Argument for God's existence.

[gaara4158]

I have been using other ways to support the cosmological argument, not the kalam. Interesting.

Well, your opening statement borrows heavily from it.

 

[createdtoworship]

I don't think that eternal punishment is an actual thing. I spent most of my early time on the bible focused on what it says about how we should live, only later starting to take a closer look at it one bit at a time, and I haven't got to that topic yet in any detail. What I have found is that much of what is expressed is conceptual and incomplete, more of a framework than a comprehensive point by point, categorical description of the ideas it contains. There's an lot of empty space, as in Abraham's story, for example.

that would be unorthodox. Souls have no mass and live forever. So it's the same soul that lives forever in heaven, so your saying that one can live eternally in heaven yet annihilate in hell? Why would a soul cease to exist in one extreme but not the other?

 

[createdtoworship]

Well, your opening statement borrows heavily from it.

That is my version of the cosmological argument (interesting it is similar to kalam), but you initially said we talked about entropy, and we did not. Maybe you are confusing this with some of your other debates.

 

[Tom 1]

that would be unorthodox. Souls have no mass and live forever. So it's the same soul that lives forever in heaven, so your saying that one can live eternally in heaven yet annihilate in hell? Why would a soul cease to exist in one extreme but not the other?

I'm saying it's hard to actually get those ideas from the bible, or confirm them in the bible, once you move past one or two regularly quoted scriptures. In my experience few reguarly held beliefs beyond the very basics have any kind of consistent or watertight scriptural support.

 

[createdtoworship]

I'm a former Christian of over thirty years, I get it. A non-eternal hell is relatively new within American evangelical Christianity.

the church fathers all believed in eternal hell. Yes, it is a new thing. We should read the Bible and trust that what it says, it was meant by God to say. Not twist the Bible to mean other things because it is not popular among some people. That is a band wagon fallacy, or fallacy of popularity.

 

[createdtoworship]

I'm saying it's hard to actually get those ideas from the bible, or confirm them in the bible, once you move past one or two regularly quoted scriptures. In my experience few reguarly held beliefs beyond the very basics have any kind of consistent or watertight scriptural support.

oh, it's very well established. But I have a thread on it, I would ask that you continue this discussion there. Eternal Conscious Hell Fire is completely Justified

 

[createdtoworship]

What seems clear, in translation and from a modern mindset, quickly becomes unclear once you start taking a more thorough look at it, then becomes clearer again, albeit different, once you have spent the time to study the language used and what it meant to people at the time, and what it means in relation to other relevant material.

Oh the language is very clear too, but again I ask that you continue this discussion here:

Eternal Conscious Hell Fire is completely Justified

 

[createdtoworship]

I'm a former Christian of over thirty years, I get it. A non-eternal hell is relatively new within American evangelical Christianity.

Scripture is pretty clear, if you dont believe the story, you are in trouble.

Now, as time has gone on and many christians have not been able to reconcile this god who loves all, with this thought of punishing if you dont fall in line, has caused some christians, to ignore for morality reasons.

I have long said, any theology, that condems 2/3 of the worlds population for believing the wrong theology or not believing at all, is a morally bankrupt theology.

I have asked people to continue this discussion on the proper thread:

Eternal Conscious Hell Fire is completely Justified

and not to post off topic here anymore.

thank you for respecting the fact we are keeping things on topic here.

 

[Tom 1]

Oh the language is very clear too, but again I ask that you continue this discussion here:

Eternal Conscious Hell Fire is completely Justified

I'll get into it another time, I don't have the time for it now.

 

[HitchSlap]

the church fathers all believed in eternal hell. Yes, it is a new thing. We should read the Bible and trust that what it says, it was meant by God to say. Not twist the Bible to mean other things because it is not popular among some people. That is a band wagon fallacy, or fallacy of popularity.

You're preachin' to the choir.

 

[Tom 1]

That is a band wagon fallacy, or fallacy of popularity.

It's the other way round, I would say. A lot of people love the fire and brimstone stuff.

 

[gaara4158]

That is my version of the cosmological argument (interesting it is similar to kalam), but you initially said we talked about entropy, and we did not. Maybe you are confusing this with some of your other debates.

We didn’t talk about entropy specifically, but both your opening argument and the later-surfacing entropy argument were being used as springboards into very kalam-like arguments.

 

[gaara4158]

I have asked people to continue this discussion on the proper thread:

Eternal Conscious Hell Fire is completely Justified

and not to post off topic here anymore.

thank you for respecting the fact we are keeping things on topic here.

Atheists aren’t allowed to post there, just so you know.

 

[createdtoworship]

It's the other way round, I would say. A lot of people love the fire and brimstone stuff.

I don't know of anyone, first hand that loves the idea that people will burn in hell forever. It would be sort of morbid for a human to think so. The bible strictly condemns not to rejoice when someone fails. Proverbs 24:17. If someone does think hell is a funny thing, they are in sin.

 

[createdtoworship]

Atheists aren’t allowed to post there, just so you know.

I will create one in outreach.

 

[Tom 1]

I don't know of anyone, first hand that loves the idea that people will burn in hell forever. It would be sort of morbid for a human to think so. The bible strictly condemns not to rejoice when someone fails. Proverbs 24:17. If someone does think hell is a funny thing, they are in sin.

It’s not so simple as that maybe - people ‘loving it’ - but there are plenty of people who embrace and approve of the idea. What people feel about it, well it’s hard to say.

 

[createdtoworship]

I created a new thread for this, so atheists can respond.

Eternal Conscious Hell Fire is completely Justified

 

[createdtoworship]

Yes, not old In Christianity/Judaism as a whole though, as in there isn’t a coherent idea that matches all of the references to an afterlife.

What seems clear, in translation and from a modern mindset, quickly becomes unclear once you start taking a more thorough look at it, then becomes clearer again, albeit different, once you have spent the time to study the language used and what it meant to people at the time, and what it means in relation to other relevant material.

yes actually I have lots of quotes from early jewish literature that believed in a literal hell, as well as founding church fathers. Eternal hell has been taught for thousands of years. But anyway, one of my friends Der Alter is joining us in the new thread on hell, feel free to join in. Atheists welcome as well.

Eternal Conscious Hell Fire is completely Justified

 

[createdtoworship]

Or it's eternal, or it's the nature of the multi-verse to generate universes, or it's part of an endless chain of universes dying and being born, or ...

I have a logical question for you, an honest one; in regards to an apparent 'dilemma'....

If you assert that there MUST exist a timeless agency, which created everything we know today, how is this ANY MORE probable than another person's assertion of infinite regress?

What does it mean to be made by itself? That seems incoherent since a thing would have to exist already in order to do any creating. It sounds like you’re saying all things must have been made. But then that should apply to your god as well, and it runs us into an infinite regress. If you want to say your god is the exception to this rule, then there’s no reason the universe itself can’t be that exception too.

Ah. Had a lot of experience of beings "who exist outside of time," have you?
Do you have any evidence that such creatures are possible?

anyway back to the topic. What I don't understand is how can a multiverse gain the power to create a universe? I mean rocks and asteroids and black holes don't have power's do they? God fill this gap. Again, why does anything exist at all? What purpose would a completely different multiverse have for creating a different universe, inside of time? Isn't it just a wast of energy? If there is no loving diety, there is really no purpose. Again God fills this gap. I say this for a reason. Because there is a fallacy called the God of the gaps fallacy. I don't recognize it as a fallacy. Because it's just logical deduction in general that God is the only answer, not a god of the gaps fallacy.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

that is just an ad hominem.

No it isn’t. I suggest you read up on what that actually means.

And just so you know, the author was an atheist scientist, and these are some of the arguments that converted him to christianity.

Interesting. Those are the arguments that I’m pointing to that’s causing people to leave the faith...

Like CS lewis, anthony flew, and hundreds of other great intellectuals.

I don’t consider either of those to be intellectuals.