Ah my favourite subject... the fallout should be quite comical, but yeah I think I might pick up the book to check out what his line of reasoning entails, suspect it might boil down to LaPlace's "no need for that hypothesis".
however, the attention-grabbing headline has worked on me and has sold another book, so whatever the outcome, he's a clever guy - either at physics or marketing!
According to Radio 4, Hawking says that known physical laws and equations can explain the formation of the universe, so there is no need for a creator.
That is not quite the same as there being no creator. One could suppose that the creator set up the laws in order to start and run the universe.
Personally I was under the impression that there is still enough about the universe we don't understand, like dark matter, that it is premature to say we have solved it. However Professor Hawking has much better qualifications in the matter than I do.
Spontaneous Creation is definitely real. Why, just the other day I walked into my kitchen and a fully baked cake was just sitting on my oven. All the ingredients were there, it was inevitable that it would happen...
The topic title so needs to be a film. Preferably one in which Jesus descends from heaven, restores Hawking's mobility, and then challenges him to mortal combat. Then follows an epic battle to determine the origin of the universe.
The Dreadnote wrote:The topic title so needs to be a film. Preferably one in which Jesus descends from heaven, restores Hawking's mobility, and then challenges him to mortal combat. Then follows an epic battle to determine the origin of the universe.
Kilkrazy wrote:According to Radio 4, Hawking says that known physical laws and equations can explain the formation of the universe, so there is no need for a creator.
Gotta disagree there... String Theory is soooooo not convincing to me. Not saying that it was an all powerful deity that did it, but string theory is based on just as much blind acceptance of the unprovable as any church. God = Dark Matter in this case.
Supersymmetry, for example, isn't even proven to be real but hey it makes the equations balance so that's what we'll use! I'm hoping this LHC turns everything on it's ear, from a scientific standpoint that is. I'm not rooting for strangelets.
Kilkrazy wrote:According to Radio 4, Hawking says that known physical laws and equations can explain the formation of the universe, so there is no need for a creator.
Gotta disagree there... String Theory is soooooo not convincing to me. Not saying that it was an all powerful deity that did it, but string theory is based on just as much blind acceptance of the unprovable as any church. God = Dark Matter in this case.
Supersymmetry, for example, isn't even proven to be real but hey it makes the equations balance so that's what we'll use! I'm hoping this LHC turns everything on it's ear, from a scientific standpoint that is. I'm not rooting for strangelets.
I have to agree to some point on Hawkings being more over rated then anythinng. I watched a documentary(probably the same one lol) on how he solved his biggest mistake by basically saying he was sorta right, and his biggest rival was totally wrong because in the multiverse information never disappears in all universes, therefore a blackhole CAN destroy information in one universe.
And personally I watched that damn thing for like 1 or 2 hours, and when they finally came to that at the end I was a bit annoyed. That seemed like such a cop out. Im not saying he is right or wrong, because the guys IQ is probably 4 times mine, but it just seemed like a HAHA! Beat that before I die!
But yea, also agreeing on we dont yet know THAT MUCH to just come out and say yea a creator is so totally fake. Its almost like that cat in a box that will randomly die. If you are not allowed to look inside and see if the cat is alive or dead, you actually can safely assume that it is BOTH alive and dead. Since we only know so much right now, we cant just up and say yea we are all accidents with no divine help at all.
Kilkrazy wrote:According to Radio 4, Hawking says that known physical laws and equations can explain the formation of the universe, so there is no need for a creator.
Gotta disagree there... String Theory is soooooo not convincing to me. Not saying that it was an all powerful deity that did it, but string theory is based on just as much blind acceptance of the unprovable as any church. God = Dark Matter in this case.
Supersymmetry, for example, isn't even proven to be real but hey it makes the equations balance so that's what we'll use! I'm hoping this LHC turns everything on it's ear, from a scientific standpoint that is. I'm not rooting for strangelets.
I didn't think hawking was in the string camp.
I'm pretty sure all of the math for cosmology involves string theory in one way or another. That's why I think that the paradigm shift that could come from the findings in the LHC are so exciting.
I know the internet is a place of needless bitteness and spite, but ill tell you guys what i like.
I like it when internet intellectualls who are usually either still in school/college or working in a field that isnt Science (or even if they are, have not yet broke any major ground in the field) insult some of the worlds most well known Scientists.
Seriously, its awesome.
Stephen Hawking...
1975 Eddington Medal
1976 Hughes Medal of the Royal Society
1979 Albert Einstein Medal
1981 Franklin Medal
1982 Order of the British Empire (Commander)
1985 Gold Medal of the Royal Astronomical Society
1986 Member of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences
1988 Wolf Prize in Physics
1989 Prince of Asturias Awards in Concord
1989 Companion of Honour
1999 Julius Edgar Lilienfeld Prize of the American Physical Society
2003 Michelson Morley Award of Case Western Reserve University
2006 Copley Medal of the Royal Society
2008 Fonseca Price of the University of Santiago de Compostela
and by no means least..
2009 Presidential Medal of Freedom, the highest civilian honour in the United States.
Is overated because some dude on the internet said so?
Awesome.
Overated how?
It reminds me of Shuma (still in college) calling Richard - Zoological Society of London Silver Medal (1989), Finlay innovation award (1990), the Michael Faraday Award (1990), the Nakayama Prize (1994), the American Humanist Association's Humanist of the Year Award (1996), the fifth International Cosmos Prize (1997), the Kistler Prize (2001), the Medal of the Presidency of the Italian Republic (2001), the Bicentennial Kelvin Medal of The Royal Philosophical Society of Glasgow (2002) and the Nierenberg Prize for Science in the Public Interest (2009) Dawkins an idiot as well.
Dawkins, listed by Time magazine as one of the 100 most influential people in the world in 2007, the man who coined the term meme, the man who wrote "The Selfish Gene" a world reknowned book on the subject, when he was only 35.
He is an idiot as well.
When you guys are known all around the globe for your Scientific works, then you can engage them in a debate with some credibility and explain why you think you are smarter than them.
Im well aware that its the same physically as well, and that the average internet tough guy who has "boxed a fex times with a mate" will happily boast that "Mayweather has sloppy technique" or "Manny Pacquiao leads with his chin" or whatever but...
Come on, dont you lot understand the relatively simple presmise that when you say "im awesome" all the time people will think your a douche?
Sorry. I forgot how defensive UK folks are about Hawking. It must have been hard sitting on the side lines while the US and Russia developed their space programs. You know, space shuttles and space stations while you guys were working on your... oh. Right. Nothing. Nevermind. You guys need to feel smart, too.
I can approach this as an outsider. I grew up in a private christian school so guess how much science I learned? Yeah, thanks for that guys. Thankfully my mind is a lot more open than it used to be and I like to hear what everyone thinks as I'm a little undecided at the moment. I have a strong perception, and I know plenty of others who agree with me, that the more known a scientist gets, the more douchey they get. We've heard that egg whites are good, egg whites are bad, only the yolk is good, no, wait, the yolk causes cancer. Need I get started on global warming? I remember reading the same day articles from two universities that were complaining that we were all screwed because of global warming and another that said nearly the same thing but because of global cooling. At some point the "common man" has to sit back and wonder if these people aren't just full of crap completely. When I can hear them make statements that they take as true despite me and a good chunk of the world not being sure, I don't need to hear anything else they have to say. Scientists often get a rep that's not much better than television ministers; they both spew their crap really loudly and point and laugh when someone else is "wrong." I dunno. If I were as pretty as Stephen Hawking no doubt I wouldn't believe there is a god
kronk wrote:Sorry. I forgot how defensive UK folks are about Hawking. It must have been hard sitting on the side lines while the US and Russia developed their space programs. You know, space shuttles and space stations while you guys were working on your... oh. Right. Nothing. Nevermind. You guys need to feel smart, too.
Sorry I pissed on your one shiney thing.
If you missed my last thousand posts, im a pretty confident bloke, i dont try to be an internet intellectual, and anyone with a fully functioning brain doesnt feel the need to leech off the achievments of others to validate themselves. Nationilism is true idiocy.
As a result, i care little for what Hawking achieves, whats that got to do with me? I was merely pointing out that a bloke like you with no big credentials slating someone as well known as him makes you look needlessly spiteful and childish.
I wont even mention any of "Britains" achievments over the years to refute your absurd statement, because none of it had anything to do with me, so what do i care?
Some other guys developed space programmes, what did you do?
Oh and i know chickenhawks like you love to mention world war two as well, so ill just get this in quickly as well.
Some other guys went to Normandy on D day. It wasnt you.
You personally didnt do anything, you just make nationalistic statements because you need to feel better. You never contributed to a space programme, stomped the nazi's or cured TB.
I dont feel the need to be "American" because it doesnt mean anything. My missus is American, she doesnt feel that means she can take credit for some guy who was born 1000 miles away from her house inventing the lightbulb (he didnt)
I care nothing for patrotism, really.. its just.. pointless. I shall merely be conent with knowing that i personally am better looking than you, my brain is clearly (see your last post) functioning more efficiently, my missus is way hotter than yours, and my own life is awesome.
I guess I can call a case-in-point as the scientific pissing contest breaks out :/ Save that stuff for the "irrational" debates and be more objective if you're trying to be science-y. Does it matter what country a scientist is from, or that he made something cool?
mattyrm wrote:
When you guys are known all around the globe for your Scientific works, then you can engage them in a debate with some credibility and explain why you think you are smarter than them.
Surely it's possible that occasionally someone knows what they're talking about?
I wouldn't try to "debate" Stephen Hawking, but I've read enough to consider myself able to at least converse about these things.
Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:I guess I can call a case-in-point as the scientific pissing contest breaks out :/ Save that stuff for the "irrational" debates and be more objective if you're trying to be science-y. Does it matter what country a scientist is from, or that he made something cool?
Of course it doesnt matter what country someone who achieves anything at all is from. It doesnt matter what country anybody who does anything is from ever! That was my point, what difference does it make? If a man is born and the geographical location is closer to the house i own than yours, how does that make anybody with any sense feel better about themselves?
My point was that i find if laughable that people far less qualified mock Scientists without giving a good reason as to why.
It was Kronk that brought nationality into it like it actually matters in any possible way. Ted Bundy just happened to be American.... er.. fill the rest in for my Kronk, i really dont understand what you were trying to say.
Kilkrazy wrote:According to Radio 4, Hawking says that known physical laws and equations can explain the formation of the universe, so there is no need for a creator.
Gotta disagree there... String Theory is soooooo not convincing to me. Not saying that it was an all powerful deity that did it, but string theory is based on just as much blind acceptance of the unprovable as any church. God = Dark Matter in this case.
Supersymmetry, for example, isn't even proven to be real but hey it makes the equations balance so that's what we'll use! I'm hoping this LHC turns everything on it's ear, from a scientific standpoint that is. I'm not rooting for strangelets.
Certain reactions in Chemistry require a "steering factor" to make them come out mathematically.
kronk wrote:Sorry. I forgot how defensive UK folks are about Hawking. It must have been hard sitting on the side lines while the US and Russia developed their space programs. You know, space shuttles and space stations while you guys were working on your... oh. Right. Nothing. Nevermind. You guys need to feel smart, too.
I just realised something...now I might be a little slow here, so apologies if this is a bit of a 'duh' moment....
But for those who seek to discredit Darwin's theory in the name of Religion, how would doing so validate their own belief in a divine creator of all things?
Just struck me that we often think of this as terribly black and white, in which one side is wrong, and the other irrefutably correct??
Are there other theories of creation beyond the Darwin and Religious?
Mr Mystery wrote:I just realised something...now I might be a little slow here, so apologies if this is a bit of a 'duh' moment....
But for those who seek to discredit Darwin's theory in the name of Religion, how would doing so validate their own belief in a divine creator of all things?
Just struck me that we often think of this as terribly black and white, in which one side is wrong, and the other irrefutably correct??
Are there other theories of creation beyond the Darwin and Religious?
Well I believe there is a Native American belief that claims we all just jumped out of a big hole one day.
In other news, scientists are human, can occasionally be wrong. Hawking will occasionally make mistakes. Hell, Einstein... ah gak, I think he didn't like the math that said the universe was expanding so he invented a constant to make it static. I can be and probably am wrong on the specifics but the point is that even the most brilliant minds in the world can occasionally be wrong, even in the face of logic. Also, they're human. Admitting you were wrong, especially publicly wrong, can be a blow to the ego (and not in a good way) so you might try to find ways to weasel out of being wrong. Incredibly smart people can also be as vapid as any of us so yeah, I can a bunch of scientists back biting Hawking because that damn media hound's writing another book.
Long story short, Hawking isn't overrated, he's just very very in the public eye which makes his mistakes more public and the jealous little bitches more vocal.
Hawking is, to my understanding, treated as somewhat of a joke among some physicists. Apparently he uses a lot of assumptions and pseudo-science to prove his theories correct. His arguments come down to "because I say so." That's my understanding of it of course. I'm not a Hawking expert.
He's more appreciated for being able to put complex things into laymen's terms so anyone with a brain can sort of get it.
I always find attempts to disprove god laughable. Anyone who believes in god always has the fallback "it's god" against any argument. I mean, after all, it's god! God can do anything Talk about a massive waste of time.
Mr Mystery wrote:I just realised something...now I might be a little slow here, so apologies if this is a bit of a 'duh' moment....
But for those who seek to discredit Darwin's theory in the name of Religion, how would doing so validate their own belief in a divine creator of all things?
Just struck me that we often think of this as terribly black and white, in which one side is wrong, and the other irrefutably correct??
Are there other theories of creation beyond the Darwin and Religious?
When they find the Hopi emergence tunnels it's all going to go to hell.
Mr Mystery wrote:I just realised something...now I might be a little slow here, so apologies if this is a bit of a 'duh' moment....
But for those who seek to discredit Darwin's theory in the name of Religion, how would doing so validate their own belief in a divine creator of all things?
Just struck me that we often think of this as terribly black and white, in which one side is wrong, and the other irrefutably correct??
Are there other theories of creation beyond the Darwin and Religious?
When they find the Hopi emergence tunnels it's all going to go to hell.
Neil Gaiman is awesome. Even in paraphrase.
That still basically falls under the religion category.
The Dreadnote wrote:The topic title so needs to be a film. Preferably one in which Jesus descends from heaven, restores Hawking's mobility, and then challenges him to mortal combat. Then follows an epic battle to determine the origin of the universe.
Mr Mystery wrote:I just realised something...now I might be a little slow here, so apologies if this is a bit of a 'duh' moment....
But for those who seek to discredit Darwin's theory in the name of Religion, how would doing so validate their own belief in a divine creator of all things?
Just struck me that we often think of this as terribly black and white, in which one side is wrong, and the other irrefutably correct??
Are there other theories of creation beyond the Darwin and Religious?
When they find the Hopi emergence tunnels it's all going to go to hell.
Neil Gaiman is awesome. Even in paraphrase.
That still basically falls under the religion category.
kronk wrote:Sorry. I forgot how defensive UK folks are about Hawking. It must have been hard sitting on the side lines while the US and Russia developed their space programs. You know, space shuttles and space stations while you guys were working on your... oh. Right. Nothing. Nevermind. You guys need to feel smart, too.
Sorry I pissed on your one shiney thing.
Really, that's all you can come back with? Hooray for such a Nationalistic viewpoint? It's not like the sciences need any type of nation state boundaries to prove one is better over the other.
I havent read what Professor Hawking has written so I wont attempt to comment on it, however Hawking is neither the first, nor will he be the last to claim there is no need for a God. At least Hawking has the integrity to not make his claims until he beleived it in his own mind. His previous works have been neutral on the subject, so if he thinks the Big Bang is inevitable he is saying something which is to him new. However personal certainty is no new development, I am no less certain that the Second Coming will occur, that says nothing new either.
As usual this will turn into a case of bad journalism when we can read the book.
In my understanding with only the preview of the book available, Hawking is saying that using modern Physics there is no need of a God to explain the Universe, the newspapers are reporting "Hawking says there is no God". Huge difference there.
Didn't he also say that ETs would probably be malevolent? If they ever show up, maybe they'll confirm or deny the hypothesis attached to his work via the media...
Personally, I think it's a shame that he is only concentrating on the material and ignoring the conscious, or spiritual side of mankind. And I don't mean Nick Foley.
LordofHats wrote:I always find attempts to disprove god laughable. Anyone who believes in god always has the fallback "it's god" against any argument. I mean, after all, it's god! God can do anything Talk about a massive waste of time.
No, the problem with trying to disprove God scientifically is that God is not a scientific concept. It's not a physical, testable, repeatable thing and therefore science is impotent in regards to the question of God's existence. It's a purely philosophical question.
Just to re-emphasise the point, Hawking does not claim he has disproved God. He simply says that the finger of God is not required as part of the physical laws which created and operate the universe.
Kilkrazy wrote:Just to re-emphasise the point, Hawking does not claim he has disproved God. He simply says that the finger of God is not required as part of the physical laws which created and operate the universe.
That does not rule out God per se.
And frankly, it's kind of ironic considering things like Dark Matter and Super Symmetry are just as much articles of faith as The Resurrection and The Assumption of Mary in my opinion.
mattyrm wrote:I know the internet is a place of needless bitteness and spite, but ill tell you guys what i like.
I like it when internet intellectualls who are usually either still in school/college or working in a field that isnt Science (or even if they are, have not yet broke any major ground in the field) insult some of the worlds most well known Scientists.
Seriously, its awesome.
Stephen Hawking...
1975 Eddington Medal
1976 Hughes Medal of the Royal Society
1979 Albert Einstein Medal
1981 Franklin Medal
1982 Order of the British Empire (Commander)
1985 Gold Medal of the Royal Astronomical Society
1986 Member of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences
1988 Wolf Prize in Physics
1989 Prince of Asturias Awards in Concord
1989 Companion of Honour
1999 Julius Edgar Lilienfeld Prize of the American Physical Society
2003 Michelson Morley Award of Case Western Reserve University
2006 Copley Medal of the Royal Society
2008 Fonseca Price of the University of Santiago de Compostela
and by no means least..
2009 Presidential Medal of Freedom, the highest civilian honour in the United States.
Is overated because some dude on the internet said so?
Awesome.
Overated how?
It reminds me of Shuma (still in college) calling Richard - Zoological Society of London Silver Medal (1989), Finlay innovation award (1990), the Michael Faraday Award (1990), the Nakayama Prize (1994), the American Humanist Association's Humanist of the Year Award (1996), the fifth International Cosmos Prize (1997), the Kistler Prize (2001), the Medal of the Presidency of the Italian Republic (2001), the Bicentennial Kelvin Medal of The Royal Philosophical Society of Glasgow (2002) and the Nierenberg Prize for Science in the Public Interest (2009) Dawkins an idiot as well.
Dawkins, listed by Time magazine as one of the 100 most influential people in the world in 2007, the man who coined the term meme, the man who wrote "The Selfish Gene" a world reknowned book on the subject, when he was only 35.
He is an idiot as well.
When you guys are known all around the globe for your Scientific works, then you can engage them in a debate with some credibility and explain why you think you are smarter than them.
Im well aware that its the same physically as well, and that the average internet tough guy who has "boxed a fex times with a mate" will happily boast that "Mayweather has sloppy technique" or "Manny Pacquiao leads with his chin" or whatever but...
Come on, dont you lot understand the relatively simple presmise that when you say "im awesome" all the time people will think your a douche?
That about sums it and sews up the thread win for Mat.
Monster Rain wrote:
And frankly, it's kind of ironic considering things like Dark Matter and Super Symmetry are just as much articles of faith as The Resurrection and The Assumption of Mary in my opinion.
The difference is that scientists are actively searching to prove or disprove those theories.
kronk wrote:Sorry. I forgot how defensive UK folks are about Hawking. It must have been hard sitting on the side lines while the US and Russia developed their space programs. You know, space shuttles and space stations while you guys were working on your... oh. Right. Nothing. Nevermind. You guys need to feel smart, too.
Sorry I pissed on your one shiney thing.
U.S. used a lot of scientists not originally from the U.S to head up the space program. Ever hear of Von Bruan?
mattyrm wrote:I know the internet is a place of needless bitteness and spite, but ill tell you guys what i like.
I like it when internet intellectualls who are usually either still in school/college or working in a field that isnt Science (or even if they are, have not yet broke any major ground in the field) insult some of the worlds most well known Scientists.
Seriously, its awesome.
Stephen Hawking...
1975 Eddington Medal
1976 Hughes Medal of the Royal Society
1979 Albert Einstein Medal
1981 Franklin Medal
1982 Order of the British Empire (Commander)
1985 Gold Medal of the Royal Astronomical Society
1986 Member of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences
1988 Wolf Prize in Physics
1989 Prince of Asturias Awards in Concord
1989 Companion of Honour
1999 Julius Edgar Lilienfeld Prize of the American Physical Society
2003 Michelson Morley Award of Case Western Reserve University
2006 Copley Medal of the Royal Society
2008 Fonseca Price of the University of Santiago de Compostela
and by no means least..
2009 Presidential Medal of Freedom, the highest civilian honour in the United States.
Is overated because some dude on the internet said so?
Awesome.
Overated how?
It reminds me of Shuma (still in college) calling Richard - Zoological Society of London Silver Medal (1989), Finlay innovation award (1990), the Michael Faraday Award (1990), the Nakayama Prize (1994), the American Humanist Association's Humanist of the Year Award (1996), the fifth International Cosmos Prize (1997), the Kistler Prize (2001), the Medal of the Presidency of the Italian Republic (2001), the Bicentennial Kelvin Medal of The Royal Philosophical Society of Glasgow (2002) and the Nierenberg Prize for Science in the Public Interest (2009) Dawkins an idiot as well.
Dawkins, listed by Time magazine as one of the 100 most influential people in the world in 2007, the man who coined the term meme, the man who wrote "The Selfish Gene" a world reknowned book on the subject, when he was only 35.
He is an idiot as well.
When you guys are known all around the globe for your Scientific works, then you can engage them in a debate with some credibility and explain why you think you are smarter than them.
Im well aware that its the same physically as well, and that the average internet tough guy who has "boxed a fex times with a mate" will happily boast that "Mayweather has sloppy technique" or "Manny Pacquiao leads with his chin" or whatever but...
Come on, dont you lot understand the relatively simple presmise that when you say "im awesome" all the time people will think your a douche?
That about sums it and sews up the thread win for Mat.
It don't mean gak. He's a physicist. He doesn't know how life started, any more than a physicist knows how to build a house.
As noted above, who the cares? If I'm wrong I haven't lost anything . If atheists are wrong, they are ed. And none of it, none of it, helps me buy my next cup of coffee.
Monster Rain wrote:
And frankly, it's kind of ironic considering things like Dark Matter and Super Symmetry are just as much articles of faith as The Resurrection and The Assumption of Mary in my opinion.
The difference is that scientists are actively searching to prove or disprove those theories.
Wouldn't it be fair to say that people that have faith require no proof, so that's not the best analogy to use?
Frazzled wrote:
Relapse wrote:
mattyrm wrote:I know the internet is a place of needless bitteness and spite, but ill tell you guys what i like.
I like it when internet intellectualls who are usually either still in school/college or working in a field that isnt Science (or even if they are, have not yet broke any major ground in the field) insult some of the worlds most well known Scientists.
Seriously, its awesome.
Stephen Hawking...
1975 Eddington Medal
1976 Hughes Medal of the Royal Society
1979 Albert Einstein Medal
1981 Franklin Medal
1982 Order of the British Empire (Commander)
1985 Gold Medal of the Royal Astronomical Society
1986 Member of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences
1988 Wolf Prize in Physics
1989 Prince of Asturias Awards in Concord
1989 Companion of Honour
1999 Julius Edgar Lilienfeld Prize of the American Physical Society
2003 Michelson Morley Award of Case Western Reserve University
2006 Copley Medal of the Royal Society
2008 Fonseca Price of the University of Santiago de Compostela
and by no means least..
2009 Presidential Medal of Freedom, the highest civilian honour in the United States.
Is overated because some dude on the internet said so?
Awesome.
Overated how?
It reminds me of Shuma (still in college) calling Richard - Zoological Society of London Silver Medal (1989), Finlay innovation award (1990), the Michael Faraday Award (1990), the Nakayama Prize (1994), the American Humanist Association's Humanist of the Year Award (1996), the fifth International Cosmos Prize (1997), the Kistler Prize (2001), the Medal of the Presidency of the Italian Republic (2001), the Bicentennial Kelvin Medal of The Royal Philosophical Society of Glasgow (2002) and the Nierenberg Prize for Science in the Public Interest (2009) Dawkins an idiot as well.
Dawkins, listed by Time magazine as one of the 100 most influential people in the world in 2007, the man who coined the term meme, the man who wrote "The Selfish Gene" a world reknowned book on the subject, when he was only 35.
He is an idiot as well.
When you guys are known all around the globe for your Scientific works, then you can engage them in a debate with some credibility and explain why you think you are smarter than them.
Im well aware that its the same physically as well, and that the average internet tough guy who has "boxed a fex times with a mate" will happily boast that "Mayweather has sloppy technique" or "Manny Pacquiao leads with his chin" or whatever but...
Come on, dont you lot understand the relatively simple presmise that when you say "im awesome" all the time people will think your a douche?
That about sums it and sews up the thread win for Mat.
It don't mean gak. He's a physicist. He doesn't know how life started, any more than a physicist knows how to build a house.
As noted above, who the cares? If I'm wrong I haven't lost anything . If atheists are wrong, they are ed. And none of it, none of it, helps me buy my next cup of coffee.
Frazzled wrote:
As noted above, who the cares? If I'm wrong I haven't lost anything . If atheists are wrong, they are ed.
Do you really think that God can't detect sincerity, Pascal?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Monster Rain wrote:
Wouldn't it be fair to say that people that have faith require no proof, so that's not the best analogy to use?
I'm not sure what you're trying to say.
However, I would say that the scientists do not have faith. They merely believe that they are correct, and so seek to prove, or disprove that belief. Men of faith seek neither.
Frazzled wrote: As noted above, who the cares? If I'm wrong I haven't lost anything . If atheists are wrong, they are ed.
Pascal's wager? - deeply unimpressive.
How so?
Doesn't take into account the possibility that both atheism and Catholicism are wrong, and the real gods are those of the ancient Egyptians. That's right, Genesis is wrong, the world came into being via an act of autofellatio. Have fun being eaten by Ammut!
Of course, that's wrong, too. The REAL creator is Eris, and her consort the Flying Spaghetti Monster. May you be touched by His noodly appendage. Ramen.
Frazzled wrote:
As noted above, who the cares? If I'm wrong I haven't lost anything . If atheists are wrong, they are ed.
Without even mentioning the several thousand religions in the world, i will merely say.... eh?
Why do you think religion is so prickly?
If it actually contained a modicum of sense, it wouldnt matter if i blasphemed, nobody would care, its truth could never be dimmed, it's pure light would shine through!
It wouldnt matter what people like me said. It would all be irrelevant. It would pale in the light of truth and fact and light!
If you slag off Man utd to a fan, they dont care if you say "they suck" or "they are gak" because they know otherwise. (they win lots)
Religion doesnt work like you would expect though. It aint confident.. It's ultra defensive, its ultra prickly. It NEEDS to be prone to getting "bashed" because it cant hide that after 2000 years to make a case there is nothing there. It cant stand up to scrutiny, its about as substantial as a merangue.
Im genuinelly stunned that a grown man (who i agree with 90% of the time) actually thinks that pascals wager is a decent argument when there has been several million religions over the years.
If "god" is Krishna, wont he like me more than you?
Ho hum, its been toned down by the Beeb. In the original the Jews, Christians, Hindus, Buddhists and Moslems were all in hell. 'The Trans-meditationalists were right.'
Frazzled wrote:It don't mean gak. He's a physicist. He doesn't know how life started, any more than a physicist knows how to build a house.
This isn't about the origin of life, this is about the origin of the universe, which is a subject that a physicist is very much qualified to discuss.
As noted above, who the cares? If I'm wrong I haven't lost anything . If atheists are wrong, they are ed. And none of it, none of it, helps me buy my next cup of coffee.
Pascal's wager is pretty much the epitome of the false dichotomy, yay for fallacious reasoning.
Mr Mystery wrote:But for those who seek to discredit Darwin's theory in the name of Religion, how would doing so validate their own belief in a divine creator of all things?
It wouldn't. All that would happen is that the Theory of Evolution (Via Natural Selection, blah blah blah) would be replaced with a more up to date version that fits the new evidence. Considering that the theory has been updated numerous times as new evidence comes to light, you'd think the creationists would figure out that it's not working. But then again, these are the people saying that bananas are proof of a kind and loving god, conveniently ignoring the pineapple, which is definite proof that, if there is a god, he hates us and wants us to die in the most painful fasion possible.
Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:I can approach this as an outsider. I grew up in a private christian school so guess how much science I learned?
Probably as much as I learned at public school.
mattyrm wrote:Stephen Hawking...
[long list of awards]
Is overated because some dude on the internet said so?
No, what people are saying is that many of Stephen Hawking's peers - that is, people who are professional physicists and mathematicians, highly esteemed in the field themselves - think that he's overrated. A genius certainly, but nonetheless an overrated one (which isn't too unusual when most of his detractors are geniuses as well).
Also, having a long list of awards doesn't make for very good evidence that a person isn't overrated. Logically, an overrated person would have more awards than they deserve.
Awesome.
Overated how?
Overrated in the sense that when Stephen Hawking makes a statement about something which is heavily contested amongst high-level physicists, those who disagree with him aren't given adequate consideration by the public/the media.
I should note that I don't actually know that he is overrated, I don't know enough about physics to say. It doesn't necessarily seem, however, an outrageous or presumptuous position to have.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Vene wrote:
As noted above, who the cares? If I'm wrong I haven't lost anything . If atheists are wrong, they are ed. And none of it, none of it, helps me buy my next cup of coffee.
Pascal's wager is pretty much the epitome of the false dichotomy, yay for fallacious reasoning.
A quick counter is just to make a wager of your own. Let's say that Baal may exist, rather than god, and while he likes atheists fine, he hates Christians (because the bible keeps bashing him), and will inflict infinite torment on them. Since we're ignoring the probability of either being existing, both Pascal's and Orkeo's wager should be taken into consideration equally, and both are rendered null.
(Or better yet, you could just declare that God likes atheists okay but hates people who say they believe in him just so they benefit from Pascal's wager.)
Frazzled wrote:
As noted above, who the cares? If I'm wrong I haven't lost anything . If atheists are wrong, they are ed.
Without even mentioning the several thousand religions in the world, i will merely say.... eh?
Why do you think religion is so prickly?
Here you are pushing all religion into one no less than Frazzie did. Are they all prickly? Is atheism any less prickly in your opinion?
mattyrm wrote:
If it actually contained a modicum of sense, it wouldnt matter if i blasphemed, nobody would care, its truth could never be dimmed, it's pure light would shine through!
It wouldnt matter what people like me said. It would all be irrelevant. It would pale in the light of truth and fact and light!
Perhaps this is true. I certainly beleive it is so.
mattyrm wrote:
Religion doesnt work like you would expect though. It aint confident.. It's ultra defensive, its ultra prickly. It NEEDS to be prone to getting "bashed" because it cant hide that after 2000 years to make a case there is nothing there. It cant stand up to scrutiny, its about as substantial as a merangue.
Depends on who you see. many religious people are confident. Ghandi is a good example. Also where do you get the 2000 years from unless you are honing in on Christianity. Matty, you are not being consistent if your argument against occams razor is to look at the diversity of faiths.
In any respect you are looking at the qualityies of God, though the qualityies of people. Of course lplenty of theists will get it out and out wrong, be hypocritical etc, that because we are all humans. You dont hear about the honest ones, the vast majorirty of priests and congragations who are not on the take or do not kiddie fiddle. However even they, us, have our rough edges.
People are prickly, not religions, its not usually religion that makes them prickly if they are, it's humanity that does that. Dissent, envy, greed and crime are part of the make up of man any societal group will attract some of the wrong people. Some more than others. Most fanatics are not true members of the faiths they agitate over, most but not all faiths have a beneficial core message. What drives people to evil is not the message or the God behind it but the application.
mattyrm wrote:
Im genuinelly stunned that a grown man (who i agree with 90% of the time) actually thinks that pascals wager is a decent argument when there has been several million religions over the years.
If "god" is Krishna, wont he like me more than you?
So Matty, do you think Pascals Wager is a 'childs' philosophy? If your wisdom exheeds that of Pascal should you not at least first show yourself to be wise.
As for claiming Krshna would honour you more, should you not embrace the ways of Buddha or Hindu before you can make that comment. Most religions (Catholics and to some extent Moslems might be an exception here) do not put a follower of a foreign faith on a lower value to one who rejects all faith, in general faith is looked at by testing for positive.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Vene wrote:
Frazzled wrote:It don't mean gak. He's a physicist. He doesn't know how life started, any more than a physicist knows how to build a house.
This isn't about the origin of life, this is about the origin of the universe, which is a subject that a physicist is very much qualified to discuss.
Actually I would question anyones 'qualification' to make comments on the origins of the universe, we can all discuss it though.
Vene wrote:
Pascal's wager is pretty much the epitome of the false dichotomy, yay for fallacious reasoning.
Care to back that up?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Orkeosaurus wrote:
mattyrm wrote:Stephen Hawking...
[long list of awards]
Is overated because some dude on the internet said so?
No, what people are saying is that many of Stephen Hawking's peers - that is, people who are professional physicists and mathematicians, highly esteemed in the field themselves - think that he's overrated. A genius certainly, but nonetheless an overrated one (which isn't too unusual when most of his detractors are geniuses as well).
Also, having a long list of awards doesn't make for very good evidence that a person isn't overrated. Logically, an overrated person would have more awards than they deserve.
Steven Hawking's greatest contriution is his eloquent challenge to preconceptions on disability. Steven Hawking says more for equal rights by not mentioing them than all the PC brigade do by howling together.
Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:I can approach this as an outsider. I grew up in a private christian school so guess how much science I learned?
Probably as much as I learned at public school.
mattyrm wrote:Stephen Hawking...
[long list of awards]
Is overated because some dude on the internet said so?
No, what people are saying is that many of Stephen Hawking's peers - that is, people who are professional physicists and mathematicians, highly esteemed in the field themselves - think that he's overrated. A genius certainly, but nonetheless an overrated one (which isn't too unusual when most of his detractors are geniuses as well).
Also, having a long list of awards doesn't make for very good evidence that a person isn't overrated. Logically, an overrated person would have more awards than they deserve.
Awesome.
Overated how?
Overrated in the sense that when Stephen Hawking makes a statement about something which is heavily contested amongst high-level physicists, those who disagree with him aren't given adequate consideration by the public/the media.
I should note that I don't actually know that he is overrated, I don't know enough about physics to say. It doesn't necessarily seem, however, an outrageous or presumptuous position to have.
That has nothing to do with Hawking or science, it is popular media at work.
Orlanth wrote:Steven Hawking's greatest contriution is his eloquent challenge to preconceptions on disability. Steven Hawking says more for equal rights by not mentioing them than all the PC brigade do by howling together.
True. I'd say he's also done a lot to increase the popularity of physics (and science/intellectual work in general) among the general population.
He's a ham, but I think there are definitely good things that come from it. I'd much rather see him in the spotlight than most celebrities.
Orlanth wrote:
Steven Hawking's greatest contriution is his eloquent challenge to preconceptions on disability. Steven Hawking says more for equal rights by not mentioing them than all the PC brigade do by howling together.
Well, that, and Hawking radiation.
Though there is an argument that he ascended to his position because of his unique personal qualities; ie. he got his job because he's disabled, not because he's the best physicist in the world.
Kilkrazy wrote:That has nothing to do with Hawking or science, it is popular media at work.
My understanding of the issue is that the physicists who are critical of Hawking in this context believe that it actually is the fault of Hawking, in part. Essentially, they say that Hawking very much enjoys his popularity, and tries to extend it to whatever degree he can, an activity that his rivals don't have as much of an interest in doing.
This is also what leads to him publishing books that laymen have an easier time reading. (And, once again, this may well be a good thing for the field. However, I can see why a person who contests Hawking's theories but has no interest in trying to reach out to people outside of the field may feel frustrated by Hawking, and consider him to be overrated.)
Orlanth wrote:Steven Hawking's greatest contriution is his eloquent challenge to preconceptions on disability. Steven Hawking says more for equal rights by not mentioing them than all the PC brigade do by howling together.
True. I'd say he's also done a lot to increase the popularity of physics (and science/intellectual work in general) among the general population.
I'd argue that that's his greatest achievement. The latest edition of A Brief History of Time is very well written, to the point that your average layman can probably understand it, and the man's pretty much the iconic physicist, barring Einstein.
Frazzled wrote:It don't mean gak. He's a physicist. He doesn't know how life started, any more than a physicist knows how to build a house.
This isn't about the origin of life, this is about the origin of the universe, which is a subject that a physicist is very much qualified to discuss.
Actually I would question anyones 'qualification' to make comments on the origins of the universe, we can all discuss it though.
Um, yeah, about that, we can bloody look back in time due to the speed of light. There's also predicted consequences of the big bang theory, things like how everything in the universe should be moving away from everything else (redshift) and there should also be a little thing called cosmic background radiation. Neither of these effects would make sense without the big bang. This isn't really a matter of discussion anymore, this is very solid physics.
Vene wrote:
Pascal's wager is pretty much the epitome of the false dichotomy, yay for fallacious reasoning.
Care to back that up?
Orkeosaurus wrote:A quick counter is just to make a wager of your own. Let's say that Baal may exist, rather than god, and while he likes atheists fine, he hates Christians (because the bible keeps bashing him), and will inflict infinite torment on them. Since we're ignoring the probability of either being existing, both Pascal's and Orkeo's wager should be taken into consideration equally, and both are rendered null.
(Or better yet, you could just declare that God likes atheists okay but hates people who say they believe in him just so they benefit from Pascal's wager.)
Basically, it assumes there are only two possibilities in a universe with infinite possibilities, as such, a false dichotomy.
Well there’s a grab bag of different topics to pick up on here.
I understood Hawking did some pretty good theoretical work on black holes back in the day.
It is pretty common for theoretical physicists and mathematicians to burn out in their 30s or early 40s. That shouldn’t tarnish the lustre of their record.
Popularising science is a good thing if good science is popularised.
From what I’ve heard, an awful lot more copies of A Brief History of Time were sold than read.
Applications for A Level sciences and degrees have been declining for years in the UK. They have been up in the past couple of years -- whether that has anything to do with Hawking I don’t know.
As for him being regarded as overrated by fellow scientists, since he can’t be rated by non-fellow-scientists if physicists think he is over-rated it is tautological that he isn’t.
If scientists who have absolutely no interest in general popularity think Hawking’s public profile is too high, they are probably lying about having no interest in popularity, and are just jealous.
Hawking is no oil painting, and has less charisma in his voice than Davros, the creator of the Daleks.
Orkeosaurus wrote:My understanding of the issue is that the physicists who are critical of Hawking in this context believe that it actually is the fault of Hawking, in part. Essentially, they say that Hawking very much enjoys his popularity, and tries to extend it to whatever degree he can, an activity that his rivals don't have as much of an interest in doing.
This is also what leads to him publishing books that laymen have an easier time reading. (And, once again, this may well be a good thing for the field. However, I can see why a person who contests Hawking's theories but has no interest in trying to reach out to people outside of the field may feel frustrated by Hawking, and consider him to be overrated.)
I think this a general criticism of any member of a technical field that writes for laymen. I know from first hand experience that there is a huge divide in the philosophical community regarding whether or not philosophy should be brought to the general public, and I also know that political scientists who write non-technical articles are looked down upon by many in the field.
Another, more specific, example is Sam Harris. He is, first and foremost, a polemicist, but he is also a neuroscientist. As a result, there are many prominent neuroscientists who frown upon his work; which is basically an attempt to prove that the religious mind is not a sane one.
Kilkrazy wrote:since he can’t be rated by non-fellow-scientists
How did you come to this conclusion?
if physicists think he is over-rated it is tautological that he isn’t
Even presupposing that only physicists can "rate" him, you're now equating some physicists with all physicists.
And do you actually believe that the physicists in question are incapable of elementary logic, and think that Hawking is simultaneously hated and loved by all of his peers?
Kilkrazy wrote:since he can’t be rated by non-fellow-scientists
How did you come to this conclusion?
if physicists think he is over-rated it is tautological that he isn’t
I'll echo this question in a more specific manner. How is it a tautology to suppose that Steven Hawking isn't overrated because some physicists think that he is?
Science and religion do not discredit one another, in my belief. Rather, science validates religion and religion also validates science.
The creation story is roughly centered around what would concievably happen in evolution. And genesis is centered around evolution, there being two humans to start the human race.
Doctadeth wrote:Science and religion do not discredit one another, in my belief. Rather, science validates religion and religion also validates science.
The creation story is roughly centered around what would concievably happen in evolution. And genesis is centered around evolution, there being two humans to start the human race.
As long as you read Genesis as a metaphor, this is true. It's when you start reading the bible (or any holy book, really) literally that you start running into problems. For instance, Genesis has two creation stories, which directly contradict each other. It also fails to hold true to basic scientific rigor, what with the universe being a paltry 6000 years old, and the fact that bats aren't birds.
There are also issues regarding the meaning of the word 'universe'. For example, theoretical physicists don't use it as laymen do; tending to reference all that is consistent with a given set of physical laws.
Doctadeth wrote:Science and religion do not discredit one another, in my belief. Rather, science validates religion and religion also validates science.
The creation story is roughly centered around what would concievably happen in evolution. And genesis is centered around evolution, there being two humans to start the human race.
As long as you read Genesis as a metaphor, this is true. It's when you start reading the bible (or any holy book, really) literally that you start running into problems. For instance, Genesis has two creation stories, which directly contradict each other. It also fails to hold true to basic scientific rigor, what with the universe being a paltry 6000 years old, and the fact that bats aren't birds.
To be fair, Genesis doesn't directly say that the universe is only 6000 years old. That number is just something that young earth creationists have hypothesized from putting together the list of ages and lineages in Genesis. And what's that bit about bats? What are you getting at with that? Bats aren't even mentioned, are they?
Doctadeth wrote:Science and religion do not discredit one another, in my belief. Rather, science validates religion and religion also validates science.
The creation story is roughly centered around what would concievably happen in evolution. And genesis is centered around evolution, there being two humans to start the human race.
As long as you read Genesis as a metaphor, this is true. It's when you start reading the bible (or any holy book, really) literally that you start running into problems. For instance, Genesis has two creation stories, which directly contradict each other. It also fails to hold true to basic scientific rigor, what with the universe being a paltry 6000 years old, and the fact that bats aren't birds.
To be fair, Genesis doesn't directly say that the universe is only 6000 years old. That number is just something that young earth creationists have hypothesized from putting together the list of ages and lineages in Genesis. And what's that bit about bats? What are you getting at with that? Bats aren't even mentioned, are they?
It's in Leviticus:
Leviticus 11:13-19:
"These, moreover, you shall detest among the birds; they are abhorrent, not to be eaten: the eagle and the vulture and the buzzard, 14and the kite and the falcon in its kind, 15every raven in its kind, 16 and the ostrich and the owl and the sea gull and the hawk in its kind, 17and the little owl and the cormorant and the great owl, 18and the white owl and the pelican and the carrion vulture, 19and the stork, the heron in its kinds, and the hoopoe, and the bat."
Personally, I love this bit from Genesis:
Genesis 30:30-39:
"Jacob, however, took fresh-cut branches from poplar, almond and plane trees and made white stripes on them by peeling the bark and exposing the white inner wood of the branches. 38 Then he placed the peeled branches in all the watering troughs, so that they would be directly in front of the flocks when they came to drink. When the flocks were in heat and came to drink, 39 they mated in front of the branches. And they bore young that were streaked or speckled or spotted."
Vene wrote:Personally, I love this bit from Genesis:
Genesis 30:30-39:
"Jacob, however, took fresh-cut branches from poplar, almond and plane trees and made white stripes on them by peeling the bark and exposing the white inner wood of the branches. 38 Then he placed the peeled branches in all the watering troughs, so that they would be directly in front of the flocks when they came to drink. When the flocks were in heat and came to drink, 39 they mated in front of the branches. And they bore young that were streaked or speckled or spotted."
My personal favorite has to be biblical cosmology. It is fun.
Doctadeth wrote:Science and religion do not discredit one another, in my belief. Rather, science validates religion and religion also validates science.
The creation story is roughly centered around what would concievably happen in evolution. And genesis is centered around evolution, there being two humans to start the human race.
As long as you read Genesis as a metaphor, this is true. It's when you start reading the bible (or any holy book, really) literally that you start running into problems. For instance, Genesis has two creation stories, which directly contradict each other. It also fails to hold true to basic scientific rigor, what with the universe being a paltry 6000 years old, and the fact that bats aren't birds.
To be fair, Genesis doesn't directly say that the universe is only 6000 years old. That number is just something that young earth creationists have hypothesized from putting together the list of ages and lineages in Genesis. And what's that bit about bats? What are you getting at with that? Bats aren't even mentioned, are they?
It's in Leviticus:
Leviticus 11:13-19:
"These, moreover, you shall detest among the birds; they are abhorrent, not to be eaten: the eagle and the vulture and the buzzard, 14and the kite and the falcon in its kind, 15every raven in its kind, 16 and the ostrich and the owl and the sea gull and the hawk in its kind, 17and the little owl and the cormorant and the great owl, 18and the white owl and the pelican and the carrion vulture, 19and the stork, the heron in its kinds, and the hoopoe, and the bat."
Personally, I love this bit from Genesis:
Genesis 30:30-39:
"Jacob, however, took fresh-cut branches from poplar, almond and plane trees and made white stripes on them by peeling the bark and exposing the white inner wood of the branches. 38 Then he placed the peeled branches in all the watering troughs, so that they would be directly in front of the flocks when they came to drink. When the flocks were in heat and came to drink, 39 they mated in front of the branches. And they bore young that were streaked or speckled or spotted."
Hah, that's pretty funny about bats in Leviticus. I don't personally really think it's that big of a problem though, or that it invalidates Christianity or something just because their system of animal classification wasn't as refined as the one we use today. And besides, the Bible isn't a scientific text, the truth is no one should really be looking to the Bible for answers to scientific questions.
"Bird" doesn't have any objective meaning. If a person defines a bird as a flying animal larger than a bug, then bats are birds. And this is pretending that the Hebrews were actually using the word "bird" in the first place, which they weren't. Same goes for the fish/whale debate with the story of Jonah.
The problem is one of translation or comprehension, not one of factual mistake.
Orkeosaurus wrote:"Bird" doesn't have any objective meaning. If a person defines a bird as a flying animal larger than a bug, then bats are birds. And this is pretending that the Hebrews were actually using the word "bird" in the first place, which they weren't. Same goes for the fish/whale debate with the story of Jonah.
The problem is one of translation or comprehension, not one of factual mistake.
I would consider this a critical point. The issue of translation is something that should be taken into account in any Bible-related discussion.
Orkeosaurus wrote:"Bird" doesn't have any objective meaning. If a person defines a bird as a flying animal larger than a bug, then bats are birds. And this is pretending that the Hebrews were actually using the word "bird" in the first place, which they weren't. Same goes for the fish/whale debate with the story of Jonah.
The problem is one of translation or comprehension, not one of factual mistake.
I would consider this a critical point. The issue of translation is something that should be taken into account in any Bible-related discussion.
Oh, it's not surprising a primitive desert-dwelling tribe, by itself, can't distinguish between bats and birds. It does break suspension of disbelief a bit when you realise that Leviticus, etc. are apparently the direct word of God, who probably ought to be able to tell the difference.
Still doesn't address Hebrew cosmology, of course, which is so gleefully wrong that it makes a geocentric model (complete with luminoferous aether) look good.
Orkeosaurus wrote:"Bird" doesn't have any objective meaning. If a person defines a bird as a flying animal larger than a bug, then bats are birds. And this is pretending that the Hebrews were actually using the word "bird" in the first place, which they weren't. Same goes for the fish/whale debate with the story of Jonah.
The problem is one of translation or comprehension, not one of factual mistake.
I would consider this a critical point. The issue of translation is something that should be taken into account in any Bible-related discussion.
Oh, it's not surprising a primitive desert-dwelling tribe, by itself, can't distinguish between bats and birds. It does break suspension of disbelief a bit when you realise that Leviticus, etc. are apparently the direct word of God, who probably ought to be able to tell the difference.
Still doesn't address Hebrew cosmology, of course, which is so gleefully wrong that it makes a geocentric model (complete with luminoferous aether) look good.
Why do you assume that God would use the same classification system that humans use anyway? The point of that part of Leviticus is what animals are unclean, and it's put into terms that someone who might know very little about science or whatever else could understand. Just because the information is put into simple terms doesn't mean or even imply that God couldn't tell the difference.
As to the Hebrew cosmology, I suppose it could possibly still be accurate, perhaps there's a firmament at the edge of the universe or something? I don't know. I think the bigger problem is trying to read everything completely literally when language that could be metaphorical is often used. I guess my answer to the picture you showed of Hebrew cosmology would be that the interpretation is too literal.
Why do you assume that God would use the same classification system that humans use anyway? The point of that part of Leviticus is what animals are unclean, and it's put into terms that someone who might know very little about science or whatever else could understand. Just because the information is put into simple terms doesn't mean or even imply that God couldn't tell the difference.
The phrase "need to know information" comes to mind
The Bibles long enough as it is without trying to intricately explain the universe down to the details. Besides, that would put quantum physicists out of work
Hebrew cosmology is not directly linked to the Torah. The Bible doesn't really cover all that much as far as how the Jewish people thought the universe was structured. Most of the beliefs held by jews at the time in regards to cosmology were the same as those of other groups in the middle east.
Hordini wrote:As to the Hebrew cosmology, I suppose it could possibly still be accurate, perhaps there's a firmament at the edge of the universe or something? I don't know. I think the bigger problem is trying to read everything completely literally when language that could be metaphorical is often used. I guess my answer to the picture you showed of Hebrew cosmology would be that the interpretation is too literal.
It's also what pretty much the entire region believed at the time. The Sumerians, for instance, had a world with a roof made of tin, and the Egyptians had a few different models over time, including a rather interesting one where the roof was the Goddess Nut. The Greeks had a similar worldview until around 1000 BC, IIRC, eventually shifting back to a geocentric model around 100 BC when the Romans kicked their asses. The Hindus were the closest to being right, although their spherical earth (7000 kilometers in diameter, amusingly) was encased in a metal heaven. Not too much cultural pollution there, as the Vedic tradition was a bit more geographically remote compared to Egypt, Sumeria, Greece, and the Zoroastrian tradition. Really, it's rather remarkable that the belief system of a small desert tribe like the Hebrews managed to become one of the world's dominant mythologies.
There's a couple pretty good dissections of the topic online, this one being a bit more accessable to your average layman, and this one digging deep into contemporary interviews with Rabbis and a nice dissection of ancient Hebrew for a great look at what the ancient Israelites actually believed.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
LordofHats wrote:Hebrew cosmology is not directly linked to the Torah. The Bible doesn't really cover all that much as far as how the Jewish people thought the universe was structured. Most of the beliefs held by jews at the time in regards to cosmology were the same as those of other groups in the middle east.
While Genesis doesn't paint an entirely explicit picture, references to the vaults of heaven, the pillars of heaven, the waters above and below, Sheol, etc. are found throughout the Torah. Most of it fails to make much sense unless read in the context of Hebrew cosmology.
It's also what pretty much the entire region believed at the time.
I don't understand the relevance. Cosmology was of little interest to Hebrew religious faith (hence it's near absolute absence from the Torah). About the only part of it that religiously mattered was "There's the universe. God made it."
Don't confuse the cosmology with religious belief. Just because a group believed in something doesn't mean it was a tenant of other beliefs they held. Hebrew religion was and still is more concerned with proper living than anything else.
While Genesis doesn't paint an entirely explicit picture, references to the vaults of heaven, the pillars of heaven, the waters above and below, Sheol, etc. are found throughout the Torah. Most of it fails to make much sense unless read in the context of Hebrew cosmology.
Were these of religious significance, or is their presence merely explained by that Jews believed in this structure of the universe? Cosmology is not synonymous with religion in this case. If it really mattered it would have had a larger presence in the Torah than passing reference.
Really, it's rather remarkable that the belief system of a small desert tribe like the Hebrews managed to become one of the world's dominant mythologies.
Blame the Roman Empire, it's collapse, a very charismatic man named Jesus, and early Christian ingenuity
LordofHats wrote:I don't understand the relevance. Cosmology was of little interest to Hebrew religious faith (hence it's near absolute absence from the Torah). About the only part of it that religiously mattered was "There's the universe. God made it."
Don't confuse the cosmology with religious belief. Just because a group believed in something doesn't mean it was a tenant of other beliefs they held. Hebrew religion was and still is more concerned with proper living than anything else.
It was quite important to the early Hebrews, it's just that, unlike their creation myths and lineage, they shared a cosmology with other local tribes, and declined to mention its existence as it was considered common knowledge. One only has to look at Psalms and Deuteronomy to find dozens of references to classical Hebrew cosmology. Proper living is, of course, very important to any religion, but it doesn't completely invalidate their creation myths. Mind you, "proper living" has evolved considerably since the Torah was codified, with a hell of a lot less emphasis put on most of Leviticus's commandments (see: stoning gays, forcing women to marry their rapists, and murdering unbelievers in their sleep) and the primary emphasis put on Exodus instead.
Laughing Man wrote:It was quite important to the early Hebrews, it's just that, unlike their creation myths and lineage, they shared a cosmology with other local tribes, and declined to mention its existence as it was considered common knowledge.
When something is of key religious importance it is usually codified. You see it in virtually all religions. If the cosmology of the universe was essential to Hebrew religion, it would have been codified in religious texts. That it was not, and rather is only referenced in passing, suggests that while it may of mattered to the culture, it didn't really matter to the religion. Hebrew cosmology was codified in other non-religious texts. Saying Hebrew cosmology is part of religious belief is similar to saying their folk lore was part of their religious belief, when it is very clear it was not.
The ancient Hebrews were a rather organized bunch when it came to writing things down. They codified things differently based on what it meant to them. That cosmology is not a major focus of Hebrew religious texts is rather telling as to its importance in that area.
Proper living is, of course, very important to any religion, but it doesn't completely invalidate their creation myths. Mind you, "proper living" has evolved considerably since the Torah was codified, with a hell of a lot less emphasis put on most of Leviticus's commandments (see: stoning gays, forcing women to marry their rapists, and murdering unbelievers in their sleep) and the primary emphasis put on Exodus instead.
I don't seek to invalidate them. I merely challenge the notion that Hebrew cosmology was vital to hebrew religion.
Proper living is important to any religion, but it was the primary focus of Hebrew religion. You'll notice in both the Torah and the Old Testament that Jewish religion wasn't as concerned with the afterlife, cosmology, nature, or even the nature of God. Rather it was heavily focused on Jewish history, morality, and law (in contrast to Christian faith for example, which is more heavily focused on the afterlife, spiritual salvation, and the nature of god).
I don't seek to invalidate them. I merely challenge the notion that Hebrew cosmology was vital to hebrew religion.
Perhaps vital is the wrong word, at least, vital to the religion. It is, however, key in correctly interpreting most of Hebrew mythology. For instance, Gen 1:6-7 makes little sense if taken in context of the real universe, but is perfectly logical if you're looking at a universe where the world is surrounded by water on (literally) all sides.
I will, of course, agree with you that obeying the Law was (and still is) far more important to your average Jew than the precise design of the universe.
Orlanth wrote:
Actually I would question anyones 'qualification' to make comments on the origins of the universe, we can all discuss it though.
Um, yeah, about that, we can bloody look back in time due to the speed of light. There's also predicted consequences of the big bang theory, things like how everything in the universe should be moving away from everything else (redshift) and there should also be a little thing called cosmic background radiation. Neither of these effects would make sense without the big bang. This isn't really a matter of discussion anymore, this is very solid physics.
We can see up to but not beyond, noone can claim to be qualified to look beyond. To his credit Hawking doesnt make that claim, or even for the first instances of the big bang.
My beef is not with him but people who claim he says he is qualified to defintively state there was no God at the origin of the universe, something he doesnt appear to claim himself.
Vene wrote:
Basically, it assumes there are only two possibilities in a universe with infinite possibilities, as such, a false dichotomy.
A boolean choice, the universe may have infinite possibilities, some questions don't. How would this go down:
'Mr Vene, how do you plead. Guilty or not guilty?'
'Sorry judge I live in a universe of infinite possibiities....'
Vene wrote:
As long as you read Genesis as a metaphor, this is true. It's when you start reading the bible (or any holy book, really) literally that you start running into problems. For instance, Genesis has two creation stories, which directly contradict each other. It also fails to hold true to basic scientific rigor, what with the universe being a paltry 6000 years old, and the fact that bats aren't birds.
It's in Leviticus:
Leviticus 11:13-19:
"These, moreover, you shall detest among the birds; they are abhorrent, not to be eaten: the eagle and the vulture and the buzzard, 14and the kite and the falcon in its kind, 15every raven in its kind, 16 and the ostrich and the owl and the sea gull and the hawk in its kind, 17and the little owl and the cormorant and the great owl, 18and the white owl and the pelican and the carrion vulture, 19and the stork, the heron in its kinds, and the hoopoe, and the bat."
Whats wrong with that? The Bible predates the Linnean system. The ancient definition of bird 'is it flies and isnt a bug'. It's not even unscientific as its consistent within its own time. Linneus reclassified various animals, but that doesnt change their integral nature. In fact the food laws in Leviticus arent challenged as 'a point of science' by anyone with scientific credibility. The food laws are there because of problems with food preservation and the make up of the meat, as a health guide Kosher/Halal makes a lot of sense. You shouldnt eat pork in a hot climate without refrigeration technology, or many types of bird or bats for that matter.
I just glanced through the article, but am I the only one who doesn't think he was making any sort of statement of atheism, but was rather saying that the creation of the universe as described by the collections of observation and theory we refer to as physics does not *require* a deity or creator?
I don't know what he is going to say in his book, but I didn't see any statement to the effect of " There is no God or gods" by Stephen Hawking in that particular three paragraph news blurb.
Also, as far the discrepancy between what the hebrew bible considers fish or animal or whatever; I agree with Orlath that the dietary laws predate Linnaeus and don't really have anything to do with the modern concept of a species. After all, the Linnaeus classification is nothing more than a model which explains observable, repeatable empirical data in terms that humans can understand. It works, but partly it works because what we describe as Aves means, by definition, that those creatures that share characteristics we have observed are something we call birds, and those creatures that do not share those characteristics are "not bird". There is no reason to call them birds, other than that is a model that we use in science to describe nature. There is nothing that has inherent "birdness", it is just a name we apply to those creatures who are observed to possess a (human defined) set of characteristics.
Scientific models are just that, they're human understandable models that are applied to something that is fundamentally unknowable. To give something I'm more familiar with, we'll never see how the electronic environment surrounding one molecule or atom interacts with another molecule or atom to (what we arbitrarily have named) begin a chemical reaction. This is something that is completely foreign to human experience. Therefore, we make a model to describe what is occuring, and one of the best models is called molecular orbital theory. It can describe very well what is observed to occur, and it can be described quite accurately with mathematics ( Although those mathematical solutions are approximate for all but the simplest systems, i.e. different variations of one electron and one proton). It is a model though, it isn't *reality*.
Vene wrote:
Basically, it assumes there are only two possibilities in a universe with infinite possibilities, as such, a false dichotomy.
A boolean choice, the universe may have infinite possibilities, some questions don't. How would this go down:
'Mr Vene, how do you plead. Guilty or not guilty?'
'Sorry judge I live in a universe of infinite possibiities....'
But then it's not a false dichotomy, in this situation there really are only two possibilities, for Pascal's Wager, however, there's a lot more options that are ignored, which is why it is fallacious.
Whats wrong with that? The Bible predates the Linnean system. The ancient definition of bird 'is it flies and isnt a bug'. It's not even unscientific as its consistent within its own time. Linneus reclassified various animals, but that doesnt change their integral nature. In fact the food laws in Leviticus arent challenged as 'a point of science' by anyone with scientific credibility. The food laws are there because of problems with food preservation and the make up of the meat, as a health guide Kosher/Halal makes a lot of sense. You shouldnt eat pork in a hot climate without refrigeration technology, or many types of bird or bats for that matter.
Personally, I don't care about the classification aspect, due to the reason you cited, I was merely pointing out where it is stated in the Bible. And the Genesis quote is a personal favorite of mine due to genetics fail.
Grignard wrote:I just glanced through the article, but am I the only one who doesn't think he was making any sort of statement of atheism, but was rather saying that the creation of the universe as described by the collections of observation and theory we refer to as physics does not *require* a deity or creator?
I don't know what he is going to say in his book, but I didn't see any statement to the effect of " There is no God or gods" by Stephen Hawking in that particular three paragraph news blurb.
Hawking is actually a self described Agnostic (open to the idea... but doesn't believe due to lack of evidence) .... and the Blurb is meant to sell the book
As far as pascals wager.... I'm sure people realize that... if you don't truly believe and there turns out to be a god... he most likely will know you faked it.... and yea you're screwed... so you may as well profess Non-belief : )
I really love that people in this thread that were so outraged at the idea of Hawking being criticised were so happy to criticise Pascal. After all, he was one of the most important figures in the creation of probability theory. We can recognise this while also recognising that Pascal's Wager is a bit silly.
I'm not a physicist, I watch documentaries on the telly every once in a while and that's about it, and once they get onto the tricky stuff I'm basically reduced to staring at images of CGI wobbly string. As I understand it, when people talk about Hawkins being overrated, what they mean is that he, like a person like Einstein before him, is basically the pre-eminent face of physics, and probably the most recognised living scientist. Thing is, Einstein was pre-eminent in his field, whereas Hawking is one of many highly acclaimed scientists, and not the most respected in his field.
That said, I think Hawking is completely badass, if only for the one he presents his arguments. He doesn't name his lectures things like 'A proof of quantum string logic probability in examining the electrical fields of donkadooballs', he calls them stuff like 'I have proven there are multiple universes because I am awesome'. I think I like the Japanese American guy who presents stuff on the Discovery Channel more though, because he has a soothing voice and cool hair. I have no idea what either of them are talking about.
Monster Rain wrote:And frankly, it's kind of ironic considering things like Dark Matter and Super Symmetry are just as much articles of faith as The Resurrection and The Assumption of Mary in my opinion.
No, they're very different. Science has a long history of predicting the existance of many things and then going out to find them. Black holes were first predicted by following the formulas to their logical conclusions, then we set about trying and eventually succeeding in locating some. No-one ever said 'I take the existance of black holes as a point of personal faith', they said 'theoretical science has indicated that there should be black holes in the sky, so we will go looking for them to confirm our science'. The same is true of dark matter.
People really need to stop claiming science and religion are dealing with the same things. It isn't any good for science, and it isn't any good for religion.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Monster Rain wrote:
Doggles wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
As noted above, who the cares? If I'm wrong I haven't lost anything . If atheists are wrong, they are ed.
Pascal's wager? - deeply unimpressive.
How so?
For the theory to hold water it would require that you believe in the right God, so to materially affect your chances of going to heaven there would need to be only a few religions to choose from, there have been thousands upon thousands over human history. It requires the assumption that God cares at all about belief and not in good works or anything like that. It assumes that true faith can be reached not by a spiritual journey but by a self-interested balancing of probabilities... and that God cannot tell the difference. It assumes that there is no cost to worship, that one simply believes without spending any time worshipping, or checking one's actions out of adherence to what God presumably instructed.
It is, basically, a fun little idea with an honoured place in the history of philosophy that is now very outdated. It is thrown out to undergraduates to pick holes in. You really aren't supposed to take it seriously these days.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
mattyrm wrote:Why do you think religion is so prickly?
If it actually contained a modicum of sense, it wouldnt matter if i blasphemed, nobody would care, its truth could never be dimmed, it's pure light would shine through!
It wouldnt matter what people like me said. It would all be irrelevant. It would pale in the light of truth and fact and light!
So atheism must be right because there are no prickly atheists. Not one.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Orlanth wrote:A boolean choice, the universe may have infinite possibilities, some questions don't. How would this go down:
'Mr Vene, how do you plead. Guilty or not guilty?'
'Sorry judge I live in a universe of infinite possibiities....'
Yes, and the choice to believe is binary, but unlike Pascal's model there are more than two possibilities for the afterlife. As has been pointed out, God may or may not exist, may or may not be interested in rewarding a person for belief, may or may not be interested in punishing people for worshiping him due to a balancing of probabilities...
Orlanth wrote:A boolean choice, the universe may have infinite possibilities, some questions don't. How would this go down:
'Mr Vene, how do you plead. Guilty or not guilty?'
'Sorry judge I live in a universe of infinite possibiities....'
Yes, and the choice to believe is binary, but unlike Pascal's model there are more than two possibilities for the afterlife. As has been pointed out, God may or may not exist, may or may not be interested in rewarding a person for belief, may or may not be interested in punishing people for worshiping him due to a balancing of probabilities...
You're forgetting some, the god you believe in and the god that exists may not match; you also might have picked the wrong denomination; or the god that exists might not even punish people for non-belief in the first place. I mostly point these out because the options are not only between the Christian god or no god, there's Islam, Hinduism, Judaism, Deism, Wicca, Scientology, Shintoism, Taoism, etc. and it annoys me when people can't see beyond the dominant religion.
Vene wrote:You're forgetting some, the god you believe in and the god that exists may not match; you also might have picked the wrong denomination; or the god that exists might not even punish people for non-belief in the first place. I mostly point these out because the options are not only between the Christian god or no god, there's Islam, Hinduism, Judaism, Deism, Wicca, Scientology, Shintoism, Taoism, etc. and it annoys me when people can't see beyond the dominant religion.
That isn't me missing some points, that's the same point repeated a few times. I did point it out in my first comment on the problems with Pascal's Wager, when addressing Orlanth's point on the binary status of the issue I wasn't really trying for a complete list, I was just trying to point out that while the question was binary the number of possible answers were not. So the second time I listed the problems my list was a lot less complete.
You are right though, there is the chance that your choice to worship may end up being to the wrong God. You may even end up in heaven in front of a God who is more angered by worshipping the wrong God than by not worshipping at all, or maybe a God who is angered by the very idea of worship.
sebster wrote:You are right though, there is the chance that your choice to worship may end up being to the wrong God. You may even end up in heaven in front of a God who is more angered by worshipping the wrong God than by not worshipping at all, or maybe a God who is angered by the very idea of worship.
whatwhat wrote:That's why it's called Pacal's WAGER.
Not really, no. It is Pascal's Wager because it proposes a situation where there is either a God or there isn't, and allows people to choose. That is the wager. The problem is that Pascal proposes only one state for his God, one who looks positively on Christian style worship. It is this second part that people have been expressing the problem with... not that there is a wager, but the nature of that wager cannot be reduced to a range of options, as the nature of God is unknowable.
Monster Rain wrote:And frankly, it's kind of ironic considering things like Dark Matter and Super Symmetry are just as much articles of faith as The Resurrection and The Assumption of Mary in my opinion.
No, they're very different. Science has a long history of predicting the existance of many things and then going out to find them. Black holes were first predicted by following the formulas to their logical conclusions, then we set about trying and eventually succeeding in locating some. No-one ever said 'I take the existance of black holes as a point of personal faith', they said 'theoretical science has indicated that there should be black holes in the sky, so we will go looking for them to confirm our science'. The same is true of dark matter.
People really need to stop claiming science and religion are dealing with the same things. It isn't any good for science, and it isn't any good for religion.
Good thing I didn't say anything of the sort.
In truth, there is no direct evidence for the effect of Dark Matter. It's existence can be inferred by observing the Universe, but then there are those who would say that what some call the effect of Dark Matter are actually caused by Loop Quantum Gravity or Modified Gravity. And call me old-fashioned but I'm still holding out for Einstein's Anti-Gravity to make a comeback in a big way.
whatwhat wrote:That's why it's called Pacal's WAGER.
Not really, no. It is Pascal's Wager because it proposes a situation where there is either a God or there isn't, and allows people to choose. That is the wager.
Pascal was referring to the christian god. The wager is of the existence of the christian god. It was even first released in a Christian apologetics book.
The christian god is outlined as accepting those with faith and belief. Hence the idea of Pascal's Wager. Otherwise it would be called Pascal's very slim chance of winning but he'll have a go anyway.
whatwhat wrote:That's why it's called Pacal's WAGER.
Not really, no. It is Pascal's Wager because it proposes a situation where there is either a God or there isn't, and allows people to choose. That is the wager.
Well, not really. Doesn't the term "wager" imply that something is won and lost? It's not just the fact that there's a choice. Not all choices would be considered wagers.
whatwhat wrote:That's why it's called Pacal's WAGER.
Not really, no. It is Pascal's Wager because it proposes a situation where there is either a God or there isn't, and allows people to choose. That is the wager.
Well, not really. Doesn't the term "wager" imply that something is won and lost? It's not just the fact that there's a choice. Not all choices would be considered wagers.
The choice is to believe in god or not through your life. Pascal says you should wager to believe since by the bible's words those who believe will be accepted by god. So you may as well believe in him because you have nothing to lose. If you don't believe and it ends up true then you've lost out.
Sebster is saying it's the belief in the existance of A god or not. But I think Pascal was talking of the belief in the christain god, or not.
Vene wrote:
Basically, it assumes there are only two possibilities in a universe with infinite possibilities, as such, a false dichotomy.
A boolean choice, the universe may have infinite possibilities, some questions don't. How would this go down:
But then it's not a false dichotomy, in this situation there really are only two possibilities, for Pascal's Wager, however, there's a lot more options that are ignored, which is why it is fallacious.
Such as?
Within the paradigm given of Christian faith, there are only two options.
Saying otherwise wont make it so.
Vene wrote:
You're forgetting some, the god you believe in and the god that exists may not match; you also might have picked the wrong denomination; or the god that exists might not even punish people for non-belief in the first place. I mostly point these out because the options are not only between the Christian god or no god, there's Islam, Hinduism, Judaism, Deism, Wicca, Scientology, Shintoism, Taoism, etc. and it annoys me when people can't see beyond the dominant religion.
Belief in a foreign God counts as unbelief, choosing the wrong denomination is irrelevant as that is a political distinction.
Vene wrote:
Personally, I don't care about the classification aspect, due to the reason you cited, I was merely pointing out where it is stated in the Bible. And the Genesis quote is a personal favorite of mine due to genetics fail.
Then you dont care about the content and your comment thus completely misses the point. As the point is plain this can only be described as willful, which is odd seeing as you are laughing at it. There is no genetics fail, there is no genetics, only food law. It says dont eat bats, not dont test their DNA. The practical definition stood and is still in use today. To the Jew and Moslem it makes sense, and you cannot be smarter than all of them Vene no matter what you think.
Vene wrote:
Personally, I don't care about the classification aspect, due to the reason you cited, I was merely pointing out where it is stated in the Bible. And the Genesis quote is a personal favorite of mine due to genetics fail.
Then you dont care about the content and your comment thus completely misses the point. As the point is plain this can only be described as willful, which is odd seeing as you are laughing at it. There is no genetics fail, there is no genetics, only food law. It says dont eat bats, not dont test their DNA. The practical definition stood and is still in use today. To the Jew and Moslem it makes sense, and you cannot be smarter than all of them Vene no matter what you think.
Also, was it Genetics Fail or was it known to people who kept a lot of animals that things wouldn't normally work out the way they did in that passage and that the strange event would be a testament to God's ability to affect their lives?
Orlanth wrote:
Such as?
Within the paradigm given of Christian faith, there are only two options.
Saying otherwise wont make it so.
A false dichotomy is any situation in which only two options are presented despite the presence of many more. This can be done either by simplification, or ignorance; ie. the additional options may either be folded into broad categories, or simply hand-waved into nonexistence.
Pascal's Wage presents a false dichotomy through simplification; ie. representing the set of belief (referring only to Christianity) as equivalent to the set of non-belief (atheism, Islam, Hinduism, etc.) when its absolutely plain that the set of non-belief is far larger than the set of belief. As such, Pascal's argument, that one may as well believe because the probability of being correct is equivalent but the reward is greater for those who believe, is invalid due to a misrepresentation of the probability involved in the course of the wager.
Another point to the Pascal's wager concept is the argument that if you believe, you haven't lost anything - it could be argued that you've actually lost quite a lot - like all of your Sunday mornings, in some cases your cash (tithing - I realise this isn't widespread, but it was valid in Pascal's time, and it still is in some cases today), and also having to cope with a truckload of cognitive dissonance caused by biblical stories being inconsistent with reality (Noah's ark, what a laugh...), or inconsistent with your own moral framework (as, for example, a gay catholic, or perhaps anyone concerned with animal welfare but faced with halal or shechita).
Shall we wander into the related pastures of theodicy / the problem of evil? - I quite like Epicurus' paradox - the logic is more compelling than Pascal's pathetic reasoning.
Doggles wrote:Another point to the Pascal's wager concept is the argument that if you believe, you haven't lost anything - it could be argued that you've actually lost quite a lot - like all of your Sunday mornings, in some cases your cash (tithing - I realise this isn't widespread, but it was valid in Pascal's time, and it still is in some cases today), and also having to cope with a truckload of cognitive dissonance caused by biblical stories being inconsistent with reality (Noah's ark, what a laugh...), or inconsistent with your own moral framework (as, for example, a gay catholic, or perhaps anyone concerned with animal welfare but faced with halal or shechita).
Shall we wander into the related pastures of theodicy / the problem of evil? - I quite like Epicurus' paradox - the logic is more compelling than Pascal's pathetic reasoning.
I don't know if labeling it as pathetic is necessary. In fact it seems blatantly inflammatory.
Theodicy is what made me into an agnostic, but the faithful have a explanation that works for them.
Vene wrote:
Personally, I don't care about the classification aspect, due to the reason you cited, I was merely pointing out where it is stated in the Bible. And the Genesis quote is a personal favorite of mine due to genetics fail.
Then you dont care about the content and your comment thus completely misses the point. As the point is plain this can only be described as willful, which is odd seeing as you are laughing at it. There is no genetics fail, there is no genetics, only food law. It says dont eat bats, not dont test their DNA. The practical definition stood and is still in use today. To the Jew and Moslem it makes sense, and you cannot be smarter than all of them Vene no matter what you think.
I was talking about the quote from Genesis I posted, not the Leviticus quote.
And Dogma already dealt with why lumping all of non-Christianity into one category is oversimplification. But, even if Pascal's Wager wasn't fallacious, which denomination? Should I go Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Assemblies of God, Lutheran, Church of England, Quaker, one of the many other denominations? These are all very different and, for example, if you ask the Catholics, those in the Eastern Orthodox church are heretics doomed to burn and if you ask the Orthodox about the Catholics you'll hear the reverse. So, even within Christianity, it still is an oversimplification.
Vene wrote:
Personally, I don't care about the classification aspect, due to the reason you cited, I was merely pointing out where it is stated in the Bible. And the Genesis quote is a personal favorite of mine due to genetics fail.
Then you dont care about the content and your comment thus completely misses the point. As the point is plain this can only be described as willful, which is odd seeing as you are laughing at it. There is no genetics fail, there is no genetics, only food law. It says dont eat bats, not dont test their DNA. The practical definition stood and is still in use today. To the Jew and Moslem it makes sense, and you cannot be smarter than all of them Vene no matter what you think.
I was talking about the quote from Genesis I posted, not the Leviticus quote.
And Dogma already dealt with why lumping all of non-Christianity into one category is oversimplification. But, even if Pascal's Wager wasn't fallacious, which denomination? Should I go Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Assemblies of God, Lutheran, Church of England, Quaker, one of the many other denominations? These are all very different and, for example, if you ask the Catholics, those in the Eastern Orthodox church are heretics doomed to burn and if you ask the Orthodox about the Catholics you'll hear the reverse. So, even within Christianity, it still is an oversimplification.
Not really. Didn't Vatican II pretty much said that other Christians aren't necessarily heretics?
Christianity, at it's most basic level, is only dependent upon accepting Christ as your savior. Everything else is basically the style in which you worship.
Once I saw this guy on a bridge about to jump. I said, "Don't do it!" He said, "Nobody loves me." I said, "God loves you. Do you believe in God?"
He said, "Yes." I said, "Are you a Christian or a Jew?" He said, "A Christian." I said, "Me, too! Protestant or Catholic?" He said, "Protestant." I said, "Me, too! What franchise?" He said, "Baptist." I said, "Me, too! Northern Baptist or Southern Baptist?" He said, "Northern Baptist." I said, "Me, too! Northern Conservative Baptist or Northern Liberal Baptist?"
He said, "Northern Conservative Baptist." I said, "Me, too! Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region, or Northern Conservative Baptist Eastern Region?" He said, "Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region." I said, "Me, too!"
Northern Conservative†Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1879, or Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1912?" He said, "Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1912." I said, "Die, heretic!" And I pushed him over.
...perhaps I should explain further - I considered Pascal's reasoning to be literally pathetic because it is dishonest "pleading" masquerading as logic. That's an attack on Pascal's argument, and not a personal attack at anyone here obviously!
Automatically Appended Next Post: ...whereas the troll comment is a direct personal attack - and hence inflammatory
Doggles wrote:...perhaps I should explain further - I considered Pascal's reasoning to be literally pathetic because it is dishonest "pleading" masquerading as logic. That's an attack on Pascal's argument, and not a personal attack at anyone here obviously!
Automatically Appended Next Post: ...whereas the troll comment is a direct personal attack - and hence inflammatory
Automatically Appended Next Post: Ooh - and I should point out that I'm getting the feeling that I should be a bit less forthright round these parts than in other fora - particularly around this topic, so I'll be toning it down a bit too!
dogma wrote:
A false dichotomy is any situation in which only two options are presented despite the presence of many more. This can be done either by simplification, or ignorance; ie. the additional options may either be folded into broad categories, or simply hand-waved into nonexistence.
Pascal's Wage presents a false dichotomy through simplification; ie. representing the set of belief (referring only to Christianity) as equivalent to the set of non-belief (atheism, Islam, Hinduism, etc.) when its absolutely plain that the set of non-belief is far larger than the set of belief. As such, Pascal's argument, that one may as well believe because the probability of being correct is equivalent but the reward is greater for those who believe, is invalid due to a misrepresentation of the probability involved in the course of the wager.
Pascals Wager is not interested in other religions, they are subsets of unbelief in Christ. This is not a false dichotomy because it is correct within the paradigm of the subject matter. There are two actual choices: faith in Christ or any other option.
You are trying to apply the Wager beyond its bounds. It is intended as an exercise to determine wherther there is a point to continuing with a life of faith, not an absolute Truth. Christianity has more than enough points of absolute Truth, whichcan only be accepted or rejected wholecloth, such as Jesus claim 'I am the Way the Truth and the Life, noone comes to the Father except through me.' The Wager builds on this foundation.
Its internally consistent, you are trying to break something that isnt broken by placing it outside its setting.
Vene wrote:
And Dogma already dealt with why lumping all of non-Christianity into one category is oversimplification.
He did so erroneously, as its outside the set paradigm for the Wager.
Vene wrote:
But, even if Pascal's Wager wasn't fallacious, which denomination? Should I go Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Assemblies of God, Lutheran, Church of England, Quaker, one of the many other denominations? These are all very different and, for example, if you ask the Catholics, those in the Eastern Orthodox church are heretics doomed to burn and if you ask the Orthodox about the Catholics you'll hear the reverse. So, even within Christianity, it still is an oversimplification.
This was covered in my earlier post, denomination is not relevant according to biblical christianity.
However you are likely to be confused if you claim Catholics and Eastern Orthodox believe each other to be damned. a quick look at the scriptures both consider canon would knock that aside. A more correct approach is to consider alternate denominations mistaken in some regards. So long as an expression of faith in Jesus is professed then deonomination is irrelvant to salvation itself. Any deonominational differences are purely political in nature and have more to do with control than actual tenets of faith.
Dogma was correct, as Pascal's Wager attempts to make an argument to people of other beliefs. There are a multiplicity of choices, and his argument only includes two. Mine (for example) is neither of those two.
My main issue with Pascal's Wager is that I don't see giving up my time to pray, go to church, not having sex before marriage etc. as losing nothing. Maybe if I just spared a thought in my mind to believe in god I wouldn't lose much but by the bible that wouldn't get my into heaven anyway. So it's not a 'nothing to lose' scenario as he makes out at all.
whatwhat wrote:My main issue with Pascal's Wager is that I don't see giving up my time to pray, go to church, not having sex before marriage etc. as losing nothing. Maybe if I just spared a thought in my mind to believe in god I wouldn't lose much but by the bible that wouldn't get my into heaven anyway.
Wrong.
Everyone sins. The Bible would say that being redeemed by Christ you would be saved in spite of your failings.
Romans 3:23 wrote:23for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24and are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus.
You're just trying to handwave away the problem and are just claiming that the flaws in the wager don't need to be considered. I could say that perpetual motion is possible because the paradigm of perpetual motion doesn't include thermodynamics, and I would be wrong because I'd just be ignoring the world around me. Which is what what you're doing with Pascal's Wager, you are trying to construct a binary from a situation that isn't one.
Let's look at a few scenarios:
1) There is no god: The atheist hasn't lost the time and money from worshiping a being that doesn't exist, the Christian has wasted that time. The atheist comes out ahead.
2) The Bible is correct: The atheist is damned and the Christian goes to heaven. The Christian comes out ahead.
3) The Koran is correct: The atheist and the Christian are damned. The atheist didn't spend time while alive going to a false church. The atheist comes out ahead.
I could repeat scenario 3 for every religion ever, which leads to a lot more possibilities than the two that Pascal claimed.
As for salvation, go ahead, ask ministers and pastors and such, ask them if you are saved by works or saved by faith. You will get many different answers. Trying to equate all denominations into one monolithic religion is nonsensical.
whatwhat wrote:My main issue with Pascal's Wager is that I don't see giving up my time to pray, go to church, not having sex before marriage etc. as losing nothing. Maybe if I just spared a thought in my mind to believe in god I wouldn't lose much but by the bible that wouldn't get my into heaven anyway.
Wrong.
Everyone sins. The Bible would say that being redeemed by Christ you would be saved in spite of your failings.
Romans 3:23 wrote:23for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24and are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus.
Well that basicly undermines the whole point of pascals wager in the first place.
Unfortunately for Pascal’s Wager, if it justifies believing there’s a God who rewards those who believe in him and punishes those who don't, it equally justifies believing anything and everything else that there is a non-zero chance will have the same sort of payoffs, including some that contradict each other.
For example, what if we were to use the same approach as Pascal, but to the question of what to do if we are in a state of uncertainty as to whether there exists a God who provides an infinite reward to people who wear hats and an infinite punishment to those who don’t? You don’t know for certain that such a God exists or doesn’t, so shouldn’t you wear a hat just in case?
How about a God who has contempt for people who believe in Him based on a cost-benefit analysis? He might reward all the people who are intellectually honest and simply admitted that they don’t know one way or the other, and punish all the people who buy into Pascal’s Wager and try to find some way to believe in spite of the uncertainty. Can you be sure such a God doesn't exist? Should you be an agnostic to “be on the safe side”?
What about a jealous non-Christian God, who rewards all believers in all other religions, and even non-believers for that matter, and only punishes Christians? Should you hasten to dump all your Christian beliefs “just in case”?
Do you know for sure that there isn’t a race of alien superbeings about to arrive on Earth who will provide limitless unimaginable benefits to all virgins, and massacre everyone else? Maybe you should think twice about having sex, you know, just to be safe.
The point is there are an infinite number of things you can potentially believe or do based on there being some non-zero chance they’ll turn out to be the key to some great reward. But you can’t do all of them.
whatwhat wrote:My main issue with Pascal's Wager is that I don't see giving up my time to pray, go to church, not having sex before marriage etc. as losing nothing. Maybe if I just spared a thought in my mind to believe in god I wouldn't lose much but by the bible that wouldn't get my into heaven anyway.
Wrong.
Everyone sins. The Bible would say that being redeemed by Christ you would be saved in spite of your failings.
Romans 3:23 wrote:23for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24and are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus.
Well that basicly undermines the whole point of pascals wager in the first place.
I'm not defending Pascal's Wager, because what is said about it is basically correct. There are more than two options.
whatwhat wrote:My main issue with Pascal's Wager is that I don't see giving up my time to pray, go to church, not having sex before marriage etc. as losing nothing. Maybe if I just spared a thought in my mind to believe in god I wouldn't lose much but by the bible that wouldn't get my into heaven anyway.
Wrong.
Everyone sins. The Bible would say that being redeemed by Christ you would be saved in spite of your failings.
Romans 3:23 wrote:23for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24and are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus.
Well that basicly undermines the whole point of pascals wager in the first place.
I'm not defending Pascal's Wager, because what is said about it is basically correct. There are more than two options.
That wasn't the point I was refuting.
No I said I didn't consider a belief in the christian god as not losing something. And you said that it wouldn't matter anyway because christ would redeem me.
Meaning that pascal may as well have not bothered since I can pay no attention to christianity at all and if id turns out the christian god does indeed exists, he will redeem me anyway.
In fact going by that I'll continue being jewish and then I will have my eggs in two baskets at once. If the torah was wrong to go by, I have christianity to fall back on.
Vene wrote:As for salvation, go ahead, ask ministers and pastors and such, ask them if you are saved by works or saved by faith. You will get many different answers. Trying to equate all denominations into one monolithic religion is nonsensical.
To what, find out that there are doctrinal differences between denominations? That's obvious.
The differences between Christian beliefs are not what defines them. It's their similarities. To Wit: salvation comes primarily from Christ's sacrifice on the cross.
whatwhat wrote:
Monster Rain wrote:
whatwhat wrote:
Monster Rain wrote:
whatwhat wrote:My main issue with Pascal's Wager is that I don't see giving up my time to pray, go to church, not having sex before marriage etc. as losing nothing. Maybe if I just spared a thought in my mind to believe in god I wouldn't lose much but by the bible that wouldn't get my into heaven anyway.
Wrong.
Everyone sins. The Bible would say that being redeemed by Christ you would be saved in spite of your failings.
Romans 3:23 wrote:23for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24and are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus.
Well that basicly undermines the whole point of pascals wager in the first place.
I'm not defending Pascal's Wager, because what is said about it is basically correct. There are more than two options.
That wasn't the point I was refuting.
No I said I didn't consider a belief in the christian god as not losing something. And you said that it wouldn't matter anyway because christ would redeem me.
Meaning that pascal may as well has not bothered since I can pay no attention to christianity at all and if id turns out the christian god does indeed exists, he will redeem me anyway.
If you chose to accept him as your savior, that is correct. Granted that this is a really simplified way of looking at it.
whatwhat wrote:In fact going by that I'll continue being jewish and then I will have my eggs in two baskets at once. If the torah was wrong to go by, I have christianity to fall back on.
Vene wrote:As for salvation, go ahead, ask ministers and pastors and such, ask them if you are saved by works or saved by faith. You will get many different answers. Trying to equate all denominations into one monolithic religion is nonsensical.
To what, find out that there are doctrinal differences between denominations? That's obvious.
The differences between Christian beliefs are not what defines them. It's their similarities. To Wit: salvation comes primarily from Christ's sacrifice on the cross.
Because in denomination A, you have to do X to be saved, but in denomination B you have to do Y to be saved. Since we are talking about trying to play it safe with salvation, these are two separate entities because they are two different courses of action. They may have the same motivation and much of the same ideology, but they aren't identical and there's no way of knowing if following course X will piss off a god who wants you to follow course Y instead, even if both denominations worship him.
Vene wrote:As for salvation, go ahead, ask ministers and pastors and such, ask them if you are saved by works or saved by faith. You will get many different answers. Trying to equate all denominations into one monolithic religion is nonsensical.
To what, find out that there are doctrinal differences between denominations? That's obvious.
The differences between Christian beliefs are not what defines them. It's their similarities. To Wit: salvation comes primarily from Christ's sacrifice on the cross.
Because in denomination A, you have to do X to be saved, but in denomination B you have to do Y to be saved. Since we are talking about trying to play it safe with salvation, these are two separate entities because they are two different courses of action. They may have the same motivation and much of the same ideology, but they aren't identical and there's no way of knowing if following course X will piss off a god who wants you to follow course Y instead, even if both denominations worship him.
As I said before, I'm not defending Pascal's Wager.
I'm directly refuting incorrect claims about Christianity. Can you please give an example as to what one Christian Denomination does that another doesn't that is critical to salvation?
whatwhat wrote:In fact going by that I'll continue being jewish and then I will have my eggs in two baskets at once. If the torah was wrong to go by, I have christianity to fall back on.
whatwhat wrote:In fact going by that I'll continue being jewish and then I will have my eggs in two baskets at once. If the torah was wrong to go by, I have christianity to fall back on.
whatwhat wrote:In fact going by that I'll continue being jewish and then I will have my eggs in two baskets at once. If the torah was wrong to go by, I have christianity to fall back on.
Hey, he was Jewish.
Yeh sure, but an antisemitic jew also.
Say what?
Can you elaborate, please?
Proclaiming yourself king of the jews then proceeding to tell all the other jews half of the stuff they have been taught about god over the past few hundred years is a crock of gak, is a bit of a piss take by anyone's standards.
whatwhat wrote:In fact going by that I'll continue being jewish and then I will have my eggs in two baskets at once. If the torah was wrong to go by, I have christianity to fall back on.
Hey, he was Jewish.
Yeh sure, but an antisemitic jew also.
Say what?
Can you elaborate, please?
Proclaiming yourself king of the jews then proceeding to tell all the other jews half of the stuff they have been taught about god over the past few hundred years is a crock of gak, is a bit of a piss take by anyone's standards.
Okay, I'll take an example of something he tried to change in that culture and ask you if you think it was a piss take.
John 8 wrote:1But Jesus went to the Mount of Olives. 2At dawn he appeared again in the temple courts, where all the people gathered around him, and he sat down to teach them. 3The teachers of the law and the Pharisees brought in a woman caught in adultery. They made her stand before the group 4and said to Jesus, “Teacher, this woman was caught in the act of adultery. 5In the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women. Now what do you say?” 6They were using this question as a trap, in order to have a basis for accusing him.
But Jesus bent down and started to write on the ground with his finger. 7When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, “If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her.” 8Again he stooped down and wrote on the ground.
9At this, those who heard began to go away one at a time, the older ones first, until only Jesus was left, with the woman still standing there. 10Jesus straightened up and asked her, “Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?”
11“No one, sir,” she said.
“Then neither do I condemn you,” Jesus declared. “Go now and leave your life of sin.”
So in this passage Jesus stopped a woman from being stoned to death for adultery. Is this something that you think shouldn't be stopped?
Vene wrote:As for salvation, go ahead, ask ministers and pastors and such, ask them if you are saved by works or saved by faith. You will get many different answers. Trying to equate all denominations into one monolithic religion is nonsensical.
To what, find out that there are doctrinal differences between denominations? That's obvious.
The differences between Christian beliefs are not what defines them. It's their similarities. To Wit: salvation comes primarily from Christ's sacrifice on the cross.
Because in denomination A, you have to do X to be saved, but in denomination B you have to do Y to be saved. Since we are talking about trying to play it safe with salvation, these are two separate entities because they are two different courses of action. They may have the same motivation and much of the same ideology, but they aren't identical and there's no way of knowing if following course X will piss off a god who wants you to follow course Y instead, even if both denominations worship him.
As I said before, I'm not defending Pascal's Wager.
I'm directly refuting incorrect claims about Christianity. Can you please give an example as to what one Christian Denomination does that another doesn't that is critical to salvation?
Here's a simple one, do you follow the Pope? Roman Catholics need to follow him as he is the vessel by which God speaks, but there are a lot of Protestant sects here that claim he's the anti-christ. This is mutually exclusive. There's also the question of which Bible, for an example, there's churches around here that are KJV 1611 only and there's also the Mormons who require you follow the BoM, it's one or the other, not both.
whatwhat wrote:In fact going by that I'll continue being jewish and then I will have my eggs in two baskets at once. If the torah was wrong to go by, I have christianity to fall back on.
Hey, he was Jewish.
Yeh sure, but an antisemitic jew also.
Say what?
Can you elaborate, please?
Proclaiming yourself king of the jews then proceeding to tell all the other jews half of the stuff they have been taught about god over the past few hundred years is a crock of gak, is a bit of a piss take by anyone's standards.
Okay, I'll take an example of something he tried to change in that culture and ask you if you think it was a piss take.
John 8 wrote:1But Jesus went to the Mount of Olives. 2At dawn he appeared again in the temple courts, where all the people gathered around him, and he sat down to teach them. 3The teachers of the law and the Pharisees brought in a woman caught in adultery. They made her stand before the group 4and said to Jesus, “Teacher, this woman was caught in the act of adultery. 5In the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women. Now what do you say?” 6They were using this question as a trap, in order to have a basis for accusing him.
But Jesus bent down and started to write on the ground with his finger. 7When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, “If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her.” 8Again he stooped down and wrote on the ground.
9At this, those who heard began to go away one at a time, the older ones first, until only Jesus was left, with the woman still standing there. 10Jesus straightened up and asked her, “Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?”
11“No one, sir,” she said.
“Then neither do I condemn you,” Jesus declared. “Go now and leave your life of sin.”
So in this passage Jesus stopped a woman from being stoned to death for adultery. Is this something that you think shouldn't be stopped?
lol I don't believe that any of that gak. Don't expect me to argue on the basis of what's wrong and right about it.
The point is a man calling himself jewish who openly denounces the beliefs of other jews, is a bit of a self hating jew no?
Vene wrote:As for salvation, go ahead, ask ministers and pastors and such, ask them if you are saved by works or saved by faith. You will get many different answers. Trying to equate all denominations into one monolithic religion is nonsensical.
To what, find out that there are doctrinal differences between denominations? That's obvious.
The differences between Christian beliefs are not what defines them. It's their similarities. To Wit: salvation comes primarily from Christ's sacrifice on the cross.
Because in denomination A, you have to do X to be saved, but in denomination B you have to do Y to be saved. Since we are talking about trying to play it safe with salvation, these are two separate entities because they are two different courses of action. They may have the same motivation and much of the same ideology, but they aren't identical and there's no way of knowing if following course X will piss off a god who wants you to follow course Y instead, even if both denominations worship him.
As I said before, I'm not defending Pascal's Wager.
I'm directly refuting incorrect claims about Christianity. Can you please give an example as to what one Christian Denomination does that another doesn't that is critical to salvation?
Here's a simple one, do you follow the Pope? Roman Catholics need to follow him as he is the vessel by which God speaks, but there are a lot of Protestant sects here that claim he's the anti-christ. This is mutually exclusive. There's also the question of which Bible, for an example, there's churches around here that are KJV 1611 only and there's also the Mormons who require you follow the BoM, it's one or the other, not both.
As far as the Pope is concerned, there certainly are fringe groups that think that the Pope is the Anti-Christ but it's fallacious to attribute this attitude to mainstream churches. Also, the choice of Bible text isn't always a requirement for salvation itself but just so that everyone is reading the same translation.
Second, that's not entirely true about the Mormons. They believe that those who believe in Christ but not Mormonism specifically will receive a chance to change their minds after they die. Though I'm not going to sit here and get into whether or not they are actually Christians. In this context I'll be sticking with those that use only the Old and New Testaments, with the Apocrypha thrown in for good measure.
whatwhat wrote:
Monster Rain wrote:
whatwhat wrote:
Monster Rain wrote:
whatwhat wrote:
Monster Rain wrote:
whatwhat wrote:In fact going by that I'll continue being jewish and then I will have my eggs in two baskets at once. If the torah was wrong to go by, I have christianity to fall back on.
Hey, he was Jewish.
Yeh sure, but an antisemitic jew also.
Say what?
Can you elaborate, please?
Proclaiming yourself king of the jews then proceeding to tell all the other jews half of the stuff they have been taught about god over the past few hundred years is a crock of gak, is a bit of a piss take by anyone's standards.
Okay, I'll take an example of something he tried to change in that culture and ask you if you think it was a piss take.
John 8 wrote:1But Jesus went to the Mount of Olives. 2At dawn he appeared again in the temple courts, where all the people gathered around him, and he sat down to teach them. 3The teachers of the law and the Pharisees brought in a woman caught in adultery. They made her stand before the group 4and said to Jesus, “Teacher, this woman was caught in the act of adultery. 5In the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women. Now what do you say?” 6They were using this question as a trap, in order to have a basis for accusing him.
But Jesus bent down and started to write on the ground with his finger. 7When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, “If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her.” 8Again he stooped down and wrote on the ground.
9At this, those who heard began to go away one at a time, the older ones first, until only Jesus was left, with the woman still standing there. 10Jesus straightened up and asked her, “Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?”
11“No one, sir,” she said.
“Then neither do I condemn you,” Jesus declared. “Go now and leave your life of sin.”
So in this passage Jesus stopped a woman from being stoned to death for adultery. Is this something that you think shouldn't be stopped?
lol I don't believe that any of that gak. Don't expect me to argue on the basis of what's wrong and right about it.
My bad. I thought we were having an open-minded discussion. I won't make that mistake again. Though I'm interested how you reconcile not believing any of "that gak" while at the same time using it to draw conclusions about the guy...
whatwhat wrote:The point is a man calling himself jewish who openly denounces the beliefs of other jews, is a bit of a self hating jew no?
He wasn't calling himself Jewish, he was Jewish. And He didn't hate anyone. But I'm not going to waste any more time trying to engage in discussion in which your reply will begin with "lol."
Monster Rain wrote:My bad. I thought we were having an open-minded discussion. I won't make that mistake again.
whatwhat wrote:The point is a man calling himself jewish who openly denounces the beliefs of other jews, is a bit of a self hating jew no?
He wasn't calling himself Jewish, he was Jewish. And He didn't hate anyone. But I'm not going to waste any more time trying to engage in discussion in which your reply will begin with "lol."
Your trying to drag me into a discussion about whether or not it was right for Jesus to challenge his jewish beliefs. That's not a discussion I particularly care for. And one I will very happily lol at.
And call himself, is a. Whatever he likes to think. The fact is if someone went up to a jew and said 'half of the stuff you believe is a load of balls' I'd quite happilly put that person under the title: antisemitic.
Sure you can believe it but to go and throw it in their face while throwing yourself up as a 'King' of them. That's taking it beyond just a belief kept to yourself.
Orlanth wrote:
Pascals Wager is not interested in other religions, they are subsets of unbelief in Christ. This is not a false dichotomy because it is correct within the paradigm of the subject matter. There are two actual choices: faith in Christ or any other option.
Yes, and the set 'any other option' is much, much larger than the set 'faith in Christ'. In fact, its infinitely larger. Since Pascal's wager is predicated on the idea that each of the two sets is equally probable the fact that one of them is actually infinitely large invalidates the argument. Infinite sets are infinitely more probable than sets of 1 when all elements of all sets are granted equal weight.
Orlanth wrote:
You are trying to apply the Wager beyond its bounds. It is intended as an exercise to determine wherther there is a point to continuing with a life of faith, not an absolute Truth.
The basic forumaltion of Pascal's Wager is based on the premise that one's faith will eventually be proven correct or incorrect in the afterlife. So yes, its deals in absolute truth.
Orlanth wrote:
Christianity has more than enough points of absolute Truth, whichcan only be accepted or rejected wholecloth, such as Jesus claim 'I am the Way the Truth and the Life, noone comes to the Father except through me.' The Wager builds on this foundation.
Its internally consistent, you are trying to break something that isnt broken by placing it outside its setting.
Yes, it is internally consistent. The problem is that its not externally consistent. It doesn't really matter if an argument has internal validity if it lacks any sort of external validity; which, in this case, relates to the descriptive merit of equating belief in one thing with non-belief in that thing.
This is a fundamental tenet of logic. Answering 'yes' to any possible question is far more definitive than a 'not yes' response.
The Baptists that believe that are, yes. Not all of them do. Billy Graham, for example, did not believe that the Pope is the Anti-Christ. He's considered to be the "Ron Burgundy" of Baptists.
Which is to say, he's kind of a big deal.
And please tell me you're not including Westboro Baptist in your idea of "Mainstream Christianity." Otherwise I feel this would have all been a terrible waste of time.
I'm not talking about Westboro, but I do have to wonder, how do you determine if it is fringe? And why can we not discuss fringe in context of the wager? They have to be considered as well. Does fringe just mean a few believers? If so, you are dangerously close to argumentum ad populum.
Vene wrote:I'm not talking about Westboro, but I do have to wonder, how do you determine if it is fringe? And why can we not discuss fringe in context of the wager? They have to be considered as well. Does fringe just mean a few believers? If so, you are dangerously close to argumentum ad populum.
Like I said, I'm not discussing the Wager because it only allows for two options and there are more than two possibilities for truth.
The "what is a fringe group" question seems like a red herring. I'm only refuting direct statements made about Christianity that are incorrect. I will give the example of Westboro Baptists being a fringe group of the Baptist Church and let it speak for itself.
You used the word without a clear definition of what makes a group fringe. You just declared groups fringe for no given reason. What is the reason? And why do you seem to not include them as a part of Christianity? Is the WBC Christian?
Vene wrote:You used the word without a clear definition of what makes a group fringe. You just declared groups fringe for no given reason. What is the reason? And why do you seem to not include them as a part of Christianity? Is the WBC Christian?
Fringe Group: A set phrase to dissociate a mainstream organization (usually religious) from outcast radical members.
fringe (frnj)
n.
1. A decorative border or edging of hanging threads, cords, or strips, often attached to a separate band.
2. Something that resembles such a border or edging.
3. A marginal, peripheral, or secondary part: "They like to hang out on the geographical fringes, the seedy outposts" (James Atlas).
4. Those members of a group or political party holding extreme views: the lunatic fringe. 5. Any of the light or dark bands produced by the diffraction or interference of light.
6. A fringe benefit.
As to whether or not the WBC is Christian: I think that they believe that they are, but considering the negativity they draw toward Christianity and their total rejection of Christ's teachings on love and compassion would make them complete hypocrites and incompatible with mainstream Christian values.
So, you are saying they're fringe because there are not many of them. Yeah, you're in fallacy territory now. They are Christian, they are appropriate to talk about when discussing Christianity, and are very much appropriate to talk about when saying there are differences between Christian denominations and that different denominations of Christianity have doctrines distinct enough that you can't follow both. This was my original point, that even ignoring other religions, there is more than one way to believe in the Christian god and that choosing the wrong denomination is just a risky as choosing the wrong god is just as risky as choosing non-belief.
Vene wrote:So, you are saying they're fringe because there are not many of them. Yeah, you're in fallacy territory now. They are Christian, they are appropriate to talk about when discussing Christianity, and are very much appropriate to talk about when saying there are differences between Christian denominations and that different denominations of Christianity have doctrines distinct enough that you can't follow both. This was my original point, that even ignoring other religions, there is more than one way to believe in the Christian god and that choosing the wrong denomination is just a risky as choosing the wrong god is just as risky as choosing non-belief.
So I can use Stalin as an archetype for Atheists?
As far as fallacies go, why is it unreasonable to say that the majority of the members of an organization would believe similar things? Is it argumentum ad populum to say that the ELF is a fringe group of the Enviromentalist Movement because the majority of them don't espouse violence?
Also, you're off base by calling the WBC a denomination. It's an offshoot of a denomination, and a radicalized one at that.
But since we've gone completely off the topic that we were discussing and arguing about the argument itself can we safely say that we're done talking about your incorrect assertions on Christianity?
He was an atheist, I will not ever try to deny that he was an atheist. I will say he didn't represent all atheists, but I never said one denomination represented all of them.
And no, I won't agree to that because they are still Christian. They may not be Christian in the exact same way most people are Christian, but they are still Christian. Because they are still Christian, they can be brought up in a discussion about Christianity. It would be wrong to characterize them as the majority of Christians, and it would be wrong to say that WBC represents Baptists, but I'm not doing that. I'm just stating that they are another denomination and needs to be considered with Pascal's Wager.
Vene wrote:He was an atheist, I will not ever try to deny that he was an atheist. I will say he didn't represent all atheists, but I never said one denomination represented all of them.
And no, I won't agree to that because they are still Christian. They may not be Christian in the exact same way most people are Christian, but they are still Christian. Because they are still Christian, they can be brought up in a discussion about Christianity. It would be wrong to characterize them as the majority of Christians, and it would be wrong to say that WBC represents Baptists, but I'm not doing that. I'm just stating that they are another denomination and needs to be considered with Pascal's Wager.
Okay, well co-opting a belief system isn't the same thing as being a member of that belief system.
There are a lot of groups that are or have been nominally Christian that in practice are nothing of the sort. David Koresh springs to mind. Equating these fringe groups with the mainstream churches is misguided at best.
Monster Rain wrote:
So I can use Stalin as an archetype for Atheists?
Sure, but the things about Stalin that made him a terrible person probably won't easily fit into a definition of atheism. After all, if all atheists must commit mass murder in order to be considered atheists, there aren't going to be very many of them around.
Also, Vene isn't arguing that Christians that believe that the Pope is the anti-Christ are archetypal Christians. Instead, he is arguing that they are Christian, and therefore relevant to a conversation that deals in the degree to which Christian beliefs can vary. If there exist Christian denominations that are incompatible with other Christian denominations, then differences in denomination are relevant to his criticism of Pascal's Wager.
Monster Rain wrote:
So I can use Stalin as an archetype for Atheists?
Sure, but the things about Stalin that made him a terrible person probably won't easily fit into a definition of atheism. After all, if all atheists must commit mass murder in order to be considered atheists, there aren't going to be very many of them around.
The things that make Westboro Baptist awful wouldn't fit into a definition of Christianity either.
Monster Rain wrote:
The things that make Westboro Baptist awful wouldn't fit into a definition of Christianity either.
But they would still be Christian in at least some sense; mostly those that ignore judgment from works (read: the non-categorical senses). Its simply that the things that make them awful aren't relevant to determining whether or not they can be called Christian, just as Stalin's mass-murdering tendencies are not relevant to his atheism.
Not least of which is where you are implying that there is no objective, codified manner in which Christians should behave. Which there is.
You have fail, and then you have epic fail.
Belief in Christ is all that matters.
Noun
* S: (n) Christian (a religious person who believes Jesus is the Christ and who is a member of a Christian denomination)
(link)
Okay man. I was fine with discussing this with you in a civil manner until you got all smarmy with your True Scotsman bit. You still don't quite know what you're talking about, but I'm not going to waste my time pointing out stuff to you if the final product is going to be a link to some perceived logical fallacy which you really couldn't be more dead wrong about.
So, are we going to talk, or not? Your move, Sex Machine.
whatwhat wrote:The point is a man calling himself jewish who openly denounces the beliefs of other jews, is a bit of a self hating jew no?
I don't see why this would be the case. God and his prophets seem to criticise the Jewish people frequently in the bible, and make them wander around in exile and so forth. And while there are some people who believe that, say, criticism of a nation's government shows a lack of patriotism, I don't agree with this, and I don't think most people do either. After all, it's usually easier to abandon or avoid something that you hate than it is to fix it.
Vene wrote:So, you are saying they're fringe because there are not many of them. Yeah, you're in fallacy territory now.
How so? Popularity has always been the primary method by which a theory being "fringe" is defined, in my experience with the term.
Also, regarding Pascal's wager, it may well be valid if it is presupposed that the Christian conception of metaphysics and the atheist conception of simply perishing are the only possible choices. However, this would really be begging the question, as a sensible atheist would, when confronted with this new paradigm, not continue to ask for a reason to believe in God, but rather for a reason to believe that there are only two valid conceptions of metaphysics. If Pascal's wager is meant to be an argument for the belief in God in the real world I would say, then, that it is a false dichotomy. If Pascal's wager was only ever meant to be an argument for the belief of God under a specific set of conditions it wouldn't be a false dichotomy, but it would seem to be useless, as you could arbitrarily declare that God exists as easily as you could arbitrarily set up the conditions necessary for Pascal's wager to be valid.
I'd be very reluctant to equate the WBC specifically with Christianity, partially for the same reason Monster Rain cited (their repulsive behavior isn't really representative of Christian behavior in general), partly because I'm fairly convinced that they're just a money-making scam. Internet Trolls taken to real life, making money by suing people and local governments who they goad into infringing on their civil rights by their incredibly offensive (but legal) behavior.
That said, there is such a variety in beliefs and behaviors expressed among Christians, some of them pretty offensive, that it definitely bears on Pascal's Wager. People are burning books again?
Vene wrote:Feel free to run away, you are the one claiming that people who are believers in Christ aren't Christian, not me.
I'm not running away. I'm excluding you from my conversation on the subject. Big difference. For example, I'll be happy to continue discussing the concept with Dogma when I'm done putting the kids to bed. You're more interested in being a creep on the internet than having a meaningful discussion. I'm happy to let you behave that way, but I'm done with being a part of it.
dogma wrote:
Monster Rain wrote:
The things that make Westboro Baptist awful wouldn't fit into a definition of Christianity either.
But they would still be Christian in at least some sense; mostly those that ignore judgment from works (read: the non-categorical senses). Its simply that the things that make them awful aren't relevant to determining whether or not they can be called Christian, just as Stalin's mass-murdering tendencies are not relevant to his atheism.
A major part of Salvation is acknowledging your sin and repenting for it. Since the WBC doesn't see anything wrong with their willful disregard for several of the teachings of Jesus and arguably a few of the 10 Commandments and are therefore unlikely to repent for that it could be argued that they don't follow some of the most basic tenets of Christianity.
The Stalin example was only to illustrate the judgment of a group by it's most distasteful members, nothing more.
And again, I feel like this is beside the point that we were originally discussing.
Mannahnin wrote:I'd be very reluctant to equate the WBC specifically with Christianity, partially for the same reason Monster Rain cited (their repulsive behavior isn't really representative of Christian behavior in general), partly because I'm fairly convinced that they're just a money-making scam. Internet Trolls taken to real life, making money by suing people and local governments who they goad into infringing on their civil rights by their incredibly offensive (but legal) behavior.
That said, there is such a variety in beliefs and behaviors expressed among Christians, some of them pretty offensive, that it definitely bears on Pascal's Wager. People are burning books again?
Mannahin, that is a great example of what I'm talking about as far as people who are nominally Christians who just completely miss the point.
As hack as it sounds, I really think that these people should put their "WWJD" bracelets back on. Because if they had that phrase in mind I seriously doubt there would be a scheduled Quran burning.
However, it seems to me that from the standpoint of Pascal's wager, whether they are Christian or not doesn't really matter. Rather, all that matters is whether they part of Pascal's conception of true Christianity, part of his conception of atheism, or something else. Belief in a Christian God who would punish insincere believers and save sincere atheists and belief in (my previous conception of) Baal, the jealous god who would punish Christians and leave atheists alone, lead to the same conclusion (i.e. rejection of Pascal's wager).
Vene wrote:Feel free to run away, you are the one claiming that people who are believers in Christ aren't Christian, not me.
I'm not running away. I'm excluding you from my conversation on the subject. Big difference. For example, I'll be happy to continue discussing the concept with Dogma when I'm done putting the kids to bed. You're more interested in being a creep on the internet than having a meaningful discussion. I'm happy to let you behave that way, but I'm done with being a part of it.
Vene wrote:Feel free to run away, you are the one claiming that people who are believers in Christ aren't Christian, not me.
I'm not running away. I'm excluding you from my conversation on the subject. Big difference. For example, I'll be happy to continue discussing the concept with Dogma when I'm done putting the kids to bed. You're more interested in being a creep on the internet than having a meaningful discussion. I'm happy to let you behave that way, but I'm done with being a part of it.
Monster Rain wrote:
A major part of Salvation is acknowledging your sin and repenting for it. Since the WBC doesn't see anything wrong with their willful disregard for several of the teachings of Jesus and arguably a few of the 10 Commandments and are therefore unlikely to repent for that it could be argued that they don't follow some of the most basic tenets of Christianity.
That depends on what translation of the commandments you use, how you interpret that translation, and to what degree you accept that they are universally binding. Personally, I feel that the mere fact that the WBC appeals to the 10 commandments is sufficient to consider them Christian. Are they definitive of the faith? Absolutely not, but then I don't consider any denomination to be definitive of the faith.
Monster Rain wrote:
The Stalin example was only to illustrate the judgment of a group by it's most distasteful members, nothing more.
Maybe I missed something, but it didn't seem to me that Christianity was being judged at all. Instead it seemed to me that it was being defined on a categorical level. Its important to remember that simply because a group of people can be considered categorically Christian it does not follow that all Christians can be held responsible for that groups perceived failings; exactly as you've illustrated vis a vis Stalin and atheism.
And again, I feel like this is beside the point that we were originally discussing.
Mannahnin wrote:I'd be very reluctant to equate the WBC specifically with Christianity, partially for the same reason Monster Rain cited (their repulsive behavior isn't really representative of Christian behavior in general), partly because I'm fairly convinced that they're just a money-making scam. Internet Trolls taken to real life, making money by suing people and local governments who they goad into infringing on their civil rights by their incredibly offensive (but legal) behavior.
I used to believe that, but after a little digging it almost looks as if the WBC loses as much money on lawsuits as they make. Indeed, I have quite a bit of trouble finding instances in which judgments worked out to the favor of the WBC. Its certainly happened, but not, to my mind, enough to justify thinking of them as con artists. They're still nuts of course, no denying that.
Monster Rain wrote:
A major part of Salvation is acknowledging your sin and repenting for it. Since the WBC doesn't see anything wrong with their willful disregard for several of the teachings of Jesus and arguably a few of the 10 Commandments and are therefore unlikely to repent for that it could be argued that they don't follow some of the most basic tenets of Christianity.
That depends on what translation of the commandments you use, how you interpret that translation, and to what degree you accept that they are universally binding. Personally, I feel that the mere fact that the WBC appeals to the 10 commandments is sufficient to consider them Christian. Are they definitive of the faith? Absolutely not, but then I don't consider any denomination to be definitive of the faith.
Jews and Muslims use the 10 commandments as well.
As to the Judgment of Christianity thing, I simply don't accept that the WBC should be associated with mainstream Christian denominations any more than Al Qaeda should be associated with mainstream Islam. In fact, one would be considered a bigot for doing so.
dogma wrote:Its important to remember that simply because a group of people can be considered categorically Christian it does not follow that all Christians can be held responsible for that groups perceived failings; exactly as you've illustrated vis a vis Stalin and atheism.
Well, atheism doesn't really have any doctrine. Perhaps the better question would be "was Stalin a socialist?" I would consider him to have been one, even though I'll admit that he wasn't following socialist doctrine very closely.
Monster Rain wrote:Good thing I didn't say anything of the sort.
You referred to them both in terms of faith, an effect to draw a similarity. If you, in fact, if you didn't intend to ever compare the two things, then you'd be happy to retract your point comparing the two, yeah?
In truth, there is no direct evidence for the effect of Dark Matter. It's existence can be inferred by observing the Universe, but then there are those who would say that what some call the effect of Dark Matter are actually caused by Loop Quantum Gravity or Modified Gravity. And call me old-fashioned but I'm still holding out for Einstein's Anti-Gravity to make a comeback in a big way.
Yes, there is no direct evidence for dark matter. I said the same thing in my last post. The point is determining something as being likely based on calculations and other observations, and then going looking for that thing, is wholly different to accepting something as a point of faith. They're just different. It's that simple.
whatwhat wrote:Pascal was referring to the christian god. The wager is of the existence of the christian god. It was even first released in a Christian apologetics book.
The christian god is outlined as accepting those with faith and belief. Hence the idea of Pascal's Wager. Otherwise it would be called Pascal's very slim chance of winning but he'll have a go anyway.
Well duh. That Pascal restricted it to purely the Christian God is the problem people have been explaining throughout this thread. That you can’t arbitrarily limit the wager to ‘Christian God’ and ‘Not Christian God’ and assume anything near a 50/50 probability is the exact problem with the wager.
In reality God could take a near infinite number of forms, so it really is ‘Pascal’s very slim chance of winning but he’ll have a go anyway’. Which is a very silly way of looking at faith.
Monster Rain wrote:Well, not really. Doesn't the term "wager" imply that something is won and lost? It's not just the fact that there's a choice. Not all choices would be considered wagers.
Yes, wager does mean that, but that’s got nothing to do with what’s being argued here. To go back a couple of steps, I made the point that God is unknowable, and could very be angered by someone choosing to believe in him as a result of a balance of probabilities. You responded that’s why it’s called a wager, but the point here is not what a wager is, but the nature of this specific wager.
The point is that Pascal reduced the number of outcomes to produce an incorrect outcome. Now, he was working at the very beginning of probability theory, at a time when religious understanding was nowhere near modern levels, so Pascal has a decent excuse for the failings in his theory. We can’t extend that some kindness to people who still think the wager is sensible today.
Orlanth wrote:Pascals Wager is not interested in other religions, they are subsets of unbelief in Christ. This is not a false dichotomy because it is correct within the paradigm of the subject matter. There are two actual choices: faith in Christ or any other option.
Taking a wide range of options, collapsing them under a broad category and assigning them equal probability is one of the best ways to screw up a probability analysis.
It’s like looking at a horse race, noting a horse pays 8-1 on a win, and then thinking this is a great option because there are two states – the horse wins and the horse does not win. If someone was to point out that there are actually loads of different outcomes in which the horse does not win, such as each of the other 14 horses all winning, you can’t reply that doesn’t matter because we’re only worried about this one horse.
You are trying to apply the Wager beyond its bounds. It is intended as an exercise to determine wherther there is a point to continuing with a life of faith, not an absolute Truth. Christianity has more than enough points of absolute Truth, whichcan only be accepted or rejected wholecloth, such as Jesus claim 'I am the Way the Truth and the Life, noone comes to the Father except through me.' The Wager builds on this foundation.
Its internally consistent, you are trying to break something that isnt broken by placing it outside its setting.
No, the point is that its setting is broken. You can’t built a probabilistic rationale for belief in something that is beyond rational understanding. It is a matter of faith.
Mannahnin wrote:I'd be very reluctant to equate the WBC specifically with Christianity, partially for the same reason Monster Rain cited (their repulsive behavior isn't really representative of Christian behavior in general)
Not being generally representative doesn't make you not Christian. Stalin isn't representative of atheists, but he was an atheist. WBC proclaim Christ as their Lord and Saviour, and Stalin believed there was no God - so they're both part of their respective groups.
It is fair to say that when talking about Christianity in general we shouldn't list WBC and other extremely unusual examples, as it can give the impression that they're generally representative, but that's very different to excising them from the group entirely.
Monster Rain wrote:
Jews and Muslims use the 10 commandments as well.
Sure, but they also interpret them in different ways. The classic example of this is 'Thou Shalt not Kill' vs. 'Though Shalt not Murder'.
Monster Rain wrote:
As to the Judgment of Christianity thing, I simply don't accept that the WBC should be associated with mainstream Christian denominations any more than Al Qaeda should be associated with mainstream Islam. In fact, one would be considered a bigot for doing so.
Really? I mean, my PhD research is generally about Middle Eastern politics, and extremist Muslim groups in particular. I work with this stuff on a daily basis, and I'm about the least judgmental person, with respect to Islam, that you will ever find (you can even go back and look at my record of defending Islam on this board, if you so desire). And even I associate Al Qaeda with Islam. They're a Muslim group. An extremist Muslim group to be sure, but still Muslim. That doesn't mean that all Muslims are responsible for what Al Qaeda has done, or what Al Qaeda believes, but there are certain relevant commonalities that relate the two; like belief in Muhammad as the prophet of Allah, and the acceptance of the Five Pillars.
Similarly, the WBC is a Christian group. That doesn't mean that all Christians are responsible for what they do or what they believe, but there are certain commonalities that relate the two; like the acceptance of Christ as savior, and the use of the New Testament as a holy text.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Orkeosaurus wrote:Well, atheism doesn't really have any doctrine. Perhaps the better question would be "was Stalin a socialist?" I would consider him to have been one, even though I'll admit that he wasn't following socialist doctrine very closely.
Monster Rain wrote:
Jews and Muslims use the 10 commandments as well.
Sure, but they also interpret them in different ways. The classic example of this is 'Thou Shalt not Kill' vs. 'Though Shalt not Murder'.
Monster Rain wrote:
As to the Judgment of Christianity thing, I simply don't accept that the WBC should be associated with mainstream Christian denominations any more than Al Qaeda should be associated with mainstream Islam. In fact, one would be considered a bigot for doing so.
Really? I mean, my PhD research is generally about Middle Eastern politics, and extremist Muslim groups in particular. I work with this stuff on a daily basis, and I'm about the least judgmental person, with respect to Islam, that you will ever find (you can even go back and look at my record of defending Islam on this board, if you so desire). And even I associate Al Qaeda with Islam. They're a Muslim group. An extremist Muslim group to be sure, but still Muslim. That doesn't mean that all Muslims are responsible for what Al Qaeda has done, or what Al Qaeda believes, but there are certain relevant commonalities that relate the two; like belief in Muhammad as the prophet of Allah, and the acceptance of the Five Pillars.
Similarly, the WBC is a Christian group. That doesn't mean that all Christians are responsible for what they do or what they believe, but there are certain commonalities that relate the two; like the acceptance of Christ as savior, and the use of the New Testament as a holy text.
I'll grant that they have certain commonalities, and I've already stated that I'm sure that they believe that they are Christians, but to me it would all boil down to this statement.
John 13:34-35 wrote:34 "A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. 35 By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another."
They really don't seem to be following this directive, laid down by Jesus himself, as the way that Christians should be identified. Now before someone says that "I don't believe in Christianity so these passages don't mean anything to me" let me say that that is fine, but for someone who would profess to be a Christian it should mean an awful lot.
If I were a member of the WBC I would probably interpret that passage as an instruction to love all other disciples of Jesus, and given how narrow their reading of the Bible is that's probably not a very large group.
dogma wrote:If I were a member of the WBC I would probably interpret that passage as an instruction to love all other disciples of Jesus, and given how narrow their reading of the Bible is that's probably not a very large group.
Sure, that makes sense from their point of view. I would only argue that their worldview is demonstrably different than that of mainstream Christian denominations.
Monster Rain wrote:Sure, that makes sense from their point of view. I would only argue that their worldview is demonstrably different than that of mainstream Christian denominations.
Yep, their world view is wildly different to other Christian groups, and it is fair to say they are not representative of the whole. But they are still Christian, just like Stalin is not representative of atheists, but is still an atheist.
Monster Rain wrote:Sure, that makes sense from their point of view. I would only argue that their worldview is demonstrably different than that of mainstream Christian denominations.
Yep, their world view is wildly different to other Christian groups, and it is fair to say they are not representative of the whole. But they are still Christian, just like Stalin is not representative of atheists, but is still an atheist.
Yeah, agree that they believe that they are Christians. I just happen to think that there's more to being something than simply using it's language and symbols in your Maximum Trolling like the WBC does.
This next bit is completely unrelated to you, Sebster:
Monster Rain wrote:I would only argue that their worldview is demonstrably different than that of mainstream Christian denominations.
Sure, I'll buy that at face value, but I'm not really all that interested in what constitutes a mainstream Christian. From my perspective its an argument that naturally tends to fall into No True Scotsman territory. I'm much more interested in questions of category as, at the very least, they can be resolved with internally valid arguments (though obviously external validity is another matter).
Monster Rain wrote:Yeah, agree that they believe that they are Christians. I just happen to think that there's more to being something than simply using it's language and symbols in your Maximum Trolling like the WBC does.
Fair point, and when talking about the WBC and their relation to Christianity it is necessary to point out their actions are a long way from the core teachings of Christianity. But ultimately, if a group is using the Bible as it's primary source it really has to be considered Christian.
Monster Rain wrote:I would only argue that their worldview is demonstrably different than that of mainstream Christian denominations.
Sure, I'll buy that at face value, but I'm not really all that interested in what constitutes a mainstream Christian. From my perspective its an argument that naturally tends to fall into No True Scotsman territory.
Okay, one more and then I really am going to bed.
The reason, to me, that this isn't a No True Scotsman type situation is that there are clearly defined ways in which a Christian is supposed to behave in the Bible. If, say, there is a checklist for behaviors that would make one to be said to be a certain type of person, and one didn't meet the criteria on the checklist, would they be the type of person that the checklist describes? And if not, would saying that this person who doesn't meet the Criteria on the checklist isn't the type of person that the checklist describes a No True Scotsman fallacy? Does that even make sense?
I'm very tired...
sebster wrote:
Monster Rain wrote:Yeah, agree that they believe that they are Christians. I just happen to think that there's more to being something than simply using it's language and symbols in your Maximum Trolling like the WBC does.
Fair point, and when talking about the WBC and their relation to Christianity it is necessary to point out their actions are a long way from the core teachings of Christianity. But ultimately, if a group is using the Bible as it's primary source it really has to be considered Christian.
Can't they be considered as a lunatic fringe subset of Christianity that really shouldn't be lumped in with Christians in general discussion? Kind of like lumping Al Qaeda in with Islam and bringing up Yoko Ono when discussing the Beatles?
Monster Rain wrote:
The reason, to me, that this isn't a No True Scotsman type situation is that there are clearly defined ways in which a Christian is supposed to behave in the Bible. If, say, there is a checklist for behaviors that would make one to be said to be a certain type of person, and one didn't meet the criteria on the checklist, would they be the type of person that the checklist describes? And if not, would saying that this person who doesn't meet the Criteria on the checklist isn't the type of person that the checklist describes a No True Scotsman fallacy? Does that even make sense?
It really depends on how you determine who is, and isn't a Christian; and how you resolve that determination in concert with the one pertaining to what makes a good, or bad Christian.
I'm generally of the mind that Christianity is defined by the acceptance of Jesus Christ as your lord and savior, but I also know that others define it by the acceptance of the Nicene Creed. I've heard of membership being defined by works as well, but that's a bit trickier than a simple profession of belief. Are you not a Christian if not all your works are good, or are you a Christian if most of your works are good? What if you try really hard to enact good works, but end up failing anyway? Now, none of the answers are necessarily indicative a No True Scotsman fallacy, but in my experience its very easy for them to become one. For example, you could demarcate Christian and non-Christian by stating that no true Christian would ever do good works less than 51% of the time. Keep in mind that I'm not saying that your argument has done that, I'm merely explaining my aversion to your approach.
To me works come in once we start assessing the 'quality' (for lack of a better word) of a Christian, and thereby sidestep the problem altogether.
whatwhat wrote:Pascal was referring to the christian god. The wager is of the existence of the christian god. It was even first released in a Christian apologetics book.
The christian god is outlined as accepting those with faith and belief. Hence the idea of Pascal's Wager. Otherwise it would be called Pascal's very slim chance of winning but he'll have a go anyway.
Well duh. That Pascal restricted it to purely the Christian God is the problem people have been explaining throughout this thread. That you can’t arbitrarily limit the wager to ‘Christian God’ and ‘Not Christian God’ and assume anything near a 50/50 probability is the exact problem with the wager.
In reality God could take a near infinite number of forms, so it really is ‘Pascal’s very slim chance of winning but he’ll have a go anyway’. Which is a very silly way of looking at faith
'Well duh' yeh exactly. By defining the theory as this earlier: "It is Pascal's Wager because it proposes a situation where there is either a God or there isn't, and allows people to choose. That is the wager. " I felt like you needed to be told. Well duh.
Besides in the context when the theory was made there really wasn't the spread of information there is now. It was entirely possible to grow up in a society where only two choices where foreseeable as only two belief systems were the norm. Not unlikely that anything else besides those two choices was easily dismissed due to the lack of hardly anyone around him believing it, or information about it. So really arguing about the theory on that basis is just pointing out the obvious flaw. Well duh.
Orlanth wrote:
Pascals Wager is not interested in other religions, they are subsets of unbelief in Christ. This is not a false dichotomy because it is correct within the paradigm of the subject matter. There are two actual choices: faith in Christ or any other option.
Yes, and the set 'any other option' is much, much larger than the set 'faith in Christ'. In fact, its infinitely larger. Since Pascal's wager is predicated on the idea that each of the two sets is equally probable the fact that one of them is actually infinitely large invalidates the argument. Infinite sets are infinitely more probable than sets of 1 when all elements of all sets are granted equal weight.
From within the paradigm there are two options. Faith in Christ or any other option. Your 'weighting' is irrelevant, besides not all faith options are equally weighted.
dogma wrote:
Orlanth wrote:
You are trying to apply the Wager beyond its bounds. It is intended as an exercise to determine wherther there is a point to continuing with a life of faith, not an absolute Truth.
The basic forumaltion of Pascal's Wager is based on the premise that one's faith will eventually be proven correct or incorrect in the afterlife. So yes, its deals in absolute truth.
In one way yes, but it carries an underlying assumption, it is a massage to those from a churched background who beleive in Christianity to some extent or other but have backslidden from the faith.
This is relevant as Christianity is internally consistent and withstands logical strutiny, more so than any other faith. Many are attracted to Christianity, but not attracted to many Christians. This makes sense too, if something is accessible to all you cant really pick and choose who else agrees.
You are trying to place it as a comment to apply to anyone, this is not its intention.
You need to look at it within its paradigm.
Its not an absolute truth in that it doesnt apply to everyone in all situations. Pascals Wager is not relevant to say a Buddhist or Moslem. It is NOT a tool of conversion, for it to be valid the person looking at the wager must already beleive that Christianty at some level makes sense/greater sense as a faith choice. As there are probably hundreds of millions of people worldwide in that bracket the Wager has validity and purpose.
Your 'error' is trying to apply pure mathematical logic to it. Pascal knew his maths and would be aware of the limitations of the Wager. This doesnt make it a false dichotomy or illogical unless you try to aplly it beyond its bounds. This normally only occurs if one is trying to break it. The true fallacy is trying to insist on aplying pure mathamatical logic without limiting assumptions to a daily life application. Pure logic is for the hard sciences, maths and physics, and is hard to aplly even there which of course is why Theories outnumber Laws; its not for politics or theology. When applied to a common application a heavy basis of assumptions and standpoints are common.
Assumption does not mean assumptive in the negative sense. Every time you make a subset diagram and label the various circles you are creating the assumptions for the set. The entire universal set for Pascals wager is that Christianity alone holds logical sense and thus is either right or wrong accepted or not. If Christianity is true all other faiths are void, if it is not then everything is void.
dogma wrote:
This is a fundamental tenet of logic. Answering 'yes' to any possible question is far more definitive than a 'not yes' response.
To the question of Faith in Jesus is concerned a 'not yes' is a 'no' response. Christianity is very clear on that point. Hence the internal consistency.
Orlanth wrote:
From within the paradigm there are two options. Faith in Christ or any other option. Your 'weighting' is irrelevant, besides not all faith options are equally weighted.
Pascal's Wager is an argument from probability; weighting is absolutely relevant. Pascal himself weights the options in his argument, repeatedly. I'm claiming that he weighted them incorrectly.
Moreover, if all possible options (read: not broad categories) are not granted equal weight, then again the argument collapses due to the assumption of faith. Notably, if you are right (and you''re not, you're flatly wrong), and Pascal is correct to consider Christianity as equal to all other possible options lumped into a single category, then Pascal has fully demonstrated faith in Christianity; making his wager unnecessary.
Orlanth wrote:
In one way yes, but it carries an underlying assumption, it is a massage to those from a churched background who beleive in Christianity to some extent or other but have backslidden from the faith.
That's fine, but its still a fallacious argument as Pascal has created a false dichotomy.
Orlanth wrote:
This is relevant as Christianity is internally consistent and withstands logical strutiny, more so than any other faith.
Something is either internally consistent or not, nothing can be 'more' internally consistent than anything else.
Orlanth wrote:
You need to look at it within its paradigm.
I am, and within its paradigm its false. Its a base assessment of probability based on a flawed understanding of what has a chance at being correct. Simply because someone believes that something is more probable does not actually make it so.
Orlanth wrote:
Your 'error' is trying to apply pure mathematical logic to it. Pascal knew his maths and would be aware of the limitations of the Wager. This doesnt make it a false dichotomy or illogical unless you try to aplly it beyond its bounds.
Its an argument purely from probability. Seriously, that's what it is, and it isn't even limited to a Christian God. Pascal posits that there are two choices: belief in God, and non-belief in God. Whether or not he considers these two choices equivalent isn't really relevant to his argument (it was relevant to your formulation of the wager), what matters is that the number of choices is finite. Against this, Pascal argues, there is laid an infinite potential for gain.
Pascal wrote:
But there is an eternity of life and happiness. And this being so, if there were an infinity of chances, of which one only would be for you, you would still be right in wagering one to win two, and you would act stupidly, being obliged to play, by refusing to stake one life against three at a game in which out of an infinity of chances there is one for you, if there were an infinity of an infinitely happy life to gain. But there is here an infinity of an infinitely happy life to gain, a chance of gain against a finite number of chances of loss, and what you stake is finite. It is all divided; wherever the infinite is and there is not an infinity of chances of loss against that of gain, there is no time to hesitate, you must give all...
However, Pascal was wrong. The set of choices is not finite as, no matter the formulation, either the set of 'belief' or 'non-belief' will be infinite. This means that, rather having a small set of possible choices, one of which will lead to infinite gain, you have an infinite set of choices, one of which will lead to infinite gain. In the first instance there is a relatively low risk for an impossibly large reward, in the second instance there is an infinite risk for an infinite reward. And this is before even considering the various possible 'hells' that Pascal intentionally leaves out of the argument.
Orlanth wrote:
Pure logic is for the hard sciences, maths and physics, and is hard to aplly even there which of course is why Theories outnumber Laws; its not for politics or theology.
There's no distinction between theory and law in the hard sciences. They're all just theories. Moreover, just about every philosopher in the last 200 years would disagree with your belief that logic cannot be applied to philosophy, which is what Pascal's wager is. Theology involves discussing the nature of God, philosophy has purview over whether or not one can, or should, believe in God.
Orlanth wrote:
When applied to a common application a heavy basis of assumptions and standpoints are common.
Pascal's wager is far from common. I'm fairly certain that the average person doesn't go around calculating the probability that he will be rewarded for his faith on a daily basis.
Orlanth wrote:
The entire universal set for Pascals wager is that Christianity alone holds logical sense and thus is either right or wrong accepted or not. If Christianity is true all other faiths are void, if it is not then everything is void.
Again, that already assumes faith in the Christian religion; rendering the wager unnecessary.
Orlanth wrote:
To the question of Faith in Jesus is concerned a 'not yes' is a 'no' response. Christianity is very clear on that point. Hence the internal consistency.
"Not yes" is a more inclusive (read:stronger) form of "no", so I'm not certain what you're on about.
Monster Rain wrote:
The reason, to me, that this isn't a No True Scotsman type situation is that there are clearly defined ways in which a Christian is supposed to behave in the Bible. If, say, there is a checklist for behaviors that would make one to be said to be a certain type of person, and one didn't meet the criteria on the checklist, would they be the type of person that the checklist describes? And if not, would saying that this person who doesn't meet the Criteria on the checklist isn't the type of person that the checklist describes a No True Scotsman fallacy? Does that even make sense?
It really depends on how you determine who is, and isn't a Christian; and how you resolve that determination in concert with the one pertaining to what makes a good, or bad Christian.
I'm generally of the mind that Christianity is defined by the acceptance of Jesus Christ as your lord and savior, but I also know that others define it by the acceptance of the Nicene Creed. I've heard of membership being defined by works as well, but that's a bit trickier than a simple profession of belief. Are you not a Christian if not all your works are good, or are you a Christian if most of your works are good? What if you try really hard to enact good works, but end up failing anyway? Now, none of the answers are necessarily indicative a No True Scotsman fallacy, but in my experience its very easy for them to become one. For example, you could demarcate Christian and non-Christian by stating that no true Christian would ever do good works less than 51% of the time. Keep in mind that I'm not saying that your argument has done that, I'm merely explaining my aversion to your approach.
To me works come in once we start assessing the 'quality' (for lack of a better word) of a Christian, and thereby sidestep the problem altogether.
I understand what you're saying. Without going into a full blown Bible study on the subject, I'd just like to say that in the Bible itself there is mention made of false teachers and that it's possible to appear as a Christian but not be one.
Acts 20: 28-30 wrote:28Keep watch over yourselves and all the flock of which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers.[a] Be shepherds of the church of God, which he bought with his own blood. 29I know that after I leave, savage wolves will come in among you and will not spare the flock. 30[b]Even from your own number men will arise and distort the truth in order to draw away disciples after them.
Emphasis mine. Obviously this isn't an exhaustively researched rebuttal, but I think it shows that my point isn't entirely invalid.
On the subject of good works, to my knowledge none of the denominations that I am aware of require them for Salvation. Obviously they are encouraged, and some denominations claim that good works are a natural extension of living a redeemed life.
The Roman Catholics have their own ideas about it, as you can read here.
I'd only like to point this particular bit:
But is not this continual acting "with one eye on heaven", with which Professor Jodl reproaches Catholic moral teaching, the meanest "mercenary spirit" and greed which necessarily vitiates to the core all moral action? Can there be any question of morality, if it is only the desire for eternal bliss or simply the fear of hell that determines one to do good and avoid evil? Such a disposition is certainly far from being the ideal of Catholic morality. On the Contrary, the Church proclaims to all her children that pure love of God is the first and supreme commandment (cf. Mark 12:30). It is our highest ideal to act out of love. For he who truly loves God would keep His commandments, even though there were no eternal reward in the next life.
The nice thing about the bible is it can say just about anything you want it to so I'm not sure using it as a source of rebuttal is going to be very strong. It predicted 9/11 as well as the coming of Shapiro's deli, for example. Sure you can get someone to say "no, this is what it means", but you can line up 10 people that will say that and each will say something different.
Ahtman wrote:The nice thing about the bible is it can say just about anything you want it to so I'm not sure using it as a source of rebuttal is going to be very strong. It predicted 9/11 as well as the coming of Shapiro's deli, for example. Sure you can get someone to say "no, this is what it means", but you can line up 10 people that will say that and each will say something different.
Luckily, since the concept of False Teachers isn't really much of a hotly debated topic, that isn't the case here.
cares? If I'm wrong I haven't lost anything . If atheists are wrong, they are 
