Are you a God Fearing Christian?

Fixed that for you, undercunt. Originally Posted by lustylad

And to think, you could've used that time constructively, but I made you waste it on me. I've made a convincing case. The fact that you don't listen to reason is not my concern. Keep fucking with my posts like a seventh grader would. It makes you look so cool.

PS - since you seem to be raring to go; make a case for god. Not any god, the abrahamic god. Go...

And to think, you could've used that time constructively, but I made you waste it on me. I've made a convincing case. The fact that you don't listen to reason is not my concern. Keep fucking with my posts like a seventh grader would. It makes you look so cool.

PS - since you seem to be raring to go; make a case for god. Not any god, the abrahamic god. Go... Originally Posted by WombRaider

You're a MESS, undercunt. First you tell me I foolishly wasted my time expecting you to be capable of serious debate, then you tell me let's debate something else? Try making sense for a change. Are you still hearing cuckoo birds? You're a mess. Pull yourself together, disable your account, and go back to playing on the farm team.




.

You're a MESS, undercunt. First you tell me I foolishly wasted my time expecting you to be capable of serious debate, then you tell me let's debate something else? Try making sense for a change. Are you still hearing cuckoo birds? You're a mess. Pull yourself together, disable your account, and go back to playing on the farm team.




. Originally Posted by lustylad

Because there is no convincing case to be made. Smarter men than you have failed trying. Go fuck yourself, shitdick.

Religion and apologetics is something I'm well versed in. I want you to keep flailing away. Please, keep asking questions, I dare you. Originally Posted by WombRaider

I'm done with your games. Originally Posted by WombRaider

Because there is no convincing case to be made. Originally Posted by WombRaider

If there is no case to be made, why did you beg me to debate Pascal's Wager – only to flee as soon as I took you up on your “dare” and posed arguments and questions to you? Why are you so skeered to have a real debate on something you claim to be so “well versed in”?

You're busted, undercunt. You're a phony and a coward and a liar and a poseur. And a mess. Pack your bags and leave.

.

If there is no case to be made, why did you beg me to debate Pascal's Wager – only to flee as soon as I took you up on your “dare” and posed arguments and questions to you? Why are you so skeered to have a real debate on something you claim to be so “well versed in”?

You're busted, undercunt. Pack your bags and leave.

. Originally Posted by lustylad

No convincing case to be made FOR the existence of god, you fucking idiot. I could waste my time explaining all the inherent problems to you, or I can choose to focus my energy elsewhere. I understand how this works. I decide I don't want to waste my time on you, you call me a pussy, thereby goading me back into the argument. There's no argument you can make for the existence of a god that doesn't ultimately come down to faith. And faith is bullshit.

The only thing that's busted, is a big, white ropey load, all over your face. You fancy yourself some of kind of king or something I guess. I'll go when I'm good and goddamn ready and not a moment sooner.

No convincing case to be made FOR the existence of god, you fucking idiot. Originally Posted by WombRaider

That's not what we were debating. We were debating Pascal's Wager, not whether God exists. You know those are two separate issues because you just tried to change the subject from the former to the latter 5 posts ago. Now you are trying to conflate them.

You make less and less sense with every post. And you've been exposed as a complete phony – you beat your chest, call yourself an expert, dare someone to debate you - and then scurry away like a cockroach when the lights are turned on. Give it up, undercunt. You're a mess.

That's not what we were debating. We were debating Pascal's Wager, not whether God exists. You know those are two separate issues because you just tried to change the subject from the former to the latter 5 posts ago. Now you are trying to conflate them.

You make less and less sense with every post. And you've been exposed as a complete phony – you beat your chest, call yourself an expert, dare someone to debate you - and then scurry away like a cockroach when the lights are turned on. Give it up, undercunt. You're a mess. Originally Posted by lustylad

You are a fucking moron. Pascal's Wager and whether god exists don't need to be conflated, you ignorant cunt. You are trying to debate something that you don't even know anything about. They are not two separate issues. You can't debate the apologetic argument itself without questioning the existence of god.

"Pascal's Wager is an argument in apologetic philosophy devised by the seventeenth-century French philosopher, mathematician and physicist Blaise Pascal (1623–62).[1] It posits that humans all bet with their lives either that God exists or not."

YOU give it up, you wrongheaded dickhole.

IBJunior shows his ass once again...

IBJunior shows his ass once again... Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

But we were debating Pascal's Wager, not whether god exists

What did he think Pascal's Wager was? He might know more about economics, but in this arena, he will not be victorious. I've actually studied religion more since I left it than I ever did when I was religious. Ironic.

IBJunior shows his ass once again... Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

You seem to like that, don't you, Assup?

But we were debating Pascal's Wager, not whether god exists

What did he think Pascal's Wager was? He might know more about economics, but in this arena, he will not be victorious. I've actually studied religion more since I left it than I ever did when I was religious. Ironic. Originally Posted by WombRaider

God doesn't exist because you can't see him, or evidence that he exists. If you were served a good meal would you believe there was a cook?


Jim

God doesn't exist because you can't see him, or evidence that he exists. If you were served a good meal would you believe there was a cook?


Jim Originally Posted by Mr MojoRisin

I could walk in the kitchen and thank the cook...

But if you want to use this metaphor, what 'food' has god cooked for us?

You seem to like that, don't you, Assup? Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

You seem to notice him liking it... you off in the corner beating off while watching the whole scene?

He might know more about economics. Originally Posted by WombRaider

Actually he knows nothing about that either. Take away his xfinity and he will be dumber than when you left him an hour ago.

It's pretty obvious when you get to the "down and dirty" of it.

You are a fucking moron. Pascal's Wager and whether god exists don't need to be conflated, you ignorant cunt. You are trying to debate something that you don't even know anything about. They are not two separate issues. You can't debate the apologetic argument itself without questioning the existence of god.

"Pascal's Wager is an argument in apologetic philosophy devised by the seventeenth-century French philosopher, mathematician and physicist Blaise Pascal (1623–62).[1] It posits that humans all bet with their lives either that God exists or not."

YOU give it up, you wrongheaded dickhole. Originally Posted by WombRaider

How brilliant of you to post the first sentence from the wikipedia page on Pascal's Wager, undercunt. Is that supposed to show your deep knowledge of the subject? Did you read the whole thing? Why don't you walk us through it? Oh wait, you can't, can you?

As I already explained, the wager itself neither proves nor attempts to prove God exists. In fact, the wager is a product of Pascal's frustration at NOT being able to prove God's existence. In his own words (from your wikipedia source):

“If I saw no signs of a divinity, I would fix myself in denial. If I saw everywhere the marks of a Creator, I would repose peacefully in faith. But seeing too much to deny Him, and too little to assure me, I am in a pitiful state... God is, or He is not. But to which side shall we incline? Reason can decide nothing here.”

So Pascal's wager was born out of frustration at his wavering, convictionless faith and inability to prove God exists. It leads him to an apologetic argument/conclusion. The argument/conclusion is that a rational person should act AS IF God exists as long as the probability is greater than zero. Pascal was a mathematician and his conclusion has a mathematical basis - using a probability matrix to compare the expected values of each possibility.

Your own wikipedia source agrees with me that Pascal's Wager and whether God exists are two separate issues:

“Pascal... did not advance the wager as a proof of God's existence but rather as a necessary pragmatic decision which is impossible to avoid for any living person.”

Of course, if we could prove God exists, then the probability would be 100%, and the probability of no God would be zero – in which case, there wouldn't be any need for a decision matrix like the one Pascal gave us. (The same holds true if we could prove God doesn't exist; just reverse the percentages.)

Is that too nuanced for you, dipshit?

.