On Hell and Forgiveness

[SteveII]

Which is it, is God omnipresence, or not in the presence of anything that isn't holy. The only way to have it both ways is if everything is holy.

A full theological understanding of omnipresent does not include the idea that God is physically present everywhere. I believe the correct understanding is he is cognizant of and causally active at every point in space. That is not the same as being in his presence--which is clearly a different thing in every mention of it throughout the Bible. 

In case you feel pasting the dictionary definition is an answer, I have given this answer before:

Before you go saying the definition is God is everywhere, that is not going to hold up. The universe is expanding. If God was everywhere, is God expanding? Or perhaps becoming diluted? Additionally, the universe if finite. Does that mean that God is finite. More silly conclusion can be drawn from a too-simplistic view: for example, is a portion of God in my coffee cup and the rest of him outside of it? No, God does not occupy space and is therefore not literally everywhere.

[Angrboda]

As pointed out previously, the term "greatest possible being" doesn't have any objective definition, so arguing that God possesses moral perfection on that account is simply an incoherent claim. If you want to claim that God is morally perfect just because you say so, well, fine. I'll simply laugh in rebuttal.

[SteveII]

As pointed out previously, the term "greatest possible being" doesn't have any objective definition, so arguing that God possesses moral perfection on that account is simply an incoherent claim.  If you want to claim that God is morally perfect just because you say so, well, fine.  I'll simply laugh in rebuttal.

And I'm sure I have pointed out to you that it is not necessary for us to be able to know what it means to be the "greatest possible being". I don't need a definition for that conception of God to be true just as I don't need to know all the natural numbers to understand the concept of infinity.

[Crossless2.0]

As pointed out previously, the term "greatest possible being" doesn't have any objective definition, so arguing that God possesses moral perfection on that account is simply an incoherent claim.  If you want to claim that God is morally perfect just because you say so, well, fine.  I'll simply laugh in rebuttal.

And I'm sure I have pointed out to you that it is not necessary for us to be able to know what it means to be the "greatest possible being". I don't need a definition for that conception of God to be true just as I don't need to know all the natural numbers to understand the concept of infinity.

I’m not sure why anyone should be impressed that you have to resort to a bad analogy to explain your own lack of understanding of a concept you have asserted in the absence of good evidence. *shrug* But that’s about par for the course whenever the ontological argument creeps out of its crypt.

[Angrboda]

As pointed out previously, the term "greatest possible being" doesn't have any objective definition, so arguing that God possesses moral perfection on that account is simply an incoherent claim.  If you want to claim that God is morally perfect just because you say so, well, fine.  I'll simply laugh in rebuttal.

And I'm sure I have pointed out to you that it is not necessary for us to be able to know what it means to be the "greatest possible being". I don't need a definition for that conception of God to be true just as I don't need to know all the natural numbers to understand the concept of infinity.

It's not an epistemological problem, Steve, as was already pointed out to you in that thread. As well as the problem that this results in your God's values being arbitrary and thus not an example of moral perfection in an independent thread. Regardless, we're back to God is good because you say so. And I'm the most beautiful woman in the world because I say so. Big deal. You can assert shit without reason. So can anybody. For the claim that God is morally perfect to have any value, it would have to be coherent. It isn't, so you're just muttering incomprehensible gibberish and hoping that nobody notices.

[The Grand Nudger]

Before you go saying the definition is God is everywhere, that is not going to hold up. The universe is expanding. If God was everywhere, is God expanding?

He would have to be..to be everywhere.

Or perhaps becoming diluted?

IDK, does he only have so much juice...so that the more of the universe there is the less of god is in each bit?  IDK why this would have to be the case but hey...could be!

Additionally, the universe if finite. Does that mean that God is finite.

Unless he's also outside of the universe..whatever that means..then yup.

More silly conclusion can be drawn from a too-simplistic view: for example, is a portion of God in my coffee cup and the rest of him outside of it? No, God does not occupy space and is therefore not literally everywhere.

Then god is not omnipresent. Additionally, if god occupies no space..then he's literally not anywhere, lol.

That these things seem silly to you ought to be instructive. It isn't so that each conclusion is simplistic, and it wouldn't matter if they were..so long as they were accurate..it's all down to the fact that you have silly beliefs, which you then compound with poor communication. If what you believe, more accurately, is that god is a huge frickin gouy, who can be anywhere he wants but isn't everywhere - then lead with that. If someone asks you about omnipresence, just tell them that you don't believe god is omnipresent. Hell, you don't believe that god is present -anywhere-, when we get down to the brass tacks.

This is an identical issue to the last missive about free will. If you don't believe in something, and people ask about it - just say that you don't believe in it.

I believe the correct understanding is he is cognizant of and causally active at every point in space.

-this, is a combination of omniscience and contingency, not a correct (or any) understanding of omnipresence. Unless his "causal activity" is an issue of being there doing things in that moment, it has nothing to do with any presence.

Let me give you an example that's about as serious as your god beliefs. If I fart in a room...people feel my "presence" long after I'm gone, and sometimes..I'm in the next room listening in - cognizant. I'm not actually present, in body or spirit. If this is how you conceptualize the omnipresence™ of a god..well..I have similar abilities - just not as much reach. Don't get me wrong, the ability to fart in all of the rooms all of the time without ever actually being in any room is a neat trick...still. I'd have a hell of alot of fun with it!

[LadyForCamus]

Libertarian Free Will just means your choices are not causally determined by something outside yourself. Having a nature/characteristic that governs your actions/thoughts does not in any way impinge on free will. Every conceivable conscious being has such influences/limits.

Unless you object to the following definition, you’re wrong. From Wikipedia:

The action was not uncaused, because the agent caused it. But the agent's causing it was not determined by the agent's character, desires, or past, since that would just be event causation.

If god’s actions are determined by his fixed nature, then he is not a free agent.  Hell, even us lowly humans have the capacity to act against our natures.  We do it all the time, but god can’t do it at all?  

Human's ability to know what perfect justice is in no way affects, at all, that God would have perfect justice. The God we are talking about is conceived as the greatest possible being:the objective standard of things like Justice—

Wait, what?  I’m asking you for rational justification for the claim that god’s actions reflect perfect justice.  Your answer is, ‘god is perfectly just because he’s the greatest possible being, and a greatest possible being is by definition, perfectly just.’  That’s a circle, Steve. And so is, ‘God’s actions reflect perfect justice, as evidenced by his actions in the Bible.’ Pared down, this is simply a bare assertion.

God's rationale for his actions are founded in that concept (along with omniscience) and therefore cannot be judged by those that are no so equipped.

That’s not a rationale.  It’s an assertion for which, according to your implication, humans have no ability to understand or discern, so it’s meaningless.

If God exists, it is incoherent to say that God may or may not be just--because you cannot ground such a determination in anything objective.

You are putting the cart before the horse here. We must describe what something is first, before we can talk about it. You are proposing a thing called ‘objectively perfect justice’ exists, but you can’t even coherently define it.  And to say, ‘God has to be perfectly just, because he can’t not be,’ is nothing but a tautology. 

You are talking about the concept of what should we expect God to be like or to do. To answer that, we can't start with, "well, if I were God, I would...". We have to infer our list from revealed information, the concept of God, and the natural world.

I get the impression you’re trying to paint my objection as some kind of emotional appeal, but it isn’t. it’s a logical one:

If it is true that god is a rational, intelligent mind who is bound by his nature, then it follows that god’s actions must be logically consistent with his expressed goals and desires. If god’s expressed goal is to save as many souls as possible, then any action (or inaction) that fails to secure the best possible outcome is logically inconsistent with that goal. 

2. Is it not the case that God is hidden from everyone. There are countless testimonies of people's experience of God. There are no defeaters for these billions of experiences so the claim really is: God is hidden from me when atheist demand or surmise that God would show himself if he were real.

Wait.  You’ve already conceded in this discussion that god is capable of showing himself with some next level revealatory power, or as you called it:

An advertisement in the sky—

But, that that action would: 

Seem to undercut that part of the process.

When I asked you for a reason to justify why it has to be a process, you deflected.  You asked me follow-ups unrelated to my point, and never answered my question. So again, if god was acting in line with his expressed goal, he would show himself plainly, and indisputably to every single person, right now.

3. God provided substantial evidence of himself in the person of Jesus and the events of the early first century. This is exactly what you seem to be asking for. God himself lived among us for 33 years and did many miraculous things culminating in the death and resurrection--with has huge existential meaning in both salvation and the possibility of a personal relationship through the Holy Spirit.

If god was acting in line with his expressed goal, he would penetrate every slice of space-time that exists, and show himself plainly and indisputably with this ‘advertisement in the sky’ to every single person who ever lived, and ever will live; not leave it up to the stories of temporally existing human witnesses to convince every generation from that point in time forward.

4. God provides substantial evidence of himself in nature that is easily reflected on and has been for millennium. Why is there something rather than nothing?

If god was acting in line with his expressed goal, he would penetrate every slice of space-time that exists, and show himself plainly, and indisputably with this ‘advertisement in the sky’ to every single person who ever lived and ever will live; not leave people to hopefully make correct inferences about nature and the origins of the universe.  Asking why is there something rather than nothing is logically incoherent, but that’s for another discussion.

5. God gives everyone a sense of himself.

See above.

6. Every bit of evidence suggests that God's purposes are personal in nature. God desires a personal relationship with each person--NOT recognition that he exists.

Belief is the rationally necessary pre-requisite, Steve.  Do reasonable people desire to have relationships with things they don’t believe are real? 

You asked why is it too late to make a choice when we die? Why can't we make it afterwards? You picture a waiting room where we can sit around a conference table and discuss this with Peter and give him notice on your change of mind. When you die, you no longer have access to anything. How are you supposed to see, hear, process new thoughts, etc. without the hardware to run on? Am I correct? No one knows. Seem plausible to me.

So, human souls have no experience, then?  How do saved souls experience god and heaven?  How do unsaved souls experience hell?  You’re making a tar baby out of this.

Are you really arguing that Gods existence would be dependent on the physical world like ours is? Really?

No. I’m asking you why my disembodied mind cannot experience inputs and outputs, but god’s disembodied mind can.  

You are saying that because you do not choose God before you die, there are consequence and that somehow shows God does not value from will. Those two things are not logically connected.

No, I’m saying you haven’t provided any reason why there has to be a permanent consequence at all. You haven’t provided any reason why forgiveness alone, without punitive action, cannot be perfectly just. You admit you don’t even know what it is. 

You would have to show that God could have logically created a universe where everyone would freely choose him. It is clear that is almost certainly not actually possible. So, he settled for a universe where the greatest number of people would freely accept him.

I don’t have to do any such thing.  All I have to do is show, using the premise you’ve allowed, that god’s actions are not logically consistent with his expressed goal.  According to you, god has acted below his full potential to get as close as possible to meeting his goal.  So god either:

1. Doesn’t really care to save as many souls as possible, or

2. God is acting irrationally, against his nature.

Which is it?

God is holy. He cannot be in the presence of anything In no definition of 'forgiveness' does it remove the fact that you have done something.

What wipes the slate clean should be up to god, not up to some arbitrary restriction. Why can’t god’s forgiveness wipe the slate clean?  Who is in charge here? For an omnipotent being, there’s an awful lot your god can’t do.

---

Also, sorry if I have repeated anything others have already said. Busy weekend, and I’m still catching up.

[polymath257]

As pointed out previously, the term "greatest possible being" doesn't have any objective definition, so arguing that God possesses moral perfection on that account is simply an incoherent claim.  If you want to claim that God is morally perfect just because you say so, well, fine.  I'll simply laugh in rebuttal.

And I'm sure I have pointed out to you that it is not necessary for us to be able to know what it means to be the "greatest possible being". I don't need a definition for that conception of God to be true just as I don't need to know all the natural numbers to understand the concept of infinity.

You do, however, need a partial order that has a largest element. The problem is that 'greater' isn't well defined. Even if it were, there is no reason to think there is a greatest element.

So, at the very least, you need a consistent definition of 'greater'. Since there is more than one variable on which you want to measure (power, goodness, knowledge, etc), you have to find a consistent way to guarantee a maximum on each variable at the same time. This is usually impossible, even when each individual variable has a largest element.

[robvalue]

What is the greatest number in the set of real numbers 0<X<1?

There isn't one. Even when here, while we have a precisely defined meaning for "greater" and "greatest", and a precisely defined range to choose from, there is no answer.

Once you start talking about God being the "most moral being" or whatever other stuff you try to apply to it, you've taken huge steps away in terms of any sort of definition or coherence; to expect an answer to that, let alone one that actually means anything, is fanciful in my opinion.

God is a big imaginary blob of ill-defined concepts. It morphs into whatever the theist wants it to be, depending on the question, or depending on what excuse it needs making on its behalf.

[Mister Agenda]

Which is it, is God omnipresence, or not in the presence of anything that isn't holy. The only way to have it both ways is if everything is holy.

A full theological understanding of omnipresent does not include the idea that God is physically present everywhere. I believe the correct understanding is he is cognizant of and causally active at every point in space. That is not the same as being in his presence--which is clearly a different thing in every mention of it throughout the Bible. 

In case you feel pasting the dictionary definition is an answer, I have given this answer before:

Before you go saying the definition is God is everywhere, that is not going to hold up. The universe is expanding. If God was everywhere, is God expanding? Or perhaps becoming diluted? Additionally, the universe if finite. Does that mean that God is finite. More silly conclusion can be drawn from a too-simplistic view: for example, is a portion of God in my coffee cup and the rest of him outside of it? No, God does not occupy space and is therefore not literally everywhere.

The term 'omnipresence' is unnecessary if what is meant is covered by 'omniscience'. As I said, you can't have your cake and eat it too. If 'omnipresence' does not mean 'God is present everywhere', then God is not omnipresent. It's okay, Steve, omnipresence isn't a necessary attribute of God. IMHO, the Bible verses used to derive 'omnipresence' are ambiguous and lack detail. You can just jettison the concept and get much more consistency with the Bible.