Kyle hunched over a computer, typing feverishly;
Thunder crashed, Kyle laughed madly, then 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.


That's dandy; try that definition of God on a typical Christian.
They will condemn you for being a new-ager.

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.


Yeah that seemed obvious to me.

By the same logic, you should worship the Flying Spaghetti monster.

In fact, by that logic, you are actually better off worshipping "Bob"
and the Church of the SubGenius.

Here's the Pascal's version:
God Exists | God Doesn't Exist
Believe in God + infinity | + 0
Don't believe in God - infinity (go to hell) | + 0

Now the Church of the SubGenius offers gaurantees eternal salvation,
or you get TRIPLE your money back, so the SubGenius version is:


"Bob" Exists | "Bob" Doesn't Exist
Believe in "Bob" + infinity | + 90 dollars
Don't believe in "Bob" - infinity (go to hell) | + 0

So you actually come out ahead with the Church of the SubGenius.

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!

Another problem that seems obvious to me, the "Believe in God" option
of Pascal's wager requires you to adopt and live by Christian
morality. (Or Muslim or Jewish, but let's not even go there.)

And he weights this as being + 0, whether you do so or not. But I
don't accept that, living by Christian morality involves accepting
things that I don't accept. Of course, it depends on whose version of
Christian morality you are talking about, but at least by some
versions I see around me, this means bombing abortion clinics and
rejecting the theory of evolution in favor of a fairy tale.

Those are a couple of extreme examples, I could make a longer list,
but I don't want to belabor the point.

Of course, then some would argue, "well, THOSE aren't part of
Christianity as -I- know it."

But that's another problem, of course. It certainly is "believing in
God" as some people, quite a lot of them, know it.

So besides not really knowing what "believing in God" exactly means in
the wager, you have a lot of different possibilities. And, most of
these different sects of Christianity believe that all of the other
sects are not doing it right, and will go to hell.

So in fact, in the "believe in God" branch of Pascal's wager, you
really only have a slim chance that you are doing it right.

--
Zapanaz
International Satanic Conspiracy
Customer Support Specialist
http://joecosby.com/
The world is run by rich people on the rare occasions that it's "run"
at all. Generally it runs itself because people are so good at
building good stout cages for themselves. The only way to "beat" the
rich is to either get very VERY rich yourself or to drop out of the
game totally. I don't personally know anybody who's done either. I
know plenty of people who like to say they've dropped out, but they're
all still at the mercy of rich people. They just haven't been noticed
yet because they've successsfully hunkered down and haven't really
fought back. I probably fall into that category myself. I certainly
hope so. Not much one can do in prison but jack off and write memoirs.
Come to think of it, that's about all most people do even when they're
NOT in prison. All Is Vanity.

- Rev. Ivan Stang

:: Currently listening to Shelter From The Storm, 1974, by Bob Dylan, from "The Essential Bob Dylan"