Curious George
Veteran Member
This is all bollox, mate, I did in fact describe all the hows and why's where you say I did not. Im not doing it again to humor some repetitious gallop on your part.
Let me repeat, since it seems you cannot read: Pascal's Wager is not begging the question, though you did cite it; PASCAL'S WAGER IS NOT LOGICALLY SOUND BECAUSE IT IS A FALSE DICHOTOMY.
YOU WERE BEGGING THE QUESTION USING THE APPLE EXAMPLE IN WAYS I ALREADY DESCRIBED.
Were you able to read that?
Everything else was already covered
Was everything covered? I went through the posts:
No, your analogy does not apply.
All you'd know is that there was an object in the bag.
In other words to assume it was an apple out of all other possible similar objects someone would have already told you it was an apple or not.
It could be two half-rounds of wood.
You are begging the question, another logical fallacy.
At this point you state that I am begging the question without giving any reasoning or telling me what implicit premise I have used to prove my argument.
You are mistaken. Please look up 'begging the question'.
It's ok, you made a mistake. Move on.
At this point you still have not explained
That was you, begging the question.Curious George I am well aware of what begging the question is and I am not begging the question. However said:either is an apple or there is not an apple."[/B]
Being condescending to the person who gently showed you you were wrong, is not becoming of you.
Here you have highlighted a statement but again you have not reasoned what implicit premise I have used to prove my statement
You were begging the question by specifying an apple when you offered the bag.
It's interesting, but you were wrong in your analogy of the bag exactly how you were wrong about Pascal's Wager.
But by all means, tell me I was mistaken again.
Here you suggest the specificity of the apple is me begging the question. Why? You offer no reason.
Still doing it.
the point you are missing is that it could be any object similar in shape or mass to an apple, or could be another object contained within a hollowed-out apple or anything else. The instant you stated 'apple' before any examination by the person being handed to bag is begging the question.
If you are presenting a logical premise concerning the existence of any sort of deific then ALL possibilities must be included for the premise to be honest. I have showed why. You even conceded to the offered examples earlier. I don't need to do anything more.
Here you reason that it doesn't have to be an apple in the bag, so the concept of saying an apple does or does not exist within the bag is begging the question. While you actually take a stance here, you are, ironically, begging the question.
It is a vastly different situation if there are multiple Gods, though; since we are stating a very specific 'fruit'. In a sense 'many Gods exist' throws the idea of your God existing in among them very much into doubt, given 'his' own statements.
the extreme specificity of the word 'God' is the same issue as stating 'apple'; there are many possibilities. This is the basis of your error, which I have been explaining for many posts; it's not being stated to you un-clearly.
We are attempting to establish the basis for a logical question. Making it a dichotomy makes it illogical. I have rephrased the true logical question, or at least one version of it, several ways.
The very nature of the answer itself is so significant in its various implications that reducing it to either/or is not valid.
Here you again go back to saying that specificity is my error. You also suggest that making a dichotomy is illogical, but you have not specified why.
I have already explained everything plainly. You're not going to listen in any case, and my argument stands. You were not as successful as you keep claiming and attempt to move past as if it were done. But it's ok.
Here you suggest you have explained when you have not