אֶהְיֶה (’Ehyeh).Any guesses as to what the first word was that issued forth from God's lips? — Agent Smith
I suspect no one has ever believed in g/G because of a Pascal's Wager who wasn't already riding the fence up his sacramentally Confirmed keester. Pascal, the mathematical rationalist, was a religious fideist and proposed the wager as a prophylactic against promiscuous doubt rather than as "a reason to believe".Pascal's wager — Agent Smith
Such as ...I'm under the impression that we may have "reasons" other than a good argument to believe. — Agent Smith
:death: :flower:A chilling wind blew across Manhattan that afternoon as they wheeled Malcolm out of the Audubon strapped atop a stretcher. A delay held up the departure of the ambulance for long minutes as little Chuey inched through the milling crowd up to the great man now supine. 'I’m not dead,' he told the pop-eyed boy. Was his smile charming the frigid air? Heck. Only the red film covering his teeth suggested anything amiss. 'You believe me, son?' 'Ain’t got not beliefs,' snorted Chuey. The eyes of the annointed started slowly closing, a calming peace now spreading across his face. 'Best answer. Receive my blessing. Assalamu Alaikum.' Something made Chuey speak. 'Wa alaikum assalam.' Loud banging sounds as the stretcher collapsed into the speeding-away ambulance. 'Ain’t got no beliefs,' Chuey repeated. And then, 'but now I got reason to act like I do.' — ucarr
Another one of The Architect's macguffins. Remember, Smith: "There is no spoon" (i.e. there is no Matrix). :smirk:I dunno but Mr. Anderson, Morpheus, and Trinity are looking for The Keymaker. — Agent Smith
:death: :flower:Life is the dialectic. Bliss plus torment produces awareness. Again and again; more and more. Take the heroin and ease the pain at the cost of your life. — unenlightened
No.Do you believe: vulnerability = vulnerable, soul = souls? — ucarr
No.Do you categorically reject common sense?
Are "all doors" actually locked?The question: Is there a key that unlocks all doors? — Agent Smith
I quoted your words.Why do you surround vulnerable and soul with quotation marks? — ucarr
It's also "common sense" that the Earth is flat and the Sun rises and sets, all swans are white and hammers always fall faster than feathers, etc.Common sense.
... or delusion? ... or whichever is cognitively-socially easier? ... or???do they believe in God because of blind faith? ... or do they need an empirical evidence? — javi2541997
All I mean is that "religious apologists" posit a first cause and call it "god" though they, in every case I'm aware of, fail to show that it's the same deity referred to in the Bible or Quran or any "sacred scripture" which folk actually worshipped. At most, the cosmological apologetics of theists paradoxically gets them only as far as deism (or god-of-the-gaps like e.g. @Gnomon's "enformer")..
. a statement that I didn't understand. — Agent Smith
:smirk:[W]e are only lab rats, if god exists. — universeness
Panpsychism?So you believe paramecia – perhaps the most "vulnerable" life forms – have "souls" too?
— 180 Proof
Yes. — ucarr
Well, that's good enough to demonstrate that disbelief in theistic g/G is more reasonable than theistic g/G-beliefs. From a recent post ...No one has either proved/disproved the existence of god. All that has been accomplished is refutations of mainly theistic arguments, that they're unsound. — Agent Smith
Also (same thread):↪Agent Smith These semantic muddles are why I prefer the more probative question of Is theism true or not true? rather than merely "Does g/G exist?" If theism is not true (i.e. antitheism), then atheism (i.e. every theistic g/G is a fiction) follows; however, whether or not "g/G exists" does not entail either belief or disbelief in g/G ... — 180 Proof
Well, there certaintly isn't any corroborable, non-anecdotal, public evidence of or sound arguments for "theism" (e.g. the existence of any "theistic" g/G). No doubt I could be wrong about this ... :smirk:I'm not here to make the case for theism, but saying there's no evidence is just not true. — T Clark
:100: :up:↪Gnomon
I differ with you on two of your main projections.
1. No first cause is necessary.
2. No mind with intent is necessary in the creation of the universe. — universeness
Ditto :up:I prefer series over films for the opportunity to develop personalities and plot intricacies — jgill
I guess you didn't run down all these rabbit holes...How do we explain comprehension withmolecules and their structures? — Agent Smith
↪Agent Smith
From a Metzingerian perspectiive, "self" is a (persistently embodied) phenomenal illusion re:
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/626347 — 180 Proof
You take it as a given but you don't know. I agree it's a handy heuristic, and maybe that's all it is.Of course, we have subjective experiences. — Jack Cummins
... and your / my own "mind" too – since it's also "subjective" – perhaps an introspection illusion ...We can make some guess at others' minds ...
