OT: Is there any possibility that 250.000 eye-witnesses be ALLwrong?
On Sep 22, 2:16*pm, Kyle wrote:
Sigh. OK, let's see if we can straighten a few things out...
last.chance wrote:
[some weird stuff, and then...]
And please, pray-pray-pray for friends and enemies as well. If we only
knew the help of our prayer on world?s future events??????????
While the idea of prayer more for others than for ourselves is highly
commendable, in the most orthodox (as in "right-belief") sense of the
idea, prayer is meant to change us, not God's mind or the world.
Prayer is about our being more attuned to God, and therefore taking
action more in line with what he wants to see happen in the world,
'cause our perspective is a little screwed up.
In response to last.chance, Zapanaz opined:
Yes, that's how to solve the world's problems; *imagine an invisible man
who lives in the sky, then ask him to fix them.
First, that's where ancient cultures located him, but considering that
we understand the multiverse a little differently than our ancient
forebears did, we might say God exists in a higher dimension. What I
believe is that God exists outside of all dimensions - outside of any
sense of reality we can comprehend. It's kind of a blending of
cosmological and ontological arguments for the existence of God.
Second, God in the Judeo-Christian-Islamic tradition is not a man (nor
a woman). WE were created in the image of the Divine, not the other
way around. I think Jack Chick is one of the few who still portray God
as an old guy with a long beard and wearing a white robe. (Oh, and
Terry Gilliam, occasionally, but he also wears a crown in those
animations. And smites Sir Robin's minstrels. I think.)
Third, the point is not to ask God to fix everything we (humanity as a
whole) have screwed up, but to ask for God to teach us and work
through us to bring about healing and reconciliation and wholeness of
being and spirit to all people. That's what Jesus meant when he said
"the kingdom of God is at hand (here)": it's not some futuristic hope
but a striving at this very minute to be the best that human beings
can be. Being human should not be an excuse ("I'm only human!") it
should be an aspiration.
In reply to Zapanaz, Aardvark wrote:
Go to Google and do a search for 'Descartes' Wager'. You'll probably find
a Wikipedia article about the subject. Read and digest the article.
Um, no, you'll go hungry trying to read and digest anything on
"Descartes' Wager". However, Blaise Pascal made a wager. Try looking
that up, instead.
So then Zapanaz wrote:
No.
If you have something to say, say it. *I'm not going to dig around on
Google and Wikipedia, trying to guess what your point is. *If you
can't present the concept the wager represents yourself, I'm not going
to do your work for you.
Fair enough. Blaise Pascal was a 17th century mathematician, physicist
and philosopher. He wrote a great deal on the subject of the
irrationality of rational thought and dismantled the idea of certainty
in anything...particularly in religion.
Posthumously his rough draft of his "Apology of Christian Faith" was
organized in which he tore apart our ability to trust in our own mind.
The final argument, known as Pascal's Wager, is if everything is
uncertain, than belief in God cannot be proven, which means belief is
a choice that should be made on what is more beneficial, what has the
better outcome...for Pascal, the choice is what will give a person the
most happiness.
He argued if you don't believe in God and God doesn't exist, you lose
nothing, obviously. If you believe in God and God doesn't exist, again
you lose nothing: you will be no worse off than if you didn't believe
in God. If you believe in God and God does exist, you win. If you
don't believe in God and God does exist, you lose because you will not
have gained "happiness"... what Christians call "the peace that
transcends all comprehension".
I hesitate to critique such an amazing mind as Pascal, however I find
two problems with the Wager. The first is the dualistic nature of it:
that there is a God or there is nothing, but it neglects the idea that
a DIFFERENT God/god might exist. The odds of the "wager" change
considerably if there are multiple outcomes.
Second, I believe Pascal's wager neglects the concept that the
Christian "Final Judgment" could work both ways: that not only will
God determine how well we have used what we have been given for the
benefit of humanity, but that all humans will have a chance to judge
one last time what it is God has done for them and decide whether they
will believe in God at last. Those who do not believe would have one
last chance at belief...it would still be their choice, but they would
also be free to choose not to "bow the knee" and take oblivion as the
alternative. But Pascal's Wager - at least in my small understanding -
doesn't allow for that.
Hope this helps!
oh it does it does
|