Pascal's Wager Argument

[PRmerger]

I understand what you’re trying to get at here but this isn’t really the same thing. With an airline pilot I at least have the option of going through these steps and getting this information. Probably not the minute I step on the plane but the information would be available if I wanted to spend the time looking for it.

Yet, you don’t do this. You live your life, in the end, as a man of faith. You don’t demand proof for anything with the degree that you demand proof for God. You put faith in the airline, faith in the aircraft, faith in a stranger, yes?

(You, of course, is a rhetorical you).

 

[PRmerger]

Lovely stories, by the way!

To what stories are you referring?

 

[Ranklyfrank]

To what stories are you referring?

Your posts 384 and 391 on this thread in particular, and all of them in general. But you know that.

 

[PRmerger]

Your posts 384 and 391 on this thread in particular, and all of them in general. But you know that.

Ah. So you meant my* analogies.*

Could you please respond to the questions, rather than provide non-sequitors?

(Posted below for your convenience).

Can you give an example of “defensiveness in the attitudes here”?

Do you have any evidence to the contrary?

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Franklyrank

*Your horse is dead, CII; please stop. *

Hi-ho Silver, away!!!

Any other atheist wants to joust?

If there is a God, which is the more rational course: to live as though there is no God, or to live as though there is a God?

 

[Ranklyfrank]

There is proof, CII that you are not reading my posts. I am not an atheist, as I have said many times to you and others. I’m just not your fairy tale kind of faither and you won’t deal with the reality of that. See post #414 this thread.

 

[Ranklyfrank]

Ah. So you meant my* analogies.*

I meant the stories you tell yourself.

Could you please respond to the questions, rather than provide non-sequitors?(sic)

I have, actually; it is your disorder that makes them appear not pertinent.

(Posted below for your convenience).

Yes: all the posts on here not from experience that rely on faith third partied to the Church and clung to from psycho/emotional dependency.

As for “evidence to the contrary” I am happy to give that to people who are conversational as distinct from proselytizing or defensive, and have done so even on these pages.

RF

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Ranklyfrank

There is proof, CII that you are not reading my posts. I am not an atheist, as I have said many times to you and others. I’m just not your fairy tale kind of faither and you won’t deal with the reality of that. See post #414 this thread.

It’s true I haven’t read all of your posts. But post 414 doesn’t say that you are not an atheist, and your signature leads one to believe that you probably are.

If you are not an atheist, are you a deist? If you are, why not say so and make it your signature?

It helps to know where people are coming from without having to guess.

 

[Ranklyfrank]

Ranklyfrank

There is proof, CII that you are not reading my posts. I am not an atheist, as I have said many times to you and others. I’m just not your fairy tale kind of faither and you won’t deal with the reality of that. See post #414 this thread.

It’s true I haven’t read all of your posts. But post 414 doesn’t say that you are not an atheist, and your signature leads one to believe that you probably are.

If you are not an atheist, are you a deist? If you are, why not say so and make it your signature?

It helps to know where people are coming from without having to guess.

You need to get it together, CII. Who are you talking to? I don’t have a signature on my posts.

 

[Shredderbeam]

Because, since we don’t KNOW such things, we must choose to believe them or not.

SOME of this choice is essentially hard-wired, programmed through things like evolution. We don’t CHOOSE to believe that we must get out of the way of the large moving object, we just know that we must to survive. Those that did otherwise had fewer offspring.

But SOME of this choice is through will. When we have a preponderance of evidence for a scientific theory, for example, we choose to believe it, or not to.

I dispute this. When I see that the preponderance of evidence supports one view, I do not make an explicit choice to believe that view. It happens automatically, at least in my mind.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Ranklyfrank

Sorry, this is what I meant.

Religion: not affiliated with a denomination

Doesn’t help to get a handle on where you are coming from. If you want to stay anonymous, that’s your business. But if you are not an atheist nor a Christian, it would help when dealing with you to get a handle on what you really are instead of having to guess.

 

[tonyrey]

Ranklyfrank

Sorry, this is what I meant.

Religion: not affiliated with a denomination

Doesn’t help to get a handle on where you are coming from. If you want to stay anonymous, that’s your business. But if you are not an atheist nor a Christian, it would help when dealing with you to get a handle on what you really are instead of having to guess.

It’s a good stratagem for some one who wants to be invulnerable…

 

[tonyrey]

I dispute this. When I see that the preponderance of evidence supports one view, I do not make an explicit choice to believe that view. It happens automatically, at least in my mind.

Yet in a previous post you stated:

But SOME of this choice is through will. When we have a preponderance of evidence for a scientific theory, for example, we choose to believe it, or not to.

Of course for the materialist there is no such thing as will or choice because everything happens automatically!

 

[Ranklyfrank]

There is proof, CII that you are not reading my posts. I am not an atheist, as I have said many times to you and others. I’m just not your fairy tale kind of faither and you won’t deal with the reality of that. See post # 414 this thread.

As I said, many times, I’m happy to help. It’s in your court, Angel. You have great energy and persistence. Use it.

 

[grannymh]

I dispute this. When I see that the preponderance of evidence supports one view, I do not make an explicit choice to believe that view. It happens automatically, at least in my mind.

You have brought up an interesting point. There are also actions which we do by habit where we don’t consciously make a choice. Turning off car lights is one of my non-thinking habits.

What I find fascinating is that we can override natural or reasonable options.
Maybe one should look at Pascal’s wager as a choice of possible options, each having its own consequences rather than an either-or bet.

As I study human origins, there is a sense more or less of spirituality. A curiosity to know about the supernatural is innate. Today, mobile devices attached to our ears and palms have replaced curiosity about our own human nature.

Blessings,
granny

Human life is sacred.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

tonyrey

It’s a good stratagem for some one who wants to be invulnerable…

Right. A sniper is someone who wants to fire at you but doesn’t want you to be able to fire back because you can’t see where he is.

 

[JDaniel]

I’m not sure what you’re talking about here. What does your ‘candle’ refer to, if not a preconceived idea?

How it ‘matters’ is a function of how one grasps the situation.

“Given either 1) or “standard” agnosticism” - what are you referring to here?

As for your characterization of the believer compared to the agnostic, that’s seems like a silly and groundless generalization.

In “that sense”? - in what sense??

It “may not be the quale in which…”?? So what?

So you would say that intellectual understanding is necessarily irrelevant to an actual understanding of God? …or what? What are you trying to say?

Betterave:

I would like to see if he answers you. So far, he never really answered me - except with riddles that obfuscate. But, at least now I have some idea of what sort of system he follows: Eckhart Tolle. I would have hoped that he would have simply said that up front; then, at least, I could have said that I was or wasn’t interested. But, instead, he sort of slithers in under the door. His purpose, as I see it, is not to enhance Catholicism, but to undermine it. I think Tolle would not be proud of him for that.

In every belief system is going to be found some truth, except, perhaps the beliefs of the Third Reich. I have looked at some of Tolle’s teachings and found them to be more in tune with some of Catholic mystical tendencies and, perhaps, much more truth than many other new-age ideas. Saying that, I still have a great many problems with it: first of all, that it essentially denies Scripture, save, perhaps, for its historical value. I think Tolle views Christ as simply one of us: perhaps one of us who was fortunate enough to have found the sublimity of possessing God within him in a much more significant way than do most humans who refuse to set aside their pasts and, probably, their futures.

However, rather than obfuscate, he should simply be up-front and perhaps we can learn and incorporate some of Tolle’s mysticism into our own religiosity.

God bless,
jd

 

[JDaniel]

There is no such philosophic proof of God. If there were, the world would be a different place.

There are arguments for His existence. ALL of the “proofs” have flaws.

KB:

I guess that I would have to disagree. Many so-called proofs have flaws, but, there are some, namely the five ways, that when understood flawlessly, have no flaws.

God bless,
jd

 

[JDaniel]

Franklyrank

*Your horse is dead, CII; please stop. *

Hi-ho Silver, away!!!

Any other atheist wants to joust?

If there is a God, which is the more rational course: to live as though there is no God, or to live as though there is a God?

I don’t think he’s an ‘atheist’. Rather, I think he’s a-Christ. He has a concept of god, but, it is different from our Scripturally based concept, I believe.

God bless,
jd

 

[kbachler]

KB:

I guess that I would have to disagree. Many so-called proofs have flaws, but, there are some, namely the five ways, that when understood flawlessly, have no flaws.

God bless,
jd

Sorry, the five ways has long been known to be flawed.

If there were proof of God, there would be no faith.