DHA's Wager

let's try this. the argument is not about atheism per se but about what is the more logical conclusion. I am not attacking atheism, just as I am not attacking positions of faith, just pointing out what is logical and what is not. The fact that agnostic is more logical doesn't force people to stop believing in atheism or a particular faith.what I am saying is that the only valid logical conclusion is that you don't know. that means that you cannot rule out a supernatural being, but you also cannot claim {his\her\it\their} existence either.=============In what way is this difficult to understand?In no way.But difficult for those who would deny possibilities.It's possible that God exists, eh?It's possible that God does not exist.We don't know fer shure.This is exactly as it should be.

quote:

---

If THIS is the only basis for a theological position, then you must adopt the same position in regards Orbital Mind Control Lasers. As you say yourself - we cannot know for sure.

---

I must do no such thing. I could, but I must not.

quote:

---

Great Cthulhu may be in R'lyeh under the sea right now.
Captain Kirk might be rescuing whales in his time-traveelling enterprise right now.
Father christmas might be sitting down to aturkey dinner right now.

---

Actually, Captain Kirk and I are having a discussion about bending space (LOL). You know for absolutely certain who your examples are and are not. You're guessing that there is no God, is a God. Please allow me to ask you if you can see the difference. RAZD's equation is beyond logic, it is truth.
Here are the people who don't like this truth.....
Those that say there is no god, but cannot proof it....
Those that say there is a god, but cannot proof it....Then there are those who say there is a god and there will never be proof, for the god and man relationship is based on faith, proof would destroy that base, and that will never happen. The equation is in favor of the latter.See it?This message has been edited by PecosGeorge, 03-17-2005 07:52 AM

---

Pascal's Wager......nice try.

quote:

---

Please define God.

---

My definition is standard, God is the creator of the universe and all that is in it.It is very much so possible that this God exists.It is very much so possible, but for many very much so unacceptable based on ....... well, whatever they use for a base.Possible, but not acceptable. Not acceptable, because they just don't think it is possible.There are more urgent needs than proof of god's existence. Right?

---

Pascal's Wager......nice try.

quote:

---

Then either God is in the universe and therefore must have created himself, or he is outside the universe, which calls into question what we mean by 'the universe'. Both positions are logically inconsistent.

---

I'm privy to what scripture relates regarding the origin of god. He has no beginning, he has no end. Define infinity. Nor can I say that self-creation applies. Spontaneous combustion requires material to combust (LOL)

quote:

---

Why "very much so"? Is "very much so possible" somehow better than just plain "possible"? I think it's bias that makes you say this.

---

Of course I'm predisposed to the existence of God, I'm Christian. And that is 'very much so' true, and 'very much so' is emphasis, granted it is unnecessary. But why do you point it out? Everyone has idionsyncracies of speech.

quote:

---

Of course there are. But I didn't ask for proof. I asked for a definition.

---

I strayed off the subject. Pardon.

---

Pascal's Wager......nice try.

quote:

---

PecosGeorge

​

God is the creator of the universe and all that is in it.

​

Your definition is neglecting to explain the origins of god and the basis of your phrasing that god is "very much so possible". Does this mean that it is highly likely that god exists or just that you need the existence of god in order to put a foundation to your ideas about the world?

---

Hi, Sidelined......but what has sidelined you? (LOL)The bible says that God has no beginning and no end. That is very much so possible so far as I'm concerned. In no way do I suggest that anyone should agree.God serves me very well regarding a foundation for the world. It does, however, NOT make me oppose any and all scientific effort for or against God. That may make me a slightly different kind of Christian, but science is no threat to what I believe, the opposite is true. I am encouraged by it.
(Now I have to get some work done. Good day to you).This message has been edited by PecosGeorge, 03-17-2005 09:53 AM

---

Pascal's Wager......nice try.

quote:

---

I am not sure if there is a conceptual difficulty that is presented with the assertion of a god that has no end,however there is a huge paradox concerning one that has no beginning.Consider what is is implied by no beginning.This is the same as saying that god never became god.It also implies that time had no start,without which the progress of time itself cannot proceed and,hence our time frame can never be arrived at.Nor can god's.

---

What is implied by no beginning, so far as I go, is timelessness, or time measured other.Time and the measurement of it, means something to us that is not compatible/applicable with what it means to God or about God. The measurements we apply to time are convenient and appropriate for us. Time so measured serves our purpose (so we'll know when we are old, or late, etc.).
Psalm 90:4
'For a thousand years in your (God's) sight, are like a day that has just gone by.....(meaning time as we measure it, does not apply to him)
2 Peter 3:8....with God a day is LIKE a thousand years.....(again, our measurements do not apply).A day is like a thousand years, is an attempt to help us understand God's timelessness or beginning and ending in ways elusive to what we know.And an astronomer said.......'Master, what of time? And he answered.....'You would measure time, the measureless and immeasurable?' (Gibran)'For what is time? Who can even in thought comprehend it so as to utter a word about it? If no one asks me, I know. If I wish to explain it to one who asks, I know not.' (St. Augustine, The Confessions).

---

Pascal's Wager......nice try.

quote:

---

PecosGeorge

​

And an astronomer said.......'Master, what of time? And he answered.....'You would measure time, the measureless and immeasurable?' (Gibran)

​

An unfortunate quote since we do indeed measure time as I outline in post #99

---

When did you begin measuring time? When it became necessary for science to function mathematically. Science has always existed, with knowledge increasing, methods to conform it to need became a must have. Harness time, harness elements. For this, we need containers.Gibran, the philosopher, is correct.

quote:

---

Which is only to say "Deep down I know it is a lie, but I am desperately trying not to admit it".

---

If I could read your mind, what would I find? A profound certainty that you cannot read mine? Deep down there is peace that passes all understanding.What is the purpose of this statement?It throttles down to ridicule and accusation and the dialogue ends.

---

Pascal's Wager......nice try.

quote:

---

No fair changing the defintion. If you meant something else, you should have said something.

---

Dress it up, dress it down. I was asked to define God, I defined him. Compliance with other OPINION is not possible, I cannot comply with opinion other than my own.Define God, and I will definitely see that your opinion is definitely your opinion. My definition is that God is the Creator of the universe and all that is in it (and out it?), you may need volumes to describe yours. In the end, we still have opinion.

---

Pascal's Wager......nice try.

quote:

---

No I don't; I have the same degree of evidence for Greath Cthulhu as for god - someone wrote a book. Can you PROVE that Great Cthulhu doesn;t exist? If not, then you must concede, it is logical to treat Great Cthulhu as existing. Thats your argument.

---

No, I cannot proof that he exists or not, just like I cannot proof that God exists or not. I believe that this is the basis of the discussion.There is no proof, no more, no less.Based on faith in God, which is the substance of things hoped for and the evidence of things not seen, faith is the ingredient that fuels the relationship.What fuels your relationships?From "Cthulhu Who"In "Call of Cthulhu" our beloved leader is described in the following way:
It seemed to be a sort of monster, or symbol representing a monster, of a form which only a diseased fancy could conceive. If I say that my somewhat extravagant imagination yielded simultaneous pictures of an octopus, a dragon, and a human caricature, I shall not be unfaithful to the spirit of the thing. A pulpy, tentacled head surmounted a grotesque and scaly body with rudimentary wings; but it was the general outline of the whole which made it most shockingly frightful.Also, it is described in another fashion in the following manner:
It represented a monster of vaguely anthropoid outline, but with an octopuslike head whose face was a mass of feelers, a scaly, rubbery-looking body, prodigious claws on hind and fore feet, and long, narrow wings behind. This thing, which seemed instinct with a fearsome and unnatural malignancy, was of a somewhat bloated corpulence...I'm created in the image of God, the gugelhupf does not describe me.

quote:

---

quote: It throttles down to ridicule and accusation and the dialogue ends.

​

The dialogue ended when people started rationalising insane excuses regarding the total absence of evidence for god, instead of thinking for themselves.

​

This "wager" is exactly why I would not trust a religious person with anything important. It's apparently far to easy for them to rationalsie whatever is comfortable in the short term to be trustworthy, rather like a habitual alcoholic.

---

You built your house on a shallow foundation. I wish that you should live in it with peace pervasive.It makes you feel good to speak that way to a fellow creature, I am glad I was able to provide the opportunity.I beg compassion for the alcoholic. Science needs to find a sure way to eliminate him.

---

Pascal's Wager......nice try.

quote:

---

This "wager" is exactly why I would not trust a religious person with anything important. It's apparently far to easy for them to rationalsie whatever is comfortable in the short term to be trustworthy, rather like a habitual alcoholic.

---

One more thing. Wonder why I wrote 'nice try' next to Pascal's Wager?Wonder why you would call him a 'religious' person. He hadn't a clue.
Know what is required in a relationship with God? What would he call Pascal, or would he spit him out of his mouth?His proposition is not worth the time it took to think it, much less to write it down for posterity.

---

Pascal's Wager......nice try.

Thanks.Good laugh!Planning a party for the great 'bow-down'. Wanna come?Gugelhupf knows some 'you ain't seen nothin' yet tricks. Sure to be nut-poppers. Bring protection, the girls can be rancid sometimes.

---

Pascal's Wager......nice try.

quote:

---

to say nothing about how the various measurements of time are prone to errors due to real interactions with

​

{{{the fabric of space}}}

​

... or in more common terms, relativity.

---

Einstein and relativity and sit with a pretty girl for an hour, and it seems like a minit. Sit on a hot stove for a minit, and ........your butt's on fire. LOLOur containers are not perfect. Are they, then, just adequate, or not even that? And they will never be? Because of the fabric of space?This message has been edited by PecosGeorge, 03-19-2005 09:12 AM

---

Pascal's Wager......nice try.

quote:

---

was it really an hour? as long as the fabric is fuschia and chartreuse 'branes all is well.

---

Onestone was onto/into sumpfin. Wunner ifn he'nt wored da enhanced wardrobe?No!

---

Pascal's Wager......nice try.