NUCC re Pascal

NUCC re Pascal

seapanther
seapanther

February 12th, 2010, 9:18 am #1

It the above entitled post, I asked you specifically about the Pascal quote you append to your posts. I asked you if your quote was a complete sentence.

You didn't reply to my questions about Pascal's quote, though you did relay your thoughts on other matters. Here, once again, is Pascal's completed sentence of which you append a portion to your posts:

"Truth is so obscure in these times, and falsehood so established, that, unless we love the truth, we cannot know it. ~ Pascal

I thought that you merely wished to ignore that portion of my post, so I let it go. Now seeing that you are quite the stickler for correctness, let's make that an even goal.

What about Pascal's quote is important to you, and why do you post it not only out of context, but you post it in an incomplete form?

Sea



Quote
Share

Joined: July 13th, 2009, 1:50 pm

February 12th, 2010, 3:33 pm #2

...then what do YOU see in it that has changed what the last part says?

s> "Truth is so obscure in these times, and falsehood so established, that, unless we love the truth, we cannot know it. ~ Pascal

Although I couldn't find the exact date of this Pascal quote, it was sometime in the 17th century. The quote is TRUE TODAY just as it was in THAT day.

The differnce is the truth as seen by those on the path of UNBELIEF and those on the path of belief. The truth with the former is based on OPINIONS and the TRUTH with the latter is based on REALITY.

Unless we LOVE the truth, we cannot know it ~~ Pascal

Quote
Like
Share

truthbetold
truthbetold

February 12th, 2010, 7:36 pm #3

It the above entitled post, I asked you specifically about the Pascal quote you append to your posts. I asked you if your quote was a complete sentence.

You didn't reply to my questions about Pascal's quote, though you did relay your thoughts on other matters. Here, once again, is Pascal's completed sentence of which you append a portion to your posts:

"Truth is so obscure in these times, and falsehood so established, that, unless we love the truth, we cannot know it. ~ Pascal

I thought that you merely wished to ignore that portion of my post, so I let it go. Now seeing that you are quite the stickler for correctness, let's make that an even goal.

What about Pascal's quote is important to you, and why do you post it not only out of context, but you post it in an incomplete form?

Sea


... is just as logically flawed...........
Quote
Share

Joined: May 4th, 2005, 1:31 pm

February 12th, 2010, 7:40 pm #4

It is a testament to the inability to reason that some would even try to present it nowadays. Yet, some do!

Really, why wager on just one religion? Would it not make sense to wager on all of them?

Of course, if one is good, then all are better.

Quote
Like
Share

seapanther
seapanther

February 12th, 2010, 10:16 pm #5

...then what do YOU see in it that has changed what the last part says?

s> "Truth is so obscure in these times, and falsehood so established, that, unless we love the truth, we cannot know it. ~ Pascal

Although I couldn't find the exact date of this Pascal quote, it was sometime in the 17th century. The quote is TRUE TODAY just as it was in THAT day.

The differnce is the truth as seen by those on the path of UNBELIEF and those on the path of belief. The truth with the former is based on OPINIONS and the TRUTH with the latter is based on REALITY.

Unless we LOVE the truth, we cannot know it ~~ Pascal
Tautology, too. I previously thought "I just don't know the language, or esoteric meanings"; however, that's not the case now. Really, Nucc, you still haven't given your reasons about your use of a partial quote from Pascal.

I think Pascal was the one who first quoted the "Extortion Reason for Belief in a God, any God", also. I vaguely recall that there's something I don't like about many of Pascal's philosophies, and I'm going to leave it at that.

Easy to Google any of this, obviously, but that would stop any give and take of ideas. I believe to speak first and be wrong, then Google. It's a good way to get a lot of various opinions and a lot of new points into the fray.


Sea
Quote
Share

Joined: July 13th, 2009, 1:50 pm

February 13th, 2010, 4:36 am #6

Unless we LOVE the truth, we cannot know it quoted by Pascal fits in with Principles of REALITY or the way things are in reality. Why do I have to have a reason to quote it? It's TRUE and so I use it as my signature quote. Surely you've grasp that I believe in absolute teruth by now haven't you?

Are you saying it's not true? Sea, the WHOLE IDEA of philosophy is not to show how well you know the terms. The whole idea of philosophy is to discover TRUTH. Do you want to know the language of TRUTH or not?
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: May 4th, 2005, 1:31 pm

February 13th, 2010, 5:08 am #7

Tautology, too. I previously thought "I just don't know the language, or esoteric meanings"; however, that's not the case now. Really, Nucc, you still haven't given your reasons about your use of a partial quote from Pascal.

I think Pascal was the one who first quoted the "Extortion Reason for Belief in a God, any God", also. I vaguely recall that there's something I don't like about many of Pascal's philosophies, and I'm going to leave it at that.

Easy to Google any of this, obviously, but that would stop any give and take of ideas. I believe to speak first and be wrong, then Google. It's a good way to get a lot of various opinions and a lot of new points into the fray.


Sea
Whatever that means? As in, how can a person be truth? Truth is a property of statements, or that which corresponds to reality. A couple of definitions at any rate, but the idea of person as truth, is not coherent.

And Nucc loves Jesus.

So, when Pascal says you have to love the truth to know it, that resonates with Nucc's belief system. The idea that he loves Jesus and Jesus is the truth, thus he knows Jesus.

I'm not saying I agree or not, just that seems to be the why. Although I don't understand why he couldn't articulate it.

Last edited by Oscar50 on February 13th, 2010, 5:10 am, edited 1 time in total.
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: July 19th, 2009, 9:07 pm

February 13th, 2010, 5:49 am #8

Unless we LOVE the truth, we cannot know it quoted by Pascal fits in with Principles of REALITY or the way things are in reality. Why do I have to have a reason to quote it? It's TRUE and so I use it as my signature quote. Surely you've grasp that I believe in absolute teruth by now haven't you?

Are you saying it's not true? Sea, the WHOLE IDEA of philosophy is not to show how well you know the terms. The whole idea of philosophy is to discover TRUTH. Do you want to know the language of TRUTH or not?
I'm saying that you cannot define 'absolute truth', much less attempt to explain it. If you could explain it, you would.

Your quote of Pascal is especially telling to me: I know you cherry-pick your bible passages in the same manner that you did with Pascal.
That's ok with me, Nucc, if that's the logic you wish to live with. You surely don't have to explain your choices in life to me or anyone else.

Reality is another term that has many definitions. There is no one 'true' reality, either. The truth about your posts is that I feel like I'm reading some fiction, yet not quite as logical as C.S. Lewis's.

Personally, I think your writings are nonsense. I give you no more slack when it comes to writing about religion than I give a physicist writing about nuclear rocket vehicle application.

You would do anything you could, Nucc, to explain your terms to me IF you could. Your most important terms seem to be the most difficult to describe, and therefore the easiest to repeat and explain by circular reasoning. When stated, we all know of that which we speak.

My view is simply this: you have no more knowledge of love, reality, philosophy, truth, or anything else to which you ascribe than anyone else. And certainly different from mine, and your definition of them is the same as mine.

Words and literature are two of my favorite subjects; you and I don't seem to have mutual regard for each other's positions. That's a first for me, especially when in discussion of the meaning of terms and the meeting of minds.

Now. I'm going to leave it here; I've come to the conclusion above and unless the earth ends, I'll stay with it. Thanks for stating your views; I have no interest in a discussion about atheism vs religion or any other debate. That's never been my goal here.

That's not to say I won't reply to your posts or that I've ended my search for religious terminology. As I told you, I met a quantum physicist about 10 years ago and just recently found him to be schooled in theology too. Our discussions regarding terms (and the terms of science are most definitely different from the terms of religion) are extremely enlightening.

The problem I see here is that you see only your side of your religion and are willing to speak only about a subject as it pertains to your god. That's not a position from which I can be taught, and I surely do thank you for doing your best to give me your perspective.

Best to you, Nucc; I'll be here, and I'll still be on your side.


Sea



~~~
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: July 13th, 2009, 1:50 pm

February 13th, 2010, 6:16 am #9

While I feel saddened you made that choice, both God and I assure you we are glad you freely chose. I could never make such a silly choice to be atheistic. I don't have enough faith to believe in false theories. But I will give the facts on atheism. Whether you choose to remain in your presumptions is your choice not mine.



Unless we LOVE the truth, we cannot know it ~~ Pascal

Last edited by Forerunner on February 13th, 2010, 6:49 am, edited 1 time in total.
Quote
Like
Share

truthbetold
truthbetold

February 13th, 2010, 9:39 am #10

Whatever that means? As in, how can a person be truth? Truth is a property of statements, or that which corresponds to reality. A couple of definitions at any rate, but the idea of person as truth, is not coherent.

And Nucc loves Jesus.

So, when Pascal says you have to love the truth to know it, that resonates with Nucc's belief system. The idea that he loves Jesus and Jesus is the truth, thus he knows Jesus.

I'm not saying I agree or not, just that seems to be the why. Although I don't understand why he couldn't articulate it.
Whatever that means? As in, how can a person be truth? Truth is a property of statements, or that which corresponds to reality. A couple of definitions at any rate, but the idea of person as truth, is not coherent.

. . .

One of the 'sore thumbs' ardent religionist cannot help but display is that they do not seem to understand what "fallacy" is and in effect do not seem to realize the nature of reification or hypostatization known as anthropomorphization.

- reification (reify) : to regard (abstractions) as material or concrete (things)

- hypostatization (hypostatize) : to attribute real identity to (a concept)

- anthropomorphization (anthropomorphize) : to attribute human form or personality to (things not human)


Assertions involving an invisible, omnipotent, perfect deity is therefore a typical case of reification or hypostatization; anthropomorphization thus ---> in effect acknowledging the proposition cannot stand on its own ---> rendering the assertion invalid ---> the invisible, omnipotent, perfect deity fictional (a mere notion; a meme, albeit very powerful one).

In short: if assertions can only be accepted on faith, then, realized or not, it is conceded what is proposed cannot be taken on its own merits. (Something of which its nature is self-contradictory cannot, and therefore does not, exist.)


The simple believeth every word: but the prudent man looketh well to his going. Prove all things; hold fast that which is good. - the bible

Quote
Share