On Hell and Forgiveness

[Amarok]

You need a very self-serving view of evidence to take that position.

Who has been beaten, imprisoned, or killed for saying they had a message for humanity from a garden gnome?

And how many have been beaten, imprisoned, or killed for denying the prevalent religious views?

The opposition to an idea in no way proves the rationality of that idea. If anything, thinking you have a message to humanity from a deity seems much more irrational than thinking you have one from garden gnomes.

---

His argument seems to be that the evidence for god is no better than the evidence for garden gnomes.

Precisely.

---

That’s because you have not really made an argument, but have just made statements. If you where making arguments for evolution, and I countered with non-sense about replacing evolution with garden gnomes and declaring it non-sense; I don’t think you would take it seriously. If you want to make a thread discussing the rationality of a paticular argument, then knock your socks off. I’m not impressed or interested in anything that you have presented this far, which is pretty much nothing.

In contrast to deities and garden gnomes, evolution has mountains of evidence that is testable, public, and a theory that is tested and can make predictions of future observations.

Neither the 'evidence' for deities nor for garden gnomes comes anywhere close to that for evolution. In fact, it isn't even nearly as good as the evidence for dark matter.

Pick whichever argument in favor of the existence of deities you please. In NO case does the supposed evidence weigh more than the evidence for garden gnomes.

---

I have to show a rational argument (note that the threshold is 'rational' and not 'true') and (3) becomes false and your whole silly argument falls apart.  So here is one for you. 

For those following, first a definition: Inductive reasoning (as opposed to deductive reasoning or abductive reasoning) is a method of reasoning in which the premises are viewed as supplying some evidence for the truth of the conclusion. While the conclusion of a deductive argument is certain, the truth of the conclusion of an inductive argument may be probable, based upon the evidence given.

P1. Miraculous effects have been specifically attributed to God (a supernatural being). Example, the paralytic healed by Jesus: "Mark 2:10...but I want you to know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins.” So he said to the man, 11 “I tell you, get up, take your mat and go home.” 12 He got up, took his mat and walked out in full view of them all...". There are a hundred such examples in the NT where supernatural causation was declared or unmistakably inferred from the context.
P2. The resurrected Jesus was seen by as many as 500 people. Recently crucified people do not walk around and declare that they have conquered death and provided a way for man's redemption and as such, this is an obvious, rather big, supernatural claim.
     In support of P1 and P2, we have the following:
     a. Jesus most certainly was born, baptized, and died in the time period claimed. (other sources)
     b. Pete, James and John were known eyewitnesses to both the public and private events of Jesus' three year ministry (every other NT writer)
     c. They presided over the early church (Paul, Acts, first/second century docs)
     d. This early church instructed Paul (Paul, Acts)
     e. As evidenced by Paul's letters, this early church believed the claims later outlined in the gospels (long before they where written). We can infer from this the source of these beliefs were a critical mass of people who believed these events really happened which actually prompted immediate and significant action on their part--to evangelize the Roman world.  
     f. Peter, James and John eventually wrote letters emphasizing the themes found in the gospels
     g. Luke wrote Luke and Acts with the purpose of outlining the events from the birth of Christ through his present day
     h. The editors of Matthew, Mark, and John were all alive during the lifetimes of these people above (it is unknown if the actual people with the pen were eyewitnesses)
     i. The editors would have been know to the recipients of the gospels. The books were name by which apostle influenced that particular book
     j. The early church, who we know believed the claims of Jesus already, accepted the gospels. There is nothing in the early church writings that questioned them.
     k. The gospels dovetail nicely with Paul's writings based on his training directly from all the eyewitnesses (completing a loop)
     l. Alternate theories of the NT and early church provenance lack explanatory power of the evidence on all sorts of levels
P3. The main promise of the NT is a series of specific supernatural effects on a person
P4. An untold number of people have reported such effects
P5. An untold number of people have reported minor miracles (defined as person-oriented miracles for which the goal is very narrow -- as opposed to the NT miracles which had broad application and goals). Ranges from healing, bringing about events/experiences/encounters/open doors, extraordinary strength/peace/perseverance, evangelistic success, etc.
P6. The question why anything at all exists has no naturalistic explanation (and most likely none forthcoming).
P7. The question of why the universe exists has no metaphysically sound naturalistic explanation. There is no reason to think one will be forthcoming.
P8. The question of why our universe has the narrow range of physical constants which seem necessary to form matter and conserve energy but under naturalism has no other explanation than fantastically amazing chance that would not be accepted in any other case.
P9. The question of why our minds seem non-physical but have causal powers over the physical undercuts hard naturalism and seems to have parallels to the concept of the supernatural (not that they are necessarily supernatural).
P10. The question of why there seems to exist a knowledge of basic morality in most people and most people believe it to be based on an objective set of principles (moral Platonism) not derived from any evolutionary process.
P11. There is physical evidence for the supernatural (from P1, P2)
P12. There is a persistent, growing, unbroken chain of personal reports of the supernatural (from P4, P5)
P13. There are reason to think that naturalism is an insufficient worldview and the existence of the supernatural has better explanatory powers in a variety of these gaps. (from P6, P7, P8, P9, P10)

THEREFORE: There are multiple lines of evidence/reasoning that infer the supernatural. Bayes showed us that that more data points that you have that infer a conclusion, the higher the probability the conclusion is true. Additionally, you can apply the math the other direction and examine the probability of these events all happening/reasoning given that the supernatural does not exist. Belief in God is entirely rational. 

Go ahead, give multiple lines of reasons and evidence for rational belief in your Garden Gnomes. ONLY THEN will you have a proper analogy. Absent that, your analogy, well, lacks any analogous components.

P1-P6 make the unreasonable assumption that the Biblical texts give an accurate and reliable description of what occurred. Any other text from that time period with similar claims would be and is interpreted as exaggeration on the part of the author or as superstition.

It isn't unreasonable to assume an itinerant preacher roughly saying some of the things in the Gospels existed. What *is* unreasonable is to think that person was in any way related to a deity.

P7-P10 are nothing short of reasoning about garden gnomes being required to explain why the garden grows.

P11-P13 are, again, special pleading on the basis of irrationally accepting P1-P10.

Again, *any* evidence from any other source making claims of this type would be summrily dismissed. To not do so is exactly the type of confabulation seen in delusional thinking.

It always amazes me how Steve can write a small novel to say a great deal of nothing .His multiple lines of evidence are just multiple lines of assertions and fallacies that take for granted Christian dogma. The throw a veneer of trying to be Bayesian when it's not .

[The Grand Nudger]

@Alpha
That would be a great argument for the existence of christians...something which isn't exactly in doubt.

Here you are, after all.

[Neo-Scholastic]

Again, *any* evidence from any other source making claims of this type would be summrily dismissed. To not do so is exactly the type of confabulation seen in delusional thinking.

A.k.a. confirmation bias. You view the world through the lens of naturalism and then dismiss anything that isn't explainable by naturalism. Then you judge people who consider sources based on their merit and pronounce them delusional. Your statements sounds more like stubborn closed-mindedness than rational reflection.

[Amarok]

@Alpha
That would be a great argument for the existence of christians...something which isn't exactly in doubt.

Here you are, after all.

Now if they could get to the hard part showing what the Christians believe is true is true.Without using showy mimicry of actual arguments and reasoning and probability theory .

[The Grand Nudger]

Again, *any* evidence from any other source making claims of this type would be summrily dismissed. To not do so is exactly the type of confabulation seen in delusional thinking.

A.k.a. confirmation bias. You view the world through the lens of naturalism and then dismiss anything that isn't explainable by naturalism. Then you judge people who consider sources based on their merit and pronounce them delusional. Your statements sounds more like stubborn closed-mindedness than rational reflection.

If you cant be right, you'll settle for the other guy being a hypocrite, eh, lol? Meh 1/10

[Amarok]

A.k.a. confirmation bias. You view the world through the lens of naturalism and then dismiss anything that isn't explainable by naturalism. Then you judge people who consider sources based on their merit and pronounce them delusional. Your statements sounds more like stubborn closed-mindedness than rational reflectiom

Only you could interprate that statement in this way Wooter too bad he did not say that . not accepting supernatural explanations or sources is not assuming naturalism . But as a Theist i can see why that gets your panties in a bunch because the supernatural is an easy thinking free way of explaining anything .

[SteveII]

---

I have to show a rational argument (note that the threshold is 'rational' and not 'true') and (3) becomes false and your whole silly argument falls apart.  So here is one for you. 

For those following, first a definition: Inductive reasoning (as opposed to deductive reasoning or abductive reasoning) is a method of reasoning in which the premises are viewed as supplying some evidence for the truth of the conclusion. While the conclusion of a deductive argument is certain, the truth of the conclusion of an inductive argument may be probable, based upon the evidence given.

P1. Miraculous effects have been specifically attributed to God (a supernatural being). Example, the paralytic healed by Jesus: "Mark 2:10...but I want you to know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins.” So he said to the man, 11 “I tell you, get up, take your mat and go home.” 12 He got up, took his mat and walked out in full view of them all...". There are a hundred such examples in the NT where supernatural causation was declared or unmistakably inferred from the context.
P2. The resurrected Jesus was seen by as many as 500 people. Recently crucified people do not walk around and declare that they have conquered death and provided a way for man's redemption and as such, this is an obvious, rather big, supernatural claim.
     In support of P1 and P2, we have the following:
     a. Jesus most certainly was born, baptized, and died in the time period claimed. (other sources)
     b. Pete, James and John were known eyewitnesses to both the public and private events of Jesus' three year ministry (every other NT writer)
     c. They presided over the early church (Paul, Acts, first/second century docs)
     d. This early church instructed Paul (Paul, Acts)
     e. As evidenced by Paul's letters, this early church believed the claims later outlined in the gospels (long before they where written). We can infer from this the source of these beliefs were a critical mass of people who believed these events really happened which actually prompted immediate and significant action on their part--to evangelize the Roman world.  
     f. Peter, James and John eventually wrote letters emphasizing the themes found in the gospels
     g. Luke wrote Luke and Acts with the purpose of outlining the events from the birth of Christ through his present day
     h. The editors of Matthew, Mark, and John were all alive during the lifetimes of these people above (it is unknown if the actual people with the pen were eyewitnesses)
     i. The editors would have been know to the recipients of the gospels. The books were name by which apostle influenced that particular book
     j. The early church, who we know believed the claims of Jesus already, accepted the gospels. There is nothing in the early church writings that questioned them.
     k. The gospels dovetail nicely with Paul's writings based on his training directly from all the eyewitnesses (completing a loop)
     l. Alternate theories of the NT and early church provenance lack explanatory power of the evidence on all sorts of levels
P3. The main promise of the NT is a series of specific supernatural effects on a person
P4. An untold number of people have reported such effects
P5. An untold number of people have reported minor miracles (defined as person-oriented miracles for which the goal is very narrow -- as opposed to the NT miracles which had broad application and goals). Ranges from healing, bringing about events/experiences/encounters/open doors, extraordinary strength/peace/perseverance, evangelistic success, etc.
P6. The question why anything at all exists has no naturalistic explanation (and most likely none forthcoming).
P7. The question of why the universe exists has no metaphysically sound naturalistic explanation. There is no reason to think one will be forthcoming.
P8. The question of why our universe has the narrow range of physical constants which seem necessary to form matter and conserve energy but under naturalism has no other explanation than fantastically amazing chance that would not be accepted in any other case.
P9. The question of why our minds seem non-physical but have causal powers over the physical undercuts hard naturalism and seems to have parallels to the concept of the supernatural (not that they are necessarily supernatural).
P10. The question of why there seems to exist a knowledge of basic morality in most people and most people believe it to be based on an objective set of principles (moral Platonism) not derived from any evolutionary process.
P11. There is physical evidence for the supernatural (from P1, P2)
P12. There is a persistent, growing, unbroken chain of personal reports of the supernatural (from P4, P5)
P13. There are reason to think that naturalism is an insufficient worldview and the existence of the supernatural has better explanatory powers in a variety of these gaps. (from P6, P7, P8, P9, P10)

THEREFORE: There are multiple lines of evidence/reasoning that infer the supernatural. Bayes showed us that that more data points that you have that infer a conclusion, the higher the probability the conclusion is true. Additionally, you can apply the math the other direction and examine the probability of these events all happening/reasoning given that the supernatural does not exist. Belief in God is entirely rational. 

Go ahead, give multiple lines of reasons and evidence for rational belief in your Garden Gnomes. ONLY THEN will you have a proper analogy. Absent that, your analogy, well, lacks any analogous components.

P1-P6 make the unreasonable assumption that the Biblical texts give an accurate and reliable description of what occurred. Any other text from that time period with similar claims would be and is interpreted as exaggeration on the part of the author or as superstition.

You clearly don't know what you are talking about and your statement is an assertion based on...nothing--because you don't even have a handle on the basic facts.  I'll bet you $100 that you don't know of any other group of texts (let alone 27)with extraordinary claims from that time period. The resurrection of Jesus was firmly believed by churches across the Roman empire by 50AD--before any of the books of the NT were even written. How do you account for that? Really--I would like to hear an answer. 

It isn't unreasonable to assume an itinerant preacher roughly saying some of the things in the Gospels existed. What *is* unreasonable is to think that person was in any way related to a deity.

Unless of course he rose from the dead after being crucified. Your incredulity (which is all you have) does not carry any weight against facts of the matter. I'll wait to hear your answer above.

P7-P10 are nothing short of reasoning about garden gnomes being required to explain why the garden grows.

Ah. Your analogy fails. Garden Gnomes are contingent objects, denizens of the universe. Anything objects in the universe are subject to the scrutiny of science. Your Gnomes would fail the scientific test. God, by definition is not a contingent being. You have a category error problem with your analogy. 

P11-P13 are, again, special pleading on the basis of irrationally accepting P1-P10.

Again, *any* evidence from any other source making claims of this type would be summrily dismissed. To not do so is exactly the type of confabulation seen in delusional thinking.

I just showed a rational argument from start to finish. I don't even have to be right. But I am certainly rational. You simply assert crap. After seeing the responses in this thread to RR you seem incapable of holding up your end of an argument. All you have are assertions that other people's reasons are somehow defective. You don't/can't even articulate why?  Can't you see that?

[The Grand Nudger]

You realize that simply stringing sentences together and calling it an inductive argument doesn't actually meet the bar, right?  

The book of gnome says garden gnomes exist

Many people have seen garden gnomes.

There's no other way gardens could grow without garden gnomes

There's physical evidence for garden gnomes.

Hey, I don't have to be right....but it's rational..right?

[polymath257]

And how many have been beaten, imprisoned, or killed for denying the prevalent religious views?

The opposition to an idea in no way proves the rationality of that idea. If anything, thinking you have a message to humanity from a deity seems much more irrational than thinking you have one from garden gnomes.

That people undergo suffering in order to deliver a message from god is evidence that they believe that they actually received a message from god. Since no one has undergone suffering for gnomes, there is more evidence for god than for gnomes. That evidence isn't conclusive - it is called a faith after all - but it's irrational to compare the evidence for the Christian God with that for gnomes and say it's identical.

That people actually believe a delusion isn't evidence it isn't a delusion.

[Amarok]

You realize that simply strenging sentences together and calling it an inductive argument doesn't actually meet the bar, right?  

The book of gnome says garden gnomes exist

Many people have seen garden gnomes.

There's no other way gardens could grow without garden gnomes

Hey, I don't have to be right....but it's rational..right?

I know that my favorite" i don't have to be correct but hey it sounds nice so that's all i need " this along with shit like Reformed Epistemology And Presup demonstrate what a weak view theism is .

---

That people undergo suffering in order to deliver a message from god is evidence that they believe that they actually received a message from god. Since no one has undergone suffering for gnomes, there is more evidence for god than for gnomes. That evidence isn't conclusive - it is called a faith after all - but it's irrational to compare the evidence for the Christian God with that for gnomes and say it's identical.

That people actually believe a delusion isn't evidence it isn't a delusion.

Indeed conviction does not equal correctness and people do indeed die for lies even ones they know to be lies .