|
shroomydan
exshroomerite


Registered: 07/04/04
Posts: 4,126
Loc: In the woods
|
Re: Pascal's Wager [Re: Sclorch]
#5356540 - 03/02/06 07:49 AM (17 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Either your denial of the of the validity of Pascal's first premise is correct, or it is not.
You still are forced to wager, and if you chose to believe the wrong hypothesis, you have much to loose.
|
Sclorch
Clyster


Registered: 07/12/99
Posts: 4,805
Loc: On the Brink of Madness
|
Re: Pascal's Wager [Re: shroomydan]
#5356837 - 03/02/06 09:41 AM (17 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
shroomydan said: You still are forced to wager, and if you chose to believe the wrong hypothesis, you have much to loose.
I am not a meatball betting* that there is a flying spaghetti monster.
*Is that faith? All gamblers are goin' to heaven!
-------------------- Note: In desperate need of a cure...
|
shroomydan
exshroomerite


Registered: 07/04/04
Posts: 4,126
Loc: In the woods
|
Re: Pascal's Wager [Re: Sclorch]
#5357118 - 03/02/06 11:31 AM (17 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
No, you are a man betting that God does not exist.
|
dblaney
Human Being

Registered: 10/03/04
Posts: 7,894
Loc: Here & Now
|
Re: Pascal's Wager [Re: Sclorch]
#5357324 - 03/02/06 12:41 PM (17 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Sclorch said: The former, obviously.
If it was so obvious, then I wouldn't have asked.
-------------------- "What is in us that turns a deaf ear to the cries of human suffering?" "Belief is a beautiful armor But makes for the heaviest sword" - John Mayer Making the noise "penicillin" is no substitute for actually taking penicillin. "This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing government, they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it, or their revolutionary right to dismember or overthrow it." -Abraham Lincoln
|
psyka
Praetorian


Registered: 06/09/03
Posts: 1,652
|
Re: Pascal's Wager [Re: shroomydan]
#5357637 - 03/02/06 02:01 PM (17 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
But god doesn't exist. Zeus is supreme. Don't anger the gods or they'll punish you when you die! How do I know? Don't ask questions or you'll go to hell! But, trust me, I'm correct.
-------------------- As the life of a candle, my wick will burn out. But, the fire of my mind shall beam into infinite.

|
Sclorch
Clyster


Registered: 07/12/99
Posts: 4,805
Loc: On the Brink of Madness
|
Re: Pascal's Wager [Re: shroomydan]
#5357760 - 03/02/06 02:32 PM (17 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
shroomydan said: No, you are a man betting that God does not exist.
In that case, is it still gambling if the outcome doesn't affect you?
If there is a God, why must he be the punishing asshole that you want me to be afraid of?
-------------------- Note: In desperate need of a cure...
|
Silversoul
Rhizome


Registered: 01/01/05
Posts: 23,576
Loc: The Barricades
|
Re: Pascal's Wager [Re: Sclorch]
#5357790 - 03/02/06 02:37 PM (17 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Sclorch said: If there is a God, why must he be the punishing asshole that you want me to be afraid of?
Interestingly enough, according to this wager, I'm not off the hook either, as the God I believe in is not such a vengeful asshole. According to the wager, it would apparently be in my best interest to worship such an anthropomorphic asshole God, rather than the transcendent God I have experienced.
--------------------
|
MushmanTheManic
Stranger

Registered: 04/21/05
Posts: 4,587
|
Re: Pascal's Wager [Re: Sclorch]
#5357905 - 03/02/06 03:06 PM (17 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Sclorch said: If there is a God, why must he be the punishing asshole that you want me to be afraid of?
Its obvious God never read anything by B.F. Skinner.
|
dblaney
Human Being

Registered: 10/03/04
Posts: 7,894
Loc: Here & Now
|
Re: Pascal's Wager [Re: Sclorch]
#5357920 - 03/02/06 03:10 PM (17 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
If there is a God, why must he be the punishing asshole that you want me to be afraid of?
Quote:
And similarly, in vicarious suffering, it is not the actual pains experienced by the saint which are redemptive - for to believe that God is angry at sin and that His anger cannot be propitiated except by the offer of a certain sum of pain is to blaspheme against the divine Nature.
When you refer to a 'punishing asshole', you're merely referring to the dogmatic nature of religion. Organized religion is very dangerous to the health, and you are absolutely right in rejecting it. I would suggest that you don't dismiss the Ultimate Ground of Being/the Tao/the Logos/the Godhead along with organized religion however.
I pose the metaphysical questions: Why is there Something rather than Nothing? What is conscious-awareness and what is its origin?
If you insist that a reality and Nature in which systems supporting evolution have come into existence, and evolution has proceeded in the hierarchical manner that it has, forming vast ecosystems ranging from the microscopic to the cosmic in size, which have allowed consciousness and life to develop and evolve until a creature with free-will developed, is pure accident governed by nothing more than quantum chance, then I ask you to describe a reality in which there was some sort of creative Natural Intelligence?
Nature is not a blind watch-maker. She has constructed the incredible sensory organs, and even more amazingly, the human cortex, which acts as a sort of biological mirror, capable of observing nature, and actually THINKING about it, potentially even divining it's true purpose.
I for one think that life and consciousness are the most profound and fascinating phenomena in the entire known universe, and are not mere flecks of dust upon a cold non-living surface.
-------------------- "What is in us that turns a deaf ear to the cries of human suffering?" "Belief is a beautiful armor But makes for the heaviest sword" - John Mayer Making the noise "penicillin" is no substitute for actually taking penicillin. "This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing government, they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it, or their revolutionary right to dismember or overthrow it." -Abraham Lincoln
|
Sclorch
Clyster


Registered: 07/12/99
Posts: 4,805
Loc: On the Brink of Madness
|
Re: Pascal's Wager [Re: dblaney]
#5360927 - 03/03/06 08:39 AM (17 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Must existence be intended?
Isn't it anthropomorphically convenient for us to see intent?
-------------------- Note: In desperate need of a cure...
|
dblaney
Human Being

Registered: 10/03/04
Posts: 7,894
Loc: Here & Now
|
Re: Pascal's Wager [Re: Sclorch]
#5361075 - 03/03/06 10:10 AM (17 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Interesting question. I would say that the ultimate nonduality that underlies both everything and nothing and is symbolized by the term "godhead" or "Tao" cannot possibly have intention.
Once man ate of the metaphorical apple from the tree of knowledge, then intention became necessary. Actions (including the lack therof) undertaken by man almost always have an intent behind them. If you are able to act in harmony with the Tao, then you won't have intentions (you would be freed from Karma) and you also would cease to identify with actions and would be in non-action.
But until you achieve that point, you act with intention, or you fail to act, but still with intention. Can you think of some action or activity you performed without intention?
Applying this idea of intention to life and existence, man naturally seeks some sort of purpose (intention) in life. Philosophers have provided us with elaborate explanations for purposes ranging from existentialism/nihilism (there is no purpose, so nothing matters) to zealot religions (you MUST love a vengeful, omnipotent God with a white beard in the clouds). But as you say, these are human ideations and creations.
Existance simply is, so one should live their life in the same manner, simply being. Unfortunately, our rational, logical minds have a great difficulty shutting up and simply being.
I think you drew your question from my mentioning Nature and how man may be able to divine her true purpose? In that situation I meant Nature as a reference to planet Earth, to Gaia. On an even broader, cosmic level, the only logical intention would be analogous to an intention of a game. And on the Ultimate level (nonduality), such a concept is completely meaningless.
-------------------- "What is in us that turns a deaf ear to the cries of human suffering?" "Belief is a beautiful armor But makes for the heaviest sword" - John Mayer Making the noise "penicillin" is no substitute for actually taking penicillin. "This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing government, they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it, or their revolutionary right to dismember or overthrow it." -Abraham Lincoln
|
Sclorch
Clyster


Registered: 07/12/99
Posts: 4,805
Loc: On the Brink of Madness
|
Re: Pascal's Wager [Re: dblaney]
#5364360 - 03/04/06 11:43 AM (17 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
You see, that's a copout... I question the "Will of God" and you come back with "[God] cannot possibly have intention." Which one is it? Does God INTEND to do things or not? If it's all one big jumbly mess that just happened to come together according to some unintentional divine plan... what is the point of calling it divine at all?
For some reason I am reminded of St. Anselm...
-------------------- Note: In desperate need of a cure...
|
dblaney
Human Being

Registered: 10/03/04
Posts: 7,894
Loc: Here & Now
|
Re: Pascal's Wager [Re: Sclorch]
#5364410 - 03/04/06 11:58 AM (17 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Which one is it? Does God INTEND to do things or not?
The very idea of intention is a human projection. (As you say, an attempt to make God anthropomorphic).
If it's all one big jumbly mess that just happened to come together according to some unintentional divine plan
Likewise, it isn't unintentional either. To lack intention is just as much of a human projection as it is to say that there is some God who has intentions.
what is the point of calling it divine at all?
It's just a word - a symbol for the ineffable.
You cannot describe God by adding words and sentiments and intentions and ideas. Only by a process of subtraction can God be known.
-------------------- "What is in us that turns a deaf ear to the cries of human suffering?" "Belief is a beautiful armor But makes for the heaviest sword" - John Mayer Making the noise "penicillin" is no substitute for actually taking penicillin. "This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing government, they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it, or their revolutionary right to dismember or overthrow it." -Abraham Lincoln
|
MushmanTheManic
Stranger

Registered: 04/21/05
Posts: 4,587
|
Re: Pascal's Wager [Re: dblaney]
#5364992 - 03/04/06 03:49 PM (17 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Only by a process of subtraction can God be known.
Is suicide the ultimate expression of divinity?
|
dblaney
Human Being

Registered: 10/03/04
Posts: 7,894
Loc: Here & Now
|
|
I took that last part, which you quoted, from Meister Eckhart. He said "God is not found in the soul by adding anything, but by a process of subtraction."
Suicide is using your free will to end your free will and take away all chance of unitive knowledge of the ineffable. In order to achieve such unitive knowledge, you must subtract or unlearn concepts, ideas, opinions, beliefs, etc.; but not your life. You can't achieve unitive knowledge if you no longer exist. If you don't achieve such unitive knowledge, then you may indeed end up being rebirthed after you die.
-------------------- "What is in us that turns a deaf ear to the cries of human suffering?" "Belief is a beautiful armor But makes for the heaviest sword" - John Mayer Making the noise "penicillin" is no substitute for actually taking penicillin. "This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing government, they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it, or their revolutionary right to dismember or overthrow it." -Abraham Lincoln
|
Dmonikal
Bareback up inthis neden


Registered: 09/06/04
Posts: 474
|
Re: Pascal's Wager [Re: dblaney]
#5366153 - 03/04/06 11:48 PM (17 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
I have a "feeling" that all your choices will be taken away quite soon. Only one side or the other with the neutrals burning to keep our feet warm.
-------------------- Give your money or your life Take 'em both for all I care Dump your bullets right here
|
dblaney
Human Being

Registered: 10/03/04
Posts: 7,894
Loc: Here & Now
|
Re: Pascal's Wager [Re: Dmonikal]
#5367015 - 03/05/06 10:46 AM (17 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
I'm not too sure what your post means, would you mind restating it?
-------------------- "What is in us that turns a deaf ear to the cries of human suffering?" "Belief is a beautiful armor But makes for the heaviest sword" - John Mayer Making the noise "penicillin" is no substitute for actually taking penicillin. "This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing government, they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it, or their revolutionary right to dismember or overthrow it." -Abraham Lincoln
|
Sclorch
Clyster


Registered: 07/12/99
Posts: 4,805
Loc: On the Brink of Madness
|
Re: Pascal's Wager [Re: dblaney]
#5367108 - 03/05/06 11:22 AM (17 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
dblaney said: You cannot describe God by adding words and sentiments and intentions and ideas. Only by a process of subtraction can God be known.
Defining what God is NOT is still a definition of God. You're still copping out. Next thing you'll say is that God isn't conscious... then I'll ask again "What's the point of pointing to your ignorance and calling it God?"
Thus far: God exists, but not physically (whatever that means). God is responsible for all of existence, but didn't necessarily create it (whatever that means). God has a will, but is beyond intent (whatever that means).
The pattern: 1. Make anthropomorphic claim about the nature of God. [anthorpomorphism is pointed out] 2. Claim that God is beyond comprehension. [the pointlessness of allocating a special title to the ineffable is pointed out] 3. A grounded claim about the nature of God is required to refute - Go to step 1.
-------------------- Note: In desperate need of a cure...
|
dblaney
Human Being

Registered: 10/03/04
Posts: 7,894
Loc: Here & Now
|
Re: Pascal's Wager [Re: Sclorch]
#5367227 - 03/05/06 12:12 PM (17 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Defining what God is NOT is still a definition of God.
Good!
You're still copping out.
Of what?
God exists, but not physically (whatever that means).
You're trying to describe God by adding on qualities, such as existence and physicality.
God is responsible for all of existence, but didn't necessarily create it (whatever that means).
I'm fairly certain I didn't make the argument that God is responsible for all of existence. In fact I think I argued against the idea of a first cause which was responsible for everything.
God has a will, but is beyond intent (whatever that means).
Quote:
William Law said: Take note of this fundamental truth. Everything that works in nature and creature, except sin, is the working of God in nature and creature. The creature has nothing else in its power but the free use of its will, and its free will hath no other power but that of concurring with, or resisting, the working of God in nature. The creature with its free will can bring nothing into being, nor make any alteration in the working of nature; it can only change its own state or place in the working of nature, and so feel or find something in its state that it did not feel or find before.
Quote:
St. Francois de Sales said: Our free will can hinder the course of inspiration, and when the favourable gale of God's grace swells the sails of our soul, it is in our power to refuse consent and thereby hinder the effect of the wind's favour; but when our spirit sails along and makes its voyage prosperously, it is not we who make the gale of inspiration blow for us, nor we who make our sails swell with it, nor we who give motion to the ship of our heart; but we simply receive the gale, consent to its motion and let our ship sail under it, not hindering it by our resistance.
-------------------- "What is in us that turns a deaf ear to the cries of human suffering?" "Belief is a beautiful armor But makes for the heaviest sword" - John Mayer Making the noise "penicillin" is no substitute for actually taking penicillin. "This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing government, they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it, or their revolutionary right to dismember or overthrow it." -Abraham Lincoln
|
drloomis82
Walks with Kings


Registered: 08/15/03
Posts: 260
Loc: Limbo
Last seen: 10 years, 4 months
|
|
I majored in philosophy in college. Pascal?s Wager is interesting, but ultimately falls short ? in my humble opinion.
Basically, it can be summed up as follows: Should we wager for or against God? There are a few possible outcomes?
-If we believe and we?re right, then we?ll go to Heaven; -If we believe and we?re wrong, then we?ll have a pleasant life on earth, assuming that we?re protected by God. -If we don?t believe and we?re wrong, then we?ll go to Hell and will not be ?saved.? -If we don?t believe and we?re right, then we will be miserable knowing that there does not exist a ?Supreme Being.?
-Thus we should believe; right or wrong, we?re better off. (This is tied in w/ James?s ?The Will to Believe.?)
This is flawed logic at its best, and there are a few criticisms that I can think of off of the top of my head:
-Believers aren?t necessarily happier; they do not lead happier lives than nonbelievers in many cases. -This is NOT an argument FOR God?s existence, but merely one for believing in God. -Also, this could justify belief in a countless number of religions ? which are often contradictory.
Personally, I do not think that one can force oneself to ?believe? in something that one does not sincerely believe to be true in the deepest core of one?s being.
|
|