RE: Pascal's Wager

RE: Pascal's Wager (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

tazzygirl -> RE: Pascal's Wager (12/27/2010 9:04:09 PM)
There was only one point... not surprising you missed it.

GotSteel -> RE: Pascal's Wager (12/28/2010 7:17:15 AM)
Sorry that I haven't had time for this thread over holidays. Hopefully I'll be able to be a little better about being able to respond now.

GotSteel -> RE: Pascal's Wager (12/28/2010 9:10:29 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: NorthernGent quote: ORIGINAL: GotSteel Pascal's Wager was touched on in a thread recently and I thought deserved a thread of its own. Now I'm not looking for yet another thread where everyone who isn't buying Pascal's Wager explains all the issues with it (been there done that). I'd like to hear from those who think it's a valid proof. What do you mean: 'valid proof'? Proof n. 2. a. The validation of a proposition by application of specified rules, as of induction or deduction, to assumptions, axioms, and sequentially derived conclusions. http://www.thefreedictionary.com/proof I was asking whether as a proof it was valid or flawed. You seemed to be having some trouble understanding what I was saying so I rephased it for you: quote: ORIGINAL: GotSteel Is it a valid argument for the rationality of belief in god or is it flawed? quote: ORIGINAL: NorthernGent Can you tell me of any event that couldn't possibly occur (based on your 'valid proof')? It's possible that someone will walk on water in the future - you couldn't possibly disprove this. What valid proof? quote: ORIGINAL: NorthernGent At no point did Pascal attempt to offer proof that god existed; nor did he claim that reason was a substitute for faith. He simply proposed decision theory - including the consideration of risk and reward (surely you understand this is a rational argument?) as a means of converting the waverers - and maintained that this reasoned approach was simply clearing a path toward faith as opposed to the reason for believing in and of itself. Is his "rational argument" valid or is it flawed?

GotSteel -> RE: Pascal's Wager (12/28/2010 9:26:21 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: NorthernGent And as for your insistence that reason is the only useful standard when judging human affairs and beliefs.....well....reason is not an objective standard and it arises out of the community's experiences....which means it can only ever be the majority's view at any given point in time as opposed to some objective standard where you can measure right and wrong...true and false. And whereupon you grasp this...you'll see that reason is only ever as good as our limited knowledge of the world....you can't reason that which you don't know. [sm=ofcourse.gif] By all means attribute a position to me that is different from my actual position and then argue against it badly.

GotSteel -> RE: Pascal's Wager (12/28/2010 9:16:31 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata If someone objects that belief in God is rational, they can be challenged to articulate a rational process that leads to belief in God as its outcome. The attempt must invariably fail. Otherwise, it would not be rational to be an atheist. I certainly can't disagree with that.

GotSteel -> RE: Pascal's Wager (12/28/2010 9:21:29 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: lickenforyou Great, let’s start there. I concede that point, survival is a drive and is always present.. However, a drive is not an emotion. Actually I'd call it instinct.

willbeurdaddy -> RE: Pascal's Wager (12/29/2010 12:07:49 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: GotSteel quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata If someone objects that belief in God is rational, they can be challenged to articulate a rational process that leads to belief in God as its outcome. The attempt must invariably fail. Otherwise, it would not be rational to be an atheist. I certainly can't disagree with that. Rational thought processes can lead to different conclusions depending on the veracity and weights assigned to the inputs to the process. E.g. it is not irrational to believe in AGW if you believe that the data presented is both truthful and significant enough in depth and breadth to draw a conclusion. AGW skeptics have doubts about both.

GotSteel -> RE: Pascal's Wager (12/30/2010 10:59:06 AM)
There's a saying among programmers: garbage in, garbage out. It's demonstrable that even the best minds throughout history are capable of reasoning to incorrect conclusions because of faulty or incomplete data.

Page: << < prev 4 5 6 7 [8]

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.03125