AZJoe is offline AZJoe Post #11  July 5,2011, 3:43pm
AZJoe's Avatar

In and Out

Quick Study

Joined: May 2011

Posts: 143

See profile

Diana_P wrote :


AZJoe,

I do enjoy our discussions!

I’m glad you brought up Pascal’s Wager because it is the epitome of my earlier point about binary thinking. Pascal’s wager likens our perception of the universe or our existence as being equal to a coin toss. How many sides does a coin have? Two. The focal point of the argument is that because we can’t logically discern whether or not God exists we should make a wager and toss a coin? He briefly acknowledges infinite possibilities and then reduces them to a coin toss?
The question is in fact a simple binary question with exactly 1 of 2 mutually exclusive possible outcomes - Does God exist? It IS a binary problem that can only be Yes or No to a rational system of thinking. Truth is not multivariate. This question can not resolve to be both yes and no at the same time. There are no shades of grey here or any analog nature. A principal of objective truth requires that truth be unchanging at all points in time and in this case outside of time as well.

And finally, Pascal's Wager does not propose to toss a coin to resolve the matter at all. Rather it is a philosophical exercise that is used to compel the person that is perhaps not accustomed to any notion of supernatural faith but in possession of a rational mind to consider how foolish it would be to not take a chance on the possibility of winning an infinitely wealthy pot/reward by refusing to participate in a free chance to win it. It is not intentioned to be a substitute for faith so much as it meant to be a means to tear down irrational obstacles to faith through an appeal to reason.

Pascal's Wager is a suggestion posed by the French philosopher,mathematician, and physicist Blaise Pascal that even if the existence of God cannot be determined through reason, a rational person should wager as though God exists, because living life accordingly has everything to gain, and nothing to lose.
Diana_P wrote :
...
When it comes to the argument of science versus creationism no one is trying to sail past the horizon! Everyone believes it has got to be one or the other. Does it really? Why are we so convinced? For Pascal to reduce the infinite possibilities of the “what, how, and why,” to a coin toss is astronomically absurd, pun intended.
Diana I think you should read Pascal's Wager since you are making it a thing its not.

Diana_P wrote :
My openness to being Spiritual is not because I’m trying to play it safe. My very essence screams that I am more than just atoms and molecules. The thought that matter can be randomly arranged over eons to produce consciousness is unappetizing to me. I have not personally experienced evolution in my lifetime nor have I experienced being created. I know I exist so the burden of proof of “how” that came to be isn’t on my shoulders; it is on the shoulders of those purporting their respective beliefs or theories.

I choose to keep an open mind because I have personally experienced how localized truth can be. At one time mankind believed we would never break the sound barrier. In 1947 Chuck Yeager changed that belief. Now we believe it is impossible for matter to travel faster than the speed of light. We seem to constantly set physical barriers for ourselves or claim a thing is impossible only to discover later that the limitations are self imposed and exist only in our minds.

I’m not anti-science, it is just that giving mankind’s understanding a name, science, and propping it up with the scientific method, doesn’t imbue it with infallibility or make it any more concrete than religion in my eyes because they both have one thing in common, imperfect man!
This is good and advances the same general things I believe - namely that science and religion do no need to be in tension with each other. There's probably more voodoo masquerading as science today than at any time in history. We have not really made any real fundamental breakthroughs in quite some time. Sure there have been novel applications of old principals and greater precisions and new composite materials etc. but nothing earth shattering and life changing such as a new thermodynamic law, or insight into gravity has really been discovered in a long time. Personally I believe that this is because humanity has not yet proven itself ready nor morally worthy of radical new discoveries yet and God is not permitting it. Perhaps when we can learn more important lessons and advance ourselves morally new things will begin to happen - but right now it looks to me like humanity is at am impasse and is once again at grave risk of regressing backward.
Last edited by AZJoe; July 5,2011 at 3:48pm.
 
  Reply With Quote
Diana_P is offline Diana_P Post #12  July 5,2011, 10:43pm
Diana_P's Avatar

Board Leader - Religion & Spirituality

Joined: Sep 2010

Posts: 1,118

See profile

AZJoe wrote :
Diana I think you should read Pascal's Wager since you are making it a thing its not.
Thanks for your post and for the further clarification. As always your argument is very well stated.

First, what I was trying to say about Pascal’s Wager is that for me the topic of whether God exist or doesn’t exist isn’t necessarily binary depending on how you define God. Is God the Creator of all Things, is God the Father of Humanity, is God the Being defined in scripture or is He something completely different?

For example, can God actually be “everything?” If so, that would also include “evil” and things that are in opposition to His will. This conflicts with scripture since God is by His own definition the only thing that is Good. This also conflicts with the notion that God is the alpha and omega, the beginning and the end (Revelations 22:13). God is the beginning and the end of what? All there is? Time? Does that mean that God is the beginning, the end and everything that happens in between? Wouldn’t that mean that God is also mankind and mankind’s sin, as well? Sorry to go off on a tangent; let’s save that for another thread.

Second, Pascal’s Wager seems to imply that the equation of whether God exists or not is all encompassing. Rather, he seems to think that making a decision or taking a side on the subject is unavoidable. That’s not true. It is in fact only relevant to those in proximity to the issue. The question of God’s existence (if you see it as a question) is only one piece of the puzzle concerning the mystery of our existence. It is difficult to see that the puzzle has other pieces as long as everyone fixates on this one. We can’t recognize the other pieces or see how they fit together until we back off and try to see the bigger picture.

My argument may be weak, but that is how I see it. I suppose we will have to agree to disagree on this one. No matter, I’ve got plenty more questions!

Thanks.
Last edited by Diana_P; July 5,2011 at 10:53pm.
 
  Reply With Quote
llw11 is offline llw11 Post #13  July 6,2011, 9:44pm
llw11's Avatar

Pacesetter

Joined: Mar 2011

Posts: 320

See profile

are you guys seriously discussing pascal's wager?? it doesn't even deserve a discussion. all you have to do is think about it for, like 2 minutes at the most, to realize how ridiculous a proposition it is.
 
  Reply With Quote
AZJoe is offline AZJoe Post #14  July 7,2011, 5:23am
AZJoe's Avatar

In and Out

Quick Study

Joined: May 2011

Posts: 143

See profile

llw11 wrote :
are you guys seriously discussing pascal's wager?? it doesn't even deserve a discussion. all you have to do is think about it for, like 2 minutes at the most, to realize how ridiculous a proposition it is.
It came up in the personal reflections on the OP question - "Why do you believe." It's not the main topic of discussion. It was only touched on by myself as one of the 12 held ways one can know God - this one being by the avenue of reason. It was worth mentioning since the avenue of reason is common to both spiritually minded and non-spiritually minded individuals.

So, why do you believe? Or, are you here as a thread-spoiler to try to make someone not believe or to take us down an off topic rabbit-hole?

For the record let me say in rebuttal to your brusque opinions that Pascal's Wager is just one of dozens of philosophical inductions and proofs (not scientific proofs) that argue for the existence God. When all are taken together they make an extraordinarily compelling case for His existence by "reason alone". Pascal's Wager in its original form is not without some critique (some marginally valid and some not valid at all). From constructive critique have come even more compelling rebuttals and other rational insights. Here's a list of some of the other well known arguments through reason for God's existence.
 
  Reply With Quote
AZJoe is offline AZJoe Post #15  July 7,2011, 7:58am
AZJoe's Avatar

In and Out

Quick Study

Joined: May 2011

Posts: 143

See profile

To me one of the very most compelling philosophical arguments is the Kalem proof given in the above list. It's not too abstract for a person of average intelligence to comprehend yet seems almost completely bullet proof. It does not explain ALL of Christian belief of course but it gives extraordinary distance to the unsustainable conjecture given by Atheists as an axiomatic and infallible truth that God does not exist at all (this being the central dogma of atheism which shapes their entire world view and own principal identity)..

The Kalem Argument proves something central to the Christian belief in God: that the universe is not eternal and without beginning; that there is a Maker of heaven and earth. And in doing so, it disproves the picture of the universe most atheists wish to maintain: self—sustaining matter, endlessly changing in endless time.

Personally speaking, I see all of the Universe as a metaphor given as a huge Divine hint about the Creator's nature. The expanding unbounded nature of the Universe gives rise to the notion of eternity - and unbounded ever changing expressions of perfection. It even explains how we can "be" in possession of eternity but never ever arrive at an end point - no staleness - constant recreation.
Last edited by AZJoe; July 7,2011 at 8:03am. Reason: typo & expand on personal insights
 
  Reply With Quote
llw11 is offline llw11 Post #16  July 7,2011, 9:23am
llw11's Avatar

Pacesetter

Joined: Mar 2011

Posts: 320

See profile

AZJoe wrote :
So, why do you believe? Or, are you here as a thread-spoiler to try to make someone not believe or to take us down an off topic rabbit-hole?
no, i'm never in favour of thread-jacking.

i don't know what i believe right now to be honest. i do know that i no longer believe in the "abrahamic" models of god.
 
  Reply With Quote
AudioDad is offline AudioDad Post #17  July 7,2011, 11:39am
AudioDad's Avatar

...has left the building

Enthusiast

Joined: Aug 2008

Posts: 800

See profile

AZJoe wrote :
To me one of the very most compelling philosophical arguments is the Kalem proof given in the above list. It's not too abstract for a person of average intelligence to comprehend yet seems almost completely bullet proof. It does not explain ALL of Christian belief of course but it gives extraordinary distance to the unsustainable conjecture given by Atheists as an axiomatic and infallible truth that God does not exist at all (this being the central dogma of atheism which shapes their entire world view and own principal identity).
I'm curious as to why you continue to misrepresent the Atheistic viewpoint. Is it simply that you don't know any better, or do you have some ulterior motive for doing so? Does it make you feel more secure in your own beliefs to misrepresent those of others'? Does it make you feel superior in some way? Once again, for those not paying attention, the atheistic position is NOT (say it with me for comprehension's sake...), NOT, that your god is dis-proven but rather unproven. It's a fairly straightforward distinction that someone of your self proclaimed advanced intellect should be easily able to comprehend without resorting to the usual logical fallacies and inane tangents. Might want to jot down a note to yourself so as not to forget next time.....

And, please, the ravings of Richard Dawkins do not represent the totality - or even a significant portion - of atheistic thought or stance on any given topic. So let's put that straw man to bed, shall we?

AZJoe wrote :
Personally speaking, I see all of the Universe as a metaphor given as a huge Divine hint about the Creator's nature. The expanding unbounded nature of the Universe gives rise to the notion of eternity - and unbounded ever changing expressions of perfection. It even explains how we can "be" in possession of eternity but never ever arrive at an end point - no staleness - constant recreation.
Now, this bit I actually like and can almost agree with you on - if not from a uniquely Christian aspect but rather in the sense of there being some kind of "Creator". Interesting though, there's a growing movement within the cosmologic community that the universe is not, in fact, boundless. Within the last couple of years, a school of thought has developed that the universe actually has an edge and isn't really infinite after all. If true, it begs the question......what lies beyond that edge? I do love a good mystery.
 
  Reply With Quote
Reply
  • Page 2 of 2
  • 1
  • 2


« Is the Second Coming now? | Religion & Spirituality | What is the genesis of original evil? »
Topic Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new topics
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off

Looking for a Great Relationship?

Get started now. Fill out this form and take the questionnaire to receive your matches.

First Name:

I'm a:
seeking

Postal Code:

Country:

Email:

Confirm Email:

Password:


How did you hear about us?


Latest on our Dating Advice Discussion Boards

“ Excellent, thank you. I think I will leave out the first part, I think it is unnecessary information to give him. I'm not interested in putting myself out there like that and it might be a little ... ” –  generallyyou

Join the “Ending a friendship” discussion

“Alfred Hitchcock - 18 Steven Spielberg - 62 *notice what?” –  dmi

Join the “War of the Directors” discussion

“ I would be "certain people" :P The issue isn't a deal-breaker, but a very strong factor preference-wise, for me.” –  ThePriestess

Join the “How much does race play in your dating someone?” discussion

“Love Texas Hold'em!.. I'm thinking of trying another tournament this summer...not sure yet though.. Never entered a tournament before, outside of online ones. Personally I prefer to play with ... ” –  Freezepop

Join the “Favorite Card Game” discussion

“Make that 3! I also had a crush on Donny Osmond. I think I still have a record or two of his. Suzie ” –  legend29

Join the “Robin Gibbs Dead at 62...How Deep is Your Love?” discussion

“Oh, my revised profile can be seen in the forum in the section where you can ask for a profile review. Suzanne” –  SuzanneScorpio

Join the “Photo Review” discussion

“Just remember, everything that you are feeling and/or are capable of he is as well. If he wanted to reach you, he could. Right now he knows that you are hurting, and that this is not what you ... ” –  lynntlb78

Join the “Can I wait and move on at the same time?” discussion

“ Yohio. And the shortened form (Anya) is nice too.” –  ThePriestess

Join the “Where is Becky?!?” discussion



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 9:34am.

Discussion Boards Archive

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2012, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.6.0