Scotter's Debate Proposal: Scotter's Wager

[scotter]

Now that Scotter is unofficially back, and is promoted to the title of “Apologistâ€, I shall take advantage of this new designation and propose a topic for thoughts and discussion.

 

Earlier Scotter had a question that older members would have remembered, “What is the use and function of human beings in biological terms?†Well, Scotter met a high school student and he had this concise answer with acumen, “Providing carbon dioxide for the trees.†Yes, very well indeed.

 

Christians like to present the classical Pascal’s Wager for apologetics and debates. And hereby I am proposing a Scotter’s Wager:

 

If there is no God, I am a carbon-dioxide provider for the trees.

If there is a God, I am more than a carbon-dioxide provider for the trees, I have a use. I am a child of God. I am made in the image of God.

 

I am willing to bet there is a God.

 

For the sake of articulation, let’s say God is the Christian God, the God of Abraham, since a lot of atheists here are from Christian background. Let’s assume Scotter is Christian, although this thread has nothing to do with Jesus.

 

I surmise the debate would evolve around the debate against the wager.

 

Alternatively, your approach can be, humans are more than carbon-dioxide provider for the trees in humanist terms.

 

Or, that since not everything has to have a use in this Earth, it is okay that human beings don’t have a use, don’t need to have a use in this Universe. I cannot accept serving other humans is a function par the nature of this debate (the debate is in your humanist terms), it’s like if an ant can speak, it answers “well, the use of ants is to serve other ants in the nestâ€.

 

Ultimately, my opponent(s) can aim to convince the other members and me, “Scotter, your wager makes (x) sense…..â€

 

The possible outcomes of the debate regarding my position would be, “Yes, I agree that this wager is flawed, thank you for the learning process.â€

Or, “So far I am not convinced that the wager is flawed, thank you for the learning process. Let’s conclude here.â€

 

Debate Parameters: no word count, 2 weeks reply period, PM or make a post if time beyond two weeks needed. Either party may end the debate by posting “I wish to bow out/concede/stop here.†I log on internet several times a day, at least once a day. Sorry I do not have the time capacity of leaving the terminal online and refresh and post reply on the spot.

 

I post in Colosseum as it is more noticeable and more than one may be participating. If both parties agree, we may move it to Arena. By responding means you are participating.

 

Whom do I have the pleasure to invite?

[Antlerman]

So I'm gathering your topic of debate is in short, "What is the purpose of human life? If not God, than what?" Is that correct?

 

I may consider participation in this. You mentioned others can also participate, so long as it follows certain guidelines of discussion. We've had 3 way round-table type discussions before which seem to work well, so I see no reason we couldn't have several or more in that more formal setting.

 

I would prefer others the opportunity to participate since I think it's a worthwhile topic for other's input. Let's see what other's would like to do before I commit to this myself. I can ask one of the other mods to moderate it here in the Colosseum if I participate (or I can moderate if I don't participate), or if we do it in the Arena, Skip 'N Church will be the moderator, and he has to set it up.

 

P.S. I see the value of the question "What is the purpose of life", because there are a lot of perspectives to consider on this. The Christian one is not the only one, and that would be my argument, to show and debate why that is the case.

[MathGeek]

I attempt to take up your challenge, Scotter.

 

I am not a theologian, nor am I an apologist. I am an armchair commentator and philosopher.

 

I think your wager is flawed, but that doesn't mean it has some kind of value.

 

Personally, I agree with on the assertion that humans are more than factories that produce carbon dioxide. To me, humans are part of the so-called "circle of life", where we are the ultimate predators to all other forms of animal life and their stuards at the same time. This precarious balance is abused so often, it almost seems somewhat absurd for you to offer such a naturalistic wager.

 

To me, your wager assumes humans have purpose is really a heavy assumption to mull about. Even when I believed, my thoughts weren't dominated by the spirit, but by my own free will. Even before my decision to believe, I can't ever remember feeling God's push to have me do something. Whenever I walk around, be it aimlessly or to accomplish a goal, I always noticed that I had the freedom to veer off course and nobody in the immediate vicinity would castigate me for it. I would even take road trips to see the countryside when I had more free time than I knew what to do with. Point is, if there was a purpose, it was because I had put the meaning behind it. Whether or not God inspired it, that is up to the individual to believe it.

 

As for the fact that there is no God, I am an agnostic. There is evidence to suggest the existence thereof and there is evidence against it. For me, there could be a God because the universe functions like a mathematical system, which the scientific community had verified on a regular basis for the last couple of centuries. Also, since the subjective human perception exists as is the fact of indifference from humankind and the universe as a whole, the number of humans that believe in a God at least allows for the possibility of some kind of higher power.

 

As for what that higher power is, it is not the Christian God. The expanse of the universe is too far open to allow for one being to create only one planet with human life and then further designates one branch of human life as his chosen people. For one deity to create such an awesome expanse and be that specific to one species of being seems malevolent at best. Furthermore, there are other Gods that could compete for the title of universal creator. Allah is best example after Yahweh, except he is on other offshoot from Abraham. Two competing deities right there nixes that assertion. Also, who's not to say that the universe created itself or that the universe created us by accident? These cosmological questions have yet to be answered.

 

I think that Genesis is correct in the fact that humans have dominion over this plane of existence simply because we are at the top of the food chain. Just because that happened doesn't prove that God exists one way or the other, and neither does existence itself or the fact that it can be mathematically defined. In fact, there is no true way to prove God's existence because Pascal even knew that men would not be swayed by intellectual proofs. To believe in God is to make a wager, and no matter how many ways such a wager can be rebuffed, all it is a choice to be made between belief and disbelief.

 

And we made the choice to chuck Christianity for all it was worth because we were intellectually and emotionally convinced that Christianity wasn't worth the effort.

 

Therefore, by posting this challenge, you will likely find your preconceptions about ex-Christians reinforced.

 

In other words, there was no point in posting your little wager.

 

I don't think anybody here will be convinced to walk back down the road of faith.

[scotter]

I am basically posting to address Antlerman and MathG.

 

“What is the purpose of human life? If not God, than what?"

 

No, Antlerman, it is not correct, the debate centers on the wager itself. The first core question would be “What is the use of human beings in naturalistic(biological/ecological) terms?†Please first address the core question.

 

MathG: thank you for the fast and thoughtful response, this post is to acknowledge I am reading it and shall get back to you. Since I am doing a copy-and-paste into my desktop and shall work on the response, it would be appreciated if you opt not to edit. To reiterate, we have two weeks or more to respond.

 

So Antlerman, we shall see how many more will respond and formulate the pool. If it is just MathG and you, I can suggest MathG and you co-ordinate as a team or 3-way and relocate to Arena.

[Ouroboros]

If there is no God, I am a carbon-dioxide provider for the trees.

If there is a God, I am more than a carbon-dioxide provider for the trees, I have a use. I am a child of God. I am made in the image of God.

 

I am willing to bet there is a God.

I'm not sure if this is a complete wager. Maybe it should be restated to be complete? Like:

 

 

1. If there is no God, I am a carbon-dioxide provider for the trees.

 

I think it should be changed to:

If there is no God, there is no purpose for human life

 

The reason to why that change, is that "I am a carbon-dioxide provider for the trees" part is a purpose statement, and how can a universal umbrella of purpose exist? Unless someone/something outside of humanity established that purpose, or alternatively, all humanity as one all agreed that was the purpose, which they don't.

 

So the all encompassing purpose of being a carbon-dioxide provider is a stretch, and I think the real intention is to point to a non-purpose life with the first "bet". Right?

 

 

2. If there is a God, I am more than a carbon-dioxide provider for the trees, I have a use. I am a child of God. I am made in the image of God.

 

This is probably closer to what it's supposed to be, if God exists, then there's a purpose. But unfortunately, it's absolute in its assertion that God had a purpose with his creation, so I think it rather should say:

If there is a God, there is a chance we have a purpose

 

And this means, we should have to sub-categories under bet 2:

 

2.1 If there is a God, and if he has a purpose for humans, then we are not only carbon-dioxide providers to the trees

and

2.2. if there is a God, but he didn't have any purpose for humans, then we have no purpose, and we can see ourself as only useful as carbon-dioxide providers to trees

 

Then the conclusion can be drawn from that.

 

(sorry if this is intruding on the purpose of the debate already, but I'm just trying to understand the wager first. There's no use debating it, if it's not consistent and internally coherent.)

 

...

 

To state it a bit different. The problem is that the first bet assume a purpose, based on no-God, which it can't, unless purpose is based on something else than God. This means that bet already assume the possibility that purpose has nothing to do with God, and the question answer itself, by basically admitting that purpose is not God-related.

 

The other bet has the problem that it assumes that God's purpose is not the same purpose in the first bet. In other words, God's purpose can only be anything but CO2-producers. This assumption is unfounded. Who to say that God isn't a mad scientist, who created humans is a fabulous experiment to see who survives, plants, animals or CO2-producing humans?

 

This leads to that both bets can be wrong, and both bets can have parts of truth in them... how to do bet on that?

[Neon Genesis]

If there is no God, I am a carbon-dioxide provider for the trees.

You are only nothing more than a carbon-dioxide provider for trees if you make yourself be nothing more than a carbon-dioxide provider. Humans may not have have been provided a purpose in general, but why should that mean that humans cannot choose a purpose for themselves? Why should that mean that life is meaningless just because you have to choose your purpose instead of letting someone else choose it for you? Ask yourself this question. Does a rose have a purpose? When a rose lives, isn't it nothing more than an oxygen provider for other creatures? But even if a rose is nothing more than an oxygen provider, don't most people still consider a rose to be beautiful when it's alive? Don't people still care for the rose, grow it, protect it, and admire its beauty not because it has a purpose but for what it is? Do humans stop caring for roses just because a rose isn't given a purpose? If humans can still grow roses and care for them even if roses have no universal purpose other than to provide oxygen and those rose can still be beautiful regardless of its lack of a purpose, then why can't the same be true for humans? Why can't humans make a purpose for themselves? Immediately, I'm still seeking my own purpose in life, but when I find that purpose, I know it'll be a purpose I chose for myself. For if purpose was given to us, why would Christians and unbelievers alike need to seek a purpose in the first place?

 

If there is a God, I am more than a carbon-dioxide provider for the trees, I have a use. I am a child of God. I am made in the image of God. I am willing to bet there is a God.

 

For the sake of articulation, let’s say God is the Christian God, the God of Abraham, since a lot of atheists here are from Christian background. Let’s assume Scotter is Christian, although this thread has nothing to do with Jesus.

Ok, let's pretend it is the Christian God who exists. Which Christian God is it? Is it the Methodists' Christian God? Is it the Baptists' Christian God? Or is it the Catholics' Christian God? Maybe it's the gnostics' Christian God? Which one is it? Each one claims to be the true Christian God and to know God's true universal purpose for mankind and that all the other churches' that don't belong to them do not have the true Christian God or have the true universal purpose for mankind. So, even if you try to pretend that God has a universal purpose for Christians, you then have to choose which Christian purpose is the right "universal" purpose, so even Christians still choose their own purpose. You're only fooling yourself if you think Christians are given a purpose. If God gives Christians a universal purpose, then why can't Christians agree on what God's purpose for humanity is? Why is there so much division in Christianity with all the different denominations and belief systems? If humanity's purpose was given by a God, why can't Christians agree on what that purpose is? Why is it that even in Christianity, Christians still choose their own purpose?

[Ouroboros]

The whole "purpose" debate is interesting, especially if you look into things like "Viagra". What is the purpose of Viagra? Well, it's not what you think it is. It was made (its purpose) was to be some heart medicine. The now well known side effects, where discovered by pure chance. Now, so is Viagra used and even manufactured according to its purpose? No. Does it exist? Yes. So can think exist, that doesn't fulfill it's purpose, and have taken on a different purpose which was not meant to be in the beginning and was a pure random incident? Yup.

 

http://resources.schoolscience.co.uk/Pfize...agra/index.html

[MathGeek]

The whole "purpose" debate is interesting, especially if you look into things like "Viagra". What is the purpose of Viagra? Well, it's not what you think it is. It was made (its purpose) was to be some heart medicine. The now well known side effects, where discovered by pure chance. Now, so is Viagra used and even manufactured according to its purpose? No. Does it exist? Yes. So can think exist, that doesn't fulfill it's purpose, and have taken on a different purpose which was not meant to be in the beginning and was a pure random incident? Yup.

 

http://resources.schoolscience.co.uk/Pfize...agra/index.html

 

That is quite interesting, Han. Unintended consequences always happen somewhere at some time.

 

What about the wager itself? Christians think its a choice to up and leave Christianity and in some cases, I think it is true. If I really wanted to, I could go back and I could really, really try this time. Of course, there is the point that I didn't have the heart for it the last time I tried so it is possible that I would feel the same way again. What does that say about the state of the choice? Is it logical, it is emotional or is it a melding of both? Depending on the perspective of the observer and the actor, I really believe that a debate about any wager is really up to the individuals involved because no matter what, we always decide on something. Who's to say that my or your decision to leave the Christian faith wasn't based on some modicum of choice.

 

That reasoning is why I think Christianity still proffers Pascal's wager (or some variation of it) every so often.

[par4dcourse]

I am willing to bet there is a God.

 

Just Pascal's wager restated.

I'm willing to bet there's not. Is your opinion any more valid than mine?

 

Humans are the product of millions of years of evolution. We learned to shelter ourselves, find and store food, and interact with each other. There is no "purpose" for survival except survival. Now, survival is not as much an issue for our segment of the population, but to state that we "need" a purpose , ala gawd, is utter nonsense.

What we become next is still up in the air. As the most highly evolved, I would think that taking care of our home is becoming a priority.

[Ouroboros]

That is quite interesting, Han. Unintended consequences always happen somewhere at some time.

Yup. Just like Mandelbrot's fractal. It was an "oops, didn't meant it to do that!" situation. So was the purpose of of Benoit going to get a coffee, to create a whole new genre of mathematics?

 

What about the wager itself? Christians think its a choice to up and leave Christianity and in some cases, I think it is true. If I really wanted to, I could go back and I could really, really try this time. Of course, there is the point that I didn't have the heart for it the last time I tried so it is possible that I would feel the same way again. What does that say about the state of the choice? Is it logical, it is emotional or is it a melding of both? Depending on the perspective of the observer and the actor, I really believe that a debate about any wager is really up to the individuals involved because no matter what, we always decide on something. Who's to say that my or your decision to leave the Christian faith wasn't based on some modicum of choice.

Very true. Who to say our choices aren't mere emotional responses to current opinions and state of mind? Finicky creatures we are. Which means, yesterday I was a Christians, today I'm an atheist, and tomorrow? Who knows...

 

That reasoning is why I think Christianity still proffers Pascal's wager (or some variation of it) every so often.

Possible. But also, it is as far as they can think in logical terms, anything beyond that is incomprehensible to them. I just realized that Pascal's wager also make a similar mistake about assuming premises. The alternative was that "if I live a godly life, and God doesn't exist, at least I have lived a good life." It assumes that belief in God and godly life is equated with a good life. I'm not sure that is true. The question in Pascal's wager is "what is a good life", before even considering was it worth it. It's based on a common understanding of what a "good life" meant at the time of the writing, which was dipped and battered in Christian culture. A good life to Pascal, was to be Christian. But what about some of these crazy Christian cults that take people to the wilderness and rape the women and abuse the kids? Is that a "good Christian life"? Hardly. So the "goodness" of life isn't dependent on a belief in God, but rather in what kind of life we consider - in a sense - normal.

[Antlerman]

So Antlerman, we shall see how many more will respond and formulate the pool. If it is just MathG and you, I can suggest MathG and you co-ordinate as a team or 3-way and relocate to Arena.

To respond first to the conditions of this debate, I'm seeing a number of people jump in with responses here. If you're fine with this, we can just let it ride here and the mod team will ensure that things keep on topic and conducted well. It's your call how you want to do this, so just pipe in at any point.

 

Until you request otherwise, we can just let this roll as is.

 

 

I am basically posting to address Antlerman and MathG.

 

“What is the purpose of human life? If not God, than what?"

 

No, Antlerman, it is not correct, the debate centers on the wager itself. The first core question would be “What is the use of human beings in naturalistic(biological/ecological) terms?” Please first address the core question.

Thanks, that clarifies a little more.

 

I guess in away it is still a question of purpose, since to ask, "What is the use of..." is in fact a question of a thing's purpose or function. My essential response to this is to say that the very question as posed suggests some higher purpose exists, without laying the groundwork to establish that. Why does something have to have a "use" to exist, and not simply just exist?

 

Useful in relation to whom or what? To us from our perspective, or to the natural system itself?

 

From the naturalist system perspective, I see the system as one based on adaptive purpose, not intentional purpose or "design". A thing simply exists through naturalistic responses, and questions of functionality, use, and purpose are really more questions of what use we discover something has to us or the situation after the fact. It's like asking the question, "What is the purpose or use of a stick?" It's has many uses. To a chimp, the purpose the stick exists is so he can put it down into a hole and pull out termites to eat. To us its purpose is to start a fire, among many other things. The answer is what ever seems to work for our benefit, or for the benefit of something else.

 

But then the question comes, is there a use of human beings to the system itself? If you start with the premise that it is a purely natural machine that does not require shall we say, "God gas" to either get started or do it's thing after it's gotten going, then you are starting with a natural system that "designs" (using the term loosely) from the bottom up, as opposed to the top down with some intended purpose, and if so, then how can there be some specific purpose for our existence to that system? The issue is starting with the assumption of intelligence similar to ours, and projecting our response to finding usefulness of other things in nature for ourselves, and layering ourselves on nature as functioning like us, interacting with it's environment and its creatures within itself the way we do.

 

The problem with this is that the system is the system. It's like the watchmaker argument sort of, assuming that where you have a watch there must be a watchmaker. This is a valid argument, if you don't have any explanation of natural causes, like seeing wave patterns in the sand caused by wind. The system just functions like the ocean, but does the ocean have a purpose for the fish within it? Or is that just a system that organisms within it followed the rules of the system and found a way to adapt to the point a finding a tenuous balance for survival?

 

All indications of science show a purely naturalistic system that does not require the suspension of any natural laws for things to be what they are, and every functionality you see within that system is an imperfect, adaptive response that serves the thing itself, which would suggest a non-intentional design (if it were directly designed by an outside agent, one would expect to see perfect design that we not need to be adaptive, as opposed to what we see in nature). So seeing that there is no indication in nature of intention of forethought, humans and other life within it are simply the result of finding a balance of existence within that system. We are because the system is what it is, and we adapted.

 

Now does that mean life is purposeless to live, and that it has no "meaning"? Depends from which perspective. To the universe itself, I suppose you could say it's a non-question. It has no benevolent mind thinking of our welfare. It neither cares, nor doesn't care, any more than a bowl of water cares about the gold fish that swims in it. But to the goldfish, it has cares about itself. Same with us. So just because the environment may be impersonal, it doesn't mean our existence has to have no value. It does to us. Does the ocean care if I can't swim? No. Do I care being in that ocean? Yes, very much so, and I'd better learn the purpose of my arms is to paddle so I don't die. It's that simple.

[Ouroboros]

Debate Parameters: no word count, 2 weeks reply period, PM or make a post if time beyond two weeks needed. Either party may end the debate by posting “I wish to bow out/concede/stop here.” I log on internet several times a day, at least once a day. Sorry I do not have the time capacity of leaving the terminal online and refresh and post reply on the spot.

 

I post in Colosseum as it is more noticeable and more than one may be participating. If both parties agree, we may move it to Arena. By responding means you are participating.

If you want a debate with parameters, I suggest that it should be moved to the Arena.

 

Send a PM to "Skip N. Church" for starting a new discussion. Colosseum is by design open for everyone to participate in.

[The-Captain]

No, Antlerman, it is not correct, the debate centers on the wager itself. The first core question would be “What is the use of human beings in naturalistic(biological/ecological) terms?†Please first address the core question.

 

Do you mean what niche humans fill? Because from an ecological perspective, no organism actually serves a purpose.

[Antlerman]

No, Antlerman, it is not correct, the debate centers on the wager itself. The first core question would be “What is the use of human beings in naturalistic(biological/ecological) terms?” Please first address the core question.

 

Do you mean what niche humans fill? Because from an ecological perspective, no organism actually serves a purpose.

Actually, over lunch I was thinking about this and I would say that once an organism has defined itself in an environment, other organisms become adapt themselves to it and soon you may have dependent symbiotic relationships. For instance, dogs and cats are now dependent upon us for the type of survival they now have with us in the picture. So in this sense, it does have a purpose now as part of that system.

 

Put into philosophical terms, we define our purpose by acting, and we define our own environment with ourselves being part of it.

[The-Captain]

No, Antlerman, it is not correct, the debate centers on the wager itself. The first core question would be “What is the use of human beings in naturalistic(biological/ecological) terms?†Please first address the core question.

 

Do you mean what niche humans fill? Because from an ecological perspective, no organism actually serves a purpose.

Actually, over lunch I was thinking about this and I would say that once an organism has defined itself in an environment, other organisms become adapt themselves to it and soon you may have dependent symbiotic relationships. For instance, dogs and cats are now dependent upon us for the type of survival they now have with us in the picture. So in this sense, it does have a purpose now as part of that system.

 

Right, but that is more properly defined as a role. From the way Scotter phrased his wager, it sounds like purpose carries the connotation of an intrinsic reason for existing or preforming an action. I'm saying that there really is no such thing in ecology.

 

An environmental role or relationship is fluid, and arises based on the availability and competition for resources. Take the simple predator/prey relationship, the predator's purpose is not to thin the population of the prey anymore than it is the purpose of they prey to sustain the predator.

 

Put into philosophical terms, we define our purpose by acting, and we define our own environment with ourselves being part of it.

 

Thats my view as well, existence precedes essence and all that.

[Ouroboros]

Do you mean what niche humans fill? Because from an ecological perspective, no organism actually serves a purpose.

Unless, one only see the purpose from the perspective of usefulness. I think that's the way Aristotle's Final Cause really meant, not purpose in the sense of someone prescribe the purpose before it's existence, but a usefulness resulting or described from its being. In a way I can now see that the OP bet could be seen that way. In other words, the purpose of humans to produce CO2 is a purpose based on its use, rather than a prescription from a deity. But then, anything that is useful in a human life, is then its purpose, and not only limited to CO2 production, but the purpose is to make people laugh, feel good, make food, discuss, entertain, work, make a family, get and education... and so on. All of it, the purpose is life itself. So purpose exists yet, without a God (or probably more, without God).

[Ouroboros]

...

Right, but that is more properly defined as a role. From the way Scotter phrased his wager, it sounds like purpose carries the connotation of an intrinsic reason for existing or preforming an action. I'm saying that there really is no such thing in ecology.

 

An environmental role or relationship is fluid, and arises based on the availability and competition for resources. Take the simple predator/prey relationship, the predator's purpose is not to thin the population of the prey anymore than it is the purpose of they prey to sustain the predator.

 

Put into philosophical terms, we define our purpose by acting, and we define our own environment with ourselves being part of it.

 

Thats my view as well, existence precedes essence and all that.

Yup. And essence is what makes our purpose. We define it, culturally and individually.

[Antlerman]

...

Right, but that is more properly defined as a role. From the way Scotter phrased his wager, it sounds like purpose carries the connotation of an intrinsic reason for existing or preforming an action. I'm saying that there really is no such thing in ecology.

 

An environmental role or relationship is fluid, and arises based on the availability and competition for resources. Take the simple predator/prey relationship, the predator's purpose is not to thin the population of the prey anymore than it is the purpose of they prey to sustain the predator.

 

Put into philosophical terms, we define our purpose by acting, and we define our own environment with ourselves being part of it.

 

Thats my view as well, existence precedes essence and all that.

Yup. And essence is what makes our purpose. We define it, culturally and individually.

Sartre would be so proud of all you...

 

 

"There are two kinds of existentialist; first, those who are Christian...and on the other hand the atheistic existentialists, among whom...I class myself. What they have in common is that they think that existence precedes essence, or, if you prefer, that subjectivity must be the turning point." - Jean-Paul Sartre

[Ouroboros]

Oh, look. I think I have a pipe just like that! It's a Canadian style pipe, with natural finish.

 

-0-

 

No wait, I expanded the picture. It doesn't have the same kind of bowl.

[Antlerman]

Oh, look. I think I have a pipe just like that! It's a Canadian style pipe, with natural finish.

 

-0-

 

No wait, I expanded the picture. It doesn't have the same kind of bowl.

You should have someone take a photo of you with it, and we can post it along side Sartre's photos. Good company, and all that. We might have to do something to adjust one of your eyes however, if you wish to go for the look-alike thing.

[Ouroboros]

You should have someone take a photo of you with it, and we can post it along side Sartre's photos. Good company, and all that. We might have to do something to adjust one of your eyes however, if you wish to go for the look-alike thing.

I'm sure I'm ugly enough to compensate for the 'wide view' he had.

[Antlerman]

You should have someone take a photo of you with it, and we can post it along side Sartre's photos. Good company, and all that. We might have to do something to adjust one of your eyes however, if you wish to go for the look-alike thing.

I'm sure I'm ugly enough to compensate for the 'wide view' he had.

That's true. I have seen your photo. Ugly looking people are usually smarter than your average person, myself being an exception to that rule of course.

 

Are we like violating the rules here or something? Shame on you... I mod thee! :offtopic:

[MathGeek]

Thats my view as well, existence precedes essence and all that.

 

I am unfamiliar with Sartre, me being an armchair philosopher and all. What is essence exactly? Is that what we call purpose? I know existence what is around us, be it objective or subjective.

 

Also, what is a good Sartre site that I can view to bone up on existentialism.

[Ouroboros]

Are we like violating the rules here or something? Shame on you... I mod thee! :offtopic:

 

Sorry!

[Neon Genesis]

I just realized that Pascal's wager also make a similar mistake about assuming premises. The alternative was that "if I live a godly life, and God doesn't exist, at least I have lived a good life." It assumes that belief in God and godly life is equated with a good life. I'm not sure that is true. The question in Pascal's wager is "what is a good life", before even considering was it worth it. It's based on a common understanding of what a "good life" meant at the time of the writing, which was dipped and battered in Christian culture.

Doesn't this concept of humanity having a God-given purpose also contradict the Christian doctrine of free will? The bible says that everything works according to God's will, but if God's will has power over everything like the bible says, how can we have free will since our will is apart of this everything that God has control over? In other words, if our purpose is given to us by God, then do humans have the free will to worship him or not? Is it God's purpose for unbelievers to not believe in the Christian God and so if a Christian attempts to reconvert an unbeliever, then are Christians defying the will of God by trying to change what God's divine universal purpose for humanity is? And if we have to have a purpose given to us by someone else, then can we honestly call it "our" purpose? Or is it merely somebody else working their purpose through our lives and so even with the existence of God, humans still don't have a universal divine purpose but are simply acting out the purpose of God rather than the purpose of humanity through human lives? It's like by trying to claim that humans have a God-given purpose, Christians are trying to mix in Calvinism with the doctrine of free will, but the two doctrines seem so completely incompatible to me. Either humans have free will or our purpose, which includes our "free will" is dictated by God. I don't understand how the two can work together at the same time.