"The Atheist's Wager", A turn on Pascal

[Jack]

If it's not impossible, then the possibility is greater than zero.

My point was you can't even begin to consider whether or not its possible until you can validate the notion that Jesus was real, that he said what's ascribed to him and that he was correct in his statements. I'm under no obligation to give credence to statements of unestablished origin that presume unsupported conditions.

Before we can consider if what Jesus said will come to pass, you first must establish that Jesus existed and said what others have reported him saying. Then we can debate the validity of his message. Until believers can establish the existence and veracity of their god, their god remains impossible based on the supernatural claims made in their holy books. As long as their god is impossible, anything supernatural based on the belief in their god is likewise impossible, without any reason to accept as possible.

It's not a matter of proving god's impossibility. It's a matter of having no reason to believe gods are possible.

[lindsay7]

Quote by: Zhavric It's sad that I can call out the fallacies you guys will use before you actually use them. Have you considered improving?

Since neither of us actually used this fallacy, could you consider being less arrogant?

[Cephus]

Quote by: MplsBison Regardless if you choose to believe that hell exists or not, the possibility that you will go there given that you have no faith in Jesus is always greater than zero.

Nope, that's wrong and irrelevant to boot. You're blindly assuming that Jesus ever existed or that there's a place called hell.

The simple fact is that if you want to pull that Pascal's Wager bullshit, you must also acknowledge that if you don't have faith in Zeus, for instance, you're going to the Greek version of hell. Or take your pick of gods and hells. Just playing the odds, the chances of randomly picking the right religion and avoiding *ANY* hell is virtually zero. Believe in Jesus all you want, you're still going to hell when it turns out that Vishnu is the real god.

[MplsBison]

Quote by: Yasa I would therefore have a probability greater than zero of going to hell for believing in any religion.

Correct.


Basically, there is always a greater than zero possibility that you will go to some sort of hell when you die.



But simply pretending that the possibility isn't there, which atheists do, is false.

[MplsBison]

Quote by: Isherwood My point was you can't even begin to consider whether or not its possible until you can validate the notion that Jesus was real, that he said what's ascribed to him and that he was correct in his statements. I'm under no obligation to give credence to statements of unestablished origin that presume unsupported conditions. Before we can consider if what Jesus said will come to pass, you first must establish that Jesus existed and said what others have reported him saying. Then we can debate the validity of his message. Until believers can establish the existence and veracity of their god, their god remains impossible based on the supernatural claims made in their holy books. As long as their god is impossible, anything supernatural based on the belief in their god is likewise impossible, without any reason to accept as possible. It's not a matter of proving god's impossibility. It's a matter of having no reason to believe gods are possible.

I don't need to estabished the truth of anything for a possibility to be greater than zero.



For example, the possibility that you will be abducted by aliens tomorrow is greater than zero without me having to prove that aliens exist.

It's greater than zero because you can't prove that the abduction is impossible.

[Jack]

Not everything anyone can possibly imagine is possible if the underlying premise isn't realistic. Pure speculation doesn't make everything automatically possible. We live in a reality with certain attributes and constraints. Is it possible gravity will suddenly stop working and we'll all fly off the planet into space? Sure, if you don't have any awareness of physics.

[Jack]

But simply pretending that the possibility isn't there, which atheists do, is false.

Atheists maintain theists have failed to provide any reason to suppose that gods, demons or hells exist. That's not pretense, that's an established reality.

[MplsBison]

Quote by: Isherwood Is it possible gravity will suddenly stop working and we'll all fly off the planet into space?

You can prove that this is impossible.


Therefore it has a possibility of zero.




You can't prove that it is impossible that you will go to hell after you die.

[MplsBison]

Quote by: Isherwood Atheists maintain theists have failed to provide any reason to suppose that gods, demons or hells exist.

The burden of proof is on atheists to prove that those things are impossible.


If they can not, then their possibility is greater than zero.

[Zhavric]

Quote by: MplsBison The burden of proof is on atheists to prove that those things are impossible.

Burden of Proof is a fallacy in which the burden of proof is placed on the wrong side. Another version occurs when a lack of evidence for side A is taken to be evidence for side B in cases in which the burden of proof actually rests on side B. A common name for this is an Appeal to Ignorance. This sort of reasoning typically has the following form: Claim X is presented by side A and the burden of proof actually rests on side B. Side B claims that X is false because there is no proof for X. In many situations, one side has the burden of proof resting on it. This side is obligated to provide evidence for its position. The claim of the other side, the one that does not bear the burden of proof, is assumed to be true unless proven otherwise. The difficulty in such cases is determining which side, if any, the burden of proof rests on. In many cases, settling this issue can be a matter of significant debate. In some cases the burden of proof is set by the situation. For example, in American law a person is assumed to be innocent until proven guilty (hence the burden of proof is on the prosecution). As another example, in debate the burden of proof is placed on the affirmative team. As a final example, in most cases the burden of proof rests on those who claim something exists (such as Bigfoot, psychic powers, universals, and sense data). Examples of Burden of Proof Bill: "I think that we should invest more money in expanding the interstate system." Jill: "I think that would be a bad idea, considering the state of the treasury." Bill: "How can anyone be against highway improvements?" Bill: "I think that some people have psychic powers." Jill: "What is your proof?" Bill: "No one has been able to prove that people do not have psychic powers." "You cannot prove that God does not exist, so He does."

Fallacy: Burden of Proof

Please take the time to learn basic logic to avoid using fallacies. Also, please be intellectually honest when you argue. The burden is most certainly on theists to prove their god exists nor do we need to waste time explaining such elementary things as "1+1 =/= 3".

[MplsBison]

The reason my argument is not a BOP fallacy is that I am not asking you to prove the existence of anything.



I'm only asking you to show that those things are impossible.

[jrcbailey]

Quote by: Zhavric Fallacy: Burden of Proof Please take the time to learn basic logic to avoid using fallacies. Also, please be intellectually honest when you argue. The burden is most certainly on theists to prove their god exists nor do we need to waste time explaining such elementary things as "1+1 =/= 3".

Well said, you can't expect anyone to prove that something doesn't exist - it's just not possible! So the burden of proof is always on the other person.

If somebody came up to you one day and said that tooth fairies exist (with absolutely no evidence in their favour), and then asked you to prove otherwise, no one would take them seriously. The difference between the tooth fairy and God arguments, is that the argument for God has vast amounts of scientific and philosophical evidence stacked against it. Whereas, the existence of a creature physically similar to the mythical tooth fairy may be perfectly feasible (both scientifically and philosophically), were it not for the lack of photographic or witness testimony evidence.

[Fangrim]

First, welcome to Volconvo.

Quote by: jrcbailey Well said, you can't expect anyone to prove that something doesn't exist - it's just not possible! So the burden of proof is always on the other person.

Not at all. Proving the nonexistence of an object is logically possible.

Premise 1: A bunny and a solid block of wood cannot exist in the same 3-dimensional space at the same time.
Premise 2: A solid block of wood exists on the sidewalk.
Conclusion: A bunny cannot exist on the sidewalk.

You can prove the nonexistence of an object by simply showing that that object's existence is incompatible with some other known fact of reality.

You can see this in my example. Premises 1 and 2 showed an incompatibility: a bunny cannot occupy the same space as a block of wood, and a block of wood exists in the proposed space.

Here's another example:
Premise 1: There can only exist either one Giant Squirrel or one Giant Turtle.
Premise 2: There exists a Giant Squirrel.
Conclusion: The Giant Turtle does not exist.

All one would need to do to prove that God does not exist is to show some incompatibility between his existence and something we assume to be true.


Burdens of proof remain on the claimant, but not because proving that claim's negation is impossible.

[ItsDarts]

Quote by: MplsBison The reason my argument is not a BOP fallacy is that I am not asking you to prove the existence of anything. I'm only asking you to show that those things are impossible.

As shown in the examples, existence is necessary for the BOP fallacy. Another thing that makes your argument invalid is the term plausability. Probability is irrelevant if a concept isn't plausable. Please show how heaven or hell are even plausable, when you have absolutely no idea of how to exactly define the concepts to begin with. Any supernatual explanation you try to give has to pass plausability. Since we've never been able to test, let alone prove anything supernatural, the plausability of breaking any laws of physics is nil as far as we know. If hell is nothing more than the core of the earth, then hell is plausable, however, now you must be able to determine the plausability of souls existing after brain death. Good luck.

[MplsBison]

Quote by: ItsDarts As shown in the examples, existence is necessary for the BOP fallacy.

And since I'm not requiring someone to prove the existence of hell, only to prove that it's impossible for it to exist, it can't be the BOP fallacy.

[jrcbailey]

Quote by: Fangrim First, welcome to Volconvo. Not at all. Proving the nonexistence of an object is logically possible. Premise 1: A bunny and a solid block of wood cannot exist in the same 3-dimensional space at the same time. Premise 2: A solid block of wood exists on the sidewalk. Conclusion: A bunny cannot exist on the sidewalk. You can prove the nonexistence of an object by simply showing that that object's existence is incompatible with some other known fact of reality. You can see this in my example. Premises 1 and 2 showed an incompatibility: a bunny cannot occupy the same space as a block of wood, and a block of wood exists in the proposed space. Here's another example: Premise 1: There can only exist either one Giant Squirrel or one Giant Turtle. Premise 2: There exists a Giant Squirrel. Conclusion: The Giant Turtle does not exist. All one would need to do to prove that God does not exist is to show some incompatibility between his existence and something we assume to be true. Burdens of proof remain on the claimant, but not because proving that claim's negation is impossible.

Thanks.

I would like to agree with you (because I'm an athiest), but unfortunately I have a little issue with deductive arguments.

Whilst I believe that the large amount of scientific and philosophical evidence (the equivelant of your 2nd premises) make a good case to conclude that God does not exist, many would argue whether or not both science and religion are compatible (the equivelant of your 1st premises).

So therefore, the conclusion; 'God does not exist' (resulting from the premises; (1) religion and science are not compatibale, (2) science makes a good case for the existence of the universe), may be false to certain parties who cannot agree that both premises are true.

On your specific analogies, the first premises; 'a bunny cannot exist in the same space at the same time as a block of wood' (which is obviously what our senses and logical brains (however notoriously unreliable) would lead us to believe) and 'there can only exist a giant squirrel or giant turtle, but not both' (which would itself be based on inductive logic!), all parties would have to agree that the premises are true - and there are probably many difficult people out there who would not.

This is the problem with deductive logic, all parties HAVE to agree on both premises, if you wish to convince the person you are arguing with that the conclusion is true.

Whilst the above may sound like I am making a case for the existence of God, I am merely saying that the existence of God is (however unlikely) not out of the question, because many would argue that the premise 'science and religion are not compatible' is false.

In that sense then, we should all call ourselves Agnostics (if we weren't all so stubborn!!).

[ItsDarts]

Quote by: MplsBison And since I'm not requiring someone to prove the existence of hell, only to prove that it's impossible for it to exist, it can't be the BOP fallacy.

Nonsense, you're playing symantics. You're placing burden of proof of impossibility when you can't show possibility and totally ignored plausibility and claiming indirect vicotry.

So again I ask you.... Please show how heaven or hell are even plausable, when you have absolutely no idea of how to exactly define the concepts to begin with.

In otherwords, define the item you want us to prove impossible first, then we'll go from there.

[ItsDarts]

Quote by: jrcbailey and there are probably many difficult people out there who would not. This is the problem with deductive logic, all parties HAVE to agree on both premises, if you wish to convince the person you are arguing with that the conclusion is true.

I would disagree with you here because if one doesn't "agree" with the premise, then burden is on them to show the premise false. Agreement has nothing to do with it. I agree the specific arguments above are faulty, because I can physically show how a block of wood can exist in the same space as a rabbit, however the rabbit would be pretty uncomfortable with a wooden block up its butt. :) I would add that definition of terms may need to be agreed upon in deductive arguments.

Oh, and welcome to Volconvo :)

[Jack]

The burden of proof is on atheists to prove that those things are impossible.

Since the only proof theists offer to support their contention that it's true is their word, then all I have to do to disprove their contention is to refute their claim, and I do.

There, using the same standards of proof you've offered to support the notion of hell and gods, I've dis-proven them.

[Zhavric]

Quote by: jrcbailey Thanks. I would like to agree with you (because I'm an athiest), but unfortunately I have a little issue with deductive arguments. Whilst I believe that the large amount of scientific and philosophical evidence (the equivelant of your 2nd premises) make a good case to conclude that God does not exist, many would argue whether or not both science and religion are compatible (the equivelant of your 1st premises). So therefore, the conclusion; 'God does not exist' (resulting from the premises; (1) religion and science are not compatibale, (2) science makes a good case for the existence of the universe), may be false to certain parties who cannot agree that both premises are true. On your specific analogies, the first premises; 'a bunny cannot exist in the same space at the same time as a block of wood' (which is obviously what our senses and logical brains (however notoriously unreliable) would lead us to believe) and 'there can only exist a giant squirrel or giant turtle, but not both' (which would itself be based on inductive logic!), all parties would have to agree that the premises are true - and there are probably many difficult people out there who would not. This is the problem with deductive logic, all parties HAVE to agree on both premises, if you wish to convince the person you are arguing with that the conclusion is true. Whilst the above may sound like I am making a case for the existence of God, I am merely saying that the existence of God is (however unlikely) not out of the question, because many would argue that the premise 'science and religion are not compatible' is false. In that sense then, we should all call ourselves Agnostics (if we weren't all so stubborn!!).

Do you agree that the hypothesis "God exists and created the universe" is a scientific hypothesis? Yes or no?