[Serious] What God's justification for eternal torment?

[John 6IX Breezy]

>The law of conservation of matter and energy states that the total quantity of energy in the universe remains the same. Matter and energy are interchangeable, but neither can be created or destroyed. Ergo, the universe has always existed and will always exist in one form or another. God is unnecessary by the Principle of Parsimony.

1. Scientific laws are descriptive not prescription. And you appear to be extrapolating these laws beyond their comfort zone.

2. Parsimony is just a fancy way to make guesses.

[Gwaithmir]

>The law of conservation of matter and energy states that the total quantity of energy in the universe remains the same. Matter and energy are interchangeable, but neither can be created or destroyed. Ergo, the universe has always existed and will always exist in one form or another. God is unnecessary by the Principle of Parsimony.

1. Scientific laws are descriptive not prescription. And you appear to be extrapolating these laws beyond their comfort zone.

2. Parsimony is just a fancy way to make guesses.

Nevertheless, my argument is valid and I can see why that makes you uncomfortable.

[Mister Agenda]

Not sure it's valid. That matter and energy can neither be created nor destroyed holds within the universe, it doesn't necessarily apply TO the universe. I think it's a fallacy of composition. That doesn't mean it's not true, but I think we can't say for sure that it HAS to be true.

[The Grand Nudger]

It seems both objectively and subjectively better. But even if it is not, the narrative of "God as Savior" is still the accurate representation of Christian belief.

It sure is, no matter how much a given christian, or given christian schism might rail against the implications of their beliefs - they insist that god is a savior.  

Your own about face on an issue that your cult takes issue with is a wonderful demonstration of exactly this. If we object to god doing a bad thing™ - replacing it with some other bad™ thing hardly resolves that concern. God doesn't torture, he just destroys. God doesn't destroy, he just doesn't save. None of these are rationalizations for bad behavior that we would accept from a human being, not even a human child.

[John 6IX Breezy]

That's an inaccurate representation as well. Recall that the Cross was sufficient to save everyone; and indeed everyone's debts have already been paid. God doesn't "not save" us; salvation has to be denied by a person to not be saved. That's more or less the general theme:

"Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, of whom I am chief" -1 Timothy 1:15

[Gwaithmir]

Not sure it's valid. That matter and energy can neither be created nor destroyed holds within the universe, it doesn't necessarily apply TO the universe. I think it's a fallacy of composition. That doesn't mean it's not true, but I think we can't say for sure that it HAS to be true.

I see no reason why it HAS to be false either, and it's a much more plausible explanation than the universe being created ex nihilo by an invisible man in the sky.

---

That's an inaccurate representation as well. Recall that the Cross was sufficient to save everyone; and indeed everyone's debts have already been paid. God doesn't "not save" us; salvation has to be denied by a person to not be saved. That's more or less the general theme.

"Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, of whom I am chief" -1 Timothy 1:15

Why should we care about the dubious opinion of an ignorant, superstitious scribe writing nearly a century after these events allegedly took place?

[John 6IX Breezy]

I see no reason why it HAS to be false either, and it's a much more plausible explanation than the universe being created ex nihilo by an invisible man in the sky.

How are you measuring the plausibility between the two explanations, if you don't mind me asking?

[The Grand Nudger]

That's an inaccurate representation as well. Recall that the Cross was sufficient to save everyone; and indeed everyone's debts have already been paid. God doesn't "not save" us; salvation has to be denied by a person to not be saved. That's more or less the general theme:

"Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, of whom I am chief" -1 Timothy 1:15

I'm not bickering with you about christ saving the world, or whether it was sufficient, or whether debts are already covered, or whether people believe this.  Accept that it's possible for another person to accurately represent christian belief and object to it because of this accurate representation.

I notice, for example and again - that you chose to share some snippet from your cult tradition.  This snippet and this cult tacitly accept that christ is savior, and was sufficient, and that debts have been paid.  Clearly you believe that people can accurately represent a christian belief and object - if you think that snippet has any value or meaning.

I notice, for example and again, that you are negotiating over what means, exactly, justifies the end - in concert with your notions of an acceptable god.  You do not accept the god of those beliefs, because you do not believe that a god like your god would or could torture...or destroy.  You still believe that it is within the power of this god to save, and you still believe that in at least some cases where it's within it's power to save, it doesn't.  This is your god, this is what you believe in, this is an accurate representation of your beliefs - and this is what I object to, as you feel empowered to object to the beliefs of other christians.

That out of the way, can you explain to me how an objection to a god (or anyone) doing a bad thing™ can be resolved by proposing that a god (or anyone) does a different bad thing™? If the only resolution that you can muster is the dogged insistence that the objection must be factually wrong...that's damning for your cult. That would suggest that if this objection got it right (as you believe that you can get it right to the exclusion of those other christian cults you would object to) - then your own cult would be fucked up by your own standards.

Some christians believe that god tortures, some that god disposes, and you believe that god fails to help. Take your time.

[John 6IX Breezy]

Some christians believe that god tortures, some that god disposes, and you believe that god fails to help. Take your time.

If you ever come across such a Christian, you're free to argue your case with them. I can only defend my beliefs in the ways I've understood them. Given that "God fails to help" doesn't reflect any belief I hold, or that my cult teaches, there's little I can contribute.

[The Grand Nudger]

I have, you're just such a christian. You object to god doing a bad thing™ - torture and/or disposal...and insist that god, instead, did some other bad thing™ - failing to help. I want to put a pin in this here - because your response clearly indicates that you believe failing to help to be a bad thing,...that god isn't doing, that you don't believe, that your cult doesn't teach. My objection is wrong, you contend, because it's factually inaccurate - not because it's morally inaccurate. We agree on the badness™ of the latter. You and your own cult object to immoral propositions attributed to your god. God doesn't torture people, because that would be bad. God doesn't annihilate people, because that would be bad. You and your cult accept that it's possible to accurately describe the beliefs of another and object.

I suggest, in the same vein, that god doesn't fail to help people....because that would be bad. If this objection were factually accurate, the moral aspect is already settled. If it is factually true of your own beliefs that god could help a person, but doesn't, we're done. At least with respect to understanding why a good person could not be a christian.

Let's explore this idea that you don't believe exactly what I described. Do you believe that god has the power to save? Do you believe that everyone is saved?

Take your time - and save your time explaining why god does this...for [insert god reason here] - because that's agreement with the factual content. That would be conceding that, yes...god does do this bad thing™....but he does it for reasons....

I know all about doing bad things for reasons, I'm a human being, it's a master class on the subject.