Re: How to Become a Christian, Version 1.01

From: Bob Myers (nospamplease_at_address.invalid)
Date: 11/21/04 

Date: Sun, 21 Nov 2004 18:14:58 GMT

"Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" <nospam6@heartmdphd.com> wrote in message
news:815c94d6.0411210948.21ae84e8@posting.google.com...
> This bring us back again to the following very simple decision tree
> for the untruthful folks such as yourself, neighbor, who have chosen
> to walk in the "dark":
>
> (1) Accept Christ.
> Risk: Nothing.
>
> Benefits: Salvation, purposeful life, eternal life, unimaginable
> riches in God's eternal kingdom.
>
> (2) Reject Christ.
> Risk: Eternal separation from God. Eternal torment of your soul by
> satan.

Again, as has been pointed out to you countless times now,
this is a version of a very, very old argument classically known
as "Pascal's Wager." (And yes, as you pointed out before, this
actually is a "decision tree" and not a "wager" - however, this
simply shows your trouble with comprehending written English.
The operative phrase here is "known as" - whether or not it
actually IS a "wager" is not relevant to the question of what name
it has traditionally been given.) And, as has been stated repeatedly,
it contains a very serious flaw.

That flaw is simply this - while the Wager (or "decision tree," if
you prefer) suggests that it might be preferable to believe in SOME
God, it is of absolutely no value whatsoever in determining which
God or Gods to believe in. You can substitute any name for
"Christ" in the above (as long as it's the name of some deity or
other object of worship which gives you a choice between
receiving some reward for believing, and some punishment for
NOT believing), and the argument is still equally valid. In other
words, it reads just the same, and carries exactly the same logical
weight, to proclaim the following:

(1) Accept Ubizmo
Risk: Nothing.

Benefits: Salvation, purposeful life, eternal life, etc..

(2) Reject Ubizmo
Risk: Eternal separation from Ubizmo the Almighty. Eternal
torment of your soul by Ziggy, his evil twin.

Benefit: Nothing.

Since you can continue on with substitutions of this nature
ad infinitum, and acceptance of ALL of the deities possibly
named is not possible (either due to mutually contradictory
theologies, or explicit stated prohibitions on the belief in any
OTHER deities), the argument is valueless in any practical
sense, in terms of it being a compelling reason for ANY
belief. Further, it is invalid through its assumption of the
existence of beings for whom no evidence has been presented;
the argument works perfectly well for totally "made-up"
entities, since it has no a priori requirement of establishment
of the truth of an assumed proposition (i.e., that the God
in question both exists, and behaves as is being claimed).

> Again, one has to conclude that those (ie you, Carey, Steve, Bob, Zee,
> Frank, Kate, Rolando, Don et al) who would reject Christ have not
> thought out their decision *logically*.

Not at all; your repeated assertion of this simply shows that
you, yourself, have not examined the above argument at all
critically, with respect to its logical and practical validity. You
further assume that any of those who point out these problems
MUST, therefore, also have "rejected Christ," when in fact
no evidence of this or logical argument for that conclusion has
been presented. (In short, your failing here is in making the
unsupportable assertion that any who reject YOUR arguments
must therefore be rejecting Christ, which is amazingly arrogant
and presumptive on your part. It seems obvious at this point
that rejection of Andrew Chung in no way equates to rejection
of Christ, unless it is your intent to show that you ARE, in fact,
Christ. IS this your argument?)

>
> Would suggest you cast a glance at Bob Pastorio as a special example
> of untruthfully eloquent self-worship

You can suggest that, but apparently it is Andrew Chung who is
guilty of "self-worship" if anyone is, since you appear to be the
only one here claiming that your presentation of your arguments is
utterly without flaw. (And please spare us the "these are not my
arguments, but God's" form of false humility. God is not writing
your posts here, and certainly is NOT responsible for the egregious
errors in logic that you continue to present.

Bob M.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: How to Become a Christian, Version 1.01
    ... "Dr. Andrew B. Chung, ... > Risk: Eternal separation from God. ... Salvation, purposeful life, eternal life, etc.. ...
    (sci.med)
  • Warning: Andrew B. Chung is a harassing spammer
    ... Day for day "Andrew B. Chung" spits masses of harassing posts into the Net. ... Actually Andrew B. Chung praises for mass murder. ... That is a way of rhetorical warfare of the meanest sort: to grab a "god" and to ...
    (sci.med.cardiology)
  • Warning: Andrea B. Chung is a harassing spammer
    ... Day for day "Andrew B. Chung" spits masses of harassing posts into the Net. ... Actually Andrew B. Chung praises for mass murder. ... That is a way of rhetorical warfare of the meanest sort: to grab a "god" and to ...
    (sci.med.cardiology)
  • Warning: Andrea B. Chung is a harassing spammer
    ... Day for day "Andrew B. Chung" spits masses of harassing posts into the Net. ... Actually Andrew B. Chung praises for mass murder. ... That is a way of rhetorical warfare of the meanest sort: to grab a "god" and to ...
    (misc.health.alternative)
  • Warning: Andrew B. Chung is a harassing spammer
    ... Day for day "Andrew B. Chung" spits masses of harassing posts into the Net. ... Actually Andrew B. Chung praises for mass murder. ... That is a way of rhetorical warfare of the meanest sort: to grab a "god" and to ...
    (misc.health.alternative)