Not just terrible but invalid.
P1. A -> B
P2. B
C. Ergo, A
Classic error.
You know that. And I know that. But does he?
Upvote
0
Not just terrible but invalid.
P1. A -> B
P2. B
C. Ergo, A
Classic error.
Some more thoughts..
The universe and all in it are here, and until anyone can show me a creator doesn't exist, it's perfectly logical to assume he does.
And since no one actually saw the beginning, that is all either Atheist or Christian can do is assume.
Many Atheists today, after falling short with their logical explanations, choose the "I dont know" option because its safe, and presents at least the possibility there is no God. Why would they want to do that? In order to avoid the possibility of the death and destruction that comes with God.
For me it's much safer to logically conclude there is a God, and risk the possibility of being wrong, than to assume there is no God and risk being wrong.
You could actively investigate the start of the universe (or at least our local space time presentation of it). That's what cosmology does.
No, it isn't.
Until there's valid and sufficient evidence, the rational stance is to suspend belief in a proposition.
No, it isn't.
Simply asserting you don't know is fine until that point.
Nice immortal soul you got there,
For me it's much safer to logically conclude there is a God, and risk the possibility of being wrong, than to assume there is no God and risk being wrong.
That's known as Pascal's Wager.
OB
He's quite right. Pascal's Wager is a flawed argument. It's been exposed and discredited often enough. Just google "Problems with Pascal's Wager" and you'll find plenty of people pointing them out.So? I could calI yours reply a known cop out, but if that's the best you can do, I'm fine with it...
He's quite right. Pascal's Wager is a flawed argument. It's been exposed and discredited often enough. Just google "Problems with Pascal's Wager" and you'll find plenty of people pointing them out.
For example: Pascal’s Problem: A Mathematical Disproof of Pascal’s Wager
And look - even Christians think it's a bad idea: What is Wrong with Pascal's Wager?
It's a thoroughly discredited idea, with errors that are many and obvious.What is your problem with it?
Perhaps you've had second thoughts?
What is your problem with it?
You know that. And I know that. But does he?
You haven't? Well, never mind. @Gene2memE has already done an excellent job of setting the problem out.No, my thoughts are the same, exactly what is your problem with my post? Back up what you are telling me, should be simple enough for you to do.
I'll just add that even many Christians think it's a very poor apologetic, since "I decided to believe in you, God, since it seemed the most logical option," doesn't sound very likely to convince God to let you in to heaven.
Are you saying you're not using the Pascal's Wager argument after all? Then what is your argument?That's a complete strawman of my argument.
Also, you'll notice that no Christians have actually had a problem with my argument because they understand it and Atheists seem not to.
Are you saying you're not using the Pascal's Wager argument after all? Then what is your argument?
And here - a Christian who disagrees with Pascal's Wager: What is Wrong with Pascal's Wager?
Quite right, I'm sorry. I got you mixed up with Kenny.What do you think the first two premises actually mean? Because it isn't pascals wager.
Quite right, I'm sorry. I got you mixed up with Kenny.
but since we're on the subject, do you have an opinion on Pascal's Wager?
Well, this is of course the argument that atheists make for the nonexistence of God.
If God really existed, He would want us to be saved and (your point 4) he would know exactly what experiences we need to know that He exists.
The problem is, it's only Christians who have such experiences.
People of other religions have experiences from their gods, thus proving that their religion is true and Christianity is not.
And atheists have no experiences, proving that God does not exist (because if he did, they would have had such experiences, as asserted by your points 3 and 4).