Fine tuned universe

[Coito ergo sum]

Pascal's wager assumes that the god or gods in question can be fooled by a mere mortal. Still not impressed.

Pascal's Wager is a product of the prejudiced assumption that it doesn't apply to every one of the 10,000-odd gods that were ever worshiped, and/or that belief in some general "God" will suffice to avoid post-death catastrophe. What a lot of people forget is that belief in the wrong god isn't any better, according to many religions, than belief in none at all.

You still have the basic concept, "I'll lie about having faith, God won't spot that."

Not really. It's "I'll pretend faith until my faith becomes real." God does not ask for perfect faith at all times,

Um. How do you know the god or gods does not ask for perfect faith?

knowing as He does

How do you know what it/him/her/they know(s)?

that humans are neither divine nor infallible (or so I'm told).

By whom?

If perfection of faith were the metric, no one would pass muster because everyone sins.

How do you know?

How is the "perfection" of one's belief in a god or gods relevant to one's "sins?" How do you know what a sin is? How do you know there is such a thing as sin?

That, I'm told,

by whom?

is precisely why Jesus was sent to be crucified...so as to redeem the sins of mankind that mankind was unable to avoid through imperfection.

How does nailing someone to a cross "redeem" anyone? What does it even mean to be "redeemed?" How do you or whoever is telling you this stuff know?

It does not appear to have worked, since if we assume there was a Jesus as described in the Bible, and if we assume he was crucified, mankind remains pretty much the same as we were 2000-odd years ago, just as imperfect.

[Coito ergo sum]

I think if one is going to take Pascal's Wager then one has to place an equal bet on all deities and other supernatural controlling and intentioning agents.

But there's only one True God.

...and His Son....

.....and His Son's Mother...

.......and choirs of angels.....

...........and a myriad Saints.....

..............and One True Satan......

...................and a myriad demons.....

One True God, and his One True Posse.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

I think if one is going to take Pascal's Wager then one has to place an equal bet on all deities and other supernatural controlling and intentioning agents.

But there's only one True God.

...and His Son....

.....and His Son's Mother...

.......and choirs of angels.....

...........and a myriad Saints.....

..............and One True Satan......

...................and a myriad demons.....

One True God, and his One True Posse.

Loads of lesser gods. But as Matt Dillhunty says, "It's actually easier to believe in a fairy that can make little circles of toad stools than a single Being who can poof the whole Universe into being with a single thought."

[Brian Peacock]

... It's "I'll pretend faith until my faith becomes real." God does not ask for perfect faith at all times, knowing as He does that humans are neither divine nor infallible (or so I'm told)...

Though you offer a bracketed qualification the implicit claim that individuals can (and presumably do) have actual knowledge of God and Her intents and purposes is still made. You continue in a similar vein...

.. If perfection of faith were the metric, no one would pass muster because everyone sins...

How could one possibly asses this and form an appropriate judgement without knowledge of God and Her will?

... That, I'm told, is precisely why Jesus was sent to be crucified...so as to redeem the sins of mankind that mankind was unable to avoid through imperfection.

Are you speaking on behalf of Christians here, or are you speaking as a Christian? I think we are all pretty much aware of the range or scope of Christian beliefs about God and Her intents and purposes and don't really need them to be preached by a self-nominated proxy - even one as erudite as yourself. However, as you are clearly arguing from a Christian perspective you most likely think that such a view has some benefit or utility in a broad or general sense. Perhaps you could point that utility directly without hiding behind the 'Christians say this, Christians say that' qualification?

[Gawdzilla Sama]

I love that "I'm told" crap. When cornered he can say, "that's somebody else talking, not me, so I can weasel out of any challenges I want to."

[Brian Peacock]

Personally I reserve judgement on Seth's weasleness - but that is not to say that I suspend judgement. Let's see what he might have to say before ascribing him the characteristics of a member of the Mustelidae family.

[Coito ergo sum]

I love that "I'm told" crap. When cornered he can say, "that's somebody else talking, not me, so I can weasel out of any challenges I want to."

He is basically saying "I'm told that X is true," and nobody can prove that the person telling him does not have access to some knowledge that we don't have access to. It's the same argument he makes regarding the "evidence" for the existence of god. We can't know that Priests don't know for sure if there are gods. They say they know, and for all we know, they may know.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

I love that "I'm told" crap. When cornered he can say, "that's somebody else talking, not me, so I can weasel out of any challenges I want to."

He is basically saying "I'm told that X is true," and nobody can prove that the person telling him does not have access to some knowledge that we don't have access to. It's the same argument he makes regarding the "evidence" for the existence of god. We can't know that Priests don't know for sure if there are gods. They say they know, and for all we know, they may know.

"all we know" does, however, point in the opposite direction, "all we believe", on the other hand...

[Seth]

... It's "I'll pretend faith until my faith becomes real." God does not ask for perfect faith at all times, knowing as He does that humans are neither divine nor infallible (or so I'm told)...

Though you offer a bracketed qualification the implicit claim that individuals can (and presumably do) have actual knowledge of God and Her intents and purposes is still made. You continue in a similar vein...

That's what they tell me. Who am I to substitute my judgment about their personal experiences for theirs? If a person claims personal knowledge of God, given that I cannot have that experience nor can I test the veracity of that claim, unless the claim proposes to do some harm to me or others, I consider it a private matter between the individual and his/her God...or psychiatrist.

.. If perfection of faith were the metric, no one would pass muster because everyone sins...

How could one possibly asses this and form an appropriate judgement without knowledge of God and Her will?

Good question. Those who claim to be in the know have quoted the source saying as much.

... That, I'm told, is precisely why Jesus was sent to be crucified...so as to redeem the sins of mankind that mankind was unable to avoid through imperfection.

Are you speaking on behalf of Christians here, or are you speaking as a Christian?

Neither, I'm speaking OF Christians.

I think we are all pretty much aware of the range or scope of Christian beliefs about God and Her intents and purposes and don't really need them to be preached by a self-nominated proxy - even one as erudite as yourself. However, as you are clearly arguing from a Christian perspective you most likely think that such a view has some benefit or utility in a broad or general sense. Perhaps you could point that utility directly without hiding behind the 'Christians say this, Christians say that' qualification?

I've said before that religion appears to be a persistent meme in human history and that historically religion has been more beneficial to humanity than it has been destructive, and that religion persists as a component of human evolution as a survival-oriented group behavior that provides often substantial survival benefits by creating close-knit communities of common interest and by giving people solace and comfort that helps them to endure the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune.

This is not to suggest that I believe that God exists or does anything beneficial in the universe, merely that in believing in God, and living according to the religious dictates of the church hierarchy, many people, indeed the vast majority of people on earth, throughout history, have found benefit in doing so, which is why, I suspect, religion endures in the human species.

If I temporize it's because it's pretty common for people here to make assumptions about my actual position on God's existence and to try to engage in ad hominem argument by dismissing me as a "fundie" or "Christian."

The fact is I'm not a theist and never have been, I just play one on the Internet for amusement and edification...both mine and other's.

[Atheist-Lite]

Seth is right. Religion allows people to overcome the aversion for killing unhealthy members of a group and allows group survival. There were a lot of older women clinging to property in the 17th century and by allowing them to be labeled as witches and either burning them or expelling them from the community this allowed the housing market of the time, log jammed with older folks, to move forward. The alternative would have been worse with young families having nowhere to rear their children.

[Audley Strange]

Amusement yes, edification, no.

Stultification would be more accurate.

The problem about speaking "of Christians" is that you fall into the trap of speaking about that which you do not believe for effect and in doing so show your lack of conviction and knowledge regarding theology. I myself have no problem with you trying to defend the faithful from us evil Nihilists, Marxists and Progressives, however the examples you use are often preposterous.

I mean Fatima? Come on.

Aside from it being theologically inconsistent and contradictory to the actual claims of "the book." The fact is that not everyone who was there witnessed anything at all. Some did. I don't find it any coincidence that a cult that has traditionally exploited and abused children since before it rebranded from Roman Empire to Holy Roman empire could have exploited children to talk utter horseshit. This is not uncommon, in fact it is tradition.

If you look at the history of "SATANIC PANICS!!" You know, when the evil kiddie fiddling Satanists are apparently making children fuck goats head and eat dead babies and all the other lurid crap that the demented faithful coach them into believing, the investigations have, time and time and time again shown that these children were often repeating lies and slander. It is not rare. It's happened quite publicly over the last 30 years in the U.K. France and The U.S. (and IIRC there have been quite a few in Africa which have had murderous consequences) and every time there has been no evidence, the children have often retracted their statements or confessed that they were forced by parents or religious folks into making such claims. However the hysteria is always published front and centre, the retraction and convictions of the real child abusers, the ones that coached them and took them from their families, or in the case of the Fatima incident, encouraged children to self flagellate.

As for the miracle vision itself? Well most of those who talk about it being a miracle were devout catholics, though it should be noted that only a fraction of those who were there made any claim at all, on behalf of all the others. (Seem familiar?) Did they see something? Possibly. Did they exaggerate it because of their belief and being whipped up by religious frenzy? Quite likely.

Did they witness a miracle? Improbable and there are many more mundane answers. Sun Dogs for example.

So. One one side we have. Non evidential being alters reality for a bunch of ignorant religious peasants or in shorter terms "fuck all."

On the other we have. A Cult with a long history of abuse and exploitation of children. Children making odd and rather mature and specific claims way above their pay-grade so to speak. We have an orchestrated media event in which the desperate faithful (because a lot the faithful seem desperate for proof rather than to abandon a concept they've hung on to all their lives) turn up and make outrageous claims, even to the contradiction of and yes I'll claim this, the silent majority of people there. Because let's be honest, if you or I witnessed something like that and thought it true, I don't think we'd watch shrug and go, "yeah neat, let's go home and not bother about this." I think Portugal would have been in an uproar for months if not years. Over and above this we have the possibility of some kind of solar optical event to feed their belief as evidence, which might be the case but, since there may have been 100,000 people there. So far I have found 7 first hand claims of supernatural activity. 7 out of 100,000? 7? SEVEN! I think it easy to dismiss your claim on behalf of those who's religion you don't even believe in.

I bet, that if we were to do autopies on a 100,000 dead catholics who had just received communion we'd find more blood and flesh in their stomachs than 7 out of that 100,000. Should we then start claiming transubstantiation is real?

Of course not.

Really you can do much better than that.

[MrFungus420]

The fine-tuning argument is a complete nonstarter. An omnipotent god could create life to exist under any circumstances eliminating any need for any fine-tuning.

As far as the claim that giving us the knowledge of a god's existence taking away our free-will, that is also a nonstarter for any of the Abrahamic religions because Satan has absolute knowledge of God's existence and willfully goes against God.

Actually... NOT

I don't know where stories of the fall and some guy revolting to become a principle of evil come from.

But in my bible readings, I never saw any presence of Satan except as a guy well established in the Divine hierarchy, and whose evil shenanigans were not done against the divine will, but were his actual job.

Well, that seems to put you in the minority. But, thank you for admitting that God is responsible for all of the evil supposedly done by Satan.

I guess we also know that God really does just want mindless drones worshiping him. After all, after we die, we gain the absolute knowledge of God that eliminates free-will, right?

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Again, how do Xtians know God won the war in Heaven? It would explain things if Satan had won and assumed the mantle of God.

[Atheist-Lite]

Again, how do Xtians know God won the war in Heaven? It would explain things if Satan had won and assumed the mantle of God.

This is the most obvious theology since it explains the mystery of evil, the roman catholic church and everytthing else that's fucked up in this world. I say heavan is a ruse and once you get through those pearly gates after the long climb up that staircase you plumet straight into the lake of fire via a trapdoor all for God(Satans) amusement.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Again, how do Xtians know God won the war in Heaven? It would explain things if Satan had won and assumed the mantle of God.

This is the most obvious theology since it explains the mystery of evil, the roman catholic church and everytthing else that's fucked up in this world. I say heavan is a ruse and once you get through those pearly gates after the long climb up that staircase you plumet straight into the lake of fire via a trapdoor all for God(Satans) amusement.

I thought you'd like it.