Like Aroura alluded to, what the fuck is it precisely that I'm supposed to be impressed with from C.S. Lewis? In the last five years I have run into more idiots foisting on me the inane mind drippings from this person as if the mention of his name gives some supernatural unassailed street credibility that translates into fact. C.S. Lewis, fucking hell. Proof of God is soon going to become a useful comedic cliche similar to the big 'X' on a map indicating the location of buried treasure. 

Lewis was a xtian apologist...sort of the WLC of his day.

IOW, another asshole.

I see the Lewis went over like a lead balloon. Sorry for that and I will make sure to avoid it in the future. (Though I was shocked by how many people go ad hominem right away. I thought people would give more consideration to what people are saying regardless of who is saying it... Oh well.)

The question (which I am a fan of) seeks to point out two problems for many theist:

If it is held that the soul is to be in paradise and then further held that paradise is to be pleasing in every aspect then it must follow that a person who is deprived of the presence of anyone they love, or forced to endure the presence of anyone they hate would not be pleased in every aspect and is thus not in paradise.

Second, many theist are readily willing to accept numerous horrors under the argument that it is for the greater good so long as they end up better for it. Few if any are willing to accept that they will be the sacrifice that benefits the rest. Thus the greater good is subjective to what the soul in question determines is good.

As a general response to both scenarios I would say it is held by (since it cannot be known) theist that what comes with paradise is understanding. Just as metaphysical suffering is alleviated with understanding so to is it held by theist that the condemnation of a loved one or the salvation of a detested one will be understood and subsequently perceived as right and good. There will be no pity for those sent to hell nor disgust with those sent to heaven (regardless of relation) as it will be obvious and certain it is where they should be.

So, greater metaphysical understanding is going to tell you why we're going to burn in hell? So, you have no qualms telling a moral atheist that they deserve to burn in hell, you're just not sure why yet?

The bigger question would why worship a god if you know your child may go to hell.

(May 22, 2015 at 10:02 pm)Anima Wrote: I see the Lewis went over like a lead balloon.  Sorry for that and I will make sure to avoid it in the future.  (Though I was shocked by how many people go ad hominem right away.  I thought people would give more consideration to what people are saying regardless of who is saying it... Oh well.)

The question (which I am a fan of) seeks to point out two problems for many theist:

If it is held that the soul is to be in paradise and then further held that paradise is to be pleasing in every aspect then it must follow that a person who is deprived of the presence of anyone they love, or forced to endure the presence of anyone they hate would not be pleased in every aspect and is thus not in paradise.

Second, many theist are readily willing to accept numerous horrors under the argument that it is for the greater good so long as they end up better for it.  Few if any are willing to accept that they will be the sacrifice that benefits the rest.  Thus the greater good is subjective to what the soul in question determines is good.

As a general response to both scenarios I would say it is held by (since it cannot be known) theist that what comes with paradise is understanding.  Just as metaphysical suffering is alleviated with understanding so to is it held by theist that the condemnation of a loved one or the salvation of a detested one will be understood and subsequently perceived as right and good.  There will be no pity for those sent to hell nor disgust with those sent to heaven (regardless of relation) as it will be obvious and certain it is where they should be.

Prove that paradise exists.  Otherwise, your entire argument is nothing more than philosophical bull. 

(May 22, 2015 at 10:02 pm)Anima Wrote:

---

I see the Lewis went over like a lead balloon.  Sorry for that and I will make sure to avoid it in the future.  (Though I was shocked by how many people go ad hominem right away.  I thought people would give more consideration to what people are saying regardless of who is saying it... Oh well.)

The question (which I am a fan of) seeks to point out two problems for many theist:

If it is held that the soul is to be in paradise and then further held that paradise is to be pleasing in every aspect then it must follow that a person who is deprived of the presence of anyone they love, or forced to endure the presence of anyone they hate would not be pleased in every aspect and is thus not in paradise.

Second, many theist are readily willing to accept numerous horrors under the argument that it is for the greater good so long as they end up better for it.  Few if any are willing to accept that they will be the sacrifice that benefits the rest.  Thus the greater good is subjective to what the soul in question determines is good.

---

As a general response to both scenarios I would say it is held by (since it cannot be known) theist that what comes with paradise is understanding.  Just as metaphysical suffering is alleviated with understanding so to is it held by theist that the condemnation of a loved one or the salvation of a detested one will be understood and subsequently perceived as right and good.  There will be no pity for those sent to hell nor disgust with those sent to heaven (regardless of relation) as it will be obvious and certain it is where they should be.

It seems a common scenario in the history of religion where the complications of simplistic overstatement lead, on further reflection when internal contradictions are discovered, to ad-hoc explanations which generally do not serve to resolve the conflict.

God is omnipotent. -> Can he make a rock so big He can't lift it? -> Sure, how is a mystery.
God is omniscient. -> Does He know of the extent of his knowledge of the things he doesn't know?-> Sure, how is a mystery.
Paradise is perfect. -> Perfect peace includes knowledge of the suffering of others. -> You will understand. It's a mystery.
God is omnibenevolent -> Wherefore evil? -> You will understand.  It's a mystery.
It's a mystery to me why people choose the complex explanation: God and mystery instead of the simple one: No God and the obvious.

(May 22, 2015 at 10:02 pm)Anima Wrote: I see the Lewis went over like a lead balloon.  Sorry for that and I will make sure to avoid it in the future.  (Though I was shocked by how many people go ad hominem right away.  I thought people would give more consideration to what people are saying regardless of who is saying it... Oh well.)

The question (which I am a fan of) seeks to point out two problems for many theist:

If it is held that the soul is to be in paradise and then further held that paradise is to be pleasing in every aspect then it must follow that a person who is deprived of the presence of anyone they love, or forced to endure the presence of anyone they hate would not be pleased in every aspect and is thus not in paradise.

Second, many theist are readily willing to accept numerous horrors under the argument that it is for the greater good so long as they end up better for it.  Few if any are willing to accept that they will be the sacrifice that benefits the rest.  Thus the greater good is subjective to what the soul in question determines is good.

As a general response to both scenarios I would say it is held by (since it cannot be known) theist that what comes with paradise is understanding.  Just as metaphysical suffering is alleviated with understanding so to is it held by theist that the condemnation of a loved one or the salvation of a detested one will be understood and subsequently perceived as right and good.  There will be no pity for those sent to hell nor disgust with those sent to heaven (regardless of relation) as it will be obvious and certain it is where they should be.

So really, this argument amounts to: a person in heaven would understand gods reason for sending their loved one to hell, so they would then just accept it as right and good.  Is this about right?  This sounds like an adjusted version of the Lobotomy.

I'm shocked that you don't see what an appalling argument that is.  So love is totally conditional, and god can take it away with...understanding of why that person needs to suffer torment for all eternity.  That...is...fucking...sick. 

And hey, with understanding does not come acceptance of other's suffering.  As humans become more advanced, we generally go the other way, and find that there is little reason for another's suffering.  Many people even defend the murderers, whores, and so forth (cough ~jesus~ cough). 

The more understanding we gain, the less judgemental we become.  Funny how the Christian notion of god and heaven is that we will become MORE judgmental and accepting of others suffering.  It's like you believe 2 completely different things at the same time!

(May 23, 2015 at 12:15 am)Faith No More Wrote: So, greater metaphysical understanding is going to tell you why we're going to burn in hell?  So, you have no qualms telling a moral atheist that they deserve to burn in hell, you're just not sure why yet?

It is likely that a person already knows why. Though such may not be the case as people are as adept at self deception as they are at deceiving others.

---

(May 23, 2015 at 1:18 am)dyresand Wrote: The bigger question would why worship a god if you know your child may go to hell.

By extension, an even bigger argument would be why worship a god that sends anyone to hell. Since, as the song goes, "Everybody is somebody's baby".

But then if we say god will send no one to hell (as they are all the son or daughter of someone) we would have to say why believe in a god. (I suspect the original intention of the question).

To make this analogous to something we experience let us say that hell = prison. Now why be part of society or government that could send your child to prison for life (or may even kill them)? For that matter why be a part of any society or government that imprisons (or executes) anybody at all (after all everybody is somebody's baby)?

I suspect your answer will be similar to my own. That while it may not necessarily be what you desire you will understand why they are in prison based on the conduct they engaged in and the harm they committed. With your understanding will come acceptance or determination that your loved one (while still loved) belongs there.

---

(May 23, 2015 at 1:36 am)JuliaL Wrote: It seems a common scenario in the history of religion where the complications of simplistic overstatement lead, on further reflection when internal contradictions are discovered, to ad-hoc explanations which generally do not serve to resolve the conflict.

God is omnipotent. -> Can he make a rock so big He can't lift it? -> Sure, how is a mystery.
God is omniscient. -> Does He know of the extent of his knowledge of the things he doesn't know?-> Sure, how is a mystery.
Paradise is perfect. -> Perfect peace includes knowledge of the suffering of others. -> You will understand. It's a mystery.
God is omnibenevolent -> Wherefore evil? -> You will understand.  It's a mystery.
It's a mystery to me why people choose the complex explanation: God and mystery instead of the simple one: No God and the obvious.

I am a fan of these ones:
1. He does not make the rock and lift it in the same form. God may be limited by form and volition (see Aristotle essence, accident, and realization)
2. He knows that he knows everything.
3. Those in paradise are not suffering, but not everyone is in paradise. Think of it like morphine. Those on it are felling fantastic, those not are not feeling as awesome. Does the one on the morphine suffer because the others are not feeling as fantastic?

It is a mystery why people chose to complex an explanation more than they necessary to the point that their convolution ends up excluding their own logic.

Oh, the irony.