My New Place - Take The Tour

I give you guys a quick look inside my room and at my bookshelf as well as leak some information about upcoming videos.

Category:

People & Blogs

Tags:

• epydemic2020
• new
• place
• rental
• craigslist
• college
• graduate
• school
• masters
• in
• philosophy
• take
• the
• tour
• upcoming
• videos
• preview
• sneak
• peak
• books
• bookshelf
• room

[kennersingle]

Pascal's wager is not compatible with Christianity. Christianity requires true faith, not let me do these things "just in case".  It is much more compatible with agnosticism.

[Epydemic2020]

@kennersingle

Don't get me wrong, I am not a fan of pascal's wager at all.

[Agnosgnosia]

I'd like to hear the pros for Pascal's wager. I'm familiar with the argument but all the pros I know of are outweighed by the cons.

[Epydemic2020]

@Agnosgnosia

Pascals wager works, but only if you are a pragmatist. It does not make christianity more likely to be true. If you compare only atheism and Christianity, at a 50%/50% probability of either (since Christianity has an infinite reward), the pragmatic thing is to choose Christianity. The crazy thing about it is that even at a 99% chance atheism is true, it is still more pragmatic to go with Christianity (because of the infinite in the equasion).

However,

[Epydemic2020]

@Agnosgnosia

However, the only real pro I see to the argument (since I hate pragmatism) is to be an argument against apathy. Since this decision does have a large impact what is pragmatic for us to do, figuring out which position is most likely to be true is something we may want to investigate thoroughly.

[PhilStrohmann]

That bookmark idea was really good. I'll have to remember that.

And while it looks like I just may not get back around to actually MAKING the video, I had always wanted to do one on the ramifications of feral children on the existence of the soul and the nature of cognition. Ah well.

[Epydemic2020]

@PhilStrohmann

Interesting. Your vid sounds more complicated than mine.

[Agnosgnosia]

@Epydemic2020 /watch?v=ob_znnt_bl4&feature=f­eedlik 

[Agnosgnosia]

@Epydemic2020 Adam's sin. See profmth's video on 'o necessary sin of adam'. Would any proto Christians be up for a little mental gymnastics to make their beliefs seem like facts? And whats up with Jesus giving Thomas evidence, but then telling him to beleive even despite a lack of evidence? Maybe because the author knew that people knew that one person's word against another's is just hearsay. People back then probably wanted evidence just like we do today, and he took that and flipped it.

[Agnosgnosia]

@Epydemic2020 Most scholars today think that Mark is the first of the Synoptic Gospels. The last 12 verses of Mark, were not in the original. This is significant because this is where Jesus has actually supposed to have come back in bodily form. Before that, its just that guy saying that he had risen. Jews also thought that the Messiah was going to be a ruler like David and establish a kingdom, not be killed by mere mortals. And thats where we have the doctrine of Jesus saving us from (cont)

[Agnosgnosia]

@Epydemic2020 The second thing of note in that covenant was that God called David his son. Was calling someone a son of God metaphorical or literal? If it's literal then Jesus was the second coming. If it's metaphorical then Jesus wasn't literally the son of God like he is said to be. If it's a case of special pleading for Jesus using the term literally that seems unlikely given the fact that even today you can google "children of God" and turn up over 42 million results.

[Agnosgnosia]

@Epydemic2020 Look up "Girl Dies After Parents Pray for Healing Instead of Seeking Medical Help"

The Davidic Covenant is actually in 2 Samuel chapter 7. There's 2 things of note. First of all, God didn't keep his promise in letting David's line of kings hold rule forever. And some people want to make a claim that David's kingdom was metaphorical rather than literal, is nonsense. There is archeological evidence that David himself was a real ruler. (cont)

[Agnosgnosia]

@Epydemic2020 That's 2 Samuel 13. Notice anything significant about that passage? Here's a hint: It has really significant implications for the distinction between Christianity and Judaism.

[Agnosgnosia]

@Epydemic2020 He (David) is the one who will build a house for my Name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom forever. I will be his father, and he will be my son. When he does wrong, I will punish him with a rod wielded by men, with floggings inflicted by human hands. But my love will never be taken away from him, as I took it away from Saul, whom I removed from before you. 16 Your house and your kingdom will endure forever before me; your throne will be established forever.’

[Agnosgnosia]

@Epydemic2020 However Israel and Judah eventually fell to neighboring countries. So if God did actually say that, then he was lying, changed his mind, can't predict the future or isn't powerful enough to protect his people from their enemies. Or it could be that someone just made it up, or they had a dream and used it as a sort of blessing. I'm sure if I did a little more digging I could find places where he is unlikely to have spoken words attributed to him.

[Agnosgnosia]

What are your thoughts on Biblical inerrancy? There's tons of inconsistencies. There's places where it appears that God didn't talk to people where he is said to have. For example, the Davidic covenant, 2 Samuel 16: "Your house and your kingdom will endure forever before me; your throne will be established forever". God is said to have said that his descendants might do wrong, but God will punish them and they will still have the throne. (cont)

[alvaboyfilms]

Book segregation? Whats this world coming to? LOL Looking forward to the up coming vids especially the is/ought.