Am I so stupid at math or did I just prove God?

Author: TheGreatSunGod

Posts

Total: 208
#61
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,795
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@TheGreatSunGod
You begin with premise that logic applies to everything, including God himself. And then you end up with conclusion that logic applies to God.

The problem, again, is in the fact that you already assume as a premise the thing which you are trying to prove as conclusion.
The point that the laws of logic apply to God was step number 3. You apparently missed step numbers 1 and 2, so let me repeat, again.

Step 1 is the point I made about logic being foundational. That's where all of this begins, and that point has absolutely nothing to do with a god. To reiterate; logic is the most basic qualifier of coherent thought. Any attempt to refute it requires the usage of it, thereby presupposing it's validity.

Step 2: if logic is foundational, then it must apply to everything.

Step 3: if logic applies to everything, it applies to God.

Do you see how step 3 is the end of this string, and cannot be asserted as the beginning? Do you understand that circular logic would require the starting point to rely on the ending point for it's validity, which is not the case here?

P1. Logic doesnt apply to things which are above logic, which includes Gods and supernaturals.
P2. Gods are included in things which are above logic.
C. Logic doesnt apply to Gods.
Do you not find it ironic that you are trying to use logic in order to assert something that is definitionally illogical?

Zeus: a god who is the creator and ultimate ruler of the universe
Allah: a god who is the creator and ultimate ruler of the universe
Again, you are stuck on that definition which I am not even using. Monotheist religions arent the only religions.
That has nothing to do with it. We were talking about the law of excluded middle and why your arguments demonstrate a deep misunderstanding of it. All you have to do is answer the questions I asked you and the problem will show itself to you.

you make a logical circle by saying only things which dont violate logic can exist. The problem, again, is that you assume as true the thing which you are supposed to prove as true first.
Why would I have to prove to you the validity of something you are relying on right now?

You keep telling me my argument is circular. So what? Is that a bad thing? And if so... Why?
Topic's author
#62
TheGreatSunGod
TheGreatSunGod's avatar
Debates: 27
Posts: 1,407
3
4
8
TheGreatSunGod's avatar
TheGreatSunGod
3
4
8
-->
@Double_R
The point that the laws of logic apply to God was step number 3. You apparently missed step numbers 1 and 2, so let me repeat, again.
Step 1 is the point I made about logic being foundational. That's where all of this begins, and that point has absolutely nothing to do with a god. To reiterate; logic is the most basic qualifier of coherent thought. Any attempt to refute it requires the usage of it, thereby presupposing it's validity.
This is also false. I can say that logic doesnt always apply and this statement can be true, and obviously, the cases where logic doesnt apply wouldnt need logic to support them. This premise is just an assumption. Also, saying that using logic proves its validity isnt true, because you can use logic to prove logic wrong. For example, all premises in logic are either circular, infinite, assumed as true without proof, or depend on another premise. This ultimately proves that logic requires supernatural creator to be first premise, otherwise logic itself becomes a fallacy.

Step 2: if logic is foundational, then it must apply to everything.
This is another fallacy. You said in step 1 that logic was only crucial for coherent thoughts, which is also not true because thoughts can be not logical, and in that case, logic wouldnt apply to them. Since thoughts =/= everything, this premise falls apart completely.


Step 3: if logic applies to everything, it applies to God.
This premise depends on premise 2 being true, and premise 2 can be false even if premise 1 is true, but premise 1 was already proved to be an assumption.


Do you see how step 3 is the end of this string, and cannot be asserted as the beginning? Do you understand that circular logic would require the starting point to rely on the ending point for it's validity, which is not the case here?
Again, you already included step 3 in step 2.

Your whole argument is  basically this:
"I cant think without using logic, so logic must apply to everything."

This is essentially nonsense argument which isnt even true. For example, I am quite capable of imagining world without logical laws. The fact that you are not is not really my problem.
Topic's author
#63
TheGreatSunGod
TheGreatSunGod's avatar
Debates: 27
Posts: 1,407
3
4
8
TheGreatSunGod's avatar
TheGreatSunGod
3
4
8
-->
@Double_R
Do you not find it ironic that you are trying to use logic in order to assert something that is definitionally illogical?
Yes, logic points to the fact that things outside of logic must exist. Its kinda like using your eyes to see things outside your eyes.

Topic's author
#64
TheGreatSunGod
TheGreatSunGod's avatar
Debates: 27
Posts: 1,407
3
4
8
TheGreatSunGod's avatar
TheGreatSunGod
3
4
8
-->
@Double_R
That has nothing to do with it. We were talking about the law of excluded middle and why your arguments demonstrate a deep misunderstanding of it. All you have to do is answer the questions I asked you and the problem will show itself to you.
Again, you asked me to answer question about specific mutually exclusive Gods. That is not my position in this debate.


Why would I have to prove to you the validity of something you are relying on right now?
I am not relying on it. It was just one argument there. But you were trying hard to disprove it, so I simply told you here that in order to prove something, you cant use assumption that its true as proof that it is actually true.

You keep telling me my argument is circular. So what? Is that a bad thing? And if so... Why?
Its a bad thing in terms of proof, because it can literally be used as fake proof in thousands of ways. We dont prove things by making some assumption that they are true. If that counted as proof, then I would merely need to make an assumption that God exists.

Sure, you can make a perfect logical circle about anything really.

You can say:
1. God is defined as everything which exists
2. Everything which exists cannot not exist
3. God cannot not exist

Or you can say:
1. God created everything
2. Humans are part of everything
3. God created humans


Or my favorite one:

1. Things cannot be created by any known causes
2. God creator is capable of creating things by his definition
3. God creator explains creation while known causes dont
#65
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,795
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@TheGreatSunGod
saying that using logic proves its validity isnt true, because you can use logic to prove logic wrong
Yeah, that pretty much sums up what I'm contending with this entire conversation.

If you use logic to prove logic wrong, then you just disproved the very thing which your entire case is built on. Do you not see the contradiction there? Do you not see how self defeating that is? This is where the term "you're cutting off the branch you are sitting on" comes in.

The fact that you are even willing to make this argument shows you to be incapable of understanding how reasoned thought works. It is out of nothing more than sheer exercise that I continue with you.

all premises in logic are either circular, infinite, assumed as true without proof, or depend on another premise.
Ugh.

Premises are not logic. Premises are not within logic. Premises are the assumptions we accept at the outset. Logic is what connects those premises to the conclusion.

You said in step 1 that logic was only crucial for coherent thoughts, which is also not true because thoughts can be not logical, and in that case, logic wouldnt apply to them.
This is just plain dishonest. The key word in this first sentence is coherent, and then you go on to "refute" it by leaving the key word off.

Again, logic is necessary for coherent thought. Why does that matter? Because this entire thread is about whether god can be proven mathematically. Or hell just drop off the mathematically part and just say this thread is about whether god can be proven.

In order to prove something, the most basic qualifier is that the idea you are trying to prove is coherent. And yet you are asserting a being that is definitionally incoherent, making your argument definitionally irrational. And all you're doing to square this circle is sitting there going "nuh uh!".

If you do not accept logic as a necessary qualifier for acceptable thought then you are literally, definitionally, beyond reason.

I am quite capable of imagining world without logical laws
Can a 5 sided triangle exist? Yes or No?
#66
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,795
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@TheGreatSunGod
Again, you asked me to answer question about specific mutually exclusive Gods. That is not my position in this debate.
I asked you to answer a question which demonstrates that your understanding of applying probability to prove the existence of something is total nonsense. That is why you won't answer it.

Why would I have to prove to you the validity of something you are relying on right now?
I am not relying on it.
That is for damn sure.

Sure, you can make a perfect logical circle about anything really.

You can say:
1. God is defined as everything which exists
2. Everything which exists cannot not exist
3. God cannot not exist
You seem incapable of understanding what circular logic is. I've already explained it to you multiple times. For it to be circular you would have to be relying on the conclusion as support for the premises. That's not what this is and that's not even you're accusing me of.

This is begging the question. That's when you build your conclusion into the premise.

That's what you're accusing me of, but that's nonsense because you keep pretending that everything I accept because it follows from the premise is somehow logically invalid. It's not, that is not how logical fallacies work.

P1. It is wrong to steal
P2. Little John stole another child's toy
C: John was wrong

What you're doing is the equivalent of refuting this by saying I haven't proven it's wrong to steal. Uh, yeah of course I haven't, because that's the starting point of this argument. Every argument has to start with something, and that something can be questioned endlessly, which is exactly what you're doing here.

Which is why if we go aaaaaall the way to the beginning, it literally all begins with the acceptance of logic as the governing principal of acceptable thought. I've already explained why. Asking me to prove that is by definition, absurd.
Topic's author
#67
TheGreatSunGod
TheGreatSunGod's avatar
Debates: 27
Posts: 1,407
3
4
8
TheGreatSunGod's avatar
TheGreatSunGod
3
4
8
-->
@Double_R
If you use logic to prove logic wrong, then you just disproved the very thing which your entire case is built on
This is again false. If logic leads to logical conclusion that non-logic exists within very logic, then that is just contradiction within very logic.


Premises are not logic. Premises are not within logic. Premises are the assumptions we accept at the outset. Logic is what connects those premises to the conclusion.
All logic can be expressed in premises, such as A = A.

If logic didnt have premises, then the very logic would be invalid always.

So when you say "A = A" applies to everything, that is your premise and an assumption here.

Also, you are making a false dichotomy between "You must always use logic everywhere" and "You must never use logic anywhere".

Obviously, I am going to use logic where logic applies. Logic doesnt apply to things logic doesnt apply to, by tautology itself.

You even admitted in past comments that there are some things where logical laws dont apply.
Topic's author
#68
TheGreatSunGod
TheGreatSunGod's avatar
Debates: 27
Posts: 1,407
3
4
8
TheGreatSunGod's avatar
TheGreatSunGod
3
4
8
-->
@Double_R
Again, logic is necessary for coherent thought. Why does that matter? Because this entire thread is about whether god can be proven mathematically. Or hell just drop off the mathematically part and just say this thread is about whether god can be proven.
The God was already proved mathematically here. But that specific argument was about if God can be above logic. Now, you conceded that logic isnt necessary for all thoughts, thus conceded that things outside of logic can indeed exist.



In order to prove something, the most basic qualifier is that the idea you are trying to prove is coherent. And yet you are asserting a being that is definitionally incoherent, making your argument definitionally irrational. And all you're doing to square this circle is sitting there going "nuh uh!
This is not true. Again, existence isnt defined in a way to limit it to be subjected to logic alone now. That is only your own definition, not even a definition from actual dictionary.
Topic's author
#69
TheGreatSunGod
TheGreatSunGod's avatar
Debates: 27
Posts: 1,407
3
4
8
TheGreatSunGod's avatar
TheGreatSunGod
3
4
8
-->
@Double_R
That's when you build your conclusion into the premise.
So when you build in your premise as assumption that logic applies to God, what exactly are you proving here?

Again, the problem in your logic is:
1. Many people agree that by definition, God is above laws of logic.
2. If God is by definition above logic, your premise 1 is false by definition.

That is the problem in your case.
#70
Shila
Shila's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,841
3
3
5
Shila's avatar
Shila
3
3
5
-->
@TheGreatSunGod
That's when you build your conclusion into the premise.
So when you build in your premise as assumption that logic applies to God, what exactly are you proving here?

Again, the problem in your logic is:
1. Many people agree that by definition, God is above laws of logic.
2. If God is by definition above logic, your premise 1 is false by definition.

That is the problem in your case
Yes, it takes faith to believe in God.

Faith is a strong belief in something that cannot be proven with certainty, and believing in God often involves trusting in God's existence and plan, even when it's not immediately evident.
 




#71
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,795
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@TheGreatSunGod
If logic leads to logical conclusion that non-logic exists within very logic
It doesn't. The existence of something that violates logic, by it's own definition... contradicts logic. That's the opposite of a logical conclusion.

If logic didnt have premises, then the very logic would be invalid always.
OMG. Are you reading any of this?

Logic doesn't have premises. Logic is what we use to connect premises to the conclusion.

Arguments have premises. An argument is:
Premises + logic = conclusion.

Invalid is when the conclusion does not follow from the premisrs. In other words, it's when the logic of the argument fails.

Soundness is when the premises are true and the logic is valid.

Please get this straight. If you're really going to sit here and try to argue about logic it would be helpful to understand the very basics of it.

So when you say "A = A" applies to everything, that is your premise and an assumption here.
A=A is literally the first law of logic. In other words, it is the most basic requirement of logical coherent thought. For you to claim that's "my premise" is insane. If you do not accept that as a necessity you are by definition irrational and not capable of carrying out an intellectual conversion (which you've pretty much demonstrated here).

Also, you are making a false dichotomy between "You must always use logic everywhere" and "You must never use logic anywhere".
Logic is a set of rules governing acceptable thought. They either apply to everything or they don't, and if they don't then you no longer have any basis to draw a line between what it applies to and what doesn't because drawing that line itself requires logic.

It is not a false dichotomy, it is the truest dichotomy possible, literally. 

Logic doesnt apply to things logic doesnt apply to, by tautology itself.
The only reason a tautology has any meaning at all is because violating a taugtology means violating logic. And yet you are using a taugtology to argue that logic can be violated.

You are literally using logic to argue against logic. To not see how absurd that is is itself absurd.

You even admitted in past comments that there are some things where logical laws dont apply.
What I said is that there is a point where the laws of logic breakdown. In other words; we cannot possibly know what or if anything is possible behind that. The prime example of those is the big bang. It starts at the first Planck second because it's not [logically] possible to go back any further.

Your point here in this thread is that you can prove the existence of a being that violates logic. I'm telling you that you cannot, because that requires violating the very thing you are using to prove it in the first place. You cannot prove something via absurdity.

Again, the problem in your logic is:
1. Many people agree that by definition, God is above laws of logic.
2. If God is by definition above logic, your premise 1 is false by definition.
People can agree to anything they want. I can find people who think that the earth is flat, which means that it is round. You do not have to accept logic as the foundation of acceptable thought, you can just be an irrational person if that's what you choose.

But that's my issue here. You like to present yourself as a rational individual while trying to defend that which is definitionally irrational. It's dishonest. You attack my position as being logically circular. Why does that matter? If circular reasoning is bad, why? You talk a lot about taugtologies. Why do they matter? Because violating then violates logic? So what? So does the god you are trying to prove exists.
#72
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,795
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@TheGreatSunGod
Almost forgot

Can a 5 sided triangle exist? Yes or No?
I'd like a straightforward answer to this.
Topic's author
#73
TheGreatSunGod
TheGreatSunGod's avatar
Debates: 27
Posts: 1,407
3
4
8
TheGreatSunGod's avatar
TheGreatSunGod
3
4
8
-->
@Double_R
A=A is literally the first law of logic
"A = A" is the premise. Its a claim. As simple as that. Can you prove that it is always true?

 They either apply to everything or they don't, and if they don't then you no longer have any basis to draw a line between what it applies to and what doesn't because drawing that line itself requires logic
By tautology, logic doesnt apply to things which logic doesnt apply to, and we know that logic itself cannot explain itself without using non-logic.
Topic's author
#74
TheGreatSunGod
TheGreatSunGod's avatar
Debates: 27
Posts: 1,407
3
4
8
TheGreatSunGod's avatar
TheGreatSunGod
3
4
8
-->
@Double_R
Premise:
"a previous statement or proposition from which another is inferred or follows as a conclusion"

So you take statement "A = A" as true to build other premises and conclusions from that statement. The problem in your case is that you cannot prove or explain the main premises you always use.

To put it simply, I can explain here why "A=A". Its because God created that law along with all the other laws in the whole universe.

You, on the other hand, have no any explanation for why "A = A" exists.

So when choosing between case which has explanation and cause, and a case which doesnt, I prefer a case which has explanation and cause.
#75
Shila
Shila's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,841
3
3
5
Shila's avatar
Shila
3
3
5
-->
@Double_R
Almost forgot

Can a 5 sided triangle exist? Yes or No?
I'd like a straightforward answer to this.
It won’t be called a triangle even if it exists.
#76
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,795
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@TheGreatSunGod
To put it simply, I can explain here why "A=A". Its because God created that law along with all the other laws in the whole universe.

You, on the other hand, have no any explanation for why "A = A" exists.
Yeah, I should have known that you would end up here parroting presuppositionalist garbage. Now it all makes sense.

"Goddidit" is not an explanation, especially when the god you are asserting is not bound by the laws of logic. For something to qualify as an explanation it must, before anything else, be coherent. Yet the thing you are asserting is definitionally incoherent. Your explanation fails before it even begins.

But then it gets worse. You are telling me that I need to prove to you that A=A (which is literally the same thing as telling me to prove to you that a rock is a rock) but you don't think you need to prove that there exists a being that can violate the laws of logic. You get to just assert it. That's just stupid.

But the worst thing about presuppositional apologetics is that are you really sitting here telling me that I have to prove the validity of the very thing you are using to make your point. Your "explanation" can only make sense if we begin with the presumption that logic is the arbiter of acceptable thought. If I make an argument that doesn't follow logically, you will (as you have attempted to do this entire conversation) call me out for engaging in logical fallacies. All of this adherence to logic you are stressing, while simultaneously arguing in support of a conclusion that explicitly violates logic.

Presuppositionalism is fundamentally self defeating and dishonest. It's nothing more than a rhetorical game of trying to make the other person trip over their words. Find something else.

Topic's author
#77
TheGreatSunGod
TheGreatSunGod's avatar
Debates: 27
Posts: 1,407
3
4
8
TheGreatSunGod's avatar
TheGreatSunGod
3
4
8
-->
@Double_R
Your "explanation" can only make sense if we begin with the presumption that logic is the arbiter of acceptable thought
Actually, logic itself is unproved without God creator of logic. So quite the opposite here, my friend. You are the one admitting that logic cannot be proved, while at the same time trying to use logic to prove something. Then you commit a classical "its useful to me, so its true" fallacy. On the other hand, I am the only one here with an explanation for logic. Your explanation for logic is: "Well, uh, it just exists". If thats all what it takes to prove something, then I will just say that God exists, so there, I proved God yet again. And if "its useful" counts as argument, well, then I cant imagine a world without God, so God must exist. Really, how does a world even exist without a creator? Let me guess, you dont know?
#78
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,795
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@TheGreatSunGod
logic itself is unproved without God creator of logic
The very concept of proving anything requires logic, as you are demonstrating right now. So no, god cannot prove logic because you need logic in order to make sense of that statement in the first place.

Your explanation for logic is: "Well, uh, it just exists".
No, you're the one asserting that it requires an explanation, which is absurd by definition. You cannot even conceive of what it is without using it, so the very notion of trying to explain it is incoherent.

You are the one admitting that logic cannot be proved, while at the same time trying to use logic to prove something.
Ok. I'm using logic to prove logic, and you're using logic to disprove logic. So which one of those you think is a better position?

Your position is fundamentally self defeating, but since you don't care about logic that isn't a problem for you. Congratulations, you figured out how to escape from the restrictions of having to make sense... Just stop caring about it. That's called faith, and I would respect you more if you would just admit that rather than sit here trying to use logic to make a logical argument against logic.
#79
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,795
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@TheGreatSunGod
Still want an answer to this, btw

Can a 5 sided triangle exist? Yes or No?
#80
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,795
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@TheGreatSunGod
And now that I think about it, wasn't the entire point of this thread supposed to be that you can use math to prove God?

And since math is a function of logic this thread literally means you are trying to use logic to prove God. But now you're claiming that god proves logic.

So...

God proves logic
Logic proves God

Hmmm, I believe there is a fallacy which describes this.
Topic's author
#81
TheGreatSunGod
TheGreatSunGod's avatar
Debates: 27
Posts: 1,407
3
4
8
TheGreatSunGod's avatar
TheGreatSunGod
3
4
8
-->
@Double_R
The very concept of proving anything requires logic
That is not true. If logic didnt exist anywhere, we would instead observe non-logic. But we have already seen that logic naturally leads to conclusion that non-logic exists as well. The problem in your argument that its essentially circular. You cant even prove logic without using logic.

Ok. I'm using logic to prove logic, and you're using logic to disprove logic
No, no. I already told you. I am not disproving logic here. It is you who does that by saying logic doesnt have any proof for its existence. I simply offered here clear proof for logic: God creator of logic.
Topic's author
#82
TheGreatSunGod
TheGreatSunGod's avatar
Debates: 27
Posts: 1,407
3
4
8
TheGreatSunGod's avatar
TheGreatSunGod
3
4
8
-->
@Double_R
wasn't the entire point of this thread supposed to be that you can use math to prove God?
That one was already achieved here.


God proves logic
Logic proves God
As opposed to your whole case: logic proves logic here. Logic leads to conclusion that God probably exists, and logic leads to conclusion that things outside of logic are necessary. To put it simply, logic cannot prove itself without God. This is essentially the problem of your case here. I am not saying that logic created God. That would be strawman. However, the laws of logic are set up in a way that they cannot be proved without their creator here. God can exist without logic, but logic cannot exist without God now. So it is not circular logic. It is the only possible explanation there is here.
#83
cristo71
cristo71's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,942
3
2
3
cristo71's avatar
cristo71
3
2
3
-->
@TheGreatSunGod
This is also problem for atheists in other areas
Why would the “god that exists” be a problem for atheists? Perhaps it wishes to be left alone and appreciates atheists more than anyone else.

#84
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 27,802
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@cristo71
lol, like a deadbeat dad?
Topic's author
#85
TheGreatSunGod
TheGreatSunGod's avatar
Debates: 27
Posts: 1,407
3
4
8
TheGreatSunGod's avatar
TheGreatSunGod
3
4
8
-->
@cristo71
Why would the “god that exists” be a problem for atheists? Perhaps it wishes to be left alone and appreciates atheists more than anyone else.
Lol I meant just in terms of proving if believers are right. I am not making any Pascal's wager here. I agree that God can indeed like atheists much more than believers. But thats entirely different topic now, which isnt limited to just if God exists or probability.
#86
cristo71
cristo71's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,942
3
2
3
cristo71's avatar
cristo71
3
2
3
-->
@Greyparrot
lol, like a deadbeat dad?
Yes, but that assumes that the paternity test results are positive.

#87
cristo71
cristo71's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,942
3
2
3
cristo71's avatar
cristo71
3
2
3
-->
@TheGreatSunGod
Lol I meant just in terms of proving if believers are right
But you haven’t proven believers right. Believers believe in god(s) with specific traits. You haven’t proven that a god with any specific traits exists. I went through a period of believing that some vague, poorly defined god entity existed. Then I came to the realization that there is virtually no distinction between a vague, poorly defined god entity existing or not existing.


Topic's author
#88
TheGreatSunGod
TheGreatSunGod's avatar
Debates: 27
Posts: 1,407
3
4
8
TheGreatSunGod's avatar
TheGreatSunGod
3
4
8
-->
@cristo71
But you haven’t proven believers right. Believers believe in god(s) with specific traits
Believers simply believe in some God. I merely proved that some God is likely to exist, thus some believers are likely to be right.

Again, Pascal's wager is a different argument entirely here. Pascal's wager is based on idea that according to all Gods which are known and popular so far, atheists in much more options end up in worse place in the afterlife than Christians, and in no option available do they end up having it better.

But Pascal's wager is ultimately flawed because even if we take one premise as true, it is not certain that atheists go to hell in Islam or Christianity. Bad people go to hell, and believers can be bad people while atheists dont need to be bad. In that sense, Pascal's wager is basically just folk logic and a very weak argument here. There are even specific messages in the Bible which strongly imply that good atheists are better than bad believers. I generally stay away from Pascal's wager because it takes much more effort to defend it, and proving the premises is almost impossible.
#89
Shila
Shila's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,841
3
3
5
Shila's avatar
Shila
3
3
5
-->
@TheGreatSunGod
Believers simply believe in some God. I merely proved that some God is likely to exist, thus some believers are likely to be right.

Again, Pascal's wager is a different argument entirely here. Pascal's wager is based on idea that according to all Gods which are known and popular so far, atheists in much more options end up in worse place in the afterlife than Christians.

But Pascal's wager is ultimately flawed because even if we take one premise as true, it is not certain that atheists go to hell in Islam or Christianity. Bad people go to hell, and believers can be bad people while atheists dont need to be bad. In that sense, Pascal's wager is basically just folk logic and a very weak argument here. I generally stay away from that argument because it takes much more effort to defend it, and proving the premises is almost impossible.
You got it all wrong. Pascal’s wages does not need to be defended or its premise proven. It's a form of pragmatic argument, focusing on the practical consequences of belief rather than on providing evidence for it.
Pascal's Wager is a philosophical argument suggesting that it's rational to believe in God, even if there's no proof of his existence, because the potential rewards of belief (eternal life) outweigh the potential losses (finite inconveniences of believing) if God does exist. It's a form of pragmatic argument, focusing on the practical consequences of belief rather than on providing evidence for it.



Topic's author
#90
TheGreatSunGod
TheGreatSunGod's avatar
Debates: 27
Posts: 1,407
3
4
8
TheGreatSunGod's avatar
TheGreatSunGod
3
4
8
-->
@Shila
focusing on the practical consequences of belief
Thats the unproved premise which I am talking about. Even if we assume that the only Gods possible are the ones listed in Pascal's wager, the idea that good atheists go to Hell is not just unproved, but basically insane.