Existentialism is less interesting than what I ate for dinner. Discuss.

[Ender]

have ub een getting my late-night instant messages?

[Chavo]

Haha, yes!  I've been incredibly busy though.  I'll get around to leaving you a poorly thought out, extremely long reply one of these nights.

Oh, and

(05:49:21) ender: only God Euler can tell
(05:49:32) ender: wow that was so atheistic of me
(05:49:38) ender: though I didn't say God couldn't tell

You excluded God with the word only, unless you want to indicate that God and God Euler are the same entity.  Pascal would be ashamed of you.

[d&q]

(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

[Ender]

Haha, yes!  I've been incredibly busy though.  I'll get around to leaving you a poorly thought out, extremely long reply one of these nights.

Oh, and

(05:49:21) ender: only God Euler can tell
(05:49:32) ender: wow that was so atheistic of me
(05:49:38) ender: though I didn't say God couldn't tell

You excluded God with the word only, unless you want to indicate that God and God Euler are the same entity.  Pascal would be ashamed of you.

iono. 5am yo.

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...?

[Ender]

(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

lies. i never wrote that. nvm, i did. but you left out the part where you called me a dysfunctional 5cm chode. i was simply responding to the hurt i felt.

[Chavo]

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...?

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]

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...?

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.

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]

(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

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

[Explicit]

Ender, out of curiosity, have you read anything by Friedrich Nietzsche? He firmly opposes Christianity, and though his approach is very different from conventional works, it was something that I found to be interesting.

[d&q]

While I'm not commenting directly about Friedrich Nietzsche, I would just like to take some time to say here that Existentialism sucks.

[Ender]

Ender, out of curiosity, have you read anything by Friedrich Nietzsche? He firmly opposes Christianity, and though his approach is very different from conventional works, it was something that I found to be interesting.

I've read a little Nietzsche, but not about his views on Christianity. We will be reading Genealogy of Morality in the Spring in my Humanities class.

Specifically, I read "The Problem of Socrates" in Twilight of the Idols, while reading Plato's Dialogues. The Problem of Socrates is really funny

[Explicit]

While I'm not commenting directly about Friedrich Nietzsche, I would just like to take some time to say here that Existentialism sucks.

What about it do you disagree with?

Ender, out of curiosity, have you read anything by Friedrich Nietzsche? He firmly opposes Christianity, and though his approach is very different from conventional works, it was something that I found to be interesting.

I've read a little Nietzsche, but not about his views on Christianity. We will be reading Genealogy of Morality in the Spring in my Humanities class.

Specifically, I read "The Problem of Socrates" in Twilight of the Idols, while reading Plato's Dialogues. The Problem of Socrates is really funny

[d&q]

While I'm not commenting directly about Friedrich Nietzsche, I would just like to take some time to say here that Existentialism sucks.

What about it do you disagree with?

I disagree with the presupposition that one can reject the validity of objective truth and simultaneously effect a meaningful self-purpose. I am also in disagreement with multiple conjectures that are further derived from this assumption.