Is Satan capable of good?

[Colt]

The god of Abraham - the one who is allegedly the tri-omni god presiding over a world of suffering and who is said to have fashioned reality including the first two human beings in six days - has been ruled out empirically. We know the first is self-contradictory (incoherent) and that the second never happened. You can relax if you've been fearing that god and the things it is said to be and to do to unbelievers.

Pascal's Wager? False dichotomy. Maybe you'd better think this through a bit more. If YOU are wrong, that may well work out badly for you. You might encounter an afterlife and a panel of judges that were offended by your belief just like the god you propose will be offended by NOT holding it. Remember, as Pascal notes, your eternal soul may in the offing. Choose wisely. If mine is a correct guess and you end up in perdition for guessing incorrectly, you can't say that you weren't warned.

That is what Pascal's argument sounds like when reflected back at you. What are you going to do with that knowledge? Nothing, right?

It surprises me to read this from you. You seem to consider only modern religion fictional woo. What's the difference between it and what you call "scripture," which is also fictional woo to most skeptics and critical thinkers, just older? It's all "made up fiction" to the skeptic.

Why? What incentive is there to do that? Why does this one ism deserve research or study? Do you recommend doing the same for Mormonism and Scientology? Have you researched those ism? I haven't, but then some of their dogma found its way to me (Kolob, Xenu) and I'd seen enough.

I've seen the excerpts you've posted, but similarly, there was nothing there to make me want to "research" it further. Can you write a paragraph explaining why you believe that this particular ism merits further investigation? What has it done for you? Anything concrete? I can do that with my ism - atheistic humanism. I can give you concrete benefits to that worldview for those able to live outside of theism and religion. I can tell you how it changed my previously theistic life for the better if asked. Can you do that with your Urantia worldview?

The Urantia Book revelation provides me with a comprehensive explanation of evolutionary origins and man’s destiny. It explains a lot such as the origins of the devil or Satan, Lucifer etc, what happened and why they had such power and how their beliefs are a form of the ism of Atheism.

 

[Colt]

The reports are simply the claims you are repeating.

The reports discuss areas where current discoveries validate claims in the Urantia Book that were at odds with the prevailing understanding at the time the Urantia revelation occurred. An example would be the common belief that humans fist appeared in Africa and “migrated out” and into Europe and beyond. The UB clearly states that humans first appeared in the highlands of modern day Afghanistan and eventually migrated “into” Africa as well as the rest of the world.

LIFE — APRIL 20, 2019

New fossils suggest human ancestors evolved in Europe, not Africa​

Experts argue the jaws of an ancient European ape reveal a key human ancestor.

New fossils suggest human ancestors evolved in Europe, not Africa

 

[ppp]

The reports discuss areas where current discoveries validate claims in the Urantia Book that were at odds with the prevailing understanding at the time the Urantia revelation occurred. An example would be the common belief that humans fist appeared in Africa and “migrated out” and into Europe and beyond. The UB clearly states that humans first appeared in the highlands of modern day Afghanistan and eventually migrated “into” Africa as well as the rest of the world.

LIFE — APRIL 20, 2019

New fossils suggest human ancestors evolved in Europe, not Africa​

Experts argue the jaws of an ancient European ape reveal a key human ancestor.

New fossils suggest human ancestors evolved in Europe, not Africa

Cool. What are the falsifying criteria for that hypothesis. What are the primary lines of evidence for the out of Africa hypothesis? What are the falsifying criteria for that?

Do you know, or are you just citing PopSci articles?

BTW, even your article acknowledges, "Ultimately, Nikiti ape alone doesn’t offer enough evidence to upend the out of Africa model, which is supported by a more robust fossil record and DNA evidence."

PopSci articles are fun. But they are not peer reviewed and they are not primarily sources.

 

[Tinkerpeach]

It’s

Yet you repeated Pascal's Wager, which is intended to terrorize and cause existential angst in those who succumb to it. It's not credible that you don't care about others joining you in your gamble that you have the right god if you were willing to do that to them. Of course you care. You just understand that your argument is inefficacious, and so now we get sour grapes.

Contrariwise, I *DO* care about *YOUR* salvation, which is why I explained that your wager is on a god that can be ruled out and therefore CANNOT be a winning bet whatever is actually the case about afterlives if any. Pick something else, something with a non-zero chance of being correct. Nobody is being judged by the rules in the Abrahamic books if that god doesn't exist. Nobody is meeting Jesus unless as just another formerly living individual that is now in an afterlife like you and me if that's what we discover is the case following death.

On the off chance we find ourselves being judged in the afterlife by judges who are offended at those who ignored the senses they were gifted with at birth to discover what is true and what is good - reason and conscience - and opted for an invisible god that allegedly wants man to suspend critical thought and believe by faith, well, if that happens, I'll put in a good word for you. Maybe that will save you if you need saving at that point.

Don't worry. That probably won't happen. It's only slightly more likely than what you believe.

not meant to convey anything it’s simply the truth regardless of what fancy term you want to apply to it.

But hey if you are ok with your choice then so am I.

I am not on a mission to save your soul.

 

[ppp]

not meant to convey anything it’s simply the truth regardless of what fancy term you want to apply to it.

Pascal's Wager is not the truth. It is a lie by omission. That is a fancy term for but leaving out key facts in order to obscure the truth.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

The Urantia Book revelation provides me with a comprehensive explanation of evolutionary origins and man’s destiny. It explains a lot such as the origins of the devil or Satan, Lucifer etc, what happened and why the had such power and how their beliefs are a form of the ism of Atheism.

I asked, "Can you write a paragraph explaining why you believe that this particular ism merits further investigation? What has it done for you? Anything concrete? I can do that with my ism - atheistic humanism. I can give you concrete benefits to that worldview for those able to live outside of theism and religion. I can tell you how it changed my previously theistic life for the better if asked. Can you do that with your Urantia worldview?"

The reports discuss areas where current discoveries validate claims in the Urantia Book that were at odds with the prevailing understanding at the time the Urantia revelation occurred.

Do you think that makes it a valuable source of information? Are you familiar with the "The Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy ... a logical fallacy based on the metaphor of a gunman shooting the side of a barn, then drawing targets around the bullethole clusters to make it look like he hit the target. It illustrates how people look for similarities, ignoring differences, and do not account for randomness."

An example would be the common belief that humans fist appeared in Africa and “migrated out” and into Europe and beyond. The UB clearly states that humans first appeared in the highlands of modern day Afghanistan and eventually migrated “into” Africa as well as the rest of the world.

LIFE — APRIL 20, 2019

New fossils suggest human ancestors evolved in Europe, not Africa​

Experts argue the jaws of an ancient European ape reveal a key human ancestor.

Do you think this source supports your implied claim about your source being reliable? You named the book's explanatory power as a selling point, yet what has it explained if humanity evolved in Europe rather than Afghanistan? This would be an example of the Texas fallacy if it were a hit instead of a miss.

it’s simply the truth regardless of what fancy term you want to apply to it.

You must use a different definition of truth than I do. It seems that truth to you includes cherished, unfalsifiable, faith-based beliefs.

 

[Tinkerpeach]

Pascal's Wager is not the truth. It is a lie by omission. That is a fancy term for but leaving out key facts in order to obscure the truth.

No it isn’t. Find one falsehood in the statement I made.

 

[ppp]

No it isn’t. Find one falsehood in the statement I made.

Okey dokey

However you are taking quite the gamble because if you are wrong…..well……it’s not going to be good for you.

It's not a gamble. If there is a god he is not going to be fooled by my pretending to believe he exist. And even if I believe he exist he would know that he does not measure up to my minimal moral standards. That I would consider him to be a petulant monster. So, no. There is no gamble there. I am going to be tortured for eternity by a petulant monster, either way.

If I’m wrong nothing happens to me, I end up like you.

If you are wrong you could wind up rejected and separated from a god who only accepts people who are not gullible enough to accept religious claims. Or tortured for all eternity like Sisyphus by a council of gods. Or you could simply have wasted the only life you have on a lie.

 

[Ebionite]

not meant to convey anything it’s simply the truth regardless of what fancy term you want to apply to it.

Assumptions and truth are different things.
Pascal's wager is based on his assumption that his God has specific qualities. If those assumptions don't hold true then his wager fails.

 

[We Never Know]

Is Satan capable of doing something that ends up good, and is God capable of doing something that results in bad?

For either to do good or bad they must first exist.

 

[Colt]

I asked, "Can you write a paragraph explaining why you believe that this particular ism merits further investigation? What has it done for you? Anything concrete? I can do that with my ism - atheistic humanism. I can give you concrete benefits to that worldview for those able to live outside of theism and religion. I can tell you how it changed my previously theistic life for the better if asked. Can you do that with your Urantia worldview?"

Do you think that makes it a valuable source of information? Are you familiar with the "The Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy ... a logical fallacy based on the metaphor of a gunman shooting the side of a barn, then drawing targets around the bullethole clusters to make it look like he hit the target. It illustrates how people look for similarities, ignoring differences, and do not account for randomness."

Do you think this source supports your implied claim about your source being reliable? You named the book's explanatory power as a selling point, yet what has it explained if humanity evolved in Europe rather than Afghanistan? This would be an example of the Texas fallacy if it were a hit instead of a miss.

You must use a different definition of truth than I do. It seems that truth to you includes cherished, unfalsifiable, faith-based beliefs.

I answered your question. Your criteria for what merits further investigation is your own business.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

If you are wrong you don't go to heaven, how disappointing you spent your whole life dreaming of the idea an voila nothing but rotting in the ground to become reused by life of the future.

That's what Pascal called nothing to lose, but what was the cost of having that belief for a lifetime? There's huge investment of time and money required joining Pascal and his ilk, so there needs to be a significant offsetting benefit to that belief to say that holding it was winning a wager and not a losing wager.

When I was a Christian, I went to church three times a week, studied the Bible daily and for hours a week, and gave 10% of my income away to sustain this religion. Say goodbye to all of that for nothing in return if the religion is false, so not free to believe at all. And if one becomes zealous, he is at risk of missing out acquiring critical thinking skills. How costly is THAT? In my case, my intelligent and loving wife who wouldn't have had me if I were more than nominally religious.

So, no, making that choice doesn't come for free, and if the religion is false, well, I'd call that losing Pascal's wager.

I answered your question. Your criteria for what merits further investigation is your own business.

Yes you did. I just wanted to know what value you found there, and you told me.

 

[Viker]

Then you have nothing to worry about.

However you are taking quite the gamble because if you are wrong…..well……it’s not going to be good for you.

Quetzalcoatl could be the one true God and his way the only way to avoid an afterlife of suffering.

I don't lose sleep over such odds. How about yourself?

 

[Link]

Assumptions and truth are different things.
Pascal's wager is based on his assumption that his God has specific qualities. If those assumptions don't hold true then his wager fails.

This is a popular misunderstanding since his wager even accounts for the case there is no god at all.

 

[Link]

Quetzalcoatl could be the one true God and his way the only way to avoid an afterlife of suffering.

I don't lose sleep over such odds. How about yourself?

For Pascal, even slight chance of that existing, would mean, you should keep searching for the truth till you know for certain. If there is no God, he argues, that whatever pleasures were lost in that search are nothing compared to if you go to hell forever or avoid heaven forever.

But since there are multiple religions, he argues, also, that someone must make sure not to deceive themselves out of fear of God, but search the truth. He suggests a toolkit for searching truth.

Some I found helpful in terms of his toolkit, others not so much. The only problem I have with his argument is his toolkit, but the details of how a searcher looks for truth can be argued. It doesn't do away with his argument.

And Christianity is like an instance of generic variable in the argument. It could be Islam is true. It can be deism is true. It can be no religion is true. Etc...

But he then deals with how it would look like if Christianity is true since he believes it to be true and his audience does as well.

 

[Colt]

Thats what i like about some religion. Threats based on nothing but wishful thinking and deliberate ignorance.

If you are wrong you don't go to heaven, how disappointing you spent your whole life dreaming of the idea an voila nothing but rotting in the ground to become reused by life of the future.

There would be NO recollection in death if that is man's fate, and considering that eternal death would be the final result of a life lived, that would mean that it doesn't really matter if one is religious or not! All of your efforts on this form are disqualified!

 

[Viker]

For Pascal, even slight chance of that existing, would mean, you should keep searching for the truth till you know for certain. If there is no God, he argues, that whatever pleasures were lost in that search are nothing compared to if you go to hell forever or avoid heaven forever.

But since there are multiple religions, he argues, also, that someone must make sure not to deceive themselves out of fear of God, but search the truth. He suggests a toolkit for searching truth.

Some I found helpful in terms of his toolkit, others not so much. The only problem I have with his argument is his toolkit, but the details of how a searcher looks for truth can be argued. It doesn't do away with his argument.

And Christianity is like an instance of generic variable in the argument. It could be Islam is true. It can be deism is true. It can be no religion is true. Etc...

But he then deals with how it would look like if Christianity is true since he believes it to be true and his audience does as well.

There's nothing wrong with searching for answers, wisdom, knowledge and even truth.

It's that "tool kit" that seems to be a problem. Like stacking a deck of cards to favor the house of the dealer.

 

[Ebionite]

This is a popular misunderstanding since his wager even accounts for the case there is no god at all.

No, Pascal's wager is a like a false dilemma. It doesn't account for the the case where a divine being exists that doesn't conform to Pascal's expectations.

 

[Link]

There's nothing wrong with searching for answers, wisdom, knowledge and even truth.

It's that "tool kit" that seems to be a problem. Like stacking a deck of cards to favor the house of the dealer.

He argues what the process would look like if Christianity is true. But again, it's a variable, that he put Christianity in. His toolkit is not the best, but it has good points too. For example, he does suggest reading all religions you can. To search philosophy and knowledge in that regard. Trying to become truthful to yourself. Not deceive yourself about any religion or God even. That's all good.

 

[Viker]

He argues what the process would look like if Christianity is true. But again, it's a variable, that he put Christianity in. His toolkit is not the best, but it has good points too. For example, he does suggest reading all religions you can. To search philosophy and knowledge in that regard. Trying to become truthful to yourself. Not deceive yourself about any religion or God even. That's all good.

I always took the wager at face value. If this is true then my religion could be of some use or help, for me. It encourages such things.