Scotter's Debate Proposal: Scotter's Wager

[Ouroboros]

Scotter and Antlerman, there's one thing that I can't put my finger on. What is the "object" of the debate? What is the goal or target for it? I've seen the wager now, and it sounds like the wager isn't to propose the existence of God based on purpose, but rather if there is a God, then there's a purpose for humans. Is that what the debate is aimed at?

 

I'm just grinding these things right now, so you don't end up in a debate with unclear "purpose". (I think that what happened a couple of times before. Different ideas of what the debate really was about.) Just make sure this is clear before you all start.

[R. S. Martin]

I dunno if this is even in the same universe of thought as you're working with, but Scotter, are you trying to prove God's existence by showing how humans fit into the eco-system?

 

IF this is the desire, based on the OP, might the debate statement be worded something like this:

 

God's existence is proven by the fact that humans are designed biologically to provide carbon dioxide for the trees.

 

 

Each side would argue for or against that statement.

[Antlerman]

Scotter and Antlerman, there's one thing that I can't put my finger on. What is the "object" of the debate? What is the goal or target for it? I've seen the wager now, and it sounds like the wager isn't to propose the existence of God based on purpose, but rather if there is a God, then there's a purpose for humans. Is that what the debate is aimed at?

 

I'm just grinding these things right now, so you don't end up in a debate with unclear "purpose". (I think that what happened a couple of times before. Different ideas of what the debate really was about.) Just make sure this is clear before you all start.

I think that's what I've been feeling uneasy about, and why I keep pushing for clearer definitions. There needs to be a clear statement of argument. "I will argue that life that incorporates a belief in God offers more meaning to humanity as opposed to living life without God in it. You will argue against that position." (Something like that). That's a clearly defined debate.

[Ouroboros]

Antlerman,

 

Exactly. I just don't want to see that you have to end up in a Kat-astrophic (it was with Kat22 wasn't it?) debate again, with no clear or mutual goals. I value your contributions too much to let you waste your time on a non-profitable discussion. Let it be efficient. (Plus, with my current limited time, it's easier for me to follow when it concise and not page after page of repetitions. Oh, selfish me! )

[The-Captain]

Just a few comments and requests.

 

Scotter’s Wager:

If there is no God, I am a carbon dioxide provider for the trees, a (top) predator in the ecosystem.

If there is a God, I am more than the above. I have a higher purpose. I am a child of God. I am made in the image of God.

 

Unless we are confining this discussion to the Abrahamic gods the last two statements seem superfluous to me. Just trying to streamline things.

 

God:

God the Creator. I am just saying God the Creator, I am not defining God as the Christian God. I am just saying you can use the image of Christian God for your debate if that is more familiar to you. If I am a Hindu (Re: Christian notion of Hell Fire is not part of the Wager), a Pagan, I am still basically using the same wager for discussion.

 

Maybe we should specify which God concept we are working from, as the "higher purpose" part of the wager doesn't apply universally. As Hans pointed out, with the Deistic model gods existence is irrelevant to our purpose. Unless your point is that any kind of creator implies a purpose.

 

Heaven:

We may need to use it. I put it there in case.

The ultimate destination of a person who is to return to God. A metaphysical place or a spiritual status be in union with God. From Platonic context to Abrahamic angelic hierarchies, this is flexible. Please don’t argue in technicalities like Islamic Heaven with 72 virgins.

Hell:

Hell and the existence of Hell is not part of this wager. The wager does not deal with eternal hell fire, the existence of Hell. This Wager does not state Hell exists or Hell does not exist, it’s just not part of it.

 

I don't foresee needing to draw on anything "afterlife", as I understand it the benefit of the wager is in the present reality. So no problems here, I say we leave both out, unless you had something particular in mind.

 

 

Debate Parameters:

No word count, 2 weeks reply period to the opponent, PM or make a post if time beyond two weeks needed. That means for Scotter to reply to all 3 opponents, it may take 6 weeks, is it okay?

 

Alternative Roundtable format:

1. e.g. Antlerman presents his responses/questions

2. Scotter presents his responses/answers A

3. MathG takes over from Antlerman, picks up Scotter’s Answer A, and present his own responses and questions on Answer A, and MathG's own materials

4. Scotter presents Answer B to MathG

5. Doc takes over from MathG with his materials and picks up answer B, and Doc's own responses/questions/materials

6. Scotter presents C

7. Back to Antlerman again

8. This may take shorter time, more interactive, and MathG and Doc don’t have to wait too long.

 

I'm fine with this format if thats how you want it, though I would prefer this less formal style Antlerman suggested.

[scotter]

Scotter is here.

 

1. Han Solo didn't get it. I meant let's go with original "wager" for the sake of simplicity, with the understanding that Deism can be treated in the same way and is taken care of. And Han Solo commented that if I go with original one the conflict is there. Doc - I hope that helps.

 

2nd miss: "If there is a God, there is a purpose for humans.".....thus the debate will not go anywhwere and so on.

In the model, this 'I' putting the "bet" on believing there is a God doesn't mean God exist, non-believer who chooses to believe there is no God doesn't mean God doesn't exist.

 

2. Antlerman said I should also "sell" the model's validity to my opponents hence the debate is worthwhile. Yes I agree indeed for certain debate occassions, but the "debate" (let's use a softer word "discussion") is actually about asking friends to help to invalidate this model (hence I prefer 1 vs 3 over 1 vs 1), if so it comes out. There is no burden on either side. I have already said I am not trying to use this model to convince you back to God.

"I will argue that life that incorporates a belief in God offers more meaning to humanity as opposed to living life without God in it." I like it, but in my perspective, it seems less focused. I would like to see a Christian picks up that vs. an Ex-C.

It is different from a Christian coming here "prove to me there is no God" shifting the burden to Ex-C members; or if a Christian comes here to use all sorts of argument to debate with the intention to "win", to prove (Christian) God's existence, in this case the Christian is taking up the burden to "sell".

 

Antlerman, sorry for this misunderstanding.

 

3. Antlerman does not agree with my "I cannot accept the use of human beings is to serve other human beings". Here I should have put more thoughts in the tone "I cannot accept..", what I meant is I subscribe that if such point is raised, it is not helping to validate/invalidate my model, if so it comes out. It is for my learning process, it is not pre-blocking something so I have a better chance to win. To recap, Scotter has preferred 1vs3 over 1vs1.

 

If we cannot reconciliate on 3. and others, both parties can opt out and no proposal goes to Arena. Scotter is not like like there is a burning desire like a "Christian" wanting to "save" Ex-C souls (we have seen a lot back then and now.)

 

4. Doc: you can streamline it to Abrahamic God, and my discussions/posts will bear that in mind to make it a fair exchange, although the scope is just God the Creator for a wider coverage. (As we may attract readers of other religions to put comments into Peanut Gallery and I like to see them.)

 

I thank others' new comments and the continued comments from earlier commentators after 4 of us got into building something, sorry to say certain communication of what I have in mind cannot get through to those. Again, sitting on this side of the room allows for new views and experiences.

 

We leave the debate format for later after my "teammates'" further feedback. Yes, now you have a better picture why I call you teammates.

[The-Captain]

4. Doc: you can streamline it to Abrahamic God, and my discussions/posts will bear that in mind to make it a fair exchange, although the scope is just God the Creator for a wider coverage. (As we may attract readers of other religions to put comments into Peanut Gallery and I like to see them.)

 

Universal is fine by me, in fact I rather prefer it. A bit tired of Jehovah at the moment.

 

In regards to everything else:

 

I think we're on about the same page here. I like where we are going with this and look forward to a good discussion.

 

Let's see where this goes.

[Antlerman]

Antlerman said I should also "sell" the model's validity to my opponents hence the debate is worthwhile. Yes I agree indeed for certain debate occassions, but the "debate" (let's use a softer word "discussion") is actually about asking friends to help to invalidate this model (hence I prefer 1 vs 3 over 1 vs 1), if so it comes out. There is no burden on either side. I have already said I am not trying to use this model to convince you back to God.

But to be clear, in order to help invalidate this model, I will have to examine and discuss the supporting reasons behind that model. If the reasons are found weak, the model fails. So it's not that I expect you to sell your model, but I do expect supporting reasons for it to be able to critique them.

 

And yes, I prefer informal focused discussion over a formal debate format. But as such, you have to stop referring to yourself in the 3rd person. I'm not talking to "a Scotter", I'm talking with you. I would like us to agree to that as part of the rules of discussion.

 

"I will argue that life that incorporates a belief in God offers more meaning to humanity as opposed to living life without God in it." I like it, but in my perspective, it seems less focused. I would like to see a Christian picks up that vs. an Ex-C.

I'm not clear what you meant. I assume you realize my stating "I will argue that life...." was a statement of what you might be proposing, not reflective of what I was intending to argue. So I'm not clear what you mean about liking to see a Christian pick that up versus an ExC? Also why is that less focused?

 

To put a point of this, what I'm hearing underlying this, and please correct me if I'm wrong, is the type of argument of Soren Kierkegaard that despite our inability to be able prove God with evidence of reason or otherwise, the choice to believe is the logical response to our humanity, aka, 'The Leap of Faith". That seems the purpose of examining this 'wager', so I guess why I've felt uncomfortable is it seems you want to address the whole question as potentially answered by simply examining one part of it - the wager itself. It sets itself up to lead to an oversimplification of the questions behind the choice of belief, giving the impression that the choice is a simple one.

 

I think the scope of this should not be limited to that one question, as it is far from resolved there. We should examine the overall question, "Is the choice to believe in God a good choice versus choosing to not believe." That's what I really hear is your point, so that's what we should discuss, and let the wager be part of it. In other words the wager itself is not the debate. The bigger question is. I think I'm saying that because Han's was bringing up defining the scope of the discussion. I personally don't think concluding at the question of the wager alone is offering a valid consideration of the underlying purpose of the question itself.

 

Based on that exploration of discussion, I think the limit should be a number of pages of discussion with a warning shot fired as we reach that limit in order for us to summarize and conclude our positions. There is no winner or looser, but merely a focused exploration of ideas around this larger question. Since there are four of us discussing, I'm willing to hear suggestions as to the length limit.

[par4dcourse]

I like this third person shit! Larry has arrived and Larry is watching the boards with bated breath, but Larry is not well versed enough to participate so Larry may be pissed.

[florduh]

Chris is thinking Larry is a hoot.

[Ouroboros]

1. Han Solo didn't get it. I meant let's go with original "wager" for the sake of simplicity, with the understanding that Deism can be treated in the same way and is taken care of. And Han Solo commented that if I go with original one the conflict is there. Doc - I hope that helps.

Ah. Understand.

 

2nd miss: "If there is a God, there is a purpose for humans.".....thus the debate will not go anywhwere and so on.

In the model, this 'I' putting the "bet" on believing there is a God doesn't mean God exist, non-believer who chooses to believe there is no God doesn't mean God doesn't exist.

Yeah, I get that one. My understanding now is that your objective for the debate is to argue that iff (if-and-only-if) there is a God, then a higher purpose exists. And with "higher purpose" we intend to mean a purpose higher than just being CO2 producers. If there is no God, there is no debate, because the question you're getting at is that a God entity (of any kind) would have a purpose if he did create a universe and some sentient beings. The question if God exists as such, is outside the scope of the debate.

 

Correct?

[scotter]

Hey AM and Han, sometimes I can only log on once per day. A quick post to tell everybody I am here. Will digest AM & Han's feedback and respond. The Arena debate itself may or may not go through but AM has valuable inputs despite. Thanks.

 

For this debate (or even outside of this debate): - again this is not a counter-thing with a God agenda or motive, please contemplate as it is. As a personal side note from me. Read on:

 

There is no God, no God indeed. The Earth is a naturalistic Nature. Let’s picture Scotter is also naturalist, like two atheist buddies in a bar having beer and the topic comes up. If you like to entertain the idea human being’s use/purpose is to help other human beings in the naturalistic environment, likewise you have to entertain a very disturbing idea. I shall give you a hint: every species has a predator nemesis in the naturalistic Nature. What is the nemesis of human beings?

 

I shall put this side note in the Lion's Den playground so everybody who is interested has something to do.

[MathGeek]

If you like to entertain the idea human being’s use/purpose is to help other human beings in the naturalistic environment, likewise you have to entertain a very disturbing idea. I shall give you a hint: every species has a predator nemesis in the naturalistic Nature. What is the nemesis of human beings?

 

I would argue that humankind is its own worst enemy. We kill ourselves in the most creative and disturbing ways. Also, I have heard the argument that the planet itself is our worst nemesis. Viruses, earthquakes, anything you could imagine within the pages of Revelation. The universe could, maybe would, would take both a close and remote second. Close in the fact that anything could happen, remote in the fact that a large-scale disaster from the depths of universe occurring to us is a rarity.

 

I will post more in the Arena when this shebang takes off.

[scotter]

MathG, would reply you about "predator" in Lion' s Den.

 

From the newest guest comments, as it was before back then and perhaps shall be, the nature of Colosseum isn't respected.

 

If there is no God, it's part of the guests', as humans, intrinsic nature; if there is a God, it isn't part of human's divine nature.

[scotter]

Han Solo:

Yeah, I get that one. My understanding now is that your objective for the debate is to argue that iff (if-and-only-if) there is a God, then a higher purpose exists. And with "higher purpose" we intend to mean a purpose higher than just being CO2 producers. If there is no God, there is no debate, because the question you're getting at is that a God entity (of any kind) would have a purpose if he did create a universe and some sentient beings. The question if God exists as such, is outside the scope of the debate.

 

If there is a non-Deist loving God, a higher purpose for man exists (for the Wager to be valid, I agree and expect this is to be refuted first by my friends); but if there is no God, there is still a debate, on a man’s perception of his higher value which is not contingent on actual existence of God (albeit in a particular radical atheist’s perspective it is a self-delusion, not that I am saying all of you are radical atheists, in fact no, not at all). Hans, please refer to the following.

 

Antlerman:

 

On Kierkegaard:

Yes, I don’t mind saying it right now, if an atheist at the moment he dies, he goes “I am very happy that my role has been a CO2 provider, a top predator in my existential function, I did what Nature intended me for my due function, much more happy than this stupid idea of being a precious child of an imagined Spaghetti Monster.†Despite such death thoughts being unusual, Scotter’s Wager collapses for that person. He dies happy, and that is all that matters to he himself.

 

In other words, Scotter Wager is relative.

 

So Hans, Antlerman and friends, if Scotter’s Wager (1.0) is relative, do you think the debate is still worthwhile?

 

However…..

 

C. G. Jung’s notion of Ego “I am what I thinkâ€. For Jung as analogous to Kirgkegaard, within a man, there is an ego which is a center of consciousness that thinks, plans, directs and prides itself on the accomplishment. It is the archetype of one’s “subjective identityâ€. This is the evolving identity where one differentiates from others as one grows since one was born.

 

For Jung other than Kirkengaard, there is also the Self as one becomes aware of one’s attitudes and functions, one’s realized or unrealized aspirations. The Self is the archetype of one’s “objective identity†in the sense of recognizing the broader reality of which we are part. It is the unity and wholeness of the total personality the Self that is in relationship with the totality of all e.g. humanity. I shall stretch that for Theists, the Supreme Totality of all is God.

 

As a person matures and Self evolves, I still can be what I think, but ‘I think’ is no longer exclusively encompassed by ‘I’, to exclusively serve ‘I'. what ‘I think’ is more than to do with ‘I’, but in relation to others, to my neighbour, to humanity.

 

Emmanuel Levinas shares his I-others collective relationship, “I do not and need not know who I am to begin with. I get to know who I am when others summon me.â€

 

Here is where the Neutral Observer comes to play (looks like we are already engaged in the debate despite pending in Arena). Feed the two death bed scenarios to the Neutral Observer. The God believer lives till the moment he dies believing, and knowing that he is a child of God who loves him (whether God really exists or not would not invalidate his “knowingâ€), the unusual atheist who is very happy about his role as a CO2 provider, and we add the 3rd deathbed scenario, the comfortable atheist who acknowledges his role as CO2 provider comfortably.

 

And Antlerman, this is just the scenario of God-does-not-exist (or scenario of Deism substituting atheist for Deist).

 

We can let this Neutral Observer decide which of the 3 is a higher reference and regard for him, which of the 3 has the higher manifestation, actualization of a human being can choose to value himself for his life, considering the Observer perhaps happens to be a shopper between humanism and theism as a first step.

We don’t need to reveal what we think about how this Neutral Observer, whom you also can look at as a personification of humanity, can aspire to. Let’s just keep it to our hearts even though we may think differently.

 

But then, if you friends would like to share what you think, then we go with the Arena debate.

However I thought we have already visualized how the debate would have gone because we are just reposting most of the exchanges we had in Colosseum. The only benefit is that the posts are clean and not sidetracked by co-existence of non-related peanut comments within this Colosseum thread for example.

[scotter]

Antlerman and friends, I have to admit I am not sure if I have the time to cover a wider question “Belief in God gives more meaning to life than non-belief in God†here in this place. That's what I meant by "less-focused" as I already have a wider construct. However would like to share the wider constructs of Scotter Wager that I haven’t revealed, although I mentioned before about the “elaborations†on the Scotter’s Wager. “CO2 and predator thing†is the version 1.0 I intend to use for debate, 2.0 and 3.0 are parts of the “Greater Scotter’s Wager†that I think deals with your bigger question. Antlerman if you like to do 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0, we can PM or by email (I can PM you that) and take it slow, even if it takes a year or more.

 

1.0 Life has more purpose if God exists, and it comes to man has a choice to assign himself a higher value by choosing to believe in God (refer back to deathbed scenario)

 

Scotter’s Wager 1.0

- CO2, predator

- more than CO2, predator

 

2.0 Man’s violence on Man

 

- if there is no God

It is a Darwinian thing, survival of the strongest, fittest. You live with it. I remember Gwenmead’s recent post against a Muslim theist debater about sexual slavery of young girls in the Third World and she gave an yearly statistics on certain numbers of a recent year and that God could have done something. I do have really given it a thought in the humanist perspective. The Mafia traders are stronger than the young girls. That was it. If (surmised, if you like to argue ants don’t enslave other ants biologically, you haven’t got it) two nests of ants fought as one stronger nest invades the weaker nest and bring the defeated ants back as slavery work force ants, it’s not something extraordinary. If the young female ants cry out for their plight, when do we care?

 

War and violence, and sickos that show up once in a while e.g. Stalin, could be just Nature’s means to adjust human’s population. Nature doesn’t care about ethics and morality. To an ant who can think, “Why are there evil and suffering for us ants?†But when have we given a damn when two nests of ants fight and up to millions of ants died? I have seen it.

 

- if there is a God

Human is veiled by his ignorance of his true divine nature (called Original Sin by Christianity, but just about the classical religions have this notion). And there is a choice to rather believe human has a divine nature that “adds valueâ€, that transcends the human to his true potential closer to God. Although the divine nature being veiled, it is a better “betâ€, choice than to believe human has no divine nature, violence is part of human nature that is programmed by Nature as part of the adaptation process (re: Antlerman). And classical religions have suggested solutions to clear and do away the veil. In Christianity, it is called Jesus, for other religions, it is called something else.

 

3.0 Evil and Suffering

-If there is no God or Deist God

Evil and Suffering on man is conferred by man, derived from 2.0 Man’s Violence on Man (except natural disasters), you live with it, you acknowledge it. It is the way it is.

 

-If there is a God, there is the issue of co-existence of God and Suffering, but the choice to believe there is a God…. I leave it here. Antlerman we can PM.

 

And:

 

4.0 Liberation:

If there is a nice God and both theist and atheist actually go to Heaven…. (I put a definition of Heaven beforehand)

 

5.0 Eschatological:

If there is a God, would you rather the nice, loving God be judgmental…. That would link back to 1.0 and Pascal’s.

 

Regards.

[Ouroboros]

Han Solo:

Yeah, I get that one. My understanding now is that your objective for the debate is to argue that iff (if-and-only-if) there is a God, then a higher purpose exists. And with "higher purpose" we intend to mean a purpose higher than just being CO2 producers. If there is no God, there is no debate, because the question you're getting at is that a God entity (of any kind) would have a purpose if he did create a universe and some sentient beings. The question if God exists as such, is outside the scope of the debate.

 

If there is a non-Deist loving God, a higher purpose for man exists (for the Wager to be valid, I agree and expect this is to be refuted first by my friends); but if there is no God, there is still a debate, on a man’s perception of his higher value which is not contingent on actual existence of God (albeit in a particular radical atheist’s perspective it is a self-delusion, not that I am saying all of you are radical atheists, in fact no, not at all). Hans, please refer to the following.

It sounds like we're saying the same thing, except I'm trying to pin-point the objective here. What is the debate about? The validity of the wager? The contents of the wager? The outcome of the wager (leads to)?

 

 

Antlerman:

 

On Kierkegaard:

...

I'm not sure what natural philosophy of the conscious mind has anything to do with purpose or a wager for a God's involvement in any said purposes? And I think that Jung argued for a natural view of the individual-collective consciousness, rather than a divinely influenced, but I could be wrong... Still not sure what that has to do with purpose. The collective consciousness could be understood as well in memes, and archetypes as meme-types (if that's an acceptable term).

 

Or... maybe what you're saying here is that the consciousness as such is the purpose? Kind of reminds me of some proposed ideas I've had before, that we're all gods, who in the eternal sphere decided to experience the finite, and therefore decided to create a world we could get this experience. We are the gods, and we are the purpose of our own divine actions and will.

[The-Captain]

Are we still working on this and waiting for Scotter, or have we dropped it?

[insanezenmistress]

1.0 Life has more purpose if God exists, and it comes to man has a choice to assign himself a higher value by choosing to believe in God (refer back to deathbed scenario)

 

The only real choice i have is wether or not and how i will preform the next movement. Your statement, lets pretend God does not exist...*poof*....now does our purpose change? I still move. God never defined purpose anyway, humans perceived that our purpose was to glorify god, some humans say we are to becomes god, and still others their lived purpose is merely to exist. And we could easilly say god purpose is merely to exist, or hold existance together, or to BE existance. Which we currently are. Our purpsose either way is to create or be created, or exist. In fact i wager we cant escape purpose because we exist. Because or inspite of God.

 

 

2.0 Man’s violence on Man

 

- if there is no God

It is a Darwinian thing, survival of the strongest, fittest. You live with it. I remember Gwenmead’s recent post against a Muslim theist debater about sexual slavery of young girls in the Third World and she gave an yearly statistics on certain numbers of a recent year and that God could have done something. I do have really given it a thought in the humanist perspective. The Mafia traders are stronger than the young girls. That was it. If (surmised, if you like to argue ants don’t enslave other ants biologically, you haven’t got it) two nests of ants fought as one stronger nest invades the weaker nest and bring the defeated ants back as slavery work force ants, it’s not something extraordinary. If the young female ants cry out for their plight, when do we care?

 

War and violence, and sickos that show up once in a while e.g. Stalin, could be just Nature’s means to adjust human’s population. Nature doesn’t care about ethics and morality. To an ant who can think, “Why are there evil and suffering for us ants?†But when have we given a damn when two nests of ants fight and up to millions of ants died? I have seen it.

 

- if there is a God

Human is veiled by his ignorance of his true divine nature (called Original Sin by Christianity, but just about the classical religions have this notion). And there is a choice to rather believe human has a divine nature that “adds valueâ€, that transcends the human to his true potential closer to God. Although the divine nature being veiled, it is a better “betâ€, choice than to believe human has no divine nature, violence is part of human nature that is programmed by Nature as part of the adaptation process (re: Antlerman). And classical religions have suggested solutions to clear and do away the veil. In Christianity, it is called Jesus, for other religions, it is called something else.

 

Why are humans only veiled from their divine nature IF there is a god? And there being a god in actaul reality has not seemed to do much for the human violence thing. So even if there was not a god we have senceless non survival related violence. Humanly speaking violence could be seen as an imarutiry and rashness or unconsciousness on our parts. If we become wise to this our purposes become to solve the trouble. Perhaps the fact that we can and slowly do become wiser to our divine nature, Is proof of our purpose.

 

4.0 Liberation:

If there is a nice God and both theist and atheist actually go to Heaven…. (I put a definition of Heaven beforehand)

 

5.0 Eschatological:

If there is a God, would you rather the nice, loving God be judgmental…. That would link back to 1.0 and Pascal’s.

 

Regards.

 

 

 

Why must god be nice? Current conscesness of known reality is that it is not "Nice". Liberation is not a simlpe subject, everyone defines it differently. For me Liberation would be to be meme free and mentally expanding. Ninceness is merely consciouss compssion for other beings and non beings. It does not chnge the seemingly harsher facts of life. God and outselves must creat discipline in order to function to our bestest abliities.

 

 

*crosses my fingers and prays i was logical....hums that supertramp song*

 

Justine..

[insanezenmistress]

It sounds like we're saying the same thing, except I'm trying to pin-point the objective here. What is the debate about? The validity of the wager? The contents of the wager? The outcome of the wager (leads to)?

 

 

Antlerman:

 

On Kierkegaard:

...

I'm not sure what natural philosophy of the conscious mind has anything to do with purpose or a wager for a God's involvement in any said purposes? And I think that Jung argued for a natural view of the individual-collective consciousness, rather than a divinely influenced, but I could be wrong... Still not sure what that has to do with purpose. The collective consciousness could be understood as well in memes, and archetypes as meme-types (if that's an acceptable term).

 

Or... maybe what you're saying here is that the consciousness as such is the purpose? Kind of reminds me of some proposed ideas I've had before, that we're all gods, who in the eternal sphere decided to experience the finite, and therefore decided to create a world we could get this experience. We are the gods, and we are the purpose of our own divine actions and will.

 

 

I think i would like Mr. Kierkegaard whats the anme of his best book?

[scotter]

Doc, basically we don't need to go to Arena for 1.0. For 2.0 and 3.0 and more, if you are interested, to reiterate, Antlerman and you and MathGeek can opt to PM/email me to continue but on a separate-from-each-other basis.

 

Mistress, thank you for the contribution. When you joined in the middle, there could be some misgear in our commnunication.

 

Mistress:

The only real choice i have is wether or not and how i will preform the next movement. Your statement, lets pretend God does not exist...*poof*....now does our purpose change? I still move. God never defined purpose anyway, humans perceived that our purpose was to glorify god, some humans say we are to becomes god, and still others their lived purpose is merely to exist. And we could easilly say god purpose is merely to exist, or hold existance together, or to BE existance. Which we currently are. Our purpsose either way is to create or be created, or exist. In fact i wager we cant escape purpose because we exist. Because or inspite of God.

 

extraction let's pretend God does not exist - that's not what I meant, but understandable since I am marked an Apologist.

 

It is your and your own 'I', your own view of God and purpose that can collapse the Scotter's Wager on you yourself. That was considered. Hans' Deism God situation and my response to Deism God is also addressed, in case.

 

Why are humans only veiled from their divine nature IF there is a god? And there being a god in actaul reality has not seemed to do much for the human violence thing.

 

To elaborate, for the situation that there is a God (Hans' Deism God situation and my response to Deism God is addressed, in case), violence can be understood, interpreted as veils that tampered humans' divine nature.

 

Co-existence of God and suffering was addressed in 3.0 but it is not the nature of the debate, shorter debate being on 1.0 itself, longer debate being “Belief in God gives more meaning to life than non-belief in God†(that is 1.0 2.0 3.0). It can be a separate topic e.g. Nor is abiogenesis, historicity of Jesus.

 

So even if there was not a god we have senceless non survival related violence. Humanly speaking violence could be seen as an imarutiry and rashness or unconsciousness on our parts. If we become wise to this our purposes become to solve the trouble.

 

Exactly. Actually you went even further when I addressed violence as "adaptation", you added that certain violence is senseless. And I agree.

 

Perhaps the fact that we can and slowly do become wiser to our divine nature, Is proof of our purpose.

 

Nice.

 

For 4.0 and 5.0, since they are not completely presented here, still thank you for your attempt based on your understanding.

[insanezenmistress]

Sorry about jumping in just like i did. I can leave it be. Sure hope "attempt baised on my understanding doesnt translate into ...."hush you dummy its not your turn" anyway i had not seen anyone define an opposing veiw for the purposes of debate so i thunk to throw somehting out here. Hopeing that someone else might find an angle to use from it. I am no debator though, i took "shop" instead.

[Antlerman]

It sounds like we're saying the same thing, except I'm trying to pin-point the objective here. What is the debate about? The validity of the wager? The contents of the wager? The outcome of the wager (leads to)?

 

 

Antlerman:

 

On Kierkegaard:

...

I'm not sure what natural philosophy of the conscious mind has anything to do with purpose or a wager for a God's involvement in any said purposes? And I think that Jung argued for a natural view of the individual-collective consciousness, rather than a divinely influenced, but I could be wrong... Still not sure what that has to do with purpose. The collective consciousness could be understood as well in memes, and archetypes as meme-types (if that's an acceptable term).

 

Or... maybe what you're saying here is that the consciousness as such is the purpose? Kind of reminds me of some proposed ideas I've had before, that we're all gods, who in the eternal sphere decided to experience the finite, and therefore decided to create a world we could get this experience. We are the gods, and we are the purpose of our own divine actions and will.

 

 

I think i would like Mr. Kierkegaard whats the anme of his best book?

I'm planning to get back to Scotter's newer posts today as time permits, but to address your question of Kierkegaard: His book Either/Or (written in 1843, mind you) lays out the distinction of two modes of the life, the aesthetic and the ethical. Where the aesthetic is about hedonistic gratification in the human experience, but the ethical mode is built on duty and obligation. Another of his works that year was Fear and Trembling which lays out that neither of these modes of the aesthetic or the ethical was sufficient, but a third mode, the religious sphere where humans may avoid despair and find fulfillment.

 

It's in the latter book that he lays out what was latter to be known as the "Leap of Faith", where he argues that its not possible to rely on rational argument to justify a religious faith. All this was his response to the predominant view of Hegelianism, where Kierkegaard expresses how it's not possible to have objective knowledge about the whole of the human experience inside a framework of rationality and logic. Existentialism recognizes the inability to understand humaninty within that framework, but Kierkegaard saw religion as the response, whereas those who were later were atheistic and did not look to religion as the response.

 

Hans, how this relates is in what I saw behind Scotter's wager, that a choice to "Leap" is in essence the more logical choice for the sake of meaning, in the face of a lack or question of evidence. That's what Neo-Orthodoxy has at its heart (I believe). This BTW, is why I always hope to correct understanding when someone applies the term "Blind Faith" or "Leap of Faith" to those of the Evangelical/Fundamentalist flavor. They're actually the exact opposite of this, being Teleological in nature, looking for rational/logical support and evidence as the justification for their faith.

 

That's not a leap of faith at all; it's evidence driven and puts itself on the plan of that level of philosophy and science. I've always argued that the surest way to kill God is to bring him down to earth where he can be examined with our tools of reason. See this from 2 years ago: http://www.ex-christian.net/index.php?showtopic=7854&hl= . In order for a religious symbol to have power, it must remain transcendent above the reach of rational examination, yet not so transcendent it has no relevance to this world. "The best poem is one where your head is in the clouds, while your feet remain on the ground". I see something like Neo-Orthodoxy as an attempt to make that happen for the God symbol in a modern age of reason and science.

 

If any religious faith has more merit in my opinion it would be the former which recognizes the irrational nature of it, but simply chooses for the sake of faith alone. Whereas the Evangelical has to twist and contort reason to fit into their chose of belief. To me that's the weaker faith of the two, since it can't simply believe for the sake of belief without having to offer rational justification for it. That said however, for myself the question of that 'despair' being answered in the religious leap is the question of merit. That's what I see at the heart of Scotter's wager, and one I'm still considering in how to proceed in discussion with him.

[Ouroboros]

...

C. G. Jung’s notion of Ego “I am what I think”. For Jung as analogous to Kirgkegaard, within a man, there is an ego which is a center of consciousness that thinks, plans, directs and prides itself on the accomplishment. It is the archetype of one’s “subjective identity”. This is the evolving identity where one differentiates from others as one grows since one was born.

 

For Jung other than Kirkengaard, there is also the Self as one becomes aware of one’s attitudes and functions, one’s realized or unrealized aspirations. The Self is the archetype of one’s “objective identity” in the sense of recognizing the broader reality of which we are part. It is the unity and wholeness of the total personality the Self that is in relationship with the totality of all e.g. humanity. I shall stretch that for Theists, the Supreme Totality of all is God.

 

As a person matures and Self evolves, I still can be what I think, but ‘I think’ is no longer exclusively encompassed by ‘I’, to exclusively serve ‘I'. what ‘I think’ is more than to do with ‘I’, but in relation to others, to my neighbour, to humanity.

 

Emmanuel Levinas shares his I-others collective relationship, “I do not and need not know who I am to begin with. I get to know who I am when others summon me.”

 

Here is where the Neutral Observer comes to play (looks like we are already engaged in the debate despite pending in Arena). Feed the two death bed scenarios to the Neutral Observer. The God believer lives till the moment he dies believing, and knowing that he is a child of God who loves him (whether God really exists or not would not invalidate his “knowing”), the unusual atheist who is very happy about his role as a CO2 provider, and we add the 3rd deathbed scenario, the comfortable atheist who acknowledges his role as CO2 provider comfortably.

...

 

 

..

It's in the latter book that he lays out what was latter to be known as the "Leap of Faith", where he argues that its not possible to rely on rational argument to justify a religious faith. All this was his response to the predominant view of Hegelianism, where Kierkegaard expresses how it's not possible to have objective knowledge about the whole of the human experience inside a framework of rationality and logic. Existentialism recognizes the inability to understand humaninty within that framework, but Kierkegaard saw religion as the response, whereas those who were later were atheistic and did not look to religion as the response.

 

Hans, how this relates is in what I saw behind Scotter's wager, that a choice to "Leap" is in essence the more logical choice for the sake of meaning, in the face of a lack or question of evidence. That's what Neo-Orthodoxy has at its heart (I believe). This BTW, is why I always hope to correct understanding when someone applies the term "Blind Faith" or "Leap of Faith" to those of the Evangelical/Fundamentalist flavor. They're actually the exact opposite of this, being Teleological in nature, looking for rational/logical support and evidence as the justification for their faith.

 

That's not a leap of faith at all; it's evidence driven and puts itself on the plan of that level of philosophy and science. (I've always argued that the surest way to kill God is to bring him down to earth where he can be examined with our tools of reason. See this from 2 years ago: http://www.ex-christian.net/index.php?showtopic=7854&hl= ).

 

If any religious faith has more merit in my opinion it would be the former which recognizes the irrational nature of it, but simply chooses for the sake of faith alone. Whereas the Evangelical has to twist and contort reason to fit into their chose of belief. To me that's the weaker faith of the two, since it can't simply believe for the sake of belief without having to offer rational justification for it. That said however, for myself the question of that 'despair' being answered in the religious leap is the question of merit. That's what I see at the heart of Scotter's wager, and one I'm still considering in how to proceed in discussion with him.

...

 

I think the way I quoted Scotter's post confused the situation a little, because I cut out the whole quote and only kept the beginning. My intention wasn't really to argue Kirkengaard's view on purpose, but rather Scotter's comments. The comments that raised my eyebrow are now more intact in the quote above.

 

I get Kirkengaars collective consciousness, so that is not the problem, it was more the way Scotter dealt with "consciousness" and "archetypes" related to his wager that "if there is a God, there is a purpose".

 

Correct me if I'm wrong, but right now, to me, it looks more like that the "collective consciousness" in Scotter's interpretation is The God. Meaning, not the God of the Bible, but a God of collective ideas. This God's purpose is the completion of man, because that is what mankind strive for. And this collective consciousness created God, is not our creator, but we are its creator. But then again, the natural observer is the objective and outside-of-the-box observer of it all, isn't it, while the collective-consciousness-God would be within the framework?

 

---

 

I should leave this be, since it seems this thread is becoming "the debate" instead. Scotter if you want to pursue the debate, PM those you want to participate and try to agree on the treaty, and then PM Kevin for starting a Arena thread.

 

Btw, on another note, Scotter, I went back to your earlier participation on this website, and nothing there indicate that you are a Christian. Did something change? Maybe we can let this thread discuss more about the background to your wager instead?

[MathGeek]

Hans, how this relates is in what I saw behind Scotter's wager, that a choice to "Leap" is in essence the more logical choice for the sake of meaning, in the face of a lack or question of evidence. That's what Neo-Orthodoxy has at its heart (I believe). This BTW, is why I always hope to correct understanding when someone applies the term "Blind Faith" or "Leap of Faith" to those of the Evangelical/Fundamentalist flavor. They're actually the exact opposite of this, being Teleological in nature, looking for rational/logical support and evidence as the justification for their faith.

 

 

Thank you, Antlerman. This is philosophically how I see the idea of "The Belief in God". Most folks are looking for some kind of framework in which to explain their beliefs in God. In a way, searching for this kind of framework in a way parallels how Giuseppe Peano set out to axiomize the set of natural numbers. The only other saying I remember from Kierkeegard is that "we reason from existence, not toward it". By and large, if anybody can see God in something, then that person will see God in anything else.

 

 

That's not a leap of faith at all; it's evidence driven and puts itself on the plan of that level of philosophy and science. I've always argued that the surest way to kill God is to bring him down to earth where he can be examined with our tools of reason.

 

*snip*

 

In order for a religious symbol to have power, it must remain transcendent above the reach of rational examination, yet not so transcendent it has no relevance to this world. "The best poem is one where your head is in the clouds, while your feet remain on the ground". I see something like Neo-Orthodoxy as an attempt to make that happen for the God symbol in a modern age of reason and science.

 

 

This reasoning may explain why people keep citing God in many works of creativity (like music, painting and film). In a way, I would argue that if anybody can make a better for the existence than anybody else, it is likely the artist. The scientist uses cold, hard, cruel facts from the natural world to either prove or disprove the existence of a tendency (meaning some kind of patterned behavior). Sam Harris illustriously muses that science can only be utilized in the natural world. The supernatural is off limits to this form of inquiry. This is likely why the Christian can keep pounding away at any idea brought forth by the scientific atheist. It is limited by the possibilities and constraints of this world. The Christian is not limited in this regard.

 

 

If any religious faith has more merit in my opinion it would be the former which recognizes the irrational nature of it, but simply chooses for the sake of faith alone. Whereas the Evangelical has to twist and contort reason to fit into their chose of belief. To me that's the weaker faith of the two, since it can't simply believe for the sake of belief without having to offer rational justification for it. That said however, for myself the question of that 'despair' being answered in the religious leap is the question of merit. That's what I see at the heart of Scotter's wager, and one I'm still considering in how to proceed in discussion with him.

 

 

I think I see where you are going with your own iniquiry into this argument. Considering my additions to this discourse (which are nowhere near as eloquent or exhaustive), how should I proceed from here? My knowledge of philosophy of morality, existence and the like is rather thin. All I can offer are my own thoughts and experience. What can you offer for advice, Antlerman?