Why god?

[Novum]

The degree to which suffering is acceptable or not is determined by the rewards that are realized as a result. I sometimes let my daughter fall on her butt, because she'll learn to be more careful, and this knowledge will be very valuable to her in the future. She suffers a small degree of discomfort now so that she can reap much greater rewards in the future.

To be a bit nitpicky, your analogy doesn't quite work because you are not omniscient: you do not know what lesson your daughter will learn when you let her fall down. Of course, as a parent, you likely have a fairly good idea what lesson she'll learn, but it's not quite the case that we can say you know for sure what rewards will be had by your actions.

Now, realize that when we talk about the afterlife, we talk about nigh-unlimited bliss, such that just about any suffering that a mortal man might comprehend is insignificant in comparison. Calling God cruel for requiring suffering in exchange for eternal happiness is like calling a parent cruel for sometimes letting his child fall down and hurt himself in order to teach the child a lesson about caution and independence.

Fair enough. But there are two deeper issues at stake:

1) Are heaven and hell ethical?
2) Are heaven and hell desirable?

I have written on both of these topics elsewhere, both in this thread and in others. To make a long story short, I came to the conclusion that both heaven and hell are unethical because they are an infinite reward (or an infinite punishment) for a finite deed (or a finite crime). I also concluded that, at least for me and potentially millions and millions of others, they are not desirable; I would not desire to live in bliss forever, nor would I, of course, desire to be punished forever.

Though, to be fair, if we take the stance that heaven and hell are not eternal, then the debate shifts somewhat.

If God is evil, he's certainly incompetent. I could imagine a much more evil existence without even really trying. I don't really think it's rational to look at all the happiness in the world and suppose that God is evil.

I too could imagine a much more evil existence. However, you are not addressing other possibilities, namely that:

1) God is not omnipotent, but merely very powerful
2) More than one non-omnipotent gods exist (think Mt. Olympus)
3) God (or gods) is/are incompetent

These all seem plausible and would explain the state of our world perhaps better than the proposed existence of a single omnipotent, omnibenevolent god.

 

[Novum]

You are right to be skeptical of the used car salesmen. Even Jesus said in Matthew 24:4-5..."Take heed that no man deceive you. For many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ: and shall deceive many."

So you will find the Son of God agrees with you on that one. :wink: Perhaps there is more in common you both share?

It's possible that there is more that we share. Yet even if there is more - heck, even if every single ethical maxim I can think of is covered in the bible - that's still not reason enough to convert. Skepticism demands more evidence and more proof.

Yet, as this thread has demonstrated, I have completely failed thus far to find a reason why I ought to seek him for myself in the first place.

Failed? :-?

Failure is for quitters and from what I've seen of you in this thread Novum, you don't quit very easily. :

I said that I have failed thus far. ;) I've said previously that there may exist a reason for me to convert to christianity, but if this reason exists, I have not yet found it.

Many scientists took a leap of faith on a theory first, before they could develop the supporting evidence. If they didn't imagine and dream it was possible in the first place, would we have anywhere near the knowledge we do today?

Sure, some scientists may take the "leap of faith" you suggest, but I do not think it is nearly as widespread if you may believe. If a scientist were to stand before his colleagues and propose an explanation that had no supporting evidence, they would rightly view him as crazy until he could provide some proof for his claims.

So yes, it is possible that some scientists have done what you say. But it is far more prevalent that the theories come second, after evidence has been observed first.

But why should I pick up the bible? What do I gain from believing in god or devoting my life to a religion? Why shouldn't I pick up the Koran instead?

That is for your own conscience to decide. I wish I could give you more than that but ulimately which direction you choose is up to you.

And what if my conscience decides that I ought to continue being an atheist? God, if he exists, would understand my reasons for maintaining a lack of belief in any god. Would a perfectly just god blame me for doing so?

And there's the problem.

1. I cannot hear God without believing in him.
2. I cannot believe in God without repenting.
3. Due to my nature as a skeptic, I cannot repent without a reason to do so, namely, some sign from God that he exists and I should repent.
4. But I cannot hear any signs from God without believing in him first.

The circle repeats; I get nowhere. This is the root of my problem.

And yet you're still here...is the problem that great it cannot be overcome?

I don't know. I suspect that if you could develop a means of overcoming this issue - an issue cited by many atheists - you might just become the most popular Christian ever to have lived; second perhaps to old JC. ;)

Conclusions are so final but I know as a true skeptic, you won't stop questioning. :wink:

In that respect, you are correct. ;)

 

[Sothenes]

1) Are heaven and hell ethical?
2) Are heaven and hell desirable?

Hell is Morally Superior to Annihilationism

http://www.trueu.org/Academics/LectureH ... 000347.cfm

 

[Novum]

Hell is Morally Superior to Annihilationism

http://www.trueu.org/Academics/LectureH ... 000347.cfm

Your article offers bible verses as the sole justification for its argument and is therefore entirely based on the author's subjective interpretation of those passages. This is not helpful.

On top of that, I am not interested in biblical defenses of hell. The questions I've been asking in this thread cannot be answered by appeal to the bible alone.

On top of that, your article fails to address the issue of the desirability of heaven and hell.

 

[Sothenes]

Hell is Morally Superior to Annihilationism

http://www.trueu.org/Academics/LectureH ... 000347.cfm

Your article offers bible verses as the sole justification for its argument and is therefore entirely based on the author's subjective interpretation of those passages. This is not helpful.

On top of that, I am not interested in biblical defenses of hell. The questions I've been asking in this thread cannot be answered by appeal to the bible alone.

On top of that, your article fails to address the issue of the desirability of heaven and hell.

The author is credentialed and somewhat of a philosopher. Philosophy is the source of all science because science branched off from Philosophy and any science about hell would be subjective because you only have your philosophy (not proof) about heaven and hell. I went to college just so I could tell you that.

 

[Klee shay]

Does the NT go against the OT if interpreted through what Jesus spoke, rather than what various men attributed to being the Jesus persona?

Could you expand on this? I am not really sure what you are trying to say.

If you read what Jesus said in the NT and compare it with the OT, you will find he didn't contradict his father in heaven anywhere. Other men however, may have interpreted Jesus' sayings with slightly less authority in the NT.

For God is consistent...he does not change. If he is revealed in the OT then he will also be in the NT thanks to the one who fulfilled the Law - His Son, Jesus.

Not necessarily. God could be revealed in the Old Testament but not the New Testament.

Jesus said; "That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me." John 17:21

Do you believe Jesus was sent to reveal His Father's will? If you believe he did, then God WAS revealed in the NT via His Son.

Rather than pit the NT against the OT according to the acts of men, we should look for the consistent will of God - the very reason we believe.

It is not clear to me what you are trying to say here.

Believers tend to pick either the OT or the NT as their definable truth, rarely looking for the consistency of God in both Testaments.

I am in the process of discovering that one voice "God" used consistently throughout the OT and the NT

If you are in a process of discovery, then how can you be so sure that there is one consistent voice of God to be found throughout scripture?

Because there IS one God and therefore only one truth.

Jesus says in MARK 3:9..."He that hath ears to hear, let him hear." MARK 3:9

Then in REVELATIONS 2:7..."He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches; To him that overcometh will I give to eat of the tree of life, which is in the midst of the paradise of God."

See the consistency of one authority, one voice?

One thing I don't like to see however is discrediting any part of the bible as false. While it may be true there are some misguided testimonies in the NT by mankind; our Lord Jesus Christ is not one of those false testimonies.

So it may be true that there are "misguided testimonies" in the New Testament? Are you not saying that parts of the Bible may be false?

Should we follow man or God? MATTHEW 19:17..."Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments."

Knowing the imperfection of mankind and the perfection of God - who do you call good? Highlighting the possiblity for imperfection where man is concerned, is not calling the bible false. Let the tares grow up with the wheat until the harvest.

But obviously what Jesus is quoted as saying (whether or not his genuine words) could be false.

This is a claim I would like to see verified by discrediting the authority in which Jesus taught Show me the words which bore false witness and I will consider the validity of your claim.

By the way, if you believe there could be "misguided testimonies" in the New Testament, then how can you be sure what Jesus did or didn't say?

From which seat do you judge the Lord? I certainly do not doubt the Lord; though mankind will not be as perfect in representing God's will as Jesus was.

Imagine the bible is the good soil and God planted the good seed; and then came the enemy under darkness to plant his own seed amongst the wheat.

What are you saying exactly? That parts of the Bible come from the devil?

MARK 3:9..."He that hath ears to hear, let him hear." MARK 3:9

Did you not hear that the bible is the Good Soil? How could it be of the devil if it is good soil? Leave the bible to nurture the seeds, so that our Lord will not lose one grain of his harvest.

 

[Novum]

Philosophy is the source of all science because science branched off from Philosophy

This is not true for many branches of science.

and any science about hell would be subjective because you only have your philosophy (not proof) about heaven and hell.

This is true. Yet it requires us to buy into your author's subjective findings.

I went to college just so I could tell you that.

Err... Huh? :-?

 

[ArtGuy]

To be a bit nitpicky, your analogy doesn't quite work because you are not omniscient: you do not know what lesson your daughter will learn when you let her fall down. Of course, as a parent, you likely have a fairly good idea what lesson she'll learn, but it's not quite the case that we can say you know for sure what rewards will be had by your actions.

I'm not quite sure why my lack of omnipotence is relevant for the sake of that analogy... could you explain?

[quote:a7c20]Now, realize that when we talk about the afterlife, we talk about nigh-unlimited bliss, such that just about any suffering that a mortal man might comprehend is insignificant in comparison. Calling God cruel for requiring suffering in exchange for eternal happiness is like calling a parent cruel for sometimes letting his child fall down and hurt himself in order to teach the child a lesson about caution and independence.

Fair enough. But there are two deeper issues at stake:

1) Are heaven and hell ethical?
2) Are heaven and hell desirable?[/quote:a7c20]

I agree, and these are very good questions. Personally, I believe in something akin to UR, which I can't much go into because the mods here have decided they don't want to hear about it. The short of it is that heaven is eternal, hell isn't. I, too, have difficulty reconciling a finite amount of sin with an infinite amount of punishment.

There's a school of thought that states the degree of punishment should be proportional to the status of the person wronged - stealing from a good person is a worse offense than stealing from a bad person. Given that God is infinitely good, an offense against him would demand an infinite punishment. I don't really agree with this line of thinking, I'm just mentioning that it exists.

As to not desiring to live forever in bliss, the argument could be made that this is not necessarily a fully educated line of thought. The primitive precursors to the human race may well have desired nothing more than to frolick in the mud and pick fleas off themselves, occasionally pausing to mate with a conveniently-adjacent member of the opposite sex. You'd give him a good book, or play him a symphony, and he'd be completely uninterested. Modern man, though, has discovered higher pleasures that don't involve mud, fleas, or base acts of sex. It could well be that, granted more wisdom, and more knowledge of what the universe holds, you would leap at the opportunity for eternal life. It's impossible to say.

I too could imagine a much more evil existence. However, you are not addressing other possibilities, namely that:

1) God is not omnipotent, but merely very powerful
2) More than one non-omnipotent gods exist (think Mt. Olympus)
3) God (or gods) is/are incompetent

These all seem plausible and would explain the state of our world perhaps better than the proposed existence of a single omnipotent, omnibenevolent god.

These are all possibilities, but I don't think any of them necessarily explain the state of the world better than a single benevolent and omnipotent creator. I agree, though, that they don't really explain it any worse. Why do I subscribe to the single God of the Bible? Thus enters faith.

 

[Novum]

I'm not quite sure why my lack of omnipotence is relevant for the sake of that analogy... could you explain?

Omniscience, not omnipotence. ;)

We speak of god as allowing suffering because he knows humanity will be tested in a certain way or will learn a certain lesson as a result. However, you are not omniscient; you do not know for certain what lesson your daughter will learn when you allow her to suffer. Of course, as her parent you probably have a very good idea what lesson she'll learn, but you cannot be certain in the sense that an omniscient god would be certain.

It's a minor nitpick, but I'm a stickler for this sort of thing. ;)

I agree, and these are very good questions. Personally, I believe in something akin to UR, which I can't much go into because the mods here have decided they don't want to hear about it. The short of it is that heaven is eternal, hell isn't. I, too, have difficulty reconciling a finite amount of sin with an infinite amount of punishment.

Makes sense. Incidentally, I too have noticed the forum ban on UR - there's a whole announcement thread about it. While I won't get into the details of UR (for obvious forum reasons), can you tell me what UR stands for? It's not stated anywhere in that announcement thread...

There's a school of thought that states the degree of punishment should be proportional to the status of the person wronged - stealing from a good person is a worse offense than stealing from a bad person. Given that God is infinitely good, an offense against him would demand an infinite punishment. I don't really agree with this line of thinking, I'm just mentioning that it exists.

Yes, I am familiar with this thinking. And no, I don't quite agree with it either. ;)

As to not desiring to live forever in bliss, the argument could be made that this is not necessarily a fully educated line of thought. The primitive precursors to the human race may well have desired nothing more than to frolick in the mud and pick fleas off themselves, occasionally pausing to mate with a conveniently-adjacent member of the opposite sex. You'd give him a good book, or play him a symphony, and he'd be completely uninterested. Modern man, though, has discovered higher pleasures that don't involve mud, fleas, or base acts of sex. It could well be that, granted more wisdom, and more knowledge of what the universe holds, you would leap at the opportunity for eternal life. It's impossible to say.

But there's the rub. I am not nor have I ever been suicidal, but I know that if things ever get really, really bad, I will have a way out of this life. Such is not the case in heaven or hell - I cannot "opt out" should I desire to. Remember that you spoke at length in this thread about suffering; namely that it is the presence of suffering in this world that gives our happiness its meaning. In a heaven that lacks any form of suffering, happiness is meaningless; what's more, one man's eternal bliss is another man's torture. I cannot opt out of this heaven; it is therefore not attractive or desirable for me.

These are all possibilities, but I don't think any of them necessarily explain the state of the world better than a single benevolent and omnipotent creator. I agree, though, that they don't really explain it any worse. Why do I subscribe to the single God of the Bible? Thus enters faith.

Fair enough.

 

[ArtGuy]

Omniscience, not omnipotence. ;)

Bah, my fingers betrayed me. That's what I meant.

We speak of god as allowing suffering because he knows humanity will be tested in a certain way or will learn a certain lesson as a result. However, you are not omniscient; you do not know for certain what lesson your daughter will learn when you allow her to suffer. Of course, as her parent you probably have a very good idea what lesson she'll learn, but you cannot be certain in the sense that an omniscient god would be certain.

It's a minor nitpick, but I'm a stickler for this sort of thing. ;)

Well, yes, but if anything that would make it more just for God to do this sort of thing than for a parent. I just think that my daughter will benefit from a little suffering. God knows.

Makes sense. Incidentally, I too have noticed the forum ban on UR - there's a whole announcement thread about it. While I won't get into the details of UR (for obvious forum reasons), can you tell me what UR stands for? It's not stated anywhere in that announcement thread...

Universal Reconciliation.

But there's the rub. I am not nor have I ever been suicidal, but I know that if things ever get really, really bad, I will have a way out of this life. Such is not the case in heaven or hell - I cannot "opt out" should I desire to. Remember that you spoke at length in this thread about suffering; namely that it is the presence of suffering in this world that gives our happiness its meaning. In a heaven that lacks any form of suffering, happiness is meaningless; what's more, one man's eternal bliss is another man's torture. I cannot opt out of this heaven; it is therefore not attractive or desirable for me.

Fair points, but at the end of the day, the possibility remains that those who don't like the idea of eternal bliss just aren't understanding it properly as a result of insufficient wisdom. Of course, even those who do like the idea probably aren't understanding it properly.

As to the necessity of current suffering to appreciate happiness, I'm not sure if that would be necessary. Someone who was born poor and later becomes wealthy can still appreciate his current wealth by recalling what it was like to be poor. He can do this to a greater extent than someone who has only know wealth. Yes, some people grow to take such wealth for granted, but this is a problem of insufficient wisdom and lack of perspective, things which wouldn't presumably be a problem in an enlightened race of spiritual beings. We will understand suffering because we have been there, but we will be able to keep a proper perspective because of the wisdom granted us by God.

Or maybe I'm completely mistaken.

 

[DivineNames]

Hell is Morally Superior to Annihilationism

http://www.trueu.org/Academics/LectureH ... 000347.cfm

Quotes are from the article, "Everlasting Hell and Its Rivals", by J.P. Moreland, which you provided a link for.

The moral argument fails as well. For one thing, the severity of a crime is not a function of the time it takes to commit it. Thus, rejection of the mercy of an infinite God could quite appropriately warrant an unending, conscious separation from God.

Why would rejection of mercy be a sin at all? (Let alone a sin deserving of eternal punishment.) The author claims this "sin" could appropriately warrant such a punishment, but they have forgotten to give us any argument to justify the claim.

I would also question if anyone would really have "rejected" the mercy of God, unless it is clear to that person that an offer of mercy is actually available, and in that circumstance they decline the offer. If I don't believe in Jesus then I haven't rejected the mercy of God; but rather, I don't think that any offer of mercy via Jesus actually exists.

Hell is also a place of shame, sorrow, regret and anguish. This intense pain is not actively produced by God; He is not a cosmic torturer.

Where is the scripture? Is the author merely giving his opinion here?

 

[DivineNames]

I am not nor have I ever been suicidal, but I know that if things ever get really, really bad, I will have a way out of this life. Such is not the case in heaven or hell - I cannot "opt out" should I desire to.

This is an interesting point. Wouldn't a person have a moral right to be annihilated if that is what they wanted? With theism, we obviously didn't ask to be created in the first place, so would it be moral for a Deity to sustain our existence contrary to our will?

 

[DivineNames]

Klee shay, I haven't forgotten you, I will reply at some point.

 

[Klee shay]

No worries, DivineNames. :wink: I understand that it's not always possible to reply when time doesn't permit it. Real life does take precedence.

I think where you and I are probably conflicting in dialoge perhaps is that I'm talking in parable and you're talking literally. Jesus did explain his parables more explicitly to his disciples so they understood more, however it was still a parable and not a literal edict.

I think talking in parables gave Jesus the ability to deliver God's messages without necessarily making it law (like God did with Moses) so that individuals could make a choice in what they understood, followed and believed.

The literal instructions Jesus gave us however, like the first great command being to love God above all things and the second to love each other as Jesus loved us - is a literal edict which is pretty easy to compredhend.

By the way, I accept total responsibility for bringing a parable into a literal discussion and don't hold you accountable for talking literally as a result.

 

[Novum]

This is an interesting point. Wouldn't a person have a moral right to be annihilated if that is what they wanted? With theism, we obviously didn't ask to be created in the first place, so would it be moral for a Deity to sustain our existence contrary to our will?

Sounds a lot like the euthanasia debate, which is another discussion entirely. ;) I would, however, argue that it is not moral for a deity to do what you suggest.