|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Fri Oct 29, 2010 11:29 am
Captain_Shinzo 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. That IS the failure, as it can only work for one God at a time, and which God it is is unknown. Of course, I believe they are all the same God, viewed through a different scope.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Oct 30, 2010 10:11 am
divineseraph Captain_Shinzo 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. That IS the failure, as it can only work for one God at a time, and which God it is is unknown. Of course, I believe they are all the same God, viewed through a different scope. Even if it is the same god, how can you reconcile the different viewpoints on how to worship, how to live, and such? Who is looking through the right scope on that, and how can you decide?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Oct 30, 2010 4:30 pm
Eccentric Detective divineseraph Captain_Shinzo 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. That IS the failure, as it can only work for one God at a time, and which God it is is unknown. Of course, I believe they are all the same God, viewed through a different scope. Even if it is the same god, how can you reconcile the different viewpoints on how to worship, how to live, and such? Who is looking through the right scope on that, and how can you decide? They all want the same basic thing. The rest is just detail and dogma. I don't think God cares about the specifics, really.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Oct 31, 2010 4:49 am
divineseraph They all want the same basic thing. The rest is just detail and dogma. I don't think God cares about the specifics, really. What is that same basic thing?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Oct 31, 2010 9:14 am
Artto divineseraph They all want the same basic thing. The rest is just detail and dogma. I don't think God cares about the specifics, really. What is that same basic thing? Yes, I'm kind of curious myself. What is it?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Nov 05, 2010 9:11 pm
Please, you have to accept things every day. Inductive reasoning can always be wrong and that's what ALL knowledge is based upon aside from the perception of self. Therefore, it's no different accepting that gravity will not suddenly go away as opposed to accepting that all of Christianity is 100% correct.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Nov 06, 2010 5:15 am
Saiuu Please, you have to accept things every day. Inductive reasoning can always be wrong and that's what ALL knowledge is based upon aside from the perception of self. Therefore, it's no different accepting that gravity will not suddenly go away as opposed to accepting that all of Christianity is 100% correct. Errr ... ? There's different levels of accepting things. I have no problem accepting gravity won't go away, because that has been demonstrated to me time and time again. The existence of God however, has not been demonstrated to me. And all of Christianity cannot be 100% correct because there are contradictions and disagreements between different types of Christianity. If you define your criteria for accepting things as true like that, you're going to end up believing all sorts of stupid and contradictory stuff.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Nov 06, 2010 4:00 pm
Saiuu Please, you have to accept things every day. Inductive reasoning can always be wrong and that's what ALL knowledge is based upon aside from the perception of self. Therefore, it's no different accepting that gravity will not suddenly go away as opposed to accepting that all of Christianity is 100% correct. You do NOT have to accept things everyday. As for your example, I, for one, am not entirely convinced that gravity won't suddenly go away. We don't even know for certain what causes gravity, how can you truly be assured that it will never do such a thing? This theory of yours is no more than to accept things blindly, and only furthers the sad stereotype of the average Christian. Artto divineseraph They all want the same basic thing. The rest is just detail and dogma. I don't think God cares about the specifics, really. What is that same basic thing? I think I understand. The methods and details may differ, but the goals at the core of every religion are to improve the quality of life and to explain some of the mysteries of the universe. At least, that's true for every religion I've ever encountered, if anyone knows of one that differs from this I would be most interested in learning about it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Nov 07, 2010 1:58 am
Eccentric Detective Artto divineseraph They all want the same basic thing. The rest is just detail and dogma. I don't think God cares about the specifics, really. What is that same basic thing? Yes, I'm kind of curious myself. What is it? At it's most basic, it's essentially the golden rule- Treat others with the kindness and respect you expect of others. Every version of God promotes this, through the scope of their culture. God is Subtle Light- It's about lining up to that, not about specific rules. The rules are ways of making the general vibe concrete through mortal understanding, but the letter of the law is far more vulgar than the spirit of the law.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Apr 30, 2011 11:49 am
Well i believe in Jesus Christ and he is my personal savior. If you will look in the bible he says that there will be afterlife. Yes scienitst might not believe in Jesus Christ but he is real and if you dont believe it it is okay. He can also be three people at one time.
Father: The farther of god and earth and heaven
Son: He can be the son
Holy Ghost: The spirt that is with us today
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Apr 30, 2011 6:03 pm
divineseraph Eccentric Detective Artto divineseraph They all want the same basic thing. The rest is just detail and dogma. I don't think God cares about the specifics, really. What is that same basic thing? Yes, I'm kind of curious myself. What is it? At it's most basic, it's essentially the golden rule- Treat others with the kindness and respect you expect of others. Every version of God promotes this, through the scope of their culture. God is Subtle Light- It's about lining up to that, not about specific rules. The rules are ways of making the general vibe concrete through mortal understanding, but the letter of the law is far more vulgar than the spirit of the law. So when you say "others", you mean "people in your immediate tribe or culture" rather than "that other tribe I want you to massacre", right? And anyway, I don't think all gods DO want that. I'm not sure that's Ares's personal favourite thing. I think he's more keen on you killing the opposition. I'm not altogether convinced that the Morrigan is invested in it either. Does Set really care whether or not you're treating your neighbour with kindness? What about Itzli? I mean the Aztecs had a buttload of gods and a tendency to slice out people's beating hearts in offering. (Whether this clashes with the concept of 'kindness and respect to others' is rather up for personal interpretation.)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri May 06, 2011 2:02 pm
we really don't have a way of knowing for sure. maybe we went through 'the veil of forgetfulness' when we were born/conceived (that's a different topic), so we don't know for sure and rely on our intuition to get us through it all.
here's an ironic thing i learned: the more a person studies science, the more they believe in a god (they don't publicly admit it, because then you sound stupid by the public), because this earth, the general laws of the universe and the universe in itself can't just be mere chance that everything has happened, and the more a person studies religion, the less they believe (because after studying so many, there's other plausible avenues of belief, as long as they keep people satisfied with answers to hard questions).
and i think the quest of an afterlife isn't really for us as an individual, but when we lose people we love or care about, we want reassurance that they're somehow ok, they're not truly gone forever, or that we bonded with someone for nothing and that person who meant something to us really had no purpose and was really nothing in this life, which we feel devalues them as a person
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat May 07, 2011 6:38 am
SchizoSpazz the more a person studies science, the more they believe in a god (they don't publicly admit it, because then you sound stupid by the public), because this earth, the general laws of the universe and the universe in itself can't just be mere chance that everything has happened You can't just state what people think. What if I said "No one really believes in god, they just don't admit it, because they think everyone else believes."? SchizoSpazz , because this earth, the general laws of the universe and the universe in itself can't just be mere chance that everything has happened Why?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat May 07, 2011 11:26 am
Artto SchizoSpazz the more a person studies science, the more they believe in a god (they don't publicly admit it, because then you sound stupid by the public), because this earth, the general laws of the universe and the universe in itself can't just be mere chance that everything has happened You can't just state what people think. What if I said "No one really believes in god, they just don't admit it, because they think everyone else believes."? SchizoSpazz , because this earth, the general laws of the universe and the universe in itself can't just be mere chance that everything has happened Why? 1. faith in general is a touchy subject. people have fought for these issues (including atheist) for thousands of years, and so we try to explain it all without getting anything and fighting anyone about anything supernatural. and saying 'god did it' makes you sound stupid and lazy. and the atheists who want proof are going to be like 'show me' even trying to prove/disprove god(s) in general hasn't yielded any results, and there's probably not enough technology we can come up with to take them out of hiding, if that's the case. einstein started out very skeptical and came out a believer after explaining the theory of relativity 2. because if we're as smart as we think we are, why do we have an origin of species, but not have an origin of gravity, relativity, entropy, and why these laws apply to earth? and how, even with evolution, did any complex living organisms come to live and thrive on one planet that we're aware of? for any atheist, let me ask you this? if there was indisputable truth there was any diety of any form, would you believe, or would you demand more evidence somehow?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat May 07, 2011 2:13 pm
SchizoSpazz 1. faith in general is a touchy subject. people have fought for these issues (including atheist) for thousands of years, and so we try to explain it all without getting anything and fighting anyone about anything supernatural. and saying 'god did it' makes you sound stupid and lazy. and the atheists who want proof are going to be like 'show me' even trying to prove/disprove god(s) in general hasn't yielded any results, and there's probably not enough technology we can come up with to take them out of hiding, if that's the case. einstein started out very skeptical and came out a believer after explaining the theory of relativity Einstein didn't believe in a personal god. And even if he did, that would just be an argument from authority. SchizoSpazz 2. because if we're as smart as we think we are, why do we have an origin of species, but not have an origin of gravity, relativity, entropy, and why these laws apply to earth? and how, even with evolution, did any complex living organisms come to live and thrive on one planet that we're aware of? Arguments from ignorance won't get you anywhere. How does "we don't know (yet)" lead to "god did it"? SchizoSpazz for any atheist, let me ask you this? if there was indisputable truth there was any diety of any form, would you believe, or would you demand more evidence somehow? Why wouldn't I believe it if it was "indisputable truth"?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
