1. Try reading some of his work in Penses where you find the wager. 2. Pascal was a Roman Catholic with a strong belief in Jesus. He was working on a systematic defense of doctrine when he died. 3. Stating God is unknowable to humans in our current state is not inconsistent with Catholic doctrine and does little to further you argument. Whether you wish to say Pascal was arguing for belief in the father alone or the trinity it makes no difference to our previous argument. Your previous statements about the wager manifest your ignorance. you are not trying to take us away from you previous idiotic statements. I have no time for this... try education, it my do you some good and disabuse you of your atheist propaganda.
I want to remind everyone - this was stu's silly argument. " Another disastrous problem with Pascal's Wager for religious believers is, it's every bit as likely that the Christian God gave the gift of rational skepticism, and therefore after providing so many obvious clues, such as being unfalsifiable Itself, It expects the correct understanding to be that there is no God. The Christian God would have to be an atheist anyway, so it's just as likely any Heaven would be for those like Itself. This is just one way Pascal's Wager is catastrophic and totally fails it's intended purpose in any context of a Christian God , The Creator Pink Elephant (peace be upon It), Allah, or any other deity." secondly - pascal would have already considered and dismissed just about any objection you could think of on your own.
Does anyone see how odd the Stu and Gabfly relationship team is. the relationship here on et seems to be almost beyond normal boundries. almost like the sock puppet is in love with the puppeteer. Its like Jeff dunham really believing in the affection from jose jalopeno on a stick.
1. Read the Pensées along with the Wager and the Wager becomes absurd, not just logically fallacious 2. The Wager is still inconsistent, contradictory and flawed in logical reasoning, however religion would go a long way to explaining why that is so 3. Pascal said it. Itâs supposed to further his argument not mine. It doesnât. Pascal's Wager is logically unsound and fatally flawed by it's own assertions and by its own assumptions within itself. Why do you persist deceitfully with this and so many other nonsensical arguments to prop up your religious beliefs? Why not be honest and forthright for once. There is no rationality for them other than blind ignorant faith. At least there might be some dignity in just admitting that and stop trying to defend the indefensible with absurdity all the time like a loon.
of course it is stu - we would not want to hurt your zealous atheistic world view... no person who believes in God could have contributed to science, philosophy, the constitution or western thought. It was stu against dictionaries on the definition of atheist Then stu against multiple passages in josepheus and historians and the historicity of jesus Then it was Stu against Christian churches on the doctrine of the trinity Then it was stu against noble prize winners and other top scientists as to whether our universe appears designed. Then it was stu saying there is evidence of life evolving from non life. Now, it is Stu against Pascal and the serious academics, philosophers and educated challengers on the meaning and rationality of Pascals wager. The wager which many consider to be the precursor of fields such as probability and stats... the wager which has been studied by so many... In sort of an obtuse Descartesian way... Stu says it is irrational therefore it is and therefore hundreds of years of academic work was a waste of time. Soon gabfly will appear and suck up to stu.
Fancy that, the catalogue of dumb claims youâve made covered all those items. Not one of them have you been able to support or say anything logical or sensible about. Now Pascal is added to the list. Whatâs next? Why not go the whole hog and claim I canât prove the Earth isnât Flat.
well now we have your ignorance on record. 1. If you were to show a pathway from non life to life you would win a noble prize 2. If you were to scientifically explain away the appearance of design in our universe without resort to the multiverse hypothesis you would probably win a science or math prize. 3. If you could get anything peer reviewed about he non historicity of Jesus you could probably get your own show on the history channel. 4. If you could show that Christians are not defined by their belief in the Trinity you could probably become the school czar for Obama. 5. If you could show why dictionaries are not proper sources for the definition of words you could probably be named a professor at some sort of internet university. 6. And if you could show pascal's wager to be irrational you could probably become part of a famous saying... definition ----- Stuish... - even ignorant trolls with rhetorical skills sometimes stumble onto a correct argument just by being contrarian.
Typical. All you can do is produce another list of inane comments tantamount to saying I'd be King of the World if only I could prove the Earth is flat. Well I have news just for you. The Earth is not Flat because the assertion has been reasonably logically rationally refuted. The equally ridiculous comments you make in your lists have also all been reasonably logically rationally refuted from all quarters and even in the pages of ET. At that point, the more reasonable logical rational thing to do would be to supply a reasonable, logical, rational rebuttal .... but all you can manage is ... ... repeat the same list of inane comments So the best you have to prop up your religiously motivated assertions is redundant repetition. It does though demonstrate each time how you are either dumb / deceitful or both.