Thread: Pascal's Wager--another perspective.

Originally Posted by sephiroth clock

Who said truth was subjective??

Rationality on the other hand is Definitely Subjective!!

Rationale-
the fundamental reason or reasons serving to account for something.

What makes sense to me wont necessarily make sense to you or anyone else.

And reality? No one experiences reality! We only experience our perceptions of reality! So perception = reality. In this way reality IS subjective.

You can't make the logical step of perceiving reality to perception = reality. For example, a dream is not substantial, and therefore is not reality. So when we experience the perception of a dream, we percieve a boundless, non veridical state. Reality is not substantial and veridical, as well as bounded by the imagination. Our dreams obviously refute that principle. We all experience reality, however subject to different respects of the same reality. Of course we don't all have instantaneous experiences at the same moment... however these experiences are open to anyone.

So to be less ambiguous, we all experience reality, but percieve it differently.

Originally Posted by sephiroth clock

lulz parturition.

The universe is uniquely itself. What do you mean by this? This sounds like all I have ever believed about the Universe. The word God can be rather vague these days. I do not think that people use it with the same meaning.

Anyways, I see what you mean when you talked about uniqueness with regards to theological purpose. The spiritual and the theological do not always have to be connected though. The best example is probably buddhism. The original Buddha did not believe in a god, only the mind, yet he sought and attained enlightenment (whatever that means). Those teachings have been somewhat corrupted now- there is a lot of buddha worship and god worship in buddhism now, depending on where you go.

Even believing in God, life is a mystery to me also. Does the mystery of the universe lead you to reverence? Apathy? What...

Anyways more later, but I have to go now.

In essence the condition of a unsolvable mystery leaves me apathetic. The worst step in philosophy to me is leaving question's merely to subjectivity. Rather then concrete irrefutable fact, we leave it to feelings and perception. Therefore eliminating objectivity leaves us only more mystery in a theoretical maze of abstract uncertainty.

When you asked me "what is unique about the universe" I answered "The universe is uniquely it self. I answer with this said rationale because I believe the question posits a paradox. To be unique requires relativeness, yet all I have ever known is a singular universe. So to ponder its uniqueness is inadequate to the condition of a preconditioned unparalleled distinctiveness.

Originally Posted by sephiroth clock

I am all in favor of truth, it is just that my current truth makes me happy.

Originally Posted by sephiroth clock

Who said truth was subjective??

The first statement would seem to strongly imply that it was you.

Originally Posted by sephiroth clock

Rationality on the other hand is Definitely Subjective!!

Rationale-
the fundamental reason or reasons serving to account for something.

What makes sense to me wont necessarily make sense to you or anyone else.

If i'm not mistaken, you gave me the definition of 'rationale' (noun) and used it to support your statement that 'rational' (adjective) is subjective.

Originally Posted by sephiroth clock

In this way reality IS subjective.

Is truth not an aspect of reality? If so, then this statement would seem to be in contradiction with your statement that you don't believe that truth is subjective.

Originally Posted by Dreams4free

You can't make the logical step of perceiving reality to perception = reality.

Although I agree with everything you said after this point, I have to disagree with this. The fundamental problem is that you have to have faith in something in order to do any reasoning at all. In mathematics, this is reflected in the fact that you must take axioms. In logic, it is reflected in the fact that the truth value of a sentence depends upon the assigned truth values of the predicates.

Pretty much everyone has to take an axiom regarding the relationship between perception and reality. I have faith that my perception is a good approximation of reality and that the extent to which it is not can (theoretically) be desribed in a precise manner.

If Sepherith Clock chooses to take the axiom that the two are identical, then we can't fault him for that but it does appear to again be in contradiction with the claim that truth is not subjective. I'm again assuming that truth is an attribute of reality but if we assume that, then perceptions equalling reality would, when considered in light of differing perceptions, indicate different realities. Hence the possiblity for differing truths.

Originally Posted by Dreams4free

You can't make the logical step of perceiving reality to perception = reality. For example, a dream is not substantial, and therefore is not reality. So when we experience the perception of a dream, we percieve a boundless, non veridical state. Reality is not substantial and veridical, as well as bounded by the imagination. Our dreams obviously refute that principle. We all experience reality, however subject to different respects of the same reality. Of course we don't all have instantaneous experiences at the same moment... however these experiences are open to anyone.

So to be less ambiguous, we all experience reality, but percieve it differently.

Perception is what is of SIGNIFICANCE to us. People act like their perception of reality is an Objective one. No one experiences reality OBJECTIVELY, our experience is our SUBJECTIVE PERCEPTION of objective reality. However we cannot relate to reality OBJECTIVELY, so reality becomes what we can relate to-what we experience and think. It is impossible for us to simultaneously know and experience objective reality. It is a recursive paradox.

Originally Posted by PhilosopherStoned

The first statement would seem to strongly imply that it was you.



If i'm not mistaken, you gave me the definition of 'rationale' (noun) and used it to support your statement that 'rational' (adjective) is subjective.




Is truth not an aspect of reality? If so, then this statement would seem to be in contradiction with your statement that you don't believe that truth is subjective.



Although I agree with everything you said after this point, I have to disagree with this. The fundamental problem is that you have to have faith in something in order to do any reasoning at all. In mathematics, this is reflected in the fact that you must take axioms. In logic, it is reflected in the fact that the truth value of a sentence depends upon the assigned truth values of the predicates.

Pretty much everyone has to take an axiom regarding the relationship between perception and reality. I have faith that my perception is a good approximation of reality and that the extent to which it is not can (theoretically) be desribed in a precise manner.

If Sepherith Clock chooses to take the axiom that the two are identical, then we can't fault him for that but it does appear to again be in contradiction with the claim that truth is not subjective. I'm again assuming that truth is an attribute of reality but if we assume that, then perceptions equalling reality would, when considered in light of differing perceptions, indicate different realities. Hence the possiblity for differing truths.

The points I made above basically cover my thoughts about truth versus reality. Truth can be talked about objectively or subjectively, but what is of significance to us is Subjective Truth.

No you are not mistaken about my use of Rationale!

EDIT: I didn't see your last post. I suppose that you are right. I'll shut up now and let you get back to it. Your variant of pascals conjecture makes my head almost explode. Well played.

Originally Posted by sephiroth clock

Perception is what is of SIGNIFICANCE to us. People act like their perception of reality is an Objective one. No one experiences reality OBJECTIVELY, our experience is our SUBJECTIVE PERCEPTION of objective reality. However we cannot relate to reality OBJECTIVELY, so reality becomes what we can relate to-what we experience and think. It is impossible for us to simultaneously know and experience objective reality. It is a recursive paradox.

I don't think that anybody is denying that. The question all of that is dancing around is "Does an objective reality exists and, if so, to what degree do our perceptions approximate this reality." Given the fact that you claim that truth is objective, one would have little choice but to conclude that you do believe in an objective reality. Saying that perceptions of reality are subejective implies that we can infer nothing about objective reality is a cop-out. We can objectively infer that the earth is round, that it rotates around a sun and that an did or did not fall at such and such a location at such and such a time (relative to lorentz transformations). In what system of thought are these taken to be subjective facts?

There are of course degrees to the objectivity. When you get to issues of feelings (that exists purely in our heads), it becomes almost impossible to speak of objectivity as science currently stands.

Originally Posted by PhilosopherStoned

The first statement would seem to strongly imply that it was you.



If i'm not mistaken, you gave me the definition of 'rationale' (noun) and used it to support your statement that 'rational' (adjective) is subjective.




Is truth not an aspect of reality? If so, then this statement would seem to be in contradiction with your statement that you don't believe that truth is subjective.



Although I agree with everything you said after this point, I have to disagree with this. The fundamental problem is that you have to have faith in something in order to do any reasoning at all. In mathematics, this is reflected in the fact that you must take axioms. In logic, it is reflected in the fact that the truth value of a sentence depends upon the assigned truth values of the predicates.

Pretty much everyone has to take an axiom regarding the relationship between perception and reality. I have faith that my perception is a good approximation of reality and that the extent to which it is not can (theoretically) be desribed in a precise manner.

If Sepherith Clock chooses to take the axiom that the two are identical, then we can't fault him for that but it does appear to again be in contradiction with the claim that truth is not subjective. I'm again assuming that truth is an attribute of reality but if we assume that, then perceptions equalling reality would, when considered in light of differing perceptions, indicate different realities. Hence the possiblity for differing truths.

I'm talking with respect to dreams, not objectivity or subjectivity. It's rather obvious that perception = reality is refuted when you percieve a dream.

not if you think the dream is reality

Originally Posted by PhilosopherStoned

not if you think the dream is reality

I think I am a jelly doughnut.

Originally Posted by PhilosopherStoned

not if you think the dream is reality

Fine.... when you percieve a "lucid dream".

Originally Posted by sephiroth clock

It is possible that God doesn't exist, although I do believe in God and I highly doubt I will ever NOT believe in God.

It is possible that atheism is the most accurate depiction of the Universe and spirituality is false.

However, even though I recognize that this could be true (although I do not believe it to be so), I am not motivated to prove it to be so as I enjoy being a spiritual person and studying religions and enlightenment and living life guided ultimately by spiritual goals.

As I ultimately motivated by my own happiness, it makes no difference to me as to whether or not we live in a Godless universe. I believe that we do so strongly that the possibility of Godlessness will never bother me. Thus I will never contemplate it seriously.

I contemplated sigging this.

Very well said.

/thread

/the entire RS subforum

/the entire religious vs. atheists debate

/ALL OF IT

Very well said indeed.

Originally Posted by WakataDreamer

I contemplated sigging this.

Very well said.

/thread

/the entire RS subforum

/the entire religious vs. atheists debate

/ALL OF IT

Very well said indeed.

So you find that being close-minded is sigworthy AND a valid argument? See, I have always been taught that having an open mind is a desirable trait.

Originally Posted by Licity

So you find that being close-minded is sigworthy AND a valid argument? See, I have always been taught that having an open mind is a desirable trait.

How in the world was the OP closed minded? YOU, my friend, are a dumbass.

For the record, I agree with Wakata, very well said. I enjoyed reading all of your posts in this thread sephiro, and I think a lot like you. You do a lot better job putting it into english though.

Originally Posted by Michael

How in the world was the OP closed minded? YOU, my friend, are a dumbass.

For the record, I agree with Wakata, very well said. I enjoyed reading all of your posts in this thread sephiro, and I think a lot like you. You do a lot better job putting it into english though.

Thanks a bunch for the insult, I can use that sudden burst of anger to heat my home. Pay attention to the bolded parts.

Originally Posted by sephiroth clock

It is possible that God doesn't exist, although I do believe in God and I highly doubt I will ever NOT believe in God.

It is possible that atheism is the most accurate depiction of the Universe and spirituality is false.

However, even though I recognize that this could be true (although I do not believe it to be so), I am not motivated to prove it to be so as I enjoy being a spiritual person and studying religions and enlightenment and living life guided ultimately by spiritual goals.

As I ultimately motivated by my own happiness, it makes no difference to me as to whether or not we live in a Godless universe. I believe that we do so strongly that the possibility of Godlessness will never bother me. Thus I will never contemplate it seriously.

Wut.

First I thought Wakata was being ironic and laughed a bit. Then I was confused by Licity disagreeing with Wakata, and Michael disagreeing with Licity, and I though "wtf?". Then I realised Wakata was being serious, and that was when I rofl'd.

/thread

Originally Posted by Michael

How in the world was the OP closed minded? YOU, my friend, are a dumbass.

It's ridiculously idiotic to call Licity a dumbass. The OP didn't present any valid argument and admitted being closed minded.

When you think about it, does it really seem likely that there's a sentient being who we can't see capable of controlling every aspect of our lives for all eternity?
And does it seem likely that this sentient being, while completely invisible, would demand we acknowledge it's role in our lives by forcing us to sit in temples every week when we could be doing much more productive things?

Originally Posted by Dreams4free

I'm talking with respect to dreams, not objectivity or subjectivity. It's rather obvious that perception = reality is refuted when you percieve a dream.

What are your standards for dreams not being reality? Why are they valid standards? What are your standards for reality being reality? Why are they valid standards?

Originally Posted by Scatterbrain

It's ridiculously idiotic to call Licity a dumbass. The OP didn't present any valid argument and admitted being closed minded.

Scatterbrain, make specific points so we can discuss.

Originally Posted by bobobo55585

When you think about it, does it really seem likely that there's a sentient being who we can't see capable of controlling every aspect of our lives for all eternity?
And does it seem likely that this sentient being, while completely invisible, would demand we acknowledge it's role in our lives by forcing us to sit in temples every week when we could be doing much more productive things?

I agree it's completely crazy!! It's a good thing I believe in GOD!

No need, the faults in OP were already pointed out.

.... Won't seriously contemplate??

Brainwashed much?



(I have my personal beliefs but what a shame to not even be willing to seriously think about it...)

Originally Posted by Scatterbrain

It's ridiculously idiotic to call Licity a dumbass. The OP didn't present any valid argument and admitted being closed minded.

I don't care. by OP i meant original post, not original poster. The original post was not closed minded. don't argue with me, i'm superior. you are a peasant.

Originally Posted by Michael

don't argue with me, i'm superior. you are a peasant.

Only Bender gets to say that.