The Deity and the Pariah

[SpaceYeti]

As an INTP I rarely do anything without an express purpose in mind. I can't think of the last time I did something without considering the purpose.

If you are reading this and not doing right by "God" (whatever that is) then be afraid and let this motivation work in you until you adjust your life accordingly such that you can not be afraid to meet your "God" (whatever that is) when this power/ force ceases to sustain you and calls you home by allowing entropy to do its thing without Its intervention (i.e. your inevitable physical death).

... Um, actually, the thing preventing entropy in me is food... I don't consider food a god.

Or are you calling me fat?

 

[Cherry Cola]

I'm at work so I can't reply in lenght atm, in short; however, it's a Texas Sharpshooter fallacy. You presuppose humanity to be special and part of a plan, which there is no reason to do.

The part about the second law of thermodynamics makes no sense either. Again there's no need for a God, the metaphysical attributes you assign to him can just as well be assigned to the universe itself; the meaning and purpose that to you see God as bringing to the cosmos may just as well be viewed as an innate quality of matter, that is of being. There is no need for the gross violation of Occam's Razor that you'd have us make.

I am familiar with Pascals wager. More on that later. But a god who would condemn people to hell is a despicable sickly thing, a child wielding far too much power.

 

[DrGregoryHouse]

I'm at work so I can't reply in lenght atm, in short; however, it's a Texas Sharpshooter fallacy. You presuppose humanity to be special and part of a plan, which there is no reason to do.

The part about the second law of thermodynamics makes no sense either. Again there's no need for a God, the metaphysical attributes you assign to him can just as well be assigned to the universe itself; the meaning and purpose that to you see God as bringing to the cosmos may just as well be viewed as an innate quality of matter, that is of being. There is no need for the gross violation of Occam's Razor that you'd have us make.

I am familiar with Pascals wager. More on that later. But a god who would condemn people to hell is a despicable sickly thing, a child wielding far too much power.

You've assumed too much (and assigned assumptions to my position about which I was not consulted).

Perhaps any given hell is of one's own making. Any physical situation can be transcended given the understanding I've outlined.

 

[Brontosaurie]

You've assumed too much (and assigned assumptions to my position about which I was not consulted).
.

jhaahahahauigeujhsjioseghbolgssgee

look who's talking

 

[redbaron]

Pascal's Wager is fucking stupid.

(Don't even know who brought it up in the first place, but I hope whoever did is tortured horribly and comes to regret their very existence).

 

[Cherry Cola]

Yeah, quoting wiki on that one this about sums it up:

"It is criticized for not proving God's existence, encouragement of false belief and the problem of which religion and which God should be worshipped."

It's a scare in essence, and one that takes only one God into account, when in fact there are a plethora of Gods.

I reread Gregory post, in hindsight I think my earlier post suffices, it is a Texas Sharpshooter fallacy.

 

[Brontosaurie]

can anyone explain the difference between "texas sharpshooter fallacy" and just being stupid?

 

[Black Rose]

"For happiness is to persons what perfection is to beings. And if the highest principle ruling the existence of the physical world is the degree which gives it greatest perfection possible, the highest purpose in the moral world, or the city of God which is the noblest part of the universe, should be to spread in it the greatest possible happiness." - Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz