Pascal's Wager Expanded Edition
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
31-10-2013, 01:21 PM
RE: Pascal's Wager Expanded Edition
(31-10-2013 12:02 PM)guitar_nut Wrote:  On that point, I'd encourage the lurkers here to do a search of PJ's posts and arguments. You'll see a pattern.

For example, he simply dismisses my Twin Towers prophecy as a 'bad example' and then says it's arguable that the bible predicts it. Does he say why it is a bad example?

1. Is it too specific? Shouldn't a prediction be specific? Otherwise, it's open to any convenient interpretation. Or does it threaten his belief system? Think for yourselves.

2. Is it really in the bible? Does the bible really mention two towers being toppled by two metal flying birds? Or is he going to try and stretch some vague text to mean that. If you show that same text to another theist, will they (without revealing it to them) come to the conclusion that it does predict the attack on the Twin Towers. Think for yourselves.

3. Does me not being able to answer a question mean that the question is valuable, or correct, or that there is only one answer? Or is that simply showmanship with no substance? Think for yourselves.

4. Is it actually possible to be an expert on every topic? PJ will claim victory against anyone he debates. I challenge you to find a post where he says "I actually have no idea, I'm not qualified to debate this." NOT. ONE. How is that possible? Think for yourselves.

Thanks for visiting TTA Forums. You may question any idea here.

I challenge you again that a worldwide apostate Christianity based in Rome is prophesied in the scriptures. As is typical in the Bible, not only is it specific but contrary to prevailing wisdom since you yourself claim the canon was formed when Rome was the only game in town and not yet Antichrist!

I'm qualified to debate at a lay level any topic I've debated here:

*We've yet to use negative exponents or etc. in our lay discussions

*I was dealing with Atheist BS likely before you were born

*I agree with Sam Harris--just as not all of us are string theory physicists and qualified to annual current string theory, not all of us are experts in morality and objective standards of morality--Christians have atheists beat there
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-10-2013, 01:25 PM
RE: Pascal's Wager Expanded Edition
(28-10-2013 02:30 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  1. *Scientism is the order of the day since being put forward by Carl Pagan, I mean, Sagan

2. *Scientism cannot be used to probe or prove anything of a metaphysic nature

3. Scientists who dare propound a belief in metaphysics lose tenure, credibility, grant funding, etc. because Scientism owns mainline scholarship

1. Sagan didn't invent the scientific method.
2. There is no reason to think there exists anything of a "metaphysical" nature. Therefore discussing anything to "probe" or understand something which does not exist is a meaningless waste of time.
3. Name two.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein
Those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music - Friedrich Nietzsche
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-10-2013, 02:10 PM
RE: Pascal's Wager Expanded Edition
(31-10-2013 01:18 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  Let me explain further re: Peter's prophecy. The prevailing theory from the Greeks forward was that the atom could not be reduced further--that's what an atom was. Peter predicted that when atoms were to be split that tremendous noise and heat would ensure. A tiny amount of material is detonated to create a tremendous release of energy in a thermonuclear reaction. Just because the Bible is, as always, understating, and just because Avogadro wasn't yet born is no excuse for being so dense. I agree with Sam Harris--I have reasons to believe. Do you?

Greek atomic theory also believed that atoms were indestructible and unchangeable (pesky electrons coming and going threw that out the window... as did splitting an atom). It was also simply the idea that everything could be reduced to its smallest part. While they were correct in that idea, they had no idea what atoms were, how they worked, or how they interacted. There's nothing divine or 'too advanced for their time' about their ideas. The church also rejected the idea of this reduction in size to small particles.

I see now that I'm dense because I expect your divine book to be anything but understating, as understatement leads to vague, flexible interpretations. I've been called worse. By you, no less. Take note, lurkers. Ask yourselves why there are so many different interpretations of these 'understated' texts. Even PJ's own peers can't agree on their meaning.

All part of the 'plan'?

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
31-10-2013, 02:30 PM
RE: Pascal's Wager Expanded Edition
(31-10-2013 01:21 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  I challenge you again that a worldwide apostate Christianity based in Rome is prophesied in the scriptures. As is typical in the Bible, not only is it specific but contrary to prevailing wisdom since you yourself claim the canon was formed when Rome was the only game in town and not yet Antichrist!

I actually don't recall arguing the dates the canon was formed; that's not really a field of expertise of mine. You're confusing me with someone else, methinks.

I challenge you again to answer why MY prediction will come true. Well, you won't, but maybe someone else will. Lurkers, read my prediction. I guarantee it will 'fit' an upcoming event. Why do you think that is? Am I divine? Am I channeling a god? Is a god even required to make a correct prediction?

(31-10-2013 01:21 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  I'm qualified to debate at a lay level any topic I've debated here:

I know, it's amazing.

(31-10-2013 01:21 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  *We've yet to use negative exponents or etc. in our lay discussions

Turn it into a fraction, make the exponent positive. There, we did it.

(31-10-2013 01:21 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  *I was dealing with Atheist BS likely before you were born

And just like that, it's 'Atheist BS.' Another complete dismissal of opposing viewpoints. The amount of time is not relevant to your skill level. As they say, 'Some pilots have flown 10,000 hours, and some pilots have flown the same hour 10,000 times.' For example, you continue to try and use the bible as proof of the bible's validity. If you've been debating atheists that long, and you're still making this mistake, trudging ahead like a stubborn talking donkey (pun intended), what does that say of your intelligence and thought process?

(31-10-2013 01:21 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  *I agree with Sam Harris--just as not all of us are string theory physicists and qualified to annual current string theory, not all of us are experts in morality and objective standards of morality--Christians have atheists beat there

Christians do not have a monopoly on morality, and the morality of the bible is dubious at best. You should know that, since you've been debating atheist since we were all in shortpants. Speaking of Sam Harris, if you have some spare time (and I know you do), he's offering a big prize for anyone who can get him to change his views on scientific morality:

So I would like to issue a public challenge. Anyone who believes that my case for a scientific understanding of morality is mistaken is invited to prove it in under 1,000 words. (You must address the central argument of the book—not peripheral issues.) The best response will be published on this website, and its author will receive $2,000. If any essay actually persuades me, however, its author will receive $20,000,* and I will publicly recant my view.

- See more at: http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/the-m...LrMwO.dpuf


You're always talking about how great you are at debate. You also claim to be an excellent writer. Put your skills to the test.

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
05-11-2013, 02:55 PM
RE: Pascal's Wager Expanded Edition
(31-10-2013 01:25 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(28-10-2013 02:30 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  1. *Scientism is the order of the day since being put forward by Carl Pagan, I mean, Sagan

2. *Scientism cannot be used to probe or prove anything of a metaphysic nature

3. Scientists who dare propound a belief in metaphysics lose tenure, credibility, grant funding, etc. because Scientism owns mainline scholarship

1. Sagan didn't invent the scientific method.
2. There is no reason to think there exists anything of a "metaphysical" nature. Therefore discussing anything to "probe" or understand something which does not exist is a meaningless waste of time.
3. Name two.

1. Sagan enunciated it, codified it for a lay audience.

2. Either something of a metaphysical nature exists or nothing of such does. The reason to think so is the near-universal acknowledgment of such by mankind--this is not evidence but a prompting to seek evidence, which scientism disqualifies by fiat--and such may even be harmful to the scientific method, as I've written.

3. Go see Expelled, featuring five academics who received official and unoffical criticism on a mass scale from mainline scholars and universities for simply affirming a god exists/and or the inefficacy of evolution as design. YOU YOURSELF HAVE WRITTEN MY APOLOGETICS ARE MOCKED AT YOUR UNIVERSITY, so you must be a liar here.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-11-2013, 02:58 PM
RE: Pascal's Wager Expanded Edition
(31-10-2013 02:30 PM)guitar_nut Wrote:  
(31-10-2013 01:21 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  I challenge you again that a worldwide apostate Christianity based in Rome is prophesied in the scriptures. As is typical in the Bible, not only is it specific but contrary to prevailing wisdom since you yourself claim the canon was formed when Rome was the only game in town and not yet Antichrist!

I actually don't recall arguing the dates the canon was formed; that's not really a field of expertise of mine. You're confusing me with someone else, methinks.

I challenge you again to answer why MY prediction will come true. Well, you won't, but maybe someone else will. Lurkers, read my prediction. I guarantee it will 'fit' an upcoming event. Why do you think that is? Am I divine? Am I channeling a god? Is a god even required to make a correct prediction?

(31-10-2013 01:21 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  I'm qualified to debate at a lay level any topic I've debated here:

I know, it's amazing.

(31-10-2013 01:21 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  *We've yet to use negative exponents or etc. in our lay discussions

Turn it into a fraction, make the exponent positive. There, we did it.

(31-10-2013 01:21 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  *I was dealing with Atheist BS likely before you were born

And just like that, it's 'Atheist BS.' Another complete dismissal of opposing viewpoints. The amount of time is not relevant to your skill level. As they say, 'Some pilots have flown 10,000 hours, and some pilots have flown the same hour 10,000 times.' For example, you continue to try and use the bible as proof of the bible's validity. If you've been debating atheists that long, and you're still making this mistake, trudging ahead like a stubborn talking donkey (pun intended), what does that say of your intelligence and thought process?

(31-10-2013 01:21 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  *I agree with Sam Harris--just as not all of us are string theory physicists and qualified to annual current string theory, not all of us are experts in morality and objective standards of morality--Christians have atheists beat there

Christians do not have a monopoly on morality, and the morality of the bible is dubious at best. You should know that, since you've been debating atheist since we were all in shortpants. Speaking of Sam Harris, if you have some spare time (and I know you do), he's offering a big prize for anyone who can get him to change his views on scientific morality:

So I would like to issue a public challenge. Anyone who believes that my case for a scientific understanding of morality is mistaken is invited to prove it in under 1,000 words. (You must address the central argument of the book—not peripheral issues.) The best response will be published on this website, and its author will receive $2,000. If any essay actually persuades me, however, its author will receive $20,000,* and I will publicly recant my view.

- See more at: http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/the-m...LrMwO.dpuf


You're always talking about how great you are at debate. You also claim to be an excellent writer. Put your skills to the test.

You're not getting it. I come here to look for new challenges, new questions (new life, new civilizations). When you trod out crap recycled from college classes, which I refuted before you were born, you are boring me and our readers/lurkers.

As for Sam Harris's view, I've seen the 2010 TED presentation. There's nothing to refute because he gives no empirical reasons for his viewpoints and their underlying schemes. He describes morality as peaks and lows but doesn't say, for example, WHY repression of women in Islam is a "low" or HOW scientific research PROVES it's a low.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-11-2013, 03:09 PM
RE: Pascal's Wager Expanded Edition
(05-11-2013 02:58 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  You're not getting it. I come here to look for new challenges, new questions (new life, new civilizations). When you trod out crap recycled from college classes, which I refuted before you were born, you are boring me and our readers/lurkers.

You astonish me PJ. I thought you were like... 16. No wonder you've got such stamina to post walls-o-text...

Refuted huh ? So... since you done it such a long time ago you don't feel the urge again. What if I said that seems like evasion ? Can you actually *still* refute it, or are you just pretending ?

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette
(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-11-2013, 03:28 PM
RE: Pascal's Wager Expanded Edition
(05-11-2013 03:09 PM)morondog Wrote:  
(05-11-2013 02:58 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  You're not getting it. I come here to look for new challenges, new questions (new life, new civilizations). When you trod out crap recycled from college classes, which I refuted before you were born, you are boring me and our readers/lurkers.

You astonish me PJ. I thought you were like... 16. No wonder you've got such stamina to post walls-o-text...

Refuted huh ? So... since you done it such a long time ago you don't feel the urge again. What if I said that seems like evasion ? Can you actually *still* refute it, or are you just pretending ?

Still refute what? We can debate whatever you like.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-11-2013, 04:19 PM
RE: Pascal's Wager Expanded Edition
(05-11-2013 03:28 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  Still refute what? We can debate whatever you like.

Whatever it was you were referring to when I quoted you. I was more making the point that just claiming to have already refuted something comes across as an evasion tactic, than wanting to debate you myself.

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette
(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-11-2013, 10:11 AM
RE: Pascal's Wager Expanded Edition
(05-11-2013 02:58 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  You're not getting it. I come here to look for new challenges, new questions (new life, new civilizations). When you trod out crap recycled from college classes, which I refuted before you were born, you are boring me and our readers/lurkers.

1. When was I born? Just the year will suffice, or do you claim knowledge you don't actually have;
2. Speak for yourself as to who is bored. I don't think the lurkers asked you to think for them;
3. You're one of those people who buys their own trophies, aren't you? I mean, all these self-declared debunkings...

Again, you attempt to put everything in a box. This time it's 'recycled from college classes.' Well, your 'crap' is recycled from the bible. How's that for tired, old, recycled material? Whew, I can smell the mildew from here!

The reason the arguments against it don't changes is because they don't have to. Why? Because they haven't been debunked. Your religion can't change its claims, so why would the arguments against it change? The more we progress as a society, the more ridiculous and outdated biblical thinking becomes.

(05-11-2013 02:58 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  As for Sam Harris's view, I've seen the 2010 TED presentation. There's nothing to refute because he gives no empirical reasons for his viewpoints and their underlying schemes. He describes morality as peaks and lows but doesn't say, for example, WHY repression of women in Islam is a "low" or HOW scientific research PROVES it's a low.

And there's your argument. His argument is invalid because there's no empirical evidence. You either play with the big kids or you don't. Maybe it's time to tone down that ego of yours.

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
[+] 3 users Like guitar_nut's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: