Doubts about Hell, suffering. Please Help!

[eptatorata]

Alterum:

This is a very uncharitable response. Please have some sympathy for Hermione’s position, and what she is struggling with right now. This sort of reply doesn’t help.

Even coming from the atheist side, I agree with that assessment.

For what it’s worth, I have a question of my own. I frequently observe on religious forums that believers who express doubt about dogma and core doctrines are quickly accused by one poster or even a mob that their belief is childish and that they should grow up and acquire an adult belief, whatever that is.

This is something that puzzles me. It’s like saying that implicit trust and a deep feeling of comfort is somehow a bad thing. Why do they say that?

 

[eptatorata]

Philthy:

I don’t call myself Philthy for nothing! I have insulted you because you need a wake up call. ** Don’t get me wrong, I’m no better than you**, only different in that I don’t pretend to blame God for our failings as humans.

I’m sorry if I insulted you - forgive me.

That strikes me as one of the most insincere posts I have ever read on this forum.

 

[john_doran]

AnAtheist:

Is it? Such as?

I have empirical reasons to believe in the axioms I believe in. Like “every natural number has a successor”: If I take an apple, I have an apple, I take another one I have two apples, I take another one, I have three - easy to extrapolate into a reasonable axiom.

ahh, but you can’t have empirical reasons for believing that empirical reasons are necessary or sufficient.

there is also no empirical evidence that the future is going to be like the past. or that the universe didn’t pop into existence 5 minutes ago just looking like it’s billions of years old. or that there are other minds. or that your sense perceptions are reliable. or that your memory is reliable. or…

i mean, you sort of say it yourself: these are axioms for which no demonstration exists. they are just assumptions you make…

AnAtheist:

But when some guys, who have problems with counting and think the Earth has four corners, write about an undetectable place, then I need more convincing reasons.

so, do you think that individuals whose intellectual acumen and credentials you respect are believing christians or muslims or hindus or vikings or whatever - do you think people like that, who know and understand, say, math and physics and stuff like that, do you think they’re deluded? or gullible?

or does anyone with a belief-set like that automatically fail the test of intellectual respectability?

(i am genuinely curious about this, and hope the question doesn’t come off as antagonistic or sarcastic or smart-assed in any way, because i don’t mean to be any of those things.)

 

[john_doran]

AnAtheist:

The latter (Weltanschauung, nice untranslatable word btw). In fact, I regard the term “truth” as misleading. Statements are true, there is no such entity like truth itself.
As for the Catholic doctrines I find illogical:
The OP has listed one. There are several more, which all deserved their own thread, so excuse me when I skip that here.

fair enough.

but, if you’ll notice, i and others have provided a perfectly logical solution to the problem.

AnAtheist:

Well, this debate here is a perfect example. If Hell is part of reality, it must be detectable/observable.

well, see - why believe that? are other minds part of reality? is the past? to press the point home, no less an atheist than david hume pointed out that “causality” isn’t detectable in the way you suggest.

AnAtheist:

Great, show me, where is it? Same goes for the creation story, the Flood, the tower of Babel, the exodus. Nice myths but unsupported by reality.
Yes, I know, those stories are to be regarded as metaphors, creationists aside. But they come from the very same source, from which other stories should not be taken metaphorically, like certain relationships to God, virginity, resurrections, miracles. That is one inconsistency to start with.

miracles are inconsistent with natural laws, to be sure. but not with divine action. and since the world contains both, divine intervention is not inconsistent with the world considered tout court.

AnAtheist:

Another example: A rainbow is an ordinary optical phenomena, recreatable with any lightsource, some air and water. It is not the bridge to Walhalla, does not point to a pot of gold, and it is not a “I promise: No more Floods”-sign.

i’m not sure what you want this observation to do…

a cheque is an ordinary physical phenomena, recreatable with any piece of paper, and a writing implement used to inscribe an amount of money, the name of the individual to whom that amount is payable, and the person who is to do the paying.

is it an “I promise to pay you this money” sign? of course it is.

a rainbow can be used as a sign of a covenant if the person doing the covenant says that’s what it’s supposed to signify. all that requires (as with cheques or any other kind of contractual instrument) is a some physical thing, and an intention for that thing to signify an agreement between two parties…

surely you’re not suggesting that there’s some kind of logical absurdity involved with the idea of someone saying “see that rainbow? well, that is going to be a sign of my promise not to flood the place any more”.

 

[AnAtheist]

john doran:

ahh, but you can’t have empirical reasons for believing that empirical reasons are necessary or sufficient.

I suspect a type 1 (remember Russel ?)

there is also no empirical evidence that the future is going to be like the past. or that the universe didn’t pop into existence 5 minutes ago just looking like it’s billions of years old. or that there are other minds. or that your sense perceptions are reliable. or that your memory is reliable. or…

If my memory/senses/universe is not reliable, but looks and behaves like as it was reliable (and at least that it does), there is no difference between both states, at least not in my mind.

i mean, you sort of say it yourself: these are axioms for which no demonstration exists. they are just assumptions you make…

Yes, but the derivations made from them ***work ***in real life. Assuming a Hell for no reason does not.

so, do you think that individuals whose intellectual acumen and credentials you respect are believing christians or muslims or hindus or vikings or whatever - do you think people like that, who know and understand, say, math and physics and stuff like that, do you think they’re deluded? or gullible?

Yes.

or does anyone with a belief-set like that automatically fail the test of intellectual respectability?

No.

(i am genuinely curious about this, and hope the question doesn’t come off as antagonistic or sarcastic or smart-assed in any way, because i don’t mean to be any of those things.)

I take it, that neither of us is as arrogant as Psalm 14:1 or some hypothetical negation.

 

[Mijoy2]

AnAtheist:

Ah, the good old theodicy problem. I asked myself the same questions, and there are several possible answers you probably do not want to hear.
The simplest answer of course is: God does not exist.

You have 506 posts. You sure spend a lot of your time, wasting time, with a waste of time.

 

[john_doran]

AnAtheist:

I suspect a type 1 (remember Russel ?)

ahh. so you make stuff up as you go, just to avoid logical problems…i get it.

AnAtheist:

my memory/senses/universe is not reliable, but looks and behaves like as it was reliable (and at least that it does), there is no difference between both states, at least not in my mind.

well, if you’re actually just dreaming this life, and are in fact a brain in a vat in an alpha centaurian lab, then both states are, in fact, radically different (e.g. every proposition you entertain about your surroundings is false).

AnAtheist:

Yes, but the derivations made from them ***work ***in real life. Assuming a Hell for no reason does not.

for one thing, there are an infinite number of axiomatic systems that can be defined to be consistent with “real life”. are they all therefore true?

for another, the existence of hell isn’t postulated “for no reason”.

AnAtheist:

I take it, that neither of us is as arrogant as Psalm 14:1 or some hypothetical negation.

i certainly try not to be, but i’m sure there are those who would say different…

 

[AnAtheist]

john doran:

but, if you’ll notice, i and others have provided a perfectly logical solution to the problem.

Logical -yes. Convincing - no.

well, see - why believe that? are other minds part of reality?

What is the Matrix?
Though it is amusing, this leads nowhere.

to press the point home, no less an atheist than david hume pointed out that “causality” isn’t detectable in the way you suggest.

Well, repeatable observation is causality enough for me.

miracles are inconsistent with natural laws, to be sure. but not with divine action. and*** since the world contains both***, divine intervention is not inconsistent with the world considered tout court.

No, it doesn’t.
If there are miracles in this world, show me one. You should be able to perform one by yourself, just pray for one (Matthew 21:21-22).

 

[AnAtheist]

john doran:

well, if you’re actually just dreaming this life, and are in fact a brain in a vat in an alpha centaurian lab, then both states are, in fact, radically different (e.g. every proposition you entertain about your surroundings is false).

If that is true, I am dreaming of non-existing people having invented a non-existing God.

And as long as I do not wake, “reality” won’t change, so I cannot notice, so there is no other reality. Besides, the lab, where I lie dreaming, could be dreamed by some Smurfs.

 

[Ahimsa]

From a Calvinist perspective, eternal damnation is simply what we deserve, by the mere fact of being descendants of Adam. You live, you die, you to go hell. Unfair? Well, that’s life!

But…God so loves the world, that he predestined a select few (are you one of the few? maybe, but probably not!) to enjoy heaven with Him for eternity. And because He will save a few, God deserves worship from us all. Even if you know for certain that you yourself are going to hell, you should still love and worship God: It’s the right thing to do.

Quite a theologian of the surreal, that Jean Calvin.

 

[john_doran]

AnAtheist:

Logical -yes. Convincing - no.

progress. then you at least admit that one belief you had claimed to be illogical is not (or need not) be illogical.

AnAtheist:

What is the Matrix?
Though it is amusing, this leads nowhere.

sure it does. it leads to the conclsuion that empricial verifiability isn’t a necessary condition for certainty. since you’re certain that you’re not in the matrix, and you can’t prove you’re not.

AnAtheist:

Well, repeatable observation is causality enough for me.

again, it may be enough for you, but it is not enough for the logical consistency of the belief-set you seem to be espousing.

AnAtheist:

No, it doesn’t.

you miss my point: if you are going to claim that my beliefs are inconsistent, then you have to demonstrate the inconsistency of ***my ***beliefs. in this case, when you claimed that my beliefs re: miracles are inconsistent, you need to show that my belief in a world that contains a god who intervenes directly in his creation, is inconsistent.

so. what’s inconsistent about an interventionist deity?

AnAtheist:

If there are miracles in this world, show me one. You should be able to perform one by yourself, just pray for one (Matthew 21:21-22).

it is no part of my beliefs that i can perform miracles. so this test is useless.

 

[john_doran]

AnAtheist:

If that is true, I am dreaming of non-existing people having invented a non-existing God.

And as long as I do not wake, “reality” won’t change, so I cannot notice, so there is no other reality. Besides, the lab, where I lie dreaming, could be dreamed by some Smurfs.

right. so what’s so special about this proposition that it doesn’t require verification by your empricist criterion?

and if this belief doesn’t need experimental proof, why can’t there be others similarly exempt?

i mean, you can’t just claim that my beliefs are false because they fail your test, when your own beliefs also fail it…

 

[SPOKENWORD]

john doran:

but how are you sure of that?

i’ll tell you what i’m sure of: that god’s goodness, love, and mercy are such that he forgives anyone asking for it. the image of a seething cauldron of people burning and writhing in agony, all begging and pleading for god to be merciful to them, and god just ignoring them, simply makes no sense to me.

at the very least, my conviction in the plenary power of god’s mercy far exceeds any conviction i have in a particular theology of hell.

Hi John,I,m sure of that because scripture tells us what hell is like. Gods Word does not lie to us as Anathiest believes. God Bless

 

[SPOKENWORD]

AnAtheist:

You are absolutely right. That makes no sense at all.
But you must keep in mind, that SPOKENWORD argues from scripture, and that from a scripture that contains significantly less information than your scripture. As a Catholic you have the luxury of an authority that interprets scripture, SPOKENWORD has scripture only, and since scripture is full of mistakes, contradictions, metaphors and outright nonsense he has to rely on a literal interpretation not to get totally confused. That of course implies that he has to accept and/or ignore all those contradictions.

Hi AnAthiest,First let me correct you that God doesnt make mistakes. The problem is your understanding.Stop trying to figure God out and instead put the little faith you have into action.God can turn that faith the size of a mustard seed into the size of a mountain. God Bless

 

[john_doran]

SPOKENWORD:

Hi John,I,m sure of that because scripture tells us what hell is like. Gods Word does not lie to us as Anathiest believes. God Bless

sure, but it doesn’t say anything about whether or not the people in hell are asking for mercy.

god’s word certainly doesn’t lie, but it doesn’t tell us everything about everything, either.

 

[4_marks]

AnAtheist:

No, then I will be reborn as a lower creature.


Or, I will go to Nirvana, because I have reached the ultimate intellectual level for a human, where your morals do not apply.
Or, I will be rewarded by the Demiurg.
Or, I will go to Walhalla, because Odin’s absolute morals are different from your absolute morals.

Good. Come back as a seal so I can club you to death and make a coat for my wife to wear.

 

[STJOMO]

AnAtheist:

No, we don’t.
We know a thousands stakes, told by thousands of religions. So we have to judge, what religion might be telling the truth about those stakes. So far I have not encountered any religion, that proposes a truth that is a) logical AND b) consistent with observable reality.

Yes, you have encountered a religion. It is non-belief. Don’t think for a moment that atheism doesn’t require a leap of faith.

 

[AnAtheist]

john doran:

right. so what’s so special about this proposition that it doesn’t require verification by your empricist criterion?

What exactly does not need experimental proof? The non-existence of the alpha centaurian lab? Of course not, its existence would need evidence, see below…

and if this belief doesn’t need experimental proof, why can’t there be others similarly exempt?

i mean, you can’t just claim that my beliefs are false because they fail your test, when your own beliefs also fail it…

There is a fundamental difference between your belief and mine.

You assert X without evidence, while I dismiss X without evidence.

I could state, that the Smurfs are running a Cantina of Jupiter. Do you have evidence against it? No? Hurray, the Smurfs are running a Cantina of Jupiter.

 

[AnAtheist]

SPOKENWORD:

Gods Word does not lie to us as Anathiest believes.

I don’t believe that. I believe, God does not exist, therefore the Bible is not God’s word but all human handiwork. That includes the errors.

 

[AnAtheist]

4 marks:

Good. Come back as a seal so I can club you to death and make a coat for my wife to wear.

I will come back as bacteria and infect you. How about that?