Re:To tell someone they're wrong, first tell them how they'r...
by vintermann on Tuesday September 13, 2016 @06:54AM
(#12486926)
I'm all too used to my argument being put in a box and dismissed with a standard argument for that box. But please don't do that, OK?
Hell is nowhere in this chain of argument. God arguably is, but that's in step 2. It's step 3 which may kinda, sorta remind you of Pascal's Wager, but it's only an argument against nihilism, not even for theism.
Yes, conceding step 3 leaves wide open the question of what to believe in instead of nihilism. Even conceding step 2 leaves open the question of "what sort of god are we talking about". But this is precisely the point. That means you can argue these things separately, while still acknowledging your opponent's ultimate concern.
Re:To tell someone they're wrong, first tell them how they'r...
by jahnu on Tuesday September 13, 2016 @08:37AM
(#12487573)
I'm not dismissing anything. Just pointing people to a relevant interesting page. Try not to be too hasty to read arguments into comments where there are none :)
Hell is nowhere in this chain of argument. God arguably is, but that's in step 2. It's step 3 which may kinda, sorta remind you of Pascal's Wager, but it's only an argument against nihilism, not even for theism.
Yes, conceding step 3 leaves wide open the question of what to believe in instead of nihilism. Even conceding step 2 leaves open the question of "what sort of god are we talking about". But this is precisely the point. That means you can argue these things separately, while still acknowledging your opponent's ultimate concern.