In that case, you are a complete idiot.

I hope that makes you feel better. If you would like to help me see the light, why not expand on your opinion with actual content. Tell me why you disagree. What you have so far is not really useful to me.

Nope, that would be totally illogical, or require some really tremendous twisting of the meaning of the word 'matters'. Your definitions are so far from standard that I cannot even begin to guess at what you mean, beyond that it is not what I think the word means or what the various online dictionaries I consulted thinks it means.

In any case, if your argument is based on some very obscure definition of a commonly used word, it is just a semantic game, not something you should use to make decisions.

That is certainly true in Catholicism. Doubt and uncertainty are pretty openly discussed. No one should actually expect you to know that God exists in the way you know that blood cells have hemoglobin. It is behavior and faith which really is the assumption that he exists.

If he did tell you why he disagreed, you would ignore his arguments, as we have already seen demonstrated in this thread. I think his use of ad hominems is justified at this point

I mean what Russell meant. What do you mean?

How are you able to even tie your own shoes? Pyro wrote this MINUTES following my post. Did you just decide you didn't feel like reading today?

I mean whatever the first dictionary you pick at random says is the definition. If you get 'unlucky', I'll let you keep choosing until you find one that fits.

intr.v. mat·tered, mat·ter·ing, mat·ters
To be of importance: "Love is most nearly itself/When here and now cease to matter" (T.S. Eliot). See Synonyms at count1.

I googled 'matters definition'. If you are from the UK you can verify this search, if not your results may vary.

In any case why are the theists so eager to play word games? If you do not want to use the normal definition of 'matters', either explain it in your post or pick a word that fits better, otherwise you are no better than Pletho saying 'heart', and when questioned on it saying, 'no the heart in the mind'. If your argument depends on semantics it probably sucks.

I suggest you read my old dialogues with chezlaw. You seem to be chezlaw, jr. and I have no desire to repeat that frustration.

If you don't want to do that read Nietzsche, Sartre, any of the existentialists. They explain it better than me.

/thread

I think I'll pass, and merely say that if you are using a definition of 'matters' which it is necessary to read those works to understand, then perhaps there was a better word to use.

I will stick to using standard definitions and assuming everyone else does the same if they have a point. If my usage of a word is shown to be non-standard, I will try to explain what I meant using a different word, or simply provide a definition. If the argument uses non-standard definitions to obfuscate what is being said then it *tends* to be a weak argument, in my experience. Like I said already in the thread, semantic word games are of no interest to me at all.

If the argument was that existentialists believe that heaven is the only thing that matters, then fair enough, I do not know enough about that philosophy to comment.

Have I ignored an argument you made? Disagreeing is not the same as ignoring, is it? If I have missed a point I apologize, I am posting in breaks on a household job that I am working on and the rate of drying of some grout is determining how long I have to respond so I am quite capable of missing things.

In any event, I think his post was uncalled for, but I have no intention of dropping to that level with him or you.

The OP does not advocate a specific God. I simply raised the broad issue of God without specificity. I think it is possible to lose the fundamental value of theism if you get caught up in God specifics improperly.


Again, I did not get into specifics. Certainly you have to ask yourself what it means to live a life as if there was a God. I also never said that an atheist or agnostic could not do that.



I think that abstract idea is the starting point that I was proposing. I have personal thoughts about the second point but that really is beyond the intent of the OP.



I might have agreed but every discussion of Pascal's Wager I have seen has gotten bogged down in the kind of points you raised in 1-3, improperly I think. I wanted to recast the discussion in very broad terms to try to avoid the devil in the details.


Sorry it took me so long to respond. It was a longer post than some and my grout is not very forgiving.

Yes, you missed several points.

The last thing you posted was along the lines of 'do you ascribe a non-zero probability to the existence of some god, regardless of characteristics'?

I answered yes, I will happily ascribe a non-zero probability of whatever low number you choose. Where does your argument go now since your conclusion does not follow from the non-zero probability of the existence of some god regardless of characteristics?

Here is your argument as I currently understand it.

a) There is a non-zero probability of the existence of god.

I agree with this premise.

b1) If god exists, he is the only thing that matters.

I tentatively agree, though this is a bit word-gamey.

b2) If he doesn't exist, nothing matters.

I completely disagree. West Ham not getting relegated this season matters to me if god does not exist, and I believe my definition of matters is standard.

c) If god exists, and is the only thing that matters, we should live as though he exists.

I completely disagree, though no argument is presented by you as to why this should be the case. I simply disagree with all arguments I can envisage you presenting. Also, one of your terms is not well defined. 'god existing' is a true or false statement, saying nothing about what type of god exists. As such, 'living as though he exists' appears to be a meaningless statement - how does one live as though a generic unspecified deity exists?

d) If god exists, and is the only thing that matters, and you live your life as though he exists, then you have maximised your chances.

I completely disagree. You have not defined what 'chances' you are talking about. I will assume you mean 'chances of going to heaven (or getting some other arbitrary reward)'. If you didn't mean that please correct me.

If so, the truth of this statement clearly depends on the 'type of deity' which exists, assuming just one does. Consider a deity who will grant you heaven and plentiful virgins and all that other good stuff as long as you don't believe he exists, and don't 'live as though he exists', while you are alive. Well then you would be ****ed, but I would be living it up for eternity.

So d) cannot follow simply from c) even if c) is valid.

Well, basically everything has been said.

"Live life as if there is a God" needs a clarification. "Maximize your chances" of what? And it certainly matters if god doesn't exist if you're going to make changes to your life.

This argument can only work with a specific god model inserted, and then you can just look up Pascal's wager's fallacies yourself.

edit: forgot to say - that's quite an LOL ambitious title

Hey, don't you remember that two years ago I posted my idea that God only requires assuming rather than abject belief and also posted the exact same bridge analogy in that or a similar thread? I didn't mention it at first because I knew that it was an unpagiarized thought from RLK and because I wanted to see whether you would mention it. Did you forget?

Were you just being sloppy? Deism claims he has no interest in us personally. The non fraudelent revelation may be awaing our great great grandchildren.

RLK's Wager has validity if it requires only that you assume, rather than believe that God exists, and you throw in the very reasonable assumption that he wants his creations to thrive. The problem for him is that those two assumptions alone do nothing to push anyone to believe that Jesus was ressurected.

its been said already, but exactly wtf does "live your life like there is a god" even mean? I'm currently living my life as if there is a deistic God, since his existence has no effect on the world as we know it.

are you saying we should live our life as if there is a God who cares about what we do? if so, what if this God loves evil? or are you saying this God must be all-loving and wants us to do all-loving things as well.

confused.

He's saying don't masturbate, don't eat pork, don't work on the sabbath, make sure to honour your parents, don't worship false idols...you know, all that things that an omnipotent being would deem important.

To DS: I truly did not see your similar post. Also, Jesus' resurrection is not a problem for me because I was not trying to push anyone to Christianity.

To dkx and Hopey: You are putting a lot of words in my mouth that I never said.

I really was not going very far past the OP position. If you actually accepted the OP point as valid, ie. you were sincerely trying to live your life as if there was a God, what more could He really want? You are trying. Could he blame you for not accepting every detail of any religion verbatim? Would he want you to not question or challenge ideas with your intellect? I don't know, but I don't think so. I think you are hostile to a concept that really does not deserve hostility.

The one thing that theism isn't, is basically irrational. Certainly some people carry it to irrational or unjustified positions, but frankly I see that from atheists also. So what?

This starting point is where I started when I was struggling with my faith over 30 years ago when I was in graduate school. The path I followed is right for me but I do not claim it is "Right" and I do not try to jam it down anyone else's throat. I still maintain that the starting point is sound though.

I left a lot of work for the individual on what these mean. Bottom line, I do not want the responsibility of deciding what it means for you. If I tell you what it means, I own the outcome, but it is your life.

You do appear to agree with me that this is different from the traditional presentation of Pascal's wager, which is what I thought.

Glad you liked the title. Disappointed though that you did not acknowledge that I kept things fairly brief. Many of the responses were much longer than mine. I tried to push the average in the theist favor.

Its late here, I am tired, so this is going to do it for me today. I did want to create a response as I clearly owe one.

Cool, off to a good start.

I did not mean this exactly. I was speaking more specifically about the inevitable end state that we reach evaluated under the scenarios of God or no God. In the no God scenario, the end state is the same for you no matter how you lived. Several people have reacted with hostility to this, but to me it seems self-evident.

As per above, this is not what I meant. Concerning the second sentence, I recognize all of the words as English, but I have no idea what it means. If I had to guess I would say sports, possibly British. Rugby?, Soccer?

I am having trouble answering this well. Let me pose a question and maybe I can get a better idea of your issue. As a thought experiment, imagine that you knew for certain that God, a creator of the universe and your consciousness, existed. You know nothing more. Would that make any difference to you in how you lived?

I think I would like to hold off on this until I get some help with c) above. Hopefully then I will have a better handle on your point.

What is you're understanding of the concept of God? I'm sure you have some idea.

I can't say much about the positive or negative health effects of masturbation at the moment, but pork is actually an unhealthy meat (use Google, there's plenty to read about). Also, I'm not Jewish, so I can't comment on working and labouring during the Sabbath. Perhaps somebody else can explain why. As for honouring your parents, you can spend a moment thinking about the positives of that on your own.

False idols. That's an interesting one. In this day and age we have people (e.g., rock stars) that are considered "idols" in the traditional sense that they are almost literally worshiped - think shrines, like the one dedicated to Kurt Kobain. It becomes a semblance of sacredness, and any criticism of the individual or their work is considered sacrilege.

We have idols on this site too that are more or less worshiped, or at least referred to as gods by the fans (no, I thought it was just a figure of speech too at first....). Poker players like Phil Ivey and Patrik Antonius are revered in that sense. It's sort of funny at first, but then it echoes in the creepy sense.