Moderation Questions

It isn't over analysis. It's the actual way to think about whether to go for 2 or not. That said, I obviously agree re the bolded.

It wouldn't be unusual to posit that (i) a deity created the universe and the physical laws that govern the universe; and (ii) that deity is not exerting ongoing control over the affairs of the universe.

I'm skeptical of your claim that it's justifiable for god to torture people eternally. At least I think that's what you were implying --feel free to clarify.

What are you blabbering about?

I edited my post already to respond to the response to the Euthyphro dilemma, namely that you’re just pushing the problem back to God’s nature and not actually getting yourself out of the trap.

At that point if God’s nature is static and unchanging there may be an actual logical contradiction between the existence of evil and the full realization of his perfectly good divine will. So you saved yourself from the Euthyphro dilemma by reintroducing the logical PoE.

It’s not a guaranteed one possession game. It’s a game that has a potential to be decided by one possession some of the time.

It is conventionally called a one possession game by coaches who once believed that pounding the ball up the middle over and over again was a great strategy. I think you’ll find that the advent of statistical reasoning has been a great advantage to the teams that have utilized it to the detriment of teams that don’t utilize it.

We're discussing the common Christian depiction of God.

I agree that there could be an evil God. It's not likely, but it would make sense given the way the world is.

I’ve always felt the idea of fixed quotas for Heaven and Hell seemed a bit rigid. When you’re dealing with billions of people, the moral difference between the best person who barely ends up in Hell and the worst person who barely makes it into Heaven would be essentially indistinguishable. I guess God just says to the guy at the cutoff "I get your frustration but I got to draw the line somewhere"

Yeah, but your criticism of the arguments always seems to boil down to "but if you believe that god exists then..." or "but it's based on faith". Well yeah, no ****, if you believe in some preternatural omnipotent being (aka magic) then bread can be the body of Christ and Mystic Meg can predict the lottery numbers and there is an invisible teapot orbiting the Sun and all sorts of other brain****ery. The whole point is that these beliefs are ****ing stupid. That lots of people believe something stupid doesn't make it any more likely to be true.

I think it just means that Jews don't these days believe in Hell. But it's irrelevant to Pascal's Wager, which supposes that if Christianity as understood in Pascal's time is true, then it potentially offers infinite benefits, which means that any sacrifice in this necessarily finite life is justified in order to gain those benefits, which is obviously mad because this life is real and the afterlife is imaginary. Besides, Winston Churchill, in old age, had seen quite enough of life, thank you, and regarded the prospect of eternal life as frankly appalling.

Under Christian mythology evil exists because satan is literally running the world and this life here is like a video game where in order to pass to the next level you have to not fall for the evil running the place. It's all supposed to be a test and in God-time the entire run of this reality is only supposed to be about a day or two so it doesn't make any difference to them if some suffering happens.

Can you give me an example of a belief other than that in god that is completely unsupported by all available evidence and, in your view, not stupid? Or is belief in god special in this regard?

Sounds like we are in a massive roblox game with the creator from another dimension and we are just at mercy of the rules of the game. That's a religion that probably gains traction with each year.

If you are down 8 points technically you can score 8 points in your next possession. There is no guarantee you will succeed in the two point conversion. There is no guarantee you will make the extra point when down 7. If you were down 9 points that would be a two possession game. Sure, if you are down 8 and miss the two point conversion you will need another possession to win the game but in the moment you are down 8 it is a one possession game.

I'm not just targeting you here specifically, but this is the most insane thing to be arguing about.

Regarding analytics. There are some teams that are evolving and both using analytics but also taking the human and environmental elements into consideration. This is how I saw the Philly situation. By missing the two on the first TD the game was essentially over. It took all hope away from their team. It took away the possibility Chicago would possibly make a mistake and blow the game.

I'm not talking about the decision to go for two. I'm just talking about the semantics of what is considered a one possession game. I have watched football my entire life and have never heard an argument against calling a 7 or 8 point deficit a one possession game.

Using logic, this is just a dog's ass. Now apply the concept to everything else.

They could be simpler but they’d still be written in triple gobbledegook and despite the simplicity of the ideas still no one would understand them.

why tho

Sounds like something I would say

By this logic being down 9 or 10 points is also a one possession game because it’s logically possible to force a safety, and then get the ball and score, which is all one single possession from the moment the safety is forced, no?

Seems like a “possession” is not a very good measurement.

If we’re using the same words to mean the same things then yes, but if we’re using words in two different ways then it’s not necessarily an insane argument but a semantic misunderstanding.

And if they converted they would have been in a much better position knowing they only needed the stop and TD+xtra point and not a stop+TD+2pc

You’re being results oriented.

Atheist materialist: Holding beliefs which don’t accord with reality is stupid.

Me: Agree

AM: Holding beliefs which have no supporting evidence is stupid.

Basically, for the atheist materialist, their reality seems to be “evidence”.

Like, if I record myself eating breakfast, did I just capture ultimate reality? Evidence! Reality!

Is this what we are trying to be in accordance with?

If I’m misrepresenting anyone here as a materialist, please tell me what is more real for you than evidence.

I'm not a deep philosopher like you, brother. Why don't you just lay your evidence out on the table?

in fairness this is a pretty normal thing - was watching it in a poker room and there was very heavy debate over whether or not they were better off kicking the extra point and "still having a chance to tie it with 1 td" vs going for it then and there and knowing they needed to get it done twice

i think they chose the better path - way better to know earlier if you need score twice more or not than to find out in the closing seconds of the game

it's a fairly common discussion that happens - there was a recent one here over whether or not it was +EV or not to pull your mystery bounty early or try to wait hoping that a few bad ones get pulled first to increase your odds of getting the big one everyone wants

likewise, if you had a group of 20 people drawing straws. assuming it's fair and can't be advantage played, you'd still assuredly get people arguing over which order they draw with some thinking their odds were better going first and others thinking it's better going last

He's more of a prophet than a philosopher.

What evidence do you have for not god?

I'm sorry, but I won't be answering any more posts on this subject. I don't like leaving a subject by asking a question, but now that craig is involved I will have to tap out. Don't want to be associated with him.