Threatening Welfare in its historical context (prehistory is changing.)

 January 19th 2011

If one were to internalize 'gods will' as if subjected to traces of false ideals; what then are the ideals which are truly false.

- Marco

So - then you have a false idea of gods will, a false sense of internalizing the world around you. What good comes of this, in such indiscriminate followers, those who know not right from wrong, nor the wrong from which those false ideals incurred upon them.

The absurdity among an internalized false sense, of god, of her pride over you, of her thoughts, become an instinct over your own probability.

--------------------

Therefore as corrupted a mentality, as her way of not seeing 'false'; what is true of god is not true of herself then so on. Unfortunately, we live in a world of trivial misconception, we internalize, false wealth over capital, false expenditure over wealth becoming internalized.

============

This indefinitely answers the misguided are those of PW I.e. Pascal's wager, that god has falsified judgment of an agnostic capability on no real continuum. A reprieve of those thoughts, were they falsified to be condemned for those thoughts. Pascal was a champion of cause over effect, god not being of primary focus but to aide the intensity of a falsified world ruled by false internalized intention.

==============

David Robert Jones

Pascal was a brilliant mathematician, but his Wager, taken at a surface level (it was important in some more nuanced ways), was meaningless.

Basically the Wager itself is useless to any rational thinker but it helped influence for instance probability theory.

----------------------------

Marco Almeida

Tell me if I were in need of some aided circumstance, purely on a parallel universe which I could prove to you exists. From that point of view, I would take preference over magic any day.

Ultimately, Pascal knew that she could not refuse she that cannot think. Reason being, if SHE believes in something more so than the rational thinker, it is from Pascal's point of reference, that she's made a decision for him (Pascal.) Pascal is saying: here is her example of god, and because I do not have gods will, I must be oblivious to it. So for some reason unknown to me, she must believe I have internalized her own will to satisfy that need.

So for every post modern belief, there must be a term for it, but what if there were a lack of conventional wisdom in the war time (before or during such moral upheaval.) What then accounts for it?

I would say Pascal had it right, that you all "may as well believe God exist." But then he would also say you forgot to rethink, you settled internalized dogma. He's basically saying the wager never ends; rational thinking takes dogmatic shifts.

Then you get the baby-rattlers spewing out "oh - you cop out on the god quotient to get a good deal" therefore, selling short of it. Pfft. Pascal is essentially saying not to do that himself, but gives us the theoretical viewpoint to make such accusation against the lack of better judgement. People who use the baby-rattle argument (^as I pointed out) are simply in over their heads with hot water. They have next to no idea, they've used a context Pascal himself intended on.

"I couldn't really understand that. But it sounded like the work of a genius." - David Robert Jones (circa 2011)

==============

David Robert Jones

I still don't understand how someone can decide whether or not to believe something based on some possible reward. The idea completely undermines the idea of belief naturally following from the presence of evidence. And I do believe the question of god is entirely subject to reason. But you believe Pascal wasn't saying that?

Marco Almeida

Yes - but also to be considered, is that equally, (yes - 'equally') the truth about 'reward' can only happen WITHOUT using it as a bargaining chip. I.e. Think about it as what we do to communicate through questions and answers REQUIRES CONDITIONAL recourse. Pascal is stating his case IN FAVOR of truth seeking rationalist behavior, tendancies etc. ALL @ the expense of those that internalize dogma of 'if god will do this for me, it will make it right. Therefore, I believe in god - so you may (should) as well.'

Pascal is the EXACT opposite of popularist believers who accuse Pascal's Wager of secularization.

And yes Dave - Pascal is in fact saying the existence of god in it's entirety is subject due to reason, that main premise applies the moment that voice of 'you may as well believe in god' comes up. It filters it out, which is what Pascal's narrative implies from the beginning. In order to promote free thinking, first - you must be aware of those which falsely internalize.

^Those are the people in PW who falsely internalize gods will, as result, (falsely) a) conditional provided ergo b) will never have an answer for you.

To my tio (uncle) Anibal Martins: you were right all along, when people of your own heritage belittled you, for no better reason than to purge what intention came from your heart. I am here to finally, condone your actions of no ulterior capacity, avenge your name - finish what you started with my purpose of sane refusal. Let it be my right, to their wrongs, the heart of a lion.