Enai de a lukal
Well-Known Member
In other words, my point sailed directly over your head and that made you mad so now I'm on Ignore.
Something tells me this is actually a good thing for me, yikes.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Something tells me this is actually a good thing for me, yikes.
This is unfortunate because it is not my understanding, It is based on my references concerning the proper use of proof.
I believe I understand if very well in the context of the limits of the subjective nature of claims of "belief, faith, assurance and conviction,"
There is the question of 'certainty' in the objective and subjective knowledge of Science, Philosophy and Theology. It is an interesting topic to explore
An example is my response to your your justification of the relative Certainty of Paul's statement of belief as 100% true or truth. I responded Paul "believed" that it was 100% true. Those that share Paul's belief will consider, like you. as 100% true. For example the Jew will not consider Paul's statement of faith as true at all. Just because you believe a subjective belief is 100% true it is not reasonable to expect others to believe as you, because in reality they do belief differently the truth of your belief,
Another example is you claim I do not understand your beliefs and other Christian beliefs, because I do not believe as you do. This is an unfortunate subjective assumption on your part. Objectively from an unbiased perspective I may or may not understand your beliefs, but based on the content of your posts over time your beliefs are very understandable and obvious whether I believe in them or not.
For your analogy to work it is the self that locks the self into the room. Now, you could say that some learn to lock themselves in their room to conform to the cultural norm, and do so unconsciously. That would better mirror how Christians find themselves in the trap of pascal's wager. Notice atheists aren't in the trap, and that's because they neither lock themselves in their room nor worry about being saved.
It's not just the God, it's the threat of damnation if you don't believe, or salvation if you believe. The wager deals exclusively with Christian belief. It doesn't apply to, or work on Jews, or Hindus.
The wager is a complete failure since no rational mind takes it seriously. There's no decision to make. It only illustrates how so many average people are indoctrinated to implausible ideas.
I wrote a typo that you missed. Is English not your native language?
Last edited:
Yes, the theory fails to show any credible force to cause the effects.
Do you understand that now you are claiming, modern continents, oil, gas and coal fields... ...don't exist.
What do you think would be the evidence for the flood?
Yes they of course exist, but they are a product of Natural Laws, and natural processes over millions of years based objective observable and verifiable evidence, The existence oil, gas and coal formations that formed in ancient swamps and organic deposits millions of years ago is evidence that the Bible myths are false,
We have evidence of a number of ;ocal catastrophic floods with known cause such as tsunamis, River floods, and glacial floods that are documented to occur at different times over the past tens of thousands of years, and many local catastrophic recently in the past several hundred years.
If there was a world flood we would have catastrophic flood debris all over the continents. We have no evidence of this.
Enai de a lukal
Well-Known Member
He says, before he so much as opens up a textbook. Look, this may seem like a simple distinction, but just because you don't know how something works (through laziness or incuriosity or whatever) doesn't mean it is not known how something works. But yeah, plate tectonic theory is very robust and detailed and it successfully has shown "Credible forces to cause the effects", especially in terms of the active geology below the surface, which were subsequently verified observationally. Oops, eh?
I mean really, you've gotten so hard up that you're disputing plate tectonics? What's next? Do you also believe the Earth is flat, and that horses don't really exist? C'mon man, get serious. Open up a book. USe your mind for something other than trolling on the interwebs.
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
Not true, plus volcanic action is still producing land masses.
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
setarcos
The hopeful or the hopeless?
Seems reasonable to me.
You need to elaborate further for me where your going with this. Whether or not physical evidence is needed depends on the calculations your doing. For example you cannot calculate the probability of the a physical system being in any particular state unless you have a physical system from which to draw reasonable information from.
setarcos
The hopeful or the hopeless?
Um...yes, that's one way of looking at what I said is it not?
Conform or be conformed? Unconsciously would, I suppose correspond to "...or someone else's" that I said....better stated here as "something" else I think - apart from our conscious reflection.
Christians -proper- cannot be entrapped by Pascal's wager. The wager is flawed as concerns Christianity.
A person who considers themselves to be "Christian" because of Pascal's wager neither understands Christianity nor is a true Christian.
And as such exclusively fails in consideration of Christian belief. Not in consideration of non Christian belief.
In consideration of a non Christian god or gods Pascals wager doesn't fail because it doesn't apply to them. Pascals thinking fails in consideration of him setting up the exclusivity of his initial conditions as universally applicable sans proof.
I disagree and have hardly noticed this. What I have noticed is that atheists are no more less susceptible of becoming entrapped in their own enclosures of mind due to their beliefs or lack there of than Christians are.
Not worrying about being "saved" - whatever that entails - is hardly preferable to worrying about being saved if one might actually need saving.
I beg to differ. Many great minds have taken his wager seriously for analysis - look at Stanford's philosophy website for instance - 1) Because Pascal was a brilliant man and 2) The wager includes much more of importance than simply its failures. Even in failure Pascal has something to teach.
From the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy...
"The name is somewhat misleading, for in a single section of his Pensées, Pascal apparently presents four such arguments, each of which might be called a ‘wager’—it is only the third of these that is traditionally referred to as “Pascal’s Wager”. We find in it the extraordinary confluence of several important strands of thought: the justification of theism; probability theory and decision theory, used here for almost the first time in history; pragmatism; voluntarism (the thesis that belief is a matter of the will); and the use of the concept of infinity."
I think this is a very shallow critique as shown above.
Ok?....we all make typos. If you question a persons native language based on the person missing a typo then you'd be questioning everyone's native language on here, simply because they ignored the typo and went on with the discussion or missed it entirely.
What typo are you referring to and is it effective to the discussion?
setarcos
The hopeful or the hopeless?
My point was that Modern physics - Quantum mechanics if you will - has reached a point in its study where certain results are by their very nature unreasonable. Quantum mechanics has become metaphysical. Superposition, the dual nature of light quanta, Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, the interpretive nature of evidential observation of quantum mechanical results, the measurement problem, to name a few things have rendered even probability impotent until we frame our expectations of the results. At the quantum level of reality, results don't produce evidence for us, instead evidence is framed by the results we are looking for.
Strictly speaking while probability may be an extension of classical logic Quantum Mechanics as known now isn't a classically logical theory and neither may be the principal foundations of reality.
Seems reasonable to me.
You need to elaborate further for me where your going with this. Whether or not physical evidence is needed depends on the calculations your doing. For example you cannot calculate the probability of the a physical system being in any particular state unless you have a physical system from which to draw reasonable information from.
The physical evidence is the Brain --- a machine that is able to reason - and it does so on the basis of balancing probabilities .. one against the other .. first predicting the probability .. the comparison of the probabilities of two separate path .. and taking the path with highest probability of success is how we define "Reasoning"
The above is pessimist speculation based on an intentional ignorance of science. As worded it is not based current factual science and I cannot respond,
Continued misuse of probability makes the above incoherent.
The force has been documented beyond any reasonable doubt. The source of the energy for continental drift is the directly observed heat convection currents in the interior of the earth.
The movement of these tectonic plates is likely caused by convection currents in the molten rock in Earth's mantle below the crust. Earthquakes and volcanoes are the short-term results of this tectonic movement. The long-term result of plate tectonics is the movement of entire continents over millions of years
No, you said we are all locked in the room. The wager only applies to those who have been exposed to, and believe, some sort of God that includes consequences to not believing, and/or benefits to believe. Not everyone believes what they are exposed to where it comes to this sort of God.
No one believes in any gods without social learning. And the humans that do believe in one God, or many, do so because that is what they learned from exposure to a religious framework. Most folks adopt these ideas unconsciously and in essence assume they are true. Atheists have challenged this social conditioning and applied reason.
How many Christians even hear about it? And it's not as if most believers aren't committed to what they believe already, regardless of reasoning.
If someone believes in Christianity I would say they don;t understand it either, given the absurdity of the religion's claims. And "true Christian" is not a definitive thing.
That is the dilemma for anyone who assumes a God exists. God always "exists" in the conditions the human decides it does. Religious claims are always assumptions, and never fact-based.
What does this have to do with being trapped in the way that pascal's wager traps a theist? The trap is religious assumptions, and not even any assumption. Atheists aren't. If you insist atheists are trapved in some way feel free to explain it, and show examples.
This is the trap. Why entertain ideas that are absurd and implausible in the first place? This illustrates the freedom of reasoning that you seem divorced from.
To think through the wager fully means an independent mind will reject salvation if the God behind this bad process demands belief to get the payoff. It's immoral. To my mind it show better character and higher morals to reject the blackmail.
Sure, it's a clever outlook. It tries to sound objective, but is still trpped in assumptions that were common in his day, and even today for many believers. But those who take it seriously assume a God exists, and that itself is irrational and unjustified. That is why I declare no rational mind can take it seriously. It could be that my standard for taking ideas seriously includes NOT assuming some sort of god exists.
Sure, there's a lot that can inspire discussion. But these discussions are about ideas and thinking that atheists have already pondered and reconciled. We see philosophy often get mired in its own swamp, and thinkers invite more people to jump in and get wet. These tend to be mental exercises where no answers are attained, just the experience of thinking.
Many atheists show a sort of effieciency of mind. Theists continute to think about God and how it can be justified, while atheists have approached the exercises with the openness to discard God ideas when they show no utility. We see some believers absolutely disturbed by this. Their disdain and contempt for atheists seems to reflect their situation of being trapped. It's like that Far Side cartoon where the cat is trapped inside the house as there are two vans with flightless birds and rodents running around after an accident. I suspect sometimes theists wish they could be free like atheists, but are somehow trapped in their mind as conditioned theists.
Last edited:
misuse of logic and complete lack of an argument combined with assumed premise fallacy makes the above incoherent.
Rational choice "Reason" involves comparison of probabilities, the choice made on the basis of that comparison.. the act of making that comparison .. rational thought.
AdamjEdgar
Active Member
I would argue that the problem atheists encounter with the fabricated evidences of qualities such as love, joy, tolerance...
The atheist obviously must deny Epistomology. If our existing physical reality is the only evidence, what then do they use to drive discovery, forward thinking, learning? We may as well remain cave men!