New thought about Pascal's Wager

[createdtoworship]

Old news and a tired argument, IMO.

If it suits you though, go for it and good luck.

this is the vein of thought that I debunked,

then you changed the bars to using factual argumentation instead of simply an "old" or "tired" argument.

the proper method would have been to use the factual argumentation at the get go, instead of shoddy logic.

this would have made it not look like a correction on your part but a solid argument.

thanks and have a nice end of the week.

 

[createdtoworship]

So let us apply this hard scientific method for objective empirical science to your theology. Or, do you have double standards?

shifting the burden of proof?

 

[createdtoworship]

No, that is not my position. I am not here to champion any particular position. As I said, I am only here to observe.

if you disagree with these assessments, but do not back up your claims with what you do in fact believe, then this is simply a dodge tactic.

 

[ecco]

To my knowledge, Flew became a deist, not a Christian. Is that considered a victory for Christian apologetics?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antony_Flew

For much of his career Flew was known as a strong advocate of atheism, arguing that one should presuppose atheism until empirical evidence of a God surfaces. He also criticised the idea of life after death,[4] the free will defence to the problem of evil, and the meaningfulness of the concept of God.[5] In 2003 he was one of the signers of the Humanist Manifesto.[6]However, in 2004 he stated an allegiance to deism, more specifically a belief in the Aristotelian God. He stated that in keeping his lifelong commitment to go where the evidence leads, he now believed in the existence of a god.[7]

A book outlining his reasons for changing his position, There is a God: How the World's Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind was written by Flew in collaboration with Roy Abraham Varghese. The book (and Flew's conversion itself) has been the subject of controversy, following an article in The New York Times Magazine alleging that Flew had mentally declined, and that the book was primarily the work of Varghese;[8] Flew himself specifically denied this, stating that the book represented his views, although he acknowledged that due to his age Varghese had done most of the actual work of writing the book.[9]​

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aristotelian_theology

According to Aristotle, each unmoved mover continuously contemplates its own contemplation; they have no knowledge of the cosmos, nor do they participate therein. The planets and stars, which have their source of motion within themselves (by virtue of aether, Aristotle's fifth element) aspire to emulate the uniform circular motion of their particular mover.
​

Christians must really be desperate to find any atheist who changes his mind. The best they can come up with is someone professing a belief in deism, (worshiping the Aristotelian God). This is as much a rejection of christianity as it is of atheism.

 

[bhsmte]

this is the vein of thought that I debunked,

then you changed the bars to using factual argumentation instead of simply an "old" or "tired" argument.

the proper method would have been to use the factual argumentation at the get go, instead of shoddy logic.

this would have made it not look like a correction on your part but a solid argument.

thanks and have a nice end of the week.

Saying an argument is old and tired, does nothing to change the fact of what I rely on.

You see, old and tired arguments, can be absent any objective support.

Thanks, I am planning on having a nice end of the week.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

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.

Based on your theology, Flew is currently in Hell.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

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.

Are you really? anonymous person said the same, but it turned out that he wasn't.

 

[Dmitri Martila]

Based on your theology, Flew is currently in Hell.

The Dr. Flew as the God's Good example is in better place, than all the non-repented atheists.

 

[Davian]

shifting the burden of proof?

You tried that in post #151. Are we to keep a running tally of your use of fallacious arguments?

 

[Davian]

if you disagree with these assessments, but do not back up your claims with what you do in fact believe, then this is simply a dodge tactic.

I don't disagree with them, they just don't apply to me. If would seem that one doing all of the dodging is you. Will you ever get around to demonstrating the veracity of your own position? No?

 

[createdtoworship]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antony_Flew

For much of his career Flew was known as a strong advocate of atheism, arguing that one should presuppose atheism until empirical evidence of a God surfaces. He also criticised the idea of life after death,[4] the free will defence to the problem of evil, and the meaningfulness of the concept of God.[5] In 2003 he was one of the signers of the Humanist Manifesto.[6]However, in 2004 he stated an allegiance to deism, more specifically a belief in the Aristotelian God. He stated that in keeping his lifelong commitment to go where the evidence leads, he now believed in the existence of a god.[7]

A book outlining his reasons for changing his position, There is a God: How the World's Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind was written by Flew in collaboration with Roy Abraham Varghese. The book (and Flew's conversion itself) has been the subject of controversy, following an article in The New York Times Magazine alleging that Flew had mentally declined, and that the book was primarily the work of Varghese;[8] Flew himself specifically denied this, stating that the book represented his views, although he acknowledged that due to his age Varghese had done most of the actual work of writing the book.[9]​

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aristotelian_theology

According to Aristotle, each unmoved mover continuously contemplates its own contemplation; they have no knowledge of the cosmos, nor do they participate therein. The planets and stars, which have their source of motion within themselves (by virtue of aether, Aristotle's fifth element) aspire to emulate the uniform circular motion of their particular mover.
​

Christians must really be desperate to find any atheist who changes his mind. The best they can come up with is someone professing a belief in deism, (worshiping the Aristotelian God). This is as much a rejection of christianity as it is of atheism.

I just saw the Brick Bible tonight at Borders.

wrote by an athiest.

interesting.

 

[createdtoworship]

You see, old and tired arguments, can be absent any objective support.

Thanks, I am planning on having a nice end of the week.

CAN be and ARE are not the same, hence this is why I questioned it.

thanks again

 

[Eudaimonist]

To deist. You know now, what God exists and, thus, you hate the atheism (because that the faith does: you are not tolerant to false teachings).

Antony Flew did not hate atheism or atheists.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Eudaimonist]

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.

You haven't addressed my request for the logic behind your claim that I what I had written contained a logical error, so I will simply have to go with what I see above.

The logic error is yours. You are confusing a definition with a claim.

What you are saying is I have claimed the following:

1) God created the universe.
2) God does not exist.

And then you conclude that because a non-existent God cannot have created the universe, there is a contradiction in my thought. Right?

The problem is that I had never claimed (1). I had only defined God, not claimed that I agreed that the definition applies to a real entity. Definitions do not conjure entities into existence. (Sorry, Anselm!)

If I define a unicorn and then say that unicorns don't exist, that doesn't mean that I am claiming that unicorns exist and don't exist at the same time. I'm simply being specific about what I don't believe exists. A definition of a unicorn can exist without even a single unicorn existing because the human mind is capable of creating definitions for non-existent things.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Dmitri Martila]

...Anthony Flew... can lead a reasonable man to believe that God exists.

The Path of mind to the God Father

The NYTimes writes about Dr. Flew's feeling in atheism: The word "God" is too vague to be meaningful. Why then it is used in this sentence?! Thus, the word is not vague. What is then the problem? It is inside the atheism. The madness. According to Hawking, the atheists are mindless bio-robots without freewill. Thus, it is madness. So, if they are without freewill, but act as they have one, then the robots are directed by freewill creatures. The devils. Are the devils mad? Yes, because source of mind is God, not the satan. Demons hate the God, so they hate being meaningful. It is their free choice made long ago. So it is hardly to say, what devils have freewill. What is then their engine? It is the hate towards the God.
The time when theist accepts the madness: "No God", he immediately looses the mind and becomes will-less robot, driven by demons, latters are driven by hate. It is impossible for theists to heal any atheist without the bloody prayers to Jesus the Saviour.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

Its odd that pascal had a mystic experience, not of the philosophical god, but the real one!" but wound up dedicating himself to philosophical theology.

 

[createdtoworship]

You tried that in post #151. Are we to keep a running tally of your use of fallacious arguments?

sure, because I don't think that saying -I am shifting -your shifting

- of the burden of proof

...will hold any water,


-but then again I can be wrong.

 

[KCfromNC]

well at that point in the game geisler was trying to win the war and not the battle,

lets just say that much,

great guy, as most creationists and IDers are, genuinely intelligent and honest.

but in this case in retrospect, I would have done it different, more on par with what Steven Meyers is doing.

separation from the Biblical text and genesis entirely.

it's nice to have a crowd of religious people follow you in creationism, like ken ham is doing.

but you can't legalize what he is doing.

IDer's some athiests, and others believers in multiple God's or other God's....


IDers have united globally under discoveries mission.

they simply want the science of ID to be recognized.

not different than a homosexual wanting the states to recognize his marriage.

either it's right or it's wrong.

I don't even agree with the latter,

but you see the point.

ID'ers are treated like immoral beings in teh scientific community, ridiculed etc.

it is to the point where ID'ers have excellelled in many areas and feed off the persecution as Christ said would happen to other groups of followers like the Christians.

in a similiar way IDers are persecuted for trying to bring out more science, not less.

not denying evolution, as is common place, but actually teaching the critical analysis of it along side it.

it makes you think,

and question.

which is good for logic development.

Still the same old same old, though - lots of questioning evolution, no peer reviewed work supporting ID on its own merits.

 

[KCfromNC]

Its odd that pascal had a mystic experience, not of the philosophical god, but the real one!" but wound up dedicating himself to philosophical theology.

Some people will go through all sorts of mental gymnastics to convince themselves of things they really wish were true.

 

[ecco]

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.

Last Thursdayism (sometimes Last Tuesdayism or Last Wednesdayism) refers to the idea that theuniverse may have been created last Thursday, but with the physical appearance of being billions of years old. Under this notion, people's memories, history books, fossils, light already on the way from distant stars, and so forth would all have been formed at the time of creation (last Thursday) in a state that causes them to appear to be older.​

If you're going to assert that EVERYTHING was not created Last Thursday, then you are obligated to provide evidence for it. I'm open to following the evidence where it leads. Care to try?