Search results

The correct understanding for a religious believer surely, would be the understanding God would want you to have. According to Pascal you cannot know what God wants. It may just as much want you to correctly understand by placing a "does not exist" or no bet at all, as much as any other...

Typical. All you can do is produce another list of inane comments tantamount to saying I'd be King of the World if only I could prove the Earth is flat. Well I have news just for you. The Earth is not Flat because the assertion has been reasonably logically rationally refuted. The...

Fancy that, the catalogue of dumb claims you’ve made covered all those items. Not one of them have you been able to support or say anything logical or sensible about. Now Pascal is added to the list. What’s next? Why not go the whole hog and claim I can’t prove the Earth isn’t...

Makes no difference. Make no mistake.:p Evolution is a fact.

1. Read the Pensées along with the Wager and the Wager becomes absurd, not just logically fallacious 2. The Wager is still inconsistent, contradictory and flawed in logical reasoning, however religion would go a long way to explaining why that is so 3. Pascal said it. It’s supposed...

Right so you link to something in concordance with what I said, and you think that’s a contradiction. Are you even aware how unintelligent you're being? Pascal's Wager does not imply a Jesus whether or not you or Jem imply one. Like I say, when you get anything that resembles a...

I don't think Jem will ever get the irony though Gabfly. I recall talking with a theist that sounds a lot like him in Los Angeles, who said he learned what irony was when in England. A British guy turned to him as they both stood in the driving rain at a bus stop and remarked, "great...

Pascal's Wager If there is a God, He is infinitely incomprehensible, since, having, neither parts nor limits, He has no affinity to us. We are then incapable of knowing either what He is or if He is ... you must wager. It is not optional. You are embarked. Which will you choose then? Let us...

The proposition that God expects people to not believe in order to go to heaven, is no less likely than any other religious proposition. Irrespectively his Wager still logically fails because of them whether he considered and dismissed such objections or not.

A majority of scientists in agreement is the temporary accommodation of a consensus until they can find another fact to disprove it. A majority of religious followers in agreement........is just a madness in crowds.

Take it up with Pascal. His wager creates the dilemma, not what you call my conclusion.

Rambling nonsense. Non of which addresses the question where did morals come from. Just because you need threats of punishment from an imaginary bully called God to behave morally, does not mean morals come from an imaginary bully. The fact that you think in bible terms of 'types of...

Morals are what humans agree on as right and wrong. Nothing else. Condoning slavery for one example shows how God would be no proper judge of morality.

Another disastrous problem with Pascal's Wager for religious believers is, it's every bit as likely that the Christian God gave the gift of rational skepticism, and therefore after providing so many obvious clues, such as being unfalsifiable Itself, It expects the correct understanding to...

What is it you can't grasp about the words... Christian God or not , it fails for reasons already given.

I put a smiley after it. Don't be so touchy. If you make categorical assertions from the dubious use of a word like *meta*, you should expect some fairly vigorous responses. There is a reasonable argument for meta-data. You have not made one for what would be a supernatural meta-level.

I realize from your earlier posts you are not supporting religious faith. I agree the argument is interesting, but it’s very weak. Pascal discovered some amazing things perhaps that’s why his Wager got some momentum , but it just doesn’t bear scrutiny. The Christian God is a nasty...

Christian God or not , it fails for reasons already given. No rational response, now to Pascal's wager as well as Russell's Teapot . That clearly points toward you who is not understanding them not everyone else. Just like Ricter, all you guys really have in the end is a snide remark...

You just can't be wrong .....can you Ricter.

Suppose there were this thing called God, and it expected you to use certain abilities , like skepticism, doubt, rationality, reasoning, critical inquiry, practical knowledge, honesty, to come to the decision that there is no such a thing as God. It uses circumstances to suggest belief ...