Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
Current time: December 23, 2024, 10:38 am

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
On Hell and Forgiveness
RE: On Hell and Forgiveness
(August 30, 2018 at 1:06 pm)polymath257 Wrote: I thought I *did* answer.

She just wants to hear what she wants to hear. Her own brand of manipulation at its best.
Reply
RE: On Hell and Forgiveness
(August 30, 2018 at 1:09 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote:
(August 30, 2018 at 1:06 pm)polymath257 Wrote: I thought I *did* answer. I said very clearly that I would go for truth over love and facts over fulfillment.

I guess I need further clarification, because I'm not sure what that implies. Does this mean you would accept or reject God in the scenario I presented?

I don't know. Is God 'truth' as well as being 'love'? is there a difference (I think there is)?
Reply
RE: On Hell and Forgiveness
(August 30, 2018 at 12:49 pm)polymath257 Wrote:
(August 30, 2018 at 12:39 pm)Neo-Scholastic Wrote: That reads like a polemic. I wouldn't be so certain. There are things that are evident about the world. People can reason from some of those observations that God exists. You may believe that that specific conclusion does not follow from particular observations, but saying flat out that there is "no evidence" inverts the relationship between evidence and the conclusions one could possibly draw from the evidence. As such it is an unfounded assertion. Let me show you the difference...

Step 1: There is something evident about the world.
Step 2: Some conclusion follows from what is evident.
Step 3: What is evident supports the conclusion.

versus

Step 1: No conclusions can be drawn from something evident about the world.

To be evidence  concerning a proposition (like 'God exists'), the observation has to change the probability of the proposition being true. It *isn't* simply that the observation is consistent with the proposition (if the negation is also consistent, for example). I have yet to see one piece of information that changes the probability that the statement 'God exists' is true in a positive direction. So I deny that Step 2 applies in the case you want to apply it to.

Well, I wasn't trying to be exhaustive. What you say is indeed true. Consistency does not necessarily prefer a specific conclusion. In situations where multiple conclusions could be drawn from what is evident, it is not unreasonable to consider one true...particularly if the same conclusion follows from multiple observations. In situations where it could go either way, the stance that either the negative or positive is somehow always the default seems susceptible to the belief holders personal inclinations.

Now as to whether a probabilistic argument favors the existence of God, I personally do not see how one can assign those probabilities in a fair and objective way.

The larger point I am making to Kit is that reasonable people can disagree. We don't have go around think other people are mentally or morally deficient just because they have reached different conclusions.
<insert profound quote here>
Reply
RE: On Hell and Forgiveness
(August 30, 2018 at 1:11 pm)Neo-Scholastic Wrote:
(August 30, 2018 at 12:49 pm)polymath257 Wrote: To be evidence  concerning a proposition (like 'God exists'), the observation has to change the probability of the proposition being true. It *isn't* simply that the observation is consistent with the proposition (if the negation is also consistent, for example). I have yet to see one piece of information that changes the probability that the statement 'God exists' is true in a positive direction. So I deny that Step 2 applies in the case you want to apply it to.

Well, I wasn't trying to be exhaustive. What you say is indeed true. Consistency does not necessarily prefer a specific conclusion. In situations where multiple conclusions could be drawn from what is evident, it is not unreasonable to consider one true...particularly if the same conclusion follows from multiple observations. In situations where it could go either way, the stance that either the negative or positive is somehow always the default seems susceptible to the belief holders personal inclinations.

The larger point I am making to Kit is that reasonable people can disagree. We don't have go around think other people are mentally or morally deficient just because they have reached different conclusions.

I agree. But to believe in things that are not in evidence and for reasons that are countered by actual facts is a delusion as well as being wrong.
Reply
RE: On Hell and Forgiveness
The strongest objections to gods have -always- been those objections which would hold even if there were gods.  It's a common mistake of the faithful to imagine that the mere existence of a god would cause everyone to drop to their knees and shout hosanna.  

I don't have to be confronted with a hypothetical god, I can find their analogs right here in life..my rejection of those people is an expression of the same position that would be applied to hypothetical gods.  I don't need to go to heaven to meet this sort of being, there are plenty here on earth.
I am the Infantry. I am my country’s strength in war, her deterrent in peace. I am the heart of the fight… wherever, whenever. I carry America’s faith and honor against her enemies. I am the Queen of Battle. I am what my country expects me to be, the best trained Soldier in the world. In the race for victory, I am swift, determined, and courageous, armed with a fierce will to win. Never will I fail my country’s trust. Always I fight on…through the foe, to the objective, to triumph overall. If necessary, I will fight to my death. By my steadfast courage, I have won more than 200 years of freedom. I yield not to weakness, to hunger, to cowardice, to fatigue, to superior odds, For I am mentally tough, physically strong, and morally straight. I forsake not, my country, my mission, my comrades, my sacred duty. I am relentless. I am always there, now and forever. I AM THE INFANTRY! FOLLOW ME!
Reply
RE: On Hell and Forgiveness
(August 30, 2018 at 1:11 pm)Neo-Scholastic Wrote: The larger point I am making to Kit is that reasonable people can disagree. We don't have go around think other people are mentally or morally deficient just because they have reached different conclusions.

Reasonable people can disagree, until something unreasonable is introduced as falsely reasonable. When it comes to matters of religious faith, it is only reasonable to comprehend that one preferring the fantasy disconnected from reality has issues relational to delusion.
Reply
RE: On Hell and Forgiveness
Quote:I guess I need further clarification, because I'm not sure what that implies. Does this mean you would accept or reject God in the scenario I presented?
You can't accept or reject that which makes no sense .
Seek strength, not to be greater than my brother, but to fight my greatest enemy -- myself.

Inuit Proverb

Reply
RE: On Hell and Forgiveness
(August 30, 2018 at 12:49 pm)polymath257 Wrote:
(August 30, 2018 at 12:39 pm)Neo-Scholastic Wrote: That reads like a polemic. I wouldn't be so certain. There are things that are evident about the world. People can reason from some of those observations that God exists. You may believe that that specific conclusion does not follow from particular observations, but saying flat out that there is "no evidence" inverts the relationship between evidence and the conclusions one could possibly draw from the evidence. As such it is an unfounded assertion. Let me show you the difference...

Step 1: There is something evident about the world.
Step 2: Some conclusion follows from what is evident.
Step 3: What is evident supports the conclusion.

versus

Step 1: No conclusions can be drawn from something evident about the world.

To be evidence  concerning a proposition (like 'God exists'), the observation has to change the probability of the proposition being true. It *isn't* simply that the observation is consistent with the proposition (if the negation is also consistent, for example). I have yet to see one piece of information that changes the probability that the statement 'God exists' is true in a positive direction. So I deny that Step 2 applies in the case you want to apply it to.

Hypothetically speaking, would God raising someone from the dead after, say, oh, I don't know, a public crucifixion qualify as a "piece of information that changes the probability that the statement 'God exists' is true in a positive direction?" Asking for a friend.
Reply
RE: On Hell and Forgiveness
I have reasonable disagreements with my wife.  Nevertheless, not every christian is as reasonable in their beliefs -as- my wife.....so....?
I am the Infantry. I am my country’s strength in war, her deterrent in peace. I am the heart of the fight… wherever, whenever. I carry America’s faith and honor against her enemies. I am the Queen of Battle. I am what my country expects me to be, the best trained Soldier in the world. In the race for victory, I am swift, determined, and courageous, armed with a fierce will to win. Never will I fail my country’s trust. Always I fight on…through the foe, to the objective, to triumph overall. If necessary, I will fight to my death. By my steadfast courage, I have won more than 200 years of freedom. I yield not to weakness, to hunger, to cowardice, to fatigue, to superior odds, For I am mentally tough, physically strong, and morally straight. I forsake not, my country, my mission, my comrades, my sacred duty. I am relentless. I am always there, now and forever. I AM THE INFANTRY! FOLLOW ME!
Reply
RE: On Hell and Forgiveness
(August 30, 2018 at 1:12 pm)polymath257 Wrote:
(August 30, 2018 at 1:11 pm)Neo-Scholastic Wrote: Well, I wasn't trying to be exhaustive. What you say is indeed true. Consistency does not necessarily prefer a specific conclusion. In situations where multiple conclusions could be drawn from what is evident, it is not unreasonable to consider one true...particularly if the same conclusion follows from multiple observations. In situations where it could go either way, the stance that either the negative or positive is somehow always the default seems susceptible to the belief holders personal inclinations.

The larger point I am making to Kit is that reasonable people can disagree. We don't have go around think other people are mentally or morally deficient just because they have reached different conclusions.

I agree. But to believe in things that are not in evidence and for reasons that are countered by actual facts is a delusion as well as being wrong.

And I do not believe either of those conditions have been meet with respect to mainstream Christian beliefs, or at least those that I understand to be such.
<insert profound quote here>
Reply



Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  GoodFight310 and the visions of Hell Ah_Hyug 0 862 September 20, 2020 at 10:59 pm
Last Post: Ah_Hyug
  On the subject of Hell and Salvation Alternatehistory95 278 39491 March 10, 2019 at 12:09 pm
Last Post: The Grand Nudger
  Hello and question about hell Kyro 80 7279 August 11, 2018 at 2:08 pm
Last Post: KevinM1
  Hell and God cant Co-exist. Socratic Meth Head 440 57118 June 22, 2016 at 8:15 am
Last Post: madog
  Sin & Forgiveness miaharun 119 18637 November 16, 2015 at 4:04 am
Last Post: robvalue
  What the Hell,is Hell anyway? Vern Cliff 31 7919 October 15, 2015 at 1:17 pm
Last Post: brewer
  Why a heaven and hell couldn't exist. dyresand 16 6063 April 5, 2015 at 5:14 pm
Last Post: dyresand
Exclamation Hell and the Play Nice Christian Cinjin 202 38133 February 26, 2015 at 3:41 pm
Last Post: SteelCurtain
  Since Heaven and Hell are not temporal .. Brakeman 130 28824 December 19, 2014 at 4:48 pm
Last Post: IATIA
  Hell Houses (AKA: Hallelujah Houses, Heaven or Hell, Christian Haunted House, etc.) Strider 25 7586 December 3, 2014 at 3:07 pm
Last Post: abaris



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)