Wednesday, 31 July 2013

The Slipstream Argument - The requirements to Agnosticism increase...

One of the original formulations:
I'd like to inform you that, over the Pascal's Wager, now by new modal considerations, rather than to exist or not, that the Agnostics are logically impelled, by "ethics, meaning, (perh. sec.->) definition of God, and entailment of Heaven" to consider God, that is, they now enter first these 4 necessary entities (or else leaving Agnosticism altogether) before considering the reality of exactly God. This constitutes a refinement from earlier!

The Slipstream Argument vs. Pascal's Wager

Wikipedia presents Pascal's Wager in this way:
"It posits that humans all bet with their lives either that God exists or does not exist. Given the possibility that God actually does exist and assuming the infinite gain or loss associated with belief in God or with unbelief, a rational person should live as though God exists and seek to believe in God. If God does not actually exist, such a person will have only a finite loss (some pleasures, luxury, etc.).[1]"

The Slipstream Argument, however, REQUIRES the wondering agnostic to assume seriously the 4 (Christian/variations for other religions) constituents, such as Meaning, Description of God, Ethics (10 Commandments) and the Entailment of Heaven "into personal data-set". Without these, and you can check on Agnostic's honesty, the "emotional" Agnostic can easily be dismissed. This is a HARDER consideration of the Existence of God than Pascal' Wager and also takes higher position into eternity.

Pascal's Wager has formerly been listed under Atheism because of the nature of gambling with God's existence and "showing doubt in God" in case one dares to utter the thought. "Now, my good person, you DOUBT in God...? I would never doubt in God...! BANG!" (Out of church too?)

Url: .

Note: First written to Wikipedia, YouTube in October, 2012, and other places because it probably remains small for the World as a whole when most people are to enter Religion or Atheism/Ignorance straight. Though, it may well be that "The Slipstream Argument" enters eternity.
Note2: The slipstream is found in nature, both aquatically and aeronautically.

(There is a slight chance that this is being repeated here by myself. I have also put low priorities on this argument having already delivered it "here and there" on the Internet. Checking...)

1 comment:

  1. Originally, this has been expressed inside the confines of YouTube comments and rather fast. A better and more cool formulation will enter here in some time. Cheers!