- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
23 Dec 12
Originally posted by Grampy BobbyGo back to page 5 of this thread and have a look...
Please reach within for something you might contribute to the topic.
Nitpicky, petulant yik yakitation becomes burdensome for other people...
even though it may in some manner or other make your own day.
-
You will see a number of on topic posts by me contributing something...
You have yet to respond to any of them.
And I am not nitpicking.
I am telling you that I find many of your posts to be actually incomprehensible.
That's not a nitpick... I am not complaining that you have some small error of
grammar or spelling... I am telling you that I can't understand what idea it is
you are trying to communicate.
As the transmission of ideas from one mind to another is the ENTIRE POINT of
communication, we are thus having a major problem.
Now it might be that you don't want to communicate any ideas to me (although I
don't think I am alone in having problems with your posts) in which case you are
succeeding.
But if that's the case then you were lying when you said you were here for casual and
polite conversation.
23 Dec 12
Originally posted by googlefudgeHuman emotions have no capacity for rational thought.
Go back to page 5 of this thread and have a look...
You will see a number of on topic posts by me contributing something...
You have yet to respond to any of them.
And I am not nitpicking.
I am telling you that I find many of your posts to be actually incomprehensible.
That's not a nitpick... I am not complaining that you have some small er ...[text shortened]... the case then you were lying when you said you were here for casual and
polite conversation.
23 Dec 12
Thou shalt present clear and irrefutable evidence
to substantiate your claims lest you be ridiculed
and discredited forever in the eyes of your peers.
Get thee hence and turn away from superstition
and idolatry. Only by true demonstration of fact
can you be sure of salvation. Turn I say, turn
away from religion and superstition.
( NIJLV )
New International Johnny Longwoody Version.
24 Dec 12
Originally posted by johnnylongwoodyNew American Standard Bible (©1995)
Thou shalt present clear and irrefutable evidence
to substantiate your claims lest you be ridiculed
and discredited forever in the eyes of your peers.
Get thee hence and turn away from superstition
and idolatry. Only by true demonstration of fact
can you be sure of salvation. Turn I say, turn
away from religion and superstition.
( NIJLV )
New International Johnny Longwoody Version.
"... and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take
away his part from the tree of life and from the holy city, which are written in this book."
-
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
24 Dec 12
Originally posted by Grampy BobbyFirst prove you god exists... Then we might care.
[b]New American Standard Bible (©1995)
"... and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take
away his part from the tree of life and from the holy city, which are written in this book."
-[/b]
24 Dec 12
Originally posted by googlefudgeLet's say there is no Christ...
Evidence that indicates your specific gods existence to a high enough 'probability' (99% or higher)
even given the highly improbable nature of your gods existence a priori as calculated using Bayes'
Theorem.
"If so, then in whom or what would you (and your family) place your confidence and trust?" (OP)
____________________
"Evidence that indicates your specific gods existence to a high enough 'probability' (99% or higher) even given
the highly improbable nature of your gods existence a priori as calculated using Bayes' Theorem" (Google Fudge)
.........................................
If one percent /1% of the premise posited by Pascal's Wager is indisputable fact,
one percent /1% 'probability' provides more than enough proof certain for gb.
-
Originally posted by googlefudgeSorry so late to the game, but...
If you are asking "in what would you place absolute 100% trust and confidence?" (in which case you need
to be clear and say so)...
Then My answer is that I place absolute trust and confidence ONLY in that which can be logically proven.
Which limits such trust to mathematics.
No matter the laws of physics or the nature of reality... 2+2 will al ence) can be known with absolute certainty.
Reality can only be trusted probabilistically.
When you say you put your faith in
Reality continuing on its course of being real
Or the proofs of logic
And its foundation in number's relations to one another
Aren't you also saying
You are putting your trust in
The accuracy of your perceptions of reality
Or the clarity of analysis of logic
And your ability to interpret and apply any relations
You happen to be aware of?
Or, in short, aren't you really saying
You put your trust in
You?
EDIT:
Merry Christmas to all!
Originally posted by Grampy BobbyNot that I think your calculation below makes sense but Pascals wager fails (as I'm sure many have told you at earlier points) with the following:
[b]Let's say there is no Christ...
"If so, then in whom or what would you (and your family) place your confidence and trust?" (OP)
____________________
"Evidence that indicates your specific gods existence to a high enough 'probability' (99% or higher) even given
the highly improbable nature of your gods existence a priori as calcul t,
one percent /1% 'probability' provides more than enough proof certain for gb.
-[/b]
His wager carries with it the assumption there is a fifty fifty chance "G"od exists.
Actually it would be vastly more accurate to assume there is a fifty fifty chance *at least* one *sort of* god exists*** (where that god or gods may be wildly different to anything you imagine it/them to be; and furthermore, even proving that this is a valid assumption would be difficult).
As such, I doubt Pascals Wager is convincing to any atheists (including googlefudge), and so your proof stiil lies way beyond your grasp.
---------------------------
***For example, If you turn over a random card (excluding jokers etc...) there is a fifty fifty chance it is black, not a fifty fifty chance it is the jack of spades!
supposing of course, for the pedants amongst you, that they are a full set of conventional playing cards, undamaged, and that the faces of the cards are initially facing downwards!
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
24 Dec 12
Originally posted by Grampy BobbyPascals wager... really?
[b]Let's say there is no Christ...
"If so, then in whom or what would you (and your family) place your confidence and trust?" (OP)
____________________
"Evidence that indicates your specific gods existence to a high enough 'probability' (99% or higher) even given
the highly improbable nature of your gods existence a priori as calcul ...[text shortened]... t,
one percent /1% 'probability' provides more than enough proof certain for gb.
-[/b]
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Pascal%27s_wager
http://www.rejectionofpascalswager.net/pascal.html