Can't speak for all, but from a Catholic perspective your theology above is not quite accurate.

Since Vatican 2 - here is a Catholic description of "hell" and punishment -

Hell is not a place, but a state, a person's state of being, in which a person suffers from the deprivation of God. Hell is best understood as the condition of total alienation from all that is good, hopeful and loving in the world. This condition is a choice, the ultimate exercise of free will, not a punishment engineered by God.

This is not an argument one way or the other on your point - just a clarification on how some theists view the concept of "hell"

Just so you know where I'm coming from I'm a hardcore atheist — Terrapin Station

and probably a dead head !!!

fyi - from US Conf of Catholic Bishops -

"As Catholic agencies assisting poor and vulnerable migrants in the United States and around the world, we are deeply saddened by the violence, injustice, and deteriorating economic conditions forcing many people to flee their homes in Central America. While nations have the right to protect their borders, this right comes with responsibilities: governments must enforce laws proportionately, treat all people humanely, and provide due process.

We affirm that seeking asylum is not a crime. We urge all governments to abide by international law and existing domestic laws that protect those seeking safe haven and ensure that all those who are returned to their home country are protected and repatriated safely.

Furthermore, we strongly advocate for continued U.S. investments to address the underlying causes of violence and lack of opportunity in Central America. Our presence throughout the Americas has convinced us that migration is a regional issue that requires a comprehensive, regional solution. An enforcement-only approach does not address nor solve the larger root causes that cause people to flee their countries in search of protection.

As Christians, we must answer the call to act with compassion towards those in need and to work together to find humane solutions that honor the rule of law and respect the dignity of human life.”

The only answer to this question that matters at all is the one you give yourself.

I don't care about that, just because I think all your gods are fake, that does not mean I actually believe I will be able to change your mind on such a topic. I have little desire to actually convince believers that their gods are not real. I understand how fruitless that task is. — Jeremiah

Agree - It seems you are more interested in ridicule than discussion

You say that because of the stakes being so high, you ought to take P very seriously indeed. But because of its general form, P amounts not to one proposition, but to an infinitely large family of propositions, which can be obtained by varying C (we could also vary T, R and U, but for the purposes of practical decision-making that won't make much of a difference, provided that T is sufficiently far in the future). So what are you to do? How would you go around studying all of those propositions? — SophistiCat

I have read this quite a few times, but I don't see the logic that takes it to an infinite large family of propositions. I am quite sure that the failure to understand is all on me. Can you expand or explain it in some way the intellectually challenged like myself might get it.

to be clear I am not defending Pascal's wager - I believe in skeptical theism, and as such, I am doubtful that we can say anything at all with any degree of certainty about the nature of God.

The only part of Pascal's wager that I find useful - is as an objection to Agnosticism. Pascal says the game has already begun, and we must bet - not playing is not an option.

Life is happening - and at some point it will end - and at the very very end of the day it will either end with a black hole (something natural) or something super- natural. In Pascal terms - the coin is spinning - not calling heads or tails is not an option.

agree - as mine above - Pascal's alternative was dichotomous - God as he understood God, existed or it did not.

there is no "proof" that God is or is not as a matter of fact. There is a reasonable case that God is, and there is a reasonable case that God is not.

What is unreasonable, is believing that your reasonable belief is any better or worse than another reasonable belief.

Considering all this god crap is made-up human nonsense — Jeremiah

Yet again - i will be happy to argue against any set of premises that ends with the conclusion " therefore theism is unreasonable"

That would be quite a useless and unnecessary premise, since it is a trivial tautology — SophistiCat

Could well be, but that is what it is, with the addition of, and we can not know which is true.

P: At some future time T one of two things will happen: either you will be rewarded with inconceivably great rewards R or punished with inconceivably great punishments U. — SophistiCat

In Pascal's wager there are 4 possibilities.

God is, and you believe - infinite happiness
God is, and you do not believe - infinite un-happiness
God is not, and you believe - finite ignorance
God is not, and you do not believe - finite knowledge

God of the Catholic religion (or at least something like it) - or atheism. But is this so? — SophistiCat

not quite correct - better said God ( of the Catholic religion) is, or is not. This is an undeniable true premise - it in-compasses every possibility.

Here's a solid argument against skeptical theism:

1. If one accepts skeptical theism, then one asserts that humans (non-omniscient beings) cannot make a reasonable judgment about what God would do in any given situation.
2. If one cannot make reasonable judgments about what God would do in any
given situation, then one cannot make claims about any other tenets of religion (e.g. the idea of heaven and hell or if God is actually omnibenevolent in the first place).
3. Therefore, a skeptical theist must remain skeptical about all other religious beliefs. — Yajur

Yajur - happy to reply, but let's do one argument at a time. - to recap

you present the argument from evil -
i counter that a 3 - O God and Evil can co-exist if there are compensating goods
there is an implicit no-seeum argument back that - you don't see any compensating goods, so there are none -
I present the skeptical theist position that - we have no reason to believe that we have the capability to be aware of the compensating goods, or recognize them as such.

than you make the argument above, with an acceptance of skeptical theism as a premise.

So before answering that argument, i would need you to accept that skeptical theism is reasonable, and as such it provides a reasonable case that allows a 3 O God and evil to co-exist - therefor defeating the argument from evil -

because what I won't do is try to have a meaningful discussion with someone who accepts a position in one case, and rejects the same position in a diff case depending on the answer they support - that would just be wasting both our times.

So if you want to grant skeptical theism in the AFE case, I am more that willing to address it in your second argument

Suggestion: accept what you know by faith AS LONG AS it does not conflict with reason. G — Relativist

That is exactly what I am saying, just add fact as well to complete.

It seems to me the 3 things do indeed conflict at times. — DingoJones

Think you are missing my point.

so lets say, i say I believe by faith the world is flat. That just makes me a fool, it does not make faith itself foolish, and it is not the faith making me foolish - it is my ignoring facts that makes me a fool.

Let's next say - by faith alone I won't get a vaccination for something. There is very very reasonable evidence that this vaccination is 99% effective in preventing this illness. That just makes me a fool, it is not faith itself that is foolish, and it is not faith that is making me unreasonable. It is my ignoring reason that makes me a fool.

So my definition of faith is a basis to believe something is true and can not be in conflict with fact or reason.

If you believe something that is conflict with fact or reason - the problem is you - not faith.

from a different post - but just to give the skeptical theist response here as well:

Skeptical theists address the argument from evil - with the concept of compensating goods.

For something to be a compensating good:
1. It has to be significantly good , so good in fact, that anyone would say it was a good worth the evil
2. The good could not be possible without the evil.

In the cases of evil caused by the choices of men - the compensating good is free will.

In the cases where evil is not caused by choices of men - such as natural disasters - skeptical theists use a the concept of cognitive distance. The atheist will say I have looked around, and I don't see any compensating good for this natural disaster - therefore there is no compensating good. The skeptical theist response is, what makes you think we have the ability to be aware of every compensating good, or recognize it as such even if we saw it.

The atheist argument is a no-seeum argument - and the skeptical theist response is we may well not posses the tools needed to see it or recognize it as such.

It is important to note, that the AFE is an atheist argument against the existence of God, the theist only need provide a reasonable case where a 3 O God and evil can co-exist. There is no obligation on the part of the theist to prove the compensating good argument - their only obligation is to present a reasonable case for compensating goods - if the atheist want to continue to make the AFE case to change the mind of the theist - it is his obligation to prove that compensating goods argument is unreasonable.

Dr. Hudson does a very good job of explaining the skeptical theist view on the AFE here - worth the hour and he is entertaining as well.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mJbgnyFlW5M

sure - how about the multi-universe objection to the argument by design - in no way at all could one consider the multi universe a fact, although there are reasonable arguments both for an against, no one can say by reason alone that the multi-universe "is". It is just a truth some believe based on faith in science's ability to answer these types of questions.

there is always a major issue in discussions on faith. the first is agreeing on a definition of what the word means, and the second is it is an individual concept - that we wish to apply universally.

so at least my definition is faith is a basis we use to believe something is true, and act accordingly. faith is linked to truth and to action. For this basis to be valid, and for me to use it as a basis to believe something is true it can not be in conflict with fact or reason.

i can not say through faith alone I believe it is true the world is flat. It is in conflict with fact, and it just makes me a fool. It does not make "faith" a fool, nor did "faith" make me a fool, my denial of fact makes me a fool.

that does not mean - fools don't claim foolish things by faith, and that maybe greater fools continue to argue with them -

the second point is that all truth claims are personal believes - many individuals may hold identical truth claims - but they are all individual beliefs. There is always issues with expanding the individual to the universal

1. If you have a religious faith, then you need to explain how your belief system answers the problem of evil. — reasonablewave

Skeptical theists address the argument from evil - with the concept of compensating goods.

For something to be a compensating good:
1. It has to be significantly good , so good that anyone would say it was a good worth the evil
2. The good could not be possible without the evil.

In the cases of evil caused by the choices of men - the compensating good is free will.

In the cases where evil is not caused by choices of men - such as natural disasters - skeptical theists use a the concept of cognitive distance. The atheist will say I have looked around, and i don't see any compensating good for this natural disaster - therefore there is no compensating good. The skeptical theist response is what makes us think we have the ability to be aware of every compensating good, or recognize it as such even if we saw it.

The atheist argument is a no-seeum argument - and the skeptical theist response is we may well not posses the tools needed to understand such a thing as God.

It is important to note, that the AFE is an atheist argument against the existence of God, the theist only need provide a reasonable case where a 3 O God and evil can co-exist. There is no obligation on the part of the theist to prove the compensating good argument - their only obligation is to present a reasonable case for compensating goods - if the atheist want to continue to make the AFE case to change the mind of the theist - it is his obligation to prove that compensating goods are unreasonable.

if this is topic you have a real interest in - and a willingness to see and understand the other side of the argument - this is worth the 50 something minutes.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mJbgnyFlW5M

I'm making the point that natural rights do not exist. Never have and never will. — LD Saunders

then we just disagree - i believe simply by being human i have several natural rights, i have a right not to be killed, not to be enslaved, not to be raped, etc I would go further to say I have a right to use my talents and effort to better my life.

People instead first figure out what is morally good, and then make up legal rights to accomplish what is morally good. It's only after people figuring out that freedom of speech is a good thing that it then becomes a legal right. Rights are always governed by a larger moral system — LD Saunders

all of that seems inconstant with -

I'm making the point that natural rights do not exist. Never have and never will. — LD Saunders

How does the concept of god NOT conflict with fact or reason? — Harry Hindu

i am willing to argue against any set of premises that end with the conclusion " therefore theism is unreasonable"

Having knowledge itself isn't proof of anything. Knowledge can be wrong - just like faith. To say that "I know" is to say that "For the moment, this is what I believe". And I'm sure you've had situations where your faith in someone had failed you — Harry Hindu

believing something is true, does not mean it is a fact that it is true. However, until proven wrong by either fact or reason - there is no basis to say it is not true.

For example - i can say, based on reason alone, it is true that there is no such thing as a pink unicorns on earth. That statement remains true, to me, - right up until the point where someone finds a pink unicorn in some dark corner of some jungle.

this is the nature of the belief in truth.

sorry - i have no clue at all what point you are making here.

How does "faith" differ from "hope" or "delusion"? — Harry Hindu

much of this entire issue is based on one's definitions of the words.

I would define faith as an individual basis used to believe something is true, and this basis can not be in conflict with fact or reason. All truths believed by faith are individual - although many individuals may have them in common.

using this definition - hope is not a truth claim - if you hope something is true - you are saying you don't know if or if not it is true. And if your truth claim based on faith is delusional, it would be in conflict with either fact or reason or both.

every argument against a faith based belief that is not in conflict with fact or reason - is just another faith based belief.

What criteria does faith have? — tim wood

that it is in no way in conflict with fact or reason -

First, a two year old has no conception of what calculus is, that is, they don't understand the concept calculus, or the concepts used in calculus, so they may as well be talking gibberish. — Sam26

Exactly, that is the point. With the only addition is that the 2 year old has no idea at all that he knows nothing about calculus. And our understanding of the nature of God could be no better than the 2 year olds understanding of calculus, and we also be equally unaware of the fact we have no idea what we are talking about - all our chatter on the nature of God - might also be nothing but gibberish

as I stated, I don't think any truth one believes is better or worse if believed by fact, reason, or faith. As long as, as I stated, that what one believes by reason can not be in conflict with fact, and what one believes by faith can not be in conflict with fact or reason. With that caveat fact, reason and faith are neither better or worse than each other.

I'm not sure what your point is here. — Sam26

yea - you are missing my point - no worries

think my analogy is exactly the point i am trying to make - what is your basis for thinking our ability to actually comprehend the true nature of God is in anyway at all better than a 2 year old's ability to understand calculus ? Because we think we can ???

and the basis for these statements have to do with the concepts we use. Now one might argue that the concept God has no instance in reality, but I think it's incorrect to say that "...we have no basis at all to believe we can make any statement at all about the nature of God." — Sam26

and ants can communicate their understanding of their world to each other. And their perceptions of their world can be perfectly reasonable to their fellow ants who share the same perception of the world. And it can even be useful - they can tell them follow this trail and food will be there. And to any any other ant this world description is 100% true - but it has nothing at all in common with what our human view of the world is.

We can and do make statements about the nature of God all the time, — Sam26

and a 2 year old sitting on my lap can make statements about the calculus book on my desk. The point is we can say all we want, and we can believe all we want that we are intelligent enough to make meaningful statements about the nature of God - but we have absolutely no basis at all to judge in any way at all the validity of these statement.

here is skepical theist response.

P1 - we have no basis at all to believe we can make any statement at all about the nature of God.
P2. - any statement that any human makes that assigns any characteristic at all to the nature of God is by definition anthropomorphic and we have no basis at all to know if it is or is not true.

Conclusion - any argument that contains a premise about the nature of God fails, because there is no way at all establish the truth value of the premise.

In general I agree. I think any statement we make about the nature of God has no basis. There is no reason to believe that we in anyway possess the tools required to make any such claim.

Faith in God may well be the philosophic suicide that Camus said it is. But if one finds theism a personally satisfying answer to the big "why", why is that in anyway different from the existentialist defining a unique meaning, or from the absurd hero's acceptance of the absurd?

Camus would, I think, say one is more truthful than the other. Which to my mind is just a prejudicial selection of one option over another - neither one with any more provable truth value than the other.

So to the main point neither fact, nor reason, nor faith is a better or worse basis for one to believe something to be true - with the only caveat that they can not be misapplied. Reason can not be in conflict with fact, and faith can not be in conflict with fact or reason.

What is really at issue, and has been for a very long time is really just one person saying their faith based belief is better than your faith based belief. -

I see no philosophic difference at all between faith based theism and faith based belief in a multi-universe. Neither is in any way at all a matter of fact, and both have reasoned arguments for or against their possibility.

As an aside, as a skeptical theist - i think the argument from design fails. It fails because it is based on an assumption that we humans can say anything at all of value about the nature of God. It is just another anthropomorphic statement - that because all the pieces fit as we perceive and measure them - than God designed them - remarkably just as we would - if we could.

Nation states have no moral goodness associated with them if morality is about caring about human beings in general. Nation states are about "us" and "them", you'd have to be a fantasist to think otherwise. — Kippo

Not quite ready to believe that. Nation states have various degrees of morality, and different levels of concern about individuals. If that makes me a fantasist, so be it.

Can I speculate all human beings have a right not to be enslaved ?? How without circular logic would one go about proving that ? Or one has a right not to be killed - how without circular logic would one prove that -

by definition inalienable human rights are inalienable and by definition the right of all humans simple by being human - the argument comes on where the inalienable line is.

First of all, how can you say everyone has "rights"? — LD Saunders

I do think as human beings we have certain inalienable rights - simply due to our humanness. One of those rights would be to improve the condition of my life within my capabilities.

The question is can an arbitrary line, in the main established and maintained by force - superseded what I say is a human's right to improve ones life within his/her's capabilities. I say no, i say there should be a doable, at least semi efficient process to evaluate immigrants and allow willing workers into the country.

I don't think there is any real evidence that taken on any kind of balance that immigration has been anything but a great positive for this country. If you want to continue to fund SS and Medicare in an aging economy - allow in younger workers.

Borders make lousy economic barriers -

Not sure exactly - I think there are 3 ways one can believe something is true, and act accordingly. Fact, reason and faith. In general the realm of fact is the realm of science - and when stated well is undisputed. Reason is the realm of philosophy, and Faith is the realm of theology. Any truth believed by reason, can not be in conflict with fact, and any truth believed by faith can not be in conflict with fact or reason. Not sure what that makes me.

Personally - I have no real position on the reasonableness of the 3O's one way or the other. As a skeptical theist - i don't believe we have any ability at all, in any meaningful way, to say anything at all about the nature of God. It is why I do not believe either the OA or the intelligent design arguments are effective.

from Wikipedia - use with caution - My take is this is just applying Modal logic to Anselm's base argument. Instead of saying what we can imagine, it is just saying - something is possible - God of 3 O's in this is simply a restatement of " greatest being that can be imagined in Anselm argument.

1. A being has maximal excellence in a given possible world W if and only if it is omnipotent, omniscient and wholly good in W; and

2. A being has maximal greatness if it has maximal excellence in every possible world.

It is possible that there is a being that has maximal greatness. (Premise)

Therefore, possibly, it is necessarily true that an omniscient, omnipotent, and perfectly good being exists
.
Therefore, (by modal logic axiom S5) it is necessarily true that an omniscient, omnipotent and perfectly good being exists.

Therefore, an omniscient, omnipotent and perfectly good being exists.

Plantinga argued that, although the first premise is not rationally established, it is not contrary to reason.

finally as an aside - while i enjoy the logic in both, i think neither is a very effective proof of God -