On Hell and Forgiveness

[The Grand Nudger]

Its just as successful as it's identical argument for gods. This is the underlying contention that you refuse to engage....and simply cannot, for obvious reasons, bring yourself to accept.

This, again, is an example of delusional thinking -about- delusional thinking. Turtles all the way down, apparently.

[SteveII]

Hmm. 'Objective' is not the opposite of 'independent'. The number 4 is objective because it refers to a concept this is the very opposite of subjective. The same for a triangle, it is very much objective. So I will restate my answer to your assertion that "objectiveness requires science": that's bunk. There is nothing incoherent with the concept of God "having objective reality or being" aka: exist.  

No, the number 4 is NOT objective. It very much depends on the assumptions in the language that allow its construction. And different systems will give very different 'specifics' of what '4' should be. The closest you can get is that 4 is what you get when you apply the successor function to 0 (or 1) the appropriate number of times.

The *only* sense in which 4 exists is as a language construct (hopefully, even a formal language at that). if you want to accept that deities are also simply language concepts, you might avoid the label of delusion.

And no, the concept of a triangle is NOT objective. It again is based on many assumptions (including the nature of lines and points) that must be *assumed*. Again, it is primarily a *language* construct.

You are confusing terms. There is no debate. These are definitions.

Exist: having objective reality or being

Objective: not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts. Does not depend on the context. Anchored in some concept or fact
Subjective: based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions. Depends on the context

Concrete Object: having physical referents and/or affecting those that do
Abstract Object: having no physical referents and no causal powers

The groupings I listed are binary classifications. A thing has to be one or the other. So, the number 4 is an objective concept. It is also an abstract object. So is a triangle. Abstract objects exist. Perhaps they are dependent on the mind to exist, but they do exist. Perhaps they do not depend on a mind. Doesn't matter, they still exist. 

There is NO sense in which any deity has objective existence.

I suspect you are still confusing definitions so I will be clear. Using the terms above, if God exists, he would have "objective reality or being" and he would be a Concrete Object because he can affect physical things. 

You keep saying that. Since you don't expound, I will ignore it.

Well, let's start by saying the concept of 'contingency' is *never* even addressed in actual sciences. At most it is considered among philosophers, but even then only by those from a very perverse bent that seems to consider Aristotle as having significant relevance for modern science.

That's because you have not looked back far enough. Contingency is a metaphysical concept that unpins the Philosophy of Science. Science cannot operate without a philosophy of science. Therefore contingency underpins science. This is not hard. You have this thing about Aristotle and see him under every rock. Deal with the argument, not what you think someone thought millennium ago that you read somewhere does not apply. 

Congrats. But my point is perhaps you should have taken the time to study philosophy before trying to derive philosophy from QM. The indeterminacy of quantum particles does not turn the idea of cause and effect in the macro world on its ear. You would have to show how quantum indeterminacy affects the macro world. Do you have those conclusions? In their absence we have every reason ever, always, forever to think that cause/effect are objective features of reality. 

How does quantum indeterminacy (and lack of causality) affect the macroscopic world? Since the vast majority of macroscopic phenomena are the product of very large numbers of quantum (and hence probabilistic) phenomena, mostly through the law of averages. Just as an ideal roll of a die cannot be predicted, but the average result of rolling a billion dice can be, the same is seen on the macroscopic world. The apparent causality is the result of large numbers of non-causal events.

Wait. You have extrapolated the indeterminacy of quantum particles to a lack of causation in the macroscopic world. That means we should see at every stage, moving from the very small to the large, a certain level of randomness in each level. Do we see molecules behaving unpredictably? Do we see groups of molecules (say a block of marble) behaving unpredictably? My car seems to always be where I put it. You seem to be saying that it is actually possible (albeit a small chance) that it not be.  

This is amazing. Evolution is entirely about observing effects and inferring causes. We don't know what caused any major change from a deductive process, ever. We infer big changes from observing small changes--it is the very foundation of the theory from the beginning. In fact, your own worldview relies on vast stretches of inductive reasoning. To say that someone else's inductive reasoning is 'delusional' because it is inductive is just plain spouting nonsense while you ineffectually try to rescue a failed premise: religious beliefs are delusional.

You are completely ignoring the crucial part: having testable hypotheses. Induction alone is very unreliable because there are always infinitely many possible ways to induct from a finite amount of evidence. Testability is the only thing that allows us to push further than that.

You are correct, mere deduction is also seldom reliable. That's because deduction *always* requires assumptions and those assumptions may well be in error. Again, that is why we require testability for any idea we want to classify as 'knowledge' outside of a formal system.

Things like Common Decent, the evolution of complex organs, the evolution of biological networks/feedback loops, are not testable hypothesis--ever--BUT are required for the full theory. These steps are completely unknown, are not testable and are inferred. Glad to have you admit that the big overall grand theory of evolution is "unreliable". 

Every philosophical argument for the existence of deities is riddled with errors and assumptions that are provably false. The *only* reason the whole subject is still alive is because people like to maintain their delusions.

Every philosophical argument for the existence of God is an inductive argument with only a couple of premises that are way more likely than not to be true. Seems to me, based on the above, that the arguments are on much firmer ground than say...evolutionary theory.

[Amarok]

Ok, I will concede the things of evolution that you can demonstrate.    Which would not count your just so story in the other thread concerning morality and evolution, as well as most any claim of common descent.  It excludes historical sciences as well, as history, cannot be repeated.   It also seems that your assertions for an actual infinity cannot be demonstrated by the methods that you suggest here. I believe you defined math as a set of assumptions based on assumed rules, to reach a conclusion.    So we will just replace them with "garden gnomes" and call them delusional.  

Note:   I can see the appeal of this method, it takes very little thought, understanding or effort really.

Yes, those who think the number 4 actually exists in the real world are delusional. it is a language construct in a formal system.

Historical sciences also base their techniques on hypothesis formation, testability, etc. Repeatability isn't required for the specific events, but rather for the success of the techniques used.

The question of the existence of an actual infinity cannot be resolved in a purely philosophical way. That is part of my point. It has to be based on observation and testable predictions. There is no self-contradiction of the concept.

I would suggest your problem is that religion 'takes little thought, understanding, or effort'. Maybe you would benefit by putting a bit more effort into your studies of other subjects.

Well put Poly

[polymath257]

No, the number 4 is NOT objective. It very much depends on the assumptions in the language that allow its construction. And different systems will give very different 'specifics' of what '4' should be. The closest you can get is that 4 is what you get when you apply the successor function to 0 (or 1) the appropriate number of times.

The *only* sense in which 4 exists is as a language construct (hopefully, even a formal language at that). if you want to accept that deities are also simply language concepts, you might avoid the label of delusion.

And no, the concept of a triangle is NOT objective. It again is based on many assumptions (including the nature of lines and points) that must be *assumed*. Again, it is primarily a *language* construct.

You are confusing terms. There is no debate. These are definitions.

Exist: having objective reality or being

Objective: not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts. Does not depend on the context. Anchored in some concept or fact
Subjective: based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions. Depends on the context

Concrete Object: having physical referents and/or affecting those that do
Abstract Object: having no physical referents and no causal powers

The groupings I listed are binary classifications. A thing has to be one or the other. So, the number 4 is an objective concept. It is also an abstract object. So is a triangle. Abstract objects exist. Perhaps they are dependent on the mind to exist, but they do exist. Perhaps they do not depend on a mind. Doesn't matter, they still exist. 

No, the number 4 *does*, in fact, depend on context. As does the concept of a triangle. Neither is objective by your definition.

But, I would point out that your abstract objects only exist because there are brains that think them, not because of some independent existence.

There is NO sense in which any deity has objective existence.

I suspect you are still confusing definitions so I will be clear. Using the terms above, if God exists, he would have "objective reality or being" and he would be a Concrete Object because he can affect physical things. 

And anything that affects something physical is physical, by definition of the concept of 'physical'.

Well, let's start by saying the concept of 'contingency' is *never* even addressed in actual sciences. At most it is considered among philosophers, but even then only by those from a very perverse bent that seems to consider Aristotle as having significant relevance for modern science.

That's because you have not looked back far enough. Contingency is a metaphysical concept that unpins the Philosophy of Science. Science cannot operate without a philosophy of science. Therefore contingency underpins science. This is not hard. You have this thing about Aristotle and see him under every rock. Deal with the argument, not what you think someone thought millennium ago that you read somewhere does not apply. 

I see the contingent/necessary division a false one that has limited utility. The philosophy of science is that ideas are tested by observation and modified or discarded when observations negate them. That means ideas need to be testable to be scientific. Contingency is irrelevant to that (yes, it is possible to test in the absence of it).

How does quantum indeterminacy (and lack of causality) affect the macroscopic world? Since the vast majority of macroscopic phenomena are the product of very large numbers of quantum (and hence probabilistic) phenomena, mostly through the law of averages. Just as an ideal roll of a die cannot be predicted, but the average result of rolling a billion dice can be, the same is seen on the macroscopic world. The apparent causality is the result of large numbers of non-causal events.

Wait. You have extrapolated the indeterminacy of quantum particles to a lack of causation in the macroscopic world. That means we should see at every stage, moving from the very small to the large, a certain level of randomness in each level. Do we see molecules behaving unpredictably? Do we see groups of molecules (say a block of marble) behaving unpredictably? My car seems to always be where I put it. You seem to be saying that it is actually possible (albeit a small chance) that it not be.  

No, I have used the fact that quantum mechanics is non-causal, but rather probabilistic to *explain* how regularity of the type that is interpreted as classical causality arises through averages.

The spread of randomness from quantum effects is inversely related to the mass. That means for things larger than an atom (in most cases--not all), the range of randomness is small. That said, at very low temperatures, we can and do see these quantum effects becoming apparent at the atomic and small-molecular levels. The point? Planck's constant is small.

You are completely ignoring the crucial part: having testable hypotheses. Induction alone is very unreliable because there are always infinitely many possible ways to induct from a finite amount of evidence. Testability is the only thing that allows us to push further than that.

You are correct, mere deduction is also seldom reliable. That's because deduction *always* requires assumptions and those assumptions may well be in error. Again, that is why we require testability for any idea we want to classify as 'knowledge' outside of a formal system.

Things like Common Decent, the evolution of complex organs, the evolution of biological networks/feedback loops, are not testable hypothesis--ever--BUT are required for the full theory. These steps are completely unknown, are not testable and are inferred. Glad to have you admit that the big overall grand theory of evolution is "unreliable". 

Yes, in fact, they *are* testable hypotheses: they allow for predictions that can be tested, including things like how populations can change over time due to genetic changes, etc. And yes, many of these things *are* known.

Every philosophical argument for the existence of deities is riddled with errors and assumptions that are provably false. The *only* reason the whole subject is still alive is because people like to maintain their delusions.

Every philosophical argument for the existence of God is an inductive argument with only a couple of premises that are way more likely than not to be true. Seems to me, based on the above, that the arguments are on much firmer ground than say...evolutionary theory.

And you would be wrong. Evolutionary theory *is* testable and not simply based on induction, as you claim. And the assumptions made in 'proofs' of existence of deities are uniformly likely to be *wrong*.

[polymath257]

I'll wait for your demonstrations.

---

Historical sciences also base their techniques on hypothesis formation, testability, etc. Repeatability isn't required for the specific events, but rather for the success of the techniques used.

Logic would be similar.... so far, the argument from gnomes doesn't seem to successful.  Probably why I don't find it used by much of anyone.

Yes, one of the reasons we use the logical system we do is that it helps arrive at correct, testable conclusions. Unlike the assumption of gnomes (or deities).

[LadyForCamus]

What are you talking about? I used the relationship analogy in another thread to show that relationships have value. God desires relationships. We desire relationships. The exact nature does not have to be identical.

Yes, you appealed to human relationships in response to the question, ‘why did god create people’, implying that we can understand god’s reasons via our own intuitive understanding of loving human relationships, and the emotional rewards they bear.  But, then you dismiss it as a false analogy when it’s used to demonstrate that god does not behave in a way that is consistent with these human relationships as we understand and experience them.  So, why appeal to the analogy at all, if it is not fully accurate?  ‘Use it when it fits, but ditch it when it doesn’t’?  That’s either rationalization or dishonesty.

Mercy and forgiveness are not essential attributes of God. They are expressions of Love. Justice and Holiness seem to be inviolable standards.

God can’t change his own standards?  That’s beside the point, anyway. What is perfect justice?  How does god decide what is just?

It’s not so much an objection as a point. My point is that on the one hand, god’s message in life is absolutely, undeniably crystal clear, and yet on the other hand, there does seem to be some potential other, clearer mechanism he could use to reveal himself to us. My follow up question to this point is, why?  For what reason did god design levels of clarity? Why doesn’t he reveal himself in the clearest way possible to everyone on the planet right now?  What is his rationale?

Because a choice to choose God is a process that needs to have sincere roots.

Why?  Why does it need be a process?  What’s the reason?

There are verses that explain that God will prepare your heart for belief it you are receptive. Like I said before, it could be an experience, another person, circumstances in your life, etc. that get you to that point.  An advertisement in the sky would seem to undercut that part of the process/purpose.

You mean it would undercut the dramatic tension of the story, lol.  Look, if god’s ultimate goal and desire is to save as many souls as possible, then the only logical action for him to take is the one that would most efficiently and definitively secure that goal.  Obviously, that would be to show himself before the entire world right now; an action which he is perfectly capable of.  For god to take any action less straightforward than that would be in direct opposition of his expressed goal and desire. Creating some slow, lifelong test riddled with obstacles is about as logical as Dr. Evil locking Austin Powers in a fish tank, hidden behind a curtain, to be slowly killed by sharks with frickin’ laser beams.  

If we are uniquely designed for a physical existence, why is that physical existence finite? What is the reason for first, a finite existence, and then an infinite one? What logical reason is there for the construction of phases of life, and why such a disparity in their lengths? The whole thing reeks of a massive contrivance for the purposes of getting people to behave.

People have to be created. A certain amount of people will choose evil over good, themselves over God. Do you think that this earthly existence is not sufficient to choose God (some their whole lives)? Not to do many wonderful things for his glory? Not to live and experience a huge range of human experiences that shape who we are?

You didn’t answer a single one of my questions above.

A choice to choose God is necessarily finite because our entire universe is finite (and will die some day).  Our bodies break down and die. You seem to think that the relative brevity of life should have been longer. Why?

Oh, come on now, Steve.  Don’t be obtuse.  If our consciousness continues infinitely beyond our physical death, then our ability to make choices is obviously also infinite.  God is the one inserting arbitrary restrictions and ultimatums here. Why is that? 

Jesus' atonement is what wipes the slate clean. Are you saying the people should be forced to allow Jesus to take their place to pay for their sins? You would totally remove any sense of contrition, desire to stop, consequences, even awareness of our condition.  THAT does not make sense.

Why does god need Jesus to wipe our slate clean?  I notice you’re answering a lot of questions with questions.  I’m merely trying to get to the logical rationale behind these pillars of the Christian faith.

[John V]

Why does god feel compelled to eternally punish only those folks who don’t love him back?

God's sense of justice requires that all sin be punished.

Why is that sin the only unforgivable one, and why isn’t it forgivable?

It's forgivable. None of us loved god back before salvation, and none of the saved are able to love god back as they should. Yet, we're forgiven.

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.

I agree, but the Bible doesn't say that this situation will occur, so it isn't applicable.

Two possibilities come to mind:

1. People who don't repent in this life won't repent in the next.

2. People do in fact get the chance to repent after death. There's some support for this Biblically, but it's not at all conclusive. 

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.

This is a false dichotomy. To say that god is forgiving doesn't imply that he must necessarily forgive everyone for everything.

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?

No, I wouldn't. As I noted earlier, from the parable of the prodigal son, we see that God wouldn't either.

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?

If we go by how we treat each other during life, we're all damned. You seem to be making the common error of trying to explain the fates of both the saved and the damned by a system of justice. As to justice, we're all condemned. Salvation is a function of mercy. Mercy is undeserved, and so can be given out on any basis. God feels that we should acknowledge the sacrifice of his Son, which makes the mercy possible, in order to recieve the mercy. That's his choice. There isn't necessarily a logical reason for it. There doesn't need to be.

[RoadRunner79]

I'll wait for your demonstrations.

---

Logic would be similar.... so far, the argument from gnomes doesn't seem to successful.  Probably why I don't find it used by much of anyone.

Yes, one of the reasons we use the logical system we do is that it helps arrive at correct, testable conclusions. Unlike the assumption of gnomes (or deities).

I’m starting to think that you are just begging the question now. As I said before, if you can’t make your case with out the arguments from gnomes, I’m not interested. It seems that it only applies for you in special circumstances.

[The Grand Nudger]

[Whateverist]

Why does god feel compelled to eternally punish only those folks who don’t love him back?

God's sense of justice requires that all sin be punished.

Please choose and stick to one of the following:

1) God works in strange and mysterious ways.

or

2) My special friend is a bad ass and here is what He says you'd better do ..