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

[magnifier661]

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.

Okay I understand...

But my theoretical concept, is what I believe, to be the same.

A finite world and infinite would be the same, as discussed on the concept of an atheist that doesn't believe life to be infinite. The value of life is exactly the same, regardless if it is finite or infinite

 

[DaLincolnJones]

I stand corrected

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



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.

I stand corrected, we are below angles while in this life.

I get the opposing point of view, I just find it contrary to every basic belief. I do not think we are meant to understand some things on this plane, and to be a man and blame God I find beyond arrogant. How can God not be perfect?

 

[PtldPlatypus]

Okay I understand...

But my theoretical concept, is what I believe, to be the same.

A finite world and infinite would be the same, as discussed on the concept of an atheist that doesn't believe life to be infinite. The value of life is exactly the same, regardless if it is finite or infinite

This statement--"A finite world and infinite would be the same" is a claim without a basis. The rules of logic dictate that in order to use any concept as a valid basis for an argument, then it either has to be agreed upon by both sides, or it has to be supported by arguments stemming from agreed-upon assumptions.

You cannot rationally argue from the basis of "A finite world and infinite would be the same" unless you first support that claim. Because it is completely speculative (since a world with infinitely-living humans does not exist), you cannot logically support that claim.

 

[magnifier661]

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

The Atheist and conscious eternity is incompatible for the mass reasoning.

But this same argument was used for Catholicism, whom believes that through purgatory, one eventually reaches Heaven. And since we are using our God as reference than the same applies.

So the question had the same results in a Hitchens debate to a Catholic Bishop. And I would bet your left nut, they would still believe God is evil for punishing, even if it was finite.

 

[PtldPlatypus]

I do not think we are meant to understand some things on this plane, and to be a man and blame God I find beyond arrogant. How can God not be perfect?

I agree with you--which is why I told RR7 that to try to hold God to any standard is laughable. That minimization of God is essentially the basis for most atheists arguments against Him.

 

[magnifier661]

This statement--"A finite world and infinite would be the same" is a claim without a basis. The rules of logic dictate that in order to use any concept as a valid basis for an argument, then it either has to be agreed upon by both sides, or it has to be supported by arguments stemming from agreed-upon assumptions.

You cannot rationally argue from the basis of "A finite world and infinite would be the same" unless you first support that claim. Because it is completely speculative (since a world with infinitely-living humans does not exist), you cannot logically support that claim.

As I replied above. A Catholic believes hell is temporary, and through purgatory, man will be cleansed and eventually be with God.

So now both punishments are the same. They are both finite.

So then let's rephrase the question.

Is God evil for punishing man for disobedience, by sending man to hell for let's say hypothetically for a 1,000 years, then being cleansed and reach Heaven?

 

[PtldPlatypus]

The Atheist and conscious eternity is incompatible for the mass reasoning.

Which was why I said your claim of contradiction was false; the two halves of your claim didn't match, and the adjustment necessary to make them match was incompatible with that portion of your claim. It just doesn't work the way you framed it.

But this same argument was used for Catholicism, whom believes that through purgatory, one eventually reaches Heaven. And since we are using our God as reference than the same applies.

So the question had the same results in a Hitchens debate to a Catholic Bishop. And I would bet your left nut, they would still believe God is evil for punishing, even if it was finite.

That might be a different argument, but not the one I'm undertaking, and not one I've seen any in here make. In fact, I would venture to say that most atheists would be much more accepting of a theology that permitted bodily non-believers to earn their way to salvation once confronted with the undeniable reality of God.

But then again, that would be conjecture on my part, and I have no interest in engaging in such.

 

[PtldPlatypus]

So then let's rephrase the question.

Is God evil for punishing man for disobedience, by sending man to hell for let's say hypothetically for a 1,000 years, then being cleansed and reach Heaven?

I would never argue that God is evil.

 

[magnifier661]

Which was why I said your claim of contradiction was false; the two halves of your claim didn't match, and the adjustment necessary to make them match was incompatible with that portion of your claim. It just doesn't work the way you framed it.



That might be a different argument, but not the one I'm undertaking, and not one I've seen any in here make. In fact, I would venture to say that most atheists would be much more accepting of a theology that permitted bodily non-believers to earn their way to salvation once confronted with the undeniable reality of God.

But then again, that would be conjecture on my part, and I have no interest in engaging in such.

And as I said on the other thread, I believe that God has paid the ultimate price, so that man does not need works to reach Heaven. And that "Lake of Fire" is the cleansing portion of the non-believer to be washed by fire so that they can reach Heaven.

 

[magnifier661]

I would never argue that God is evil.

Doh!!!!!!!!! That's the start of the argument! Did you not read that RR7 actually admitted this?!?!?!

 

[PtldPlatypus]

Doh!!!!!!!!! That's the start of the argument! Did you not read that RR7 actually admitted this?!?!?!

Well, sure--you can argue that with atheists all you want. I was just debating the validity of your contradiction claim.

And I won.

 

[magnifier661]

I agree with you--which is why I told RR7 that to try to hold God to any standard is laughable. That minimization of God is essentially the basis for most atheists arguments against Him.

That's the problem. Atheists put God and humans on the same level.

 

[magnifier661]

Well, sure--you can argue that with atheists all you want. I was just debating the validity of your contradiction claim.

And I won.

Hahaha okay I'll concede...

 

[PtldPlatypus]

Hahaha okay I'll concede...

BTW--that was fun. We should do this again sometime.

 

[magnifier661]

BTW--that was fun. We should do this again sometime.

I'm down!

 

[crowTrobot]

That's the problem. Atheists put God and humans on the same level.

In my experience theists tend to anthropomorphize the concept of God way more than atheists do.

Atheists do think the apparent contradiction of a God described as loving and caring, but simultaneously described as commanding and committing genocide etc., is evidence that particular God is more likely to be a construct of the imagination of morally primitive humans than to actually exist.

 

[crowTrobot]

In fact, I would venture to say that most atheists would be much more accepting of a theology that permitted bodily non-believers to earn their way to salvation once confronted with the undeniable reality of God.

At least they would be open to more convincing justification for apparent moral contradictions than theists can possibly offer now. I (hypothetically) would be.