New thought about Pascal's Wager

[Eudaimonist]

Please repeat it Here

Sure thing.

God is a metaphysically transcendent being that with awareness and intelligence has created and/or orders our physical universe.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[KCfromNC]

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.

Guess we'll have to wait for another trial for the next generation to have any real motivation to be truthful.

 

[KCfromNC]

We live everyday with things we believe about and yet not know empirically.

Yep, which is why "beyond all doubt" is a poor standard.

True. Pascal was referring to the rewards in heaven. However, the case can be made for the contributions of Christianity (as opposed to atheism) in this life.

Lots of people of all sorts of religious beliefs (or lack thereof) contribute all sorts of things in this life. If you want to convince me that this means their religious beliefs are correct, you can lead by example and convert to all of their religions. I can't take your idea seriously if you don't.

Not necessarily. Bayes' theorem shows that the probability of something being true can be heavily biased by qualitative evidence that can "override" other considerations.

Feel free to show your work. Simply naming a mathematical concept isn't evidence of anything, though.

 

[Dmitri Martila]

Sure thing.

God is a metaphysically transcendent being that with awareness and intelligence has created and/or orders our physical universe.


eudaimonia,

Mark

So He is existent. Proof ends. Welcome to theism!

 

[Tinker Grey]

Anthony Flew was likely suffering from dementia at the time of his alleged conversion: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/04/magazine/04Flew-t.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

 

[Eudaimonist]

So He is existent. Proof ends. Welcome to theism!

That's just a definition! I'm not saying that God exists.

I can define a unicorn as a magical horse with a single horn on its head, but that doesn't mean that I think that unicorns exist.

That sort of reply is something I would expect from a seven year old.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Dmitri Martila]

Anthony Flew was likely suffering from dementia at the time of his alleged conversion: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/04/magazine/04Flew-t.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

It is too huge article about a "crazy" man. Why they have not written simply: "Flew is crazy. Here is photo of his doctor's diagnosis." Compare length of this short sentence to the length of the paper in NYTimes. So, we have got PARADOX of lengths. Solution: Flew has got his mind in saying "God exists". See: you can not define God without keeping in mind His existence. Thus, the God exists. Welcome all you in theism!

 

[bhsmte]

well that that is different that what you said before,

and that is technically changing the bars

How is it different?

 

[Dmitri Martila]

That's just a definition! I'm not saying that God exists. ...

Let us see your theistic definition:

God is a metaphysically transcendent being that with awareness and intelligence has created and/or orders our physical universe.

I see: God has created our universe.

If there was no God, then God has not created our universe. This is logical mistake. Thus, the God am. Proof ends.

 

[bhsmte]

Let us see your theistic definition:

God is a metaphysically transcendent being that with awareness and intelligence has created and/or orders our physical universe.

I see: God has created our universe.

If there was no God, then God has not created our universe. This is logical mistake. Thus, the God am. Proof ends.

I see why you need to rely on this type of logic.

 

[Joshua260]

I think that they have chosen him because he was an outspoken atheist, much like the current crop of "New Atheists". It would be like Christopher Hitchens arriving at Deism.

But, yes, it is odd that they would claim victory over an atheist-turned-Deist. It's like being in the Olympics and getting 19th out of 20th place in a competition, and then claiming that that is a victory.


eudaimonia,

Mark

The point about Anthony Flew was that he was an educated philosopher. He was also an honorary associate of the New Zealand Association of Rationalists and Humanists[49] and a fellow of the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antony_Flew).

In other words, the atheists' version of a "reasonable" man, and he ended up coming to the conclusion that there is objective evidence that can lead a reasonable man to believe that God exists. Exactly as the faithful have been preaching for millennia.

 

[morningstar2651]

Let us see your theistic definition:

God is a metaphysically transcendent being that with awareness and intelligence has created and/or orders our physical universe.

I see: God has created our universe.

If there was no God, then God has not created our universe. This is logical mistake. Thus, the God am. Proof ends.

Walk me through this logic step by step.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

In other words, the atheists' version of a "reasonable" man, and he ended coming concluding that there is objective evidence that can lead a reasonable man to believe in God. Exactly as the faithful have been preaching for millennia.

Atheists wouldn't say he was being reasonable if he said he believed there was objective evidence of a god's existence.

 

[bhsmte]

The point about Anthony Flew was that he was an educated philosopher. He was also an honorary associate of the New Zealand Association of Rationalists and Humanists[49] and a fellow of the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antony_Flew).

In other words, the atheists' version of a "reasonable" man, and he ended up coming to the conclusion that there is objective evidence that can lead a reasonable man to believe that God exists. Exactly as the faithful have been preaching for millennia.

One philosopher of a whole lot of philosophers.

 

[Joshua260]

Atheists wouldn't say he was being reasonable if he said he believed there was objective evidence of a god's existence.

Ah...So circular reasoning then, eh? "God does not exist, therefore Anthony Flew was unreasonable to believe that God exists."
If you're going to assert that God does not exist, then you are obligated to provide evidence for it. I'm open to following the evidence where it leads...apparently you're not.

 

[bhsmte]

Ah...So circular reasoning then, eh? "God does not exist, therefore Anthony Flew was unreasonable to believe that God exists."
If you're going to assert that God does not exist, then you are obligated to provide evidence for it. I'm open to following the evidence where it leads...apparently you're not.

If one proposes that a God exists, the onus is on them to provide the evidence of this claim.

For the non believer, you can't prove a negative and to ask someone to do so, is highly intellectually dishonest. Simple lack of evidence to support a claim, can be relied up, to be in a position, to feel this God likely does not exist.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

Ah...So circular reasoning then, eh? "God does not exist, therefore Anthony Flew was unreasonable to believe that God exists."
If you're going to assert that God does not exist, then you are obligated to provide evidence for it. I'm open to following the evidence where it leads...apparently you're not.

Lol. That's about as wrong as you can get there...

A. I'm not proposing that a god does not exist.
B. Flew isn't unreasonable because I believe a god does not exist.
C. The burden of proof is on the person making the positive claim.
D. The evidence so far isn't leading anywhere.

 

[Davian]

like I have said numerous times, you can make any rule you want.

just don't commit the same fallacies you yourself are saying others commit.

you said that my view was not falsifiable, and I replied, what about naturalism?

that is not falsifiable either.

so you can't have it both ways,

sorry.

but I will do you one better,

I will venture out a little to say, that even hard facts themselves are not falsifiable.

well fact themselves are not falsified, I should say.

they are able to be falsified, yes, if they were false but that would self defeat them being a fact.

so that would not work.

so I will put my next observation on the next post.

My position is not that of naturalism. You have committed the "straw-man" fallacy.

The burden lies with you to support your position. I am only here to observe.

 

[Davian]

what justice does it do to say something is not able to be proven wrong, and thus un proven?


Just because it is not ABLE to be proven wrong does not mean it is unverifiable. It could simply be right and we would not know how to test that it is right in that case, it's a matter of verification not falsification.


Falsification is just nonsense.


Absolute jibber jabber.


Gibberish.


and nonsense.


did I say nonsense?


let me put it to you this way,


A = A is a true statement,


A = A can be falsified,


and thus it is verifiably true.


now look at this formula---- Jesus Christ = Jesus Christ"


now because that cannot be falsified it is therefore un verifiable?


well I would think that un verifiable would mean it is unverifiable.


not lack of falsification?


I hope you can see what I am saying.

if a basic law of science should be done away with here and modified, which will probably never happen,

then why pay more tax dollars to it?

If not science, by what methodology would you suggest we explore reality?

 

[Dmitri Martila]

No, they don't claim that they know that God exists. They don't believe that they have that knowledge.

Because they have lost the mind. Jesus through me recovers it for you. Be grateful and repent like Anthony Flew!