I've given one: God punishes those who believe in him with eternal suffering in hell — Michael

God, by definition, doesn't do that. If you're going to change the definitions then it's pointless to argue.

In this case, a "positive" phrasing of "God doesn't exist" could be something like "only the natural world exists" — Michael

But, that doesn't solve the problem. Rephrasing a proposition doesn't change the logical connection it has with other propositions, in this case the contradiction still holds.

You did not make it clear at all. Am I to assume the former?

God, by definition, doesn't do that. If you're going to change the definitions then it's pointless to argue. — TheMadFool

How do you define God? God could be defined by his/her/its actions as well for example. We call the being whose son Jesus is God.

God, by definition, doesn't do that. If you're going to change the definitions then it's pointless to argue. — TheMadFool

This is just pedantic.

The crux is that there may exist a psychopomp who punishes those who believe in him – or any other God or gods – with eternal hell.

The difference is purely abstract and when someone asserts that fairies exist, both persons, A and B, will demand for evidence. I mean that agnosticism and atheism are more closely related than, agnosticism and theism. So, it becomes reasonable to state the default truth value of any proposition is false. — TheMadFool

This is ridiculously poor reasoning. You're concluding that the default epistemic stance for any claim is that it is false based on a supposed behavioral similarity between two types of people when it comes to a single claim?

God, by definition, doesn't do that. If you're going to change the definitions then it's pointless to argue. — TheMadFool

Wait. Now you're deciding which empirical option is the case by definition??

↪Thanatos Sand You did not make it clear at all. Am I to assume the former?

Of course I made it clear, and you haven't shown I haven't. Feel free to try and do so at any time.

How do you define God? God could be defined by his/her/its actions as well for example. We call the being whose son Jesus is God. — BlueBanana

So far as this thread is concerned, God is a being who promises heaven if you believe in him and hell if you don't. Nothing else matters. In fact, I think we can leave out even heaven in this discussion. I'm mainly concerned with the threat of hell.

The crux is that there may exist a psychopomp who punishes those who believe in him – or any other God or gods – with eternal hell. — Michael

Yes, but that's just being very imaginative. Please read my definition of God in my response to BlueBanana (above). I think my definition is true to the general conception of the term ''God''.

This is ridiculously poor reasoning. You're concluding that the default epistemic stance for any claim is that it is false based on a supposed behavioral similarity between two types of people when it comes to a single claim? — Terrapin Station

There are 3 options when it comes to dealing with propositions at the beginning - when you first encounter it:

1. Assume it's true
2. Assume it's false
3. Suspend decision

You can't choose 1 because you need good reasons for believing something to be true. There's an important step between a proposition and its truth viz. looking for good justification.

You can choose 2 or 3. I agree there's a difference between the two for 2 is a knowledge claim and 3 is a claim of ignorance. However, the similarities between the two, which I'm hoping you'll see, are

A) both demand evidence to switch to 1

B) There's no difference between 2 and 3 in terms of causal consequences. You can't distiguish someone who's never heard of Santa Claus from someone who doesn't believe in him.

So, it's reasonable to think that the default truth value of a proposition is false.

Wait. Now you're deciding which empirical option is the case by definition?? — Terrapin Station

Please read my response to BlueBanana above. Thanks.

Yes, but that's just being very imaginative. Please read my definition of God in my response to BlueBanana (above). I think my definition is true to the general conception of the term ''God''. — TheMadFool

So? That doesn't address the problem at all. You're saying that it's rational to believe in God because if he exists then he'll punish you if you don't. I'm countering by saying that it's rational to not believe in God because if an evil psychopomp exists then he'll punish you if you do.

Responding with "I've defined God as being something that wouldn't punish believers" is a non sequitur.

Well, your version of God is in stark opposition to what people think of when they hear ''God''. My argument is about the latter.

Well, your version of God is in stark opposition to what people think of when they hear ''God''. My argument is about the latter. — TheMadFool

Again, irrelevant. Your wager is a false dichotomy, as I've shown. As a rationale for believing in God, it fails.

Well, your version of God is in stark opposition to what people think of when they hear ''God''. My argument is about the latter. — TheMadFool

Well your definition isn't how people generally define God either. It's what people generally think but not what is generally used as a definition.

Again, irrelevant. Your wager is a false dichotomy, as I've shown. As a rationale for believing in God, it fails. — Michael

Either God exists or he doesn't. Either you believe or you don't. Dichotomy is unavoidable except, of course, in trivial or irrelevant ways.

Well your definition isn't how people generally define God either. It's what people generally think but not what is generally used as a definition. — BlueBanana

Believe God = heaven and Not believe God = hell are not essential features of religion???!!!

Either God exists or he doesn't. Either you believe or you don't. Dichotomy is unavoidable except, of course, in trivial or irrelevant ways. — TheMadFool

That's not the dichotomy I'm addressing. The problematic dichotomy is "either God (a supreme being who punishes those who don't believe in him with eternal hell) exists or there is no afterlife". There are other options. There may be some other deity or supreme being or psychopomp who doesn't punish those who don't believe in them, or who punishes those that do, or who determines someone's afterlife by tossing a coin or by judging their earthly actions.

Perhaps the Greek pantheon exists, and Hades dislikes the religious and so banishes those who believe in God to Tartarus. Or perhaps everything written in the Bible is true, except the part where non-believers are punished. Perhaps God really is merciful and loving and rewards everyone with heaven.

I'll provide the SEP article's account of this:

5. The matrix should have more columns: the many Gods objection. If Pascal is really right that reason can decide nothing here, then it would seem that various other theistic hypotheses are also live options. Pascal presumably had in mind the Catholic conception of God — let us suppose that this is the God who either ‘exists’ or ‘does not exist’. By excluded middle, this is a partition. The objection, then, is that the partition is not sufficiently fine-grained, and the ‘(Catholic) God does not exist’ column really subdivides into various other theistic hypotheses. The objection could equally run that Pascal's argument ‘proves too much’: by parallel reasoning we can ‘show’ that rationality requires believing in various incompatible theistic hypotheses. As Diderot (1746) puts the point: “An Imam could reason just as well this way”.

Since then, the point has been presented again and refined in various ways. Mackie 1982 writes, “the church within which alone salvation is to be found is not necessarily the Church of Rome, but perhaps that of the Anabaptists or the Mormons or the Muslim Sunnis or the worshippers of Kali or of Odin” (203). Cargile 1966 shows just how easy it is to multiply theistic hypotheses: for each real number x, consider the God who prefers contemplating x more than any other activity. It seems, then, that such ‘alternative gods’ are a dime a dozen — or aleph one, for that matter.

Again, irrelevant. Your wager is a false dichotomy, as I've shown. As a rationale for believing in God, it fails.
— Michael

Either God exists or he doesn't. Either you believe or you don't. Dichotomy is unavoidable except, of course, in trivial or irrelevant ways.

God may exist or he doesn't, but he certainly doesn't have to exist as you personally define him.

Believe God = heaven and Not believe God = hell are not essential features of religion???!!! — TheMadFool

That's not what I said at all. I said that's not the definition.

You can't choose 1 because you need good reasons for believing something to be true. — TheMadFool

As I pointed out above, and as would be clear to you if you had any experience with real people in the real world (which obviously you must have), people do 1 all the time. That includes philosophers, by the way.

Of course I made it clear, and you haven't shown I haven't. Feel free to try and do so at any time. — Thanatos Sand

Or you could quote the part where you so clearly point that out. Not only that, you could even give a one word reply that'd clarify everything. But nah, I'm the one who needs to analyze your comments to show you haven't unequivocally made it clear. Fine.

one can only have external thoughts of someone else since someone else is always external to themselves. — Thanatos Sand

Neither option is incompatible with that statement so no.

You perceive something externally when it is external to you. — Thanatos Sand

Same as the other one.

The rest of the comments are outside the timeframe where you've claimed to have made the question clear or are not directly related. If you disagree, reply with the quotation where you state your view. Your comments also include general disagreement with me, which I think you think implies either option, but it doesn't.

Either you by perceiving externally refer to perceiving external information regardless of whether it is perceived internally or externally, or you're claiming that there's no difference in how internal and external pieces of information are experienced by the human mind. You've made it clear that you think external things are always perceived externally and internal ones internally, but that doesn't imply either one.

So there you go, can I now get the one word answer: former or latter?

Back to the body being external and other subjects:

If you want to talk religion and ghosts and spirits, go talk to someone else. — Thanatos Sand

If you don't want to discuss with people you disagree with, why use internet forums?

And the human body is not external to the human mind as the human mind is not separate from the human brain/human body. — Thanatos Sand

Similarly to how consciousness (strong AI) can't be created by algorithms, it can't be created by matter and energy.

The human body perceives information; the human mind/brain is the part of the human body that evaluates and records it. — Thanatos Sand

You didn't respond to my binocular argument. Information is either brought to brain from outside it, so that the information is external to the brain, and there's no difference between it being brought via the nerves or a binocular or wires in your head, or it's created within your mind/brain so it's internal.

Of course I made it clear, and you haven't shown I haven't. Feel free to try and do so at any time.
— Thanatos Sand

"Or you could quote the part where you so clearly point that out. Not only that, you could even give a one word reply that'd clarify everything. But nah, I'm the one who needs to analyze your comments to show you haven't unequivocally made it clear. Fine."

So, you can't show my statement was unclear. Thanks for confirming what we already know. Only clueless people think people making statements have a responsibility to prove their clarity. Smart people know it is on the onus of the critic to show how the statement is not unclear.

one can only have external thoughts of someone else since someone else is always external to themselves.
— Thanatos Sand

Neither option is incompatible with that statement so no.

That nothing comment you made didn't counter my correct statement in any way. So, "yes."

The rest of the comments are outside the timeframe where you've claimed to have made the question clear or are not directly related. If you disagree, reply with the quotation where you state your view. Your comments also include general disagreement with me, which I think you think implies either option, but it doesn't.

Either you by perceiving externally refer to perceiving external information regardless of whether it is perceived internally or externally, or you're claiming that there's no difference in how internal and external pieces of information are experienced by the human mind. You've made it clear that you think external things are always perceived externally and internal ones internally, but that doesn't imply either one.

This is incoherent nonsense made even moreso by its lack of sufficient syntax. Your run-on sentences are particularly painful. Nobody can rationally respond to that blather. After this, and your irrationality above, I won't be responding to any more of your posts after the one following this one.

Back to the body being external and other subjects:

If you want to talk religion and ghosts and spirits, go talk to someone else.
— Thanatos Sand

If you don't want to discuss with people you disagree with, why use internet forums?

I never said I didnt' want to discuss with people I disagree with. I said I didn't want to talk religion, ghosts, and spirits in this discussion. Again, you need to improve your reading.

And the human body is not external to the human mind as the human mind is not separate from the human brain/human body.
— Thanatos Sand

Similarly to how consciousness (strong AI) can't be created by algorithms, it can't be created by matter and energy.

Sorry, your irrelevant comment doesn't counter in any way my true statement about the human body not being external to the human mind. The human mind is not the same as A.I.s. It's cute you think they are.

The human body perceives information; the human mind/brain is the part of the human body that evaluates and records it.
— Thanatos Sand

You didn't respond to my binocular argument. Information is either brought to brain from outside it, so that the information is external to the brain, and there's no difference between it being brought via the nerves or a binocular or wires in your head, or it's created within your mind/brain so it's internal.

I didn't respond because it was goofy nonsense like the goofy nonsense you repeated about it. Eyes are part of the body, binoculars are not. It's very odd you don't get that.

So, Ciao, as I said above, I have no interest in addressing your nonsense any further, so I won't be reading or responding to your posts on this thread.

So, you can't show my statement was unclear. — Thanatos Sand

I just did in that comment.

Only clueless people think people making statements have a responsibility to prove their clarity. Smart people know it is on the onus of the critic to show how the statement is not unclear. — Thanatos Sand

Ok, somewhere in this thread I have flawlessly proved that the bread you ate was actually God in the form of dinosaur. Is it now your responsibility to go through all my comments word by word, and then quote them and your thoughts to prove I didn't prove that? Of course not.

That nothing comment you made didn't counter my correct statement in any way. So, "yes." — Thanatos Sand

That comment was not a counter, it was an analyzing of your comment to prove it's not the one comment explaining which one of my options is your opinion, because you didn't even explain which one of your comments was supposed to contain your opinion on the question.

This is incoherent nonsense made even moreso by its lack of sufficient syntax. — Thanatos Sand

Ok, it's complex because of long sentences and formatting but you earlier said it's the critic's responsibility to prove the flaws.

I said I didn't want to talk religion, ghosts, and spirits in this discussion. — Thanatos Sand

Funny, considering they're essential to the subject.

The human mind is not the same as A.I.s. It's cute you think they are. — Thanatos Sand

I don't, and that was the key point of my comment. And then you claim I'm the one who should improve my reading :D

I didn't respond because it was goofy nonsense like the goofy nonsense you repeated about it. Eyes are part of the body, binoculars are not. It's very odd you don't get that. — Thanatos Sand

They're both merely means of delivering information to your brain, which then interprets the information ignoring its source. One is created biologically by your body while other is not which is irrelevant. It's very odd you don't get that.

So, Ciao, as I said above, I have no interest in addressing your nonsense any further, so I won't be reading or responding to your posts on this thread. — Thanatos Sand

We'll see about that, if you really were as tired of arguing with people you disagree with so strongly you consider their opinions to be nonsense as you sound, you'd have finished this discussion much earlier.

Its quite simply really.. we all have mountains of evidence suggesting how dogs will behave, people who haven't seen dogs before will be far more suspicious of them.

We have no reason to believe in a god, so i dont see any fallacy at all, saying we might go to hell if we are wrong is a non starter. There's an infinite number of propositions that have terrible consequences if they are true and we dont believe them, how absurd it would be to consider them all.

Lastly, the whole atheist/agnostic thing is annoying, you seem to think there exist some large portion of 'atheists' who 'believe there is no god'... ive never met a single one of these people, im sure they exist, but they are simply irrational atheists who dont understand how evidence and proof work. Everyone is agnostic about God, because knowledge about such a transcendent thing that defies the laws of reality is categorically unknowable.

There's an infinite number of propositions that have terrible consequences if they are true and we dont believe them, how absurd it would be to consider them all. — PeterPants

You seem to stand out from the rest. An essential element of planning requires factoring in the unforseen, the bolt from the blue that could burn the most meticulous of plans. In this case, God, we already know what it means not to believe in Him - eternal torment. So, your plan, anyone's, should include God.

Everyone is agnostic about God — PeterPants

Late Christopher Hitchens, Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, Sam Harris, etc.

Nonsense. Please demonstrate that not believing in god = eternal torment. as far as i can tell thats just a story.

The very quote f mine you gave, the first one, is my main response to your comment. Please apply that to your assertion about the supposed 'afterlife'.

"Late Christopher Hitchens, Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, Sam Harris, etc."
and whats that about?

Please demonstrate that not believing in god = eternal torment. — PeterPants

He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. — King James Bible

LOL, oh well, paint me convinced.

LOL, oh well, paint me convinced — PeterPants

:)

You had to ask.

You have a problem with questions do you?
I'd still like you to demonstrate your assertion... which you clearly have not done.

I did but you didn't accept.

Scripture clearly states that not to believe in God is to be damned in hell.

Not to be wary of a dog is to open yourself to harm.