Pascal's Wager Argument

[JDaniel]

Ranklyfrank

Sorry, this is what I meant.

Religion: not affiliated with a denomination

Doesn’t help to get a handle on where you are coming from. If you want to stay anonymous, that’s your business. But if you are not an atheist nor a Christian, it would help when dealing with you to get a handle on what you really are instead of having to guess.

I suspect you’re not going to get what you want . . . but, if you try sometime, you just might get . . . well, never mind.

God bless,
jd

 

[kbachler]

I dispute this. When I see that the preponderance of evidence supports one view, I do not make an explicit choice to believe that view. It happens automatically, at least in my mind.

That is a choice where you exercise your will. If it were always automatic, you’d basically be arguing that all you do is instinctive reasoning, like an animal.

 

[kbachler]

kbachler’s argument was that we all hold certain basic beliefs, even though we cannot know them to be true with 100% certainty. He then argues that since we believe them anyway, we must have made a conscious decision to believe, though I dispute this.

I argue that you made a decision to believe (not necessarily conscious) for ALL such decisions, and a conscious decision to believe for some decisions.

Don’t you ever decide to be skeptical? Do you ALWAYS just have a knee-jerk reaction to everything?

Question for you - place your finger on a computer key. Do you believe that your finger is touching it?

 

[JDaniel]

Sorry, the five ways has long been known to be flawed.

If there were proof of God, there would be no faith.

KB:

That, my friend, is a naked assertion. Care to provide bases for it?

God bless,
jd

 

[PRmerger]

I have, actually; it is your disorder that makes them appear not pertinent.

Well! I thought we had been having a rather nice, level-headed discussion, but I see that I have said something which has gotten under your skin.

The only thing which might have done this was my comment that you seem to have an inability to grasp analogies.

Judging by your out-of-proportion response to that, I can only conclude that this is not the first time you’ve heard that comment? Perhaps my saying it again was enough to take you over-the-edge of polite discourse. It rankled because, I surmise, it was true.

At any rate, after tonight I am going to submerge and fast from the CAFs during Lent.

I will be ready, renewed and re-freshed, to renew our dialogue after Easter.

 

[Ranklyfrank]

I don’t think he’s an ‘atheist’. Rather, I think he’s a-Christ. He has a concept of god, but, it is different from our Scripturally based concept, I believe.

God bless,
jd

No. Au contrair. Not “a-Christ,” and though it includes “your” scriptures, not based on those, but where those arose from. Originally.

 

[PRmerger]

Sorry, the five ways has long been known to be flawed.

If there were proof of God, there would be no faith.

I think you are mistaking scientific proofs for philosophic proofs, kbachler.

See this site by Catholic professor and philosopher extraordinaire, Peter Kreeft.

God exists, we can know that, we can give reasons, and those reasons amount to proof, but not scientific proof, except in an unusually broad sense.

 

[kbachler]

KB:

That, my friend, is a naked assertion. Care to provide bases for it?

God bless,
jd

OK. Do you know that 2+2 = 4? Or instead, do you have faith that 2+2 = 4?

 

[kbachler]

I think you are mistaking scientific proofs for philosophic proofs, kbachler.

See this site by Catholic professor and philosopher extraordinaire, Peter Kreeft.

God exists, we can know that, we can give reasons, and those reasons amount to proof, but not scientific proof, except in an unusually broad sense.

I’m sorry, I’m not making that mistake. A “philosophic proof” still follows the laws of logic. (And yes, though not recently, I have taught college logic courses, including material from Aristotle through Boole, Frege and Russell). A proof has a form through which we can tell that the conclusion is true if the premises are true.

Inductive arguments give a degree of cogence, not of proof. Scientific proof still involves a degree of belief of certain basic principles at the least (see the excellent book “Personal Knowledge” by Polyani).

There is no proof of God. Moreover, if there were such a proof, it would likely be contradictory to the very purpose of the Christian faith.

 

[Ranklyfrank]

Well! I thought we had been having a rather nice, level-headed discussion, but I see that I have said something which has gotten under your skin.

No, not at all.

The only thing which might have done this was my comment that you seem to have an inability to grasp analogies.

Actually, I’m pretty good at that: English major, some small publications, formed literary club, Toastmasters, public speaking, forums and committees, etc.

Judging by your out-of-proportion response to that, I can only conclude that this is not the first time you’ve heard that comment? Perhaps my saying it again was enough to take you over-the-edge of polite discourse. It rankled because, I surmise, it was true.

Out of proportion? No, it was just an observation.

At any rate, after tonight I am going to submerge and fast from the CAFs during Lent.

I will be ready, renewed and re-freshed, to renew our dialogue after Easter.

Cool. Have a nice Lent.

 

[grannymh]

Why am I finding this thread rather strange?

 

[PRmerger]

There is no proof of God. Moreover, if there were such a proof, it would likely be contradictory to the very purpose of the Christian faith.

It’s true that there are no scientific proofs for God.

However, one can certainly prove God’s existence through philosophy, logic and reason.

Again, I refer you to Peter Kreeft’s site: Can You Prove God Exists?

(His answer, echoing the answers of the great Catholic theologians throughout history: a resounding YES!)

 

[kbachler]

It’s true that there are no scientific proofs for God.

However, one can certainly prove God’s existence through philosophy, logic and reason.

Again, I refer you to Peter Kreeft’s site: Can You Prove God Exists?

(His answer, echoing the answers of the great Catholic theologians throughout history: a resounding YES!)

Actually, you cannot prove the existence of God through philosophy, logic and reason. For one thing, its never been done. Every “claim” of the proof has significant issues with it, often simply assuming inadvertently assuming what it was to be proved.

 

[PRmerger]

Actually, I’m pretty good at that: English major, some small publications, formed literary club, Toastmasters, public speaking, forums and committees, etc.

Fair enough.

And just so we’re on the same page, you do understand this, right?

When someone provides an analogy such as
Christmas tree : ornament :: earlobe : earring

She is NOT saying that a Christmas tree is an earlobe, eh? They are analogs only.

And it would be an absurdity to counter with, “Oh, so you’re saying that an earlobe has to be watered, right?”

We’re on the same page here then?

 

[PRmerger]

Actually, you cannot prove the existence of God through philosophy, logic and reason. For one thing, its never been done. Every “claim” of the proof has significant issues with it, often simply assuming inadvertently assuming what it was to be proved.

Our late great pope, JPII, would disagree with you here, kbachler.

 

[Pieman333272]

If there were proof of God, there would be no faith.

Faith is steadfast belief regardless of evidence, not belief without proof.

 

[Ranklyfrank]

tonyrey

It’s a good stratagem for some one who wants to be invulnerable…

Right. A sniper is someone who wants to fire at you but doesn’t want you to be able to fire back because you can’t see where he is.

Here’s the thing: I’ve done my homework. I was in the Church for decades and earned the highest marks in catechism from grammar through the end of high school and earned honors in that subject. I have, since leaving the Church continued to be in contact with Catholics including priest friends all my life. I know your side of the story quite well, thank you, because it was mine.

I have offered you the courtesy of providing a shot at understanding what I stand for and where I come from. So what you are saying in effect is that I’m a sniper because I question you as to your premises based on my experience with them but you won’t crack a cover and take a few hours to discover what cost me a lifetime to discover. You only want me to hand you an answer on a plate that is of no cost or consequence to you (you think) so you can summarily reject it with your rationalized dogmas because in your minds you think you already know the answer.

Here’s a Pascal’s wager for you: What if I’m right, and my experiential journey to understanding, through something that’s older than the Church and yet includes it, pierced some of the ideas that the Church holds as mysteries because it can’t publicly lose face? And you are staking your allegedly immortal soul on your assumption that I’m blowing hot air. And you are doing that despite the fact that my conclusion is already past Pascal’s wager because I know God IS, so you were calling me a materialist and atheist based on my analysis of a bet whose conclusion is already irrelevant to where I stand.

You can see why, Tonyrey and Charlemagne, I have the utmost of respect for you and your thought processes. Sniper? I’ve invited you to come into my yard to play, and you are scared to step through the gate.

 

[grannymh]

Actually, you cannot prove the existence of God through philosophy, logic and reason. For one thing, its never been done. Every “claim” of the proof has significant issues with it, often simply assuming inadvertently assuming what it was to be proved.

Does it make any difference if the Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition
first talks about knowing God…then something about "Man has this capacity because he is created ‘in the image of God.’ " ??? CCC 31-35, and following.

Looks to me like all this talk about proofs is the purview of the Ivory Tower crowd.

 

[kbachler]

Faith is steadfast belief regardless of evidence, not belief without proof.

Then astrologers have faith.

I’m sorry, I don’t believe in blind faith, and I don’t believe God requires or wants that from us. We were commanded to love God with all our heart, all our soul, all our strength, and all our mind, We weren’t commanded to believe in the tooth fairy.

 

[grannymh]

Then astrologers have faith.

I’m sorry, I don’t believe in blind faith, and I don’t believe God requires or wants that from us. We were commanded to love God with all our heart, all our soul, all our strength, and all our mind, We weren’t commanded to believe in the tooth fairy.

Did I miss the announcement? The tooth fairy is a god?
And how can any kind of faith be blind? Wouldn’t it be logical to know what one has faith in? Good grief. I wonder what it could possibly be that my faith in it prevents me from knowing it because it is blind.