On Hell and Forgiveness

[The Grand Nudger]

.........shhhhhhhhhh............

[robvalue]

Hey, if our Christians here don't believe in hell, and that I'm not gong to be tortured for not being a Christian, then that is great. I applaud them. I hope the idea is eventually phased out altogether.

That's doesn't change the fact that a huge number of Christians do believe that, and believe that it is a just action by their God to do it.

[Amarok]

Hey, if our Christians here don't believe in hell, and that I'm not gong to be tortured for not being a Christian, then that is great. I applaud them. I hope the idea is eventually phased out altogether.

That's doesn't change the fact that a huge number of Christians do believe that, and believe that it is a just action by their God to do it.

As i have said 

Rule 3 of debating on apologist "That's not" Real"Christianity" or "That not what Christianity says " even when countless Christians says what you just pointed out.

[robvalue]

It would be great if some our Christians would explicitly say that not only are all those other Christians wrong, and that torture will not take place; but that the very idea of being tortured for non-compliance is outrageous. Any takers?

Also, what happens to Christians who commit a sin but then suddenly drop dead of a heart attack before they've had the chance to ask for forgiveness for that sin?

[SteveII]

@Steve:

There's a Vikings football game tonight, and between that and other matters, I doubt I will get around to replying to your latest replies tonight.

In the absence of such, I'll simply make two quick notes.  First, my hypothetical about God appearing to the world was a straightforward POE argument, not simply "if I were God."  Any response to it then needs to be on those terms.  Second, you still do not seem to understand either that the question of there being an objective basis for greater than judgements is not an epistemological problem, as well as providing no objective basis for your belief that such things as what a conscious being would find preferable are not subjective criteria.  Where things become epistemological is that lacking an argument for an objective basis of any of these preferences, you could equally as effectively disprove my claim that there are no objective greater than relationships by providing one counter-example.  Then it does become an epistemological as well as a practical question.  As of yet, you haven't provided any that appear to withstand scrutiny.  You assert that certain things are greater than other things, but beyond the assertion, you haven't given any reason supporting your assertion.  Assertions by themselves are not sufficient.

Omnipotence IS objectively greater than limited power. Omniscience IS objectively greater than limited knowledge. Omnibenevolence IS objectively greater than selectively good. You have no reasons to deny this. Objective mean not based in personal feeling or opinion. It does not mean there is an external scale in which things can be dragged over and measured. The 'greater than' is contained within the concept of the property--especially since these properties have outcomes. I would agree that red is not greater than green. This is not that. 

As to the God that kills babies, both you and Neo seem to be misunderstanding my intent.  I'm not in any way suggesting that Yahweh kills babies for no reason.  In fact, just the opposite.  I am conceding that Yahweh does not do this, ex hypothesi.  The challenge is to provide an objective basis for saying that Yahweh is greater than a God that does.  In order to do that, you need to do (at least) two things.  First, show that it is objectively wrong to kill babies for no reason, and my god is therefore immoral, and second, that being moral is objectively greater than not being moral.  In the absence of either of those, you've failed to show that Yahweh is greater than the god who kills babies for no reason.  I haven't fully thought it through, but upon first glance, any attempt to argue that morality has an objective basis because God is objectively moral would seem to be circular and begging the question.  (I think, anyway.  If you disagree, then we can discuss it.)

1. Love is a clear example of a moral virtue (if not the clearest). 
2. Killing babies for no reason constitutes a lack of love and therefore a lack of moral virtue.
3. Yahweh is considered all-loving and therefore defined as having the greatest possible moral virtue at all times.
4. Positive outcomes (harmony, structure, creation, trust, relationships) are better the Negative Outcomes (chaos, destruction, distrust, isolation) for conscious creatures
5. Greater moral virtue is better than lesser moral virtue because it regulates other attributes for more positive/less negative outcomes. 
6. More positive outcomes is better than more negative outcomes.
7. Therefore Yahweh is greater than a god that kills babies.

[polymath257]

Since to be incoherent *means* that no sense can be made of it, I fail to see your problem reconciling not understanding something that is incoherent.

As for consistency of the different virtues, that *is* your job to show they are consistent. I already gave some that seem to be interconnected in ways that preclude maximizing more than one. They don't have to be mutually exclusive to destroy your position. They only need to not allow mutual maxima.

Yes, I have read Platinga. His version of the ontological argument is just as much nonsense as all the previous ones. Possible worlds don't help. When talking about 'most' or 'greatest' or anything along that line, you have to show such actually exists given your way or odering least to most, or lesser to greater. Not all ways of ordering allow single maxima, or even any maximum at all.

Still seems like you are using incoherent in two different ways, or at least making two arguments which do not work together.

OK, let me say it more clearly: you have given no coherent definition of the term 'greater' for any individual virtue. This I don't see as a huge thing: it is probably possible to do so.

Then, you have failed to give a coherent way to merge the different types of 'greater'. This is a major problem: it is actually very seldom that two different orderings give a 'nice' merged ordering. There are two main ways to attempt this: known as the product order and the lexicographic order. Which you pick will determine the properties of any 'maximum'. But they give different results and there are multiple ways to do the lexi order: each with very different properties.

So, by waving your hands, you fail to note that you cannot get the properties you want from this argument unless you give details. Again, that makes your whole argument incoherent: you have to do the work to make it make sense.

Finally, even if you resolve the issues of how to merge different virtues into an overall ordering, you still need to proven the existence of a greatest. Most partial orders do NOT have a greatest at all (especially if they allow infinities). Often, there are two or more 'maximal' entities that cannot be compared at all. You want to claim a *unique* maximal entity for the merged order and allowing infinite progressions. That is very, very unlikely.

And, ultimately, your lack of understanding of basics means that you wave away serious difficulties and fail to comprehend fundamental problems with the argument. That, in addition, leads to incoherence: your confusion is such that the details cannot be understood.

[RoadRunner79]

Still seems like you are using incoherent in two different ways, or at least making two arguments which do not work together.

OK, let me say it more clearly: you have given no coherent definition of the term 'greater' for any individual virtue. This I don't see as a huge thing: it is probably possible to do so.

Then, you have failed to give a coherent way to merge the different types of 'greater'. This is a major problem: it is actually very seldom that two different orderings give a 'nice' merged ordering. There are two main ways to attempt this: known as the product order and the lexicographic order. Which you pick will determine the properties of any 'maximum'. But they give different results and there are multiple ways to do the lexi order: each with very different properties.

So, by waving your hands, you fail to note that you cannot get the properties you want from this argument unless you give details. Again, that makes your whole argument incoherent: you have to do the work to make it make sense.

Finally, even if you resolve the issues of how to merge different virtues into an overall ordering, you still need to proven the existence of a greatest. Most partial orders do NOT have a greatest at all (especially if they allow infinities). Often, there are two or more 'maximal' entities that cannot be compared at all. You want to claim a *unique* maximal entity for the merged order and allowing infinite progressions. That is very, very unlikely.

And, ultimately, your lack of understanding of basics means that you wave away serious difficulties and fail to comprehend fundamental problems with the argument. That, in addition, leads to incoherence: your confusion is such that the details cannot be understood.

I gave you a definition (from a dictionary, those things, that provide definitions for words).  I also notice, that you keep trying to talk about other things, than the topic at hand without any real specifics.  And I still don't think that you can equivocate on the term incoherance in this way, and have both your arguments be coherent.  You need to pick one.

---

I think you are having issues, making a non-math problem into a math problem. To a hammer... everything is a nail.

[SteveII]

IF there seems to be a conflict between two attributes being maximally great, then by logic (which is very elusive in this conversation) it is impossible that both are maximally great in the same person. I'll remind you the topic is God being the greatest possible being--SO then one or both of those attributes are incorrectly conceived because they are not possible. In case you missed it, the key is whether something is actually possible. SO, your "it is perfectly consistent that there is no resolution" is some sort of lame attempt at skipping the reasoning and jumping to your desired conclusion. 

Who said *anything* about a proof for God? I have been explaining doctrine.

So the doctrine is that there is a single version of 'greater' that applies to all virtues? How about bravery vs compassion? How about honesty vs respect?

Besides, the whole debate boils down to the existence of your fairy tale deity. In the absence of such a creature, the rest of this goes out the window.

And, again, the problem isn't the impossibility of maximal versions of each virtue (that is a separate issue). The question is the consistency between different virtues. The virtues may be possible, and even a greatest for each individual virtue, without having a single entity be maximal for *all* virtues.

And how do you know there isn't more than one 'maximum'? Again, such are quite possible and even reasonable. But you make no mention to dispense with that possibility.

There only has to be a greatest WITHIN the property for this to make sense. Your unconnected pairs do nothing to undermine the concept. 

Bravery: does not apply to God.
Compassion: the greatest amount of compassion possible
Honesty: the highest possible standard
Respect: does not apply to God. 

Each property has within itself the concept of what is greater. There is no external standard that has to be dreamed up. It is already there. There is no "maximal for *all* virtues." Just string the greatest possible attributes together--and then you have God.

[Silver]

Oh, dear.

[SteveII]

Hey, if our Christians here don't believe in hell, and that I'm not gong to be tortured for not being a Christian, then that is great. I applaud them. I hope the idea is eventually phased out altogether.

That's doesn't change the fact that a huge number of Christians do believe that, and believe that it is a just action by their God to do it.

Are you even capable of articulating the very core Christian concept of our need for atonement and where Hell comes in? I don't think you are. Prediction: you will dodge by saying something like "there are so many beliefs about this...even Christians can't keep track." Which is interesting, since it was you that wanted to get back to the topic--but really you don't want to discuss/understand anything--you want to post your Peanut Gallery™ level comments which are so shallow/misconceived because what, they make you feel superior, smart, what? 

Fact: you cannot be thought of as superior or smart if you can't even accurately articulate your opponents position. It actually indicates the opposite.