NationStates Jolt Archive

This seemed to be a hot topic on the (do you hate athiests/religious) thread.



Definition: (God) YHWH, the God of the Christian Bible (NIV translation) who for the purpose of this discussion will be considered to be omnipotent, omniscent, and exist as the first (efficent) cause of creation as well as the first (final) cause of creation.

Definition: (Benevolent) Describes a condition in which God seeks to enable (human) beings within his creation to reach a point of greatest fulfilled potential.

Definition: (eternal damnation) A system of justice often associated with smiting people with fire and brimstone, drowning them in the Red Sea, or damning them to burn for all eternity in hell.

Definition: (free will) A possible (potentiality) to choose between good (alignment with God's purpose) and evil (opposition to God's purpose).

1) Claim: (the neccessity of free will for benevolence) That a being which possess free-will is more fulfilled than a being which does not possess free-will, and therefore since benevolence requires God to enable us to acquire our fullest potential that freewill is a necessary aspect of benevolence.

2) Claim: (the necessity of justice for free will) That in order for free will to exist, there must be some distinction between good and evil. That that difference is justice.

3) Theorm: (the necessity of justice for benevolence) that justice is necessary for benevolence. Follows at once from 2) and 3)

And your argument for it is?

God is benevolent in that he lets people do whatever they want. If you do something bad though, he is going to punish you. This idea was to get people to conform to a social standard, because people realized they need civilization to survive. Anything they saw as a threat to civilization, they outlawed. Of course, a mere human cant stop another from doing such things, so you have to create a larger more powerful "God" to scare people.

Now this raises 2 points: a God that is supposed to be feared is in no way benevolent, and if God allowed us free will, people who are followers of this God should leave the nonbelievers be.

I claim not only that eternal damnation is consistant with the concept of a benevolent God, but necessary.

This seemed to be a hot topic on the (do you hate athiests/religious) thread.

Can you get rid of the multiple threads, sir?

IDGI, but I don't see how a 'good' god is consistent with wars or sickness either. Religion is not supposed to be logical, then it wouldn't be the greatest test of your faith:p

Sorry about that, my internet was being friggish and I clicked the button too many times.

Not sure if I can delete them, but I'll try.


err... apparently not.

I really do apologize.

I claim not only that eternal damnation is consistant with the concept of a benevolent God, but necessary.

How the HELL is eternal damnation benevolent?

I claim not only that eternal damnation is consistant with the concept of a benevolent God, but necessary.
The title implies that you are going to back up this claim with some kind of logical proof.

Benevolence and punishment are not mutually exclusive. The trouble, as always, starts when you begin to consider omnipotence.

A God who is all forgiving would not send people to Hell.

Reasons?

Christianity teaches to turn the other cheek. So regardless of whether people believed in this deity, regardless of whether they wanted to be forgiven, God would still forgive them and allow them into Heaven.

Of course the whole debate is a moot point since it is all a fairy tale that has grown out of control.

The title implies that you are going to back up this claim with some kind of logical proof.

I intend to, yes.

Its called free will. The Judeo-Christian god does not "damn" anyone, it is the individual that turns his or her back on that diety thus being taken out of the "state of grace" and being shut off from the Judeo-Christian god's love. In other words, they enter Hell or eternal damnation.

That's mordern Catholic / Missouri Synod Lutheran theology as I learned it and it doesn't stick with the traditions that were adapted from heathen religions during Europe's Christianization. Nor does it coincide with Medival Christian "tradition" as it would be called, for example in "Dante's Inferno". Those are more what we are addressing here.

God's Debris by Scott Adam's is a good read for a topic about God being omnipotent.

Its called free will. The Judeo-Christian god does not "damn" anyone, it is the individual that turns his or her back on that diety thus being taken out of the "state of grace" and being shut off from the Judeo-Christian god's love. In other words, they enter Hell or eternal damnation.
If someone I've never met wants me to do something, and I don't do it, that's not "turning my back" on him.

There is no logical consistency to any deity, be it Zeus or Jehova, regardless of benevolence and/or damnation.

If someone I've never met wants me to do something, and I don't do it, that's not "turning my back" on him.

and what if it's someone you have met?

what if it's someone who is with you every minute of every hour of every day?

Its called free will. The Judeo-Christian god does not "damn" anyone, it is the individual that turns his or her back on that diety thus being taken out of the "state of grace" and being shut off from the Judeo-Christian god's love. In other words, they enter Hell or eternal damnation.

That's mordern Catholic / Missouri Synod Lutheran theology as I learned it and it doesn't stick with the traditions that were adapted from heathen religions during Europe's Christianization. Nor does it coincide with Medival Christian "tradition" as it would be called, for example in "Dante's Inferno". Those are more what we are addressing here.

Strange way to run the Universe to put the default state as eternal damnation.

It's like saying that the default location for your testicles should be in a bear trap.

It's bizarre, not particularly benevolent.

and what if it's someone you have met?

what if it's someone who is with you every minute of every hour of every day?

Sorry, but I do not have conjoined twin myslexia.

There is no logical consistency to any deity, be it Zeus or Jehova, regardless of benevolence and/or damnation.

That's absurd Zeus is perfectly logically consistant, don't you watch star-trek?

He's just one of those super-powerful aliens with a lightning machine (note: Mormons and some other pseudo-christian sects believe in a god similar to this).

Sorry, but I do not have conjoined twin myslexia.

I see.

Perhaps a good friend then?

and what if it's someone you have met?

what if it's someone who is with you every minute of every hour of every day?

Now Ulducc I know you are a popular dude. Groupies are nice, but don't make a habit of them.

what if it's someone who is with you every minute of every hour of every day?

There is no-one who fits that description.

There is no logical consistency to any deity, be it Zeus or Jehova, regardless of benevolence and/or damnation.

I thought you were a Muslim, doesnt that apply to Allah as well?

and what if it's someone you have met?

what if it's someone who is with you every minute of every hour of every day?

Well if they tell me to do something I think is retarded, whaat reason do I have to do it?

In the same way some people tell me to do this or that or else im going to hell, without any proof of a god or a hell, someone telling me to eat a bowl of worms while standing one one foot and patting myself on the head is equally ridiculous, and I am not going to do either.

Strange way to run the Universe to put the default state as eternal damnation.

It's like saying that the default location for your testicles should be in a bear trap.

It's bizarre, not particularly benevolent.

Interesting analogy, but eternal damnation was hardly the original state of our Universe.

That's absurd Zeus is perfectly logically consistant, don't you watch star-trek?

He's just one of those super-powerful aliens with a lightning machine (note: Mormons and some other pseudo-christian sects believe in a god similar to this).

Not your pseudo-Christian sect then?

Its called free will. The Judeo-Christian god does not "damn" anyone, it is the individual that turns his or her back on that diety thus being taken out of the "state of grace" and being shut off from the Judeo-Christian god's love. In other words, they enter Hell or eternal damnation.


Unless, of course, some other deity saves them. Let's say .... Netjer. Who really cares if you lose favor with one when there are as many deities as there are ants?

They can't all be right no matter how much they claim it so.

You can even come up with a failsafe, like the Hindus, who say that no matter what you worship or even if you're Atheist, you are fulfilling the Brahman. Make your religion inescapable. That's where the real money is.

Not your pseudo-Christian sect then?

No, I'm a fundimentalist.

There are no aliens in the Bible (although there are plenty of dragons, demons, angels, and other fun stuff like that).

I thought you were a Muslim

No. I came to my senses.

doesnt that apply to Allah as well?

Yes.

Strange way to run the Universe to put the default state as eternal damnation.
What a strange way to interpret what I wrote. I never said "eternal damnation" was the "defualt state" of "the Universe".
If you want better clarification, I suggest you ask a person of faith or theology major. I have done the best I could.

Well if they tell me to do something I think is retarded, whaat reason do I have to do it?

In the same way some people tell me to do this or that or else im going to hell, without any proof of a god or a hell, someone telling me to eat a bowl of worms while standing one one foot and patting myself on the head is equally ridiculous, and I am not going to do either.

Even if there's a good chance they're smarter than you are?

Interesting analogy, but eternal damnation was hardly the original state of our Universe.

Current default state without grace from God, yes?

Or are you suggesting that it is a deliberate and vicious punishment on God's whim. Think Job, my friend.

Even if there's a good chance they're smarter than you are?

Smarter doesn't necessarily mean "right".

Unless, of course, some other deity saves them. ...
That gets too complicated, and besides, the thread title address "God". The Judeo-Christian diety.
That bugger of a first commandment also gets in the way.

Unless, of course, some other deity saves them. Let's say .... Netjer. Who really cares if you lose favor with one when there are as many deities as there are ants?

They can't all be right no matter how much they claim it so.

You can even come up with a failsafe, like the Hindus, who say that no matter what you worship or even if you're Atheist, you are fulfilling the Brahman. Make your religion inescapable. That's where the real money is.

let's be perfectly honest here, Netjer was a jerk.

What a strange way to interpret what I wrote. I never said "eternal damnation" was the "defualt state" of "the Universe".
If you want better clarification, I suggest you ask a person of faith or theology major. I have done the best I could.

If the default was happy Mcdappy we won't need the Grace of God as you mentioned. Not to forget God as first cause.

Smarter doesn't necessarily mean "right".


Let's go with much, much smarter...

Say, he's never been wrong in the history of the world, and coincidentally he created the place.

Even if there's a good chance they're smarter than you are?

First of all, yes.

Second of all, what does being smart have to do with this? Faith and knowledge are 2 different things. You can have faith in something and not have any brains at all. You can have both brains and faith, but chances are you would be smart enough to realize its your faith, not mine, and stop bothering me about it.

That gets too complicated, and besides, the thread title address "God". The Judeo-Christian diety.
That bugger of a first commandment also gets in the way.

"God" is subjective. It's a noun, not a name.

It's like saying my Ford ZX2 is "Car" and there are no other cars.

If the default was happy Mcdappy we won't need the Grace of God as you mentioned. Not to forget God as first cause.

No, you would still need a first cause. Even cosmology depends rather severely on a "big-bang" where everything appears out of nothing.

Some people try and miserably fail to show that belief in God is logically consistent, others simply state it and expect people to believe them for no reason. This seems to be one of the latter.

"God" is subjective. It's a noun, not a name.

It's like saying my Ford ZX2 is "Car" and there are no other cars.


yes, but it's about 1 letter shorter than always typing YHWH.

Some people try and miserably fail to show that belief in God is logically consistent, others simply state it and expect people to believe them for no reason. This seems to be one of the latter.

So far, no one's made an even reasonably sustained attack on my claim that benevolence is equivalent to damnation.

Say, he's never been wrong in the history of the world, and coincidentally he created the place.

That doesn't exist. Not that anyone alive today has ever seen, anyway. We can only rely on emotional, non-scholarly sources from upwards of 5,000 years in the past from writings written in languages 99.999% of the world doesn't understand.

As for the ideology of "never been wrong", you clearly have not put much thought into some very simple human design flaws. See the "How to talk to an Atheist" thread for that one.

So far, no one's made an even reasonably sustained attack on my claim that benevolence is equivalent to damnation.
You started the thread. You should post your logical argument first. No-one can attack your logic if you haven't written it yet.

First of all, yes.

Second of all, what does being smart have to do with this? Faith and knowledge are 2 different things. You can have faith in something and not have any brains at all. You can have both brains and faith, but chances are you would be smart enough to realize its your faith, not mine, and stop bothering me about it.


I haven't even invoked faith yet.

Besides all we're trying to do is prove or disprove the logical consistancy of a claim, that hardly seems faith-based.

No, you would still need a first cause. Even cosmology depends rather severely on a "big-bang" where everything appears out of nothing.

What I was saying is that in your view God IS the first cause. The architect of such niceties as eternal damnation, for example.

Hard to be suspicious of a system that punishes a person indefinitely for all the mistakes done in less than 100 years. Unless he is a political prisoner, you know with all that 200 year concurrent jail term and stuff. ;)

yes, but it's about 1 letter shorter than always typing YHWH.

YHWH doesn't mean "God", it is a construct of a bunch of different ways of saying "I am". If you want it literally, it translates to something like "I will be that which I am as shall I be I am".

However, you didn't put YHWH in the title nor the original post. You didn't specify, so as far as I'm concerned, this thread can be about any deity I choose.

I'm goin' with Shiva.

I haven't even invoked faith yet.

Besides all we're trying to do is prove or disprove the logical consistancy of a claim, that hardly seems faith-based.

But you are trying to make logic out of something faith based like, you know, a God.

No, you would still need a first cause. Even cosmology depends rather severely on a "big-bang" where everything appears out of nothing.

Prime mover unmoved. Like a line of freight cars with no engine. I like it.

YHWH doesn't mean "God", it is a construct of a bunch of different ways of saying "I am". If you want it literally, it translates to something like "I will be that which I am as shall I be I am".

However, you didn't put YHWH in the title nor the original post. You didn't specify, so as far as I'm concerned, this thread can be about any deity I choose.

I'm goin' with Shiva.

I prefer my God of porn and chocolate. And interstellar travel with hyperactive multiply-fornicating bunnies.

"God" is subjective. It's a noun, not a name.
It is not just any noun, its a proper noun.
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=god
...
1. God
a. A being conceived as the perfect, omnipotent, omniscient originator and ruler of the universe, the principal object of faith and worship in monotheistic religions.
b. The force, effect, or a manifestation or aspect of this being.
...
Sounds like the Judeo-Christian diety to me.

I prefer my God of porn and chocolate. And interstellar travel with hyperactive multiply-fornicating bunnies.

Oooooh .... Sexlexcocawarpicuniculus. South American native deity, right?

Sounds like the Judeo-Christian diety to me.

That is only if we assume that the Judeo-Christian deity is the only one who fits definition 1. It isn't. Nearly all of man's history is lousy with deities that fit that definition.

Saying only yours is right does not make it so. Not even if it's written in a book.

So how is a benevolent God consistent with eternal damnation?

As opposed to a 100-year damnation? 50-years?
Or 10 years jail? Or boot camp? A firm rebuke? Counselling?

Or simply no punishment whatsoever?

Where is the logical argument?

You started the thread. You should post your logical argument first. No-one can attack your logic if you haven't written it yet.


Ok:

Definition: (God) YHWH, the God of the Christian Bible (NIV translation) who for the purpose of this discussion will be considered to be omnipotent, omniscent, and exist as the first (efficent) cause of creation as well as the first (final) cause of creation.

Definition: (Benevolent) Describes a condition in which God seeks to enable (human) beings within his creation to reach a point of greatest fulfilled potential.

Definition:(eternal damnation) A system of justice often associated with smiting people with fire and brimstone, drowning them in the Red Sea, or damning them to burn for all eternity in hell.

Definition:(free will) A possible (potentiality) to choose between good (alignment with God's purpose) and evil (opposition to God's purpose).

1) Claim: (the neccessity of free will for benevolence) That a being which possess free-will is more fulfilled than a being which does not possess free-will, and therefore since benevolence requires God to enable us to acquire our fullest potential that freewill is a necessary aspect of benevolence.

2) Claim: (the necessity of justice for free will) That in order for free will to exist, there must be some distinction between good and evil. That that difference is justice.

3) Theorm: (the necessity of justice for benevolence) that justice is necessary for benevolence. Follows at once from 2) and 3)

YHWH doesn't mean "God", it is a construct of a bunch of different ways of saying "I am". If you want it literally, it translates to something like "I will be that which I am as shall I be I am".

However, you didn't put YHWH in the title nor the original post. You didn't specify, so as far as I'm concerned, this thread can be about any deity I choose.

I'm goin' with Shiva.

traditionally, when the word god is capitalized, it refers to the judeo-christian god, ie YHWH.

Ok:

Definition: (God) YHWH, the God of the Christian Bible (NIV translation) who for the purpose of this discussion will be considered to be omnipotent, omniscent, and exist as the first (efficent) cause of creation as well as the first (final) cause of creation.

Definition: (Benevolent) Describes a condition in which God seeks to enable (human) beings within his creation to reach a point of greatest fulfilled potential.

Definition:(eternal damnation) A system of justice often associated with smiting people with fire and brimstone, drowning them in the Red Sea, or damning them to burn for all eternity in hell.

Definition:(free will) A possible (potentiality) to choose between good (alignment with God's purpose) and evil (opposition to God's purpose).

1) Claim: (the neccessity of free will for benevolence) That a being which possess free-will is more fulfilled than a being which does not possess free-will, and therefore since benevolence requires God to enable us to acquire our fullest potential that freewill is a necessary aspect of benevolence.

2) Claim: (the necessity of justice for free will) That in order for free will to exist, there must be some distinction between good and evil. That that difference is justice.

3) Theorm: (the necessity of justice for benevolence) that justice is necessary for benevolence. Follows at once from 2) and 3)

So benevolence is that you get execution for lesser crimes? It's been done.

But you are trying to make logic out of something faith based like, you know, a God.

no, I'm trying to prove that an idea is logically consistant, not that you should believe it.

traditionally, when the word god is capitalized, it refers to the judeo-christian god, ie YHWH.

Except for God in Islam.

traditionally, when the word god is capitalized, it refers to the judeo-christian god, ie YHWH.

Tradition has no logical consistency and has no place in proper debate or peer review. Tradition is based on emotional response and not upon broader or universal fact.

As a matter of fact, just by writing the word "YHWH" in this very forum, you are damned because of your willy-nilly use of the name of Hashem - forbidden for our use outside of Torah. This is in accordance with the Commandments, Torah, Talmud, and Jewish Orthodox tradition.

Why is your tradition so much more proper or important than theirs that you continue to spit on their deity while at the same time claiming to worship it?

Makes no sense to me.

So benevolence is that you get execution for lesser crimes? It's been done.

No, benevolence is that you get to choose whether or not you get executed and that choosing is infinitely more valuble than the actual execution or lack thereof.

Tradition has no logical consistency and has no place in proper debate or peer review. Tradition is based on emotional response and not upon broader or universal fact.

Correct, but it makes it a lot easier to discuss things without getting confused.

Except for God in Islam.

Correct, but most literate people writing on the philosophy of God were not muslim.

Furthermore, the muslim God Allah is about 70% compatable with the judeo-christian one.

Correct, but it makes it a lot easier to discuss things without getting confused.

The best way to do that is to use universal definitions or to establish the definitions of terms from the beginning of the debate. If you want the deity in question to be the one Abraham argued with about how many people to save from Sodom, so be it. Establish that up front.

If you want it to be the Christian one who blinded Saul and impregnated Mary, then establish that one.

If you want it to be ... well you get the idea.

That is only if we assume that the Judeo-Christian deity is the only one who fits definition 1. It isn't. Nearly all of man's history is lousy with deities that fit that definition.
There is the monotheistic aspect of the definition that your leaving out. Those religons that claim to be / are monotheistic are: Judaism, Christianity and Islam.
Are there other contemporary monothesitic religions that I'm not aware of?
There is a difference between "god" and "God" due to orthography.

No, benevolence is that you get to choose whether or not you get executed and that choosing is infinitely more valuble than the actual execution or lack thereof.

You have not addressed this: - why eternal damnation? Do you think that 100 years damnation is not enough for one lifetime's worth of "sin"? In what way is this benevolent.

Also I will ask you a personal question. If someone says that he loves you, do you believe him just because he says that? How would you know if he is not abusing your trust to set you up for trouble, just for a wager? Like Job.

The best way to do that is to use universal definitions or to establish the definitions of terms from the beginning of the debate. If you want the deity in question to be the one Abraham argued with about how many people to save from Sodom, so be it. Establish that up front.

If you want it to be the Christian one who blinded Saul and impregnated Mary, then establish that one.

If you want it to be ... well you get the idea.

I added the set of definitions and first postulates to my first post.

Definition: (God) YHWH, the God of the Christian Bible (NIV translation) who for the purpose of this discussion will be considered to be omnipotent, omniscent, and exist as the first (efficent) cause of creation as well as the first (final) cause of creation.

You have not addressed this: - why eternal damnation? Do you think that 100 years damnation is not enough for one lifetime's worth of "sin"? In what way is this benevolent.

Also I will ask you a personal question. If someone says that he loves you, do you believe him just because he says that? How would you know if he is not abusing your trust to set you up for trouble, just for a wager? Like Job.

no, because if we could only choose for... say (a week) then after that week we would lose our choice and we would be right back where we started without freewill.

Are there other contemporary monothesitic religions that I'm not aware of?


There is Atonism, Zoroastrianism, Bahai'ism, Sikhism, and Krishna Consciousness.

There are also the Esoteric Monotheistic (as opposed to Representative Monotheism) religions of Kabbalah, Sufism, and Christian Hermeticism.

There's also the Ayyavazhi, who believe all deities (including Jehova) were unified into Vaikundar who was the incarnation of Ekam, the Ultimate Soul or Paramatama.

Plenty of 'em out there.

There is Atonism, Zoroastrianism, Bahai'ism, Sikhism, and Krishna Consciousness.

There are also the Esoteric Monotheistic (as opposed to Representative Monotheism) religions of Kabbalah, Sufism, and Christian Hermeticism.

There's also the Ayyavazhi, who believe all deities (including Jehova) were unified into Vaikundar who was the incarnation of Ekam, the Ultimate Soul or Paramatama.

Plenty of 'em out there.


Sounds good, but let's just focus on proving that at least one (or maybe none of them) are logically consistant.

Since the judeo-christian God is by far the most popular (more than 2 billion followers) can we just stick to him?

... Plenty of 'em out there.
It seems to be see so.
However just to drive the point further, "god" is not the same as "God".
Though I will no longer say that "God" only refers to the Judeo-Christian diety.

Since the judeo-christian God is by far the most popular (more than 2 billion followers) can we just stick to him?

Well we still have to confine that a bit. Let's say 2 billion followers of this particular deity. I'll accept that number.

Unfortunately, within that number, there are scisms run amuck. For instance, the Jehovah's Witnesses do not accept the trinity and the Latter Day Saints believe in alternate aspects of this deity unacceptable to others.

Some say it's all about Grace, while others believe in Calvinistic predestination.

Some believe you must be born again in the blood of the lamb, while others believe you were born right the first time.

That's just the Christians! The Jews - to whom this deity originally belonged - don't now, nor have they ever, believed in a Hell or Eternal Damnation because (as is written in Talmud) it would be inconsistent with God's loving nature.

In short, the way this deity is worshipped can be so varied, we cannot accept a singular definition.

It seems to be see so.
However just to drive the point further, "god" is not the same as "God".
Though I will no longer say that "God" only refers to the Judeo-Christian diety.

between about 150CE and 1950CE on the continent of Europe and 1600CE and 1950CE on the continent of America it does. Otherwise, it's up for debate.

no, because if we could only choose for... say (a week) then after that week we would lose our choice and we would be right back where we started without freewill.

Again?

Well we still have to confine that a bit. Let's say 2 billion followers of this particular deity. I'll accept that number.

Unfortunately, within that number, there are scisms run amuck. For instance, the Jehovah's Witnesses do not accept the trinity and the Latter Day Saints believe in alternate aspects of this deity unacceptable to others.

Some say it's all about Grace, while others believe in Calvinistic predestination.

Some believe you must be born again in the blood of the lamb, while others believe you were born right the first time.

That's just the Christians! The Jews - to whom this deity originally belonged - don't now, nor have they ever, believed in a Hell or Eternal Damnation because (as is written in Talmud) it would be inconsistent with God's loving nature.

In short, the way this deity is worshipped can be so varied, we cannot accept a singular definition.

NIV translation of the Bible taken more or less literally when possible and interpreted allegorically, morally, anagogically otherwise.

Note: I know this means that the Bible says the world was created in 6 days but we're debating logical consistancy not historical fact so please don't bring it up unless you feel you absolutely must.

Again?

Yes, that's the basic argument anyways.

So long as there are good people and bad people and you can tell the difference then you have a choice. As soon as you can't tell the difference then neither the good people nor the bad people have free will anymore so they're both much worse off.

between about 150CE and 1950CE on the continent of Europe and 1600CE and 1950CE on the continent of America it does.

Cardinals boiling you in oil for not accepting their definition or Missionaries hanging you for not accepting theirs is a really bad basis of a tradition.

Oh, and just FYI, back in 150 CE they didn't speak English in Europe. There was no word "God". So we must now also accept that "Deus" is in reference to the same inconsistent deity which we still can't define.

I think I'm getting a headache.

Cardinals boiling you in oil for not accepting their definition or Missionaries hanging you for not accepting theirs is a really bad basis of a tradition.

Most traditions are based on about the same stuff

Oh, and just FYI, back in 150 CE they didn't speak English in Europe. There was no word "God". So we must now also accept that "Deus" is in reference to the same inconsistent deity which we still can't define.

point taken.

I think I'm getting a headache.

I'm sorry.

Oh, and just FYI, back in 150 CE they didn't speak English in Europe. There was no word "God". So we must now also accept that "Deus" is in reference to the same inconsistent deity which we still can't define.
Dang Vatican II...

NIV translation of the Bible taken more or less literally when possible and interpreted allegorically, morally, anagogically otherwise.

OK! Now we're getting somewhere. NIV translation (I assume English).

Now ... by whose interpretations and morals shall we base the less literal aspect?

Note: I know this means that the Bible says the world was created in 6 days but we're debating logical consistancy not historical fact so please don't bring it up unless you feel you absolutely must.

No no ... that's a whole 'nother thread. No reason to deal with it here.

I'm sorry.

Oh it's not your fault. I just need coffee and I'm trying to watch 2001 (the Kubrick film) while typing. I think bouncing my eyes from one screen to another is doing it.

Yes, that's the basic argument anyways.

So long as there are good people and bad people and you can tell the difference then you have a choice. As soon as you can't tell the difference then neither the good people nor the bad people have free will anymore so they're both much worse off.

You are saying that a choice between 100 years damnation and heaven is not more benevolent than eternal damnation/heaven. Still have your choice there.

Oh it's not your fault. I just need coffee and I'm trying to watch 2001 (the Kubrick film) while typing. I think bouncing my eyes from one screen to another is doing it.

::sigh::

do you remember when 2001 was the future.

I'm still waiting for the Chinese to land on Titan in 2010 and get eaten by the sea-monster there (note, there isn't actually a sea there).

Oh it's not your fault. I just need coffee and I'm trying to watch 2001 (the Kubrick film) while typing. I think bouncing my eyes from one screen to another is doing it.

Are you at "Good morning, Dave." ?

Are you at "Good morning, Dave." ?

Heh ... no ... I'm where he's walking through the mansion and seeing himself as an old man eating soup.

I'm still waiting for the Chinese to land on Titan in 2010 and get eaten by the sea-monster there (note, there isn't actually a sea there).

rofl! I hope it happens. That would be hilarious.

You are saying that a choice between 100 years damnation and heaven is not more benevolent than eternal damnation/heaven. Still have your choice there.

I guess I am, but even if there is a possible more-benevolent God, it still woulnd't make a slightly-less-benevolent God (ever so slightly, mind you) logically inconsistant, just mean.

The basic idea is that if God sends you to hell for a hundred years and then says "okay, I've changed my mind you have to come to heaven now and worship me" it wouldn't be much of a choice.

I have to go now.

Good luck, all!

Heh ... no ... I'm where he's walking through the mansion and seeing himself as an old man eating soup.

Oh towards the end then.

*Awaiting the giant fetus*

I love Kupric. He's my idol. *gets strcuk by a divine bolt of lightning*

I guess I am, but even if there is a possible more-benevolent God, it still woulnd't make a slightly-less-benevolent God (ever so slightly, mind you) logically inconsistant, just mean.

The basic idea is that if God sends you to hell for a hundred years and then says "okay, I've changed my mind you have to come to heaven now and worship me" it wouldn't be much of a choice.

Unfortunately eternal damnation is not "ever so slightly" meaner. Infinity is infinity times longer than 100 years. Or even 1 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 years of hell. A nice thing, the unsupported infinitive.

A hundred years of hell for disobeying God is already quite harsh by my book. It's still quite a choice.

The supposition of an omniscient God and freewill are completely immiscible, as an omniscient God will know beforehand what you will do. From mankind's non-omniscient viewpoint we indeed have the illusion of freewill but God, knowing all our actions, knows we do not have such a thing nor does it even exist. Therefore if the Bible is to be believed God has created (or caused to be created) millions of people merely to populate Hell, as God knew they were to be unrepentant sinners before they were born.

The supposition of an omniscient God and freewill are completely immiscible, as an omniscient God will know beforehand what you will do. From mankind's non-omniscient viewpoint we indeed have the illusion of freewill but God, knowing all our actions, knows we do not have such a thing nor does it even exist. Therefore if the Bible is to be believed God has created (or caused to be created) millions of people merely to populate Hell, as God knew they were to be unrepentant sinners before they were born.

Welcome to NS General. Good first post. :)

The notion of Justice itself is bunk within a monotheist background. When Good and Evil are the descriptors for that which toes the line and that which rebels, there is no justice; there is merely revenge.

Welcome to NS General. Good first post. :)
Danke :)

Ok:

Definition: (God) YHWH, the God of the Christian Bible (NIV translation) who for the purpose of this discussion will be considered to be omnipotent, omniscent, and exist as the first (efficent) cause of creation as well as the first (final) cause of creation.

Definition: (Benevolent) Describes a condition in which God seeks to enable (human) beings within his creation to reach a point of greatest fulfilled potential.

Definition:(eternal damnation) A system of justice often associated with smiting people with fire and brimstone, drowning them in the Red Sea, or damning them to burn for all eternity in hell.

Definition:(free will) A possible (potentiality) to choose between good (alignment with God's purpose) and evil (opposition to God's purpose).

1) Claim: (the neccessity of free will for benevolence) That a being which possess free-will is more fulfilled than a being which does not possess free-will, and therefore since benevolence requires God to enable us to acquire our fullest potential that freewill is a necessary aspect of benevolence.

2) Claim: (the necessity of justice for free will) That in order for free will to exist, there must be some distinction between good and evil. That that difference is justice.

3) Theorm: (the necessity of justice for benevolence) that justice is necessary for benevolence. Follows at once from 2) and 3)
All I see here is a description of a situation in which a person (the Judeo-Christian God) sets up a system or game and chooses the parameters, thusly: 1) Creates world. 2) Creates people. 3) Shows people two options and says, "If you choose A you'll be rewarded and if you choose B you'll be punished. Now choose."

Doesn't seem like much of a challenge for free will, does it? Also, if the question is "Why is eternal damnation necessary?", I'll come back with another question: Why is any of it necessary?

There is a certain arbitrariness to the whole set-up that would seem to render the OP posit meaningless.

The notion of Justice itself is bunk within a monotheist background. When Good and Evil are the descriptors for that which toes the line and that which rebels, there is no justice; there is merely revenge.
Good point.

And if the message is that only one set of behaviors will be rewarded, why did an omnipotent god decide to make it a choice at all? Would a benevolent god have created a situation in which his own creations would be set up for eternal damnation?

Good point.

And if the message is that only one set of behaviors will be rewarded, why did an omnipotent god decide to make it a choice at all? Would a benevolent god have created a situation in which his own creations would be set up for eternal damnation?
Good question - one dealt out in a few biblical instances ...:
(KJ)
Proverbs 16:4
The Lord hath made all things for himself: yea, even the wicked for the day of evil.

John 12:40
He hath blinded their eyes, and hardened their heart; that they should not see with their eyes, nor understand with their heart, and be converted, and I should heal them.

Romans 9:18
Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth.

2 Thessalonians 2:11-12
God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: That they all might be damned.

Good question - one dealt out in a few biblical instances ...:
Hmm. Interesting.

(KJ)
Proverbs 16:4
The Lord hath made all things for himself: yea, even the wicked for the day of evil.
This would seem to imply that damnation does happen, that it is pre-ordained, and, possibly, that it is part of a plan, i.e. has a purpose. I wonder what that would be.

John 12:40
He hath blinded their eyes, and hardened their heart; that they should not see with their eyes, nor understand with their heart, and be converted, and I should heal them.
I'm not sure I understand this one. Does it mean that God offers and allows people to choose the bad path just so he can get them back from it, like a person who sets a fire just so he can be a hero and save people from it? Or does it mean that someone else is luring people down a bad path so that God can't get them back? If so, then it would seem to imply that eternal damnation is not part of God's plan, after all, but is someone else's plan.

Romans 9:18
Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth.
This seems to imply predestination, that God created certain people to be damned for all eternity. If so, how can a god be benevolent who would create beings just to torture them?

2 Thessalonians 2:11-12
God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: That they all might be damned.
And this one seems to be saying none of it is true, and there is no damnation after all. Then why would God create a false choice?

Or is it saying, like the earlier one, that God deliberately deceives some people in order to damn them. That would also hardly be benevolent. (Though I don't think the second reading is the right one, based just on the punctuation.)

It seems from this there is no consensus on the function of damnation even in the Bible.

2) Claim: (the necessity of justice for free will) That in order for free will to exist, there must be some distinction between good and evil. That that difference is justice.

So, for instance, in order to choose whether I want to eat pizza or spaghetti for lunch, I need one to be evil and the other to be good, or it is not free will?

Furthermore, the mere existence of a divinely-ordained morality and the brutal enforcement of such a morality are two separate things.

Hmm. Interesting.


This would seem to imply that damnation does happen, that it is pre-ordained, and, possibly, that it is part of a plan, i.e. has a purpose. I wonder what that would be.
Some people here (everywhere judeo-christianity has touched, methinks) express the idea that hell is the farthest reach from god - i guess god plans to cast some out for some particular reason. Deliberate neglect. Also, it may have been an issue reference to an older religious/spiritual understanding that the Niceans glossed over, or the translation didn't cut it. Certainly not the only curious one in there.

I'm not sure I understand this one. Does it mean that God offers and allows people to choose the bad path just so he can get them back from it, like a person who sets a fire just so he can be a hero and save people from it? Or does it mean that someone else is luring people down a bad path so that God can't get them back? If so, then it would seem to imply that eternal damnation is not part of God's plan, after all, but is someone else's plan.Yes, god apparently has a flair for drama, and i truly don't think any argument against that has much to back it up, given the source material. Probably deliberate torture. Take Job, for instance. This particular one, being John though, insinuates the christ aspect (even if it wasn't every really qualified)


This seems to imply predestination, that God created certain people to be damned for all eternity. If so, how can a god be benevolent who would create beings just to torture them?Again, the material supports idea that god wants to make us suffer over him.


And this one seems to be saying none of it is true, and there is no damnation after all. Then why would God create a false choice?
A flair for drama - without that hanging over our heads, people would've outgrown the infant long ago.
Or is it saying, like the earlier one, that God deliberately deceives some people in order to damn them. That would also hardly be benevolent. (Though I don't think the second reading is the right one, based just on the punctuation.)Agreed that the punctuation makes it touchy - from other recounts, i'm under the impression that god deliberately goads its subjects into cases of extreme duress and suffering - take Abram and his son, for another example.

It seems from this there is no consensus on the function of damnation even in the Bible.Very very true. And the denominations certainly don't help to clarify in that regard.

New to this forum...first post....let's hope this goes well....

So, let's assume for a moment that we have free will. The idea that there is an ultimate good and an ultimate evil does seem to negate that, but then there are the grey areas. Stealing is wrong, giving is right. But is stealing so you can give food (and therefore life) to your family right or wrong? Welcome to the color in the otherwise black-and-white thought process.

Anyway.

What if we're missing something important? Something huge? Let's roll with the Judeo-Christian concept here (as a side note, Islam also finds its basis in Judaism). God is omniscent, omnipotent, yadda yadda. But, according to tradition, there was one other thing, named Lucifer. You know, the fallen angel. What if the angel's fall is what forced evil into the world? Animals were here pre-human, and they kill only out of necessity. We kill for sport. What if there was something that brought the evil into the world, and in order to survive, we adapted, and evolved, and created "Free Will"?

Of course...for any race to evolve a free will and choose evil over good, or for any archangel to rebel and have to be thrown down, suggests a certain lack of foresight in the Creator of either. Maybe this "omniscient" thing is overrated?

Some people here (everywhere judeo-christianity has touched, methinks) express the idea that hell is the farthest reach from god - i guess god plans to cast some out for some particular reason. Deliberate neglect. Also, it may have been an issue reference to an older religious/spiritual understanding that the Niceans glossed over, or the translation didn't cut it. Certainly not the only curious one in there.

Yes, god apparently has a flair for drama, and i truly don't think any argument against that has much to back it up, given the source material. Probably deliberate torture. Take Job, for instance. This particular one, being John though, insinuates the christ aspect (even if it wasn't every really qualified)


Again, the material supports idea that god wants to make us suffer over him.


A flair for drama - without that hanging over our heads, people would've outgrown the infant long ago.
Agreed that the punctuation makes it touchy - from other recounts, i'm under the impression that god deliberately goads its subjects into cases of extreme duress and suffering - take Abram and his son, for another example.
Well, I'm sorry, and I say this with the cavalier attitude of the non-believer, but, really, this God person needs to get over himself. ;)

Very very true. And the denominations certainly don't help to clarify in that regard.
I suspect it's symptomatic of monotheism and its attempts to combine all aspects of life under one controlling god-mind. It seems impossible to combine it all without creating a god character who is insane. Christians are left either having to abandon ideas like damnation or else having a god they keep having to explain and defend.

Polytheism avoids this problem, obviously.

Well, I'm sorry, and I say this with the cavalier attitude of the non-believer, but, really, this God person needs to get over himself. ;)
Agreed. When left to its own devices, it turns on itself and disappears in a puff of angry insignificance.


I suspect it's symptomatic of monotheism and its attempts to combine all aspects of life under one controlling god-mind. It seems impossible to combine it all without creating a god character who is insane. Christians are left either having to abandon ideas like damnation or else having a god they keep having to explain and defend.

Polytheism avoids this problem, obviously.I noted that other thread about not having any gods before "him" .... fairly simple - this infant wanted singular favouritism, and was adamant about devotion because it seemed to know that the rest would fade into nothingness by being ignored just as much as it would if the roles were reversed. What was interesting about a lot of the other polytheistic mythos was the interdependency of the characters - made for some rich storytelling. OT tried too, but the angel thing was a little too much a stretch given the supposed source authority of "god" (leaving quite a few questions there), so the politics of god mentality were imposed on the early inhabitants and they got to do all the fun interplay - of course, doing the things god itself demanded and did, making one big happy family. :rolleyes:

OT tried too, but the angel thing was a little too much a stretch given the supposed source authority of "god" (leaving quite a few questions there),

Interesting thing to note would be that the angels mythos really took root when Christianity began to spread (read: be forced upon) to the polytheistic and pagan peoples. Using the angels made it easier to transition from having a god of trees, a god of beavers, and a god of innuendos, to having one God that governed over it all, with a bunch of little helpers to enforce it. Kind of like Santa and his elves. Except God doesn't don a red suit and come down my chimney like certain bearded fat men I've read about.

Interesting thing to note would be that the angels mythos really took root when Christianity began to spread (read: be forced upon) to the polytheistic and pagan peoples. Using the angels made it easier to transition from having a god of trees, a god of beavers, and a god of innuendos, to having one God that governed over it all, with a bunch of little helpers to enforce it. Kind of like Santa and his elves. Except God doesn't don a red suit and come down my chimney like certain bearded fat men I've read about.
I had my suspicions about that exact thing. *nods*
Well, everything but Santy. He's on the forum here kowtowing to Drunk Commies Deleted.

Interesting thing to note would be that the angels mythos really took root when Christianity began to spread (read: be forced upon) to the polytheistic and pagan peoples. Using the angels made it easier to transition from having a god of trees, a god of beavers, and a god of innuendos, to having one God that governed over it all, with a bunch of little helpers to enforce it. Kind of like Santa and his elves. Except God doesn't don a red suit and come down my chimney like certain bearded fat men I've read about.
You got your angels of music and your angels of children and your angels of healing and your angels of plants and angels for each star in the sky, etc, etc, etc. Not to mention your saints of lost objects and lost causes, throat ailments, travel by flight, firemen, policemen, sailors, just about every other profession you can think of, towns, cities, nations, etc, etc, etc, etc....

You got your angels of music and your angels of children and your angels of healing and your angels of plants and angels for each star in the sky, etc, etc, etc. Not to mention your saints of lost objects and lost causes, throat ailments, travel by flight, firemen, policemen, sailors, just about every other profession you can think of, towns, cities, nations, etc, etc, etc, etc....
And then he broke the unions.
:(

Unfortunately eternal damnation is not "ever so slightly" meaner. Infinity is infinity times longer than 100 years. Or even 1 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 years of hell. A nice thing, the unsupported infinitive.

point taken, but as I said, it still has no real bearing on the argument at hand.

A hundred years of hell for disobeying God is already quite harsh by my book. It's still quite a choice.

The question isn't "is harsh enough?", the question is "do you have a choice?"

If, after 100 (or 100 000 000...) years God decides that your choice was invalid and that you will be forced to accept his mercy, go to heaven and worship him in heaven, then it soon because obvious you never really had a choice in the first place.

The supposition of an omniscient God and freewill are completely immiscible, as an omniscient God will know beforehand what you will do. From mankind's non-omniscient viewpoint we indeed have the illusion of freewill but God, knowing all our actions, knows we do not have such a thing nor does it even exist. Therefore if the Bible is to be believed God has created (or caused to be created) millions of people merely to populate Hell, as God knew they were to be unrepentant sinners before they were born.

knowing something will probably happen and allowing it to happen is not the same as forcing it to happen.

Moreover if that is the only way we can have freewill (since apparently we too often refuse to accept God's mercy) then the cost of having to face hell is still outweighed by the gain of the ability to choose between heaven and hell.

Without freewill, essential we are nothing. We are no different from a rock or a lump of dirt, it is our ability to choose between good and evil that makes us unique.

So, for instance, in order to choose whether I want to eat pizza or spaghetti for lunch, I need one to be evil and the other to be good, or it is not free will?

if there was no difference between pizza and spaghetti, how much of a choice would it really be?

Furthermore, the mere existence of a divinely-ordained morality and the brutal enforcement of such a morality are two separate things.

...as opposed to a morality that isn't enforced?

All I see here is a description of a situation in which a person (the Judeo-Christian God) sets up a system or game and chooses the parameters, thusly: 1) Creates world. 2) Creates people. 3) Shows people two options and says, "If you choose A you'll be rewarded and if you choose B you'll be punished. Now choose."

A bit simplistic, but I'll accept it.

Doesn't seem like much of a challenge for free will, does it? Also, if the question is "Why is eternal damnation necessary?", I'll come back with another question: Why is any of it necessary?

And yet... we still seem to struggle with it so much.

eternal damnation is neccessary because rejection of God is de-facto eternal damnation. If you understand the Christian conception of existence, you would also be aware that seperation from God is the ultimate punishment itself. The fire and brimestone are really just for effect.

Of course, you could just say "well, then why doesn't God force us to be with him?" but that obviously violates the basic idea that we have (indeed must have) a choice, otherwise we're really no different from the gold pavement on the streets of heaven (which coincidentally had no choice as to whether or not it was going to be there).


There is a certain arbitrariness to the whole set-up that would seem to render the OP posit meaningless.

it follows from first principles, arbitrary or not. Besides, I'm only trying to prove that it's logically consistant, not that it makes sense.

knowing something will probably happen and allowing it to happen is not the same as forcing it to happen.

If you forsee something happening, something is forcing it to happen, otherwise theres nothing to forsee.

Without freewill, essential we are nothing. We are no different from a rock or a lump of dirt, it is our ability to choose between good and evil that makes us unique.

But theres a reson you choose either good or evil. These reasons have reasons, and eventually you will realize they are reasons beyond your control. In a sense, we don't have free will.

I don't see how eternal damnation fits the bill as being necessary. I mean, this is an omnipotent god here right, surely there is another form of punishment (or justice as you would call it) that would truly allow someone to reach their full potential (as you so defined benevolance) instead of rotting in hell for the rest of time. I mean, justice is hardly just when the punishment far exceeds the crime in severity. No amount of terrible behaviour in a lifetime could warrant an eternal punishment, not to mention that there's no way to reach some greater potential while in eternal torment.

If you forsee something happening, something is forcing it to happen, otherwise theres nothing to forsee.

only if God exists in time, which was not in the definition I outlined. If God exists outside of time, any argument about him "forseeing" something becomes irrelevant because for him, you have already made the choice (freely) and he is simply aware of the outcome.



But theres a reson you choose either good or evil. These reasons have reasons, and eventually you will realize they are reasons beyond your control. In a sense, we don't have free will.

No, quantum physics has essentially proven that somethings (causes) are perfectly random. ie. physicists have proved the existence of freewill (at least on an atomic level, and we are all made of atoms).

Deterministic arguments become silly once you understand the Heisenburg uncertainty principle.

I don't see how eternal damnation fits the bill as being necessary. I mean, this is an omnipotent god here right, surely there is another form of punishment (or justice as you would call it) that would truly allow someone to reach their full potential (as you so defined benevolance) instead of rotting in hell for the rest of time. I mean, justice is hardly just when the punishment far exceeds the crime in severity. No amount of terrible behaviour in a lifetime could warrant an eternal punishment, not to mention that there's no way to reach some greater potential while in eternal torment.

As I've already mentioned, eternal seperation from God is the eternal damnation mentioned in the Bible.

The only way not to have eternal damnation would be to force people to commune with God, which would obviously violate freewill.

No, quantum physics has essentially proven that somethings (causes) are perfectly random. ie. physicists have proved the existence of freewill (at least on an atomic level, and we are all made of atoms).

Deterministic arguments become silly once you understand the Heisenburg uncertainty principle.
The Heisenburg uncertainty principle doesn't say that causes are random. It does rule out deterministic arguments, but that doesn't make the universe random. It just makes the universe probabalistic...

As I've already mentioned, eternal seperation from God is the eternal damnation mentioned in the Bible.

The only way not to have eternal damnation would be to force people to commune with God, which would obviously violate freewill.
The eternal damnation in the bible involves burning in a sulphorous lake for eternity. I hardly see how that level of punishment is necessary.

Furthermore, it would be possible to do something like punish people for a while and then realize that they've paid for their "sins" and allow them into heaven. Unless your god can't handle the concept of reforming prisoners.

Funny how the damned would be prisoners too, since this god made them.

only if God exists in time, which was not in the definition I outlined. If God exists outside of time, any argument about him "forseeing" something becomes irrelevant because for him, you have already made the choice (freely) and he is simply aware of the outcome.


Which of course means that God was aware that the universe he was creating was in a way that would doom billions of people to eternal damnation.

And he still created it.

Which of course means that God was aware that the universe he was creating was in a way that would doom billions of people to eternal damnation.

And he still created it.


Obviously because the good outweighs the bad.

The value of freewill in God's eyes (and probably in yours too, if you think about it) outweighs the potential associated with misapplication of that freewill.

Obviously because the good outweighs the bad.

Unlikely.

There are some 6 billion people alive today. Not even half of those are Christian. Assuming that maybe a fourth of them got his message right and will go to heaven, the overwhelming majority will still be damned.

I really don't think that the good outweighs the bad here.

The value of freewill in God's eyes (and probably in yours too, if you think about it) outweighs the potential associated with misapplication of that freewill.

God doesn't really value free will. Did he leave Adam & Eve the choice to believe in him after creating them?

No, quantum physics has essentially proven that somethings (causes) are perfectly random.

In other words we are slaves to random chance, we cant control it, therefore we do not have free will.

Unlikely.

There are some 6 billion people alive today. Not even half of those are Christian. Assuming that maybe a fourth of them got his message right and will go to heaven, the overwhelming majority will still be damned.

I really don't think that the good outweighs the bad here.

The good I'm reffering to is the ability to choose, not the actual choice itself.

All rocks are happy, none of them are going to hell. We are better than rocks, we can choose whether to accept God or whether to reject him.





God doesn't really value free will. Did he leave Adam & Eve the choice to believe in him after creating them?

Lucifer believes in God!!!

It's not whether or not you believe in God, it's whether you choose to be with him or against him that matters.

All of us have the ability to make that choice.

In other words we are slaves to random chance, we cant control it, therefore we do not have free will.

No. Quantum physics also states that the outcome of these otherwise random possibilities is determined by whatever conciousness observes it. In other words, everything is random until we choose one or the other.

No. Quantum physics also states that the outcome of these otherwise random possibilities is determined by whatever conciousness observes it. In other words, everything is random until we choose one or the other.

The underlying reason you choose something is due to randomness.

No. Quantum physics also states that the outcome of these otherwise random possibilities is determined by whatever conciousness observes it. In other words, everything is random until we choose one or the other.
That's not what Quantum physics states. You can't just make shit up, you know.

The underlying reason you choose something is due to randomness.

Now you're just being silly. Science has proven that we (concious human beings) are responsible for determining the nature of the universe so you have to insist that our conciousness itself is random and therefore totally beyond our control.

That's not something I can possibly argue against, it's a first-principle.

The good I'm reffering to is the ability to choose, not the actual choice itself.

All rocks are happy, none of them are going to hell. We are better than rocks, we can choose whether to accept God or whether to reject him.



The ability to choose is what damns people to hell. Without the ability to choose and therefore to sin, no one would be damned.

So the cost of choice is the vast majority of people burning in hell.

Lucifer believes in God!!!

It's not whether or not you believe in God, it's whether you choose to be with him or against him that matters.

All of us have the ability to make that choice.

I was under the conception that to be saved you would have to have faith in God and that this faith must come from free will. At least that's what several Christians have been claiming on the forums.

Now you're just being silly. Science has proven that we (concious human beings) are responsible for determining the nature of the universe so you have to insist that our conciousness itself is random and therefore totally beyond our control.

That's not something I can possibly argue against, it's a first-principle.

If you are agreeing that consciousness itself is random and beyond our control, then you are agreeing with me that theres no free will.

That's not what Quantum physics states. You can't just make shit up, you know.

Yes it is. (refer to two-slit experiment)
http://www.fortunecity.com/emachines/e11/86/qphil.html

How much quantum physics do you know?

If you are agreeing that consciousness itself is random and beyond our control, then you are agreeing with me that theres no free will.

No, I'm disagreeing with you and merely pointing out that you are making an unrefutable (and therefore unprovable) claim.

Furthermore, because there is no reason why I cannot start with my own first principle (that conciousness is capable of choice) I have already proven the logical consistancy of eternal damnation with a benevolent God.

Yes it is. (refer to two-slit experiment)
http://www.fortunecity.com/emachines/e11/86/qphil.html

How much quantum physics do you know?
I'm majoring in physics. I know enough about quantum to know the difference between quantum, the scientific theory and quantum philosophy. I also know enough about philosophy to know that there are many interpretations of quantum mechanics, though not all of them are entirely consistent with the theory and many of them are people misinterpreting the theory to fit their arguments.

No, I'm disagreeing with you and merely pointing out that you are making an unrefutable (and therefore unprovable) claim.

Irrefutable.

Speaking of irrefutable claims, saying God exists comes to mind as one of them...

You have the illusion of choice. You only think that your decisions are your own. In reality, they are based on who you are, which is something you have no control over. It can be broken down to a chemical and even subatomic level, things you cant control. There is a reson for your actions, and those reasons have reasons, and so on.

The ability to choose is what damns people to hell. Without the ability to choose and therefore to sin, no one would be damned.

So the cost of choice is the vast majority of people burning in hell.

I've acknowledged that. Nonetheless, according to my definition of benevolence, I have also proven that a benevolent God ultimately must preserve free will before acting to deal with secondary concerns such as the state (heaven or hell) of the people possessing that free will.

If you'd like, I would be glad to explain the provisions God has made in order to enable as many people to enter the better state (heaven) as possible, but at this point my argument (the logical consistancy of punishment with a benevolent God) is more or less complete..



I was under the conception that to be saved you would have to have faith in God and that this faith must come from free will. At least that's what several Christians have been claiming on the forums.

Yes, we must have the ability to choose between being with God and being apart from God.

Choosing whether to believe in God's existence is silly, because his existence is immediately obvious from the existence of the universe (ie. obviously someone made it, refer to big bang)
http://liftoff.msfc.nasa.gov/academy/universe/b_bang.html

I'm majoring in physics. I know enough about quantum to know the difference between quantum, the scientific theory and quantum philosophy. I also know enough about philosophy to know that there are many interpretations of quantum mechanics, though not all of them are entirely consistent with the theory and many of them are people misinterpreting the theory to fit their arguments.


Interesting, so you would agree with me that at least under some interetations of quantum philosophy the observer has some independent influence over the external universe?

Interesting, so you would agree with me that at least under some interetations of quantum philosophy the observer has some independent influence over the external universe?
Making observations of small particles causes their wavefunction to collapse. That doesn't mean that making observations of an apple affects it in anyway whatsoever or that me staring out into space alters the cosmos.

Irrefutable.

Speaking of irrefutable claims, saying God exists comes to mind as one of them...

You have the illusion of choice. You only think that your decisions are your own. In reality, they are based on who you are, which is something you have no control over. It can be broken down to a chemical and even subatomic level, things you cant control. There is a reson for your actions, and those reasons have reasons, and so on.

My goal here was to prove that the concept of a benevolent God who allows eternal damnation is logically consistent, not that it is true.

Whether a philosophy is logically consistent or not is a fairly easy thing to refute, all you have to do is point out a logical contradiction in my first-assumptions or a flaw in my system of logical deduction.

While I find different sets of first-assumptions interesting, they are hardly relevent to a discussion of logical consistency given a set of first-assumptions unless you are willing to prove that your first-assumption is true beyond any shadow of doubt and therefore that my is impossible given that it contradicts reality itself.

Since there's no way you will actually be able to prove that all of our actions are determined by chemical reactions and we have no control over them, I appear to stand unrefuted.

Making observations of small particles causes their wavefunction to collapse. That doesn't mean that making observations of an apple affects it in anyway whatsoever or that me staring out into space alters the cosmos.

No, because both apples and the cosmos are made up of wavefronts.

Besides, the free-will we're talking about is minute chemical reactions in the brain where one or two atoms could easily make a difference, so quantum effects are clearly important here.

If quantum effects are in fact affected by a concious observer then we have some control over our own destiny and freewill is therefore possible.

Since there's no way you will actually be able to prove that all of our actions are determined by chemical reactions and we have no control over them, I appear to stand unrefuted.

I dont need to prove our actions are determined by chemical reactions. Life itself is a giant chemical reaction. All chemical reactions that are not controlled in a lab are subject to randomness and chaos.

I dont need to prove our actions are determined by chemical reactions. Life itself is a giant chemical reaction. All chemical reactions that are not controlled in a lab are subject to randomness and chaos.

Yes, but there's no way you can prove that either.

I have exactly as much right to say that they are determined by our freewill.

No, you simply do not understand. Omniscence means not knowing what will probably happen it means knowing what WILL happen with 100% certainty. The Christian God as set forth in the Bible has the atribute of 100% foreknowledge ergo he knew from the 1st moment of creation whether you personaly would go to Heaven or Hell. There it is a safe assumtion he created some people simply to populate Hell.

knowing something will probably happen and allowing it to happen is not the same as forcing it to happen.

Moreover if that is the only way we can have freewill (since apparently we too often refuse to accept God's mercy) then the cost of having to face hell is still outweighed by the gain of the ability to choose between heaven and hell.

Without freewill, essential we are nothing. We are no different from a rock or a lump of dirt, it is our ability to choose between good and evil that makes us unique.

That is exactly the point I was trying to make. Great minds DO think alike. ;)

Which of course means that God was aware that the universe he was creating was in a way that would doom billions of people to eternal damnation.

And he still created it.

You miss the point completely an Omniscent God precludes freewill. PERIOD!
Freewill can ONLY exist if God is NOT omniscent. God created Adam and Eve in the full knowledge that they would eat from the tree before he scooped up the dust to create him.

The good I'm reffering to is the ability to choose, not the actual choice itself.

All rocks are happy, none of them are going to hell. We are better than rocks, we can choose whether to accept God or whether to reject him.







Lucifer believes in God!!!

It's not whether or not you believe in God, it's whether you choose to be with him or against him that matters.

All of us have the ability to make that choice.

A bit simplistic, but I'll accept it.



And yet... we still seem to struggle with it so much.
Well, perhaps some people do...

eternal damnation is neccessary because rejection of God is de-facto eternal damnation. If you understand the Christian conception of existence, you would also be aware that seperation from God is the ultimate punishment itself. The fire and brimestone are really just for effect.
This seems to imply that eternal damnation is somewhat like rain. If you reject God, you'll be eternally damned = if you go out in the rain, you'll get wet, conceptually speaking. Then why bother with effects -- unless the actual effect of being separated from God is not all that noticeable in and of itself, or that the effect of being in good with God (i.e. not damned) is not all that noticeable?

Of course, you could just say "well, then why doesn't God force us to be with him?" but that obviously violates the basic idea that we have (indeed must have) a choice, otherwise we're really no different from the gold pavement on the streets of heaven (which coincidentally had no choice as to whether or not it was going to be there).
But if you have to reject God in order to be damned, doesn't that imply that you are already in good with God before you are even offered your choice? So then, why bother with the choice?

Oh, and gold pavements? Do the Taco Bells serve champagne and truffles? (Just kidding you. ;))

it follows from first principles, arbitrary or not. Besides, I'm only trying to prove that it's logically consistant, not that it makes sense.
Well, that's a relief, becuase it really doesn't make much sense.

The good I'm reffering to is the ability to choose, not the actual choice itself.

All rocks are happy, none of them are going to hell. We are better than rocks, we can choose whether to accept God or whether to reject him.
Rocks are luckier than us then.


Lucifer believes in God!!!
You're not actually answering his question. Does God allow people not to believe him or not?

It's not whether or not you believe in God, it's whether you choose to be with him or against him that matters.

All of us have the ability to make that choice.
So does this mean that the billions of people who have no opinion about God at all get to avoid taking this vicious test?

if there was no difference between pizza and spaghetti, how much of a choice would it really be?

But there is. There is just no moral difference. The only thing relevant to free will, however, is a difference about which I can have a preference, and I can prefer the taste of pizza to spaghetti without ever bringing morality into it.

...as opposed to a morality that isn't enforced?

Or one that isn't enforced by sentencing those who violate some portions of it to eternal damnation.

No kind of enforcement is necessary at all for morality, really; it is independent of punishment. I can think that certain actions are immoral even if I could get away with them, and I can think that certain actions are moral even if I would be punished for them.

Or one that isn't enforced by sentencing those who violate some portions of it to eternal damnation.

Seriously! How about we make the punishment fit the crime? ETERNAL torment seems like an obviously inappropriate punishment for finite, mortal, fleeting creatures such as human beings.

Seriously! How about we make the punishment fit the crime? ETERNAL torment seems like an obviously inappropriate punishment for finite, mortal, fleeting creatures such as human beings.

And any torment seems inappropriate for those merely guilty of disbelief.

And any torment seems inappropriate for those merely guilty of disbelief.
Well yeah, but I'm spotting them one. I think that even IF we were to assume that lacking belief in God is something one should be punished for, we still would be forced to accept that ETERNAL punishment would be inappropriate.

Eternal. For ever and ever. Seriously, people, think about that. A person who lacks belief in Jeebus for 75 years would be condemned to suffer ultimate pain for ever and ever and ever. How fucked up do you have to be, to believe that this is a JUST punishment? How much of a freaking psychopath do you have to be, to worship a being who would torture human beings in this manner?

Besides, I'm only trying to prove that it's logically consistant, not that it makes sense.

For a conversation such as this, I feel like both are probably important. If it's logically consistent, than, on some level, it makes sense.

You miss the point completely an Omniscent God precludes freewill. PERIOD!
Freewill can ONLY exist if God is NOT omniscent. God created Adam and Eve in the full knowledge that they would eat from the tree before he scooped up the dust to create him.

Not necessarily. If I was in a room with a kleptomaniac, and I placed a $100 in front of him, and turned my back, there aren't a whole lot of scenerios that will play out. They either take it or they don't. And if they're a true klepto (and even if they're not), they'll take it. So, I place this money on the table knowing that they'll take it, and they take it. They could choose not to take it, that's perfectly fine (let's assume they have control over this condition, and it's not a true medical issue for argument's sake). But they don't, they take it. I don't limit their free will, but I knew the outcome.

This is not to say it's good or bad, or that I agree or disagree with anything in particular, just that assuming knowledge for one erases choice for the other is an erroneous conclusion.

There are a few things people aren't touching on. I'm not phsyics major, but I do know of Schroedinger's Cat. For those of you who don't know, the short, made-for-TV version is that you place a cat in a box. There is absolutely no way to see what the cat's state is, because as soon as you look, it's not the experiment anymore. You've interupted it. Dakini, feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but that's the essential bare bones of it, as I understand it.

All this talk of how a human acts made me think of it. One of the things that have plagued sociologists and psychologists is that as soon as a person knows they're being watched, they change the way they act. Hard to determine free will when your subject is assuming they should act a certain way.

Also, what of God's "will"? Humans have free will (or they don't), but does God? What if it wasn't God's choice to create us the way we are? What if, through some weird happenstance, the only reason God exists was to create human beings? Or, even more frightening: what if it wasn't a divine being's choice, and we created oursleves....?

I'll ignore the fact that the Christian tradition states that after death you head to Purgatory first (a neither divine nor damned place), so you can essentially prove yourself to God before either eternal reward or eternal damnation. But I'll only ignore that for the moment, because I feel bad this post is so long.

NO YOU DONT GET IT!!!!
Let's look at the Schroedinger's Cat analogy....
AN OMNISCICENT GOD KNOWS THE STATE OF THE CAT !!! not only before you open the box but before the cat's great x 100 x100 grand parents were convicied !!!!
Therefore NO FREEWILL!!!!

For a conversation such as this, I feel like both are probably important. If it's logically consistent, than, on some level, it makes sense.



Not necessarily. If I was in a room with a kleptomaniac, and I placed a $100 in front of him, and turned my back, there aren't a whole lot of scenerios that will play out. They either take it or they don't. And if they're a true klepto (and even if they're not), they'll take it. So, I place this money on the table knowing that they'll take it, and they take it. They could choose not to take it, that's perfectly fine (let's assume they have control over this condition, and it's not a true medical issue for argument's sake). But they don't, they take it. I don't limit their free will, but I knew the outcome.

This is not to say it's good or bad, or that I agree or disagree with anything in particular, just that assuming knowledge for one erases choice for the other is an erroneous conclusion.

There are a few things people aren't touching on. I'm not phsyics major, but I do know of Schroedinger's Cat. For those of you who don't know, the short, made-for-TV version is that you place a cat in a box. There is absolutely no way to see what the cat's state is, because as soon as you look, it's not the experiment anymore. You've interupted it. Dakini, feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but that's the essential bare bones of it, as I understand it.

All this talk of how a human acts made me think of it. One of the things that have plagued sociologists and psychologists is that as soon as a person knows they're being watched, they change the way they act. Hard to determine free will when your subject is assuming they should act a certain way.

Also, what of God's "will"? Humans have free will (or they don't), but does God? What if it wasn't God's choice to create us the way we are? What if, through some weird happenstance, the only reason God exists was to create human beings? Or, even more frightening: what if it wasn't a divine being's choice, and we created oursleves....?

I'll ignore the fact that the Christian tradition states that after death you head to Purgatory first (a neither divine nor damned place), so you can essentially prove yourself to God before either eternal reward or eternal damnation. But I'll only ignore that for the moment, because I feel bad this post is so long.

NO YOU DONT GET IT!!!!
Let's look at the Schroedinger's Cat analogy....
AN OMNISCICENT GOD KNOWS THE STATE OF THE CAT !!! not only before you open the box but before the cat's great x 100 x100 grand parents were convicied !!!!
Therefore NO FREEWILL!!!!

You are right. The kleptomaniac has a high probability of taking the money, but I cannot be 100% certain that she/he will take it. Maybe she thinks it's a trick? Maybe he is onto a bigger heist?

In the case of an omniscient God there is no uncertainty. From the perspective of God, there is no free will.

In the case of an omniscient God there is no uncertainty. From the perspective of God, there is no free will.

Now wait a second here. Who's perspective are we arguing for? Judging by all of the posts up until this point, it has seemed like we're arguing from the perspective of human beings, not from the perspective of a God. If it's from the perspective of God, the Earth is probably just a giant ant farm, and we're just reacting to the enviroment around us. There's really no debate there.

I was under the assumption we were discussing this from the view of the ant, so to speak. Which, let's face it, is an entirely different perspective on things. It's only fairly recent in human development and learning that we even discovered we're not at the center of things, so it seems like that perspective would be the fertile ground for debate and discussion.

And New Shabaz: no need to yell. Or CAPS, as the case may be. I was only putting forth the idea of free will (a philosophical concept) could exist, despite a God (a religious/theological concept) knowing what we'll do already. After all, it's not like God is saying, "You have to do this!" We may not seem to have many options, but the idea we have any options at all seems to enforce the idea of free will. And besides: why are you so determined to believe you have absolutely no way to control your own actions?

As for the cat...I'm not talking about God knowing the cat's state. To be blunt, I don't give a sh*t if God knows the cat's state. I was talking about people knowing the cat's state.

Christianity in a nutshell. The Universe = a pachinko machine, God = he built and now plays the machine, (but unlike run of the mill players this one knows where every ball will go before its even launched), humans are the balls (and while the ball is in play that is our life) The gates are death and the afterlife. From the ball eye view we bounce randomly from the player view he knows where we are going because he sent us there. Ironically the other calls will chastise you if you don't follow the same path as them despite being launched differently.

That pretty much sums it up.:rolleyes:

Christianity in a nutshell. The Universe = a pachinko machine, God = he built and now plays the machine, (but unlike run of the mill players this one knows where every ball will go before its even launched), humans are the balls (and while the ball is in play that is our life) The gates are death and the afterlife. From the ball eye view we bounce randomly from the player view he knows where we are going because he sent us there. Ironically the other calls will chastise you if you don't follow the same path as them despite being launched differently.

Question: why single out Christianity? Let's face it, they're not the only major world religion who have had some nutjobs spout ridiculous beliefs. 70 dark haired virgins if you kill yourself in the name of Allah, anyone? (I can't help but feel that comment is going to bite me on the ass later...)

So, okay. If memory serves, this was initially a debate regarding free will, yes? So, we're at a point in this discussion where some are arguing that an all-knowing being precludes free will on the fact that they're all knowing, and there are those that claim all knowing and all doing are slightly different things.

We also seem to have very strong biases both for and against religion (Christianity, namely), which is a dangerous place to be. Therefore, I'm going to pull this discussion a little off of the acid pit known as "religious debate."

There was at one point in this thread a discussion regarding chemical components, and the idea that randomly firing neurons and rules of quantum mechanics seem to preclude free will, on the idea that it's more random will. My question to this: How is it that, through random firings and chemical reactions, a person can do rational and incredibly complicated tasks, such as drive a car? Or, on the other side of the coin, how is it that through these same reactions, they can choose not to?

There is Atonism, Zoroastrianism, Bahai'ism, Sikhism, and Krishna Consciousness.

Krishna conciousness/ISKCON would be pantheist I think. There are many gods/devas but everything came from Mahavishnu, the Godhead.

Advaitha (I see that you are reading into advaitha) could be monotheist except that as per advaitha the Godhead (Brahman) has no personality.

It is hard to classify Indic religious thoughts when viewed through semitic prism.


There's also the Ayyavazhi, who believe all deities (including Jehova) were unified into Vaikundar who was the incarnation of Ekam, the Ultimate Soul or Paramatama.


Now, you are freaking me out.

Where the hell are you picking up the Tamil lores?

70 dark haired virgins if you kill yourself in the name of Allah, anyone? (I can't help but feel that comment is going to bite me on the ass later...)

It is more like grapes not virgins. Classical Arabic is very easy to misinterpret, especially when you want to misinterpret.;)

Although many mullahs themselves believe in the virgin story and indoctrinate their flocks accordingly does not make it so.

It's not whether or not you believe in God, it's whether you choose to be with him or against him that matters.

All of us have the ability to make that choice.

Not really.

What about babies that die the minute they are born? mentally challenged people who can't make any decisions for themselves?

Do they go to heaven as per the christian view?

If yes, then here's the question

Why do such souls (the born and dead infant, mental cases etc) deserve heaven when they never made any choice to that purpose?

Please don't give "God works in mysterious ways" as answer.

heeheee...and try to avoid getting trapped into karma and reincarnation if you can

Not really.

What about babies that die the minute they are born? mentally challenged people who can't make any decisions for themselves?

Do they go to heaven as per the christian view?

If yes, then here's the question

Why do such souls (the born and dead infant, mental cases etc) deserve heaven when they never made any choice to that purpose?

Please don't give "God works in mysterious ways" as answer.

heeheee...and try to avoid getting trapped into karma and reincarnation if you can

Oh, I'm going nowhere with karma and reincarnation with this one, so breathe easy, my friend. :P

The original view (at least with Catholics, though I can't speak for all Christian denominations) was that they went to limbo, a sort of purgatory, since they were neither good or bad. I believe that with Vatican II they threw that idea out, and have since switched over to thinking those souls go to heaven based on innocence. Essentially, they cannot make any decisions for themselves, so they have absolutely no way to sin, since a sin is counted as "Doing wrong and knowing its wrong." If you don't know it's wrong, and you have no way of knowing, they it's not really sin, and therefore, babies and the [significantly] mentally challenged are inncoent and are allowed into heaven.

Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure that's where the current thought process with that stands.

The original view (at least with Catholics, though I can't speak for all Christian denominations) was that they went to limbo, a sort of purgatory, since they were neither good or bad. I believe that with Vatican II they threw that idea out, and have since switched over to thinking those souls go to heaven based on innocence. Essentially, they cannot make any decisions for themselves, so they have absolutely no way to sin, since a sin is counted as "Doing wrong and knowing its wrong." If you don't know it's wrong, and you have no way of knowing, they it's not really sin, and therefore, babies and the [significantly] mentally challenged are inncoent and are allowed into heaven.

Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure that's where the current thought process with that stands.

I understand the "innocent hence heaven" thing. My question is why create such people then if they are not intended to have free will?

To take it further, why was I not born retarded since that would give me automatic entry to heaven? :p

I understand the "innocent hence heaven" thing. My question is why create such people then if they are not intended to have free will?

To take it further, why was I not born retarded since that would give me automatic entry to heaven? :p

Maybe they were intended, but it didn't happen that way? I don't know, my personal views of a creator are a lot closer to a kid and a science experiment. You get the ball rolling, and then you just let stuff go. You know, see what happens. So, far as I'm concerned, God doesn't bother with the day-to-day dealings of human beings, so much as "he" set it all up and let things work out on their own. It's a fairly reasonable explanation, I feel, and seems to leave open windows for things such as free will and evolution.

I have a feeling that the whole "knows all" stuff may be, shall we say...off the mark?