You've demonstrated that the bible says x, i fully accept that.
What i asked for however, was for you to demonstrate that non-believers, go to hell.
This would require the demonstration that hell is a real place as well of course...
And even your assertion, 'Scripture clearly states that not to believe in God is to be damned in hell." Who's scripture? Yours? The Prasthanatrayi says nothing of the sort for example.

So no, you didn't answer my question at all. my 'acceptance' is obviously quite irreverent.

But, to your proposition..
Indeed there are practical reasons to assume certain things as being true, even when they may well not be. Effectively, pascals wager in this area.

BUT, that does not mean that they actually ARE true, at all. Just because its practical to assume a big nasty dog, does not mean, at all, that there actually IS a big nasty dog.
And the idea of believing anything that could potentially be important to believe, is clearly completely ridiculous, you would have to believe, and act upon, an infinite number of propositions, its impossible.

It might be practical to believe in a God, so what? whats your point?

Assuming something true is done on the pragmatic basis that not doing so is dangerous.

A dog can be friendly but, more importantly, it can be dangerous, even life-threatening.

Assuming a dog as a threat is pragmatic because animals are unpredictable and dangerous.

Not believing in God is dangerous because if you don't you're at risk of going to hell (Pascal's wager is precisely about that).

So, assuming God exists is also pragmatic.

Yes, there are infinite possibilities that can be dangerous. What's the point though? When we plan, as we routinely do, we always include the contingent. It's not necessary to think of ALL possible events. Only those relevant, as determined by the context, need be considered.

In our case, hell is relevant because we're talking about eternal pain.

ok, so you should also always assume there is an alien under your bed, going to eat you. so never get off the bed, its the only practical conclusion.
Eternal pain? Need I make up ten different hypothetical's that result in 'eternal pain' if you don't do weird things?

Regardless of your bold assertions, you still have to demonstrate some validity to your concern.. The dog example is simple. Dogs can be unpredictable, there is a lot of data showing that even beloved family pets can act very unpredictable in rare cases.
We simply cant understand what a dog is thinking like we can with humans, we cant talk with them.
Thus, its perfectly logical to be concerned about a dog nearby.
So, why be concerned about hell exactly?

I'll venture to say that I'm about as concerned with your hell, as you are about man eating aliens hiding under your bed.

ok, so you should also always assume there is an alien under your bed, going to eat you. so never get off the bed, its the only practical conclusion. — PeterPants

Strawman.

When we evaluate threats two factors are important:

1. The likelihood of the threat
2. The magnitude of the threat

Your alien example is neither likely nor poses a grave a threat.

A dog meets both criteria as you kindly explained in your post.

In the case of God, His existence isn't impossible and the magnitude of the threat is immense. So, it's best to assume He exists.

Ok... but your stuck assuming the existence of an infinite number of 'not impossible' threats..
heres two.

The alien before mentioned, but now he has the technology to keep you alive indefinitely and is going to capture and torture you forever, if you get off your bed. not impossible, has to be assumed as true.

There is a God, named Plunkto, and he will torture you forever in the afterlife if you spend a single second of your life believing in the Christian God. Yeah, now your stuffed..

At the end of the day, the magnitude of a threat is irrelevant if the likelihood is entirely dissmissable. I see no reason whatsoever to think hell is real, and thus no reason to even consider the magnitude of its badness. Simply saying something is really really bad, is not a reason to think its true.

I would certainly argue that my alien example is more likely then your hell example. At least it does not require the addition of completely new physical laws and systems.. Its actually possible given just the 'known' order of reality.


Don't even get me started on the absurdity of appealing to something as 'not impossible' on a philosophy forum.

You're right. We should assume all of these hypothetical situations you described to be true, including God.

Just to demonstrate. Take the 9/11 attacks

It was thought

1. Highly improbable
2. The threat assessment was low

Look what happened. Nearly a decade on and we're still in its shadow.

Yeah, America really over-reacted to that... imagine if it was a natural event that caused that many deaths and that much destruction.. it wouldn't have upset the entire world, it wouldn't have cast a decade long shadow over all of america..
The Tsunami that stuck Japan in 2011, claimed 15,000 lives.. But they didn't start a decade long war costing trillions of dollars.
Please dont get me wrong, im not arguing against the retaliation, just explaining that there was a real world cost to the reaction itself.
Obviously an intentional terrorism act must be treated differently then an unintentional natural event, but still.

Anyway, I still think your argument is not logical, terrorism is a real thing that happens everyday, there are people who go out of their way to explain in detail what they want to do to us.. We have every reason in the world to react accordingly.

If you want to spend your whole life huddled atop your bed in fear of the infinitely evil aliens that might be hiding under your bed, you are free to it. but then you cant ever drink water again either, or you might catch any of the large number of unbelievably horrible water transmitted virus' or diseases, dont walk down a street either, a car might hit you.

Arguing that people didnt predict 9/11 is not evidence for your God, nor is it reason to fear baseless propositions.

I'm giving you a real-world example of how threat perception and calculations can be totally wrong. I'd like you to relate the 9/11 attacks to my God-dog argument.

Let's revisit the argument (I hope it doesn't bore you):

Threat assessment:

1. Probability of threat
2. Severity of threat

With a dog, which is real, the probability of threat has a undetermined non-zero value. Also, the severity of the threat is high (many cases of fatal dog attacks). So, it is rational to assume the existence of a dangerous dog in a park, in a house, etc.

With God, probability of threat is not zero but it is close to zero. However, the severity of threat is almost unimaginable (hell for eternity). So, on balance, it becomes rational to believe in God.

However, the severity of threat is almost unimaginable (hell for eternity) — TheMadFool

According to some.

According to some. — BlueBanana

The idea of Hell derives from the following reasonable argument

1. God is good
2. If God is good then God is just
3. If God is just then the bad must be punished
4. If the bad must be punished then hell must exist
So,
5. Hell must exist.

2. If God is good then God is just
3. If God is just then the bad must be punished — TheMadFool

I don't think so. If God is good he forgives.

5. Hell must exist. — TheMadFool

Doesn't mean you go there for not believing. Even if the reasoning was correct, only bad people would go to Hell, not non-believers.

If God is good he forgives — BlueBanana

You're right. Forgiveness is essential to God's nature. However, if everything can be forgiven then there's no difference between good and bad. But the distinction good and bad is also an essential nature of God. A paradox. One of the following has to be discarded:
1. Forgiveness
2. Good-bad distinction

Since 2 can't be discarded because that is a foundation on which God rests, 1 has to be the one that's wrong. Perhaps you can do better.

Even if the reasoning was correct, only bad people would go to Hell, not non-believers. — BlueBanana

If you don't believe then you're bad.

You're right. Forgiveness is essential to God's nature. However, if everything can be forgiven then there's no difference between good and bad. But the distinction good and bad is also an essential nature of God. A paradox. One of the following has to be discarded:
1. Forgiveness
2. Good-bad distinction

Since 2 can't be discarded because that is a foundation on which God rests, 1 has to be the one that's wrong. Perhaps you can do better. — TheMadFool

There is difference between good and bad. Just not in their treatment or consequences. There is no contradiction betwden 1 and 2.

If you don't believe then you're bad. — TheMadFool

What? How? Why? Is this the "atheists are evil" argument? Or is not believing in itself bad? ??? ?

There is difference between good and bad. Just not in their treatment or consequences. There is no contradiction betwden 1 and 2. — BlueBanana

Perhaps we have to draw a distinction on the matter of consequences. The first type of consequence would be that which concerns people involved in a certain act. For example, A assaults B and B gets hurt. B getting hurt, a consequence, is relevant to the moral status of A's act. However, the other consequence, that of A being punished for the act, isn't relevant because that would be fear tactics and that, I think, undermines the whole concept of what morality is. Morality is an end in itself, having intrinsic worth. It doesn't, or rather shouldn't, need any further incentive/disincentive to behave morally.

However, what is the logic of heaven and hell then? Why do all prophets preach it? Is it because we haven't matured enough to understand the true value of morality, thereby requiring a carrot-stick paradigm to encourage us to be moral?

What? How? Why? Is this the "atheists are evil" argument? Or is not believing in itself bad? ??? ? — BlueBanana

I mean not believing in God would be tantamount to not believing in Good, in morality.

However, what is the logic of heaven and hell then? Why do all prophets preach it? Is it because we haven't matured enough to understand the true value of morality, thereby requiring a carrot-stick paradigm to encourage us to be moral? — TheMadFool

That's a possibility, or then hell is a state of mind, ie/eg the conscience and feeling quilty.

I mean not believing in God would be tantamount to not believing in Good, in morality. — TheMadFool

Morality might have a value that is independent from God's existence, but I guess I can see a point in that as well, the God being the (abstract) concept of goodness or love itself so that (most) atheists believe in God, just not in what they call God.

The problem is that we cant know for sure that your religion is the true one. There are and have ben thousands of religions all with the same amount of valididty. Atheists therefore conclude that their chance of chosing the right religion is one in a thousand. Isn't the right decision then to live your life without rules and restrictions? Not to mention maybe god does not exist and then religion won't even grant that one in a million chance at heaven.