L
Linux
Guest
God exists (God is logically necessary), but can you think of a logical argument proving that “heaven” is what we exist for?
Here’s one. It works, if one accepts the first two premisses (which perhaps not everyone will)God exists (God is logically necessary), but can you think of a logical argument proving that “heaven” is what we exist for?
Election to heaven is a grace, not necessary to man’s nature.God exists (God is logically necessary), but can you think of a logical argument proving that “heaven” is what we exist for?
My friend, we are not due heaven. We are elected to heaven, saved, by grace alone–that is, heaven is a free gift (even to Adam and Eve before they sinned). We have a natural desire to see God (being created in the imago dei), but hypothetically we could live out a purely natural end (without taking into account the fact of a universal redemption).Logic for Linux:
The Universe can’t have created itself.
Yet the Universe exists, so there must have been a Creator.
We humans can’t have created ourselves.
Yet, we humans exist, so we must have had a Creator.
We humans have a natural lifespan on earth, and then, by all appearances, die.
Yet, we humans long to keep on living. In fact, our prime reason for living is to keep on living.
So, it would have been illogical for our Creator to create us with this longing for eternal life if eternal life were not possible
Heaven is eternal life, in communion with God.
Thus, Heaven is logically necessary.
God bless us all!
P.S. I wrote that “off the cuff,” without lots of reflection. I did no research. Still, I offer it for whatever value it may inherently have, and regret the inherent flaws it may have.
Why is God logically necessary? Or are you conflating God with a “first cause” that might well be impersonal?God exists (God is logically necessary), but can you think of a logical argument proving that “heaven” is what we exist for?
Certainly you’re familiar with ontological metaphysics, as most would expect a pantheist to. He’s trying to connect the Parmenidean One to an personal deity. Obviously, it doesn’t work without Revelation.Why is God logically necessary? Or are you conflating God with a “first cause” that might well be impersonal?
Ontology in and of itself says nothing about why any god is logically necessary.Certainly you’re familiar with ontological metaphysics, as most would expect a pantheist to. He’s trying to connect the Parmenidean One to an personal deity. Obviously, it doesn’t work without Revelation.
Its evident to me that God as an inteligent act is a logically necessary being. But i am not interested in debating that. The point of the thread is whether or not it can be known rationaly that we are created for heaven. Thats why i asserted God’s existence as a given fact.Why is God logically necessary? Or are you conflating God with a “first cause” that might well be impersonal?
CS Lewis, is that you?Here’s one. It works, if one accepts the first two premisses (which perhaps not everyone will)
- Everything has a natural place, suited to its existence and nature.
- This world is hostile to human life, and humans are not really at home or happy here.
- Therefore, there must be another place which is the true home of humans.
- Therefore Heaven exists.
However, if you believe in the God of revelation, you would have to agree that heaven is logically neccesary for the fulfilment of mans nature. Man cannot fullfil their own existence.Election to heaven is a grace, not necessary to man’s nature.
See this definition.
In theological terms, however, we can explain this here.
i Gon quâ?n 2 {Shop Bao cao su} Ha` Nô?i quâ?n Thu? Du?c*Whether or not God reveals anything to anyone doesn’t necessarily have to do with the fulfillment of man’s nature. The revelation could be “the Zorg species is called to a supernatural life in God”. The call to heaven is above man’s nature. It’s supernatural. Supernatural = above (super) the nature (natural). That’s why we need a supernatural means–the grace of God–to get there.However, if you believe in the God of revelation, you would have to agree that heaven is logically neccesary for the fulfilment of mans nature.
Unless man is called to a natural end. Then, man’s nature can fulfill it. The same goes for any other living organism. A cow can fulfill its existence. It needs no heaven, no matter how happy or unhappy it should be. The call to heaven is a supernatural one that calls us out of our natural limitations by the grace of God. It’s not a natural phenomenon.Man cannot fullfill their own existence.
I personally thought it was rather weak (no offense to him/her). I agree with only the first of their premises. Happiness or lack thereof does not entitle man to something. I want a Ferrari right now, but that does not entitle me to it. No justice has to be done, because I am not owe anything. Neglecting man of shelter, food, water, security, etc. is a different thing. That sort of idea–that man lived a cruel life and then bit the dust at the whim of God–is exemplified very clearly in the Psalms. That’s why the Gospel is the GOOD news. We’re elected to theosis! Alleluia!What do you think of Qoeleth’s Argument?