New thought about Pascal's Wager

[createdtoworship]

Conversations tend to halt, when you need to put words in other people's mouths.

I have seen your tactics before though, I am not surprised.

but they don't halt when someone says to something wrong from my side,

then boy, do you have a lot of words to say,

they halt typically when you have no further comment, or are defeated from your side of things, which would seem to be the case here.

thanks for the conversation and have a nice rest of the week.

 

[createdtoworship]

Ah, the false dichotomy. Must we get into those fallacies used by religionists such as yourself?

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.

 

[Dmitri Martila]

I apparently have a different view of epistemology than you do.

Brother, thank you. Can you tell me more about your version of "proof making"?
IF GOD really exists, we atheist needs proof of Him, not an argument nor evidence. The existent subject can be proved beyond all doubts. The God is omnipresent, thus it is not hard to accomplish. Our freedom is not the lack of rigid proof, but the choice between madness and mind. The God made us with mind, with heart. One must not left mind behind entering the gates of Heaven. The Christian do that, and thus, our vineyard (all the planet) produces not good fruits, but: homosexuals, false "Christian" religions, atheists, etc. Here is proof of God, what are the wrong parts? See:

Your car had good property: existence. The thief came and now car is non-existent, it is only one (bad) property of the car.
Your car is stolen now. We are existent. God is superior, than us, thus the God is existent with absolute certainty.

 

[createdtoworship]

The Dover trial was a very embarrassing moment for the ID folks and they even had their best scientists on the stand. Even a conservative Christian judge, saw through it.

there were alot of errors in dover trials, and prejudgments that should have not happened. I don't take his definition of "creationism" as correct in his new book, but geisler does a wonder ful job conveying what I am trying to here, namely that science is not typically any "better than thou" than a typical ID'er.

if anything science in general is more soft than hard fact.

and soft logic while bendable and malleable, is not the best for walking on.

 

[createdtoworship]

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?

 

[createdtoworship]

I rely on evidence and objective evidence to support an argument.

If it is lacking, I tend to withhold belief in the argument.

well that that is different that what you said before,

and that is technically changing the bars

 

[Dmitri Martila]

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

Yes, great and beautiful victory. The God's Victory. The dear Flew made the first step: as the baby he begins to walk. Great and glorious repent-ion! I would say: "God took camera and shot his first step!" The existence is the basic property of God, all other properties rely on this Basic Property.

 

[Dmitri Martila]

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?

Santa is the God now?! It is the pagan fallacy: the "great and powerful" straw-man.

 

[Dmitri Martila]

Theist: "God is the creator and ruler of the universe"
Ignostic: Untestable and unfalsifiable religious claims. This is useless as a definition.

Not true, it is the definition. You refer, what God is absent, thus he can not be King. But theist used verb "is", this verb means "existence". Therefore, the definition reads: "God am Who exists and Who rules." What is your problem with it now, blind God-definiter? There is no God in the mind of atheist or ignostic, because they are violation of God's definition. The violation of definitions is madness. Do not hear these sick people too much.

 

[Dmitri Martila]

Theist: "God is the creator and ruler of the universe"
Ignostic: "Untestable and unfalsifiable religious claims. This is useless as a definition."
Me:
Not true, it is the definition. You refer, what God is absent, thus he can not be King. But theist used verb "is", this verb means "existence". Therefore, the definition reads: "God am Who exists and Who rules." What is your problem with it now, blind God-definiter? There is no God in the mind of atheist or ignostic, because they are violation of God's definition. The violation of definitions is madness. Do not hear these sick people too much.

 

[Eudaimonist]

Generally atheist is opposer to any thing, what theist comes with.

That's not true. Many atheists like many aspects of Christian morality. You will see a clear Christian influence on secular humanism. Atheists don't oppose something just because it is associated with theism.

Agnostic says: God can not be proven.

Some do. Some just say that they don't currently have knowledge of God.

The fact: God and afterlife will be proven in afterlife.

Not a fact.

Therefore, agnostic does not believe neither in God nor in afterlife. Thus, he is atheist.

Oh, there are agnostic theists, but they are likely rarer than agnostic atheists.

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.

I'm not sure what you are saying here.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Eudaimonist]

By the way, ever heard of Anthony Flew?

Yes, even when Flew was an atheist, I thought that he was a second-rate philosopher.

I'm not sure why one convert is supposed to mean anything. One can always find people who convert in both directions. It doesn't prove anything.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Yes, great and beautiful victory. The God's Victory. The dear Flew made the first step: as the baby he begins to walk. Great and glorious repent-ion! I would say: "God took camera and shot his first step!" The existence is the basic property of God, all other properties rely on this Basic Property.

Does it matter? After all, Flew still died not believing in the salvific doctrines of Christianity. According to many Christians, that places him in Hell.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Yes, even when Flew was an atheist, I thought that he was a second-rate philosopher.

I'm not sure why one convert is supposed to mean anything. One can always find people who convert in both directions. It doesn't prove anything.


eudaimonia,

Mark

Isn't it telling that Christian apologists treat Flew's conversion as a major triumph, even though Flew never converted to the religion that their apologetics strives to defend?

 

[Eudaimonist]

Isn't it telling that Christian apologists treat Flew's conversion as a major triumph, even though Flew never converted to the religion that their apologetics strives to defend?

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

 

[Dmitri Martila]

Some do. Some just say that they don't currently have knowledge of God.

The basic knowledge they have: God exists, otherwise they won't use the definition. God am Who exists and Who rules.

 

[Dmitri Martila]

eudaimonia,
Mark

Let Jesus saves you, Mark. Please do not ignore His plea: Please Define God!!!

 

[Eudaimonist]

The basic knowledge they have: God exists, otherwise they won't use the definition. God am Who exists and Who rules.

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


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Eudaimonist]

Let Jesus saves you, Mark. Please do not ignore His plea: Please Define God!!!

I've already offered my definition of God. It may have been a different thread that you were posting in. Do you wish me to repeat it?


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Dmitri Martila]

I've already offered my definition of God.


eudaimonia,

Mark

Please repeat it Here:............ Write it down here, can our pacient do this?