Would anyone want to really go to heaven?

iguana

seamus wrote: »

Sounds like hell to me - one consciousness, who knows *everything*, doing nothing by itself for eternity. How boring would that be?

Sounds like being plugged into the internet. You have a 5 figure number of posts, I think you'd do ok.;)

munsterdevil

antiskeptic wrote: »

Satan hates us as well as God. Our sinning offends God and our sinning imperils us before a holy God. Two birds with one sin: us and God

God hates us? I always thought God loved us! Further, why would god create something in the first place that it hates?

antiskeptic wrote: »

Satan being allowed to rebel doesn't affect God's omniopotence?? One can be omnipotent and permit something one finds reprehensible. Especially if it can serve a greater purpose such as being the means whereby we would be equipped with a choice.

God turns men into children of God. Satan was 'but' an angel.

My point is, why did God create Satan in the first place, I mean if god is so omnipotent shouldn't it have known that Satan was going to rebel, it just seems like a drawn out process that basically entailed God thinking: "This Satan fellow rebelling is actually coming in handy, now Satan can take all the souls I hate, even though I hate the humans that I created, just as much as Satan does"

It all sounds like one big experiment by God in that he created human beings to play it out on Earth, just to see who is going to make it to heaven and Earth, I mean why would such an entity go to the bother of all this. I went over this years ago in my head and it's partially why I became an atheist.

goingpostal

A certain troll, who shall remain nameless, added to my ignore list: priceless. A clean pair of jocks: Heaven. For everything else, there's Mastercard.

antiskeptic

munsterdevil wrote: »

God hates us? I always thought God loved us! Further, why would god create something in the first place that it hates?

Read it as "satan hates us as well as hating God" and re-compute.

My point is, why did God create Satan in the first place, I mean if god is so omnipotent shouldn't it have known that Satan was going to rebel,

Omniscience - knowing all there is to be known - is the attribute you might be referring to. Not that it's all that relevant. Whether God knew what satan would do beforehand doesn't alter the fact that if you want to create a being that can choose, you must also accept they might choose something you'd prefer they didn't choose.

Why did God want to create being that could choose? For his glory ultimately I imagine. To 'expand' the reach of his love.

it just seems like a drawn out process that basically entailed God thinking: "This Satan fellow rebelling is actually coming in handy, now Satan can take all the souls I hate, even though I hate the humans that I created, just as much as Satan does"

As I say, you need to re-work this point in light of the above clarification. Satan does come in handy in that he becomes the counterweight in choice offered man. Man is offered God and all that that entails (let's call that Light) and man is offered without-God and all that that entails (let's call that darkness). Satan and what he represents (darkness, evil, selfishness, etc) is what you get when there is absence of God and what he represents (light, goodness, self-sacrifice).

In choice, you need to be offered something tangible. Satan's influence through Sin is that something tangible.

It all sounds like one big experiment by God in that he created human beings to play it out on Earth, just to see who is going to make it to heaven and Earth, I mean why would such an entity go to the bother of all this. I went over this years ago in my head and it's partially why I became an atheist.

You're not very far off the mark. There is a giant project going on and all the world's the stage on which that project plays out. Experiment wouldn't be the term I'd use however - it implies a kind of disinterested fiddling in the lab to see what happens. Rather, I'd see it as a passionate pregnancy - for one of Gods central aims in all this is to have kids. Some of those fertilized eggs (us) will come to full term and enjoy his fathership forever. Others will be miscarried and rejected. Which it will be is up to us.

checkyabadself

antiskeptic wrote: »

They're not the same person - the person they were was infected with a spiritual disease called Sin. In heaven they're the person they were but without the disease.

Of all the threads I have read here, this post is the most insane, I've ever read. To honestly say and believe the above is to claim something you cannot possibly know. It is shamefully invented and comments like it should be ridiculed rather than respected or entertained.
Its clear that the same poster claims to have met god in a roundabout way and the smugness displayed is infinitely worse than any atheist arrogance, Ive encountered.

Ill respect any believer that claims to not know or have a guess or suppose an ideal version of heaven to me. I draw the line of having a morsel of respect for those who claim to know, with authority, the specifics of the creator and it's whims and that it has spoken to any human.

antiskeptic

checkyabadself wrote: »

Ill respect any believer that claims to not know or have a guess or suppose an ideal version of heaven to me. I draw the line of having a morsel of respect for those who claim to know, with authority, the specifics of the creator and it's whims and that it has spoken to any human.

You seem to be saying that God cannot reveal himself to his creation. Which raises you to a position above God - telling us what it is he may or may not do if he exists.

I'll respect any unbeliever who desists from making what can only be blind faith based statements like that. An unbeliever shouldn't be relying on blind faith for their position - otherwise they are a believer (of the wobbliest kind).

Sam Vimes

antiskeptic wrote: »

You seem to be saying that God cannot reveal himself to his creation. Which raises you to a position above God - telling us what it is he may or may not do if he exists.

I'll respect any unbeliever who desists from making what can only be blind faith based statements like that. An unbeliever shouldn't be relying on blind faith for their position - otherwise they are a believer (of the wobbliest kind).

Many supposed experiences of god are contradictory therefore they cannot all be true experiences. It is not only possible but very common for people to get "false positives" where they are absolutely convinced they have experienced god when they actually haven't.

There is no way for anyone to know how convincing anyone else's supposed experience of god was. They can only know what they experienced and they have nothing to compare it with. With no way to compare one experience to another, there is no way for anyone to determine if their experience is the true one or if it is one of the far greater number of false ones. Just being totally convincing is not enough to determine the truth of an experience because of the existence of so many false positives among people who are equally convinced.

Therefore within this universe it is not possible to have an internal personal experience of god of the type that you supposedly had in such a way that it is possible to tell a true experience from a false one. Your definition of god requires that it this is possible, therefore god as you describe it does not exist

QED :pac:

munsterdevil

antiskeptic wrote: »

Read it as "satan hates us as well as hating God" and re-compute.

Oh right, that's the worst thing about written boards like these, no harm done.

antiskeptic wrote: »

Omniscience - knowing all there is to be known - is the attribute you might be referring to. Not that it's all that relevant. Whether God knew what satan would do beforehand doesn't alter the fact that if you want to create a being that can choose, you must also accept they might choose something you'd prefer they didn't choose.

So what you are saying is God is not omnipotent/perfect

antiskeptic wrote: »

Why did God want to create being that could choose? For his glory ultimately I imagine. To 'expand' the reach of his love.

No, it sounds to me like an entity with a massive ego, "look what I can create, and if you don't do good, you're gonna go to hell"

antiskeptic wrote: »

As I say, you need to re-work this point in light of the above clarification. Satan does come in handy in that he becomes the counterweight in choice offered man. Man is offered God and all that that entails (let's call that Light) and man is offered without-God and all that that entails (let's call that darkness). Satan and what he represents (darkness, evil, selfishness, etc) is what you get when there is absence of God and what he represents (light, goodness, self-sacrifice).

The Biblical God also represents darkness, evil and selfishness, all one need do is to read through the Old Testament, the Book of Exodus in particular.

antiskeptic wrote: »

In choice, you need to be offered something tangible. Satan's influence through Sin is that something tangible.

It is called being human when we sin, it's got nothing to do with some entity called Satan, and therein lies the core of our disagreement.

antiskeptic wrote: »

You're not very far off the mark. There is a giant project going on and all the world's the stage on which that project plays out. Experiment wouldn't be the term I'd use however - it implies a kind of disinterested fiddling in the lab to see what happens. Rather, I'd see it as a passionate pregnancy - for one of Gods central aims in all this is to have kids. Some of those fertilized eggs (us) will come to full term and enjoy his fathership forever. Others will be miscarried and rejected. Which it will be is up to us.

Nope, still sounds like an experiment to me, as I said before, it sounds like this God entity has a massive ego.

antiskeptic

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Many supposed experiences of god are contradictory therefore they cannot all be true experiences.

True. Which says nothing at all about the possibility of a true experience

It is not only possible but very common for people to get "false positives" where they are absolutely convinced they have experienced god when they actually haven't

True. Which say's nothing at all about the possibility of a true positive.

There is no way for anyone to know how convincing anyone else's supposed experience of god was.

I'm not sure what this means. If 'anyone elses' experience was enough to convince 'anyone else' then 'anyone' can know it was at least that convincing for 'anyone else'

They can only know what they experienced and they have nothing to compare it with. With no way to compare one experience to another, there is no way for anyone to determine if their experience is the true one or if it is one of the far greater number of false ones. Just being totally convincing is not enough to determine the truth of an experience because of the existence of so many false positives among people who are equally convinced.

False. You are, in effect, saying that God either:

- cannot reveal himself to us.

- or that if he can, then he must utilise a means of demonstrating the truth of his existance decided upon by you.


You would be forgetting that that your preferred means of arrival-at-truth would be one created by God and that any sense of truth you derive from it occurs for you because God designed it to achieve that end. You would be relying on him and his actions to bring truth to you - in other words. But there is nothing excluding God from providing truth by any number of other means. It only requires that he decides so.

Therefore within this universe it is not possible to have an internal personal experience of god of the type that you supposedly had in such a way that it is possible to tell a true experience from a false one. Your definition of god requires that it this is possible, therefore god as you describe it does not exist

QED :pac:

Hopefully you'll see the error of the claim.

Sam Vimes

antiskeptic wrote: »

False. You are, in effect, saying that God either:

- cannot reveal himself to us.

- or that if he can, then he must utilise a means of demonstrating the truth of his existance decided upon by you.

It's not decided on by me, it's decided on by the nature of the universe. Even god cannot do what is logically impossible, e.g. he cannot create a married bachelor, he cannot create a square with no sides etc etc etc. Even an omnipotent being is constrained by what is logically possible.

In a universe where there are millions false positive experiences and no way to compare experiences to each other, there is no way to separate the false positives from the true positives.

It is logically impossible for god to reveal himself through an entirely internal personal experience in such a way that it is possible to tell a true experience from a false one. He cannot do it any more than he can create a square circle. And if you require that he must be able to do it, this means that this god does not exist. He is a logical impossibility.

antiskeptic

munsterdevil wrote: »

So what you are saying is God is not omnipotent/perfect

I'm saying that the word "omnipotence" isn't taken to mean that God can do just anything at all. His not being able to create an object too heavy for him to life doesn't alter his being omnipotent in other words. His not being able to create a square circle similarily doesn't impinge on his omnipotence.

No, it sounds to me like an entity with a massive ego, "look what I can create, and if you don't do good, you're gonna go to hell"

Theology 101

Your already on the path to Hell - no if's about it.

The Biblical God also represents darkness, evil and selfishness, all one need do is to read through the Old Testament, the Book of Exodus in particular.

You confuse the just punishing of sin with darkness. Don't you think it right that evil is punished?

It is called being human when we sin, it's got nothing to do with some entity called Satan, and therein lies the core of our disagreement.

Can I take it you'll have no problem with "It was my human nature" not standing up God's court should it transpire that he does actually exist. So long as you're prepared to take the consequences of your position I see no reason for disagreement.

checkyabadself

antiskeptic wrote: »

You seem to be saying that God cannot reveal himself to his creation. Which raises you to a position above God - telling us what it is he may or may not do if he exists.

I'll respect any unbeliever who desists from making what can only be blind faith based statements like that. An unbeliever shouldn't be relying on blind faith for their position -
otherwise they are a believer (of the wobbliest kind).

I don't want your respect, as you claim to have met god and or are certain of it's existence, yet semantics is all you have to offer. No enlightening knowledge, or are you greedily keeping the celestial almanac to yourself to outwit us heretics. When you distance yourself from the millions of others who claim to have met god without offering any proof then I will hear your proof and want your respect. I must be easy for you to have knowledge that I do not, one single shred of information and I'll instantly place your character as distinct from those who claim to
have spoken to their dead relatives.

You said I base my assertions on blind faith. I do not. I assert what is truth based on evidence, honest peer reviewed data and what is experienced by every person on this planet. For me to claim that fairies or god exists, requires me to be dishonest, incredulous and to claim to know something I cannot know.

So far the Hubble telescope has told me more about the universe than god ever has.

OldNotWIse

Not a chance. Want to be with my dog!

antiskeptic

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Even god cannot do what is logically impossible, e.g. he cannot create a married bachelor, he cannot create a square with no sides etc etc etc. Even an omnipotent being is constrained by what is logically possible.

Agreed.

In a universe where there are millions false positive experiences and no way to compare experiences to each other, there is no way to separate the false positives from the true positives. It is logically impossible for god to reveal himself through an entirely internal personal experience in such a way that it is possible to tell a true experience from a false one. He cannot do it any more than he can create a square circle. And if you require that he must be able to do it, this means that this god does not exist. He is a logical impossibility.

You don't seem to be appreciating the argument. So let me ask a question:

Which of the following two ways is the more valid way of personally determining the truth of God's existance (God's existance I mean - not the truth of anything else).

1) God actually reveals himself to a person personally

2) God actually turns up in Croke Park on front of 80,000 people and performs a sufficient number of miracle to convince all there gathered that he indeed exists)

Sam Vimes

antiskeptic wrote: »

Agreed.


You don't seem to be appreciating the argument. So let me ask a question:

Which of the following two ways is the more valid way of personally determining the truth of God's existance (God's existance I mean - not the truth of anything else).

1) God actually reveals himself to a person personally

2) God actually turns up in Croke Park on front of 80,000 people and performs a sufficient number of miracle to convince all there gathered that he indeed exists)

Oh I appreciate the argument, you make it every few days so I know it inside and out.

Number 2 is the more valid way because it allows people to compare their experiences. If they are consistent that increases the likelihood of them being accurate. And number 2 would still not be sufficient to determine it absolutely or to determine anything about the nature of this being, e.g. it could be a very powerful alien.


Number 1 could be accurate if god revealed himself personally to millions of different people and if the experiences of all of these people were exactly the same. This again would show consistency across experiences and the situation would be that either they are all right or they are all wrong, rather than the current situation where even if one is right, the vast majority are still wrong.

munsterdevil

antiskeptic wrote: »

I'm saying that the word "omnipotence" isn't taken to mean that God can do just anything at all. His not being able to create an object too heavy for him to life doesn't alter his being omnipotent in other words. His not being able to create a square circle similarily doesn't impinge on his omnipotence.

No one asked God to create a square circle it is superfluous to the argument, however, preventing the creation of the entity, Satan, is not, I mean god wants all humans to be good, yet he could not even mange this in his own shagging kingdom.

antiskeptic wrote: »

Theology 101

Your already on the path to Hell - no if's about it.

I actually had a small bit of respect for you, before you said this, and yes you are right, it is Theology 101, i.e. "if you don't believe in god you are going to hell", typical christian hokum that is taught to children and unfortunately most remain children by simply believing in it in the latter part of their lives.

antiskeptic wrote: »

You confuse the just punishing of sin with darkness. Don't you think it right that evil is punished?

So the massacre of innocent children by god is its way of punishing evil? Yes Theology 101 gone crazy yet again.

antiskeptic wrote: »

Can I take it you'll have no problem with "It was my human nature" not standing up God's court should it transpire that he does actually exist. So long as you're prepared to take the consequences of your position I see no reason for disagreement.

1- In the extremely unlikely event of god existing and I meet it when I die, I won't have to say anything, why? Because god is all knowing and should know what I am thinking, therefore I won't have to talk

2- If I HAD to say something it would be "why did you go to such an effort to hide yourself"

3- In the unlikely event of god existing, it would not really be in a position to scold us for our behaviour.

antiskeptic

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Number 2 is the more valid way because it allows people to compare their experiences. If they are consistent that increases the likelihood of them being accurate. And number 2 would still not be sufficient to determine it absolutely or to determine anything about the nature of this being, e.g. it could be a very powerful alien.

Thanks for your answer. I take it we can leave aside the God-in-Croke-Park-is-actually-an-Alien issue on the grounds of solipsism?

We can agree that if God exists then the truth-bearing aspect of the process you describe above is one that has been designed to be so by God. Thus our confidence that God is present in Croke Park couldn'tbe placed in that process anymore - it would have to be redirected to be placed in the God who designed the process to be truth-bearing.

Which is an important switch. We'd be now relying on God and not a process for our truth.

And because we are now dependent on God for our truth, we can't point to this process or that process to be better for truth bearing. God would be the one to assign confidence to a process - not us. All of which permits the potential for personal revelation by God to be a better truth-giver than the process you describe above.

Number 1 could be accurate if god revealed himself personally to millions of different people and if the experiences of all of these people were exactly the same. This again would show consistency across experiences and the situation would be that either they are all right or they are all wrong, rather than the current situation where even if one is right, the vast majority are still wrong.

1) The fact that millions of people can be wrong has absolutely no bearing on God being able to reveal himself by personal revelation

2) 100 different people viewing the same car crash can be expected to produce a variety of descriptions. Assuming for a moment that the Christian God is the true God, the fact that there are so many shades of view is to be expected.

antiskeptic

munsterdevil wrote: »

No one asked God to create a square circle it is superfluous to the argument, however, preventing the creation of the entity, Satan, is not, I mean god wants all humans to be good, yet he could not even mange this in his own shagging kingdom.

There are tiers of want to be considerd. God wanting all humans to be good is a tier below God wanting all humans to have free choice. God can want something without being able to achieve it given a higher tier want. And this without impinging negatively on his omnipotence.

I actually had a small bit of respect for you, before you said this, and yes you are right, it is Theology 101, i.e. "if you don't believe in god you are going to hell", typical christian hokum that is taught to children and unfortunately most remain children by simply believing in it in the latter part of their lives.

I mean no offence. It's just that you presented a common misconception of the Christian message that needed pointing out in order to discuss. It's not you'll go to Hell if you're not good (similar to Santa's "naughty or nice"). It's not even "if you don't believe you'll go to Hell" ( in the sense that you can magik yourself into believing in something you haven't the evidence for)

So the massacre of innocent children by god is its way of punishing evil? Yes Theology 101 gone crazy yet again.

And if all those children are in heaven without having to go through the process of life whereby they might be lost?

(Dunno if that's the case - but supposing?)

1- In the extremely unlikely event of god existing and I meet it when I die, I won't have to say anything, why? Because god is all knowing and should know what I am thinking, therefore I won't have to talk

It need not be for God's benefit that you talk. It might be for the benefit of an audience.

2- If I HAD to say something it would be "why did you go to such an effort to hide yourself"

Assuming he exists, he could correctly answer that it permitted you to decide what to do with the knowledge of good and evil that he gave you. Without him overtly around, you would have the opportunity to deny that you do objective evil, writing it off instead to "human nature" - something you aren't responsible for.

Only if he exists is this true of course. So it's only something you have to worry about if you find yourself before him. For if he does exist and he has given you adequate knowledge of good and evil then you are responsible and your excuses are just that.

3- In the unlikely event of god existing, it would not really be in a position to scold us for our behaviour.

I'm not sure that scolding is what he has in mind. Since God is lawgiver and we are his subjects (whether we like that or not) I don't see how you can legally escape punishment. You certainly haven't a court to be dragging him along to.

Or do you suppose to have one?

robindch

antiskeptic wrote: »

100 different people viewing the same car crash can be expected to produce a variety of descriptions. Assuming for a moment that the Christian God is the true God, the fact that there are so many shades of view is to be expected.

For a car crash that lasts a few seconds, yes that's quite true. But it doesn't really apply if people spend hundreds of hours every year -- thousands over a lifetime -- developing a "relationship" with this deity. In which case, one would have thought that a very consistent picture would emerge.

But as we know, that's not what happens. There is a very good reason, even a very obvious reason, why each person's deity is surprisingly indistinguishable from each person's view of what the deity should be:

antiskeptic

robindch wrote: »

For a car crash that lasts a few seconds, yes that's quite true. But it doesn't really apply if people spend hundreds of hours every year -- thousands over a lifetime -- developing a "relationship" with this deity. In which case, one would have thought that a very consistent picture would emerge.

And if the car cresh was viewed through vision equipment that required some practice and experience in order to gain a clearer image wouldn't that also add to the complexity of conclusions you might draw?

But as we know, that's not what happens. There is a very good reason, even a very obvious reason, why each person's deity is surprisingly indistinguishable from each person's view of what the deity should be

Hmm. I would have thought there is a remarkable amount of agreement on the nature of God amongst Christians. Yes, we divide on doctrinal issues all over the place (and that tends to be what gets discussed) but that doesn't mean we disagree on essentials.

Sam Vimes

antiskeptic wrote: »

Thanks for your answer. I take it we can leave aside the God-in-Croke-Park-is-actually-an-Alien issue on the grounds of solipsism?

We can agree that if God exists then the truth-bearing aspect of the process you describe above is one that has been designed to be so by God. Thus our confidence that God is present in Croke Park couldn'tbe placed in that process anymore - it would have to be redirected to be placed in the God who designed the process to be truth-bearing.

Which is an important switch. We'd be now relying on God and not a process for our truth.

And because we are now dependent on God for our truth, we can't point to this process or that process to be better for truth bearing. God would be the one to assign confidence to a process - not us. All of which permits the potential for personal revelation by God to be a better truth-giver than the process you describe above.


1) The fact that millions of people can be wrong has absolutely no bearing on God being able to reveal himself by personal revelation

2) 100 different people viewing the same car crash can be expected to produce a variety of descriptions. Assuming for a moment that the Christian God is the true God, the fact that there are so many shades of view is to be expected.

You are absolutely right to say that once a process has established god's existence we are no longer reliant on that process because we would then be relying on god for our truth.

The problem is that you're not doing a switch. You're just ignoring the part where you use some kind of process to establish god's existence and using logic that only makes sense once this process has done its job. Your logic should be:


1. Use a process to establish god's existence
2. Realise that this process is designed by god
3. Trust god as the arbiter of truth

But what it actually is is:


1. Assume god exists
2. Declare that the process is designed by god
3. Trust god as the arbiter of truth

And the latter doesn't make any sense. It totally falls apart if the assumption at the start is false, the assumption of course being the very thing we are trying to establish

antiskeptic

Sam Vimes wrote: »

You are absolutely right to say that once a process has established god's existence we are no longer reliant on that process because we would then be relying on god for our truth.

And once we come to realise God exists, we realise that we were never reliant on the process because the process is only action by God. 'Process' is merely another way of saying 'action by God'.

The problem is that you're not doing a switch. You're just ignoring the part where you use some kind of process to establish god's existence and using logic that only makes sense once this process has done its job.

I don't use the empirical process to establish God's existance at Croke Park. Rather God uses that process to establish his existance for me. If I consider truth to arise from it, it is only because God delivers truth this way and instills a sense that "truth is arrived at in this way".

I'm passive in this, God is active.

1. Use a process to establish god's existence
2. Realise that this process is designed by god
3. Trust god as the arbiter of truth

And if we change the first sentence to 'God uses a process to establish God's existance' (for that is what would have occurred once we realise that God exists) then it doesn't matter what process title we insert in line 1. It can be empirical/direct revelation and it works precisely the same way.

We aren't in a position to independently verify God designed the process - because in both cases we are subject to his action instilling this realisation in us. Your postition seems to try to insert our independently evaluating at some point - even if only to get things going. When in fact we are never independent.

munsterdevil

antiskeptic wrote: »

There are tiers of want to be considerd. God wanting all humans to be good is a tier below God wanting all humans to have free choice. God can want something without being able to achieve it given a higher tier want. And this without impinging negatively on his omnipotence.

God giving us "free choice" brings us back to the point of it all sounding like an experiment, why go to the bother of such a process? there is no logical explanation.

I mean no offence. It's just that you presented a common misconception of the Christian message that needed pointing out in order to discuss. It's not you'll go to Hell if you're not good (similar to Santa's "naughty or nice"). It's not even "if you don't believe you'll go to Hell" ( in the sense that you can magik yourself into believing in something you haven't the evidence for)

I don't understand you on this point. Could you be more specific.

And if all those children are in heaven without having to go through the process of life whereby they might be lost?

(Dunno if that's the case - but supposing?)

If I were to suppose that, it would be very disturbing. For instance it would mean that it's NOT ok for a human being to murder children (which I agree with) so that the "children are in heaven without having to go through the process of life whereby they might be lost", but it is ok for god to do it. Total cop out, even it is just supposing.

It need not be for God's benefit that you talk. It might be for the benefit of an audience.

So not alone are human part of an experiment, we'll be part of an entertainment show in the afterlife, maybe it'll be called "Soul Factor" with St. Peter stepping in for Simon Cowell judging us on our qualities for entering heaven. Sorry, but it was my turn to be ridiculous.

Assuming he exists, he could correctly answer that it permitted you to decide what to do with the knowledge of good and evil that he gave you. Without him overtly around, you would have the opportunity to deny that you do objective evil, writing it off instead to "human nature" - something you aren't responsible for.

Assuming god exists, it would responsible for "human nature".

Only if he exists is this true of course. So it's only something you have to worry about if you find yourself before him. For if he does exist and he has given you adequate knowledge of good and evil then you are responsible and your excuses are just that.

The chances of god existing are remote, I'm not going to worry about it.

I'm not sure that scolding is what he has in mind. Since God is lawgiver and we are his subjects (whether we like that or not) I don't see how you can legally escape punishment. You certainly haven't a court to be dragging him along to.

So then what is the point of explaining ourselves to god, if it's not going to scold us?

Or do you suppose to have one [court]?

I'm not in the habit of dragging imaginary beings along to court.

Sam Vimes

antiskeptic wrote: »

And if we change the first sentence to 'God uses a process to establish God's existance' (for that is what would have occurred once we realise that God exists) then it doesn't matter what process title we insert in line 1. It can be empirical/direct revelation and it works precisely the same way.

Changing the first sentence to 'God uses a process to establish God's existance' requires the assumption of god's existence so the logic is:

1. Assume god exists
2. God uses a process to establish god's existence
3. trust god as the arbiter of truth

No matter what way you cut it, all you're doing is making an arbitrary assumption that god exists and then making it look as if you've reasoned your way there. You cannot reason that god exists using logic that only works if god exists. It doesn't make any sense

robindch

antiskeptic wrote: »

And if the car cresh was viewed through vision equipment that required some practice and experience in order to gain a clearer image wouldn't that also add to the complexity of conclusions you might draw?

Huh?

antiskeptic wrote: »

Yes, we divide on doctrinal issues all over the place (and that tends to be what gets discussed) but that doesn't mean we disagree on essentials.

Didn't say that you disagreed about the "essentials"

I said that each of you views the deity pretty much as you want the deity to be. Nudged here and there by religious texts, leaders and so on of course, but ultimately you see what you want to see -- your own views and views of god, both transformed to god-like status.

antiskeptic

munsterdevil wrote: »

God giving us "free choice" brings us back to the point of it all sounding like an experiment, why go to the bother of such a process? there is no logical explanation.

How do you find out what free choiced beings will choose if you don't give them choices and a realm to exercise that choice?

I don't understand you on this point. Could you be more specific.

Truly "believing in God" is a position you occupy only when you have sufficient evidence for belief in God. You can't believe in God if you've insufficient evidence for him and wouldn't be condemned for not believing something that you hadn't sufficient evidence for.

But God works to bring you to a point where you can believe in God - which is something you can prevent happening. It's the preventive action on your part which would be the cause of you remaining in unbelief, the unbelief itself would be merely a consequence of your preventitive action.

So it's more accurate to say your preventive action (biblically called "suppression of truth") produces your damnation - because it is an act of wilfulness on your part.

If I were to suppose that, it would be very disturbing. For instance it would mean that it's NOT ok for a human being to murder children (which I agree with) so that the "children are in heaven without having to go through the process of life whereby they might be lost", but it is ok for god to do it. Total cop out, even it is just supposing.

It is erroneous to compare humans to God. God gives life and, not intending that we would live as we are forever, is entitled to take it away when his purposes regarding us have been completed. We, on the other hand, don't give life and have no right to take it away from someone.

Basis ownership rights apply here. Us taking a life is stealing, whereas God cannot steal that which belongs to him.

So not alone are human part of an experiment, we'll be part of an entertainment show in the afterlife, maybe it'll be called "Soul Factor" with St. Peter stepping in for Simon Cowell judging us on our qualities for entering heaven. Sorry, but it was my turn to be ridiculous.

The point of your public stripping would be to vindicate God's judgment before all - so that all can see he is just. In having you yourself declare your guilt, God is seen to be absolutely spot on. There are to be no secret trials or kangeroo courts.

Assuming god exists, it would responsible for "human nature".

He would be responsible for providing choice. He wouldn't be responsible for exercising that choice. Exercising that choice is what made humans have the nature they have. The question isn't who's to blame for that (Adam) the question you face is whether you want to be rid of it or not. If not then that's your decision. Not Adams. Not God's.

The chances of god existing are remote, I'm not going to worry about it.

The chances of God existing cannot be calculated and so you sit 50/50 when it comes to the chances of the biblical God existing

So then what is the point of explaining ourselves to god, if it's not going to scold us?

The point is that the condemned will have ample opportunity to understand why they are being condemned. Because there will be no opportunity to lie and dodge - as one could in a earthly court, the person will tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Thus will their true motives be revealed fully to themselves. All the self-justification, all the denial, all the excuses we use to drown out the knowledge we have that we are doing wrong won't be there to mask things. We'll see ourselves for the vile creatures we actually are. Stark naked in front of the mirror, we will agree that condemnation is the due penalty for ones such as us.

I say 'us' but don't mean me. I won't be facing Judgement (thanks to the very same grace that God would willingly provide you with). You, if you continue on down this path to it's conclusion, will.

I'm not in the habit of dragging imaginary beings along to court.

Case dismissed so.

antiskeptic

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Changing the first sentence to 'God uses a process to establish God's existance' requires the assumption of god's existence

Not in the case he's turned up in Croke Park. You'd have God there in front of you enabling a rewording of your first sentence. From this vantage point in Croke Park, you would see that God used a process to establish his existance - but should also realise that it isn't relevant what that process was. You start with God in front of you and work from there - no assumption necessary (unless knowledge through empiricism is an assumption). The same can be said of any other process - or no process at all - because the process isn't at all relevant once God is standing in front of you.

No matter what way you cut it, all you're doing is making an arbitrary assumption that god exists and then making it look as if you've reasoned your way there. You cannot reason that god exists using logic that only works if god exists. It doesn't make any sense

I'm not suggesting that I reason my way to God. I'm suggesting (and the example in question, whether Croke Park or Personal Revelation) indicates God working his way to us. There is no other way for God to be established than that he works his way to us. Once that is realised, you'll see that it isn't relevant which 'process' he uses. It's all his doing anyway.


(the point isn't to prove God exists. It's to demonstrate that if you accept that God can demonstrate himself empirically then you also need to accept the validity of God's personal revelation as a way of convincing - even if you aren't convinced by it.. for want of it)

Sam Vimes

antiskeptic wrote: »

Not in the case he's turned up in Croke Park.

But he hasn't turned up in Croke park and your logic doesn't work until he does because it all depends entirely on the assumption of god's existence. Likewise personal experience can only be said to be reliable once god's existence has been established and your logic for why it is reliable only works if you assume god exists. It doesn't make any sense

MingulayJohnny

antiskeptic wrote: »

The person was infected with a spiritual disease called Sin. In heaven they're the same person they were but without the disease. The same but changed.




The person who has come to hate the disease in all it's manifestations (what you call 'natural base desire') desires goodness as nothing else. And since all that is goodness stems from God and God is there, the person naturally desires to be there too. Quite what 'activity' there will be is anyones guess - but given God's creativity and promises there is little sense in worrying about boredom. Indeed, boredom is a notion tied up with time elapsing - which might not be possible if eternity contains no time.

If it weren't for natural base desire A) You wouldn't exist in human form If somehow you did you'd have no motivation to get out of bed in the morning. I think we exist on this crude physical level because we need to experience the struggle present in this reality in order to grow. I believe in realities beyond this because of my own experiences , not just blind faith. The pious pursuits and world rejection of mainstream Christianity give a fractured , partial experience of this world in my view.

I struggle with the concept of infinity and eternal life but realise it is impossible for me to fathom infinite existence with a brain and a mind that is completely conditioned for linear time existence. Great for crossing the road and organising a road trip but not great for experiencing non ordinary realities. It would be like trying to explain what chocolate tastes like to an ET who has no tastebuds.

No amount of logical debate , scientism or semantics can prove or disprove the existence of heaven\eternal life. Supernatural or spiritual experiences have to be experienced by the individual , it's your own experience , your individuation.

Science has brought great improvements of life on earth but to me it's just a narrow band of the spectrum. Some would argue that we have moved away from religious oppression and the dark ages through science. This is true to a certain extent but the science that we have pursued is just as dogmatic and restricted as any religion as far as I can see. It has it's high priests , churches and it's heretics.

Patrickof

antiskeptic wrote: »

The chances of God existing cannot be calculated and so you sit 50/50 when it comes to the chances of the biblical God existing.

If the chances of something existing cannot be calculated, then that is all we can say about those odds. It doesn't automatically become 50/50.

There is a lotto draw tonight. If I buy a ticket, I will either win the jackpot or I won't. Are you claiming that my odds would be 50/50?

munsterdevil

antiskeptic wrote: »

How do you find out what free choiced beings will choose if you don't give them choices and a realm to exercise that choice?

My point is why go to such extreme lengths to find out what way humans behave with "free will", why does a god find the need to do such a thing? Is it that insecure that he needs to create something to judge?

Truly "believing in God" is a position you occupy only when you have sufficient evidence for belief in God. You can't believe in God if you've insufficient evidence for him and wouldn't be condemned for not believing something that you hadn't sufficient evidence for.

Do you have sufficient evidence for a benevolent god?

But God works to bring you to a point where you can believe in God - which is something you can prevent happening. It's the preventive action on your part which would be the cause of you remaining in unbelief, the unbelief itself would be merely a consequence of your preventitive action.

How does god WORK this way?, The PREVENTIVE action you talk about is a prevention of NOT believing in a superstition that is based on a near 2,000 year old fairytale.

So it's more accurate to say your preventive action (biblically called "suppression of truth") produces your damnation - because it is an act of wilfulness on your part.

The SUPPRESSION OF TRUTH occurs when a person believes in an entity that they cannot see, hear, or touch. To believe in some thing like this is also the SUPRESSION OF LOGIC

It is erroneous to compare humans to God. God gives life and, not intending that we would live as we are forever, is entitled to take it away when his purposes regarding us have been completed. We, on the other hand, don't give life and have no right to take it away from someone.

Total cop out, how convenient it is that god cannot be compared to us, or neither can he be explained by science.

Basis ownership rights apply here. Us taking a life is stealing, whereas God cannot steal that which belongs to him.

Then your god is NOT a benevolent god if this is the way he behaves, even if only for a fraction of the time, simple as.

The point of your public stripping would be to vindicate God's judgment before all - so that all can see he is just. In having you yourself declare your guilt, God is seen to be absolutely spot on. There are to be no secret trials or kangeroo courts.

Sod 'em admit nothing is the best job! if god supposedly created us he can answer for all the crimes of humanity, but anybody that uses true logic would know that a god did not create us.

He would be responsible for providing choice. He wouldn't be responsible for exercising that choice. Exercising that choice is what made humans have the nature they have. The question isn't who's to blame for that (Adam) the question you face is whether you want to be rid of it or not. If not then that's your decision. Not Adams. Not God's.

Oh dear, Adam and the Garden of Eden :rolleyes: not going to be drawn into that fairytale. Try again.

The chances of God existing cannot be calculated and so you sit 50/50 when it comes to the chances of the biblical God existing

50/50 on a book that is 2,000 years old? Come off it...:rolleyes:

The point is that the condemned will have ample opportunity to understand why they are being condemned. Because there will be no opportunity to lie and dodge - as one could in a earthly court, the person will tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Thus will their true motives be revealed fully to themselves. All the self-justification, all the denial, all the excuses we use to drown out the knowledge we have that we are doing wrong won't be there to mask things. We'll see ourselves for the vile creatures we actually are. Stark naked in front of the mirror, we will agree that condemnation is the due penalty for ones such as us.

Can I ask you how you know so much about how we are all going to be judged? Has an eyewitness told you?

I say 'us' but don't mean me. I won't be facing Judgement. You, if you continue on down this path to it's conclusion, will.

None of us face judgement, when you're dead you're dead, and do you know the best thing about it? you won't even know you're dead!

Case dismissed so.

Yes

Zillah

antiskeptic wrote: »

The chances of God existing cannot be calculated and so you sit 50/50 when it comes to the chances of the biblical God existing

Ahahahahahahahahaha

hahaha

ahahahahahahaha

Zillah

pbbffwahahahahahahaha

Sam Vimes

antiskeptic, do me a favour please. As far as I can see every one of your arguments in this area begins with "if god exists" or some variant that boils down to the same thing. This appears to be the only scenario you are considering.

What about the scenario that begins with "if god doesn't exist"? What happens to your reasoning then and more importantly, how does one determine that this is not the scenario we are in fact in?

antiskeptic

Sam Vimes wrote: »

But he hasn't turned up in Croke park and your logic doesn't work until he does because it all depends entirely on the assumption of god's existence.

You might have missed my goal.

Once you accept that God can demonstrate himself empirically in principle, you render knowing he exists by empirical demonstration & knowing he exists by personal revelation as equally valid.

So when an atheist says he'll believe "when God writes his name up in the sky (empiricism), he might as well say he'll believe when God appears by personal revelation - since process is irrelevant.

Likewise personal experience can only be said to be reliable once god's existence has been established and your logic for why it is reliable only works if you assume god exists. It doesn't make any sense

Because process (of whatever hue) is irrelevant when God turns up, so is it's reliability.

Sam Vimes

antiskeptic wrote: »

You might have missed my goal.

Once you accept that God can demonstrate himself empirically in principle, you render knowing he exists by empirical demonstration & knowing he exists by personal revelation as equally valid.

So when an atheist says he'll believe "when God writes his name up in the sky (empiricism), he might as well say he'll believe when God appears by personal revelation - since process is irrelevant.

Because process (of whatever hue) is irrelevant when God turns up, so is it's reliability.

The sentence "Once you accept that God can demonstrate himself empirically" is another way of saying "if god exists" since I can only accept that "if god exists" as is "Because process (of whatever hue) is irrelevant when God turns up" because god can only turn up "if he exists". Please respond to my above question

Zillah

antiskeptic wrote: »

Once you accept that God can demonstrate himself empirically in principle, you render knowing he exists by empirical demonstration & knowing he exists by personal revelation as equally valid.

So when an atheist says he'll believe "when God writes his name up in the sky (empiricism), he might as well say he'll believe when God appears by personal revelation - since process is irrelevant.

You...can't possibly think what you said makes sense. It's just not possible.

antiskeptic

Sam Vimes wrote: »

antiskeptic, do me a favour please. As far as I can see every one of your arguments in this area begins with "if god exists" or some variant that boils down to the same thing. This appears to be the only scenario you are considering.

What about the scenario that begins with "if god doesn't exist"? What happens to your reasoning then and more importantly, how does one determine that this is not the scenario we are in fact in?

Hopefully you'll agree that process isn't relevant to establishing the existance of God - indeed, to say 'we establish God exists' is an impossibility when it comes to God.

I use the terminology 'if God exists' not as a part of the argument but as a scene setting to indicate how the argument is framed. "If God turns up in Croke Park" unleashes the conclusion above regarding irrelevancy of process to someone who accepts that his so turning up would be an acceptable proof of his existance.

That scene setting is for your benefit - so that you can appreciate the argument. There is no 'if' in my mind - God might as well have turned up in front of 80,000 spectators as far as I'm concerned. Hopefully you'll appreciate the validity of my position now - even if you aren't convinced of Gods existance yourself. That will come at some point too - hopefully.

antiskeptic

Zillah wrote: »

You...can't possibly think what you said makes sense. It's just not possible.

You .. can't possibly think that what you said says anything substantial. It's just not possible.

antiskeptic

Sam Vimes wrote: »

The sentence "Once you accept that God can demonstrate himself empirically" is another way of saying "if god exists" since I can only accept that "if god exists" as is "Because process (of whatever hue) is irrelevant when God turns up" because god can only turn up "if he exists". Please respond to my above question

Whaaat??

Sam Vimes

antiskeptic wrote: »

Hopefully you'll agree that process isn't relevant to establishing the existance of God - indeed, to say 'we establish God exists' is an impossibility when it comes to God.

I use the terminology 'if God exists' not as a part of the argument but as a scene setting to indicate how the argument is framed. "If God turns up in Croke Park" unleashes the conclusion above regarding irrelevancy of process to someone who accepts that his so turning up would be an acceptable proof of his existance.

That scene setting is for your benefit - so that you can appreciate the argument. There is no 'if' in my mind - God might as well have turned up in front of 80,000 spectators as far as I'm concerned. Hopefully you'll appreciate the validity of my position now - even if you aren't convinced of Gods existance yourself. That will come at some point too - hopefully.

Right, so establishing that god exists is an impossibility. For me, for you, for everyone. The question of whether or not god exists will remain forever unanswered because of this. For me, for you, for everyone. I'm glad we've cleared that up.

antiskeptic

Patrickof wrote: »

If the chances of something existing cannot be calculated, then that is all we can say about those odds. It doesn't automatically become 50/50.

No. But in the face of saying nothing at all (which I'm equally happy with) or putting some figure on it 50/50 is all that can be said.

There is a lotto draw tonight. If I buy a ticket, I will either win the jackpot or I won't. Are you claiming that my odds would be 50/50?

No. There is information there that permits odds calculation other than 50/50. Not so with God

Sam Vimes

antiskeptic wrote: »

Whaaat??

God can only demonstrate himself empirically if he exists.

God can only show up in Croke park if he exists.

Both of those scenarios can only be accepted to be reasonable "if god exists". I want to know about the scenario that does not begin with "if god exists", i.e how we establish "if god exists", which you have just told me is an impossibility.

antiskeptic

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Right, so establishing that god exists is an impossibility.

I was under the impression that apart from solipsist considerations such as God in Croke Park actually being an alien in disguise, you'd accept that God could demonstrate himself empirically.

Are you now saying that he couldn't do this?

For me, for you, for everyone. The question of whether or not god exists will remain forever unknown because of this. For me, for you, for everyone. I'm glad we've cleared that up.

Am I detecting a desire to exit?

Sam Vimes

antiskeptic wrote: »

I was under the impression that apart from solipsist considerations such as God in Croke Park actually being an alien in disguise, you'd accept that God could demonstrate himself empirically.

Are you now saying that he couldn't do this?

He can do this only if he exists. I asked about the scenario that does not begin with this assumption

antiskeptic wrote: »

Am I detecting a desire to exit?

Nope, you've just acknowledged that it's impossible to ever know whether god exists or not. No desire to exit here

antiskeptic

Sam Vimes wrote: »

God can only demonstrate himself empirically if he exists. God can only show up in Croke park if he exists. Both of those scenarios can only be accepted to be reasonable "if god exists".

And the 'if he exists' is a scene setter, a logic statement. We can examine the various consequences of logic without worrying about whether it's true in fact or not.

I want to know about the scenario that does not begin with "if god exists", i.e how we establish "if god exists", which you have just told me is an impossibility.

I'm not sure what you mean Sam. The logical conclusion from the argument is that we cannot establish God exists (in the sense of independently applying a process to the question). Which doesn't mean we can't know that God exists - it only takes God to move.

antiskeptic

Sam Vimes wrote: »

He can do this only if he exists. I asked about the scenario that does not begin with this assumption

See above. If he does then such and such are the consequences. Chief of which in this discussion is that process is irrelevant.

Nope, you've just acknowledged that it's impossible to ever know whether god exists or not. No desire to exit here

See above. Impossible to independently establish.

Sam Vimes

antiskeptic wrote: »

And the 'if he exists' is a scene setter, a logic statement. We can examine the various consequences of logic without worrying about whether it's true in fact or not.

I'm not sure what you mean Sam. The logical conclusion from the argument is that we cannot establish God exists (in the sense of independently applying a process to the question). Which doesn't mean we can't know that God exists - it only takes God to move.

god can only move if he exists. That is what you do in this forum over and over. You begin with the assumption that god exists and then spend days and days examining the various consequences of logic without worrying about whether it's true in fact or not, which is the only thing that the people you are talking to are concerned with

I am asking you what happens to your logic if it does not begin with "if god exists", if we do worry about whether it's true in fact or not. And I am asking because the whole thing falls apart. It's nothing but a baseless assumption that god exists and some logic built on this baseless assumption.

robindch

antiskeptic wrote: »

And the 'if he exists' is a scene setter, a logic statement. We can examine the various consequences of logic without worrying about whether it's true in fact or not.

antiskeptic - a serious question here.

Do you actually believe that what you're writing is logical?

antiskeptic

Sam Vimes wrote: »

god can only move if he exists. That is what you do in this forum over and over. You begin with the assumption that god exists and then spend days and days examining the various consequences of logic without worrying about whether it's true in fact or not, which is the only thing that the people you are talking to are concerned with

I'm happy enough to leave you with the logical conclusions that arise 'if he exists'. The truths arise from that logic (eg: that process is irrelevant) are sufficient to still the claim that personal revelation isn't as valid a means as empiricism in the case that God would reveal himself

I am asking you what happens to your logic if it does not begin with "if god exists", if we do worry about whether it's true in fact or not. And I am asking because the whole thing falls apart. It's nothing but a baseless assumption that god exists and some logic built on this baseless assumption.

Again you misconstrue the place of 'if God exists'. That is there for your benefit (so that you can examine the logic) not mine. When you suggest I consider "If God doesn't exist" you might as well suggest I consider "If this reality isn't real". Next stop solipsism. Which is useless.