I don’t really believe there is a Heaven or a Hell. But only for an exercise: Would a just and benign god give an infinite punishment for finite sins?
Even George W. Bush, Saddan Hussein and Ariel Sharon would heve their sins payed for after say a few million years of punishment. Hitler could take longer, but after that they should be eligible for Heaven if it exists.
Hell is not a “punishment”. It is a condition. Christian doctrine has been perverted and poisoned by Western legalism, turning salvation into a matter of judicial and legalistic “judgement”, when the “judgement” in question is of a completely different nature.
If an omnipotent God desired to create US and further desired that we know for certain of his existence and his love and also desired that we reside with him in Heaven/paradise, then why is this not so?
If God allegedly created us with the ability to reason as the primary means for aquiring knowledge of our reality then why is it that so many of the absolute best rationalists(think NAS scientists, philosophers etc.) conclude that God is not likely to exist but have no problem aknowledging gravity or matter(things which obviously exist and one would think are less important than God’s own existence)?
Why go through this ‘physical’ song and dance in the first place?
Either God lacks the POWER to achieve these desires or he lacks the desire period.In the former case he would not be much of a God and in the latter there is little point in worrying about how to achieve something(existence in heaven) which God does not desire.
Godless Skeptic, I see. So you think God should have given birth “created” full grown (evolved)children. Is the journey never worth anything other than the destination? We should have had our children full grown and programmed too. Would save us a lot of fuss and bother. The “absolute best rationalists” have huge blind spots at times, due to their own certainty in their theories. There are also scientists who have set out to disprove God and ended up firm believers. Feelings are not always rational, so that makes them untrue? A dog can reason. It’s not such a highly evolved thing. Have you ever noticed that all cultures, even that little tribe in the middle of no where are God or “higher power” seeking, whether it’s worshipping the elements or their own vision of what that power is. Not particularly reasonable, but our instinct(or something) seems to have that need at a very basic level. I’ve heard God insulted a lot on this site. Thank goodness George W.'s here to take some of the heat. IWLN
God permits us to choose, according to our ability to choose. My own Church admits to a possibility that people who otherwise appear to be informed adults still might have an impaired ability to choose in this particular instance. These people could be cut a bit of slack.
Who gets to determine the outcome? Whomever is omniscient, of course.
That’s it? They are your arguments?!
I am truly, genuinely flabbergasted.
Goodbye.
**
When one sets out to create something to fill a need or fullfill a desire(we won’t even get into how a “perfect” being could “desire” or “need” ANYTHING), one does not create the thing of lesser funtionality/aptitude than he/she is capable of producing with the hope that it will somehow one day be what the creator wants.If I need a coffee table for my living room and I build furniture for a living, I do not make the surface area to small to suit my needs or give it three uneven legs made of cardboard which are incapable of supporting the table-top.
**
False analogy.We do not “create” our children.We are prompted by evolutionary drive to reproduce for survival benefit as a species.The fact that we happen to develope emotional bonds/relationships with our offspring is just another facet of biological evolution.IF stranded on a desert island with nothing but a Teddy bear an adult human will develope an emotional bond/relationship with THAT as well(not to the same extent as he will with another human because the Teddy bear does not reciprocate the behavior of the human who must imagine and pretend to these sorts of interactions such as conversation with the bear etc.).
No.That is not rationalism.A rational thinker strives toi get at the truth of the matter, regardless of what that truth might be.If that truth contradicts previously held notions then the previously held notions are revised or tossed.
**
Scientists do not even entertain the idea of trying to “disrprove” anything because this is not science adn cannot be done.You cannot “disprove” the existence of Santa Claus, God, the Easter Bunny, Godzilla or anything else.If you know of someone who is or has tried to “disprove gods” then they were not practicing science.
The question of whether any scientists or how many scientists believe in gods is irrelevant(read Why (Smart) People Believe Weird Things! by Dr. Michael Shermer) but for what it is worth, around 92% of the NAS(cream of the crop of scientists) are non-believers currently.
**
Equivocation.What you are doing here is the equivalent of someone arguing that “Killing is good” adn when someone else doisagrees they say “Hey, I made a Killing at the race track the other day and it was good!”
A bait and switch kind of argument.Feelings or emotions may indeed prod humans into doing irrational things but the natural/biological explanation for the developement of emotions is not irrational at all.
**
Define “highly evolved” and explain the signifigance of that please.Evolution is NOT about progress.There are no " better" or “more highly evolved” lifeforms.Too much to get into here but you have a misconception of evolution.
**
Not true.There are entirely atheistic culture, even aboriginal ones.
Besides this is an argument ad numeri.
I wouldn’t know about who has insulted God here.I do not believe such a thing exists and I find the character as presented in certain mythologies(christianity) to be reprehensible from my own moral standpoint but that is irrelevant.
Ironically, superstition including god-belief likely IS an evolutionary adaption which enabled us to survive for many years(less likely to wander into a tar-pit at night if you thought an evil spirit would nab you).
You have backed yourself into a paradox here.An omniscient entity could not itself “choose” or have free will because decisions can only be made in absence of knowledge and an omniscient entity does not have a gap in knowledge or an uncertainty of knowledge.
It seems that a few here are missing an important point:
IF God, an allegedly all-powerful, all-knowing and all-loving being/entity desires that WE KNOW OF his existence and accept his “love” to the extent that he will punish us eternally(or deprive us of reward) for not knowing these things, then it makes no sense for God’s existence to be any less obvious than our own existence.
Imagine a man who has a child that he wishes to know of his father’s existence and love but he abandons the child at birth(or before) and hides himself in an anderground bunker on the other side of the earth and eventually, on his death bed he writes the child out of his will because the child never came to visit him or return his love!
GS,
Just a note to be careful here: hypotheses are quite patently disproven on a regular basis, from Flat or Young Earthism to the Steady State universe.
Best stick specifically to the more precise contention that one cannot prove or present evidence for the nonexistence of an entity unless it has necessarily observable characteristics.
You are correct of course.I should have worded that better.What I meant was that you cannot prove a negative in terms of the existence of a thing.I wasn’t even thinking about falsification when I wrote what I wrote.
My bad.
Actually, if I could ask a favour, we’re kind of getting away from the OP. I’ve no doubt a decade from now, we’ll be arguing the divine side of “Who gets into heaven?” and “Why?” What I’m interested in is the human side of the equation. Why does this matter so much more to some people than others?
CJ
(aka, the OP)
Well, my guess is simply this:
Ego.
Religious sects are, for better or worse, analogous to “sides” or competitive affiliations.Everyone whom you(‘you’ being the theist in general) can get to agree to behave according to the YOUR rules(which the theist assures us are not HIS rules but rather from God) and acting as heral of YOUR beliefs/message in some way strengthens your position, either emotionally/psychologically or socially.
I think that, as a specific example many if not most christians who are profess concern about who gets in to heaven and who doesn’t, do not literally and conciously believe that such a place as heaven exists or that people have these “souls” which are in danger of suffering some dire fate so much as they are concerned that they will, in effect be threatened with extinction or near-extinction(more accurately their WAYS will be threatened so).
I read an article recently at a PC gaming type site where the author was lamenting the nimpending death of PC games altogether because, in his view, it seemed everyone was flocking to consoles such as Xbox and Nintendo.The author did not seem to actually believe that PC enthuusiasts would stop playing games or programming them on their PCs.His fear seemed to be that he would walk into a Software etc. one day and there would be no PC games.Just Nintendo Warcraft V and Sega *Diablo VI or somesuch.It seemed his fear was of a world where there would be relatively few people like himself who enjoyed PC gaming and would sit around and talk about PC games adn such when not playing them.A world where all computer RPGS are about farm boys named Ryku or Gotochi with big blue or pink hair and huge eyes set out on linear epic quests to defeat equally clihe villains and former PC gamers were forced to replay Ultima 7 and such over and over because no new PC games were being made.
IMO, a similar subconcious fear exists amongst certain fundementalists.The evangelical chatter tends to be on the rise everytime an important scientific discovery is made or someone well liked or respected comes out as an atheist.
Demonstrate that an omniscient and omnipotent being must be bound by “logic” as limited and mortal beings understand it.
Paradox?
So what?
Ahh but there’s the rub!A God which cannot be discerned or understood by our “limited” and “mortal” minds cannot be said to exist!It’s existence is no more likely than the existence of the “<insert any ranom scrambling of letters here>”.
An existential claim which is undefined is worthless.
I do not even know what to call a claim that is not only undefined but which the claimant assures me cannot be defined or understood!
Therefore, nothing can be said to exist AT ALL, because, as far as I know, nothing at all can be completely discerned and understood by limited and mortal minds!
Please quote specifically where I stated that God could not be discerned AT ALL by our limited minds. I stated that He is not necessarily bound by our limitations. We can apprehend Him in some small measure, but only a very small measure. This is, in part, why the Orthodox Church considers all that Scholasticism to be highly questionable–attempting to determine by “pure reason” all the attributes of God?
1)Something without limitations is unknowable.That is why the “anything is possible” model of the universe does not hold water for us.If anything were truly possible then we could not know ANYTHING about the universe.
Likewise, if God existed but was not constrained in any way, then we could not know that he existed at all.
2)What sort of God creates us with reasoning capabilities and then makes himself unknowable by such and then wishes or demands that we know of him?!?
3)By what “small measure” do we “apprehend God”?What small bit of information do we undeniably know about God and if we can truly only know such a small bit about him then how do we make the jump to deciding that he is deserving of worship, that he loves us and all the rest of the <insert pet dogma here>.
Ah, be welcome one all, to the warm and loving arms of the Minbari Heresy! Where the universe itself is sentient, but in a way we can never truly understand, trying to figure itself out.
Greetings to our newest addition to the flock, Brother Dogface! [rampant cheering]
Rationalization, scholasticism, intellectualism, or other machinations of thought will never lead to the discovery of God. His attributes, feelings, and actions are not open to this process.
God is experienced.
His unconditional love, and compassion is known by enduring all the vicissitudes of life, feeling His love fill the nadir and expand the zenith of human interaction.
“the Kingdom of God lies within us.”
Love
Leroy
Well Seige , I’m having great difficulty in understanding your request so please forgive me if I misunderstood. It seems for purposes of this discussion you are trying to understand the human motivation or desire for believing in universal salvation as well as the opposite desire for believing in eternal damnation as an alternative for some.
Without going into the long story as to how I arrived at my universalist point of view, suffice it to say that If God loves me and is my father, then there is no way that my father could so easily condemn me to eternal oblivion or torture.I would never irrevocably condemn my own children even if I knew that in my old age they would ransack my fortune and leave their mother and me homeless. That is the rationality behind that view, and fortunately, having been raised in a bible thumping puritanical environment I have found plenty of scriptural reference to back that up. I now have one more verse to quote when the opportunity arises thanks to Edlyn . Of course, if I can take comfort in that, so can Hitler,… if and when he believes.
On the other side I can see only confusion. There is a deep “need” for justice which is all too apparent. We’ve all been wronged by people who seem to have gotten away with it. Many of us have wronged others, but it seems like a long time ago and we’d like to be forgiven. And we ascribe relative values to various forms of transgression and minimize our own transgressions.
For some people the idea that Hitler will be forgiven will represent justice denied. That is what their God is all about. The final arbiter of right and wrong dispensing “lifetime sentences” for justice in the “perfect” human society. I’m sure both Israelis and Palestinians have differing views on that though their believers have the same God.
For others, particularly the fundamentalists, who I believe have the same sense of human justice as others, cling to a salvation so easily attained that they must do something in return. That is lead exemplary lives and spread the gospel to help God save others. Of course human frailty being what it is, it is as easy to feel superior because one is saved as it is for an atheist skeptic to feel superior to one who has “addled his brain with spirituality”.