New thought about Pascal's Wager

[bhsmte]

it's a fallacy to believe an argument is invalid depending on how long it is used,

rather arguments are valid or in valid based on logical analysis,

good luck to you!

I rely on evidence and objective evidence to support an argument.

If it is lacking, I tend to withhold belief in the argument.

 

[bhsmte]

Yep, that's the correct talking point from the lobbyists trying to make this happen. But for some reason, their story changed when under oath. I guess when there's an actual penalty for lying they're smart enough to tell the truth - ID is just creationism with the god part lightly hidden in hopes of sneaking it past the courts.

The Dover trial was a very embarrassing moment for the ID folks and they even had their best scientists on the stand. Even a conservative Christian judge, saw through it.

 

[Dmitri Martila]

If it is lacking, I tend to withhold belief in the argument.

Pascal was unable to change the atheistic people in the clubs, pubs, etc. So he invented the funny Wager. It allows to stay as the same sinner (in the light of first and second commandments) and squeeze your soul with play into Heaven under the closed eyes of Jesus. And then to change Heaven into Hell.

 

[bhsmte]

Pascal was unable to change the atheistic people in the clubs, pubs, etc. So he invented the funny Wager. It allows to stay as the same sinner (in the light of first and second commandments) and squeeze your soul with play into Heaven under the closed eyes of Jesus. And then to change Heaven into Hell.

Cool.

 

[Eudaimonist]

Pascal was unable to change the atheistic people in the clubs, pubs, etc. So he invented the funny Wager.

Pascal was almost certainly going for "agnostics" who wanted to believe in Christianity or who were fence-sitters and uncertain. He wasn't trying to convince atheists of anything.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Dmitri Martila]

Pascal was almost certainly going for "agnostics"

NON-repented Atheist defends the Pascal's Wager. This is very bad sign for Pascal. Generally atheist is opposer to any thing, what theist comes with. So it is extremely bad sign for Pascal.

Agnostic says: God can not be proven. The fact: God and afterlife will be proven in afterlife. Therefore, agnostic does not believe neither in God nor in afterlife. Thus, he is atheist.

Do the most Christians remain agnostics, who have decided, what God exists (with the huge chance of opposite)? That is why most Christians are defenders of atheism against the fundamentalists.

 

[durangodawood]

....Agnostic says: God can not be proven. The fact: God and afterlife will be proven in afterlife. Therefore, agnostic does not believe neither in God nor in afterlife. Thus, he is atheist.

Correct. If you dont believe in theism, you are an atheist. A not-believer. But you may still be open to the idea that God might exist.

 

[Dmitri Martila]

Correct. If you dont believe in theism, you are an atheist. A not-believer. But you may still be open to the idea that God might exist.

Do the most Christians remain agnostics, who have decided, what God exists (with the huge chance of opposite)? That is why most Christians are defenders of atheism against the fundamentalists.

 

[ecco]

well I would look up hard science versus soft science.

You would but you don't.

 

[ecco]

This paradox is making them the new atheists with some lapse of time.

Your posts are probably making a few christians wonder.

 

[ecco]

Correct. If you dont believe in theism, you are an atheist. A not-believer. But you may still be open to the idea that God might exist.

No, that would be an agnostic.

 

[createdtoworship]

You would but you don't.

sorry my statement was a figure of speach for

"go and look up the definition of hard science, not soft science and get back to me"

because most of science is so called and not viable to the scientific method.

evolution for one, biologically speaking

has no direct observation, and hence is disqualified universally from science.

as observation is a critical step in most basic of scientific methodological steps.

 

[createdtoworship]

I rely on evidence and objective evidence to support an argument.

If it is lacking, I tend to withhold belief in the argument.

sort of like saying you know for a fact God doesn't exist.

even though for the most part negatives cannot be proven scientifically, and by the way there is an asteroid over there, God may lurk behind it.....

so it's very hard like I said to prove anything.

I have faith yes, but your faith far exceeds anything I could have imagined.

 

[createdtoworship]

Yep, that's the correct talking point from the lobbyists trying to make this happen. But for some reason, their story changed when under oath. I guess when there's an actual penalty for lying they're smart enough to tell the truth - ID is just creationism with the god part lightly hidden in hopes of sneaking it past the courts.

I disagree with geislers take on it, and behe's

for that matter, as do most ID'ers past 2005.

they were the only ones under oath.

 

[bhsmte]

sort of like saying you know for a fact God doesn't exist.

even though for the most part negatives cannot be proven scientifically, and by the way there is an asteroid over there, God may lurk behind it.....

so it's very hard like I said to prove anything.

I have faith yes, but your faith far exceeds anything I could have imagined.

Conversations tend to halt, when you need to put words in other people's mouths.

I have seen your tactics before though, I am not surprised.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Why not with all? What is causing problem? Why are you humiliating my intellect in front of atheists?!

Brother Dmitri,

In the United States, very many of us usually do not get offended, or feel as if another person is humiliating, simply for disagreeing with what we say.

Also, I apparently have a different view of epistemology than you do. That's all. Don't be offended. I do appreciate that you are standing for Jesus Christ. (Just try to be a little more gentle about---as the Apostle Peter instructed us to do in his first letter.)

Peace
2PhiloVoid

 

[Davian]

what about naturalism,<snip>

Ah, the false dichotomy. Must we get into those fallacies used by religionists such as yourself?

 

[Joshua260]

Link doesn't work.

Edit: Does work, but takes ridiculously long to load.

Edit 2:

...and yet, atheists continue to claim that Pascal's argument is unsound.

 

[Davian]

I'm not sure what you mean here. Pascal was not claiming that God can be proved with certainty, but rather that it was reasonable to believe that God exists.

Claiming it does not make it so.

"Reasonable" is somewhat of a subjective term.

That you lack objective evidence for the existence of gods is not my problem.

Should we measure it by counting noses? If we do, we find that most people believe in God. Should we measure it by looking at what "educated" people think? If we do, we would find a long list of them who found that a belief in God is reasonable.

The burden of defining what is meant by "God" and establishing the belief in such a thing as "reasonable" lies with the religionist. Why not start by defining it, and establish that belief in it is more reasonable than, say, astrology?

I addressed your point squarely. You suggested that Pascal urges one to make themselves believe, but what he was actually advocating was that one should *trust* that God exists.

I do not see how one places trust in what appears to be, by every objective measure, fictional. Do you send letters to Santa, in hope of getting free stuff at Christmas?

 

[Joshua260]

1. God is, or God is not. Reason cannot decide between the two alternatives.

• Number one is false. Reason can and does decide between the two alternatives.

That's where I stopped reading. If you want to distort the terms of Pascal's Wager, then there is no point in having a discussion. I quoted from the Pensees. Let's carefully read it again, I'll highlight the operative words:

Pascal:

God is, or God is not. Reason cannot decide between the two alternatives.​

I responded...

Number one is false. Reason can and does decide between the two alternatives.​

Pascal did not use the word Prove or Proof. The whole point of the argument is not about proof. Quite the opposite. It is about what choice one should make in the absence of proof

I can't help it if you can't understand it. Maybe you should actually read the Pensees before copying and pasting short excerpts from it found on websites and then making uninformed conclusions about Pascal's argument.
Again, LATER in the section we have been talking about does Pascal begin talking about making a decision in absence of absolute proof. However, this part "Reason cannot decide" is saying that reason is inconclusive...in other words, reason cannot prove beyond doubt. That's the point of that section of the Pensees...one can't prove the existence of God one way or the other, so you have to place your bet.