Menu
Forum
General Car Audio
Subwoofers
Speakers
Amplifiers
Head Units
Car Audio Build Logs
Wiring, Electrical and Installation
Enclosure Design & Construction
Car Audio Classifieds
Home Audio
Off-topic Discussion
The Lounge
What's new
Search forums
Gallery
New media
New comments
Search media
Members
Registered members
Current visitors
Classifieds Member Feedback
SHOP
Shop Head Units
Shop Amplifiers
Shop Speakers
Shop Subwoofers
Shop eBay Car Audio
Log in / Register
Forum
Search
Search titles and first posts only
Search titles only
Search titles and first posts only
Search titles only
Log in / Join
What’s new
Search
Search titles and first posts only
Search titles only
Search titles and first posts only
Search titles only
General Car Audio
Subwoofers
Speakers
Amplifiers
Head Units
Car Audio Build Logs
Wiring, Electrical and Installation
Enclosure Design & Construction
Car Audio Classifieds
Home Audio
Off-topic Discussion
The Lounge
What's new
Search forums
Menu
Reply to thread
Forum
Off-topic Discussion
The Lounge
why that was nice
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Message
<blockquote data-quote="cotjones" data-source="post: 6156842" data-attributes="member: 573988"><p>This is my point:You are misinterpreting pascal's wager. It is not representing a choice between the only possible outcomes, but between the most likely possible outcomes. The definition of the best possible outcomes are the choices which are established possibilities resultant from sources other than skeptic rhetoric. (IE: it doesn't address choices that are considered from pure skepticism.) You are arguing in a circle. The same process of thought that allows you to trust that your chair will hold your weight is the process of thought that makes pascal's wager valid.</p><p></p><p>To further illustrate, Saying: "well i shouldn't trust the chair because aliens might exist who purposely mimic chairs that aren't there as a practical joke, or it might be infested with termites." ... these are skeptic arguments rooted in nothing but the possibility they are true, just like the alternative outcomes you posited besides those pascal's wager addresses.</p><p></p><p></p><p>I'm not. it's just hard to properly illustrate. It boils down to likelihood. Find the biggest most intricate book in your sight. could this item be created out of chance or natural circumstances? If you were to mine the entire galaxy, do you think you could find an item identical to that one which occurred naturally or more accurately (by chance.)?</p><p></p><p> And thus thousands of years of historically backed religious text, millions of followers, martyrs, and crusaders. does not present even remotely equivocal evidence to merit the possibility of a god likely? when all you had to do to believe the chair was strong was plop ur *** down 1 time? It strains a matter of personal choice in my opinion. You have as much evidence of god as you do everything else you believe.</p><p>I wasn't trying to connect the arguments but add to it by saying that things are never what we accept them to be in order to feign understanding. So saying that an item is not irreducibly complex is neither here nor there. While a real world example of irreducible complexity might not be discovered, the logic and possibility behind the argument remains.</p><p></p><p> Like i said above you have no true positive evidence. basic math and science proofs function by attempting to prove a problem wrong. because its the only way to truly prove something right</p><p></p><p>Exactly, follow me here! So we agree that:</p><p></p><p>forces contributing to the continuing of life &gt; the forces opposing life.</p><p></p><p>right?</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="cotjones, post: 6156842, member: 573988"] This is my point:You are misinterpreting pascal's wager. It is not representing a choice between the only possible outcomes, but between the most likely possible outcomes. The definition of the best possible outcomes are the choices which are established possibilities resultant from sources other than skeptic rhetoric. (IE: it doesn't address choices that are considered from pure skepticism.) You are arguing in a circle. The same process of thought that allows you to trust that your chair will hold your weight is the process of thought that makes pascal's wager valid. To further illustrate, Saying: "well i shouldn't trust the chair because aliens might exist who purposely mimic chairs that aren't there as a practical joke, or it might be infested with termites." ... these are skeptic arguments rooted in nothing but the possibility they are true, just like the alternative outcomes you posited besides those pascal's wager addresses. I'm not. it's just hard to properly illustrate. It boils down to likelihood. Find the biggest most intricate book in your sight. could this item be created out of chance or natural circumstances? If you were to mine the entire galaxy, do you think you could find an item identical to that one which occurred naturally or more accurately (by chance.)? And thus thousands of years of historically backed religious text, millions of followers, martyrs, and crusaders. does not present even remotely equivocal evidence to merit the possibility of a god likely? when all you had to do to believe the chair was strong was plop ur *** down 1 time? It strains a matter of personal choice in my opinion. You have as much evidence of god as you do everything else you believe. I wasn't trying to connect the arguments but add to it by saying that things are never what we accept them to be in order to feign understanding. So saying that an item is not irreducibly complex is neither here nor there. While a real world example of irreducible complexity might not be discovered, the logic and possibility behind the argument remains. Like i said above you have no true positive evidence. basic math and science proofs function by attempting to prove a problem wrong. because its the only way to truly prove something right Exactly, follow me here! So we agree that: forces contributing to the continuing of life > the forces opposing life. right? [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forum
Off-topic Discussion
The Lounge
why that was nice
Top
Menu
What's new
Forum list
