Dlx2

Our particular universe is bounded temporally. It is not clear whether existence itself is bounded. You bring up a good point, though. Directional time exists within our universe as a property of this universe. So, by definition, afterlife can't be eternal.

Regardless, we can establish that the afterlife cannot be eternal, because it is bounded by death.

Agreed here as well. However, here it is assumed that we don't know the probability of God's existence. P(G) is a set of all real numbers between 0 and 1 including 0 and 1.

Dividing by infinity is not a problem. Divide a constant by infinity and it reduces to 0 (you have to do this with limits). You're right, though. Dividing infinity by infinity leaves an undefined operation which could be defined as the relative value of the afterlife compared to life. This is definable mainly by personal preference, and thus still is problematic for the Wager. In order to draw conclusions from the risk analysis, one still needs to know the probability of God.


My take on the afterlife is, if you've spent your entire life suffering for God, death is an eternal end to that suffering simply via nihilation of your existence. If you've spent your life finding joy in life, death is an end to that pleasure, and thus the proposition of death is a future devoid of that, which is a tormentuous concept at the moment of death, but really doesn't matter because you no longer exist after that last moment anyways.

So, in a really warped way, sure, it works, but the truth is, a sinner's hell is the exact same thing as a righteous man's heaven.

Sauron

Absolutely incorrect.

rhutchin, I do project management for a living. I have been doing it for over 15 years. This is not how project management is accomplished. Anyone who acted according to my illustrative example above would be fired.

If I walked into my Wednesday morning release meeting and told the Release Manager that the project could suffer a delay as a result of Pizza Aliens invading from Galaxy 9, and that he had better do something about it, I don't know what would happen first: my ass hitting the pavement, or the men in white coats whisking me away. Uncertainty does not exist merely because someone has a random brain misfire and imagines that a particular threat might exist.

To put this bluntly: you don't know what the fuck you are talking about. Stop making this stuff up as you go, merely because you dread facing the question placed before you.

Again you are incorrect. The parent is not "acting upon the child's fears". The parent is acting to calm an unreasonable fear that has no basis in fact. The motivation is not the same. The parent does not investigate the closet becuase he/she believes the child actually might be correct. So my statement stands:

Absurd. Uncertainty about boogeymen does not exist merely because a 4 year old child had a bad dream.

NO uncertainty here. None.

However, uncertainty does not exist merely because someone scratches "there is an invisible tiger" on the back of a napkin. So the basis for your information is no more reliable than my chicken-scratching on the back of a napkin.

Sauron

Sadly wrong. You cannot simply create a new definition of evidence out of the thin air, merely because your bible cannot meet the ordinary definition. Changing the rules to allow yourself to win does not work.

By your standards, chicken-scratching on the back of a napkin is evidence. Therefore, you should be worried about the invisible tiger - after all, I wrote about it on the back of a napkin. Since it's now written down, it must be "evidence" - at least according to you.

Sauron

I would say that your bible fails to survive the test of evidence, due to the following items:

Evidence must survive objections of opposing attorneys that it is irrelevant, immaterial or violates rules against "hearsay" (statements by a party not in court), and/or other technicalities.

Notice here that

1. If the item offered doesn't survive challenges and scrutiny, then it isn't allowed to be entered as evidence;

2. This list of objections is almost identical to the list of reasons skeptics give as to why they reject the bible or particular claims: questions of relevance, materiality, and hearsay;

3. Plus, notice the term "other technicalities". If someone tried to claim in a court of law that they saw dancing leprechauns or an invisible tiger, do you think that testimony might be excluded from evidence based upon "technicalities"? Yeah, I think you do know that it would be. Those same kind of technicalities also prevent the bible claims from being considered evidence.

As I told you earlier: introducing the courtroom frame of reference into this discussion hurts your argument, as opposed to helping it. Too late though; the damage to your position is already done.

rhutchin

Since you have concluded that the information contained in the Bible would not survive a challenge, you must have gone through the legal requirements to develop your argument for a challenge. Are you willing to provide that argument?

We know from the above definition that evidence includes--

- oral testimony of witnesses, including experts on technical matters, documents, public records, objects, photographs and depositions (testimony under oath taken before trial).
- "circumstantial evidence" which is intended to create belief by showing surrounding circumstances which logically lead to a conclusion of fact.

To be thrown out, the information must survive objections of opposing attorneys that it is:

- irrelevant,
- immaterial or
- violates rules against "hearsay" (statements by a party not in court),
- and/or other technicalities.

Since the case before us directly concerns that which the Bible says, the material from the Bible is relevant and material (else they would be no case being argued).

You might argue that the evidence is hearsay (the witnesses report what Jesus said) but there are exceptions that would allow for a witness to express the words Jesus spoke. Hear is the Hearsay Rule from dictionary.law.com--

Hearsay Rule
n. the basic rule that testimony or documents which quote persons not in court are not admissible. Because the person who supposedly knew the facts is not in court to state his/her exact words, the trier of fact cannot judge the demeanor and credibility of the alleged first-hand witness, and the other party's lawyer cannot cross-examine (ask questions of) him or her. However, as significant as the hearsay rule itself are the exceptions to the rule which allow hearsay testimony such as: a) a statement by the opposing party in the lawsuit which is inconsistent with what he/she has said in court (called an "admission against interest"); b) business entries made in the regular course of business, when a qualified witness can identify the records and tell how they were kept; c) official government records which can be shown to be properly kept; d) a writing about an event made close to the time it occurred, which may be used during trial to refresh a witness's memory about the event; e) a "learned treatise" which means historical works, scientific books, published art works, maps and charts; f) judgments in other cases; g) a spontaneous excited or startled utterance ("oh, God, the bus hit the little girl"); h) contemporaneous statement which explains the meaning of conduct if the conduct was ambiguous; i) a statement which explains a person's state of mind at the time of an event; j) a statement which explains a person's future intentions ("I plan to….") if that person's state of mind is in question; k) prior testimony, such as in deposition (taken under oath outside of court), or at a hearing, if the witness is not available (including being dead); l) a declaration by the opposing party in the lawsuit which was contrary to his/her best interest if the party is not available at trial (this differs from an admission against interest, which is admissible in trial if it differs from testimony at trial); m) a dying declaration by a person believing he/she is dying; n) a statement made about one's mental set, feeling, pain or health, if the person is not available-most often applied if the declarant is dead ("my back hurts horribly," and then dies); o) a statement about one's own will when the person is not available; p) other exceptions based on a judge's discretion that the hearsay testimony in the circumstances must be reliable.

Your last resort is to technicalities which you don't explain but merely assert to exist. Some explanation is needed to justify a ruling by the judge that the evidence is inadmissable. The judge will not through out evidence just because the opposing attorney doesn't like it or doesn't believe it.

rhutchin

As common sense tells us, we must establish a rule before we can change it. I am advocating that we nail down a rule about evidence that we can all agree to.

I will not object to you entering the napkin as evidence and allow you to testify that you are the one who wrote the information on the napkin. I am willing to let the jury sort out what to do with that evidence.

JPD

So what evidence are you going to bring to bear?

What evidence do you have that your God actually exists?

What evidence do you actually have that non-belief in your God could result in eternal torment?

What evidence do you have that eternal torment actually exists?

rhutchin

Extreme examples do not negate the methodology a person would follow in developing a risk management plan as part of the overall Project Management Plan. In developing a risk management plan, the normal procedure is to allow everyone to voice their concerns. To do otherwise would be poor risk management. There can be a lot of blue sky type thinking here. When I have done risk management, the group identifies the basic risks pretty quickly. Extreme situations, like you describe, can be easily dealt with and dismissed. Given your comments, my guess is that you do not prepare a risk management plan in your project management plan. If you worked for the government, that would explain it. Do you?

That’s what I said, stated differently. There is uncertainty in the mind of the child and the parent addresses that uncertainty. In like manner, the Wager addresses uncertainty in the mind of an individual about eternal torment and proposes a methodology to deal with that uncertainty.

Almost anything can give rise to uncertainty. Incomplete information is a source of uncertainty. Unverified rumors can create uncertainty. Even your chicken scratching on a napkin can create uncertainty in the minds of some people. I have heard of people who can be indecisive for less reason that that.

Alf

You cannot go from a*infinity = b*infinity implies a = b.

You cannot go from a / infinity = b / infinity implies a = b either.

Alf

JPD

Can I just say something.

A ten page gap fill scenario exemplorises necessitational power concepts to realise prognostic drivers in a bid to undertake encapsulation strategy theorisation.

Interestingly Bud Twatter of Cradlebirch Inspirations Inc forewent his usual dispensation analysis to embue fragmentation party interests in a bid that will see a literal throwback to drawers bulging with underspend.

Do you see?

Which stares at its own feet before falling into a ditch.


I find a beaver staring at the sun through a telescope provides all the information I require to take out the right life insurance policy.