oh my god

[divineseraph]

OneWithDunamis

divineseraph

OneWithDunamis

divineseraph

My god, you miss points terribly.

Pascal's logic says that IF there is potential infinite gain, THEN you must follow the belief which claims potential infinite gain because even potential infinite gain has a higher expected value than any finite loss, definite or otherwise.

It doesn't MATTER who claims to have the infinite gain or under what circumstances, or what that infinite gain IS. If it is infinite gain, it is infinite gain. A small chance of infinity is always more valuable than a definite finite loss, because of the nature of infinity.

Let's say that God says that you must donate to charity and follow Jesus to get the infinite gain of eternal life. Now, Satan says no, you have to sacrifice goats to get the infinite gain of eternal life. Both must be equally valid and accepted as infinite gains by Pascalian logic. The LOGIC at the core of your argument fails. It doesn't matter if experimental evidence or anecdotal evidence says otherwise- ANY chance, no matter how small, is outweighed by the nature of infinity. Please learn things before you try to debate with me.

And yes, the grammatical incorrectness was intentional- It is common internet speak to call something "Fail" as an adjective, meaning wrong, incorrect, terrible or faulty.

That's because the whole time I was responding to what you said, whereas you were arguing about a point you THOUGHT you made. If there is no eternal HAPPINESS in slaughtering goats and drinking blood, which can actually be proven as opposed to eternal life, then there is no potential at all. The whole time I was saying your claim that there is eternal joy in drinking blood and killing goats is proven to be false. You can't just take my argument and apply it to a completely different topic and say I fail and my point is not valid. By your reasoning, I can also say your claim doesn't solve the issue of AIDS in Africa and therefore your logic is flawed.

So once again, since it's not getting through to you, I'm saying your claim that Satan claims slaughtering goats and drinking blood = eternal HAPPINESS is false because I don't find happiness in either and therefore it is not a TRUE way to anything because it's not absolute and thus has no potential as a TRUE way to eternal HAPPINESS.

I'm not arguing about Satan saying goat killing and blood drinking is or is not the way to eternal life because there's no way for us to prove that. But just because it can't be proven doesn't mean I have to support it. I wouldn't have argued about it in the first place either because it's just not provable.

You bring up Pascal's wager, which I did not bring up or comment on, so arguing about how that applies doesn't really relate to our conversation because I'm not even talking about that.

So once again to sum it all up in case it escapes you once again:

I'm not arguing about Satan's claim on ETERNAL LIFE.

I'm not arguing how Satan's claim on ETERNAL LIFE is more or less valid because of Pascal's logic.

I'm saying if goats+blood=/=HAPPINESS, it can't be true.

I wouldn't miss points if you made them properly.

Got it?

My god. Really? Are you really this dense? I'l say this slowly this time.

You DON'T NEED TO FIND HAPPINESS IN THE LIFETIME ACTS TO FIND HAPPINESS IN AFTERLIFE REWARDS. Not only that, but, again, IT DOESN'T MATTER WHAT THE GAINS OR RISKS ARE IF THE POTENTIAL GAIN IS INFINITE ACCORDING TO PASCALIAN LOGIC.

You were arguing for pascalian logic. I brought up Satan's claim because it follows under pascalian logic.

Actually I wasn't arguing for Pascalian logic. You might want to refer to my original post. The other guy was asking if Christianity is a cult because believers appear to believe out of fear. I said it can be called whatever you want if God is real. It has nothing to do with Pascalian logic. I'm only saying it can be labeled whatever he wants to label it.

And you're saying happiness in the afterlife is contradictory to happiness in current lifetime? What's your basis for that? Did you come back from the dead? If that's not the case, I don't believe you. If you can't prove that, there's no reason to assume happiness in the afterlife differs from happiness during one's lifetime, and if happiness is not achieved during one's lifetime from goat slaughtering and blood drinking, there's no reason to assume or believe happiness will result from those actions in the afterlife.

And once again, since you wanna bring up Pascalian logic, I don't live by it because by the logic you would have to accept every possibility, but that would only cancel out the others, or at least in the case of Jesus's claim, you can only go with that His method alone or you don't go with it at all. So if I follow Satan's methods, I'm canceling out Jesus's methods so there would be no potential gain at all from Jesus.

So once again, read carefully before you respond, because I've been seeing a lot of that from you, like assuming I'm talking about Pascal's wager when I'm not, or using "life" and "happiness" synonymously.

You were using the pascalian logic when I responded.

When did I say it was contradictory? I never claimed anything of the sort. Nor did I say that you would be rewarded by slaughtering goats by being able to slaughter goats for eternity. The reward is unspecified but infinite. And by pascalian logic, again, that makes it valid.

And this was my point, from the start- Pascalian logic fails because it MUST FOLLOW FOR ANYTHING PROMISING INFINITE GAIN, regardless of how slim the chances or what else may contradict it, including God, Jesus, Mohammed, Brahma, Ba'al, whatever.  

[OneWithDunamis]

divineseraph

OneWithDunamis

divineseraph

OneWithDunamis

divineseraph

My god, you miss points terribly.

Pascal's logic says that IF there is potential infinite gain, THEN you must follow the belief which claims potential infinite gain because even potential infinite gain has a higher expected value than any finite loss, definite or otherwise.

It doesn't MATTER who claims to have the infinite gain or under what circumstances, or what that infinite gain IS. If it is infinite gain, it is infinite gain. A small chance of infinity is always more valuable than a definite finite loss, because of the nature of infinity.

Let's say that God says that you must donate to charity and follow Jesus to get the infinite gain of eternal life. Now, Satan says no, you have to sacrifice goats to get the infinite gain of eternal life. Both must be equally valid and accepted as infinite gains by Pascalian logic. The LOGIC at the core of your argument fails. It doesn't matter if experimental evidence or anecdotal evidence says otherwise- ANY chance, no matter how small, is outweighed by the nature of infinity. Please learn things before you try to debate with me.

And yes, the grammatical incorrectness was intentional- It is common internet speak to call something "Fail" as an adjective, meaning wrong, incorrect, terrible or faulty.

That's because the whole time I was responding to what you said, whereas you were arguing about a point you THOUGHT you made. If there is no eternal HAPPINESS in slaughtering goats and drinking blood, which can actually be proven as opposed to eternal life, then there is no potential at all. The whole time I was saying your claim that there is eternal joy in drinking blood and killing goats is proven to be false. You can't just take my argument and apply it to a completely different topic and say I fail and my point is not valid. By your reasoning, I can also say your claim doesn't solve the issue of AIDS in Africa and therefore your logic is flawed.

So once again, since it's not getting through to you, I'm saying your claim that Satan claims slaughtering goats and drinking blood = eternal HAPPINESS is false because I don't find happiness in either and therefore it is not a TRUE way to anything because it's not absolute and thus has no potential as a TRUE way to eternal HAPPINESS.

I'm not arguing about Satan saying goat killing and blood drinking is or is not the way to eternal life because there's no way for us to prove that. But just because it can't be proven doesn't mean I have to support it. I wouldn't have argued about it in the first place either because it's just not provable.

You bring up Pascal's wager, which I did not bring up or comment on, so arguing about how that applies doesn't really relate to our conversation because I'm not even talking about that.

So once again to sum it all up in case it escapes you once again:

I'm not arguing about Satan's claim on ETERNAL LIFE.

I'm not arguing how Satan's claim on ETERNAL LIFE is more or less valid because of Pascal's logic.

I'm saying if goats+blood=/=HAPPINESS, it can't be true.

I wouldn't miss points if you made them properly.

Got it?

My god. Really? Are you really this dense? I'l say this slowly this time.

You DON'T NEED TO FIND HAPPINESS IN THE LIFETIME ACTS TO FIND HAPPINESS IN AFTERLIFE REWARDS. Not only that, but, again, IT DOESN'T MATTER WHAT THE GAINS OR RISKS ARE IF THE POTENTIAL GAIN IS INFINITE ACCORDING TO PASCALIAN LOGIC.

You were arguing for pascalian logic. I brought up Satan's claim because it follows under pascalian logic.

Actually I wasn't arguing for Pascalian logic. You might want to refer to my original post. The other guy was asking if Christianity is a cult because believers appear to believe out of fear. I said it can be called whatever you want if God is real. It has nothing to do with Pascalian logic. I'm only saying it can be labeled whatever he wants to label it.

And you're saying happiness in the afterlife is contradictory to happiness in current lifetime? What's your basis for that? Did you come back from the dead? If that's not the case, I don't believe you. If you can't prove that, there's no reason to assume happiness in the afterlife differs from happiness during one's lifetime, and if happiness is not achieved during one's lifetime from goat slaughtering and blood drinking, there's no reason to assume or believe happiness will result from those actions in the afterlife.

And once again, since you wanna bring up Pascalian logic, I don't live by it because by the logic you would have to accept every possibility, but that would only cancel out the others, or at least in the case of Jesus's claim, you can only go with that His method alone or you don't go with it at all. So if I follow Satan's methods, I'm canceling out Jesus's methods so there would be no potential gain at all from Jesus.

So once again, read carefully before you respond, because I've been seeing a lot of that from you, like assuming I'm talking about Pascal's wager when I'm not, or using "life" and "happiness" synonymously.

You were using the pascalian logic when I responded.

When did I say it was contradictory? I never claimed anything of the sort. Nor did I say that you would be rewarded by slaughtering goats by being able to slaughter goats for eternity. The reward is unspecified but infinite. And by pascalian logic, again, that makes it valid.

And this was my point, from the start- Pascalian logic fails because it MUST FOLLOW FOR ANYTHING PROMISING INFINITE GAIN, regardless of how slim the chances or what else may contradict it, including God, Jesus, Mohammed, Brahma, Ba'al, whatever.

No, seriously. Quote my original comment and tell me where I made references to Pascalian logic. Unless you twist my words somehow, you won't be able to find any references to it. I didn't argue for or against it, I didn't bring it up nor did I respond to it. You were the one who brought it up by saying Satan says true way to eternal happiness is through slaughtering goats and drinking blood.  

[OneWithDunamis]

divineseraph

OneWithDunamis

Kapplar

rainstar123

God is real!And if you dont belive it when Jesus comes then you go to hell.

So you believe in God because he threatens you into believing in him? Is this a religion or a cult?

If it's true, does it matter what one calls it? If God exists and God says those who don't believe in Him go to hell, whether we believe it or not is irrelevant if it's true. I can choose not to believe in the laws of physics, but I can't choose to float in mid air indefinitely on my own.

Yes, but Satan says that the TRUE way to eternal happiness is through him, and through sacrificing goats and drinking blood. By the same logic, you should believe Satan too, since it's irrelevant wether or not you believe, it could still be true.

Here, I'll make it easier for you. Go nuts. Tell me where I made references to Pascal's logic.  

[divineseraph]

OneWithDunamis

divineseraph

OneWithDunamis

Kapplar

rainstar123

God is real!And if you dont belive it when Jesus comes then you go to hell.

So you believe in God because he threatens you into believing in him? Is this a religion or a cult?

If it's true, does it matter what one calls it? If God exists and God says those who don't believe in Him go to hell, whether we believe it or not is irrelevant if it's true. I can choose not to believe in the laws of physics, but I can't choose to float in mid air indefinitely on my own.

Yes, but Satan says that the TRUE way to eternal happiness is through him, and through sacrificing goats and drinking blood. By the same logic, you should believe Satan too, since it's irrelevant wether or not you believe, it could still be true.

Here, I'll make it easier for you. Go nuts. Tell me where I made references to Pascal's logic.

"If God exists and God says those who don't believe in him go to hell, wether we believe it or not is irrelevant if it's true."

This is pascalian reasoning, minus the expressed conclusion of "Therefore you should believe in God". The conclusion is still implied in the statement, however. What else would you mean by saying this?
The same can be said for Satan's claims- If they are true, then it doesn't matter if you find happiness in what he asks or what you believe.  

[OneWithDunamis]

divineseraph

OneWithDunamis

divineseraph

OneWithDunamis

Kapplar

rainstar123

God is real!And if you dont belive it when Jesus comes then you go to hell.

So you believe in God because he threatens you into believing in him? Is this a religion or a cult?

If it's true, does it matter what one calls it? If God exists and God says those who don't believe in Him go to hell, whether we believe it or not is irrelevant if it's true. I can choose not to believe in the laws of physics, but I can't choose to float in mid air indefinitely on my own.

Yes, but Satan says that the TRUE way to eternal happiness is through him, and through sacrificing goats and drinking blood. By the same logic, you should believe Satan too, since it's irrelevant wether or not you believe, it could still be true.

Here, I'll make it easier for you. Go nuts. Tell me where I made references to Pascal's logic.

"If God exists and God says those who don't believe in him go to hell, wether we believe it or not is irrelevant if it's true."

This is pascalian reasoning, minus the expressed conclusion of "Therefore you should believe in God". The conclusion is still implied in the statement, however. What else would you mean by saying this? The same can be said for Satan's claims- If they are true, then it doesn't matter if you find happiness in what he asks or what you believe.

I didn't really see it that way to begin with. I was working with the assumption that if God exists, then it doesn't matter what one believes, and that was the end of that thought. It wasn't an argument to convince him to believe in God, which is why that line wasn't included.

Besides, I don't think I'm in any position to convince anyone to believe what I believe. I'll let God handle that. I'm Calvinist by the way.  

[divineseraph]

But that's the POINT. THAT is pascalian logic. If god exists, there is infinite gain to believing, and zero gain to not believing.  

[OneWithDunamis]

divineseraph

But that's the POINT. THAT is pascalian logic. If god exists, there is infinite gain to believing, and zero gain to not believing.

So would you say everyone believes in a god because of Pascalian logic?  

[Neferet -House of Night-]

OneWithDunamis

Dark Angel Rai

OneWithDunamis

Dark Angel Rai

OneWithDunamis

And there's the problem. In the original response to my comment you said eternal HAPPINESS not LIFE. If the goal is HAPPINESS, then whether I find HAPPINESS in sacrificing goats or not does matter. If I achieve eternal life through goat slaughtering then it would've been a whole different debate, and my point would not be valid. But since I'm not arguing about getting eternal life through goat killing but rather eternal joy, my point is valid.

Jesus on the other hand promises eternal life for His believers. Joy is not essential. That's why whether I find joy in following God or not is not important.

So I'm not doing good job of dodging the point because I'm not dodging anything. I also happen to be right in my argument, too. Don't take it personally though.

Right and wrong are subjective and this is what I think is wrong with most Christians. They always have to think that they're right and that everyone that doesn't agree with them are wrong. Can we leave our over-sized egos at the door and just realize that we all walk different paths. One may lead to this eternal life (after reading the Vampire Chronicles, I've realized that living forever would suck and be completely miserable) and one could lead to eternal happiness. However with that being said, those paths are right for us individually. Not as a group. What may work for you, may not work for another.

And that's my .2 cents.

I hope that comment wasn't aimed at me because I don't know how it related to this specific conversation between me and seraph...

It was directed at you because you think you're in the right and Divine is in the wrong..

His comment after your post supports the idea that I'm right and he's wrong, so...

But now that I know you're talking to me, I'll respond.

You say that people can believe what they want to believe. I believe in God, and I believe that when God says He is the only God, He is correct. Now you're saying I can't believe that? It would go against your view that people can believe whatever they want. If I'm asked what I believe in and I tell people what I believe in, it has nothing to do with ego. If you think I'm being an elitist because of what I believe in, why would Christians spread the word?

Even in human history, those who feel they're superior don't share what they have with those they deem inferior. The "superior" hog what they have and treat others as slaves. If by sharing our views we hope that others can be saved, how is that egotistical? From our perspective, it's a matter of saving lives. We're all in the same boat. We're not any better because we believe in God; God would be the one who's powerful because He alone has that power to save others. Christians are just those who are rescued. We could just as easily not be rescued. There's nothing to brag about for us.

If people don't agree with us, that's their choice. We're not looking down on non-believers because we don't share the same views. Of course, you can always pick out examples that contradict what I just said in this paragraph, but that's just human nature. There's always that "other guy", the person who ruins the image and reputation of an entire group. Like saying all Muslims are terrorists because of a handful who are, saying all Americans are obese because of a handful who are, etc. Do I then blame it on the "outcasts"? No. It's also the fault of those who generalize and assume one's faults are shared by all in his or her group.

Also the whole argument isn't a theological debate, but a logical one. If he claims that sacrificing goats+drinking blood=eternal happiness, but when I sacrifice goats+drink blood=/=happiness, then his statement is false, no matter what belief I go by. Just like in science, a claim can only be true if a supporting experiment can yield the same or very similar desired results consistently. If by following a certain logic and the end result is not the same, then it can be deemed as false. Especially when no matter how many times I kill goats and drink blood, I get no joy from it.

Now you're putting words in my mouth and assuming. It's fine that you believe in God, just don't force it on people. God is not a forceful entity nor should he be one (that contradicts the whole God is benevolent thing) What equals eternal happiness is subjective. To one person drinking blood and sacraficing goats could equal eternal happiness. To the next guy it couldn't. What equals eternal happiness isn't a cultural universal. It's not the same for every person, culture, religion, etc.

But if we all are God's children (every last human) then we are all rescued. We all believe in the same concept, each religion teaches about the concept of love and loving the person next to you (along with loving yourself and animals, and other stuff), we just practice differently. That is the only difference really.  

[divineseraph]

OneWithDunamis

divineseraph

But that's the POINT. THAT is pascalian logic. If god exists, there is infinite gain to believing, and zero gain to not believing.

So would you say everyone believes in a god because of Pascalian logic?

No. Only people using the reasoning of "Well, if I'm right I get infinite gain, and if I'm wrong I lose nothing".  

[OneWithDunamis]

divineseraph

OneWithDunamis

divineseraph

But that's the POINT. THAT is pascalian logic. If god exists, there is infinite gain to believing, and zero gain to not believing.

So would you say everyone believes in a god because of Pascalian logic?

No. Only people using the reasoning of "Well, if I'm right I get infinite gain, and if I'm wrong I lose nothing".

Ok. I wasn't using it for the record. So I guess the whole debate started from a misunderstanding.  

[SUPERSQUIRRELX]

rofl Whatev, dude XD.  

[Ablazed]

Just a note - topics like the way this one started are absolutely not acceptable. I do not appreciate trolling in my guild, and the creator of this thread has been warned.

I have only left the thread alive because of the semi-debate going on, although it was more of an argument than anything.  

[OneWithDunamis]

Dark Angel Rai

OneWithDunamis

Dark Angel Rai

OneWithDunamis

Dark Angel Rai

OneWithDunamis

And there's the problem. In the original response to my comment you said eternal HAPPINESS not LIFE. If the goal is HAPPINESS, then whether I find HAPPINESS in sacrificing goats or not does matter. If I achieve eternal life through goat slaughtering then it would've been a whole different debate, and my point would not be valid. But since I'm not arguing about getting eternal life through goat killing but rather eternal joy, my point is valid.

Jesus on the other hand promises eternal life for His believers. Joy is not essential. That's why whether I find joy in following God or not is not important.

So I'm not doing good job of dodging the point because I'm not dodging anything. I also happen to be right in my argument, too. Don't take it personally though.

Right and wrong are subjective and this is what I think is wrong with most Christians. They always have to think that they're right and that everyone that doesn't agree with them are wrong. Can we leave our over-sized egos at the door and just realize that we all walk different paths. One may lead to this eternal life (after reading the Vampire Chronicles, I've realized that living forever would suck and be completely miserable) and one could lead to eternal happiness. However with that being said, those paths are right for us individually. Not as a group. What may work for you, may not work for another.

And that's my .2 cents.

I hope that comment wasn't aimed at me because I don't know how it related to this specific conversation between me and seraph...

It was directed at you because you think you're in the right and Divine is in the wrong..

His comment after your post supports the idea that I'm right and he's wrong, so...

But now that I know you're talking to me, I'll respond.

You say that people can believe what they want to believe. I believe in God, and I believe that when God says He is the only God, He is correct. Now you're saying I can't believe that? It would go against your view that people can believe whatever they want. If I'm asked what I believe in and I tell people what I believe in, it has nothing to do with ego. If you think I'm being an elitist because of what I believe in, why would Christians spread the word?

Even in human history, those who feel they're superior don't share what they have with those they deem inferior. The "superior" hog what they have and treat others as slaves. If by sharing our views we hope that others can be saved, how is that egotistical? From our perspective, it's a matter of saving lives. We're all in the same boat. We're not any better because we believe in God; God would be the one who's powerful because He alone has that power to save others. Christians are just those who are rescued. We could just as easily not be rescued. There's nothing to brag about for us.

If people don't agree with us, that's their choice. We're not looking down on non-believers because we don't share the same views. Of course, you can always pick out examples that contradict what I just said in this paragraph, but that's just human nature. There's always that "other guy", the person who ruins the image and reputation of an entire group. Like saying all Muslims are terrorists because of a handful who are, saying all Americans are obese because of a handful who are, etc. Do I then blame it on the "outcasts"? No. It's also the fault of those who generalize and assume one's faults are shared by all in his or her group.

Also the whole argument isn't a theological debate, but a logical one. If he claims that sacrificing goats+drinking blood=eternal happiness, but when I sacrifice goats+drink blood=/=happiness, then his statement is false, no matter what belief I go by. Just like in science, a claim can only be true if a supporting experiment can yield the same or very similar desired results consistently. If by following a certain logic and the end result is not the same, then it can be deemed as false. Especially when no matter how many times I kill goats and drink blood, I get no joy from it.

Now you're putting words in my mouth and assuming. It's fine that you believe in God, just don't force it on people. God is not a forceful entity nor should he be one (that contradicts the whole God is benevolent thing) What equals eternal happiness is subjective. To one person drinking blood and sacraficing goats could equal eternal happiness. To the next guy it couldn't. What equals eternal happiness isn't a cultural universal. It's not the same for every person, culture, religion, etc.

But if we all are God's children (every last human) then we are all rescued. We all believe in the same concept, each religion teaches about the concept of love and loving the person next to you (along with loving yourself and animals, and other stuff), we just practice differently. That is the only difference really.

I agree that God shouldn't be forced onto people by others, and that's why I don't do it. I've only been defending my own views. It's not my intention for others to believe in the God I believe because of anything I say. If it happens, great.

And yes, it would contradict the idea that God is a benevolent God if He is forceful, if that is what you believe in. That's not what I believe in, but that doesn't mean I support me forcing my beliefs on others, as stated before. But if God wants things done, it will be done, whether we approve of His actions or not. But I think God knows better than we do, so if we don't approve, we're probably in the wrong to begin with.

And it's fine if others find happiness in drinking blood. I interpreted his comment to mean that drinking blood is the true (and possibly implying "only") way to happiness. If for me drinking blood =/= happiness, then that statement is false. If it's one possible way for one person to find happiness, I'm not gonna argue because I can't speak for everyone. But when the comment is meant to imply that it is universal truth, then it doesn't stand. And Divine, I know we've been over this. I'm just saying that's how I understood the comment before. It's been cleared now.

I agree with some points in your last chunk. If we're all God's children, we're all rescued. But problem is if we're not, we're not all rescued. And while some concepts are shared, the reasoning behind the concepts are probably the most important. To a Christian, loving others won't get us into heaven. Jesus gets people into heaven. It's not by works that we're saved, so while it is important to love others, the motivation and reasoning behind our actions differ.  

[No place like 127 0 0 1]

SloanSage

No place like 127 0 0 1

xXBloodyLipsXx

God is real!And if you dont belive it when Jesus comes then you go to hell.

thats not true... neutral

No, when He comes again they will be left. But once death and the end of the world hits, then yes, they will be in eternal separation from God.

i pity those poor people who never got to recieve the gift of faith and is now too late : (
but as long as you lived a truly goood selfless life then im positive you would be safe!