Hell

[Rajni]

You can't reject something that you don't believe exists.

Actually you can. I reject the idea of unicorns because I don't believe they exist.

There's a difference, however, between rejecting something and rejecting the *idea*
of something.

For example, I might reject the idea of unicorns, but if I were confronted with one
face to face and rejected *that*, then I'd be rejecting unicorns themselves, not merely
the idea or concept thereof.



-

 

[Gadarene]

There's a difference, however, between rejecting something and rejecting the *idea*
of something.

For example, I might reject the idea of unicorns, but if I were confronted with one
face to face and rejected *that*, then I'd be rejecting unicorns themselves, not merely
the idea or concept thereof.

Indeed - some things can only be said to exist in idea form.

 

[Received]

I've seen people make the claim that "if you really seek God you will find him." How long exactly do you have to search? Even when I was a strongly convinced Christian I still never received conclusive evidence of his existence or of divine human communication other than strong feelings and intuitions that my will to believe helped me interpret as evidence for a time. Believe me I wasn't happy when I lost faith either. I was desperately searching for some conclusive evidence that would allow me to believe again. All that I had thought to be "evidence" at one point, when later viewed from a more detached logical manner, proved inconclusive to say the least. I had no choice but to conclude that it was only a case of confirmation bias that had ever allowed me to accept such experiences as evidence of anything more than the ability of humans to have said experiences. Nothing supernatural about it.

So, while I no longer have a desire to search for a personal creator God, now that I've embraced Buddhism, I have certainly put in a good deal of searching in the past. Been to all sorts of churches, put in my time reading everything from the Bible, to the "church fathers", to medieval Catholic mystics and Nestorian monks, to fundamentalist end times dispensationalists, to modern theologians and also put in my fair share of praying. All that and nothing conclusive evidence wise. Kind of a bummer really because I invested so much time and energy.

Fascinating how your Buddhisim overlaps with a sort of ecumenical curiosity an openness to other religions. I think Buddhism is just lovely, and I'm currently reading through the Dhammapada again.

What constitutes conclusive evidence? I know it's my conditioning speaking, but I keep thinking of evidence commensurate with science when you say that.

 

[Paradoxum]

I fail to see how you could know this. Your claim seems bald.

No evil is infinite in duration. All bad things end with death.

How evil is rejecting infinite goodness?

Not bad at all (depending on what you mean).

The problem with your position is that you assume total knowledge which you do not have. God is good and just. Would a good person reject justice. Of course not. An evil person rejects justice.

I don't assume total knowledge... why would I assume that?

You say that a specific conception of God is good and just. I disagree that that conception is good and just. I'm rejecting you're injustice.

How do you know what their sins are.

I don't think any sin could possibly be infinitely evil.

You were not forced to reject Him.

I didn't reject God. I tried to hold on to belief. Faith just drifted away as I no longer found good reason to believe in God.

If I was forced at all, I was forced by my psychology. I tried to believe, but I couldn't.

Do you mean you looked and rejected what you found?

I rejected the arguments for God's existence being sufficient, yes.

 

[Huntun]

Fascinating how your Buddhisim overlaps with a sort of ecumenical curiosity an openness to other religions. I think Buddhism is just lovely, and I'm currently reading through the Dhammapada again.

That was one of the books that first sparked my interest in Buddhism. That and the writings of D T Suzuki. The curiosity about other religions was with me from before I became a Buddhist though. Just took it with me when I became one.

What constitutes conclusive evidence? I know it's my conditioning speaking, but I keep thinking of evidence commensurate with science when you say that.

That's a hard one to answer. Seeing as how the existence of a personal God is so central to the validity of the whole Christian faith (at least in it's more orthodox forms) I would require something pretty convincing before I dedicated any more time to it. If I were presented with evidence on par with say the evidence I have for the existence of President Obama or my next door neighbor I would accept that as being conclusive enough to warrant going back to the Christian faith. Because I don't find the philosophic arguments particularly convincing I would probably require some sort of direct personal interaction. Something on par with Jesus coming into my house and telling everyone there "I'm not a ghost if you don't believe me put your finger in my side". A burning Bush or transfiguration on the mount type thing might be good too. if there were other witnesses to convince me I wasn't just hallucinating that would be a plus.

Now, obviously the type of evidence you can hope for would vary based on type of God being asserted. If someone told me God exists but he is some impersonal pantheistic essence like Spinoza then the miraculous personal encounter type evidence would be out of the question. The only thing I could hope for there was convincing philosophical (possibly scientific as well) arguments.

 

[Nooj]

That's a hard one to answer. Seeing as how the existence of a personal God is so central to the validity of the whole Christian faith (at least in it's more orthodox forms) I would require something pretty convincing before I dedicated any more time to it. If I were presented with evidence on par with say the evidence I have for the existence of President Obama or my next door neighbor I would accept that as being conclusive enough to warrant going back to the Christian faith.

i don't understand that. i mean according to christianity, even the demons believe in god. that is, demons believe he exists. but that doesn't make them christians, nor does their belief (or knowledge?) in his existence move them to become christians.

i don't see why i or anyone else would or could become a christian because they had very good evidence for god's existence. why should i become a christian just because i believe god exists or because i believe jesus is the son of god?

and to be completely honest i don't think being a christian in the sense of believing in all the right things about god is truly important. there are millions, billions of bad christians. you're still a sinner if you're a christian. you can still go to hell and believe that god exists, jesus is the son of god etc etc.

 

[Huntun]

i don't see why i or anyone else would or could become a christian because they had very good evidence for god's existence. why should i become a christian just because i believe god exists or because i believe jesus is the son of god?

Maybe there would be reasons not to be a Christian even if one were assured of his existence. It's always possible one could meet such a being and find him to be intolerable I guess. If he were actually all compassionate, all beneficent, etc.. I doubt I would have much of a problem with him but who knows. With no evidence that he even exists in the first place becoming a Christian just isn't a live possibility for me though anymore than you could dedicate yourself to a relationship with Thor (assuming you doubt his existence). I can choose to love and have a personal relationship with my mom or my next door neighbor because I personally interact with them on regular basis in an unambiguous manner and therefore have little reason to doubt their existence (at least in an empty/ interdependent manner I understand that the term "existence" itself is problematic in Buddhist thought but I'm just using conventional speech). If I doubted that these said people even existed having a relationship with them or trying to follow their will would be a tall order to say the least.

So, while knowing that a personal God existed wouldn't necessarily transform me into a perfect person or get me a ticket to heaven it would provide something necessary for Christianity becoming a live option for me. I would then be in possession of something that would allow me to choose to follow him or reject him in an informed manner.

Not to mention the fact that failure to accept him apparently leads to eternal torture in hell according to more orthodox interpretations of Christianity. I wouldn't be to happy about going there, so even if, for some strange reason, his charisma wasn't enough to convince me to follow him with the carrot I still might go with him just to avoid that. An all knowing all good , etc... being should be fairly charming, awe inspiring, and charismatic to say the least though. I don't see how he could fail to win me over.

 

[OrdinaryClay]

There's a difference, however, between rejecting something and rejecting the *idea*
of something.

For example, I might reject the idea of unicorns, but if I were confronted with one
face to face and rejected *that*, then I'd be rejecting unicorns themselves, not merely
the idea or concept thereof.

In this case this is a distinction without a difference

God is defined as The Greatest Possible Being. So you believe such a being could exist but doesn't?

 

[OrdinaryClay]

Indeed - some things can only be said to exist in idea form.

So you think Unicorns could exist but don't?

 

[andy b]

So you think Unicorns could exist but don't?

anything can exist in thought form ..it gets tricky at the physical

 

[Gadarene]

So you think Unicorns could exist but don't?

They only can be said to exist as an idea.

 

[OrdinaryClay]

No evil is infinite in duration. All bad things end with death.

One bald assertion followed by another does not demonstrate your claim.

Not bad at all (depending on what you mean).

So your position appears to be simply based on emotion and not reason.

I don't assume total knowledge... why would I assume that?

You need total knowledge to make reason based claims such as you do. Which you admit you don't have which means you are in no position to make your grand claims about God's morality and justice.

It appears you have constructed a position based on emotion and simply arbitrarily decided it is true.

You say that a specific conception of God is good and just. I disagree that that conception is good and just. I'm rejecting you're injustice.

I don't think any sin could possibly be infinitely evil.

You've demonstrated no injustice.

I rejected the arguments for God's existence being sufficient, yes.

It's refreshing to see your honesty here. It is rare for an atheist to admit what you just said.

Rejecting the evidence for God is tantamount to rejecting God. If someone told you they were your biological parent and for whatever reason you rejected the evidence they presented this equals rejecting them as your parent.

 

[OrdinaryClay]

anything can exist in thought form ..it gets tricky at the physical

If something is said to exist only in thought then they don't exist.

 

[OrdinaryClay]

They only can be said to exist as an idea.

I don't understand what existing as an idea means? How does an idea exist?

 

[ToddNotTodd]

In this case this is a distinction without a difference

God is defined as The Greatest Possible Being. So you believe such a being could exist but doesn't?

Since I'm the greatest possible being, I guess a god does exist.

Time to start a religion...

 

[Gadarene]

I don't understand what existing as an idea means? How does an idea exist?

In the minds of people.

 

[bhsmte]

I don't understand what existing as an idea means? How does an idea exist?

In your head.

 

[Rajni]

In this case this is a distinction without a difference

However, there *is* a difference between an object and the *idea* of said object.

An idea exists in the mind. It may or may not have a corresponding reality, or
result in a corresponding reality.

But a reality and the idea of said reality are two different things. So the
distinction-without-a-difference scenario doesn't apply in this particular
scenario, I don't think .

God is defined as The Greatest Possible Being.

Yes, and I agree with that definition.

So you believe such a being could exist but doesn't?

Where do you get the idea that I don't believe God exists?




-

 

[FireDragon76]

The point is that hell is evil, so a good being couldn't have created such a place. We can be much more certain that hell is evil than that the Bible is trustworthy (or that a particular interpretation of the Bible is trustworthy).

Is punishing wrongdoing evil? Then how is the concept of hell evil?

 

[OrdinaryClay]

Since I'm the greatest possible being, I guess a god does exist.

Time to start a religion...

If your rejection of God is based on glib incoherence then you are simply lying to yourself. It's better to face reality.