Pascal's Wager Expanded Edition
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
10-10-2013, 10:27 PM
RE: Pascal's Wager Expanded Edition
(10-10-2013 02:43 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  "Separating the waters from the waters...?" refers to terrestial Pangaea and ocean water and water stored below to come up to water the ground and FLOOD.

That's funny that no one back then managed to get 'Pangaea' and 'plate tectonics' from those simple passages. Why not? If that really was the idea God was trying to convey, surely he could have made that more clear! Now what is more likely, that the all-knowing creator of the universe used vague unintelligible and easily misinterpreted language in his most holy of instruction manuals? Or that you're projecting modern knowledge over an ancient story due to your confirmation bias and to aid in negating cognitive dissonance? I know which one seems far more likely to me; especially considering that humans had the language and mental capacity back then to understand far more complex ideas, even if presented as allegory to be understood by later generations. Case in point, watch this video. This is what a god could have said, using time appropriate vocabulary, to describe the origin of our universe as our science can best describe it now.






(10-10-2013 02:43 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  I'm aware of Eratosthenes's good work. He was born in the 3rd century BCE. His experiments would have occured after the Septuagint was written and therefore he might have been inspired in his experiments by Job's writings turned to the Greek language! Thanks for the new idea for me.

[Image: Paris_Tuileries_Garden_Facepalm_statue.jpg]



(10-10-2013 02:43 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  Your argument from silence forgot black holes, brain neurons, apatheism, and about 5 billion other things. And? Perhaps you'd prefer physics formulae in the Bible 2 millennia before Sir Issac Newton's time?

1. Straw man 2. Straw man 3. Straw man

"Atheist, please."

You're book is also wrong about the source of biodiversity, the morality of slavery, the second class status of women, forgot to mention the dinosaurs, and a whole list of others. So it's not only that it says so very little that couldn't have simply been made up at the time, but whenever it does say something specific, it is veritably wrong.

Every time it's not silent, it's trips over one foot while shoving the other in it's mouth. Divinely inspired indeed... Drinking Beverage

[Image: GrumpyCat_01.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like EvolutionKills's post
10-10-2013, 11:08 PM
RE: Pascal's Wager Expanded Edition
Great post, EK. Have appreciated Philhellene's work for some time now. Also loved Hafnof's post of Evid3nc3's impossible game. Both very pertinent. Kudos
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chopdoc's post
11-10-2013, 01:13 AM (This post was last modified: 11-10-2013 04:10 AM by EvolutionKills.)
RE: Pascal's Wager Expanded Edition
(10-10-2013 02:43 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  "Separating the waters from the waters...?" refers to terrestial Pangaea and ocean water and water stored below to come up to water the ground and FLOOD.


[Image: images?q=tbn:ANd9GcThf0CCilFRnf1GzM4OKF9...bKbfIa4UJx]

Yeah, because when god talks about placing the lights in the firmament, he not talking about placing stars in the sky he's instead talking about... wait, what?


(10-10-2013 11:08 PM)Chopdoc Wrote:  Great post, EK. Have appreciated Philhellene's work for some time now. Also loved Hafnof's post of Evid3nc3's impossible game. Both very pertinent. Kudos

Also, I forgot this. If you enjoy their stuff, then you need to check out Brett Palmer 'The Bible Skeptic', as he does some really well produced stuff. Not as slick or eye catching as Evid3nc3 or as beautifully imaginative as Philhellens, but still really good stuff.




[Image: GrumpyCat_01.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes EvolutionKills's post
11-10-2013, 11:18 AM
RE: Pascal's Wager Expanded Edition
(10-10-2013 10:27 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  
(10-10-2013 02:43 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  "Separating the waters from the waters...?" refers to terrestial Pangaea and ocean water and water stored below to come up to water the ground and FLOOD.

That's funny that no one back then managed to get 'Pangaea' and 'plate tectonics' from those simple passages. Why not? If that really was the idea God was trying to convey, surely he could have made that more clear! Now what is more likely, that the all-knowing creator of the universe used vague unintelligible and easily misinterpreted language in his most holy of instruction manuals? Or that you're projecting modern knowledge over an ancient story due to your confirmation bias and to aid in negating cognitive dissonance? I know which one seems far more likely to me; especially considering that humans had the language and mental capacity back then to understand far more complex ideas, even if presented as allegory to be understood by later generations. Case in point, watch this video. This is what a god could have said, using time appropriate vocabulary, to describe the origin of our universe as our science can best describe it now.






(10-10-2013 02:43 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  I'm aware of Eratosthenes's good work. He was born in the 3rd century BCE. His experiments would have occured after the Septuagint was written and therefore he might have been inspired in his experiments by Job's writings turned to the Greek language! Thanks for the new idea for me.

[Image: Paris_Tuileries_Garden_Facepalm_statue.jpg]



(10-10-2013 02:43 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  Your argument from silence forgot black holes, brain neurons, apatheism, and about 5 billion other things. And? Perhaps you'd prefer physics formulae in the Bible 2 millennia before Sir Issac Newton's time?

1. Straw man 2. Straw man 3. Straw man

"Atheist, please."

You're book is also wrong about the source of biodiversity, the morality of slavery, the second class status of women, forgot to mention the dinosaurs, and a whole list of others. So it's not only that it says so very little that couldn't have simply been made up at the time, but whenever it does say something specific, it is veritably wrong.

Every time it's not silent, it's trips over one foot while shoving the other in it's mouth. Divinely inspired indeed... Drinking Beverage

I mentioned Pangea for clarity so you'd know I understood the waters as referring to encircling ocean and not something else. I disagree with certain aspects of plate techtonic theory as you know.

We're discussing slavery and indentured service elsewhere. Both testaments clearly elevated the roles of women, not demeaning them. Females were judges leading Israel. Jesus had young leaders and female leaders in an era where both were second-class citizens worldwide.

The Bible further mentions dinosaurs and agrees with Evolutionists in that animals may evolve new species after their type or family. There is some disagreement there, yes.

Now you're just adding still more straw men leading to your dramatic "... but whenever it does say something specific, it is veritably wrong..." since much more than 99% of the Bible doesn't say anything about slavery, women's roles and the hotbutton issues of convenience you're using to "preach" to the "choir". I'll continue to note that those at this forum have sidestepped the issues I've raised to look at magnificent wisdom like Proverbs and Ecclesiastes to see how the Bible remains relevant and speaks with authority...

...And yes, always bear in mind, the Bible is written for the heart and mind.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-10-2013, 11:26 AM
RE: Pascal's Wager Expanded Edition
Let me help get the thread on track:

An expanded Pascal's wager gives us perhaps 60 religious systems as in the first posts to test. We can test atheism by dying. We can do 60 or 70 controlled tests on religious viewpoints and perhaps find a million years' new life in Heaven.

Wager back on.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-10-2013, 11:37 AM
RE: Pascal's Wager Expanded Edition
(11-10-2013 11:26 AM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  Let me help get the thread on track:

An expanded Pascal's wager gives us perhaps 60 religious systems as in the first posts to test. We can test atheism by dying. We can do 60 or 70 controlled tests on religious viewpoints and perhaps find a million years' new life in Heaven.

Wager back on.

Well, sounds like you're on to something Pleasy; go ahead and die and report back. That should solve this conundrum.


Try and get the preliminary paper work in before lunch, I gotta get a nap in before 3. Drinking Beverage

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
11-10-2013, 02:45 PM
RE: Pascal's Wager Expanded Edition
(11-10-2013 11:37 AM)kim Wrote:  
(11-10-2013 11:26 AM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  Let me help get the thread on track:

An expanded Pascal's wager gives us perhaps 60 religious systems as in the first posts to test. We can test atheism by dying. We can do 60 or 70 controlled tests on religious viewpoints and perhaps find a million years' new life in Heaven.

Wager back on.

Well, sounds like you're on to something Pleasy; go ahead and die and report back. That should solve this conundrum.


Try and get the preliminary paper work in before lunch, I gotta get a nap in before 3. Drinking Beverage

We can test atheism by dying as I wrote. We test god by living for Him.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-10-2013, 08:11 PM
Re: RE: Pascal's Wager Expanded Edition
(10-10-2013 05:44 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(10-10-2013 04:54 PM)ClydeLee Wrote:  An entity "must" have generated our universe is an unfounded.assertion.

So is the "multi-verse" for that matter.

How is the multi-verse an assertion? In what regard does a statement like that make sense.

"Allow there to be a spectrum in all that you see" - Neil Degrasse Tyson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-10-2013, 11:50 PM
RE: Pascal's Wager Expanded Edition
(10-10-2013 08:21 PM)Hafnof Wrote:  The simplest possibility is that our reality is the prime one, so that is a reasonable conservative hypothesis to operate from in the mean time. Both alternatives are more complex, and if you start throwing a god in there as well then you are in my view in profoundly unfounded territory.

I think that used to be true, but isn't true anymore. In recent years the universe has shown itself to be just too fine tuned for that to be the case. Its just too much of a stretch to think that things like the cosmological constant or tri-alpha process are what they are simply because that is what is required for this universe to exist. Why should we be so lucky? The simplest explanation is that we aren't lucky. The simplest explanation is that our universe exists because it is inevitable that it exists.

The multiverse make our universe inevitable and God makes our universe inevitable. I'd put my money on those two explanations rather than some claim that our reality is the prime reality. Prime reality requires a google of luck or a completely unsupported assumption that the physical laws have to be what they are because of some unknown/unexplained reason.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-10-2013, 01:04 AM
RE: Pascal's Wager Expanded Edition
(11-10-2013 11:26 AM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  Let me help get the thread on track:

An expanded Pascal's wager gives us perhaps 60 religious systems as in the first posts to test. We can test atheism by dying. We can do 60 or 70 controlled tests on religious viewpoints and perhaps find a million years' new life in Heaven.

Wager back on.

Pascal's Wager places your bet of Christianity against all other religions of the past, present, and all possible religions of the future or of the imagination. That is your wager, 1 against infinity.

Ready to place your bet? Drinking Beverage

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