Total Posts:39|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Pascal's Wager

roun12
Posts: 177
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/27/2015 8:12:45 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Many of us have heard of Pascal's Wager. If you haven't it goes like this.

"If you believe in God and you are wrong then you have nothing to worry about, if you don't believe in God and you are wrong then you burn for all eternity."

It sounds like a good deal, right? Wrong! This creates a false dichotomy. There are many religions in the world and we can't possibly know which one is right or wrong. Also, people can't just believe what they want to believe. Belief in something is created when substantial evidence and proof of something are available.

What do you think of this?
"No, I disagree. 'R' is among the most menacing of sounds. That's why they call it MURDER, not Muckduck." - Dwight

"Tell people there's an invisible man in the sky who created the universe, and the vast majority will believe you. Tell them the paint is wet, and they have to touch it to be sure." - George Carlin
Ragnar
Posts: 1,658
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/27/2015 1:08:53 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
As laid out, you've just described vile terrorist threats; which should not be taken seriously.
Unofficial DDO Guide: http://goo.gl...
(It's probably the best help resource here, other than talking to people...)

Voting Standards: https://goo.gl...

And please disable Smart-Quotes: https://goo.gl...
Chaosism
Posts: 2,667
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/27/2015 1:44:42 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/27/2015 8:12:45 AM, roun12 wrote:
Many of us have heard of Pascal's Wager. If you haven't it goes like this.

"If you believe in God and you are wrong then you have nothing to worry about, if you don't believe in God and you are wrong then you burn for all eternity."

It sounds like a good deal, right? Wrong! This creates a false dichotomy. There are many religions in the world and we can't possibly know which one is right or wrong. Also, people can't just believe what they want to believe. Belief in something is created when substantial evidence and proof of something are available.

What do you think of this?

To play devil's advocate...

Even if we don't know which religion is correct (if any), buying one random lottery ticket yields a better chance of winning than not buying one (which is zero, of course).

Also, even if your belief is superficial, it provides a toehold from which true belief can eventually grow. A door slightly ajar is more readily open-able than a closed one.
Saint_of_Me
Posts: 2,402
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/27/2015 2:01:39 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/27/2015 8:12:45 AM, roun12 wrote:
Many of us have heard of Pascal's Wager. If you haven't it goes like this.

"If you believe in God and you are wrong then you have nothing to worry about, if you don't believe in God and you are wrong then you burn for all eternity."

It sounds like a good deal, right? Wrong! This creates a false dichotomy. There are many religions in the world and we can't possibly know which one is right or wrong. Also, people can't just believe what they want to believe. Belief in something is created when substantial evidence and proof of something are available.

What do you think of this?

I always had a couple problems with Pascal's Wager.

The first and foremost being: he frames his syllogism as if believing in God were simply something you could decide on the spur of the moment, with no real emotional or intellectual investment or effort. AS if you were deciding on, say, what to eat for dinner tonight. LOL.

Rest assured, this is not the case. Either you deep down in your heart and soul believe in the existence of a personal God. Or you do not. I suppose if one is an Agnostic, as I am, he could look at Pascal's Wager and decide that he might as well believe.

But this would be a "cover your butt" belief and NOT the type that would fly with God or sonny Jesus. Thus...if there WERE a God then it is highly doubtful this level or "pretend" belief would get you into the pearly gates.

My second problem is with his first premise: that believing in God does no harm.--if there turns out to be NO God.

I disagree. What about the guys who went into the clergy? Or the nuns or Jesuits or otherwise Believers who dedicate their entire lives to a God that turned out to be just a silly superstition? Man--talk about a wasted life! LOL. And the celibacy! What a shame they never got to engage in one of the most enjoyable acts that a human can!

Also..belief in a specific God has caused Wars. People have died. Thus...belief is not harmless.
Science Flies Us to the Moon. Religion Flies us Into Skyscrapers.
Geogeer
Posts: 4,274
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/27/2015 3:07:04 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/27/2015 2:01:39 PM, Saint_of_Me wrote:
At 5/27/2015 8:12:45 AM, roun12 wrote:
Many of us have heard of Pascal's Wager. If you haven't it goes like this.

"If you believe in God and you are wrong then you have nothing to worry about, if you don't believe in God and you are wrong then you burn for all eternity."

It sounds like a good deal, right? Wrong! This creates a false dichotomy. There are many religions in the world and we can't possibly know which one is right or wrong. Also, people can't just believe what they want to believe. Belief in something is created when substantial evidence and proof of something are available.

What do you think of this?

I always had a couple problems with Pascal's Wager.

The first and foremost being: he frames his syllogism as if believing in God were simply something you could decide on the spur of the moment, with no real emotional or intellectual investment or effort. AS if you were deciding on, say, what to eat for dinner tonight. LOL.

Rest assured, this is not the case. Either you deep down in your heart and soul believe in the existence of a personal God. Or you do not. I suppose if one is an Agnostic, as I am, he could look at Pascal's Wager and decide that he might as well believe.

But this would be a "cover your butt" belief and NOT the type that would fly with God or sonny Jesus. Thus...if there WERE a God then it is highly doubtful this level or "pretend" belief would get you into the pearly gates.

My second problem is with his first premise: that believing in God does no harm.--if there turns out to be NO God.

I disagree. What about the guys who went into the clergy? Or the nuns or Jesuits or otherwise Believers who dedicate their entire lives to a God that turned out to be just a silly superstition? Man--talk about a wasted life! LOL. And the celibacy! What a shame they never got to engage in one of the most enjoyable acts that a human can!

Also..belief in a specific God has caused Wars. People have died. Thus...belief is not harmless.

If there is no God, what does it really matter? We are just a cosmic accident...
Nicoszon_the_Great
Posts: 167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/27/2015 3:10:09 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/27/2015 3:07:04 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 5/27/2015 2:01:39 PM, Saint_of_Me wrote:
At 5/27/2015 8:12:45 AM, roun12 wrote:
Many of us have heard of Pascal's Wager. If you haven't it goes like this.

"If you believe in God and you are wrong then you have nothing to worry about, if you don't believe in God and you are wrong then you burn for all eternity."

It sounds like a good deal, right? Wrong! This creates a false dichotomy. There are many religions in the world and we can't possibly know which one is right or wrong. Also, people can't just believe what they want to believe. Belief in something is created when substantial evidence and proof of something are available.

What do you think of this?

I always had a couple problems with Pascal's Wager.

The first and foremost being: he frames his syllogism as if believing in God were simply something you could decide on the spur of the moment, with no real emotional or intellectual investment or effort. AS if you were deciding on, say, what to eat for dinner tonight. LOL.

Rest assured, this is not the case. Either you deep down in your heart and soul believe in the existence of a personal God. Or you do not. I suppose if one is an Agnostic, as I am, he could look at Pascal's Wager and decide that he might as well believe.

But this would be a "cover your butt" belief and NOT the type that would fly with God or sonny Jesus. Thus...if there WERE a God then it is highly doubtful this level or "pretend" belief would get you into the pearly gates.

My second problem is with his first premise: that believing in God does no harm.--if there turns out to be NO God.

I disagree. What about the guys who went into the clergy? Or the nuns or Jesuits or otherwise Believers who dedicate their entire lives to a God that turned out to be just a silly superstition? Man--talk about a wasted life! LOL. And the celibacy! What a shame they never got to engage in one of the most enjoyable acts that a human can!

Also..belief in a specific God has caused Wars. People have died. Thus...belief is not harmless.

If there is no God, what does it really matter? We are just a cosmic accident...

Regardless of whether or not we're an accident, we as a species have a responsibility to each other to survive. The fact that there is a social phenomenon that is clearly acting as an outlet for the animals inside of us is reason enough to doubt it, take offense, and look for a better way.
Geogeer
Posts: 4,274
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/27/2015 3:12:34 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/27/2015 3:10:09 PM, Nicoszon_the_Great wrote:
At 5/27/2015 3:07:04 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 5/27/2015 2:01:39 PM, Saint_of_Me wrote:
At 5/27/2015 8:12:45 AM, roun12 wrote:
Many of us have heard of Pascal's Wager. If you haven't it goes like this.

"If you believe in God and you are wrong then you have nothing to worry about, if you don't believe in God and you are wrong then you burn for all eternity."

It sounds like a good deal, right? Wrong! This creates a false dichotomy. There are many religions in the world and we can't possibly know which one is right or wrong. Also, people can't just believe what they want to believe. Belief in something is created when substantial evidence and proof of something are available.

What do you think of this?

I always had a couple problems with Pascal's Wager.

The first and foremost being: he frames his syllogism as if believing in God were simply something you could decide on the spur of the moment, with no real emotional or intellectual investment or effort. AS if you were deciding on, say, what to eat for dinner tonight. LOL.

Rest assured, this is not the case. Either you deep down in your heart and soul believe in the existence of a personal God. Or you do not. I suppose if one is an Agnostic, as I am, he could look at Pascal's Wager and decide that he might as well believe.

But this would be a "cover your butt" belief and NOT the type that would fly with God or sonny Jesus. Thus...if there WERE a God then it is highly doubtful this level or "pretend" belief would get you into the pearly gates.

My second problem is with his first premise: that believing in God does no harm.--if there turns out to be NO God.

I disagree. What about the guys who went into the clergy? Or the nuns or Jesuits or otherwise Believers who dedicate their entire lives to a God that turned out to be just a silly superstition? Man--talk about a wasted life! LOL. And the celibacy! What a shame they never got to engage in one of the most enjoyable acts that a human can!

Also..belief in a specific God has caused Wars. People have died. Thus...belief is not harmless.

If there is no God, what does it really matter? We are just a cosmic accident...

Regardless of whether or not we're an accident, we as a species have a responsibility to each other to survive. The fact that there is a social phenomenon that is clearly acting as an outlet for the animals inside of us is reason enough to doubt it, take offense, and look for a better way.

That instinct too is an accident of evolution. We could have evolved a different way. Lions kill the young of a pride when they take over. Being and not being have no inherent value. Accidents don't have rights.
Nicoszon_the_Great
Posts: 167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/27/2015 3:16:03 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/27/2015 3:12:34 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 5/27/2015 3:10:09 PM, Nicoszon_the_Great wrote:
At 5/27/2015 3:07:04 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 5/27/2015 2:01:39 PM, Saint_of_Me wrote:
At 5/27/2015 8:12:45 AM, roun12 wrote:
Many of us have heard of Pascal's Wager. If you haven't it goes like this.

"If you believe in God and you are wrong then you have nothing to worry about, if you don't believe in God and you are wrong then you burn for all eternity."

It sounds like a good deal, right? Wrong! This creates a false dichotomy. There are many religions in the world and we can't possibly know which one is right or wrong. Also, people can't just believe what they want to believe. Belief in something is created when substantial evidence and proof of something are available.

What do you think of this?

I always had a couple problems with Pascal's Wager.

The first and foremost being: he frames his syllogism as if believing in God were simply something you could decide on the spur of the moment, with no real emotional or intellectual investment or effort. AS if you were deciding on, say, what to eat for dinner tonight. LOL.

Rest assured, this is not the case. Either you deep down in your heart and soul believe in the existence of a personal God. Or you do not. I suppose if one is an Agnostic, as I am, he could look at Pascal's Wager and decide that he might as well believe.

But this would be a "cover your butt" belief and NOT the type that would fly with God or sonny Jesus. Thus...if there WERE a God then it is highly doubtful this level or "pretend" belief would get you into the pearly gates.

My second problem is with his first premise: that believing in God does no harm.--if there turns out to be NO God.

I disagree. What about the guys who went into the clergy? Or the nuns or Jesuits or otherwise Believers who dedicate their entire lives to a God that turned out to be just a silly superstition? Man--talk about a wasted life! LOL. And the celibacy! What a shame they never got to engage in one of the most enjoyable acts that a human can!

Also..belief in a specific God has caused Wars. People have died. Thus...belief is not harmless.

If there is no God, what does it really matter? We are just a cosmic accident...

Regardless of whether or not we're an accident, we as a species have a responsibility to each other to survive. The fact that there is a social phenomenon that is clearly acting as an outlet for the animals inside of us is reason enough to doubt it, take offense, and look for a better way.

That instinct too is an accident of evolution. We could have evolved a different way. Lions kill the young of a pride when they take over. Being and not being have no inherent value. Accidents don't have rights.

So what if we evolved this way? We've evolved to a point where we can make decisions, as communities, and totally circumvent however nature shaped us.

Interesting you point out infanticide in lions with passages like Numbers 31
Fkkize
Posts: 2,149
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/27/2015 3:34:17 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/27/2015 3:12:34 PM, Geogeer wrote:
That instinct too is an accident of evolution. We could have evolved a different way. Lions kill the young of a pride when they take over. Being and not being have no inherent value. Accidents don't have rights.

Food tastes good to us, because of evolution. Does knowing why we like it lessen its taste in any way?
We enjoy love and intimacy because of evolution, does knowing that make them any worse?
: At 7/2/2016 3:05:07 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
:
: space contradicts logic
Geogeer
Posts: 4,274
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/27/2015 3:39:55 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/27/2015 3:34:17 PM, Fkkize wrote:
At 5/27/2015 3:12:34 PM, Geogeer wrote:
That instinct too is an accident of evolution. We could have evolved a different way. Lions kill the young of a pride when they take over. Being and not being have no inherent value. Accidents don't have rights.

Food tastes good to us, because of evolution. Does knowing why we like it lessen its taste in any way?
We enjoy love and intimacy because of evolution, does knowing that make them any worse?

It doesn't make it any better or any worse because it just is. It is of no more difference than if the sun shines or it rains or is a particular rock is quartz or dolomite. It is just an accident and has no meaning.
Fkkize
Posts: 2,149
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/27/2015 3:43:40 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/27/2015 3:39:55 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 5/27/2015 3:34:17 PM, Fkkize wrote:
At 5/27/2015 3:12:34 PM, Geogeer wrote:
That instinct too is an accident of evolution. We could have evolved a different way. Lions kill the young of a pride when they take over. Being and not being have no inherent value. Accidents don't have rights.

Food tastes good to us, because of evolution. Does knowing why we like it lessen its taste in any way?
We enjoy love and intimacy because of evolution, does knowing that make them any worse?

It doesn't make it any better or any worse because it just is. It is of no more difference than if the sun shines or it rains or is a particular rock is quartz or dolomite. It is just an accident and has no meaning.
But then again, it is, as you say, not any worse than otherwise, so why should it bother us that it was "just an accident". This is literally the modo hoc fallacy par exellence.
: At 7/2/2016 3:05:07 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
:
: space contradicts logic
Nicoszon_the_Great
Posts: 167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/27/2015 3:45:27 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/27/2015 3:39:55 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 5/27/2015 3:34:17 PM, Fkkize wrote:
At 5/27/2015 3:12:34 PM, Geogeer wrote:
That instinct too is an accident of evolution. We could have evolved a different way. Lions kill the young of a pride when they take over. Being and not being have no inherent value. Accidents don't have rights.

Food tastes good to us, because of evolution. Does knowing why we like it lessen its taste in any way?
We enjoy love and intimacy because of evolution, does knowing that make them any worse?

It doesn't make it any better or any worse because it just is. It is of no more difference than if the sun shines or it rains or is a particular rock is quartz or dolomite. It is just an accident and has no meaning.

It has whatever meaning I feel like applying to it. That's all that matters
Geogeer
Posts: 4,274
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/27/2015 3:49:35 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/27/2015 3:43:40 PM, Fkkize wrote:
At 5/27/2015 3:39:55 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 5/27/2015 3:34:17 PM, Fkkize wrote:
At 5/27/2015 3:12:34 PM, Geogeer wrote:
That instinct too is an accident of evolution. We could have evolved a different way. Lions kill the young of a pride when they take over. Being and not being have no inherent value. Accidents don't have rights.

Food tastes good to us, because of evolution. Does knowing why we like it lessen its taste in any way?
We enjoy love and intimacy because of evolution, does knowing that make them any worse?

It doesn't make it any better or any worse because it just is. It is of no more difference than if the sun shines or it rains or is a particular rock is quartz or dolomite. It is just an accident and has no meaning.
But then again, it is, as you say, not any worse than otherwise, so why should it bother us that it was "just an accident". This is literally the modo hoc fallacy par exellence.

It is not a matter of bothering you, it is just stating a fact. You are assigning value to something because of your personal desire and that is fine. However there is no reason for anyone else to hold it in any value whatsoever - and that is fine too.
Geogeer
Posts: 4,274
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/27/2015 3:51:16 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/27/2015 3:45:27 PM, Nicoszon_the_Great wrote:
At 5/27/2015 3:39:55 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 5/27/2015 3:34:17 PM, Fkkize wrote:
At 5/27/2015 3:12:34 PM, Geogeer wrote:
That instinct too is an accident of evolution. We could have evolved a different way. Lions kill the young of a pride when they take over. Being and not being have no inherent value. Accidents don't have rights.

Food tastes good to us, because of evolution. Does knowing why we like it lessen its taste in any way?
We enjoy love and intimacy because of evolution, does knowing that make them any worse?

It doesn't make it any better or any worse because it just is. It is of no more difference than if the sun shines or it rains or is a particular rock is quartz or dolomite. It is just an accident and has no meaning.

It has whatever meaning I feel like applying to it. That's all that matters

However you have no justification for this value. You may love your dog, and I may want to run it over with my car. There is no right or wrong, just personal preferences on meaningless objects.
Nicoszon_the_Great
Posts: 167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/27/2015 3:57:29 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/27/2015 3:51:16 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 5/27/2015 3:45:27 PM, Nicoszon_the_Great wrote:
At 5/27/2015 3:39:55 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 5/27/2015 3:34:17 PM, Fkkize wrote:
At 5/27/2015 3:12:34 PM, Geogeer wrote:
That instinct too is an accident of evolution. We could have evolved a different way. Lions kill the young of a pride when they take over. Being and not being have no inherent value. Accidents don't have rights.

Food tastes good to us, because of evolution. Does knowing why we like it lessen its taste in any way?
We enjoy love and intimacy because of evolution, does knowing that make them any worse?

It doesn't make it any better or any worse because it just is. It is of no more difference than if the sun shines or it rains or is a particular rock is quartz or dolomite. It is just an accident and has no meaning.

It has whatever meaning I feel like applying to it. That's all that matters

However you have no justification for this value. You may love your dog, and I may want to run it over with my car. There is no right or wrong, just personal preferences on meaningless objects.

Exactly, and enough people put value on that dogs life that you would be punished through a seemingly arbitrary court system if you did run over it
Fkkize
Posts: 2,149
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/27/2015 3:57:53 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/27/2015 3:49:35 PM, Geogeer wrote:
But then again, it is, as you say, not any worse than otherwise, so why should it bother us that it was "just an accident". This is literally the modo hoc fallacy par exellence.

It is not a matter of bothering you, it is just stating a fact. You are assigning value to something because of your personal desire and that is fine. However there is no reason for anyone else to hold it in any value whatsoever - and that is fine too.
There is no reason for anyone to hold anything in any value whatsoever whether or not there is a God.
: At 7/2/2016 3:05:07 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
:
: space contradicts logic
Geogeer
Posts: 4,274
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/27/2015 6:19:05 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/27/2015 3:57:29 PM, Nicoszon_the_Great wrote:
At 5/27/2015 3:51:16 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 5/27/2015 3:45:27 PM, Nicoszon_the_Great wrote:
At 5/27/2015 3:39:55 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 5/27/2015 3:34:17 PM, Fkkize wrote:
At 5/27/2015 3:12:34 PM, Geogeer wrote:
That instinct too is an accident of evolution. We could have evolved a different way. Lions kill the young of a pride when they take over. Being and not being have no inherent value. Accidents don't have rights.

Food tastes good to us, because of evolution. Does knowing why we like it lessen its taste in any way?
We enjoy love and intimacy because of evolution, does knowing that make them any worse?

It doesn't make it any better or any worse because it just is. It is of no more difference than if the sun shines or it rains or is a particular rock is quartz or dolomite. It is just an accident and has no meaning.

It has whatever meaning I feel like applying to it. That's all that matters

However you have no justification for this value. You may love your dog, and I may want to run it over with my car. There is no right or wrong, just personal preferences on meaningless objects.

Exactly, and enough people put value on that dogs life that you would be punished through a seemingly arbitrary court system if you did run over it

And another court in North Korea would kill you for drawing a moustache on a photo of Kim Jon Un. Neither decision more or less just than the other. All utterly pointless.
Geogeer
Posts: 4,274
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/27/2015 6:21:05 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/27/2015 3:57:53 PM, Fkkize wrote:
At 5/27/2015 3:49:35 PM, Geogeer wrote:
But then again, it is, as you say, not any worse than otherwise, so why should it bother us that it was "just an accident". This is literally the modo hoc fallacy par exellence.

It is not a matter of bothering you, it is just stating a fact. You are assigning value to something because of your personal desire and that is fine. However there is no reason for anyone else to hold it in any value whatsoever - and that is fine too.

There is no reason for anyone to hold anything in any value whatsoever whether or not there is a God.

Ah that is where you are wrong. If there is a God, instead of everything being pointless, everything has a reason and a purpose. Now you have a basis for an inalienable right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
bulproof
Posts: 25,254
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/27/2015 6:31:12 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/27/2015 3:51:16 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 5/27/2015 3:45:27 PM, Nicoszon_the_Great wrote:
At 5/27/2015 3:39:55 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 5/27/2015 3:34:17 PM, Fkkize wrote:
At 5/27/2015 3:12:34 PM, Geogeer wrote:
That instinct too is an accident of evolution. We could have evolved a different way. Lions kill the young of a pride when they take over. Being and not being have no inherent value. Accidents don't have rights.

Food tastes good to us, because of evolution. Does knowing why we like it lessen its taste in any way?
We enjoy love and intimacy because of evolution, does knowing that make them any worse?

It doesn't make it any better or any worse because it just is. It is of no more difference than if the sun shines or it rains or is a particular rock is quartz or dolomite. It is just an accident and has no meaning.

It has whatever meaning I feel like applying to it. That's all that matters

However you have no justification for this value. You may love your dog, and I may want to run it over with my car. There is no right or wrong, just personal preferences on meaningless objects.

And your right and wrong are supplied by a practitioner of infanticide and genocide.
My personal preferences are vastly superior.
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
Fkkize
Posts: 2,149
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/27/2015 11:40:49 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/27/2015 6:21:05 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 5/27/2015 3:57:53 PM, Fkkize wrote:
At 5/27/2015 3:49:35 PM, Geogeer wrote:
But then again, it is, as you say, not any worse than otherwise, so why should it bother us that it was "just an accident". This is literally the modo hoc fallacy par exellence.

It is not a matter of bothering you, it is just stating a fact. You are assigning value to something because of your personal desire and that is fine. However there is no reason for anyone else to hold it in any value whatsoever - and that is fine too.

There is no reason for anyone to hold anything in any value whatsoever whether or not there is a God.

Ah that is where you are wrong. If there is a God, instead of everything being pointless, everything has a reason and a purpose.
Strawman. I already explained to you what meaning there is and just because you would not be a special, golden snowflake anymore it does not follow that literally everything you do is pointless.

Now you have a basis for an inalienable right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
Why should anyone care about that anymore than about mankind?
: At 7/2/2016 3:05:07 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
:
: space contradicts logic
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,225
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/28/2015 1:57:43 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/27/2015 6:21:05 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 5/27/2015 3:57:53 PM, Fkkize wrote:
At 5/27/2015 3:49:35 PM, Geogeer wrote:
But then again, it is, as you say, not any worse than otherwise, so why should it bother us that it was "just an accident". This is literally the modo hoc fallacy par exellence.

It is not a matter of bothering you, it is just stating a fact. You are assigning value to something because of your personal desire and that is fine. However there is no reason for anyone else to hold it in any value whatsoever - and that is fine too.

There is no reason for anyone to hold anything in any value whatsoever whether or not there is a God.

Ah that is where you are wrong. If there is a God, instead of everything being pointless, everything has a reason and a purpose.

And this is not just bare assertion how? Said God is not allowed to be despondent? Bored? Uncaring? Evil?

Now you have a basis for an inalienable right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Only if the particular God you envision is correct, which, well, is to me as a long shot as evolution is to you.
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/28/2015 5:38:13 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Any heaven to which access isn't granted on the grounds of being a good person providing a positive influence to the overall welfare of the planet regardless of that persons beliefs is not a heaven that I think anyone wants to go to.

If belief and repentance is the key, then heaven will be full of self righteous zealots, with arbitrary moral character.

At least in hell there will be a lot of nice people to chat to.
Dogknox
Posts: 5,072
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/28/2015 10:30:46 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/27/2015 1:44:42 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 5/27/2015 8:12:45 AM, roun12 wrote:
Many of us have heard of Pascal's Wager. If you haven't it goes like this.

"If you believe in God and you are wrong then you have nothing to worry about, if you don't believe in God and you are wrong then you burn for all eternity."

It sounds like a good deal, right? Wrong! This creates a false dichotomy. There are many religions in the world and we can't possibly know which one is right or wrong. Also, people can't just believe what they want to believe. Belief in something is created when substantial evidence and proof of something are available.

What do you think of this?

To play devil's advocate...

Even if we don't know which religion is correct (if any), buying one random lottery ticket yields a better chance of winning than not buying one (which is zero, of course).

Also, even if your belief is superficial, it provides a toehold from which true belief can eventually grow. A door slightly ajar is more readily open-able than a closed one.

Well said.. I agree!
Geogeer
Posts: 4,274
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/28/2015 10:40:47 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/27/2015 11:40:49 PM, Fkkize wrote:
At 5/27/2015 6:21:05 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 5/27/2015 3:57:53 PM, Fkkize wrote:
At 5/27/2015 3:49:35 PM, Geogeer wrote:
But then again, it is, as you say, not any worse than otherwise, so why should it bother us that it was "just an accident". This is literally the modo hoc fallacy par exellence.

It is not a matter of bothering you, it is just stating a fact. You are assigning value to something because of your personal desire and that is fine. However there is no reason for anyone else to hold it in any value whatsoever - and that is fine too.

There is no reason for anyone to hold anything in any value whatsoever whether or not there is a God.

Ah that is where you are wrong. If there is a God, instead of everything being pointless, everything has a reason and a purpose.
Strawman. I already explained to you what meaning there is and just because you would not be a special, golden snowflake anymore it does not follow that literally everything you do is pointless.

On the contrary. An omni being would have purpose to every action. Thus you'd be a specific creation solely for your purpose. There either is meaning and value to everything (under God) or there is no meaning and no value to everything (no God) - there is no middle ground.

Now you have a basis for an inalienable right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
Why should anyone care about that anymore than about mankind?

It is an understanding of what has been given us by God, it is not something we can create on our own.
Fkkize
Posts: 2,149
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/28/2015 10:49:54 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/28/2015 10:40:47 AM, Geogeer wrote:
At 5/27/2015 11:40:49 PM, Fkkize wrote:
At 5/27/2015 6:21:05 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 5/27/2015 3:57:53 PM, Fkkize wrote:
At 5/27/2015 3:49:35 PM, Geogeer wrote:
But then again, it is, as you say, not any worse than otherwise, so why should it bother us that it was "just an accident". This is literally the modo hoc fallacy par exellence.

It is not a matter of bothering you, it is just stating a fact. You are assigning value to something because of your personal desire and that is fine. However there is no reason for anyone else to hold it in any value whatsoever - and that is fine too.

There is no reason for anyone to hold anything in any value whatsoever whether or not there is a God.

Ah that is where you are wrong. If there is a God, instead of everything being pointless, everything has a reason and a purpose.
Strawman. I already explained to you what meaning there is and just because you would not be a special, golden snowflake anymore it does not follow that literally everything you do is pointless.

On the contrary. An omni being would have purpose to every action. Thus you'd be a specific creation solely for your purpose. There either is meaning and value to everything (under God) or there is no meaning and no value to everything (no God) - there is no middle ground.
But that is a false dichotomy and you are contradicting yourself.
"You are assigning value to something because of your personal desire and that is fine." There. You already conceded that there is such middleground. I am assigning value to mankind and that's all I need. I don't need to be a special snowflake to care about my family or to care about my friends or to have a joyful life. You stick to beliefs because you don't like the alternatives and this is why many paint theists as irrational.

Now you have a basis for an inalienable right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
Why should anyone care about that anymore than about mankind?

It is an understanding of what has been given us by God,
And why should anyone care about that?

it is not something we can create on our own.
Why not?
: At 7/2/2016 3:05:07 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
:
: space contradicts logic
Geogeer
Posts: 4,274
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/28/2015 10:51:42 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/28/2015 1:57:43 AM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 5/27/2015 6:21:05 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 5/27/2015 3:57:53 PM, Fkkize wrote:
At 5/27/2015 3:49:35 PM, Geogeer wrote:
But then again, it is, as you say, not any worse than otherwise, so why should it bother us that it was "just an accident". This is literally the modo hoc fallacy par exellence.

It is not a matter of bothering you, it is just stating a fact. You are assigning value to something because of your personal desire and that is fine. However there is no reason for anyone else to hold it in any value whatsoever - and that is fine too.

There is no reason for anyone to hold anything in any value whatsoever whether or not there is a God.

Ah that is where you are wrong. If there is a God, instead of everything being pointless, everything has a reason and a purpose.

And this is not just bare assertion how? Said God is not allowed to be despondent? Bored? Uncaring? Evil?

It has to do with the nature of God. God has perfect intellect and perfect will - thus he will always act according to a perfect nature. However we are also told that God is love, and love is never despondent, bored uncaring or evil.

Now you have a basis for an inalienable right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Only if the particular God you envision is correct, which, well, is to me as a long shot as evolution is to you.

I don't have a problem with evolution. How God chooses to have his will accomplished is his choice. If it is through evolution so be it.

The God I envision is logically consistent both internally and externally in what has been revealed through the Gospel.
Geogeer
Posts: 4,274
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/28/2015 11:09:23 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/28/2015 10:49:54 AM, Fkkize wrote:
At 5/28/2015 10:40:47 AM, Geogeer wrote:
At 5/27/2015 11:40:49 PM, Fkkize wrote:
At 5/27/2015 6:21:05 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 5/27/2015 3:57:53 PM, Fkkize wrote:
At 5/27/2015 3:49:35 PM, Geogeer wrote:
But then again, it is, as you say, not any worse than otherwise, so why should it bother us that it was "just an accident". This is literally the modo hoc fallacy par exellence.

It is not a matter of bothering you, it is just stating a fact. You are assigning value to something because of your personal desire and that is fine. However there is no reason for anyone else to hold it in any value whatsoever - and that is fine too.

There is no reason for anyone to hold anything in any value whatsoever whether or not there is a God.

Ah that is where you are wrong. If there is a God, instead of everything being pointless, everything has a reason and a purpose.
Strawman. I already explained to you what meaning there is and just because you would not be a special, golden snowflake anymore it does not follow that literally everything you do is pointless.

On the contrary. An omni being would have purpose to every action. Thus you'd be a specific creation solely for your purpose. There either is meaning and value to everything (under God) or there is no meaning and no value to everything (no God) - there is no middle ground.
But that is a false dichotomy and you are contradicting yourself.
"You are assigning value to something because of your personal desire and that is fine." There. You already conceded that there is such middleground. I am assigning value to mankind and that's all I need. I don't need to be a special snowflake to care about my family or to care about my friends or to have a joyful life. You stick to beliefs because you don't like the alternatives and this is why many paint theists as irrational.

Now you have a basis for an inalienable right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
Why should anyone care about that anymore than about mankind?

It is an understanding of what has been given us by God,
And why should anyone care about that?

Because it is the only truth on which such rights can exist.

it is not something we can create on our own.
Why not?

Because you have no logical basis upon which to found such a statement.
ThinkFirst
Posts: 1,391
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/28/2015 12:10:23 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/27/2015 3:07:04 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 5/27/2015 2:01:39 PM, Saint_of_Me wrote:
At 5/27/2015 8:12:45 AM, roun12 wrote:
Many of us have heard of Pascal's Wager. If you haven't it goes like this.

"If you believe in God and you are wrong then you have nothing to worry about, if you don't believe in God and you are wrong then you burn for all eternity."

It sounds like a good deal, right? Wrong! This creates a false dichotomy. There are many religions in the world and we can't possibly know which one is right or wrong. Also, people can't just believe what they want to believe. Belief in something is created when substantial evidence and proof of something are available.

What do you think of this?

I always had a couple problems with Pascal's Wager.

The first and foremost being: he frames his syllogism as if believing in God were simply something you could decide on the spur of the moment, with no real emotional or intellectual investment or effort. AS if you were deciding on, say, what to eat for dinner tonight. LOL.

Rest assured, this is not the case. Either you deep down in your heart and soul believe in the existence of a personal God. Or you do not. I suppose if one is an Agnostic, as I am, he could look at Pascal's Wager and decide that he might as well believe.

But this would be a "cover your butt" belief and NOT the type that would fly with God or sonny Jesus. Thus...if there WERE a God then it is highly doubtful this level or "pretend" belief would get you into the pearly gates.

My second problem is with his first premise: that believing in God does no harm.--if there turns out to be NO God.

I disagree. What about the guys who went into the clergy? Or the nuns or Jesuits or otherwise Believers who dedicate their entire lives to a God that turned out to be just a silly superstition? Man--talk about a wasted life! LOL. And the celibacy! What a shame they never got to engage in one of the most enjoyable acts that a human can!

Also..belief in a specific God has caused Wars. People have died. Thus...belief is not harmless.

If there is no God, what does it really matter? We are just a cosmic accident...

That, to me, is a far more comforting thought than that of being an intentional event at the hands of ANY of the vile creatures that have ever been presented as "god." If there is no god (as per "holy" texts), there is also no devil, no angels, no heaven, no hell, and no eternal "spirit." When I die, there will be naught but oblivion. Thus I will be relegated to neither the eternal punishment of hell, with all its torment, nor the eternal punishment of heaven, with all its eternal boredom and monotony.
"Never attribute to villainy that which can be adequately explained by stupidity"
-----
"Men rarely if ever dream up a god superior to themselves. Most gods have the manners and morals of a spoiled child. "

-- Robert A Heinlein
Fkkize
Posts: 2,149
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/28/2015 12:24:36 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/28/2015 11:09:23 AM, Geogeer wrote:
At 5/28/2015 10:49:54 AM, Fkkize wrote:
At 5/28/2015 10:40:47 AM, Geogeer wrote:
At 5/27/2015 11:40:49 PM, Fkkize wrote:
At 5/27/2015 6:21:05 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 5/27/2015 3:57:53 PM, Fkkize wrote:
At 5/27/2015 3:49:35 PM, Geogeer wrote:
But then again, it is, as you say, not any worse than otherwise, so why should it bother us that it was "just an accident". This is literally the modo hoc fallacy par exellence.

It is not a matter of bothering you, it is just stating a fact. You are assigning value to something because of your personal desire and that is fine. However there is no reason for anyone else to hold it in any value whatsoever - and that is fine too.

There is no reason for anyone to hold anything in any value whatsoever whether or not there is a God.

Ah that is where you are wrong. If there is a God, instead of everything being pointless, everything has a reason and a purpose.
Strawman. I already explained to you what meaning there is and just because you would not be a special, golden snowflake anymore it does not follow that literally everything you do is pointless.

On the contrary. An omni being would have purpose to every action. Thus you'd be a specific creation solely for your purpose. There either is meaning and value to everything (under God) or there is no meaning and no value to everything (no God) - there is no middle ground.
But that is a false dichotomy and you are contradicting yourself.
"You are assigning value to something because of your personal desire and that is fine." There. You already conceded that there is such middleground. I am assigning value to mankind and that's all I need. I don't need to be a special snowflake to care about my family or to care about my friends or to have a joyful life. You stick to beliefs because you don't like the alternatives and this is why many paint theists as irrational.

Now you have a basis for an inalienable right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
Why should anyone care about that anymore than about mankind?

It is an understanding of what has been given us by God,
And why should anyone care about that?

Because it is the only truth on which such rights can exist.
Perhaps. But then again, it ain't true just because you like the idea.
Moreover I am not sure what "truth" means in your sentence, how does it relate to rights? Is God the truthmaker and the rights are the truthbearer? Then definitly no, they don't exist.

it is not something we can create on our own.
Why not?

Because you have no logical basis upon which to found such a statement.
Logical basis? Sure! You are questioning the factual basis our (logical) inference would rest upon.
That said I think inalienable rights are nonsense, but again, it does not follow that there are no rules.
: At 7/2/2016 3:05:07 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
:
: space contradicts logic
Geogeer
Posts: 4,274
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/28/2015 3:12:26 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/28/2015 12:10:23 PM, ThinkFirst wrote:
At 5/27/2015 3:07:04 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 5/27/2015 2:01:39 PM, Saint_of_Me wrote:
At 5/27/2015 8:12:45 AM, roun12 wrote:
Many of us have heard of Pascal's Wager. If you haven't it goes like this.

"If you believe in God and you are wrong then you have nothing to worry about, if you don't believe in God and you are wrong then you burn for all eternity."

It sounds like a good deal, right? Wrong! This creates a false dichotomy. There are many religions in the world and we can't possibly know which one is right or wrong. Also, people can't just believe what they want to believe. Belief in something is created when substantial evidence and proof of something are available.

What do you think of this?

I always had a couple problems with Pascal's Wager.

The first and foremost being: he frames his syllogism as if believing in God were simply something you could decide on the spur of the moment, with no real emotional or intellectual investment or effort. AS if you were deciding on, say, what to eat for dinner tonight. LOL.

Rest assured, this is not the case. Either you deep down in your heart and soul believe in the existence of a personal God. Or you do not. I suppose if one is an Agnostic, as I am, he could look at Pascal's Wager and decide that he might as well believe.

But this would be a "cover your butt" belief and NOT the type that would fly with God or sonny Jesus. Thus...if there WERE a God then it is highly doubtful this level or "pretend" belief would get you into the pearly gates.

My second problem is with his first premise: that believing in God does no harm.--if there turns out to be NO God.

I disagree. What about the guys who went into the clergy? Or the nuns or Jesuits or otherwise Believers who dedicate their entire lives to a God that turned out to be just a silly superstition? Man--talk about a wasted life! LOL. And the celibacy! What a shame they never got to engage in one of the most enjoyable acts that a human can!

Also..belief in a specific God has caused Wars. People have died. Thus...belief is not harmless.

If there is no God, what does it really matter? We are just a cosmic accident...

That, to me, is a far more comforting thought than that of being an intentional event at the hands of ANY of the vile creatures that have ever been presented as "god." If there is no god (as per "holy" texts), there is also no devil, no angels, no heaven, no hell, and no eternal "spirit." When I die, there will be naught but oblivion. Thus I will be relegated to neither the eternal punishment of hell, with all its torment, nor the eternal punishment of heaven, with all its eternal boredom and monotony.

If there is no God, nothing is vile and your statement is self-defeating.