Pascal's Wager
Poll
 | 10 votes (41.66%) | ||
| | 13 votes (54.16%) | ||
| | 1 vote (4.16%) |
24 members have voted
Quote: WizardThen who or what made god?
The OverGod, of course.
Then who or what made the OverGod?
Why, the OverOverGod.
Then who or what-
Stop it! It's OverOverOverOverOverGods all the way down!
With apologies to the late Carl Sagan.
Quote: DeMangoHow can the universe be explained except by God???
Effect has to have cause.
One only implies the other (, like hot and cold (or lack of heat))... makes NO sense to (most of us, anyway, to) think in terms of eg, a cause's cause, itself. This is like asking, "When did time begin?" Or any of the "circular definitions". Or, "How do the parts of an atom experience temperature?"
Quote: Wizardhow is it positive EV to believe?
Diversity serves evolutionary purpose?
Making decisions on belief (without evidence) probably helped some groups of people avoid an unexpected calamity which do happen once in awhile. On the other hand, I'm sure it probably led to several too.
Quote: rxwineDiversity serves evolutionary purpose?
Making decisions on belief (without evidence) probably helped some groups of people avoid an unexpected calamity which do happen once in awhile. On the other hand, I'm sure it probably led to several too.
When a smallpox epidemic let loose in a city, it would make sense for the people to gather in churches and pray to God for relief. That meant lots of people packed into tight spaces, which meant much more opportunity for the virus to infect more people.
When the Black Death Pandemic swept through Europe, perhaps the Jewish practice of scouring the house of all traces of bread during Passover helped keep rats, and their ancillary fleas carrying the bubonic plague bacterium, out of their homes. Which may have reduced infections in that community.
In both cases, however, what we see is a lack of knowledge of basic sanitation and hygiene principles. One community acted wrongly out of ignorance and faith, while the other acted rightly also out of ignorance and faith. Sheer coincidence some practices helped and others hurt.
Quote: boymimboCertainly no one on this forum knows whether God exists...
You are wrong here. I know that God exists. And I have definitive proof. Before you ask, no I will not share with you. The way I see, all you sinners are debating the existence of God. Thus, when we all die, you will go to Hell and I will be the only one in Heaven. And, I especially don't want to share Heaven with any of you because the gambling in Heaven is all positive EV, and I DEFINITELY do not want to share that sweet action.
Quote: NareedSo let's leave Pascal aside for a moment and take up Occam's Razor: the simplest explanation is usually the correct one.
Quote: God is not GreatIndeed, Ockham stated that it cannot be strictly proved that god, if defined as a being who possesses the qualities of supremacy, perfection, uniqueness, and infinity, exists at all. However, if one intends to identify a first cause of the existence of the world, one may choose to call that "god" even if one does not know the precise nature of the first cause. And even the first cause has its difficulties, since a cause will itself need another cause. "It is difficult or impossible," he wrote, " to prove against the philosophers that there cannot be an infinite regress in causes of the same kind, of which one can exist without the other." Thus the postulate of a designer or creator only raises the unanswerable question of who designed the designer or created the creator. Ockham himself simply had to fall back on the hopeless position that the existence of god can only be "demonstrated" by faith.
And perhaps my favorite quote:
Quote: God is not GreatWe now know things about our nature that the founders of religion could not even begin to guess at, and that would have stilled their overconfident tongues if they had known of them. Yet again, once one has disposed of superfluous assumptions, speculation about who designed us to be designers becomes as fruitless and irrelevant as the question of who designed that designer. Aristotle, whose reasoning about the unmoved mover and the uncaused cause is the beginning of this argument, concluded that the logic would necessitate forty-seven or fifty-five gods. Surely even a monotheist would be grateful for Ockham's razor at this point? From a plurality of prime movers, the monotheists have bargained it down to a single one. They are getting ever near to the true, round figure.
God is not Great
Author: Christopher Hitchens
Copyright 2007
Any spelling or grammatical errors are probably my own.
Quote: Nareed
When the Black Death Pandemic swept through Europe, perhaps the Jewish practice of scouring the house of all traces of bread during Passover helped keep rats, and their ancillary fleas carrying the bubonic plague bacterium, out of their homes. Which may have reduced infections in that community.
The Bubonic' rel='nofollow' target='_blank'>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bubonic_plague]Bubonic plague, which I assume you're referring to as the "Black Death Pandemic" is a good example of something largely caused by supersticion. During the worst plague in Europe, it was belived that cats were evil, probably possessed by witches or some such nonsense. So they thought they were doing a good thing by killing the cats. The good thing about cats is they kill rats and mice, which carry the plague. An irrational belief about cats, I would argue, largely caused the death of half of Europe.
Quote: WizardThe Bubonic' rel='nofollow' target='_blank'>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bubonic_plague]Bubonic plague, which I assume you're referring to as the "Black Death Pandemic" is a good example of something largely caused by supersticion. During the worst plague in Europe, it was belived that cats were evil, probably possessed by witches or some such nonsense. So they thought they were doing a good thing by killing the cats. The good thing about cats is they kill rats and mice, which carry the plague. An irrational belief about cats, I would argue, largely caused the death of half of Europe.
Undoubtedly there's something to that. But keep in mind dogs also kill rats. As far as I know, dogs were always in good standing all through Europe ever since prehistoric times. Of course dogs can't get into places cats reach easily, and dogs are rather diurnal rather than nocturnal. The latter doesn't matter much epr se, but rats come more readily out in the open when it's quiet -in human societies this means at night. Lastly I've no idea how well tolerated dogs were in cities at the time. perhaps no more so than cats.
Quote: WizardThe good thing about cats is they kill rats and mice, which carry the plague. An irrational belief about cats, I would argue, largely caused the death of half of Europe.
Hard for an old "farm boy" like myself to believe. From the article at http://www.idph.state.il.us/envhealth/pcnorwayrat.htm :
1. "Sanitation. Poor sanitation and the presence of garbage help rats to survive in residential areas. Good sanitation will effectively limit the number of rats that can survive in and around the home. This involves good housekeeping, proper storage and handling of food materials and refuse, and elimination of rodent shelter (harborage). Outside dog pens must be properly maintained to reduce potential rat problems. Removing clutter around homes allows inspection for signs of rats. Good sanitary practices will not eliminate rats under all conditions, but will make the environment less suitable for them to thrive;
2. Control by Cats and Dogs. Many rat problems around homes can be related to the keeping of pets. In fact, rats may live in very close association with cats and dogs. Rats frequently live beneath a doghouse and soon learn they can feed on the dog's food when he is absent or asleep. Although house cats, some dogs and other predators kill rats, they do not usually provide effective rat control."
I do not recall any rat-problems at either of the two farms on which i grew up... likely because rats seem to be more of an urban problem, my dad employed other methods of control, and what few rats there could have been were killed off by the many feral cats and other animals living in or near the barns.
My kid brother, who spent a few years working a local town flour-mill back in the 70's, commented that "big" late-night rats around the mill would "walk along the yellow line of the highway" to/from the mill... absolutely fearless of any cats, etc. Not saying that some cats can't kill some rats; in most cases the cats have much-easier sources of food, especially the house-cats.
_________________________________________________________________
All of which brings up another little story of someone "from the city" who was scratched by a neighbor's cat. Days later, the scratched area began turning yellowish, and the fellow remarked to me, "God will take care of it." A week after that when i again asked him about it... after the yellowishness had moved further up along the vein in his arm, he sought some antibiotics for it, lol.
Quote: WizardThen who or what made god?
God always was and always is. Its something we can't comprehend because we're in the middle of it. Try explaining the ocean to a fish.
Quote: EvenBobGod always was and always is. Its something we can't comprehend because we're in the middle of it. Try explaining the ocean to a fish.
Proof?
Quote: EvenBobTry explaining the ocean to a fish.
Although not always written in this fashion, this is a common argument that many pro-religious people have. The problem with the argument is that the fish does not care about the ocean. The fish only eats, procreates, and dies. It does not worry about its afterlife, or its current life, or how the ocean came into being, or anything like that. Humans are, barring the presence of extra-terrestrials, the only organism that seems to show any concern for the whys of their existence.
That is where the faith and religion comes in. Some people need faith and religion to explain the whys to them. Some people are ok with science explaining the whys to them.
There is an analogy in gambling. Many times on this forum, I've seen people ask the question of why people would play in unfavorable casinos, at unfavorable games. The reason is simple, those people do not care. Whether the gambling is a form of entertainment, or a form of addiction, those people do not care. They seek only to play the game. Those of us that do care seek out the blackjack tables with better rules and the craps tables with better payouts and the roulette wheels with only one zero. We do care, and we take the scientific (mathematical) proof that we need to find the existence that we care about.
I do not knock anybody's faith. I think some people do need it and do thrive within it. It's not for everybody. But I dislike the "explain the ocean to a fish" argument, in that it doesn't really explain anything. There are much better ways to defend your faith.
Quote: konceptumAlthough not always written in this fashion, this is a common argument that many pro-religious people have. The problem with the argument is that the fish does not care about the ocean.
Not quite... the problem is that the people telling you this are fish themselves who have no more clue about the nature of the ocean than you do. For them to bring this analogy is a more uninformed argument than listening to those "fish" who simply say, "We do not have any evidence of the nature of the ocean."
Quote: DeMangoHow can the universe be explained except by God???
Effect has to have cause.
Quote: EvenBobGod always was and always is. Its something we can't comprehend because we're in the middle of it. Try explaining the ocean to a fish.
Isn't is funny how that knife cuts only one way for believers?
Quote: NareedProof?
Whats the old argument, people think they see a creation so they start looking for a creator. Most people have a very difficult time with the concept that god is something we can't possibly understand. I went crazy looking for an answer in the 70's and realized there is no answer. Now I just accept it and don't worry about it. As I got older and started to know more and more people who died, I realized I never worried about them. I mean if there is a heaven or a hell, shouldn't you be worrying about Uncle Bob, he was a real a-hole after all. But nobody ever does, its like we instinctively know he's OK. Why do people worry about what happens after they die, yet nobody worries about where they were before they were born. Whats the difference, they both involve not being 'here', wherever that is..
Quote: EvenBobWhats the old argument, people think they see a creation so they start looking for a creator. Most people have a very difficult time with the concept that god is something we can't possibly understand. I went crazy looking for an answer in the 70's and realized there is no answer. Now I just accept it and don't worry about it. As I got older and started to know more and more people who died, I realized I never worried about them. I mean if there is a heaven or a hell, shouldn't you be worrying about Uncle Bob, he was a real a-hole after all. But nobody ever does, its like we instinctively know he's OK. Why do people worry about what happens after they die, yet nobody worries about where they were before they were born. Whats the difference, they both involve not being 'here', wherever that is..
You would be better off saying, "I don't have any proof, that's just what I believe," rather than tossing up "fish in an ocean" analogies. The fish in the ocean analogy means nothing to me. When asked for proof, all I ever get back is "look around you...." But I did that, and that is why I came to the conclusion I did.
What I think is interesting is that the god is always proposed as closure. Sometimes in a logical way, as in a reasoned argument; sometimes in a confrontational way, as in the bumper sticker, "The Bible says it. I believe it. That settles it." I think that the real difference is that atheists accept a lack of a final answer in their search for the answer to existence, or they accept that it is out of reach for now. Although it is Christians who say that atheists think they know everything, or can know everything, my observation is the exact opposite; Christians think they can explain everything by answering with God. Atheists have no problem saying, "We don't know that yet, but here is the best explanation from the evidence."
Quote: Wizard"You could construct the exact same argument that it is all a ruse, to get you to believe so that the god can torture and tease you in the afterlife: "I will reward non-believers with eternal life, for their common sense. I will torture believers for their foolishness in trusting me." Then the benefit would be in non-belief, for the same reasons. It makes just as much sense as the other argument; there is no evidence for either. Flying Spaghetti Monster. Whatever. I could have made up anything. there is no reason to postulate a god with human motivations. God could be a freak. " -- Mosca
Although Mosca's point is valid, my intent to say Pascal is right needs to be clarified. In the context of his time, believing that God did not exist could certainly lead to persecution and death. Contrite believers generally viewed God as caring, loving, omnipotent (otherwise why would you pray + believe in the first place). That is most likely how Pascal formulated the extreme scenario that non-believers in the event that god exists would be the max losers. And believers + existence = max gain. If you know God to be a freak, than why would you even care since nothing you do would matter?
In our time of questioning, reasoning, soul-searching, we've added greater complexity in interpreting Pascal's Wager. We can continuously build more scenarios. What if God is a freak / Or Not, what if Heaven or Hell is determined by sole belief alone / Or Not......
Quote: ChuckInstead of using the word "God", try substituting the word "Fred". And then see how uncomfortable you get with the whole concept.
Funny, but Fred has no meaning but God does.
Quote: AsswhoopermcdaddyFunny, but Fred has no meaning but God does.
You have that exactly backwards. "Fred" has meaning because tens of thousands of actual, existing, real beings have the name "Fred". No existing being has the name "God".
Quote: Asswhoopermcdaddy
Although Mosca's point is valid, my intent to say Pascal is right needs to be clarified. In the context of his time, believing that God did not exist could certainly lead to persecution and death. Contrite believers generally viewed God as caring, loving, omnipotent (otherwise why would you pray + believe in the first place). That is most likely how Pascal formulated the extreme scenario that non-believers in the event that god exists would be the max losers. And believers + existence = max gain. If you know God to be a freak, than why would you even care since nothing you do would matter?
In our time of questioning, reasoning, soul-searching, we've added greater complexity in interpreting Pascal's Wager. We can continuously build more scenarios. What if God is a freak / Or Not, what if Heaven or Hell is determined by sole belief alone / Or Not......[/q
What got you persecuted and killed was failing to PROFESS belief, which is a whole different animal. You could think the whole thing was a crock, but go through the required motions, and still be safe. Conversely, you could believe perfectly well, but fail to observe the proper rituals/cough up the requisite amount of money, and be in mortal danger.
I doubt very much that contrite believers generally viewed God as benevolent: most religious teaching of the time was based on instilling fear (literally, "mortal dread"). This is easier to understand when you realize that churches were actually secular institutions, having as their two major objectives and functions social control, and revenue production.
As to "why would you pray/believe in the first place"--well, this goes directly to the more subtle aspect of Pascal's question. If you don't "believe", but are afraid of the penalties, so you choose to "believe", has anything really changed? In other words, how can you CHOOSE to believe or not believe something? By definition, "belief" is not the product of rational thought processes. You CANNOT logically assess the truth or untruth of a belief that you yourself hold---if it was subjected to that test, then it would simply be "something that is true" or "something that is untrue"--and from that moment on, no longer a belief.
For what it's worth, my refusal to make Pascal's wager is based in part on my opinion that if there is a God, and He expects me to believe in him based on the faint, inferential at best, logically flimsy evidence that He has made available (what would be wrong with flaming three-thousand-foot letters spelling out in the night sky "BELIEVE IN ME OR ELSE", and evildoers being instantly hit by lightning? Why would he be vanishingly subtle, if he loves us all and wants us to be good?), then I probably don't want to dwell in his heaven---it would probably be like an amusement park funhouse that you could never leave.The fact that a believer is happier than a skeptic is no more to the point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one. The happiness of credulity is a cheap and dangerous quality.---George Bernard Shaw
Quote: mkl654321Why would he be vanishingly subtle, if he loves us all and wants us to be good?
Let's not set out, at least at first, by personifying the concept of a god, but by simply defining it... check any of the current dictionaries, and work your way down to the secular sorts. (Otherwise, anyone may as well conclude that god is one of those rabid rats waiting to run up your pants before biting.)
How about: everything everywhere all the time? That's gotta exist, right?
Then (try to) figure out where and how we, and every thing else, could or not fit into that.
One may return to the definition, itself, until that too has been whittled into something more-tangible... or more likely, after having tried a few thousand before really "feeling comfortable" with it.
Quote: EvenBobWhat does 'proof' look like?
Oh, it varies.
For example, you can prove the existence of gravity in a number of different ways, for example by calculating the orbits of planets, comets and asteroids. You can prove the existence of Geroge Washington by citing contemporary records, which still exist, as well as contemporary accounts of Washington.
BTW, when believers attempt to supply actual proof they usually tend to make fools out fo themselves. See the whole collection of "proof" Creationists (Intelligent Design Enthusiasts??) have gathered to "prove" the Earth si less than 10,000 years olf.
So, proof?
Quote: mkl654321No existing being has the name "God".
Of course not. God's name is J-----
Seriously, some Orthodox Jews believe it's blasphemous to say God's name. In prayer God is reffered by several titles, like Lord, my Lord, our God, God of our fathers, and so on, but never by His name. Yet the name is often written inside synagogues, usually on the place where the Torah is kept.
Quote: WizardIf we're all "good to go," how is it positive EV to believe? It would seem to me definitely negative EV. You're wasting a lot of time praying, reading religious books, going to church, and wasting money putting it in the offering tray. Think of the better things you could do with that time and money.
True. Believing in God is not just about heaven. It's about living your life in a certain way that follows the morals, ethics, and rituals in the particular belief. At the same time, I can't possibly preclude other religions or beliefs to be wrong, because I don't know if my religion is right (why would it be?). You read the books, go to church and put your money in an offering tray because you believe, not to go to heaven. I haven't stepped foot in a church in years, yet I believe in God and my religion and I hope I go to heaven. I only have my faith. What else can we have?
Quote: WizardLet's ignore your earlier remark that we're all "good to go" for the moment. If reaching eternity is the motive to believe, wouldn't an omniscient see right through that? Wouldn't he say on judgment day, "You phony, you never really believed, you were just putting on a big show!" That doesn't seem like real belief to me. True belief should be based on some kind of evidence. As I tell the missionaries who knock on my door, "Walk across my swimming pool, and then you'll truly have my attention."
Too funny. Reaching eternity is not the motive to believe. Either you believe or you don't. The reasoning for why you believe doesn't matter. Only you and God knows in your heart whether you believe or not. And quite frankly, I don't think it even matters. But Pascal's assumption is that you only go to heaven if you believe. So I guess Pascal's wrong because his assumption is wrong.
Quote: boymimboTrue. Believing in God is not just about heaven. It's about living your life in a certain way that follows the morals, ethics, and rituals in the particular belief. At the same time, I can't possibly preclude other religions or beliefs to be wrong, because I don't know if my religion is right (why would it be?). You read the books, go to church and put your money in an offering tray because you believe, not to go to heaven. I haven't stepped foot in a church in years, yet I believe in God and my religion and I hope I go to heaven. I only have my faith. What else can we have?
What I want to know is, when did religion hijack morality? I strongly dispute the notion that I need God in my life in order to be a good person. This is another reason why I refuse to make Pascal's wager--if I truly am a good person, and I adhere to the moral code that is articulated in Godism in its various forms, then it shouldn't matter whether I went to the big tall acoustically impressive building and knelt down to have a piece of stale bread placed on my tongue, or not.
As far as what else can we have, well, if "faith" is all we have, we don't actually have anything at all. "Faith" and "belief" in massive, eternal, cosmic concepts and beings have infinitesimally smaller relation to reality than the fact of the existence of the .3 milligrams of shit that that fly just left on my kitchen table. Similarly, if I bash you on the head with a rock, your faith that that would never happen to you is immediately shown to have been misplaced.
Quote: chookWhy is God so hyper-sensitive that we have to be continually expressing gratitude, praise and remorse to It.
Even more germane is the question, why should I be grateful for my and the cosmos's existence when there is the chance that I might suffer in hell for all eternity?
And to the admonition that "if you do, it will be your own fault", I would answer, "Well, yeah, but when you created me, you knew, not only where I would wind up, but also every single solitary thing that I would ever do, so whose fault is it REALLY??"
Just had a thought. Suppose God is bluffing and we're all going to heaven no matter what--Hitler, Stalin, Lindsay Lohan? Wouldn't this be a big seller as an offshoot cult? Granted, it wouldn't do much in the social control mode, but think of the idea's POPULARITY. Hmmm. At $12.95 a copy.....
All praises to His starchy goodnessQuote: mkl654321Just had a thought. Suppose God is bluffing and we're all going to heaven no matter what--Hitler, Stalin, Lindsay Lohan? Wouldn't this be a big seller as an offshoot cult? Granted, it wouldn't do much in the social control mode, but think of the idea's POPULARITY. Hmmm. At $12.95 a copy.....
Click for Salvation
Ironically, if it turns out that he is that God, I'm safe because I beleive in him. Therefore Pascal is correct.However, if i had to believe in the other (let's call) mean god, there would be some loss based on all the rules, constraints and impacts on my life, that I would be at a loss if God did not exist. In this case, Pascal's wrong.
I'm thinking I like believing in my god, even though my neighbor's wife is 100 lbs overweight.
Quote: chookI think you are stretching things a bit far when you include Lindsay.
Only because she's early in her career; we might have considered Stalin or Hitler relatively innocuous, had we observed them at age 24.
Quote: chookSorry, I meant that they shouldn't be included with her. Genocide, torture etc. are just misdemeanors compared to wardrobe malfunctions. If the mouth foaming hysteria the god botherers were driven to by Janet Jackson's WM was any indication, then Lindsay's indiscretions must be very grave indeed.
Well, I was being silly, of course, by making the comparison(s) in the first place, although I would imagine that a fundamentalist Christian would give Lindsay no better chance to get into Heaven than the other two. I should also point out that Stalin always seemed to have his uniform neatly pressed and was immaculately groomed; Hitler wasn't nearly so natty. God cares about how you dress.
Quote: NareedOh, it varies.
For example, you can prove the existence of gravity in a number of different ways, for example by calculating the orbits of planets, comets and asteroids. You can prove the existence of Geroge Washington by citing contemporary records, which still exist, as well as contemporary accounts of Washington.
BTW, when believers attempt to supply actual proof they usually tend to make fools out fo themselves. See the whole collection of "proof" Creationists (Intelligent Design Enthusiasts??) have gathered to "prove" the Earth si less than 10,000 years olf.
So, proof?
All I said is if there is a god he lies beyond explanation, and you want proof of that? If he lies beyond explanation, how do you prove it? How do you explain the unexplainable? The very fact that all discussions of religion devolve into gibberish should tell you something..
Quote: mkl654321I would imagine that a fundamentalist Christian would give Lindsay no better chance to get into Heaven than the other two.
Nope, that's the genius of Christianity - all you have to do is repent, confess, etc.
There's a loophole for EVERYTHING.
In the real world, you murder someone, you say you're sorry and mean it? Too bad, you go to jail anyway. Does it prevent you from getting into heaven? Nope, say three hail marys, snap, you're in.
When you get to heaven and see Hitler and Stalin, don't be surprised.
Quote: EvenBobAll I said is if there is a god he lies beyond explanation, and you want proof of that? If he lies beyond explanation, how do you prove it? How do you explain the unexplainable? The very fact that all discussions of religion devolve into gibberish should tell you something..
Isn't that pretty much the point? If something lies "beyond explanation" then it is nonsensical to contemplate its existence. Therefore, if we wish to regard the world rationally ("if", I know), we shouldn't consider that anything exists for which there is no scientific proof of that existence. The lack of scientific evidence for the existence of God actually serves believers well, as a rhetorical wall to duck behind when they are assailed by logic; "you can't know the unknowable", and other childishly trite tautologies.
Quote: ChuckNope, that's the genius of Christianity - all you have to do is repent, confess, etc.
There's a loophole for EVERYTHING.
In the real world, you murder someone, you say you're sorry and mean it? Too bad, you go to jail anyway. Does it prevent you from getting into heaven? Nope, say three hail marys, snap, you're in.
When you get to heaven and see Hitler and Stalin, don't be surprised.
Well, I'll certainly feel aggrieved, since even at that late juncture I'll be unlikely to have murdered anyone, and they presumably got a Get Out of Jail Free card in the confessional. How many Hail Marys do you have to say after killing twenty million people (Stalin)? Do you have enough time to say them before you die? (For that matter, what happens to you in Catholic/Christian mythology if you confess, but croak before you do your penance? Does your confession expire, like an unused buffet comp?)
Wait, I've got it. I can murder Stalin when I see him, and then confess immediately. I'll get to stay in heaven, and he...uh...hmmm...he'll just show up again. There's gotta be a way...
Quote: mkl654321If something lies "beyond explanation" then it is nonsensical to contemplate its existence.
Applying the word, impossible, is okay long as one doesn't give up trying.
Quote: mkl654321... we shouldn't consider that anything exists for which there is no scientific proof of that existence.
Who was it that said, "Absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence"? Or that, "The only thing which can't be proved, the negative (case, of non-existence)"?
Quote: GarnabbyApplying the word, impossible, is okay long as one doesn't give up trying.
Who was it that said, "Absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence"? Or that, "The only thing which can't be proved, the negative (case, of non-existence)"?
It is famously logically impossible to prove the nonexistence of something. That does NOT, however, mean that because the nonexistence of something can't be proved, that something therefore exists. In the rational realm of thinking, we put the burden of proof on someone who says that something exists to prove that that is so; we can't settle for the petulant, "Well, you can't prove (whatever) DOESN'T exist." If we did, then every single thing that can be imagined by the mind of man would be said to exist, which is nonsensical and irrational.
Quote: mkl654321If we did, then every single thing that can be imagined by the mind of man would be said to exist, which is nonsensical and irrational.
And who said, "What man's mind can conceive, his will can achieve"?
Quote: GarnabbyAnd who said, "What man's mind can conceive, his will can achieve"?
I think that only applies to sex.
The poll, I mean. Not Napoleon Hill.
Quote: GarnabbyAnd who said, "What man's mind can conceive, his will can achieve"?
Since we can think/conceive of the impossible, that statement is incorrect, and I strongly suspect that it was constructed because it rhymed, not because it was thought to be correct.
What is shown to be correct/if a man is circumspect/is about what you'd expect/if the truth you would protect/and Viagra makes you erect/oh never mind
Quote: MoscaI think that only applies to sex.
I can conceive of having sex with every single entrant in the 2011 Miss Universe pageant, but I have to consider that impossible to achieve, though my will to do so may be strong.
Quote: mkl654321I can conceive of having sex with every single entrant in the 2011 Miss Universe pageant, but I have to consider that impossible to achieve, though my will to do so may be strong.
Yeah, but every single one of them is going to have sex with someone.
It just reminded me of something I read long ago, I don't remember where. If it can be screwed, you can bet somewhere some guy has tried to screw it. Or thought, "I wonder how to screw that?" Maybe not me or you, but of all the billions of guys who have ever lived, over the past 100,000 years, it's happened.
Quote: GarnabbyAnd who said, "What man's mind can conceive, his will can achieve"?
I'm guessing Adolf Hitler or Tony Robbins.
Quote: MoscaYeah, but every single one of them is going to have sex with someone.
It just reminded me of something I read long ago, I don't remember where. If it can be screwed, you can bet somewhere some guy has tried to screw it. Or thought, "I wonder how to screw that?" Maybe not me or you, but of all the billions of guys who have ever lived, over the past 100,000 years, it's happened.
Given enough time, anything that is physically possible will eventually happen.
