Will a "good" atheist go to hell?

[ThinkerMan]

I guess you have your answer ThinkerMan.

Sorry Divine, I was confused and spell-bound by the bright pretty lights and the countless fonts employed.

I thought that post was a picture...I didn't realize there were words in it.

To John...

All kidding aside, there was one thing you said that bounced out.

"PROOF POSITIVE"

If you have proof positive, you have no faith. I forget the exact verse, but faith is belief in things unseen (unknowable). Yet you declare absolute proof.

How can you reconcile this is with saved by faith? You are faithless.

I have no faith that I live in California. I have proof I live here on all documents mailed to my house.

I find your proof lacking, though I have no quarrel with your faith. I'm just confused as to which you claim.

 

[Punk-O-Rama]

hehe... yeah i think got over-emotional... well i really hate those guys that try to impose their beliefs (not only agnostic/atheist, but buddist, etc), telling them they will go to hell if they do not accept christ, etc.

So, he actually attacked my beliefs first :P

Well, we actually have gone far from the topic.

And i dont buy Aquinas argument, as i can still say there must some1 that put in motion the hand that hit the first domino. And on to infinite regression. And that actuallity and potenciality has no sense btw.

 

[DivineNames]

I guess you have your answer ThinkerMan.

Sorry Divine, I was confused and spell-bound by the bright pretty lights and the countless fonts employed.

I thought that post was a picture...I didn't realize there were words in it.

:-D

 

[DivineNames]

Even if we start with only the quality of "unmoved mover," we can immediately begin to infer many more qualities.

As I stated in my previous post, the ONLY thing we can assume about the prime mover is that he/she is the first domino. I am not sure how we can infer other attributes, even conciousness.

You have hypothetically assumed the truth of one argument for the existence of God, are you willing to hypothetically assume the truth of other arguments for the existence of God? The ontological argument or the design argument, for example.

Perhaps we could infer certain attributes from those arguments?

I am not suggesting that we could infer the God of a particular religion.

 

[DivineNames]

One would have to do a comparison of world religions and their gods to see 1. which beliefs best fit such concepts, and 2. which beliefs are the most coherent.

Christianity may have some problems with that one.

 

[John the Baptist]

I guess you have your answer ThinkerMan.

Sorry Divine, I was confused and spell-bound by the bright pretty lights and the countless fonts employed.

I thought that post was a picture...I didn't realize there were words in it.

To John...

All kidding aside, there was one thing you said that bounced out.

"PROOF POSITIVE"

If you have proof positive, you have no faith. I forget the exact verse, but faith is belief in things unseen (unknowable). Yet you declare absolute proof.

How can you reconcile this is with saved by faith? You are faithless.

I have no faith that I live in California. I have proof I live here on all documents mailed to my house.

I find your proof lacking, though I have no quarrel with your faith. I'm just confused as to which you claim.

Hebrews 5:1-6 is after one has been made a partaker of the Holy Ghost. (that is the reason that you find proof lacking) These do not need any more proof!

And the faith of Ephesians 4:5 is the "ONE FAITH". (fold, doctrines, Belief) Not a person having faith. And being Saved By Faith, is the Believing of the Word of God to the extent that the end result of ones life found them either living THE FAITH or dieing in the Faith. Recorded 'works'. (and the verse was Hebrews 11:13 that you were recalling)

 

[ThinkerMan]

Even if we start with only the quality of "unmoved mover," we can immediately begin to infer many more qualities.

As I stated in my previous post, the ONLY thing we can assume about the prime mover is that he/she is the first domino. I am not sure how we can infer other attributes, even conciousness.

You have hypothetically assumed the truth of one argument for the existence of God, are you willing to hypothetically assume the truth of other arguments for the existence of God? The ontological argument or the design argument, for example.

Perhaps we could infer certain attributes from those arguments?

I am not suggesting that we could infer the God of a particular religion.

Yes, I suppose you could begin to learn more about "god" if you hypothetically took those arguments out. Might be an interesting excercise.

The argument from design, for example. God may be highly ordered, and everything works exactly according to specific rules and interactions (general relativity and classical physics), which makes Free will seem incompatable.

Or the universe is just a series of probabilities and ultimately unknowable interactions (quantum mechanics), so no possible attributes can be derived from god except he couldn't make up his mind, so he developed a complicated algoritm to see what happened. Under that scenario, perhaps you could decide that god doesn't really care about the ultimate outcome except from curiousity.

I apologize if I don't remember exactly, Divine, but I think you are a deist, or something similar. Do you have any feelings on how these attributes can be derived?

 

[notapseudonym]

How would a series of probabilties work? I mean if all this wourld is is a series of probabilities than how does it happen that every time a human concieves a child it is a human? How does a worm continue to reproduce as a worm?
There are an infinte amout of probabilities so how did it happen that two humans, through all this improbability, emerged?
Is it me or does this series of improbabilities not hold up?

 

[ThinkerMan]

I was talking about looking at the design of the universe at a quantum level. It would be difficult to ascertain anything about the creator from what we know about quantum mechanics. Merely an academic excercise we were having.

How would a series of probabilties work?

The most probable way, usually.

I mean if all this wourld is is a series of probabilities than how does it happen that every time a human concieves a child it is a human?

Because that is probably what happens when two humans mate. You will probably get something that we would call human.

How does a worm continue to reproduce as a worm?

Because when you combine genetic material from two parent worms, you will probably get something that we would call a worm.

There are an infinte amout of probabilities so how did it happen that two humans, through all this improbability, emerged?

Because it happened. The various probabilities neither precluded nor aimed to make it happen.

Is it me or does this series of improbabilities not hold up?

It's probably you. :-D

 

[notapseudonym]

yes, I have a few problems, but only a few

How did we end up with two humans in the begining? Lets say we have two "cubes", each with 100 sides. Each side has a number. We roll the two, what is the probability that they will come up with the same number?
Even greater odds for things happening in the universe.
If the world started with a series of probabilities, does it not have to continue in this manner? So we are still dealing with inprobabilities today.
What is the probability of things reoccuring in the same manner all the time.

 

[ThinkerMan]

yes, I have a few problems, but only a few

How did we end up with two humans in the begining? Lets say we have two "cubes", each with 100 sides. Each side has a number. We roll the two, what is the probability that they will come up with the same number?
Even greater odds for things happening in the universe.
If the world started with a series of probabilities, does it not have to continue in this manner?

First off, you are using "probabilities" and "inprobabilities" interchangably, so it makes it tough to figure out what you are asking.

How did we end up with two humans in the begining? Lets say we have two "cubes", each with 100 sides. Each side has a number. We roll the two, what is the probability that they will come up with the same number?

Well, you are assuming the two humans evolve completely distinct of each other, find eachother both as humans, and mate. That is not how it happens. I agree, were that the case, it would be highly inprobable.

They both evolve along side of eachother, tiny step by tiny step, through the sharing of genetic material and passing those changes on down the line to descendents. So your analogy doesn't hold like that. A better analogy would be a 1000-sided dice, where 999 sides all have 1 and 1 side as 0. So long as the difference never reaches, say, 50, you have the same species capable of mating.

Also, for example when 2 fifth cousins marry, the difference is reduced. Makes it tough to get to 50 without seperating the groups.

Even greater odds for things happening in the universe.
If the world started with a series of probabilities, does it not have to continue in this manner?

I think you are looking at this in two ways incorrectly.

First off, the pure "probability" portion of my previous posts was in respect to the quantum world. That has almost no manifestations with evolution, the formation of stars, etc. I was just opining on some of the properties of our fundamental universe.

Secondly, you seem to think that evolution "aimed" to make humans. Going back a few millions years, and trying to determine the odds of humans evolving, you would find it highly inprobable. Very long odds indeed.

However, there would be equally long odds that dolphins would build cities, cats would learn to walk upright and gorillas would developing writing. Those were all "possible", but not highly probable, millions of years ago.

Back then, there were countless possibilities, all with low probabilities. The one we live in happened to be the one that won out. Looking back, we can trace how it happened. But looking foward from back then, you would say the odds are near impossible.

Like winning the lottery. On the day you buy the ticket, you know the probability of winning is extremely low. There are millions of other people who could win. However, on the day you actually win the lottery, your odds shoot up from near zero to 100%. At that point, it is very easy to see why you won.

So we are still dealing with inprobabilities today.

Yes we are. For example, which one of a man's millions of sperm fertilizes any of hundreds of eggs creates a probability of what the offspring will look like.

As the new organism is created, there are certain probabilities that there are mutations and changes to the parent DNA. Overtime, these probabilities can manifest itself as a property of the species, or given enough seperation, distinct species.

What is the probability of things reoccuring in the same manner all the time

In terms of evolution, extremely low. For example, the odds of having two-non identical babies with the same DNA combination is near zero. For two eggs and two sperm to have the same 1/2 of genetic material, plus the same mutations, is astronomically low.

In terms of the universe, very high. Although this is a tad beyond my laymen's understanding of quantum mechanics, the probabilities of any quantum fluctuations affecting the visible rules and structure of the universe is also near zero. For example, a particle has a probability (although very low) of being pretty much anywhere in the unverse. At any given time, it could be "somewhere else" other than in my fingertip. However, the odds of every particle in my finger tip being "somewhere else" at the same time is astronomically low. Thus, what we perceive in the physical universe is extremely consistant.

In short, probabilities are just that. Once something improbable happens, you can't say its impossible anymore.

 

[DivineNames]

Do you have any feelings on how these attributes can be derived?

With regard to the ontological argument, Anselm believed that you could derive attributes from it-


"God is whatever it is better to be than not to be; and he, as the only self-existent being, creates all things from nothing.

WHAT are you, then, Lord God, than whom nothing greater can be conceived? But what are you, except that which, as the highest of all beings, alone exists through itself, and creates all other things from nothing? For, whatever is not this is less than a thing which can be conceived of. But this cannot be conceived of you. What good, therefore, does the supreme Good lack, through which every good is? Therefore, you are just, truthful, blessed, and whatever it is better to be than not to be. For it is better to be just than not just; better to be blessed than not blessed."

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/basis/an ... HAPTER%20V


With regard to the design argument, I may get back to you.

 

[DivineNames]

Therefore, you are just, truthful, blessed, and whatever it is better to be than not to be. For it is better to be just than not just; better to be blessed than not blessed."

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/basis/an ... HAPTER%20V

Is it better to not behave like the God of the Bible?

 

[Free]

Free's got my back! Sorry Free, I just don't get comments like that outside of Quath very often. haha!

Yeah, I've noticed. :D But if you're right, you're right and I have no problem agreeing (of course, I will determine when you're right ;) :P ).

As I stated in my previous post, the ONLY thing we can assume about the prime mover is that he/she is the first domino. I am not sure how we can infer other attributes, even conciousness. The first raindrop starts the stream, the first cell begats all of life's diversity (okay, maybe that isn't an easy sell here...haha). Why do you feel is it necessary to infer more than the attribute in question?

This is why I haven't responded for a while; I've been thinking about how we can even begin to infer consciousness. I have what I think may be a plausible answer, but I am not a good philosopher, as much as I love philosophy.

Could the universe have come about from something that, although a pure actuality, is not consicous? What I am getting at is if there is no intent to create or form the universe, then the unmoved mover would have to have potential to change. But we have already seen that something cannot be both potential and actual at the same time and in the same sense.

If the unmoved mover is pure actuality and made the universe, it seems to me that "it" could only have done so with the intent of doing so. That is, it was a self-directed act of creating. There can be no intent with something that isn't conscious, so for it to just begin creating, it would have to have potentiality to begin with.

And then, once we can reasonably infer consciousness, we must also immediately infer that such a consciousness must be very intelligent and very powerful in order to be able to create such a vast, complex interworking of many different types of systems.

Though I do agree that if "god" can be proved, than "God" is easier to prove.

I think the Christian God and resulting theology make the simplest, most rational sense of the majority of religions.

Please note: this was all just some thoughts I had in the shower this morning and not from any book, so the reasoning may not be very good.

 

[DivineNames]

I've been thinking about how we can even begin to infer consciousness.

Whether the perfections of all things are in God?

Objection 1. It seems that the perfections of all things are not in God. For God is simple, as shown above (3, 7); whereas the perfections of things are many and diverse. Therefore the perfections of all things are not in God.

Objection 2. Further, opposites cannot coexist. Now the perfections of things are opposed to each other, for each thing is perfected by its specific difference. But the differences by which "genera" are divided, and "species" constituted, are opposed to each other. Therefore because opposites cannot coexist in the same subject, it seems that the perfections of all things are not in God.

Objection 3. Further, a living thing is more perfect than what merely exists; and an intelligent thing than what merely lives. Therefore life is more perfect than existence; and knowledge than life. But the essence of God is existence itself. Therefore He has not the perfections of life, and knowledge, and other similar perfections.

On the contrary, Dionysius says (Div. Nom. v) that "God in His one existence prepossesses all things."

I answer that, All created perfections are in God. Hence He is spoken of as universally perfect, because He lacks not (says the Commentator, Metaph. v) any excellence which may be found in any genus. This may be seen from two considerations.

First, because whatever perfection exists in an effect must be found in the effective cause: either in the same formality, if it is a univocal agent--as when man reproduces man; or in a more eminent degree, if it is an equivocal agent--thus in the sun is the likeness of whatever is generated by the sun's power. Now it is plain that the effect pre-exists virtually in the efficient cause: and although to pre-exist in the potentiality of a material cause is to pre-exist in a more imperfect way, since matter as such is imperfect, and an agent as such is perfect; still to pre-exist virtually in the efficient cause is to pre-exist not in a more imperfect, but in a more perfect way. Since therefore God is the first effective cause of things, the perfections of all things must pre-exist in God in a more eminent way. Dionysius implies the same line of argument by saying of God (Div. Nom. v): "It is not that He is this and not that, but that He is all, as the cause of all."

Secondly, from what has been already proved, God is existence itself, of itself subsistent (3, 4). Consequently, He must contain within Himself the whole perfection of being. For it is clear that if some hot thing has not the whole perfection of heat, this is because heat is not participated in its full perfection; but if this heat were self-subsisting, nothing of the virtue of heat would be wanting to it. Since therefore God is subsisting being itself, nothing of the perfection of being can be wanting to Him. Now all created perfections are included in the perfection of being; for things are perfect, precisely so far as they have being after some fashion. It follows therefore that the perfection of no one thing is wanting to God. This line of argument, too, is implied by Dionysius (Div. Nom. v), when he says that, "God exists not in any single mode, but embraces all being within Himself, absolutely, without limitation, uniformly;" and afterwards he adds that, "He is the very existence to subsisting things."

Reply to Objection 1. Even as the sun (as Dionysius remarks, (Div. Nom. v)), while remaining one and shining uniformly, contains within itself first and uniformly the substances of sensible things, and many and diverse qualities; "a fortiori" should all things in a kind of natural unity pre-exist in the cause of all things; and thus things diverse and in themselves opposed to each other, pre-exist in God as one, without injury to His simplicity. This suffices for the Reply to the Second Objection.

Reply to Objection 3. The same Dionysius says (Div. Nom. v) that, although existence is more perfect than life, and life than wisdom, if they are considered as distinguished in idea; nevertheless, a living thing is more perfect than what merely exists, because living things also exist and intelligent things both exist and live. Although therefore existence does not include life and wisdom, because that which participates in existence need not participate in every mode of existence; nevertheless God's existence includes in itself life and wisdom, because nothing of the perfection of being can be wanting to Him who is subsisting being itself.


Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica

http://www.newadvent.org/summa/100402.htm


That is one way you can try and infer consciousness.

 

[DivineNames]

I think the Christian God and resulting theology make the simplest, most rational sense of the majority of religions.

The Christian God is generally claimed to be a Trinity. Does anyone know any arguments to try and show that God is a Trinity? Is this theory either 'simple' or 'rational'?

 

[Free]

Perhaps I should clarify a little. Christian theology makes the most sense of who God is, who we are and why we're here, the human condition, and the solution to this condition.

Certainly there are difficult doctrines in Christianity, but this doesn't take away from its relative simplicity and rationality. The doctrine of the Trinity is difficult to fully understand and the actual idea is incomprehensible really, but this does not mean it is irrational.

 

[DivineNames]

Perhaps I should clarify a little. Christian theology makes the most sense of who God is, who we are and why we're here, the human condition, and the solution to this condition.

Certainly there are difficult doctrines in Christianity, but this doesn't take away from its relative simplicity and rationality. The doctrine of the Trinity is difficult to fully understand and the actual idea is incomprehensible really, but this does not mean it is irrational.

I am thinking of doctrines like the Trinity, the Incarnation, the Atonement, the Virgin Birth, do these make more sense of the human condition, and its solution, than a 'stripped down' monotheism would, i.e. without those doctrines?

 

[Free]

I am thinking of doctrines like the Trinity, the Incarnation, the Atonement, the Virgin Birth, do these make more sense of the human condition, and its solution, than a 'stripped down' monotheism would, i.e. without those doctrines?

And what did you have in mind for a "'stripped down' monotheism"? Hinduism?

You are missing the simplicity of it all: the gospel message. The miraculous and the incomprehensible do not negate the simplicity and rationality of Christian theology and its message. It certainly is much more simple than Hinduism, don't you think?

 

[DivineNames]

I am thinking of doctrines like the Trinity, the Incarnation, the Atonement, the Virgin Birth, do these make more sense of the human condition, and its solution, than a 'stripped down' monotheism would, i.e. without those doctrines?

And what did you have in mind for a "'stripped down' monotheism"? Hinduism?

You are missing the simplicity of it all: the gospel message. The miraculous and the incomprehensible do not negate the simplicity and rationality of Christian theology and its message. It certainly is much more simple than Hinduism, don't you think?

"Suppose we think of salvation in a much more concrete and empirically observable way as an actual change in men and women from natural self-centredness to, in theistic terms, God-centredness, or in more general terms, a new orientation centred in the Ultimate, the Real, as conceived and experienced within one's own tradition. Salvation in this sense is the central concern of each of the great world religions. Within Christianity it is conceptualized and experienced as the state in which Paul could say, 'It is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me' (Gal. 2:20, RSV). Within Judaism it is conceived and experienced as the joy and responsibility of life lived in accordance with God's Torah. Within Islam it is conceived and experienced as a personal self-surrender to God in a life lived according to God's revealed commands. With Advaitic Hinduism it is conceived and experienced as a transcending of the ego and discovery of unity with the eternal reality of Brahman. Within Buddhism it is conceived and experienced as a loss of the ego point of view in a discovery of the Buddha nature of the universal interdependent process of which we are all part. And in each case this transformation of human existence from self-centredness to Reality-centredness is reached by a moral and spiritual path."


John Hick (2001) 'The Theological Challenge of Religious Pluralism' in John Hick & Brian Hebblethwaite (eds) Christianity and Other Religions: Selected Readings (Glasgow: Oneworld Publications)


This strikes me as a far more 'rational' view of salvation than the Atonement.