What if I told you that there is no "heaven" for "righteous souls"

[PtldPlatypus]

Yes, with the understanding that an Atheist believes that when we die, we are dead. Our life on this planet is our only life. They do not believe in afterlife.

Now for their argument of a theist is based that on the theoretical chance that our life on this planet isn't our only life. That we will have an eternal life.

In the Atheist's frame of mind... Their belief that our existence is only on this planet = a theistic view that our life is actually eternal

Alright. Now, with that in mind, here are some significant differences between your atheists/incarceration theists/damnation equivalency:

• Duration-life imprisonment is finite; when the person dies, it ends. Damnation is eternal; it never ends. The fact that the atheist views life imprisonment as the entirety of remaining existence does not negate the fact that there is a point of finality that does not exist with eternity in hell.
• Purpose--life imprisonment is intended to protect the remainder of the populace from the presence of the offender. Damnation is not intended to protect anyone from the sinner.
• Opportunities--Despite life incarceration, an offender has opportunity to better oneself, and even contribute to society. I think it is safe to say that the same is unavailable to the residents of Hades.

Based on the above, I would refute your claim of contradiction, because the basis for your claim of contradiction is clearly a false equivalency.

 

[magnifier661]

Alright. Now, with that in mind, here are some significant differences between your atheists/incarceration theists/damnation equivalency:

• Duration-life imprisonment is finite; when the person dies, it ends. Damnation is eternal; it never ends. The fact that the atheist views life imprisonment as the entirety of remaining existence does not negate the fact that there is a point of finality that does not exist with eternity in hell.
• Purpose--life imprisonment is intended to protect the remainder of the populace from the presence of the offender. Damnation is not intended to protect anyone from the sinner.
• Opportunities--Despite life incarceration, an offender has opportunity to better oneself, and even contribute to society. I think it is safe to say that the same is unavailable to the residents of Hades.

Based on the above, I would refute your claim of contradiction, because the basis for your claim of contradiction is clearly a false equivalency.

I disagree with hell protecting heaven from sinners. Do you believe that Sin and Heaven can co-exist?

And on the same concept, if man did live eternal without God, life in prison would equal the same punishment

 

[RR7]

I disagree with hell protecting heaven from sinners. Do you believe that Sin and Heaven can co-exist?

And on the same concept, if man did live eternal without God, life in prison would equal the same punishment

Man living eternally without god isn't relevant at all to the contradiction claim.

 

[magnifier661]

Man living eternally without god isn't relevant at all to the contradiction claim.

Actually it does... Because we are being theoretical here. You don't believe in God, yet we are using him theoretically. So theoretically, if we lived eternal; man would definitely put man behind bars for eternity.

 

[PtldPlatypus]

Why would God create a being placed above angles and breath into it a soul, yet make it imperfect?

Actually, Psalm 8:5 and Hebrews 2:7 say that man was made lower than the angels, not above.

I believe that from an atheist point, there is no God, so there is nothing to be blamed.

From my point, I do believe that man chooses his fate. You were not born knowing if your name was in Gods book or not.

For the atheist, recall that the discussion here is not whether or not God exists, but whether God would be responsible for anyone's eventual condemnation if God exists.

I hear what you're saying about man choosing his fate. We all have the ability to turn to God, and His invisible attributes have been made visible through His creation such that all are without excuse (Rom 1:20). But you also have to understand the opposing perspective that we would not need salvation if we hadn't been created to need salvation.

 

[PtldPlatypus]

I disagree with hell protecting heaven from sinners. Do you believe that Sin and Heaven can co-exist?

By the same token, must there necessarily be no other option between heaven and A LAKE OF FIRE AND ETERNAL SUFFERING AND WEEPING AND GNASHING OF TEETH? Could God not have chosen to keep the sinful souls out of heaven without subjecting them never-ending torment?

 

[RR7]

Actually it does... Because we are being theoretical here. You don't believe in God, yet we are using him theoretically. So theoretically, if we lived eternal; man would definitely put man behind bars for eternity.

but that completely alters the original claim. As Platypus pointed out with his end of life versus eternity. So now the punishment is different than the original contradiction.

 

[PtldPlatypus]

Actually it does... Because we are being theoretical here. You don't believe in God, yet we are using him theoretically. So theoretically, if we lived eternal; man would definitely put man behind bars for eternity.

That's conjecture. Life imprisonment is based on the concept of finite existence. You can't reliably claim what incarceration would involve if man were eternal.

 

[magnifier661]

By the same token, must there necessarily be no other option between heaven and A LAKE OF FIRE AND ETERNAL SUFFERING AND WEEPING AND GNASHING OF TEETH? Could God not have chosen to keep the sinful souls out of heaven without subjecting them never-ending torment?

Well I have an entire thread on why I don't believe God is sending anyone to Hell. That's an entirely different thread. But I am using the "Hell Fire And Brimestone" Christian Belief though

 

[magnifier661]

That's conjecture. Life imprisonment is based on the concept of finite existence. You can't reliably claim what incarceration would involve if man were eternal.

Then that's weird, because Atheists use an argument in conjecture then. They don't believe in God, but would happily use the concept of God existing to debate. The rules can change for them?

 

[PtldPlatypus]

Then that's weird, because Atheists use an argument in conjecture then. They don't believe in God, but would happily use the concept of God existing to debate. The rules can change for them?

Completely different, because atheists are using concepts presented by others, rather than generating their own.

 

[RR7]

Then that's weird, because Atheists use an argument in conjecture then. They don't believe in God, but would happily use the concept of God existing to debate. The rules can change for them?

You can change the rules and have that debate for sure. It just doesn't fit into your contradiction claim. You can argue hypothetical bible god versus current man, or, can argue hypothetical eternal man without god versus hypothetical bible god. It's just, they're two different things. Moving the goal line in the middle of the debate doesn't add to the debate.

 

[PtldPlatypus]

Well I have an entire thread on why I don't believe God is sending anyone to Hell. That's an entirely different thread. But I am using the "Hell Fire And Brimestone" Christian Belief though

Understood. But your implication was that said Hell Fire protects heaven from sinners, because heaven can't abide sin. The underlying assumption behind that implication is that those are the only possibilities. I'm questioning that underlying assumption. Care to address that?

 

[magnifier661]

You can change the rules and have that debate for sure. It just doesn't fit into your contradiction claim. You can argue hypothetical bible god versus current man, or, can argue hypothetical eternal man without god versus hypothetical bible god. It's just, they're two different things. Moving the goal line in the middle of the debate doesn't add to the debate.

No the argument is on a theoretical punishment to an atheist. Both qualify... One is man doing the punishment and the other God. Both punished man are eternal theoretically because it would make no difference to man to send someone to an eternal prison or a natural one

 

[magnifier661]

Understood. But your implication was that said Hell Fire protects heaven from sinners, because heaven can't abide sin. The underlying assumption behind that implication is that those are the only possibilities. I'm questioning that underlying assumption. Care to address that?

Hell is a place for Sin and the Devil. And Heaven must be free from sin because it is perfect. So in order to keep Heaven perfect, there must be a place for Sin.

 

[magnifier661]

Completely different, because atheists are using concepts presented by others, rather than generating their own.

Wrong... This argument was started by Christopher Hitchens.

 

[RR7]

Wrong... This argument was started by Christopher Hitchens.

wrong. He's stating that atheists are taking the concept of god as presented to them. So in your contradiction thought, concept of god versus reality. Atheists aren't creating god in that scenario, or altering(intentionall anyways) what he says or does. But you are changing man to living eternally.

 

[magnifier661]

wrong. He's stating that atheists are taking the concept of god as presented to them. So in your contradiction thought, concept of god versus reality. Atheists aren't creating god in that scenario, or altering(intentionall anyways) what he says or does. But you are changing man to living eternally.

As a logical thinker, then anything is possible. That's why you are agnostic. Changing the rules to fit your argument is not only an atheist tool.

We are debating a concept, not reality right?

 

[RR7]

As a logical thinker, then anything is possible. That's why you are agnostic. Changing the rules to fit your argument is not only an atheist tool.

We are debating a concept, not reality right?

But you're changing the concept to try to better fit your conclusion. Which, again, makes it an entirely different discussion.

 

[magnifier661]

But you're changing the concept to try to better fit your conclusion. Which, again, makes it an entirely different discussion.

An argument can absolutely evolve can't it? This is a theoretical argument. As some atheists like to use the Flying Spaghetti Monster or Unicorns as examples. I do believe that you are thinking too much on the reality.

 

[PtldPlatypus]

Hell is a place for Sin and the Devil. And Heaven must be free from sin because it is perfect. So in order to keep Heaven perfect, there must be a place for Sin.

Hell is a place. But must it necessarily be the only place? You're still failing to answer that basic question.

 

[RR7]

An argument can absolutely evolve can't it? This is a theoretical argument. As some atheists like to use the Flying Spaghetti Monster or Unicorns as examples. I do believe that you are thinking too much on the reality.

Absolutely an argument can evolve. However, this was a discussion on you saying something specific was a contradiction. Basically, that A contradicts B. If you then change what A is, that's not evolving the initial discussion. It takes the discussion somewhere else, and that's fine, but I can't dispute than A does not contradict B if A is constantly changing.

 

[magnifier661]

Absolutely an argument can evolve. However, this was a discussion on you saying something specific was a contradiction. Basically, that A contradicts B. If you then change what A is, that's not evolving the initial discussion. It takes the discussion somewhere else, and that's fine, but I can't dispute than A does not contradict B if A is constantly changing.

The contradiction argument is "man can punish, but God can't"

 

[PtldPlatypus]

Wrong... This argument was started by Christopher Hitchens.

My statement was regarding the concepts used, not the argument itself.

Again, you are arguing based on a false equivalency, saying that atheists asking "If God exists" is equivalent to you saying "If man were eternal, then...". That would only be equivalent if the "If" being asked is already being stipulated to by the opposing side. Atheists say "If God exists" because the opposition already agrees that God exists. Nobody opposing you agrees that man is eternal (or about any of your claims regarding a hypothetical eternal man), so you can't claim that your conjecture is equivalent to the atheist "If God exists" argument.

 

[magnifier661]

My statement was regarding the concepts used, not the argument itself.

Again, you are arguing based on a false equivalency, saying that atheists asking "If God exists" is equivalent to you saying "If man were eternal, then...". That would only be equivalent if the "If" being asked is already being stipulated to by the opposing side. Atheists say "If God exists" because the opposition already agrees that God exists. Nobody opposing you agrees that man is eternal (or about any of your claims regarding a hypothetical eternal man), so you can't claim that your conjecture is equivalent to the atheist "If God exists" argument.

I absolutely can, since this is an argument of a moral composition. We can start using unicorns in replace of man if you wish.

 

[PtldPlatypus]

The contradiction argument is "man can punish, but God can't"

...again, based on a false equivalency between life imprisonment and eternal damnation. We've already gone over this.

 

[magnifier661]

...again, based on a false equivalency between life imprisonment and eternal damnation. We've already gone over this.

The equivalency is the right to punish. So both can be eternal and still be compatible.

 

[PtldPlatypus]

I absolutely can, since this is an argument of a moral composition. We can start using unicorns in replace of man if you wish.

Did you read what I wrote? Any logical debate requires agreement on assumptions. "If God exists" is the basic assumption for the discussion; the discussion cannot take place without that agreed-upon parameter. "If man were eternal" was not an agreed-upon assumption, so it logically cannot be the basis for any argument.

This is really basic stuff, Mags. If you can't understand this, then there's no hope of rational discourse.

 

[RR7]

I absolutely can, since this is an argument of a moral composition. We can start using unicorns in replace of man if you wish.

so why is it ok for unicorns to punish and not god? No. No, I don't think you can use unicorns in place of man and realistically be making ANY claim that any atheist ever makes or believes.

 

[PtldPlatypus]

The equivalency is the right to punish. So both can be eternal and still be compatible.

Except the atheist does not punish eternally. The atheist punishes finitely.