Appeal to Motive and the presumed selfishness of God

[Moral Orel]

So, if you have problems with people burning forever in hell... First of all, it's not even a viable literal reading of Biblical narrative. But secondly, why would you insist that it should be literal and argue against as such... When I clearly don't present it to be as such?

My mistake. I missed this the first time through your post, and that would be the pertinent detail:

followed by death

Of course, an eternal Hell is so common of a belief, Christians aren't even allowed to argue for annihilation on this site. I've seen 2PhiloVoid make mention of that a few times.

Now, as I said, It was my mistake for not reading your post clearly enough. But I don't insist that Hell is literal or eternal. I wouldn't know, as an unbeliever. The best I can do is say, "Well, couldn't it be...". If a Christian argues that it is, I go with that in that conversation. If a Christian argues that it isn't, I go with that in that conversation. I mistook you for the former, so I went the wrong way.

 

[devolved]

Of course, an eternal Hell is so common of a belief, Christians aren't even allowed to argue for annihilation on this site. I've seen 2PhiloVoid make mention of that a few times.

That would be very strange indeed if that was the case, but doesn't surprise me a bit . I have a theology minor and for one of the classes I wrote a paper defending anihilationism. The professor put a big X across it and wrote "heresy" and made me rewrite the paper. I found and sourced more references and invited him to either apply for Papacy or adequately critique his position on basis of Biblical narrative. He left me alone after that. . So it's a very much defensible position at the academic level of Christian circles.

But my views on the subject diverged so much from modern institutionalized Christianity that I stopped labeling myself a Christian. I saw Jesus closer to a 1st century cynic than modern churchgoer or a pastor. But I don't really fit that mold either.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

I was already making an analogy to a machine, and you doubled down and made an analogy to an inanimate object. Programming is just an analogy to His nature. Assuming He didn't have a designer, there is no "beyond" in question. See, it seems like the significant part of being human is choosing our nature, or at least choosing to have God change our nature to something better, however you want to look at it. But God didn't choose His nature, and He is incapable of choosing to change it. I could go out and murder a bunch of people and that would certainly change my nature from the generally upbeat chap that I usually am. But God can't choose to do anything other than the "perfect" choice. If it doesn't matter that God can't change His nature, then what's the point in us having a nature we can choose to change?

Think of this. If God is love, could He choose to just stop loving you? If He can't choose to not love you, did He really choose to love you? And if He didn't choose to love you, is it really love? Isn't He only doing what He must do? I don't think the lack of a creator makes for any sort of meaningful distinction from a machine if this is the case.

As I said, I don't think the concept of Free Will has much applicability to God. You are merely talking of certain problems such application brings. Put it another way: If I like Coke, but hate all other soft drinks, so that inevitably I always order a Coke - am I not utilising my own free will to do so, based on my taste (or my Nature)? Even if the consequence is always predictable? I refer you back to post 47. Why choose a choice that is not Perfect, if you know the Perfect one? This is as if doing Mathematics - I am still utilising my will when doing the sum correctly, even if following preset methods when doing so; though I could choose not to, but then the sum would not give the right answer to my computations and I would be aware of such a deficiency.

What God chooses Is. Simple. I AM that I AM.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

I believe this whole discussion on Hell is off topic here, with little to no applicability to the thread.

Fact is though, that if a being is given free will, inevitably some would choose to reject the deity doing so, even given infinity to do so in. To remove that free will would be tyrannical. To not choose God, when God is the fount of Joy, is Hell. Some Orthodox believe Heaven and Hell are in essence the same, just that one is experienced as bliss by those in communion with the Godhead, and the others as torture from their rejection thereof. It is misapplied desire, losing the forest for the trees. I think the parables of the Vineyard workers and Vineyard Tenants applicable here. The Landlord sets the rent, and failing to pay will result in it being taken away, God being the fount and sustainer of existence as well, mind you.

I don't see how any of this applies to the fallacy of a perfect God being inactive. This is simply an evasion tactic, shifting onto the sands of Universalism vs Annihilationism vs Eternal Punishment, for which we can debate the relative merits, but not make an abductive decision on.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I'm a big fan of sic-fi, and I honestly think we'll make sentient robots someday, but our interactions with the likes of Siri and gang are nothing more than button pushes with our voice right now. Folks aren't "relating" to them any more than I relate to my XFinity remote from Comcast. "Change the channel to Rick and Morty".

I'm a big fan of Sci-Fi as well, but excuse me if I don't go all "Vanilla Sky" over the prospects to which you allude here. I have more of a Bill Joy rather than Ray Kurzweil mindset on the "sentient robot" stuff. Moreover, I'm also a big fan of Christian Theology, so again, please excuse me if I don't get all Matrix-y about the ways in which we might surmise what God is or could be in His actual essence. As an existentialist, I'm more or less under the impression that we've been placed into a scenario which enables our Mobile Will, even if it isn't politically or physically free in all respects. Let's call it, 'the Bounded Will.'

As for God wanting to relate to us, I leave that up to you Christians to tell me, and I'll have to compartmentalize who's opinion belongs to who. Things get even more complicated when you consider the Trinity and you have differing opinions about which member of the Trinity wants a relationship, if not all of them. As an unbeliever, I certainly won't get it right, as I'm constantly reminded.

I can't tell you much about 'relating' to God since I'm not one who worships or prays in conversational style...so you probably shouldn't look to me for answers about what 'relating' with God could or should look like. If anything, it's more like heading outside into the fresh air and becoming acutely aware that sun-screen should be immediately applied.

Of course, my questions would apply to Jesus too, since He's supposed to be perfect as well.

Your questions are everyone's questions, Nick!

 

[InterestedAtheist]

Yes, you are correct, partially. As for the existence of a "literal" hell, I am under the general impression that there has been some form of less than desirable 'holding place' for the those who were (maybe are) the dearly departed, and we call that place, or a portion of that place, depending on which combination of theologians one ends up hearing from, HADES.

In other words, you don't know. This is perfectly understandable, since, really, what have you got to go on? What possible evidence is there about what happens after you're dead? On the other hand, this certainly seems to be a reversal of your previous confidence about being able to explain everything.

And if HADES is still in operation today behind the metaphysical veil, then my own hermeneutical conclusions lead me to believe that it will be done away with, along with that other very literary personage we all know as -- DEATH! As for some eternally churning, burning conflagration fit for bunch of red devils, no, I'm afraid I'm not very convinced that this idea is a bona-fide interpretation. So, at least on that final point, we have some agreement.

Well, since you've admitted you don't know, I'm not inclined to give "your own hermeneutical conclusions" much weight.

Yes. I am referring to the rules. Since I'm an Annihilationist, I cannot sit here and dispense to you my hermeneutical prowess and offer you ALL of the highways and byways of my step by step thinking in this regard. At least not here.

Well. That is unfortunate indeed.

It might also be said that the Critical Hermeneutics involved in reading the Bible is more or less the same that is to be applied to the reading of any work of literature, whether it be fiction or non-fiction. It's not as if Christians invented the notion of applying ones rational capacities for the application of hermeneutics anyway. Of course, I'm sure you already new that being the intellectual chap that I see you are.

I think neither of us is an intellectual, but one of us is labouring under the disadvantage of being forced to defend ancient myths as being facts, without any evidence at all to go on.

I'm quite sure that's the case. The public, in fact, more often than not, doesn't consistently take much in the way of any fuller or deeper levels of rational evaluation of the world seriously ... No, they tend to ignore scientist, philosophers, as well as various theologians.

I wasn't referring to the public. I was referring to the scientists, philosophers and other people who spend their time thinking about serious things, which certainly does not include Christians' quaint ideas about the beginning of the universe or what happens after death.

Oh, you don't know my position, do you? I would never say that a person has to know Hebrew or Greek or spend a number of years studying theology to dismiss Bronze-age stories. No, many people dismiss the Bible specifically, with competency or no competency, and more often for sheer emotional reason than anything. And there could very well be several reasons for this---Metaphysical and epistemological reasons, but we wouldn't have to get into those now since I'm not sure you find anything related to the Bible to be credible to begin with. However, despite that, I'm sure we can say together that we both just love that little word 'reason'! It's such a helpful apparatus of the mind ...

Trust me, most atheists you will find on these forums have spent a considerable amount of time thinking about Christianity and weighing its evidence. You will often find that they were once Christians themselves, but gave it up because they couldn't continue to believe the things that Christianity was saying. Myself, my feelings about Christianity tend to be of amusement, annoyance and concern for its effect on the world. I certainly don't hate God. Why would I bother?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

In other words, you don't know. This is perfectly understandable, since, really, what have you got to go on? What possible evidence is there about what happens after you're dead? On the other hand, this certainly seems to be a reversal of your previous confidence about being able to explain everything.

I wouldn't say that I don't "know" as much as I acknowledge the fact that an obvious difference exists between our respective approaches and understandings of the various philosophical enterprises. Of course, that is to be expected.

Regardless, if there's one thing I am very confident of it's that I don't claim to be able to explain everything. If I could, I wouldn't be human and stuck with you in an existential quagmire, now would I?

Well, since you've admitted you don't know, I'm not inclined to give "your own hermeneutical conclusions" much weight.

Oh, so you think that it's ok to cut off the branch upon which you sit? Good luck with that in your life!

Well. That is unfortunate indeed.

Yes, it is unfortunate. Most unfortunate!

I think neither of us is an intellectual, but one of us is labouring under the disadvantage of being forced to defend ancient myths as being facts, without any evidence at all to go on.

I'll just have to go "Kirk" on this mutual standoff we're having as we both plod along in Undiscovered Country.

I wasn't referring to the public. I was referring to the scientists, philosophers and other people who spend their time thinking about serious things, which certainly does not include Christians' quaint ideas about the beginning of the universe or what happens after death.

Oh no, them, too! Shall we test the extent to which your hypothesis holds water? I do so love reading (and deconstructing) atheist literature. I find it to be...invigorating. Much better than reading the typical Christian Apologetics.

Trust me, most atheists you will find on these forums have spent a considerable amount of time thinking about Christianity and weighing its evidence. You will often find that they were once Christians themselves, but gave it up because they couldn't continue to believe the things that Christianity was saying. Myself, my feelings about Christianity tend to be of amusement, annoyance and concern for its effect on the world. I certainly don't hate God. Why would I bother?

Oh, I've been around enough to fully realize the nature of the 'atheistic' notions that are commonly bandied about, whether here or elsewhere. If it doesn't annoy you too much, I'll leave it to you to figure out why.

 

[Moral Orel]

As I said, I don't think the concept of Free Will has much applicability to God. You are merely talking of certain problems such application brings. Put it another way: If I like Coke, but hate all other soft drinks, so that inevitably I always order a Coke - am I not utilising my own free will to do so, based on my taste (or my Nature)? Even if the consequence is always predictable? I refer you back to post 47. Why choose a choice that is not Perfect, if you know the Perfect one? This is as if doing Mathematics - I am still utilising my will when doing the sum correctly, even if following preset methods when doing so; though I could choose not to, but then the sum would not give the right answer to my computations and I would be aware of such a deficiency.

What God chooses Is. Simple. I AM that I AM.

Fact is though, that if a being is given free will, inevitably some would choose to reject the deity doing so, even given infinity to do so in. To remove that free will would be tyrannical. To not choose God, when God is the fount of Joy, is Hell. Some Orthodox believe Heaven and Hell are in essence the same, just that one is experienced as bliss by those in communion with the Godhead, and the others as torture from their rejection thereof. It is misapplied desire, losing the forest for the trees. I think the parables of the Vineyard workers and Vineyard Tenants applicable here. The Landlord sets the rent, and failing to pay will result in it being taken away, God being the fount and sustainer of existence as well, mind you.

I don't see how any of this applies to the fallacy of a perfect God being inactive. This is simply an evasion tactic, shifting onto the sands of Universalism vs Annihilationism vs Eternal Punishment, for which we can debate the relative merits, but not make an abductive decision on.

I find these two posts to be in contradiction to one another.

 

[zippy2006]

The problem is, if you're a Christian you believe that God is loving and the presence of hell in theology forces you to reconcile this in some way.

Recent article on topic from Christopher Hitchens' nephew: Making Sense of Hell | Dan Hitchens

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

I find these two posts to be in contradiction to one another.

Feel free to expand, as I do not. I could then clarify where you believe a contradiction lies. I see no contradiction in a perfect being allowing imperfect beings free will, knowing the end result to be desirable.

 

[Moral Orel]

Feel free to expand, as I do not. I could then clarify where you believe a contradiction lies. I see no contradiction in a perfect being allowing imperfect beings free will, knowing the end result to be desirable.

If folks have free will, then you say inevitably some folks would make the wrong choice, but you also say that if you only like the right choice, and you hate all the wrong choices, then you are still using free will to make the right choice, even if you make it 100% of the time, predictably. So you're saying that it's possible to make the right choice 100% of the time and that choice be a free one, yet if given a free choice someone making the wrong choice will happen 100% guaranteed no matter what.

Whether the end result is good or bad isn't the question. I'm just talking about what must necessarily follow from a being given a free choice.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

If folks have free will, then you say inevitably some folks would make the wrong choice, but you also say that if you only like the right choice, and you hate all the wrong choices, then you are still using free will to make the right choice, even if you make it 100% of the time, predictably. So you're saying that it's possible to make the right choice 100% of the time and that choice be a free one, yet if given a free choice someone making the wrong choice will happen 100% guaranteed no matter what.

Whether the end result is good or bad isn't the question. I'm just talking about what must necessarily follow from a being given a free choice.

Yes? You could freely make the right choice if you had full information on the consequences and sequelae of it, but that is certainly not possible for humanity. So inevitably imperfect choices would occur, but that limitation does not apply to God. That is the whole point of the Fall, and Sin begets Sin. Further, humans cannot merely choose according to our Natures what we prefer, for we are beholden to the Moral Law of God. God however, is the standard of the Moral Law, the Good, so there is no incongruence.

When humans fail to adhere to God, that choice is imperfect, but the result of our imperfect knowledge and our fallen nature. The man Jesus of Nazareth could freely choose 100% perfectly, according to Christians - and via being in-Christ, we other humans could one day do so as well, through Christ flowing through us (what Influence in the Moral Influence atonement really means). I hope this clarifies, but I fail to see the contradiction. God determined this whole play was worthwhile we find ourselves in, to create sons of God. It is not that everyone would make an incorrect choice, but someone would - and the knock-on effect of one sin is to beget others and to muddy our moral decision making in entirety, as in Adam eating after Eve. It alters the playing field as it were.

 

[InterestedAtheist]

I wouldn't say that I don't "know" as much as I acknowledge the fact that an obvious difference exists between our respective approaches and understandings of the various philosophical enterprises. Of course, that is to be expected.

No, you basically admitted that you don't really know what you're talking about. Congratulations on your honesty.

Regardless, if there's one thing I am very confident of it's that I don't claim to be able to explain everything. If I could, I wouldn't be human and stuck with you in an existential quagmire, now would I?

So far you haven't been able to explain anything.

Oh, so you think that it's ok to cut off the branch upon which you sit? Good luck with that in your life!

I think I'll be able to manage without the benefit of your hermeneutical understandings.

I'll just have to go "Kirk" on this mutual standoff we're having as we both plod along in Undiscovered Country.

Um. Yes? If that means your conversation so far had consisted on telling people wrong while being unable to explain why, I'll admit it's not been very fruitful.

Oh no, them, too! Shall we test the extent to which your hypothesis holds water? I do so love reading (and deconstructing) atheist literature. I find it to be...invigorating. Much better than reading the typical Christian Apologetics.

I agree, for different reasons. But you've made a mistake. I pointed out that the musings of apologists and theologians are of no interest at all to anyone who'se not already an apologist or theologian. Feel free to prove me wrong by pointing to ways in which the scientific community takes Christian ideas on the afterlife seriously.

Oh, I've been around enough to fully realize the nature of the 'atheistic' notions that are commonly bandied about, whether here or elsewhere. If it doesn't annoy you too much, I'll leave it to you to figure out why.

(Shrug) If that was your way of saying goodbye, then goodbye.

 

[InterestedAtheist]

Recent article on topic from Christopher Hitchens' nephew: Making Sense of Hell | Dan Hitchens

First of all, the most interesting thing about this person is undoubtedly that he's Christopher Hitchens' nephew. Apart from that, his views are nothing special.
Still, he does do a reasonable job of setting out the some conclusions, although not in a way that does any credit to Christians. Basically, his case is:
1. Yes, hell does sound horrible, doesn't it?
2. But you must be strong. Just because the thought of hell makes you feel bad, that doesn't mean you have the right to criticise God. Sinners do go to hell, and they should go to hell.
3. Any attempts to argue against this fail for the many reasons detailed in the article.

It's this third point that I actually find interesting. As usual, it illustrates the bind that Christians find themselves in when contemplating hell. On the one hand, yes, the Bible does clearly teach that people do go to hell, and so does everything that any Christian of note has ever said on the subject for the last two thousand years (Dan Hitchens, being a Catholic, takes this seriously).
On the other hand, obviously nobody does deserve to go to a place of eternal, conscious torment. A God who decreed that must be evil. Dan Hitchens tries to wriggle out of this by describing how absolutely terrible sin and sinning is, but it's not convincing.

I was wondering if anyone on Christian Forums could do a better job. You might say, I was an Interested Atheist. Anyone willing to step up and defend the Bible?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

No, you basically admitted that you don't really know what you're talking about. Congratulations on your honesty.

I admitted to such thing. However, I can admit that you have your own critical evaluation of what I'm saying, which in the world of Philosophical Hermeneutics, is to be expected. So, let's just say, I've been expecting you.

So far you haven't been able to explain anything.

Yeah? Of course not? It's kind of hard to wield the ax when one of my hands is tied behind by back. But I'm sure I'll manage in other ways. There's always the deconstruction of the atheist's position rather than the defense of the Bible; and that is one of my favorite things to do.

I think I'll be able to manage without the benefit of your hermeneutical understandings.

Oh, I'm sure you'll think you're managing, but you'll do so with a blind eye to the underlying actualities (or axioms?) that belie your own position, all the while asserting them as if they're perfectly cogent and without question. I can assure you they're not.

Um. Yes? If that means your conversation so far had consisted on telling people wrong while being unable to explain why, I'll admit it's not been very fruitful.

For the most part, what has transpired between you and I, this little spar we have going on here, has barely scratched the surface, DisinterestedAtheist.

I agree, for different reasons. But you've made a mistake. I pointed out that the musings of apologists and theologians are of no interest at all to anyone who'se not already an apologist or theologian.

Sure, I actually agree with this to some extent, which is an example of my remaining in line with the likes of Pascal, Kierkegaard, and the Biblical writers. It's not my fault if some of my fellow Christians choose, or can't, decipher the epistemological contours of their own book.

Feel free to prove me wrong by pointing to ways in which the scientific community takes Christian ideas on the afterlife seriously.

Why would the scientific community take Christian ideas of the afterlife (specifically the biblical notions of Heaven or Hades, seriously)? That doesn't make sense. Besides, as far as science goes, I'm in agreements with mainline scientists, those like Eugenie C. Scott, who adhere to Methodological Naturalism-----hence, we shouldn't expect to be able to put God in a testtube or under a microscope. So please know, you may want to refrain from identifying me with those fellow Christians of mine who advocate for Intelligent Design, because I'm all about Evolution, however theistically tinged.

(Shrug) If that was your way of saying goodbye, then goodbye.

Goodbye? Who said anything about 'goodbye'? Why would you apply a hermeneutic involving cynicism about me in that way? If there is one fact you may want to know about me, it's that I NEVER place anyone here on ignore.

 

[InterestedAtheist]

I admitted to such thing. However, I can admit that you have your own critical evaluation of what I'm saying, which in the world of Philosophical Hermeneutics, is to be expected. So, let's just say, I've been expecting you.

You admitted it to it when you said that you were "under the general impression" that there was "some form of" less desirable place for those who "were (or maybe are)" dead. In other words, this is nothing but your own impressions and feelings - and, frankly, who cares about that?

Yeah? Of course not? It's kind of hard to wield the ax when one of my hands is tied behind by back. But I'm sure I'll manage in other ways. There's always the deconstruction of the atheist's position rather than the defense of the Bible; and that is one of my favorite things to do.

Hmmm. I think you might be doing it wrong.
Let me save you some trouble.
The atheist's position is: "So, you say there is a being called "God"? What evidence do you have that He exists?"

Oh, I'm sure you'll think you're managing, but you'll do so with a blind eye to the underlying actualities (or axioms?) that belie your own position, all the while asserting them as if they're perfectly cogent and without question. I can assure you they're not.

I just kind of ignore these bits, honestly. I'm not interested in your posturing, I'm interested in your arguments and evidence.

For the most part, what has transpired between you and I, this little spar we have going on here, has barely scratched the surface, DisinterestedAtheist.

I think I ought to let you know that I consider making fun of people's names to be impolite. I'm sure you didn't mean to do that, but if you do it again I shall end the conversation.

Sure, I actually agree with this to some extent, which is an example of my remaining in line with the likes of Pascal, Kierkegaard, and the Biblical writers. It's not my fault if some of my fellow Christians choose, or can't, decipher the epistemological contours of their own book.

Your high opinion of yourself does actually have some amusement value. Not much value apart from that, though.

Why would the scientific community take Christian ideas of the afterlife (specifically the biblical notions of Heaven or Hades, seriously)? That doesn't make sense. Besides, as far as science goes, I'm in agreements with mainline scientists, those like Eugenie C. Scott, who adhere to Methodological Naturalism-----hence, we shouldn't expect to be able to put God in a testtube or under a microscope. So please know, you may want to refrain from identifying me with those fellow Christians of mine who advocate for Intelligent Design, because I'm all about Evolution, however theistically tinged.

I rather assumed you were, and good for you. To answer your first point - you're right. Why would the scientific community take Christians' ideas about the afterlife seriously? they're entirely lacking in any logic, reason or evidence. Perhaps you can tell me - what ideas that Christians hold does the scientific community take seriously? Any?

Goodbye? Who said anything about 'goodbye'? Why would you apply a hermeneutic involving cynicism about me in that way? If there is one fact you may want to know about me, it's that I NEVER place anyone here on ignore.

That does you credit. When you said "Oh, I've been around enough to fully realize the nature of the 'atheistic' notions that are commonly bandied about, whether here or elsewhere. If it doesn't annoy you too much, I'll leave it to you to figure out why" I didn't really understand you, to be honest, but I thought the last part might have been you telling me you'd talked long enough. Apologies for my mistake.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

You admitted it to it when you said that you were "under the general impression" that there was "some form of" less desirable place for those who "were (or maybe are)" dead. In other words, this is nothing but your own impressions and feelings - and, frankly, who cares about that?


Hmmm. I think you might be doing it wrong.
Let me save you some trouble.
The atheist's position is: "So, you say there is a being called "God"? What evidence do you have that He exists?"


I just kind of ignore these bits, honestly. I'm not interested in your posturing, I'm interested in your arguments and evidence.


I think I ought to let you know that I consider making fun of people's names to be impolite. I'm sure you didn't mean to do that, but if you do it again I shall end the conversation.


Your high opinion of yourself does actually have some amusement value. Not much value apart from that, though.


I rather assumed you were, and good for you. To answer your first point - you're right. Why would the scientific community take Christians' ideas about the afterlife seriously? they're entirely lacking in any logic, reason or evidence. Perhaps you can tell me - what ideas that Christians hold does the scientific community take seriously? Any?


That does you credit. When you said "Oh, I've been around enough to fully realize the nature of the 'atheistic' notions that are commonly bandied about, whether here or elsewhere. If it doesn't annoy you too much, I'll leave it to you to figure out why" I didn't really understand you, to be honest, but I thought the last part might have been you telling me you'd talked long enough. Apologies for my mistake.

I can see that you and @Nihilist Virus are going to be good friends ..................

 

[InterestedAtheist]

I can see that you and @Nihilist Virus are going to be good friends ..................

That's nice : )

 

[durangodawood]

...But why would you reify it in the first place? .....

Thats how the religion has been delivered to us over millenia.

The reification of hell, heaven, the resurrection, are all part of the religion.

 

[InterestedAtheist]

I can see that you and @Nihilist Virus are going to be good friends ..................

By the way, since we're now arguing about the same things on two different threads, perhaps we should just move our discussion to one of them? The other one?

Anyway, goodnight now!