I present a challenge to any Atheist...

Religions > Atheism > I present a challenge to any Atheist...

LINK TO THIS PAGE

rating : 0 | 0

Page 1 of 2

Topic:	Religions > Atheism
User:	"TRUECRISTIAN"
Date:	06 May 2006 02:07:35 PM
Object:	I present a challenge to any Atheist...

Try to prove me wrong on this logic:
John Nash won a nobel prize for this:
A Nash equilibrium, named after John Nash, is a set of strategies, one
for each player, such that no player has incentive to unilaterally
change her action. Players are in equilibrium if a change in strategies
by any one of them would lead that player to earn less than if she
remained with her current strategy.
In other words, if a Nash Equilibrium exists, then any decision that
does not bring you to that equilibrium is a poor choice, a foolish
choice. Allow me to demonstrate how the choice to be a THEIST results
in a Nash Equilibrium and the choice to be an ATHEIST does not. Since
a Nash Equilibrium exists, the choice to be an ATHEIST is indeed a
foolish choice.
Let me start by identifying death as the only assurance in life. Since
death is the only guarantee in life, then a decision MUST be made on
how to approach death. Since we must make a decision about death, let
me give you four possible outcomes.
Outcome #1: God Exists; You BELIEVE in God = You go to heaven (the
outcome is positive)
Outcome #2: God Exists; You DO NOT BELIEVE in God = You go to hell
(the outcome is directly opposite or negative)
Outcome #3: God Does Not Exist; You BELIEVE in God = Nothing happens
Outcome #4: God Does Not Exist; You DO NOT BELIEVE in God = Nothing
happens
I have clearly identified the decision that has to be made by you, the
individual as either believing in God or not believing in God. The
other contributing factor exists, but you do not know the answer to
that factor.
There are two models for decision making. One is the dominant model,
the other is the maximin model. If a Nash Equilibrium exists, then
both models will result in the same decision. I will refer to these as
strategies instead of mode
.

User: "JTEM"
Title: Re: I present a challenge to any Atheist...	06 May 2006 03:17:53 PM

"TRUECRISTIAN" <XL3@OPERAMAIL.COM> wrote

A Nash equilibrium, named after John Nash, is a set of strategies, one
for each player, such that no player has incentive to unilaterally
change her action. Players are in equilibrium if a change in strategies
by any one of them would lead that player to earn less than if she
remained with her current strategy.

It's really only useful on a macro scale. We don't have to look to the
past to find examples where people avoid optimal choices, or choices
that don't impact on the current "game.". Even today, for example,
there are employers who will actively avoid the best employee, if they
happen to be of the wrong religion, gender, skin color, sexual
orientation or even political affiliation.

In other words, if a Nash Equilibrium exists, then any decision that
does not bring you to that equilibrium is a poor choice, a foolish
choice.

Huh?

Allow me to demonstrate how the choice to be a THEIST results
in a Nash Equilibrium and the choice to be an ATHEIST does not.

You're not making the least bit of sense.

Since a Nash Equilibrium exists, the choice to be an ATHEIST is
indeed a foolish choice.

You're just kind of throwing words together and pretending that you're
making a point.

Let me start by identifying death as the only assurance in life. Since
death is the only guarantee in life, then a decision MUST be made
on how to approach death.

Another priority -- another "game" -- might be providing for family
or loved ones REGARDLESS of death.
You know, financial stability that doesn't require you to drop dead
(life insurance) or stay alive & healthy (employment).
It's really all about priorities.
Of course, that's why economic theory is only useful at a macro
scale.

Since we must make a decision about death, let
me give you four possible outcomes.

Another thing about strategies: If you prepare for an outcome
at the expense of any other potential outcomes, you kind of
need that outcome to occur. You're sort of locked into it.
A better strategy ("Life") for theist would be to avoid moves
("Choices") that do not exclude Heaven & God as an outcome,
but do not require it. This could be achieved as simply as
removing the ever present current of malice seen in today's
so-called "Christians."
Clear example: Gay marriage.
No matter what, not even the craziest fundamentalist can
claim that Jesus ever once preached harm -- committed
by his followers -- against those who do not follow him.
So, if you simply lead your own life in accordance to how
you enjoy believing Jesus would want you to, and stop
worrying about the people who are doing the same (but
disagree with the way you think Jesus wants you to live),
you're all set.
There.
Now if there's a Heaven and a Jesus you are MORE
SECURE in reaching your desired end. Because, you
lived your life in a manner in which he would approve
of, and at the same time you don't REQUIRE him to
approve of you striking out in malice against your
neighbors.

I have clearly identified the decision that has to be made
by you, the individual as either believing in God or not
believing in God.

Real Christians believe that God can see inside your heart,
know if your faith is real or some lame attempt at hedging
your bets. You wouldn't understand.
.

User: "Jimmy B."
Title: Re: I present a challenge to any Atheist...	06 May 2006 08:43:56 PM

"TRUECRISTIAN" <XL3@OPERAMAIL.COM> wrote in message
news:1146942455.164334.257350@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...

Try to prove me wrong on this logic:

John Nash won a nobel prize for this:

A Nash equilibrium, named after John Nash, is a set of strategies, one
for each player, such that no player has incentive to unilaterally
change her action. Players are in equilibrium if a change in strategies
by any one of them would lead that player to earn less than if she
remained with her current strategy.

In other words, if a Nash Equilibrium exists, then any decision that
does not bring you to that equilibrium is a poor choice, a foolish
choice. Allow me to demonstrate how the choice to be a THEIST results
in a Nash Equilibrium and the choice to be an ATHEIST does not. Since
a Nash Equilibrium exists, the choice to be an ATHEIST is indeed a
foolish choice.

Let me start by identifying death as the only assurance in life. Since
death is the only guarantee in life, then a decision MUST be made on
how to approach death. Since we must make a decision about death, let
me give you four possible outcomes.

Outcome #1: God Exists; You BELIEVE in God = You go to heaven (the
outcome is positive)
Outcome #2: God Exists; You DO NOT BELIEVE in God = You go to hell
(the outcome is directly opposite or negative)
Outcome #3: God Does Not Exist; You BELIEVE in God = Nothing happens
Outcome #4: God Does Not Exist; You DO NOT BELIEVE in God = Nothing
happens

Ah, the old Pascal Wager repackaged.
You forgot a 5th alternative. That one of the other >2000 gods that other
religions worship is the real god and he is really pissed at you for
believing in fairy tales..
With this 5th alternative, your entire argument falls apart.

I have clearly identified the decision that has to be made by you, the
individual as either believing in God or not believing in God. The
other contributing factor exists, but you do not know the answer to
that factor.

There are two models for decision making. One is the dominant model,
the other is the maximin model. If a Nash Equilibrium exists, then
both models will result in the same decision. I will refer to these as
strategies instead of mode

User: "Greywolf"
Title: Re: I present a challenge to any Atheist...	06 May 2006 03:23:31 PM

"TRUECRISTIAN" <XL3@OPERAMAIL.COM> wrote in message
news:1146942455.164334.257350@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...

Try to prove me wrong on this logic:

John Nash won a nobel prize for this:
<snip>

Outcome #1: God Exists; You BELIEVE in God = You go to heaven (the
outcome is positive)
Outcome #2: God Exists; You DO NOT BELIEVE in God = You go to hell
(the outcome is directly opposite or negative)
Outcome #3: God Does Not Exist; You BELIEVE in God = Nothing happens
Outcome #4: God Does Not Exist; You ...
How about adding this 'scenario' to the mix:
Outcome #x: Your 'God' exists but changes his mind (as he often does in the
Bible) and now Atheists go to heaven for using their God-given 'brains'
(forgive me) for *using* them instead of mindless fundamentalist Christians
who refuse to.
(Stated with my tongue firmly in my cheek.)
Greywolf
.

User: "Enkidu"
Title: Re: I present a challenge to any Atheist...	06 May 2006 03:13:00 PM

"TRUECRISTIAN" <XL3@OPERAMAIL.COM> wrote in news:1146942455.164334.257350
@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:
This is nothing more than Pascal's Wager. As such, it fails to identify
which of the thousands of gods one should follow. Further, it treats
believing in a non-existant god as a cost-free choice when this is not
the case.
--
Enkidu AA#2165
http://www.thoughts.leaddogs.org/
EAC Chaplain and ordained minister,
ULC, Modesto, CA
PGP ID: 0xC4CE8CF0
"The Bible has been interpreted to justify such evil practices as, for
example, slavery, the slaughter of prisoners of war, the sadistic murders
of women believed to be witches, capital punishment for hundreds of
offenses, polygamy, and cruelty to animals. It has been used to encourage
belief in the grossest superstition and to discourage the free teaching
of scientific truths. We must never forget that both good and evil flow
from the Bible. It is therefore not above criticism."
-Steve Allen
.

User: *"nemo"*
Title: Re: I present a challenge to any Atheist...	07 May 2006 03:01:58 AM

In article <1146942455.164334.257350@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
"TRUECRISTIAN" <XL3@OPERAMAIL.COM> wrote:

John Nash won a nobel prize for this:

A Nash equilibrium, named after John Nash, is a set of strategies, one
for each player, such that no player has incentive to unilaterally
change her action. Players are in equilibrium if a change in strategies
by any one of them would lead that player to earn less than if she
remained with her current strategy.

In other words, if a Nash Equilibrium exists, then any decision that
does not bring you to that equilibrium is a poor choice, a foolish
choice. Allow me to demonstrate how the choice to be a THEIST results
in a Nash Equilibrium and the choice to be an ATHEIST does not. Since
a Nash Equilibrium exists, the choice to be an ATHEIST is indeed a
foolish choice.

Let me start by identifying death as the only assurance in life. Since
death is the only guarantee in life, then a decision MUST be made on
how to approach death. Since we must make a decision about death, let
me give you four possible outcomes.

Outcome #1: God Exists; You BELIEVE in God = You go to heaven (the
outcome is positive)
Outcome #2: God Exists; You DO NOT BELIEVE in God = You go to hell
(the outcome is directly opposite or negative)
Outcome #3: God Does Not Exist; You BELIEVE in God = Nothing happens
Outcome #4: God Does Not Exist; You DO NOT BELIEVE in God = Nothing
happens

Thou art confused. You slurped your way from John Nash to Blaise Pascal.
Nash had his points, but Pascal's Wager is rubbish. Your next assignment
is to see if you can conflate Vash the Stampede with Foamy the Squirrel.
--
Nemo - EAC Commissioner for Bible Belt Underwater Operations.
Atheist #1331 (the Palindrome of doom!)
BAAWA Knight! - One of those warm Southern Knights, y'all!
Charter member, SMASH!!
http://home.earthlink.net/~jehdjh/Relpg.html
Draco Dormiens Nunquam Titillandus
Quotemeister since March 2002
.

User: ""
Title: Re: I present a challenge to any Atheist...	08 May 2006 12:53:36 AM

*nemo* wrote:

In article <1146942455.164334.257350@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
"TRUECRISTIAN" <XL3@OPERAMAIL.COM> wrote:

I wonder how many of these geniuses think they're not only the first
one to state PW to an atheist, but that they actually thought it up
themselves?
BTW: Vash is my kind of guy. Anyone that's caused 300 insurance claims,
I want to party with!
-Panama Floyd, Atl.
aa#2015, Member Knights of BAAWA!
EAC Martian Commander
"..the prayer cloth of one aeon is the doormat of the next."
-Mark Twain
Religious societies are *less* moral than secular ones:
http://moses.creighton.edu/JRS/2005/2005-11.html
.

User: "Lars Eighner"
Title: Re: I present a challenge to any Atheist...	06 May 2006 02:42:03 PM

In our last episode,
<1146942455.164334.257350@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
the lovely and talented TRUECRISTIAN
broadcast on alt.atheism:

You left out many or the type:
God Exists; You BELIEVE in the wrong god = You go to hell
God Exists; You DO NOT BELIEVE in any gods = You go to heaven because
you did not believe in false gods.
God Exists; You decide to believe in god because of this fallacious argument
which is really called Pascal Wager, but god hates gambling so you
to hell because you bet on god.
and so on.

I have clearly identified the decision that has to be made by you, the
individual as either believing in God or not believing in God.

It's not that simple. Humans have believed in hundreds (maybe thousands) of
different gods, and if there were a god, there is no reason to think any of
the hundreds of gods humans have worshiped is the true one. Of the gods
humans have believed in, some care whether you believe in them and some do
not, and some will punish you harshly for believing in the wrong one, and
there is no telling what the attitudes of all the gods who human beings
haven't thought of might be.
The real name of this argument is Pascal's Wager and all of us have heard
hundreds of versions of it before.
--
Rev. Lars Eighner, ULC

http://www.larseighner.com/
The Mint Jelly of God� -- The World's Best Atheist -- Unholier Than Thou
First Church of Electro-Baptism ***Atheist #1965*** One Short Circuit to Jesus
"It does not pay a prophet to be too specific."
.

User: "Daniel Kolle"
Title: Re: I present a challenge to any Atheist...	06 May 2006 07:25:31 PM

On 6 May 2006 12:07:35 -0700, "TRUECRISTIAN" <XL3@OPERAMAIL.COM>
thought hard and wrote:

Try to prove me wrong on this logic:

John Nash won a nobel prize for this:

A Nash equilibrium, named after John Nash, is a set of strategies, one
for each player, such that no player has incentive to unilaterally
change her action. Players are in equilibrium if a change in strategies
by any one of them would lead that player to earn less than if she
remained with her current strategy.

In other words, if a Nash Equilibrium exists, then any decision that
does not bring you to that equilibrium is a poor choice, a foolish
choice. Allow me to demonstrate how the choice to be a THEIST results
in a Nash Equilibrium and the choice to be an ATHEIST does not. Since
a Nash Equilibrium exists, the choice to be an ATHEIST is indeed a
foolish choice.

Let me start by identifying death as the only assurance in life. Since
death is the only guarantee in life, then a decision MUST be made on
how to approach death. Since we must make a decision about death, let
me give you four possible outcomes.

Outcome #1: God Exists; You BELIEVE in God = You go to heaven (the
outcome is positive)
Outcome #2: God Exists; You DO NOT BELIEVE in God = You go to hell
(the outcome is directly opposite or negative)
Outcome #3: God Does Not Exist; You BELIEVE in God = Nothing happens
Outcome #4: God Does Not Exist; You DO NOT BELIEVE in God = Nothing
happens

I have clearly identified the decision that has to be made by you, the
individual as either believing in God or not believing in God. The
other contributing factor exists, but you do not know the answer to
that factor.

There are two models for decision making. One is the dominant model,
the other is the maximin model. If a Nash Equilibrium exists, then
both models will result in the same decision. I will refer to these as
strategies instead of mode

Pascal is very, very pissed at you right now.
--
-Daniel "Mr. Brevity" Kolle; 18 A.A. #2035
Koji Kondo, Yo-Yo Ma, Gustav Mahler, Krzysztof Penderecki, and Geirr Tveitt are my Gods.
Head of EAC Denial Department and Madly Insane Scientist.
.

User: "John Baker"
Title: Re: I present a challenge to any Atheist...	06 May 2006 02:39:18 PM

On 6 May 2006 12:07:35 -0700, "TRUECRISTIAN" <XL3@OPERAMAIL.COM>
wrote:
The only challenge you present is trying to figure out how anyone so
abysmally stupid actually manages to use a computer.
.

User: "Barry OGrady"
Title: Re: I present a challenge to any Atheist...	10 May 2006 11:07:37 PM

On Sat, 06 May 2006 19:39:18 GMT, John Baker <nunya@bizniz.net> wrote:

On 6 May 2006 12:07:35 -0700, "TRUECRISTIAN" <XL3@OPERAMAIL.COM>
wrote:

The only challenge you present is trying to figure out how anyone so
abysmally stupid actually manages to use a computer.

It used to be that using a computer and the net were restricted to people
with some ability, but now both are just products that anyone can use.
Barry
=====
Home page
http://members.iinet.net.au/~barry.og
.

User: "Mike Painter"
Title: Re: I present a challenge to any Atheist...	10 May 2006 11:43:17 PM

Barry OGrady wrote:

On Sat, 06 May 2006 19:39:18 GMT, John Baker <nunya@bizniz.net> wrote:

On 6 May 2006 12:07:35 -0700, "TRUECRISTIAN" <XL3@OPERAMAIL.COM>
wrote:

The only challenge you present is trying to figure out how anyone so
abysmally stupid actually manages to use a computer.

It used to be that using a computer and the net were restricted to
people with some ability, but now both are just products that anyone
can use.

True but I had a friend spend about 12 grand back in those good old days
building a 64k CP/M machine with an ASR 33 for I/O
.

User: "John Baker"
Title: Re: I present a challenge to any Atheist...	11 May 2006 01:41:08 AM

On Thu, 11 May 2006 14:07:37 +1000, Barry OGrady
<god_free_jones@yahoo.com> wrote:

On Sat, 06 May 2006 19:39:18 GMT, John Baker <nunya@bizniz.net> wrote:

On 6 May 2006 12:07:35 -0700, "TRUECRISTIAN" <XL3@OPERAMAIL.COM>
wrote:

The only challenge you present is trying to figure out how anyone so
abysmally stupid actually manages to use a computer.

It used to be that using a computer and the net were restricted to people
with some ability, but now both are just products that anyone can use.

And a pox on Jobs and Gates for making it so. <G>

Barry
=====
Home page
http://members.iinet.net.au/~barry.og

User: "raven1"
Title: Re: I present a challenge to any Atheist...	06 May 2006 03:26:38 PM

On 6 May 2006 12:07:35 -0700, "TRUECRISTIAN" <XL3@OPERAMAIL.COM>
wrote:
This was fallacious when Blaise Pascal proposed it, and it's
fallacious now. Among other things, it assumes both that you've picked
the right "God", and that he won't be ***** at your crass
gamesmanship and condemn you for that.

Try to prove me wrong on this logic:

John Nash won a nobel prize for this:

A Nash equilibrium, named after John Nash, is a set of strategies, one
for each player, such that no player has incentive to unilaterally
change her action. Players are in equilibrium if a change in strategies
by any one of them would lead that player to earn less than if she
remained with her current strategy.

In other words, if a Nash Equilibrium exists, then any decision that
does not bring you to that equilibrium is a poor choice, a foolish
choice. Allow me to demonstrate how the choice to be a THEIST results
in a Nash Equilibrium and the choice to be an ATHEIST does not. Since
a Nash Equilibrium exists, the choice to be an ATHEIST is indeed a
foolish choice.

Let me start by identifying death as the only assurance in life. Since
death is the only guarantee in life, then a decision MUST be made on
how to approach death. Since we must make a decision about death, let
me give you four possible outcomes.

Outcome #1: God Exists; You BELIEVE in God = You go to heaven (the
outcome is positive)
Outcome #2: God Exists; You DO NOT BELIEVE in God = You go to hell
(the outcome is directly opposite or negative)
Outcome #3: God Does Not Exist; You BELIEVE in God = Nothing happens
Outcome #4: God Does Not Exist; You DO NOT BELIEVE in God = Nothing
happens

I have clearly identified the decision that has to be made by you, the
individual as either believing in God or not believing in God. The
other contributing factor exists, but you do not know the answer to
that factor.

There are two models for decision making. One is the dominant model,
the other is the maximin model. If a Nash Equilibrium exists, then
both models will result in the same decision. I will refer to these as
strategies instead of mode

--
"O Sybilli, si ergo
Fortibus es in ero
O Nobili! Themis trux
Sivat sinem? Causen Dux"
.

User: "Barry OGrady"
Title: Re: I present a challenge to any Atheist...	10 May 2006 11:07:37 PM

On 6 May 2006 12:07:35 -0700, "TRUECRISTIAN" <XL3@OPERAMAIL.COM> wrote:

Try to prove me wrong on this logic:

John Nash won a nobel prize for this:

A Nash equilibrium, named after John Nash, is a set of strategies, one
for each player, such that no player has incentive to unilaterally
change her action. Players are in equilibrium if a change in strategies
by any one of them would lead that player to earn less than if she
remained with her current strategy.

In other words, if a Nash Equilibrium exists, then any decision that
does not bring you to that equilibrium is a poor choice, a foolish
choice. Allow me to demonstrate how the choice to be a THEIST results
in a Nash Equilibrium and the choice to be an ATHEIST does not. Since
a Nash Equilibrium exists, the choice to be an ATHEIST is indeed a
foolish choice.

Let me start by identifying death as the only assurance in life. Since
death is the only guarantee in life, then a decision MUST be made on
how to approach death. Since we must make a decision about death, let
me give you four possible outcomes.

Outcome #1: God Exists; You BELIEVE in God = You go to heaven (the
outcome is positive)
Outcome #2: God Exists; You DO NOT BELIEVE in God = You go to hell
(the outcome is directly opposite or negative)
Outcome #3: God Does Not Exist; You BELIEVE in God = Nothing happens
Outcome #4: God Does Not Exist; You DO NOT BELIEVE in God = Nothing
happens

I have clearly identified the decision that has to be made by you, the
individual as either believing in God or not believing in God. The
other contributing factor exists, but you do not know the answer to
that factor.

There are two models for decision making. One is the dominant model,
the other is the maximin model. If a Nash Equilibrium exists, then
both models will result in the same decision. I will refer to these as
strategies instead of mode

I believe that living with the delusion of Christianity does benefit some
people, mostly the very stupid. Others have a conflict in their life as they
try to resolve their beliefs with what they know and feel.
However, everyone dies the same way no matter what they believe.
Barry
=====
Home page
http://members.iinet.net.au/~barry.og
.

User: "Sanitys little helper"
Title: Re: I present a challenge to any Atheist...	06 May 2006 02:31:12 PM

On 6 May 2006 12:07:35 -0700, TRUECRISTIAN wrote:

Try to prove me wrong on this logic:

John Nash won a nobel prize for this:

A Nash equilibrium, named after John Nash, is a set of strategies, one
for each player, such that no player has incentive to unilaterally
change her action. Players are in equilibrium if a change in strategies
by any one of them would lead that player to earn less than if she
remained with her current strategy.

In other words, if a Nash Equilibrium exists, then any decision that
does not bring you to that equilibrium is a poor choice, a foolish
choice. Allow me to demonstrate how the choice to be a THEIST results
in a Nash Equilibrium and the choice to be an ATHEIST does not. Since
a Nash Equilibrium exists, the choice to be an ATHEIST is indeed a
foolish choice.

Let me start by identifying death as the only assurance in life. Since
death is the only guarantee in life, then a decision MUST be made on
how to approach death. Since we must make a decision about death, let
me give you four possible outcomes.

Outcome #1: God Exists; You BELIEVE in God = You go to heaven (the
outcome is positive)
Outcome #2: God Exists; You DO NOT BELIEVE in God = You go to hell
(the outcome is directly opposite or negative)
Outcome #3: God Does Not Exist; You BELIEVE in God = Nothing happens
Outcome #4: God Does Not Exist; You DO NOT BELIEVE in God = Nothing
happens

I have clearly identified the decision that has to be made by you, the
individual as either believing in God or not believing in God. The
other contributing factor exists, but you do not know the answer to
that factor.

I do.

There are two models for decision making. One is the dominant model,
the other is the maximin model. If a Nash Equilibrium exists, then
both models will result in the same decision. I will refer to these as
strategies instead of mode

For the rational thinker, belief is not a matter of choice.
--
Living your life by reading the Bible is a bit like cleaning your house by
reading the Sorcerer's Apprentice.
D Silverman FLAHN, SMLAHN
AA #2208, HB #6
.

User: "Cloim"
Title: Re: I present a challenge to any Atheist...	06 May 2006 02:57:29 PM

On Sat, 06 May 2006 12:07:35 -0700, TRUECRISTIAN wrote:

Try to prove me wrong on this logic:

John Nash won a nobel prize for this:

A Nash equilibrium, named after John Nash, is a set of strategies, one
for each player, such that no player has incentive to unilaterally
change her action. Players are in equilibrium if a change in strategies
by any one of them would lead that player to earn less than if she
remained with her current strategy.

In other words, if a Nash Equilibrium exists, then any decision that
does not bring you to that equilibrium is a poor choice, a foolish
choice. Allow me to demonstrate how the choice to be a THEIST results
in a Nash Equilibrium and the choice to be an ATHEIST does not. Since
a Nash Equilibrium exists, the choice to be an ATHEIST is indeed a
foolish choice.

Let me start by identifying death as the only assurance in life. Since
death is the only guarantee in life, then a decision MUST be made on
how to approach death. Since we must make a decision about death, let
me give you four possible outcomes.

Outcome #1: God Exists; You BELIEVE in God = You go to heaven (the
outcome is positive)
Outcome #2: God Exists; You DO NOT BELIEVE in God = You go to hell
(the outcome is directly opposite or negative)
Outcome #3: God Does Not Exist; You BELIEVE in God = Nothing happens
Outcome #4: God Does Not Exist; You DO NOT BELIEVE in God = Nothing
happens

Outcome #5 God Exists; You BELIEVE in God = You go to hell
Outcome #6 God Exists; You DO NOT BELIEVE in God = You go to heaven
Outcome #7 God Exists; You BELIEVE in God = Nothing happens
Outcome #8 God Exists; You DO NOT BELIEVE in God = Nothing happens
Belief in the wrong God won't earn you brownie points.
Disbelief won't necessarily prevent you from earning brownie points.
It says in the Bible that God is a jealous God.
Sounds like a good reason not to jump to the wrong conclusion to me.

Belief is not a choice.

User: ""
Title: Re: I present a challenge to any Atheist...	06 May 2006 04:16:39 PM

TRUECRISTIAN schreef:

Try to prove me wrong on this logic:

John Nash won a nobel prize for this:

A Nash equilibrium, named after John Nash, is a set of strategies, one
for each player, such that no player has incentive to unilaterally
change her action. Players are in equilibrium if a change in strategies
by any one of them would lead that player to earn less than if she
remained with her current strategy.

In other words, if a Nash Equilibrium exists, then any decision that
does not bring you to that equilibrium is a poor choice, a foolish
choice. Allow me to demonstrate how the choice to be a THEIST results
in a Nash Equilibrium and the choice to be an ATHEIST does not. Since
a Nash Equilibrium exists, the choice to be an ATHEIST is indeed a
foolish choice.

Let me start by identifying death as the only assurance in life. Since
death is the only guarantee in life, then a decision MUST be made on
how to approach death. Since we must make a decision about death, let
me give you four possible outcomes.

Outcome #1: God Exists; You BELIEVE in God = You go to heaven (the
outcome is positive)
Outcome #2: God Exists; You DO NOT BELIEVE in God = You go to hell
(the outcome is directly opposite or negative)
Outcome #3: God Does Not Exist; You BELIEVE in God = Nothing happens
Outcome #4: God Does Not Exist; You DO NOT BELIEVE in God = Nothing
happens

I have clearly identified the decision that has to be made by you, the
individual as either believing in God or not believing in God. The
other contributing factor exists, but you do not know the answer to
that factor.

There are two models for decision making. One is the dominant model,
the other is the maximin model. If a Nash Equilibrium exists, then
both models will result in the same decision. I will refer to these as
strategies instead of mode

I have to look up what kind of mistakes you are making here.
Firstly:
You are not posing a Nash Equilibrium.
in a nash equilibrium the change of strategy would be harmfull only if
the other players do no change there strategy. In you proposal there
would be no consequence for the other players if one or more should
change from theist to atheist or vice versa
(supposing the majority does not use it's advantage to harm the
minority.)
Secondely:
Bifurcation
Also referred to as the "black and white" fallacy and "false
dichotomy", bifurcation occurs if someone presents a situation as
having only two alternatives, where in fact other alternatives exist or
can exist. For example:
"Either there is a God that sends all theists to heaven and all
atheists to hell, or there is not God"
What if there is a god who sends people to hell who want to live
wrongly but do not do so because of their fear of God, and sends people
to heaven, who do not believe in any god, but refrain from mosts sins
nevertheless.
There asre other biffurcations.
You pose the decision to be theist or atheist as the decision that is
to be made.
But there you make two biffurcations in one,
1. Besides being a theist or an atheist one could be neither.
Never pondering about the question one could act if it was never
there.
2. Besides being an atheist or a theist, ther are many more decisions
to be made.
Like deciding wether or not to marry the girl/guy
Like decifing wether to donate to a good cause.
Of course God to - according to you - has only two possible actions.
Sent one of the groups to heaven ot send it to hell.
I can imagine a god that would discriminate between
theists that are murderers and theist that are not,
between
atheist that are altruists and atheists that are not.
Do I win a noble price for exposing the flaws in your logic?
I think not,
I bet someone else can do it even better.
Peter van Velzen
May 2006
Amstelveen
The Netherlands
.

User: "Enkidu"
Title: Re: I present a challenge to any Atheist...	06 May 2006 04:20:12 PM

"pbamvv@worldonline.nl" <pbamvv@worldonline.nl> wrote in
news:1146950199.764113.220090@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:

TRUECRISTIAN schreef:

strategies

by any one of them would lead that player to earn less than if she
remained with her current strategy.

In other words, if a Nash Equilibrium exists, then any decision that
does not bring you to that equilibrium is a poor choice, a foolish
choice. Allow me to demonstrate how the choice to be a THEIST results
in a Nash Equilibrium and the choice to be an ATHEIST does not. Since
a Nash Equilibrium exists, the choice to be an ATHEIST is indeed a
foolish choice.

Let me start by identifying death as the only assurance in life.

Since

death is the only guarantee in life, then a decision MUST be made on
how to approach death. Since we must make a decision about death, let
me give you four possible outcomes.

Outcome #1: God Exists; You BELIEVE in God = You go to heaven (the
outcome is positive)
Outcome #2: God Exists; You DO NOT BELIEVE in God = You go to hell
(the outcome is directly opposite or negative)
Outcome #3: God Does Not Exist; You BELIEVE in God = Nothing happens
Outcome #4: God Does Not Exist; You DO NOT BELIEVE in God = Nothing
happens

I have clearly identified the decision that has to be made by you, the
individual as either believing in God or not believing in God. The
other contributing factor exists, but you do not know the answer to
that factor.

There are two models for decision making. One is the dominant model,
the other is the maximin model. If a Nash Equilibrium exists, then
both models will result in the same decision. I will refer to these

strategies instead of mode

I have to look up what kind of mistakes you are making here.

Firstly:
You are not posing a Nash Equilibrium.
in a nash equilibrium the change of strategy would be harmfull only if
the other players do no change there strategy. In you proposal there
would be no consequence for the other players if one or more should
change from theist to atheist or vice versa
(supposing the majority does not use it's advantage to harm the
minority.)

Secondely:
Bifurcation
Also referred to as the "black and white" fallacy and "false
dichotomy", bifurcation occurs if someone presents a situation as
having only two alternatives, where in fact other alternatives exist or
can exist. For example:

"Either there is a God that sends all theists to heaven and all
atheists to hell, or there is not God"

What if there is a god who sends people to hell who want to live
wrongly but do not do so because of their fear of God, and sends people
to heaven, who do not believe in any god, but refrain from mosts sins
nevertheless.

There asre other biffurcations.
You pose the decision to be theist or atheist as the decision that is
to be made.
But there you make two biffurcations in one,

1. Besides being a theist or an atheist one could be neither.
Never pondering about the question one could act if it was never
there.

2. Besides being an atheist or a theist, ther are many more decisions
to be made.
Like deciding wether or not to marry the girl/guy
Like decifing wether to donate to a good cause.

Of course God to - according to you - has only two possible actions.

Sent one of the groups to heaven ot send it to hell.

I can imagine a god that would discriminate between
theists that are murderers and theist that are not,
between
atheist that are altruists and atheists that are not.

Do I win a noble price for exposing the flaws in your logic?

No, but you win *my* respect. You dealt with this steaming pile of
bullcrap thouroughly.
--
Enkidu AA#2165
http://www.thoughts.leaddogs.org/
EAC Chaplain and ordained minister,
ULC, Modesto, CA
PGP ID: 0xC4CE8CF0
There are a lot of brain-related things spiritual belief slows, such as
intelligence and critical thinking.
-- Vic Sagerquist
.

User: "wbarwell"
Title: Re: I present a challenge to any Atheist...	07 May 2006 12:36:30 AM

TRUECRISTIAN wrote:

In other words, if a Nash Equilibrium exists, then any decision that
does not bring you to that equilibrium is a poor choice, a foolish
choice.��Allow�me�to�demonstrate�how�the�choice�to�be�a�THEIST�results
in a Nash Equilibrium and the choice to be an ATHEIST does not.��Since
a Nash Equilibrium exists, the choice to be an ATHEIST is indeed a
foolish choice.

You are a moron.
God does not exist, its provable.
IS THERE A GOD?
Strong Atheism's answer.
A BASIC DEFINITION OF GOD.
The general overarching definition of god as per
the major religions of the world is:
A. God is personal, God has will and consciousness.
B. God has free will.
C. God is the creator of all.
D. God is omnipotent.
E. God is omnibenevolent.
F. God is omniscient.
G. God is that which nothing more powerful
can be imagined.

These are the basic attributes that can be claimed
for the god of orthodox Judaism, Christianity,
Islam, and Hinduism.
Omnibenevolence and omniscience are actually
logically derivable from the claimed attribute of
omnipotence and so aren't not truly independent
attributes, and may be considered special aspects
of omnipotence.
There are other attributes of god, that he is the
only such god, that he is is immortal and that
god has always existed that are not important
for this discussion and for now, can be ignored.
They are secondary arguments and are for the most
part not foundational or truly necessary, except
those that can be logically derived from the
attributes listed above.

A CLASS OF GODS
It is important to note here that this is a
definition not for a particular god, but an
entire class of gods.
Sub-theories about god are not important here.
Christianity claims one may attain salvation
only through Jesus, Islam claims the Christian
dogma that Jesus was the son of god is
blasphemous.

Ideas like this though, are of little importance
to the overarching and general claims made for a
personal, creator, omni-everything god. I have
coined a term, The Grand God of Grand Theologies
for this sort of god, this sort of theological
system of expansive claims for god.
Grand theologies are those theologies that have
adopted this class of god as their basic
attributes concerning the nature of god. But it
is important to remember here that what is being
discussed here is a class of gods, not particular
gods or specific gods.
THE FOUR GREAT THEOLOGICAL TRADITIONS
Again, Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Hinduism hold
to this basic Grand God and are typical Grand
Theologies holding to this basic class of god as
their basic definitions of what god is at god's
most basic level.
A big problem with this class of gods is, it
collapses rather easily into internal self
contradiction.
THE PROBLEM OF EVIL.
The problem of evil was first written down by
Epicurus in about the third century BCE.
Today's formulation is:
A. God is defined as omnipotent;
B. and as omnibenevolent.
C. Evil exists.
D. God therefore, is not omnipotent as claimed.
E. Or God is not omnibenevolent as claimed.
F. Or god is neither omnipotent or
omnibenevolent.
G. Or god is not existant.
THE FREE WILL DEFENSE
The free will defense of the problem of evil goes
back to St. Augustine who popularized it. It is
still popular, and is championed most notably
today by Alvin Plantinga, but also by other
theologians.
God gave man free will. Man freely chooses to do
evil. Ability to do evil is less evil than
lacking free will.
THE FREE WILL DEFENSE DEBUNKED.
God has free will.
God is omnibenevolent, he has a good nature
incapable of doing evil.
A. If god can have free will, and a good nature,
this good nature is not allowed to count
against god's free will.
B. Nor is god's lack of ability to do evil
allowed to count against god's omnipotence.
C. Likewise, man could easily have a god like
free will and a god like good nature.
D. Inabilty then to do evil would no more count
against man's free will than it does for god's
free will.
E. If so, it also counts against god's free will
and god does not have free will as claimed.
F. If god does not have absolute and total free
will, thus free will is not a true necessity
at all.
F. If god is omnipotent and omnibenevolent, and
can give man a god like free will and a
god-like good nature incapable of moral evil,
god must do so or god is not moral, not
omnibenevolent.
G. Evil exists because he allows it to.
So free will does not exist, or it does and we can
have a god like free will and a god like good
nature. Either way, free will cannot explain away
the existence of evil. This free will defense
then, is a failed argument.
OMNISCIENCE VERSUS CREATORHOOD OF GOD
God is defined as creator of all in most
religions.
And god is claimed to be omniscient, all knowing.

A. God created the Universe and all in it.
B. God is omniscient, all knowing, he knows all
in the Universe and he knows the future of the
Universe and its contents.
C. If god creates a Universe, he will know that
in 13 billion years this Universe will have a
man named John Smith in it.
D. If John Smith is good and saved, or evil and
damned, God will know that.
E. As he knows that the Universe in its present
state will have a John Smith, god may then
contemplate the future state of Smith and
decide if he will tolerate an evil Smith.
F. If yes, Smith will be evil only because of a
specific personal and will choice made solely
by god.
G. If Smith is evil, then evil exists solely
because of a choice made by god. In fact all
moral evil done by creations of god will be
evil and do evil only because of personal and
willful creations of god allowing evil acts
to be done, by direct decision of god.
H. If evil exists in a world with an omniscient
creator god, it is solely and only because
god allows evil.
I. If evil exists solely because of personal
choices of god, god then is not as defined,
omnibenevolent.
J. Man and any other sentient being in such a
Universe cannot have any free will, not even
in principle. A Universe with a god that
creates all and knows all precludes free will
for all beings god creates in the strongest
possible manner.

The Grand God of Grand
Theology is thus self destroying, it is
incoherent and contradictory as a theory.

THE SITUATION SO FAR.
1. A minimalistic class of gods is defined, this
Grand God has been defined here with as few
terms as possible.
2. The problem of evil dooms such a claimed god.
3. The attempted defense, free will is fatally
flawed. God's good nature and free will doom
claims free will makes evil necessary for man
to have free will.
4. Omniscience and creatorhood of god further
doom claims of god's omnibenevolence and
man's free will free will cannot exist for
man. All evil is the direct and knowing
creation of god contradicting claims of
omnibenevolence.
5. Since Free will for man is totally impossible,
free will cannot be a good quality, much less
necessary.

Here, the Grand God of Grand Theology has
collapsed. As has Grand
Theology. As pointed out, this destroys the claims
and viability of an entire class of possible gods,
all secondary and tertiary claims for such a god of
this class also fail, as do dogmas or secondary
or tertiary claims.
If a these Grand Gods cannot exist as defined,
specific gods cannot, nor can claims such as this
or that Grand God sent this or that revelation to
man or some prophet or did this or that.

God is thus disprove and is utter irrelevant
to anything real and existant.
***********
OMNIPOTENCE AND OMNISCIENCE

A. Omnipotence is a special sort of attribute, of
all god's alledged attributes the most
important, because from that attribute you
can derive others attributes, including
omniscience. If one says for purposes of
argument god is omnipotent, one is also
implying god is also omniscient.
B. If god is omnipotent, god must also
specifically have omniscience because if
he does not have omniscience, one
cannot claim omnipotence as an attribute.
C. Thus if god is omnipotent, and created all,
free will is impossible because creation
and omniscience rule out free will as was
shown. In this world god supposedly created,
evil exists. So god must not be
omnibenevolent as claimed as all evil is
created by god if man cannot have free will.
D. So omnipotence and omnibenevolence are thus
mutually exclusive in a world that does in
fact have evil in it. Because omniscience
must exist as part of omnipotence and
omniscience and creatorhood cannot coexist
with free will, omnipotence is also not
compatible with creatorhood and
omnibenevolence. One cannot finesse this
all by ignoringomniscience or abandoning
omniscience.

E. One can only dispose of omniscience by also
explicitly abandoning omnipotence. If god is
defined as being omnibenevolent then a god
that is also allegedly also creator of all
must be evil.
CREATORHOOD OF GOD
F. One may be tempted to abandon the idea god
created all. But that creates some very strong
logical problems also.

G. If god is omnipotent, he can create all. Or
modify any other creation he does not himself
create. No other being or process may create
something god could not modify, because of the
power of his omniscience.
H. So if for purposes of argument, we claim the
Universe was not created by god, he could,
being omnipotent, change that creation for
his own purposes, that of creating good due
to his attribute of omnibenevolence.
We are back to the problem of evil again, he
could change creation such that no evil John
Smiths can exist.
If not he then is sole and only cause for
existence of all evil.
If god is omnibenevolent and omnipotent he
still must modify any creations he did not
himself create to destroy evil, if he can
do so. So claiming god did not create all
does not save the concept of an omnipotent,
omnibenevolent god. It cannot avoid the
problem of evil.

I. Omniscience means we cannot dodge the problem
of evil by stating god did not create the
Universe even if one wished to, nor by limiting
his creatorhood, for example saying god did not
create the original material of the Universe,
but used it as a building material.

J. Thus to get rid of the creator problem, we must
explicitly abandon it all and totally. Only by
doing so could one get around the problem of
creatorhood and omniscience. But if we say god
cannot either create the Universe or modify it
as he finds it, we drop omniscience also,
explicitly. God then turns out not to be
creator of all nor omnipotent as a priori
defined, a contradiction disproving that
a priori defined god.

K. If evil exists because god could change the
Universe he did not create, and he fails to do
so, then all evil exists solely because
of knowing and personal choices god makes.

L. God being omnipotent cannot be controlled by
any other process or other entities. He may
modify any works or creations made by them.

M. If god cannot change creations of others, or
the pre-existing materials of the Universe,
omnipotence in not an attribute of god as
claimed a priori.

M. Omnipotence and creatorhood thus are entangled
in a manner that makes it hard to abandon the
doctrine god created all and if one does, one
must likewise abandon claims of omnipotence.
PRE-EXISTING MATTER AND A PRE-EXISTING UNIVERSE.

The Greek writer Hesiod in his Theogony, starts
with a Universe that is a chaotic void. This
void, through the mysterious property of
emanation, created the first generation of gods,
the Titans, who in their turn created the
Olympians gods who eventually displace the
Titans as rulers of the world.
Likewise, some theologians see Genesis as
representing god creating the world out of a
similar void, a primordial sea god did not
himself create, but used as raw material for
his creations.
God's existence is not explained.
This idea god did not create all still would not
absolve an omnipotent god from responsibility
for evil. The biblical god if he did not create
the Universe and its component materials used them
as he pleased. If that god is omnipotent, then he
bears all responsibility for the world he did
create out of pre-existing material. Whether
this god is said to be eternal or like Hesiod's
Titans was somehow emanated from the chaos of
the void does not materially change any arguments
involving omnipotence, omniscience or
omnibenevolence, if god is said to have these
attributes.

************************************************
ATTRIBUTES OF GOD PART THREE
Does god create the rules, the laws, the logic of
the Universe or not? Is 2 + 2 = 4 something god
set as part of the nature of the Universe or is
that outside and beyond god?
Can god change 2 + 2 to 5?
A. If god did in fact make the rules and laws and
logic of the Universe, god could also change
them as needed.

B. A god that creates the rules.laws and logic
of the world he creates could simply make a
world where man has free will yet freely
chooses only to do moral good. Since god
creates the rules of the Universe, he could
change them in name of omnibenevolence, free
will is perserved and evil is banished. Evil
no longer needs to exist to allow for free
will.

C. If god could do this and fails to, evil
exists solely and only because of god's
failure to use his omnipotence to change
the rules and laws and logic of the Universe
to give man free will and a nature incapable
of doing evil.

D. If god can do this and fails to, god is not
omnibenevolent as claimed, a contradiction
in definitions of god as omnibenevolent and
omnipotent.
E. God in fact since he is essentially the
creator and sustaining cause of all evil
that was, is, and shall be is omni-malevolent.

F. If god does not make the rules, the laws, the
very logic of the Universe, then we have the
problem of what these things are and where
they come from.

G. If these laws and rules and logic limit god,
then god is obviously not omnipotent as
claimed.

H. And thus god is not as claimed, the greatest
thing that can be imagined. Obviously laws
and rules and logic that limit the most
powerful in the Universe are greater
still because they do in fact limit such
a being.

I. If such laws and rules and logic outside and
beyond god do exist, and are thus greater
than god, god is not the greatest thing
imaginable and all ontological 'proofs' that
are based on that basic claim fail.

J. Such rules and laws and logic must exist
outside of god's control and must have always
bee outside his control. If there were ever
in god's control, god cannot have reduced his
power to abandon omnipotence voluntarily.
Omnipotence is an inherent ability. It would
be like abandoning a sense of taste or touch.

This observation forstalls attempts at
apologisms claiming god abandoned any
abilities.

K. And if god could indeed abandon omnipotence,
he must avoid that. After all, he is also
omnibenevolent. Omnibenevolence dictates he
must at all times do the good thing, never an
evil thing. Abandoning omnipotence such that
he could no longer create a world where man
has free will, and a nature incapable of evil
is to allow evil to exist. To abandon
omnipotence is to embrace the proposition
evil is to be allowed to flourish. So any
claims god might have for some greater good
abandoned omnipotence freely are not possible.
L. If god is said to be omnipotent, if he at
anytime gave up any abilities he can no
longer said to be omnipotent, if he actually
gave up any abilities.

M. Since god must have had maximum power and
abilities and cannot have at any time
voluntarilyy relinquished any powers or
abilities, at least in the name of banishing
evil the fact that there are laws and rules
and logic of a universe outside and beyond
god, they aretrulyy beyond and outside god,
and always were.

N. Since such laws and rules and laws are outside
god, and always were so,and are properties of
the Universe, the Universe is likewise outside
and beyond god, with its laws and rules and
logic.

O. Since the Universe and its laws and rules and
logic are outside and beyond god, god is not
as, creator of all.

P. Since the Universe no longer relies on god for
its purportedexistencee, nor on god for the
existencee of its laws and rules and logic,
god is no longer a necessary being. If there
are things that have necessaryexistencee, it
would have to be the Universe as whole, or
possibly its laws, its rules or its logic,
or a subset of these rules or laws or the
underlying causes of these things, if any.
None were created by god or can be modified
by god.

Q. If these laws and rules and logic could be
modified by god, then the rules and laws
and logic of the Universe would have been
modified to enexistencece of evil, and must
be modified this if god is actually
omnipotent and omnibenevolent.

R. God then is not omnipotent, or not
omnibenevolent, or is neither, or
does not exist.

THE ATTRIBUTES AND NATURE OF GOD IN LIGHT OF THE
ABOVE EXAMINATION OF GOD

Thus the idea god is omnipotent, omnibenevolent,
and creator of all, clash again
and mutually self-destruct over the issue of
evil'existencece. This raises
serious questions on the nature of the Universe
that cannot be as Grand Theology
claims it is.
A. We have shown god cannot have created the
Universe.
B. We have shown god does not create the laws,
rules and laws of that Universe.
C. That god is thus not omnipotent as these laws
limit him.
D. That god is not the greatest imaginable thing.
E. That ontological proofs of god'existencece
based on claims god is the greatest thing
imaginable are failed arguments.
F. That god cannot be a necessary being, as
claimed.
G. That any possible claims god might for some
reason abandon or limit any abilities cannot
be true in any attempt to avoid this line of
inquiry. Nor can that approach derail logical
examination of consequences of Grand
Theology's overarching claims to god's
attributes or nature.

The fact that god iallegedlyly omnibenevolent and
evil exists, demonstrates god cannot make the
rules of the world. 2 + 2 = 4 because that is
the nature of the Universe, not something god
created.Because if god did create the rules and
laws and logic of the Universe, and was
omnibenevolent, we should have no signs of evil,
especially moral evil of man, Satan, demons and
devils.
But if one admits to that, Many other important
claims collapse, many other arguments about god
and his attributes and nature no longer are
viable. Some of these claims, god's creation
of the Universe are among the oldest and most
basic of theology.
Ontological proofs started with Anselm in the
10th century, all of these now must be abandoned.
The necessary being argument, long a rhetorical
argument is now finally dead.
Free will defenses against the problem of evil
opened up a line of attack here that is powerful
and very final.
**************************************************
--
"Just because you don't take an interest in politics
doesn't mean politics won't take an interest in you."
- Pericles
Cheerful Charlie
.

User: *"nemo"*
Title: Re: I present a challenge to any Atheist...	07 May 2006 03:05:49 AM