|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Why Would a Loving God Create Hell? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rand Al'Thor Inactive Member |
Why would a god that created you and loves you send you into eternal fire just for not believing in him? Why is god so threatened by my disbelief that he would force me to experience eternal pain and suffering without any chance of redemption? Only a vindictive and tyrannical god would do such things.
So, what about freewill? Christian’s say that god gave us freewill to believe and do whatever we want. Yet if we don't follow the exact path god set for us we go to hell. How is this freewill? If anything it is the opposite of freewill. So unless god is very confused I don’t see how he can be both loving and caring and still allow for hell to exist. Or am I missing something here?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member (Idle past 209 days) Posts: 6349 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
As Eddie Izzard said in his routine:
"So my choice is 'or death'?" ------------------
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Member Posts: 6831 From: Oklahoma Joined: Member Rating: 6.6 |
quote: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
zipzip Inactive Member |
"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."
This assumes that you are not currently in a state of eternal damnation. In other words, are you being sent someplace new or simply refusing (through disbelief) to move from where you are already? The Christian idea of the fallen man presupposes that man has in fact already (willfully) left communion with God through sin --forgiveness/reconciliation is the path that God has shown us to return to him. It is difficult to accept a gift or instruction from someone you refuse to believe exists. "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." This supposes a definition of good and just that supercedes God -- that is, some "higher law" that exists outside of all creation and above God. In which case God is actually not God in the Christian sense, apart from whom there is nothing. This line of reasoning is therefore meaningless. "So there is no reason for me to worry about the consequences if I don't believe in him." This doesn't follow.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Inactive Member |
Yes, that's implied by the idea of a moral God. You do believe god is moral, right? No moral entity puts themselves at the apex of their moral laws. Only an immoral entity is not subject to their own morality. You can't define God as good and then define good as anything God does. That's circular. If god is good, it's precisely because he follows a moral code of goodness that's above himself.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
MrHambre Member (Idle past 449 days) Posts: 1494 From: Framingham, MA, USA Joined: |
quote:I'm not sure why an informed believer would consider this meaningless. Maybe I'm giving you too much credit. It depends on how you define 'good.' Is anything God commands good, regardless of whether we could consider it good independent of God's command? Or would God not command anything that were not good in an objective sense? I'd say the latter is the only meaningful definition. A just God would only command something that were objectively good. An informed believer would agree, since otherwise anything could be considered 'the Will of God' no matter how reprehensible. That makes it easier to explain why I'm not a believer: there is 'good' even if there is no God. ------------------
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Member Posts: 6831 From: Oklahoma Joined: Member Rating: 6.6 |
quote: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
grace2u Inactive Member |
quote:
################## You can't define God as good and then define good as anything God does. That's circular. If god is good, it's precisely because he follows a moral code of goodness that's above himself. ################## This is not a circular argument since a good God is one of the presuppositions of the Christian view of God. This assumption of a good God is evidenced as well as pre-supposed. This assumption is made in the same way an atheist pre-supposes the laws of logic, or science are valid even thought they have never been proven appart from using a curcular argument. (using logic to prove the laws of logic are true). The very fact that one would ask how that can be just, provides proof of Christianity. Given that it presupposes Christianity since it implies that there is some type of injustice possible in the world. "How can a loving God do this or that?" 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. Evil/right/wrong do not make sense in a world apart from Christ, who is the standard of goodness. He is that by which we attempt to compare everything else to. Again, presupposed as well as evidenced. [This message has been edited by grace2u, 11-11-2003]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rei Member (Idle past 5349 days) Posts: 1546 From: Iowa City, IA Joined: |
quote: Ah, thanks for clearing that up. That clears up what those nice guys in the Phalange militia were telling me. Now if you'll excuse me, being a godless atheist, I need to go cheat the poor and eat a few babies. ------------------
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Member Posts: 6831 From: Oklahoma Joined: Member Rating: 6.6 |
quote: 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: 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: 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: Many cultures have a sense of right and wrong without being Christian. quote: Indeed, presupposed, but with no evidence.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
grace2u Inactive Member |
####
That clears up what those nice guys in the Phalange militia were telling me. #### In every philosophical system; Christian, atheist, muslim, agnostic, etc. there have been many evil and rotten people. In the same belief systems there have been many great and good people. This is irrelevent since my argument is NOT Christian are good people, therefore Christ is the standard of goodness. In fact some of the nicest people I know are agnostic or atheist. Each group has its own set of irrational,emotional,illogical, biased followers . Therefore the behavior of some has no revelance to the validity of the system in question. ####### Again, the very fact that you have brought up the concept that cheating the poor is wrong, demonstrates that there is a universal standard of right and wrong. I am not saying that Christians do not cheat the poor or eat babies. Likewise I am not saying that atheists do. I am simply saying that in the atheistic world, it doesn't make sense to have evil or good since there is no standard to measure these concepts by. THis is a perfect demonstration that these concepts exist. My point is that you can not account for them unless you borrow from the theistic interpretation, therby pre-supposing my world view. In a truly atheistic world,these concepts do not make sense and therfore atheism can not account for the realities of the world in which we live. Since God either exists or He does not, and the world can not make sense without God, God exists. Again one of many arguments for the existance of God.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member (Idle past 209 days) Posts: 6349 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
grace2u responds to Rei:
quote: That doesn't mean it was ordained by god. Time to bring out the Monopoly example again. Monopoly is a game created by humans for humans to play. The rules were created by humans and are administered by humans. They are completely arbitrary and can even change from one household to another. For example, a common variant is that all the money that is collected by Chance and Community Chest cards is placed under Free Parking and whoever lands there gets whatever money is there at the time. You are confusing the concept of "universally accepted" with "cosmically ordained." quote: Sure there is: Our own experiences, thoughts, desires, and philosophies are the standards. For example, one can easily get the concept of the golden rule from taking a purely selfish view: I wouldn't want this to happen to me, so I shouldn't do it to others and similarly, I'd like other people to treat me that way, so I should do it to others. Just because I am the one that judges the actions and creates the standard doesn't mean those judgements or standards don't exist. The rules of Monopoly are created by humans, but they still exist. And if you break those rules, you're cheating. quote: The existence of atheists shows this to be wrong. The world is apparently quite sensible without god. quote: And one of the many illogical ones. Why are you putting your stock in an illegitimate argument? ------------------
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
grace2u Inactive Member |
######
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. ok, here is a loosely compiled semi-formal proof of Christianity: Theorem: The observed experiences of life demand that God exist. 1) It is impossible for God to both exist and to not exist in the universe in which we live. 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. Therefore God exists. --------------- 1) God exists 5) The teachings of the religion that are the most coherent and grounded on fact as opposed to pure faith, is most likely the correct religion. Since Chrisitanity has been demonstrated to be the most convincing of all the worlds philisophical systems, Christianity is the correct religion. ----------------- ####### ###### ########### ######### Thanks for the reply... Kyrie eleison
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
grace2u Inactive Member |
###
That doesn't mean it was ordained by god. #### In and of itself you are correct. However this concept does not make sense in an atheistic world. It can be explained adequately to account for the realities of the world in which we live. More on this below.... #### ########## What we are arguing here is that I believe these laws of morality are God ordained, you believe they are conventions within societies. While this makes sense on a first glance, upon further examination, it is not a sufficient explanation for any number of cases I can throw at you. 2) A male might want to rape a female because it makes him happy -- and he may even think that it makes her happy. In fact he may wish that he could be raped (following the golden rule principle). However you would be hard pressed to say that the beliefs of one could justify the commission of a horrible crime such as rape. Again, atheism can not deal with these realities in a coherent logical manner. Further demonstrating that as a philosophical system, it is bankrupt. ###### ###### Thanks for the reply and sincerity in your response, Kyrie eleison
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rei Member (Idle past 5349 days) Posts: 1546 From: Iowa City, IA Joined: |
quote: So, you acknowlege that one needs not use Christ as a standard of goodness to live a good life. You personally define Christ as a standard of goodness. Atheists do not, and use commonly accepted social norms to define a standard of goodness. They coincide. The particular "standard" is thus irrelevant - we use the same standard. quote: Actually, it does. First off, there are social memes. Societies which turn to rampant crime and anarchy are self-destructive; they cannot compete with other nations, and cannot last in the long run. Humans achieve strength only through unity and (relative) order. Societies which encourage such behaviors, whether through a religion (of which there are many) or through state-codified laws (Hammurabi, and earlier) are more likely to survive. On the individual level, there are consequences for actions. There are laws, and if you break them, you suffer consequences - often severe. These consequences go against instinctive human wants and needs. On the mental level, there is a further issue: meaning. To pursue anything in life, you need a sense of purpose. A primitive creature may be able to simply consider whatever its desires are as "purpose", but in a highly social, thinking creature, who doesn't spend its life focused soley on subsistance, there needs to be meaning to life. Without it, why go on living? Each person has to define their own meaning in the universe. If you believe in God, then you probably have defined the universe's meaning around your conception of "God's Plan". This may be quite different from many other people's perception of "God's Plan", but that's irrelevant - you have purpose and reason to exist. What about the atheist? An atheist must consciously accept the fact that whatever meaning they ascribe to the universe is irrelevant, and an arbitrary construct. This is the basis of existentialism. You will find that most atheists simply choose the "easy" route and define things in line with the social memes. Typically, this aligns with the concept of "good". Some take it a step further, and choose "deliberate good". There is no promise of reward, no eternal benefit, but we choose things that are often of a detriment to ourselves for the benefit of others. These, such as myself, are a specific category of existentialists - humanists. ------------------
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019