- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
Originally posted by PenguinNice quote.
I think that Wolfgang is actually saying that 'of all the arguments to believe in a god, Pascal's wager is the most rational'.
I.e. this fundamentally flawed argument is actually the best (or should we say 'least worst'😉 one we can come up with.
Suzienne's perfectly valid reason for rejecting it is only one of the ways that it fails.
Oh, and ...[text shortened]... invisible and the non-existent look very much alike[/i] (Delos B. McKown)
--- Penguin.
Giles: Xander's taken to teasing the less fortunate?
Buffy: Uh-huh.
Giles: And, there's been a noticeable change in both clothing and demeanor?
Buffy: Yes.
Giles: And, well, otherwise all his spare time is spent lounging about with imbeciles.
Buffy: It's bad, isn't it?
Giles: It's devastating. He's turned into a sixteen-year-old boy. Of course you'll have to kill him.
Hmmmm, this seems to be along the same lines as calling i the most real of the imaginary numbers.
I suspect you are right and that is what he meant....
It's not quite what he actually said though.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
Originally posted by twhiteheadYou forgot a quote ;-)
Do you feel the same way about Mohammed and Allah, or do Muslims not enjoy the same benefits as Christians when it comes to getting it wrong?
Jenny: Honestly, what is it about them that bothers you so much?
Giles: The smell.
Jenny: Computers don't smell, Rupert.
Giles: I know. Smell is the most powerful trigger to the memory there is. A certain flower, or a a whiff of smoke can bring up experiences long forgotten. Books smell musty and-and-and rich. The knowledge gained from a computer is a - it, uh, it has no no texture, no-no context. It's-it's there and then it's gone. If it's to last, then-then the getting of knowledge should be, uh, tangible, it should be, um, smelly.
Originally posted by googlefudgeMr GF, while I applaud your logic, love the
????
I think we are using a different meaning of the word rational.
Pascals wager is badly logically flawed.
The fact that it sounds superficially convincing doesn't make it rational given that it is
shot full with logical fallacies.
in fact the entire raison d'etre of the site I linked is pointing out that pascals wager is
a really terri ...[text shortened]... [we see Buffy is wearing a cheerleading outfit]
Buffy: You don’t like the color?
way you take down the idiots and agree
with you on most topics ......
You are so PEDANTIC!
🙄
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
Originally posted by wolfgang59This is true...
Mr GF, while I applaud your logic, love the
way you take down the idiots and agree
with you on most topics ......
You are so PEDANTIC!
🙄
Are you saying that this is a bad thing? ;-p
Xander: You were a lousy clown! Your balloon animals were pathetic! Everyone can make a giraffe!
Originally posted by wolfgang59Sorry, your post doesn't make any sense.
I disagree - I cannot think of a more
rational reason to believe in a god!
Its still a bad argument though, but
one no theist should reject. Because
at least it is an argument
If you know it's a bad argument, then of course theists should have reason to reject it. Duh.
Anyway, if you think Pascal's Wager is top-shelf argumentative stuff of theists, then you really need to study more theistic arguments. Pascal's Wager is a notorious stinker. In fact, I believe theists have good reason to find the argument insulting to their intelligence. I'm glad Suzianne understands well enough to reject it.
Originally posted by SuzianneI believe if all anyone is doing is hedging their bets, they are just as lost as if
Right.
Isn't that the whole argument from your side?
You disagree with the wager. I'm saying one's decision to accept God and Jesus should be based on a little more than just "hedging your bets", like the wager says. So yes, I can agree with the rejection of Pascal's wager.
they were not.
Kelly
