Areas of Agreement (sensible version)

Originally posted by Chucklets37
Then why do so many people argue about whose "God" is better?

Because they like to hear thier own voice. An old saying goes like this,one should'nt argue politics, religion or if the Yankees are better than the Red Sox

Originally posted by Chucklets37
Then why do so many people argue about whose "God" is better?

Because people are stupid, there is only One God.

Originally posted by duecer
one cannot prove a negative, therefor the only sensible solution is to buy into Pascal's wager and believe. It's the smart and logical thing to do.

there are some major problems with Pascal's wager. one is that you might place your bet on the wrong god. what if you believe in the Christian god and live as a good Christian, but when you die it turns out that the Egyptian god Ra is the supreme being and he's pissed off because you never sacrificed to him?

Originally posted by coquette
I have doubts about everything. I change my mind all the time. Reality is conceptual and contextual. Truth is interpretational. The existence of God, an omniscient, omnipotent, prime creator, absolute and only planner and determinant of the entire universe, is an uninteresting questions for me. The reason is that such a God wouldn't leave any doubts in my m uninteresting. Ask better questions and you'll have a chance to get better answers, like 42.

so you agree that the existence of God (i.e. "an omniscient, omnipotent, prime creator, absolute and only planner and determinant of the entire universe" ) hasn't been established through rational argument or empirical evidence?

Originally posted by daniel58
Because people are stupid, there is only One God.

what is it, exactly, that leads you to think there is good reason to believe in God?

Originally posted by duecer
one cannot prove a negative, therefor the only sensible solution is to buy into Pascal's wager and believe. It's the smart and logical thing to do.

I am god. believe in me. it's the smart and logical thing to do.

Originally posted by daniel58
Because people are stupid, there is only One God.

and that would be me.

sometimes I have second thoughts about creating you so stupid, but of course I already knew that in the beginning. and before.

Originally posted by Blackamp
so you agree that the existence of God (i.e. "an omniscient, omnipotent, prime creator, absolute and only planner and determinant of the entire universe" ) hasn't been established through rational argument or empirical evidence?

Did I imply that? That's not what I meant.

Originally posted by wormwood
I am god. believe in me. it's the smart and logical thing to do.

"i think the stapler is one of your greatest inventions" - a kid's letter to God.

Originally posted by coquette
Did I imply that? That's not what I meant.

do you think it has been established, or not?

Originally posted by Blackamp
do you think it has been established, or not?

First, if you are asking about "it" (as in the existence of God), then this probably belongs in the spiritual forum and referring to the existence of god, cap G, as "it", is curious. I'm not antidisestablishmentarian, but thinking about it doesn't change anything, right?

Originally posted by Blackamp
"i think the stapler is one of your greatest inventions" - a kid's letter to God.

I'm quite proud of it myself.

Originally posted by coquette
First, if you are asking about "it" (as in the existence of God), then this probably belongs in the spiritual forum and referring to the existence of god, cap G, as "it", is curious. I'm not antidisestablishmentarian, but thinking about it doesn't change anything, right?

i see this more as an epistemological issue than a spiritual one. the question is really, 'do we have sufficient grounds to justify having this particular belief (in the existence of our invisible friend)?'. a related question might be 'what, if anything, would suffice as grounds to justify having this belief?'

sure, thinking about whether your beliefs are well-founded doesn't change anything - except that you might end up discarding unjustified beliefs, and quite possibly forming a more useful and productive world view.

also, considering that people have done some really horrible things to other people for not believing in the same God that they do, it is probably a good idea for us all to question the justification of our beliefs, particularly if any of those beliefs incline us to treat others badly.

Originally posted by Blackamp
there are some major problems with Pascal's wager. one is that you might place your bet on the wrong god. what if you believe in the Christian god and live as a good Christian, but when you die it turns out that the Egyptian god Ra is the supreme being and he's pissed off because you never sacrificed to him?

pascal never differentiated between God's, he was a universalist

Originally posted by Blackamp
i see this more as an epistemological issue than a spiritual one. the question is really, 'do we have sufficient grounds to justify having this particular belief (in the existence of our invisible friend)?'. a related question might be 'what, if anything, would suffice as grounds to justify having this belief?'

sure, thinking about whether your beliefs a ...[text shortened]... tion of our beliefs, particularly if any of those beliefs incline us to treat others badly.

ok, thanks for clarifying. I agree with you.