Belief is pascals wager

Pro Said "i dont know if a real god exist, i think god is possible thou non belief=i dont know disbelief=belief god is information, anything i believe is belief in god" Response: Pro seems to think that he can just redefine words to support his argument. Putting an equal sign between two words does not make them so. Disbelief is not the same as belief. They are nearly opposites, and no matter how much you repeat the statement, or how many other debates about the topic you create, this will not change. Belief: an acceptance that a statement is true or that something exists. Disbelief: inability or refusal to accept that something is true or real. Disbelief does not necessarily mean that there is a belief in the opposite. Example: Disbelief in God does not necessarily mean belief in no God. Pro also consistently states that "god is information" but refuses to provide a source, or argument, or any form of reasoning to support this statement. This is just another example of Pro creating his own definition of words or ideas and then acting as if these ideas should be so obvious to others that he shouldn't have to explain them. Pro says "i know you are light on my screen and a story in my mind know=Physical experience of now belief=be lie, as i have to imagine it" Response: Part of Pro's system of "argument" also seems to be using an obscure and intelligible form of language that it is nearly impossible to extract any coherent argument from. The statement :"i know you are light on my screen and a story in my mind" is entirely unrelated to the platform of the debate "Belief is Pascal's Wager". It does not matter whether or not Pro believes that I am a person or a light or a story, or whether I exist, or whether God exists, or whether anything does. He has refused to use logic to back up his claim, and has refused to even attempt to refute my arguments against it. Know: to have knowledge or clear and certain perception, as of fact or truth. Belief: an acceptance that a statement is true or that something exists. Pro's entire argument seems to be that because belief is not as strongly supported as knowledge, all belief is somehow a lie. He says in Round 3 that "pascals Wager isnt real, like belief isnt real", but the truth or falsity of a statement or an idea is not determined by whether or not a person "knows" or "believes" it. For example I flip a coin and say it is heads without looking, and it will be just as true (or false) as if I had looked at the outcome. Pro has adopted a version of reality where the coin does not exist unless he checks, and whether it landed as heads or tails does not matter unless he checks himself. In other words, Pro denies the reality of anything he does not see, but accepts what he does. This itself is a form of belief. Pro believes that what he sees is truly reality and that his perception of the world is how the world is. This cannot be proved either, but Pro asserts it as a matter of fact. Therefore Pro changes his definition of Belief, Knowledge, and Imagine to support whatever claim he is making at the time, and offers no other substance to these claims whatsoever. From what I can interpret of Pro, he switches between two conflicting arguments, although neither of them are explicitly mentioned or explained. One is that every Belief is Pascal's Wager because belief is solely based on logical reasoning, which it is not. People's beliefs are often irrational, and take the forms of thousands of cognitive biases that influence our actions and ideologies. Two common cognitive biases are Confirmation Bias and the Backfire effect. Pro apparently suffers from both. Confirmation bias: also called my side bias, is the tendency to search for, interpret, or recall information in a way that confirms one's beliefs or hypotheses. (http://en.wikipedia.org...). Pro accepts only information that supports his claim, and ignores any contradictory evidence as so inherently and obviously false that he feels it is not worth responding to it. Backfire Effect: when, in the face of contradictory evidence, established beliefs do not change but actually get stronger. (http://rationalwiki.org...). This means that, when presented with facts and ideas that go against his pseudo-philosophy, Pro's (ironic) belief in his claim will increase regardless of how illogical or ill-supported it is. Of course, it's likely that I also suffer to some extent from both these biases, which is why we leave the voting up to you. Pro says "i cant damage my body in a dream without waking up in order for a simulation to exist there must be something to simulate" Response: These claims were in response to my own statement that what Pro believes to be knowledge is based upon other beliefs that he has, and are not necessarily true. I used the two examples of a "simulation" and a "dream" to illustrate the idea that Pro's perception of reality might not be reality how it is. It is impossible to prove that we are not in a simulation or a dream, but we believe that we aren't because there is no evidence for it and plenty for the opposite. Pro's definition of knowledge ends up just being whatever it is Pro believes, and Pro's definition of belief ends up just being whatever Pro doesn't believe. This is why he calls knowledge true and belief false. Unsupported bias. Pro says "information exist beyond Space and time, and is the opposite of matter, opposite of true i know infinity can never be destruction even thou i have to imagine it, as it is absolute. without knowing, i am dead, there is no life without knowing i cant die in a dream, as i can only die if i am alive" Response: This entire section of what can be only loosely referred to as "argument" is entirely irrelevant and nonsensical. Pro makes several statements with no discernible meaning or supporting evidence. There is no point in further analyzing anything more of this, as it offers no support for Pro's claim. Anyway, I have already refuted many similar statements in previous rounds, and those refutations still stand. It is rather pretty and poetic though. Perhaps Pro should look into creative writing? Pro says "i am my brain, it dosnt make decisions for me, i make those decisions, as i have no beliefs" Response: Your brain makes many decisions subconsciously and based on biased perceptions and assumptions. I already referenced two of these biases, but many more can be read about here: (http://en.wikipedia.org...). Pro has many beliefs, he just erroneously considers them to be fact, because he believes that the only facts are what he believes. Pro says "belief is doubt, and belief goes to imagination, know negates belief as i dont have to imagine it, i dont have to imagine that im reading these Words on my screen, so its not about belief" Belief does not mean doubt. Belief can exist with our without doubt. Belief can be total, or belief can be conditional. Belief can also be with evidence or without evidence. Knowledge is just a word for belief with a lot of evidence. Imagination and Belief are not the same. People often imagine things they do not believe, and believe things they do not imagine. You do not have to imagine yourself to be reading the words on the screen, but that does not mean you really are reading them. It could be a dream. You may be insane or hallucinating. It is impossible for you to truly "know" that you are reading words on a screen. You just believe that your perception of reality is true, and it probably is, but that does not change the fact that your definitions of belief and knowledge are arbitrary. You just call your belief: "knowledge", and your disbelief: belief and lies and imagination. None of this supports the claim. ---------- Almost out of room; Pro's last arguments are just repetition, and him saying that belief is all choice and based off payout. I already disproved all of this. ------- Thanks!