------ Discussion of Pascals Wager continues with Pastor Harvey Burnett ----- ----------- Discussion is at In Defense of the Faith group - link below ----------- David Salako - Malcolm. Consider this illustration; It is as follows: If a terminally ill person has the choice of taking a pill that may cure or may not cure; what is the best option? 1. Take the medicine or 2. do not take the medicine. Ofcourse the best option is to take the pill. For it may cure him. But if the person did not take the pill, then he would have died without knowing if it would have cured him. So the best option is certainly taking the pill. The same is true regarding the option between being an Atheist and the option of being a Theist. For; to choose to be an Atheist means that one does not know if believing in a Judiciary God will save them from punishment(after death)or not. However it may. Hence the best option is to be a Theist. Pastor Harvey Burnett - Malcolm. Thats what I mean. You dont deal with the issues. Now the man has taken time to put together a logical and coherent point of why theisim is more rational than atheism. You an atheist, dont say one word about that, you just skirt on to another argument. Deal with the postings for a CHANGE....TRY to refute this mans argument. IF your position is as sound as you think it is, that should be easy to do.... We await...... Hello Harvey and David. Apologies for the delay in responding, I have been away for a few days. I have dealt with Pascals Wager; I regard it as a fallacious argument in view of the multitude of available gods. The Wager is ONLY valid if there is ONE god; you will tell me that there is only one and that is where the argument falls flat because all of the apologists for the other religions will give me the same answer. David states - Consider this illustration; It is as follows: If a terminally ill person has the choice of taking a pill that may cure or may not cure; what is the best option? 1. Take the medicine or 2. do not take the medicine. Of course the best option is to take the pill. For it may cure him. But if the person did not take the pill, then he would have died without knowing if it would have cured him. So the best option is certainly taking the pill. That is a ridiculous argument, what if the terminally ill person:- 1/ Consults widely amongst conventional physicians and is advised of many different medications. 2/ Consults an alternative therapy practitioner and is prescribed herbal treatment. 3/ Consults an alternative therapy practitioner and is prescribed a course of homeopathic treatment. 4/ Consults their church and is advised that conventional medication is against their belief system and God will cure them. 5/ Consults a faith healer and is advised to pray and rely on God. 6/ ………………………………… etc. Each, or a combination thereof, of the above hypotheses happens each day. The ill person then has to consider multiple possibilities; David’s argument then fails in the same way that Pascal’s Wager disintegrates in the face of multiple gods. With best wishes Your cousin Malcolm. https://facebook/david.salako3?hc_location=stream https://facebook/groups/207127842725068/permalink/439626702808513/?comment_id=440782012692982&offset=0&total_comments=4
Posted on: Tue, 26 Nov 2013 11:05:15 +0000
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015