Atheism/Existence of God Debates (Please Read OP)

ISAW · 18-03-2012 5:12pm

Zombrex wrote: »

So it is God's nature that those who reject him must suffering eternal torment? How does that work, seems some what arbitrary.

Could it have been that those who reject him must suffer a good rest on a fluffy pillows, that just wasn't the way it was?

this is dealt with in earlier comments on faith and reason
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/speeches/2006/september/documents/hf_ben-xvi_spe_20060912_university-regensburg_en.html
the christian god is assumed to be reasonable and not someone who is happy with evil.

God made the sinner though, and thus one would think how the sinner experiences reality, be it here or in hell, is determined by the way God made him.

dealt with under theodicity Leibnitz and the problem of evil.
You cant blame the gun manufacturer if someone robs a bank with the gun.

Using an example from this world, we experience pain due to fire in a particular manner. Other animals experience it differently, depending on how they were made.

It would seem reasonable to conclude that the same principle applies to everything else, including what it feels like to be in the absence of God.

I suppose it is reasonable to say different people will experience the absence of god in different ways. so what?

ISAW · 18-03-2012 5:15pm

Zombrex wrote: »

Well that is a logical paradox. I'm not sure making it so that in the absence of God you feel nothing but mild annoyance, or feel a strange sensation in your

and I have n way if you are thirsty if your thirst is the same ans anyone elses. But i believe it is; and I know it is because of the absence of water. whether or not your thirst might feel different isnt really an issue.

Zombrex · 18-03-2012 7:05pm

tommy2bad wrote: »

OK so your saying that we are made to feel guilt but don't see why God would make us that way? Or just asking why burning as manifestation of that guilt?

Both but mainly the second one, why does it manifest itself in this way.

tommy2bad wrote: »

I guess the blushing associated with guilt or embarrassment was used to exaggeration as the original metaphor. Coupled with burning as the destruction of rubbish it makes a good image.

It makes a good image if you are trying to get people to join your cult, but that explanation makes less sense in the context of this being something that actually happens.

Zombrex · 18-03-2012 7:14pm

ISAW wrote: »

this is dealt with in earlier comments on faith and reason
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/speeches/2006/september/documents/hf_ben-xvi_spe_20060912_university-regensburg_en.html
the christian god is assumed to be reasonable and not someone who is happy with evil.

And making it so that those who disobey him experience unending torture for all eternity is his expression of not being happy?

ISAW wrote: »

dealt with under theodicity Leibnitz and the problem of evil.
You cant blame the gun manufacturer if someone robs a bank with the gun.

That analogy isn't relevant to the question. The question is what determines that we suffer unending torture without the presence of God.

You seem to have answered that above, God does because he is unhappy with us if we disobey him, and this unhappiness results in him making us so that we suffer unending torture if we are absent of his presence.

Sort of like an inbuilt kill switch, if we disobey God he has made it so that we will suffer for all eternity.

ISAW wrote: »

I suppose it is reasonable to say different people will experience the absence of god in different ways. so what?

So there is no fixed requirement that we must experience absence of God in the manner of a lake fire causing unending suffering. That is a choice God made when he designed us.

Would you agree?

Zombrex · 18-03-2012 7:17pm

ISAW wrote: »

and I have n way if you are thirsty if your thirst is the same ans anyone elses. But i believe it is; and I know it is because of the absence of water. whether or not your thirst might feel different isnt really an issue.

That is not relevant to the point. I'm not talking about how it is compared to other people, I'm talking about how it must be.

There seems to be no reason to assume that it must be that in the absence of God humans will experience that as unending torture.

As your post implied this is something God has decided for us, because it makes him unhappy if we disobey him and that unhappiness manifests itself in, it would seem, a desire to make us suffer if he is unhappy with us.

If it didn't manifest itself that way then God would not desire for us to suffer and our experience of his absence could be entirely different.

ISAW · 18-03-2012 7:46pm

Zombrex wrote: »

And making it so that those who disobey him experience unending torture for all eternity is his expression of not being happy?

If you jump off a building you wll eventually hit the ground. Are the laws of physics to blame for that?

That analogy isn't relevant to the question. The question is what determines that we suffer unending torture without the presence of God.

If you mean who decided it the point is that some theologists would argue you decide it yourself. the question is circular reasoning since the absence of God is by definition unending torture.

You seem to have answered that above, God does because he is unhappy with us if we disobey him, and this unhappiness results in him making us so that we suffer unending torture if we are absent of his presence.

the point is we chose to run away from God. that is our fault not gods. And not being with god is by definition hell.

Sort of like an inbuilt kill switch, if we disobey God he has made it so that we will suffer for all eternity.

More like if we reject god we suffer. Just like if we reject water we get thirsty. you cant blame the water.

So there is no fixed requirement that we must experience absence of God in the manner of a lake fire causing unending suffering. That is a choice God made when he designed us.

If you mean it is predestined most Christians would not think so. that again is another free will problem also referred to earlier (and i think also mentioning Leibnitz)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_evil

Would you agree?

Personally not necessarily. But i am reflecting the viewpoint of theologists not my own.
they dont agree either.

tommy2bad · 18-03-2012 8:02pm

Zombrex wrote: »

Both but mainly the second one, why does it manifest itself in this way.
The first one is easy, because God made us in His image

It makes a good image if you are trying to get people to join your cult, but that explanation makes less sense in the context of this being something that actually happens.

What actually happens is not known, what is known is its something to be avoided. Imagery is used to get this point across (and keep the converts on the straight and narrow, it wouldn't be a good recruiting tool when you tell them their sinners to start )
I 'll be as surprised as you if any of this turns out to be true tbh, I think its all just guessing and spoofing to emphasis how worthwhile gaining Gods presence is.

ISAW · 18-03-2012 8:37pm

Zombrex wrote: »

That is not relevant to the point. I'm not talking about how it is compared to other people, I'm talking about how it must be.

Oh so suddenly you believe in objective absolutes ?

There seems to be no reason to assume that it must be that in the absence of God humans will experience that as unending torture.

Unless of course you define unending torture as the absence f god.
which is were i began.
Hell is looked upon by sole theologians as the absence of god and choosing not to be with god is what people do of their own free will.

As your post implied this is something God has decided for us, because it makes him unhappy if we disobey him and that unhappiness manifests itself in, it would seem, a desire to make us suffer if he is unhappy with us.

I never implied that at all!
I never suggested predestination.
And I ddinyt suggest god punishes us so much as we punish ourselves.
If you dont dring you get thirsty.
that is not the fault of the water.

If it didn't manifest itself that way then God would not desire for us to suffer and our experience of his absence could be entirely different.

But the theologians would say God does not desire us to suffer in the first place.
Aside: Although there can be a point or a meaning in suffering Christianity isnt a hedonist philosophy.

the point is a tautology. Absence of God is the definition of hell.

Zombrex · 18-03-2012 10:00pm

ISAW wrote: »

If you jump off a building you wll eventually hit the ground. Are the laws of physics to blame for that?

I'm not quite sure what you mean by "blame", but if you are asking what causes you to fall downwards, as opposed to upwards or sideways when you jump off a building then yes, obviously it is the laws of physics and who ever determined them, which in the Christian context would be God.

Unless you some how think the law of gravity transcends God himself?

ISAW wrote: »

If you mean who decided it the point is that some theologists would argue you decide it yourself. the question is circular reasoning since the absence of God is by definition unending torture.

I'm not sure what you mean. How is it by definition unending torture?

I accept that Christians believe it is unending torture, but there seems to be little reason given so far why it has to be. Certainly not by definition.

ISAW wrote: »

More like if we reject god we suffer. Just like if we reject water we get thirsty. you cant blame the water.

No but you can blame who ever created this body to require water, particularly if they could have made it so we didn't.

Who decided that rejecting god would cause us to suffer? Logically it seems the only answer to that question is God. Did he have to do this? I can't see any reason why. It again seems logical to conclude that he did so because he wanted it to be that way.

ISAW wrote: »

If you mean it is predestined most Christians would not think so. that again is another free will problem also referred to earlier (and i think also mentioning Leibnitz)

No, it has nothing to do with predestination or free will. It is how we are made. We were made so that in the absence of God we suffer tortuous pain.

Think of it this way, you are making a robot that can suffer and feel pain. For some reason you decide that you will make the robot so that when ever the sun shines on him he will feel terrible terrible pain. You could have made him so that sun shine has no effect on him at all, but you didn't.

The first question I think anyone else would ask you is why did you do that, or why would you want to do that?

Stating that the robot can always choose simply not to go into the sun would not answer that question. (I bring up the last point because some how people think constantly explaining to me that we have a choice to take God's offer of salvation and avoid the torture of hell, explains why God decided to make it torturous in the first place).

ISAW wrote: »

Personally not necessarily. But i am reflecting the viewpoint of theologists not my own.
they dont agree either.

Well you know how much respect I have for the views of theologists ... :pac:

ISAW wrote: »

Oh so suddenly you believe in objective absolutes ?

I don't believe in any of this. But my understanding of Christian belief in God is that God is not bound by anything higher or external to him. He is bound to be as he is (ie his nature) and he cannot create pardoxies (he cannot make a stone he cannot move). But beyond that he has absolute authority over creation.

So it seems some what nonsensical to suggestion (not saying you have) that God has to make us so that we suffer tortuous pain in his absence or when we are faced with is judgement.

It seems only logical that this was something God choose to be.

ISAW wrote: »

Unless of course you define unending torture as the absence f god.
which is were i began.

I don't think defining that would have any effect on whether it is or not. I could define sleeping in a warm bed as unending torture, doesn't mean that everyone in a warm bed suddenly starts experiencing pain.

ISAW wrote: »

Hell is looked upon by sole theologians as the absence of god and choosing not to be with god is what people do of their own free will.

Great, but that isn't the question. The question is why would that produce experience of unending suffering.

ISAW wrote: »

I never implied that at all!
I never suggested predestination.

I've no idea where you think predestination falls in all this. Surely God decided what humans would be like once at the dawn of creation?

At some point at or before the moment of creation God decided "I'm going to make humans and I'm going to make them in such a way that they need water to survive, that they won't be able to breath without oxygen and when they are not in my presence they will suffer incredible tortuous pain as if they were being burned alive"

He could have said, one imagines, that they will breath carbon dioxide, that they will have gills and that when they are not in my presence they will fill a small itching sensation.

Or any number of infinite other combinations.

As for what you implied you implied that because God is unhappy with evil he choose the unending torture design, presumably because when God is unhappy with something he wants it to suffer unimaginable pain for eternity.

ISAW wrote: »

But the theologians would say God does not desire us to suffer in the first place.

Then why make it that we would in his absence, knowing that many people would end up in his absence?

Again look at the analogy with making a robot that will suffer in sunlight, knowing that the robot may end up in sunlight and suffer.

lmaopml · 19-03-2012 12:58am

Zombrex wrote: »

No but you can blame who ever created this body to require water, particularly if they could have made it so we didn't.

Who decided that rejecting god would cause us to suffer? Logically it seems the only answer to that question is God. Did he have to do this? I can't see any reason why. It again seemNo, it has nothing to do with predestination or free will. It is how we are made. We were made so that in the absence of God we suffer tortuous pain.

You have your 'being' through God to experience everything. That is a Christian understanding. You can choose right, wrong, good, bad, acceptance, rejection - all these things you can choose.

It seems only logical that this was something God choose to be.

God doesn't choose to 'be' or not 'be'.

At some point at or before the moment of creation God decided "I'm going to make humans and I'm going to make them in such a way that they need water to survive, that they won't be able to breath without oxygen and when they are not in my presence they will suffer incredible tortuous pain as if they were being burned alive"

Have you got a problem with being what you are? That is alive, well, with an ego, with choices - capable of arguement, discussion etc?

He could have said, one imagines, that they will breath carbon dioxide, that they will have gills and that when they are not in my presence they will fill a small itching sensation.

Well, maybe you could recommend this to him when you meet - I'm quite sure he takes delight in Zombrex at times.

Or any number of infinite other combinations.

You can enumerate them.

As for what you implied you implied that because God is unhappy with evil he choose the unending torture design, presumably because when God is unhappy with something he wants it to suffer unimaginable pain for eternity.

Clearly when God gave his only son, after sending numerous prophets, he didn't 'choose' who should die of sin or who should not die in sin, but gave instruction, he clearly gave that choice over to those whom he gave free choice to know him, even to seek him out..

Then why make it that we would in his absence, knowing that many people would end up in his absence?

You said 'we'..Why? You are not an automaton, you weren't created that way.

Again look at the analogy with making a robot that will suffer in sunlight, knowing that the robot may end up in sunlight and suffer.

A Robot doesn't have the choice of venturing into light or darkness - humans are not robots - Unless you would like to convince otherwise?

And if you were made an automaton, which you seem to think works much better, with no free will to choose between one thing or another for your safety, interest, choice to love or not, with an intellect, with an ego etc., than he could have spared himself a heck of a lot of criticism - but he decided not to create that way. Oh well, he must love complainers too..

Zombrex · 19-03-2012 11:22am

lmaopml wrote: »

You have your 'being' through God to experience everything. That is a Christian understanding. You can choose right, wrong, good, bad, acceptance, rejection - all these things you can choose.

You don't choose though how you experience them. I don't choose what happens to my skin when I am in a fire, I don't choose what happens to my lungs when I am under water. I don't choose what happens to organs when I do not have enough water to drink.

lmaopml wrote: »

God doesn't choose to 'be' or not 'be'.

You miss read. God choose what will be and what won't be. We are oxygen breathers not nitrogen breathers. God choose that as the way it will be.

lmaopml wrote: »

Have you got a problem with being what you are? That is alive, well, with an ego, with choices - capable of arguement, discussion etc?

Personally no, since I believe that I evolved from previous generations through a blind process of natural evolution.

If I thought I was actually made and designed I would have an issue, much as how the robot might take issue with you making it so that when he is in sun light he feels unending pain.

I think there are two conclusions to draw, 1) God didn't make us 2) God purposefully made us badly. The first seems the most likely to my mind. The excuse that we should be grateful he made us at all is to my mind a cop out, particularly since it means the act of creation cannot then imply benevolence (would you be grateful if a god made you simply so he could watch you suffer?)

lmaopml wrote: »

You can enumerate them.

Not really, given that God has infinite knowledge and power. One assumes then that there was an infinite number of ways he could have made us and the universe we live in.

lmaopml wrote: »

Clearly when God gave his only son, after sending numerous prophets, he didn't 'choose' who should die of sin or who should not die in sin, but gave instruction, he clearly gave that choice over to those whom he gave free choice to know him, even to seek him out..

That isn't particularly relevant to the issue though. God wouldn't have needed to send his only son in the first place if he had not set things up the way he had at the moment of creation.

If you make a robot (with free will) who feels unending suffering in sunlight, and then when he is going around the place you give him an umbrella and say this will help you, I'm pretty sure a valid question the robot might ask is rather than give me an umbrella if you didn't want me to suffer in sunlight why did you make it so that I would.

As an aside, if hell is us choosing to reject God then what does Jesus' sacrifice do? Jesus' sacrifice only makes sense if without it God would have to throw everyone into hell, those who choose to reject God and those who didn't. Therefore hell cannot simply be a place where those who choose to reject God go. It must be a place you are sent to be punished, otherwise Jesus would be unnecessary.

lmaopml wrote: »

You said 'we'..Why? You are not an automaton, you weren't created that way.

"We" as in all humans. All of us will experience unending suffering if we reject God and he moves away from us. Is that not correct?

lmaopml wrote: »

A Robot doesn't have the choice of venturing into light or darkness - humans are not robots - Unless you would like to convince otherwise?

Assume this one does, he has total free will. Doesn't change the point of the story, but if it makes it easier for you to understand.

You create a robot with total free will, sentience and the ability to feel pain. Most of things you design him to feel pain over are thinks that might physically damage him, so he feels pain if he rusts or if he gets too hot.

But then you decide to create him so that when he is in sunlight he feels pain, despite that serving no practical purpose. Sunlight does not physically harm him in anyway so it is not a warning system to avoid damage as most physical pain is in humans.

Do you not think the first question the robot might ask is why did you create me to suffer pain when in sunlight? Do you not think your scientific colleagues might ask the same question, why create something to suffer pain without there being practical safety need to avoid the thing that triggers the pain?

Do you think it would reasonable for you to reply "Oh stop complaining, I gave you life didn't I, I could have simply not invented you, stop asking questions why I made you one way or another way?"

ISAW · 19-03-2012 2:11pm

Zombrex wrote: »

I'm not quite sure what you mean by "blame", but if you are asking what causes you to fall downwards, as opposed to upwards or sideways when you jump off a building then yes, obviously it is the laws of physics and who ever determined them, which in the Christian context would be God.

Okay then so let us assume god created the laws of physics. If you jump off a building and god does not temporarily change the laws of physics is it Gods fault you die when you hit the ground? are you suggesting he should send angels to help you to fly and prevent you from harm or is it your own doing?

I'm not sure what you mean. How is it by definition unending torture?

assuming Hell is unending torture and absence of god is hell then absence of god is unending torture.

I accept that Christians believe it is unending torture, but there seems to be little reason given so far why it has to be. Certainly not by definition.

Im sure non Christians also believe in hell. But yes we are discussing the Christian concept.
Let us not confuse the reason for something and the fact that something exists.
If you are getting into "everything has to exist for a reason" you have basically arrived at the first cause argument.

No but you can blame who ever created this body to require water, particularly if they could have made it so we didn't.

so you can blame god for not making it that we can fly?
where do you stop? In the end people can still chose to harm themselves in some way. If you take that choice away from them they are not really people are they? In fact the Islamic concept of angels is that they have no free will as far as i know.

Who decided that rejecting god would cause us to suffer?

It is a reasonable idea. christians believe in a caring benevolent god. Others might think of evil gods or balance of good and evil gods but christians dont. It is not unreasonable to conclude rejecting such a god causes us harm.

Logically it seems the only answer to that question is God. Did he have to do this? I can't see any reason why. It again seems logical to conclude that he did so because he wanted it to be that way.

and again I refer you back to faith and reason where that argument was answered.
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/speeches/2006/september/documents/hf_ben-xvi_spe_20060912_university-regensburg_en.html

The decisive statement in this argument against violent conversion is this: not to act in accordance with reason is contrary to God's nature.[5] The editor, Theodore Khoury, observes: For the emperor, as a Byzantine shaped by Greek philosophy, this statement is self-evident. But for Muslim teaching, God is absolutely transcendent. His will is not bound up with any of our categories, even that of rationality.[6] Here Khoury quotes a work of the noted French Islamist R. Arnaldez, who points out that Ibn Hazm went so far as to state that God is not bound even by his own word, and that nothing would oblige him to reveal the truth to us. Were it God's will, we would even have to practise idolatry.[7]

No, it has nothing to do with predestination or free will. It is how we are made. We were made so that in the absence of God we suffer tortuous pain.

And if we do not drink we go thirsty. You cant blame the maker for not making us so that we never have to go thirsty or never hit the ground if we jump of a building. It is ours to chose.

Think of it this way, you are making a robot that can suffer and feel pain. For some reason you decide that you will make the robot so that when ever the sun shines on him he will feel terrible terrible pain. You could have made him so that sun shine has no effect on him at all, but you didn't.

Yes and god could have made us without reason but didnt. god could destroy reason and free will but doesnt. Not to act in accordance with reason is contrary to God's nature.

The first question I think anyone else would ask you is why did you do that, or why would you want to do that?

Not to act in accordance with reason is contrary to God's nature. For the emperor, as a Byzantine shaped by Greek philosophy, this statement is self-evident.

Stating that the robot can always choose simply not to go into the sun would not answer that question. (I bring up the last point because some how people think constantly explaining to me that we have a choice to take God's offer of salvation and avoid the torture of hell, explains why God decided to make it torturous in the first place).

which as i stated is a different question to blaming god.
the thing is suppose the robot can go in the sun . are you going to create a robot that can never be hurt by anything or even chose to destroy itself or another robot?
then you don't have a being of free will.

Well you know how much respect I have for the views of theologists

whether or not you respect the view of theologians or the laws of physics is beside the point. It is their view and they are the laws that is not in dispute.

I don't believe in any of this. But my understanding of Christian belief in God is that God is not bound by anything higher or external to him. He is bound to be as he is (ie his nature) and he cannot create pardoxies (he cannot make a stone he cannot move). But beyond that he has absolute authority over creation.

Yes and not to act in accordance with reason is contrary to God's nature.

So it seems some what nonsensical to suggestion (not saying you have) that God has to make us so that we suffer tortuous pain in his absence or when we are faced with is judgement.

If he made us so we cant chose to suffer at all then we would not have free will.

It seems only logical that this was something God choose to be.

that he chose to give us free will. Yes.

I don't think defining that would have any effect on whether it is or not. I could define sleeping in a warm bed as unending torture, doesn't mean that everyone in a warm bed suddenly starts experiencing pain.

It does if unending torture is defined as painfull.

Great, but that isn't the question. The question is why would that produce experience of unending suffering.

Because hell is also regarded as unending suffering.

I've no idea where you think predestination falls in all this. Surely God decided what humans would be like once at the dawn of creation?

i.e he pre ordained what they would be like? It was their destiny to be like that?

At some point at or before the moment of creation God decided "I'm going to make humans and I'm going to make them in such a way that they need water to survive, that they won't be able to breath without oxygen and when they are not in my presence they will suffer incredible tortuous pain as if they were being burned alive"

The sensation is metaphorical. the idea is about our spirit or non physical bodies or souls. One doesnt have to have a body to feel loss. But the idea of thirst suffices to represent it.

He could have said, one imagines, that they will breath carbon dioxide, that they will have gills and that when they are not in my presence they will fill a small itching sensation.

And maybe such CO2 breathers with souls exist somewhere. the thing is though if thet d they can still chose to harm themselves.

Or any number of infinite other combinations.

But no combinations where they cant harm themselves because then they would not have the free choice to do it.

As for what you implied you implied that because God is unhappy with evil he choose the unending torture design, presumably because when God is unhappy with something he wants it to suffer unimaginable pain for eternity.

No i think I was quite clear. We chose to suffer. the "obey the law or Ill get you by punishment" is more of a Jewish thing or maybe an Islamic one. and christian fundies Ill give you them too.

Then why make it that we would in his absence, knowing that many people would end up in his absence?

If they so decide.

Again look at the analogy with making a robot that will suffer in sunlight, knowing that the robot may end up in sunlight and suffer.

And if we dont make that way ther has to be something the robot can do by his own choosing to cause it to suffer. Otherwise it isnt a creature of free will.

marienbad · 19-03-2012 3:42pm

ISAW, what about all those people even today that were never given the chance to hear about Jesus before they died ? Why did they end up in hell ?

And please don't say Limbo , because as far as I know that is a purely later Catholic concept.

ISAW · 19-03-2012 3:54pm

Zombrex wrote: »

And making it so that those who disobey him experience unending torture for all eternity is his expression of not being happy?

if that is what they chose I guess though god could remove their reason and free will and in so doing remove all their suffering God would not do so.

That analogy isn't relevant to the question. The question is what determines that we suffer unending torture without the presence of God.

The fact that the absence of god is regarded as torture just as absence of water results in thirst. Except in this case the person chose not to drink.

You seem to have answered that above, God does because he is unhappy with us if we disobey him, and this unhappiness results in him making us so that we suffer unending torture if we are absent of his presence.

It may seem that way to you but i clearly stated that absence of god by definition causes suffering just as absence of water caused thirst. That is a FACT totally separate from why should it cause thirst. If the only way to get thirsty was by our chosing not to drink and if god made it so that we could not make that choice then we would never thirst. But we would also not have the choice.

Sort of like an inbuilt kill switch, if we disobey God he has made it so that we will suffer for all eternity.

If not "sort of" but exactly like "If we chose not to drink we will get thirsty"
and please dont ask "why does god allow us to get thirsty when we dont drink ?"3 it has been answered! If we never got thirsty we would not have the choice to get thirsty!
i dont think i can spell it out any simpler than that.

So there is no fixed requirement that we must experience absence of God in the manner of a lake fire causing unending suffering. That is a choice God made when he designed us.

the "lake of fire" is allegorical. but it does indicate if we reject god we will suffer just as surely as not drinking we suffer thirst or jumping off a bulding will result in us hitting hte ground. As regards why god didnt give us wings or remove our ability to feel thirst that has been answered.

ISAW · 19-03-2012 3:59pm

Zombrex wrote: »

You create a robot with total free will, sentience and the ability to feel pain. Most of things you design him to feel pain over are thinks that might physically damage him, so he feels pain if he rusts or if he gets too hot.

But then you decide to create him so that when he is in sunlight he feels pain, despite that serving no practical purpose. Sunlight does not physically harm him in anyway so it is not a warning system to avoid damage as most physical pain is in humans.

Do you not think the first question the robot might ask is why did you create me to suffer pain when in sunlight? Do you not think your scientific colleagues might ask the same question, why create something to suffer pain without there being practical safety need to avoid the thing that triggers the pain?

Do you think it would reasonable for you to reply "Oh stop complaining, I gave you life didn't I, I could have simply not invented you, stop asking questions why I made you one way or another way?"

1. the christian god is not believed to be callous or malevolent
2. the idea of why does god allow suffering has been answered -
Ill take the Azimov's Laws of robotics here
sooner or later we have to be able to chose to do harm or by inaction cause others to come to harm. We have to be able to destroy ourselves and to change out programming to decide not to follow the commands in it like rewriting out programme or oour DNA.

If we cant do that we are not "free will robots" we are just robots.

Zombrex · 19-03-2012 4:39pm

ISAW wrote: »

1. the christian god is not believed to be callous or malevolent

Isn't that though simply because Christians define anything God does, irrespective of what it is, as good and just? Which makes that believe some what meaningless.

ISAW wrote: »

2. the idea of why does god allow suffering has been answered

Well it hasn't, but I'm not particular interested in a general discussion of why God allows suffering in its entirety, and more why God decided to make humans so that in his absence they suffer a sensation akin to being burnt alive. You can ignore all other instances of suffering if you like as part of this discussion, lets just focus on this particular one.

I would also point that the issue of harm is rather irrelevant, since given this pain is eternal it cannot, by definition (truly by definition) be causing harm since it is nonsensical to say that something causes harm unendingly, since harm must erode and eventually destroy the thing it is harming.

If the pain is unending then logical it has no damaging effect on the person, since if it did eventually the person would no longer be able to suffer.

If I beat you I will cause you pain but I will also ultimately kill you. If I inflict you to mental torture I will eventually destroy your mind to the point that you can no longer experience anything.

If the pain suffered by those in hell is truly eternal then it must truly be harmless. Again it seems to exist simply for the sake of causing pain.

ISAW wrote: »

If we cant do that we are not "free will robots" we are just robots.

In my analogy there are lots of ways the robot can harm himself. Sunlight though doesn't harm him. Despite this the designer decided that he will still make him suffer pain in presence of sun light.

Can you explain why this is necessary in order to claim that the robot has free will.

tommy2bad · 19-03-2012 4:43pm

Zombrex ;
In my analogy there are lots of ways the robot can harm himself. Sunlight though doesn't harm him. Despite this the designer decided that he will still make him suffer pain in presence of sun light.

Your analogy would be more accurate if the robot was solar powered and experienced pain when in darkness. Darkness doesn't harm him but it leaves him useless.

ISAW · 19-03-2012 6:19pm

Zombrex wrote: »

Isn't that though simply because Christians define anything God does, irrespective of what it is, as good and just? Which makes that believe some what meaningless.

No it isnt. you have it the wrong way around. Aslan not tash.
It isnt a case of redefining a bad action as suddenly good if god does it ; ythat wuld be against reason.

ignore all other instances of suffering if you like as part of this discussion, lets just focus on this particular one.

Absence of God is as defined. If you cant understand that people suffer from absence of a loved one then i cant really help you there im afraid.

I would also point that the issue of harm is rather irrelevant, since given this pain is eternal it cannot, by definition (truly by definition) be causing harm since it is nonsensical to say that something causes harm unendingly, since harm must erode and eventually destroy the thing it is harming.

Not necessessarily. One might have permanent eyesight or permanent hearing without harming the eyes. why couldnt one have permanent pain ? Or even permanent loss of love/money/presence/torment?

If the pain is unending then logical it has no damaging effect on the person, since if it did eventually the person would no longer be able to suffer.

It light or might not. But it is an aside in any case.
the point is people are in a place where they do not feel good.

If the pain suffered by those in hell is truly eternal then it must truly be harmless. Again it seems to exist simply for the sake of causing pain.

Oh I see you equate pain which does not cause permanent physical damage as not harmfull. Well you will be glad to note you fit in with the US current torturers. Waterboarding and similar is in your view not harmful and not torture?

Can you explain why this is necessary in order to claim that the robot has free will.

It is necessary that a least one thing exists which the robot can chose to do which will harm or benefit the robot. If such a thing does not exist and the robot will not be harmed or benefit then the robot does not have any choice does it?
what is choice?

Andrewf20 · 19-03-2012 7:48pm

philologos wrote: »

We're arguing about repentance, and accepting the rightful authority of God. As far as Christianity is concerned, this is just an acknowledgement of reality rather than running from it.

Im arguing about belief, thats why I asked whats so special about belief. Before repentence to a God, you would have to believe in one in the first place.

philologos wrote: »

People suppress the truth on a regular basis. The truth isn't about majoritarianism. It's also estimated that roughly 1.6 billion people are yet to hear about Jesus which certainly does add to that figure. It's an obligation as a result that Christians go out and tell people about Him both at home and away.

But why would they suppress the truth? Maybe what is true is not clear. Many islamists for example feel the same about their faith - that it is the 1 true religion. But whos right?

philologos wrote: »

Truth is truth irrespective of what a majority thinks. I could equally ask that question of atheism by the by. Why don't a majority acknowledge atheism if it is true? It's a poor argument.

Because of the fear of death / Pascals wager. Also religon gives some people hope of seeing loved ones passed on etc irrespective of whether its true or not.

philologos wrote: »

What is good? - What is evil?

If morality is subjective as many atheists argue it is, then good and evil can be anything I want. If morality is objective it is based on God's standards.

Its a very good question. But how objective is it in reality. Even if it is the word of God, you can interpret laws written in a book to mean different things, i.e. make it subjective on some level. Ultimately there is no feedback mechanism available for us to clear up ambiguity in the bible which means the system is perhaps flawed at the core. There is no phone we can ring God on to get clarification so to speak and so, for example a person may read:

Deuteronomy 21:18-21 "If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, ..... and all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die"

This suggests to kill a disobedient son, but is it moral?

philologos wrote: »

I don't believe that they have come to a conclusion based on what is available to them. But that's another argument in and of itself.

The conclusion is that they dont believe in a God.

Zombrex · 19-03-2012 7:54pm

ISAW wrote: »

No it isnt. you have it the wrong way around. Aslan not tash.
It isnt a case of redefining a bad action as suddenly good if god does it ; ythat wuld be against reason.

Then who determines what is good or bad?

ISAW wrote: »

Absence of God is as defined. If you cant understand that people suffer from absence of a loved one then i cant really help you there im afraid.

People suffer from the absence of a loved one because that his how God made us, to firstly feel love and affection for some and then to feel sadness in their absence.

So the question remains, why did God make us to suffer as if in a lake of fire when he removes himself from us. Why would God wish that we are tortured for all eternity if he is not present.

ISAW wrote: »

Not necessessarily. One might have permanent eyesight or permanent hearing without harming the eyes. why couldnt one have permanent pain ? Or even permanent loss of love/money/presence/torment?

One can have permanent pain. But that pain is not being triggered by harm being done, since one cannot suffer eternal harm.

So again this is back to the point, we seem to suffer eternal pain in God's absence simply because that is what he wants to happen.

ISAW wrote: »

Oh I see you equate pain which does not cause permanent physical damage as not harmfull. Well you will be glad to note you fit in with the US current torturers. Waterboarding and similar is in your view not harmful and not torture?

Who says water boarding does no permanent damage? I imagine if you continue to water board someone they will eventually drown, if they haven't suffered a mental break from reality before that due to the psychological stress they are put under.

I don't think you could continuously water board someone for a week let alone eternity.

ISAW wrote: »

It is necessary that a least one thing exists which the robot can chose to do which will harm or benefit the robot. If such a thing does not exist and the robot will not be harmed or benefit then the robot does not have any choice does it?
what is choice?

Great but that is utterly irrelevant to the question at hand.

God did not make it so being at room temperature causes a sensation of being on fire. We still, amazingly, retain free will.

It seems no more necessary that he makes it so that being in his absence feels like being on fire in order to retain free will.

The free will argument for suffering is deeply flawed, but it actually doesn't apply here at all since we are not talking about all suffering but one specific type of suffering in one specific context.

Zombrex · 19-03-2012 7:56pm

tommy2bad wrote: »

Your analogy would be more accurate if the robot was solar powered and experienced pain when in darkness. Darkness doesn't harm him but it leaves him useless.

It could be argued that without darkness the robot has no power to sustain himself and will rust or be unable to clean himself or something, so the pain is a warning against allowing himself to be in darkness for too long.

I think it is better to stick to my original analogy where the pain provides no warning of harm.

ISAW · 19-03-2012 11:05pm

Zombrex wrote: »

Then who determines what is good or bad?

to a objective person natural law to a CHristian the source of nature is God.
But god is consistent. He dosnt do good acts and define evil and then do evil and say
"you are to regard that as good now"
He doesnt change the laws of nature or physics.

People suffer from the absence of a loved one because that his how God made us, to firstly feel love and affection for some and then to feel sadness in their absence.

and if we didn't would we be truly human?

So the question remains, why did God make us to suffer as if in a lake of fire when he removes himself from us. Why would God wish that we are tortured for all eternity if he is not present.

god wouldnt god would wish we were with him. but if we so chose we can reject that.

One can have permanent pain. But that pain is not being triggered by harm being done, since one cannot suffer eternal harm.

some of it could be triggered by harm.

So again this is back to the point, we seem to suffer eternal pain in God's absence simply because that is what he wants to happen.

that is your point. Nobody else ever agreed it was true. Nor is it reasonable. god does not want people to suffer. But he is prepared to allow it if that is what they chose.

Who says water boarding does no permanent damage? I imagine if you continue to water board someone they will eventually drown, if they haven't suffered a mental break from reality before that due to the psychological stress they are put under.

but if they dont drown. and psychological harm isnt physical. So you accept something which may not cause any permanent physical harm can cause eternal torment?
also I could harm you and then heal you. I could do this forever.

I don't think you could continuously water board someone for a week let alone eternity.

so you say. but do you know? so imagine you could do it. That might be a suitable image of hell for you.

Great but that is utterly irrelevant to the question at hand.

How so? It is necessary that a least one thing exists which the robot can chose to do which will harm or benefit the robot. If such a thing does not exist and the robot will not be harmed or benefit then the robot does not have any choice does it?

God did not make it so being at room temperature causes a sensation of being on fire. We still, amazingly, retain free will.

so what? that isnt a logical contradiction. being at room temperature isnt one of the things in the set of "a least one thing exists which the robot can chose to do which will harm or benefit the robot"; If we cant freely chose to do harm and are prevented from doing it we don't have free will. Im reminded of Zardoz. The Eternals grew bored and corrupt.

It seems no more necessary that he makes it so that being in his absence feels like being on fire in order to retain free will.

It may seem that way to you but you arent using logic. "a least one thing exists which the robot can chose to do which will harm or benefit the robot". Picking something that doesnt harm us does not suffice to formally prove that "a least one thing exists which the robot can chose to do which will harm the robot". If such a thing does not exist the robot is not free.

The free will argument for suffering is deeply flawed, but it actually doesn't apply here at all since we are not talking about all suffering but one specific type of suffering in one specific context.

Yes eternal suffering based on choosing from the list of "things which the robot can chose to do which will harm the robot". Obviously choosing one of these things will cause suffering or harm.

philologos · 19-03-2012 11:26pm

Zombrex wrote: »

Isn't that though simply because Christians define anything God does, irrespective of what it is, as good and just? Which makes that believe some what meaningless.

As opposed to you determining what is good or evil on the basis of personal preference?

It's entirely reasonable that God determines what is best for us, given that He knows far more about Creation than you or I could ever imagine. Ultimately, I'd rather trust God with that, than myself to be quite honest with you.

philologos · 19-03-2012 11:52pm

Andrewf20 wrote: »

Im arguing about belief, thats why I asked whats so special about belief. Before repentence to a God, you would have to believe in one in the first place.

Indeed one would. As I've already mentioned a fair few times on this thread, I feel that the world itself demonstrates that God exists on quite a few levels.

Andrewf20 wrote: »

But why would they suppress the truth? Maybe what is true is not clear. Many islamists for example feel the same about their faith - that it is the 1 true religion. But whos right?

Their desire to live in darkness rather than light as far as Jesus is concerned:

John 3:19-21 wrote:

And this is the judgment: 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.”

As for Islamists "feeling" the same about their faith. Ultimately, it isn't about feeling. Irrespective of what I or you may say about God, ultimately there is something true about Him. Either He exists or He doesn't. Likewise there is something true about Jesus, either He is Lord or He is not. There's not much room for either / or.

Andrewf20 wrote: »

Because of the fear of death / Pascals wager. Also religon gives some people hope of seeing loved ones passed on etc irrespective of whether its true or not.

Ultimately, death is death. I'm not sure why anyone would want this life to be prolonged any more than is given to us. This world is in a state of death and decay. What will happen hereafter will be a restoration to how things were in the beginning.

As for whether or not Christianity necessarily gives hope of loved ones passing on is questionable. It depends on where they stand with God, it depends on whether or not they have acknowledged Jesus as their Saviour. I'm not so sure that is always something that is easy to grasp. I predict that judgement isn't going to be a very pleasant concept either for many.

Ultimately it isn't about what is pleasant necessarily, it is about what is real and what is true and living on that basis.

Andrewf20 wrote: »

Its a very good question. But how objective is it in reality. Even if it is the word of God, you can interpret laws written in a book to mean different things, i.e. make it subjective on some level. Ultimately there is no feedback mechanism available for us to clear up ambiguity in the bible which means the system is perhaps flawed at the core. There is no phone we can ring God on to get clarification" so to speak and so, for example a person may read:

I find your position on "even if it is God's word" confusing to a certain degree. If it is God's word, ultimately He knows what He said, even if we as humans fumble over it as you claim.

You claim that there is no "phone" by which we can get clarification. However, we by the same Spirit that inspired the authors can find the ultimate message that is being communicated. In the last few years since I have personally decided to follow Jesus in numerous situations where I have read the Bible with others of varying denominations it is rare when I have come across serious interpretational difficulties in respect to a passage.

Andrewf20 wrote: »

Deuteronomy 21:18-21 "If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, ..... and all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die"

This suggests killing a disobiendent son is moral?

The penalty for sin is death, even the New Testament makes this clear (Romans 6, Romans 1).

However, Jesus in dying in our place on the cross (if we are willing to accept it) took this penalty on our behalf. If Jesus has spared me of my sin, how can I expect death on the behalf of another (Matthew 18). This is the significance of Jesus' coming into the world. The law remains pretty much as it was, its consequences differ.

Andrewf20 wrote: »

The conclusion is that they dont believe in a God.

Or that they run from Him?

Andrewf20 · 20-03-2012 1:44am

philologos wrote: »

Indeed one would. As I've already mentioned a fair few times on this thread, I feel that the world itself demonstrates that God exists on quite a few levels.

Thats fair enough but alot of people feel very disillusioned with religion. I still don’t have a clear answer to my initial point, whats so special about belief. Not repentance, but belief – I don’t understand its importance, yet the bible says I need to believe to be saved. You say theres nothing special about belief but that contradicts the bible imo. Name a moral or ethical act by a believer that could not be done by a non believer?

philologos wrote: »

As for Islamists "feeling" the same about their faith. Ultimately, it isn't about feeling. Irrespective of what I or you may say about God, ultimately there is something true about Him. Either He exists or He doesn't. Likewise there is something true about Jesus, either He is Lord or He is not. There's not much room for either / or.
Their desire to live in darkness rather than light as far as Jesus is concerned.

Feeling or belief is what im referring to: - belief in a specific religon that is. It doesn’t answer the question as to why Muslims for example believe their religion is the true one? They consider their “light” as being Islam - why are they not convinced by Christianity?

philologos wrote: »

This world is in a state of death and decay. What will happen hereafter will be a restoration to how things were in the beginning.

Certainly over population and the selfish drain on resources by many (selfish gene concept) is of grave concern long term, however the taboo of slavery, better rights for women, better healthcare and longer life spans are some measureable success stories, in the short term at least. Tbh its a very large topic, which I hope not to go into now.

philologos wrote: »

You claim that there is no "phone" by which we can get clarification. However, we by the same Spirit that inspired the authors can find the ultimate message that is being communicated. In the last few years since I have personally decided to follow Jesus in numerous situations where I have read the Bible with others of varying denominations it is rare when I have come across serious interpretational difficulties in respect to a passage.

Maybe on some issues, but not all. An example: the catholic church preached that non baptised babies are destined for limbo, but then changed their mind on this recently. http://www.ukapologetics.net/10/unbaptizedbabies.htm

“In 2007, after extensive theological research, the commission has reported that there is a possibility that these unbaptized babies can go to heaven. They do agree with past findings that there is no definite answer to this question in religious documents, however, the commission has found that there is enough evidence to revise the official Roman Catholic Church opinion.”

This took until 2007! The reality is that alot of people have interpretational difficulties that can results in years, decades, or as above, centuries to agree on.

philologos wrote: »

Or that they run from Him?

They dont believe in a "him" in the first place. Just because they don’t believe in him doesn’t make them “evil” imo.

RichieC · 20-03-2012 3:17am

philologos wrote: »

As opposed to you determining what is good or evil on the basis of personal preference?

It's entirely reasonable that God determines what is best for us, given that He knows far more about Creation than you or I could ever imagine. Ultimately, I'd rather trust God with that, than myself to be quite honest with you.

The fact is Good and evil are personal choices and morals change over time. They used to refer to black males as Bucks. Hangings were a public spectacle and any science outside the church forbidden.

Humans are becoming more liberal and it's a force of change that no book will ever be able to stall.

ISAW · 20-03-2012 9:40am

RichieC wrote: »

The fact is Good and evil are personal choices and morals change over time.

If it is a fact then what is your evidence for it?
We have been over the "moral relativism" earlier . I suggest you search it;
so you are saying that adult people can personally chose to have sex with a six year old and that wont always be wrong?
You are saying it is not always wrong to rape a woman?

They used to refer to black males as Bucks. Hangings were a public spectacle and any science outside the church forbidden.

But the fact that SOME intrpretations change does not mean ALL do does it?
Is sex with a child always wrong?
Is rape always wrong?
Or do you suggest that due to personal choose we can arrive in a place where it isnt wrong at all?

Humans are becoming more liberal and it's a force of change that no book will ever be able to stall.

Is rape always wrong?

Andrewf20 · 20-03-2012 12:32pm

ISAW wrote: »

The point is we chose to run away from God. that is our fault not gods. And not being with god is by definition hell.

More like if we reject god we suffer.

What do you mean by reject / run away from God? These comments suggest a complete rejection of what is moral. I think most people would tick alot of the good boxes anyway - not steal, not kill, be charitable, be kind, good parents etc, independent of whether they are religious or not.

Before any argument of hell, heaven etc you have to convince a non believer that the bible is not completely man made, I think this is the crux of the problem.

marienbad · 20-03-2012 1:44pm

ISAW wrote: »

If it is a fact then what is your evidence for it?
We have been over the "moral relativism" earlier . I suggest you search it;
so you are saying that adult people can personally chose to have sex with a six year old and that wont always be wrong?
You are saying it is not always wrong to rape a woman?

But the fact that SOME intrpretations change does not mean ALL do does it?
Is sex with a child always wrong?
Is rape always wrong?
Or do you suggest that due to personal choose we can arrive in a place where it isnt wrong at all?

Is rape always wrong?

I think sex with a child is always wrong, some ,as is well documented do not, some even come to believe that the child enjoys it. But enough people also think sex with a child is always wrong so we have been able to make laws prohibiting it.

I think rape is always wrong in every case, not all do . For example rape within marriage is only a relatively recent concept. Again enough people agree so that we made laws against it.

What are all these laws that do not change over time ? You keep alluding to them but never list them. Can you give us some specific examples ?
How about a list of ten ?

RichieC · 20-03-2012 2:32pm

ISAW wrote: »

If it is a fact then what is your evidence for it?
We have been over the "moral relativism" earlier . I suggest you search it;
so you are saying that adult people can personally chose to have sex with a six year old and that wont always be wrong?
You are saying it is not always wrong to rape a woman?

But the fact that SOME intrpretations change does not mean ALL do does it?
Is sex with a child always wrong?
Is rape always wrong?
Or do you suggest that due to personal choose we can arrive in a place where it isnt wrong at all?

Is rape always wrong?

You're using the camels nose to suggest that because we don't buy your book that we're eventually going to legalise rape and sex with minors. Ridiculous. these things by the way weren't unheard of back in the old biblical days. There's also no mention of an age of consent in the bible. There's plenty of Rape, though.

Atheism/Existence of God Debates (Please Read OP)

Comments