(November 24, 2016 at 8:55 am)Pandæmonium Wrote:

(November 24, 2016 at 8:10 am)The Joker Wrote:  
The Pascal Wagar is a logical argument, it cannot therefore be wrong based on ones private feelings, the cost issue does not refute the argument.

Well, It depends on which religion is the true religion of God. You will have to examine the different religions, because we know they all can't be true, at the same time.  Because they all contradict each other.

Here's another logical argument which cannot therefore be wrong based on one's private feelings (as opposed to public ones, I suppose?):

1 All elephants are pink
2 Nellie is an elephant
3 Therefore Nellie is pink

Here's another one:

1 Something must be done
2 Here is something
3 Therefore we must do it

And another:

1 God is the most powerful entity in every reality
2 The greatest power is to be able to act while not existing
3 Therefore God doesn't exist

Remember, one's personal feelings cannot refute any of these.

(November 24, 2016 at 8:33 am)Fake Messiah Wrote:

Cthulhu's corollary to Pascal's Wager: What if you pick the wrong god?

Well according to ProgrammingGodJordan, I'm in the process of becoming a God.

Because of this thread, I decree that all those who worship other gods whilst alive and who do not renounce their faith at the point of their death will suffer a level of torment corresponding to how enthusiastically they worshipped when they die and I come to judge them.

Bear in mind that ProgrammingGodJordan has at least given a definition of what a god is, which is more than what TheJoker has done. And guess what, I fit the definition! I think he's still working out the details regarding hierarchy in the godverse though.

(November 23, 2016 at 6:50 pm)Alex K Wrote:

(November 23, 2016 at 6:46 pm)The Joker Wrote: This is were Pascale Wagar argument kicks in.

I don't know anyone by the name of Pascale Wagar, but I suspect the "argument" you give would work even better if

- there was only one possible God
- if belief was a choice that could be made honestly in reaction to a perceived threat

Both conditions are not met, and therefore the argument is completely invalid. But why am I wasting time on you?

I don't choose to be an atheist, I just don't believe in gods.

(November 24, 2016 at 9:08 am)The Joker Wrote: Well, It depends on which religion is the true religion of God. You will have to examine the different religions, because we know they all can't be true, at the same time.  Because they all contradict each other.

All religions, are in my view, equally wrong.

(November 23, 2016 at 6:50 pm)Alex K Wrote: I don't know anyone by the name of Pascale Wagar,

There's a Nicolas Pascale Wagaert on Facebook, apparently. I'm not familiar with any of his arguments though, nor if he has any.

(November 24, 2016 at 9:29 am)Stimbo Wrote: Here's another logical argument which cannot therefore be wrong based on one's private feelings (as opposed to public ones, I suppose?):

1 All elephants are pink
2 Nellie is an elephant
3 Therefore Nellie is pink

(Argument is flawed there are no pink elephants, haven't seen a real pink elephant on media, zoo.)

Here's another one:

1 Something must be done
2 Here is something
3 Therefore we must do it

(Argument is flawed as we don't know what that "something" and therefore how can we do it?)

And another:

1 God is the most powerful entity in every reality (True)
2 The greatest power is to be able to act while not existing(Act what? And how not existing?)
3 Therefore God doesn't exist

(Argument is flawed, therefore God does exist.)

Remember, one's personal feelings cannot refute any of these.(True, but logic can)

I even took the trouble to unpack all the in-quote responses. Please don't do that again.

(November 24, 2016 at 2:34 pm)The Joker Wrote:

(November 24, 2016 at 9:29 am)Stimbo Wrote: Here's another logical argument which cannot therefore be wrong based on one's private feelings (as opposed to public ones, I suppose?):

1 All elephants are pink
2 Nellie is an elephant
3 Therefore Nellie is pink

(Argument is flawed there are no pink elephants, haven't seen a real pink elephant on media, zoo.)

Irrelevant - argument from ignorance is not a refutation.

(November 24, 2016 at 2:34 pm)The Joker Wrote:

(November 24, 2016 at 9:29 am)Stimbo Wrote: Here's another one:

1 Something must be done
2 Here is something
3 Therefore we must do it

(Argument is flawed as we don't know what that "something" and therefore how can we do it?)

Irrelevant - argument from ignorance is not a refutation.

(November 24, 2016 at 2:34 pm)The Joker Wrote:

(November 24, 2016 at 9:29 am)Stimbo Wrote: And another:

1 God is the most powerful entity in every reality

(True)

(November 24, 2016 at 9:29 am)Stimbo Wrote: 2 The greatest power is to be able to act while not existing

(Act what? And how not existing?)

Irrelevant - argument from ignorance is not a refutation.

(November 24, 2016 at 2:34 pm)The Joker Wrote:

(November 24, 2016 at 9:29 am)Stimbo Wrote: 3 Therefore God doesn't exist

(Argument is flawed, therefore God does exist.)

Non-sequitur; and no valid objection raised to the argument, therefore argumemt not shown to be flawed, therefore still stands.

(November 24, 2016 at 2:34 pm)The Joker Wrote:

(November 24, 2016 at 9:29 am)Stimbo Wrote: Remember, one's personal feelings cannot refute any of these.

(True, but logic can)

Great; you're starting to get it.

I am bored and troubled by Joker hijacking a good thread with a seemingly respectable theist, the OP, Balaco. He seems very reasonable and its a shame this troll is messing things up. Time to suit in and prosecute. Meh.