|
Post by clusium on Sept 25, 2020 1:15:13 GMT
Pascal's wager at least they got the title right. So...it's a gamble and even if there is a god...there is no assurance it is their god. So, Homer Simpson is right in his analysis, what if we're worshiping the wrong god...every time we go to church we're making him madder and madder. Perhaps a god would be just as happy..or even happier with someone like me who simply doesn't worship ANY god(s) because I'm not sure which is the true god, than with someone who is 'whoring after false gods.' Pascal's Wager is pretty much saying worship the god who will do you the most harm if you don't worship him. When I ponder god I'm looking for truth, not safety from harm.
I really do believe this Pascal guy is one of history's stupidest people. But, he was a mathematician.
|
|
|
Post by lowtacks86 on Sept 25, 2020 1:30:45 GMT
But, he was a mathematician. His most important theological contribution to the history of thought is ludicrous though. If I follow his thinking, I look at two gods, Christ and Zeus for example.
If I worship Christ, he's a benevolent god who will save me based on faith. He's just and merciful. But if I make Zeus angry he will destroy me and send me to Hades. I better worship Zeus because if he's real my fate is worse than if I worship Christ.
It's theology for cowards and dummies. I have utter contempt for Pascal.
What's your opinion on Thomas Aquinas?
|
|
|
Post by clusium on Sept 25, 2020 1:30:54 GMT
But, he was a mathematician. His most important theological contribution to the history of thought is ludicrous though. If I follow his thinking, I look at two gods, Christ and Zeus for example.
If I worship Christ, he's a benevolent god who will save me based on faith. He's just and merciful. But if I make Zeus angry he will destroy me and send me to Hades. I better worship Zeus because if he's real my fate is worse than if I worship Christ.
It's theology for cowards and dummies. I have utter contempt for Pascal.
I understand. I think Pascal's Wager was meant for his own time that he was living in. He was living around the time of the Enlightenment & close to the French Revolution. He was refuting the atheists in his own society & times.
|
|
|
Post by clusium on Sept 25, 2020 4:30:59 GMT
I understand. I think Pascal's Wager was meant for his own time that he was living in. He was living around the time of the Enlightenment & close to the French Revolution. He was refuting the atheists in his own society & times. Clusium, it doesn't matter when Pascal lived. If he lived during the Enlightenment he was a contemporary of some brilliant men. Yet all he could come up with is some ludicrous defense for god, that we better believe in him or else? Yes, & being a mathematician, he would have been regarded as a brilliant man himself. He was arguing against the atheists of his day. Had it been Muslims that were trying to take over his nation, then his wager would have been why Christianity over Islam; or if Protestants were trying to take over his nation, his wager would have been why Catholicism over Protestantism.
|
|
|
Post by goz on Sept 25, 2020 4:45:03 GMT
I do not belive that anything Richard Dawkins says must be the truth. I was referring to Her Gozness when I said that. I agree with Feologild Oakes.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Sept 25, 2020 6:39:32 GMT
Actually religion, except some unofficial "Christian" denominations, is about leaving punishment to a god. I suppose it might make you feel better about your government that it is making advances in being more fair in its punishments. However even DNA evidence is useless without strict control over all space. It can be planted otherwise. The only "punishment" religious people allow themselves to administer is self defense against a present and dangerous assault. I was not speaking to you. Perhaps lowtacks86 would like to respond. This isn't Facebook, and these are public issues, not the rachelcarson1953 show. It's too late, you already confirmed my suspicion how atheists have a dependence on government as their only means of promotion.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Sept 25, 2020 6:49:07 GMT
Is it possible to prove gravity will not cancel tomorrow? Not really. Why then is it called the "law" of gravity? It is called the law of gravity because it dependably predicts what nature will do in "every" case. Nature typically "obeys" it. What laboratories have proved with their rather extensive and comprehensive tests is that the assembly of life happens with the same frequency as levitation, in other words not at all. Since nature has no choices, no "free will" to assemble or not, that means it cannot assemble. Since that assembly necessarily happened that shows that something that can choose to assemble or not must have chosen at some time in the distant past to assemble. It's really very convincing and simple. Is it possible to prove gravity will not cancel tomorrow? It is possible to prove that gravity exists right now and I can safely predict it will be in affect tomorrow, because for 13.5 billion years, it has not failed yet. So with 99.9% certainty, I predict there will be gravity tomorrow. However, the only way to prove that it will be in existence tomorrow is to wait until tomorrow and observe what happens. Great, now all you need to do is realize what else isn't going to happen tomorrow. Life is not going to start merely from lightning striking mud. Got that? Now you should have a nice day however socially distanced.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Sept 25, 2020 7:10:34 GMT
Pascal's wager at least they got the title right. So...it's a gamble and even if there is a god...there is no assurance it is their god. So, Homer Simpson is right in his analysis, what if we're worshiping the wrong god...every time we go to church we're making him madder and madder. Perhaps a god would be just as happy..or even happier with someone like me who simply doesn't worship ANY god(s) because I'm not sure which is the true god, than with someone who is 'whoring after false gods.' Pascal's Wager is pretty much saying worship the god who will do you the most harm if you don't worship him. When I ponder god I'm looking for truth, not safety from harm.
I really do believe this Pascal guy is one of history's stupidest people. Fear can be a good thing. Fear of fire keeps people from playing with it, or most people anyway. Fear of heights keeps most people from playing hopscotch on rooftops. Fear of god can save the government a lot of trouble especially since it works when humans are not watching. I think too many people have the concept of a god as something that will allow them to do whatever their heart desires, and if your god doesn't do that it can't be a very good at it. I think most people "religious" or not enjoy the freedom being human means. It's a cruel world, but people can defend themselves against it. Many people tend to want to maximize freedom to what only a god could. Yet, when it comes to trying new foods they would rather let someone else test it first.
|
|
|
Post by goz on Sept 25, 2020 7:47:42 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Sept 25, 2020 7:48:01 GMT
Great, now all you need to do is realize what else isn't going to happen tomorrow. Life is not going to start merely from lightning striking mud. Got that? Now you should have a nice day however socially distanced. Life is not going to start merely from lightning striking mud.
The process that eventually lead to biogenesis on Earth started at the Big Bang and has to do with particles to atoms to molecules becoming more and more complex. Not all self-replicating molecules are are alive. phys.org/news/2020-06-life-emulating-molecules-basic-metabolism.html I don't like repetition, but apparently you need it. The last hope of the idiots who believed life was simple enough to start up with no designer was that something special about RNA chains gave even the shorter, lifeless ones some advantage over the ravages of a senseless world to the point of higher assembly. Laboratory tests too numerous to catalog have confirmed what sensible people already knew, no those RNA chains are not special and rip each other apart at a lifeless level. Where there is no life the shorter molecules have the competitive advantage, but it is not to higher assembly. The longer chains cannot get a grip on the shorter as easily as the shorter can get a grip on the longer. There are different types of lifeless self replicating systems. The most dependable are called "crystals." Those however do not lead to the assembly of the complex interdependent systems necessary to begin to defend against the ravages of a senseless world. The lifeless RNA chains are less not more dependable. If you see the things in that article and conclude that will one day lead to the spontaneous development of complex interdependent systems you are either lying or stupid or both. Which is it in your case? Articles such as the one you linked are the result of the vast number of people who are in shock and cannot face the truth and still want to believe there is no god and that some tornado is going to build a palace with a fleet of motorized vehicles out of mud, swamp gas, and lightning. Whenever anyone says, "Look! All I did was shake this test tube and I got a phospholipid bilayer! This is so exciting! It means the abiogenesis folks are not idiots after all!," there will be some atheist kids from inferior schools to applaud and dance, but the story is really already over and they will be escorted out of the schools altogether.
|
|
|
Post by Stammerhead on Sept 25, 2020 8:01:16 GMT
If Thor existed he wouldn’t be The God, he’d be A God and someone else would be in charge.
|
|
|
Post by Stammerhead on Sept 25, 2020 8:03:33 GMT
Pascal's Wager is pretty much saying worship the god who will do you the most harm if you don't worship him. When I ponder god I'm looking for truth, not safety from harm.
I really do believe this Pascal guy is one of history's stupidest people. Fear can be a good thing. Fear of fire keeps people from playing with it, or most people anyway. Fear of heights keeps most people from playing hopscotch on rooftops. Fear of god can save the government a lot of trouble especially since it works when humans are not watching. I think too many people have the concept of a god as something that will allow them to do whatever their heart desires, and if your god doesn't do that it can't be a very good at it. I think most people "religious" or not enjoy the freedom being human means. It's a cruel world, but people can defend themselves against it. Many people tend to want to maximize freedom to what only a god could. Yet, when it comes to trying new foods they would rather let someone else test it first. It’s like health and safety regulations.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Sept 25, 2020 8:14:00 GMT
Fear can be a good thing. Fear of fire keeps people from playing with it, or most people anyway. Fear of heights keeps most people from playing hopscotch on rooftops. Fear of god can save the government a lot of trouble especially since it works when humans are not watching. I think too many people have the concept of a god as something that will allow them to do whatever their heart desires, and if your god doesn't do that it can't be a very good at it. I think most people "religious" or not enjoy the freedom being human means. It's a cruel world, but people can defend themselves against it. Many people tend to want to maximize freedom to what only a god could. Yet, when it comes to trying new foods they would rather let someone else test it first. It’s like health and safety regulations. Except that religion has the far better enforcement mechanism. Mind your own business.
|
|
|
Post by Stammerhead on Sept 25, 2020 8:18:46 GMT
If Thor existed he wouldn’t be The God, he’d be A God and someone else would be in charge. That's where Odin comes in. That's why the pagans are called Odinists, not Thorists. But Odin had a mum and dad which makes me wonder if there was a higher level of power.
|
|
|
Post by Stammerhead on Sept 25, 2020 8:20:25 GMT
It’s like health and safety regulations. Except that religion has the far better enforcement mechanism. Mind your own business. Well we don’t usually burn people at the stake for not following health and safety regulations so there is that.
|
|
|
Post by Stammerhead on Sept 25, 2020 8:44:29 GMT
I mean I can't really find any fault with what he said, though I do consider pretty much all religious arguments (Watchmaker, Pascal's Wager, prim mover, fine tuning, morality argument) not very good and refuting them is just shooting fish in a barrel. I would like to see him take on more abstract, open ended topics (secular vs Christian morality, Christian socialism, secular humanism, Christian culturalism) rather than these tired theist arguments that have already been refuted a million times. Though I'm assuming he's probably done some of those other topics as well. Pascal's Wager is beyond retarded. I can't believe anyone ever took it seriously. What does “beyond retarded” mean? Mentally retarded or spiritually retarded?
|
|
The Lost One
Junior Member
@lostkiera
Posts: 2,668
Likes: 1,290
|
Post by The Lost One on Sept 25, 2020 9:17:49 GMT
Pascal's Wager is beyond retarded. I can't believe anyone ever took it seriously. In fairness to Pascal, it was never supposed to be considered on its own. For instance, the common counter-argument over why should we use the wager to believe in the Christian conception of God rather than another conception is addressed in other parts of the Pensees.
|
|
The Lost One
Junior Member
@lostkiera
Posts: 2,668
Likes: 1,290
|
Post by The Lost One on Sept 25, 2020 9:33:58 GMT
As Gadreel said, taking five random arguments for the existence of God (four really, since Pascal's Wager is not an argument for the existence of God) and demolishing them (particularly in the overly simplistic fashion here) does not constitutes five reasons that there is no God. Dawkins' assertion that the onus is on the theist is irrelevant - the onus is on anyone making a claim. You can reject someone's claim but that doesn't mean they must then accept your counter-claim.
But most importantly, Dawkins misses the point as usual. The question is not whether there is a God (that is unknowable), the question is whether one should believe in one. The reasons people believe in God are socio-economic, cultural and emotional. These philosophical arguments for God are constructed and endorsed by people who already believe and rejected by those who do not. They are not the reasons why people believe in God. Dawkins, as well as his opposite numbers like William Lane Craig, would be far better analysing the true reasons for belief than continuing this pretence that it is solely an intellectual debate.
|
|
|
Post by rizdek on Sept 25, 2020 9:52:04 GMT
Life is not going to start merely from lightning striking mud.
The process that eventually lead to biogenesis on Earth started at the Big Bang and has to do with particles to atoms to molecules becoming more and more complex. Not all self-replicating molecules are are alive. phys.org/news/2020-06-life-emulating-molecules-basic-metabolism.html I don't like repetition, but apparently you need it. The last hope of the idiots who believed life was simple enough to start up with no designer was that something special about RNA chains gave even the shorter, lifeless ones some advantage over the ravages of a senseless world to the point of higher assembly. Laboratory tests too numerous to catalog have confirmed what sensible people already knew, no those RNA chains are not special and rip each other apart at a lifeless level. Where there is no life the shorter molecules have the competitive advantage, but it is not to higher assembly. The longer chains cannot get a grip on the shorter as easily as the shorter can get a grip on the longer. There are different types of lifeless self replicating systems. The most dependable are called "crystals." Those however do not lead to the assembly of the complex interdependent systems necessary to begin to defend against the ravages of a senseless world. The lifeless RNA chains are less not more dependable. If you see the things in that article and conclude that will one day lead to the spontaneous development of complex interdependent systems you are either lying or stupid or both. Which is it in your case? Articles such as the one you linked are the result of the vast number of people who are in shock and cannot face the truth and still want to believe there is no god and that some tornado is going to build a palace with a fleet of motorized vehicles out of mud, swamp gas, and lightning. Whenever anyone says, "Look! All I did was shake this test tube and I got a phospholipid bilayer! This is so exciting! It means the abiogenesis folks are not idiots after all!," there will be some atheist kids from inferior schools to applaud and dance, but the story is really already over and they will be escorted out of the schools altogether. Do you believe people doing research/experiments like that should stop their research?
|
|
|
Post by rizdek on Sept 25, 2020 10:38:32 GMT
I don't like repetition, but apparently you need it. The last hope of the idiots who believed life was simple enough to start up with no designer was that something special about RNA chains gave even the shorter, lifeless ones some advantage over the ravages of a senseless world to the point of higher assembly. Laboratory tests too numerous to catalog have confirmed what sensible people already knew, no those RNA chains are not special and rip each other apart at a lifeless level. Where there is no life the shorter molecules have the competitive advantage, but it is not to higher assembly. The longer chains cannot get a grip on the shorter as easily as the shorter can get a grip on the longer. There are different types of lifeless self replicating systems. The most dependable are called "crystals." Those however do not lead to the assembly of the complex interdependent systems necessary to begin to defend against the ravages of a senseless world. The lifeless RNA chains are less not more dependable. If you see the things in that article and conclude that will one day lead to the spontaneous development of complex interdependent systems you are either lying or stupid or both. Which is it in your case? Articles such as the one you linked are the result of the vast number of people who are in shock and cannot face the truth and still want to believe there is no god and that some tornado is going to build a palace with a fleet of motorized vehicles out of mud, swamp gas, and lightning. Whenever anyone says, "Look! All I did was shake this test tube and I got a phospholipid bilayer! This is so exciting! It means the abiogenesis folks are not idiots after all!," there will be some atheist kids from inferior schools to applaud and dance, but the story is really already over and they will be escorted out of the schools altogether. You're about as ignorant as they come, Arlon. Have you ever wonder why you don't have any friends? Anyway I've grown tired of you for a while. So, blocked until I feel like messing with you again. Tootles. Arlon posts this way because I really do think he believes what he posts. I give him that much credit. But...in the same way someone might misconstrue what gravity will do, I think he misconstrues what experiments in self-organization up to now have shown.
If someone didn't understand exactly how gravity works, and depended on a few millions of examples/demonstrations they might be led to make the wrong conclusions about what happens under what conditions. For example, it has been shown to be absolutely dependable that if one jumped off a ladder/cliff/bldg here on earth, he would plummet to the ground...because gravity. So...they MIGHT assume that gravity only works because the object they jumped off was attached to the earth. But then someone on a aircraft flying/floating above the earth jumps off and (with hopefully the aid of a parachute to keep them from splatting) shows that the whole 'being attached to the earth' thing is irrelevant. So there must be something else. Because even if one is floating above the earth and jump off the thing they're in, they will be moved, via gravity, toward the earth. BUT, that would lead to the wrong conclusions about what would happen in all cases where something is 'floating' above the earth. I give an example from a sci fi book I read. The scene is in space ship orbiting earth. They are trying to get someone to confess and are threatening to 'throw them off the space ship' to get them to talk. They suit the guy up and move him to the escape hatch. Of course he's terrified because HE believes that as soon as he's pushed out the door, he'll plummet to earth just like if someone was pushed out the door of an airplane or dumped off a hot air balloon. But of course he doesn't plummet to earth. NOT that gravity isn't still in effect or isn't still a 'law.' But rather it doesn't work like they thought it did and or works differently under those conditions.
The same applies to experiments so far in self organization. SO FAR, it appears the longer chain molecules haven't been shown to have the advantage. But they've been working on it for what, 100 or so years in a handful of labs with a few hundred or thousand scientists? To give up would be like telling those who experimented with heavier than air flying machines to give up because everyone just knows those can't fly. And some DID try to dissuade those inventors. And anyone pointing out that birds are heavier than air and still can fly would be told they can do it because God keeps them in the air...unless they also understood aerodynamics.
And even more recently they've discovered forces that do just the opposite of gravity such that the universe appears to be expanding...notwithstanding the reliability of the 'law' of gravity. It's just that under SOME conditions gravity doesn't apply and doesn't work to counter OTHER forces.
The bottom line is I don't take Arlon's attempts to fend off debate by using personal insults seriously or personally. It shows a kind of desperation because first, he KNOWS they can't have exhausted all the situations where self-organization is impossible. At best they've only shown, to apply my example above, that jumping off a bldg here on earth allows gravity to work as expected. Second...and much more importantly, he is merely pushing the problem into the unknown and is solving it by positing and asserting features and capabilities ad hoc and 'just so' such that this unknown CAN be the answer. And, I guess, he would have people stop doing research on bio genesis.
But the truth is, that even if SOMEONE SOMEWHERE did combine the right chemicals/molecules/compounds in the 'just so' setting that DID result in bone fide living molecules that grew, reproduced, and out-competed other shorter chained molecules, i.e. demonstrated ALL the properties of life, the answer would be 1) well we don't know if THOSE were the conditions in an early earth and 2) 'look, it took intelligent scientists years to accomplish' or more simply 3) that 'god just did it again, in the beaker, in that lab.'
|
|