New Renaissance Prizes offered to encourage Energy experimenters

[WilbyInebriated]

hi everyone good day and merry Christmas !!!


Here how simple it is :


"Believing that there is God, means you are just being wise and that means you are using your head,


WHY?!!!!!


Because Let say for example if a believer and a non believer died  at the same time and if in case there is really no God then its okay for both of them cause nothing will happen to them right?"


Now BUT! if in case There is God and he said believe that there is God and believe that JESUS is God, for the punishment of non believer's is ETERNAL PUNISHMENT IN HELL.


Now again!!! Who do you think is wise???

use you're two head very wisely buddy. 


VERY SIMPLE ARITHMETIC YOU CANNOT DANCE!!!  LOL    HAHAHAHAHAHAHA JOKE




ITS LIKE FREE ENERGY, HITTING TWO, THREE, FOUR....  BIRDS IN ONE PULSE 



GOT IT?!!!! LOL 

ahhh the well worn and ohh so flawed "pascal's wager" 
there are a lot of problems with this argument...

the first problem lies in the implicit yet unstated assumption that we already know which god we should believe in. that assumption, however, is not necessary to the argument, and thus the argument itself does not explain which religion a person should follow... this can be described as the “avoiding the wrong hell” dilemma. if you happen to follow the right religion, you may indeed “go to heaven and avoid hell.” however, if you choose the wrong religion, you’ll still go to hell.

the thing missed by so many who use this argument is that you cannot “bet” on the general concept of “theism.” you have to pick specific doctrines... theism is just a broad construct which includes all possible god-beliefs and, as such, does not exist absent specific theologies. if you are going to really believe in a god, you have to believe in something â€" which means picking something... if you pick nothing, then your “belief” is literally empty and you remain an atheist. so, a person who picks risks picking the wrong god and avoiding the wrong hell.

a second problem is that it isn’t actually true that the person who bets loses nothing. if a person bets on the wrong god, then the true gawd (tm) just might punish them for their foolish behavior. what’s more, the true gawd (tm) might not mind that people don’t bother believing in it when they use rational reasons â€" thus, not picking at all might be the safest bet... you just cannot know.

also, some choices do indeed come with large risks. many have died because they trusted in prayer rather than medicine. others have perished due to the handling of poisonous snakes and the drinking of lethal liquids because zombie jesus said they would be able to do so without harm... thus, the choice of pseudoscientific and mystical beliefs can carry very negative consequences.

a third problem is the unstated premise that the two choices presented are equally likely. it is only when two choices are equal in probability that it makes sense to go with the allegedly “safe bet.” however, if the choice of a god is revealed to be a great deal less likely than the choice of no god, then god ceases to be the “safe bet.” or, if both are equally likely, then neither is actually a “safe bet”...

one final problem is the conclusion of the argument, where a person decides to believe in a god because it is the choice that offers the most benefits and least dangers. however, this requires that the god in question not mind that you believe in it merely in order to gain entrance to heaven and/or to avoid punishment in hell.

but this means that this god isn’t actually a just or fair god, since a person’s eternal fate is not being decided upon based on their actions, but merely on their decision to make a pragmatic and selfish choice...

but that's logic and reason... something you faithers don't wholly embrace. you only use logic and reason when it doesn't make you uncomfortable, if at all. i wonder if russell had newton in mind when he wrote this:

"What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way."     Bertrand Russell


now i have better things to do than argue with crazy... you guys present some material evidence and/or a logical proof for your godfairy and i might be willing to listen. until then you have my pity.

[Tito L. Oracion]

ahhh the well worn and ohh so flawed "pascal's wager" 
there are a lot of problems with this argument...

the first problem lies in the implicit yet unstated assumption that we already know which god we should believe in. that assumption, however, is not necessary to the argument, and thus the argument itself does not explain which religion a person should follow... this can be described as the “avoiding the wrong hell” dilemma. if you happen to follow the right religion, you may indeed “go to heaven and avoid hell.” however, if you choose the wrong religion, you’ll still go to hell.

the thing missed by so many who use this argument is that you cannot “bet” on the general concept of “theism.” you have to pick specific doctrines... theism is just a broad construct which includes all possible god-beliefs and, as such, does not exist absent specific theologies. if you are going to really believe in a god, you have to believe in something â€" which means picking something... if you pick nothing, then your “belief” is literally empty and you remain an atheist. so, a person who picks risks picking the wrong god and avoiding the wrong hell.

a second problem is that it isn’t actually true that the person who bets loses nothing. if a person bets on the wrong god, then the true gawd (tm) just might punish them for their foolish behavior. what’s more, the true gawd (tm) might not mind that people don’t bother believing in it when they use rational reasons â€" thus, not picking at all might be the safest bet... you just cannot know.

also, some choices do indeed come with large risks. many have died because they trusted in prayer rather than medicine. others have perished due to the handling of poisonous snakes and the drinking of lethal liquids because zombie jesus said they would be able to do so without harm... thus, the choice of pseudoscientific and mystical beliefs can carry very negative consequences.

a third problem is the unstated premise that the two choices presented are equally likely. it is only when two choices are equal in probability that it makes sense to go with the allegedly “safe bet.” however, if the choice of a god is revealed to be a great deal less likely than the choice of no god, then god ceases to be the “safe bet.” or, if both are equally likely, then neither is actually a “safe bet”...

one final problem is the conclusion of the argument, where a person decides to believe in a god because it is the choice that offers the most benefits and least dangers. however, this requires that the god in question not mind that you believe in it merely in order to gain entrance to heaven and/or to avoid punishment in hell.

but this means that this god isn’t actually a just or fair god, since a person’s eternal fate is not being decided upon based on their actions, but merely on their decision to make a pragmatic and selfish choice...

but that's logic and reason... something you faithers don't wholly embrace. you only use logic and reason when it doesn't make you uncomfortable, if at all. i wonder if russell had newton in mind when he wrote this:

"What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way."     Bertrand Russell


now i have better things to do than argue with crazy... you guys present some material evidence and/or a logical proof for your godfairy and i might be willing to listen. until then you have my pity.

OH BOY you're really getting very deeply in being an atheism.


You know what buddy, humble your self before God and he will show you his presence and existence that even trillion big bang happen will not accidentally create the perfect formation of your hand, the connection of your eyes into brain and the most convincing that there is God is, one time in history that Jesus lives on earth and that is being testified even the non religious groups like encyclopedia right?. now if still you don't believe, it is now your conscience that will prove what i'm saying is true period.     

[Tito L. Oracion]

Now here's the truth and your chance buddy




You want to go to heaven? hear is the obvious secret.


Start to be humble, accept Jesus as your Lord and saviour, repent and refuse to make sins. i'll bet my soul to that if this is not true. 


Love you buddy.     

[Magluvin]

i rarely engage people who have faith in such asinine things. why? it’s pointless.

True colors shinin through.  ;]

Mags

[JouleSeeker]

It doesn't matter what people believe in as long as that belief inspires them to do great things. I believe Dr. Steven Jones is doing a commendable job by offering to reward others at his expense and with his family heirlooms. Steven, your father would be proud and your doing a great service, keep up the good work.

Thank you so much for your support, DreamThinkBuild --it's deeply appreciated.  Seems I missed your comment before some how.

Quick update:
Four silver-Eagle prizes have been awarded -- in addition,  funds granted to support seven researchers (with no strings attached).  Yes, I think my father would be very happy about this, DTB.

Also, I arranged for a Davey sonic boiler device to be tested in France... tests getting underway as we speak.
@all:  thanks, and keep up the good work!