Pascal's Wager Expanded Edition
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
24-10-2013, 02:31 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.

Beliefs are not objective evidence. How is that not clear?

Most people believe that concrete is solid matter. The reality is that it is mostly empty space, and we have evidence of that.
Many people believe in things for which there is no evidence or for which there is counter-evidence. How does one determine which beliefs are valid and which are not?
We determine it by objective evidence.

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, 02:34 PM
RE: Pascal's Wager Expanded Edition
(24-10-2013 02:15 PM)guitar_nut Wrote:  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

Evidence is not a conclusion. However everyone(on this forum) saying I was wrong did prompt me to review other sources so I did not ignore the evidence. I considered it but found it not substantial enough to change my belief on the matter.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-10-2013, 02:41 PM
RE: Pascal's Wager Expanded Edition
(24-10-2013 02:34 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(24-10-2013 02:15 PM)guitar_nut Wrote:  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

Evidence is not a conclusion. However everyone(on this forum) saying I was wrong did prompt me to review other sources so I did not ignore the evidence. I considered it but found it not substantial enough to change my belief on the matter.

Tap dance much?

"Religion has caused more misery to all of mankind in every stage of human history than any other single idea." --Madalyn Murray O'Hair
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-10-2013, 04:46 PM
RE: Pascal's Wager Expanded Edition
(24-10-2013 02:31 PM)Chas Wrote:  Beliefs are not objective evidence. How is that not clear?

The consensus of the crowd is objective evidence. It is objective evidence because it can be analyzed, observed, and measured.(see how argumentation is done? I say you are wrong and show you why you are wrong....while you have this habit of just saying your wrong and leaving it at that....which is why I never find your arguments compelling or persuasive).

(24-10-2013 02:31 PM)Chas Wrote:  Most people believe that concrete is solid matter. The reality is that it is mostly empty space, and we have evidence of that.
Many people believe in things for which there is no evidence or for which there is counter-evidence. How does one determine which beliefs are valid and which are not?

Do some research on crowd wisdom and swarm intelligence and then you will know what kinds of situations in which the consensus of the crowd can be trusted and when it can't. The consensus of the crowd isn't conclusive proof that God exists, but it is evidence. Weight that evidence accordingly instead of just burying your head in the sand and pretending it doesn't exist. This is what rational thinking people do. Until it is proven that God does not exist, the crowd has a probability of being correct.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-10-2013, 08:41 PM
RE: Pascal's Wager Expanded Edition
(24-10-2013 04:46 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  The consensus of the crowd is objective evidence. It is objective evidence because it can be analyzed, observed, and measured.(see how argumentation is done? I say you are wrong and show you why you are wrong....while you have this habit of just saying your wrong and leaving it at that....which is why I never find your arguments compelling or persuasive).

By the standard of this forum, you are wrong by majority opinion. This is objective evidence according to your own definition, and thus is beyond refutation.


(24-10-2013 04:46 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  Do some research on crowd wisdom and swarm intelligence and then you will know what kinds of situations in which the consensus of the crowd can be trusted and when it can't. The consensus of the crowd isn't conclusive proof that God exists, but it is evidence. Weight that evidence accordingly instead of just burying your head in the sand and pretending it doesn't exist. This is what rational thinking people do. Until it is proven that God does not exist, the crowd has a probability of being correct.

You're ignoring the role of cultural indoctrination, and that's why you cannot trust the consensus of the crowd. Asking everyone what color a car is (a subjective interpretation), is far different then asking them if a god exists (an question of objective fact). If you put a red car before the a an average crowd and ask them what color it is, short of a handful of colorblind individuals, you'll get a strong consensus about it's color. Put that same car in front of a group that has be indoctrination to believe that red is blue, and you'll get a much different answer. Now is the crowd calling the car blue objectively correct that the car is in fact blue? Or is it evidence that the crowd cannot provide evidence in this way because of bias?

People raised up to believe that a god exists have a bias, thus the population has a bias, and so their consensus on the existence of a god cannot count as evidence for the existence of a god, it's only evidence of a shared bias instilled by cultural and religious indoctrination.

You're simply wrong, so quite tap dancing already... Drinking Beverage

[Image: GrumpyCat_01.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-10-2013, 09:09 PM
RE: Pascal's Wager Expanded Edition
(24-10-2013 04:46 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(24-10-2013 02:31 PM)Chas Wrote:  Beliefs are not objective evidence. How is that not clear?

The consensus of the crowd is objective evidence. It is objective evidence because it can be analyzed, observed, and measured.(see how argumentation is done? I say you are wrong and show you why you are wrong....while you have this habit of just saying your wrong and leaving it at that....which is why I never find your arguments compelling or persuasive).

(24-10-2013 02:31 PM)Chas Wrote:  Most people believe that concrete is solid matter. The reality is that it is mostly empty space, and we have evidence of that.
Many people believe in things for which there is no evidence or for which there is counter-evidence. How does one determine which beliefs are valid and which are not?

Do some research on crowd wisdom and swarm intelligence and then you will know what kinds of situations in which the consensus of the crowd can be trusted and when it can't. The consensus of the crowd isn't conclusive proof that God exists, but it is evidence. Weight that evidence accordingly instead of just burying your head in the sand and pretending it doesn't exist. This is what rational thinking people do. Until it is proven that God does not exist, the crowd has a probability of being correct.

All of those people have no evidence to support their beliefs, so their beliefs are worthless as evidence of fact.

The probability of their being correct is not computable. There is no basis on which to estimate it, since they have no evidence.

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
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
24-10-2013, 09:58 PM
RE: Pascal's Wager Expanded Edition
(24-10-2013 08:41 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  You're ignoring the role of cultural indoctrination, and that's why you cannot trust the consensus of the crowd. Asking everyone what color a car is (a subjective interpretation), is far different then asking them if a god exists (an question of objective fact). If you put a red car before the a an average crowd and ask them what color it is, short of a handful of colorblind individuals, you'll get a strong consensus about it's color. Put that same car in front of a group that has be indoctrination to believe that red is blue, and you'll get a much different answer. Now is the crowd calling the car blue objectively correct that the car is in fact blue? Or is it evidence that the crowd cannot provide evidence in this way because of bias?

People raised up to believe that a god exists have a bias, thus the population has a bias, and so their consensus on the existence of a god cannot count as evidence for the existence of a god, it's only evidence of a shared bias instilled by cultural and religious indoctrination.

What you wrote there, would be a much much much better response to a theist who presents as evidence of God's existence the fact that most people believe in God. It is certainly much better then spouting, "You made an Argumentum Ad Populum fallacy"(which would be wrong unless the theists is concluding God exists because everyone believes it). What you wrote above are reasons to not give the evidence very much weight.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-10-2013, 10:14 PM
RE: Pascal's Wager Expanded Edition
(24-10-2013 09:09 PM)Chas Wrote:  All of those people have no evidence to support their beliefs, so their beliefs are worthless as evidence of fact.

Did you interrogate everyone on the planet or are you just making this claim up?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-10-2013, 10:20 PM
RE: Pascal's Wager Expanded Edition
That chart's too small to read on my phone. Does it say which religion ended up having the hottest hell?

Also, if I follow a Christian denomination that believes once saved always saved, can I convert to Islam later to hedge my bet?

"I feel as though the camera is almost a kind of voyeur in Mr. Beans life, and you just watch this bizarre man going about his life in the way that he wants to."

-Rowan Atkinson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-10-2013, 10:26 PM
RE: Pascal's Wager Expanded Edition
(24-10-2013 09:58 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  What you wrote there, would be a much much much better response to a theist who presents as evidence of God's existence the fact that most people believe in God. It is certainly much better then spouting, "You made an Argumentum Ad Populum fallacy"(which would be wrong unless the theists is concluding God exists because everyone believes it). What you wrote above are reasons to not give the evidence very much weight.

For fuck's sake dude, those aren't reasons to give their opinion little weight, it's reason to give their opinion ZERO weight...

Their beliefs are not built upon evidence, but instead are deeply held cultural biases instilled by indoctrination and reinforce by the culture and group think. If is evidence for FUCK ALL. Majority opinion is only evidence that the opinion is held, it carries no factual weight whatsoever in and of itself. Quit tap dancing already...

[Image: GrumpyCat_01.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: