If it’s close minded to ask for proof of a claim, before believing it, then I guess I’m close minded. In the world of logic, its called being reasonable.
One can think about if the Bible has contractions even if they don’t believe it, and boy does it have a lot of them. For being all powerful and all knowing, he sure bungled the hell out of his story.
I didn’t ask you to believe in nothing. Did anyone in this thread?
You said I was close minded for not considering the possibility of heaven or hell being real.
While not directly asking me to believe it, it was enough to get the response you received.
Where? I don’t remember doing that
Edit: it seemed close minded to me that you would refuse to consider a hypothetical on the basis of it being a hypothetical
And on second look, I’ll stand by that
Edit 2: and I also should point out that the whole mess arose because NickV responded to your thoughts on a hypothetical.
In other words you’ll consider a hypothetical long enough to find apparent contradictions, but won’t consider more deeply how those apparent hypothetical contradictions could be resolved - AND - the reason that you give for not doing so is that it’s all a hypothetical
Yes, layers upon layers of close mindedness, in beautiful fractal patterns - it’d have been a sin to pass on it without bringing to your attention
Of course you can quit at any time, but try and be more consistent/honest, please
But we’re back to square one. “How those apparent hypothetical contradictions could be resolved.” In other words this maybe has something to do with the answer that no one has any clue on. It’s not like any of us (and I don’t mind throwing myself as an agnostic) have any fucking idea.
That’s not what the idea behind heaven and hell says though. My grandma died and I wish she hadn’t. To me she has ceased to exist and is at rest or feeling nothing similar to sleep. Isn’t the belief that if I get to heaven and grandma isn’t there not that she is asleep but that she is being tortured for eternity in a lake of fire?
I mean tortured for eternity. Not like even three years. Lake of fire.
All loving! Needs money and All loving?
I don’t follow.
If nobody has any idea, then there’s nothing to discuss
Sorry for killing the thread, everyone
Doesn’t have to kill the thread I was pointing out you calling him out for not chasing all the way down the rabbit hole. Or even to hell cause it seems like that place sucks.
I would be curious to figure out exactly how God is a loving dude who doesn’t mind if his creations spend eternity being tortured.
I mean if he gave us logic that caused me to doubt him/her based on that logic I’m going to be tortured forever? Clearly he did a piss poor job if so many people come to all these different conclusions about whether or not he exists and then if he does exist how to please him.
And because we’re all totally confused about what he wants it’s a lottery as to which religion is correct. But the wrong conclusion is eternal suffering. Isn’t if you don’t do what I want you will feel massive pain the very definiton of a terrorist? (which I learned after 9/11 we don’t negotiate with)
Maybe I don’t know what all loving means. Or maybe like some said god just wands your memory away so you don’t realize how many people he is responsible for torturing when you get to heaven?
Don’t really have much else to say, H. Ball is in your court at this point. If you don’t believe, you don’t believe.
Myself, I am fully content. If I’m wrong, I won’t know it. And if there is no God then there is no objective way we ought to live or believe. Which also means it’s perfectly fine to look forward to a heaven. And also means it’s just as right to believe in the God of the bible until the heat death of the universe wipes us all out anyways. Nor is there an objective way to judge the morality of God.
Turning the thread back over to the subject of Trump
Which means you are all posting under the illusion that Trump allows you free will. Wait, so am I!
It’s close minded for (in the same breath) both critiquing the concept of heaven on its supposed flaws, yet also stating God doesn’t exist.
If you’re going to judge the merits of heaven (whether or not its perfect) in a hypothetical, God has to exist for heaven to exist. So your critiques of heaven HAS TO be limited to also acknowledging God would exist.
Because if God doesn’t exist, neither does heaven and your critiques don’t matter.
The response you put forth is STRONGLY indicative of someone with very little experience in thought experiments. I’m an obnoxious atheist and even I admit that if heaven exists (and Christians are correct) there’s virtually no chance it’s not as described by the big guy.
He was correctly called out. You can’t critique something’s flaws if your thought doesn’t include the correct variables.
To say heaven is flawed first HAS TO have heaven existing. If heaven exists god has to exist. If your view is that god doesn’t exist you can’t also think heaven is flawed. It has to exist to be flawed.
Is it not possible to attempt to answer what seem like the contradictions of an all loving deity and eternal torture? It might not be my belief but is it yours? If so I would think it would be something worth answering. But if you don’t want to I understand. To me it’s very hard to reconcile the points which may be why believers in this thread don’t want to attempt.
Watch out for logical fallacies. You are accusing me off not thinking it out, but I think you are making more mistakes than I am. You say for heaven to exist, then god must exist. That is obviously not true, anything else could also create heaven. Why must god create it. Hell, it doesn’t necessarily need to be created to exist. Your thinking is so common it has a name. It’s called the casual fallacy.
I think you should spend some time studying epistemology (the method of determining what is true or not). You have several major flaws of thinking. If course I don’t have to believe in heaven to point out contractions of the description of heaven in a book.
Trust me, I am not new to thought experiments.
I definitely understand what you’re saying but I’m viewing it more from the lines of explain these apparent contradictions to me. I don’t need to believe in heaven for someone to tell me what they think about the afterlife and how a God can be all loving at the same time as letting people be tortured for eternity.
I see what you’re saying but hey it’s a message board so everyone talk it up. What else are we going to do? Work?!
Within the confines of you critiquing a very specific heaven? Ala christian’s heaven? I also made sure to say
You aren’t critiquing the concept of heaven. You specifically critiqued the heaven as explained in the bible. Which means the confines of the discussion is that of the bible based reality (god creating it).
You certainly seem like you are. Only freshman thought people start throwing out fallacy names when the real issue was reading comprehension.
There are no apparent contradictions with heaven. Within the confines of “God exists like Christians think he does” you’re talking about the LITERAL creator of the universe, and all life every always.
If you’re going to discuss the intent/motives of a God, you still have him existing first. Which means you’re trying to apply our lizard brain thinking to GOD. Like, actual god.
There’s a stupidly large number of ways in which heaven could be absolutely perfect. The bible doesn’t even say you take your consciousness into the afterlife. If god exists, and truly there is no limit to her power, do you really think she runs into a wall at removing your ability to not think heaven is perfect in the moment?
Dude, chill out. It is better to understand fallacious reasoning and stop it there, then let it go on. Fallacious reasoning can’t lead to anything verifiable.
You are now using ad hominem against me. Claiming I have freshman cognition. What will this line of arguing do to help us determine who is correct?
Also, call me crazy, but I think the Bible definitely suggests that your conscience self or soul is present in heaven. Do you not agree?
Lol, the chill out fallback. You couldn’t even spell the damn fallacy. Quoting the name of fallacies is akin to a therapist telling you the scientific name of your feelings. It doesn’t serve a purpose.
Probably about the same as telling me I have several major flaws of thinking?
I do not. I was raised catholic before de-converting.
In the other sects where it may be suggested? You’re still stuck with a scenario with an all powerful diety. I find it strange to think about an entity that created the universe itself, but doesn’t have the ability to stop us from being unhappy.
But he does exist in the mind of believers. And the rules for how he does things have been established in their minds and laid out. And it’s those rules I was interested in discussing in my long post.
I’m not denying heaven can’t be perfect. And I’m not denying an all powerful person couldn’t do whatever they want. I’m looking at the idea that certain people think a higher power exists who is all loving, all powerful, and all knowing. And that same person who is all loving is cool with people suffering for all eternity.
Again I see what you’re saying. And honestly I’m not disagreeing with it really.
Maybe we should change the question. Can a human be considered all loving and all good if he tortures someone his entire life? I realize we have to use established ideas of loving and good in this scenario. I think almost everyone you polled would say a human who tortures someone as long as they can simply for the reason of not worshipping the human can’t be all loving and all good.
This is just not factual. See my above posts I spell fallacy the same way you do. Possibly somewhere I mis-spelled it due to using a phone interface.
Also, what does me being able to spell have to do with making a good argument? You are just trying to bring me down by insulting my intelligence. I have treated you with respect when I reply. I may suggest you look into something (research wise), but I have not suggested you are stupid, or not a free thinker as you have done to me.
We can agree to disagree that the bible indicates that ones conscience is present in heaven or not.
I need to understand what you are getting at? Is it possible to have a heaven (not one described by the bible) that is perfect? Of course it is. Anything is possible. Do we agree on that.
I will try my best to be respectful of your ideas if you give me the time of day. Will you agree to do the same for me? I think we actually see eye to eye. I am an agnostic atheist, and it sounds like you are too, right?
Edit: I see my spelling mistake should be causal.
wot
My phone doesn’t replace causal with casual. Get on that google life.
I have not suggested you are stupid. I have suggested you are inexperienced. Once again. Reading comprehension.
That you critique’d Christian heaven by way of claiming it cannot be perfect, and then in the same argument claimed God doesn’t exist because you haven’t seen proof.
For the christian heaven that you are critiquing to exist, the christian god whom supposedly created it must exist. The confines of that heaven are also linked to an all powerful god with no limits or potential shortcomings (ie, Christianity). You are then saying the same god with no limits or shortcomings isn’t capable of creating a perfect heaven.