- Status
S
STT
Guest
It is because you feel it. As far as I recall the pressure on the brain causes rewiring which is related to feeling you have when you focus on a hard subject.
S
STT
Guest
No, only when you put pressure on your body or brain.
S
STT
Guest
Pressure, like studying very hard. You know by fact that you get tired after a hard course of study.
V
Vonsalza
Guest
I define “evil” in the Catholic context as any manifestation of rebellion against God.
And things are a matter of definition because if we’re arguing the same “label” but with individualized definitions of that label, we’re not at all arguing the same thing. And discussion would lack the possibility of fruitfulness.
Imagine a Greek man and a Chinese man arguing with each other in their own language.
One of Voltaire’s greatest qualities was that he realized how utterly crucial it is to establish the meaning of relevant common terms before discussing them.
Respectfully, you’re using a Catholic forum. If you don’t presuppose an omniscient and omnipotent God, you’re not using “god” in any meaningful way to Pascal or those with which you chat. “Open Theism” is not a Christian belief. If God knows one thing about the future (like the birth of Jesus when revealed to Isaiah), he must know all things.
I was just addressing the process by which I picked my faith, as your posts consistently suggest a “searching” theme. All apologies
Back to the subject - you begin with an ontological error by taking Pascal’s argument and swapping Pascal’s benevolent God with your suggested evil god. At that point, it’s no longer Pascal’s Wager; it’s STT’s Wager.
Your wager is just a suppositional exercise that assumes god is evil. As this supposition is one that 1. isn’t commonly shared among the world’s population and 2. can’t be proven in any empirical way, it is of little rhetorical value.
Again, as no common basis can be established (by using posits 1 and/or 2) with the audience you’re trying to sell it to, it’s just not a useful device.
And to the guy that asked earlier about whether I believe God created Lucifer to sin:
All things serve God, as per the psalmist. Otherwise God is not omnipotent- which would be a problem for Christians of any stripe.
It may be of help to understand that “duality” is a real thing. For example, God is sovereign over all things and man has a will. It’s the classic “Fate v. Liberty”, “Destiny v. Choice”, “Cosmos v. Chaos” discussion. Ultimately, they’re both “true”.
Another example - I am simultaneously a son and a father. They are different, but not mutually exclusive.
Fun chat!
S
STT
Guest
But that is problematic if God is evil unless we define evil as any manifestation of rebellion against good God.
That I agree. I don’t recall the discussion so I cannot argue why I said that.
I don’t understand how what you are saying is related to what I discussed.
No problem.I was just addressing the process by which I picked my faith, as your posts consistently suggest a “searching” theme. All apologies
That I agree yet what I am arguing is that his approach is not a correct approach when it comes to evil God.
That (bold part) is really irrelevant when it comes to what God really is. God cannot be proven to be good by empirical evidence either.
Well, that is not a good way of dropping the argument considering my response (previous comment).
V
Vonsalza
Guest
I was just pointing out that you lack either a common connection to those you’re attempting to convince or the ability to root your claim in fact.
Pascal couldn’t root his theism is fact either, so he used the common belief that “if God exists, he’s ‘good’ in some way”.
This assumed and totally non-empirical commonality was the base to which Pascal fixed his rhetorical lever. Your posit lacks this common basis.
In the end, if you want to alter someones view without the use of empirical fact, you have to do it by basing your argument on something with which your audience already agrees - then show them the relationship between your idea and the audience’s beliefs.
R
Reepicheep
Guest
How could you have the concept of ‘apple’ if the creator of all that exists is not an apple?
Assertion is not evidence.
Change the definition of ‘dog’ to ‘a furred mammal with four legs’ and you can prove that cats are dogs. That won’t make it true.
In general you can ‘prove’ just about any claim if you first define your terms to make your claim true.
Myself in an earlier post:
That was a typo. It should read "Good could not assist in the creation of an evil god’.
I apologize for the error.
And to clarify: if a good God created, or helped to create, an evil God, that would be an evil act, and the good God would become evil.
S
STT
Guest
Evil is an adjective.
Assertion is evident.
What I meant is that Catholic believe in God good. Creation therefore must be good hence any evil should be lack of good caused by an agent with free will. Evil therefore become lack of good if you believe in evil God so definition of good and evil depends on whether God is good or evil which is ironic.
I am not sure if God can create God.
S
STT
Guest
Of course.
T
tonyrey
Guest
Suffering isn’t always an obstacle; very often it is a challenge and a stimulus. Otherwise no one would choose to climb mountains or endure hardship to achieve records. Hedonism is for weaklings who have no courage or “guts”.
T
tonyrey
Guest
I understand what you mean but many people wouldn’t!
A
Aloysium
Guest
Suffering is inevitable in this world where death rules those transfixed by power, money, pleasure and vain glory. And, they who use death in its various forms to secure those transient and illusory goals will find it consuming their humanity until there is nothing left but the fear and hope of oblivion. Sorry so grim; should not have read the news.
T
tonyrey
Guest
- Status