the problem of Heaven

skeptic griggsy

Theists like John Hick so gleefully think that they solve the problem of evil with the notions of free will and soul-making.Their arguments self refute as Michael Martin in"Atheism, Morality and meaning" and my friend Graham Robert Oppy in "Arguments about Gods" show. Oppy notes this:" f the absence of temptation and the presence of of divinity are not incompatible with the existence of significant freedom, then what explanation is to be given of the presence of temptation and the absence of divinity in the earthly existence of free human agents?Given those problems, it does not seem plausible to suppose that one can appeal to the nature of the heavenly enviornment in order to explain the contingent absence of evil from heaven.
, . .
Given that it is a contingent matter whether there is evil in heaven, what reason do we have for believing that life in heaven is in any way better than life on earth."
So, there is no need for tests of our free wills for soul-making! :eek:
William Rowe is developing the evidential argument from evil.
Theodicy is merely one rationalization :Dafter anotherto exempt an omnipotent, omnibenevolent god from its duty to keep down so much evil. This is a one way street as no god has the right to demand worship or to punish us!
We anti-theists find the whole notion of God ever so absurd. We rationalists prefer explanations rather than rationalizations.
Naturalism accounts for evil in our faulty evolutionary history.
There is so much horror in the world to find no god, but enough goodness for me to so enjoy life!
Theists ever try to special plead in this matter.

Seloth

Griggsy is this a statment about Heaven or Theodicy or the matter of getting into a heaven from Theodicy.

Mainly form your argument your using the quite extremist view on a gaining into a heaven,which I am guessing your refering to the Christian one from the believe in me or else *L*.

But if you to take look,most people who are Christian,as well as priest and such think any one can get into Heaven if it exists a long as they are good people and such.

Now I myself do believe in a God or something anyway atleast but one day when I was in this park in Cork City a preacher came inand he talked aobut how Rock music makes people want to do "Sins" as Dance Music wants him to do dance((I find it ironic how in modern Ireland the people who listen to Dance are the ones who cause hassle where the ones who lsiten to Rock hug *L* in most cases anyway)).I asked him about the millions that never even heard of Jesus and he claimed they would go to hell...What utter bull**** :pac:.He was surrounded by people with all sorts of views shouting at him with his highly contradiciting ways.

Later that day another person game in and he talked to me and a friend for 30 mins debating,while he was much more open minded then the first guy he was still fully blank..According to him"While my numbers might be lsightly off,But 95% of the worlds inventions came from Christians and jews"..I laughed my ass off that one.

Griggsy you must remember that the Bible was edited so much in the past from it's original creation...Like who shot first,Han or Greedo.So if the whole story of Jesus was true,and God does exist,you must rember that they did not write it

And wasnt God ment to have given us free will? if not then whats he point of life,Is it some source of power for his lights like a Hamsteron a wheel lol


Man wouldnt that suck if th meaning of lfie was that.

Atleast you didnt quote Richard Dawkin in saying Atheist such as himself enjoy life much more than Theist as they know there is no afterlife..what utter B.s lol:P.An ATheist and Theist will climb a mountain and still get the experiance wont they

Playboy

lessons on the abilty of expressing yourself clearly wouldnt go astray

skeptic griggsy

Seloth, the notion of Hell makes the problem of evil even more telling against an omnibenevolent god; no rational being would put anyone there.:eek:
Again, without special pleading, why aren't theists consistent in applying free will the same in both Heaven and on Earth? They are so desperate to exonerate their god of gross neglect to suffering that they make that inconsistency, such a contradiction.:eek:
One cannot harmonize the Bible with human suffering [ Bart Ehrman's new book, I hear, shows that in detail.].:P
Never have I entertain thought of a future life; no future life would make right the unrequited horrors that so many and so many animals experience. There is so much unrequited evil to know there cannot be an omnibenevolent being, but still enough good for me to enjoy life.:D
This is not a call for " a foolish consistency!" :rolleyes:

Seloth

Well obviously if such a place existed then either a person would only go there acertain amount of ime depending on the person so called "Sins" or what not or if.indeed ther eis a soul then it would be divded with the part of you that s ,well lets say evil going to one place and the good going to another.

Um,Skeptic what I was saying in my last post that people do indeed apply free wil lt this world,If life were a test or so have it then the only way to judge a person/persons would be by they're acts,and not by some pre set ways as that is like if we some how brought Darth vader to real life and convicted him of criems against humanity ignoring the fact that he is a fictonal charecter,whos acts were pre-written((while sadly this could aslo be said for god:eek: *L*


Even the most loving of people can see evil but do notting,if thereis indeed a God and said god did give us free will then they could not interfear with the doings of Human nature and the likes as well as the acts of the Universe and our planet i.e an Earthquake.

Least I remind you that the bible was written by man,not by a god r god like being so therefore it cannot be used against religion or any God like being and such that may exist,Contrary to some who take the bible as total fact*smacks head off desk*:D

Lol,So when do westart ridiculing and insulting each other :P*L*

I must say this is providing a good debate

hexagramer

Playboy wrote: »

lessons on the abilty of expressing yourself clearly wouldnt go astray

and lessons on how not to witchhunt would do you some favours too.

you probobly need a hug

skeptic griggsy

Seloth, but you do not answer the question of why the insonsistency when there is no need for tests. No rational parent gives unrequited tests to see if her children will pass them. There is thus no need to have soul-making.There is no need for epistemic distance- the ambiguity that Hick sees as necessary for God's presence not to overwhelm people's free will to come to Him as that is also not a need: no rational being wants or need adulation!:o
" God, if he decided to create other beings with free will" notes David Ramsay Steele in "Atheism Explained: from Folly to Philosopy," would create them in his own image,with a guarantee against their ever committing evil.The theist who says that God has free will ... cannot claim that free will and a guarantee against are metaphysically incompatible , and will therefore find it hard to create humans with a guarantee against their ever committing evil.":cool:
Yes, were we more in his image, then free will and that guarantee would indeed be consistent and thus no " hobgoblins of little minds." Look for more philosophers for making this argument; it not only tells against the free will and soul-making parts of theodicy but also against the whole matter.
We naturalists find evil a component of the imperfections of evolution.
Hex., I ever do hug ! I like bear hugs.

Rabid_Ewok

is a tough place, but there good. To not have the happiness along with the suffering it would be pointless. No one can go through life and only have happiness because you wouldn't know what that meant unless you have suffered in the world we live.
Trust me, God (or whatever higher power you believe in) knows this. He / it does not cause suffering, we do. So don't blame some else for our mistakes.
To quote an earlier message "Again, without special pleading, why aren't theists consistent in applying free will the same in both Heaven and on Earth? They are so desperate to exonerate their god of gross neglect to suffering that they make that inconsistency, such a contradiction."
I have to say that the gross neglect is our part, that's the condition of free will as we know it and can understand it. If god intervened then we would not have faith but something altogether different. Maybe acceptance, I don't know but religion would be dead if we all knew the answer.

skeptic griggsy

Rabid Ewok, you are just restating what I have already undercut. Your argument undercuts itself in that if such is good here, that same consistently would apply there!
With David Ramsay Steele in " Atheism Explained: from Folly to Philosophy," I ask if we can have free will there and He guarantees no human erring, then He could guarenty the same here. Heaven cannot expiate for the great suffering of the Holocaust and tsunamis,e tc! Jahweh did not expiate himself with Job with a second set of children after murdering the first.:mad:
Nay, again and again, theists bray their cop-outs for His nonchalance towards evil.It is morally not what He wants and we have no obligation as free beings to worship Him, and He has no right to condemn us: it is strictly a one-way street for Him!
This strikes at theism's jugular!:cool:

philologos

OP: That would depend on what attributes we know about heaven. Much has not been revealed about it. If we don't know these attributes we are not likely to know what impact it will have.

Revelation 21:1-4 wrote:

Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth; for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away, and the sea was no more. And I saw the holy city, the new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband. And I heard a loud voice from the throne saying,
‘See, the home of God is among mortals.
He will dwell with them;
they will be his peoples,
and God himself will be with them;
he will wipe every tear from their eyes.
Death will be no more;
mourning and crying and pain will be no more,
for the first things have passed away.’

This is based on the Biblical prophesy of Isaiah.

Main point is though, since we only have been revealed a very limited amount about what heaven is, we can't determine what impact it's environment will have on free will.

ChocolateSauce

There is actually a place on Earth like heaven;

A Kingdom where all the subjects live in total submission to the Lord.
A place where everyone loves the lord, on pain of horrible torture.
A place where dissent is not tolerated, on pain of horrible torture.
A place where the masses may actually love the lord, as they have been brought up to love him and never question him.
A place where the lord has a son who is also the lord.
A place where your every move is observed by the authority.
A place where everyone who is not within the Kingdom is a horrible sinner.
A place where your lord is a magical man who has untold achievements and can do anything.

North Korea.

Offalycool

Seloth wrote: »

Now I myself do believe in a God or something anyway atleast but one day when I was in this park in Cork City a preacher came inand he talked aobut how Rock music makes people want to do "Sins" as Dance Music wants him to do dance((I find it ironic how in modern Ireland the people who listen to Dance are the ones who cause hassle where the ones who lsiten to Rock hug *L* in most cases anyway)).

You may have heard this before, but perhaps it takes something really valuable to become a god of rock. :eek:

skeptic griggsy

So, if there be God, then, perforce, there is Heaven in that the area around Him is Heaven someone notes.:D
So, as He is like a square circle, as we ignostics affirm, there, perforce, is no Heaven.:rolleyes: Atheists John McTaggart Ellis NcTaggart and Charles Ducasse believed in a future state.:o And some theists don't.:cool:
So, there can be no successful rebuttal to this problem. And William Rowe's evidential argument from evil also presents a grave problem for theists in that gratuitous evils add up to override any theodicy. Heaven, then, perforce, cannot make up for those evils! :P
And it won't do as two theists claim that an omnipotent god can with its power create flourishes-imperfections- whilst a limited one would have to conserve its power with perfection.:o
Theists, I insist that you answer why those imperfections without trying to solve these two problems @ arguments for Him- the square circle.:o

philologos

They over ride any theodicy? I'm not sure it does. Arguments such as that evil is the privation of good, or that evil has some form of a purpose are still very much open in respect to this debate. If there is some kind of purpose for the existence we now live in on Earth, it is very possible that this isn't a "imperfection" but rather a part of the divine plan.

Philosophy of Religion is good

skeptic griggsy

No, evil is the presence of pain etc., so to state that is it privation of the good mocks reason. To bleat that He can make good come from all the evil is an ignoratio elenchi- beside the point- in that why cannot he just make more good from the good?:eek:
The unknown purpose strategy blasphemes reason in that there can be no such thing as we ourselves can attest to that. That springs from the argument from ignorance, sir. That is just another feeble theological it must be and guess. :mad:
Hitler must have had an unknown defense for his annihilation of millions. Yes, one can indeed compare your God with that scumbag! That defense is just another theological cop-out! :eek:
Again, why not Heaven in the first place? Oh, isn't it supposed to be better than that mythical Garden? :P
Philosopher of religion Dr. William Swinburne brays that we rationalists underestimate the value of free will and overestimate the harm of evil. What perversion of reason! No, we hardly underestimate the former as we insist on compatibiism or hard determinism and hardly overestimate the harm of evil as the recent tsunamis and such ever drive that home! He also doesn't fathom the Ockham! See the thread about that.:o
What will be the next cop-out for Him-that square circle?:p

antiskeptic

skeptic griggsy wrote: »

No, evil is the presence of pain etc., so to state that is it privation of the good mocks reason.

The privation of good functioning leads to pain - so why do you say the presence of pain is a privation of what's good? Besides, pain is good in the sense that it informs us that something is amiss.

Imagine the state of your teeth if there was no early warning to tell you decay has set in.

To bleat that He can make good come from all the evil is an ignoratio elenchi- beside the point- in that why cannot he just make more good from the good?:eek:

Having joined the discussion late, what point is it beside?

The unknown purpose strategy blasphemes reason in that there can be no such thing as we ourselves can attest to that. That springs from the argument from ignorance, sir. That is just another feeble theological it must be and guess. :mad:

I gather the purpose of making good come from evil is to defeat evil. Like, if you can utilise something that is evil in order to achieve a greater good goal then you've used evil to shoot itself in it's own foot.

There's something really classy about defeating evil that way.

Again, why not Heaven in the first place? Oh, isn't it supposed to be better than that mythical Garden? :P

Heaven appears to be a place where the will is limited to operating within boundaries that are pleasing to God. If only Heaven in the first place then we'd not have had the free will necessary to decide on whether we wanted to be there or not.

Philosopher of religion Dr. William Swinburne brays that we rationalists underestimate the value of free will and overestimate the harm of evil. What perversion of reason! No, we hardly underestimate the former as we insist on compatibiism or hard determinism and hardly overestimate the harm of evil as the recent tsunamis and such ever drive that home! He also doesn't fathom the Ockham! See the thread about that.:o

Pehaps Dr S considers free-will other than the compatibalist would?

wiki wrote:

Critics of compatibilism often focus on the definition of free will: they agree that the compatibilists are showing something to be compatible with determinism, but they think that something cannot properly be called free will.

What will be the next cop-out for Him-that square circle?:p

If determined-by-somethng free will is about as square a circle as one can imagine