Instead of defining good, there need to
demonstrate how they are different. diffetent.
If we can’t then they may not be.
How is the godless good or how did he gain goodness?
Was he born that way, in that case he can not be credited with goodness, or was he thought goodness by parents, teachers, friend’s , then similarly the credit goes to other then him.
Then to determine that other’s notions of goodness differs from himself, then the gap between others and god narrows considerably.
To respond to your post requires an explanation of eternal forms, limit theory, and infinity… any of which freespirit can’t understand.
Morality is simple: that which never violates consent
Freespirit cannot hear the call of freedom though, freespirit’s consent violations are all part of gods plan.
In game theory, freespirit is not considered what is called, a rational agent.
But! Someone with the type of mind and understanding of freespirit, on that level, can understand "goodness with no motive (ape bangs its chest) purer than goodness with motive.
That’s something freespirit can understand, and by the way, has no answer to except to fold.
Because it’s a fact. EVERYONE knows that’s true.
And what you did instead of responding to the points I made was just restate your opinions.
I’m not an atheist. And notice that instead of responding to my post, you label me.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem
[/quote]
As I pointed out in an earlier post - which you did not respond to - you are quite incorrect about Pascal’s Wager. It is only for those who already believe. And he believed that belief came as grace. It is not something to hurl at atheists.
So, you can decide if you have any responses to the points I made
or you simply like to make assertions.
So far you are not participating in a philosophy forum, you are throwing your opinions at people.
My mistake for calling you an atheist, I’m used to dealing with atheists when I deal with religious topics because they are now the majority in the Western world.
Pascal was writing to people that thought Christianity could be true but were not 100% convinced. So, he was basically writing to agnostics.
Free spirit,
This is starting to get absurd.
Karpel clearly stated that to a believer, belief is only given through gods grace.
Plain as can be.
Yet you ignored it a second time, just like you ignore my posts.
You have no argument here.
I’ll tell you my theological mind if you’re curious:
There really may be a theological man named “god” who has the most power (currently) in existence. That however does make “God” THE CREATOR, nor anyone!
If I remember correctly, Karpel is a pantheist or a panentheist.
That’s because I disagree. I think belief can come through evidence (like the evidence for Jesus) and through logic (because the benefits of religious belief, as Pascal taught.)
Karpel and others have already pointed out the problem with your post here. It’s literally like you are ignoring everyone except your own echo chamber.
Most of the 2 billion Christians and 1 billion Hindus etc… Muslims as well, believe that everything is only by the grace of god, creator destroyer and sustainer of all, with no possible replacement or peer.
What’s already been pointed out to you that you ignore, is that you “disagree with this”
Why is your bizarre sect the one that god chooses, ala Pascal’s wager, over any other sect.
OK. I’m not sure why you keep repeating Karpel’s post. He’s an atheist (pantheist) that believes faith only comes through grace. I believe it can come through evidence, too.
Christianity has the most compelling evidence compared to other religions, as I’ve repeatedly stated here. The historical evidence for Jesus’s life and resurrection is very solid in my opinion because it’s based on the eyewitness evidence of hundreds of people.
That’s why I’m a Christian…because I believe it’s true and it’s perfectly rational to believe.
Pascal’s Wager is a great argument for faith, as I’ve already discussed at length here.
And again, it’s like you’re in your own echo chamber, not responding to anyone’s posts.
6 out of 7 billion people believe in god, most of those 6 billion people believe that god is the eternal sole creator destroyer and sustainer of all existence …
So who are little you, to come along with some bizarre converting ideation as a sect of the true god?
You do realize there are over 10,000 creator gods right?
What if the true one doesn’t agree with anything you say? What does Pascal’s wager mean to you then?
I’ve already answered these questions in my original post. Read it again. It’s like you can’t read or understand…
I read your post. It only talks about Christians.
Who gives a shit if Jesus rose from the dead?
If it’s the wrong God/religion, then it’s the wrong god/religion.
Pascal’s wager has nothing to do with Christianity, you are absurdly confused here.
It has to do with a person specifically named “god”
I’m know of 5 resurrection stories of the “great spirit” before Jesus was even born, they’re well known… Egyptian, Mesopotamian, Chinese etc…
Why is Jesus the one you choose ?
What if Jesus was the Devil trying to trick us ?
I mean like, honestly, how smart do you really think you are about the mechanations of the spirit world?
Apparently, you think you are so smart, that you think that your EXACT mind is the most perfect one to win Pascal’s wager.
You’re delusional.
You are ridiculous. You keep repeating the same objections and I’ve already addressed them.
Keep re-reading my posts and stop asking the same questions that I’ve already answered.
As has been pointed out to you, this is a philosophy forum, and your last post just lost you the title of being a philosopher.
My posts not only addressed your posts, you’ve never once addressed the “atheist having a purer good than a theist” argument, the reverse wager.
Even ignoring that, you can’t even handle debate on your own turf. At least iambiguous pulls that one off somewhat.
I’ve been here the entire thread.
It’s always an honor to have people (read: listen) to you, yet, you insult me for this, tell me to keep rereading you.
I don’t think you realize two things:
You are wrong
How blessed you are to have people read you seriously and reply seriously
I insulted you because you’re unable to read or comprehend anything. You keep repeating yourself like some type of idiot.
I’ve already addressed the “many gods” objection that you keep repeating.
Stop repeating your same questions and read my posts.
I did reply to them, I spoke of resurrection gods thousands of years before Jesus was even born.
Stop telling me that I’m not reading, responding or replying directly to your posts.
You’re delusional if you think I’m not doing this.
Those gods do not have the same amount of evidence that Jesus does. I stated that before. I urge you to study the evidence yourself.
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dying-and-rising_deity
In many of these other cultures, writing was more commonplace than in the Jewish world, we know for a fact the the New Testament was written 100 years after Jesus death, these other stories were most likely written contemperaneously.
You’re actually speaking in person to a resurrected person. It’s not extraordinary. It just happens to occur at times.
I bet he was an educated guy, I’ll even grant that he could have been as smart as any man living today, which would only make it even easier to dupe the uneducated masses of the time with his stories.
Is marytrdom a measure of veracity? More like a measure of tenacity.
If I were to lay down my life for Bigfoot or a flat earth, would that throw into question the truth of the propositions that such things existed in reality? Or more to the point - should it?
The way that cognitive biases work in humans, and things like “the backfire effect”, is that people tend to double down when a flawed interpretation is challenged or contradicted - whereas I’m sure you’re aware of those conformity experiments like Asch’s 1951 one that shows how people often conform away from the truth when the consensus is different. Perhaps Saint Paul was not one such person, and immune to cognitive biases, but even granting that, given the nature of what he was claiming to be true - is martyrdom the most of his worries? Martyrdom has been a common theme for the religious, and the heaven they believe they would be rewarded with for their staunch beliefs - there’s grounds to argue that they were often seeking it, or at least hardly fearing it. Cult members die for truths they believe even today: dying for something is no evidence for its truth.
Mohammad gained a lot of power for his claims - whether true or false. Joseph Smith got laid loads for getting people to believe in his claims.
The Matrix hypothesis is unfalsifiable. We can’t prove any percent likelihood either way. The same is true for religion: even if Jesus was a real person who really was executed and subsequently rose from the dead, this wouldn’t prove he was the Son of God, or that either Old or New Testaments were true, or that God was true. Out of all kinds of possible explanations, we know that people have been thought dead but actually not been, from exhumed coffins showing claw marks on the inside from the person trying to get out, for example - a horrific fate if there ever was one. But I’m saying even if there was the faintest causal connection between these events and God’s existence, the only real falsifiable proof is have a way to directly test God’s existence empirically. Stories and scholars pondering on their veracity is just as doubtful as whether we live in the Matrix as it is doubtless - I remember an amusing observation that so few historical documents historically and geographically proximate to the stories in the Bible mention the small fact that the literal Son of God was born. Just a small oversight perhaps.
Pascal’s Wager is as compelling as the Heaven’s Gate claim that wearing uniforms and nike shoes, with $5.75 in your pocket will carry you off on a comet to heaven if you kill yourself at the right time. I don’t find such a thing to be brilliant.
Lol no.
Jesus was crucified around 33 A.D.
The four canonical gospels—Matthew, Mark, Luke and John—were probably written between AD 66 and 110.
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel#Composition
That’s very recent in terms of ancient history. You really need to read a history book.
The key word in your link is the word PROBABLY, before almost every sentence.
Have you ever read work on how all the gospels contradict each other?