dye

"那3000人是因為不信耶和華而給殺死嗎?"

Exodus 32
7 Then the LORD said to Moses, "Go down, because your people, whom you brought up out of Egypt, have become corrupt.
8 They have been quick to turn away from what I commanded them and have made themselves an idol cast in the shape of a calf. They have bowed down to it and sacrificed to it and have said, 'These are your gods, O Israel, who brought you up out of Egypt.'

9 "I have seen these people," the LORD said to Moses, "and they are a stiff-necked people.
10 Now leave me alone so that my anger may burn against them and that I may destroy them. Then I will make you into a great nation."
........
27 Then he said to them, "This is what the LORD, the God of Israel, says: 'Each man strap a sword to his side. Go back and forth through the camp from one end to the other, each killing his brother and friend and neighbor.' "

28 The Levites did as Moses commanded, and that day about three thousand of the people died.

29 Then Moses said, "You have been set apart to the LORD today, for you were against your own sons and brothers, and he has blessed you this day."

dye

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

dye

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.

dye

"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?)

dye

回復 65# beebeechan

Simple.  

You can make anything happen in a work of fiction.

dye

Firstly, they do know.
Secondly, if you have a council to decide on whoch book, the probabilty is high.

dye

回復 72# beebeechan

But you only have one newspaper, the Bible.

And it is known to lie through the teeth before.

dye

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.

dye

No it does not.

It is NOT the contend itself.  It is the reliability of the report itself in question.

I think others will agree the point except you, who has no interest in knowing.

dye

I am under no obligation to show you.
Your attitude is telling me you are not interested.

dye

We both know.  We are not obliged to told you what we know.

dye

回復 94# liberale

Notice that I do not assume that we know the truth.

Before we know the shape of th earth, we can use agnosticism on the shape of the earth.

But either way we do agree the earth is either one shape or the other (including no shape)

Therefore, I do not know is only an escape from the question instead of an answer

----------
Suppose, using your example, on dark matter.

Maybe it exist, maybe it does not.  However, it is never in a state of "I do not know".  I do not know is neither saying that it exists, or it does not.

I do not know is only avoiding the question instead of answering the question.   
-----------
Ofcourse there are question a person can avoid answering.  For example, if you earn more than 2 million US a year.  However, can a person truly avoid 'question with consequences'?  

Typically in monothesim, if there is a God, saying 'I do not know' would send you to hell.  Suppose there is no God, the way Christian act in this world will have consequences (Like crusade?)

dye

回復 94# liberale

What is the scientific view if you do not have evidence to show something exist?

It is famously discuss by Betrand Russell's celestial teapots http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell's_teapot

"If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is an in

tolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense."


----------
Besies, I think you miss the way to 'disprove a god'.  

If a God is obeservable (it leaves any material mark), for example the wind turning the windmill, for example the love that cause the mother to protect her offspring, or the supposive flood, genesis, genocides of the bible, it can be observe by science.  

If it is define as not observable (It leaves no material mark), for example the Invisible Pink Unicorn, it is out of the scope of science.  However, if it is not observable and leave no material mark, who cares whether it exist or not?

If it is only difficult to observe, it is still in th realm of science (like you example of dark matter).  However, before you can observe any effect from it, is it not prudence to reserve from placing a bet on it existing?  (Atheist does not require you to put any bet on the table.  It is only an ABSENCE of religious belief)

Other than science, you can also prove a negative by showing the concept of the object as illogical, for example, a 4-sided triangle, or trinity.

Here is a good article on proving a negative:
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/theory.html

dye

If you are still in doubt, consider the following scenario

Suppose a TV salesman comes to your door and ask you to buy his latest TV set.  He claims that with latest technology, he has hired little green man from other dimension in the set to provide you with high definition TV experience.

You are in a little doubt and ask the salesman for evidence.  He provides a manual of the TV.  You called the number on it but no one answer.  Instead, he asks you to prove that there is no little green man from other dimension in the TV.  Being in a good saleman, he allows you to examine the TV set.

At first, you turn on the TV set and there is no effect.  You are baffled but the saleman claims that the TV will not work because you have not paid him yet.  Once you have paid him, the little green man inside will start working.

So you use a screwdriver and dismantled the TV set.  It is an empty shell.  The saleman explains that the little green man is already there in ANOTHER DIMENSION, not visble to you.

So now you have no evidence for or against the quality of the TV set (really?).

------------------------
So here comes your decison.  Do you buy the TV set and becomes a believer?  Or do you refuse to buy the TV set and become an atheist?  

Or would you just say 'I do not know'?  But If you say you do not know, you still need to decide to pay the saleman and act like a de facto believer, or refuse to pay and act like an de facto atheist.

The salesman smiles and tells you, "Remember, if you refuse, I will not come back and sell you again.  If you do not buy it today, you will never enjoy high definition TV experience forever!"

dye

If you feel something exist, and yet there is no way you can demonstrate to anyone that it does, is it not an delusion?  Or rather, how do YOU differetiate your experience from a delusion?

How do you differentiate wishful thinking from reality?  How do you differentiate the TV set with little green man and the TV set that the engineer designed?

How do you decide if you buy the TV set or not?  
-------------------

If you "feel" you have a million dollars in your account, and yet there is no money in your account.  Truth, as 'normal' people would understand, your still do not have the million you "feel" you have.   You can re-define money as the whole of existence, but than the word 'money' will lose its meaning quickly.  You can define that your money exist and non-exist at the same time, again, the word 'money' will have no meaning.

---------------------------
I never said what kind of existence it has to take.  However, in order to be detectable in science, it has to be observable.  It is the only criteria.  It does not have to be "solid".  For example, wind and heat are observable, electron and neutrino are observable, love, friendship even hatrad are observable.

If you cannot define God, how is it different from ADFR, or grable?

If God is define as the whole of existence, I am part of existence, and so are you.  So is the the parasites that kills million and the rock that sat in outer space for billion of years in outer space.  If it is how it is defined, I can feel myself, I can certainly feel god.  Under this definitaion, you CAN scientifically shown that I feel god by poking me and watch for a reaction (it is that simple).

Science is observation combined with thinking.  Without the two, under what criteria do you prove, or show something that is different from a superstition?
--------------
Ofcourse, if you "define" away science and logic, you can always have invisible pink unicorn.  Any talk will be futile and I bet you do not live your live by your words.

dye

Observe where we will be heading if we escape reason...

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4720837385783230047#

dye

Science and logic is NOT just a philosophy.  It is an observation.  

As you see from the program, when under observation, this alternative medicine has no observable benefit.  What is more, by diverting resources from medicine that is proven to be effective, people die.  (The reason of the program is because a epidemic has spread because of it.)

In the end, delusion is delusion.  The harm is REAL.  No matter how good it feels, if you take poison, you die.  It is not a philosophical problem (not for some atheists at least, because they know there is no take two, they cherish life).

In your example, if the student begin praying instead of studying, REAL harm will be done.  In a fitting analogy, when the disaster stricken people decided to pray instead of rescue, the death that result is real.

Observe how believes and wishful thinking like below KILLS..
http://www.simonchau.hk/Chinese_B5/health/vacine.htm

-------------
The focus of science is not exactly skepticism but observation.

-------------
Do not link religion with love.  Least you know, there is social science, there is economic, there is psychology, there is even evolution biology.

Finding partner can be scientific.  In the same way, you observe a potential partner BEFORE joining.  There IS an explanation!  The capacity of a person to accept an explanation, is another issue.  There is always folk that insist the world is flat.
--------------
In the end, do you buy every TV the saleman sell you with hard earn money?  If you feel good about sitting in front of an empty box, is there no different from watching a normal TV?