Pascal's Wager Infinite Possibilities Rebuttal

Pascal

Pascal's Wager One Rebuttal

Pascal's Wager is an argument that asserts that one should believe in God, even if God's existence cannot be proved or disproved through reason.

Whether or not you believe in God, you should live your life with love, kindness, compassion, mercy and tolerance while trying to make the world a better place. If there is no God, you have lost nothing and will have made a positive impact on those around you. If there is a benevolent God reviewing your life, you will be judged on your actions and not just on your ability to blindly believe when there is a significant lack of evidence of his/her existence.

     There are infinitely many possibilities that could completely change the expected value of the wager. Here are a few examples:

    Pascal's wager argues that you should believe in one of an infinite number of poential Gods, with no way of knowing which is true, and damnation if you guess wrong. There could exist a god that punishes only Christians and rewards everyone else.

There exists a god that punishes people who believe in him based on probabilities (such as Pascal's Wager). Lacking specific evidence about the nature of the true religious faith, there are an infinite number of possible requirements for going to heaven and avoiding hell.

There exists a god who punishes everyone who is not an atheist, and rewards atheists for not believing in him.

For Pascal's Wager to really hold up logically, one has to show that the Christian god is more likely than any of the infinite other possibilities. There is no a priori reason to expect that. The reason that Pascal's Wager sounds so convincing at first is that the Christian paradigm was common among Pascal's peers (and still is many places), hence the Christian god seemed plausible whereas other possibilities were not considered equally plausible.

                                                            Pascal's Wager vs Atheist

 

Name The Trait Debunked

Ask Yourself NTT Argument Debunked

“Name the Trait” is not an actual argument, but a rebuttal tactic against the special pleading argument that humans are unique in the animal world. For any claimed rationale for humans to be treated uniquely, the Vegan site correctly points out this is an analog gradated feature, and humans are NOT unique.

The original justification of human uniqueness presumes that humans are valid subjects of moral consideration, and all humans are basically equal in this respect.

Name The Trait was formulated by the vegan Youtuber Ask Yourself. NTT seeks to establish veganism from a personal belief in human moral value, similar to the well known argument from marginal cases. Some street activists claim to have found the argument effective, when presented informally. However as we will see in this article, it is logically invalid, and Ask Yourself’s attempts to make it valid have led to an alternative version of the argument that is question-begging or that achieves possible validity only by the Principle of Explosion due to an internal contradiction.

Philosophical Vegan Forum

(P1) sentient humans are of moral value
(P2) for all sentient nonhuman animals there exists a counterpart to a sentient human that has moral value and has all the same traits as a sentient nonhuman animal
(P3) All things with the same traits are the same thing.
Therefore Animals are of moral value

Alternatively:

P1) If your view affirms a given human is trait-equalizable to a given nonhuman animal while retaining moral value, then your view can only deny the given nonhuman animal has moral value on pain of P∧~P.

P2) Your view affirms a given human is trait-equalizable to a given nonhuman animal while retaining moral value.

C) Therefore, your view can only deny the given nonhuman animal has moral value on pain of P∧~P

(‘Trait-equalizability’ is defined as something like, “If human moral value can be made identical to animal moral value and the result is that humans still have moral value, that reveals that animals had moral value all along”).

It is feasible to address the NTT contention and safeguard its enticing power by adding a reason that rejects twofold guidelines and changing the principal reason to require human virtue (or another ethical thought) to be founded on a quality. This makes NTT substantial, and permits it to be introduced similarly as it was expected.

NTT, regardless of any explicit statement, is used to show the absurdity of non-vegan positions thus elevating the status of the vegan position. However, this seems to run on a particular framing of moral conversations that can be objected to.

Ask Yourself Destroyed By Jack Angstreich In Name The Trait Debate

In the video linked above Jack Angstreich destroys Ask Yourself in a Name The Trait debate. Jack Angstreich gets annoyed with the dishonesty and starts yelling. in the AY Discord server. NTT argument is supposed to be an argument for veganism. Ask Yourself gets owned by Angstreich and pretends he doesn’t understand what is being said because he doesn’t know how to respond to the refutation.

Matt Dillahunty Leave ACA

Why Did Matt Dillahunty Leave the ACA?

 

Why Did Matt Dillahunty Leave The ACA? 

In October of 2022 Matt Dillahunty left the Atheist Community of Austin. He gave the following statement:

During The Atheist Experience on Sunday, October 2nd, I announced that it would be my final show and that I would be leaving the Atheist Community of Austin. This live stream, scheduled for 4pm Central on October 9th will address the story behind this decision as well as what comes next. Some reminders:

1. I'm not asking anyone else to leave the ACA or stop supporting the ACA, you do what you feel is best. Support me, them, both, neither...but I'm giving my reasons for why I'm no longer supporting them.

2. No one should harrass or bother the ACA about this, no matter how you feel about the information. There are still great people there, doing good, even if it's an organization I no longer wish to work with.

3. My former cohosts are AMAZING people - do not call in to ACA shows and ask the presenters to weigh in on this issue. The presenters on AxP were informed that I was leaving and, in part, why...but presenters on other shows were not informed and do not know all of the isseus (part of the problem).

4. I'm not sure if I'l be taking questions or not - the delay makes it difficult. But I do not have plans to address this issue after today. Getting back to work is the primary goal.

Rumour has it that Dillahunty is upset at the ACA for not standing by his side over the David Silverman and Beth Presswood drama

Message from fellow atheist community president:

The Atheist Community of Austin (ACA) has lost an amazing volunteer in @Matt Dillahunty, who has explained this situation with the utmost professionalism -- encouraging people to continue to support the ACA's mission is the correct approach, and is an example of Matt's care and integrity. Thank you, Matt, for everything you've done, and continue to do, for the atheism demographic; your hard work is greatly appreciated by people from all over the world. -- Randolf Richardson (in Canada)

ACA SLAVES TO WOMEN

Is TJump An Idiot?

Oxford definitions : 

Idiot - A person of low intelligence. 

Intelligence - The ability to acquire and apply knowledge and skills. 

ARGUMENT FROM PHD AUTHORITIES LAUGHING AND WRITING AGAINST TJUMP P1) TJump is a stupid atheist who values authority for he constantly appeals to the consensus or opinions of PhD's because he thinks an appeal to authority is valid (as long as they are an authority) P2) IF tjump was not an idiot, then PhDs would not laugh at him and actively write articles against his theories 

P3) PhDs DO laugh and actively write articles against his theories 

C) thus, Tjump is an idiot 

ARGUMENT FROM DOUBLE PHD ATHEIST BERNARDO KASTRUP P1) If Tom Jump was not an idiot, then double PHD and CERN researcher Bernardo Kastrup would not laugh at Tjumps ability to acquire and apply knowledge and skills. P2) double PHD and CERN researcher Bernardo Kastrup does laugh at Tjumps ability to acquire and apply knowledge and skills. 

C) Thus, Tjump is an idiot 

Defense for P2 

Bernardo: You can not get a high fi system to produce images by adding more speakers, making sound more complex does not make it visual….no complexity of more of the same kind can produce something that is of a completely and fundamentally different kind at an ontological level. 

Tjump: You are just begging the question, and committing the composition division fallacy. You are just saying “ you can keep adding bricks but you will never get a wall because that is of a different ontological kind” 

Bernardo: HAHAhaha “no” do you sincerely believe that what you are saying now defeats my argument? Tjump: yes because I believe your argument is the exact same thing (timestamp: 18:00)

ARGUMENT FROM PHD ATHEIST ALEX MALPASS BLOG ARTICLE AGAINST TJUMP’S THEORY 

P1) If tjump was not an idiot, Noted atheist PHD Alex Malpass would not write an entire article dedicated to showing the contradictory and idiotic nature of Tjump’s moral theory. P2) noted atheist PHD alex malpass did write an entire article dedicated to showing the contradictory and idiotic nature of Tjump’s moral theory. 

C) Tjump is an idiot 

Supplemental defense for P2 

Alex Malpass reserves his person-specific Blog articles on his website literally called “use of reason” for only the most egregious forms of idiocy such as TAG, Darth Dawkins, Jay Dyer, Sam Harris etc. Tjump is featured among this list of people who need to be publicly shamed for their idiocy and warranted a person-specific blog article. 

Further, Tjump and Alex went at it in the comment section and these are some of the quotes Tjump: “None of these seem to be issues for my model at all. “ " 

Alex: “You didn’t understand “ you aren’t following the nuance of the issues here. “ you didn’t grasp the dialectic here.” “ I doubt I will puncture your ego enough for this to sink in, but that’s delusional man. Snap out of it. “I’m happy to end our conversation here. Good luck on your philosophical 

https://useofreason.wordpress.com/2019/11/12/tom-jumps-moral-theory/

ARGUMENT FROM PHD MATHEMATICAL PHYSICIST DR. FRANK TIPLER P1) If tjump was Not an idiot, world-renowned PHD mathematical Physicist Dr. Frank Tipler would not say Tjump was “ incapable of understanding elementary logic or elementary physics” and that “he was demonstrating it” and that tjump was “ not capable of rational thought” 

P2) World-Renowned PHD mathematical Physicist Dr. Frank Tipler DID say “tjump was “ incapable of understanding elementary logic or elementary physics and “that he was demonstrating it” and that Tjump “ was not capable of rational Thought” C) Tjump is An idiot 

ARUGMENT FROM TJUMP NOT BEING ABLE TO UNDERSTAND THE KRIPKENSTEIN RULE FOLLOWING PARADOX OR NORMATIVITY IN LOGIC AFTER 8 HOURS OF FREE LECTURES BY DR. RICHARD BROWN 

P1) if tjump was not an idiot, Tjump would be able to understand the Kripkenstein Rule following paradox and normativity in logic and how it applied to him after PHD atheist Richard Brown tried to explain them to him for 8 hours. 

P2) Tjump was not able to understand the rule following paradox and normativity in logic after 8 hours of a sympathetic atheist phd trying to explain them to him 

C) Tjump is an Idiot 

Defense for Premise 2

In the months after this discussion tjump still claimed “in order to disagree with Richard brown I would have to understand what he was saying” 

ARGUMENT FROM APPEAL TO AUTHORITY HYPROCRISY 

P1) If Tjump can credibly reject these examples as forming a valid inductive inference to the best explanation as to his idiocy, then he would reject similar instances of his own use of inductive inference to the best explanation via the testimony of valid authorities.

P2) Tjump does not reject similar instances of his own use of inductive inference to the best explanation via testimony of valid authorities 

C) Thus Tjump can not credibly reject these examples as forming a valid inductive inference to the best explanation as to his idiocy 

NOVEL TESTIBLE PREDICTIONS 

1. Tjump will continue to call people of much higher intelligence than him "dumbass" 2. Tjump will claim all of the PhD Atheists cited here (the class of authority he normally cites himself as proof) are all wrong about him being an idiot, and in-fact they were just mad that HE was right ( Dunning–Kruger effect) 

3. Tjump will continue to be called an Idiot by PhD atheists for the entirety of his YouTube career which currently stands at 10.9k subs after many years. 

4. No one in the future will take Tjump's moral theory seriously, nor his epistemic theory, nor anything he has ever said. 

PROBABILISTIC CASE THAT TJUMP IS AN IDIOT 

Now I ask the audience, what is more likely, that all of these PHDs (there are many more examples in his catalog of interactions), most of them fellow atheists , are all wrong about Tjump being an Idiot, or that Tjump IS INFACT an idiot? I leave it to the crowd to decide what is more probable. 

Bayesian Calculation 

Probability of : Tjump is an idiot 

based on : Many PhD's think he is an idiot after speaking with him at length P(Tjump is an Idiot) = 50% (just as likley as not likley) 

P(Many PhD's think he is an idiot after speaking with him at length|Tjump is an Idiot) = 80% (this evidence is very expected if it is true that Tjump is an idiot) 

P(Many PhD's think he is an idiot after speaking with him at length|¬Tjump is an Idiot) = 5% (this evidence is very unexpected if it is false that Tjump is an idiot) 

P(Tjump is an Idiot|Many PhD's think he is an idiot after speaking with him at length) 99.3789% (0.99378882)

P(Tjump is an Idiot|¬Many PhD's think he is an idiot after speaking with him at length) 16.7364% (0.16736402) 

Even at a charitable prior probability that the chances that Tjump are an idiot are only 50/50, and given very charitable odds that the evidence is only 80% expected on the hypothesis being true, we still get a probability of 99.3789% that Tjump is an idiot, given the evidence above and all of our background knowledge. 

**Honorable evidence mention 

THE ARGUMENT FROM JOE SCHMIDT OPTING OUT OF TRYING TO EXPLAIN SKEPTICISM AND PREDICTIONS TO TJUMP 

P1) If Tjump was not an idiot, he would have been able to understand basic problems of skepticism related to his epistemology (and his foundational claim to be able to distinguish imagination from reality) 

P2) Tjump was NOT able to understand basic problems of skepticism related to his epistemology (and his foundational claim to be able to distinguish imagination from reality) 

C) Tjump is an idiot 

Defense 

Joe Schmidt is not a PhD but is a child genius and will have one shortly, and already has done much to laugh at and explain why Tjump is of low-intelligence (idiot), by showing he is not good at acquiring and applying knowledge and skills (intelligence) (Timestamp 35:00) 

Tjump loses to woman

TJump Wiki Page