Will we sin when we get to heaven?

[Nihilist Virus]

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.


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.

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

What can be done without it?

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




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?



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.


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.





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.

First, you correctly summarize my views by saying that the law of non-contradiction is not absolute. But then you invoke a strawman by saying that I want to contend the law is false. Please don't do that.

You went on to say that if the laws of logic are not absolute then truth can't be known. Correct, hence my nihilism. How are you going to refute this? By appealing to the consequences? If knowing the truth is preferable, that doesn't mean reality conforms to this preference. Will you refute me by saying that nihilism is self-contradicting? Great, as long as you can prove the assertion known as the law of non-contradiction. Except you can't. It's an assertion, nothing more. It conforms to our experiences in the world, but when you look at quantum mechanics you see contradictory states of affairs. An electron can have up spin and down spin at the same time, analogous to you being both alive and dead at the same time. An electron can be in location X and location Y at the same time and even interfere with itself because of this. The law of non-contradiction is held as tentatively true, but is not absolute and nihilism wins.

Second, you are saying that God is logic. I find that to be baffling because I thought you refuted the idea that he is a Turing machine. Also, I already established that God cannot even perform logic for the purposes of acquiring new information if he is indeed omniscient, which necessarily renders logic as trivial and pointless to him. Yet you define him literally as logic.

Third, you haven't shown me in what way God's act of creatio ex nihilo is similar to the causality we know.

Let me put it like this. If aliens visited us and showed us technological wonders, we would in principle either know how their inventions work or be able to learn. We would understand that with enough energy or resources, we could replicate their technology. Buy whatever God did, we not only cannot replicate it, we not only cannot understand it, we cannot even describe it on a basic level. How did God cause the universe to exist? You have absolutely no idea, and you have no way of coherently describing an analogy. So it is utterly invalid for you to say that it was a causal event. The honest assessment is that you don't know. And when you reach that mountaintop, you'll see the atheist has been waiting there the whole time.

 

[Chriliman]

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 don't mind thinking about those things either, but I always use scripture to bounce my thoughts off of so I'm not going beyond God's word into a realm of confusion and chaos. My mind was once in a state of confusion and chaos and it was God's word, correctly understood that restored my mind, now I know to not go beyond His word.

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.

God grants repentance to whomever He pleases.

2 Timothy 2:25
"Opponents must be gently instructed, in the hope that God will grant them repentance leading them to a knowledge of the truth,"

If one confesses and repents, it's because God has always known they would. If one never confesses and repents, it's because God has always known they never would.

So if we find ourselves confessing to God and repenting, it's because of God that we're doing it. If we never confess to God and repent, it's because God has never known that we did. God's knowledge is eternal, ours is not. IOW, God already knows if your saved or not, even if you don't currently know it.

 

[Chriliman]

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.

No problem, I just wanted to see what other people think about the topic.

 

[Oncedeceived]

First, you correctly summarize my views by saying that the law of non-contradiction is not absolute. But then you invoke a strawman by saying that I want to contend the law is false. Please don't do that.

Ok, I stand corrected.

You went on to say that if the laws of logic are not absolute then truth can't be known. Correct, hence my nihilism.

So you can't know if your nihilism is correct or is truth?

How are you going to refute this? By appealing to the consequences? If knowing the truth is preferable, that doesn't mean reality conforms to this preference. Will you refute me by saying that nihilism is self-contradicting? Great, as long as you can prove the assertion known as the law of non-contradiction. Except you can't. It's an assertion, nothing more. It conforms to our experiences in the world, but when you look at quantum mechanics you see contradictory states of affairs. An electron can have up spin and down spin at the same time, analogous to you being both alive and dead at the same time. An electron can be in location X and location Y at the same time and even interfere with itself because of this. The law of non-contradiction is held as tentatively true, but is not absolute and nihilism wins.

How do you know for certain that it is an assertion and nothing more?

An electron can have up spin and down spin at the same time but an electron can not be an electron and a proton at the same time in the same way. And how that means I could be alive and dead at the same time even if true (which you deny anyway) that would support that even at death we are alive in Christ. An electron may be in location x and location y at the same time and even interfere with itself but it remains itself and not what it is not. It is absolutely true that an electron can never be a proton. They are opposing.

Second

, you are saying that God is logic. I find that to be baffling because I thought you refuted the idea that he is a Turing machine. Also, I already established that God cannot even perform logic for the purposes of acquiring new information if he is indeed omniscient, which necessarily renders logic as trivial and pointless to him. Yet you define him literally as logic.

Why would an omniscient being need to acquire "new" information when all information is known? Having all information is not trivial or pointless to Him, why would you think it was?

Third

, you haven't shown me in what way God's act of creatio ex nihilo is similar to the causality we know.

I actually said it wasn't.

Let me put it like this. If aliens visited us and showed us technological wonders, we would in principle either know how their inventions work or be able to learn. We would understand that with enough energy or resources, we could replicate their technology. Buy whatever God did, we not only cannot replicate it, we not only cannot understand it, we cannot even describe it on a basic level. How did God cause the universe to exist? You have absolutely no idea, and you have no way of coherently describing an analogy. So it is utterly invalid for you to say that it was a causal event. The honest assessment is that you don't know. And when you reach that mountaintop, you'll see the atheist has been waiting there the whole time.

It is not invalid to claim that it was a causal event when it is consistent in my worldview that God said He did indeed create the universe. That means He caused it. True, I don't know how that occurred and I admit that whole-heartedly. It matters not that I have no idea how, nor have a coherent description of how He did it but that if HE did create it as I claim, it is truth. Either God created the universe or He didn't but one or the other is most assuredly true and absolutely true which you must deny.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Ok, I stand corrected.

OK.

So you can't know if your nihilism is correct or is truth?

That is correct.

How do you know for certain that it is an assertion and nothing more?

Because you can't verify the law of non-contradiction logically. If you think you can, I'd like to see it.

Every logical system must have either a foundation of assertions or else use circular reasoning. There's no other possible logical system.

I showed that the law of non-contradiction is equivalent to the law of excluded middle, so in that sense you can say that the law of excluded middle is the assertion and that the law of non-contradiction is logically derived from it. But you are still left with unverifiable assertions somewhere.

An electron can have up spin and down spin at the same time but an electron can not be an electron and a proton at the same time in the same way. And how that means I could be alive and dead at the same time even if true (which you deny anyway) that would support that even at death we are alive in Christ. An electron may be in location x and location y at the same time and even interfere with itself but it remains itself and not what it is not. It is absolutely true that an electron can never be a proton. They are opposing.

You are acting like the only possible way an electron can actualize a contradiction is if it is a proton at the same time as being an electron. That is not the only way. I already explained it and frankly, your answer was terrible.

Why would an omniscient being need to acquire "new" information when all information is known? Having all information is not trivial or pointless to Him, why would you think it was?

You misread what I said.

I actually said it wasn't.

Then you admit it wasn't causality, right?

It is not invalid to claim that it was a causal event when it is consistent in my worldview that God said He did indeed create the universe. That means He caused it. True, I don't know how that occurred and I admit that whole-heartedly. It matters not that I have no idea how, nor have a coherent description of how He did it but that if HE did create it as I claim, it is truth. Either God created the universe or He didn't but one or the other is most assuredly true and absolutely true which you must deny.

If it makes no sense to call it causality, yet in your worldview it does, then we conclude your worldview doesn't make any sense.

 

[Oncedeceived]

OK.



That is correct.

Then I can dismiss it. Thank you. If what you are arguing for can not be true why would I care?

Because you can't verify the law of non-contradiction logically. If you think you can, I'd like to see it.

Every logical system must have either a foundation of assertions or else use circular reasoning. There's no other possible logical system.

I showed that the law of non-contradiction is equivalent to the law of excluded middle, so in that sense you can say that the law of excluded middle is the assertion and that the law of non-contradiction is logically derived from it. But you are still left with unverifiable assertions somewhere.

How do you know that the law of non-contradiction is equivalent to the law of excluded middle?

You are acting like the only possible way an electron can actualize a contradiction is if it is a proton at the same time as being an electron. That is not the only way. I already explained it and frankly, your answer was terrible.

The point which you seemed to miss is that an electron can only be an electron at the same time and in the same sense.

You misread what I said.

Ok. How?

Then you admit it wasn't causality, right?

If something is caused it is causality is it not?

If it makes no sense to call it causality, yet in your worldview it does, then we conclude your worldview doesn't make any sense.

First of all, if there is no absolute rationality how does one make sense of anything?

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Then I can dismiss it. Thank you. If what you are arguing for can not be true why would I care?

Nothing can be absolutely true, including your worldview. That's the point.

How do you know that the law of non-contradiction is equivalent to the law of excluded middle?

If we take "~" to be "not", "v" to be "or", and "·" to be "and" we will see it more clearly below. Keep in mind that "~v" = "·" and "~·" = "v".


The law of excluded middle looks like this:

X or not X

Xv~X


The law of non-contradiction looks like this:

not (X and not X)

~(X·~X)


Notice what happens when we take the law of non-contradiction and distribute the "not" operator that is on the outside:

We get not X not and not not X, which collapses to not X or X, which is the same thing as X or not X. In other words, we get ~X~·~~X, which is ~XvX, which is Xv~X, which is the law of excluded middle.

The point which you seemed to miss is that an electron can only be an electron at the same time and in the same sense.

Suppose I can be alive and dead at the same time. Is that an actualization of a contradiction or not? Do I have to be a human and a dinosaur at the same time to actualize a contradiction?

Ok. How?

I said,

God cannot even perform logic for the purposes of acquiring new information if he is indeed omniscient, which necessarily renders logic as trivial and pointless to him. Yet you define him literally as logic.

You replied,

Why would an omniscient being need to acquire "new" information when all information is known? Having all information is not trivial or pointless to Him, why would you think it was?

You misunderstood. I'm not saying he needs to acquire new information. I'm saying because he has all possible information, logic is pointless for him. Your response clearly indicates you need to reread.

If something is caused it is causality is it not?

Obviously, yes. That doesn't mean you get to just assume that an event involves causality even if it in no way can be described as a causal event.

First of all, if there is no absolute rationality how does one make sense of anything?

We make sense tentatively. We take things as they come. What we don't do is see a generalized pattern and assert that the pattern is absolute.

Also why are you leading with "First of all"? Did you intend to include other points?

 

[Oncedeceived]

Nothing can be absolutely true, including your worldview. That's the point.

IF something can't be absolutely true, then it is not true at all. I believe that there is absolute truth and that from my worldview is the only way absolute truth exists. IF your worldview claims that absolute truth is false then your worldview can not be true.

If we take "~" to be "not", "v" to be "or", and "·" to be "and" we will see it more clearly below. Keep in mind that "~v" = "·" and "~·" = "v".


The law of excluded middle looks like this:

X or not X

Xv~X


The law of non-contradiction looks like this:

not (X and not X)

~(X·~X)


Notice what happens when we take the law of non-contradiction and distribute the "not" operator that is on the outside:

We get not X not and not not X, which collapses to not X or X, which is the same thing as X or not X. In other words, we get ~X~·~~X, which is ~XvX, which is Xv~X, which is the law of excluded middle.



Suppose I can be alive and dead at the same time. Is that an actualization of a contradiction or not? Do I have to be a human and a dinosaur at the same time to actualize a contradiction?

I have to look at the belief behind your argument here and determine that when you claim that logic itself is not absolute and true, your argument then is not absolute or true. It doesn't matter what means you are supplying to argue your point if your point is that logic is not absolute or true. It doesn't matter if something can or can not actualize a contradiction as you have no reason to believe that a contradiction is important when you believe that the laws of logic are not absolute or absolutely true.

I said,

God cannot even perform logic for the purposes of acquiring new information if he is indeed omniscient, which necessarily renders logic as trivial and pointless to him. Yet you define him literally as logic.

You replied,

Why would an omniscient being need to acquire "new" information when all information is known? Having all information is not trivial or pointless to Him, why would you think it was?

You misunderstood. I'm not saying he needs to acquire new information. I'm saying because he has all possible information, logic is pointless for him. Your response clearly indicates you need to reread.

Ok, I you've answered how but that doesn't provide anything towards your claim that having all knowledge renders logic as trivial and pointless to him? If God is logic how can He be trivial and pointless to Himself?

Obviously, yes. That doesn't mean you get to just assume that an event involves causality even if it in no way can be described as a causal event.

Why not? You are somehow assuming that since the only causality we experience is in the natural world that the natural world is all exists, that natural causality is the only kind because it is the only kind we experience.

We make sense tentatively. We take things as they come. What we don't do is see a generalized pattern and assert that the pattern is absolute.

Patterns are not logic. IF you are claiming that logic is not absolutely true, then any logic that you bring forward is not absolutely true. If the logic you use can not be true, I should not conclude your argument is sound or true.

Also why are you leading with "First of all"? Did you intend to include other points?

Good point.

 

[Chriliman]

I have to look at the belief behind your argument here and determine that when you claim that logic itself is not absolute and true, your argument then is not absolute or true. It doesn't matter what means you are supplying to argue your point if your point is that logic is not absolute or true. It doesn't matter if something can or can not actualize a contradiction as you have no reason to believe that a contradiction is important when you believe that the laws of logic are not absolute or absolutely true.

Exactly. Hence:

No, that is not the statement of the theorem. The statement is,

Any self-consistent, nontrivial axiomatic system will contain true/false propositions which cannot be decided as true or false without adding more axioms.

The above Gödel theorem is an axiomatic system because it contains true/false propositions, but the statement itself cannot be decided as true because it states that more axioms must be added in order to do so, therefore if one accepts the above statement as true, they are contradicting what the statement is saying.

In order for the statement to be logically accepted as true, it should read:

Any self-consistent, nontrivial axiomatic system will contain true/false propositions which cannot be decided as false without adding more axioms. (notice I only took out the word "true")

IOW,

Any self-consistent, nontrivial axiomatic system will contain true/false propositions which can be decided as true or false when you think logically.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Exactly. Hence:



The above Gödel theorem is an axiomatic system

Incoherent. You don't know the difference between a theorem and a system?

because it contains true/false propositions, but the statement itself cannot be decided as true because it states that more axioms must be added in order to do so,

That is not what's being said. The statement of the theorem is NOT that every statement is undecidable. The statement is that there must exist at least one such statement. You're embarrassing yourself.

therefore if one accepts the above statement as true, they are contradicting what the statement is saying.

Sigh...

In order for the statement to be logically accepted as true, it should read:

Any self-consistent, nontrivial axiomatic system will contain true/false propositions which cannot be decided as false without adding more axioms. (notice I only took out the word "true")

What's the difference between "X is true" and "Not X is false"? Your views do not withstand casual scrutiny.

IOW,

Any self-consistent, nontrivial axiomatic system will contain true/false propositions which can be decided as true or false when you think logically.

LOL. Ok please tell me if the continuum hypothesis is true or false. Use that logical thinking. The statement of the hypothesis is,

There exists a set of greater cardinality than the integers but of lesser cardinality than the real numbers.

 

[Chriliman]

Incoherent. You don't know the difference between a theorem and a system?



That is not what's being said. The statement of the theorem is NOT that every statement is undecidable. The statement is that there must exist at least one such statement. You're embarrassing yourself.



Sigh...


What's the difference between "X is true" and "Not X is false"? Your views do not withstand casual scrutiny.



LOL. Ok please tell me if the continuum hypothesis is true or false. Use that logical thinking. The statement of the hypothesis is,

There exists a set of greater cardinality than the integers but of lesser cardinality than the real numbers.

The statement "X is true" is incoherent because "X" is not defined. The statement "it's true that X=X" is a true statement.

That's the problem here, you're starting off incoherently. Define "X" first, then we can decide if "X" is true.

 

[Moral Orel]

God grants repentance to whomever He pleases.

If one confesses and repents, it's because God has always known they would. If one never confesses and repents, it's because God has always known they never would.

So if we find ourselves confessing to God and repenting, it's because of God that we're doing it. If we never confess to God and repent, it's because God has never known that we did.

This discussion just took a weird deterministic left turn. I thought repentance was a state we put ourselves in that God responds to. I thought that free will is how we choose to repent, which makes us repentant, and if we choose to be repentant, then God lets us into Heaven.

But you use the word "because" which implies a cause. According to these last few statements, I can't make the choice to confess and repent, God will cause me to confess and repent, and now it seems like free will was never an option to begin with.

So if God grants repentance to whomever He pleases, does it also please Him to not grant repentance to others? That would mean that it pleases Him to send people to Hell. I'm am of the opinion that God only does what pleases Him, and everything He does pleases Him, which seems to fall in line with your statement. So it pleased God to create a place of immeasurable suffering, and it pleased God to design a system in which people will inevitably find themselves there, and it pleases God to deny repentance to people by not granting them repentance.

 

[Chriliman]

This discussion just took a weird deterministic left turn. I thought repentance was a state we put ourselves in that God responds to. I thought that free will is how we choose to repent, which makes us repentant, and if we choose to be repentant, then God lets us into Heaven.

But you use the word "because" which implies a cause. According to these last few statements, I can't make the choice to confess and repent, God will cause me to confess and repent, and now it seems like free will was never an option to begin with.

So if God grants repentance to whomever He pleases, does it also please Him to not grant repentance to others? That would mean that it pleases Him to send people to Hell. I'm am of the opinion that God only does what pleases Him, and everything He does pleases Him, which seems to fall in line with your statement. So it pleased God to create a place of immeasurable suffering, and it pleased God to design a system in which people will inevitably find themselves there, and it pleases God to deny repentance to people by not granting them repentance.

Honestly, I'm still working through the concepts of an eternal state of immeasurable torment(no end) and a finite state of immeasurable torment(God removes unrepentant people from existence because they'll never repent). Both are possible and both have serious consequences. I'd rather exist and experience immeasurable bliss, rather than not exist at all and obviously I don't want to be immeasurably tormented forever.

 

[Moral Orel]

Honestly, I'm still working through the concepts of an eternal state of immeasurable torment(no end) and a finite state of immeasurable torment(God removes unrepentant people from existence because they'll never repent). Both are possible and both have serious consequences. I'd rather exist and experience immeasurable bliss, rather than not exist at all and obviously I don't want to be immeasurably tormented forever.

True, and the Bible can support both positions. However, permanent or not, it is still immeasurably intense, and as far as Christianity goes, it does exist for humans at least temporarily. I know that just using the OT, Hell might not exist at all, and if it does, you may get to go to Heaven after a period of time in Hell. Christianity concreted the concept that humans will go to Hell for not repenting, meaning they will experience an immeasurable amount of pain and suffering at least temporarily.

 

[Chriliman]

True, and the Bible can support both positions. However, permanent or not, it is still immeasurably intense, and as far as Christianity goes, it does exist for humans at least temporarily. I know that just using the OT, Hell might not exist at all, and if it does, you may get to go to Heaven after a period of time in Hell. Christianity concreted the concept that humans will go to Hell for not repenting, meaning they will experience an immeasurable amount of pain and suffering at least temporarily.

Agreed and interpreting God's word correctly is critical in understanding the truth of this matter, but if we're trying to interpret the word of an eternal being that we don't even believe exists then we are the one's to blame for misinterpretations, if it turns out that God is real and we find this out after our mortal bodies pass away.

This is just one reason I believe in God and I believe He is communicate to us through His word of truth.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Exactly. Hence:



The above Gödel theorem is an axiomatic system because it contains true/false propositions, but the statement itself cannot be decided as true because it states that more axioms must be added in order to do so, therefore if one accepts the above statement as true, they are contradicting what the statement is saying.

In order for the statement to be logically accepted as true, it should read:

Any self-consistent, nontrivial axiomatic system will contain true/false propositions which cannot be decided as false without adding more axioms. (notice I only took out the word "true")

IOW,

Any self-consistent, nontrivial axiomatic system will contain true/false propositions which can be decided as true or false when you think logically.

The very foundation of what is being presented is that the laws of logic are not absolutely true and if they are not absolutely true, then any form of logic that is presented for the argument is not absolutely true and can be dismissed as such.

 

[SkyWriting]

So then you seem to be saying that, no, we won't sin when we get to heaven, and the reason for this is that Jesus sanctified us, or clothed us in righteousness, or whatever. Now please explain why God didn't simply make us that way to begin with. After all, he was capable of doing so, and he prefers us to be in that state, right?

One cannot sin in the presence of God. God created man outside of
heaven in a seperate created space so that we would have the option
to stay with him or not. In this respect, it seems God is Pro-Choice.

Once returned to God, voluntarily, we will stay in communion with Him.
It's a characteristic of Heaven that one cannot sin.
On earth, it is Spiritually an option to not sin.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

The statement "X is true" is incoherent because "X" is not defined. The statement "it's true that X=X" is a true statement.

That's the problem here, you're starting off incoherently. Define "X" first, then we can decide if "X" is true.

You don't know what you're talking about.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

One cannot sin in the presence of God. God created man outside of
heaven in a seperate created space so that we would have the option
to stay with him or not. In this respect, it seems God is Pro-Choice.

Once returned to God, voluntarily, we will stay in communion with Him.
It's a characteristic of Heaven that one cannot sin.
On earth, it is Spiritually an option to not sin.

How is this related to the OP or the current discussion?

 

[Oncedeceived]

How is this related to the OP or the current discussion?

How is it not?