A life ignoring everything God says, then snicker in Hell (but burn)?

[Gottservant]

Hi there,

So I guess I am just wondering if you are suicidally against God.

Like, yes, you think ignoring God might cause some people to be angry - but realistically, is that all there is to it? Would someone commit their whole life to something, having everything you have as a person (in principle) and not actually have made a reasonable decision (in some context)? Like, if I say, by the time you are reading this - if you have not decided that some thing makes more sense than the rest - there is little chance you will say any of it makes sense - even though it makes perfect sense to someone (who is not you?)?

I'm not trying to goad you or anything, I am just wondering... how little you think you actually need to know, on the assumption that it is possible to know at least a little bit of everything that can be known - for a reason that, if God existed, He could give? I mean that makes "sense", right? You could know what God "wanted you to know"?

I mean its not really beyond the realm of possibility that regardless of how wrong you are, you might actually need to know more - because God is God?

Not sure if I can really press the point more than that - will check back later.

 

[Moral Orel]

Would someone commit their whole life to something, having everything you have as a person (in principle) and not actually have made a reasonable decision (in some context)?

I get what you are trying to say. Devoting your life to something shows evidence that something is real, right?

Trouble is a lot of people devote their entire lives to different beliefs than God. Most cosmologists devote their entire life to proving enough about the universe to make God unnecessary. Some folk devote their lives to a myriad of gods. Some folk devote their life to Scientology. None of this is evidence that these things are true. Just like people devoting their entire lives to Christianity isn't evidence that Christianity is reasonable.

Any one of these things could be a reasonable belief, I'm not saying any of them aren't. All I'm saying is that someone believing in them very strongly isn't evidence, and a lot of people believing in them very strongly isn't evidence either.

 

[Gottservant]

Except that you patently say nothing about "knowing God" (which is your understanding, fine, but you can't expect me to ignore how shallow it appears - in principle).

I'm not trying to criticise you, just state things plainly (for balance).

Actually I had this thought, if I asked you to cry for the knowledge of God, for a moment - would you do it? Or would you give the same answer you already gave (as if even crying is irrelevant?)?

 

[Moral Orel]

Except that you patently say nothing about "knowing God" (which is your understanding, fine, but you can't expect me to ignore how shallow it appears - in principle).

Some people feel as though they "know" God, some people don't. I don't think it's shallow to not choose to believe in something that you've seen no evidence for. I do think it's arrogant to think that anyone who disagrees has to be wrong, and that there is no chance of being incorrect about that.

Actually I had this thought, if I asked you to cry for the knowledge of God, for a moment - would you do it? Or would you give the same answer you already gave (as if even crying is irrelevant?)?

It isn't that crying is irrelevant so much as impossible. Can you evoke an emotional response about something you don't believe in, but it would be great if it was real? Can you cry for knowledge of Santa Claus? You see all the evidence that he isn't real and then decide he isn't. But wouldn't it be great if he was? Poor children all over the world would have something to look forward to at least once a year. And although we've both seen plenty of homes that don't have inexplicable presents, we haven't seen into every home across the globe. Maybe there are truly good people that Santa delivers to that we just don't know about. Can you evoke an emotional response so strong that you "cry" about that idea?

 

[Ana the Ist]

"... if you have not decided that some thing makes more sense than the rest - there is little chance you will say any of it makes sense -..."

So true, there's little chance I'll say any of it makes sense lol.

 

[BabylonWeary]

Hi there,

So I guess I am just wondering if you are suicidally against God.

Like, yes, you think ignoring God might cause some people to be angry - but realistically, is that all there is to it? Would someone commit their whole life to something, having everything you have as a person (in principle) and not actually have made a reasonable decision (in some context)? Like, if I say, by the time you are reading this - if you have not decided that some thing makes more sense than the rest - there is little chance you will say any of it makes sense - even though it makes perfect sense to someone (who is not you?)?

I'm not trying to goad you or anything, I am just wondering... how little you think you actually need to know, on the assumption that it is possible to know at least a little bit of everything that can be known - for a reason that, if God existed, He could give? I mean that makes "sense", right? You could know what God "wanted you to know"?

I mean its not really beyond the realm of possibility that regardless of how wrong you are, you might actually need to know more - because God is God?

Not sure if I can really press the point more than that - will check back later.

Well hello to you!

What if some people devote themselves to arguing whether or not time travel is possible, and meanwhile, somebody else is taking for granted the use of a time machine? Or, if you had a time machine, would you want to let those who doubt it to fiddle with the controls? That's sort of what it's like, what a challenge it can be to find other time travelers. Else I am mistaken.

 

[HerCrazierHalf]

Hi there,

So I guess I am just wondering if you are suicidally against God.

Like, yes, you think ignoring God might cause some people to be angry - but realistically, is that all there is to it? Would someone commit their whole life to something, having everything you have as a person (in principle) and not actually have made a reasonable decision (in some context)? Like, if I say, by the time you are reading this - if you have not decided that some thing makes more sense than the rest - there is little chance you will say any of it makes sense - even though it makes perfect sense to someone (who is not you?)?

I'm not trying to goad you or anything, I am just wondering... how little you think you actually need to know, on the assumption that it is possible to know at least a little bit of everything that can be known - for a reason that, if God existed, He could give? I mean that makes "sense", right? You could know what God "wanted you to know"?

I mean its not really beyond the realm of possibility that regardless of how wrong you are, you might actually need to know more - because God is God?

Not sure if I can really press the point more than that - will check back later.

Considering that billions of people have believed in and devoted themselves to other gods that you hold to be false, no, it isn't automatically reasonable.

Plus this is on the verge of the issue with Pascal Wager in that it wouldn't be true belief but merely attempting to fool a God in case he exist, an impossible thing to do.

Lastly, "ignoring God" implies one knows He exist but chooses to ignore rather than not believing.

 

[Davian]

Coffee Mug Far Side Just Not Reaching That Guy

• Davian
• Nov 7, 2012