|
This website is so ass-backwards it's funny (pg. 26)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Lebezniatnikov |
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
4.03am. about to smoke some weed and listen to some trance :) |
 |
|
|
| Alex |
Well define study :p
I took a look at his book list and it's quite obvious he's done a load of reading on this subject overall.
I should probably switch my minor to Philosophy, surprisingly my major in Theology isn't really helping me much in this debate because we're sort of leaving the matter of Church history out of it... Not that it really has much place in this sort of debate, apart from the questions of exegesis that have emerged. |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| quote: | Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov
It's actually not at all dissimilar from Plato's world of forms. Plato was obviously not a Christian theologian, but he laid the base for Christian dogma quite well by arguing that every object and being on Earth must exist in pure form in another realm. Mankind's "form" has been usurped by the concept of God - various doctrines may get the details wrong (i.e. creation), but Plato's formulation serves quite well when pondering whether or not "God" can evolve as well.
I can't remember which dialogue it appeared in, but Plato had a whole discussion about forms and the divine. |
that's funny, because plato's world of forms is the single thing i remember about him. after i encountered it i just couldn't take him seriously anymore.
| quote: | Originally posted by Alex
Well define study |
well, of course plain old reading is "study", but out of all of my fields of interest, i "know" far more about the topics i covered at school than any other subject. renegade knows more about most of the i studied than i do, without any (formal) outside assistance.
im a bright lad imo but the 4 guys i mentioned in the other thread, are just extraordinary.
| quote: | Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov
|
seriously, i am totally my favourite DJ. love my own work. and yes, that's definitely the stuff that i listen to ;) |
|
|
| Alex |
This is a neat little thing I came across, it's called Pascal's Wager and it is sort of a "proof" or facilitation to a proof of God's existence, not through the need for his existence but more based on a gamble:
| quote: | Suppose you, the reader, still feel that all of these arguments are inconclusive. There is another, different kind of argument left. It has come to be known as Pascal's Wager. We mention it here and adapt it for our purposes, not because it is a proof for the existence of God, but because it can help us in our search for God in the absence of such proof.
As originally proposed by Pascal, the Wager assumes that logical reasoning by itself cannot decide for or against the existence of God; there seem to be good reasons on both sides. Now since reason cannot decide for sure, and since the question is of such importance that we must decide somehow, then we must "wager" if we cannot prove. And so we are asked: Where are you going to place your bet?
If you place it with God, you lose nothing, even if it turns out that God does not exist. But if you place it against God, and you are wrong and God does exist, you lose everything: God, eternity, heaven, infinite gain. "Let us assess the two cases: if you win, you win everything, if you lose, you lose nothing."
Consider the following diagram:
The diagram is in the shape of a square with the opposite corners connected by lines. Going clockwise from the top left the labels are 'God Exists' then 'God does not exist' then I believe in Him' then 'I do not believe in Him'
The vertical lines represent correct beliefs, the diagonals represent incorrect beliefs. Let us compare the diagonals. Suppose God does not exist and I believe in him. In that case, what awaits me after death is not eternal life but, most likely, eternal nonexistence. But now take the other diagonal: God, my Creator and the source of all good, does exist; but I do not believe in him. He offers me his love and his life, and I reject it. There are answers to my greatest questions, there is fulfillment of my deepest desires; but I decide to spurn it all. In that case, I lose (or at least seriously risk losing) everything.
The Wager can seem offensively venal and purely selfish. But it can be reformulated to appeal to a higher moral motive: If there is a God of infinite goodness, and he justly deserves my allegiance and faith, I risk doing the greatest injustice by not acknowledging him.
The Wager cannot—or should not—coerce belief. But it can be an incentive for us to search for God, to study and restudy the arguments that seek to show that there is Something—or Someone—who is the ultimate explanation of the universe and of my life. It could at lease motivate "The Prayer of the Skeptic": "God, I don't know whether you exist or not, but if you do, please show me who you are."
Pascal says that there are three kinds of people: those who have sought God and found him, those who are seeking and have not yet found, and those who neither seek nor find. The first are reasonable and happy, the second are reasonable and unhappy, the third are both unreasonable and unhappy. If the Wager stimulates us at least to seek, then it will at least stimulate us to be reasonable. And if the promise Jesus makes is true, all who seek will find (Mt 7:7-8), and thus will be happy. |
Now I know this isn't exactly the most serious argument at all but I thought it was pretty funny and rather enlightening regardless :) |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| nothing more than an exercise in intellectual dishonesty. |
|
|
| Alex |
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
nothing more than an exercise in intellectual dishonesty. |
Alright, I like you pkc but you really know how to act like a childish bastard when you have nothing of importance to say. And you are the king of typing up bull that has 0 basis in anything whatsoever, drunk or not :p |
|
|
| Lebezniatnikov |
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
intellectual dishonesty. |
 |
|
|
| Lebezniatnikov |
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
that's funny, because plato's world of forms is the single thing i remember about him. after i encountered it i just couldn't take him seriously anymore.
|
You're missing out on a lot of Plato by disregarding him like that. Plato is arguably the cornerstone of modern Western philosophy. The world of forms was designed as an intellectual exercise, and was hardly the embodiment of his work. |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| quote: | Originally posted by Alex
Alright, I like you pkc but you really know how to act like a childish bastard when you have nothing of importance to say. And you are the king of typing up bull that has 0 basis in anything whatsoever, drunk or not :p |
well, how else would you like me to phrase it? :conf:
pascal's wager is all about subduing any real thought on the matter, and basically feigning belief for purely selfish reasons. more importantly, how can anyone make themselves believe or disbelieve anything?
when it comes down to it, i have far more respect for this god i do not believe in than to think he gives two s about whether someone believes in him or not. the idea that god will punish dis-believers is such a juvenile concept its not even funny.
if god is as pernicious and cruel as say, the old testament makes him out to be, then he isn't worth my belief anyway.
in short: pascal's wager = intellectual dishonesty. |
|
|
| Alex |
| You took it too seriously :p |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| quote: | Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov
and was hardly the embodiment of his work. |
oh, of course not. its merely the only thing i remember (10 years ago man!). i only discarded plato because i discarded philosophy generally to focus on politics. but his perfect forms still annoyed me :p |
|
|
| Lebezniatnikov |
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
oh, of course not. its merely the only thing i remember (10 years ago man!). i only discarded plato because i discarded philosophy generally to focus on politics. but his perfect forms still annoyed me :p |
Ah, but then how can you discard The Republic! It's the first work of political science! |
|
|
|
|
