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

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

Matt Dillahunty Dodge

 

The Dillahunty dodge is a term invented by Matt Slick in order to describe dishonest tactics for evading questions weilded by Matt Dillahunty.

Dillahunty exposes his inconsistency by appealing to Hume’s problem of induction when denying arguments for God, but subjectively dismisses the problem when supporting naturalism, evolution, etc. He thereby routinely commits the fallacy of special pleading…

His ultimate objection to virtually all arguments for the Biblical worldview is ‘the third option appeal’ (aka ‘The Dillahunty Dodge’), which goes something like this: ‘There could be another explanation we’re not aware of; I don’t know’. Thus, he will deny everything we do know and jump to nonsensical appeals to the unknown. This is a self defeating approach to knowledge as a whole, as it can just as easily be applied to virtually everything that Dillahunty himself claims to know. E.g., if and when Dillahunty asserts that ‘evolution is true’ we can dismiss all (supposed) evidence for it, not with rational arguments, but instead with the third option appeal: ‘There could be another explanation for what you believe is explained by evolution that we’re not aware of; I don’t know’. We could (ultimately) postulate a third option for virtually any truth claim, ad infinitum. If and when Dillahunty objects by stating that we know of nothing else that is better supported by the evidence, we can call his objection an ‘argument from ignorance’ (vs. an argument based upon what he does claim knowledge of) — just as he objects to the statement that we know of no other means by which logic could be derived apart from mind. If Dillahunty appeals to inductive inference to support naturalism and evolution, then in the interest of consistency and rationality he must agree that inductive inference points to conceptual laws of thought.
Thus, the irrationality, hypocrisy (special pleading) and indeed impossibility of Matt Dillahunty’s atheistic worldview is reasonably demonstrated.
Dillahunty Hang Up Tactic
Often while taking calls on the Atheist Experience rather than exert the effort to do the Dillahunty Dodge Matt will just get angry and hang up on callers.

Godless Debate Community Wiki

Atheist Community Of Austin Discord Server

The ACA has a subreddit and a Discord Server. The third wave feminists have taken over the Discord chat.

The Atheist Community of Austin(ACA) is a non-profit organization, founded in 1996, based in Austin, Texas. Their goal is to promote positive atheism and the separation of church and state. Matt Dillahunty is the current president of the ACA since 2019.
The ACA sponsors a weekly Austin-based webcast and cable access television show. The Atheist Experience is hosted by Matt Dillahunty, and is a discussion show inviting calls from the viewers. The show is streamed over the Internet, offered as a podcast, and clips are unofficially posted to YouTube. A line is reserved for Austin callers, and theists are encouraged to participate in the show - so long they have better arguments than "open your heart to Jaysus and yawl see that he's real!" The Atheist Experience airs each Sunday from 16:30 to 18:00 Central Time.

The ACA Discord is now controlled by crazy feminists and the male moderators are silenced.

ACA Discord Controlled By Third Wave Feminism

Female In ACA Discord Server "

I have deliberately broken Discord rules in text chat in front of him since then and he just ignores it. He is too afraid to use his moderator power on me. It's so fucked up!! I feel kind of sorry for the guy but what more effective way to wake people up?"

ACA Discord Server Invite Link: https://discord.gg/Szwugqb

Some people have suggested that third wave feminism could qualify as a religion under some anthropologists' definitions. However, regardless of this, the people who identify as feminists are bound to believe in some type of bullshit as the whole concept of being a feminist relies heavily upon the concepts of victim complexes and self-guilt.

ACA Official Website

Female Feminist Atheists Tell Me To Fuck Off

I went into a Subreddit called GodlessWomen to ask them their opinion on the false Sexual Assault Allegations in the atheist community and the #MeToo Movement.

Immediately four of the female atheist feminists told me to fuck off.

Screen Shot Of Me Confronting My Fellow Female Atheists On Reddit About False Sexual Assault Allegations In The Atheist Community:

This is what I posted "I think the female atheists should speak out against these mass amounts of false accusations of sexual assault in the atheist community. Atheists like Richard Carrier, Neil Degrass Tyson, Michael Shermer and David Silverman are having their careers ruined over baseless allegations."

Godless Reddit Account

If there is no evidence then the accused is innocent. To give credence to an accusation/theory etc merely because it is articulated is not a true skeptical approach. It is a cynical approach allowing the individual to use their own personal desires or selfish bias alone to decide the truth. The basis of our legal system is NOT that the accused must prove that he is innocent but that the accuser MUST PROVE that the accused is guilty. There by if saying that the accused is guilty only on the basis of being accused by some one who very likely has something to gain from it is just wrong. This very basis works in favor of the accuser to protect them from defamation suits as the accused then becomes the accuser by saying they were "damaged" in someway, and now MUST PROVE the how why and often intent. More often if there is no evidence that it did happen then there is no evidence that it didn't. Which leads us back to those pesky personal desires and selfish bias. Which is why these types of accusations SHOULD NEVER be trialled in the court of public opinion. Which is what the left and their feminists love to do. 

Rebecca Vitsmum Sexual Assault Accusation Against David Silverman

Crazy Feminist Atheist

Rebecca Vitsum accused David Silverman touching her sacrum without her permission, her thoughts about the matter and her court hearing endeavoring to get a restraining order against David Silverman.

Rebecca claimed she had an orgasm she couldn't control 😊when David touched her back summarized by Brett Keane in this video:

Silverman contends that he did not inappropriately touch Rebecca Vitsmun. 

David Silverman's Response To Allegation On His Website

https://firebrandforgood.com/metoo/

Rebecca Vitsmun filed a restraining order against Silverman, but the judge denied her petition because the judge did not see a pattern of sexual harassment against her by Silverman. However, Vitsmun has filed a battery charge against Silverman with the police.

Rebecca Vitsmun has filed a battery allegation with the police against atheist David Silverman and indicates he caressed her sacrum without her permission (the sacrum is a bone at the base of the lower back that is above the tailbone) Dogma Debate interview audio clip with the female atheist who accused David Silverman of sexual assualt.

Rebecca Vitsmum says she was "involuntary sexually aroused" when David touched her back

Rebecca set up David Silverman. I believe that because he did not act inappropriate, which I believe was there the girls intent was to get him to a party and witnessed him behaving and appropriately there for backing up the other two complaints because she personally knows those women. I believe since nothing happened inappropriately at the party at the two were left to devise something that occurred well remember when he rubbed your back or touched your back or whatever will have to go with that one. I do believe at some point she started to believe her story I do not believe that at the intent was there and you must have been tense shit for it to be an assault. I believe that Rebecca is ruining she is part of the problem with me to movement. She's overly dramatic present signs of borderline personality which would back up the fact that she's had some trauma in her past, I have no doubt that she has. Just because somebody has had trouble in the past is not means everybody comes in contact with you when you appear to be crippled and needing help when somebody walks up to you and ask if you need help and touches you her turning that into a sexual salt and making such a big deal about it should be a crime.

ACA Discord Server Slaves To Women

My ACA Discord Server Experience

I went into the Atheist Community Of Austin Discord server and started talking about how fucked up it was that the atheist movement had been taking over by crazy feminists. I think the female atheists should speak out against these mass amounts of false accusations of sexual assault in the atheist community. Atheists like Richard Carrier, Neil Degrass Tyson, Michael Shermer and David Silverman are having their careers ruined over baseless allegations. Men are afraid to oppose it because they are afraid of being accused themselves.

So in the ACA Discord server I was talking about American Atheists firing David Silverman and a male moderator muted me for "being inflammatory". It was a small voice chat with only 2 other males. I was so annoyed with the male atheist moderator for silencing me when it was people like him who I was speaking out for. 

So I said to him "I noticed in the "skeptic" community all it takes is a woman's accusation of sexual assault to destroy a man's career and life. No further evidence necessary. So if you use your moderator powers to mute me again in this Discord server I will go shout to all the other admins and moderators that you were sexually harassing me in voice chat. Then you will not be a moderator here any longer."

The male moderator was silent for a long time and then responded "Can I get that in writing?" Seems like an odd response but I think he was stunned and speechless so it was just occurred to him to say in order to try to get some evidence that I was lying or something. The other 2 males in the room didn't say anything. When he asked me that I screamed "Stop harrassing me!!" and he left the voice chat. Then he typed in the General Chat that he gave me my text chat privileges back and signed offline!

Now every time I join a chat he is in he quickly exists. I have deliberately broken Discord rules in text chat in front of him since then and he just ignores it. He is too afraid to use his moderator power on me. It's so fucked up!! I feel kind of sorry for the guy but what more effective way to wake people up?

David Silverman was accused of "sexual assault" by 3 different female atheist crazy feminists. One of which was Matt Dillahunty's ex-wife Beth Presswood

I do think when evil Men like Dillahunty who aid feminism in poisoning the Atheist Community they deserve to be victim's of false allegations. Actually it is really funny. David Silverman became a victim only after he helped Feminists take over. I told him so in a Q&A on Discord:

What ever happened to Beth Presswood?

https://medium.com/@godlessvideos/beth-presswood-feminist-atheist-monster-1dda7becebb1

Does the Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism Defeat God's Beliefs

My Philosophy Paper on Plantinga's EAAN got published 😀

Alvin Plantinga has famously argued that the naturalist who accepts evolutionary theory has a defeater for all of her beliefs, including her belief in naturalism and evolution. Hence, he says, naturalism, when conjoined with evolution, is self-defeating and cannot be rationally accepted. This is known as the evolutionary argument against naturalism (EAAN).  If the EAAN is framed in terms of objective probability and theism is assumed to be non-contingent, then either theism is necessarily false or the EAAN is unsound. Neither option is attractive to the proponent of the EAAN. Perry Hendricks (Religious Studies 1-5, 2018) has responded to Wunder's criticism, showing that the EAAN can be salvaged and, indeed, strengthened, by framing it in terms not of naturalism (N), but of a proposition that is entailed by N that is also consistent with theism. We will show that once Hendricks' solution to Wunder's objection is accepted, a puzzle ensues: if the EAAN provides the naturalist with a defeater for all of her beliefs, then an extension of it appears to provide God with a defeater for all of his beliefs. After bringing out this puzzle, we suggest several ways in which the proponent of the EAAN might solve it, but also show some potential weaknesses in these purported solutions.

Download here: 

https://www.academia.edu/43436853/Does_the_Evolutionary_Argument_Against_Naturalism_Defeat_Gods_Beliefs

I went into the Frank Turek Cross-examined Facebook Group and the first 2 people that tried to respond resorted to claiming that God doesn't have beliefs! 😀

https://www.facebook.com/groups/CrossExamined.org/permalink/715965539205630/

Steve Mcrae Blog Post To Aronra Definition Agnosticism

 

Aronra Strawmanning Habit

I am reading an old blog post by Steve Mrcrae  who is the owner of the Great Debate Community. He keeps responding to Aronra where he is frustrated after repeatedly telling Aronra he doesn't believe lack of belief is the same thing as believing it is false. This was after they had multiple interactions in their disagreement over the definition of Agnosticism.

Aronra has a nasty habit of strawmanning repeatedly. He did this with Eric Hernandez and recently with me.

Steve Mrae To Aronra on GDC Blog:

"Aron you keep strawmanning me…like every time. Even other people tell you that you are strawmanning me as they can easily see it…I have NEVER said ~Bp is the same as B~p, lack of belief is NOT the same as believing p is false. NEVER would I make such a puerile mistake and yet you keep insisting I make such a silly claim I do not, nor have I ever made. Nor have I ever said that there is a position between being convinced and being not convinced. This is a dichotomy, Bp V ~Bp there is NO middle ground here in classical logic…so please stop saying I believe things that I do not believe.

People notice you continually making these false accusations of my positions which they infer means you either do not understand what people are saying nor do you seem to want to honestly fix your misconceptions.

If you strawman me on this again, claiming I believe things that I simply do not, nor have I ever, believed I will refer you back to this post as I don’t see how I can be any more clearer on this." 

Aron Ra Gumball Atheism vs Steve Mcrae

Great Debate Community Blog

Beth Presswood Feminist Liar

Beth Presswood Crazy Atheist Feminist

Famous For Nothing

Beth Presswood is an unattractive, unintelligent dumb female atheist with no personality. Nobody would know who she was or care if she hadn't married Matt Dillahunty. With him running the Atheist Experience and ex-president of the Atheist Community Of Austin she was able to get her own Podcast called Godless Bitches to spew her Third Wave Feminist garbage.

Presswood Abusing Youtube Censorship:

Beth Presswood wants to hide information and videos being spread against her false allegations against David Silverman. She has launched a campaign where anytime someone makes a video with her name she reports to Youtube and gets the video taken down for "violation of privacy" You have to go to other sites such as Bitchute to see videos about her.

Banned From Youtube Beth Presswood vs David Silverman video on Bitchute

Feminist Poison

Over the years she helped feminism poison atheism and it got to the point where in the "Skeptic Community" all it took for a man to be considered guilty of sexual assault was for a woman to claim it.

Famous Male Atheist Leaders who at one point supported feminism had their careers destroyed because of false allegations. Lawrence Krauss, Neil Degrasse Tyson, Michael Shermer and David Silverman.

Beth Presswood targeted David Silverman. Beth Presswood got David Silverman fired from American atheists with false allegations of sexual assault. She is an evil vile third wave feminist that hates men. Silverman was fired from American Atheists.

GODLESS GIRL QUESTIONS DAVID SILVERMAN ACCUSING HIM OF DESERVING THE FALSE ALLEGATIONS FOR HELPING THE FEMINISTS 😀

David Silverman gives his account on his Website of evil Beth

Silverman "My memory of that night is very different from what she reported, Once again, I had enthusiastic consent, with precursory communications that established a safe word and set boundaries. Our interaction/play spanned several hours and several people witnessed our flirtations and some interactions. One person mentioned R’s lipstick smeared on my face, another that commented to R to fix her smeared lipstick, and still another person asked us both if she could join us in a threesome." 

Silverman quotes Presswood as saying during the sexual encounter “Call me a whore.  I used to be a prostitute and need to be shamed for it”  –Beth Presswood and asked him to spit in her mouth

https://firebrandforgood.com/metoo/

Matt Dillahunty Calls Silverman A Piece Of Shit: 

Beth Presswood Feminist Accomplice

Silverman was also accused by Rebecca Vitsmum of sexual assault for touching her back. This is how crazy she sounds: 

Rebecca Vitsmum Responds (Audio Only) David Silverman

Beth Presswood Wiki Page