First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  Next  Last
What if God was a skeptic?
1704 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M / California
Offline
Posted 9/21/08
a) God created you.
b) God has a plan for you.
c) God is infallible.

Christianity and probably a majority of other religions would hold the three points above to be true.

But the implications of points a, b, and c holding true would be that whatever one's path in life (i.e. a non-believer), one is meant to be there.

Ironic how religious rhetoric works, eh?
Scientist Moderator
digs 
48142 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M
Offline
Posted 9/21/08
What about point d? God gave you free will to choose your life. You can choose to be your own master. or you can choose to let God's Will for your life run your life. Each choice has consequences.
4095 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / Los Angeles, Cali...
Offline
Posted 9/21/08
in that case, just wager your soul on the newest religion, because that is the most recently god has been speaking through someone
1704 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M / California
Offline
Posted 9/21/08

digs wrote:

What about point d? God gave you free will to choose your life. You can choose to be your own master. or you can choose to let God's Will for your life run your life. Each choice has consequences.


Point d would imply that God is malicious.
722 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / canada
Offline
Posted 9/22/08

leviathan343 wrote:


realdry wrote:


bit sleepy atm but will answer. i thought u meant that pascal was wrong so im trying to say he has thought this through.*yawn* tell me if i am right or wrong and then ill reply later.


Pascal is wrong for two simple reasons.

1. The Christian God, Yahweh, Allah, Zoroaster, Thor, Zeus, Ra, and Susanoo are all different gods. Not to mention the hundreds of other religions that have died out throughout the history of the earth, and the hundreds yet to be born. Most of these religions have a zero-tolerance policy toward a belief in another deity. If Allah is the only true deity and you are still sacrificing to Vishnu, you're ****ed.
2. Most religions require adherence to traditions and mindsets as well as belief. So you could believe in a deity and still fail to reach a desirable afterlife because you didn't follow through 'the motions'.


Pascal didn't think it through, as shown by the two huge errors he fails to address in his wager (because he took an inherently biased assumption that it was either the Christian God or nothing; in reality it is [the set of all possible deities] vs. nothing).
And where do you live? It's 3:00 in the afternoon here.


lol i live in toronto, but for reasons i cannot state my sleeping and waking times are fkd up. oh and i misunderstood what you said my bad.
4557 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / Bermuda Triangle
Offline
Posted 9/22/08

Intranetusa wrote:

Let's say God does exist, and there is only one God.
Let's say God is also a 'personal' God who intervenes in the universe. (ie. Abrahamic God)
Let's also say God actually cares whether we worship him or not.


Pascal's Wager states that it is better to believe in God because it is 'safer' to do so.

'If there is no God, believing or not believing in God will result in no long term adverse side effects. If there is a God, believing in God will result in infinite rewards, while not believing in God will result in infinite punishment.'

So Pascal's reasoning is that you should live out your life and believe in God.


However, that logic only works if God rewards faith. There is a common rebuttal - what if God rewards skepticism - that God disproves of faith, and rewards humans who questions his existence?

Essentially, what if God rewards people who value evidence over faith?



I don't mean to pick on you but everyone in general seems to have this misconception of faith and reason (evidence). They are not two different sides of a spectrum that never meet but rather a co-existance. You have to accept the unknown to begin to understand it and you must have some understanding of that same unknown to continue believing in it (for it is safe to say that not everything you know is completely understood by you). In other words you need faith to start reasoning for it is pointless to reason if you don't believe in it and reasoning to have faith or else there is no point to reason such things. So evidence=faith, if you understood my ontological arguement.
46535 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 9/22/08

crunchypibb wrote:

So evidence=faith, if you understood my ontological arguement.


WTF no!

There isn't even a consensus yet about the epistemological (ontological) validity of faith.

Logical positivists claim one thing
foundationalists claim another
fideists go at it another way

The matter is up for grabs.
5229 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / Mammago Garage, Y...
Offline
Posted 9/22/08

crunchypibb wrote:
I don't mean to pick on you but everyone in general seems to have this misconception of faith and reason (evidence). They are not two different sides of a spectrum that never meet but rather a co-existance. You have to accept the unknown to begin to understand it and you must have some understanding of that same unknown to continue believing in it (for it is safe to say that not everything you know is completely understood by you). In other words you need faith to start reasoning for it is pointless to reason if you don't believe in it and reasoning to have faith or else there is no point to reason such things. So evidence=faith, if you understood my ontological arguement.


You do have a good point, but I don't think it's safe to say that evidence=faith. If that were true, then that would mean all gods and deities exist and that all religions are true, which would cause tons of contradictions, especially among religions that state that there is only one god. It would also mean that whatever crazy crap anyone can think of is true simply because they have faith in it. I could believe that I can sprout wings out of my back at will, that all matter is composed of really small garden gnomes, that your username isn't really crunchypibb and that my eyes are just tricking me to see that name every time you post, and it would all be true if I were willing to put my faith into it. So while evidence can lead to faith, and vice versa, they can't really be considered the same thing.
4557 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / Bermuda Triangle
Offline
Posted 9/22/08 , edited 9/22/08

mauz15 wrote:


crunchypibb wrote:

So evidence=faith, if you understood my ontological arguement.


WTF no!

There isn't even a consensus yet about the epistemological (ontological) validity of faith.

Logical positivists claim one thing
foundationalists claim another
fideists go at it another way

The matter is up for grabs.





Cuddlebuns wrote:


crunchypibb wrote:
I don't mean to pick on you but everyone in general seems to have this misconception of faith and reason (evidence). They are not two different sides of a spectrum that never meet but rather a co-existance. You have to accept the unknown to begin to understand it and you must have some understanding of that same unknown to continue believing in it (for it is safe to say that not everything you know is completely understood by you). In other words you need faith to start reasoning for it is pointless to reason if you don't believe in it and reasoning to have faith or else there is no point to reason such things. So evidence=faith, if you understood my ontological arguement.


You do have a good point, but I don't think it's safe to say that evidence=faith. If that were true, then that would mean all gods and deities exist and that all religions are true, which would cause tons of contradictions, especially among religions that state that there is only one god. It would also mean that whatever crazy crap anyone can think of is true simply because they have faith in it. I could believe that I can sprout wings out of my back at will, that all matter is composed of really small garden gnomes, that your username isn't really crunchypibb and that my eyes are just tricking me to see that name every time you post, and it would all be true if I were willing to put my faith into it. So while evidence can lead to faith, and vice versa, they can't really be considered the same thing.


Well it seems like both of you posed the same kind of response. My answer is in question form, do you really think everyone could be right? The two basic philosophies are the feministic and culturalistic philosophy that everyone is right in their own way or that there is only one right answer to each moral question (things like distances to places are irrelevant to the truth we're looking for) and all of mankind is trying to use what they know to approach those truths. Even my religion, the Catholic christians, do claim that we don't ultimately know everything and only claim we are the best because we feel that our interpretations connect with each other interpretation of the bible verses (heck, I don't mean to brag but protestants don't know anything before Martin Luther). We're all doing our best to approach the truth but there can be only one answer and only one of us is going to be the closest to that answer.
46535 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 9/22/08
Study ethics further because you are missing a whole lot factors from all the major ethical stances.

"The two basic philosophies are the feministic and culturalistic philosophy"

first time I heard of this. Two basic according to who?


is right in their own way or that there is only one right answer to each moral question


this is a fallacy of false dichotomy. The problem at hand can't be reduced to only those two limited options.

We're all doing our best to approach the truth but there can be only one answer and only one of us is going to be the closest to that answer.

It is foolish to think the point is who/what will get "closer" to Truth. I could care less about the answer, that's something I will worry about once I get there, what matters is the journey of getting to it.

And that extremely vague post does not add anything to the statement evidence=faith.
4557 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / Bermuda Triangle
Offline
Posted 9/23/08

mauz15 wrote:

Study ethics further because you are missing a whole lot factors from all the major ethical stances.

"The two basic philosophies are the feministic and culturalistic philosophy"

first time I heard of this. Two basic according to who?


is right in their own way or that there is only one right answer to each moral question


this is a fallacy of false dichotomy. The problem at hand can't be reduced to only those two limited options.

We're all doing our best to approach the truth but there can be only one answer and only one of us is going to be the closest to that answer.

It is foolish to think the point is who/what will get "closer" to Truth. I could care less about the answer, that's something I will worry about once I get there, what matters is the journey of getting to it.

And that extremely vague post does not add anything to the statement evidence=faith.


As for the feministic and culturalistic philosophies these are two basic ones that I know from reading the philosophy textbook "Philosophy: a text with readings" by Manuel Velasquez. If you know any more major or minor philosophies let me know. Otherwise just accept the idea, for the time being.
If you really think everything I said was false then why didn't you even give me a counter arguement? You kinda went politician there, accusing their opponent of being false. I really want to hear how everyone can be right in their own way when it comes to morals and ethics. If not, what else is out there that could oppose a set rule of morals or right-in-your-own-way morals?
2633 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M / New York City, NY
Offline
Posted 9/24/08

crunchypibb wrote:


mauz15 wrote:

Study ethics further because you are missing a whole lot factors from all the major ethical stances.

"The two basic philosophies are the feministic and culturalistic philosophy"

first time I heard of this. Two basic according to who?


is right in their own way or that there is only one right answer to each moral question


this is a fallacy of false dichotomy. The problem at hand can't be reduced to only those two limited options.

We're all doing our best to approach the truth but there can be only one answer and only one of us is going to be the closest to that answer.

It is foolish to think the point is who/what will get "closer" to Truth. I could care less about the answer, that's something I will worry about once I get there, what matters is the journey of getting to it.

And that extremely vague post does not add anything to the statement evidence=faith.


As for the feministic and culturalistic philosophies these are two basic ones that I know from reading the philosophy textbook "Philosophy: a text with readings" by Manuel Velasquez. If you know any more major or minor philosophies let me know. Otherwise just accept the idea, for the time being.
If you really think everything I said was false then why didn't you even give me a counter arguement? You kinda went politician there, accusing their opponent of being false. I really want to hear how everyone can be right in their own way when it comes to morals and ethics. If not, what else is out there that could oppose a set rule of morals or right-in-your-own-way morals?


Funny how this entire argument circles around a misuse of a definite article. Maybe a question about the use of "the" should have been brought up before a blatant barrage of insults began.

What type of evidence is faith based on? Empirical? Logical deduction or induction? A priori or a posteriori?

What type of morals are we talking about? Subjectivism/relativism/nihilism/conventionalism/divine command?
14437 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
71
Offline
Posted 9/24/08
Pascal didn't account for a God that punishes faith. He might hate the irrational believers. He might be the kinda cat who will pop anyone for looking at him wrong. He might send everyone to hell because he's just mysterious. He might be an ass.
805 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M / United States of...
Offline
Posted 9/24/08

crunchypibb wrote:
I don't mean to pick on you but everyone in general seems to have this misconception of faith and reason (evidence). They are not two different sides of a spectrum that never meet but rather a co-existance.


Not exactly - what my post is addressing is only one side of the issue - what point of view. That's why I began my sentence with "Let's say" - in order to show that it is only addressing a certain viewpoint (held by certain followers of the Abrahamic religions).


crunchypibb wrote:
You have to accept the unknown to begin to understand it and you must have some understanding of that same unknown to continue believing in it (for it is safe to say that not everything you know is completely understood by you). In other words you need faith to start reasoning for it is pointless to reason if you don't believe in it and reasoning to have faith or else there is no point to reason such things. So evidence=faith, if you understood my ontological arguement.


All you need is an active imagination. Faith would be the lack of evidence...strictly speaking. With evidence, it no longer becomes faith.

In this situation, when you say we need to 'know' something to have faith in it - well, isn't this a case of
man creating God in his image?
515 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
F / AniYoko
Offline
Posted 9/25/08
then he wouldnt beleve in himself
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.