Pascal's Wager Expanded Edition
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
24-10-2013, 09:39 AM
RE: Pascal's Wager Expanded Edition
(24-10-2013 03:02 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  The consensus of the crowd is evidence. It might be weak or strong but is evidence none the less. Your argument is simply wrong.

It's evidence that the crowd believes something. That's it.

If Jesus died for our sins, why is there still sin? If man was created from dust, why is there still dust? If Americans came from Europe, why are there still Europeans?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-10-2013, 11:42 AM
RE: Pascal's Wager Expanded Edition
(24-10-2013 03:02 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  The consensus of the crowd is evidence. It might be weak or strong but is evidence none the less. Your argument is simply wrong.

How about no?

[Image: nfOJR9X.jpg]

[Image: GrumpyCat_01.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-10-2013, 12:49 PM
RE: Pascal's Wager Expanded Edition
(24-10-2013 05:46 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(24-10-2013 03:02 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  The consensus of the crowd is evidence. It might be weak or strong but is evidence none the less. Your argument is simply wrong.

Belief is never evidence of fact.

"C.The number of persons who believe a claim can be probable evidence for the truth of the conclusion. But without further information about the case in point, the number of persons cannot be directly related to the truth of the claim."

http://philosophy.lander.edu/logic/popular.html
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-10-2013, 01:16 PM
RE: Pascal's Wager Expanded Edition
(24-10-2013 12:49 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(24-10-2013 05:46 AM)Chas Wrote:  Belief is never evidence of fact.

"C. The number of persons who believe a claim can be probable evidence for the truth of the conclusion. But without further information about the case in point, the number of persons cannot be directly related to the truth of the claim."

http://philosophy.lander.edu/logic/popular.html

Yeah, read the whole thing.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-10-2013, 01:36 PM
RE: Pascal's Wager Expanded Edition
(24-10-2013 01:16 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(24-10-2013 12:49 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  "C. The number of persons who believe a claim can be probable evidence for the truth of the conclusion. But without further information about the case in point, the number of persons cannot be directly related to the truth of the claim."

http://philosophy.lander.edu/logic/popular.html

Yeah, read the whole thing.

I did read the whole thing. Let me give an example of non fallacious use of ad populem.

A. Evidence of God's existence is any fact which suggests God exists.
B. If God does exist, we would expect most people to believe in him.
C. Most people do believe in God.
Conclusion: The fact that most people believe in God is evidence for God's existence.

Note that in the above argument I am not arguing that God exists. I am arguing that something is evidence for God's existence. I am not tying the opinion of the crowd to a conclusion that God exists but rather showing the opinion of the crowd is evidence of God's existence.

If you ask a theist, "Where is your evidence that God exists" and that theists says, "The fact that nearly everyone believes in God is evidence for God's existence", the theists hasn't made a fallacy. The theist makes a fallacy only when he concludes that because nearly everyone believes in God, therefore God must exist.

This is nuanced stuff Chas, and I don't expect you to get it because you have been indoctrinated in this militant atheist view point that "belief is not evidence of fact". Which is simply wrong.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-10-2013, 01:43 PM
RE: Pascal's Wager Expanded Edition
(24-10-2013 01:36 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(24-10-2013 01:16 PM)Chas Wrote:  Yeah, read the whole thing.

I did read the whole thing. Let me give an example of non fallacious use of ad populem.

A. Evidence of God's existence is any fact which suggests God exists.
B. If God does exist, we would expect most people to believe in him.
C. Most people do believe in God.
Conclusion: The fact that most people believe in God is evidence for God's existence.

Note that in the above argument I am not arguing that God exists. I am arguing that something is evidence for God's existence. I am not tying the opinion of the crowd to a conclusion that God exists but rather showing the opinion of the crowd is evidence of God's existence.

If you ask a theist, "Where is your evidence that God exists" and that theists says, "The fact that nearly everyone believes in God is evidence for God's existence", the theists hasn't made a fallacy. The theist makes a fallacy only when he concludes that because nearly everyone believes in God, therefore God must exist.

This is nuanced stuff Chas, and I don't expect you to get it because you have been indoctrinated in this militant atheist view point that "belief is not evidence of fact". Which is simply wrong.

No, that is not evidence for god's existence. It may be evidence of the way the human mind works.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-10-2013, 01:46 PM
RE: Pascal's Wager Expanded Edition
Again, there is some obfuscation here on your part, "free" thinkers:

To be consistent in your worldview, you must believe that theists are deluded. Since there are so many of us, you are holding that an important tenet of life, that affects our politics, lifestyle, mores, diets, etc. - not to mention religion - is based on people believing in a style you label "despite the evidence to the contrary".

So perhaps explain another delusion most people have in our modern era where people believe blindly despite the evidence. Most people to the contrary believe Al Qaeda flew into the towers, the Shoah was real in the 20th century, the moon is not made of green cheese and Armstrong and Aldrin walked there, etc.

And if you think most people are delusional and you live as a Brad Pitt in Zombieland, why not leave the rest of us inmates to run the asylum? Why not seek a quiet place of separation, and meditation on how you're right and 95 of 100 people are wrong. A monastery perhaps, or an ashram?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-10-2013, 02:02 PM
RE: Pascal's Wager Expanded Edition
(24-10-2013 01:43 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(24-10-2013 01:36 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  I did read the whole thing. Let me give an example of non fallacious use of ad populem.

A. Evidence of God's existence is any fact which suggests God exists.
B. If God does exist, we would expect most people to believe in him.
C. Most people do believe in God.
Conclusion: The fact that most people believe in God is evidence for God's existence.

Note that in the above argument I am not arguing that God exists. I am arguing that something is evidence for God's existence. I am not tying the opinion of the crowd to a conclusion that God exists but rather showing the opinion of the crowd is evidence of God's existence.

If you ask a theist, "Where is your evidence that God exists" and that theists says, "The fact that nearly everyone believes in God is evidence for God's existence", the theists hasn't made a fallacy. The theist makes a fallacy only when he concludes that because nearly everyone believes in God, therefore God must exist.

This is nuanced stuff Chas, and I don't expect you to get it because you have been indoctrinated in this militant atheist view point that "belief is not evidence of fact". Which is simply wrong.

No, that is not evidence for god's existence. It may be evidence of the way the human mind works.

Instead of spouting off a denial without any underlying support(you do this all the time). How about you identify which premise is wrong and why or if you can't show how the premises are wrong, then show how the premises do not support the conclusion.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-10-2013, 02:14 PM
RE: Pascal's Wager Expanded Edition
(24-10-2013 01:46 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  To be consistent in your worldview, you must believe that theists are deluded. Since there are so many of us, you are holding that an important tenet of life, that affects our politics, lifestyle, mores, diets, etc. - not to mention religion - is based on people believing in a style you label "despite the evidence to the contrary".

So perhaps explain another delusion most people have in our modern era where people believe blindly despite the evidence. Most people to the contrary believe Al Qaeda flew into the towers, the Shoah was real in the 20th century, the moon is not made of green cheese and Armstrong and Aldrin walked there, etc.

And if you think most people are delusional and you live as a Brad Pitt in Zombieland, why not leave the rest of us inmates to run the asylum? Why not seek a quiet place of separation, and meditation on how you're right and 95 of 100 people are wrong. A monastery perhaps, or an ashram?

People are indeed delusional. Delusion exists even within religion itself, based on your own standards of 'evidence.'

You believe the bible is perfect and that the evidence for this is 'irrefutable,' yet millions of Muslims continue to believe that yours is not the true path. Christians within your own sect disagree with your interpretations. Since delusion is a belief in spite of evidence to the contrary, and since you believe you have this evidence, you must accept that all other religions and many within your own religion are delusional. You can all be wrong, and that is a fact. I might even argue that delusion is required for religion, as every religion (except yours, of course) since the beginning of time has been 'wrong.'

By the way, this forum is the quiet place where I come to meditate. It's the only place I discuss atheism. It's called 'The Thinking Atheist,' yet for some reason theists continue to come here and spew their rhetoric. So, while I'd like to enjoy my quiet place, I can't, because theists just can't leave us alone. We've got you to thank for that more than anyone, so don't give me that holier-than-thou 'seek a quiet place of separation' bullshit.

History has shown what happens when the inmates run the asylum. No fucking thank you.

If Jesus died for our sins, why is there still sin? If man was created from dust, why is there still dust? If Americans came from Europe, why are there still Europeans?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes guitar_nut's post
24-10-2013, 02:15 PM
RE: Pascal's Wager Expanded Edition
(24-10-2013 02:02 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(24-10-2013 01:43 PM)Chas Wrote:  No, that is not evidence for god's existence. It may be evidence of the way the human mind works.

Instead of spouting off a denial without any underlying support(you do this all the time). How about you identify which premise is wrong and why or if you can't show how the premises are wrong, then show how the premises do not support the conclusion.

The irony here is that because everyone is saying you're wrong, it's evidence (according to your own definition) that you are wrong.

Why are you ignoring the evidence ?!?!? Tongue

If Jesus died for our sins, why is there still sin? If man was created from dust, why is there still dust? If Americans came from Europe, why are there still Europeans?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes guitar_nut's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: