacrifice necessary?"

In a wide variety of ancient religions all over the world, there was this apparent concept that the gods like blood being spilled on their altars. The Old Testament is full not just of examples but elaborate descriptions of prescribed rituals. Yahweh delighted in blood on the altar no less than Zeus. Somehow this covers for mortal sins. No one ever seemed to ask "why?" and even today no Christians do. Isn't it time?

Try to imagine the gruesome images of Jesus on the cross. Why is this helping anything? How does this cover for things I've done wrong? What kind of god delights in this?

Compare to the secular approach to dealing with what I might call "sin", by which I mean acts of dishonesty or violating the rights of others. You stop rationalizing it, you realize it was wrong, you apologize to those you've wronged and seek to make amends. Blood sacrifices do no more good than prayers. It's called taking personal responsibility rather than thinking that your ancient beliefs absolve you.

And as for the morality of the salvation scheme, you can dance around all you like but at the end of the day, you think that the most important question that determines our fate in the hands of your god is what our beliefs about Jesus were. However you may dress it up with fancy theological rhetoric, it boils down to eternal torture for thought crimes. This is something we would never accept from any world leader or any god you don't believe in. Special pleading once again.

But what I frankly find barking mad, even over everything else I've mentioned, is the openly contradictory and curiously compulsive nature of your god. God, you believe, can't forgive without this elaborate sacrifice ritual on the cross, and even then only when you believe certain things about that sacrifice. God "wants" to save us all but "can't" unless we believe in that sacrifice. I can forgive without killing a son. Why "can't" God? Why is the all-powerful compelled to go through the elaborate and gruesome ritual of the cross? I use the term "God" instead of "Yahweh" in this paragraph to underscore just how ridiculous it all is.

Do you seriously think God has some obsessive-compulsive disorder or does some stronger force compel such rituals for the simple act of forgiving?

You begin to understand, I hope, why deism finds Islamo-Christianity to be insulting to God. As Richard Dawkins said, religions wants "a little god, a petty god". Islamo-Christians want a god we can order about with prayers and who is so insecure that we can make him angry. They want a god who created billions of galaxies and yet needs our love and validation. He's an all-powerful yet deeply insecure being who's psychotic behavior is a cry for help. A god who needs a hug (and perhaps a bit of tough love)?