Philosophy Now Forum

thedoc wrote:It's not my decision to make, and I don't think it's your's either.

Quite right. I'm not the judge, and you're not either, of course. There's only one Person qualified to say what's true there.

What do you think He says?

Greta wrote:

Immanuel Can wrote:

Greta wrote:If such a god exist, it would be exceptionally relaxed about our foibles, even Adolph Hitler's...

What are you willing to wager on that?

If I took Pascal's wager seriously I would be a theist and agreeing with you. But logically, what kind of deity would be so impotent and gullible as to fail to see through such a gambit?

I wasn't referring to Pascal in particular. Change the word to "gamble" or "put at stake," and you'll get the right drift.

The point is much more simple than Pascal. In fact, it doesn't even originate with him. Jesus Christ Himself asked, "What will it profit a person if he gains the whole world and forfeits his own soul?" (Matthew 16:26). Perhaps you can find fault with either Pascal's motives or his originality in posing the question...but when you see the real source of the idea, it's a lot harder to bypass.

After all, a thing can be both prudential and right. They're not mutually exclusive options. Sometimes the thing that is most advantageous to one personally can be exactly the best possible thing to do.

In this case, I'm going to suggest, it is.

Nobody listens to atto. One who has had 20yrs experience of interaction with God and understands the reasoning for Christ. I do believe it takes personal experience ONLY to understand. ...and i have explained it twice already on this forum, with little by way of atheist\theist reply.

Immanuel Can wrote:

Greta wrote:

Immanuel Can wrote: What are you willing to wager on that?

If I took Pascal's wager seriously I would be a theist and agreeing with you. But logically, what kind of deity would be so impotent and gullible as to fail to see through such a gambit?

I wasn't referring to Pascal in particular. Change the word to "gamble" or "put at stake," and you'll get the right drift.

The point is much more simple than Pascal. In fact, it doesn't even originate with him. Jesus Christ Himself asked, "What will it profit a person if he gains the whole world and forfeits his own soul?"(Matthew 16:26).

Nope, it's Pascal, pure and simple - are you prepared to take the risk, given the vast difference in posited consequences between belief and non belief?

You have now confused the issue of belief with that of morality. Various religion's notions of what is a soul and what is required to save it vary markedly. Again, we have an issue of reliability of information between competing sources.

Greta wrote:Various religion's notions of what is a soul and what is required to save it vary markedly. Again, we have an issue of reliability of information between competing sources.

Indeed. But what of that?

If there are competing answers about 2+2, or competing answers about how to swim, or about whether one can flap one's arms and thus levitate, what are we to conclude? Is it that there IS no answer to 2+2 or to the skill of swimming, or to the problem of whether or not a person can flap her arms and fly? Or is it that all answers must be right, because they all "compete"? Or is it merely that one does not, at the present moment, know how to find the answer?

The first and second are anti-intellectual non-sequiturs of course. Nothing in the premise implies those conclusions, and if taken, they stultify all thought. So I'm sure you're not pitching for either of those.

That being so, the third is the lone candidate for truth. But is it really true that, at the present moment, we don't know how to find the answer?

According to the Word of God, we should know how to find the answer, because God has made it clear to all of us, as He declares He has in Romans 1. To fill out that knowledge further, all we have to do is read it, and decide for ourselves whether or not it's the truth. That seems the most fair thing God could ever ask of us: to make our own choice, and stand on it.

And when we stand before Him, what would be our excuse for not doing that?

It can't be put off. It cannot be avoided. Either the choice will be made positively and actively, by personal investigation, or it will be made negatively, by refusal to hear. But it will be made.

Immanuel Can wrote:

thedoc wrote:It's not my decision to make, and I don't think it's your's either.

Quite right. I'm not the judge, and you're not either, of course. There's only one Person qualified to say what's true there.

What do you think He says?

Many years ago there seemed to a lot of emphasis on answering all the questions and having all the answers. Any time a Christian had a question about God or Heaven, someone was wiling to provide an answer, unfortunately the answers given were usually wrong or just that individuals ideas and did not reflect the truth. I was having a conversation with my father (who passed away in 2001) and he told me that someone told him that after death we would spend all day worshiping God and singing God's praises. Then he said if that is what heaven is like, I'm not sure I want to go there. Obviously this was that individuals ideals and goals, but those aspirations didn't suit everyone.
A few years ago I read a piece by Richard Rohr in which he stated that Christians didn't have to have all the answers before we die, and it affected my attitude a great deal.

In 2013 I read a story in the Godvine e-mail "The Other Side"

A sick man turned to his doctor as the doctor was leaving the room after paying a visit, and said "Doctor, I'm afraid to die. Tell me what lies on the other side." Very quietly the doctor said "I don't know." "you don't know?" the man said.
"You a Christian man, do not know what is on the other side?"
The doctor was holding the handle of the door, from the other side of the door came the sounds of scratching and whining. As he opened the door, a dog sprang into the room and leaped onto him with an eager show of gladness.
Turning to the patient the doctor said "Did you notice my dog? He's never been in this room before. He didn't know what was inside. He knew nothing except that his master was here, and when I opened the door, he sprang in without fear.
"I know little of what is on the other side of death, but I do know one thing: I know my master is there and that is enough. And when the door opens, I shall pass through with no fear, but with gladness."

attofishpi wrote:Nobody listens to atto. One who has had 20yrs experience of interaction with God and understands the reasoning for Christ. I do believe it takes personal experience ONLY to understand. ...and i have explained it twice already on this forum, with little by way of atheist\theist reply.

Unfortunately a personal experience can be Poo Pooed by those who weren't there. I have also had a personal experience but I understand that it only applies to myself and those who were there. An experience will be rationalized away by those who choose not to believe it no matter how intense, long lasting, or detailed the account is, there is always an alternate explanation for those who were not there.

thedoc wrote:

attofishpi wrote:Nobody listens to atto. One who has had 20yrs experience of interaction with God and understands the reasoning for Christ. I do believe it takes personal experience ONLY to understand. ...and i have explained it twice already on this forum, with little by way of atheist\theist reply.

Unfortunately a personal experience can be Poo Pooed by those who weren't there. I have also had a personal experience but I understand that it only applies to myself and those who were there. An experience will be rationalized away by those who choose not to believe it no matter how intense, long lasting, or detailed the account is, there is always an alternate explanation for those who were not there.

The thing is ...a ''personal experience'' is just an appearance that's neither here nor there. Who or what you really are cannot be located or seen... yet you are everywhere seeing...what is seen is what's looking, but what is looking cannot be seen. What is seen is your own reflection (outside of you) It's your own reflection everywhere for there is nothing '' OTHER'' that can exist outside of you that is not you. You are consciousness without identification. Identification comes from what appears to the looker/seer as and through the appearance of things seen.
In other words ''no thing'' is identifying with itself...it's all a reflection of the one birth/less death/less light/energy...or God for want of a better word.

You were not there at your birth, and you won't be there at your death...You have never been born, and therefore cannot die.
You've always been here, you've never not been here.

Dontaskme wrote:
You were not there at your birth, and you won't be there at your death...You have never been born, and therefore cannot die.
You've always been here, you've never not been here.

Are you a nihilist?

thedoc wrote: Are you a nihilist?

No, he's just a nut case, you funny little thing.

thedoc wrote:
In 2013 I read a story in the Godvine e-mail "The Other Side"

"I know little of what is on the other side of death, but I do know one thing: I know my master is there and that is enough. And when the door opens, I shall pass through with no fear, but with gladness."

Cute story but the good doctor cannot know since no one can. He can only fervently hope that life concludes with a new door opening. If death is indeed final, nature offering no other clue, that belief would be devoid of any means to feel deprived just as space could not feel disinherited if nothing occupies it.

Hmm...the final sentence, I just noticed, has more than one meaning.

Dubious wrote:

thedoc wrote:
In 2013 I read a story in the Godvine e-mail "The Other Side"

"I know little of what is on the other side of death, but I do know one thing: I know my master is there and that is enough. And when the door opens, I shall pass through with no fear, but with gladness."

Cute story but the good doctor cannot know since no one can. He can only fervently hope that life concludes with a new door opening. If death is indeed final, nature offering no other clue, that belief would be devoid of any means to feel deprived just as space could not feel disinherited if nothing occupies it.

Hmm...the final sentence, I just noticed, has more than one meaning.

But the doctor can know what he believes, which is the sense of the story, I believe.

Yes, I think I know what you mean about the alternate meaning, that the doctors life here is so bad that he will be glad to die, am I right?

thedoc wrote:But the doctor can know what he believes, which is the sense of the story, I believe.

The story says "he knows" not simply believes but knows. The story is clear on that.

thedoc wrote:Yes, I think I know what you mean about the alternate meaning, that the doctors life here is so bad that he will be glad to die, am I right?

I haven't even thought of that probably because it wouldn't make any sense in the context of what I've written. Are there any other grand stupidities you theists can't come up with? Like I mentioned in a prior post you guys mutilate every meaning because to defend a stupidity can't be done in any other way by intelligences such as yours and IC's. The crucified Jew you pray to as a god certainly hasn't done your brains any favor.

I tried to think like you but couldn't manage trying to figure out why the doctor's life here would be so bad that he would be glad to die! The only thing I know for sure is if I had a mind like yours I would hope for that scenario to happen sooner than later.

Immanuel Can wrote:

Greta wrote:Various religion's notions of what is a soul and what is required to save it vary markedly. Again, we have an issue of reliability of information between competing sources.

... According to the Word of God, we should know how to find the answer, because God has made it clear to all of us, as He declares He has in Romans 1. To fill out that knowledge further, all we have to do is read it, and decide for ourselves whether or not it's the truth.

"According to the word of God ...". No, the Bible is the word of men claiming that they are more privy to the word of God than you are and passing on what they claim to have been told. People can claim anything they like about their internal states. Why should I be convinced by any of them when others have zero belief that my internal states are real? I am certainly not convinced by any doctrine that plays the "follow or face destruction" game. That is clearly a power-based, self perpetuating religious meme.

It is possible that all of these ancient doctrines are wrong, reducing the universe (and beyond) to mere human mentalities. The ancients, without scientific language, were forced to describe phenomena in terms of metaphor. Metaphors obviously can be interpreted in various ways, especially by later generations and distant societies with different communication conventions.

Greta wrote:No, the Bible is the word of men ...

Bet your life on it? You will.