Home | Community | Message Board
You are not signed in.
Sign In New Account
Forum Index Search Posts Trusted Vendors Highlights Galleries FAQ User List Chat Store Random Growery

MagicBag Grow Bags
This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.

General Interest > Philosophy, Sociology & Psychology
Threaded Mode Threaded  Previous topic Previous  View all topics Index  Next topic Next 

Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Shop: Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   Sporeworks.EU Spores for European Microscopy   North Spore North Spore Mushroom Grow Kits & Cultivation Supplies   Original Sensible Seeds Bulk Cannabis Seeds

Jump to first unread post Pages: | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 |  [ show all ]
Re: Pascal's Wager [Re: Sclorch]
    #5367357 -

Sclorch said:
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.



As usual, the "concept" of God is usually defined by a lack of a definition. God is usually said to be unlimited in power, knowledge, and goodness and unknowable to us mere mortals; but these are all traits that are defined by a lack of something.

The notion of God is nothing but a big mixture of contradictions and nothingness. There is no meaning behind the word and no concept to even define.

And due to the prevalent refusal or inability to explicitly distinguish between the existence and consciousness, between the metaphysical and the man-made, between epistemology and metaphysics: seldom do most people ever fully grok the fact that meaning is epistemological, not metaphysical or intrinsic. Different things have different meanings to different people based on the context of their experiences and goals.




--------------------
Coffee should be black as hell, strong as death, and sweet as love.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Pascal's Wager [Re: SkorpivoMusterion]
    #5367375 -

unknowable to us mere mortals

This is not so - God is knowable unitively.


--------------------
"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

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Pascal's Wager [Re: dblaney]
    #5367403 -

Well, y'see, there are people who -when cornered with reason, logic and rational questioning- pull out the "but these objections are so silly because God is unknowable" card.

To which I can only ask "But how do you know that God is unknowable?", for their card is contradictory.

And well, so it goes.



--------------------
Coffee should be black as hell, strong as death, and sweet as love.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Pascal's Wager [Re: SkorpivoMusterion]
    #5367457 -

Indeed, but I'm playing the "God is unitively knowable" card.


--------------------
"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

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Pascal's Wager [Re: SkorpivoMusterion]
    #5367538 -

Hehe, for some part of our brain god is knowable and for some other part it is not.
And I still see 'meaning' as an intrinsic factor correlated to existence itself. If meaning is observed or not, doesn't matter, as it is still there, as soon something exists, even without an observer.


--------------------
Though lovers be lost love shall not  And death shall have no dominion
......................................................
"Our scientific power has outrun our spiritual power. We have guided missiles and misguided men."Martin Luther King, Jr.
'Acceptance is the absolute key - at that moment you gain freedom and you gain power and you gain courage'

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Pascal's Wager [Re: BlueCoyote]
    #5367551 -

And I still see 'meaning' as an intrinsic factor correlated to existence itself.

Could you explain how meaning is a property of matter? What is the meaning of this particular atom? Of this electron?

Also, what is the meaning of existence?


--------------------
"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

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Pascal's Wager [Re: dblaney]
    #5367663 -

Could you explain how meaning is a property of matter?
One example perhaps for the meaning of a stone, lying on a grassy plane. Perhaps there, in the winter blows a strong, freezing wind. Suddenly in spring, exactly behind the stone grows a flower. Why that ? Because (one of) the (many) meaning(s) of the stone was to keep the earth from freezing, so the flower could grow.

What is the meaning of this particular atom?
Uh, I don't have my supermicroscope at hand, to look with which other atoms it is bonding right now :wink:
Of this electron?
Seen it hitting the screen there ? It has made some other particle glowing.

Also, what is the meaning of existence?
There, I think, are the very many meanings inherent to it. Dependent on the what and the context.


--------------------
Though lovers be lost love shall not  And death shall have no dominion
......................................................
"Our scientific power has outrun our spiritual power. We have guided missiles and misguided men."Martin Luther King, Jr.
'Acceptance is the absolute key - at that moment you gain freedom and you gain power and you gain courage'

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Pascal's Wager [Re: dblaney]
    #5368317 -

dblaney said:
unknowable to us mere mortals

This is not so - God is knowable unitively.


Then, is God a concept OR an actual being that exists?


--------------------
Note: In desperate need of a cure...

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Pascal's Wager [Re: Sclorch]
    #5371378 -

yall all seem pretty smart and im sure someone already said this but i couyldnt find it so sorry if im just reposting something but classically Pascals Wager is disproved by something very simple and that is that he does not account for the existence of other gods, native american, african, eastern or just for arguments sake the idea of a reverse god or a god that hates when people worship him and would much rather you were a free thinker and questioned everything so because this reverse god feels this way he would damn you to hell for going to church and send you to heaven for questioning blind faith

just a little phil 1001 speek

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Pascal's Wager [Re: Sclorch]
    #5371755 -

Sclorch said:
dblaney said:
unknowable to us mere mortals

This is not so - God is knowable unitively.


Then, is God a concept OR an actual being that exists?


Neither, one cannot define the ineffable. As I mentioned, only by a process of subtraction of ideas and concepts can one come closer to unitive knowledge of the Tao.


--------------------
"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

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Pascal's Wager [Re: dblaney]
    #5372229 -

dblaney said:
Sclorch said:
dblaney said:
unknowable to us mere mortals

This is not so - God is knowable unitively.


Then, is God a concept OR an actual being that exists?


Neither, one cannot define the ineffable. As I mentioned, only by a process of subtraction of ideas and concepts can one come closer to unitive knowledge of the Tao.


If I show you what ISN'T the color green and only show you things that are almost green, I think you'd get the idea of what green is. This is more smoke and mirrors and I don't hear The Final Countdown playing... what a gyp!


--------------------
Note: In desperate need of a cure...

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Pascal's Wager [Re: Sclorch]
    #5373353 -

Quote:
The notion of God is nothing but a big mixture of contradictions and nothingness. There is no meaning behind the word and no concept to even define.


No offense, because I once thought exactly the same thing... but you could not be more incorrect if you tried. I do understand where you are coming from, to an extent. Don't let the words and semantics snag you the way I let them snag me in the metaphysical realm. Trust me, it is a huge handicap... I know from experience.

The notion of God is nothing ... given the proper English meaning, you are correct... the statement is "wrong". However, the proper English meaning is not what should be used. The use of contradictions is to identify something that cannot be enumerated. It is a way to discuss an experience without resorting to dualism, categories, or labels. It is more than a way of talking; it is also a way of thinking.

How do I know the above? I have experienced it, more than once, both under the influence and sober. However, these experiences mean nothing to anybody else. They could be the fancy of an over active imagination or they could be something else. Even if the experiences are nothing more than imagination, that does not make them any less real. I know, without any doubt, that I have experienced non-dualistic thought and that "no thing" is indeed possible. It was real for me, and in the end, that is all that really matters, to me.

Quote:
If I show you what ISN'T the color green and only show you things that are almost green, I think you'd get the idea of what green is


Having an idea what something is and knowing what something is are two very different concepts. Having eaten lots of different types of meat, I have a pretty good idea what human meat tastes like, but having never eaten human meat, my concept of the taste is still only a guess.


--------------------
Just another spore in the wind.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Pascal's Wager [Re: Sclorch]
    #5373633 -

Seuss is right. Also I think you're trying to interpret Godhead as being, something with form and qualities which can be described. But this isn't so: the Godhead is nondualistic. We live in the realm of duality. We experience life/death, male/female, light/dark, black/white, but like the north and south poles on a magnet, these are polarities, two poles of the same magnet.


--------------------
"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

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Pascal's Wager [Re: Seuss]
    #5373716 -

Quote:
Seuss said:
Quote:
If I show you what ISN'T the color green and only show you things that are almost green, I think you'd get the idea of what green is


Having an idea what something is and knowing what something is are two very different concepts. Having eaten lots of different types of meat, I have a pretty good idea what human meat tastes like, but having never eaten human meat, my concept of the taste is still only a guess.


A good friend of mine is colorblind. Yet, nine times out of ten, he can correctly identify green or red-hued items. He doesn't know 100% what green or red looks like (it's physically impossible), but he has enough of an idea to be able to tell the difference most of the time. If he were merely guessing, it'd be a 50/50 shot.

Back to god... am I guessing that there is no god (however you define it)? Nope.
If a divine experience is proof of god, then you really don't have much faith. So where did faith come from? It's as man-made as the concept of god. If religion never existed, the word "faith" would only mean "trust".

I've said this before... if I was given proof of God, it wouldn't change anything for me, practically speaking. My morals, daily life, etc. wouldn't change. Why? Because if God exists, then I don't think he'd be an asshole. Only an asshole god would punish me for not worshipping or somehow not doing things "his" way when my way doesn't hurt anybody. And I don't submit to assholes.

In summary,

1. If you can talk about the properties of God, then you can figure out enough of the "ineffable" to realize nothing is there.
2. "Divine experience" is an appeal to reason, which undermines faith.
3. If God exists, it wouldn't change anything for anyone, unless God is an asshole, in which case, fuck God.


--------------------
Note: In desperate need of a cure...

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Pascal's Wager [Re: dblaney]
    #5373742 -

dblaney said:
Seuss is right. Also I think you're trying to interpret Godhead as being, something with form and qualities which can be described. But this isn't so: the Godhead is nondualistic.


Dualistic? Then show me something on the continuum of existence/non-existence.
Having properties and attributes doesn't equate to dualism. If something has no properties, can it really be said to exist? If it doesn't exist, the only effect it can have on me is directed by my own mind thinking about it (ex. the Dodo bird).

Quote:
We live in the realm of duality. We experience life/death, male/female, light/dark, black/white, but like the north and south poles on a magnet, these are polarities, two poles of the same magnet.


What's this "we" shit? Are you going to call the electromagnetic spectrum a duality? Are radio waves "dark" because their wavelengths are too long to see? Are you now just redefining "dark" as absolute nothing? Also, I've never experienced death... I didn't think it could be experienced - kinda the point of it, right?


--------------------
Note: In desperate need of a cure...

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Pascal's Wager [Re: Seuss]
    #5373921 -

However, the proper English meaning is not what should be used. The use of contradictions is to identify something that cannot be enumerated. It is a way to discuss an experience without resorting to dualism, categories, or labels. It is more than a way of talking; it is also a way of thinking.


Oh, rest assured, I am well aware of such a different way of thinking. I see it all the time. It's called "irrational thinking". A visit to the local insane asylum will show you plenty of messiah complexes, loose-minded, faith-touting mystics spouting gibberish that is not far from the Priest's formal speech in a nearby church, about The G up in the sky that hooks people up with rewards for cash - albeit in mysterious ways.
There in those white, generic hallways with a faint aroma of Pine-sol accompanied by the occasional cacophonies of mental derangement, you will see the full blossoming of irrationality and mysticism, like a hideous jungle-plant - the kind that traps and kills insects.

The bottom line for us rational folks, is that the arbitrary must be dismissed with absolute certainty, and never be consciously allowed into the realm of the epistemological and the metaphysical. And if by chance one does find that any arbitrariness has found its way in, out the window it goes.
For what does it do to what we DO know, and CAN know, if we initiate a passive policy permitting such tripe to have equal footing as that which has been discovered by necessity, principle or reason? It undercuts the validity of such truths - of what we do and can know. It facilitates uncertainty, for if carried to its fullest repercussions, we no longer know reality, i.e., we revert to square one, and all for what? For the peace of mind - of the mystic-minded, that is; the mystics and irrationalists get 'justice', while us reasoners and realists do not.
As metaphysical views lead to epistemological views which leads to ethical views which leads to political views, such attitudes whether people realize it, is what gives birth to the preposterous political theory of "equalitarianism", whereby the ultimate consequence is that the lazy drifter gets to work at Hot Dog On a Stick and make the same wage as a Doctor so that the Dr. will put as much innovation and compassion into his work as the other guy takes in putting the hot dogs on the stick.


It all starts at the very ancient roots of philosophical discussion between two philosophers, whereby one insists on the other to disprove their arbitrary statements - and the other actually complies. That is where it all goes wrong, and that is why one must never let himself be fooled into thinking that the arbitrary warrants epistemological respect. The burden to prove the claim rests solely on the one who makes the claim. One should not and need not attempt to prove arbitrary claims. As it is impossible to disprove a negative, attempting to do so leads to accepting any ideas, no matter how arbitrary they are. Since the ideas are groundless, there is no means by which they can be integrated with the rest of one's knowledge. Later, if knowledge is discovered that contradicts the arbitrary idea, the knowledge will be more likely dismissed. The proper response to an arbitrary statement is to ignore it.

Never give any arbitrary claim the benefit of doubt, folks. That is what the mystics want you to do. They know your subconscious will do the rest of the work, and sooner or later you start doubting yourself when you shouldn't - losing yourself in a sort of epistemological agnosticism.




--------------------
Coffee should be black as hell, strong as death, and sweet as love.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Pascal's Wager [Re: SkorpivoMusterion]
    #5374141 -

:whoah:
Skorpivo, please stop creating exceptionally well written and coherent posts. You're making the rest of us look bad.  :nono:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Pascal's Wager [Re: SkorpivoMusterion]
    #5374185 -

Quote:
Oh, rest assured, I am well aware of such a different way of thinking. I see it all the time. It's called "irrational thinking". A visit to the local insane asylum will show you plenty of messiah complexes, loose-minded, faith-touting mystics spouting gibberish that is not far from the Priest's formal speech in a nearby church, about The G up in the sky that hooks people up with rewards for cash - albeit in mysterious ways.


You will see the same type of "irrational thinking" if you travel to a Zen monastery and meet the most enlightened gurus. It's not the thinking that's bad -- it's how you apply it. In any case, hyper-rational thinking is as bad as irrational thinking. Of course, you're too hyper-rational to understand that, and irrational enough to take that as a compliment.


--------------------

Edited by Paradigm (03/07/06 01:07 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Pascal's Wager [Re: SkorpivoMusterion]
    #5374287 -

Oh, rest assured, I am well aware of such a different way of thinking. I see it all the time. It's called "irrational thinking".

And if by chance one does find that any arbitrariness has found its way in, out the window it goes.

Surely you aren't suggesting that anyone who believes anything other than what you do is irrational?

It seems to me like this assertion that the conclusions being drawn are irrational is fairly arbitrary. What is rationality? Here's a brief blurb from Wikipedia:

"A logical argument is sometimes described as rational if it is logically valid. However, rationality is a much broader term than logic, as it includes "uncertain but sensible" arguments based on probability, expectation, personal experience and the like, whereas logic deals principally with provable facts and demonstrably valid relations between them."

Centuries ago, it would have been "uncertain but sensible" to conclude that the world was flat, because if you looked out the window, it looked flat! Thus since no one had actually seen the edge of the earth, it was uncertain but sensible to conclude that it was flat (it was rational). If someone one day proclaimed that the world was round, it would have been taken as being "made manifest not by means of any underlying principle or logic" (arbitrary). Yet, in spite of their arbitrary assertion, they would have been absolutely right!

If I was to one day proclaim that the fundamental unit of matter is a doughnut, and that we are all jelly-filled doughnuts walking about on a planet made of barbeque pork, then okay that would be arbitrary, as it would be based on no underlying principle or logic, nor on probability, expectation, or personal experience. Thus it could be said that such an assertion would be irrational and arbitrary. However the theories presented by 'mystics' are based on personal experience and logic that follows from it. Thus you cannot dismiss them as simply being arbitrary and irrational, as they are neither.

The G up in the sky that hooks people up with rewards for cash - albeit in mysterious ways.

Yes I would agree that is a fairly irrational and arbitrary conclusion, as it is based merely on wishful thinking and no logic or personal experience. However, throughout history I can think of no mystics that said this. Plenty of dogmatic and political churches have, though.


--------------------
"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

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Pascal's Wager [Re: Silversoul]
    #5374431 -

You will see the same type of "irrational thinking" if you travel to a Zen monastery and meet the most enlightened gurus. It's not the thinking that's bad -- it's how you apply it. In any case, hyper-rational thinking is as bad as irrational thinking. Of course, you're too hyper-rational to understand that, and irrational enough to take that as a compliment.

Zen aphorisms and clich?s were not what I referred to. I am referring to what is actually being discussed in this thread: the arbitrary, e.g., claims of ?The G?. The use of such thinking for supporting the arbitrary is what is actually irrational. In short, you precisely nailed it: it is how how you use your brain that counts. Most [if not all] of crystallized Zen wisdoms I?ve read were analogous sayings pertinent to observations of human nature, and ?not dropping the context of an analogy- were quite far from making capricious, unjustified and baseless claims.




--------------------
Coffee should be black as hell, strong as death, and sweet as love.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Jump to top Pages: | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 |  [ show all ]

Shop: Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   Sporeworks.EU Spores for European Microscopy   North Spore North Spore Mushroom Grow Kits & Cultivation Supplies   Original Sensible Seeds Bulk Cannabis Seeds

General Interest > Philosophy, Sociology & Psychology
Threaded Mode Threaded  Previous topic Previous  View all topics Index  Next topic Next 

Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* Pascal's wager and a counter wager. AlphaFalfa 1,489 11 08/31/10 06:03 PM
by AlphaFalfa
* Pascal's Wager from an Atheistic Perspective
( 1 2 all )		 it stars saddam 4,600 39 03/17/07 03:35 PM
by vigilant_mind
* Pascals Wager
( 1 2 all )		 CapZilla 2,136 34 02/15/10 04:51 PM
by Icelander
* Everything is a Wager
( 1 2 all )		 Swami 2,358 27 12/05/04 04:44 PM
by freddurgan
* The greater truth behind PASCALS WAGER Noteworthy 277 0 07/05/11 10:26 PM
by Noteworthy
* Mystical Experience?
( 1 2 all )		 Swami 3,470 25 07/15/03 05:25 PM
by Grav
* The Human Experience
( 1 2 all )		 Anonymous 5,656 33 06/26/02 07:01 AM
by Swami
* Boundaries - Drawing Arbitrary Lines Around Groups
( 1 2 all )		 Swami 3,273 30 07/04/02 08:22 AM
by hongomon

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Middleman, DividedQuantum
5,018 topic views. 0 members, 21 guests and 28 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2026 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.026 seconds spending 0.005 seconds on 16 queries.