Member Forums > Ender's Book Club
Existentialism is less interesting than what I ate for dinner. Discuss.
Chavo:
--- Quote from: Ender on February 28, 2008, 05:05:10 pm ---edit:Actually, now that sleep has illuminated my thoughts, I realize that I was criticizing the arrogance of reason, as well as the limits of reason. That which you pointed out is a false contradiction, as Pascal would say, since we cannot through reason understand the nature of God, or even prove that God exists. In fact, if God doesn't exist, the statement is vacuously true. And since you can't prove that God exists, you can't prove me wrong. You can't use Pascal's Wager, because even though that says it is best to believe in God, it does not prove that God does exist for a fact, hence not proving the contradiction. Even if God did exist, we still cannot assume that contradictions apply to his decisions. Though I think Spinoza would firmly disagree, with the God-nature equivalence submitting God to certain laws. Cartesian thought also disagrees, as it hypothesizes that deceit is an imperfection and thus God cannot be deceitful, so he would not allow his decisions to be contradictions. But we're talking about Pascal, not Spinoza or Descartes.
FURTHERMORE, this serves to highlight the obscurity of the one true religion, Christianity, and thus support it. One may think that showing a religion to be oscure would be to its discredit, but in fact it is only the combination of obscurity and light (e.g. redemption) that make it sound; for if there were too much obscurity there would be no hope, and if there were no obscurity and everything was illuminated then we would not realize our inherent corruption.
Need I go into what Hume would say...?
--- End quote ---
Pascal would say that you don't need to prove God exists. If you agree with the reasoning behind his wager, then it does not matter whether God exists or not. If it doesn't matter, there is no need to prove it.
Also, good job getting me to actually talk about religion online, something I normally have a very strict rule against.
Ender:
--- Quote from: Chavo on February 28, 2008, 06:24:32 pm ---
--- Quote from: Ender on February 28, 2008, 05:05:10 pm ---edit:Actually, now that sleep has illuminated my thoughts, I realize that I was criticizing the arrogance of reason, as well as the limits of reason. That which you pointed out is a false contradiction, as Pascal would say, since we cannot through reason understand the nature of God, or even prove that God exists. In fact, if God doesn't exist, the statement is vacuously true. And since you can't prove that God exists, you can't prove me wrong. You can't use Pascal's Wager, because even though that says it is best to believe in God, it does not prove that God does exist for a fact, hence not proving the contradiction. Even if God did exist, we still cannot assume that contradictions apply to his decisions. Though I think Spinoza would firmly disagree, with the God-nature equivalence submitting God to certain laws. Cartesian thought also disagrees, as it hypothesizes that deceit is an imperfection and thus God cannot be deceitful, so he would not allow his decisions to be contradictions. But we're talking about Pascal, not Spinoza or Descartes.
FURTHERMORE, this serves to highlight the obscurity of the one true religion, Christianity, and thus support it. One may think that showing a religion to be oscure would be to its discredit, but in fact it is only the combination of obscurity and light (e.g. redemption) that make it sound; for if there were too much obscurity there would be no hope, and if there were no obscurity and everything was illuminated then we would not realize our inherent corruption.
Need I go into what Hume would say...?
--- End quote ---
Pascal would say that you don't need to prove God exists. If you agree with the reasoning behind his wager, then it does not matter whether God exists or not. If it doesn't matter, there is no need to prove it.
Also, good job getting me to actually talk about religion online, something I normally have a very strict rule against.
--- End quote ---
Yes this is true, but what I was getting at is that in order to technically prove that I wrote a contradiction, you have to first prove that God exists. He would agree with that, as it's just logic.
Ender:
--- Quote from: Deuce on February 27, 2008, 09:40:57 pm ---
--- Quote ---(2:29:05 AM) Ender: fukin' a'
(2:29:08 AM) Ender: u there?!!?!?!?!?afdads
(4:00:46 AM) Me: ?
(4:00:56 AM) Ender: fukin' a'
(4:00:57 AM) Ender: AADSASDADFS
(4:01:10 AM) Me: what?
(4:03:07 AM) Ender: iono
--- End quote ---
--- End quote ---
YOU ARE CONFUSED
young deuceling.
BUT DO NOT WORRY.
there is REDEMPTION and LIGHT.
leet_muffin:
[23:32] sparky71989: wtfru?
[23:33] sparky71989: wtfru?
[23:33] sparky71989: AYBABTU
[23:33] sparky71989: AYBABTU
[23:33] sparky71989: AYBABTU
Also note: only time I've ever recieved an I.M. from you.
Ender:
o
that's who that person on my buddy list is
i think i just randomly added sn's of people on this forum once upon a time
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version