Moreover, you assume doxastic voluntarism, a topic I actually made a thread about a while back. What this means is that you assume I can choose what I believe. I have my doubts that this possible, as it seems apparent that I can't just will myself to believe something, like flipping on a light switch. This is true even if I want to believe something. Wanting to does not mean that one does or will believe.
What if God privileges honest disbelief in him as opposed to dishonest belief for the sake of personal comfort, as your wager would have it? In that case, I ought to wager that he doesn't exist.
I don't doubt that our thoughts are shared. — Cavacava
Is existence preferable to nonexistence. You have no choice if there is a god. — Cavacava
You also referenced some "above post" and I looked, I saw the post to John, but no other likely candidates, but then again I never seem to find what I am looking for. — Cavacava
Well in the sense of truth that you use in this post, then certainly not.No, I don't believe War is about truth. It is about the immorality of man with man, it is an ethical issue, it is not an epistemological issue. It is about the rough reality of life, which is not cast in any book of logic. — Cavacava
Certainly, but think about it ... politicians on all sides of the interested parties have to realise the truth - namely what each party wants out of Syria and how to ensure that their nation gets that. People afflicted by the conflict should also realise the truth, because that's what will best enable them to escape or defend themselves. Pretty much everyone needs to understand the truth (ie, reality) in order to play their cards the best way possible. What else can they do? Is there a better alternative?We live in a world where "...only small groups of men who, however, hold in thrall many million of their fellow human beings and who defend their own antiquated interests" (Strauss) When I think about the war in Syria, there is no way I can think of this being the 'truth'. — Cavacava
Well do you think he'll have a happy ending? Evil will always destroy itself in the end. In the end, Assad will lose even the power he wants to hold so desperately.An evil man who is willing to sacrifice the whole of his nation, men, women and children so he can hold on to power. — Cavacava
Except in the pragmatic sense that this is what is actually happening - in that sense it is certainly true.That can't be true in any sense of the term. — Cavacava
Certainly, but think about it ... politicians on all sides of the interested parties have to realise the truth - namely what each party wants out of Syria and how to ensure that their nation gets that. People afflicted by the conflict should also realise the truth, because that's what will best enable them to escape or defend themselves. Pretty much everyone needs to understand the truth (ie, reality) in order to play their cards the best way possible. What else can they do? Is there a better alternative?
But belief is not knowledge. I don't believe that putting my hand on a flame is painful, this is something i know. — Wayfarer
But that need is because the ordinary state - that of the man in the street, you and I, the hoi polloi - is one of delusion and falsehood. — Wayfarer
The irony is that belief in God is ultimately superior - even in this world, and even if there is no God.
I think that is very much a matter of how you define knowledge and belief. — John
Even if we define knowledge as justified, true belief, and even if we think we can be certain that our beliefs are justified, I don't think it could be rational to claim that we can ever know (in the strong sense of 'absolute certainty') that they are true.
Personally I am OK with that. Life right down to the most mundane everyday detail is ultimately an ineluctable mystery. — John
I find it interesting that we have Brahmanism, Hinduism, Jainsim, Buddhism, Islamism, Judaism, but there is no Christianism. — John
A fundamental task in philosophy, surely. Hume's scepticism was precisely the subject of Kant's criticism, which I think was effective. — Wayfarer
According to Christians, who invented the labels. — Wayfarer
I've thought that Pascal's Wager (besides being valid) has an existential power about it, It enables us to ally a God to vanquish our fear, although I suppose some will not bend to reason. (I mean it is a crap shoot isn't it) I certain wonder what my choice would be. Maybe we all need forgiveness, especially when there is little hope of a future. What will/would you choose to do and perhaps a few words why.
Pascal said it is a decision we have to make. — Cavacava
I suppose this was as close to an existenital crisis as I've ever had and indeed there was some sort of fear associated with the entire happening. There were indeed a few religious minded people who did confront me with such a question or should I say bargin?
Anyway... the fear never seemed to justify an appeal to a supernatural ally as to work as a placebo to vanquish my fears. — Mayor of Simpleton
For some people, it is very important that other people should have a deathbed religious crisis of some sort. — Bitter Crank
've understood the logic for some time now, Cava. But you still refuse to provide me with a definition of "God." You use this word as if I know what it means. I don't. You must provide it, or else the wager you argue for never gets off the ground.
Now, if, as you've said before, God can mean anything one wants, then I could define God as an evil demon, a la Descartes, or as a being who sends non-believers to heaven and believers to hell. In that case, I ought not to place my faith in him, which repudiates the outcome you argue for.
So our conversation seems to be caught in an infinite loop, the only way out of which is to state what you mean by God, once again. Let's see if you can do it this time.
Ah but that can be turned around so fast. Perhaps lack of belief in God is there in order to make the consequences of our sins less frightening. Perhaps what atheists are really afraid of is the afterlife, hence the denial.Perhaps one of the main purposes of religious beliefs and beliefs in god(s) is to make the inevitability of death seem a bit less distressful. — Mayor of Simpleton
But why would you renounce the effects of the placebo? Any improvement is still an improvement after all. If belief in God raises your chances of survival by 30% because of the placebo effect, that's great! Combine the placebo and the medicine, and maximise the effect.Anyway... the fear never seemed to justify an appeal to a supernatural ally as to work as a placebo to vanquish my fears. — Mayor of Simpleton
But you'll "waste" that time anyway. Anything you do, in the end won't matter. My point isn't that you should meditate on your regrets, etc. but rather that folks who do this don't exactly "waste" their time either.I have the feeling that such contributions of wishes to have done or to be able to undone lead me nowhere and just waste what little time I have — Mayor of Simpleton
I think that the wager is not so much concerned with such notions, it's more to do with soul searching in the subject making the choice.Maybe, but that's mercy. They certainly don't deserve it, which is what I'm claiming.
Yes but it is his Mercy which saves you, not his Justice, which condemns you. There's a big big difference there. And being saved only works once you understand that in truth you deserve punishment. Then being saved makes sense. But if you think you don't deserve punishment, then you can't be saved.Whether they don't deserve it? well I heard that whomsoever turns to God is allowed in. That all that is required for salvation is to turn to God. That in our ignorance we can't judge which way the weighing scales will fall. — Punshhh
Perhaps lack of belief in God is there in order to make the consequences of our sins less frightening. Perhaps what atheists are really afraid of is the afterlife, hence the denial. — Agustino
But why would you renounce the effects of the placebo? Any improvement is still an improvement after all. If belief in God raises your chances of survival by 30% because of the placebo effect, that's great! Combine the placebo and the medicine, and maximise the effect. — Agustino
But you'll "waste" that time anyway. Anything you do, in the end won't matter. My point isn't that you should meditate on your regrets, etc. but rather that folks who do this don't exactly "waste" their time either. — Agustino
But my point isn't this. It's not whether they believe it, because by this logic, neither does the theist believe that death is the end. The atheist, when he says that the theist resorts to belief in God because of fear of death (annihilation), does exactly the same as the theist would if he were to say that the atheist disbelieves in God because of fear of responsibility/accountability after death. So those arguments you have pointed against me, are equally valid against the atheist position. That's all I'm saying.Perhaps there are atheists who believe in some sort of absolute moral correctness and believe there is an afterlife of sorts, but I'm not one of them. — Mayor of Simpleton
Sure - but my point was a rhetorical one aimed to show mainly the silliness of making an argument like religious belief exists because of fear of death. If that were the case, then we have to also accept the argument that disbelief in God exists because of fear of responsibility and accountability. Just the same way the atheist uses a psychological motivation to account for the existence of belief in God, so can the theist use one to account for the existence of the disbelief in God.Atheists are simply those who do not believe a theistic god(s) exist. That's just a single variable. I would not wish to add on connotations of "believing in sin" or "afterlife" as a must be so or it must follow that based upon a single variable. — Mayor of Simpleton
There is evidence that the placebo effect betters one's condition by approximately 30%Is there any evidence that indicates that belief in god raises one's chances of survival by 30%? — Mayor of Simpleton
Yes.Is there any evidence that a placebo really provides an improvement in my life? — Mayor of Simpleton
I haven't researched it, but it would seem intuitively obvious. In either case, I find it rational to play all possible cards that you have at your disposal.Is there any evidence that indicates that a placebo mixed with traditional medicine will result in a maximised effect? — Mayor of Simpleton
It's more about the will than the intellect I find. Some of us find belief in God appealing - others don't.Is there any evidence for god existing? — Mayor of Simpleton
Yeah, I do agree that there's no point crying over spilt milk - but if one has cried over it, there's no point in worrying about that either. Hence ultimately it doesn't matter whether one cries or not.I don't see any way to unring a bell. Once something is done I live with the consequences. I do make efforts to adapt future notions based upon these collective of consequences, but I don't make a point to simply dwell upon them for the sake of dwelling upon them. — Mayor of Simpleton
We all kind of do that, because we all need to adapt to our circumstances. But that's not to say that who we are fundamentally changes. I think character stays quite constant.I simply attribute and assert purpose (a notion of value) in my life, but it's never absolute or ultimate. Purpose adapts with the influx of experiences/information. I suppose one could say I have no fixed points in value notions. Indeed some adaptions in value for me are quicker and some are slower, but nothing stays fixed. Context matters. — Mayor of Simpleton
The context is simple. If you spilled the milk and cried, there's no reason to cry more for crying in the first place. In that sense, crying is never a "waste" of time - or it always is a waste of time. Means pretty much the same thing.I suppose what I'm ranting about is that to make a statement like "But you'll "waste" that time anyway. Anything you do, in the end won't matter" I need a context. If the context is a set of all sets absolute/ultimate for everyone, everywhere and every case... I'll probably say that's irrelevant. No one has the ability to have that much experience/information as to have the set of all sets regarding absolute/ultimate; thus why bother with such a standard of measure? — Mayor of Simpleton
It's more about how one relates to the unknown.Perhaps this is part of why I simply cannot believe in god(s). God(s) are all to often "understood" as being a set of all sets... an unknowable. I fail to see how an unknowable is is anyway helpful when answering a question regarding what is currently unknown. — Mayor of Simpleton
True, it's an act of faith.Belief in god(s) is not an act of knowledge. — Mayor of Simpleton
But if you think you don't deserve punishment, then you can't be saved
The atheist, when he says that the theist resorts to belief in God because of fear of death (annihilation), does exactly the same as the theist would if he were to say that the atheist disbelieves in God because of fear of responsibility/accountability after death. — Agustino
Sure - but my point was a rhetorical one aimed to show mainly the silliness of making an argument like religious belief exists because of fear of death. If that were the case, then we have to also accept the argument that disbelief in God exists because of fear of responsibility and accountability. — Agustino
There is evidence that the placebo effect betters one's condition by approximately 30% — Agustino
I haven't researched it, but it would seem intuitively obvious. In either case, I find it rational to play all possible cards that you have at your disposal. — Agustino
It's more about the will than the intellect I find. Some of us find belief in God appealing - others don't. — Agustino
Yeah, I do agree that there's no point crying over spilt milk - but if one has cried over it, there's no point in worrying about that either. Hence ultimately it doesn't matter whether one cries or not. — Agustino
I think character stays quite constant. — Agustino
The context is simple. If you spilled the milk and cried, there's no reason to cry more for crying in the first place. In that sense, crying is never a "waste" of time - or it always is a waste of time. Means pretty much the same thing. — Agustino
It's more about how one relates to the unknown. — Agustino
Belief in god(s) is not an act of knowledge.
— Mayor of Simpleton
True, it's an act of faith. — Agustino
Likewise, it seems to me that atheists wish theist's beliefs to be grounded in some fear of annihilation... My point is that both arguments are absurd - even the theist one. Such arguments should never be used. I merely used a silly argument against you to show you that your own argument against theists was silly.It seems as if you wish for my motivations to be grounded in some sort of fear of the unknown. Truth is I know nothing about the unknown so I see no reason to fear it. — Mayor of Simpleton
Maybe not for you, but there certainly are many such atheists in the world. Or do you mean to tell me that there are no psychological advantages at all in being an atheist? I freely admit there are psychological advantages in being a theist for example - reduced fear of death, ability to hope to meet loved ones again, and so forth. And I can clearly see advantages to being an atheist - not having to worry what happens after death, being able to let go of your wrong-doings more easily, not being so concerned about responsibility, etc.I'm not sold that a disbelief in a theistic god acts as a point of centering the being as it does for those who belive in a theistic god existing. — Mayor of Simpleton
Well I think that your life clinging by the thread and doctors and others trying to save you is a medical trial, is it not?This is a placebo in a medical trial. Fine. Is that the same as a placebo in a non-medical trial? — Mayor of Simpleton
A placebo is generally a sugar pill. I'm unaware of medicines which have harmful interactions with sugar. So I'm quite sure it doesn't apply to placebos.I would think that would be safe to assume this would apply to placebos take with actual medicine, as both are chemicals. — Mayor of Simpleton
In-so-far as people blabber about God and so forth in the room yes. But in-so-far as your inward attitude, which is what I'm discussing here, no. Your inner belief in God would have had no bad effect on the medical procedures going on (it may have had a positive one though due to placebo). But the folks blabbering about God around, would likely have had a negative impact on the medical procedures, and thus, yes, they should have gone out.So let's pretend for a moment we are not speaking of chemicals, but if ideas/notions. Would it be possible that there are combinations of ideas/notions that are not a good combination; thus leading to more problems than solutions?
The interactions of faith based placebos (acts of centering the being) may indeed conflict and impede progress of empirical investigations (acts of knowledge); thus any combination or mixture of ideas/notions will not guarantee a benefit. — Mayor of Simpleton
Not should be - I never claimed that. I claimed that for many, as a matter of fact, it is. Most people who are atheists or theists don't hold those positions because of hundreds of hours of thought, debate and reading, and consideration.So if it is more appealing or not should be the foundation for fielding an answer? — Mayor of Simpleton
This doesn't mean that it fundamentally changes though.I find that character is developed and adapts. — Mayor of Simpleton
And prayer/meditation in an effort to develop a relationship with God doesn't count as investigating it?Either one choose to investigate it or chooses not to investigate it. — Mayor of Simpleton
Who said God is (completely) "unknowable"? The unknown isn't necessarily also unknowable.Is the unknowable an answer or is it not? — Mayor of Simpleton
The reason why most arguments end up this way is that people who don't believe will never agree with the reasons/explanations offered by those who believe, and will instead find any other possible explanation for them that they can. This is a silly game. Any fact can be explained in a multitude of ways. You choose to believe it a certain way, I choose to believe it a different way. There's nothing really to discuss, except share that one of us has faith and the other doesn't.How is this religious faith any different than simply saying "because" or "it is evident" without any foundation to support this other than saying "because" or "it is evident"? — Mayor of Simpleton
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.