Decision Theory

Wgw · Dec 30, 2015

Zosimus said:
Perhaps I was unclear. Let's use a simpler example. Let's imagine that there are only 5 religions in the world and let's further imagine that we know for certain that one of them must be right. The religions are:

Islam
Judaism
Christianity
Mormonism
J Witnesses

Since we do not know which one is true, we assign an initial 20% chance to each of them. Now let's analyze cost/benefit.

* Islam: 72 virgins in the afterlife. You have to either blow yourself up or travel to Mecca and pray 5-6 times a day.
* Judaism: Bosom of Abraham. You have to be circumcised, avoid pork, be generous, read Torah, etc.
* Christianity: Mansion in Father's House. You have to repent, be baptised, read the Bible, preach, etc.
* Mormonism: You become God. You can have all the wives you want in the next life. You spend all of eternity having kids and taking care of them. You have to pay tithing, go to the temple, wear weird underwear, and learn some handshakes.
* J. Witnesses: Live forever in paradise on Earth. You have to stand on street corners handing out Watchtower magazines. You probably have to do other things that I don't know about. Anyway, it doesn't matter because if you're a good person you get brought back in the millennium and you get a second shot at salvation.

I mean the simple back-of-the-envelope calculation indicates that being Mormon is the way to go. If you're right, you become God. What's better than that?

Obviously the real situation is more complicated than that. You have a lot more than 5 religions and there is no guarantee that any of them is right.

Note that in Mormonism, you basically become a god, apotheosis, as opposed to becoming the God, which Hindu pantheism sort of offers. In Orthodoxy, we believe in something similiar: theosis. That is to say we believe, according to St. Athanasius, that "God became man so that man could become god." We become by grace what Christ is by nature; sons of god through adoption.

Zosimus · Dec 30, 2015

jason_delisle said:
Let's look at not only what is required to be saved but what the consequence if you are wrong.

Okay you're finally catching on.

My short answer is Christianity and I am not just saying that because I am a Christian. Look at it this way, lets just for arguments sake that Christianity is the not the one true religion yet I was a Christian who accepted Jesus. What would the consequence be?

In Islam, everyone goes to hell in order to have their sins purged with fire. Once they have been made pure they enter heaven. You only get 72 virgins if you are martyred in the name of jihad. So if Islam is the one true religion, the consequence of me being a Christian is spend time in hell for a temporary period of time before I go to heaven. However I will not have the virgins.

This claim is contradicted by this article about Islamic afterlife.

For Judaism, only natural born Jews are responsible to follow the entire OT law. Gentiles who want to be saved only need to obey the seven laws of Noah. The consequences of me being a christian would be that I would go to heaven because I already follow the seven laws of Noah.

This claim is partially contradicted by this link about Jewish afterlife.

Mormons believe in the same path to salvation that Christians do. However they believe there are different levels of heaven. So if Mormons are right, the consequences of me being a Christian is that I go to heaven, but I cannot be a God of my own world.

Well, first of all, that's a pretty big blow. You could have been a God, but you ended up as an accountant in the afterlife. It's not bad – Jesus visits you from time to time. But it's just not the same as becoming a God. Second, Mormons believe that anyone who isn't saved the Mormon way is condemned to suffer for their own sins in the same way that Jesus did – through sweating blood and horrible agony. So that's no picnic, but at least it's not unending suffering.

So as you can see, if I choose Christianity, I end up in heaven in some manner. It is only if Christianity is the one true religion and I am not a Christian will I spend eternity in hell.

Well Revelations 20:12-15 doesn't say that exactly. Death and hell deliver up the dead and you get judged according to your works. Then, if your name isn't in the book of life, you get cast into a lake of fire and suffer a second death. This doesn't indicate to me a constant suffering but rather a death -- a complete annihilation of life.

cloudyday2 · Dec 30, 2015

It seems that we need to consider:
(1) which religions have infinite rewards - Christianity, Islam, ... what else?
(2) which religions can be combined with other religions? For example, Islam probably can't be combined with Christianity, but maybe it can be combined with some type of Buddhism?
(3) which religions are impossible due to incoherencies, falsehoods, etc.?

- Create a list of every possible combination of religions with an infinite reward.
- Assign a subjective probability to each religion (i.e. 1% Christianity, 2% Islam, ...)
- Assign a comparative factor for the infinite rewards (i.e. Islam reward = 7 * Christian reward)
- Look for dependencies in the religions (i.e. religion A implies religion B)
- Assign costs for following each combination of religions

It might be complicated.

Wgw · Dec 30, 2015

cloudyday2 said:
- Assign a subjective probability to each religion (i.e. 1% Christianity, 2% Islam, ...)

Because transparent Houris, Djinn and a flat earth are obviously twice as likely as our doctrines.

(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ) · Dec 30, 2015

Zosimus said:
This claim is contradicted by this article about Islamic afterlife.

Did you even read the article you posted? Here is a direct quote from the very link you posted that supposedly "contradicted" my statement:

"Allah can rescue people from hell as he chooses, and that he is merciful and compassionate, have hypothesized that eventually hell will be empty. Alternatively, Hell can be seen as a place of progress where souls are instructed until they are fit to go to heaven:

'Life after death is actually the starting-point of further progress for man. Those in paradise are advancing to higher and higher stages in knowledge and perfection of faith. Hell is meant to purify those in it of the effects of their bad deeds, and so make them fit for further advancement. Its punishment is, therefore, not everlasting.'"

Zosimus said:
Well Revelations 20:12-15 doesn't say that exactly. Death and hell deliver up the dead and you get judged according to your works. Then, if your name isn't in the book of life, you get cast into a lake of fire and suffer a second death. This doesn't indicate to me a constant suffering but rather a death -- a complete annihilation of life.

Annihilationism is not biblical. The second death is mentioned on multiple occasions in the book of Revelation and is synonymous with the lake of fire. It is a “death” in that it is a separation from God, the Giver of life. It is called the “second” one because it follows physical death.

Revelation 21:8 explains the second death in the most detail: “The cowardly, the unbelieving, the vile, the murderers, the sexually immoral, those who practice magic arts, the idolaters and all liars – their place will be in the fiery lake of burning sulfur. This is the second death.”

Three other places in Revelation also mention the second death. The first is Revelation 2:11: “He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches. He who overcomes will not be hurt at all by the second death.” In this verse, Jesus promises that believers (“overcomers”; see 1 John 5:4) will not experience the lake of fire. The second death is exclusively for those who have rejected Christ. It is not a place believers in Christ should fear.

Revelation 20:6 speaks of the second death in relation to a future period called the Millennium: “Blessed and holy are those who have part in the first resurrection. The second death has no power over them, but they will be priests of God and of Christ and will reign with him for a thousand years.” This verse notes three important facts. First, those who die for their faith in Jesus during the Tribulation will later be resurrected to enter the Millennium and live with Him. Second, these martyrs will escape the lake of fire or second death. Third, they will reign with Christ.

The second death is also mentioned in Revelation 20:14-15: “Then death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. The lake of fire is the second death. If anyone's name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire.” At the end of time, even death and the grave (Hades) will be thrown into the lake of fire. In addition, every person not included in the book of life will be thrown into the lake of fire. This condition will be final; the destination is permanent.

In summary, the second death is a reference to the lake of fire where those who are separated from God by their sin will dwell for eternity. This judgment was recorded in Scripture as a warning to unbelievers to seek the salvation that Jesus Christ provides. The coming judgment should also challenge believers to share their faith. There is a vast difference between the final destination of those who know Christ and those who do not.

Zosimus said:
Okay you're finally catching on.

This claim is contradicted by this article about Islamic afterlife.

This claim is partially contradicted by this link about Jewish afterlife.

Well, first of all, that's a pretty big blow. You could have been a God, but you ended up as an accountant in the afterlife. It's not bad – Jesus visits you from time to time. But it's just not the same as becoming a God. Second, Mormons believe that anyone who isn't saved the Mormon way is condemned to suffer for their own sins in the same way that Jesus did – through sweating blood and horrible agony. So that's no picnic, but at least it's not unending suffering.

Well Revelations 20:12-15 doesn't say that exactly. Death and hell deliver up the dead and you get judged according to your works. Then, if your name isn't in the book of life, you get cast into a lake of fire and suffer a second death. This doesn't indicate to me a constant suffering but rather a death -- a complete annihilation of life.

Zosimus · Dec 31, 2015

jason_delisle said:
Did you even read the article you posted? Here is a direct quote from the very link you posted that supposedly "contradicted" my statement:

"Allah can rescue people from hell as he chooses, and that he is merciful and compassionate, have hypothesized that eventually hell will be empty. Alternatively, Hell can be seen as a place of progress where souls are instructed until they are fit to go to heaven:

Yes, I've read it. Have you?

QUOTE:

Being a Muslim does not keep one out of Hell, but it is not clear whether Muslims remain in Hell forever. Non-Muslims (kafir), however, will be punished eternally. A Muslim author on IslamOnline.net explains it this way:

"Ultimately, God will remove from Hell those believers whose sins were not forgiven nor atoned for by good deeds in their lifetimes, and they will then enter Paradise. The remaining inhabitants of Hell will stay there eternally."

ENDQUOTE

Annihilationism is not biblical. The second death is mentioned on multiple occasions in the book of Revelation and is synonymous with the lake of fire. It is a “death” in that it is a separation from God, the Giver of life. It is called the “second” one because it follows physical death.

Revelation 21:8 explains the second death in the most detail: “The cowardly, the unbelieving, the vile, the murderers, the sexually immoral, those who practice magic arts, the idolaters and all liars – their place will be in the fiery lake of burning sulfur. This is the second death.”

Three other places in Revelation also mention the second death. The first is Revelation 2:11: “He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches. He who overcomes will not be hurt at all by the second death.” In this verse, Jesus promises that believers (“overcomers”; see 1 John 5:4) will not experience the lake of fire. The second death is exclusively for those who have rejected Christ. It is not a place believers in Christ should fear.

Revelation 20:6 speaks of the second death in relation to a future period called the Millennium: “Blessed and holy are those who have part in the first resurrection. The second death has no power over them, but they will be priests of God and of Christ and will reign with him for a thousand years.” This verse notes three important facts. First, those who die for their faith in Jesus during the Tribulation will later be resurrected to enter the Millennium and live with Him. Second, these martyrs will escape the lake of fire or second death. Third, they will reign with Christ.

The second death is also mentioned in Revelation 20:14-15: “Then death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. The lake of fire is the second death. If anyone's name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire.” At the end of time, even death and the grave (Hades) will be thrown into the lake of fire. In addition, every person not included in the book of life will be thrown into the lake of fire. This condition will be final; the destination is permanent.

All of this is your personal opinion. There is no basis in the text for determining whether the second death results in people being endlessly trapped in a lake of fire or whether the lake of fire actually consumes and destroys those placed therein.

cloudyday2 · Dec 31, 2015

Zosimus said:
Being a Muslim does not keep one out of Hell, but it is not clear whether Muslims remain in Hell forever. Non-Muslims (kafir), however, will be punished eternally.

Islam considers Christians and Jews to be "people of the book" instead of "kafir" - at least this is true of some forms of Islam. So this might make Christianity superior to Islam. If Islam is true then Christians are o.k. If Christianity is true, then Muslims are NOT o.k. So Christianity is the smartest choice.

elopez · Dec 31, 2015

Zosimus said:
Prescriptive decision theory holds that we should make the decision that has the best chance of getting us the best result.

As far as my understanding goes, prescriptive theory differs from descriptive theory in that the former is a theory about how decisions should be made, and a descriptive theory is about how decisions are actually made. Choice of a value standard for decision making, which is what you are seeming to inquire of here, is the subject of moral philosophy.

Zosimus said:
For example, if you are considering whether to play the lottery we should realize that the amount to enter vs. the chances of winning vs. the payoff makes that a bad idea/bet.

Ok, but is this an economic instance of normative decision theory? Or is this an instance of the ethical? The meaning and implications of this instance of lottery depends on the context of what subject of decision theory it pertains to.

In economics, for example, expected utility theory is often invoked as an account of how people actually make decisions in an economic context. Like how you said "the amount to enter". These uses of expected utility theory are usually descriptive, and don't bear directly on the normative question of whether expected utility theory provides a good account of rationality in regards to moral philosophy.

There are some economic uses of expected utility theory which are normative, though. The application that utility theory was originally designed for - setting prices for games of chance. So from the lottery companies point of view, they would have more preference for higher lottery costs as that will yield larger profits long term as opposed to using low costs.

And really that is what decision theory is about - decisions made from all agents, from all points of view. That is why I have an issue with this example specifically, and am even cautious to bring decision theory into a theological context in the first place. I mean, that is how Pascal formed his wager...which even to me as a Christian I do not find convincing.

Zosimus said:
Applying this logic to Christianity, it seems that Christianity is a bad bet because:

And again this is the issue; how exactly are you applying this logic to Christianity? If in the context of moral philosophy the above analogy is really not applicable. You would need something very concrete to point to. And this isn't it:

Zosimus said:
A) The chances that Christianity is true are low.
B) The payoff if Christianity is right is insufficient.
C) The things you have to do to qualify for heaven are difficult.

This is what I'm talking about. What is A based on? Low compared to what, and considering what? None of these points (especially C) is concrete.

Zosimus said:
How would you, as a Christian convince someone that:

A) Christianity is more probably true,
B) That the Christian afterlife is superior to other afterlives, or
C) That becoming Christian is a relatively easy/painless thing?

Well I can't convince anyone Christianity is probably true. And nor would that be my point in such a discussion. And nor is that the point of any dialog really. In decision theory, >B is taken to represent "B is worse than A" as well as "A is better than B". "Better than" is a value comparison, so what we would be saying ia heaven is better than reincarnation, for example. Now, that decision is relative from person to person, depending on their own prefences. It's not my intention as a Christian to say to someone heaven is better than reincarnation, rather to share what heaven is and the benefits of it.

Being Christian is not easy. It's a hardship for sure. I wouldn't lie and tell someone the opposite. Nothing is ever easy, though it is not a rational intuition to not do it.

Alla27 · Dec 31, 2015

Zosimus said:
How would you, as a Christian convince someone that:
A) Christianity is more probably true,

Please, know and remeber this thing:
Nobody can ever convince anybody to believe in God, to believe in Christ. Nobody, accept God Himself.

Zosimus said:
B) That the Christian afterlife is superior to other afterlives, or

Christian afterlife promises to become like Gods: to have what Gods have, to do what Gods do.
Is there any other religion that promises something greater than this?

Zosimus said:
C) That becoming Christian is a relatively easy/painless thing?

If you want to achieve great things and become something great usually you have to earn it by working hard. The question: is it worth to work hard to become what Gods are? You have to figure out the answer to this question.

Zosimus · Dec 31, 2015

elopez said:
As far as my understanding goes, prescriptive theory differs from descriptive theory in that the former is a theory about how decisions should be made, and a descriptive theory is about how decisions are actually made. Choice of a value standard for decision making, which is what you are seeming to inquire of here, is the subject of moral philosophy.

In a sense, you are right. Prescriptive decision theory is a recommendation of the rational way to make decisions by imperfect people who do not have perfect knowledge.

Ok, but is this an economic instance of normative decision theory? Or is this an instance of the ethical? The meaning and implications of this instance of lottery depends on the context of what subject of decision theory it pertains to.

I think you are overstating the economic aspect of it. Value is, by nature, subjective. For example, if someone is offered the choice of a sure $1 million vs. a 50-50 shot at $3 million, it might seem obvious that 50% of $3 million is $1.5 million, so you should go for that. However, a certain $1 million would be preferred by many people because the difference between $0 and $1 million is worth more than the difference between $1 million and $3 million. Money is used to satisfy the highest needs first so while the extra million may buy another boat of a new color, that is not as valuable as what the first million can provide (your own house, owned free & clear, or whatever the person desires).

In economics, for example, expected utility theory is often invoked as an account of how people actually make decisions in an economic context. Like how you said "the amount to enter". These uses of expected utility theory are usually descriptive, and don't bear directly on the normative question of whether expected utility theory provides a good account of rationality in regards to moral philosophy.

Perhaps unintentionally, you're using words that cross certain boundaries. Normative decision theory is a description of how an ideal person would make decisions whereas prescriptive decision theory is how an imperfect person should make decisions. Perhaps you didn't mean normative in that way, but it's potentially confusing unless you make clear exactly what you mean by that term.

There are some economic uses of expected utility theory which are normative, though. The application that utility theory was originally designed for - setting prices for games of chance. So from the lottery companies point of view, they would have more preference for higher lottery costs as that will yield larger profits long term as opposed to using low costs.

And really that is what decision theory is about - decisions made from all agents, from all points of view. That is why I have an issue with this example specifically, and am even cautious to bring decision theory into a theological context in the first place. I mean, that is how Pascal formed his wager...which even to me as a Christian I do not find convincing.

Not really. Decision theory is about how to make decisions when there is uncertainty. Your house might burn down (or you might win the lottery) but you are not certain that this will happen. Similarly, Jesus might turn out to be God incarnate or he may have just been a misunderstood carpenter deified by an overzealous Paul suffering from schizophrenia.

And again this is the issue; how exactly are you applying this logic to Christianity? If in the context of moral philosophy the above analogy is really not applicable. You would need something very concrete to point to. And this isn't it:

Well, I would have thought that was obvious. My point is that Christianity seems to be a less rational choice than Mormonism because A) there's no reason to believe that Christianity is better than Mormonism and B) if Mormonism turns out to be true, you do much better than if Christianity turns out to be true (maximin principle) because you become God, and that would be almost as cool as becoming a Jedi.

This is what I'm talking about. What is A based on? Low compared to what, and considering what? None of these points (especially C) is concrete.

Applying the Principle of Maximum Entropy we can conclude that for x religions the chance that any given religion is correct is 1/(x+1).

Well I can't convince anyone Christianity is probably true.

Well, that seems to be a pretty good argument not to be Christian!

And nor would that be my point in such a discussion. And nor is that the point of any dialog really. In decision theory, >B is taken to represent "B is worse than A" as well as "A is better than B". "Better than" is a value comparison, so what we would be saying ia heaven is better than reincarnation, for example. Now, that decision is relative from person to person, depending on their own prefences. It's not my intention as a Christian to say to someone heaven is better than reincarnation, rather to share what heaven is and the benefits of it.

Being Christian is not easy. It's a hardship for sure. I wouldn't lie and tell someone the opposite. Nothing is ever easy, though it is not a rational intuition to not do it.

Well, that is a factor. Basically the argument seems to be that you should become Christian, give away a good portion of your life, be persecuted, have a low but non-zero chance of salvation and that afterlife seems to be either a mansion or a room depending on the translation of John 14:2. I certainly hope it's a mansion, but even so it doesn't seem to compare well with its competitors.

(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ) · Dec 31, 2015

Zosimus said:
All of this is your personal opinion. There is no basis in the text for determining whether the second death results in people being endlessly trapped in a lake of fire or whether the lake of fire actually consumes and destroys those placed therein.

This is not my opinion. It is what the bibke says.

Without a doubt the human soul is immortal. This is clearly seen in many Scriptures in both the Old and New Testaments: Psalm 22:26; 23:6; 49:7-9; Ecclesiastes 12:7; Daniel 12:2-3; Matthew 25:46; and 1 Corinthians 15:12-19. Daniel 12:2 says, “Multitudes who sleep in the dust of the earth will awake: some to everlasting life, others to shame and everlasting contempt.” Similarly, Jesus Himself said that the wicked “will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life” (Matthew 25:46). With the same Greek word used to refer to both “punishment” and “life,” it is clear that both the wicked and the righteous have an eternal/immortal soul.

The unmistakable teaching of the Bible is that all people, whether they are saved or lost, will exist eternally, in either heaven or hell. True life or spiritual life does not cease when our fleshly bodies pass away in death. Our souls will live forever, either in the presence of God in heaven if we are saved, or in punishment in hell if we reject God’s gift of salvation. In fact, the promise of the Bible is that not only will our souls live forever, but also that our bodies will be resurrected. This hope of a bodily resurrection is at the very heart of the Christian faith (1 Corinthians 15:12-19).

While all souls are immortal, it is important to remember that we are not eternal in the same way that God is. God is the only truly eternal being in that He alone is without a beginning or end. God has always existed and will always continue to exist. All other sentient creatures, whether they are human or angelic, are finite in that they had a beginning. While our souls will live forever once we come into being, the Bible does not support the concept that our souls have always existed. Our souls are immortal, as that is how God created them, but they did have a beginning; there was a time they did not exist.

The soul is immortal. In hell you do not die but rather you are in a constant state of dying for all eternity.

elopez · Dec 31, 2015

Zosimus said:
In a sense, you are right. Prescriptive decision theory is a recommendation of the rational way to make decisions by imperfect people who do not have perfect knowledge.

Well I don't think perfection has anything to do with it. No one is perfect, which goes without saying. And no one certainly has perfect knowledge.

Zosimus said:
I think you are overstating the economic aspect of it.

Not really. I'm asking what kind of example this portrays, as you seem to inquire of moral philosophy in regards to decision theory but use an economic related analogy.

Zosimus said:
Perhaps unintentionally, you're using words that cross certain boundaries.

Like what, exactly?

Zosimus said:
Normative decision theory is a description of how an ideal person would make decisions

Normative decision theory is about how people ought to make decisions in various types of situations if they want to be regarded as rationale.

Zosimus said:
prescriptive decision theory is how an imperfect person should make decisions.

Prescriptive theory is the one which can and should be used by a real decision maker and is tuned to both the specific situation and needs of the decision maker. Prescriptive models are based on both the foundation of normative theory in relation with observations from descriptive theory.

So in all honesty prescriptive is very similar to normative but has a difference in that it not only describes what people should do, but also what they can do. I have not seen any connotations on being "imperfect" to differentiate normative and prescriptive theories, only what was noted above.

Zosimus said:
Perhaps you didn't mean normative in that way, but it's potentially confusing unless you make clear exactly what you mean by that term.

No. I was simply pointing out that in regards to economics, descriptive theory is more widely used than prescriptive.

Zosimus said:
Not really. Decision theory is about how to make decisions when there is uncertainty. Your house might burn down (or you might win the lottery) but you are not certain that this will happen. Similarly, Jesus might turn out to be God incarnate or he may have just been a misunderstood carpenter deified by an overzealous Paul suffering from schizophrenia.

Not really what? Decision theory has more significance than just to deal with uncertainty. Decision theory also considers values and rationality as key components to making a choice.

Zosimus said:
Well, I would have thought that was obvious. My point is that Christianity seems to be a less rational choice than Mormonism because A) there's no reason to believe that Christianity is better than Mormonism and B) if Mormonism turns out to be true, you do much better than if Christianity turns out to be true (maximin principle) because you become God, and that would be almost as cool as becoming a Jedi.

It's not obvious as "Christianity seems to be a less rational choice than Mormonism" is unfounded, even with the reasons you gave. What does "better than" in this context even mean? An argument could be put forth that Christianity is more rational than Mormonism on certain grounds. In that case, B here is irrelevant considering we are indeed to be rational (although being a Jedi is cool, it should not be a preference over accepting a rational reason to believe there is no such thing as becoming a Jedi if there is one presented).

Zosimus said:
Well, that seems to be a pretty good argument not to be Christian!

Not really, as according to this logic, as one cannot unconvince a believer of Christianity that is a good argument for it.

Zosimus said:
Basically the argument seems to be that you should become Christian, give away a good portion of your life, be persecuted, have a low but non-zero chance of salvation and that afterlife seems to be either a mansion or a room depending on the translation of John 14:2

Aside from this seeming to be a sarcastic over simplified idea of Christianity, and the fact that mansions in Greek does not mean the same as it does in English, I would agree with the overall idea that deciding to follow Christianity is not clear in light of various other religions.

Zosimus · Jan 2, 2016

jason_delisle said:
This is not my opinion. It is what the [Bible] says.

Without a doubt the human soul is immortal. This is clearly seen in many Scriptures in both the Old and New Testaments: Psalm 22:26; 23:6; 49:7-9; Ecclesiastes 12:7; Daniel 12:2-3; Matthew 25:46; and 1 Corinthians 15:12-19. Daniel 12:2 says, “Multitudes who sleep in the dust of the earth will awake: some to everlasting life, others to shame and everlasting contempt.” Similarly, Jesus Himself said that the wicked “will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life” (Matthew 25:46). With the same Greek word used to refer to both “punishment” and “life,” it is clear that both the wicked and the righteous have an eternal/immortal soul.

First of all, not everyone agrees with your interpretation and much of what you claim, even if true, does not support your main point. Revelations 20:12 indicates that all the dead will come before God for judgement. This is not a point at dispute. The question is what happens to these people afterwards. You indicate that these people go to "hell" yet the same chapter of Revelations indicates that both death and hell are destroyed when cast into the lake of fire. In this article Jeremy Moritz, presumably Christian, makes the case for annihilation. In addition, others have pointed out that since God is Eternal, any punishment that God inflicts is Eternal Punishment (but that doesn't mean it's unending punishment).

The unmistakable teaching of the Bible is that all people, whether they are saved or lost, will exist eternally, in either heaven or hell.

Dubious. Death and hell give up the dead in Revelations 20.

True life or spiritual life does not cease when our fleshly bodies pass away in death. Our souls will live forever, either in the presence of God in heaven if we are saved, or in punishment in hell if we reject God’s gift of salvation.

The text doesn't say that.

In fact, the promise of the Bible is that not only will our souls live forever, but also that our bodies will be resurrected. This hope of a bodily resurrection is at the very heart of the Christian faith (1 Corinthians 15:12-19).

Sure whereas Mormons will point to 1 Corinthians 15:29 and 40-42 as supposed "proof" that baptism for the dead is good and that resurrected people have different degrees of glory (of the sun, moon, and stars), which Mormons take as evidence in support of the Mormon afterlife.

While all souls are immortal, it is important to remember that we are not eternal in the same way that God is. God is the only truly eternal being in that He alone is without a beginning or end. God has always existed and will always continue to exist. All other sentient creatures, whether they are human or angelic, are finite in that they had a beginning. While our souls will live forever once we come into being, the Bible does not support the concept that our souls have always existed. Our souls are immortal, as that is how God created them, but they did have a beginning; there was a time they did not exist.

I'll pass on all of this because I don't see how it affects the argument one way or the other.

The soul is immortal. In hell you do not die but rather you are in a constant state of dying for all eternity.

And again, I remind you that your holy book indicates that hell delivers up the souls therein before hell is cast into the lake of fire.

(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ) · Jan 2, 2016

jason_delisle said:
This is not my opinion. It is what the bibke says.

Without a doubt the human soul is immortal. This is clearly seen in many Scriptures in both the Old and New Testaments: Psalm 22:26; 23:6; 49:7-9; Ecclesiastes 12:7; Daniel 12:2-3; Matthew 25:46; and 1 Corinthians 15:12-19. Daniel 12:2 says, “Multitudes who sleep in the dust of the earth will awake: some to everlasting life, others to shame and everlasting contempt.” Similarly, Jesus Himself said that the wicked “will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life” (Matthew 25:46). With the same Greek word used to refer to both “punishment” and “life,” it is clear that both the wicked and the righteous have an eternal/immortal soul.

The unmistakable teaching of the Bible is that all people, whether they are saved or lost, will exist eternally, in either heaven or hell. True life or spiritual life does not cease when our fleshly bodies pass away in death. Our souls will live forever, either in the presence of God in heaven if we are saved, or in punishment in hell if we reject God’s gift of salvation. In fact, the promise of the Bible is that not only will our souls live forever, but also that our bodies will be resurrected. This hope of a bodily resurrection is at the very heart of the Christian faith (1 Corinthians 15:12-19).

While all souls are immortal, it is important to remember that we are not eternal in the same way that God is. God is the only truly eternal being in that He alone is without a beginning or end. God has always existed and will always continue to exist. All other sentient creatures, whether they are human or angelic, are finite in that they had a beginning. While our souls will live forever once we come into being, the Bible does not support the concept that our souls have always existed. Our souls are immortal, as that is how God created them, but they did have a beginning; there was a time they did not exist.

The soul is immortal. In hell you do not die but rather you are in a constant state of dying for all eternity.

So...how do you define eternal and everlasting?

Zosimus · Jan 2, 2016

jason_delisle said:
So...how do you define eternal and everlasting?

Eternal punishment is punishment inflicted by the Eternal. It may or may not be unending.

(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ) · Jan 2, 2016

Zosimus said:
Eternal punishment is punishment inflicted by the Eternal. It may or may not be unending.

So... is eternal life only "life inflicted by the eternal"?

Alla27 · Jan 2, 2016

Zosimus said:
* Mormonism: You become God.

Yes, godhood is the best reward anybody can have.

Zosimus said:
You can have all the wives you want in the next life.

Not true.

Zosimus said:
You spend all of eternity having kids and taking care of them.

Not exactly.

Zosimus said:
You have to pay tithing, go to the temple, wear weird underwear, and learn some handshakes.

Not only that. But I understand what you are trying to say.

Alla27 · Jan 2, 2016

Zosimus said:
. Second, Mormons believe that anyone who isn't saved the Mormon way is condemned to suffer for their own sins in the same way that Jesus did – through sweating blood and horrible agony. So that's no picnic, but at least it's not unending suffering.

I don't believe this. Never believed, never will.

Alla27 · Jan 2, 2016

Zosimus said:
Eternal punishment is punishment inflicted by the Eternal. It may or may not be unending.

Bingo. What you just said is 100% truth according to LDS Doctrine.
Eternal punishment is called "eternal" because it comes from ETERNAL God.
It doesn't mean it will last forever.

Zosimus · Jan 3, 2016

jason_delisle said:
So... is eternal life only "life inflicted by the eternal"?

Does everyone get eternal life?
Is eternal life the same as immortality?
If not, how are they different?

Decision Theory

Pray For Brussels!

Non-Christian non-evolution believer

Generic Theist

Pray For Brussels!

Well-Known Member

Non-Christian non-evolution believer

Generic Theist

Well-Known Member

English is my second language

Non-Christian non-evolution believer

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Non-Christian non-evolution believer

Well-Known Member

Non-Christian non-evolution believer

Well-Known Member

English is my second language

English is my second language

English is my second language

Non-Christian non-evolution believer

Similar threads