What does it matter . . . ?

[37818]

Pascal's wager is not the reality of possible choices.

First off, between two choices was never all possible choices.

Increase what you 'know about' and do not live in Plato's cave of ignorance.

Not making a choice because of ignorance of other possibilities is still making a choice. Choosing not to choose between known choices is still a choosing.

[shunyadragon]

Metaphysical claims cannot be physically tested. But if true or not true can be weighed as to value or consequences.


It also has never be shown to be false concern.

Fallcy; hiding behind the proof of the negative concerning metaphysical claims.

Do you have a rational definitive argument that God cannot be the uncaused existence in which all other things exist?

Same problem as above.

[37818]

Fallcy; hiding behind the proof of the negative concerning metaphysical claims.

Either a thing is true or not. Ignorance or deliberate denial will not make what is true not true.

Superstition and wishful thinking does not make anything true.

[shunyadragon]

First off, between two choices was never all possible choices.

The wager as Pascal proposed was only two choices.

Not making a choice because of ignorance of other possibilities is still making a choice. Choosing not to choose between known choices is still a choosing.

Does not make sense.

[Tassman]

Metaphysical claims cannot be physically tested.

That’s the point. A premise in a metaphysical argument can only be an assumed premise. Hence the conclusion of a metaphysical argument cannot be shown to be true.

But if true or not true can be weighed as to value or consequences.

You cannot weigh the "value or consequences" of an argument if you cannot show it to be a sound argument.

It also has never be shown to be false concern.

So you’re suggesting feigning belief just in case. Wouldn’t an omniscient God know that one’s belief is being feigned and send you into eternal damnation for trying to cheat?

Do you have a rational definitive argument that God cannot be the uncaused existence in which all other things exist?

No more than you have a definitive argument that God IS “the uncaused existence in which all other things exist”...this is an unsubstantiated hypothesis.

[37818]

That’s the point. A premise in a metaphysical argument can only be an assumed premise. Hence the conclusion of a metaphysical argument cannot be shown to be true.

And generally cannot be logically ruled out as false.

You cannot weigh the "value or consequences" of an argument if you cannot show it to be a sound argument.

You are presuming any metaphysical argument cannot be sound.

So you’re suggesting feigning belief just in case.

Known fictitious belief should not be taken seriously.

Wouldn’t an omniscient God know that one’s belief is being feigned and send you into eternal damnation for trying to cheat?

Merely logically concluding that something should be believed as true does not in and of it self help unfringed unbelief and may not over come an individuals reasons for such unbelief. But one would think it would drive one to look farther into the matter.

No more than you have a definitive argument that God IS “the uncaused existence in which all other things exist”...this is an unsubstantiated hypothesis.

To you. I know this for certain.

[shunyadragon]

And generally cannot be logically ruled out as false.

Logic cannot rule out things as false. As before this line of logic is a fallacy, an 'argument from ignorance.'

You are presuming any metaphysical argument cannot be sound.

This is not assumed, but metaphysical arguments require suppositions that cannot be empirically tested, and are often circular.

Known fictitious belief should not be taken seriously.

This remains a problem for Genesis.

Merely logically concluding that something should be believed as true does not in and of it self help unfringed unbelief and may not over come an individuals reasons for such unbelief. But one would think it would drive one to look farther into the matter.

Neither position can be logically proven beyond any reasonable doubt.

To you. I know this for certain.

. . . based on subjective presuppositions of belief.

[37818]

Logic cannot rule out things as false. As before this line of logic is a fallacy, an 'argument from ignorance.'

Something logically invalid is false.

This is not assumed, but metaphysical arguments require suppositions that cannot be empirically tested, and are often circular.

Are you Tassman?

This remains a problem for Genesis.

Oh, you know the Genesis account is was written to be fictitious because?

Neither position can be logically proven beyond any reasonable doubt.

If all the starting premises are known to be true, why not?

. . . based on subjective presuppositions of belief.

No. By knowing this God. And you do not.

[shunyadragon]

Something logically invalid is false.

The argument is invalid, and it may not be false just a bad argument.

Again . . . logic cannot rule out things as false. As before this line of logic is a fallacy, an 'argument from ignorance.'

Are you Tassman?

Last time I looked no.

Oh, you know the Genesis account is was written to be fictitious because?

By the evidence.

If all the starting premises are known to be true, why not?

The problem is whether the premises are known to be true. As far as apologetic arguments the premises are most often based on the belief in the conclusions.

No. By knowing this God. And you do not.

I believe in God, but I consider it unbelievably arrogant to say I know God.

[Tassman]

And generally cannot be logically ruled out as false.

A logical argument can be a valid argument, but if it doesn’t begin with a demonstrably true premise it cannot be shown to have a true conclusion.

You are presuming any metaphysical argument cannot be sound.

An argument without a true premise cannot be a sound argument.

Known fictitious belief should not be taken seriously.

This makes nonsense of Pascal’s Wager. One either believes or does not believe.

Merely logically concluding that something should be believed as true does not in and of it self help unfringed unbelief and may not over come an individuals reasons for such unbelief. But one would think it would drive one to look farther into the matter.

One could look “further into the matter” most assiduously, but if one is still not convinced then one will not believe. Is one to be punished in the eternal flames for this?

To you. I know this for certain.

You think you do but actually you merely BELIEVE it; you cannot “know” it “for certain”.

[37818]

You think you do but actually you merely BELIEVE it; you cannot “know” it “for certain”.

What do you know for certain?

[Tassman]

Originally Posted by 37818

What do you know for certain?

Empirically verified facts can be tested and are more certain than faith-based beliefs unsupported by verified evidence.

[37818]

Empirically verified facts can be tested and are more certain than faith-based beliefs unsupported by verified evidence.

All verifiable facts are a matter of faith in their verification.

[Tassman]

All verifiable facts are a matter of faith in their verification.

Empirically verified facts can be multiply tested whereas purely faith-based facts cannot. Hence, the former are more reliable than the former.

[Roy]

Superstition and wishful thinking does not make anything true.

What else have you got?