DeletedUser
Pascal's wager, in a nutshell is this:
Is this a good line of reasoning?
Paraphrased by Dan Brown said:
Is this a good line of reasoning?
nashy19
Nashy (as himself)
You would have to decide which god or being gives the most benefits and follow that one.
Can you really make yourself believe for this reason through I form of self brainwashing? I know it's been tried but I don't believe it actually works. Other than that you can't choose to believe something and I think it would be pretty hard for a person to knowingly choose to be ignorant too.
God would know if you really believe or not, believing in god yet trying to trick him(it?) is contradictory.
Then there's the potential of this world (the one we know to be real).
Can you really make yourself believe for this reason through I form of self brainwashing? I know it's been tried but I don't believe it actually works. Other than that you can't choose to believe something and I think it would be pretty hard for a person to knowingly choose to be ignorant too.
God would know if you really believe or not, believing in god yet trying to trick him(it?) is contradictory.
Then there's the potential of this world (the one we know to be real).
DeletedUser14280
You know, there's a nice pile of evidence that the world we know may in fact be only an illusion.
Our world may be a giant hologram.
Our world may be a giant hologram.
DeletedUser
Yeah, I wouldn't run too far with that Celxius. Since 2006, New Scientist Magazine has been traveling further and further into sensationalism and articles on scientific principles/discoveries written by people with absolutely no scientific background whatsoever. If you can find an alternative source, I would prefer it.
DeletedUser
They even said in this article, that it's merely an idea, not even a theory. And that they don't have any proof at all. So it's very far from a "nice pile of evidence".
DeletedUser
As John F. Kennedy said : Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country.
And i say : Ask not what God can do for you, ask what you can do for God.
And i say : Ask not what God can do for you, ask what you can do for God.
DeletedUser
As John F. Kennedy said : Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country.
And i say : Ask not what God can do for you, ask what you can do for God.
The difference being that we have good reason to believe that our country exists...
DeletedUser
I think you hit on the biggest problem with Pascal's Wager. Pascal's Wager assumes that either the specific "God" of the believer that proposes the argument is true, or no "God" or set of gods is true. There is, however, no reason to narrow down the possibilities to that.
What if the "God" that is actually true is one that no human has ever heard of and prefers that we would not believe in any "God" or set of gods rather than believing in a false "God" or set of gods? Then the believer is damned and the unbeliever, rewarded...
DeletedUser
Short and simple answer: No, it isn't.
DeletedUser
Wrong, we dont need any reason to believe our country exist or not.
It does exist even though we dont believe
Right, we can never compare Country with God :laugh:
DeletedUser
Wrong, we dont need any reason to believe our country exist or not.
It does exist even though we dont believe
Right, we can never compare Country with God :laugh:
False.
One can compare it.
It all depends on how one defines the country.
DeletedUser13682
A country is to God as a building is to a foundation. Does that work?
DeletedUser
Right, One can compare it.
"Never" can "One" compare with it.
It all depends on how "one" defines "one" and "Never" and "God" and so on...
So False for False "we can never compare Country with God " = Right
DeletedUser
Many people belive in countries that no longer "exists".
Then there are countires wich exists, yet are not recognized, thus in a fashion they are non-existent.
If a man is "the country", then the man can be "god".
Thus comparison is viable.
Then there are countires wich exists, yet are not recognized, thus in a fashion they are non-existent.
If a man is "the country", then the man can be "god".
Thus comparison is viable.
DeletedUser
Using Whaleking's logic, we should "Ask not what the Great Marshmallow can do for you, ask what you can do for Great Marshmallow."
Or, you can insert any other unbelievable object of your choice in place of Great Marshmallow if you want...
Or, you can insert any other unbelievable object of your choice in place of Great Marshmallow if you want...
DeletedUser
I am glad that you used an "If" sentence
So you are not really comparing, you are imagining,
thank God for giving you that genius
So you are not really comparing, you are imagining,
thank God for giving you that genius
DeletedUser
I am glad that you used an "If" sentence
So you are not really comparing, you are imagining,
thank God for giving you that genius
Makes me smile seeing you thank your imaginary friend like that.
The word 'if' was used for a reason.
Think it over some, it might dawn on you yet.
DeletedUser
Woo, using Adelei's logic and understanding
we can say " Ask not what the Great Marshmallow can do for Cucumber, ask what cucumber can do for Great Marshmallow.
Or, you can insert any other unbelievable object of your choice in place of Cucumber if you want...
Yes you can It is your freedom.
So , you finally need to define the "IF" you use , right ?
We can forsee we must get to understand all the words we use,
and what is the definetion of all those words to prove what we said :laugh:
Is that necessary ? I bet you know what i mean
we can say " Ask not what the Great Marshmallow can do for Cucumber, ask what cucumber can do for Great Marshmallow.
Or, you can insert any other unbelievable object of your choice in place of Cucumber if you want...
Yes you can
It is your freedom.So , you finally need to define the "IF" you use , right ?
We can forsee we must get to understand all the words we use,
and what is the definetion of all those words to prove what we said :laugh:
Is that necessary ? I bet you know what i mean
Last edited by a moderator:
DeletedUser
So , you finally need to define the "IF" you use , right ?
We can forsee we must get to understand all the words we use,
and what is the definetion of all those words to prove what we said :laugh:
Is that necessary ? I bet you know what i mean
I know why I uesd 'if', and I used it for a good reason.
What you do now is either a display of stupidity or trolling.
The reason for the wording is obvious.
Do you really need to borrow the spoon I usualy reserve for Gizmo?
DeletedUser
Pascal tells it like it is. Silly atheist, just follow the Bible and you won't have to suffer eternity in hell.