Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
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!
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.
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.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.
Pascal was unable to change the atheistic people in the clubs, pubs, etc. So he invented the funny Wager.
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.Pascal was almost certainly going for "agnostics"
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.....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.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.
Your posts are probably making a few christians wonder.This paradox is making them the new atheists with some lapse of time.
No, that would be an agnostic.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.
You would but you don't.
I rely on evidence and objective evidence to support an argument.
If it is lacking, I tend to withhold belief in the argument.
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.
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.
Why not with all? What is causing problem? Why are you humiliating my intellect in front of atheists?!
Claiming it does not make it so.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.
That you lack objective evidence for the existence of gods is not my problem."Reasonable" is somewhat of a subjective term.
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?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.
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?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 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.
- 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
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?