(May 22, 2015 at 10:02 pm)Anima Wrote:
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.
So how, exactly, does God know that She's NOT a brain in a vat?
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/3b07e/3b07ecf01396f11a5e7738250fa8820ce211d363" alt="Huh Huh"