On Hell and Forgiveness

[SteveII]

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!'?

What invariably happens with atheists when they tackle a Christian doctrine they think is an easy target is they stumble on the criticism because, well, they don't know what they are talking about. When they find the doctrine is not only coherent, but is internally consistent with the rest of the Christian doctrines, they revert to a version of what you did. That's okay though, because it is the universal signal to Christians that they won the point. 

I'll let you in on a secret: there is not an objection to a Biblical doctrine you can think of that has not been answered for centuries (if not longer) . 

---

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.

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.

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. 

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

The fact that you think it applies at all is utterly confounding.

[The Grand Nudger]

Finding yourself utterly confounded usually isn't a good sign. Even worse when you feel utterly confounded, but simultaneously, completely certain.

[polymath257]

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!'?

What invariably happens with atheists when they tackle a Christian doctrine they think is an easy target is they stumble on the criticism because, well, they don't know what they are talking about. When they find the doctrine is not only coherent, but is internally consistent with the rest of the Christian doctrines, they revert to a version of what you did. That's okay though, because it is the universal signal to Christians that they won the point. 

I'll let you in on a secret: there is not an objection to a Biblical doctrine you can think of that has not been answered for centuries (if not longer) .

Well, given that we have learned a few things in the last few centuries, you might want to revisit those conclusions.

For example, we know that there does not *have* to be a 'greatest' in every system. We know that distinct systems may not have a mutual 'greatest'.

---

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.

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.

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.

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

The fact that you think it applies at all is utterly confounding.

Well, the point is that you make claims about the existence of a consistent ordering that are very hard to actually make work. You *claim* they are independent (or can be resolved on a case by case basis), but give no reason to think that.

The math shows that the argument form is invalid. Either you have to show why the mathematical analogy doesn't apply or you have to admit your argument is nonsense.

[RoadRunner79]

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.

So then, you switch from arguing against to pleading ignorance?

edit:   Are you saying that their are interpretations, that are not contradictory, and incoherent?   Wouldn't the principle of charity say that you should argue against those, rather than trying to make the argument irrational?

[The Grand Nudger]

The argument -is- irrational.  It doesn't have to be made to be so. It could be scrubbed of nonsense and made arational....but that's as good as it gets.

I don't know why that's such a problem for people who believe that they've come to faith through special revelation and/or divine intervention. No one arguing god in this thread sat down and argued themselves into it, lol. Additionally, these post hoc rationalizations for a god..and their counters, all predate christer god in the first place. The synthesis of classical pagan philosophy with the newly assumed canaanite diety and his demi-god son left the case for gods no further advanced than it was in 400bc. It may have been arguable then..but even that's arguable. Nothing we've discovered since strengthens this case, but much has laid it to waste.

[polymath257]

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.

So then, you switch from arguing against to pleading ignorance?

edit:   Are you saying that their are interpretations, that are not contradictory, and incoherent?   Wouldn't the principle of charity say that you should argue against those, rather than trying to make the argument irrational?

I am saying that I have yet to see a coherent argument being made that doesn't have basic flaws. Furthermore, by refusing to define the relationship 'greater', the whole position on the religious side boils down to hand waving.

So, yes, your refusal to make the required argument means we are ignorant of what you are specifically claiming. This is *your* job to make your argument, not mine. If you think there is a coherent way to assign 'greater' to all virtues simultaneously, please make that argument. If you then make a claim that there is a 'greatest' in that ordering, then make that argument. Both of these claims seem wildly unlikely, though.

But at this point, all you have done is mumble vague platitudes that are unlikely to be anywhere close to correct.

And yes, until you actually do the work, what we understand about orderings makes your claims dubious, at best. More specifically, it appears that many virtues are mutually at odds, making a consistent resolution of these issues doubtful.

[Neo-Scholastic]

I'll let you in on a secret: there is not an objection to a Biblical doctrine you can think of that has not been answered for centuries (if not longer) . 

Or reexamined and continue to be debated. While there are many know-it-all absolutist Christians, so very many more see the Bibilical texts as so richly endowed with meaning that one could study one's whole life and never exhaust the depth of its wisdom. IMO they contain harsh rebukes, disturbing stories, obscure allusions, and tantalizing insights. To grapple with them is itself an exercise in humility. When I come across the very legitimately problematic stories about the Amalekites or apparent contradictions, I am willing to "put a pin it", so to speak as I reflect the overall narrative, read backwards, and consult the wealth of commentaries that go back at least 1500 years.

That's quite a bit of work. I can understand how nonbelievers, and even naive believers, don't have that level of motivation. At the same time, I find the knee-jerk dismissal by some atheists, even those raised in the church, when they discover apparent contradictions,...I find it closed-minded. When you add to that closed-mindedness a propensity to mock and ridicule believers, I find it more than disrespectful. I cannot help but suspect underlying psychological motivations for such people embracing atheism, such as the need to feel smarter and more rational then "those guys." Substitute, "Mexicans" for "Southerners" and the blatant bigotry is immediately revealed for what it is.

I have also noticed that the targets of these types of atheists are never serious thinkers like N. T. Wright or David Benteley Hart, but rather, low-hanging fruit like William Lane Craig or Lee Strobbel. It's become a very low-level of discourse here, or maybe it always has been, and I'm just starting to see it. I haven't always been exemplary of high-level discourse myself. It takes a lot of work and doesn't often get rewarded with earnest critique. No one really engages with your arguments, Steve. That's too bad because there are legitimate and nuanced objections to some of your points. I know I take issue with your Molinism and a couple minor points of doctrine. On AF those disagreements between Christians just serve to reinforce the black-and-white thinking of some atheists, as if healthy debate between believers was somehow a sign that none of it could be true.

[The Grand Nudger]

Some of us don't have a belief that needs servicing or maintenance.  When we see silly fucked up shit, we put a pin in it that says "silly fucked up shit". It would be pointless to run off to other parts of magic book or commentaries on magic book to find out -why- there's silly fucked up shit in it..because that won't change the fact that it's silly fucked up shit anyhow.

[Neo-Scholastic]

Either you have to show why the mathematical analogy doesn't apply or you have to admit your argument is nonsense.

The correct analogy considers one the largest number because it represents the highest degree of unity possible.

---

Some of us don't have a belief that needs servicing or maintenance.

Yeah, its easier to never examine one's convictions.

[Silver]

Or reexamined and continue to be debated. While there are many know-it-all absolutist Christians, so very many more see the Bibilical texts as so richly endowed with meaning that one could study one's whole life and never exhaust the depth of its wisdom. IMO they contain harsh rebukes, disturbing stories, obscure allusions, and tantalizing insights. To grapple with them is itself an exercise in humility. When I come across the very legitimately problematic stories about the Amalekites or apparent contradictions, I am willing to "put a pin it", so to speak as I reflect the overall narrative, read backwards, and consult the wealth of commentaries that go back at least 1500 years.

That's quite a bit of work. I can understand how nonbelievers, and even naive believers, don't have that level of motivation. At the same time, I find the knee-jerk dismissal by some atheists, even those raised in the church, when they discover apparent contradictions,...I find it closed-minded. When you add to that closed-mindedness a propensity to mock and ridicule believers, I find it more than disrespectful. I cannot help but suspect underlying psychological motivations for such people embracing atheism, such as the need to feel smarter and more rational then "those guys." Substitute, "Mexicans" for "Southerners" and the blatant bigotry is immediately revealed for what it is.

I have also noticed that the targets of these types of atheists are never serious thinkers like N. T. Wright or David Benteley Hart, but rather, low-hanging fruit like William Lane Craig or Lee Strobbel. It's become a very low-level of discourse here, or maybe it always has been, and I'm just starting to see it. I haven't always been exemplary of high-level discourse myself. It takes a lot of work and doesn't often get rewarded with earnest critique. No one really engages with your arguments, Steve. That's too bad because there are legitimate and nuanced objections to some of your points. I know I take issue with your Molinism and a couple minor points of doctrine. On AF those just serve to reinforce the black-and-white thinking of some atheists, as if healthy debate between believers was somehow a sign that none of it could be true.

Too bad you have me blocked, because you won't get to witness the brilliance I am going to use to utterly destroy you.

Biblical meaning only contains the power to sublimate those already gullible to the surrendering of reason.

What you call a knee-jerk dismissal, we of the logical world refer to as reason over fantasy. It's not a difficult concept to understand.

What is close-minded depends not on your perception or my perception, but rather how each of us approaches reality. So far, you're failing.

If you find anything disrespectful, you should go through the proper channels to see if your god can do anything to make me more respectful toward you. Guaranteed, it's not happening.

If anything is psychological, it's the religious propensity for fantasy over reality. That's a given.

I cannot claim to be what you would consider a "serious thinker", because I doubt I would want to be that deluded.

You want discourse, yet you block people. So much for discourse.