|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Sun May 02, 2010 2:39 am
iiKeyokuii How in the world am I supposed to worship god, when he could possibly not exist. I mean, I could understand if it was scientificly proven that he did exist. But what if I die and there is no afterlife, no reincarnation, or anything...where we are just thrown in a big white box. And how could someone possibly be 3 "people". Because he is supposedly the "father son and holy spirit" I have no religion.. As state before you don't have to worship any God. Those that worship choose for a variety of reasons, family tradition, faith, personal gnosis... You aren't going to find any scientific proof for God or Gods since deities are not falsifiable and outside of empirical observation. The best you can hope for in proof is in lore and if your lucky, personal gnosis. As for the Trinity, it's a concept in Christianity that the Trinity is God. You have three distinct persons God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit that are one in essence. The best example of this I can think of would be a person though this requires one to believe in a soul for this analogy to work. You have a body, a mind, and a soul. Each are you in essence but each are distinct yet equal to each other. The concept of the Trinity developed to basically to preserve monotheism from it's Judaism roots while acknowledging the divine and human nature of Christ. Other possible solutions that were eventually rejected included Adoptionism, Monarchism, Aryanism, Doectism,... Though many protestants have revived these rejected theories.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun May 02, 2010 2:49 am
Lateralus Helica I'm going to add that the holy trinity isn't exclusive to Christianity. There have been many, many religions in which there have been a triple aspect to a God/Deity. If you think of Gods or Deities as people it's a hard concept to grasp. Think of them more as ideas and it makes a bit more sense. Each aspect of the trinity is a different aspect of that idea. That is one way to look at it, and I think there are a lot of Christians who do think of it that way, but I think of it quite differently. As you said, we can't really think of deities as humans, because they're not. But, by that same token, they're not really ideas either, so how can we think of them as ideas? We can make all sorts of analogies, but none of them are going to be perfect, because deities are of a fundamentally different nature than anything we know. In Catholicism, we sneak around this issue by calling the trinity a mystery. Basically, we don't know how it works, just that it does. *shrug* However, there is one explanation I've heard that does explain it fairly well. Think of a banana. If you take the banana, peel it, and then split it down the center half way, it splits into 3 even segments, which are still connected. There is one banana, but there are three parts. Each piece is 100% banana. However, all three pieces are always connected, and they are all part of one banana. Now look at the trinity. There is one God, but three divine persons. Each person, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, are 100% God. However, all three persons are always connected, and they are all part of one God.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun May 02, 2010 3:06 am
iiKeyokuii How in the world am I supposed to worship god, when he could possibly not exist. I mean, I could understand if it was scientificly proven that he did exist. Well, different people have different reasons for believing in God, a few of which others have posted already. I mean, if you're only going to believe in things that are scientifically proven beyond all doubt, or even beyond reasonable doubt, that's still a relatively small selection of knowledge. There are all sorts of things people believe in without scientific proof: love, human nature, basic rights, 99% of what you find in philosophy books, etc. People believe in these things for different reasons, and nobody else can provide your reasons for belief. You have to find those on your own, if you even choose to find them. As others have said, you don't have to. It's all up to you. iiKeyokuii But what if I die and there is no afterlife, no reincarnation, or anything...where we are just thrown in a big white box. You know, pascal's wager doesn't work well as is, but it works even less in reverse. If you die and there's nothing . . . . well, that's that. I mean, how are you any worse off if you have a religion? You're not. But, the key thing to remember here is that religion isn't all about death. It's also about life. Most (all?) religions dictate how we are to live our lives, not just what happens to us when we die. Christianity does this too. So, instead of thinking about the afterlife, why not judge Christianity on the merits of what it asks us to do with our lives? Give to the poor, be nice to people, help the outcast, defend the defenseless, put others needs before our own, seek out spiritual fulfillment rather than carnal fulfillment, etc. etc. There are a lot of merits, but whether you think those are worthy of following, or even worthy of valuing in the first place, is kind of a personal decision. Again, it's all up to you.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun May 02, 2010 5:04 am
garra_eyes So, instead of thinking about the afterlife, why not judge Christianity on the merits of what it asks us to do with our lives? Give to the poor, be nice to people, help the outcast, defend the defenseless, put others needs before our own, seek out spiritual fulfillment rather than carnal fulfillment, etc. etc. That is only the good parts, mind you ........ Also, it seems a couple of people posting here has misunderstood Pascal's wager ........
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun May 02, 2010 6:30 am
Tiina Brown That is only the good parts, mind you ........ Why not share those not so good parts if you don't mind. Quote: Also, it seems a couple of people posting here has misunderstood Pascal's wager ........ Indeed. It fails because it assumes that Christianity is the correct religion while neglecting a myriad of other religions. But nearly every argument starts with an assumption at some point. It's how well founded that assumption is that determines if it's lasting.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun May 02, 2010 11:58 am
Tiina Brown garra_eyes So, instead of thinking about the afterlife, why not judge Christianity on the merits of what it asks us to do with our lives? Give to the poor, be nice to people, help the outcast, defend the defenseless, put others needs before our own, seek out spiritual fulfillment rather than carnal fulfillment, etc. etc. That is only the good parts, mind you ........ Hence the reason I followed that quote up with: "There are a lot of merits, but whether you think those are worthy of following, or even worthy of valuing in the first place, is kind of a personal decision." If you think those are worthy of following, presumably they trump any of the bad stuff you might find in a religion. Furthermore, a lot of the stuff some people see as bad, others do not. Again, it comes back to what you value and what you wish to follow. It's kind of personal. Also, was this: Tiina Brown Also, it seems a couple of people posting here has misunderstood Pascal's wager ........ directed at me? If so, how am I misunderstanding Pascal's wager?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun May 02, 2010 1:25 pm
garra_eyes Tiina Brown garra_eyes So, instead of thinking about the afterlife, why not judge Christianity on the merits of what it asks us to do with our lives? Give to the poor, be nice to people, help the outcast, defend the defenseless, put others needs before our own, seek out spiritual fulfillment rather than carnal fulfillment, etc. etc. That is only the good parts, mind you ........ Hence the reason I followed that quote up with: "There are a lot of merits, but whether you think those are worthy of following, or even worthy of valuing in the first place, is kind of a personal decision." If you think those are worthy of following, presumably they trump any of the bad stuff you might find in a religion. Furthermore, a lot of the stuff some people see as bad, others do not. Again, it comes back to what you value and what you wish to follow. It's kind of personal. Also, was this: Tiina Brown Also, it seems a couple of people posting here has misunderstood Pascal's wager ........ directed at me? If so, how am I misunderstanding Pascal's wager? Pascal's Wager uses mathematics to prove exactly the opposite of what you stated- The logic goes like this. If there is a God and you don't believe, you lose infinity. If there is a God and you believe, you gain infinity. If there is no god and you believe, you lose nothing (Or, if you consider a religious life a loss, you lose a finite amount). If there is no God and you don't believe, you lose nothing. Infinity, being what it is, is infinite. The expected value of infinity is infinite. No matter how small the odds, if infinity is on the line, bet on infinity because the value of winning is infinite. There was some math trick invented around Pascal's time to predict the expected value of a bet or of a chance. It was something like adding up the potential of winning versus losing and doing something like dividing it amongst the reward and loss to find the "expected value", or how much, on average, you would gain per transaction. For example, a 1/4 bet with a five dollar prize and one dollar entry has an expected value of... Well, I'm bad at math. But there's a way to figure it out. I'd think it's something like 1.2 or 1.3 dollars you could expect to gain, were you to play an infinite umber of times. Now, if infinity is the possible reward, the expected value is infinity, because no matter how small the odds, anything times infinity is infinity.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun May 02, 2010 3:00 pm
divineseraph Pascal's Wager uses mathematics to prove exactly the opposite of what you stated- Yeah . . . . that's what I was going for . . . . The opposite . . . . garra_eyes You know, pascal's wager doesn't work well as is, but it works even less in reverse. I was trying to say that the OP's post was like a Pascal's wager that reverses the positions of atheism and Christianity, but tries to use the same logic, which doesn't really work . . . . I think the main reason I'm confused is that I never actually gave any information on my understanding of Pascal's wager, other than the fact that possible rewards in the afterlife is the determining factor. All I said was that the logic doesn't really work by simply switching atheism and theism around. I then went on to say: garra_eyes If you die and there's nothing . . . . well, that's that. I mean, how are you any worse off if you have a religion? You're not. Basically, there's no gain in the afterlife, infinite or otherwise, if you're right about being an atheist. There's no gain if you're a theist either. Basically, everyone ends up in the same boat, so why bother giving a "what-if" scenario for anything that comes before that to show that they'd be better off?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun May 02, 2010 7:10 pm
Here's a sample game matrix regarding Pascal's wager
God No God
prob = p prop = 1 - p
___________________________
|oooooooooooo|ooooooooooooo|
Believe |gain = infinity | loss = n |
|____________|_____________|
|oooooooooooo|ooooooooooooo|
Don't believe | loss = ? | gain = ? |
|____________|______________|
It fails for a couple of reasons. The first being that it assumes we have a way to predict the probability of there being a God. Next it fails because it ignores polytheism or even multiple religions dedicated to the same God. Next it assumes this God only cares about belief in them. Some Gods could care less about belief and worship in them and you go to whatever afterlife regardless.
It fails in reverse for similar reasons but mainly because it assumes that belief in any God is detrimental and that all Gods function the same way.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun May 02, 2010 7:15 pm
rmcdra Here's a sample game matrix regarding Pascal's wager God No God prob = p prop = 1 - p ___________________________ | oooooooooooo| ooooooooooooo| Believe |gain = infinity | loss = n | | oooooooooooo| ooooooooooooo| Don't believe | loss = ? | gain = ? | | oooooooooooo| ooooooooooooo| It fails for a couple of reasons. The first being that it assumes we have a way to predict the probability of there being a God. Next it fails because it ignores polytheism or even multiple religions dedicated to the same God. Next it assumes this God only cares about belief in them. Some Gods could care less about belief and worship in them and you go to whatever afterlife regardless. It fails in reverse for similar reasons but mainly because it assumes that belief in any God is detrimental and that all Gods function the same way. Technically, it shouldn't matter the probability of God's existence, since the infinite gain will always have a greater expected value.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun May 02, 2010 7:57 pm
divineseraph rmcdra Here's a sample game matrix regarding Pascal's wager God No God prob = p prop = 1 - p ___________________________ | oooooooooooo| ooooooooooooo| Believe |gain = infinity | loss = n | | oooooooooooo| ooooooooooooo| Don't believe | loss = ? | gain = ? | | oooooooooooo| ooooooooooooo| It fails for a couple of reasons. The first being that it assumes we have a way to predict the probability of there being a God. Next it fails because it ignores polytheism or even multiple religions dedicated to the same God. Next it assumes this God only cares about belief in them. Some Gods could care less about belief and worship in them and you go to whatever afterlife regardless. It fails in reverse for similar reasons but mainly because it assumes that belief in any God is detrimental and that all Gods function the same way. Technically, it shouldn't matter the probability of God's existence, since the infinite gain will always have a greater expected value.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun May 02, 2010 8:15 pm
----You couldn't prove the existance of God with science, as a God is something Metaphysical (Literally "Beyond Physics"), therebye exist beyond the laws of physics and mathematics...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat May 08, 2010 7:10 am
who put you in charge of saying what is and what is not possible?
wow you sure must be smart.
most of the scientists i know are much more humble, and would be reluctant to say that anything at all was absolutely impossible.
my suggestion is that nobody cares what you think or believe.
neither god nor the world will benefit or suffer based on what you accept or do not accept.
so go out and experience life, look for those who seem to be fulfilled and those who do not, and see what things seem to make the difference for them.
i highly doubt that taking positions on abstract propositions (or refusing to take such positions) will be among the things making them fulfilled.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Oct 28, 2010 9:05 pm
I'm a christian and Im never going to understand the trinity at all. I belive it of course but our human brains cant really comprehend that. We just have to belive that the creater can be more powerful than the people that he created. We dont always have to understand everything. We can come to Him with our doubts and he will still accept us.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Oct 29, 2010 9:22 am
Carebear on Cocaine How in the world am I supposed to worship god, when he could possibly not exist. I mean, I could understand if it was scientificly proven that he did exist. But what if I die and there is no afterlife, no reincarnation, or anything...where we are just thrown in a big white box. And how could someone possibly be 3 "people". Because he is supposedly the "father son and holy spirit" I have no religion.. Not all Christians believe God is "3 Persons".
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
