Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,819 Year: 3,076/9,624 Month: 921/1,588 Week: 104/223 Day: 2/13 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Why Would a Loving God Create Hell?
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 3 of 196 (65732)
11-10-2003 10:14 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Rand Al'Thor
11-10-2003 2:17 AM


quote:
Why would a god that created you and loves you send you into eternal fire just for not believing in him?
I've always liked this reversal of "Pascal's wager" that I first read in The Mind's I by Hofstadter and Dennett:
If God is indeed a good and just god, then he couldn't send me into eternal damnation just because I don't believe in him.
If God is not a good and just god, then I have no assurance that he will keep his end of the bargain even if I do believe in him.
So there is no reason for me to worry about the consequences if I don't believe in him.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Rand Al'Thor, posted 11-10-2003 2:17 AM Rand Al'Thor has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by zipzip, posted 11-11-2003 1:59 PM Chiroptera has replied

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 7 of 196 (65895)
11-11-2003 6:19 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by zipzip
11-11-2003 1:59 PM


quote:
This assumes that you are not currently in a state of eternal damnation.
A moral or just god would have not have anything to do with "states of eternal damnation". "Just God" and "eternal damnation" are contradictory ideas. Unless you are going to claim that God is not omnipotent, that there are laws that even she is subject to and cannot avoid.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by zipzip, posted 11-11-2003 1:59 PM zipzip has not replied

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 10 of 196 (65901)
11-11-2003 6:55 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by grace2u
11-11-2003 6:32 PM


So many things wrong here....
quote:
The very fact that one would ask how that can be just, provides proof of Christianity.
What is the proof? Please complete the following syllogism:
premise: One would ask how that can be just.
(put proof here)
conclusion: Christianity is true.
quote:
Given that it presupposes Christianity since it implies that there is some type of injustice possible in the world.
First, "that" is not yet a given until you prove it. Second, being able to ask a question does not mean that the words used in it have any meaning or existence. Third, the existence of injustice does not presuppose Christianity.
quote:
In an atheistic view of the world the most haneous crime imaginable would still not be wrong since there is no such thing as a universal right or wrong.
I am an atheist with (obviously) an atheistic view of the world. I would never claim that the most heinous crime imaginable will not be wrong.
quote:
Evil/right/wrong do not make sense in a world apart from Christ, who is the standard of goodness.
Many cultures have a sense of right and wrong without being Christian.
quote:
Again, presupposed as well as evidenced.
Indeed, presupposed, but with no evidence.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by grace2u, posted 11-11-2003 6:32 PM grace2u has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by grace2u, posted 11-12-2003 12:48 AM Chiroptera has replied

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 35 of 196 (66302)
11-13-2003 3:55 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by grace2u
11-12-2003 12:48 AM


Hasn't corrected anything
quote:
3) In an atheistic world, universal absolutes do not make sense since they can not be measured in a coherent and logical manner. Nor is there any basis for suggesting that they do exist.
This is a false statement.
quote:
4) The world we live in is filled with universal absolutes such as the laws of morality and the laws of logic.
There are no univeral, absolute laws of morality. Nor are the laws of logic absolute - if you study formal logic you will find that there can be some variation in the laws of logic.
quote:
Since universal absolutes can be demonstrated to exist in the universe, and it is impossible for them to exist in an atheistic world, it is impossible for God to not exist.
You have only asseted these two premises; you have not yet demonstrated them.If you were to write a mathematical proof in this manner in a class that I taught, I would give you a zero.
quote:
1) God exists
2) If God exists, it is most likely that He wishes to be known and that He has left some evidence of His existence to His creation.
3) Of the many religions in the world today, one of them is the correct one, they are almost all mutually exclusive with one another.
4) Christianity provides more evidence than any other as to the validity of its claims.
a. fulfilled prophecies
b. Unsearchable riches and complexity of Gods word
c. .. n number of other arguments we've all heard before
Not a single one of the above statements is true, except possibly the first, but that still has not been demostrated.
quote:
On what basis can you judge injustice by apart from some universal standard?
All standards of justice are arbitrary.
quote:
The argument is that their worldview can not account for their beliefs.
I am an atheist. I have a system of morality. My worldview can account for this. I have now disproved this statement.
quote:
But how can this sense exist apart from some universal standard of right and wrong.
There is no universal standard of right and wrong.
I don't know how any philosopher would judge this, but as a mathematics instructor, if anyone were to write a mathematical proof this poorly they would get a zero for their efforts. Sorry to be harsh, but there isn't even any partial credit here.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by grace2u, posted 11-12-2003 12:48 AM grace2u has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by grace2u, posted 11-14-2003 12:54 PM Chiroptera has replied

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 36 of 196 (66304)
11-13-2003 4:01 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by DavidPryor
11-13-2003 3:04 PM


quote:
On the other hand, an eternal Hell is necessary for the valuing of human life and human freedom.
This is false. I am an atheist. Yet a place a high value on human life and freedom.
quote:
If humans are valuable in themselves, then a low quality of life is preferable to causing a person to cease to exist (annihilationism).
This does not follow.
quote:
If a person chooses to live apart from God, yet God is the source of what we perceive as making life enjoyable, then how can Hell be avoided?
What is being argued against is not living apart from God, which may be hell to some, but eternal torment and torture by burning.
quote:
If God makes Heaven what it is, then how can a person reject God and accept Heaven at the same time?
Why not?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by DavidPryor, posted 11-13-2003 3:04 PM DavidPryor has not replied

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 49 of 196 (66544)
11-14-2003 7:27 PM
Reply to: Message 39 by grace2u
11-14-2003 12:54 PM


Re: Hasn't corrected anything
quote:
Do you contend then that there are universal absolutes within your atheistic worldview?...I am confused, you said my claims were false above, yet now you claim that the laws of morality and the laws of logic are not absolute. Again, what is absolute then in your mind?
I do not know whether there are universal absolutes withing my atheistic world view; you have not yet defined the term "universal absolute". Until you do so, the term is meaningless, and any statement containing it is empty. This isn't meant to be an insult - just that your reasoning is rather sloppy. Part of this is that you are using terms that you think that you understand, but the rest of us don't. And it is often the case that when you try to define what you mean you find out that you don't really understand it like you thought you did (this has happened to me on numerous occasions).
quote:
I am not contending that the laws of logic as defined by men are absolute, but that there exists within the reality of our world, a set of laws of logic, seen and used by man that reflect the nature and character of God.
Sounds like medievel metaphysics to me. You seem to be saying that the formal systems of logic defined by humans may be an imperfect model of some absolute laws of logic that exists in the mind of God, or something like that. Seems like a Platonic notion of some sort. There is no evidence that there is some sort of absolute laws of logic that exist to be discovered by humans.
quote:
you claim that the laws of morality and the laws of logic are not absolute.
The "laws of morality" depend on the context of culture. There are no absolutes. The "laws of logic" are an artificial contruction (admittedly, as a mathematician, a useful invention) that is used to aid the reasoning ability of the human mind, which appears to work in a holistic manner unlike the linear thinking in formal logic.
quote:
Demonstrate to me using inductive or deductive reasoning, how the atheist universe can account for absolute truths, logic or morality as two of the many I claim to exist.
There is no absolute morality, so I have nothing to prove - it is for you to prove the positive assertian. There is no absolute logic; logic is a human invention. There may or may not be universal truths - you have not yet defined this term.
quote:
How can you say there is no universal standard of right and wrong while our intuitive nature says there is.
Unfortunately, that everyone's intuitive nature seems to give a different standard of morality would seem to contradict a universal standard. There simply is no universal standard of right or wrong. Like beauty, morality is in the eye of the beholder. But I may be wrong - you have not yet defined what you mean by universal.
quote:
I am simply suggesting that if one examines these concepts with more thought than what is typically exerted, one would see that the philisophical and logical implications of atheism, in context with the observed realities of this world make for an unintelligable system of thought.
You are indeed suggesting, but not demonstrating. I do not find atheism to be unintelligible at all - if you can't understand it then that is your problem. I suggest you ask people to explain it to you before you go into a ill-defined, confused tirade about how illogical it all is.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by grace2u, posted 11-14-2003 12:54 PM grace2u has not replied

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 54 of 196 (66675)
11-15-2003 2:27 PM
Reply to: Message 52 by Intellect
11-15-2003 2:28 AM


Thanks, Intellect, you make some good points, but grace2u is trying to make an argument and so what matters is what he means by "universal absolute".

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by Intellect, posted 11-15-2003 2:28 AM Intellect has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by grace2u, posted 11-15-2003 5:43 PM Chiroptera has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024