Subject:
|
Re: About "Plowed Territory"
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Sun, 3 Dec 2000 10:31:13 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
470 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Bill Farkas writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> >
> > But when we all go over the same topic in this forum, over and over and over
> > again, it's annoying. For example, Bill F. in his response to your response,
> > posts Pascal's Wager AGAIN, for what must be the 57th time in this
> > newsgroup... and when, in fact, LFB had already said, (in effect) don't
> > bother because here are the cites that argue against it, make up your own
> > mind, it's old news. When he does that, THAT is plowed ground.
>
> I made points, that for me, are unresolved, and asked an honest question
> because I sincerely want an answer. For me it's not plowed ground.
If you sincerely thought you came up with Pascal's wager on your own, you're
not very well read. Try www.yahoo.com with Pascal's Wager as search string.
If you sincerely thought that no one has yet thought about how to refute it,
you're not very well read. Here's one link, easily findable from that same
yahoo search, to lots of attempted refutations
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/theism/wager.html
Of all the different refutations, and there are many, the one that resonates
the most to me is that one cannot just "decide" to beleive as a convenience,
in order to cover a bet. Your god, who wants belief of a certain form(1),
doesn't accept that. It doesn't count. You have to *sincerely* believe.
That's hard. The other one I like, of course, is the "wrong god" argument,
what if you've picked the wrong god and he's a different kind of god than
you thought. Now you're fried anyway.
It's disingenious to claim you've not read Pascal's wager and that you've
not read these refutations and you've come up with some neat new idea on
your own. Either that, or you really aren't that well read, in which case,
back to the books with you, my son, and leave us alone till you've done your
homework. The answer you seek likes in the research you apparently need to do.
Till then, stay out of the plowed ground.
1 - i.e. "groveling". You have to abase yourself, declare yourself not
worthy, acknowledge original sin, acknowledge that you can't understand god
and have no hope of doing so, then devote yourself to christ, and when you
backslide because the Saints were on TV that sunday, you're in need of some
repentance. I'd call that groveling... you could look it up to see if the
word matches.
++Lar
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: About "Plowed Territory"
|
| (...) I admit that I'm not well read, as I've said many times, I've not been to college. I honestly hadn't read Pascal nor his wager - until last night at this location, which is quite good: (URL) reading in the past has been limited in many ways, (...) (24 years ago, 3-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: About "Plowed Territory"
|
| (...) I made points, that for me, are unresolved, and asked an honest question because I sincerely want an answer. For me it's not plowed ground. If you don't like it, don't participate. (...) I disagree. I've learned much, and not afraid to admit, (...) (24 years ago, 3-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
15 Messages in This Thread:
 
  
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
