Support NeoGAF

[JGS]

But he created the conditions in which we all live our lives, and knows how we will respond to every single one of these. By altering the initial conditions, God can control what reactions we will have to living our lives, and he also knows how our "free will" will intertwine to create complex outcomes. Anything less and he isn't omniscient. However, this creates the problem we are discussing - he decided for it to be this way, and if he had made the world some other way, different people would have had different beliefs, and so his choice of initial conditions directly controls all of our behavior.

I never get this. He didn't create the conditions. We did. He created the condition that allowed us to not only live but to enjoy it. Even now, most people are satisfied with life far more than they are not even as they live in horrible conditions.

He didn't alter the initial conditions. The initial conditions always included the possibility of messing up as free will often does. God's not to blame unless you thing automation was the way that should have been chosen.

Basically, humans said "Screw you God! We can take care of ourselves!" We see where that went/is going.

Presumably he could have created a situation in which everybody makes the correct decision and believes in him, "of their own free will", and the fact that he did not do this is of some concern to the claims of his benevolence.

He did do this. Further, he almost always (I think always, but I can't verify that right now) offered the group of people opposing him a way out fro his judgements.

An individual who is all-powerful, all-knowing and all-present cannot be considered non-accountable for the outcome of the universe. Every single decision must necessarily take place because he permits it.

He's not omni-present and there is some question to him being omniscient if it requires his constant knowing of all things at all times.

God takes responsibility for everything in the universe which is why he feels totally justified in offing the people who don't follow him. He makes no bones about it- he is very discrimnating toward worshippers. You are correct that he permits bad decision making all the time, but that doesn't mean he is to blame. That's like blaming me for my kid failing a test at school.

 

[jdogmoney]

I never get this. He didn't create the conditions. We did. He created the condition that allowed us to not only live but to enjoy it. Even now, most people are satisfied with life far more than they are not even as they live in horrible conditions.

He didn't alter the initial conditions. The initial conditions always included the possibility of messing up as free will often does. God's not to blame unless you thing automation was the way that should have been chosen.

does not compute


You know, looking over the OP again, I missed that he was talking about a Christian god specifically. ("purpose of existence is to worship god")

Within that framework, where God is responsible for everything and if you "choose" to reject him*, wouldn't it be a fuller exercise of that free will to NOT go with God?

I mean, assuming the Bible is true, and that's how the afterlife works, where if you are responsible for accepting the guy who created you killing himself so that all of the bad stuff you do is ignored so you can spend eternity with that guy, I would still choose to go my own route. It's sort of like how burning the American Flag is one of the best displays of free speech out there. If god as described in the Bible were to exist, and I knew this for a fact, I would still choose either the eternal punishment of hell or whatever you believe happens to heathens.

Is this choice not more truly an exercise of free will? Anyone can go with the easy option.


*no one chooses how they react to evidence, of which there is little to none of the Christian God's existence

 

[JGS]

does not compute


You know, looking over the OP again, I missed that he was talking about a Christian god specifically. ("purpose of existence is to worship god")

Within that framework, where God is responsible for everything and if you "choose" to reject him*, wouldn't it be a fuller exercise of that free will to NOT go with God?

There's no such thing as fuller aspect. You have free will. There is not more free will. You either do what you like or you don't.

I mean, assuming the Bible is true, and that's how the afterlife works, where if you are responsible for accepting the guy who created you killing himself so that all of the bad stuff you do is ignored so you can spend eternity with that guy, I would still choose to go my own route. It's sort of like how burning the American Flag is one of the best displays of free speech out there. If god as described in the Bible were to exist, and I knew this for a fact, I would still choose either the eternal punishment of hell or whatever you believe happens to heathens.

Exactly. You and most others would do this. That was predicted ages ago. In much of the Bible's wrioting, there wasn't really a question regarding God's existence. People just chose to not go along with him. that stance is nothing special and it is far easier to do what you want than it is to do what someone else wants.

Fortunately you don't have to worry about picking the eternal torment to do your own thing, but plenty of people are satisfied with dying on their own term over choosing to worship a God that guarentees life only for those willing to worship. Sounds fair to me.

 

[jdogmoney]

There's no such thing as fuller aspect. You have free will. There is not more free will. You either do what you like or you don't.


Exactly. You and most others would do this. That was predicted ages ago. In much of the Bible's wrioting, there wasn't really a question regarding God's existence. People just chose to not go along with him. that stance is nothing special and it is far easier to do what you want than it is to do what someone else wants.

Fortunately you don't have to worry about picking the eternal torment to do your own thing, but plenty of people are satisfied with dying on their own term over choosing to worship a God that guarentees life only for those willing to worship. Sounds fair to me.

No it isn't. God's like an abusive parent. You ever tell one of those "no"? That's hard to do.

Let me ask you this, then. Why would you want to live forever, and especially with someone who had a jealous, vengeful personality?

 

[Slavik81]

that God "knows" the choice you are going to make, means that you do not, in fact, have free will.

Unfortunately not. Imagine making a decision under identical circumstances twice. If your choice is not random, there could have been no other outcome than the choice you made. Do you still have free will if you could not have possibly chosen otherwise? Of course, if the outcome of your decision can vary under identical circumstances, then your actions are random. Do you really have free will if your actions are random?

The real problem here may be that the traditional understanding of free will is nonsensical.

 

[JGS]

No it isn't. God's like an abusive parent. You ever tell one of those "no"? That's hard to do.

Hmmm, what has God done to you for saying no?

I think it's more along the lines of a parent who has a spoiled brat for a kid.

Let me ask you this, then. Why would you want to live forever, and especially with someone who had a jealous, vengeful personality?

I'm not in bed with the guy as if there is an underlying romantic relationship.

God expects devotion in the same way McDonald's expects it's employees not to promote Whoppers. If they do that, should the company be upset by their actions? Of course. It's a clear sign they want to work for the other side.

If I'm living forever, then that would mean I can live by those terms automatically. I don't get whysomeone wouldn't want to live forever as long as they're happy under the conditions. Otherwise, people should be happy they are going to die under their own terms.

EDIT: Wow, free will is a win/win.

 

[Slavik81]

Hmmm, what has God done to you for saying no?

I think it's more along the lines of a parent who has a spoiled brat for a kid.

Lot's wife got a rather harsh punishment for a lot less than rejecting God. I can't imagine Lot was too happy being married to a pillar of salt.

Now that I think about it, if God was still turning people into salt the instant they transgressed, he'd definitely have more believers. Perhaps he should do so. It would save a lot of people from eternal damnation.

 

[Dude Abides]

Lot's wife got a rather harsh punishment for a lot less than rejecting God. I can't imagine Lot was too happy being married to a pillar of salt.

But then he got some of that sweet sweet father-daughter lovin', so maybe he was cool with it in the end.

 

[Derwind]

Ultimately though, God creates mortal man. Knows from the beginning to the end what is about to happen. Which tells me, that creating humans was out of god hands. However, thats not the case because it's omnipotent so it can avoid creating humans all together.

So whats the point of creating humans when before there existence you know which will go to hell and which wont.

Inherently, then that suggest certain people are always and will always be better than others. As a fact of existence.

But I can't continue this discussion. Inevitably, I'm going to be told this is beyond mortal mans field of understanding. Which then leads me to suggest no one around me has the right to lecture me about this bullshit in the first place.

Sorry for the weird rant. I don't mean to be hostile to any person who believes in their religious beliefs.

 

[David Incorporated Esq.]

This is comically easy to make irrelevant (coming from an atheist).

God does not know the future, thus eliminating free will, he exists at all points in time and thus "remembers" what you have done in the future.

He's like Death from the Discworld series.

I couldn't slush through all the posts in the thread so if my post is off the current topic, sorry.

 

[3rdman]

To the OP: As an atheist, I'll avoid the larger discussion that you were having with your friend but I can't help but allude to it when referring to your question...

I may not believe in a god but even I see the impossibility of trying to comprehend the machinations of a supreme being. You'd have as much difficulty trying to discern the thoughts of an ant as you would of a god.

 

[jdogmoney]

Hmmm, what has God done to you for saying no?

Well, nothing, since there's no such thing.

I think it's more along the lines of a parent who has a spoiled brat for a kid.


I'm not in bed with the guy as if there is an underlying romantic relationship.

God expects devotion in the same way McDonald's expects it's employees not to promote Whoppers. If they do that, should the company be upset by their actions? Of course. It's a clear sign they want to work for the other side.

If I'm living forever, then that would mean I can live by those terms automatically. I don't get whysomeone wouldn't want to live forever as long as they're happy under the conditions. Otherwise, people should be happy they are going to die under their own terms.

EDIT: Wow, free will is a win/win.

And what do you say to the idea that nonbelievers go to hell? Yeah, I know that's not what you were taught but the vast majority of Christians think that's the case. I'm able to talk about things under the framework that your God exists at all; surely you should be able to talk about things under the framework that everyone else's view of the afterlife is the correct one.

Also, I'm pretty sure you haven't really thought through the consequences of living forever. Your brain couldn't handle it. You'd go insane.

 

[devenger]

To quote Rush: "If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice."

Yes, but did not Geddy also say "duh chicka duh duh duh chicka duh duh duh ckicka duh duh duh ."? - YYZ

Sorry, OP is just goofy.

I only skimmed, so sorry if it's been mentioned, but go look up some of the neural synapse / free will experiments. They suggest that our body acts right before we tell it to anyway. In short, science stands dumbfounded as it disproves free will.

If you believe in God, there is no argument. He gives you choice, but knows what you will choose.

If you don't believe, there's no argument. You have total free will. Go free it up.

There is no argument, unless you feel the strong desire to prove a stranger wrong.

 

[JGS]

Well, nothing, since there's no such thing.

So your analogy was wrong? Got it.

And what do you say to the idea that nonbelievers go to hell? Yeah, I know that's not what you were taught but the vast majority of Christians think that's the case. I'm able to talk about things under the framework that your God exists at all; surely you should be able to talk about things under the framework that everyone else's view of the afterlife is the correct one.

I have no pronblems talking about it. I've talk about it a bunch of times. There's just not much to talk about since it's non-existent.

I've said before that if God based judgement of us on the idea of eternal punishment than I could not worship in freely but would attempt to fake it.

Also, I'm pretty sure you haven't really thought through the consequences of living forever. Your brain couldn't handle it. You'd go insane.

Not true. I think about it all the time and can't think of a downside.

I don't think you've thought about it too much actually. Considering that our lives are so limited that we can barely focus on one trade or skill and see only a fraction of the world means there's plenty of reason to live a lot longer than now, preferably forever. Our brains have never come close to being filled with all the knowledge we could attain.

It's all well and good if you're fine with croaking all old and crotchety, but it's perfectly understandable that most do not too.

 

[jaxword]

No it isn't. God's like an abusive parent. You ever tell one of those "no"? That's hard to do.

Pretty much, but God outlined that from the start by saying he's jealous and vengeful. So, we know what to expect and don't have a choice but to acquiesce.

I think a better analogy would be a mob boss.

Now, we own this town, so you can CHOOSE to follow our rules...or you can choose not to.

Also, if you choose not to, we'd be real sad if something happened to your family. But you still have a CHOICE...sign here when you're ready.

 

[Aristion]

Three people have said the same thing. I know most here scorn at religious beliefs/practices, but my challenge is this: put yourself in the position of the 'Friend' and try to, in a genuine attempt, explain to me how it comes back to free will when I'm talking about something that precedes free will itself

If humans would've chosen differently, then God's omniscience would've been different from eternity. I don't see the problem.

BTW I love how many of the atheists immediately come to the conclusion that omniscience is incoherent. It's truly mind-boggling.

 

[JGS]

Pretty much, but God outlined that from the start by saying he's jealous and vengeful. So, we know what to expect and don't have a choice but to acquiesce.

This would be correct if it were correct. However, most people refuse to acquiesce so the analogy is still wrong.

 

[jaxword]

This would be correct if it were correct. However, most people refuse to acquiesce so the analogy is still wrong.

No, it's a perfectly apt analogy, since the refusal to bow to God means you get tortured.

 

[JGS]

No, it's a perfectly apt analogy, since the refusal to bow to God means you get tortured.

First, no you don't get tortured, but i know that will be ignored again.

Second, that's is only accurate if:

a. You believe it which means you would be a moron to not bow down.
b. If the believers believed it which they by and large don't. Worship is based on the want to, not the have to. It's impossible to worship honestly only on the basis of fear and is proven time and again in the Bible but especially during the 21st century.

If you are going to have an apt analogy, you really need to think more on the boring side.

Let's say God is like a mortgage company. You don't pay the mortgage for several months and because of the backlog, you get to enjoy living there longer than you should as a deadbeat tenant. Lo and behold the mortgage company eventually comes and forecloses on your house you didn't qualify to have in the first place.

Your "home" is your life, which you owe to God. He didn't steal it from you. He already owns that puppy. Yeah, that analogy sucks too but it's more appropriate to the situation.

 

[devenger]

First, no you don't get tortured, but i know that will be ignored again.

I could have swore you got tortured.

 

[JGS]

I could have swore you got tortured.

Nope.

I was tryng to be respectful regarding ones who do believe it but it's such an issue, I'll just be blunt.

The wages sin pays is death, not death and eternal torment for all time Mwahahahaha...which of course is beyond evil. (EDIT: Technically that's not correct since God is the one who decides what evil is. However, it is extremely contradictory of his view of life and death and something that his creation would naturally be repulsed by.)

Even Satan would be looking at that and going "Ewwww".

Before I knew the correctness of that, fundamentally it didn't sound right in the slightest. Researching the Scriptures on it eased my mind a bit.

 

[devenger]

Nope.

Researching the Scriptures on it eased my mind a bit.

I've researched some scripture. Well, just googled hell.

Key Passages About Hell
(1) Hell was designed originally for Satan and his demons (Matthew 25:41; Revelation 20:10).

(2) Hell will also punish the sin of those who reject Christ (Matthew 13:41,50; Revelation 20:11-15; 21:8).

(3) Hell is conscious torment.

•Matthew 13:50 “furnace of fire…weeping and gnashing of teeth”
•Mark 9:48 “where their worm does not die, and the fire is not quenched”
•Revelation 14:10 “he will be tormented with fire and brimstone”

(4) Hell is eternal and irreversible.

•Revelation 14:11 “the smoke of their torment goes up forever and ever and they have no rest day and night”
•Revelation 20:14 “This is the second death, the lake of fire”
•Revelation 20:15 “If anyone’s name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire”

I've stated in a few other places that I don't really wish to be confrontational, but this is the first time I've heard someone say that hell isn't torture forever.

No troll, just not sure by your explanation what you mean.

 

[Zaptruder]

This is comically easy to make irrelevant (coming from an atheist).

God does not know the future, thus eliminating free will, he exists at all points in time and thus "remembers" what you have done in the future.

He's like Death from the Discworld series.

I couldn't slush through all the posts in the thread so if my post is off the current topic, sorry.

That only works as some weird logical abstracto tautology.


Anyway... an insight I had recently, while for the umpteenth time disconnect the 'existing outside of causality' and 'creation' powers from 'god', was the idea that... what if instead, everything that could exist, necessarily existed.

I mean in the sense; self-contradictory things couldn't really exist, but everything else that had an internally consistent set of rules that didn't violate interaction, etc, would exist.

So of course, in the spate of infinite things, there has to exist a universe in which we are present to observe.


It's quite a different view point from traditional outside agent causality (i.e. god), so I thought it was worth mentioning.

It's like a tautology of existence; if it can exist, it must exist! That is after all, the necessary condition of existence. That it can and does.

I think theology calls it an ontology.

 

[JGS]

I've researched some scripture. Well, just googled hell.

Key Passages About Hell
(1) Hell was designed originally for Satan and his demons (Matthew 25:41; Revelation 20:10).

(2) Hell will also punish the sin of those who reject Christ (Matthew 13:41,50; Revelation 20:11-15; 21:8).

(3) Hell is conscious torment.

•Matthew 13:50 “furnace of fire…weeping and gnashing of teeth”
•Mark 9:48 “where their worm does not die, and the fire is not quenched”
•Revelation 14:10 “he will be tormented with fire and brimstone”

(4) Hell is eternal and irreversible.

•Revelation 14:11 “the smoke of their torment goes up forever and ever and they have no rest day and night”
•Revelation 20:14 “This is the second death, the lake of fire”
•Revelation 20:15 “If anyone’s name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire”

I've stated in a few other places that I don't really wish to be confrontational, but this is the first time I've heard someone say that hell isn't torture forever.

No troll, just not sure by your explanation what you mean.

The vast majority of your references discusses fire in the capacity of destroyer of life. Googling concepts of Hell damages the context for it throughout the Scriptures. The Scriptures clearly make it known that punishment for the wicked time and again is death. One of the most popular verses ever, John 3:16, flatout says what the results are for those who worship and those who don't.

To discuss a few of these verses though:

Revelation 20:14,15 clearly show the lake of fire as the second death. So which is it, death or eternal punishment in a horrible afterlife? They are not the same.

Revelation 20:11 discusses Satan and his partners in crime, not humanity. If anyone desreves eternal torment, it's Satan. However, Revelation even refers to his death in another verse I'll try to locate, but definitely in Romans (16:20) & Genesis for that matter. The verse is merely poetic but even if literal not tied to all of mankind not worshipping God.

Revelation 14 mentioned that the worshippers of the wild beast have no rest. How could they as they constantly see the failure of their allegiance? This is also referring to a particular group, so what happens to the rest of the people who are not faithful followers? In addition, the scripture makes reference to faithful ones who have to endure the ones who have no rest. So if this were talking about ones being tormented in Hell, then why would the faithful have to endure?

Since people aren't walking around with marks on their forhead, this is all symbolic and could very well have already happened or is happening right now depending on how someone wishes to interpret Revelation.

Mark 9:48 is part of a larger context involving Gehenna which was the city dump and a place dead bodies were dumped that were unworthy of proper burial. There were many worms and the place always stunk of fire and sulphur. Gehenna would have been immediately understood by Jesus' listeners as a place you did not want to be for sure, but not one that a live body was thrown into to burn for all eternity.

None of the verses you have provided indicated at all that God's intention for the wicked is eternal suffering, only their cause of death being eternal which makes sense because if anything else other than God kills you, he can bring you back. If God kills you, you're not coming back at all.

What does it mean to you that Hell was designed for Satan? I always found it interesting that ones who believe in Hellfire actually believe that it's a place designed for Satan but are never quite clear of his role there or if he's a prisoner as well.

To me, a place that encompasses the judgement of everyone wicked would be death or the grave (Hell)- a place where everyone could justifiably go rather than a place of torment that is, quite frankly, overkill.

 

[Safe Bet]

the future is not set but can be predicted within parameters

 

[devenger]

Googling concepts of Hell damages the context for it throughout the Scriptures.

None of the verses you have provided indicated at all that God's intention for the wicked is eternal suffering

I see your point, but the above isn't from various sources, cherry picked to muddle the concept. It's from Bible.org, and it's what you get when you type "What the Bible says about Hell."

I think you have a fairly unique interpretaion. Maybe I'll hop back on Fernando's Christianity thread and see how many Christians agree.

What does it mean to you that Hell was designed for Satan?

Not to be trollface, but it doesn't mean anything to me. My whole point was that hell sounds unfair and petty, and to me its an illogical fallacy that a deity of infinite love would send people there. Hence, atheism (well, extremely simplified)

if you're telling me I've misread everything, well, I'm sure thats possible.

I grew up in church. I've heard many sermons. I have never met a Christian who didn't believe those who reject Christ were not sent to hell. I'm frankly surprised you could recontextualize that much word of God to fit your viewpoint. I mean, you explained away everything Bible.org had. It's impressive.

 

[frankthurk]

I look at it this way,

On one level: the level of thought, the here and now, we have free will. We think and we ponder and we make decisions on our own.

On another level: the level of causation, everything just flows from preconditions. We think we have free will, but the biological + past experiences + stimuli = our decision. It is predictable and not free at all. As a simple example think of a time when you weren't actively thinking or got distracted and went the wrong way while driving, maybe following the path home or some other well traveled path. When you meant to do something else. On some level it's all like that... all the preconditions lead to the predictable output. Free will is an illusion.

And on another level it's totally true... just depends on your perspective.

 

[frankthurk]

I see your point, but the above isn't from various sources, cherry picked to muddle the concept. It's from Bible.org, and it's what you get when you type "What the Bible says about Hell."

I think you have a fairly unique interpretaion. Maybe I'll hop back on Fernando's Christianity thread and see how many Christians agree.



Not to be trollface, but it doesn't mean anything to me. My whole point was that hell sounds unfair and petty, and to me its an illogical fallacy that a deity of infinite love would send people there. Hence, atheism (well, extremely simplified)

if you're telling me I've misread everything, well, I'm sure thats possible.

I grew up in church. I've heard many sermons. I have never met a Christian who didn't believe those who reject Christ were not sent to hell. I'm frankly surprised you could recontextualize that much word of God to fit your viewpoint. I mean, you explained away everything Bible.org had. It's impressive.

We were taught that hell was simply the absence of being close to God. Living eternally knowing God exists and not being able to be close to him.

 

[devenger]

Free will is an illusion.

And on another level it's totally true... just depends on your perspective.

I seriously think that time is the illusion, the idea that we're doing things, before or after other things. Instead of a lifetime of thoughts and actions, I think it might be just one big solid piece of something.

As for hell, I've heard a lot of interpretations, just never one that claimed there isn't one, be it a metaphysical place, or more of a state as you're suggesting.

Very interesting, thanks. To JGS as well, I realize this is something close to his point. (Second death being the "opposite" of a state I suppose.)

 

[Foxy Fox 39]

I think its important to distinguish what the problem is. Do you have a problem with the concept of free will simply because God has foreknowledge of your choice or is it because of the reason God has foreknowledge?

Maybe I'm a bit naive, but I don't understand the reasoning behind the concept of free will only truly being free will if only the decider has foreknowledge of said choice.

Say you are sitting in a divide room with buttons. A rat is on the other side of the divider with corresponding buttons. There are four buttons total: two red, and two green. Two of each for you and two of each for the rat. Your job is simply to press either of the buttons. As you randomly alternate pressing the two buttons you notice every time you press either, right before you press it the rat presses the corresponding button on his side. After a while you get bored and try to trick the rat into pressing the opposite button (you press red, you want the rat to press green) But after an hour you see it's impossible. As if he knows your choice. After a while a scientist comes in and explains the situation to you. The rat on the other side of the glass was living in the future. He knew what you would "choose" simply because he already saw you do it. This rat was merely mimicking your button presses.

So in that weird analogy (which I'm sure I butchered from the original) did you not have control over your choices? Or was it predestined (i.e not free will) because the rat had foreknowledge of your choices?

 

[JGS]

I see your point, but the above isn't from various sources, cherry picked to muddle the concept. It's from Bible.org, and it's what you get when you type "What the Bible says about Hell."

It doesn't matter. If the topic is on Hell & it merely picks verses that discuss torment, it leaves out verses that are in more abundant supply about death in general or how God never recommending torturing to his nation, so why would he spend all this time torturing for eternity. That's what i mean by context. The idea of eternal torment does not fit with God in the Bible.

I think you have a fairly unique interpretaion. Maybe I'll hop back on Fernando's Christianity thread and see how many Christians agree.

Unique doesn't have much to do with it. The top two or three Christian organizations out there hold the vast majority of Christians. That doesn't mean the teaching is correct. Those religions didn't grow out of accuracy to the Scriptures.

So just because there are a billion Catholics doesn't really mean that much in terms of whether the belief is correct. Not trying to insult Catholics btw as I have never met a Catholic that condemned anyone to Hell and repentance appears pretty easy. I haven't heard a single Pope reference torment.

Anyway, my interpretation is not unique at all. It's easy to tell the ones who don't [really] believe in eternal torment because they don't talk about it. A religion that truly believes that would almost by necessity make that their headliner teaching which is what many fundy religions do and not many others.

Not to be trollface, but it doesn't mean anything to me. My whole point was that hell sounds unfair and petty, and to me its an illogical fallacy that a deity of infinite love would send people there. Hence, atheism (well, extremely simplified)

Hell by definition is fair as it's merely the grave- God or no God it's where we presume to go.

By the misconception of it I agree with you although I'm pretty sure I would just reject the teaching rather than turn to non-belief of anything. I don't see how no creator existing makes more sense just because eternal torture is logically unfathomable.

I grew up in church. I've heard many sermons. I have never met a Christian who didn't believe those who reject Christ were not sent to hell. I'm frankly surprised you could recontextualize that much word of God to fit your viewpoint. I mean, you explained away everything Bible.org had. It's impressive.

After I left my first church, I am almost the exact opposite except for what I hear from fundies on the TV or by what atheists say I believe.

 

[Kapura]

See, Meus, the problem is that you think you're having a logical debate. The nature of most religions is a certain amount of cognitive dissidence. Tthe topic.here does seem to be a disconnect between an omniscient, omnipotent god and people having the "free will" to reject Him. But that's not a core part of the religion.

Religious people have faith, and you can't disprove it. If a person truly believes in their religion, arguing with them is pointless. You can't win. In general, people are intelligent. If you see a flaw in reasoning, others can see it too. Believers will either just accept it as not central to the tenants of the religion (which is true with Christianity; arguably it's much more important to follow the teachings of Jesus than to have absolute faith in God) or throw up fallacious arguments that they see as valid (bringing up the Free Will thing again). You are not in the wrong, logically, but you can't win the argument.

This further goes into how religious people become religious, but that's expanding on the scope of the topic. You're just gonna have to deal with it and not bring it up. sorry.

 

[JGS]

See, Meus, the problem is that you think you're having a logical debate. The nature of most religions is a certain amount of cognitive dissidence. Tthe topic.here does seem to be a disconnect between an omniscient, omnipotent god and people having the "free will" to reject Him. But that's not a core part of the religion.

Religious people have faith, and you can't disprove it. If a person truly believes in their religion, arguing with them is pointless. You can't win. In general, people are intelligent. If you see a flaw in reasoning, others can see it too. Believers will either just accept it as not central to the tenants of the religion (which is true with Christianity; arguably it's much more important to follow the teachings of Jesus than to have absolute faith in God) or throw up fallacious arguments that they see as valid (bringing up the Free Will thing again). You are not in the wrong, logically, but you can't win the argument.

This further goes into how religious people become religious, but that's expanding on the scope of the topic. You're just gonna have to deal with it and not bring it up. sorry.

I kind of disagree. It's true that many don't understand what they believe. However, what should happen is if a person really has faith, they should be able to explain their position. The default position is explanation of your faith. Faith in no way means an absence of knowledge. Actually, real faith isn't possible unless you do know what you're talking about.

This isn't a logical debate though. It's not because people can't explain the concept. It's more along the lines of ones creating their own concept and pigeon holing God into it and then demanding the religious to explain the wrong view. That's the fallacy in this particular case although Meus is at least genuinely curious.

 

[devenger]

That doesn't mean the teaching is correct.

Oh, I didnt take that as your meaning, I agree completely.

I don't see how no creator existing makes more sense just because eternal torture is logically unfathomable.

I would never argue that it made more sense, but it was definitely the start of a long thought process. I think people are so used to being attacked in these forums, that its easy to assume that someone is pushing a belief or agenda. Not me. I'm not confident enough in my opinion of how the universe works to try and sway someone.

After I left my first church, I am almost the exact opposite except for what I hear from fundies on the TV or by what atheists say I believe.

I did paraphrase you in the Christianity thread, so if you're interested, head over there and make sure I didn't misrepresent you. I'm really interested to see how many faithful feel the same way.

Honestly, I feel that yours is a take on the afterlife that many Christians would benefit in considering, if only to not have to defend "hellfire and brimstone."

 

[Kapura]

I kind of disagree. It's true that many don't understand what they believe. However, what should happen is if a person really has faith, they should be able to explain their position. The default position is explanation of your faith. Faith in no way means an absence of knowledge. Actually, real faith isn't possible unless you do know what you're talking about.

This isn't a logical debate though. It's not because people can't explain the concept. It's more along the lines of ones creating their own concept and pigeon holing God into it and then demanding the religious to explain the wrong view. That's the fallacy in this particular case although Meus is at least genuinely curious.

I agree that you can't really have faith without knowing what you're talking about, but that doesn't mean that you can easily explain why you feel the way you do. In my experience, faith is about seeing and knowing more than analysing and proving. There is, and always will be a gap between a person who truly believes in their religion and people who demand proof.

You can't provide a sufficient proof. Again, people are more or less equally intelligent on both sides of a theological debate. I remember hearing people say that the complexities of the human eye were proof in an intelligent creator, which could be used to justify the rest christianity. A person who believes in god would look at the eye and say "See? Look how complex that is! That's definitive proof in a god!" And they would actually believe it. Atheists are more sceptical, seeing a large logical jump between "the body is complex" and "god exists." They would instead look for another explanation with more empirical evidence, perhaps one that doesn't put the cart so far ahead of the horse.

I think in the end there is only a limited value in an atheist and a theist debating religion. Attempting to persuade the other side of your position is pointless, except in extreme cases (which is again too far outside the scope of this thread to go into detail about). I like to generally ask people with different beliefs why they think what they do. That is interesting; and people can learn from each other if they make a conscientious effort to create discussion rather than debate.

 

[Monocle]

The answer is obvious, and theologians twist logic into pretzels in attempt to avoid it: The notion of an all-good, all-knowing God is inconsistent with the notion of a God who punishes his creations with eternal torture for following the course he caused them to follow.

Here's Daniel Dennett to explain the intellectual dishonesty that characterizes theology. (The full talk is 56:20 and well worth the watch. He discusses theology further, as well as a study involving six closet atheists who are in the ministry.)

 

[Kapura]

Isn't hell an eternal prison only for Satan? I'm not too familiar with the New Testament, but I was under the impression that sinners going to hell was invented at some time after the fall of the Byzantine empire.

 

[Eversynth]

This discussion is interesting, but I think a more "scientific" analysis should be applied.

First things, first: what religion are we talking about? The christianity as teached by the catholic church and derivates?
Then we should first discuss the validity of their teachings. It's no secret that the "christianity" has taken a lot of "inspiration" from other sources.

The concepts of hell and heaven were already present in anciet Egypt, Babylonia, and a lot of other religions, while in the bible looks like we have just a couple of mentions that aren't even really clear. You'd think something so important would be enforced again and again in the gospels.
(Let's not forget that the christianity in question had it's origins with Jesus, and the civilizations we are discussing existed, ehrm, quite some time before him...)
[Oh, and what about the whole Lazarus resurrection thing? In the bible it's mentioned that Jesus resurrected him, right? If, at his death, he would have gone either to heaven or hell, what would have been the point of resurrecting him? What about a "don't fear, for he is in God's grace now" or something like that? Nope, we have to believe that he was taken away from heaven to suffer a little more on earth. It just doesn't make sense whatsoever.]

The concept of a trinity is also present in Egypt, Babylonia, etc... noticing a trend? Again, looks like the bible doesn't enforce this teaching.

And let's not start on the whole "nativity" thing.... the 25th december was the date of the festival for the Sol Invictus, the official God of the officially sanctioned Roman religion (remember how they hated christians?)
What about the (first) christians that lived before the Sol Invictus thing? Surprise, looks like they didn't celebrate the nativity... looks like this celebration didn't exist before being "invented" in 274ad with the Sol Invictus.

And what about the whole "Mary mother of God" thing? We could say that the concept of a Mother-goddess is as ancient as history itself.

Then, we have to question all the translation/redaction process that has gone on in the history of said church. I can just see how they could have "accomodated" some expressions to fit some things in later translations.

So, we have to go deeper (sic).

 

[Foxy Fox 39]

Isn't hell an eternal prison only for Satan? I'm not too familiar with the New Testament, but I was under the impression that sinners going to hell was invented at some time after the fall of the Byzantine empire.

Not to be rude or anything but why are you in here?

 

[Cubsfan23]

Free Will means we are not robots, nothing more, nothing less


God "designing" a situation to happen, does not take away your choice to act/say/whatever in any given situation.

 

[jdogmoney]

Not to be rude or anything but why are you in here?

Turns out, there's more to philosophy than half of a book that one particular religion holds as holy?

 

[JGS]

I agree that you can't really have faith without knowing what you're talking about, but that doesn't mean that you can easily explain why you feel the way you do. In my experience, faith is about seeing and knowing more than analysing and proving. There is, and always will be a gap between a person who truly believes in their religion and people who demand proof.

Faith is not based on feeling. Faith is supposed to be based on the knowledge. I suppose for things not covered, you can use faith as a crutch to not ask why. But that is still based on everything you know. The omniscient thing, for example, is a non-issue. For example, whether God is ominiscient or not id ireelevant because the Bible already describes what God knows. Everything else is a man-made fallacy not one from Scripture. So it's ridiculous to expect a religious person try to conform their explanation to what is being demanded when that simply does not fit.

Atheists are more sceptical, seeing a large logical jump between "the body is complex" and "god exists." They would instead look for another explanation with more empirical evidence, perhaps one that doesn't put the cart so far ahead of the horse.

But God could be included in that explanation. Knowing how an eye can form has nothing to do with the greater leap in logic required in thinking it did this on it's own even if billion of years were allowed for it. Religious are skeptical too. I will never be anything but skeptical of the notion that life got here without a creator of some kind.

The thoughts are identical, just on two different extremes.

Isn't hell an eternal prison only for Satan? I'm not too familiar with the New Testament, but I was under the impression that sinners going to hell was invented at some time after the fall of the Byzantine empire.

At a minimum, Hell as the grave, is a temporary holding place for everyone that has died- including Jesus.

However, Hell is the eternal holding place for the wicked as they will never have salvation by God. Dead is dead.

 

[Foxy Fox 39]

This discussion is interesting, but I think a more "scientific" analysis should be applied.

First things, first: what religion are we talking about? The christianity as teached by the catholic church and derivates?
Then we should first discuss the validity of their teachings. It's no secret that the "christianity" has taken a lot of "inspiration" from other sources.

The concepts of hell and heaven were already present in anciet Egypt, Babylonia, and a lot of other religions, while in the bible looks like we have just a couple of mentions that aren't even really clear. You'd think something so important would be enforced again and again in the gospels.
(Let's not forget that the christianity in question had it's origins with Jesus, and the civilizations we are discussing existed, ehrm, quite some time before him...)
[Oh, and what about the whole Lazarus resurrection thing? In the bible it's mentioned that Jesus resurrected him, right? If, at his death, he would have gone either to heaven or hell, what would have been the point of resurrecting him? What about a "don't fear, for he is in God's grace now" or something like that? Nope, we have to believe that he was taken away from heaven to suffer a little more on earth. It just doesn't make sense whatsoever.]

The concept of a trinity is also present in Egypt, Babylonia, etc... noticing a trend? Again, looks like the bible doesn't enforce this teaching.

And let's not start on the whole "nativity" thing.... the 25th december was the date of the festival for the Sol Invictus, the official God of the officially sanctioned Roman religion (remember how they hated christians?)
What about the (first) christians that lived before the Sol Invictus thing? Surprise, looks like they didn't celebrate the nativity... looks like this celebration didn't exist before being "invented" in 274ad with the Sol Invictus.

And what about the whole "Mary mother of God" thing? We could say that the concept of a Mother-goddess is as ancient as history itself.

Then, we have to question all the translation/redaction process that has gone on in the history of said church. I can just see how they could have "accomodated" some expressions to fit some things in later translations.

So, we have to go deeper (sic).

I have a remedial understanding of Biblical theories...and after reading your response it seems you have even less. Secondly its not good to throw a long list of arguments for people to respond to. Keep them short and on topic.

But to answer the easiest of all your questions - the one I bolded; it was not possible for any person to go to heaven before Jesus. Basic knowledge in Christian theology says that Jesus opened the door for men to dwell in heaven.

Jesus himself even says this in John. Before his resurrection, if anyone died, righteous or not they went to hell. But hell was separated into two parts: one a paradise (or waiting place) and the other of torture. Jesus even tells a parable of the rich man who asked Abraham for just a drop of water on his tongue, yet Abraham being on the other side said he could not for the chasm (paraphrasing) between them was too great etc.

Assuming as you have, for the sake of argument, that this is true, we do not know which side Lazarus went to and it is irrelevant. Jesus performed the miracle because 1) Mary and the others wept so bitterly for Lazarus 2) to admonish God in their sights 3) to have others believe and 4) because Jesus loved Lazarus. Jesus would not do something that was not beneficial for the people he loved.

From this story comes the famous, "Jesus Wept" verse. Lazarus being with Jesus and his own family certainly is not suffering, and even still only God knows the life of Lazarus afterwards if it was filled with suffering or not. Still (I know) a few more years on Earth is nothing in the grand scheme of eternity. Lazarus already believed before he died, and I doubt that anything or anyone could discourage him of what was to come after being resurrected.

The parable (in Luke) of course goes against JGS' idea that there is no torment in hell. Still though, this parable and knowledge is so basic it seems you may have studied other religions and cultures except the one in question.

 

[Foxy Fox 39]

Turns out, there's more to philosophy than half of a book that one particular religion holds as holy?

He's commenting on the Christian faith with barely any knowledge on the christian faith. I find it to be just a bit below insanity. If he were posting about other religions I would not have asked.

edit: I sure am being rude! Sorry about that Gaf.

 

[Kapura]

Not to be rude or anything but why are you in here?

There are more things in heaven and earth, Foxy fox, then are dreamt of in your philosophy.

Faith is not based on feeling. Faith is supposed to be based on the knowledge. I suppose for things not covered, you can use faith as a crutch to not ask why. But that is still based on everything you know. The omniscient thing, for example, is a non-issue. For example, whether God is ominiscient or not id ireelevant because the Bible already describes what God knows. Everything else is a man-made fallacy not one from Scripture. So it's ridiculous to expect a religious person try to conform their explanation to what is being demanded when that simply does not fit.

I was perhaps unclear with my wording. Faith is not based on feeling, but I don't think that you should have to justify to others your personal faith. That's not the same as saying you can use faith to justify your actions, I'm simply trying to point out that it's pointless to argue about somebody else's faith.

I agree that it's ridiculous to expect a person to try to put a round peg in a square hole, as it were. And yet, it happens. People often use try to conform a situation to the model rather than the other way around. Not just religious people; science was held back for hundreds of years by people rejecting what didn't conform to what Ancient Greek philosophers's explanations of how science worked.

But God could be included in that explanation. Knowing how an eye can form has nothing to do with the greater leap in logic required in thinking it did this on it's own even if billion of years were allowed for it. Religious are skeptical too. I will never be anything but skeptical of the notion that life got here without a creator of some kind.

The thoughts are identical, just on two different extremes.

I agree completely. Having not experienced several billion years of life changing, I can't say for certain that that model is the correct one either. To me the difference is that a Creator-based explanation inserts something into the problem that had not been previously apparent. There is no place where a creator, say signed his artwork. Maybe I'm just thinking in terms of Occam's Razor.

At a minimum, Hell as the grave, is a temporary holding place for everyone that has died- including Jesus.

However, Hell is the eternal holding place for the wicked as they will never have salvation by God. Dead is dead.

I don't claim to know the nature of hell, but it seems there are lots of interpretations of it. I'm not sure how one would pick what picture of hell to believe.

 

[jdogmoney]

He's commenting on the Christian faith with barely any knowledge on the christian faith. I find it to be just a bit below insanity. If he were posting about other religions I would not have asked.

The thread's about omniscience vs. free will. You don't have to be a Christian scholar to talk about that concept.

 

[Kapura]

He's commenting on the Christian faith with barely any knowledge on the christian faith. I find it to be just a bit below insanity. If he were posting about other religions I would not have asked.

Ha ha woah now. Not being intimately familiar with all of the gospels and not knowing anything about christianity are entirely different. I don't show up with bare hands to a sword fight.

 

[Zzoram]

Free will or not, I just have a hard time understanding why an all-powerful being would bother to create subjects for the sole purpose of worshiping him. That seems pretty vain and pointless.

I can understand why a mortal being would want to create life to succeed him, but why would an immortal being need to create life to worship him? Ego much?

 

[Extollere]

No such thing as free will.

ITT: Long posts because people over complicate a false presumption.

 

[Kapura]

No such thing as free will.

ITT: Long posts because people over complicate a false presumption.

You gonna justify that? or just throw it down and leave?