02 Dec 13
Originally posted by SuzianneIt is a good reason because if the argument is valid, and does work for other religions, then you would be compelled to become a member of those other religions. If you are not so compelled then either:
And no, just because another religion could use Pascal's Wager is not a good enough reason to discount it for Christianity.
1. You are not convinced by the argument in general.
or
2. You do not think the argument works for other religions but does for Christianity.
Originally posted by SuzianneThat depends.
No. I reject Woden because I do not believe in him.
I've never heard an atheist cop to this reason yet, though. All they can say is "I'm not rejecting him, I just don't believe in him." Which is not the same thing at all.
When you say 'I reject Woden because I do not believe in him', do you mean anything more than 'I do not worship Woden because I do not believe he exists'?
If not, then I think I can find you plenty of atheists that would be prepared to say this without hesitation about your particular God.
If you do mean something beyond this, what?
02 Dec 13
Originally posted by rwingett"In the beginning, man was busy hunting and surviving, and had no luxury of time to conjure imaginary friends."
I would dispute your claim when you say, "I think we can agree that as far as we can tell, people have pretty much always had supernatural beliefs about the world including the existence of powerful anthropomorphic
beings including beings we would currently class as gods."
Homo sapiens sapiens have been around for about 200,000 years. The first ...[text shortened]... that they spent, if not most of their existence that way, then certainly a large portion of it.
02 Dec 13
Originally posted by SuzianneWhen one considers that Pascal's (three-part) Wager was more directed at self-preservation than anything else, I'd say he pretty much hit it out of the park.
It is my belief that Pascal's Wager should have been withdrawn and never spoken of again ages ago, and by Christians, at that.
Can you think of ONE reason why Christians should not believe Pascal's Wager to be a valid argument? One is all you need, really.
Only those who view his declarations in the light of a different lamp can really poo-poo his intentions.
03 Dec 13
Originally posted by Rank outsiderSorry to be away, at home all weekend, and I prefer to be with my family than spar words here with us characters. ha ha.
Well, do me the favour of reading up on Woden briefly.
Then tell me this. Will you accept Woden into your life and worship him, or will you reject him?
If, as I assume, you will reject him, why so?
Is it because you find him inconvenient and doesn't fit with your lifestyle?
If not, why do you assume that people reject your version of God for these reasons?
Ok I haven't had time to read up on Woden.
As far as God goes, I realize I do have a an advantage. In my personal relationship with God, I talk to Him and He talks to me. And I hear Him.
Often in these posts I make comments about the work I do in God, or the work He has me doing. A friend of mine, a priest, couldn't understand how I could hear God. He never had the experience. I tried to explain, and teach him to sense the peace of God in his heart. He didn't get it, until one day he was sort of musing to himself, "why would you God choose a guy like Bill to do your work". He told me before he finished the sentence, he heard a voice speak to him with no uncertain terms, "What is it to you who I choose to do my work."
When he told me that I had to laugh.
You see, it isn't a matter of rejecting Woden. Maybe Woden has some good points to ponder. As for me, I worship my God because I love Him. I know Him in my heart.
I know this doesn't totally answer your question.
It isn't a matter of convienience or inconvienience fitting into a lifestyle for me. Infact God makes my service to Him very inconvienient for me. He doesn't allow me simple pleasures. Example. No chocolate, no coffee, no pop, no ice in any drink, no hamburgers, no whole milk, and there are a ton of other things. But I understand, and willingly give it up. Also the times in which I work for Him takes from my sleep. But if I stay awake for a few hours to do this work, the time I do sleep is as if I slept a full night.
03 Dec 13
Originally posted by FreakyKBHThe discussion is about the validity of his (Pascal) argument and not his intention.
When one considers that Pascal's (three-part) Wager was more directed at self-preservation than anything else, I'd say he pretty much hit it out of the park.
Only those who view his declarations in the light of a different lamp can really poo-poo his intentions.
Keep up!
04 Dec 13
Originally posted by FreakyKBHOnly the third part is considered the main argument. And what does his "intentions" have to do with delineation of reasons for/against the idea that his argument is valid? We would be talking about the argument as it stands (or not) on its own merits.
When one considers that Pascal's (three-part) Wager was more directed at self-preservation than anything else, I'd say he pretty much hit it out of the park.
Only those who view his declarations in the light of a different lamp can really poo-poo his intentions.
For a quick overview, I like the treatment of the argument as presented here:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/pascal-wager/
You'll notice that the largest section by far is the section that cursorily covers objections to the argument....
04 Dec 13
Originally posted by LemonJelloI've been reading that same site.
Only the third part is considered the main argument. And what does his "intentions" have to do with delineation of reasons for/against the idea that his argument is valid? We would be talking about the argument as it stands (or not) on its own merits.
For a quick overview, I like the treatment of the argument as presented here:
http://plato.stanf ...[text shortened]... t the largest section by far is the section that cursorily covers objections to the argument....
His intentions have everything to do with what was posited! 'What was he trying to answer' is a very important part of understanding what the argument was all about. Although there is a certain level of comfort derived from formulating every nuance to life, assigning value to the various outcomes, your heart/soul/mind is more than binary 1's and 0's.
Anyone who thinks less has lost any reason to continue living.
Originally posted by FreakyKBHNo. Again, the question at issue is the validity of his argument. That is a question that just concerns the argument as it is, as it stands alone. Clearly, you're not the best to consult on this question, since you apparently do not understand what are the relevant considerations.
I've been reading that same site.
His intentions have everything to do with what was posited! 'What was he trying to answer' is a very important part of understanding what the argument was all about. Although there is a certain level of comfort derived from formulating every nuance to life, assigning value to the various outcomes, your heart/soul/mind ...[text shortened]... more than binary 1's and 0's.
Anyone who thinks less has lost any reason to continue living.
04 Dec 13
Originally posted by FreakyKBHAnyone who thinks less has lost any reason to continue living.
I've been reading that same site.
His intentions have everything to do with what was posited! 'What was he trying to answer' is a very important part of understanding what the argument was all about. Although there is a certain level of comfort derived from formulating every nuance to life, assigning value to the various outcomes, your heart/soul/mind ...[text shortened]... more than binary 1's and 0's.
Anyone who thinks less has lost any reason to continue living.
Oh, my. I think not. 🙂
04 Dec 13
Originally posted by LemonJelloAgain, the question at issue is the validity of his argument.
No. Again, the question at issue is the validity of his argument. That is a question that just concerns the argument as it is, as it stands alone. Clearly, you're not the best to consult on this question, since you apparently do not understand what are the relevant considerations.
Well, I contend that you cannot understand his argument sans the background in which he presented it, minus his intended audience.
He wasn't presenting the argument to a calculator; he was speaking with specific language, with specific values to a specific group of people in a specific space in time.
To attempt to lift it out of all those factors and not make the necessary correlations is simply foolish.
Clearly, you're not the best to consult on this question, since you apparently do not understand what are the relevant considerations.
What have I missed?