Pascal's wager??

Status
Not open for further replies.
Haha fw so let get me this straight. Your saying that Pasteur law is not factual even though it has been found to be true by experimentation and observation and evolution as the origin of life the Big Bang for instance is true even though there has been no experiments or observation to find it to be true is? So life forming from no life is part of natural science instead of supernatural science.
 
Originally Posted By: DholsappleRight they are living but the first one must have come from something non living. Therefore seeing anything alive is evidence of the supernatural because natural science cannot explain how life comes from something that is not alive. As I stated above it defies (pasteurs) law of natural science. Supernatural science deals with anything that cannot be explained through natural science. Therefore seeing life is in effect evidence of something supernatural. Which leads to the possibility that God could exist because you now have the evidence of the supernatural you claimed you had no evidence of.

Paraphrasing romans 1:20: anyone who has seen Gods creation is without excuse to not know there is a God

Again. Just Because there's a gap in our scientific knowledge (due to our limited primate brain) doesn't prove that what we cannot prove exist. I.e.. Thats like saying since we haven't found Bigfoot, he must exist.

There's a multitude of natural occurrence's that man will never understand. The Big Bang being one..my opinion's that even an Einstein times ten would be lost on that one. But, since we cannot at this time explain, in no way means a creator Must be responsible. That is not how it works.
 
Originally Posted By: DholsappleHaha fw so let get me this straight. Your saying that Pasteur law is not factual even though it has been found to be true by experimentation and observation and evolution as the origin of life the Big Bang for instance is true even though there has been no experiments or observation to find it to be true is? So life forming from no life is part of natural science instead of supernatural science.

Well, you're not comprehending anything I'm saying, and your questions and comments are getting harder for me to understand.
I'm not sure if it's coincidental or intentional, but I'm hearing the desperation and grasping at straws that I hear when I watch a Ken Ham video on YouTube.
I didn't intend for this thread to turn into the usual argument and it appears to me that you are doing your very best to take it in that direction.
Not gonna happen.

Religious fundamentalists have a bitter hatred of science, until they see the smallest issue that they believe they can manipulate into something in their favor.
This is the best example of that I have ever seen.

You can have it. My patience has run out.
grin.gif


*
 
Actually through my reasoning it's like saying that since we haven't found Bigfoot he must not exist. Now if we have found evidence of his existence but not actually found him then he must exist. We will just have to agree to disagree but it's been fun.
Swamp
After reading your last post i agree that either way life started would be miraculous. But which would you prefer. Your parents telling you that they wanted a child and that's why you were born or your parents telling you the rubber broke and that's why you were born. Either way your still born. I sense that you picture god ( if he did exist) as a ornery kid with a magnifying glass burning ants to see the reaction... and I view him as a father that wanted and cares for his child.
 
Fw one last thing. I have no bitter hatred of natural science. Nor does the Bible. Like I said evolution within a species is real but there have been no proven factual data that evolution is used to form animals into a different species for instance dog and cat having same ancestor. Or corn and soybean having same ancestor.
 
Originally Posted By: DholsappleFw one last thing. I have no bitter hatred of natural science. Nor does the Bible. Like I said evolution within a species is real but there have been no proven factual data that evolution is used to form animals into a different species for instance dog and cat having same ancestor. Or corn and soybean having same ancestor.

Good effort, yet those unwilling to reflect cannot learn when their cup is already full on either side of a conversation. (explaination below) Having not seen something in your life doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. Watching the creation of a plannet as shown by NASA shows a snap shot of something happening light years away at a moment in time. How do you know that something we cannot explain or also known as Supernatural is involved in that creation? You cannot, and the faith in the scientific explanation is no different in this case than the faith that something out there is doing it. It's just a different path and view of the same thing.

Cup is full story;
At one point Ryutan re-filled his guest's teacup but did not stop pouring when the cup was full. Tea spilled out and ran over the table. "Stop! The cup is full!" said Tokusan.

"Exactly," said Master Ryutan. "You are like this cup; you are full of ideas. You come and ask for teaching, but your cup is full; I can't put anything in. Before I can teach you, you'll have to empty your cup."

This is harder than you might realize. By the time we reach adulthood we are so full of stuff that we don't even notice it's there. We might consider ourselves to be open-minded, but in fact, everything we learn is filtered through many assumptions and then classified to fit into the knowledge we already possess.
 
For those who believe, no proof is necessary. For those who don't believe, no proof is possible. - Stuart Chase
 
Yep. got it. No proof, no evidence, just superstition, dogma and 3rd hand accounts.. Maybe, Stuart Chase had access to trove of proof, but if he did. The rest of the world is still waiting.
 
Originally Posted By: swampwalkerYep. got it. No proof, no evidence, just superstition, dogma and 3rd hand accounts..


Hopefully you see the irony that your positions are all based on the same thing?
Proof being scientific fact not theory and even Darwin didn't say his THEORY answers the creationism question, just explains the reasoning for differences in species.
 
Sorry brother, I respect you for also serving in the corps, but you are wrong.

"A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of FACTS that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment."

Special Theory of relativity, Plate tectonic Theory, Theory of Gravity...aren't just words. They're what's allowed us to launch satellites into space, create nuclear power plants. the list goes on.

The fact that dinosaurs did exist squashes creationism alone.
 
Your argument has a flaw, that being a misunderstanding of theory. I'm not touching anything ref religion here,just the definition of theory being incorrect in this application.

A theory in base terms starts out as an idea, 'proven' modified or disproven by testing etc. However many of the larger theories are accepted as fact and the scientific community sees no reason to rename it. You could call it the blueberry of evolution, the Honda civic of evolution etc and if doesn't change what it is. Just verbage. In another way of looking at it, the theory of evolution only exists in locations that speak English. In all other locations its called something else.

Touching back into religion and evolution, i tend to think god may be the what instead of the how. I don't have to make a giant snowball at the bottom of a mountain. I can make a tiny one and set it rolling. The form will be what it is, even though i choose not to gather every snowflake myself. If man was the final desired result, there is no reason a neverending all powerfil being needs to start with the final result when he knows that the result will be obtained by starting with a single cell in an ocean and adding patience.


If you believe there is 1 god, by default all religions worship the same god, they just use different names. If you call me jeff and someone else calls me Larry, neither name changes who i am. However if both parties differently interpret what i say it will drastically change your perception of me. Your interpretation may be right, it may be wrong, and it will always appear wrong to the other side. And the only real failing is a human one, as the error lies not in what i did, but in how you perceive it. As such i choose to think that any god would prefer me to be a good person regardless of the reason i am a good person, not simply because i choose to believe what someone else told me they think they heard what i was supposed to do.


I have met any number of devout catholics, who i was giving rides to jail, for the upteenth time, for doing horrible things. But they believe,and they confess, and are forgiven. In 1 interpretation the child rapist who i risked my life to stop will go to heaven, ill go to [beeep] or at best limbo. I cant believe that this could be an accurate interpretation, but it is a widely accepted one.
 
Just so I'm not misunderstood, I'd like to make it clear that I do believe in God and have since I became old enough to understand His existence. Also I am not in the habit of making posts from the left-wing N.Y. Times but decided to post the following,regarding the God vs. science debate:


"Whether the multiverse theory is more comforting than believing that human existence results from a senseless crapshoot or a holy decree is a matter of taste, not science. For many theorists it is also a betrayal of the great effort to explain the laws of physics. Some still hope to find ''a theory of the initial conditions of the universe,'' a supreme mathematical law, hidden perhaps in superstring theory, showing that the parameters of creation could have been set only in a certain way.

But then they would have to find a law to explain where the law came from . . . and ultimately an explanation of why the universe is mathematical and of where mathematics came from and what numbers are.

Like a petulant 8-year-old, we keep asking why, why, why, why. In the end, the answer is either ''just because'' or ''for God made it so'' Take your pick."


http://www.nytimes.com/2003/11/11/science/can-science-prove-the-existence-of-god.html
 
Interesting thread. I cannot help but wonder why the OP started it. FW states a desire for a civil discussion about a religious subject. Why FW? Are you curious? Do you have doubts? Do you really care about what I or anyone else here thinks on the subject? Like I said I'm just wondering.

You yourself might wonder why I am replying to such a thread. My own reasons are varied and likely selfish but mostly, I came upon this thread the very day I finished up a blog post - that was last Thursday, if dates mean anything to you. As I just posted it today and the subject is related to this one, I thought I'd chime in. And the other reason is since I've read this I had some thoughts I'd like to share.

As a direct answer to Pascal, I'd say if one "believes" in a god based on odds, said god is likely to take exception. My understanding of my God, the Father of my Lord Jesus the Messiah is, He says He is a jealous God and we are to put no other gods before Him. I cannot speak for any other object of worship but I'd expect any god worth his or her salt to have similar inclinations. That said you are welcome to believe or not believe anything you wish. I won't stand in your way.

What I find most interesting about this thread is no matter what side one lands on, "proof" is lacking. Science cannot prove or disprove the existence of any being greater than ourselves, nor can those of who believe in a god prove or disprove their belief. Hence discussions such as this.

As far as myself, I believe what I believe because I've worked hard for decades to come to the understanding I now have. Part of that understanding is the fact that I do not have all the answers. There are some things, both factual and spiritual I do not and may not ever understand. An honest scientist or mathematician will acknowledge the same for his or her field.

As for this thread and others like it, I am glad there are those seeking truth - whether the truths they are seeking are scientific or spiritual in nature. I, for one, am confident all truth will one day be revealed. Then there will be no more debates or questions - we will know. I do not pretend to know when or how that day shall come or whether I will be here to see it. Then again, there are those on the side of atheism who expect mankind to extinguish itself. If they are correct, then I'd say all bets are off.
 
good post. I'll just add that it's impossible to disprove a negative. For instance, if we never discover Bigfoot, we can never be entirely sure that he does not in fact exist, but if someone makes the claim that he does exist, then they've put themselves into the position where they'll need to provide proof to have any legitimacy of their claims.

Now, if someone goes out alone into the forest, and for reasons to themselves have concluded that Bigfoot exists, then no further convincing is needed for that individual. This is fine, as long as that individual takes upon himself the burden of proof if he is to have others believe.
 
Discussions about religion inevitably turn into arguments about religion. If that's not the natural order I don't know what is.

The basis for a strong argument comes from the ability to both understand and actually argue for both sides of the argument. If you can't argue for bith its hard to say you actually understand the issue.

I find the religious argument interesting for both sides and can comortally sit on eithe side of the aisle. I consider myself agnostic usually as a result. I have a healthy scientific background, but when things are going badly I tend to not yell at science. Assuming there is a god he gets a lot of blame from me, not enough praise.

The Bigfoot argument I can say I can't see the "he exists" side at all. But it may be because all the pro "evidence" is so laughably fake I can't take any of it seriously.
 
Originally Posted By: SlickerThanSnotthat dang pascal is causing rift among the ranks.

i vote he be deported.

Yes, but he sure has answered a lot of questions too.
grin.gif


He was responsible for my access to a blog entry that was very revealing and enlightening.

It was titled "The Arrogance Of An Atheist".

Now I have always thought that atheists were just normal people who believed the way they do because they have no evidence of proof of a deity, especially one who talks to us and takes an active part in controlling our lives. I really didn't see where even a tiny bit of arrogance was required for that.

So then I read this in the blog entry:

"Men have worshiped the sun and the stars and the earth. Men have worshiped rulers and governments. You name it, someone has likely built a shrine to it. Most will insist only their object of worship is true. I know I do. I also know we cannot all be right. Thus, I, like any other serious practitioner of my faith can fall into the trap of smug certainty. After all, I would not be a Christian if I weren't convinced I was on the correct path. I am quite sure a Buddhist, a Hindu or a Muslim would feel the same. Thus the we are sure to feel to some extent that all others are just plain wrong."

So it appears that an individual who is an atheist toward all but one of the estimated 4200 religions in the world can claim "smug certainty" as a reasonable justification, but when somebody else decides to add that one chosen religion to make the total an even 4200, they are called a "arrogant atheist".

If I was smart enough to do one of those blog things, I would like to make an entry titled "Making a Case For Smug Certainty in Religion, and How It Differs From Arrogant Atheism".

But I'm just not that smart.

*
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: seeknulfindInteresting thread. I cannot help but wonder why the OP started it. FW states a desire for a civil discussion about a religious subject. Why FW? Are you curious? Do you have doubts? Do you really care about what I or anyone else here thinks on the subject? Like I said I'm just wondering.

You yourself might wonder why I am replying to such a thread. My own reasons are varied and likely selfish but mostly, I came upon this thread the very day I finished up a blog post - that was last Thursday, if dates mean anything to you. As I just posted it today and the subject is related to this one, I thought I'd chime in. And the other reason is since I've read this I had some thoughts I'd like to share.

As a direct answer to Pascal, I'd say if one "believes" in a god based on odds, said god is likely to take exception. My understanding of my God, the Father of my Lord Jesus the Messiah is, He says He is a jealous God and we are to put no other gods before Him. I cannot speak for any other object of worship but I'd expect any god worth his or her salt to have similar inclinations. That said you are welcome to believe or not believe anything you wish. I won't stand in your way.

What I find most interesting about this thread is no matter what side one lands on, "proof" is lacking. Science cannot prove or disprove the existence of any being greater than ourselves, nor can those of who believe in a god prove or disprove their belief. Hence discussions such as this.

As far as myself, I believe what I believe because I've worked hard for decades to come to the understanding I now have. Part of that understanding is the fact that I do not have all the answers. There are some things, both factual and spiritual I do not and may not ever understand. An honest scientist or mathematician will acknowledge the same for his or her field.

As for this thread and others like it, I am glad there are those seeking truth - whether the truths they are seeking are scientific or spiritual in nature. I, for one, am confident all truth will one day be revealed. Then there will be no more debates or questions - we will know. I do not pretend to know when or how that day shall come or whether I will be here to see it. Then again, there are those on the side of atheism who expect mankind to extinguish itself. If they are correct, then I'd say all bets are off.
Very good post!! And you have a very good point, why does some people post there crazy sh%% and then want to argue about it?? Has any of us belivers tried to convert anyone?? Have we started a tread about our religion?? No and we are not the type to do that!!
 
Originally Posted By: hunter243sgkI tryed to nicely talk to fw707 on pms. And he must have me blocked because it would not go through!!What is a man to do?

I have received zero pm's from you. I am not even aware of any way to block a message from another member.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top