Atheism/Existence of God Debates (Please Read OP)

Zombrex

philologos wrote: »

It can do.

If it is not necessary that I feel like I'm in a lake of burning fire simply because I've rejected God what is the purpose of making me feel like I am?

philologos wrote: »

Doing what is wrong can induce guilt.

Yes but there are reasons why humans feel guilt over certain things and not others. This stuff isn't just randomly picked, it isn't random that slapping a child makes you feel guilty but walking to work instead of taking the car doesn't.

Rejecting God would just randomly make someone feel like they are in a lake of fire.

philologos

One can very easily suppress their consciences if they consistently ignore them. For some time I could relate to this. Indeed, the strongest such occurrence of this can happen if one actively refuses to acknowledge that something in their lives is wrong.

John 3:19-21 wrote:

And this is the judgement: the light has come into the world, and people loved the darkness rather than the light because their works were evil. For everyone who does wicked things hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his works should be exposed. But whoever does what is true comes to the light, so that it may be clearly seen that his works have been carried out in God.”

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

No, you will only feel like you're in a lake of fire when God removes the wilful distortion by which you have avoided looking at your own moral nature. Once that comfort blanket is taken away from you, then you face reality.

And reality is that I will feel like I'm burning in a lake of fire? So God is currently distorting reality? Doesn't that make this reality though?

Why is that the case that true reality will feel like I'm burning in a lake of fire? It doesn't seem a requirement, I'm not feeling like that now. You say that this is because God is doing something, distorting reality, but then doesn't everything require God to do something since all reality is his creation and his will? I don't see a difference between him deciding it won't feel like this and him deciding it will feel like this.

PDN wrote: »

(And I genuinely hope you never find yourself in that position. I would be very glad to be wrong on this point.)

Don't worry, I'm surpremely confident I never will.

Zombrex

philologos wrote: »

One can very easily suppress their consciences if they consistently ignore them.

That is not really relevant to my point, which was that what we feel guilty over is not simply randomly picked, nor is for that matter what the feeling of guilt is. There is biological reasons why guilt doesn't feel like being licked by puppies. It goes a bit beyond simply guilt is not cuddly.

PDN

Zombrex wrote: »

Don't worry, I'm surpremely confident I never will.

Ah yes, that 'agnostic' atheism we keep hearing about.

PDN

Zombrex wrote: »

That is not really relevant to my point, which was that what we feel guilty over is not simply randomly picked, nor is for that matter what the feeling of guilt is. There is biological reasons why guilt doesn't feel like being licked by puppies. It goes a bit beyond simply guilt is not cuddly.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question

philologos

tommy2bad wrote: »

"Jesus has authority to forgive sins"
Ahh I get you. Agreed.
Was wondering if by authority you were implying the right to punish and then how just can that be if the punishment is permanent for a temporary transgression. If Jesus/God is redemptive then how dose that square with eternal damnation but as you didn't go their neither will I

Jesus came in the first instance to save:

John 3:17 wrote:

For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through Him.

When Jesus returns He'll come back in judgement. There's quite a few passages that suggest this. 2 Corinthians 5 is one example.

By the by, why are you OK to think that Jesus has the authority to save, but not to judge the world? If Jesus is God Himself, it should be more than reasonable to believe this much.

If we're happy to accept that God is redemptive, what does He save people from?

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

Ah yes, that 'agnostic' atheism we keep hearing about.

I'm guessing you are being sarcastic, in which cause I think you need to revisit what "agnostic" means. :P

PDN wrote: »

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question

I'm aware what begging the question means, but I'm not sure exactly what you think is being assumed in my post to Phil. Are you challenging the idea that there are biological and evolutionary reasons why we find some things produce guilt and others don't?

PDN

Zombrex wrote: »

I'm aware what begging the question means, but I'm not sure exactly what you think is being assumed in my post to Phil. Are you challenging the idea that there are biological and evolutionary reasons why we find some things produce guilt and others don't?

What you are assuming is that guilt must be explained in terms you can understand (eg evolved response) rather than being the correct response to something that is objectively bad. Take that assumption away and your arguments have no force whatsoever. Therefore, by advancing them in a thread about the existence of God to argue against the Christian concepts of God and objective morality is to beg the question.

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

What you are assuming is that guilt must be explained in terms you can understand (eg evolved response) rather than being the correct response to something that is objectively bad.

I'm assuming that, if God exists, there is a reason why something is or happens, that it is not simply arbitrary, yes. Are you saying this is not the case?

PDN wrote: »

Take that assumption away and your arguments have no force whatsoever.

So it is extremely painful to be in the presence of God while facing your sin just cause? It just is? That is your position?

PDN wrote: »

Therefore, by advancing them in a thread about the existence of God to argue against the Christian concepts of God and objective morality is to beg the question.

I wasn't aware that this was the Christian position. I didn't think Christian believed that anything other than God's exists just was, arbitrary without reason.

Bit of bad luck isn't it, I mean it could have been like being licked by puppies but it happened not to be. Shoot.

PDN

Zombrex wrote: »

I'm assuming that, if God exists, there is a reason why something is or happens, that it is not simply arbitrary, yes. Are you saying this is not the case?

There are reasons, but they certainly cannot be expected to be limited to your or my understanding.

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

There are reasons, but they certainly cannot be expected to be limited to your or my understanding.

Ok ... can you attempt to detail what those reasons are?

PDN

Zombrex wrote: »

Ok ... can you attempt to detail what those reasons are?

No, not if they are beyond my understanding. But I'm glad that I live in a universe where right and wrong exist as absolute concepts.

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

No, not if they are beyond my understanding.

So there is a reason why sin is not cuddly and a reason why being the presence of God for those who reject him feel like being in a lake of fire?

But you don't know what those reasons are and you don't think we can know.

Would it be safe to say that what ever the reason is it comes from God, that it is not just the way things are?

PDN

Zombrex wrote: »

So there is a reason why sin is not cuddly and a reason why being the presence of God for those who reject him feel like being in a lake of fire?

But you don't know what those reasons are and you don't think we can know.

Would it be safe to say that what ever the reason is it comes from God, that it is not just the way things are?

I said that I don't know. And, since I don't claim to be omniscient, I'm happy to live in a universe where there are lots of things I don't know.

I didn't say whether we can know or not. Nor did I say whether it is, or is not, just the way things are. I said that I don't know. Wouldn't it be easier to accept that statement at face value, rather than imputing thins to me that I didn't say?

tommy2bad

Licked by puppies sounds nice unless you despise puppies. The only thing God will offer is love and your reaction to that will determine the suffering you feel.
Lots of stuff for me to think about from PDN and philologos, I'l do some soul searching and rationalizing to see where that leaves me.
I still wonder if we can claim an objective morality and have God judge it, I would understand if we used the phrase the measure of morality but using legal terms like judgment and punishment makes it seem that god is subject to some law same as us. Again if so then not God.
As for the cast into eternal flames thing, sounds like some revenge fantasy or bluster to gee up the troops more than it sounds like the work of a loving God.
The trouble with our definitions of what will happen at 'judgment day' is it's based on what we would like but depends on what God is like.
BTW do we think sin is a patina on a essentially good world or is it rotten to the core?

philologos

The question is are we claiming anything as if it has to be claimed into existence, or does objective morality already exist in the world as a real and active force?

I don't see why judgement or punishment creates such confusion. If God is the Creator of the world, surely it is reasonable to suggest that He has ultimate control concerning it. As a result He's more than free to provide ethical standards that we should live by in His Creation, and judge according to those standards?

As for sin, I'd hold on the principle that our rebellion and sin against God has caused an essentially good world to fall into decay and destruction.

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

I said that I don't know. And, since I don't claim to be omniscient, I'm happy to live in a universe where there are lots of things I don't know.

How would it not come from God, in Christian theology? Are there examples of other things that don't come from God?

PDN wrote: »

I didn't say whether we can know or not.

You said you cannot explain them if they are beyond your understanding. I took that to mean that you believe some reasons are beyond our understanding, which would imply that we cannot know what they are, since how can you know something you cannot understand?

PDN wrote: »

Nor did I say whether it is, or is not, just the way things are. I said that I don't know.

No actually what you said "there are reasons", in response to a question where I asked are there reasons or is it arbitrary.

PDN wrote: »

Wouldn't it be easier to accept that statement at face value, rather than imputing thins to me that I didn't say?

I am taking what you say on face value, which is where I think the confusion is coming from.

Zombrex

tommy2bad wrote: »

Licked by puppies sounds nice unless you despise puppies. The only thing God will offer is love and your reaction to that will determine the suffering you feel.

That doesn't make much sense. How do I determine what level of suffering I feel? I didn't think in Christian theology humans were considered powerful enough to determine or change the nature of reality.

tommy2bad wrote: »

As for the cast into eternal flames thing, sounds like some revenge fantasy or bluster to gee up the troops more than it sounds like the work of a loving God.

Sounds like a cult leader trying to get his followers to see how it is important it is to follow him. Not an uncommon tactic for cults. Jesus would have had to step it up compared to the more traditional notion of hell in Judaism, a place of temporary suffering for immoral people, more like a traditional prison sentence where someone is purified than the unending torture of Christian hell.

http://judaism.about.com/od/judaismbasics/a/Afterlife-In-Judaism-Jewish-Beliefs.htm

Zombrex

philologos wrote: »

The question is are we claiming anything as if it has to be claimed into existence, or does objective morality already exist in the world as a real and active force?

That isn't my question. My question is why would being the presence of God and viewing your own sin cause a reaction where a person either does or simply feels like they are suffering in a lake of fire for eternity? Why would it cause that reaction rather than any other reaction (for example why does it not cause you to feel the mild annoyance of having wet socks).

Saying because objective morality exists (not saying you are saying that) isn't an answer to that question.

philologos wrote: »

I don't see why judgement or punishment creates such confusion. If God is the Creator of the world, surely it is reasonable to suggest that He has ultimate control concerning it.

That is what I would have thought, but when that was suggested it was some what rejected by some of your fellow Christians. People didn't seem to like the idea that God would decide that what would happen when you view your own sin was that you would feel like you were suffering torture in a lake of fire, as opposed to anything else.

The impression I got was that people preferred to view this as simply what happens, that it is an inevitable consequence of your actions, not something God just decides to do for the heck of it.

philologos wrote: »

As for sin, I'd hold on the principle that our rebellion and sin against God has caused an essentially good world to fall into decay and destruction.

Caused through what process? How do we cause reality to change?

PDN

Zombrex wrote: »

How would it not come from God, in Christian theology? Are there examples of other things that don't come from God?



You said you cannot explain them if they are beyond your understanding. I took that to mean that you believe some reasons are beyond our understanding, which would imply that we cannot know what they are, since how can you know something you cannot understand?



No actually what you said "there are reasons", in response to a question where I asked are there reasons or is it arbitrary.



I am taking what you say on face value, which is where I think the confusion is coming from.

I've told you that I don't know. If you want to nitpick a semantic argument then I'm afraid you'll have to try it with someone else. I really can't be bothered with another round of that kind of tomfoolery.

I tried to help you understand some Christian views on hell, based on my impression that you were interested in discussing that topic.

tommy2bad

Zombrex wrote: »

That isn't my question. My question is why would being the presence of God and viewing your own sin cause a reaction where a person either does or simply feels like they are suffering in a lake of fire for eternity? Why would it cause that reaction rather than any other reaction (for example why does it not cause you to feel the mild annoyance of having wet socks).

Saying because objective morality exists (not saying you are saying that) isn't an answer to that question.



That is what I would have thought, but when that was suggested it was some what rejected by some of your fellow Christians. People didn't seem to like the idea that God would decide that what would happen when you view your own sin was that you would feel like you were suffering torture in a lake of fire, as opposed to anything else.

The impression I got was that people preferred to view this as simply what happens, that it is an inevitable consequence of your actions, not something God just decides to do for the heck of it.



Caused through what process? How do we cause reality to change?

Correct imnsho, it's a consequence not a judgment.
We don't, what happens is we act in accordance or not. Reality doesn't have to change, we do. Its us and thereby the world thats redeemed.

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

I've told you that I don't know.

You eventually told me you didn't know PDN. And the amount you don't know seems to have increased as the discussion went on. How can you ask am I interested in seriously discussing the topic when you enter into discussion and then just start saying you don't know to everything. Frankly if you don't know any of the answers to my questions I'm not sure why you were bothering entering this discussion in the first place.

If you had said you didn't know instead of this post and this post which gave the impression you did know the answers to my question, you would have saved a significant amount of time, I wouldn't have bothered going this far if all I was eventually going to get out of you is a long series of I don't know responses... this increases my understanding of hell how exactly? :rolleyes:

Zombrex

tommy2bad wrote: »

Correct imnsho, it's a consequence not a judgment.

Yes but what or who decides what the consequence will be?

Mohandas

Zombrex wrote: »

Don't worry, I'm surpremely confident I never will.

Yet you cannot know a supreme infinite spirit does not exist in the incomprehensible vastness of realms and dimensions we know nothing about, so I'm curious why would one would bet eternal life on such a tenuous possibility with such absolute certainty ? Physical Science is beautiful, but you won't find God under a microscope or in a test tube.

Zombrex

Mohandas wrote: »

Yet you cannot know a supreme infinite spirit does not exist in the incomprehensible vastness of realms and dimensions we know nothing about, so I'm curious why would one would bet eternal life on such a tenuous possibility with such absolute certainty ?

Well I don't view it as betting eternal life, but if I did doesn't that seem like the safest bet, given that there are a huge number of possible gods that could exist and most of them according to humans don't take kindly to you worshipping the wrong god. Better to worship no god it would seem, as while that might still displease the deity it seems not as much as worshipping another god would.

Mohandas

Zombrex wrote: »

Well I don't view it as betting eternal life, but if I did doesn't that seem like the safest bet, given that there are a huge number of possible gods that could exist and most of them according to humans don't take kindly to you worshipping the wrong god. Better to worship no god it would seem, as while that might still displease the deity it seems not as much as worshipping another god would.

One 'God' or eternal infinite spirit, it has many human understandings, you may dismiss these understandings, but it does not mean it (God) will cease to exist, or that you are not eternal in some form. Energy cannot be created or destroyed.

tommy2bad

Zombrex wrote: »

Yes but what or who decides what the consequence will be?

Again I have to fall back on the idea that the consequence are of your choosing as it your choices that lead to them. What the consequences are is a property of God not a decision.
Best I can do for now.
I don't have a fully developed theology just some notions and pondering. I cant take all of the theology that I hear because it leads to too many contradictions.

Anyway why even consider hell, we were made for better things.

Andrewf20

philologos wrote: »

There's nothing special about belief at all.

Then what are we arguing about? Belief vs non belief is the core of these discussions. As I said earlier, why then does the bible suggest I must believe to be saved?

philologos wrote: »

Bear in mind, I have already said that I fully deserve to be condemned and to be in hell. However I have acknowledged that Jesus has taken away my sin on the cross. I love and serve God in response to His amazing grace.

He may have taken away your sin but what about your responsibility? I cannot see why you feel you deserve to be condemned to hell. A Hitler type maybe.

philologos wrote: »

If you elect to separate yourself from God, which is sin. Then you will be condemned and separated from Him for all eternity. If you repent of your sin and come to accept God.

What do you mean by separate from God? Is this a question of belief or is in relation to our actions?

philologos wrote: »

I don't agree that there is no tangible evidence for God's existence. We discussed earlier in this thread, that morality as a concept makes little sense without an objective law giver. The Resurrection makes logical sense given the early history of the Christian church. There's plenty of archaeology to back up the Bible. God has given us a heck of a lot actually. We can look to His word, and look at the world around us. I find such a comparison makes His existence more evident than less. There's an abundance of evidence from my perspective.

Roughly 70% of the worlds population are not Christian according to wiki. If the evidence was clear and abundant, they why do you feel is it not endorsed world wide as the one true religion?

philologos wrote: »

It's entirely fair. What is moral is what is good under God's standard. What is immoral is what is evil under God's standard.
If you have lived in contempt of God's standard, He has the right to punish. Much as the State authorities have the right to punish on the basis of you murdering someone.

But again, back to a point I made earlier, is it fair for a moral and ethical person but who cannot bring themselves to believe in a higher power to be punished like a genocidal dictator? I know people who are great parents, who wouldn’t try to harm anybody, who would do anything to help others and do charitable work including organising events to help those less fortunate from time to time, yet they don’t have a religious side. To imply they are condemned to hell really disturbs me.

philologos wrote: »

Again, why don't atheists consider this a possibility? They always speak in terms of what will happen if I reject God. What would happen if you accepted Him, and lived for Him?

I think most atheists consider any possibility but eventually come to a certain conclusion as they see it, based on the information thats available to them. Any debate with Hitchens vs Turek types for example will clarify that even the people who have researched and picked thru this stuff with a fine tooth comb can come to completely opposing conclusions. Why do you think this is?

lmaopml

Zombrex wrote: »

The Bible does not describe a respectful separation from God. It describes God throwing sinners into a lake of fire to suffer torture for eternity as a punishment for they have done in this life.

What is it with modern Christians trying to soften what hell is actually described as? Surely that is an admission that even you guys think this concept is nonsense.

Sorry Zombrex, I had to go out to a fair today with the kids and just dipped in and out of the conversation. Seems that PDN and Phil have given you the answers you were looking for - I was describing salvation using imagery earlier when interested in what Tommy was saying, so I think you may have misunderstood, I wasn't speaking about actual conditions in Hell as such - I haven't been there myself.

What Hell is described as in Scripture may not be completely comprehensible to us now, imagery is often used in Scripture I'm sure you are aware, and often times it has been depicted in Art etc. that possibly rouses notions which it is meant to do, but not as an actual 'fact' about a 'place' like we understand 'place' - what we do know is that God is Holy and nothing unholy can exist in his presence, his presence is described in Scripture as a consuming fire.

The EO tradition is not so far off the Western understanding - Hell is not being with God. Hell is where God is not, it's a state of being that is so distant that goodness doesn't penetrate it. Everything about God is good and perfect, his judgement and indeed mercy too - however nobody can approach him without being Holy. Sin is not Holy - Jesus came to save man from himself, from sin. This was an act of mercy and love, an invitation to take his outstretched hand and let him guide the way.