New thought about Pascal's Wager

[Black Dog]

Do you know how evidence works?

Jesus - historical records pointing to him being a factual figure.

The Buggy Monster - 3 year old girl said she saw him under the bed

Which one is more probable?

Saying "You don't know how evidence works?" is not an explanation of how your evidence provides probability or veracity that your God exists.

The "historical records" are not verifiable, and are in serious doubt (See Richard Carrier among others).

Neither is more probable. Probability is calculated mathematically, not by some random forum poster saying something is more probable. Please provide the mathematical equation showing the probability that your God exists.

 

[SinaloaPaisa]

Saying "You don't know how evidence works?" is not an explanation of how your evidence provides probability or veracity that your God exists.

Taken from MW

Evidence
: something which shows that something else exists or is true

: a visible sign of something

: material that is presented to a court of law to help find the truth about something

Neither is more probable. Probability is calculated mathematically. Please provide the mathematical equation showing the probability that your God exists.

Your wrong.

 

[Black Dog]

Taken from MW

Evidence
: something which shows that something else exists or is true

: a visible sign of something

: material that is presented to a court of law to help find the truth about something




Your wrong.

Your "evidence" is not verifiable, and because of this is under dispute (see Richard Carrier among others)

Regardless, it still doesn't say anything about probability. Probability is calculated mathematically. Please show the mathematical equation which calculates the probability that your God exists.

You said that Jesus is more probable than a monster under the bed. Please also show the mathematical equation which calculates the probability that a monster under the bed exists. Only then can you say which is more probable.

 

[SinaloaPaisa]

Your "evidence" is not verifiable, and because of this is under dispute (see Richard Carrier among others)

No one said evidence has to be verifiable. You ever seen a court case? Btw you trying to tell me nothing in the Bible is verifiable?

That still doesn't say anything about probability. Probability is calculated mathematically. Please show the mathematical equation which calculates the probability that your God exists.

You said that Jesus is more probable than a monster under the bed. Please also show the mathematical equation which calculates the probability that a monster under the bed exists. Only then can you say which is more probable.

All you need to be able to do is add to formulate probability. i.e. Count the number of evidence that supports a claim. The more evidence you have the higher probability that claim has of being valid.

 

[Black Dog]

No one said evidence has to be verifiable. You ever seen a court case? Btw you trying to tell me nothing in the Bible is verifiable?

Of course the evidence presented in court has to be verifiable if it is to be believed. Otherwise anyone could make up anything they wanted, and a guilty person could say "I wasn't there, so I couldn't have done it", and they would be found innocent every time.

All you need to be able to do is add to formulate probability. i.e. Count the number of evidence that supports a claim. The more evidence you have the higher probability that claim has of being valid.

No, probability doesn't work that way. One piece of evidence could affect the probability more than one hundred pieces of evidence (If you can't understand that, I would be happy to give an example). Just to start, you would have to attach a probability that each piece of evidence was correct, and have proof that the probability attached is in fact accuarate.

So, let's see your probability for each piece of evidence you wish submit. Then please give your proof that this probability is accurate. Again, this is how probability is calculated, mathematically. Thanks.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

Who said they don't exist? No one said that.

Maybe you are not getting it?

Noooo, it's definitely you...

Wrong. Unless of course you are gonna try and prove evidence and logic have no bearing on validity.

If there were good, conclusive evidence that Christianity were true you wouldn't need Pascal's Wager.

There isn't.

But if you want to try and weight Christianity more than other potential gods, then be my guest and try.

False Dichotomy doesn't invalidate Pascals Wager.

Of course it does. Perhaps you should look up the term "false dichotomy".

 

[SinaloaPaisa]

Of course the evidence presented in court has to be verifiable if it is to be believed. Otherwise anyone could make up anything they wanted, and a guilty person could say "I wasn't there, so I couldn't have done it", and they would be found innocent every time.

You ever heard the term circumstantial? People have been convicted on lone eye witness accounts. How does one verify these eye witness accounts? Or how about cell phone records? How does one verify it was a specific person that used said phone?

Also you never answered my question. You are saying the Bible has no verifiable points or evidence?

No, probability doesn't work that way. Just to start, you would have to attach a probability that each piece of evidence was correct, and have proof that the probability attached is in fact correct. One piece of evidence could affect the probability more than one hundred pieces of evidence.

So, let's see your probability for each piece of evidence you wish submit. Then please give your proof that this probability is correct. Thanks.

Sure each evidence can carry different weight.

I am solely speaking from you have 5 pieces of evidence. All of equal weight. 4 pieces of evidence support Billy Bob. 1 evidence supports Mary Luo. There is more validity to Billy Bob.

You obviously have to weigh things.

 

[SinaloaPaisa]

Noooo, it's definitely you...

Nope.

If there were good, conclusive evidence that Christianity were true you wouldn't need Pascal's Wager.

Conclusive /= proof or truth.

Pascals Wager still valid.

But if you want to try and weight Christianity more than other potential gods, then be my guest and try.

Already did it. My research supported Christianity.

Of course it does. Perhaps you should look up the term "false dichotomy".

Already did and it doesn't. Still waiting on you to explain this one.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

No one said evidence has to be verifiable.

Lol. Wow...

Ok, I have evidence that the Christian god is made up stories. I can't verify it of course, but apparently that doesn't matter.

So, that's settled. No need for this website any longer...

 

[SinaloaPaisa]

Lol. Wow...

Ok, I have evidence that the Christian god is made up stories. I can't verify it of course, but apparently that doesn't matter.

So, that's settled. No need for this website any longer...

Present the evidence. Then I am sure someone will counter with their evidence.

 

[Black Dog]

You ever heard the term circumstantial? People have been convicted on lone eye witness accounts. How does one verify these eye witness accounts? Or how about cell phone records? How does one verify it was a specific person that used said phone?

Also you never answered my question. You are saying the Bible has no verifiable points or evidence?




Sure each evidence can carry different weight.

I am solely speaking from you have 5 pieces of evidence. All of equal weight. 4 pieces of evidence support Billy Bob. 1 evidence supports Mary Luo. There is more validity to Billy Bob.

No, first you would need to show that the weight attached to each piece of evidence is greater than 0. Because zero plus zero plus zero plus zero equals zero. Than you would need to prove that each piece of evidence has equal weight.

So, you need to do this with your God/religions claims.

 

[Black Dog]

Present the evidence. Then I am sure someone will counter with their evidence.

Atheists have the default position. We don't need to prove God doesn't exist, just like we don't have to prove Santa Claus doesn't exist, or Spiderman doesn't exist, or any of the other thousands of mythical creatures and beings invented by mankind don't exist. Or are you saying you believe in all the mythical creatures and beings invented by mankind?

 

[SinaloaPaisa]

No, first you would need to show that the weight attached to each piece of evidence is greater than 0. Because zero plus zero plus zero plus zero equals zero. Than you would need to prove that each piece of evidence has equal weight.

So, you need to do this with your God/religions claims.

I was under the assumption that evidence presented was somewhat plausible or relevant. You know in a court room they don't let you present any evidence you want.

 

[bhsmte]

No one said evidence has to be verifiable. You ever seen a court case? Btw you trying to tell me nothing in the Bible is verifiable?



All you need to be able to do is add to formulate probability. i.e. Count the number of evidence that supports a claim. The more evidence you have the higher probability that claim has of being valid.

Some parts of the bible can be deemed credible with a high degree of certainty. Other parts are deemed credible with lower degrees of certainty.

Much of the bible though, can not be deemed with credible or reliable by historians who do that for a living. I have studied the NT extensively by reading the works of various NT scholars and historians. They can all pretty much agree on the following in regards to the gospels specifically:

-Jesus was baptized
-Jesus had followers
-Jesus was likely a real person
-Jesus was crucified

Beyond that, the opinions are all over the place and when the historical method is applied as it was intended to be applied, not much else has much credibility, in regards to being reliable history.

 

[SinaloaPaisa]

Atheists have the default position. We don't need to prove God doesn't exist, just like we don't have to prove Santa Claus doesn't exist, or Spiderman doesn't exist, or any of the other thousands of mythical creatures and beings invented by mankind don't exist. Or are you saying you believe in all the mythical creatures and beings invented by mankind?

No one needs to prove anything. In addition it is impossible to prove or disprove any supernatural being or realm.

People are free to believe what they like. Now, if you want to engage in debate then I suppose you will need to provide some rationale, evidence, or what ever to support your stance.

 

[SinaloaPaisa]

Some parts of the bible can be deemed credible with a high degree of certainty. Other parts are deemed credible with lower degrees of certainty.

Much of the bible though, can not be deemed with credible or reliable by historians who do that for a living. I have studied the NT extensively by reading the works of various NT scholars and historians. They can all pretty much agree on the following in regards to the gospels specifically:

-Jesus was baptized
-Jesus had followers
-Jesus was likely a real person
-Jesus was crucified

Beyond that, the opinions are all over the place and when the historical method is applied as it was intended to be applied, not much else has much credibility, in regards to being reliable history.

Bible is a part of Christianity. Thus anything in the Bible can be used as evidence. You already mentioned some parts of the Bible are verifiable or deemed credible.

That makes my point entirely. Now what credible evidence can you provide for the Buggy Monster?

 

[bhsmte]

Bible is a part of Christianity. Thus anything in the Bible can be used as evidence. You already mentioned some parts of the Bible are verifiable or deemed credible.

That makes my point entirely. Now what credible evidence can you provide for the Buggy Monster?

Yes, all the many denominations of Christianity use their own interpretations of the bible, to form their theologies, no question about that.

My point was, little in the NT, is deemed credible and reliable history, from the folks that are trained to evaluate the same.

So, this is why, these interpretations and theologies are formed, based on faith.

 

[SinaloaPaisa]

Yes, all the many denominations of Christianity use their own interpretations of the bible, to form their theologies, no question about that.

My point was, little in the NT, is deemed credible and reliable history, from the folks that are trained to evaluate the same.

So, this is why, these interpretations and theologies are formed, based on faith.

The point is the amount is irrelevant to what I was arguing. Someone said there is no verifiable credible evidence for Christianity. That is simply false.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

Nope.



Conclusive /= proof or truth.

Pascals Wager still valid.



Already did it. My research supported Christianity.



Already did and it doesn't. Still waiting on you to explain this one.

Sigh...

Again, this isn't the "explain Philosophy to people that don't understand it" forum...

 

[SinaloaPaisa]

Sigh...

Again, this isn't the "explain Philosophy to people that don't understand it" forum...

This isn't the make invalid arguments forum. i.e.

conclusive =/ proof or truth.