Why Pascal's Wager Sucks
Posted on: December 21, 2006 - 10:49pm
Offline
Why Pascal's Wager Sucks
A friend forwarded a message received from a xian attempting to use Pascal's Wager. The reply is classic.
The message:
Quote:
Someday, you'll understand. I feel sorry for you. Just promise me one thing, IF you were to hypothetically end up burning in hell or something, don't curse the religious for not saving you int time. Just consider that if my beliefs are wrong, so what, I'm worm food or whatever, no big loss. But if you're wrong, you're screwed. But you still have tons of chances to get it. Believe it or not, God loves you and when you meet your maker, you'll remember this and regret not taking it seriously. Good luck on your road of life, maybe our paths will cross someday.
My friend's reply:
Quote:
Hey, Bud! Thanks for your thoughts. When you sent your notice of pity, it would have been a lot more helpful had you mentioned which God I should avoid being screwed by.
There’s Allah whom the Muslim vehemently deny is triune; who say that Jesus is just a prophet, who say your Bible has been corrupted and so on. They give evidence from ancient history, science, archeology, Greek and Hebrew, Christian scholars, the early church fathers and the Bible itself to support their claim.
www.answering-christianity.com
www.muslim-responses.com
http://www.islam-guide.com
Or, how about the Jews. They say that Jesus at best was a good (if not problematic) Jewish Rabbi, but not the Messiah and certainly not God. They give evidence from ancient history, science, archeology, Greek and Hebrew, Christian scholars, the early church fathers and the Bible itself to support their claim.
www.jewsforjudaism.org
www.messiahtruth.com
Or, how about the Mormons who say that there are a multitude of gods and we can become one through acts like believing in their holy books and that Joseph Smith was a prophet of God. They give evidence from ancient history, science, archeology, Greek and Hebrew, Christian scholars, the early church fathers and the Bible itself to support their claim.
www.farms.byu.edu
www.fairlds.org
Or, how about the Jehovah’s witnesses who deny the trinity also. They say that Jesus was just a man and that the holy spirit is Jehovah’s active force. They say he is not omnipresent, that we are annihilated and not condemned to Hell and that Jesus has already come secretly. They give evidence from ancient history, science, archeology, Greek and Hebrew, Christian scholars, the early church fathers and the Bible itself to support their claim.
www.elihubooks.com
www.jehovah.to/index.htm
Even the Roman Catholic Church, who while saying they have the same God as you, say also that you can by God’s grace (through the sacraments and other good works) earn salvation. They believe such go to Purgatory when they die and one should do nearly every act of worship toward Mary that you do to Jesus, just don’t call it worship. They give evidence from ancient history, science, archeology, Greek and Hebrew, Christian scholars, the early church fathers and the Bible itself to support their claim.
www.catholic.com
www.catholicapologetics.org
www.envoymagazine.com
It seems partner that “god” has “left you without a witness.” Anyway you slice it, you are just as screwed as I am! But don’t worry! Look at these passages:
Deuteronomy 20:10-17 "When you draw near a city to fight against it, offer terms of peace to it. And if its answer to you is peace and it opens to you, then all the people who are found in it shall do forced labour for you and shall serve you. But if it makes no peace with you, but makes war against you, then you shall besiege it; and when the Lord your God gives it into your hand you shall put all its male to the sword, but the women and the little ones, the cattle, and everything else in the city, all its spoil, you shall take as booty for yourself; and you shall enjoy the spoil of your enemy, which the Lord God has given to you. Thus you shall do to all the cities which are far from you, which are not cities of the nations here. In the cities of these people that the Lord your God gives you an inheritance, you shall save alive nothing that breathes but you shall utterly destroy them, the Hittites and the Amoriotes, the Canaanites and the Jebusites, as the Lord your God has commanded."
Deuteronomy 7:2 "and when the Lord your God gives then [the enemies] over to you, and you defeat them; then you must utterly destroy them; you shall make no covenant with them, and show no mercy to them..."
Numbers 31:7, 17 They warred against Midian, as the Lord commanded Moses, and slew every male…[Moses said to them] "... Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman who has known a man by lying with him..."
I Samuel 15:1-3 And Samuel said to Saul, "The LORD sent me to anoint you king over his people Israel; now therefore hearken to the words of the LORD. Thus says the LORD of hosts, `I will punish what Am'alek did to Israel in opposing them on the way, when they came up out of Egypt. Now go and smite Am'alek, and utterly destroy all that they have; do not spare them, but kill both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass.'"
II Kings 2:23-24 He [Elisha] went up from there to Bethel; and while he was going up on the way, some small boys came out of the city and jeered at him, saying, "Go up, you baldhead! Go up, you baldhead!" And he turned around and when he saw them, he cursed them in the name of the Lord. And two she-bears came out from the woods and tore forty-two of the boys.
Looks like we didn’t have to worry about God being all that loving after all.
I hope that the Pascal Wagerer felt that bitch slap!
Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.
- Login to post comments
I agree with Gavagai that at least some of the popularly known objections do not work. That's why I personally use other objections, and particularly those that attack Pascal's Wager on a more fundamental level.
"If I don't think something can be explained conventionally, it must be magic. And magic comes from God!" -everyday religious person
If one believes, then one believes. What's the difference between believing and truly believing?
Which is why I mentioned it second.
Pascals wager does NOT prove that there is a god, so the rest is irrelevant.
Which is why I mentioned that he instituted it, not applied it. You are skirting a strawman.
It cannot prove ANY god, gods, or billion gods, or half god, or anything. PERIOD. It is a fallacious and fundamentally flawed argument with 0 value. ZERO.
It is not logically sound. It has been demonstrated so since it's creation. It was demonstrated by it's very creator. You have NO argument.
You are as wrong as he is.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
That's not my argument. I'm arguing that if one wants to believe in something, one could "immerse himself in a environment that promotes and preaches XYZ god." Such environments include religious courses, church, etc. Over time, one could accept and adopt their views and REALIZE (whether with sound/unsound logic, or rational/irrational emotions) that this religion is true, thus finally believing.
I don't understand what you mean by "second." But it does sound like you are agreeing that it's not the issue, to which I say that the way you worded your retort to Gavagai sounds otherwise, especially with how you immediately suffix, and subsequently seemingly qualify, the objection, "It doesn't work logically no matter how you want to apply it," with "Instituting a false dichotomy doesn't help your argument, it hinders it further." Explaining how a false dichotomy hinders your argument is also strongly suggestive.
I don't agree with this line of reasoning. That sounds like an unchecked and unbalanced intellectual carte blanche for all objectors of Pascal's Wager. If I say that Pascal's Wager doesn't work because Pascal was a post-operative transexual, does that mean I'm right simply because Pascal's Wager has already been disproven? Gavagian and I are not arguing whether Pascal's Wager "proves that there is a god;" we're arguing the cogency of specific objections.
I don't think it's a strawman because your syntax seems to suggest you're making an issue of it (as I've explained in my second retort in this post). In other words, why bring it up if it's not an issue?
Again, I agree that Pascal's Wager is fundamentally flawed, but for OTHER reasons. As I said above, "Gavagian and I are not arguing whether Pascal's Wager 'proves that there is a god;' we're arguing the cogency of specific objections."
See above reply.
So you're disagreeing "that at least some of the popularly known objections do not work?" I find it hard to believe that you could be so confident that every popularly known objection works.
"If I don't think something can be explained conventionally, it must be magic. And magic comes from God!" -everyday religious person
Sodium, thank you for actually taking the time to understand my post and clearing it up for Vestat.
Ludicrous. I don't care how many churches I go to or priests I talk to. They won't convince me by their mere presence that they are right.
It's very simple. I said FIRST, and I quote:
Then I said, SECOND,
Get it?
And to your insult of my sentence structure I reply you need reading comprehension lessons. It's very simple and obvious english that I wrote in two seperate and distinct sentences. Don't blame your poor inferences on me.
I don't care. Fact is fact.
What kind of stupid comment is this? I'm not saying the wager is faulty because Pascal was whatever the fuck. GET THIS THROUGH YOUR THICK SKULL: PASCAL HIMSELF SAID HIS ARGUMENT WAS FLAWED.
I will not discuss this further with someone who hasn't the slightest idea what they're talking about.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
Your personal convictions do not account for everyone person on this planet. The fact remains that at least some people can come to belief through (mis)education and environment, e.g. terrorists, impressionable children, and even more simply, theists.
I'm not going to argue about grammatical syntax, seeing that it's moot in comparison to, and as I've said before and still remains tellingly unaddressed, the very simple fact that you had to bring it up in a critical manner. If it wasn't an issue, then why criticize it? Criticism reveals intent.
See above reply.
This sounds like a strawman. Never did I try to reword your claim as an ad hominem against Pascal. You also seem to continually not understand that we're NOT arguing whether Pascal's Wager was flawed; we're ONLY arguing about the cogency of certain objections (I wonder if I should install a counter on how many times this needs to be repeated). When you examine a specific objection, all other objections are not considered. What you are doing is that you are ASSSUMING. You ASSUME that since Pascal's Wager is false, then it follows that ALL human-conceived objections, regardless of how unsound they are (e.g. Pascal being a post-operative transexual), must be true. Makes sense? I don't know how to make it any more obvious than it is. You seem to be getting lost and confused; admittedly, it's not the lightest of thinking.
P.S. Ranting and raving about your frustration does not help your case.
"If I don't think something can be explained conventionally, it must be magic. And magic comes from God!" -everyday religious person
Sodium,
I was looking through my copy of Pensees and nowhere have I found a place where Pascal say his wager is "flawed". He does admit that certain versions of the wager are subject to objections -- but then he goes on to modify them, eventually settling on a version he thinks is successful. Looks like he doesn't reject it, contrary to what Vestat would like us to believe. So you might consider asking Vastet to provide textual evidence for his claim; perhaps he'd be willing to quote the portion of Pensees where Pascal explicitly rejects his own wager.
Cheers,
Gavagai
Rude, offensive, irrational jackass.
Thanks Gavagai. While we may disagree on whether "god" exists, we seem to see eye-to-eye intellectually.
Whether Pascal actually says his wager is "flawed" is definitely interesting, but I'm not going to open up another totally different can of worms, since whether the wager is flawed has no bearing whatsoever on individual objections' cogency. Additionally, I don't need to seek anymore proof that the wager is flawed because I already agree it is. I also don't think Pascal's confidence (or lack of) in his wager is an accurate barometer of truth, e.g. what if Pascal was wrong in thinking his wager was flawed? Hence why whether Pascal actually says his wager is "flawed" is totally irrelevant, but nonetheless of great historical interest. In other words, in the context of our debate, it's a red herring.
"If I don't think something can be explained conventionally, it must be magic. And magic comes from God!" -everyday religious person
Point taken.
There were plenty of Pascal wagerers mentioned throughout the Bible.
You can start with the Israelites at the foot of Mount Sinai. You can read the writings of the Apostles as well.
You are either a committed believer, or you are a liar about your being a believer. Pascal's offer of "saying you are a believer" in hopes of not being seperated from God throughout a timeless state called eternity, is simply stupid. It runs counter to the teachings of the Biblical writers and certainly runs counter to Jesus and His teachings recorded in the New Testament.
0 x 0 = Atheism. Something from nothing? Ahhh no.
And Karl, religion is not the opiate of the people, opium is. Visit any modern city in the western world and see.
As a Christian (non denominational) I find "the wager" to be fairly assinine. Correct me if Im wrong but don't most religions urge their followers to believe with all their heart/mind/soul. It seems to me that saying to yourself "oh crap, these guys might be right so Id better believe in that, just in case im wrong" is insincere and not in the true definition of "having faith". Its as stupid to me as believing you need to put money into an offeretory plate to acheive salvation.
Pascals wager is totally illogical for two reasons:
1) If you are believing in a God just to avoid hell you are not truly believing in God and will go to hell anyways.
2) Lets just say there is a God, whats to say that the Christian God is the real God and that being Christian is going to gain one salvation?
You are right. Pascals wager does suck.
Yes, my friend is quite wise.
By the way, welcome Manuverse!
When you get a minute, we'd love it if you'd hop over to General Conversation, Introductions and Humor and introduce yourself.
Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.
"If I don't think something can be explained conventionally, it must be magic. And magic comes from God!" -everyday religious person
Islam is no real choice, since even if it were true, believing doesnt get you anywhere. Believing in Allah if he existed will not get you into heaven. What will get you into heaven is Martyrdom, it is the only sure fire way. If that God existed then believing in him would be the least of your worries.
Pascal's wager rests on whether a moral and righteous God exists, if one does, then Pascal's wager is indeed not diminished because there are many choices.
If no God exists, or if an amoral (which in reality would be immoral) God existed then you would have a point.
The first point is not entirely true. It is possible to hold contradictory beliefs of something being both true and false if you manage to refuse to see the distinction. The mind does not need to adhere to the rules of logic. Like Orwellian doublethink. You can come to truly believe lies that you know you made. To back that up, I recall reading about a psycological study on job satisfaction where people were given some sort of task they hated, and were paid to say they enjoyed it. One group was paid an insignificant amount of money, and another was given more. After some amount of time, they were given a survey about their actual thoughts. The people who recieved the significant amounts of money said they hated the job, while some of the ones that were hardly paid said they liked it. The reason the article presented had to do with some rationalization where they repeated a lie without any real reason, which they eventually believed. I'd link to the article, but I read it a while ago in some magazine. Scientific American, I think. It was interesting.
The second point and conclusion are pretty much dead on, though
The sentence below is false.
The sentence above is true.
This sentence doesn't care.
ouch! P.W. just got owned!
That's why Pascal's premise doesn't work.
It's important to note that Pascal was a gambler and his 'wager'
is merely saying that it is in your rational self-interest to believe in god.
In pure game-theory fashion, he shows four possibilities:
You believe in god, and are right: infinite reward. (heaven)
You believe in god, and are wrong: 0
You don't believe in god, and are right:0
you don't believe in god, and are wrong: infinite punishment. (hell)
He thinks he shows the belief in god to be rationally in your own self interest by showing that all outcomes of "you believe in god" equal or supercede all outcomes of "you don't believe in god".
In Pascal's betting fashion:
even if there is a 00.00001% chance of god existing, he believes to show that it is worth it to take that chance.
You can't lose by believing in god.
Right?
Where his argument fails is that he could be wrong about the outcomes.
Under "you believe in god, and are wrong":
you could believe in god A (the abrahamic god, for instance),
and in reality,
god B (could be anything) exists who punishes infinitely (i.e., hell) believers of god A.
Even worse: atheists could be unpunished by god B. (limbo/heaven.)
Meaning the outcomes could be completely different than those he has set up.
Now we really do have to have the discussion of chance, and also a discussion of the nature of "god" (and how one knows this nature at all).
Because:
If there is any chance that hypothetical god B exists, who punishes believers in god A infinitely, then the wager is unbalanced.
Ergo, it is not necessarily always in your best interest to believe in god A.
Doublethink means the power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them.
George Orwell.
Yeah, that's funny. Ha ha. Funny.
Of course, the REALLY funny thing is how ALL those arguments have put destroyed. Yessir. Absolutely annihilated. I feel sorry for your friend, that he/she had to embarass himself/herself by posting such tripe. If his/her opponent had any knowledge of history or logic or anything AT ALL, your friend definitely got PWNED.
And by the way, Pascal's Wager doesn't suck. You could end up in Hell. Think. Cogito ergo sum. Descartes agreed that it follows from this that if you DON'T THINK, YOU DON'T EXIST. So think, or stop existing. You can take that one up with the genius Descartes if you doubt it. He was smarter than you.
Refutation courtesy of your neighborhood presuppositionalist.
John 3:16.
Peace.
Q: Why didn't you address (post x) that I made in response to you nine minutes ago???
A: Because I have (a) a job, (b) familial obligations, (c) social obligations, and (d) probably a lot of other atheists responded to the same post you did, since I am practically the token Christian on this site now. Be patient, please.
Fallacy of begging the question. You can't use the threat of 'hell' if the existence of hell is the very issue being debated.
Is there a presupper who can avoid commiting a logical fallacy in an argument? I really don't see how, seeing as presuppers must studiously avoid learing much of anything about logic... otherwise, they'd learn just why presuppositionalism is so incredibly ridiculous....
Can you cite me where in the Meditations he makes this claim? I'm betting you can't.... because he'd never say anything this schizophrenic, even by the behest of the church....
"Hitler burned people like Anne Frank, for that we call him evil.
"God" burns Anne Frank eternally. For that, theists call him 'good.'
1) Pascal's Wager doesn't suck? Refute the evidence put against it instead of asserting that this opposing evidence is "false".
2) You reversed Descartes' statement. If A, then B does not entail if ~A, then ~B. "I think, therefore I am" does not entail "I dont think, therefore I am not"
3) Asserting the intelligence of a mathematician
is a) appeal to authority fallacy
and b) irrelavent to the original framework in which we are arguing
4) Whose hell?
Doublethink means the power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them.
George Orwell.
I doubt he's up to the task.
Well stated. But he won't be able to follow, as you've used a language that is foreign to presuppers: logic.
Yes. You've noted another basic informal fallacy in his post. Again, that's what presuppers are good for: a free lesson in identifying logical blunders.... which again stems from their avoidance of learning anything at all about logic.
"Hitler burned people like Anne Frank, for that we call him evil.
"God" burns Anne Frank eternally. For that, theists call him 'good.'
A little part of me dies inside when I realise yet another bigot is completely devoid of basic ability to reason.
Perhaps I responded in the hope that, in his/her attempt to refute me (which I don't expect to happen), he/she will figure out at least why "if A, then B" doesn't entail "if ~A, then ~B".
The worst part of all is that you and I completely demolished the whole of his/her "argument" without even referencing his/her "supporting material". The material he/she is "referencing".
The whole of the second paragraph, while contributing nothing at all, spends a lot of time making conclusions (not to mention incomplete sentences). It makes me sick.
Maybe a better post would have been a link to a website that explains basic logic quite well. I should find that website.
Doublethink means the power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them.
George Orwell.
I doubt it. To do that, he'd have to consult an introductory text on logic. For him such a proposition is far too dangerous: any presupper who dared to actually learn logic would be forced to realize that their arguments rest upon basic misunderstanding of what logic even is... You can't find their schizophrenic rants in an actual logic textbook, which is why I enjoy asking them to cite an established source on logic to back up their nonsense.... mainly because it requires them to consider, briefly, actually reading a credible source on logic and this probably evokes a bit of anxiety in them...
The reality is that I could list my bank account on the second page of any intro to logic text without fear of anypresupper ever drawing a penny from it....
Well, we must give him a break - if you don't know what you're talking about, it's very hard to stay on topic.
I'd suggest wiki (their site on logic is not bad) but it would go over his head. My own page is written more for the layman:
http://editthis.info/logic/Main_Page
"Hitler burned people like Anne Frank, for that we call him evil.
"God" burns Anne Frank eternally. For that, theists call him 'good.'
Todangst, I've been looking at your page, and I must say that it is wonderful. Thank you for posting it.
Thank you. I became interested in logic some years ago and decided the best way to learn the subject was to create my own version of a logic textbook.
"Hitler burned people like Anne Frank, for that we call him evil.
"God" burns Anne Frank eternally. For that, theists call him 'good.'
Very good site, kind sir/madam!
I'll have to remember to throw that on my bookmarks for further investigation. I'm sure I could use a refresher on the subject.
In any event, it can't hurt!
Doublethink means the power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them.
George Orwell.
(Sir)
Thanks for dealing with that mental patient in the other thread. Please feel free to continue on my behalf - I don't like treating people like that for free, the work is too draining...
"Hitler burned people like Anne Frank, for that we call him evil.
"God" burns Anne Frank eternally. For that, theists call him 'good.'
Pascal’s Wager is simply a method used by Religious people to input their beliefs into other people. It’s based on false logic.
"Religion is the opium of the people" - Karl Marx.
Even a theist such as myself sees that it won't work. Jesus once said
When I first heard of Pascal's Wager I was a Christian, so I failed to see how silly & un-Christian it actually was. Upon further research & better understanding (and after being elightened & leaving the belief behind) I finally saw the answer.
When approached with this wager later in life, I was able to answer it this way....
If Christians use Pascal's Wager to defend their faith, then they are breaking one of Christ's greatest commandments. Matthew 22:37 says.. 'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.' Mark 12:30 agrees, but also adds "strength".
So the use of Pasgal's Wager (which is essentially a method of fear - i.e. I must believe to protect myself from the possiblity of hell) shows that the "believer" does not truly love the Lord God with all their heart, soul, mind or strength, thus making the claim invalid, as well as false. They are playing the odds, instead of possessing true belief & you know you can't gamble with the Lord.
No offence but it does not seem as if any of you are familiar with revised and recent defenses of Wager-like arguments.
I am not impressed with any of the responses.
Please enlighten us.
"I am an atheist, thank God." -Oriana Fallaci
About?
What do you think? About the new versions of the Wager you mentioned. You made a colossal assertion that there was a new and revised version of the argument along the same theme to which the responses already posted did not adequately address. But you did not back this up. Enlighten us, by which I mean, share with us this clever new version that you think somehow stronger than Pascal's already breathtakingly vapid and cowardly argument. By all means, I am waiting.
"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.
-Me
Books about atheism
Just for my own curiousity, is it your contention that the Wager is not propagated by some philosophers today?
I will defend the wager in several weeks. i am occupied with another formal debate.
Well, that would be a complete non sequitur from my previous post, which means the question is simply a deviation from my request which has absolutely nothing to do with it, the answer to which is no.
"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.
-Me
Books about atheism
crazytheist,
The bible NT does a terrible injustice to the philosophy school of the gnostic Jesus core ideas.
"Not everyone who says to Me, `Lord, Lord,' shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven."
not IN heaven , Knows heaven, .... and is one with the father simply meaning cosmos ..... like a simple buddha message of zero superstition gone wacko .... many dumb writers in the bible .....
blah blah ..... the NT sucks bad according to my atheist jesus sense ..... gnostic Jesus rocked, but the Bible sure did fuck most of it up .... save a xian .... etc
Atheism Books.
You seem to keep throwing out arguments and then refusing to back them up. I've seen you do this now in more than one thread.
If god takes life he's an indian giver
Hi. As far as this thread goes, an argument must contain a premiss and a conclusion and I have not given a premiss and a conclusion in this thread. Hence, I have not given an argument. (until now, I suppose).
I am writing a formal debate and helping another concerning the resurrection. From this, you can imagine that my time is occupied.
However, i will throw 600-700 words or so about Pascal's Wager in the formal debate and thereafter, I will post it on here.
Please be patient.
This guy is a complete waste of time. All he does is say things like, "That's wrong." and "I know something that proves my point." and then never delivers.
Pbbbhhhtttt.
He just wants to evade any argument and will probably consider himself a winner when everyone starts ignoring him.
"I am an atheist, thank God." -Oriana Fallaci
Hi Watcher, you seemed to ignore my reasons for not offering an argument at the time being.
How about we have a formal debate in the weeks to come? You can show the RRS just how weak theism is.
take care.
No, I read your excuses for why you wouldn't back up your claims.
I've seen that tactic before.
On another forum I was debating religion and a christian made the BS statement that if you were not a christian you couldn't "understand" all that junk (christianity).
When I told him that I had been a christian for 30 years he made the same excuse "I'm really busy and can't respond yet."
He continue to respond to the thread but never got around to responding to my post.
Pretty pathetic. It's an old tactic. Your excuses are a cop out.
If you can't back up your claims then don't state your claims.
And I don't think I need to show RRS how pathetically weak theism is. RRS entire purpose is to show the world how pathetically weak theism is.
All you need to do is start a thread. Anytime. Anywhere.
"I am an atheist, thank God." -Oriana Fallaci
Tactic? lols. I can show you the forum that I will be debating on, Watcher.
There is a difference between 'can't' and 'won't', at least for the time being.
Watcher, trust me when I say you couldnt keep up with me in a formal debate.
Whether you need to or not was not the statement. Furthermore, there is no entailment that you ought not do something or you won't do something because you need not to do something.
I'll challenge you to a formal debate in a several weeks after i'm done with this other 'freethinker'. You can watch me kick his ass on the forum and anticipate your own ass kicking.
*YAWN*
My dad can beat up your dad.
Shoo little fly.
Money talks, bullshit walks.
"I am an atheist, thank God." -Oriana Fallaci
Oh, btw, Watcher,
If the person you were debating simply said you couldn't understand X unless you were Y, and you respond with the statement: 'you were Y', you still have not obtained X.
It's a logical fallacy called affirming the consequent. The best you got is something like a fulfillment of a necessary condition for X and not X itself.
Double Post
"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.
-Me
Books about atheism
Indeed. Butif Y was the only necessary precondition to understanding X, then he could have understood X by being Y, even if he was no longer Y. That was the implication his interlocutor gave. It sounded more to me like denying the antecedant:
If you are Christian, you understand X
You are not Christian
Therefore, you don't understand X
But, without the logical expression iff attached to that, it would be fallacious. As an affirming the consequent it would be reworded:
If and only if you are Christian, you can understand X
You are (were) Christian
Therefore you understand X
It doesn't matter which way we play with it because his interlocutor was making a special pleading fallacy. He hadn't established
(1) Why you could understand X if and only if you were Christian (this is the only way to change the expression to avoid DTA)
(2) Why, if (1) Christianity would be the only necessary precondition to understanding X. Ie, if not, then why does he understand it just for being Christian?
or (3) If not (2), what other preconditions are necessary
Since he couldn't establish any of this, he was just employing special pleading to cover something vapid.
"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.
-Me
Books about atheism
For some reason, I am neither quaking with terror or drooling in awe over your intellectual superiority. This is probably something to do with the fact that said superiority is illusory, and that such fear-inducing statements are those of a mouse who has managed to acquire a megaphone. We shall see if your self-proclaimed position at the apex of the intellectual totem pole is a reflection of reality, or smoke and mirrors. I'm betting on the latter.
"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.
-Me
Books about atheism
I don't agree that if Y was the only necessary condition for X, and Y obtained, then so would X. What you need is a sufficient condition and not merely a necessary condition.
"But of course, as we well know, in general a necessary condition is not a sufficient condition. All sorts of conditions may be necessary for others, but do not - by themselves - suffice for, or guarantee, those others. "
http://www.sfu.ca/philosophy/swartz/conditions1.htm#section2