Will we sin when we get to heaven?

[Nihilist Virus]

Is that statement true?

Yes. Why are you expressing skepticism over a theorem that you don't even understand? Do you really think that I'm going to dismiss the comprehensive work of thousands of professional mathematicians because some dude on the internet says he's got it figured out?

If so, how did you decide it was true without adding more axioms?

You don't even understand what the theorem is stating. No further axioms are required, only the law of non-contradiction is assumed. Here's my digestible version of the theorem:

If you didn't have to add more axioms to decide it's true, then the statement is false.

You are shamelessly uninformed.

The theorem does not instruct us on how to determine whether a statement is true or false. The theorem tells us that some statements necessarily have an undecidable truth value.

Furthermore, the theorem does not state that every proposition is undecidable; it states that there must exist at least one such proposition.

 

[Root of Jesse]

You are not answering my question about the angels.

Because angels are different than human beings. Angels never had to live life as humans do. They were presented with a choice. Love God or don't. Those 1/3rd who didn't are fallen angels. Mankind, on the other hand is different.

 

[Root of Jesse]

I know the Bible quite well. The reason I'm atheist is because I decided to read it cover to cover.

Once? There's the problem. Many people who want to know God spend their lives reading the Bible and trying to understand what it says to them. A one-time reading wouldn't do the trick. Try this: Read the gospels over and over for a year. Then read the rest of the NT, because you've spent time learning what God is saying to you in the gospels. There is a lot that's hard to understand in the OT, simply because of the distance in time from them to us.

 

[Root of Jesse]

Yes. Why are you expressing skepticism over a theorem that you don't even understand? Do you really think that I'm going to dismiss the comprehensive work of thousands of professional mathematicians because some dude on the internet says he's got it figured out?

Some dude on the internet, no. I would have to agree with you. But when you study the Bible, and read the Early Church Fathers and the students of the apostles, along with the 2000 year old body of work of the Catholic Church, you might form a different opinion.

You don't even understand what the theorem is stating. No further axioms are required, only the law of non-contradiction is assumed. Here's my digestible version of the theorem:

You are shamelessly uninformed.

The theorem does not state that every proposition is undecidable; it states that there must exist one such proposition.

 

[Root of Jesse]

I can only guess that you have been irritated when atheists have asked you for evidence of your faith-based claims in the past, so now you are giving the same treatment to atheists? ... Don't forget that bible verse about turning the other cheek. Some things you write are interesting, so you should take the high road IMO.

Of course, this statement made not realizing that turning the other cheek is an act of defiance...

 

[Root of Jesse]

I disagree, I don't think the Bible is clear on this. My position is supported by the fact that there are hundreds (thousands?) of branches of Christianity that all disagree with one another. Even within the same denomination there will be disagreement. Even in the same church there are pre-tribbers, mid-tribbers, post-tribbers, and non-tribbers.

Tribulation thought has little to do with being saved. The basic belief of the Church is stated by the Apostles Creed.

Regardless, even if we agree that the Bible is clear that heaven exists and we can go there if we believe and/or if we are among the elect, there's still an issue. As I said to redleghunter,

To me, salvation has always meant getting through those gates. But it is not clear that you can start the celebration once you get inside because there are known to be beings who were banished.

But not human beings.

Could you elaborate on what you mean by righteousness? I always took it to be synonymous with sinless.

No, everyone on earth is a sinner. We present ourselves to God as a sinner. God's mercy is what we rely on, and we believe he's infinitely merciful.

 

[Chriliman]

Yes. Why are you expressing skepticism over a theorem that you don't even understand? Do you really think that I'm going to dismiss the comprehensive work of thousands of professional mathematicians because some dude on the internet says he's got it figured out?





You don't even understand what the theorem is stating. No further axioms are required, only the law of non-contradiction is assumed. Here's my digestible version of the theorem:

You are shamelessly uninformed.

The theorem does not instruct us on how to determine whether a statement is true or false. The theorem tells us that some statements necessarily have an undecidable truth value.

Furthermore, the theorem does not state that every proposition is undecidable; it states that there must exist at least one such proposition.

Ah I see, thanks for the explanation. I guess I don't understand why you're starting with a contradiction at #1 and going from there. Why start with an assumed contradiction?

I would think if you start with a contradiction then you'll end up with a contradiction.

Maybe you could explain it in layman terms. Thanks!

 

[Chriliman]

Yes. Why are you expressing skepticism over a theorem that you don't even understand? Do you really think that I'm going to dismiss the comprehensive work of thousands of professional mathematicians because some dude on the internet says he's got it figured out?



You don't even understand what the theorem is stating. No further axioms are required, only the law of non-contradiction is assumed. Here's my digestible version of the theorem:

You are shamelessly uninformed.

The theorem does not instruct us on how to determine whether a statement is true or false. The theorem tells us that some statements necessarily have an undecidable truth value.

Furthermore, the theorem does not state that every proposition is undecidable; it states that there must exist at least one such proposition.

Also, could you now please address my earlier post?

 

[Moral Orel]

Time and space are good

How are they good? I would view them as neutral.

therefore it could be said that they are intrinsic to God

Intrinsic how? In that God exists within time and space and only within time and space? This would mean that they are eternal as well. Time flowing in one direction is already designed and not designed by God, and space having three dimensions is already designed and not designed by God.

If this is the case then God could have logically created our universe and life

I'm not trying to prove that He couldn't do that. I don't think it matters whether God exists within time and space or not as to whether He could do that or not.

It would then be our comprehension and understanding of God that had a beginning.

Isn't that a necessity? We have a beginning, so our ability to comprehend anything has a beginning, so of course our comprehension of God had a beginning.

Sure, God could have done things differently, but what matters to me is what is God doing now

But what if God could have done things so differently that pain and suffering were never created. The process ends in the same place, but God simply desired us to go through pain and suffering without it serving a purpose that could have been achieved by some other completely pleasant means? Desiring suffering simply for suffering's sake is malevolence.

 

[Moral Orel]

Time and space are good, therefore it could be said that they are intrinsic to God. If this is the case then God could have logically created our universe and life. It would then be our comprehension and understanding of God that had a beginning.

I think you might be misunderstanding me, or making an assumption about my motivations for the statement. I'm not saying that God can't create the universe if He exists inside the universe, yadda yadda. Personally, the model for the start of our universe I find most convincing is inflation theory that basically says time and space are eternal and our universe is just an expansion of already existing properties. So God can fit in there just fine, either as the cause of the start of that expansion, or even the creator of the overlying time and space that spawns new universes.

Science isn't a problem for me believing in a god except in a round a bout way. For instance, we don't need a god to explain natural phenomena that we used to, like the weather and eclipses. So science shows that a "God of the Gaps" approach to proof doesn't work, but other than that, it doesn't disprove Him in any way. Whatever we prove today, whether it be evolution, or abiogenesis, or the Big Bang, or a multiverse, none of those prove God doesn't exist for me.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Ah I see, thanks for the explanation. I guess I don't understand why you're starting with a contradiction at #1 and going from there. Why start with an assumed contradiction?

That was in proving that anything follows from a contradiction, so a contradiction was the necessary assumption.

In proving Gödel's theorem, I used an if and only if statement as the first step. I didn't start with a contradiction as the initial assumption. A contradiction was contained within the if and only if statement, but that doesn't make the statement itself contradictory. I even went through the trouble of proving the if and only if statement is true. I proved that anything follows from a contradiction; conversely, if anything at all can be proven, then a contradiction can be proven (I hope you find that to be trivial). Thus the if and only if statement is true. Then I negated both sides and the conclusion followed.

I would think if you start with a contradiction then you'll end up with a contradiction.

I didn't.

Maybe you could explain it in layman terms. Thanks!

Hopefully this helps.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Also, could you now please address my earlier post?

It is not relevant to the current topic nor is it relevant to the OP.

 

[Chriliman]

I think you might be misunderstanding me, or making an assumption about my motivations for the statement. I'm not saying that God can't create the universe if He exists inside the universe, yadda yadda. Personally, the model for the start of our universe I find most convincing is inflation theory that basically says time and space are eternal and our universe is just an expansion of already existing properties. So God can fit in there just fine, either as the cause of the start of that expansion, or even the creator of the overlying time and space that spawns new universes.

Science isn't a problem for me believing in a god except in a round a bout way. For instance, we don't need a god to explain natural phenomena that we used to, like the weather and eclipses. So science shows that a "God of the Gaps" approach to proof doesn't work, but other than that, it doesn't disprove Him in any way. Whatever we prove today, whether it be evolution, or abiogenesis, or the Big Bang, or a multiverse, none of those prove God doesn't exist for me.

Makes sense to me

Out of all the potential possibilities that could have caused the universe, God is the only one who could make Himself known to you in a personal experiential way.

In order to know the inflation theory is true, you'd have to personally experience the inflation, but that seems very unlikely to happen, even impossible.

God making himself known to you is far more likely to happen.

 

[Chriliman]

It is not relevant to the current topic nor is it relevant to the OP.

PM me about it if you want.

 

[Moral Orel]

Makes sense to me

So, given the new clarification that I'm not trying to disprove God scientifically, what I am actually stating is that God is supposed to be able to exist outside of time and space. If they are intrinsically part of Him, then He cannot. Theologically I believe that is a commonly held belief and explanation for God creating absolutely everything that isn't a part of Himself. So, are time and space really a part of God and is He constrained by those dimensions? Even if they are eternally part of Him, isn't He capable of transcending space by being in two locations at the same time (omnibus), and isn't He capable of transcending time by having multiple causes and multiple effects all occur simultaneously without needing to follow a step by step process for them?

In order to know the inflation theory is true, you'd have to personally experience the inflation, but that seems very unlikely to happen, even impossible.

True, but if I decide that inflation theory makes the most sense by what I can experience, and is likely to do the best job of explaining the origin of things (without using it to discount God's possible hand in it of course) then I'm not angering some other theory by ascribing to the wrong one. So I have nothing to lose by choosing that theory over another because I find it interesting and likely.

Suppose we've chosen the wrong god. Every time we go to church we're just making him madder and madder! -- Homer Simpson​

 

[Nihilist Virus]

PM me about it if you want.

I discourage private discourse. Information of an impersonal nature should be public. Feel free to discuss those thoughts here with whoever is inclined to entertain them. I'm disinterested in commenting because I don't see the point in what you are saying there.

 

[Oncedeceived]

If logic is bound by God, then square circles don't exist only because God doesn't want them to? So if God wanted to create a square circle, then he could?

This might be a better way to understand it, God is logic. Just as a circle is only a circle because it was created God in the way it was, it would be God contradicting God to make a circle square. A circle is a round plane figure whose boundary (the circumference) consists of points equidistant from a fixed point (the center). This is the truth of a circle. God is truth. God is logic. Truth is not self-contradictory. God is not self-contradictory. God will not contradict Himself so HE will not abandon truth, thus will not create a square circle. A circle has a truth value, if anything but a round plane figure whose boundary (the circumference) consists of points equidistant from a fixed point (the center), it is not a circle. God is truth and is not self-contradictory, thus the circle would not have a truth value of being a circle if it were square. Something can not be itself and something else at the same time. This statement is a universal, unchanging, and based on Logic which is God.

It is true that set theory is a fiction, but you cannot make that claim and then tell me that the law of non-contradiction is non-fiction. If you want to claim that the law of non-contradiction is absolute, I need only point out that it is an assertion—just the same as any axiom that exists—and that there is nothing about it to distinguish it from other axioms.

If the laws of logic are not absolute then truth can't be known. If you are trying to tell me that the law of non-contradiction is not absolute then what ever you tell me can't be know to be true.

But I'm betting you will cling to your special-pleading assumption that the law of non-contradiction holds in all possible realities (even though it doesn't even hold in our reality!), so if that's the case can you please tell me which of the Dedekind/Peano axioms are fiction and which are absolute? Are all Dedekind/Peano axioms fiction?

So you trying to tell me that the law of non-contradiction is false? And you make the claim I am special-pleading?

Also, it doesn't even matter if you happen to be right. Let's say the law of non-contradiction is absolute and that set theory is a fiction. Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem only assumes the law of non-contradiction. It does not assume any of the axioms from set theory. Gödel's proof applies to any self-consistent, nontrivial axiomatic system. "Self-consistent" means we're assuming the law of non-contradiction. "Nontrivial" means we have more than just the law of non-contradiction (you can hardly do anything with just the law of non-contradiction).

What can be done without it?

Set theory is just a concrete example in which we can demonstrate the consequences of the theorem. So no matter what axiomatic system we're in, there will be propositions about existence which are undecidable and my argument will still apply. If you truly want to contend that no laws of logic are absolute except the law of non-contradiction (which, again, is 1.) special pleading, and 2.) absurd because it is already false in this universe), then we cannot even discuss a square circle because we lack the absolutes of logic to describe what a circle or square might be.

If you want to claim that the law of non-contradiction is false, then we lack any foundation for rationality. All the laws of logic are necessary and absolute.

I do not know what this means. You are not providing a definition of causality.

I don't need to really. Causality is a property of the natural world.

A system is a region of space.

A state is the arrangement of matter, energy, and otherwise existing things within a system.

Causality acts on a system to take it from one state to another over a duration of time.

"Prior" to the t=0 event, space and time "did" not exist. Phrased more precisely, in a state of reality wherein the t=0 event has not occurred, space and time do not exist. Therefore, causality does not exist in this state of reality. Therefore, the t=0 event cannot have been brought about via causality.

How does a thing that didn't exist and then comes into existence come into existence without causality?

Nothing brings itself into existence, thus the universe did not bring itself into existence. How does the universe exist?

Thank you. I now see what the problem is. You've been equivocating the whole time.

When you say "Anything that begins to exist requires a cause," you are obviously referring to the fact that a painting needs a painter, a sculpture needs a sculptor, etc. You then whimsically say that the universe requires a cause in the same way, even though you are now admitting that this "cause" is completely foreign to our understanding and nothing like the causality that we know. In short, your argument is bogus.

This is not based on whimsy. The universe is a physical "thing" that came into existence, we know that no physical thing brings itself into existence. Thus, the universe had to be brought into existence and that which brought the universe into existence could not be physical as it would also need to have a cause, it would have to be outside of the universe and not part of it. God is not physical and is outside of the universe.

Please tell me that you agree with the following:

The form of causality that a carpenter uses to cause a table to exist is NOT the form of causality that brought about the universe. The form of causality that brought about the universe has unknown properties, does not require space or time to operate, and is completely beyond our understanding. In short, we might as well not even refer to it as causality in any way, shape, or form.

What you are saying here is that since we can't know how God brought forth the universe, and since it is not in the same way that the universe and causality work, it is false? Truth is truth and whether or not we can determine it doesn't change the fact that it is true. Now while it might be true that God didn't use the same form of causality as we see in the physical world, which to me makes sense since He is not of the physical world, it is not to say that He could not have caused the universe to exist. This is an assertion on your part.

But we don't even have logic in your worldview. All you will afford is us the law of non-contradiction, which can hardly be used to prove anything at all except that God is not omniscient (via Gödel's theorem).

How ironic. In fact, logic only makes sense in my worldview. You have not proven that God is not omniscient, you have asserted that the Theorem proves it but you base this on unfounded assertions. All the laws of logic only make sense within the Biblical worldview.

 

[Chriliman]

So, given the new clarification that I'm not trying to disprove God scientifically, what I am actually stating is that God is supposed to be able to exist outside of time and space.

If God can't be contradictory, then he can't create time before there was time to create time. IOW, to say "God created time" is actually a contradiction. God never claims to create time, He does claim to create the heavens and the earth, which exist within space and time. Time must be eternal and only God is experiencing eternal space/time, we are experiencing linear time and 3D space because we are the creation and God is making His creation to be like Himself.

Even if they are eternally part of Him, isn't He capable of transcending space by being in two locations at the same time (omnibus), and isn't He capable of transcending time by having multiple causes and multiple effects all occur simultaneously without needing to follow a step by step process for them?

Again, to say "God transcends space and time" is a contradiction. Either God eternally exists in a state where there is no space and time to do anything or He eternally exists in a state where there is space and time to do anything that is possible to do.

The latter understanding is inline with scripture.

Matthew 19:23-26
"23 Then Jesus said to his disciples, “Truly I tell you, it is hard for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of heaven.

24 Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God.”

25 When the disciples heard this, they were greatly astonished and asked, “Who then can be saved?”

26 Jesus looked at them and said, “With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible."

True, but if I decide that inflation theory makes the most sense by what I can experience, and is likely to do the best job of explaining the origin of things (without using it to discount God's possible hand in it of course) then I'm not angering some other theory by ascribing to the wrong one. So I have nothing to lose by choosing that theory over another because I find it interesting and likely.

Suppose we've chosen the wrong god. Every time we go to church we're just making him madder and madder! -- Homer Simpson​

As long as we read scripture and truly try to understand what God is saying and let His word change our hearts, I don't think we can go wrong.

His greatest commandments are simple and easy to understand. Love Him and love others.

 

[Moral Orel]

If God can't be contradictory, then he can't create time before there was time to create time. IOW, to say "God created time" is actually a contradiction. God never claims to create time, He does claim to create the heavens and the earth, which exist within space and time. Time must be eternal and only God is experiencing eternal space/time, we are experiencing linear time and 3D space because we are the creation and God is making His creation to be like Himself.

Again, to say "God transcends space and time" is a contradiction. Either God eternally exists in a state where there is no space and time to do anything or He eternally exists in a state where there is space and time to do anything that is possible to do.

I have to use past tense words like "created" since I am a temporal being. It did happen in my past, so it isn't a contradiction in that sense. And no, The Bible doesn't say God created space and time, but it depends on how seriously you want to take the concept that God is unchanging. If it just means His nature doesn't change, then it works. But in order for Him to not change at all, it requires Him existing outside of time. For instance, at one point in time He is a being that has foreknowledge that He will create the world, at a later point in time he is a being that has a memory of creating the world. The other problem shows up if we decide whether God can travel backwards in time. If He can, then can these two Gods I just mentioned meet and talk to each other?

Now to understand how it could be possible without it being a contradiction, you have to think about time as just another dimension such as length, and height, and depth. Mind you, this doesn't prove that it is the case, but it shows how it is non-contradictory.

Imagine that God is a three dimensional being, and we are merely two dimensional beings. He can exist outside of us because He can essentially move in a totally different direction that we can't even perceive. Imagine Him looking at a piece of paper. However, He can still interact with out little two dimensional space by sticking in a finger and swirling it around. He could have created the piece of paper that we live on and it would have no effect on the depth dimension that only He is privy to.

I find all of this super interesting, and I love to talk about concepts like this, but it isn't on-topic, so feel free to disregard the previous section as it isn't integral to proving my point. What is integral is this:

The latter understanding is inline with scripture.

Matthew 19:23-26
"23 Then Jesus said to his disciples, “Truly I tell you, it is hard for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of heaven.

24 Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God.”

25 When the disciples heard this, they were greatly astonished and asked, “Who then can be saved?”

26 Jesus looked at them and said, “With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible."

Now my improper phrasing aside, God is able to do many things simultaneously, even cause and effect relationships. Which means that the flow of time is not pertinent to the steps involved in a process. In reality, He can only be constrained by the "ingredients" as it were.

For instance, it isn't that He needs to develop a soul to the point that it is repentant. What is more accurate to say is that He can't bestow a perfectly good nature on something that is unrepentant. The amount of time that flows is irrelevant to God, He just can't effect a change in something without it possessing the necessary qualities first. He can only affect a limited amount of change to something based on its current qualities. But those qualities can change instantaneously.

Now here is going to be a big crux of my argument. If God can do something in a certain way once, there is no reason that He cannot do that same thing in that same way every time. All things being equal, meaning all the ingredients have all the necessary qualities, He can do that same thing every time, and the exception can be the rule.

So when we consider a baby who has passed away and went to Heaven, the amount of time that the child lived for is irrelevant. The only pertinent quality of the child is that he never didn't choose God even though he never did choose God. Therefore God is capable of affecting a change in the child which gives him a perfect, sinless nature without ever choosing God. So, considering any being that God creates, He is capable of affecting a change in it that gives it a perfect, sinless nature right up until the point that said being chooses not God.

As we've established, God has a perfect, sinless nature, and everyone in Heaven has a perfect sinless nature, and all of them have free will. So God is capable of creating a life, and in the same exact moment, before that life has a chance or even the conscious ability to reject God, He can affect a change in that life which gives it a perfect, sinless nature and still never hinder its freewill.

 

[Moral Orel]

Again, to say "God transcends space and time" is a contradiction.

I just noticed you started a thread about this in the Philosophy section. Feel free to disregard the top section of my reply here, and I'll join you over there (where it is certainly more appropriate and will be on topic) later tonight. Like I said, I find the concepts fascinating, but it isn't pertinent to this argument.