本帖最後由 dye 於 2010/7/5 15:54 編輯

Not right

The wager idea has three component.
a) The probability distrubution
b) The wager, or cost, or benefit you pay to make the bet
c) The consequence, or reward, or punishment for getting it right or wrong

-----------------
The central idea is that it cost nothing to believe in God (which is totally wrong)

And it pays greatly if you believe in the right one. (which is only partially correct because it neglect the possible punishment for believing the wrong one)

It neglect the probability distrubution because of the above two reasons.
--------------
If we take the assumption that we do not know the distribution (agnostic),

We still know that
b) There are cost in believing, no cost in not believing
How do you define and measure 「堅實」?
本帖最後由 dye 於 2010/7/5 16:02 編輯

Besides the point above, the decision maker can also have different attitude.
The Pascal wager assumes a Bayes decision maker.  The decision maker will always take a choice with the highest expected return.

In real life, people also consider risk.  People also consider the worst case scenario with the best case scenario.

Some are reward-driven, other focus on loss-avoidance, for example.
本帖最後由 liberale 於 2010/7/5 16:06 編輯
在信有神, 信無神問題上
那方是對, 那方是錯都搞未清, 是一個不知數
那你又如何能算出「對的機會較高,錯 ...
beebeechan 發表於 2010/7/5 15:40


不可知論=神存在或神不存在
有神論=神存在
無神論=神不存在
不可知論比有神論或無神論對的機會都更高,錯的機會都更少。
本帖最後由 beebeechan 於 2010/7/5 16:06 編輯
回復  beebeechan


    11個一定是好的嗎
想想耶穌死下死下成條死魚咁在十架時 ,他們又死去那裡 ...
淚兒 發表於 2010/7/5 14:07


問得好丫
那為甚麼這班貪生怕死的謂門徒, 在幾十日後卻變得膽粗粗, 唔怕死, 公然在聖殿講耶穌呢?
跟之前的行為大大不同了,
由死埋一邊變了行在前頭, 突哂頭
之間發生了何事呢?
本帖最後由 dye 於 2010/7/5 16:16 編輯

"不可知論=神存在或神不存在
有神論=神存在
無神論=神不存在
不可知論比有神論或無神論對的機會都更高。"

by ananlogy
不可知論=The earth shape is unknown
Flat earth 論=The earth is flat
Round earth 論= The earth is round

Can you conclude that the 不可知論 has a higher probability than round earth theory?
Can you see the err in logic?

-------------------------
不可知論 is ALWAYS wrong.  You can never be right in 不可知論!
It is an approach to problem (by not answering the question) but not an answer in itself to the question.

Both athiest and theist face the question but agnotic avoid the question altogather.  (But, can you really avoid it?)
回復 65# beebeechan

Simple.  

You can make anything happen in a work of fiction.
The logic is, you are always a loser no matter the earth is flat or round.
回復 65# beebeechan


    已經閹左嘛 ,米唔怕捧打出頭鳥囉
本帖最後由 beebeechan 於 2010/7/5 16:29 編輯
回復  beebeechan

Simple.  

You can make anything happen in a work of fiction.
dye 發表於 2010/7/5 16:09




Well, the Bible sure is a great fiction.
A group of people is told to write a story.
You do not know what I will write and I do not know what you will write. He does not know what we are about to write. We write at different places and different time and yet, we come up to the same story.
What is the probability of things coming up this way?
Firstly, they do know.
Secondly, if you have a council to decide on whoch book, the probabilty is high.
The SCMP wrote about the choper that crashed into the Victoria Harbour. The reporters of 蘋果, 太陽, 成報, 東方, 星島 wrote the same story. It happens because they are all writing on a FACT. Something did happen.
Firstly, they do know.
Secondly, if you have a council to decide on whoch book, the probabilty is hi ...
dye 發表於 2010/7/5 16:21


The gospels were already out there when the bible was canonized.
The church did not write the bible.
Firstly, they do know.
.
dye 發表於 2010/7/5 16:21

know what?
回復  beebeechan


    已經閹左嘛 ,米唔怕捧打出頭鳥囉
淚兒 發表於 2010/7/5 16:10



   你在本版是幾時受閹的?
(而且閹得幾深下囉)
回復 75# beebeechan


    咁都唔及你咁閹完玥閹再返閹呀
回復  beebeechan


    咁都唔及你咁閹完玥閹再返閹呀
淚兒 發表於 2010/7/5 16:33


你諗唔到點回, 不如不回哩
回得太廢了
回復 72# beebeechan

But you only have one newspaper, the Bible.

And it is known to lie through the teeth before.
本帖最後由 dye 於 2010/7/5 17:17 編輯

回復 72# beebeechan

The second problem of this is that it only shows what the reporters believe to have happen.  It is not definitive of what actually happen (or fact).

How trustworthy depends on the skills and knowledge of the reporters involved.

Bible's reporters (which they CLAIM to have many without proof) are known to be biased, have a vest interest (and they admit it), and they are uneducated in today's standard.
The gospels were already out there when the bible was canonized.
The church did not write the bible.   beebeechan

但係教會都一定會搵一d  favour 佢地既譯本. 可能正如另一個 thread 講聖經內根本無 church. 所以你都可以創教的. ... 而事實上都有很多人咁做..   

--

Bible's reporters (which they CLAIM to have many without proof) are known to be biased, have a vest interest (and they admit it), and they are uneducated in today's standard.

i agree
高級模式 | 發新話題
B Color Image Link Quote Code Smilies
換一個