but I personally believe that it's not his fault, and that he's a just God for giving us the opportunity to atone for our sins in some way.
Godmade the entire universe. Heinventedthe concept of sin. He could have done it any way he wanted to. Hechoseto do it this way. He tortures billions upon billions of people for eternity becausehe wants it that way.
That's bad. That's worse than any human that's ever lived.
Not really. As I've said, sin is simply the opposite of God. God can't be around his opposite. Hell is simply a place that people who have sin are sent because God is unable to be around sin. He created this world, yes, but he can't be around his opposite. However, he created a way that if we want to be cleansed of our sins, we can be.
So why can't he get rid of sins in Hell? It's not about what he can't do, it's more about what I believe people are unable to do while they are in Hell.
Godmade the entire universe. Heinventedthe concept of sin. He could have done it any way he wanted to. Hechoseto do it this way. He tortures billions upon billions of people for eternity becausehe wants it that way.
That's bad. That's worse than any human that's ever lived.
As I was about to say, if god is ominpotent, then EVERYTHING is his fault, by definition. He can do anything. Therefore, if there is a thing, it is his fault. Even if he didn't do it, he could have stopped it. Therefore, it's still his fault. You are now contradicting yourself.
You have to choose. Either god is not omnipotent or it's his fault. You can't have both. It's one or the other. Which is it?
Umm, okay, it's his fault then, I guess. I don't realize where this applies to my argument, because my argument for why people in Hell can't be forgiven is essentially that they are unable to seek forgiveness because of the way Hell works. Once they have sin, haven't asked for forgiveness, and go to Hell, they are no longer seeking forgiveness because they are sorry, they are seeking forgiveness because they don't want to be in Hell. If they were in Hell and somehow genuinely sorry, umm...I dunno?
Yes. But you can't be forgiven if you aren't sorry. That's sorta the way forgiveness works. He could just clean us all of sin, but he won't. That's where it's his fault, yes, but I think he can afford to be choosy about that. Maybe you disagree, and that's nice, but it's a matter of opinion, so I don't give a shit anymore. Seriously, can we wrap this up? I feel dumb for bringing this up all the time.
So you believe and worship a jerk. Congratulations.
We pointed this out like, a goddamn page ago.
I just wanted you to admit it. Next time you are in church, look at the Jesuses and such, and think about what a jerk he is for setting all your friends on fire forever even though they never did anything wrong besides being nerds enjoying nerdy stuff. Also, think about what it's like to be set on fire, forever.
Well, I'm still not entirely clear as to what you believe, so I still want to know more, but if you can't be bothered then don't answer.
What if you were sorry for your wrongdoing all along, but never asked for forgiveness because you didn't believe in any kind of personal God who would want to forgive you? When you went to Hell you would still be sorry, and you could now ask God because you'd be pretty damn sure he existed. Surely you could be forgiven? You must know that a very large number of people would fall under this category, so you really should want to know what would happen to them. If I truly believed all the things you believe, I would see it as nothing less than my duty to do my best to convince others of them. Even the smallest chance of saving a single person from eternal torture is worth all the effort you can put into it.
Also, since you earlier stated that you believe this concept of sin is the only sufficient explanation for the way humans behave, I'd like to see you explain why this is the case.
The Christian God is a gigantic asshole. It's ridiculous. All the Christians ignore the fact that God could just magically make everything okay instantly. They ignore that God made everything and everyone, and in doing so caused my disbelief in him. He damning me to hell for something I have no control over, because free will doesn't exist in a world with God if God knows what will happen.
because free will doesn't exist in a world with God if God knows what will happen.
It's true. There are many many logical traps once omnipotence enters the equation.
For example, any being that is omnipotent is effectively omniscient. Even if they aren't omniscient, they have the power to make themselves omniscient. If they don't have that power, then they aren't omnipotent. If an omniscient being does, or can, exist, then there can not be free will. Therefore if an omnipotent being exists, then free will can not possibly exist. Therefore it is absolutely impossible for an omnipotent god to intentionally grant free will to other beings.
If you just start to think about the consequences of an omnipotent or omniscient being, there are hundreds of fun things like this you can come up with. The classic about god making a rock so big he can't lift it is just the tip of the iceberg.
However, you are warned. Make sure you don't think of these things when reading superhero comics involving incredibly powerful cosmic beings, or things like the Infinity Gauntlet. It just ruins it.
Here's a question, Axel, and I do mean this with all due respect, as I am still a teensy bit/was until recently religious. If God is, in fact, loving, as the Bible says he is, and the chief commandment his son brought to us was "Do unto others as you would have done unto you," why would God subject anyone to an eternity of torture for simply not believing in him? If I follow his rule, that rule above all else, and his son's dying did in fact save everyone regardless of whether or not we accept that, why does belief matter?
The Bible contradicts itself by setting up a framework for Watchmaker Deism that even it overlooks.
It doesn't punish you for not believing in him. It punishes you for sinning. Not believing in him means he can't forgive you. Never mind.
I want to apologize to Luke for taking his argument away from what it was really about. Honestly, my complaints weren't valid, as he never really said what I acted like he was implying, and I started an argument for no real reason. So, Luke, I'm very sorry, that was dumb of me.
You know, I remember discussing something like this in high school. We were sitting in the Starbucks in the Tsutaya Tower, high above the huge intersection in front of the Shibuya station. HUndreds and hundreds of people were milling around near Hachiko-mae, and my friend Rei and I were discussing religion over tea. She was raised in a very Christian household, and we were discussing the concept of salvation and the afterlife, her coming at it from the Christian standpoint and me from the point of an agnostic deist, which was the state of my beliefs at the time. I remember she said "The only difference between us is that you believe that there are many paths to salvation and I believe that there is only one" and I remember pointing down at the crowd and saying "So you believe that almost every person down there, every person you love in Japan, is going to be tortured for eternity after they die?" She was quiet for a long time, and then she said she hadn't thought of it that way. I think it actually changed her mind a little bit.
I, for one, can't believe in that kind of God. I can't believe that the Buddhist family who shared their house with me is doomed to be on fire, nor my atheist mother, one of the kindest and coolest people I know. I don't believe in punishment for the sake of punishment. Punishment should be used to teach something, otherwise it is just revenge. There is no point. I don't need to make every logical point about "God should do X or Y to save everyone if he is omnipotent," because that has already been done here. I just want you to think about this one idea: Since you already believe in a God, why can't you believe in a God that saves everyone and no hell? It's up to you. Here is a hypothetical situation. Say you die, and in the moment of death, you are possessed with an understanding of every bad thing that you did and every lovely thing that you did, and suddenly, once you leave your body, you get it. You are pure understanding and pure good now, as you go to the beyond. Why can't God confer that upon you? Why is that less logical than what you came up with, that revolves around most people going to a horrible flame pit forever?
Not to be rude to you or anyone else, but this post of mine is my last response to this thread. I really think I'm finally done with religious arguments on this forum, because we got to the point that I always wanted, where I could prove to you guys that it's just a difference of opinion at the very core of it. You think my opinion is stupid, wrong, evil, illogical, irrational, and misguided, but it's an opinion nonetheless, and not a misunderstanding of facts. I have no intention of dealing with this anymore, not for any other reason than it's annoying to a lot of people on this forums, and I don't think they come here to deal with this. It's selfish of me to always bring it up, and so I really, really hope that I'm finally done with it.
For what do I need to be forgiven? For the consumption of a pome by a mythical woman? For the consensual paths I choose by myself or with others that make me happy?
Why would a God who loves me despite how "lost" I am cast me into a pit of flame? He shouldn't, unless he doesn't love all creation to begin with. That's why Lumen Gentium was penned. I mean, even Catholicism acknowledges that much: There are many paths to one salvation in that religion, in spite of all their fucked-up catechism. The Catechism of the Catholic Church states that, given that there is a god, even moral atheists will achieve salvation. No forgiveness necessary. Which leads to even more dissonance, because why be Catholic if all good people go to the same place anyway!
Just a question for the omnipotent argument. I may be reading this wrong, but it seems like when omnipotence is brought up, the omnipotent being has to use all the powers. Why is this so? Or is it just some logic test that my reading comprehension isn't picking up?
The omnipotence argument is generally stated as Epicurus' Trilemma, which I believe is what Scott was getting at also:
if God is unable to prevent evil, he is not omnipotent if God is not willing to prevent evil, he is not good if God is willing and able to prevent evil, then why is there evil?
Not to be rude to you or anyone else, but this post of mine is my last response to this thread. I really think I'm finally done with religious arguments on this forum, because we got to the point that I always wanted, where I could prove to you guys that it's just a difference of opinion at the very core of it. You think my opinion is stupid, wrong, evil, illogical, irrational, and misguided, but it's an opinion nonetheless, and not a misunderstanding of facts. I have no intention of dealing with this anymore, not for any other reason than it's annoying to a lot of people on this forums, and I don't think they come here to deal with this. It's selfish of me to always bring it up, and so I really, really hope that I'm finally done with it.
Actually, Axel, you did make a testable factual claim earlier, and that actually seems to be quite crucial to your beliefs:
Since I believe in this lack of inherent human goodness, but I can't justify that with how we have all survived this long and still manage to do good things in the world, and I don't believe in a realistic biological imperative to do good (maybe to cooperate and form societies, but nothing much far beyond that), I have to look somewhere else to justify it, and religion is the thing that fits best.
Also, the fact remains that you choose to believe something in the absence of evidence for it. This is something the rest of us avoid, and for good reason, since it's no different than believing in something like Zeus. Opinions can be wrong.
The omnipotent being doesn't have to use all the powers. However, it has to have the power.
Take Superman for example. Superman has freeze breath. But let's say he decides not to use it. It's not like he uses it that often anyway. Even if he never uses it, he still has it. Because Superman has freeze breath, it means that ice definitely exists. In order to disprove ice, you have to disprove the freeze breath, which we are taking as a given.
Now replace Superman with omnipotent man. We just accept the fact that omnipotent man is omnipotent, not trying to argue it. Well, if omnipotent man is omnipotent, that means he can do absolutely anything. If you ever ask a questions can omnipotent man do X? The answer is always yes. So if you ask can omnipotent man get rid of hell? The answer is Yes. Can omnipotent man turn everyone into superman? Yes. If the answer to the question is ever no, then omnipotent man is not omnipotent. Omnipotent man doesn't actually have to do these things. If he's a couch potato forever, that's fine. The point is that he has to have the ability to do all these things, otherwise he's not omnipotent.
@lackofcheese - Agreed that the same burden of proof applies to both God and Pastaferianism.
@Scott - I'm not sure you thought through that insult enough so I'm going to give you another shot at it. Grass reflects light at wavelengths primarily between 520-570 nm. "Green" is a term we apply to the phenomena but there is no reason beyond linguistic consensus that you couldn't call it "magenta." Furthermore unless there's a study I'm not aware of (and correct me if I'm wrong), it might be that if I could peer into your brain, the color you see as "green" might be what I call "magenta." It's a matter of the way the brain interprets data, similarly to how some smells, tastes and sounds can be deemed 'offensive' to some and not to others. At the moment, we have no way of knowing what the world looks like to anyone but ourselves. As I pointed out to Rym, 'not able to be known' or 'not yet known' is not the same as 'untrue' or 'false' - just ask the Higgs Boson. Now if you'd like to respond to me with "There's a chance that the sun is not actually a star. Doesn't mean I'm not a moron if I believe the sun is not a star," I accept your disparagement.
@gomidog, @Rym - I'm cool with being a Philosopher. That seems fair.
Comments
We're going to continue fighting the jerk.
What if you were sorry for your wrongdoing all along, but never asked for forgiveness because you didn't believe in any kind of personal God who would want to forgive you? When you went to Hell you would still be sorry, and you could now ask God because you'd be pretty damn sure he existed. Surely you could be forgiven? You must know that a very large number of people would fall under this category, so you really should want to know what would happen to them. If I truly believed all the things you believe, I would see it as nothing less than my duty to do my best to convince others of them. Even the smallest chance of saving a single person from eternal torture is worth all the effort you can put into it.
Also, since you earlier stated that you believe this concept of sin is the only sufficient explanation for the way humans behave, I'd like to see you explain why this is the case.
The Christian God is a gigantic asshole. It's ridiculous. All the Christians ignore the fact that God could just magically make everything okay instantly. They ignore that God made everything and everyone, and in doing so caused my disbelief in him. He damning me to hell for something I have no control over, because free will doesn't exist in a world with God if God knows what will happen.
For example, any being that is omnipotent is effectively omniscient. Even if they aren't omniscient, they have the power to make themselves omniscient. If they don't have that power, then they aren't omnipotent. If an omniscient being does, or can, exist, then there can not be free will. Therefore if an omnipotent being exists, then free will can not possibly exist. Therefore it is absolutely impossible for an omnipotent god to intentionally grant free will to other beings.
If you just start to think about the consequences of an omnipotent or omniscient being, there are hundreds of fun things like this you can come up with. The classic about god making a rock so big he can't lift it is just the tip of the iceberg.
However, you are warned. Make sure you don't think of these things when reading superhero comics involving incredibly powerful cosmic beings, or things like the Infinity Gauntlet. It just ruins it.
Here's a question, Axel, and I do mean this with all due respect, as I am still a teensy bit/was until recently religious. If God is, in fact, loving, as the Bible says he is, and the chief commandment his son brought to us was "Do unto others as you would have done unto you," why would God subject anyone to an eternity of torture for simply not believing in him? If I follow his rule, that rule above all else, and his son's dying did in fact save everyone regardless of whether or not we accept that, why does belief matter?
The Bible contradicts itself by setting up a framework for Watchmaker Deism that even it overlooks.
I want to apologize to Luke for taking his argument away from what it was really about. Honestly, my complaints weren't valid, as he never really said what I acted like he was implying, and I started an argument for no real reason. So, Luke, I'm very sorry, that was dumb of me.
I, for one, can't believe in that kind of God. I can't believe that the Buddhist family who shared their house with me is doomed to be on fire, nor my atheist mother, one of the kindest and coolest people I know.
I don't believe in punishment for the sake of punishment. Punishment should be used to teach something, otherwise it is just revenge. There is no point. I don't need to make every logical point about "God should do X or Y to save everyone if he is omnipotent," because that has already been done here. I just want you to think about this one idea:
Since you already believe in a God, why can't you believe in a God that saves everyone and no hell? It's up to you. Here is a hypothetical situation. Say you die, and in the moment of death, you are possessed with an understanding of every bad thing that you did and every lovely thing that you did, and suddenly, once you leave your body, you get it. You are pure understanding and pure good now, as you go to the beyond. Why can't God confer that upon you? Why is that less logical than what you came up with, that revolves around most people going to a horrible flame pit forever?
Why would a God who loves me despite how "lost" I am cast me into a pit of flame? He shouldn't, unless he doesn't love all creation to begin with. That's why Lumen Gentium was penned. I mean, even Catholicism acknowledges that much: There are many paths to one salvation in that religion, in spite of all their fucked-up catechism. The Catechism of the Catholic Church states that, given that there is a god, even moral atheists will achieve salvation. No forgiveness necessary. Which leads to even more dissonance, because why be Catholic if all good people go to the same place anyway!
Take Superman for example. Superman has freeze breath. But let's say he decides not to use it. It's not like he uses it that often anyway. Even if he never uses it, he still has it. Because Superman has freeze breath, it means that ice definitely exists. In order to disprove ice, you have to disprove the freeze breath, which we are taking as a given.
Now replace Superman with omnipotent man. We just accept the fact that omnipotent man is omnipotent, not trying to argue it. Well, if omnipotent man is omnipotent, that means he can do absolutely anything. If you ever ask a questions can omnipotent man do X? The answer is always yes. So if you ask can omnipotent man get rid of hell? The answer is Yes. Can omnipotent man turn everyone into superman? Yes. If the answer to the question is ever no, then omnipotent man is not omnipotent. Omnipotent man doesn't actually have to do these things. If he's a couch potato forever, that's fine. The point is that he has to have the ability to do all these things, otherwise he's not omnipotent.
@Scott - I'm not sure you thought through that insult enough so I'm going to give you another shot at it.
@gomidog, @Rym - I'm cool with being a Philosopher. That seems fair.