On Hell and Forgiveness

[Crossless2.0]

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

Yes, as I’ve said for years, it starts with bad, overly credulous reading of legendary and mythological material (the sort of bad reading that would get you laughed out of any serious literature course) and ends with a veneer of philosophical sophistication that your source material doesn’t deserve.

But keep telling yourself how airtight your “case” is. Lol

[polymath257]

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...

---

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*.

Well, relying on 'revealed theology' is the first, most basic mistake. There is no such thing. Just claims made by people to get power over others.

---

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!

Yes, it does make for incoherence: you are making a claim that there is *one* concept of greater that applies to all virtues. Instead, you have a concept of greater for each individual virtue but no consistent way to merge them.

Once again, ask yourself the question: what is the largest pair (x,y) such that x>=0, y>=0 and x+y<=100?

The largest possible value of x is 100. The largest possible value of y is also 100. But you cannot have both x=100 and y=100 at the same time.

This is an analogy to the issue you have with competing virtues: each one individually *may* have a maximum, but there is no *single* combination that maximizes all.

[SteveII]

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? 

You didn't provide a link so I cannot see the context of your paste. It seems to me you are confusing the definition of free will with uncaused. Free will requires that the causes are not external. I have pasted this elsewhere:

Definition: A personal explanation of some basic result R brought about intentionally be person P where this bringing about of R is a basic action A will cite the intention I of P that R occurred and the basic power B that P exercised to bring about R. P, I and B provide a personal explanation of R: agent P brought about R be exercising power B in order to realize intention I as an irreducible teleological goal. (Moreland, Blackwell's Companion to Natural Theology. p 298)

In a nutshell, libertarian free will is choosing an action that is not causally determined by factors outside of one's mind. 

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.

That's not a circle. You have simple restated the exact same premise with the same exact meaning. If I say something is in the Bible and that's the basis for the doctrine, to claim that is an assertion is to not understand the word. 

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.

You cannot use this type of argument--it does not work. If the doctrine comes from the Bible, then you cannot claim it is my assertion. You MUST grant the belief based on my underlying acceptance that the Bible is revealed theology. You may show that belief to be wrong, irrational, not internally consistent, or whatever but you can't call it 'my assertion'. 

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.

If God does not exist, there is not such thing as objective justice. ONLY if God exists, can we have any grounding to call justice objective because part of the definition of God is that he be the paradigm of justice. We don't actually have to know what perfect justice is for this to work--in fact we can't know because our minds are limited.

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? 

First, God could have multiple goals or multi-level goals. Second, part of God's knowledge is that of counterfactuals. He would know that if Person A was given sufficient evidence, they would freely choose to have a relationship with him (his goal). Alternatively, he would know that Person B would not. The solution is that God will provide the sufficient evidence (customized) for Person A.  This solution has the added benefit of working for all places and all generations. Do I know perfectly how this works? No. But it does serve to gut your conclusion that God would logically show himself if he existed.

[RoadRunner79]

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


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


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


There are definitely more category errors...


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*.

Well, relying on 'revealed theology' is the first, most basic mistake. There is no such thing. Just claims made by people to get power over others.

---

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!

Yes, it does make for incoherence: you are making a claim that there is *one* concept of greater that applies to all virtues. Instead, you have a concept of greater for each individual virtue but no consistent way to merge them.

Once again, ask yourself the question: what is the largest pair (x,y) such that x>=0, y>=0 and x+y<=100?

The largest possible value of x is 100. The largest possible value of y is also 100. But you cannot have both x=100 and y=100 at the same time.

This is an analogy to the issue you have with competing virtues: each one individually *may* have a maximum, but there is no *single* combination that maximizes all.

Your analogy seems to be equivocating on the word greater. And I don’t have your background in math, but their is a maximally great answer to your equation. It’s not incoherent at all.

Once again, I would encourage you to make your arguments directly, rather than with analogies.

[Amarok]

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

Yes, as I’ve said for years, it starts with bad, overly credulous reading of legendary and mythological material (the sort of bad reading that would get you laughed out of any serious literature course) and ends with a veneer of philosophical sophistication that your source material doesn’t deserve.

But keep telling yourself how airtight your “case” is. Lol

In other words they take nothing a then pile more nothing on their nothing and then expect us to take them seriously 

[polymath257]

Well, relying on 'revealed theology' is the first, most basic mistake. There is no such thing. Just claims made by people to get power over others.

---

Yes, it does make for incoherence: you are making a claim that there is *one* concept of greater that applies to all virtues. Instead, you have a concept of greater for each individual virtue but no consistent way to merge them.

Once again, ask yourself the question: what is the largest pair (x,y) such that x>=0, y>=0 and x+y<=100?

The largest possible value of x is 100. The largest possible value of y is also 100. But you cannot have both x=100 and y=100 at the same time.

This is an analogy to the issue you have with competing virtues: each one individually *may* have a maximum, but there is no *single* combination that maximizes all.

Your analogy seems to be equivocating on the word greater. And I don’t have your background in math, but their is a maximally great answer to your equation.  It’s not incoherent at all.

Once again, I would encourage you to make your arguments directly, rather than with analogies.

I've been trying to get you to define your concepts well enough that an argument can be made. But, at this point, the concept of 'greater' is too vague to do anything else with: there are simply too many interpretations of that word that are mutually contradictory.

Unless you define the term, you cannot know there is a greatest.

[SteveII]

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


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


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


There are definitely more category errors...


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*.

Well, relying on 'revealed theology' is the first, most basic mistake. There is no such thing. Just claims made by people to get power over others.

Ouch...the old "well...I can't defend my point...but, but...your Bible isn't true...so there!"

---

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!

Yes, it does make for incoherence: you are making a claim that there is *one* concept of greater that applies to all virtues. Instead, you have a concept of greater for each individual virtue but no consistent way to merge them.

Once again, ask yourself the question: what is the largest pair (x,y) such that x>=0, y>=0 and x+y<=100?

The largest possible value of x is 100. The largest possible value of y is also 100. But you cannot have both x=100 and y=100 at the same time.

This is an analogy to the issue you have with competing virtues: each one individually *may* have a maximum, but there is no *single* combination that maximizes all.

Regarding your last sentence, why do you need to assign 'greater than' to combinations? Why not stick just with 'greater than' in individual attributes? Nearly all of God's attributes have no conflict with each other so the rare instance where there is a conflict where it is not possible to have a greatest X *and* a greatest Y then it is resolved on a case by case basis. Again, we don't even need to know how it get's resolved--only that it must be resolved. As RR said, you need examples to rescue your objection--because it seems to everyone that you have just misapplied math again.

[polymath257]

Well, relying on 'revealed theology' is the first, most basic mistake. There is no such thing. Just claims made by people to get power over others.

Ouch...the old "well...I can't defend my point...but, but...your Bible isn't true...so there!"

Oh, I'm sorry. I didn't realize you were the only one allowed to use that ploy. Isn't 'revealed theology' just a restatement of 'I can't defend my point, but the Bible is true...so there!'?

---

Yes, it does make for incoherence: you are making a claim that there is *one* concept of greater that applies to all virtues. Instead, you have a concept of greater for each individual virtue but no consistent way to merge them.

Once again, ask yourself the question: what is the largest pair (x,y) such that x>=0, y>=0 and x+y<=100?

The largest possible value of x is 100. The largest possible value of y is also 100. But you cannot have both x=100 and y=100 at the same time.

This is an analogy to the issue you have with competing virtues: each one individually *may* have a maximum, but there is no *single* combination that maximizes all.

Regarding your last sentence, why do you need to assign 'greater than' to combinations? Why not stick just with 'greater than' in individual attributes? Nearly all of God's attributes have no conflict with each other so the rare instance where there is a conflict where it is not possible to have a greatest X *and* a greatest Y then it is resolved on a case by case basis. Again, we don't even need to know how it get's resolved--only that it must be resolved. As RR said, you need examples to rescue your objection--because it seems to everyone that you have just misapplied math again.[\quote]

And why *must* it be resolved? it is perfectly consistent that there is no resolution and therefore there is no God. So you cannot make this argument as a proof of the existence of God.

I can assure you the math isn't being misapplied. It just doesn't lead to the conclusion you want.

[Amarok]

Ouch...the old "well...I can't defend my point...but, but...your Bible isn't true...so there!"

Oh, I'm sorry. I didn't realize you were the only one allowed to use that ploy. Isn't 'revealed theology' just a restatement of 'I can't defend my point, but the Bible is true...so there!'?

---

Yes, it does make for incoherence: you are making a claim that there is *one* concept of greater that applies to all virtues. Instead, you have a concept of greater for each individual virtue but no consistent way to merge them.

Once again, ask yourself the question: what is the largest pair (x,y) such that x>=0, y>=0 and x+y<=100?

The largest possible value of x is 100. The largest possible value of y is also 100. But you cannot have both x=100 and y=100 at the same time.

This is an analogy to the issue you have with competing virtues: each one individually *may* have a maximum, but there is no *single* combination that maximizes all.

Regarding your last sentence, why do you need to assign 'greater than' to combinations? Why not stick just with 'greater than' in individual attributes? Nearly all of God's attributes have no conflict with each other so the rare instance where there is a conflict where it is not possible to have a greatest X *and* a greatest Y then it is resolved on a case by case basis. Again, we don't even need to know how it get's resolved--only that it must be resolved. As RR said, you need examples to rescue your objection--because it seems to everyone that you have just misapplied math again.[\quote]

And why *must* it be resolved? it is perfectly consistent that there is no resolution and therefore there is no God. So you cannot make this argument as a proof of the existence of God.

I can assure you the math isn't being misapplied. It just doesn't lead to the conclusion you want.

Considering all versions of the ontological argument are bunk anyway .....

---

Ouch...the old "well...I can't defend my point...but, but...your Bible isn't true...so there!"

Oh, I'm sorry. I didn't realize you were the only one allowed to use that ploy. Isn't 'revealed theology' just a restatement of 'I can't defend my point, but the Bible is true...so there!'?

---

Yes, it does make for incoherence: you are making a claim that there is *one* concept of greater that applies to all virtues. Instead, you have a concept of greater for each individual virtue but no consistent way to merge them.

Once again, ask yourself the question: what is the largest pair (x,y) such that x>=0, y>=0 and x+y<=100?

The largest possible value of x is 100. The largest possible value of y is also 100. But you cannot have both x=100 and y=100 at the same time.

This is an analogy to the issue you have with competing virtues: each one individually *may* have a maximum, but there is no *single* combination that maximizes all.

Regarding your last sentence, why do you need to assign 'greater than' to combinations? Why not stick just with 'greater than' in individual attributes? Nearly all of God's attributes have no conflict with each other so the rare instance where there is a conflict where it is not possible to have a greatest X *and* a greatest Y then it is resolved on a case by case basis. Again, we don't even need to know how it get's resolved--only that it must be resolved. As RR said, you need examples to rescue your objection--because it seems to everyone that you have just misapplied math again.[\quote]

And why *must* it be resolved? it is perfectly consistent that there is no resolution and therefore there is no God. So you cannot make this argument as a proof of the existence of God.

I can assure you the math isn't being misapplied. It just doesn't lead to the conclusion you want.

You have him on the ropes again just keep swinging 

[Mister Agenda]

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.

You didn't read carefully enough: I believe the correct understanding is he is cognizant of and causally active at every point in space. When you look at the meaning of that sentence, God is:

1. cognizant of every point in space
2. causally active at every point in space

This is not even close to meaning of omniscience.

That I don't agree with your argument for changing the meaning of omnipresence from 'present everywhere' to 'cognizant of and causally active in every point of space' does not mean I don't understand it. 'Present everywhere' is an inconvenient meaning, so you don't want it to be that.

And 'cognizant of every point in space' is not even close to the meaning of omniscience? Not even close?