Atheists can be in heaven?

[Bradskii]

Last option for what? You seem to be saying the same thing I have. That one cannot maintain atheism in heaven.

Either way, this is the Pope’s quote again
Pope Francis:

“God has the heart of a father, your father was a good man, he is in heaven with Him, be sure. God has a father’s heart and, would God ever abandon a non-believing father who baptizes his children? God was certainly proud of your father, because it is easier to be a believer and have your children baptized than to be a non-believer and have your children baptized. Pray for your father, talk to your father. That is the answer.”

It seems apparent the Pope is addressing an act of faith in God.

Gotta give you full marks for persistance. But a D- for comprehension.

Nobody has said you could remain an atheist in heaven. People (including me) have said it would be impossible. But if your response to the pope saying that God would never abandon an unbeliever who has his children baptised is ‘I don’t belive he’s an atheist’, then thanks for playing.

You would have certainly have saved yourself a few posts, a lot of writing and some time if you had said that in the first place. But as I said, it was your only option in the end.

 

[vz71]

Atheists can be in heaven? Philosophy

Perhaps. But the corollary there would be that they must give up atheism to make it to heaven. Whether that happens here or in the hereafter remains to be seen.

Days ago.

 

[PRmerger]

The best answer for God? He didn’t have one. But he had plenty for a god. It was a book for deists. Replace the name God with Thor and the arguments still stand.

Oh! Right! This is correct–he was not arguing for the God of Christianity. But rather the God of Classical Theism.

So, which of his arguments for the God of deism did you find to be the least worst?

 

[PRmerger]

Only through Jesus? What about the people who lived in the billions of years before Jesus walked the Earth? Can they be in heaven?

Yes, only through Jesus.

All those who are in heaven are there only through Jesus, who is the Eternal Logos.

Those who could not believe in Jesus can be saved, but only through Christ…but those who would not believe cannot be saved.

 

[PRmerger]

Anyhow, if one takes Jesus at his word, the expression of “have not seen and yet believe” describes a “blind faith”. Was Jesus a “heretic”? I hope not.

I always find it amusing when atheists climb in bed with fundamentalists and interpret Scripture with such a parochial, insular and flat footed approach.

Jesus was certainly NOT endorsing blind faith here but rather, just plain old faith.

As a matter of fact, the Catholic Church does NOT have a “specific” philosophy. Some Aquinas, some Aristotle, some Molinist, little bit of Duns Scotus… mixed up with a dash of Plato…

This is true. It’s a nonsequitur, having nothing at all to do with anything I’ve posited, but it’s true nonetheless.

 

[Bradskii]

Bradskii:

The best answer for God? He didn’t have one. But he had plenty for a god. It was a book for deists. Replace the name God with Thor and the arguments still stand.

Oh! Right! This is correct–he was not arguing for the God of Christianity. But rather the God of Classical Theism.

So, which of his arguments for the God of deism did you find to be the least worst?

A small g might be applicable. Unless we have a name. So why not call it Thor for convenience. You want me to tell you the least worst argument for Thor?

OK…we don’t know what started the Big Bang so let it be Thor.

That was about it. Plus a lot about morality which showed a lack of understanding of psychology, specifically evolutionary psychology.

 

[Lifeisbeautiful3]

@PRmerger How can salvation have come through Jesus in the years before Jesus was born?

 

[openmind77]

I have plenty of atheist/agnostic/non-religous friends who are good people. I find it difficult to believe this is insta-hell for them. Any thoughts?

I am Hindu (not an atheist), but I can assure you everyone - atheists, agnostics, communists, socialists, pagans etc have an equal chance of going to heaven. Of course, for a Hindu, heaven is just temporary resting place you go to until your next incarnation. Here is an excellent description of the process after death, if you are interested: http://heaven-hell-back.com/

 

[PRmerger]

@PRmerger How can salvation have come through Jesus in the years before Jesus was born?

Because, as I stated earlier, Jesus is the Eternal Logos. He is not just a man who walked the earth 2000 years ago in ancient Palestine.

 

[PRmerger]

A small g might be applicable. Unless we have a name. So why not call it Thor for convenience. You want me to tell you the least worst argument for Thor?

Sure…we can name it Thor…as long as Thor = the necessary, eternal, infinite, transcendent, immaterial, omnipotent, omniscient creator of the Universe

OK…we don’t know what started the Big Bang so let it be Thor.

Great. So the Kalam is the argument Trent presented which you find to be the least worst.
Whatever begins to exist needs a cause…the universe had a beginning…therefore it needs a cause.

So, why does the Kalam fail in your estimation?

 

[Bradskii]

Bradskii:

A small g might be applicable. Unless we have a name. So why not call it Thor for convenience. You want me to tell you the least worst argument for Thor?

Sure…we can name it Thor…as long as Thor = the necessary, eternal, infinite, transcendent, immaterial, omnipotent, omniscient creator of the Universe

I think you’ve jumped the gun here. All we have at the moment is that Thor may have started the universe. Nothing else.

 

[Gorgias]

Every time someone needs it. Using the method that is convincing for that particular “doubting Thomas”.

Then it quits being about ‘faith’ and is purely about “being overwhelmed by a demonstration”.

If the demonstration is insufficient, then why not?

Because it’s about faith.

And it proves that the “omniscience” - as stated - is an invalid, logically incoherent attribute.

No. It proves only that your thought experiment is logically inconsistent. Its goal is to create paradox. Therefore, God will not play along. Doesn’t prove anything about God other than the fact that He won’t play that game.

That “prediction” is not a specific prediction.

Aww… upset that you’ve been beaten at your own game?

A generic “prediction” cannot prove anything.

It would prove that God is smarter than you.

And why is it in “bad” faith?

Because its ulterior motive is to ‘trick’ God, not to come into belief in Him.

Would you accept my claim that “I am God”, without demanding evidence for it? It would not be “bad faith” if you did.

God already provided evidence.

 

[PRmerger]

I think you’ve jumped the gun here. All we have at the moment is that Thor may have started the universe. Nothing else.

Ok…So why don’t you think Thor exists then?

(Also, you would have to acknowledge that Thor is immaterial, necessary, eternal, infinite, since you acknowledge that Thor is the creator of the material universe, which is all space, matter, time and energy).

 

[ProdglArchitect]

All those “omnimax” attributes are meaningless.

Have you ever read through the philosophical proofs behind those assertions about the characteristics of God?

If you’d had, you’d see that they are not merely meaningless attributes, they are necessary qualities for any transcendent creator. They themselves are not intended as a proof for the Catholic understanding of God.

Far from meaningless, they are necessary to understanding God’s nature. To say that these qualities are meaningless is like saying that the quality of a square having four equal sides is meaningless to what a square actually is. It’s irrational.

 

[ProdglArchitect]

Of course. (Though there are no philosophical “ proofs ”! There are assertions. Not the same.)

No, they are proofs. In order to refute them you have to violate basic principles of logic, or start with a faulty assumption. Personal unwillingness to accept proof doesn’t make the proof any less valid.

And that shows that the “God of the philosophers” is incompatible with the “God of the Bible”. The philosophers are wrong. They collected some “infinite attributes” and try to peddle them as meaningful descriptions. An infinite attribute is contradiction in terms.

Yeah, no it’s not. An attribute is a quality/characteristic/property or the object. That quality can be finite or infinite. There is no contradiction.

Better stay away from them. To believe in God you need faith. That is all you need. Don’t try to understand God, just worship.

I’m going to assume you’re a fundamentalist, or that your only exposure to Christianity has been fundamentalists, because this is literally the opposite of hos Catholics approach God. The fact that we can’t fully comprehend God doesn’t mean we shouldn’t strive to know Him better and figure out what our limited capacities can allow us to know.

And you guys also assert that one of the attributes of God is “ incomprehensible ”. There is no way to understand an incomprehensible being.

There’s no way to understand Him fully. As stated above, the inability to fully comprehend something doesn’t make the study of that object any less worthwhile. We will never be able to fully comprehend the universe, but that doesn’t mean we’re going to stop studying it.

And that shows the true “logical inconsistency”, not my thought experiment which proves that “omniscience” leads to a paradox, and as such it is impossible.

You’re thought experiment has already been debunked by Georgias as nonsense. I realize you don’t accept that fact, but further discussion over it is fruitless because it’s just a bad argument. Are you STT in disguise, or maybe yet another incarnation of Bahaman, because your arguments are looking similar to both of theirs.

 

[ProdglArchitect]

They realize that “everything” would include even something that never existed, does not exist, and will never exist.

There’s nothing irrational about knowing these things. They are what are known as potentials, and God’s knowledge includes all of them. I can conceive of an infinite variety of scenarios that have never, and will never, exist. That doesn’t make my knowledge of those scenarios invalid, just inconsequential.

By the way, your comparison to a geometric definition is really off the mark. Geometric shapes are “defined into existence” as abstractions.

Here is another aspect we disagree on. I believe that mathematical principles like shapes and numbers exist regardless of whether or not we’ve defined them. It doesn’t matter if I understand that 1+1 = 2, that is a fundamental reality, not subject to change.

I won’t be responding again, so feel free to think you’ve won the argument with your next repost. I’ve run these circles too many times at this point, and it’s plain to see that you are unwilling to even consider the arguments we’re making, so I’m not going to waste any more of my time.

Good day and God bless!

 

[Gorgias]

Indeed! Because knowledge is superior to faith . And the point is not having faith, rather to learn about God’s existence.

No, the whole point is to have faith and believe in God. You seem to have missed that fundamental point.

The example of doubting Thomas clearly demonstrates this.

Not as much as you might think it does. Re-read that Gospel passage. Does Thomas actually take Jesus up on His offer to examine the evidence? Or, do we simply see his expression of faith (“My Lord and my God!”). You might be surprised when you take the time to read it carefully…

The concept is the same in both instances: pointing out an impossibility of something by showing that it leads to a paradox.

The paradox is in your thought experiment, not in God’s omniscience. (That’s why you didn’t like my answer – it demonstrated that we could fulfill your request and still hold to His omniscience. Disappointing for you, without a doubt, but still…)

Or “whatever I would predict, you will act contrarian to the prediction”.

Oh yeah? How is that not a prediction?

Let him participate, and we can see who is smarter.

Repeating this will not make it true.

Repeating your denial will not make it true.

All those “omnimax” attributes are meaningless.

Says you. When it comes to telling the truth, between you and God, you know whom I regard as the ‘impostor’, right?

 

[Bradskii]

Bradskii:

I think you’ve jumped the gun here. All we have at the moment is that Thor may have started the universe. Nothing else.

Ok…So why don’t you think Thor exists then?

(Also, you would have to acknowledge that Thor is immaterial, necessary, eternal, infinite, since you acknowledge that Thor is the creator of the material universe, which is all space, matter, time and energy).

He might exist. I just haven’t seen any proof of it. And I was told that after starting the process which created this universe he became mortal and lived among us. So the immaterial, infinite etc descriptions don’t fit.

 

[Gorgias]

And I was told that after starting the process which created this universe he became mortal and lived among us.

I think that’s an attempt to wink and appropriate the ‘Jesus’ event. Problem is, it doesn’t describe it accurately. Jesus didn’t “become mortal” – He _became incarnate.

They tried to ‘make’ Him mortal by crucifying Him. It didn’t have the effect they hoped for – it didn’t really ‘take’.

 

[Bradskii]

Bradskii:

And I was told that after starting the process which created this universe he became mortal and lived among us.

I think that’s an attempt to wink and appropriate the ‘Jesus’ event. Problem is, it doesn’t describe it accurately. Jesus didn’t “become mortal” – He _became incarnate.

They tried to ‘make’ Him mortal by crucifying Him. It didn’t have the effect they hoped for – it didn’t really ‘take’.

No winking there. I was told most emphatically by someone I trust that Thor started the process which created this universe and then became mortal. Nothing else should be read into that that might align with other religious beliefs.