What if I told you no one is going to hell?

[magnifier661]

How did the victims of the Holocaust learn and grow? These examples seem a bit facile when they're of trivial overall importance with a morale to the story, like Afterschool Specials. When it comes to serious, hardcore suffering, these cliches fall a lot flatter. What are children born to poverty in Africa learning as they starve? Is it character building to never know anything but misery and then die?

And I've already explained several times how free will can exist alongside "perfection" or "lack of evil." If god is omnipotent (by the classical definition of the word), it's certainly logically possible to construct a universe in which people don't suffer and still have free will. If god is not omnipotent, then we're talking about a very different concept.

This is funny and why your argument is flawed. We are talking about true free will. As for the victims of the Holocaust, they are at peace. Life on Earth is just a minute to the grand scale of eternity. As terrible as the event is, that helped others learn to grow.

But you are wrong about perfection and free will being able to coexist. It isn't logical. If God intervened, then we truly don't have "free will". And as the writer of the article I provided said "stop thinking We are some little pet". The moment God stops us every time we do something evil, is the moment we lose our free will.

And you believing that lack of evil can happen, yet you haven't once observed a society without sin, is quite a bold statement.

Blaming God for actions of man is no different than seeing a child blaming a bully for hitting some kid and saying "well he looked at me funny"

 

[magnifier661]

As my personal debate with a good friend, atheist and physicist wrote me, after I sent him the same link:

It's a rebuttal to an argument AGAINST god, though, right?

That argument against god is a weak one. I've never subscribed to it.

Not even in my anti-religion teen phase.

I agree. The argument IS weak because man is trying to pass blame as a method to disprove God. It really doesn't work, nor does it support what we've observe already.

 

[BoomChakaLaka]

Not all "Christians" believe this. And breaking down "Christian" is to be "Christ-like". That connection to me is understanding "Christ's" walk. Was his message "You are going to hell if you don't believe in me" or "Love thy neighbor and enemies"?

I think this "Roman's Road" is not the series of events you must go through before you get to Heaven. Instead, understanding what Christ has done and welcoming him into your life, connects you with him so he may take the burden of death away from you.

Mags - I can get behind your thinking on this. It is a most positive and loving concept and makes a great deal of sense to me. One thing for certain is that we'll never know how this plays out until it does! In the meanwhile, go Blazers

 

[magnifier661]

Mags - I can get behind your thinking on this. It is a most positive and loving concept and makes a great deal of sense to me. One thing for certain is that we'll never know how this plays out until it does! In the meanwhile, go Blazers

GO BLAZERS!

 

[magnifier661]

Well, I'm going by Christian doctrine (as I have heard it) that god is omnipotent. The word has a specific meaning. If you're saying that Christians use the word differently, perhaps you could explain what "omnipotence" means within Christianity.

Sorry, I was on my phone last night and missed much of what was debated.

As I read back, this is the base of your argument right?

1.) If God exists, suffering does not exist.
2.) Suffering does exist.
3.) Therefor, God does not exist.

You also site "omnipotent" as the tool in which you head this debate. And you are agreeing that we can reference the Bible, since we are talking about the Christian view of their God.

With that, I would respond...

You are using only one, maybe two parts of God's description, but there are three explained in the Bible.

1.) Omnipotence: Ultimate power to act
2.) Omniscience: Infinite knowledge
3.) Omnibenevolent: Perfectly good

So according to your logic, you are trying to "Disprove God" because we have suffering.

So in my rebuttal, I will outline my response...
1.) If God exists, he must be Omnipotent, Omniscience and Omnibenevolent
2.) God is Omnipotent, omniscience, Omnibenevolent
3.) Therefor God exists.

And yes, suffering is a trying argument, as you explained: "Well being all powerful, he could design a system where suffering could not exist". But the boundaries of being "Perfectly good" also binds God from not "interfering with the decisions of man". So designing a system that will only give man the option to only do good (by using his power of omniscience) is an interference with "free will". That goes against his perfect goodness (lying about giving us a choice is just one example). Human nature, from how we can observe in today's world, is not free from "sin". Man chooses to do wrong and God cannot interfere because he is "Perfectly Good".

You've brought up the holocaust as a reference, which only explains the true nature of man in the worst way possible. If God, possessed Hitler and forced him to not kill Jews, he would be lying, which would go against "Omnibenevolent".

That goodness cannot allow him to force us to do what we choose to do.

God can try his best to motivate us to live without sin, but the choice is clearly ours. God's omnibenevolent must allow us to decide for ourselves.

So your argument: If God exists, suffering does not exist is a weak argument and can be easily refuted.

 

[Minstrel]

But you are wrong about perfection and free will being able to coexist. It isn't logical. If God intervened, then we truly don't have "free will".

God doesn't have to intervene in our choices to create a world without evil choices, as I laid out above.

God would need to be classically omnipotent and omniscient, though, which PtldPlatypus feels isn't something we should assume.

 

[Minstrel]

As I read back, this is the base of your argument right?

1.) If God exists, suffering does not exist.
2.) Suffering does exist.
3.) Therefor, God does not exist.

No, I haven't made any argument even close to that.

 

[magnifier661]

God doesn't have to intervene in our choices to create a world without evil choices, as I laid out above.

Actually your "laid out" claim is refuted.

1.) if God knows the intentions of man to sin, then making a world without the temptations of sin and giving free will is not compatible

 

[magnifier661]

No, I haven't made any argument even close to that.

You haven't?

How did the victims of the Holocaust learn and grow? These examples seem a bit facile when they're of trivial overall importance with a morale to the story, like Afterschool Specials. When it comes to serious, hardcore suffering, these cliches fall a lot flatter. What are children born to poverty in Africa learning as they starve? Is it character building to never know anything but misery and then die?

And I've already explained several times how free will can exist alongside "perfection" or "lack of evil." If god is omnipotent (by the classical definition of the word), it's certainly logically possible to construct a universe in which people don't suffer and still have free will. If god is not omnipotent, then we're talking about a very different concept.

 

[Minstrel]

1.) if God knows the intentions of man to sin, then making a world without the temptations of sin and giving free will is not compatible

If humankind, created by god, has an intention to sin, then god created humankind with that intention and thus has already intervened, meaning humankind has no free will (by your definition of what free will means). The only way this whole interpretation even begins to make sense is if god made humankind with no intentions/inclinations one way or the other.

 

[Minstrel]

You haven't?

No, I haven't. That was a response to your article (and your defense of the article). I was just noting that the reasoning in the article isn't very good. My position is not that suffering means there is no god. I just think "mass suffering is totally compatible with a loving and benevolent god because reasons" is silly.

 

[magnifier661]

If humankind, created by god, has an intention to sin, then god created humankind with that intention and thus has already intervened, meaning humankind has no free will (by your definition of what free will means). The only way this whole interpretation even begins to make sense is if god made humankind with no intentions/inclinations one way or the other.

Actually I disagree. This could be explained as simply as knowing if you put out a treat for a cat and the cat takes it. You know the cat would take it, knowing their evolutionary instincts to feed, but that choice is still clearly his/hers.

I guess you again missed my point about being omnibenevolent. And in some ways your response of "no intentions/inclanations" is partly true. The process of mankind was not to prove his greatness, but to create. And even knowing that man would sin has no relevance on his choice to create.

 

[Minstrel]

Actually I disagree. This could be explained as simply as knowing if you put out a treat for a cat and the cat takes it. You know the cat would take it, knowing their evolutionary instincts to feed, but that choice is still clearly his/hers.

Yes, but we didn't create the cat. If we created the cat with an instinct to grab any food in front of it, then we did intervene in the cat's choices by creating that instinct.

 

[magnifier661]

No, I haven't. That was a response to your article (and your defense of the article). I was just noting that the reasoning in the article isn't very good. My position is not that suffering means there is no god. I just think "mass suffering is totally compatible with a loving and benevolent god because reasons" is silly.

That is purely your opinion and doesn't have much merit in this debate.

 

[magnifier661]

Yes, but we didn't create the cat. If we created the cat with an instinct to grab any food in front of it, then we did intervene in the cat's choices by creating that instinct.

But that "instinct" isn't the choice, it is the "desire". I think this is why I believe you aren't understanding the true nature of "free will". The cat could easily "not eat the treat", even if he or she was starving.

 

[Minstrel]

That is purely your opinion and doesn't have much merit in this debate.

If opinions have no merit in this debate, then none of the posts in this thread have any merit. There are no "facts" about god, religion or spirituality. Only interpretations and opinions. In fact, your opening post in this thread was purely opinion and conjecture. Why did you create a thread with no merit, magnifier?

 

[magnifier661]

If opinions have no merit in this debate, then none of the posts in this thread have any merit. There are no "facts" about god, religion or spirituality. Only interpretations and opinions. In fact, your opening post in this thread was purely opinion and conjecture. Why did you create a thread with no merit, magnifier?

No my post is in response of "I think it's silly" being a reason why it can't be used. So if I think evolution is silly, we can strike it from our debate as well? That would be one hell of a snowball effect that will go the wrong direction.

 

[Minstrel]

But that "instinct" isn't the choice, it is the "desire". I think this is why I believe you aren't understanding the true nature of "free will". The cat could easily "not eat the treat", even if he or she was starving.

You can't have it both ways. You claim that if god created humans to not want to do evil by instinct, that would be intervening and kill free will. But if god creates humans to be sinner by instinct, that's just "desire" and has nothing to do with free will.

If desires can be implanted with no cost to free will (as you assert with the cat example), then god could have created humans with the desire to only do good, with no cost to free will.

 

[Minstrel]

No my post is in response of "I think it's silly" being a reason why it can't be used.

I think it's silly for the reasons I gave in a previous post. I didn't just say it was silly and leave it at that. I was simply pointing out that I never argued that suffering means no god. I was arguing against an article's reasoning I found non-compelling (if that wording offends you less).

 

[magnifier661]

You can't have it both ways. You claim that if god created humans to not want to do evil by instinct, that would be intervening and kill free will. But if god creates humans to be sinner by instinct, that's just "desire" and has nothing to do with free will.

If desires can be implanted with no cost to free will (as you assert with the cat example), then god could have created humans with the desire to only do good, with no cost to free will.

But as I explained earlier, that our observations of what we see is what we know. And knowing that humanity does sin, it would be more logical that sinning is "in our nature". The desire to sin is present, our choice is to choose to sin or not to. That is our free will.

To assume that a universe without sin "desires" is compatible is purely speculative.

 

[Minstrel]

But as I explained earlier, that our observations of what we see is what we know. And knowing that humanity does sin, it would be more logical that sinning is "in our nature". The desire to sin is present, our choice is to choose to sin or not to. That is our free will.

If a creator god exists, "our natures" were given to us by that god. Our natures could have been anything it chose. Why not give us the desire to not sin and then let us make choices?

 

[magnifier661]

If a creator god exists, "our natures" were given to us by that god. Our natures could have been anything it chose. Why not give us the desire to not sin and then let us make choices?

What if "our human nature" and "desire not to sin" are not compatible? We are using observations of what we know. And since you and I aren't God, I could safely say that the other possibility may not be a choice at all. At least for humanity.

 

[Minstrel]

What if "our human nature" and "desire not to sin" are not compatible?

What if they are compatible? At this point, there's not a lot to discuss...anything could be a possibility. To me, it's reasonable to think that if god has the power to create our nature to desire sinning, god has the power to create our natures to desire not sinning. If that's not a reasonable assumption to you, we'll have to agree to disagree, because neither of us is going to be able to find out from the source (or show that god doesn't exist).

 

[PtldPlatypus]

If a creator god exists, "our natures" were given to us by that god. Our natures could have been anything it chose. Why not give us the desire to not sin and then let us make choices?

Not an answer, per se, but some postulate that the ultimate purpose of the universe is to bring glory to God (seems kind of narcissistic, but if you were perfect, why shouldn't you be glorified?). Anyway, if people were perfect (read, without sinful desires), they would equate themselves with God. The contrast between sinful man and Holy God serves to further glorify Him.

 

[magnifier661]

What if they are compatible? At this point, there's not a lot to discuss...anything could be a possibility. To me, it's reasonable to think that if god has the power to create our nature to desire sinning, god has the power to create our natures to desire not sinning. If that's not a reasonable assumption to you, we'll have to agree to disagree, because neither of us is going to be able to find out from the source (or show that god doesn't exist).

Show me any observation that would support this theory?

 

[Minstrel]

Show me any observation that would support this theory?

Show you an observation that god had the power to give us different natures? God doesn't offer itself up to being studied.

 

[magnifier661]

Show you an observation that god had the power to give us different natures? God doesn't offer itself up to being studied.

As you said earlier "This isn't about God existing", and in this debate you and I are both assuming there is the Christian God.

So just look around and you can see different nature all around us. From the lion to the squid. All have different nature

 

[Minstrel]

Not an answer, per se, but some postulate that the ultimate purpose of the universe is to bring glory to God (seems kind of narcissistic, but if you were perfect, why shouldn't you be glorified?). Anyway, if people were perfect (read, without sinful desires), they would equate themselves with God. The contrast between sinful man and Holy God serves to further glorify Him.

Doesn't that seem a little unsatisfying, though? I could mention the more superficial point that if god were "perfect," then it wouldn't be narcissistic, but really this better leads into what I find unsatisfying about the very concept of god. If god is an unfathomably intelligent, wise, powerful being (in fact, the usual concept of god is so vast that it's even silly to use terms like intelligence, wisdom and power to describe it), why would it need or want anything? Why would it need glory? Or worship? Or entertainment? Or anything. Concepts of god are generally of unfathomable "everythingness"...and then given very human attributes and desires. What would a human want? Probably stuff like glory and worship and entertainment and power. Isn't it...unsatisfying to think that a being that encompasses everything wants those things or anything?

I keep using the word "unsatisfying," because I've tried to reconcile god concepts with this idea of what it wants. I can't imagine what it could possibly want. I agree that I shouldn't be able to fathom the mind of god, but the claims of many religions of what it wants are extremely fathomable...they're what very imperfect humans would want. That seems very strange. Doesn't it? How do you reconcile that?

 

[magnifier661]

Doesn't that seem a little unsatisfying, though? I could mention the more superficial point that if god were "perfect," then it wouldn't be narcissistic, but really this better leads into what I find unsatisfying about the very concept of god. If god is an unfathomably intelligent, wise, powerful being (in fact, the usual concept of god is so vast that it's even silly to use terms like intelligence, wisdom and power to describe it), why would it need or want anything? Why would it need glory? Or worship? Or entertainment? Or anything.

Well since you, I or ptldPlaytypus aren't God, then we can't assume to know what a perfect creation would actually need or want.

Concepts of god are generally of unfathomable "everythingness"...and then given very human attributes and desires. What would a human want? Probably stuff like glory and worship and entertainment and power. Isn't it...unsatisfying to think that a being that encompasses everything wants those things or anything?

He did make us in "His own image". The difference is we have part of God in us, but not enough to understand how to obtain greatness without sin.

I keep using the word "unsatisfying," because I've tried to reconcile god concepts with this idea of what it wants. I can't imagine what it could possibly want. I agree that I shouldn't be able to fathom the mind of god, but the claims of many religions of what it wants are extremely fathomable...they're what very imperfect humans would want. That seems very strange. Doesn't it? How do you reconcile that?

As the great Rolling Stones sing "You can't always get what you want!"

 

[PtldPlatypus]

Doesn't that seem a little unsatisfying, though? I could mention the more superficial point that if god were "perfect," then it wouldn't be narcissistic, but really this better leads into what I find unsatisfying about the very concept of god. If god is an unfathomably intelligent, wise, powerful being (in fact, the usual concept of god is so vast that it's even silly to use terms like intelligence, wisdom and power to describe it), why would it need or want anything? Why would it need glory? Or worship? Or entertainment? Or anything. Concepts of god are generally of unfathomable "everythingness"...and then given very human attributes and desires. What would a human want? Probably stuff like glory and worship and entertainment and power. Isn't it...unsatisfying to think that a being that encompasses everything wants those things or anything?

I keep using the word "unsatisfying," because I've tried to reconcile god concepts with this idea of what it wants. I can't imagine what it could possibly want. I agree that I shouldn't be able to fathom the mind of god, but the claims of many religions of what it wants are extremely fathomable...they're what very imperfect humans would want. That seems very strange. Doesn't it? How do you reconcile that?

I hear you. Just about any attempt to truly understand the nature and reasons of God are going to come up unsatisfying because there is so much about Him that we are simply incapable of truly understanding. What is the very nature of an eternal existence? Does He exist in a dimension above/outside our own? Are there other beings in that dimension (ie, is God the "one and only" only in terms of our dimension, but one of many in His)? Why does/would He want to glorify Himself through His creation? Is that concept even correct/valid? These futile questions (and others like them) will always lead to unsatisfying conclusions. We don't have to capacity to ascertain, let alone comprehend, the answers.

I don't have answers for these things, and I never will. And I take solace in that fact. Even if the things the Bible indicates/suggests God wants seem to be things that humans want, we don't/can't really know why He wants them. And in my mind, we don't need to. That's what faith is all about.

How's that for unsatisfying?