Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="newusername" data-source="post: 6156646" data-attributes="member: 562064">First you claimed that it was not a dichotomy; now you are presenting the craps situation, which is in fact a dichotomy.&nbsp; Which is it?Do you even understand Pascal&#039;s wager?&nbsp; Even Wikipedia gets it better than you do.To re-iterate for the third time now:Pascal&#039;s Wager says that it is better to believe in god because there is a reward if he exists, and no punishment if he does not.&nbsp; However, Pascal&#039;s Wager is false in assuming that a reward exists for belief, as this is not an established fact outside of religious dogma.So really, the game we&#039;re playing has far, far more options than just red and black to choose from, any of which may be correct.&nbsp; The mistake Pascal&#039;s Wager makes is assuming that only red and black are possibilities.Have you read Behe&#039;s argument?Step 1: Things in life are irreducibly complex.Step 2: Complex systems require a designer.Step 3: The complex things in life require a designer.The designer is the conscious input that you&#039;re talking about.&nbsp; You&#039;re saying the same thing I am but you think you&#039;re saying something different.You are just full of nonsense today, aren&#039;t you?I have experienced chairs before.&nbsp; I know my weight.&nbsp; I can form a belief with respect to the chair holding my weight strictly on empirical evidence.I think you&#039;re having a hard time understanding the difference between &quot;equipossible&quot; and &quot;equiprobable&quot;.What you have actually argued is that all things are a function of increasingly smaller parts.&nbsp; This is nothing at all like irreducible complexity; irreducible complexity argues that if one part is missing, everything left has no function.&nbsp; That is not even remotely similar to the question of scale that you&#039;re posing.You are, once again, missing the point.&nbsp; Negative evidence alone is insufficient, because it opens you to believing in everything, especially the most ludicrous claims; my beliefs are based on positive evidence.&nbsp; Certainly the positive evidence may not be exactly correct, but I can achieve operative certainty based on probability based on logical empiricism.That&#039;s a slippery slope fallacy.&nbsp; To use the analogy of a circuit, the fact that there is some resistance in the circuit does not mean that there shouldn&#039;t be any current able to pass through.&nbsp; If the forces that give rise to life outweigh the forces that resist it, life will carry on.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="newusername, post: 6156646, member: 562064"] First you claimed that it was not a dichotomy; now you are presenting the craps situation, which is in fact a dichotomy. Which is it? Do you even understand Pascal's wager? Even Wikipedia gets it better than you do. To re-iterate for the third time now: Pascal's Wager says that it is better to believe in god because there is a reward if he exists, and no punishment if he does not. However, Pascal's Wager is false in assuming that a reward exists for belief, as this is not an established fact outside of religious dogma. So really, the game we're playing has far, far more options than just red and black to choose from, any of which may be correct. The mistake Pascal's Wager makes is assuming that only red and black are possibilities. Have you read Behe's argument? Step 1: Things in life are irreducibly complex. Step 2: Complex systems require a designer. Step 3: The complex things in life require a designer. The designer is the conscious input that you're talking about. You're saying the same thing I am but you think you're saying something different. You are just full of nonsense today, aren't you? I have experienced chairs before. I know my weight. I can form a belief with respect to the chair holding my weight strictly on empirical evidence. I think you're having a hard time understanding the difference between "equipossible" and "equiprobable". What you have actually argued is that all things are a function of increasingly smaller parts. This is nothing at all like irreducible complexity; irreducible complexity argues that if one part is missing, everything left has no function. That is not even remotely similar to the question of scale that you're posing. You are, once again, missing the point. Negative evidence alone is insufficient, because it opens you to believing in everything, especially the most ludicrous claims; my beliefs are based on positive evidence. Certainly the positive evidence may not be exactly correct, but I can achieve operative certainty based on probability based on logical empiricism. That's a slippery slope fallacy. To use the analogy of a circuit, the fact that there is some resistance in the circuit does not mean that there shouldn't be any current able to pass through. If the forces that give rise to life outweigh the forces that resist it, life will carry on. [/QUOTE]

Verification