New thought about Pascal's Wager

Dmitri Martila said:

This was the song from God, I think. Therefore, it can be true. This is song about atheists' feeling. They deal so hardly with saying "No God", that they need Him even more, than we do. This song is not about demons, because God does not send to them "lovers", latters are me and other nice people.

Click to expand...

Hey, whatever floats your boat.

Dmitri Martila said:

Do not shut up me, brother, with nonsense. Read the part of my article, if you can read my English:

\section{Mind, freewill and conscious}
These three ones are the single gift of life from God ("Then the Lord God formed a man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being". Genesis 2:7 NIV), which separates us from our pets. Latter are guided by instincts, the beautiful one is love towards us.

One can not hate own parents (especially the God), one can not hate own mother. You exist because of parents, so hating latter-s you hate oneself. Thus, you hate everything about you, so you hate the hatred to parents. Latter means, you love the parents. But the fact of hatred mean, what you have lost the mind and become bio-robot, a satan's doll, which engine is hatred. Indeed, if person hates and loves the parents, then the logical mistake tells us, what there is no mind in person. If for person it is no meter the parents live or they are dead, then the person has not excluded the own non-existence. (The hatred means, what the person excludes and not tolerates a wrong thing.) Therefore, there is logical mistake, and, thus, person is satan's doll.

Click to expand...

Whatever works for you.

No thread about Pascal's wager is complete without Homer:

bhsmte said:

You are putting words in my mouth again. Try reading what I wrote again, more carefully.

Lastly, when one has objective evidence, no faith is required.

When a jury in a murder case, is presented with forensic evidence that it is beyond reasonable doubt, that the defendant committed the crime, do they acquit them, because they didn't observe the crime?

Click to expand...

direct evidence is very hard to come by.

even in murder cases 99% of the evidences given is from circumstantial evidence.

it is multiple accounts of circumstantial evidence that convict 99.9% of crime doers.

but yet you claim to have direct evidence of things like the oort cloud, or of macro evolution for example,

which I find very hard to believe.

so please enlighten us.

bhsmte said:

I find it personally quite challenging, to hate something I don't believe exists.

But hey, you go on with believing whatever suits you.

Click to expand...

i think I shared this story before but it was a young girl coming back from a maryln manson concert. And she said, I became a thiest, because I wondered how on earth "how you can hate something so much that does not exist." She said after seeing maryln's contempt for God.

gradyll said:

direct evidence is very hard to come by.

even in murder cases 99% of the evidences given is from circumstantial evidence.

it is multiple accounts of circumstantial evidence that convict 99.9% of crime doers.

but yet you claim to have direct evidence of things like the oort cloud, or of macro evolution for example,

which I find very hard to believe.

so please enlighten us.

Click to expand...

You seem to be making this up.

gradyll said:

i think I shared this story before but it was a young girl coming back from a maryln manson concert. And she said, I became a thiest, because I wondered how on earth "how you can hate something so much that does not exist." She said after seeing maryln's contempt for God.

Click to expand...

Well, I guess this person's statement should apply to all then.

Like I said, I can't perform the psychological gymnastics to hate an entity, I don't believe exists.

Not the way I roll.

Foxhole87 said:

You seem to be making this up.

Click to expand...

It would seem so.

shadowhunter said:

When you show up to see my garage I will be happy to introduce you. You certainly would not expect me to prove the contents of my garage in this forum.

Click to expand...

You can always photograph your garage and post the pic here. Can you photograph your God?


eudaimonia,

Mark

Foxhole87 said:

You seem to be making this up.

Click to expand...

hold on, I will get it for you:

ah here is the report:

"
DIRECT AND CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE

Evidence typically falls into two broad categories. Direct evidence is evidence that can

prove something all by itself. In California, jurors are given the example of a witness who saw

that it was raining outside the courthouse. Jurors are instructed, “If a witness testifies he saw it

raining outside before he came into the courthouse, that testimony is direct evidence that it was

raining.”9 This testimony (if it is trustworthy) is enough, in and of itself, to prove that it is

raining. On the other hand, circumstantial evidence (also known as indirect evidence) does not

prove something on its own, but points us in the right direction by proving something related to

the question at hand. This related piece of evidence can then be considered (along with additional

pieces of circumstantial evidence) to figure out what happened. Jurors in California are

instructed, “For example, if a witness testifies that he saw someone come inside wearing a

raincoat covered with drops of water, that testimony is circumstantial evidence because it may

support a conclusion that it was raining outside.”10 The more pieces of consistent circumstantial

evidence, the more reasonable the conclusion. If we observed a number of people step out of the

courthouse for a second, then duck back inside, soaked with little spots of water on their

clothing, or saw more people coming into the courthouse, carrying umbrellas, and dripping with

water, we would have several additional pieces of evidence that could be used to make the case

that it was raining. The more cumulative the circumstantial evidence, the better the conclusion.

Most people tend to think that direct evidence is required in order to be certain about

what happened in a given situation. But what about cases that have no direct evidence connecting

the suspect to the crime scene? Can the truth be proved beyond a reasonable doubt when all the

evidence we have is circumstantial? Absolutely.

Jurors are instructed to make no qualitative distinction between direct and circumstantial

evidence in a case. Judges tell jurors, “Both direct and circumstantial evidence are acceptable

types of evidence to prove or disprove the elements of a charge, including intent and mental state

and acts necessary to a conviction, and neither is necessarily more reliable than the other. Neither

is entitled to any greater weight than the other.”11 Juries make decisions about the guilt of

suspects in cases that are completely circumstantial every day, and I’m very glad that they

do; all my cold-case homicides have been successfully prosecuted with nothing but

circumstantial evidence.

9. Judicial Council of California, Judicial Council of California Criminal Jury

Instructions, CalCrim Section 223.

10. Judicial Council of California, Judicial Council of California Criminal Jury

Instructions, CalCrim Section 223.

11. Judicial Council of California, Judicial Council of California Criminal Jury

Instructions, CalCrim Section 223."

Above quote from “Cold-Case Christianity: A Homicide Detective Investigates the Claims of the

Gospels” by J. Warner Wallace, Copy write 1/1/2013

note: retired detective of cold cases, Wallace J. was on 20/20
numerous times for the complexity of his cold cases,
and leading him to be a national expert, traveling and training on cold cases.

section two the oposite of circumstantial or subjective truths, we have objective truth:

"
“Objective Truth”

While many truths are certainly a matter of opinion, some truths are completely

independent of anyone’s personal view. My statement “Police cars are the coolest cars on the

road” may be true for me (given that I am often the one driving these cars), while completely

untrue for you (especially when I pull you over for rolling through a stop sign). This statement is

a matter of my “subjective” opinion; it is dependent on the “subject” who possesses it. The

statement “Police cars are equipped to travel in excess of 100 mph” is not dependent on my

opinion, however; this second statement is either true or false on the basis of the “object” itself.

Police cars are equipped to travel this fast, and my “subjective” opinion has nothing to do with it.

The erosion of the classic view of objective truth and tolerance is also taking its toll on

those who hold a Christian worldview. The notion that there might be only one way to God (or

only one truth about the identity and nature of God) is offensive and intolerant to many skeptics

and nonbelievers. Like prosecutors who face similar misunderstandings about the nature of truth,

Christians may also have to expose the logical problems inherent to the new cultural definitions.

While some may argue that all religions are basically the same, this is simply untrue. The

world’s religions propose contrary claims related to the nature of God. Eastern religions propose

the existence of an impersonal god, while the monotheistic religions of Judaism, Christianity,

and Islam claim that God is personal. Judaism refuses to recognize Jesus as anything other than a

“rabbi” or spiritual teacher, while Christianity claims that Jesus was God Himself. Islam denies

that Jesus died on the cross, while Christianity claims that Jesus died at the crucifixion and then

rose from the dead, verifying His deity. All of these claims about God and Jesus may be false,

but they cannot all be true; they contradict one another by definition. The logical law of

“noncontradiction” states that contradictory statements cannot both be true at the same time.

Those who are evaluating the claims of the world’s religions, like jurors evaluating a criminal

case, must decide which of the views is supported by the evidence, rather than surrender the

decision to an errant view of truth.

In addition to this, those who are investigating Christianity may want to rethink the latest

cultural definitions of truth and tolerance. Those who claim that truth is a matter of perspective

and opinion are proclaiming this as more than a matter of perspective and opinion. They would

like us to believe that this definition is objectively true, even as they deny the existence of

objective truth. When a statement fails to meet its own standard for being true, it is said to be

“self-refuting.” The claim that “objective truth does not exist” is self-refuting because it is, in

fact, an objective claim about truth. The current redefinition of tolerance doesn’t fare much

better. Those who claim that tolerance requires all ideas and perspectives to be embraced as

equally true and valuable simultaneously deny the classic view of tolerance. In other words, the

new definition of tolerance is intolerant of the old definition. It cannot follow its own rules. It is

just as self-refuting as the new redefinition of truth; we simply need to help people understand

that this is the case.

DEFENSE ATTORNEYS FOCUS ON THE BEST THE PROSECUTION HAS TO OFFER

While circumstantial cases are built on many pieces of evidence that are evaluated as a

group, some pieces are better (and more important to the case) than others. For this reason,

defense attorneys focus their attention on the heart of the prosecution’s case, the prominent and

most condemning pieces of evidence that have been presented. If they can discredit or eliminate

these key pieces of evidence, the foundation of the prosecution’s case may begin to crumble. In

fact, if I want to know what the defense thinks of my case (and what it considers to be the most

devastating piece of evidence), I simply have to observe what it is attacking with the most vigor.

If my case is thin or weak, the defense will be comfortable attacking the one piece it believes to

be critical. If my case is substantial and strong, the defense will find itself trying to attack a much

larger number of issues in an effort to limit the cumulative impact of the evidence. I know where

my case is strong when I see what the defense has chosen to attack.

Above quotes from:

J. Warner Wallace, Cold Case Christianity IBid.

Dmitri Martila said:

2) "God is existent" is knowledge, whereas "No God" is not the knowledge (but blind trust in death).

Click to expand...

Atheists generally do not claim that "no God" is knowledge. Rather, they reject the claim that "God is existent" is knowledge. This has nothing to do with their views on death.

3) Therefore sin your brains out (if you want)

Click to expand...

Who is saying this? That is a caricature of atheists coming from theists such as yourself.


eudaimonia,

Mark

Dmitri Martila said:

What is knowledge in our world, where the existence of the World is not proved? So stop follow the doomed World and accept the knowledge of Eastern Orthodox Christians.

Click to expand...

Sorry, you haven't given folks a reason to.

Dmitri Martila said:

What is knowledge in our world, where the existence of the World is not proved?

Click to expand...

You are speaking nonsense.


eudaimonia,

Mark

Dmitri Martila said:

Not, it is sense. You are sick in brain.

Click to expand...

What did you say?

One of the main arguments of Pascals Wager from atheists is "it would fake belief" or something to that effect. Common sense tells us being exposed to something, especially over time can change people's opinions and belief. Someone could start to go to church and follow God's teachings while at first do it out of fear and not true belief but over time change to true belief and develop a real relationship with God etc.