Applied Theology

Singular Quartet · Post by **Singular Quartet** » 2003-04-22 01:06pm

http://www.machall.com/index.php?strip_id=189

I'm not sure which 'proof'* they're talking about, but its either Anselm's or Decartes' IIRC.

*Both of them had the problem of using circular logic, so they didn't actually work...

neoolong · Post by **neoolong** » 2003-04-22 01:24pm

I think it was Anselm. The pages I've checked on it attribute it to him.

Singular Quartet · Post by **Singular Quartet** » 2003-04-22 01:39pm

neoolong wrote:I think it was Anselm. The pages I've checked on it attribute it to him.

Personally, I always thought Pascal's Wager (I think it was Pascal, may have been somebody else) was a pretty good one...

If I believe in God, and he does not exist, nothing bad happens.
If I don't believe in God, and he does exist, then I go straight to hell, no questions asked.
Thus, it is in my best intrests to believe in God.

I know I'm paraphrasing it, but I always thought it was one of the more intresting takes on theology.

Hotfoot · Post by **Hotfoot** » 2003-04-22 01:42pm

Singular Quartet wrote:Personally, I always thought Pascal's Wager (I think it was Pascal, may have been somebody else) was a pretty good one...

If I believe in God, and he does not exist, nothing bad happens.
If I don't believe in God, and he does exist, then I go straight to hell, no questions asked.
Thus, it is in my best intrests to believe in God.

I know I'm paraphrasing it, but I always thought it was one of the more intresting takes on theology.

It's a load of horse shit. No mention of Thor, Eris, Zeus, Bhrama, Krishna, Set, or Confusion.

neoolong · Post by **neoolong** » 2003-04-22 01:54pm

The problem also is what people are willing to do, even with the chance that he doesn't exist.

Like killing a bunch of people to bring them to God. And if he doesn't exist, well whoops.

Singular Quartet · Post by **Singular Quartet** » 2003-04-22 01:56pm

Hotfoot wrote:
Singular Quartet wrote:Personally, I always thought Pascal's Wager (I think it was Pascal, may have been somebody else) was a pretty good one...

If I believe in God, and he does not exist, nothing bad happens.
If I don't believe in God, and he does exist, then I go straight to hell, no questions asked.
Thus, it is in my best intrests to believe in God.

I know I'm paraphrasing it, but I always thought it was one of the more intresting takes on theology.
It's a load of horse shit. No mention of Thor, Eris, Zeus, Bhrama, Krishna, Set, or Confusion.

That's because Pascal lived in the 1600s, dumbass. The Church/Inquisition would have burned him at the stake for even off-handedly mentioning the possiblity for their existance. That, and he prolly didn't care either way.

Hotfoot · Post by **Hotfoot** » 2003-04-22 02:11pm

Singular Quartet wrote:That's because Pascal lived in the 1600s, dumbass. The Church/Inquisition would have burned him at the stake for even off-handedly mentioning the possiblity for their existance. That, and he prolly didn't care either way.

So? Does that make it any more of a good argument? That's just one aspect of its failings as a viable argument, anyway. So either he's kissing the Church's ass to avoid getting burned at the stake, or he didn't think of or care about the inherant flaws in his argument. Either way, it's not a good argument, and is quite annoying. It's especially annoying because people still try to use it today.

Ted C · Post by **Ted C** » 2003-04-22 02:16pm

Singular Quartet wrote: If I believe in God, and he does not exist, nothing bad happens.
If I don't believe in God, and he does exist, then I go straight to hell, no questions asked.
Thus, it is in my best intrests to believe in God.

If I believe in God, and actually Vishnu exists, then I'm screwed.

Pascal's Wager is a "False Dilemma" fallacy, since it limits the possibilities to simply "God" and "Not God".

Kelly Antilles · Post by **Kelly Antilles** » 2003-04-22 02:20pm

Ted C wrote: If I believe in God, and actually Vishnu exists, then I'm screwed.

Pascal's Wager is a "False Dilemma" fallacy, since it limits the possibilities to simply "God" and "Not God".

*heh*

Well, isn't that what most fundies believe anyway?

Hotfoot · Post by **Hotfoot** » 2003-04-22 02:23pm

Kelly Antilles wrote:Well, isn't that what most fundies believe anyway?

Sadly, no. They usually have three or four levels of distinction, each one treated worse than the next. True believer, misguided, heathen, and atheist.

Pascal's Wager is often used for trying to convince the "misguided" back into the flock, or reinforcing their own beliefs.

SirNitram · Post by **SirNitram** » 2003-04-22 02:47pm

Singular Quartet wrote:
neoolong wrote:I think it was Anselm. The pages I've checked on it attribute it to him.
Personally, I always thought Pascal's Wager (I think it was Pascal, may have been somebody else) was a pretty good one...

If I believe in God, and he does not exist, nothing bad happens.
If I don't believe in God, and he does exist, then I go straight to hell, no questions asked.
Thus, it is in my best intrests to believe in God.

I know I'm paraphrasing it, but I always thought it was one of the more intresting takes on theology.

Wagner ignored the third possibility: God isn't impressed by crossing your fingers behind your back.

Singular Quartet · Post by **Singular Quartet** » 2003-04-22 03:33pm

SirNitram wrote:
Singular Quartet wrote:
neoolong wrote:I think it was Anselm. The pages I've checked on it attribute it to him.
Personally, I always thought Pascal's Wager (I think it was Pascal, may have been somebody else) was a pretty good one...

If I believe in God, and he does not exist, nothing bad happens.
If I don't believe in God, and he does exist, then I go straight to hell, no questions asked.
Thus, it is in my best intrests to believe in God.

I know I'm paraphrasing it, but I always thought it was one of the more intresting takes on theology.
Wagner ignored the third possibility: God isn't impressed by crossing your fingers behind your back.

Quite true.

As to other people: it's not a viable arguement, I'm not saying it is, and he was merely saving his ass by coming up with it.

Hotfoot · Post by **Hotfoot** » 2003-04-22 03:47pm

Singular Quartet wrote:Quite true.

As to other people: it's not a viable arguement, I'm not saying it is, and he was merely saving his ass by coming up with it.

You speak as though he was being directly threatened by the Church when he wrote it, and thus provided it as some sort of escape clause. Yet Pascal was a believer, and to my knowledge was genuine in his arguments. If you claim that he intentionally made a poor argument under duress (from a bunch of notes that were never published (edit: until) after his death), you'll have to provide evidence to support that claim.

All the evidence I see shows that he honestly felt that his wagers, including this most famous one, were valid and good arguments.

Singular Quartet · Post by **Singular Quartet** » 2003-04-22 04:07pm

Hotfoot wrote:
Singular Quartet wrote:Quite true.

As to other people: it's not a viable arguement, I'm not saying it is, and he was merely saving his ass by coming up with it.
You speak as though he was being directly threatened by the Church when he wrote it, and thus provided it as some sort of escape clause. Yet Pascal was a believer, and to my knowledge was genuine in his arguments. If you claim that he intentionally made a poor argument under duress (from a bunch of notes that were never published after his death), you'll have to provide evidence to support that claim.

All the evidence I see shows that he honestly felt that his wagers, including this most famous one, were valid and good arguments.

No, it seemed like it. I'm just now reading through an article on PAscal, just got to the part where it actually discusses the wager. I'm an idiot. Sorry.

According to the article, the wager was written to make believing on God a rational assumption... from a fundie perspective...

Argh...

I was assuming he had written it under duress because it was such a bad arguement.

Rye · Post by **Rye** » 2003-04-22 04:17pm

Oh, not Pascal's Wager! Surely not! I thought i had killed that when i dropped philosophy.

Almost as bad as the ontological argument that is.

By the same logic, we should wear foil caps to make sure the aliens don't take over our brains, just in case.

RedImperator · Post by **RedImperator** » 2003-04-22 04:18pm

Singular Quartet wrote:
neoolong wrote:I think it was Anselm. The pages I've checked on it attribute it to him.
Personally, I always thought Pascal's Wager (I think it was Pascal, may have been somebody else) was a pretty good one...

If I believe in God, and he does not exist, nothing bad happens.
If I don't believe in God, and he does exist, then I go straight to hell, no questions asked.
Thus, it is in my best intrests to believe in God.

I know I'm paraphrasing it, but I always thought it was one of the more intresting takes on theology.

Let's try this: if you believe in God, and he doesn't exist, you've spent your whole life--the only one you're going to get, by the way, because there's no heaven--in fear of a non-existant diety and denying yourself pleasure for no reason past an imaginary sky fairy told you so.

Singular Quartet · Post by **Singular Quartet** » 2003-04-22 04:42pm

Rye wrote:Oh, not Pascal's Wager! Surely not! I thought i had killed that when i dropped philosophy.

Almost as bad as the ontological argument that is.

By the same logic, we should wear foil caps to make sure the aliens don't take over our brains, just in case.

No one ever said it was very good logic.

kojikun · Post by **kojikun** » 2003-04-22 04:51pm

I wish i could make donuts appear out of nowhere

Singular Quartet · Post by **Singular Quartet** » 2003-04-22 05:27pm

kojikun wrote:I wish i could make donuts appear out of nowhere

So do I, but then the ASVS Lump Club would beat us up sumo style...

kojikun · Post by **kojikun** » 2003-04-22 05:35pm

So do I, but then the ASVS Lump Club would beat us up sumo style...

Nah, then they couldn't get donuts. They'd hold our porn and caffeine for ransom until we made them donuts, I'd wager. Need caffeeeeeeiiiine

Singular Quartet · Post by **Singular Quartet** » 2003-04-22 05:38pm

kojikun wrote:
So do I, but then the ASVS Lump Club would beat us up sumo style...
Nah, then they couldn't get donuts. They'd hold our porn and caffeine for ransom until we made them donuts, I'd wager. Need caffeeeeeeiiiine

"Give a man a donut, and he'll have a suger rush for twenty minutes. Teach a man to make donuts using weird laws of logic, and he'll be in a suger coma within twenty minutes."

SirNitram · Post by **SirNitram** » 2003-04-22 06:33pm

I'm not even sure why this is Applied Theology. Wouldn't that be putting Theology to use?

kojikun · Post by **kojikun** » 2003-04-22 07:02pm

I'm not even sure why this is Applied Theology. Wouldn't that be putting Theology to use?

Yes, Theology is the study of god, and Ian used theological principles to make a donut. Specifically, the donut was God and god was TASTY.

Rye · Post by **Rye** » 2003-04-22 07:03pm

kojikun wrote:
I'm not even sure why this is Applied Theology. Wouldn't that be putting Theology to use?
Yes, Theology is the study of god, and Ian used theological principles to make a donut. Specifically, the donut was God and god was TASTY.

mmmmm sacrlicious!

The Dark · Post by **The Dark** » 2003-04-22 09:02pm

Singular Quartet wrote:http://www.machall.com/index.php?strip_id=189

I'm not sure which 'proof'* they're talking about, but its either Anselm's or Decartes' IIRC.

*Both of them had the problem of using circular logic, so they didn't actually work...

Anselm's proof. Descartes used the reasoning that he could prove he was thinking. That meant he existed. That meant something had created him. He had to assume that creator was not deceptive or else nothing had meaning. Thus, the creator was good. *couple steps here I don't know* Thus, the creator is God.

If it mentions an Evil Demon, it's Descartes' proof. Otherwise, it's probably Anselm.

StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Applied Theology

Applied Theology

Re: Applied Theology