Please do not put word in my mouth. I did not say I believe there are no gods. I said I do not believe that evidence to support believing in one has not been presented. There is a difference between the two. I don’t claim there is no god, because I can’t back that claim up.
I still hold the position that the way in which you have told me I am incorrect about something has not benefited our discussion. If I misinterpret something, just state what you mean, and not that I have poor reading comprehension, or a freshman level of thinking in regards to thought experiments. You too have placed words in my mouth that are not correct.
And I didn’t say that about you, so please don’t put words in my mouth that I’ve put words in your mouth.
Good for you lol. I’m not here to hold your hand through fallacy names. You posited Christian heaven cannot be perfect. There’s a thousand ways to logically win a religious debate. You found one of the few ways that doesn’t work.
You’re getting awful caught up in saying you have poor reading comprehension considering
Quoting fallacy names (IME) is a surefire way of identifying a freshman. It was an observation.
Was this not you who wrote this? I believe it was in reference to me. If so, it is not something I said or believe.
Edit: I should have found the first time you wrote this instead of my first time quoting it. I see it looks like I quoted myself, but if you go up couple posts you can see it in your writing.
Why not tell me why it doesn’t work. My statement is that the bible describes heaven as a place of no crying or sadness (Rev. 21), and that the bible does indicate that ones conscience (or soul) is present in heaven. Now my argument is heaven is not perfect if ones conscience knows that a loved one is in hell. If we are not doing some magic, god changing who you are argument (which the bible does not suggest is the case), then a negative exists in heaven (knowing loved ones are in hell). My argument revolves around the definition of perfect as having no negatives. Is the bible’s description of the heaven perfection? My answer is no. What do you disagree with?
That ship sailed long ago and we have plenty of Trump threads already so why not, but understand if you don’t want to go down it.
I would be curious to hear your answer if you change your mind on the all loving but ok with torturing God. And yes it’s subjective I agree but doesn’t mean we can’t talk about it.
Not liking heaven as a limited finite individual doesn’t make heaven imperfect. Perfection isn’t by our standards. Perhaps it lines up with an individual’s notion of perfect, at least to some degree. But that isn’t the goal or judge of the perfect. Anyone may find they aren’t suited for heaven. In fact, many will.
I am applying what I have read in the bible as my description of god. I was taught in church that the soul is your conscience. We have a different interpretation of the bible here.
I agree with you if we just say a god could do it (make a perfect heaven), but they would have to change some things from how they are described in the bible.
I think our discussion is missing the definition of a soul. Growing up baptist, it was taught that your soul is your consciousness.
I don’t suggest standards. I either meet his or I don’t. This is a being that has the authority and perogative to end the universe on a whim. I don’t fit God to me. I am to fit to him. I didn’t pull forth the universe from nothing, or prepare some sort of heaven. I am not an all knowing , all powerful, inescapable final authority. No, I am astonished he thinks of me at all. Measured against him I am less than a gnat is to me. And, make no mistake, I would sweat a gnat without hesitation. Yet, he invites me into his presence, into HIS perfection, to share in some unimaginable place/realm/state for eternity. IF, I fit to his standards. And not the other way around.
You make some valid points here. I would argue, that we still need a definition of a soul. If the soul is disconnected from my conscience, then why would I care about what happens to my soul. All hypothetical here (I don’t actually believe in souls).
Maybe the soul is lightly connected to the conscience?
We are not going to get away from assumptions in regards to religion. You correctly point that out. That is why I tried to keep it defined to just the god of the bible, and the bible’s description of soul, god, and heaven. I understand that I can’t put limits on a god in the confines of god being all powerful, but if we agree to stick with the bible, the bible has descriptions of god, and heaven. Again, some of the things I was taught growing up are different than you, and some things I was taught were probably not in the bible, or they were an interpretation of the bible (assumptions).
Edit:
I am okay with ending our debate. I think we are arguing based on what we were taught growing up (assumptions). I thought at first you were a theist, and that you would agree with the assumptions I was making (I was wrong). I do not believe in heaven, so I can’t really make a truly valid argument (it will have assumptions, and I knew that going into it). However, if you were a theist, and we agreed upon the assumptions, then we would have something. Clearly this is a waste of time for both of us (agnostics).
I’m not suggesting heaven is imperfect and don’t want to get into the semantics argument of what is perfect or whatever. I really haven’t discussed that. I’m interested in the following:
To be honest I figured I would get this type of response. I didn’t think a believer would actually attempt to tackle it which is unfortunate. I’d like to try and understand how the reconcile some of these positions.
But if we’re just going to say we can’t attempt to talk about it then we can handwave it all away.
It isn’t hand waving. It is an opinionated disagreement. You assume one thing mustn’t be able to exist in the presence of another. I don’t. You don’t like the idea that the 2 can exist simultaneously. Ok
You won’t even try tackling the questions? Why did he give us those things and have so many people come to different conclusions if the penalty for being wrong is eternal torture?
I didn’t say love couldn’t exist with punishment. But are we really calling eternal torture just punishment?
In your opinion if a human tortured another human their whole life would you call them all loving?