G
goout
Guest
Are you asking about determinism?
The burden of proof is on believers to prove God exists (according to atheist philosphers)
- Status
S
STT
Guest
Who is judging our actions? Actions are not bad or good perse if they are the result of cause and effect. You simply don’t have any control on your actions since they are the result of cause and effect. I don’t know why you don’t get my point.
So you turn into a zygote after you die as the result of cause and effect. That is impossible scenario in my opinion.
You don’t vanish every second. You are undergoing continuous changes.
That I know.
So you have something which carries the result of your action from one life to another so called Karma. How it could not vanish upon your death?
R
rossum
Guest
Many causes can focus into one effect. We ourselves are one of the (name removed by moderator)uts. As to the judge, basically we are the judge:
[The Buddha said:] “Kalamas, when you yourselves know: ‘These things are bad; these things are blameable; these things are censured by the wise; undertaken and observed, these things lead to harm and ill,’ abandon them. … Kalamas, when you yourselves know: ‘These things are good; these things are not blameable; these things are praised by the wise; undertaken and observed, these things lead to benefit and happiness,’ enter on and abide in them.”
– Kalama sutta, Anguttara Nikaya, 3.65
No. Your death is one of the (name removed by moderator)uts into the new zygote. The mother’s egg and the father’s sperm are two other (name removed by moderator)uts, along with the Formations element from your earlier life.
If there is change then there is difference. Again, back to Heraclitus; each step you take you are a different you. You cannot be the same you because the new you has taken one more step than the old you. In Buddhism change beats (I was going to say “trumps”
) stasis.The Formations element carries over into the new life, and that includes your currently unresolved karma. The other four do not carry over.
rossum
T
tonyrey
Guest
In that case we’re not responsible for what we believe or how we live and law courts are based on a false distinction between guilt and innocence because we have no control over ourselves or our behaviour. In other words it is a fantasy to think we are rational beings and it is foolish to trust any of our conclusions such as:
“Conscience is generated by your brain and it is the result of all your experiences and person you are (your gene).”
In fact we are incapable of seeking the truth…
S
STT
Guest
I think you don’t understand my objection. How we can divide our actions to right and wrong if everything is based on cause and effect? What you do is simply the result of cause and effect so it cannot be right or wrong.
I think this is physically impossible. You die and suddenly transform into a zygote somewhere else as a result of cause and effect.
How cause and effect can translate to right and wrong so it could be carried by Karma?
S
STT
Guest
What else can affect/form conscience?In that case we’re not responsible for what we believe or how we live and law courts are based on a false distinction between guilt and innocence because we have no control over ourselves or our behaviour. In other words it is a fantasy to think we are rational beings and it is foolish to trust any of our conclusions such as:
“Conscience is generated by your brain and it is the result of all your experiences and person you are (your gene).”
How this could be related to conscience?
T
Tomdstone
Guest
I think we can find many truths. For example, in plane geometry, we can find and prove the truth that the base angles of an isosceles triangle are equal.
R
rossum
Guest
We are constrained by our pasts, but we do have some wiggle room within those constraints. We can walk east or west. We cannot walk up in the air. Within those constraints we have some freedom of action. I cannot cause a worldwide flood; I could drown some puppies. I still have a choice whether to act on the puppies; I do not have a choice on the worldwide flood.
There are three (name removed by moderator)uts into a new life: mother’s egg, father’s sperm and the Formations element from a previous life. The new life is not the old life because it has different constituents. The old Form, Feelings, Perceptions and Consciousness have disappeared. What appears is no longer the old “you”.
Right and wrong are judged by results. Karma is what attaches the results to the actions. “By their fruits shall you know them”. Karma is the branch which attaches the fruit to the tree.
rossum
A
Aloysium
Guest
It would appear that there are different definitions of the truth.
The Truth to my mind is reality itself so there is one, although known in different ways.
We can perceive elements of reality through the senses. This reality is determined by our sensory apparati, neural networks and those aspects of the physical universe that they detect. Our bodies in time and space are congenitally given, developmentally tuned and extended through technology to connect with matter. Our intellect sees patterns such as the rising and setting of the sun through its ability to form ideas, such as linearity and cycles. These connect us with the structure that underlies the appearance. Our feelings allow us to know good and bad, and again reason permits us an understanding of the laws that underlie that reality. We can come to see for example that hurting others changes us in very bad ways. As we need science to inform us of physical reality, moral systems guide us to the truth of being good persons.
Then there is existence itself. We not only are, but we can realize this reality. I know I am here writing this. That awareness encompasses perceptions, feelings and ideas, isolating them as phenomena that exist as a means of connecting to what is real. Of course this can go askew and the sensitive “mechanism” that permits these capacities can result in hallucinations, delusions, and emotional brokenness. Consciousness then is a unity of the knower, known and the knowing involving our material and mental structure and the reality on which it’s attention is directed. Encompassing all this, is the spiritual. The reality of perceptions, feelings, such as pain which truly and undeniably hurts, and ideas such as these that we are bantering about, are variations of an underlying relational nature, structured in the form a human being. These concepts about how it all comes together is a manifestation of that relational nature. While we may try to formulate how all this came about as a result of various influences during the course of time, it does not explain why it exists now. And this is important because nothing can exist without its being present “now”. So, what makes this be now? Since I do not bring this all into existence, its Source must be external to what I am. The cause of being may be less than or more than the person I am. These sorts of considerations, however one resolves them, constitute an intellectual search for the efficient cause of the totality of our being. We may have different answers, but that truth is out there. And, that truth is connected with the truth of why we are here, the purpose and meaning of our lives.
Although here we connect intellectually, the Truth is anything but a system of interconnected ideas. It is grounded in what is most real, more tangible more concrete than the senses. It is what it is, the reality of Existence.
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
You are wrong on many fronts as this Wikipedia article explains:
Pascal considers this type of objection briefly in the notes compiled into the Pensées, and dismisses it as obviously wrong and disingenuous:
What say [the unbelievers] then? “Do we not see,” say they, “that the brutes live and die like men, and Turks like Christians? They have their ceremonies, their prophets, their doctors, their saints, their monks, like us,” etc. If you care but little to know the truth, that is enough to leave you in repose. But if you desire with all your heart to know it, it is not enough; look at it in detail. That would be sufficient for a question in philosophy; but not here, where everything is at stake. And yet, after a superficial reflection of this kind, we go to amuse ourselves, etc. Let us inquire of this same religion whether it does not give a reason for this obscurity; perhaps it will teach it to us.
This short but densely packed passage, which alludes to numerous themes discussed elsewhere in the Pensées, has given rise to many pages of scholarly analysis.
Pascal says that unbelievers who rest content with the many-religions objection are people whose scepticism has seduced them into a fatal “repose”. If they were really bent on knowing the truth, they would be persuaded to examine “in detail” whether Christianity is like any other religion, but they just cannot be bothered. Their objection might be sufficient were the subject concerned merely some “question in philosophy”, but not “here, where everything is at stake”. In “a matter where they themselves, their eternity, their all are concerned”, they can manage no better than “a superficial reflection” (“une reflexion légère”) and, thinking they have scored a point by asking a leading question, they go off to amuse themselves.
As Pascal scholars observe, Pascal regarded the many-religions objection as a rhetorical ploy, a “trap” that he had no intention of falling into. If, however, any who raised it were sincere, they would want to examine the matter “in detail”. In that case, they could get some pointers by turning to his chapter on “other religions”.
As David Wetsel notes, Pascal’s treatment of the pagan religions is brisk:
“As far as Pascal is concerned, the demise of the pagan religions of antiquity speaks for itself. Those pagan religions which still exist in the New World, in India, and in Africa are not even worth a second glance. They are obviously the work of superstition and ignorance and have nothing in them which might interest ‘les gens habiles’ (‘clever men’)”.
Islam warrants more attention, being distinguished from paganism (which for Pascal presumably includes all the other non-Christian religions) by its claim to be a revealed religion. Nevertheless, Pascal concludes that the religion founded by Mohammed can on several counts be shown to be devoid of divine authority, and that therefore, as a path to the knowledge of God, it is as much a dead end as paganism. Judaism, in view of its close links to Christianity, he deals with elsewhere.
The many-religions objection is taken more seriously by some later apologists of the Wager, who argue that, of the rival options, only those awarding infinite happiness affect the Wager’s dominance. In the opinion of these apologists “finite, semi-blissful promises such as Kali’s or Odin’s” therefore drop out of consideration. Also, the infinite bliss that the rival conception of God offers has to be mutually exclusive. If Christ’s promise of bliss can be attained concurrently with Jehovah’s and Allah’s (all three being identified as the God of Abraham), there is no conflict in the decision matrix in the case where the cost of believing in the wrong conception of God is neutral (limbo/purgatory/spiritual death), although this would be countered with an infinite cost in the case where not believing in the correct conception of God results in punishment (hell).
Furthermore, ecumenical interpretations of the Wager argue that it could even be suggested that believing in a generic God, or a god by the wrong name, is acceptable so long as that conception of God has similar essential characteristics of the conception of God considered in Pascal’s Wager (perhaps the God of Aristotle). Proponents of this line of reasoning suggest that either all of the conceptions of God or gods throughout history truly boil down to just a small set of “genuine options”, or that if Pascal’s Wager can simply bring a person to believe in “generic theism” it has done its job.
This short but densely packed passage, which alludes to numerous themes discussed elsewhere in the Pensées, has given rise to many pages of scholarly analysis.
Pascal says that unbelievers who rest content with the many-religions objection are people whose scepticism has seduced them into a fatal “repose”. If they were really bent on knowing the truth, they would be persuaded to examine “in detail” whether Christianity is like any other religion, but they just cannot be bothered. Their objection might be sufficient were the subject concerned merely some “question in philosophy”, but not “here, where everything is at stake”. In “a matter where they themselves, their eternity, their all are concerned”, they can manage no better than “a superficial reflection” (“une reflexion légère”) and, thinking they have scored a point by asking a leading question, they go off to amuse themselves.
As Pascal scholars observe, Pascal regarded the many-religions objection as a rhetorical ploy, a “trap” that he had no intention of falling into. If, however, any who raised it were sincere, they would want to examine the matter “in detail”. In that case, they could get some pointers by turning to his chapter on “other religions”.
As David Wetsel notes, Pascal’s treatment of the pagan religions is brisk:
“As far as Pascal is concerned, the demise of the pagan religions of antiquity speaks for itself. Those pagan religions which still exist in the New World, in India, and in Africa are not even worth a second glance. They are obviously the work of superstition and ignorance and have nothing in them which might interest ‘les gens habiles’ (‘clever men’)”.
Islam warrants more attention, being distinguished from paganism (which for Pascal presumably includes all the other non-Christian religions) by its claim to be a revealed religion. Nevertheless, Pascal concludes that the religion founded by Mohammed can on several counts be shown to be devoid of divine authority, and that therefore, as a path to the knowledge of God, it is as much a dead end as paganism. Judaism, in view of its close links to Christianity, he deals with elsewhere.
The many-religions objection is taken more seriously by some later apologists of the Wager, who argue that, of the rival options, only those awarding infinite happiness affect the Wager’s dominance. In the opinion of these apologists “finite, semi-blissful promises such as Kali’s or Odin’s” therefore drop out of consideration. Also, the infinite bliss that the rival conception of God offers has to be mutually exclusive. If Christ’s promise of bliss can be attained concurrently with Jehovah’s and Allah’s (all three being identified as the God of Abraham), there is no conflict in the decision matrix in the case where the cost of believing in the wrong conception of God is neutral (limbo/purgatory/spiritual death), although this would be countered with an infinite cost in the case where not believing in the correct conception of God results in punishment (hell).
Furthermore, ecumenical interpretations of the Wager argue that it could even be suggested that believing in a generic God, or a god by the wrong name, is acceptable so long as that conception of God has similar essential characteristics of the conception of God considered in Pascal’s Wager (perhaps the God of Aristotle). Proponents of this line of reasoning suggest that either all of the conceptions of God or gods throughout history truly boil down to just a small set of “genuine options”, or that if Pascal’s Wager can simply bring a person to believe in “generic theism” it has done its job.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal%27s_Wager
S
STT
Guest
I don’t understand how what you said could be a response to my objection. All I said that you intrinsically don’t have any control on your actions under cause and effect doctoring hence there is nothing right or wrong. Could you please be more specific to my objections?
You again didn’t provide a proper answer to my question. I was simply saying that it is logically and physically impossible that you become a new person (zygote) right after your death under the law of cause and effect.
How this could be done when there is no intellect to perform the judgment?
You cannot attach anything to an action.
R
rossum
Guest
Since Pascal, not unsurprisingly, has very little knowledge of Hinduism, Jainism, Buddhism and Sikhism among others, then his general objections to all non-Abrahamic religions is an argument from ignorance. For example, Pascal has not contradicted Sankara’s arguments for Advaita Vedanta nor Nagarjuna’s arguments for Madhyamika Buddhism.
I do not find Pascal convincing here.
rossum
R
rossum
Guest
Cause and effect includes many causes. Gravity causes us to be unable to fly like birds. One of the many causes is ourselves. We form part of the (name removed by moderator)ut, the cause, to the process. We can decide to drown the puppies or not to drown the puppies. We have limited control over our actions. The limits are set by the environment we have constructed round ourselves by our previous actions. We are only free to act within those limits.
A murderer who is in prison is constrained in his freedom of action. A non-murderer who is not in prison is, generally, less constrained and has more freedom of action.
The zygote is part of the chain of cause and effect. The zygote is not yet a human being, since it still lacks some of the five parts of a human being. Those parts develop before birth.
There is no problem with having a non-human entity in the chain, since many different non-human entities can be part of the chain: gods, animals, hell-beings and others. We do not have to be reborn as humans.
Does your cat avoid rotten meat? Animals have a level of intellect and judgement.
I can attach a result to an action. If I throw a rock straight up in the air, then I will be hit on the head by that falling rock. The result is attached to the action by cause and effect.
Cause and effect attaches the result to the action.
rossum
T
Tomdstone
Guest
Yes, I agree. There are a whole lot of theories out there about what is truth. From a religious standpoint, God has perfect knowledge of all truth, but the numerous theories on truth will vary among non-believers.
B
Bradski
Guest
The argument appears to be that Pascal insists that it is better to believe in a god. And any suggestions as to which one?
Ah, the one that HE believes in. Permit me a wry smile.
Nowithstanding that there are other ‘Pascals’ in other religions. Why should we only listen to the one version?
L
Lion_IRC
Guest
Surely the persuasive burden rests on the person who wants to persuade.
If atheists don’t want to persuade people there’s no God(s) that’s their choice.
I don’t care if they choose to remain unpersuasive.
If atheists don’t want to persuade people there’s no God(s) that’s their choice.
I don’t care if they choose to remain unpersuasive.
A
Aloysium
Guest
Pascal’s argument implies a search for the truth, belief being the first step. Unless you believe in the existence of an understandable universe, and the capacity to understand it, you will not try. We believed we could fly, and now some are planning to travel to Mars. Believe in the veracity of the Upanishads if you think that is the road to transcendence. I believe, given all that is available, those who seek God, unless firmly committed to their primary religion, keeping open minds and hearts, will find Him through Christianity. It is the most logical choice.
T
Thom18
Guest
There is a burden of proof on both sides. Neither side will concede to the other because the proof one has doesn’t satisfy the other, and vice versa. So, according to William James, you have to make a decision based on your passional nature- your hopes, desires, interests, etcetera. Until either side can make its case definitely, this is how you have to choose- and for something as important as religious belief, James also argues that you can’t escape it. “Choosing not to choose is making a choice”. So, if Jesus were to tell an agnostic to follow Him, choosing not to choose is making a choice (not to follow).
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
Your argument has been that Pascal’s Wager is an argument for Christianity.
I have shown this to be false.
Pascal’s Wager is an argument for theism.
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
As I have pointed out to rossum, Pascal may be a Christian, but his wager is an argument for theism - not Christianity specifically. He argues for Christianity elsewhere.
Pascal does argue that because our eternal destination depends upon a choice which we cannot avoid making, it is wise for us to pursue the matter diligently.
The common argument put forward by some atheists (I have actually heard it expressed in atheist forums) is that because there are so many different religions teaching contradictory things, it is not possible/plausible that God exists because God would not allow such confusion about Him to exist. This, of course, presumes that the one offering the opinion knows better than God does about what He should and should not permit.
However, on a roulette wheel, there are 37 wrong numbers and one right number. Similarly, millions of lottery tickets are sold while only one (usually) contains the winning series of numbers.
Just because there are many WRONG ideas about God, it does not mean that there is no right combination of doctrines or that we cannot know it.
- Status