There are multiple problems to this. I'll start with the easiest to understand and then the hardest. Pascals Wager works if there are only three (actually two) default states. Belief, non-belief and IDK (idk and non-belief would actually be the same thing but most people don't understand the similarity, nor try to, so it's just easier to use three). This would mean that one god is universally believed in, not believed in, and not understood. Under these conditions (assuming belief is an accomplishable action) belief would be the best and wisest choice. Unfortunately for Pascal's Wager we have thousands of religions and thousands more denominations. Assuming all these religions have the same heaven and hell scenario it isn't practical to choose one because the probability of it being correct is so low not to mention all the cultural problems differences in religion can cause. Under this scenario one would have to assume that what is best is to be a good person and hope god understands our prediciment. And then there's one more variable. Out of all the religions and denominations there are some who do not believe in heaven or hell so Pascal's Wager turns at right angles from here on out. Should you believe in those religions because they don't have a heaven or hell scenario? Assuming all gods have the same probability, you have an equal chance at being right but, probabilitistically, these religions are nil because there has to be a heaven and hell scenario for you to fear consequences from it and need to believe in it. So pascal's wager is not only a scare tactic but a limitation of the search for truth and, as the old addage goes, whenever something leads you to absurdities it is most surely false. It is absurd to believe that if there is a god he must punish you for disbelief. It is absurd to think that a god would allow thousands of dummy religions to be created to reduce the probabilistic chance of you believing in him/her/it. It is absurd to think that religions that lack a heaven and hell scenario are not worthy of belief because the probabilistic chance of avioding hell doesn't exist. Pascal's Wager takes us further from truth, further from reason and further from god. I seen no reason to trust it. Argument 2: Pascal's Wager assumes too much. It assumes that the existence of a god is probablistic, which it isn't. You can determine that below. NO GOD | EXTANT GOD(s) ...50%.......50% (1 GOD) ................25% (2 GODS) ................12.5% (4 GODS) ................6.25% (8 GODS) ...........etc..................... ...50%.......INFINITLY IMPROBABLE *Note when looking at this you must understand it fluidly, not statically. As you glance further down understand that all the probablilties above that one become equal to its own probability. So one god existing is 50% but as soon as you add the possibility of two gods existing; one god existing drops to 25% and so on. This does not disprove god in the slightest, it just disproves the idea that you can assign probabilities to god. Now a rebuttal to this can be seen below: No because this graph doesn't apply to the likelihood that an apple will be in your kitchen. That is a completely different set all together! This applies to existence and where pragmatics can take over and say, "ten apples if pushing the amount I will find", existence is limitless. Even so there are human factors involved as well. For instance we package apples in 6 bundles or 24 bundles increasing the probability of them being together and therefore skewing the chart. We also have free will and the ability to ask our mothers to buy a certain number of apples. There are many more variables that (other than the fact we aren't talking about existence) would make the amount of apples we recieve more or less probable. Another rebuttal: Very true but I'm not the one who brought up the argument. The person who brings up the argument is commiting the fallacy of the probability chart, I'm just demonstrating your fault. Existence cannot be assigned a probability and to do as such you create the 50% probability chart. You my friend rewrote mathematics, not I.
If it takes us away from both extreme objects, (assuming you agree) reason and god, then I see no reason to pursue it. I just want to get this straight, the flying spaghetti monster is just a lousy excuse, for a poor argument; because you made up god, I'm going to make up something else and show how they're completely the same.
Nitrous, you usually make intelligent posts. But then there was this: Where the hell did you get apples from? We're discussing the possible existence of god and you're over there thinking about apples. Maybe it's over my head, but that whole second argument thing went in one ear and out the other. But I totally agree with the first part. I think we were basically saying the same thing. But you added how multiple religions and multiple possibilities can make it less of a safe bet. Anyway, I just brought it up because I wanted to point out how absurd it is that some people believe in god because it is the safe bet.
He's preemptively presenting the argument with apples to counter any claims that his logic is fallacious when really it only applies to the situation that arises based on existence. Because apples are often packed in specific quantities, there are not equivalent probabilities for every number of apples. The probability of finding 6 or 24 should diverge numerically from whatever trend that may have naturally been occurring.
IT should not actually matter at all the levels of Natural Bundles. You could even tilt this idea with what if you altered our number system to use 12 Counts. Every 12 and you get another point of addition as comparative to our 10 system at the moment. I think your creating something that is just hot Air. Come on There is some two contingent terms of organizing things SO for our system it is clearly going to be Possibly or not possible IN recent Science terms it has been Ruling things out instead of ruling things in to effect. It is interesting that common science likes to have direct solutions for causing something but Never really have test with divergent sources. This is most likely due to the idea that it has clear lines of indications. The funny thing is every item in a test HAS TO have 2 parts Because we never taken an object to be pure by its own self. SO the true test is incorrect.... Still using a Lab full of errors. Can't it be simply put for some one looking for a simple solution? Just by the idea of simple IT IS. IT IS? Is that really all? It being IT IS NOT takes the time of walking around a box of what it can't be.
Ok... that makes absolutely no sense. What are natural bundles? The logic behind Nitrous' idea wouldn't change if we were working in base 2 or base 12. I lost you after that point...
Math Math is the language of the universe. Math is the most direct way of understanding our surroundings. Math leaves no room for opinion or bias. It is the most pure form of language. Are you really trying to argue that science is incorrect because there is some major problem with math? That paragraph you just wrote was sloppy and incoherent. Math is the opposite.....clean, logical, and unswayed by personal belief.
Hey, you cool it. I took it seriously. I tried to debate. Immediately people took it to a personal level. After that I defended myself and then stated what I believe and how I am not responsible for any offense I have caused. So, now this kid comes along and beats the dead horse with his little story. I don't feel like taking that **** seriously. I already have stated my views. He knew exactly what I was going to say if I hadn't said what I said. I haven't yet been warned by a moderator because I have done nothing wrong. So, you get the **** out. If anyone responds then I will come back. If not, I will never be in here again. Your choice. By the way, Scarecrow is the most ignorant person in here. Wow. I really was going to retire from this thread until this kid wasted it all by getting into this thread without being in the previous conversation. Quote me and I will be back. Leave it alone and I will wash out of here because I have nothing to talk about. I apologize to those trying to have another conversation.
Fade Away I will quote you if only for the fact that it will keep you around. It seems like all of the people arguing from the Religious side are slowly fading out of this thread leaving nothing for us to debate against. Even the mighty aMoeba(273 posts - most in the thread) has begun to back away. If there is no one around to make incredible claims there will be nothing to shoot down. Stick around ZOMBIECOW11, for entertainment purposes if nothing else.
Heh. (274 now, and how do you check things like that?) Note that it isn't due to debating in general, its just that I don't have the time to right now. That said, Zombiecow, what you're arguing is pretty foolish. The facts are all against you. I'll let you figure out what to do next
Who Posted When searching the forums you can click any of the blue numbers under the column marked "Replies" and a new window will pop up giving you information on who's posted in that thread that looks like this: Who's Posted In The God Thread
You see, believing in a 'creator' isn't quite that difficult, even for rational and logical thinkers. However, believing in an omniscient, all-powerful, all-loving being who answers prayers seems kind of.. unrealistic. Now, most religious beliefs are in fact 'unrealistic' compared to our everyday lives in which every event can be explained thoroughly with little doubt. People however tend to ignore that when they are praying, discussing religion or hearing about/witnessing a so-called 'miracle'. Why is this? It is my belief that if you are taught something in your early years, you will believe it until proof that what you have learned is not correct. Due to this, religion has lasted for thousands of years. I bet you're thinking, "But the proof that God doesn't exist is nowhere to be found, so he must be real!" You could easily say this, but then you are forgetting about the proof of God's existence. It always comes to this when a believer and a non-believer debate religion, and soon after, their debate ends. I remember as a child, praying to God, asking him to help those in need and to make the world an all-around better place for everyone. But every time I prayed, I got no response. I thought, "Maybe God's busy.." Now I think back to when I was young, and I notice how I didn't have the knowledge of religion that I do today. I was so quick to accept God's existence, and that shows how delusional a young child's mind is. I accepted that God existed about as quick as I accepted the same for Santa Clause. I don't see how an adult can still have the traits a young child does.
See i do not accept gods excistense for one reason. How. What force would generate so much power into the hands of a person. I also like to look at the logical side. Just the same as Ol' St. Nick. Its physically impossible to do a "Christmas run" such as he does. And the "God-like" things that have happened can all eventually be explained by science. I am a science geek and an atheist. I feel that god should not and could not exsist. If some sign, some unexplainable sign came about, i would beieve, and so would everyone, but that sign has not come, and may not come in our lifetimes.
My name is Zombiecow, and I can't figure out a way to defend my arguements. Instead, I shall threaten leave. That way I look like I'm the experienced debater who's above petty arguments, when instead I'm too frustrated to counter other people intelligently and logically. ~ Am I attacking the person? Right now, I'm about ready to go to war. You can't debate about religion. There isn't anything to prove.
Does that mean I win FABULOUS prizes? Empty promises. What does that guy have to do with anything? No offence, but this is just you trying to get the last word in. No. That does not sit right with me. I'll not be threatened by you, (even if you're threatening me with further exposure to you, which I detest). It would be nice if you tried to be more objective and open-minded when considering the things people post. Question their validity, question their logic, question their facts (with counter evidence). But be tactful.