[Liberty4eva]

Originally Posted by Stu

Youtube video

The skeptics should give this a watch.

I watched the video and I must say I am not impressed with his logic and reasoning. At all.

I majored in mathematics and I know there was a mathematician (not sure of the name but could figure it out if you're interested) centuries ago who used an analogous argument that we should believe there is a God and worship him.

His reasoning was more or less as follows: there is a level of uncertainty on whether God exists. If we worship God when God does exist then we are rewarded with eternal paradise. If we worship God when there is no God we are wasting some of our time. If we do not worship God when there is no God then we have more time to do other things. However, if we do not worship God when there is a God we are punished with eternal damnation. His conclusion was we should worship God because it's the better "column" if you will.

So Stu, should we all become religious and go to church every Sunday?

This argument he uses is one of the reasons why I think this global warming myth has in a lot of respects become a religion. And the clerics of global warming keep propogating the myth because that's how they make their money (just like religious clerics).

[Liberty4eva]

When the polar ice caps on Mars are melting, it begs the question how carbon emitions on earth are causing that. The sun goes through natural cycles and whether the earth is warming or cooling, I am absolutely convinced that the people behind global warming are using it to try and squeeze more taxes out of us and control us.

Global Warming is a scam.

[BB_Eye]

Originally Posted by Liberty4eva

I watched the video and I must say I am not impressed with his logic and reasoning. At all.

I majored in mathematics and I know there was a mathematician (not sure of the name but could figure it out if you're interested) centuries ago who used an analogous argument that we should believe there is a God and worship him.

His reasoning was more or less as follows: there is a level of uncertainty on whether God exists. If we worship God when God does exist then we are rewarded with eternal paradise. If we worship God when there is no God we are wasting some of our time. If we do not worship God when there is no God then we have more time to do other things. However, if we do not worship God when there is a God we are punished with eternal damnation. His conclusion was we should worship God because it's the better "column" if you will.

So Stu, should we all become religious and go to church every Sunday?

This argument he uses is one of the reasons why I think this global warming myth has in a lot of respects become a religion. And the clerics of global warming keep propogating the myth because that's how they make their money (just like religious clerics).

Except it's not at all the same. You need faith in order to believe in God. There have been philosophers who have attempted to use reason such as the ontological argument of Anselm and Descartes, but their dualistic metaphysics didn't stand up to scrutiny from the laws of causality or the principle of the identity of indiscernables. In the case of Pascal whom you mention, all he could do was appeal to fear as you say.

There is scientific evidence for the effects of carbon dioxide has on the ability of heat to escape the Earth's atmosphere. The irreversible impact of global warming is a very real possibility. The possibility of our souls going to Heaven or Hell after we die goes every natural law, whatever your philosophical views on it may be. Pascal's fear of divine punishment was likely a product of the religious prejudices of France in his day. He lived in a Catholic theocracy under Louis XIV. This was a time when clerics burning books was commonplace.

[Liberty4eva]

Originally Posted by BB_Eye

Except it's not at all the same. You need faith in order to believe in God. There have been philosophers who have attempted to use reason such as the ontological argument of Anselm and Descartes, but their dualistic metaphysics didn't stand up to scrutiny from the laws of causality or the principle of the identity of indiscernables. In the case of Pascal whom you mention, all he could do was appeal to fear as you say.

There is scientific evidence for the effects of carbon dioxide has on the ability of heat to escape the Earth's atmosphere. The irreversible impact of global warming is a very real possibility. The possibility of our souls going to Heaven or Hell after we die goes every natural law, whatever your philosophical views on it may be. Pascal's fear of divine punishment was likely a product of the religious prejudices of France in his day. He lived in a Catholic theocracy under Louis XIV. This was a time when clerics burning books was commonplace.

I think they are very much the same. The global warming video and my religious argument are based on "uncertainty". There's a difference between believing in a God and believing there's a chance a God exists. Even atheist Richard Dawkings (author of the God Delusion) says that there is a chance that there is a God. A very, very small chance but still a chance. You don't need faith to believe there's a chance God exists and are, to some extent, "uncertain" on whether God exists. I base my religious argument on this "uncertainty" on whether God exists just like the global warming video bases its argument on this uncertainty on whether global warming is happening.

Organized religion and global warming are very, very similar. Both religion and global warming have millions of followers. Both are billion dollar industries. Both groups of zealots outright ignore and are deaf to evidence that contradicts their beliefs. Both have shaky evidence that supports their beliefs: religion gets its evidence from a few desert scribblings and Global Warming gets its evidence from this misleading correlation between CO2 and temperature (higher temperatures lead to more CO2 not the other way around).

[BB_Eye]

Originally Posted by Liberty4eva

I think they are very much the same. The global warming video and my religious argument are based on "uncertainty". There's a difference between believing in a God and believing there's a chance a God exists. Even atheist Richard Dawkings (author of the God Delusion) says that there is a chance that there is a God. A very, very small chance but still a chance. You don't need faith to believe there's a chance God exists and are, to some extent, "uncertain" on whether God exists. I base my religious argument on this "uncertainty" on whether God exists just like the global warming video bases its argument on this uncertainty on whether global warming is happening.

Pascal didn't prescribe agnosticism. He said we should believe in God and obey his laws, if there is so little as a small chance he existed, we would have to worry about going to Hell otherwise.

Originally Posted by Liberty4eva

Organized religion and global warming are very, very similar. Both religion and global warming have millions of followers. Both are billion dollar industries. Both groups of zealots outright ignore and are deaf to evidence that contradicts their beliefs.

It's not that Christians don't listen to evidence that contradicts their beliefs. It's just that they have no evidence to support their beliefs in the first place. Besides, what do you even mean that scientists are ignoring evidence? Isn't that a contradiction in terms?

Originally Posted by Liberty4eva

Both have shaky evidence that supports their beliefs: religion gets its evidence from a few desert scribblings and Global Warming gets its evidence from this misleading correlation between CO2 and temperature (higher temperatures lead to more CO2 not the other way around).

Well inverting the relationship between the presence of CO2 and the earth's surface temperature hardly supports your case. I thought this was down to the burning of fossil fuels and the human/animal population taken in conjunction with the state of the rate of consumption of carbon dioxide by the world's plantlife.

[Liberty4eva]

Originally Posted by BB_Eye

It's not that Christians don't listen to evidence that contradicts their beliefs. It's just that they have no evidence to support their beliefs in the first place. Besides, what do you even mean that scientists are ignoring evidence? Isn't that a contradiction in terms?
Well inverting the relationship between the presence of CO2 and the earth's surface temperature hardly supports your case. I thought this was down to the burning of fossil fuels and the human/animal population taken in conjunction with the state of the rate of consumption of carbon dioxide by the world's plantlife.

Ever heard of the Climategate scam? These were scientists who knowly fudged the data to get a predetermined conclusion that the earth is warming up. They tried to find ways to "hide the decline" of temperatures. Scientists are just like other people and can be corrupted like everyone else especially when there's money involved (like getting funds from the government, etc.).

[BB_Eye]

Originally Posted by Liberty4eva

Ever heard of the Climategate scam? These were scientists who knowly fudged the data to get a predetermined conclusion that the earth is warming up. They tried to find ways to "hide the decline" of temperatures. Scientists are just like other people and can be corrupted like everyone else especially when there's money involved (like getting funds from the government, etc.).

Climategate was a transparency issue. One that lay on the shoulders of the UEA's administrators, not the scientists involved, who were cleared of wrongdoing at an early stage. Even if it turned out they had an agenda (something I doubt), that would be manipulating evidence to suit their cause. Christianity is predicated on ignoring the evidence altogether.

[Liberty4eva]

Originally Posted by BB_Eye

Pascal didn't prescribe agnosticism. He said we should believe in God and obey his laws, if there is so little as a small chance he existed, we would have to worry about going to Hell otherwise.
It's not that Christians don't listen to evidence that contradicts their beliefs. It's just that they have no evidence to support their beliefs in the first place. Besides, what do you even mean that scientists are ignoring evidence? Isn't that a contradiction in terms?

Well inverting the relationship between the presence of CO2 and the earth's surface temperature hardly supports your case. I thought this was down to the burning of fossil fuels and the human/animal population taken in conjunction with the state of the rate of consumption of carbon dioxide by the world's plantlife.

I'm not concerned about what Pascal personally thought. I threw his name in just to highlight that similarly erroneous logic has been used centuries before.

There is uncertainty that God exists. You cannot disprove God exists so there will always be a level of uncertainty. You say there is no evidence God exists well what about the millions who have had near-death experiences saying that they saw dead relatives and a bright light? Some would call that eye-witness testimony.

If it makes it less confusing for you just ignore Pascal and let me say that I, Liberty4eva, am presenting this argument just like that guy in the video.

There is uncertainty that God exists. If we worship God when there is God, and so on and so on. The conclusion we derive from my argument is BS just like the conclusion the global warming video derives is BS.

[Liberty4eva]

The "Pascal" argument is really just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to my problems with this video. He says that the cost of doing something about global warming is that we lose money and go into a depression but it's easy to forget that people around the world will suffer from higher food prices. Higher food prices for some people means the difference between life and death. And I would make the argument that if the earth is warming up it may benefit life. The vast majority of life exists close to the warmer climates by the equator and hardly any life exists in colder climates like the north pole. Maybe in the shortrun a degree increase will hurt life but longterm it will help life because plants will grow where they didn't before which will benefit animals and man. Someone still needs to convince me that a degree increase will certainly be bad for humanity because I'm not convinced.

I must admit that video irks me. I have a masters in mathematics and I feel I am educated enough to respond to it. If I had the technology I'd be tempted to make a video response to it and rip it to shreds.

[BB_Eye]

Originally Posted by Liberty4eva

The "Pascal" argument is really just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to my problems with this video. He says that the cost of doing something about global warming is that we lose money and go into a depression but it's easy to forget that people around the world will suffer from higher food prices. Higher food prices for some people means the difference between life and death. And I would make the argument that if the earth is warming up it may benefit life. The vast majority of life exists close to the warmer climates by the equator and hardly any life exists in colder climates like the north pole. Maybe in the shortrun a degree increase will hurt life but longterm it will help life because plants will grow where they didn't before which will benefit animals and man. Someone still needs to convince me that a degree increase will certainly be bad for humanity because I'm not convinced.

I must admit that video irks me. I have a masters in mathematics and I feel I am educated enough to respond to it. If I had the technology I'd be tempted to make a video response to it and rip it to shreds.

LOL Don't make me laugh. You are telling me you have a masters degree in mathematics and yet you didn't even know who Pascal was -one of the greatest contributors to geometry in the Western world, the inventer of the mechanical calculator and after whom the famous unit for measuring physical pressure was named-. Pathetic.

[BB_Eye]

Originally Posted by Liberty4eva

I'm not concerned about what Pascal personally thought. I threw his name in just to highlight that similarly erroneous logic has been used centuries before.

There is uncertainty that God exists. You cannot disprove God exists so there will always be a level of uncertainty. You say there is no evidence God exists well what about the millions who have had near-death experiences saying that they saw dead relatives and a bright light? Some would call that eye-witness testimony.

An unconscious person is not somebody I would call a reliable eyewitness. So-called 'out-of-body' experiences are incorporeal by their very definition and logically speaking, no different to the Christian notion of God so using it as evidence is tautological.

If it makes it less confusing for you just ignore Pascal and let me say that I, Liberty4eva, am presenting this argument just like that guy in the video.

There is uncertainty that God exists. If we worship God when there is God, and so on and so on. The conclusion we derive from my argument is BS just like the conclusion the global warming video derives is BS.

But the problem is, Pascal's wager is what every agnostic is faced with. Since we cannot know for certain, it is better to accept the teachings of the Bible, since the risk of eternal torment is too great. I disagree that there is such uncertainty as the failure of reason (and by reason's very own laws, its conclusions are universally true) to account for God's existence would serve as absolute proof in itself.

Global warming is something we are faced with as a material possibility, one agreed upon by people who dedicate their lives to examining the natural world. Disagree if you wish, but the ball is in your court to explain why.