On Hell and Forgiveness

[polymath257]

It doesn't help that the Christian God has been defined as the greatest possible being if greatness itself has no objective basis.  That is not cobbling together lesser characteristics nor redefining the word.  It's pointing out that the word has no objective meaning, and thus, from an objective standpoint, the concept is incoherent.  I suspect you still fail to understand the actual problem.  Your complaints here seem nothing more than throwing shit at the wall to see what sticks.  The fact that the concept has been discussed since Augustine is really not particularly relevant.  Even Godel himself didn't seem to grasp the problem.  Gleaning things from special revelation doesn't provide any more of an objective foundation, which is required if you are going to justify the conclusion from God's greatness.  I suspect, too, that the bible also assumes an objective ordering of properties and so you would simply be trying to support one mistake with the same flawed argument.  In the Blackwell Companion To Natural Theology, the question is briefly discussed, with no actual conclusions forthcoming.  It is simply more or less assumed that objectively ordering properties might have some basis and then quickly moves on from there.  There are problems with their discussion, but since that doesn't appear to be your issue, I'll deal with them if they are brought up.

'Greater than' has an objective basis. It is a greater characteristic of a conscious being to be infinite than to be finite, to be omniscient that to have limited knowledge. That concept is all that is needed because a series of 'greater thans' can get you to greatest possible--given all the merging of the characteristics. Regarding the more difficult characteristics like Love, if a characteristic is not perfect, it has an imperfection and by definition it is not the greatest possible. We don't need to know what constitutes an imperfection--only that they exist.

And might justice have such imperfections? How about goodness? maybe being infinite is a type of imperfection iin a different way.

Once again, you are assuming all the different types of 'greater' actually agree with each other. But they are on distinct scales, judged differently, and often are at odds with each other, at least potentially (goodness and justice? knowledge and goodness?). It is *precisely* this merging that is problematic. There are many ways to do such merging for partial orders and they give different answers depending on the specific merging technique used.

So, no, 'greater' isn't an objective thing: it strongly depends on the quantity being measured and how it is measure Even in the case of goodness, it is far from clear that the different *types* of goodness can be reconciled in a consistent manner.

So, yes, indeed, we very much *do* need to know what constitutes a perfection, or an imperfection. We most definitely *do* need to know how the merging of different types of greatness is to be done. And we still need to have an argument why there has to be a 'greatest' in *any* of those characteristics, let alone for *all* of them at the same time.

Basic logic shows the weakness of your claims. Even very simple questions about how to go about making your ordering have been avoided. Until that issue is dealt with, there really isn't anything to argue.

[SteveII]

'Greater than' has an objective basis. It is a greater characteristic of a conscious being to be infinite than to be finite, to be omniscient that to have limited knowledge. That concept is all that is needed because a series of 'greater thans' can get you to greatest possible--given all the merging of the characteristics. Regarding the more difficult characteristics like Love, if a characteristic is not perfect, it has an imperfection and by definition it is not the greatest possible. We don't need to know what constitutes an imperfection--only that they exist.

And might justice have such imperfections? How about goodness? maybe being infinite is a type of imperfection iin a different way.

Once again, you are assuming all the different types of 'greater' actually agree with each other. But they are on distinct scales, judged differently, and often are at odds with each other, at least potentially (goodness and justice? knowledge and goodness?). It is *precisely* this merging that is problematic. There are many ways to do such merging for partial orders and they give different answers depending on the specific merging technique used.

So, no, 'greater' isn't an objective thing: it strongly depends on the quantity being measured and how it is measure Even in the case of goodness, it is far from clear that the different *types* of goodness can be reconciled in a consistent manner.

So, yes, indeed, we very much *do* need to know what constitutes a perfection, or an imperfection. We most definitely *do* need to know how the merging of different types of greatness is to be done. And we still need to have an argument why there has to be a 'greatest' in *any* of those characteristics, let alone for *all* of them at the same time.

Basic logic shows the weakness of your claims. Even very simple questions about how to go about making your ordering have been avoided. Until that issue is dealt with, there really isn't anything to argue.

You continue to confusing ontology with epistemology. I *don't* have to be able to figure it out! I *don't* need to know the answers to all your questions. I *don't* need to know how to order them. It is not necessary to the concept. All that is necessary is that there is a greatest possible combination of all those characteristics.

[polymath257]

OK, let's have some fun.

Which is greater? 1 or 100? Does that mean that God cannot be one?

Which is greater? Working alone or working as a team? Does that mean that God cannot work alone?

Which is greater? humility or egotism? Does that mean God must be humble?

I'm sure there are many others.....

---

And might justice have such imperfections? How about goodness? maybe being infinite is a type of imperfection iin a different way.

Once again, you are assuming all the different types of 'greater' actually agree with each other. But they are on distinct scales, judged differently, and often are at odds with each other, at least potentially (goodness and justice? knowledge and goodness?). It is *precisely* this merging that is problematic. There are many ways to do such merging for partial orders and they give different answers depending on the specific merging technique used.

So, no, 'greater' isn't an objective thing: it strongly depends on the quantity being measured and how it is measure Even in the case of goodness, it is far from clear that the different *types* of goodness can be reconciled in a consistent manner.

So, yes, indeed, we very much *do* need to know what constitutes a perfection, or an imperfection. We most definitely *do* need to know how the merging of different types of greatness is to be done. And we still need to have an argument why there has to be a 'greatest' in *any* of those characteristics, let alone for *all* of them at the same time.

Basic logic shows the weakness of your claims. Even very simple questions about how to go about making your ordering have been avoided. Until that issue is dealt with, there really isn't anything to argue.

You continue to confusing ontology with epistemology. I *don't* have to be able to figure it out! I *don't* need to know the answers to all your questions. I *don't* need to know how to order them. It is not necessary to the concept. All that is necessary is that there is a greatest possible combination of all those characteristics.

Yes, it is very much necessary *for there to be a concept*. You avoid the central issue: why do you think there is a single concept that encompasses all the others? All you have given is vague claims about certain properties being greater than others. But that isn't enough to establish your conclusion.

The ontology is that there are partial orders without greatest elements.

The ontology is that there is no single way to merge partial orders in a consistent way.

The ontology is that you don't have a concept from which to work.

The epistemology is that you cannot know any of your claims are true.

[RoadRunner79]

OK, let's have some fun.

Which is greater? 1 or 100? Does that mean that God cannot be one?

Which is greater? Working alone or working as a team? Does that mean that God cannot work alone?

Which is greater? humility or egotism? Does that mean God must be humble?

I'm sure there are many others.....

---

You continue to confusing ontology with epistemology. I *don't* have to be able to figure it out! I *don't* need to know the answers to all your questions. I *don't* need to know how to order them. It is not necessary to the concept. All that is necessary is that there is a greatest possible combination of all those characteristics.

Yes, it is very much necessary *for there to be a concept*. You avoid the central issue: why do you think there is a single concept that encompasses all the others? All you have given is vague claims about certain properties being greater than others. But that isn't enough to establish your conclusion.

The ontology is that there are partial orders without greatest elements.

The ontology is that there is no single way to merge partial orders in a consistent way.

The ontology is that you don't have a concept from which to work.

The epistemology is that you cannot know any of your claims are true.

If you are saying that some quality cannot be assessed in a way of greater and lesser than, then that would simply not apply to the argument; would it not It also seems that you are equivocating in your use of greater than, trying to apply it at one point from a standpoint of math, and then in another as a matter of virtue.

[polymath257]

OK, let's have some fun.

Which is greater? 1 or 100? Does that mean that God cannot be one?

Which is greater? Working alone or working as a team? Does that mean that God cannot work alone?

Which is greater? humility or egotism? Does that mean God must be humble?

I'm sure there are many others.....

---

Yes, it is very much necessary *for there to be a concept*. You avoid the central issue: why do you think there is a single concept that encompasses all the others? All you have given is vague claims about certain properties being greater than others. But that isn't enough to establish your conclusion.

The ontology is that there are partial orders without greatest elements.

The ontology is that there is no single way to merge partial orders in a consistent way.

The ontology is that you don't have a concept from which to work.

The epistemology is that you cannot know any of your claims are true.

If you are saying that some quality cannot be assessed in a way of greater and lesser than, then that would simply not apply to the argument; would it not It also seems that you are equivocating in your use of greater than, trying to apply it at one point from a standpoint of math, and then in another as a matter of virtue.

Well, that is part of the point. There isn't a single concept of 'greater' that can be universally applied. There are several different concepts, but none that encompasses all of them.

Even in the matter of virtue, there are many different notions of 'greater than' that can conflict with each other.

[RoadRunner79]

If you are saying that some quality cannot be assessed in a way of greater and lesser than, then that would simply not apply to the argument; would it not It also seems that you are equivocating in your use of greater than, trying to apply it at one point from a standpoint of math, and then in another as a matter of virtue.

Well, that is part of the point. There isn't a single concept of 'greater' that can be universally applied. There are several different concepts, but none that encompasses all of them.

Even in the matter of virtue, there are many different notions of 'greater than' that can conflict with each other.

As Steve pointed out, you are just talking about how we know what is greater.  It isn't about different notions about what is greater than what, but that there is any such notion to begin with.   It isn't about finding some thing, where this type of classification is a category error, that doesn't refute the idea.   If it is truly a category error, then it just doesn't apply.  That you may be unable to determine what is greater, does not follow that their isn't a greater quality.  

It seems that you are trying to over complicate things here; to wiggle out of the concept.   It doesn't require that we can know what is greater, but that it is appropriate to talk about any attribute as greater than to begin with.  It would also appear that you would need to address what is being put forth as greater than or less than, unless you think that the entire concept of greater or lesser than is incoherent.

[Ivan Denisovich]

Why does god feel compelled to eternally punish only those folks who don’t love him back?  Why is that sin the only unforgivable one, and why isn’t it forgivable?  I have heard of hell described by Christians as a “self-imposed exile.”  If I were to die tomorrow and realize I was wrong, and I begged god for forgiveness but he refused, how could my exile be considered self-imposed?  It’s not self-imposed if god is actively preventing me from being with him.  

Does god love the folks in hell?  If he does, and they are in agony for being separated from him, what logical or moral reason is there for god to keep them ostracized?  That sounds like the opposite of a forgiving god. It sounds to me like someone who holds grudges.

Christians, would you do this to your own children?  If your child ran away, and came back a month later, filthy and in tears, saying, “mommy/daddy I miss you so much. I’m so alone and afraid. I’m sorry I left; I just want to come home and cuddle with you on the couch,” would you tell them it’s ‘too late’, and shut the door in their face for good?  Why or why not?

Why is being loved back the most important thing to god; even more important than how we treat each other during life?  Even more important than how his chosen priesthood treat their children?

God of Bible is depicted as genocidal tyrant so no other action would fit his profile - it's character cruel enough and deranged enough to demand unconditional love under threat of Hell.

Also it wouldn't be profitable for priests if god would go easy on those who don't love him and don't show this love by submitting to priests caste.

[polymath257]

Well, that is part of the point. There isn't a single concept of 'greater' that can be universally applied. There are several different concepts, but none that encompasses all of them.

Even in the matter of virtue, there are many different notions of 'greater than' that can conflict with each other.

As Steve pointed out, you are just talking about how we know what is greater.  It isn't about different notions about what is greater than what, but that there is any such notion to begin with.   It isn't about finding some thing, where this type of classification is a category error, that doesn't refute the idea.   If it is truly a category error, then it just doesn't apply.  That you may be unable to determine what is greater, does not follow that their isn't a greater quality.  

It seems that you are trying to over complicate things here; to wiggle out of the concept.   It doesn't require that we can know what is greater, but that it is appropriate to talk about any attribute as greater than to begin with.  It would also appear that you would need to address what is being put forth as greater than or less than, unless you think that the entire concept of greater or lesser than is incoherent.

Yes, I am claiming there is no coherent unified concept of 'greater'. There are many distinct, smaller concepts, but they are inconsistent with each other.

You don't seem to realize that there can be more than one operative concept of 'greater' in a discussion. And that they can give different answers on what is greater and what is lesser.

[RoadRunner79]

As Steve pointed out, you are just talking about how we know what is greater.  It isn't about different notions about what is greater than what, but that there is any such notion to begin with.   It isn't about finding some thing, where this type of classification is a category error, that doesn't refute the idea.   If it is truly a category error, then it just doesn't apply.  That you may be unable to determine what is greater, does not follow that their isn't a greater quality.  

It seems that you are trying to over complicate things here; to wiggle out of the concept.   It doesn't require that we can know what is greater, but that it is appropriate to talk about any attribute as greater than to begin with.  It would also appear that you would need to address what is being put forth as greater than or less than, unless you think that the entire concept of greater or lesser than is incoherent.

Yes, I am claiming there is no coherent unified concept of 'greater'. There are many distinct, smaller concepts, but they are inconsistent with each other.

You don't seem to realize that there can be more than one operative concept of 'greater' in a discussion. And that they can give different answers on what is greater and what is lesser.

So if I'm understanding you correctly, you are saying that the concept of greater can be relative.  Ok, I could agree with that.  In this instance, you are talking about being greater in a different way.   This doesn't make for a contradiction, or incoherence.   That you are determining what is greater at all, seems to make your argument lesser!

[SteveII]

OK, let's have some fun.

Which is greater? 1 or 100? Does that mean that God cannot be one?

Category error. We are talking about properties of a single being. 

Which is greater? Working alone or working as a team? Does that mean that God cannot work alone?

Category error. We are talking about properties of a single being.

Which is greater? humility or egotism? Does that mean God must be humble?

Neither. A proper understanding of your position in relation to everything else in the universe is greater. 

I'm sure there are many others.....

There are definitely more category errors...

---

You continue to confusing ontology with epistemology. I *don't* have to be able to figure it out! I *don't* need to know the answers to all your questions. I *don't* need to know how to order them. It is not necessary to the concept. All that is necessary is that there is a greatest possible combination of all those characteristics.

Yes, it is very much necessary *for there to be a concept*. You avoid the central issue: why do you think there is a single concept that encompasses all the others? All you have given is vague claims about certain properties being greater than others. But that isn't enough to establish your conclusion.

The ontology is that there are partial orders without greatest elements. [1]

The ontology is that there is no single way to merge partial orders in a consistent way. [1]

The ontology is that you don't have a concept from which to work. [2]

The epistemology is that you cannot know any of your claims are true. [3]

1. This is not math. The concept of 'greater than' is entirely coherent when discussing attributes of a conscious being. You have failed to give an example of a single attribute that we cannot postulate a 'greater than'. BTW, there is a whole world outside of math.

2. Something you assert and have not even given good reasons to believe even might be true. 

3. I rely on revealed theology for a start. The rest is systematic theology/philosophy of religion--2 topics that are not *math*.