Pascal's Wager Expanded Edition
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
12-10-2013, 04:26 PM
RE: Pascal's Wager Expanded Edition
(11-10-2013 02:45 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  We can test atheism by dying as I wrote.


Yes. After death an atheist does not pretend to be anything other than dead but as a christee, your test results may vary so... test away. Drinking Beverage

(11-10-2013 02:45 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  We test god by living for Him.
You test god? Wow. Blink So much for faith.

A new type of thinking is essential if mankind is to survive and move to higher levels. ~ Albert Einstein
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes kim's post
13-10-2013, 01:38 AM
RE: Pascal's Wager Expanded Edition
(12-10-2013 05:21 AM)Chas Wrote:  You missed the point.

We have no evidence that it could be different. I am not assuming anything.

We have no evidence that it is a brute fact that it had to be this way either....so thereTongue

Things like light spreading out following the inverse square law can be shown mathematically that the only logical and coherent way light can spread out is by following the inverse square law. Models of the universe are not limited to such a narrow view.

We can(and do) make models of the universe and tweak those constants. Those models remain logical and coherent. The may describe universes in which no life can possibly exists, but they are still logical and coherent none the less.

In order for it to not be possible for the universe to be different, there must be something, some principle or theorem that is unknown to us, that makes those other versions of the universe illogical or incoherent. Lets call that unknown principle the Chas principle.

Now when you claim that it could be the universe can only be this way, within this claim is the implicit assumption of the Chas principle. So while you may not explicitly make the assumption, your claim requires it.

Your claim may be correct, but there is simply no reason to think it is and since many, a virtual infinite number of models of different universes can be made which are logical and coherent, we have a strong reason to think that it indeed was possible that our universe could have been quite different.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-10-2013, 01:50 AM
RE: Pascal's Wager Expanded Edition
(12-10-2013 05:47 AM)houseofcantor Wrote:  Anthropic principle is for chumps, dude.

Anthropic reasoning is how the Tri-Alpha process was discovered.

Quote:The triple alpha process is highly dependent on carbon-12 and beryllium-8 having resonances with the same energy as helium-4, and before 1952, no such energy levels were known. The astrophysicist Fred Hoyle used the fact that carbon-12 is abundant in the universe as evidence for the existence of a carbon-12 resonance. This could be considered to be an example of the application of the anthropic principle: we are here, and we are made of carbon, thus the carbon must have been produced somehow. The only physically conceivable way is through a triple alpha process that requires the existence of a resonance in a given very specific location in the spectra of carbon-12 nuclei.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triple-alpha_process

As far as the rest of your post. Its true...if you role a die and it comes up 2, the probability is 1 that you rolled a 2. But we are talking about what the probability of rolling a 2 was before[b] the die is rolled. So your point about the probability of us being here is 1 while true is simply impotent.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-10-2013, 12:32 PM
RE: Pascal's Wager Expanded Edition
Duck, duck, goose.

The original wager: There is a god, or there isn't.

Then you are really are arguing about infinity. We're not talking about "ad populum" we're talking about most people who've ever lived in any culture, time or place. God isn't a trend or fad that people popularly subscribe to, but an ever-present reality touching every facet of human existence and culture.

Kind of like the argument for evolution as opposed to more purposed design. Design isn't somewhere in this unverse, it's everywhere.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-10-2013, 01:54 PM (This post was last modified: 16-10-2013 01:59 PM by houseofcantor.)
RE: Pascal's Wager Expanded Edition
(16-10-2013 12:32 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  We're not talking about "ad populum" we're talking about most people who've ever lived in any culture, time or place.

[Image: tactical_facepalm.jpg]

[Image: klingon_zps7e68578a.jpg]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-10-2013, 02:11 PM
RE: Pascal's Wager Expanded Edition
(16-10-2013 01:54 PM)houseofcantor Wrote:  
(16-10-2013 12:32 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  We're not talking about "ad populum" we're talking about most people who've ever lived in any culture, time or place.

[Image: tactical_facepalm.jpg]

[Image: 3t5izo.jpg]

(31-07-2014 04:37 PM)Luminon Wrote:  America is full of guns, but they're useless, because nobody has the courage to shoot an IRS agent in self-defense
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-10-2013, 08:19 PM
RE: Pascal's Wager Expanded Edition
(12-10-2013 03:27 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  
(12-10-2013 02:24 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  So if you are a Christian should you switch to another religion/atheism or just keep the belief system you got? Future religions and those of the imagination can be ignored because they don't exist....so betting on them would be like betting on an eight coming up when a standard 6 sided die is rolled.

I say stay the same because by switching there are more ways you can land in hell then if you stay the same.

Could pre-Christians place their bet on Christianity? Now do you see how stupid your point is?

The only sane option is to not bet at all, to not play the game, to await better odds. That would be agnostic atheism, methodological naturalism, and rational skepticism. Await sound evidence and reasoning before placing your bet. If it happens there is some 'higher power' that will judge us after we die, if he/she/it/they are smart enough to have created our universe, hopefully he/she/it/they would value intellectual honesty over a mercenary fire insurance policy.

That was the point of Hafnof's post in this thread days ago.
"The rational reaction to an impossible game is not to play it."
Evid3nc3
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-10-2013, 12:43 PM
RE: Pascal's Wager Expanded Edition
(16-10-2013 02:11 PM)Revenant77x Wrote:  
(16-10-2013 01:54 PM)houseofcantor Wrote:  [Image: tactical_facepalm.jpg]

[Image: 3t5izo.jpg]

And your memes are a logical refutation of what I just said in what way?

Check.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-10-2013, 10:40 AM
RE: Pascal's Wager Expanded Edition
(17-10-2013 12:43 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  
(16-10-2013 02:11 PM)Revenant77x Wrote:  [Image: 3t5izo.jpg]

And your memes are a logical refutation of what I just said in what way?

Check.

When you attempt to justify your argument or position by citing that the majority of the population agrees with your position, that is classical 'argument ad populum'. You seemingly don't understand what that is, as you deny using it while affirming it's use all in the same sentence. Thus, your level of fail earns you a facepalm or two.

[Image: GrumpyCat_01.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-10-2013, 10:55 AM
RE: Pascal's Wager Expanded Edition
(16-10-2013 12:32 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  We're not talking about "ad populum" we're talking about most people who've ever lived in any culture, time or place.

You just stated: We are not talking about most people who've ever lived in any culture, time or place, we're talking about most people who've ever lived in any culture, time or place.

The fact that you did it in one sentence is so fucking amazing... I'm not certain I've ever seen that before... except maybe as a joke. Blink Are you from that Punk'd show?

A new type of thinking is essential if mankind is to survive and move to higher levels. ~ Albert Einstein
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes kim's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: