Castro Posted June 23, 2005 The French mathematician Blaise Pascal (1623-62) put forward an argument that would appeal to agnostics. (An agnostic is someone who believes that it is impossible to prove God's existence.) His argument goes something like this: God either exists or he does not. If we believe in God and he exists, we will be rewarded with eternal bliss in heaven. If we believe in God and he does not exist then at worst all we have forgone is a few sinful pleasures. If we do not believe in God and he does exist we may enjoy a few sinful pleasures, but we may face eternal damnation. If we do not believe in God and he does not exist then our sins will not be punished. Would any rational gambler think that the experience of a few sinful pleasures is worth the risk of eternal damnation? Interesting, eh? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
shyhem Posted June 23, 2005 And what is u'r point? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Haddad Posted June 23, 2005 Originally posted by SomericaN: And what is u'r point? The point is very clear: To believe in God is the best option. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
shyhem Posted June 23, 2005 Originally posted by Haddad: The point is very clear: To believe in God is the best option. We have heard that one before, and we know certainly its true,but does he have any other point,anything other than what we already know.I don't want to waste time learning stuff i already know by heart. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Haddad Posted June 23, 2005 Originally posted by SomericaN: I don't want to waste time learning stuff i already know by heart. Sometimes you learn it as a reminder. Plus, there are others unlike you, who don't know about it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
shyhem Posted June 23, 2005 ^^ Yap i got u'r point,Thanks for clarifying that. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Castro Posted June 23, 2005 ... and we know certainly its true,but does he have any other point,anything other than what we already know.I don't want to waste time learning stuff i already know by heart. It's great you think your time is valuable. I actually did kinda have a point. Believing in God, according to Pascal, seems to be the most prudent and safest option. Simply believing in God however, is not sufficient in Islam. It's necessary but not sufficient. So Pascal is off the mark when it comes to Islam. Furthermore, not believing in God, presumably, means you are not religious. If you are not religious, then what constitutes a "sin"? His remarks are predicated on some universal definition of "sin", which he assumes exists whether or not you believe in God. Just random thoughts on random things. I'm just really passing time till the Pistons whoop San Antonio tonight. Now the NBA finals, that stuff I watch "religiously". Ofleh Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Haddad Posted June 23, 2005 Originally posted by ofleh: I'm just really passing time till the Pistons whoop San Antonio tonight. You're very optimistic about the Piston's chance at the championship. I thought it was very clear these are fixed games meant to make the maximum profits. The fact is, the Spurs is the better team, and could have wrapped up the series long ago, if they wanted to. The other fact, distractions are affecting the Pistons. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Baashi Posted June 23, 2005 ^Conspiracy theory! How come some finals r only four games (one team sweeping the other in all four games) if the games are fixed to maximize profits. Pistons all the way! I've been rooting for pistons for quite sometimes now n look at them goin' for the second. Game 5 was one of the best games that I've seen lately...I cursed Robert Horry that night... TONIGHT is the NIGHT. Cheerios/popcorn with shaah cadeys r in order. Appologies to Oefleh for the irrelevant post. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Haddad Posted June 23, 2005 Originally posted by Baashi: How come some finals r only four games Only few are, most are six or more. The reason is, if all finish in 7, it would become very apparent. Bear in mind, this industry is about making money; the more games are played, the more profits are made. What's the value of a championship? Not much; a line or two in records. In this final game, I think the Spurs will lead by double digits throughout the game. A couple or more Pistons ejections have to be expected. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Castro Posted June 23, 2005 Appologies to Oefleh for the irrelevant post. I think it's very relevant. Pistons won games 3 and 4 decisively. Then lost game 5 by a nanometer. Then turned around and won game 6 convincingly. How on earth can you say the Spurs will win when they have had no momentum in this series since game 2? The Wallaces are gonna take care of bidness tonight!! Ofleh Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Haddad Posted June 23, 2005 Originally posted by ofleh: The Wallaces are gonna take care of bidness tonight!! You mean they're gonna wallacize (a verb invented during last year) the Spurs? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Faarax-Brawn Posted June 23, 2005 You mean they're gonna wallacize (a verb invented during last year) the Spurs? I like that! Yeah, They gonna get wallacized and 'Rip'ed apart. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
underdog Posted June 23, 2005 Ginobili is dunking on Wallace TONIGHT. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Faarax-Brawn Posted June 23, 2005 How on earth can you say the Spurs will win when they have had no momentum in this series since game 2 Yo,Ofle Why not? they are @home, infront of a huge crowd, they have done it before. The pistons are the UNDERDOGS. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
