Originally posted by googlefudgeWhy do you think you can make statements of so-called facts that you can't possibly know without you having to prove them? Do you really believe you are better than the rest of us?
To be clear I want you [and people generally] not to make statements of fact
and claims of knowledge of things that are not facts and that you cannot possibly
know.
You made a statement of fact, so I say prove it.
If you can't prove it [and you can't], then I would like you not to claim it as fact.
Originally posted by lemon lime"But if by morals we are only talking about rules, then why should it matter to atheists whether their own rules are being imposed or not? I don't see what any of this has to do with Pascals Wager."
[b]This leaves how we accept the PW. What does he do, to accept it?
My answer wasn't very detailed, because imo there's not much detail to explore. When I first saw the PW it simply looked like a logical argument for placing a wager. But unlike cards or horse racing, you can't know (or not know) the outcome of placing your bet until after you die. ...[text shortened]... r own rules are being imposed or not? I don't see what any of this has to do with Pascals Wager.[/b]
Well, if you look into morality as a subject, you see that it's not only about rules, it's about the why of rules.
And what it has to do with PW is my suggesting that what is moral is not dependent on whether God exists or is even believed in. Of course people can disagree.
Originally posted by JS357Okay. I don't know what Pascal might have said about this wager, all I really know is the wager itself. I can't imagine him explaining or critiquing his own argument... that would be like an actor giving a review of his own performance in a play.
"But if by morals we are only talking about rules, then why should it matter to atheists whether their own rules are being imposed or not? I don't see what any of this has to do with Pascals Wager."
Well, if you look into morality as a subject, you see that it's not only about rules, it's about the why of rules.
And what it has to do with PW is my sugges ...[text shortened]... al is not dependent on whether God exists or is even believed in. Of course people can disagree.
Moral standards are the why of rules, and rules can also come from immoral standards. It's the standard that determines the rule.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
Originally posted by KellyJay
I actually care very little about your thoughts on the Star Ship Enterprise,
but if you were to give your opinion about it while backing up your opinion
by some text you go to I'd think you would be backing it up factually
according to the text. Which is what I do with the scripture, you may not
like scripture and your opinion of it is meaningless to me ...[text shortened]... t you think of it. If you wish to dismiss my views since I go to
scripture do so, I don't care!
I actually care very little about your thoughts on the Star Ship Enterprise, ...
You have said this already. And it is still utterly and completely irrelevant to
the point of the discussion.
but if you were to give your opinion about it while backing up your opinion
by some text you go to I'd think you would be backing it up factually
according to the text...
no no no... You are missing the point completely.
I am not 'giving an opinion'. I am claiming as fact that a 600+ meter long faster than light
space ship armed with phasers and photon torpedoes ACTUALLY PHYSICALLY EXISTS.
And I can call them up, and get beamed up and go on adventures in it.
Are you seriously telling me that you would accept quotes from the Star Trek Technical Manual
[STTM] as proof of that????
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
Originally posted by RJHindsI don't think I can make statements of fact I cannot possibly know without having to prove them.
Why do you think you can make statements of so-called facts that you can't possibly know without you having to prove them? Do you really believe you are better than the rest of us?
I don't believe I am better than 'the rest of you'.
Your questions are thus mute.
Originally posted by googlefudgeIf you accept anything as true you have to accept that which proves it to
Sigh. You miss the point.
I am claiming that the Star Ship Enterprise [NCC-1701-D] actually exists.
And asking whether you would accept quotes from my STTM as
evidence/proof for this claim?
And if not, why not?
Whether you care about Star Trek is utterly irrelevant... That's not the point.
EDIT: Decided to answer your other post i ...[text shortened]... osed to
any particular outcome] if you answer only the part of this post before this edit.
you. If you accept billions of years or a common ancestor you have to
accept the evidence that is presented to you. If you are going to talk about
spiritual matters you leave science behind it doesn't see anything in that
realm it is faith. If you reject the foundational truths of that which must
be accepted on faith nothing anyone can say to you will sink into you due
to you are blind to them.
1 edit
Originally posted by googlefudgeI have friends that debate the story lines in Star Wars and they use theI actually care very little about your thoughts on the Star Ship Enterprise, ...
You have said this already. And it is still utterly and completely irrelevant to
the point of the discussion.
[quote]but if you were to give your opinion about it while backing up your opinion
by some text you go to I'd think you would be backing it u ...[text shortened]... e that you would accept quotes from the Star Trek Technical Manual
[STTM] as proof of that????
books and other media to do it. For them those books and other media
are the source of all things true that they agree on. You and I don't agree
on foundational truths, if you want something that validate spiritual topics
in science you will be wanting that a very long time science is blind to it.
They are not debating if those things are real, only that they believe
certain things are true according to the sources they agree on.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
Originally posted by lemon limeThen why don't you read what Pascal actually said, and see the original wager
Okay. I don't know what Pascal might have said about this wager, all I really know is the wager itself. I can't imagine him explaining or critiquing his own argument... that would be like an actor giving a review of his own performance in a play.
Moral standards are the why of rules, and rules can also come from immoral standards. It's the standard that determines the rule.
in full and in context?
This link takes you to the full text, with an introduction and short biography.
http://www.gutenberg.org/files/18269/18269-h/18269-h.htm
And this link takes you to the chapter with the wager in it, which starts in
Pensée 233
http://www.gutenberg.org/files/18269/18269-h/18269-h.htm#SECTION_III
And here is the wager.
If there is a God, He is infinitely incomprehensible, since, having neither parts nor limits, He has no affinity to us. We are then incapable of knowing either what He is or if He is. This being so, who will dare to undertake the decision of the question? Not we, who have no affinity to Him.
Who then will blame Christians for not being able to give a reason for their belief, since they profess a religion for which they cannot give a reason? They declare, in expounding it to the world, that it is a foolishness, stultitiam;[90] and then you complain that they do not prove it! If they proved it, they would not keep their word; it is in lacking proofs, that they are not lacking in sense. "Yes, but although this excuses those who offer it as such, and takes away from them the blame of putting it forward without reason, it does not excuse those who receive it." Let us then examine this point, and say, "God is, or He is not." But to which side shall we incline? Reason can decide nothing here. There is an infinite chaos which separated us. A game is being played at the extremity of this infinite distance where heads or tails will turn up. What will you wager? According to reason, you can do neither the one thing nor the other; according to reason, you can defend neither of the propositions.
Do not then reprove for error those who have made a choice; for you know nothing about it. "No, but I blame them for having made, not this choice, but a choice; for again both he who chooses heads and he who chooses tails are equally at fault, they are both in the wrong. The true course is not to wager at all."
Yes; but you must wager. It is not optional. You are embarked. Which will you choose then? Let us see. Since you must choose, let us see which interests you least. You have two things to lose, the true and the good; and two things to stake,[Pg 67] your reason and your will, your knowledge and your happiness; and your nature has two things to shun, error and misery. Your reason is no more shocked in choosing one rather than the other, since you must of necessity choose. This is one point settled. But your happiness? Let us weigh the gain and the loss in wagering that God is. Let us estimate these two chances. If you gain, you gain all; if you lose, you lose nothing. Wager, then, without hesitation that He is.—"That is very fine. Yes, I must wager; but I may perhaps wager too much."—Let us see. Since there is an equal risk of gain and of loss, if you had only to gain two lives, instead of one, you might still wager. But if there were three lives to gain, you would have to play (since you are under the necessity of playing), and you would be imprudent, when you are forced to play, not to chance your life to gain three at a game where there is an equal risk of loss and gain. But there is an eternity of life and happiness. And this being so, if there were an infinity of chances, of which one only would be for you, you would still be right in wagering one to win two, and you would act stupidly, being obliged to play, by refusing to stake one life against three at a game in which out of an infinity of chances there is one for you, if there were an infinity of an infinitely happy life to gain. But there is here an infinity of an infinitely happy life to gain, a chance of gain against a finite number of chances of loss, and what you stake is finite. It is all divided; wherever the infinite is and there is not an infinity of chances of loss against that of gain, there is no time to hesitate, you must give all. And thus, when one is forced to play, he must renounce reason to preserve his life, rather than risk it for infinite gain, as likely to happen as the loss of nothingness.
For it is no use to say it is uncertain if we will gain, and it is certain that we risk, and that the infinite distance between the certainty of what is staked and the uncertainty of what will be gained, equals the finite good which is certainly staked against the uncertain infinite. It is not so, as every player stakes a certainty to gain an uncertainty, and yet he stakes a finite certainty to gain a finite uncertainty, without transgressing against reason. There is not an infinite distance between the certainty staked and the uncertainty of the gain; that is untrue. In truth, there is an infinity between the certainty of gain and the certainty of loss. But the uncertainty of the gain is proportioned to the certainty of the stake according to the[Pg 68] proportion of the chances of gain and loss. Hence it comes that, if there are as many risks on one side as on the other, the course is to play even; and then the certainty of the stake is equal to the uncertainty of the gain, so far is it from fact that there is an infinite distance between them. And so our proposition is of infinite force, when there is the finite to stake in a game where there are equal risks of gain and of loss, and the infinite to gain. This is demonstrable; and if men are capable of any truths, this is one.
"I confess it, I admit it. But, still, is there no means of seeing the faces of the cards?"—Yes, Scripture and the rest, etc. "Yes, but I have my hands tied and my mouth closed; I am forced to wager, and am not free. I am not released, and am so made that I cannot believe. What, then, would you have me do?"
True. But at least learn your inability to believe, since reason brings you to this, and yet you cannot believe. Endeavour then to convince yourself, not by increase of proofs of God, but by the abatement of your passions. You would like to attain faith, and do not know the way; you would like to cure yourself of unbelief, and ask the remedy for it. Learn of those who have been bound like you, and who now stake all their possessions. These are people who know the way which you would follow, and who are cured of an ill of which you would be cured. Follow the way by which they began; by acting as if they believed, taking the holy water, having masses said, etc. Even this will naturally make you believe, and deaden your acuteness.—"But this is what I am afraid of."—And why? What have you to lose?
But to show you that this leads you there, it is this which will lessen the passions, which are your stumbling-blocks.
The end of this discourse.—Now, what harm will befall you in taking this side? You will be faithful, honest, humble, grateful, generous, a sincere friend, truthful. Certainly you will not have those poisonous pleasures, glory and luxury; but will you not have others? I will tell you that you will thereby gain in this life, and that, at each step you take on this road, you will see so great certainty of gain, so much nothingness in what you risk, that you will at last recognise that you have wagered for something certain and infinite, for which you have given nothing.
"Ah! This discourse transports me, charms me," etc.
If this discourse pleases you and seems impressive, know[Pg 69] that it is made by a man who has knelt, both before and after it, in prayer to that Being, infinite and without parts, before whom he lays all he has, for you also to lay before Him all you have for your own good and for His glory, that so strength may be given to lowliness.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
Originally posted by KellyJayCan you give me a strait answer to a very simple question.
I have friends that debate the story lines in Star Wars and they use the
books and other media to do it. For them those books and other media
are the source of all things true that they agree on. You and I don't agree
on foundational truths, if you want something that validate spiritual topics
in science you will be wanting that a very long time science ...[text shortened]... re real, only that they believe
certain things are true according to the sources they agree on.
Yes or no will do.
Will you accept quotes from the STTM as proof that the Star Ship freaking Enterprise actually exists?
Originally posted by KellyJaySo can we take it that the fallen angels in question are 'spiritual matters'? Does that mean they do not really exist, or does it only mean that knowing of their existence requires faith? Why is science left behind when it comes to fallen angels?
If you are going to talk about spiritual matters you leave science behind it doesn't see anything in that realm it is faith.
Originally posted by googlefudgeNo, I do not accept quotes from the STTM as proof that the star ship
Can you give me a strait answer to a very simple question.
Yes or no will do.
Will you accept quotes from the STTM as proof that the Star Ship freaking Enterprise actually exists?
Enterprise actually exists.
Will accept that I do believe Satan exists due to the Bible?
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
Originally posted by KellyJayOk, thank you.
No, I do not accept quotes from the STTM as proof that the star ship
Enterprise actually exists.
Will [you] accept that I do believe Satan exists due to the Bible?
Now the second question.
Why don't you accept quotes from the STTM as proof that the Enterprise exists?
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
Originally posted by KellyJay
If you accept anything as true you have to accept that which proves it to
you. If you accept billions of years or a common ancestor you have to
accept the evidence that is presented to you. If you are going to talk about
spiritual matters you leave science behind it doesn't see anything in that
realm it is faith. If you reject the foundational truths of ...[text shortened]... ccepted on faith nothing anyone can say to you will sink into you due
to you are blind to them.
If you reject the foundational truths of that which must
be accepted on faith nothing anyone can say to you will sink into you due
to you are blind to them.
First, there is nothing that should or must be accepted on 'faith'.
Second, what you are talking about are 'premises', the things you base an
argument or position on. And they may be true or false.
Calling them "foundational truths" is just trying to sneak 'truth' in via the
back door without any justification for doing so.
In many cases it is these 'foundational truths' that are the very things we are
disputing are true and arguing about.
They are your premises, and like any and all premises they must be defended and
demonstrated to be true. And not merely asserted to be so.