Will we sin when we get to heaven?

Nihilist Virus · Apr 30, 2016

zippy2006 said:
Perhaps we need to dumb it down a bit:

Because heaven is a gift, and gifts must be received. The receipt of a gift involves the choice to receive it, and a choice requires the existence of the one choosing. Therefore God first gives us existence, then allows us to choose. Only after this would we be able to enter heaven.

(The more thorough answer can be found here)

You are becoming increasingly insulting. I said things about your argument: that it was nonsensical and wrong (which I showed). You are attacking my intelligence in addition to or instead of addressing my argument.

I'm not following your link, nor am I responding to this other than to say:

Feel free to try to offer some kind of argumentation without belligerence if you wish to be seen as something other than purely rude and obnoxious.

zippy2006 · Apr 30, 2016

Nihilist Virus said:
I said things about your argument: that it was nonsensical and wrong (which I showed).

What a remarkably ironic post! The only tidbit of rationality you provided in your post was an assertive falsity, "The angels beheld God and a third of them blasphemed." Apart from that you just called my argument stupid ("nonsensical," "completely wrong," "you admit it doesn't make much sense") and simultaneously failed to address it. Quite the combination! After that I pointed out that assertions absent reasons are irrational and encouraged the addition of reasons. Upon reflection I wondered if you were truly unable to understand the post, and created a simpler version, more suited to the abilities manifested in your original reply.

I wasn't expecting very much from you, although the lack of substance still surprised me. I responded more for the benefit of those who might be misled.

Nihilist Virus said:
I'm not following your link, nor am I responding to this...

Wonderful, although I'm not convinced that you will keep your word.

In the end I guess you shouldn't throw stones if you live in a glass house.

Nihilist Virus · Apr 30, 2016

zippy2006 said:
What a remarkably ironic post! The only tidbit of rationality you provided in your post was an assertive falsity, "The angels beheld God and a third of them blasphemed." Apart from that you just called my argument stupid ("nonsensical," "completely wrong," "you admit it doesn't make much sense") and simultaneously failed to address it. Quite the combination! After that I pointed out that assertions absent reasons are irrational and encouraged the addition of reasons. Upon reflection I wondered if you were truly unable to understand the post, and created a simpler version, more suited to the abilities manifested in your original reply.

I wasn't expecting very much from you, although the lack of substance still surprised me. I responded more for the benefit of those who might be misled.

Wonderful, although I'm not convinced that you will keep your word.

In the end I guess you shouldn't throw stones if you live in a glass house.

I didn't assert anything. Didn't use the word "stupid." I didn't fail to address your argument. You are now dodging my point because I asked you to define "behold." Funny that you remark on your low expectations you hold for me and yet you cannot supply a simple definition.

Oncedeceived · May 4, 2016

Nihilist Virus said:
I'm not missing that. In fact I used that as my one and only assumption in proving that he cannot be omniscient. That's the only thing I'm even trying to prove. Once again, here's my condensed version of Gödel's proof:

1. "X and not X" if and only if "Anything at all can be proven".

In other words, anything follows from a contradiction. This is well known in the field of logic and is not up for debate. It is also known as the principle of explosion. It obviously works in the reverse direction because if I can prove anything at all then I can prove a contradiction. Hence the statements form an equivalence.

2. It is legal to negate both sides of an equation/equivalence. Again, this is not up for debate. Negating both sides yields:

"Not (X and not X)" if and only if "Not (Anything at all can be proven)".

The left side is the law of non-contradiction. The right side is the statement that there is at least one true/false proposition whose truth value cannot be known.

If "X and not X" can not be proven then nothing at all can be proven. IF we exclude the very law that holds together all logic and dismiss the foundation of knowing then your argument self-refutes.

Conclusion: God is not omniscient. QED

Your conclusion doesn't follow. God is not part of the finite system.

Nihilist Virus · May 4, 2016

Oncedeceived said:
If "X and not X" can not be proven then nothing at all can be proven. IF we exclude the very law that holds together all logic and dismiss the foundation of knowing then your argument self-refutes.

I think you mean "NOT (X and not X)".

In any case, no, it cannot be proven; it must be asserted as an axiom. We prove things from the axioms. There is nothing to use to prove axioms unless you're fine with circular logic.

Your conclusion doesn't follow. God is not part of the finite system.

Firstly, the system is not finite.

Secondly, I never said he is part of the system. I stated and proved the following:

If God cannot actualize a contradiction then he cannot be omniscient.

Oncedeceived · May 4, 2016

Nihilist Virus said:
I think you mean "NOT (X and not X)".

In any case, no, it cannot be proven; it must be asserted as an axiom. We prove things from the axioms. There is nothing to use to prove axioms unless you're fine with circular logic.

Firstly, the system is not finite.

Secondly, I never said he is part of the system. I stated and proved the following:

If God cannot actualize a contradiction then he cannot be omniscient.

What power is used to actualize a contradiction?

Nihilist Virus · May 5, 2016

Oncedeceived said:
What power is used to actualize a contradiction?

I don't know. What power is used to create the universe?

Oncedeceived · May 5, 2016

Nihilist Virus said:
I don't know. What power is used to create the universe?

The universe is a contradiction?

Nihilist Virus · May 5, 2016

Oncedeceived said:
The universe is a contradiction?

I never suggested that or implied it. You are confused and this is pointless.

Oncedeceived · May 5, 2016

Nihilist Virus said:
I never suggested that or implied it. You are confused and this is pointless.

Ok, so why did you say what power was used to create the universe when we were speaking of contradictions?

Nihilist Virus · May 5, 2016

Oncedeceived said:
Ok, so why did you say what power was used to create the universe when we were speaking of contradictions?

You twisted my words, suggesting I implied that the universe is a contradiction. I cannot fathom anything more nonsensical.

But it is a contradiction for God to have caused the universe. I've proven this to you on post #173. Even if you completely disagree, I don't know why you are ignorant of my position when I've spelled it out to you explicitly.

Oncedeceived · May 6, 2016

Nihilist Virus said:
You twisted my words, suggesting I implied that the universe is a contradiction. I cannot fathom anything more nonsensical.

But it is a contradiction for God to have caused the universe. I've proven this to you on post #173. Even if you completely disagree, I don't know why you are ignorant of my position when I've spelled it out to you explicitly.

You proved nothing in #173. I am not ignorant of your position and when I "spelled it back to you" you didn't make any reference to it being incorrect.

Godel's ontological argument has been put to the test by two scientists the names and the models they used are in the following link. Here is their argument:

Axiom A1 Either a property or its negation is positive, but not both...Math included in the PDF of the article

Axiom A2 A property necessarily implied by a positive property is positive

Thm T1 Postive properties are possibly exemplified
Def D1 A God-like being possesses all positive properties

Axiom A 3 The property of being God-like is positive
Cor C Possibly, God exists.

Axiom A 4 Positive properties are necessarily positive
Def D2 An essence of an individual is a property possessed by it and necessarily implying any of its properties
Thm T2 Being God-like is an essence of any God-like Being
Def D3 Necessary existence of an individual is the necessary exemplification of all its essences

Axiom A 5 Necessary existence is a positive property
Thm T3 Necessarily, God exists

http://page.mi.fu-berlin.de/cbenzmu...wser.local.php?frameset&bib=chris.bib&type=.*

Thus, The property of God is positive and an essence of God is God-like which can only be positive which refutes the idea that God would be limited negatively by anything nor would any of His positive essence be negated as they are necessary.

Nihilist Virus · May 6, 2016

Oncedeceived said:
You proved nothing in #173.

Until you address the argument, I have.

I am not ignorant of your position

Then why were you just now confused and asking if I believe the universe being caused necessarily entails a contradiction? You asked this:

Ok, so why did you say what power was used to create the universe when we were speaking of contradictions?
and when I "spelled it back to you" you didn't make any reference to it being incorrect.

In your defense there's a technicality working on your side. God indeed could've created the universe. But I have explained with absolute certainty that the mechanism by which he did so necessarily was either acausal (not involving causality) or else he invoked causality at the expense of violating logic.

But I do believe that you mean for "create" and "cause" to be the same thing (at least in this context), and I believe your position is that God cannot violate logic, so your argument that God created the universe is 100% falsified given the assumptions you cling to. In fact, your argument is not only false, it's incoherent.

Regardless, though, you're not only failing to follow the logic I'm using but you're not even able to remember my basic position, as shown by the fact that you ask for clarification on something that was spelled out explicitly in bold letters a hundred posts ago. Even the proof was given in colored font, so I don't know how you missed it.

By the way, with regard to this part:

and when I "spelled it back to you" you didn't make any reference to it being incorrect.

Again you're wrong. You attempted to summarize my argument in post #200, and I certainly made a reference to it being incorrect in post #202.

Godel's ontological argument has been put to the test by two scientists the names and the models they used are in the following link. Here is their argument:

I'm going to stop you right here because you're embarrassing yourself. You looked up Gödel's Ontological Argument. I'm referring to his Incompleteness Theorem. They're as related as Pascal's Wager and Pascal's Triangle.

If you really did mean to drive us off topic by throwing an unrelated "proof" at me and this "proof" just so happened to be authored by the obscure person I was referencing, then fine, I'll refute that terrible "proof." Otherwise I'm chalking this up to being another case of you not paying attention.

Chriliman · May 8, 2016

Nicholas Deka said:
You're limiting God by saying he can only teach us through pain. I say God can teach us even in pure bliss.

God uses pleasure to teach as well.

When God's children experience the pure bliss of heaven on earth, it will be because God has finished teaching His creation how to obey what is right and good. We will then only do what is right and good forever into the future, thanks to God.

Moral Orel · May 8, 2016

Chriliman said:
God uses pleasure to teach as well.

When God's children experience the pure bliss of heaven on earth, it will be because God has finished teaching His creation how to obey what is right and good. We will then only do what is right and good forever into the future, thanks to God.

Notice I said "pure bliss" however, not just some pleasure. I mean all pleasure. Now either God is constrained to the use of pain in teaching, or it is merely His preferred teaching style. Either He must use pain to teach us, or He wants to use pain to teach us. So, relatively, He is either not omnipotent, or not omni-benevolent.

Chriliman · May 8, 2016

Nicholas Deka said:
Now either God is constrained to the use of pain in teaching, or it is merely His preferred teaching style. Either He must use pain to teach us, or He wants to use pain to teach us. So, relatively, He is either not omnipotent, or not omni-benevolent.

We previously established that all things are possible with God. His power is not limited, but our understanding of His power is limited because our understanding has a beginning and is constrained to time, but His is not. He teaches us to not rely on our own understanding, I often am reminded of that scripture and it's because I do tend to rely on my own understanding, instead of trusting in Him, it's a good reminder.

God is infinitely loving, but we can limit our experience of His love by resisting it.

When you make the positive claim that God is either not omnipotent, or not omni-benevolent based on your limited understanding of God, the burden of proof lies on you, but when I make the positive claim that God is omnipotent and omni-benevolent, the burden of proof lies on God and clearly He has proven Himself to many individuals, obviously you don't consider it proof and that's fine.

Even though God proves Himself, we still require faith because we still can't fully understand His almighty power and the nuances of how His power affects our lives, but we know He has good plans for those who trust in Him.

Moral Orel · May 8, 2016

Chriliman said:
When you make the positive claim that God is either not omnipotent, or not omni-benevolent based on your limited understanding of God, the burden of proof lies on you

So God can inflict unnecessary pain and suffering on us, and still be omni-benevolent? Inflicting pain and suffering because you want to and not because you need to doesn't prove that you are not infinitely good and loving? There's no conflict between being infinitely good and having a desire to inflict pain and suffering?

Chriliman · May 9, 2016

Nicholas Deka said:
So God can inflict unnecessary pain and suffering on us, and still be omni-benevolent? Inflicting pain and suffering because you want to and not because you need to doesn't prove that you are not infinitely good and loving? There's no conflict between being infinitely good and having a desire to inflict pain and suffering?

Pain is a direct result of sin. God cannot sin, therefore God did not directly cause pain. God overcame pain and sin and death by subjecting a part of Himself(his son) to it. He did this in order to redeem His creation and save it from the distructive results of sin. If He didn't do this, then no one except Himself would be free from sin and no one would get to enjoy the riches of His mercy and love. Our God is not a selfish God, He wants to create and give life, even if that means He has to sacrifice a part of himself.

Moral Orel · May 9, 2016

Chriliman said:
Pain is a direct result of sin. God cannot sin, therefore God did not directly cause pain. God overcame pain and sin and death by subjecting a part of Himself(his son) to it. He did this in order to redeem His creation and save it from the distructive results of sin. If He didn't do this, then no one except Himself would be free from sin and no one would get to enjoy the riches of His mercy and love. Our God is not a selfish God, He wants to create and give life, even if that means He has to sacrifice a part of himself.

Well then, we need to go back to the beginning of this and ponder over whether God is really omnipotent then.

Is God capable of creating a universe in which pain and sin do not exist, never will exist, and yet all created creatures know everything necessary are programmed in every necessary way to be benevolent to each other, themselves, and God?

I know what you're thinking: that it would require taking away free will. But here's the thing. God has free will, and is incapable of sin, so we can still have free will, but be incapable of sin.

So God could create a universe filled with more creatures that are omnipotent, omniscient, and omni-benevolent, and still retain free will.

If existence "before" God created everything else besides himself was perfect because it only contained God who is omnipotent, omniscient, and omni-benevolent, then creating a creature that will inevitably do evil makes existence less than perfect, which is directly causing pain, and suffering, and sin since none of that would exist without Him creating it and knowing that it would happen.

Hawkins · May 9, 2016

We won't sin in Heaven because whoever will sin has already been removed during the earthly period of time.

God knows who is who from the very beginning, that's before the creation. He will bring the chosen with Him to heaven under open witnessing for the said standard. Christians are predestined to show who they are thus brought to Heaven legitimately.

Will we sin when we get to heaven?

Will we sin when we get to heaven?

Yes.

No.

Infectious idea

Dragonsworn

Infectious idea

Senior Veteran

Infectious idea

Senior Veteran

Infectious idea

Senior Veteran

Infectious idea

Senior Veteran

Infectious idea

Senior Veteran

Infectious idea

Everything I need to be joyful is right here

Proud Citizen of Moralton

Everything I need to be joyful is right here

Proud Citizen of Moralton

Everything I need to be joyful is right here

Proud Citizen of Moralton

Member

Similar threads