Evolution debunked in 1 paragraph.
- Thread starter peilthetraveler
- Start date
It's not about experience level, it's about not "thinking" you know more than you do. And people who don't know what they don't know about simple stuff probably don't know it about complex stuff. What's irrelevant about that?
Again, you don't know what you don't know. Tell me what special knowledge you have to be able to make that definitive statement. Zeus and Thor can have their own Pascal's wager but they'd be different.
Pascal didn't intend it as a proof. My point has been that because it was formulated for the Christian God, one can't say it fails when applied to other deities.
That's not the only conclusion that can be drawn from what I said.
=============
Betapeg;
[1] I believe that giant [uncircumcised Goliath of Gath] was killed by David, a youth, not mainly because the Bible is such a best selling book for so many years.
[2]I believe it because , obviously from the book of Psalms,
David [big game hunter] had plenty of his prayers answered, by the Lord.;
a lion could kill a giant man around easily, like a bull.
Thanks
before I waste any more time with you...
what exactly are you saying with respect to Pascal and his wager. Because now you seem to arguing a new point. Before you were talking about rational skeptics now you are arguing something off point.
From what I studied, I believe Pascal was speaking about belief in Jesus.
If your point is that Jesus did not expect you to believe in prophecy of the messiah and that he was fulfilling it... I would say you are ignorant of subject in which you exhibit Bill Maher type arrogance.
- 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 weigh the gain and the loss in wagering that God is. Let us estimate these two chances. If you gain, you gain all; if you lose, you lose nothing. Wager then without hesitation that He is.
Pascal has clearly and categorically defined his terms for God.
Unknowable.
Except of course already contradicting himself in knowing God is male. Ignoring that then......
"you must wager. It is not optional. You are embarked."
Must you indeed.
But Pascal requires you to wager by the fallacy of false dilemma - oof, not a good start Blaise.
Why only two basic options when there are three which directly affect the bet? .... tut tut.
Now it already looks more like an ET poll than a philosophical construct.
"Which will you choose then? Let us weigh the gain and the loss in wagering that God is. Let us estimate these two chances. If you gain, you gain all; if you lose, you lose nothing. Wager then without hesitation that He is."
What a mess. You wager 'God is' without hesitation , only to find out 'He is' alright , but the bet critically needed to include the option that 'He is and doesn't want you to Wager that He is' ...or that 'He isn't' , for that matter.
You find out 'He' gave you the gift of rational skepticism and for that reason you should have realized in the case of 'He is', the Wager was not a valid one anyway. You abused the gift . God is pissed , tells you he expected you to think, so the bet failed and atheists win the prize.
Blaise Pascal , even as a brilliant mathematician and physicist, when it came to religious philosophy, got himself horribly messed up with his Wager , especially in that he thought he knew what God wanted even though he'd already defined It as infinitely incomprehensible.
But that is what religion does to folk.
Your studies. LoL.
Pascalâ Wager clearly specifies only the word God. No mention of a Jesus anywhere.
Nevertheless, even with only a Christian God the problem is, Pascal's Wager doesn't work with a Christian God.
It is equally valid in terms of Pascal's Wager to say those who are not religious, who find no reason to accept any claims made by any religious belief, are sought for heaven.
Rather than those who apparently in spite of any rationality attributed as God given, still sop up unsubstantiated unfalsifiable illogical religious claims, and then indulge themselves in absurd and bizarre reasoning to argue for them. Like you do.
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 weather isn't it ".
The theist thought to himself no way this is 'great weather' but then it suddenly dawned on him the British guy's contrariness was deliberate . Hey that's what irony is, he thought to himself and decided there and then to use in future.
When back in LA the theist was grilling steaks but he burned them, so turned to his wife and said "hey, great weather ".
The old ones are the best
That's funny coming from one who routinely contradict himself without even realizing it. 
For example:
It [God] expects the correct understanding to be that there is no God.
http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&postid=3233482&#post3233482
For example: It [God] expects the correct understanding to be that there is no God.
http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&postid=3233482&#post3233482
It's implied by the context of his notes. You should study the wager before showcasing your ignorance. And also research others' critiques, some of which are intelligent and interesting, unlike yours which is specious and has been dismissed.
Right so you link to something in concordance with what I said, and you think thatâs a contradiction.Quote from Trader666:
That's funny coming from one who routinely contradict himself without even realizing it.
It [God] expects the correct understanding to be that there is no God.
http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&postid=3233482&#post3233482
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 rational argument let me know.