Now, you're on the heart of the matter.But if God knows in advance who he will save, that means he also knows who he WONT save.
This means he is creating people with the express purpose of condemning them to Hell.
Why would a loving God do that?
It seems to me that a central principle of Christianity is that those who choose to accept Christ as their personal saviour gain access to Heaven whilst those that choose not to are punished or lose out in some way once their lives are over.
But this is based on a notion of belief which we now know to be false.
Believing a proposition is not a choice you make.
It's something that happens to you, not by you.
If you disagree, consider whether you are able right now, to believe that you have a diamond the size of a fridge buried in your garden. Or that your mother is a secret agent working for ISIS.
You are simply not at liberty to believe this, no matter how much you may want to. The only way your brain would accept the truth of the proposition is if you saw the diamond or caught your mother relaying information back to her ISIS contacts.
Then?....
Then you would have no CHOICE but to believe it.
What evidence would be more compelling than the existence of the "limitless" Universe, with all its consistent laws, with planet Earth and its majestic mountains, and all its amazing, beautiful, mind-boggling forms of life from sub-microscopic to the elephant, with beautiful colorful birds and flowers in between.Presented with compelling evidence we are forced to accept the truth of a claim and in the absence of it, we are unable to do so.
Everything we know about neuroscience supports this idea. There are neurological correlates to belief in a given proposition. And they are not voluntary.
With this in mind, it seems unreasonable for God to punish people who are simply not convinced of the claims of Christianity.
I have an open mind but I just don't find Christianity any more convincing than any other religion. It's not because I hate God, or want to sin or anything like that.
I have heard the claims and simply find myself unconvinced by them in exactly the same way as most people here are unconvinced by the claims of Scientology or Hinduism.
That's not a choice you made. Your brains just didn't buy what they were selling.
Given this understanding of the cognition of belief, what is the moral justification for punishing non-belief?
If I understand it correctly, your reply makes two points:
1) People are still choosing to dismiss the evidence because of the sunk cost fallacy and are therefore choosing their beliefs.
2) God is the author of all rules and is therefore entitled to punish anyone as he sees fit.
1) The sunk cost fallacy is a heuristic and people falling for it are still not choosing to be fooled by the fallacy. It may be a fault in their cognition but clearly if they believed they would act accordingly. It's still the case that the lack of belief is something that happens to them, not BY them.
Uh. . .yeah.2) Yes if God is all-powerful he can make whatever rules he wants. My question is whether or not that is moral. If you say that anything God does is moral by definition, then you are surrendering your ability to assess ethics with an independent mind.
'Might' does not make right.
If God said we should kill all non virgin brides would that suddenly make it right?
You may answer that God would not do that, in which case God would be adhering to some other moral code.
To me, if there were an all-powerful being that chose to create me knowing I would not believe in him (due to lack of evidence and with God also knowing what evidence would be sufficient to convince me and choosing not to provide it) and then chose to punish me for eternity because I applied reason using the brain he gave me, then I would not worship or respect such a bully even if it turned out he did exist.
I would take my punishment knowing that I was on the ethical side of the issue.
Uh. . .yeah.The problem with that is that it sounds like special pleading.
If I understand you correctly, you're essentially saying that biblical claims should be subject to different rules
concerning the assessment of their truth, to the ones everyone else has to play by.
That's a big ask and made without justification.
The problem is anyone could then do that.
I could invent a bunch of religious claims which crumble under logical or empirical scrutiny and then claim immunity by invoking my own personal set of epistemic standards.
But that would itself be a claim which needs justification.
I know we're getting pretty 'meta' here. But the claims of your faith are huge, and if true, VERY consequential so they should stand up to reasonable scrutiny.
Congrats on being the first here to admit that.Now, you're on the heart of the matter.
There is no way to get around God creating some for damnation.
That would be according his sinful creature's notion.Congrats on being the first here to admit that.
People are twisting themselves into pretzels trying to suggest that God would not ALWAYS have known (even billions of years before they were born) who would believe and who not.
If God has infinite knowledge (as per the God of classical theism) then he would have this information in advance.
The question then becomes, how can one reconcile creating people for the purpose of punishing them for things over which they had no control, with the idea of a loving good god?
What evidence would be more compelling than the existence of the "limitless" Universe, with all its consistent laws, with planet Earth and its majestic mountains, and all its amazing, beautiful, mind-boggling forms of life from sub-microscopic to the elephant, with beautiful colorful birds and flowers in between.
It's not about lack of compelling evidence, it's about something else.
Uh. . .yeah.
I didn't make it (matter), I don't own it, and I don't get to make any rules.
Actually, it wasn't for me either.Well, the existence of the universe was clearly enough to convince you.
Like I said, that's because of something else, not because in actually it is not convincing.Personally, I don't find if convincing at all.
This is not obstinacy or hubris on my part.
There are Muslims who point to verses in the Quran which they say offer undeniable proof of the existence of Allah as God.
You presumably are unmoved by their claims in much the same way that I am by the claims of Christianity.
Again, one is either convinced of a proposition, or one is not.
There's no choice in the matter.
So you said that if you are convinced of one thing (earth has one moon) that you can choose to believe another contradictory things (earth has two moons) to be true.
My notions are the only ones I have.That would be according the his sinful creature's notion.
Actually, it wasn't for me either
Like I said, that's because of something else, not because in actually it is not convincing.
You are laying down the rules for what it takes to convince.You are conflating having an ethical opinion with making rules.
They are not the same thing.
Leaders are entitled to make the rules.
It doesn't mean that their subjects lose the ability to make ethical judgements about them.
Leaders are entitled to make the rules.You are laying down the rules for what it takes to convince.
I am showing a disposition against being convinced, demonstrated by the magnificence of the Universe and all that it involves not convincing you. . . anymore than it convinced me.
The difference is I acknowledge the disposition that was against being convinced.
Therein lies the problem, your notions are limited to the ones you have, and your disposition allows no others.My notions are the only ones I have.
I also reject the notion of sin (but that's a separate discussion).
Leaders are entitled to make the rules.
It doesn't mean that their subjects lose the ability to make ethical judgements about them.
I understand you completely.Clare,
Honestly, please read my posts.
I'm not making rules about what it takes to convince.
I have already conceded that there are many many people who find the evidence convincing.
I'm just saying I personally don't.
There's literally nothing I can do about that. I'm just not convinced by any of it.
I have made it clear many times.Didn't I ask you where you were headed with this mess? I'm honestly getting tired of listening to you go on, so make your point, please.
I agree it is 100% not convincing to you.Actually, I can prove with 100% certainty that it's not convincing to me:
P1) There appears to be a physical universe (and I have seen it).
P2) I am not convinced that this is sufficient proof of any gods (as arguments from design are all variations of the Argument from Ignorance Fallacy).
C) I am not convinced by the appearance of the universe, that there are any gods.
lol ok.
Let's put our guns away and stop seeing who can pee higher up the wall.
We've clearly both read a few books.
Christianity in almost all its forms makes claims about the origin, purpose and moral rules of the universe. If those are not huge claims then nothing is a huge claim.
It remains the case (no matter how inconvenient) that our beliefs are primarily formed as consequences of cognitive processes over which we have little or no control (any such control would also be such a cognitive process.)
Neural correlates of believing - PubMed
The Neural Correlates of Religious and Nonreligious Belief
Said the pot to the potter.Any deity who punished people for inevitable cognitive processes would be nothing more than an evil bully and yet most Christians claim that God is just and loving.
And that is the crux of the matter. . .ability to believe the evidence.Belief in Christianity is like belief in daily life. The Bible presents evidence that, for example Jesus is the promised Messiah. If a person examines the accounts given in the Bible for this (that Jesus is the promised Messiah) then like any other believing of evidence presented at a trial (etc.) a person either believes the evidence or not.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?