DHA's Wager

far too off topic for responsejoy!{put in right paste}This message has been edited by DHA, 03-13-2005 06:18 PM

then let's deal with the forest at the top of the hill and don't pick on the trees sledding off the topic slope.there are many instances where absence of evidence was followed by evidence, and thus one must logically conclude that any {previous conclusion} based on the {previous absence} was faulty.and therefore absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.now, having established that, we can go back to Let me state it this way:If you have no proof that {A} does not exist then you cannot say that {A} does not exist.If you have no proof that {A} does exist then you cannot say that {A} does exist.If you cannot say that {A} exists or does not exist, then you cannot say that you know if {A} exists or not.The only logically valid answer is the "we don't know" answer.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

have fun with yourself I'm out of here.

But before you leave Pascal gets a word. Those who have not been involutarily confined against their will will not understand that the final cause not only was previously objected to, lets say in the 1800s AFTER Pascal wrote, but the objection ONLY occurred IN THE INFERENCE of biological change. Gods have nothing to do with that!The relation of designed vs random complexity is still way tOO messed up for me to get into,n8w. One needs to pair SeXeS as Kant had it but coupled with the obviousness of Dennent, on that, we dont have any way to know if fossil crabs really swam the human spandrel distance of or if the creatures just had too much inferential effciency for our seperation of the additional question RAZD raised but lay unanswered(shhhhh (even in evobio))!So to what gave rise to the wager of DHA in part, not to forget..BPascal said in PENSEES 425.i capped it What did I personally loose against my will? well- it was not a belief in GOD , but it wasnt conversion to DHA's either, though! You can have this even mORE so in a new Orleans JAIL than any swing from tube law in Florida. Sanity rains without the 'e'.

Sorry, I haven’t responded before now, life got busy.I have a problem with the construction of your logical argument. It seems to rest on a person having to consider the supernatural. While this at first might seem to be an obvious need, I think it is, in error.Atheism isn’t based on uncovering some unknown and from there forming some belief structure. Atheism is based on evaluating Theism and finding it lacking.

let's try this. the argument is not about atheism per se but about what is the more logical conclusion. I am not attacking atheism, just as I am not attacking positions of faith, just pointing out what is logical and what is not. The fact that agnostic is more logical doesn't force people to stop believing in atheism or a particular faith.what I am saying is that the only valid logical conclusion is that you don't know. that means that you cannot rule out a supernatural being, but you also cannot claim {his\her\it\their} existence either.agnotstic.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

No RAZD, you only think that because of the Orbital Mind Control Lasers. Of course you don't believe in the OMCL's - its part of the programme.

let's try this. the argument is not about atheism per se but about what is the more logical conclusion. I am not attacking atheism, just as I am not attacking positions of faith, just pointing out what is logical and what is not. The fact that agnostic is more logical doesn't force people to stop believing in atheism or a particular faith.what I am saying is that the only valid logical conclusion is that you don't know. that means that you cannot rule out a supernatural being, but you also cannot claim {his\her\it\their} existence either.=============In what way is this difficult to understand?In no way.But difficult for those who would deny possibilities.It's possible that God exists, eh?It's possible that God does not exist.We don't know fer shure.This is exactly as it should be.

LOLis that why the headache?

exactlyknowing for sure would sure be for knowing no more eh?

[quote] In what way is this difficult to understand?[./quote]In this way - it fails to distinguish betweent he plausible and the implausible. It falls foul of Occams razor.If THIS is the only basis for a theological position, then you must adopt the same position in regards Orbital Mind Control Lasers. As you say yourself - we cannot know for sure.Great Cthulhu may be in R'lyeh under the sea right now.
Captain Kirk might be rescuing whales in his time-traveelling enterprise right now.
Father christmas might be sitting down to aturkey dinner right now.And all of these arev LOGICAL positions? Thats illogical.

quote:

---

If THIS is the only basis for a theological position, then you must adopt the same position in regards Orbital Mind Control Lasers. As you say yourself - we cannot know for sure.

---

I must do no such thing. I could, but I must not.

quote:

---

Great Cthulhu may be in R'lyeh under the sea right now.
Captain Kirk might be rescuing whales in his time-traveelling enterprise right now.
Father christmas might be sitting down to aturkey dinner right now.

---

Actually, Captain Kirk and I are having a discussion about bending space (LOL). You know for absolutely certain who your examples are and are not. You're guessing that there is no God, is a God. Please allow me to ask you if you can see the difference. RAZD's equation is beyond logic, it is truth.
Here are the people who don't like this truth.....
Those that say there is no god, but cannot proof it....
Those that say there is a god, but cannot proof it....Then there are those who say there is a god and there will never be proof, for the god and man relationship is based on faith, proof would destroy that base, and that will never happen. The equation is in favor of the latter.See it?This message has been edited by PecosGeorge, 03-17-2005 07:52 AM

---

Pascal's Wager......nice try.

That depends entirely on how you define God. If you define God in such a way as to be logically inconsist, then it is not possible that God exists.Please define God.

---

We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further. - Richard Dawkins

quote:

---

Please define God.

---

My definition is standard, God is the creator of the universe and all that is in it.It is very much so possible that this God exists.It is very much so possible, but for many very much so unacceptable based on ....... well, whatever they use for a base.Possible, but not acceptable. Not acceptable, because they just don't think it is possible.There are more urgent needs than proof of god's existence. Right?

---

Pascal's Wager......nice try.

Then either God is in the universe and therefore must have created himself, or he is outside the universe, which calls into question what we mean by 'the universe'. Both positions are logically inconsistent. Why "very much so"? Is "very much so possible" somehow better than just plain "possible"? I think it's bias that makes you say this. Of course there are. But I didn't ask for proof. I asked for a definition.

---

We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further. - Richard Dawkins