Total Posts:6|Showing Posts:1-6
Jump to topic:

Rejection of Pascal's Wager

Microsuck
Posts: 1,562
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/11/2012 4:30:48 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
http://rejectionofpascalswager.net...

One of the best resources on Biblical criticism. I am wondering what your thoughts on Paul's website is? I like it and in fact, am using the same design for my website http://whyiamanatheist.elementfx.com...
Wall of Fail

Devil worship much? - SD
Newsflash: Atheists do not believe in the Devil! - Me
Newsflash: I doesnt matter if you think you do or not.....You do - SD

"you [imabench] are very naive and so i do not consider your opinions as having any merit. you must still be in highschool" - falconduler
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/11/2012 4:48:51 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/11/2012 4:30:48 PM, Microsuck wrote:
http://rejectionofpascalswager.net...

One of the best resources on Biblical criticism. I am wondering what your thoughts on Paul's website is? I like it and in fact, am using the same design for my website http://whyiamanatheist.elementfx.com...

The Fool: I was studying "The wager", last night, for a second time.
The First problems is Pascals argument about infinite. In that we know that there is infinite. I would reject this right away, I don't think it is knowable because the thought itself would have to be never ending. All we no it that its indefinite, because forever, will never happen. (that is a philosophic, rejection that I don't expect to be intuitive to most people.)

That pretty much destroys his whole argument.

A second rejection comes from it appealing to ignorance, in that maybe the Christian God may turn out to be evil. And the Good God needed be found with effort and reason. Not ignorance.

A third is that the only definition of God he is basing his argument on is the infinite. He is making the Common theologian fallacy which assumes that the God they are proving somehow has a relation to the BIBLE. When there is absolutly no logical connection which warrents that reference what so ever. EVER!

A Fourth rejection is that he is really in the end trying to give a rational argument, which is what he is against in the first place.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/11/2012 5:33:41 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
If anyone actually studies the original text, it becomes painfully clear it has been hijacked: it was supposing the [percentile] evidence for Christianity and non-Christianity was essentially the same.
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
Gileandos
Posts: 2,394
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/11/2012 5:36:04 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/11/2012 5:33:41 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
If anyone actually studies the original text, it becomes painfully clear it has been hijacked: it was supposing the [percentile] evidence for Christianity and non-Christianity was essentially the same.

That ignores the fundamentals of probability calculus and modern game theory. All of the background information is supportive of such a game theory.

None of the detractions listed are relevant to the actuality of a wager.
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/11/2012 10:53:49 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/11/2012 5:36:04 PM, Gileandos wrote:
At 7/11/2012 5:33:41 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
If anyone actually studies the original text, it becomes painfully clear it has been hijacked: it was supposing the [percentile] evidence for Christianity and non-Christianity was essentially the same.

That ignores the fundamentals of probability calculus and modern game theory. All of the background information is supportive of such a game theory.

None of the detractions listed are relevant to the actuality of a wager.

The Fool: obviously none of you have actually read the paper.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/12/2012 2:51:55 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
The Fool: bump
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL