God forced me into existence

  • Thread starter Thread starter Zatzat
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Very interesting post. I can’t go along with the possibility of confessing sins that one believes are non-existent to a God that one believes is non-existent. What I like about Slywakka’s position is that he is being honest with/about God and I think this is good and important, even if there seem to be serious shortcomings in his understanding. One can fail to be *affectively *convicted about the existence and love of God and even have serious doubts, and still serve God; but if one has the minimal conviction that hell is possible and a loving God is possible, such that one is motivated to confess, it does not seem possible to genuinely really believe at the same time that God and sin *really *do not exist.
I tried to make the point that all atheists are, from a philosophical standpoint, agnostic. This is how Bertrand Russell described himself to philosophers. To the average person on the street he just said, “I’m an atheist”.

One could be motivated to join the church and confession because of the possibility of hell, knowing that the risks involved are just too great. Since you are familiar with Sartre, I will take my example a step further.

Sartre believed that even if God or an angel appeared to him, or if the Holy Spirit interacted with him, there was still the possibility that he could be insane (he cites an example of a crazy old woman) and therefore could not believe.

Let’s say an atheist decides to take my form of a bizarre pascalian wager/divine insurance plan and joins the church. He gets baptized. Later that night the Holy Spirit enters his body and gives him knowledge of God and the existence of God in the form of an inner locution. The baptized atheist says to himself, “I am insane. I still do not believe,” but he continues to go to confession and mass.

It’s actually very possible to be atheistic, philosophically agnostic, and joined to the mystical body of Christ while partaking in the sacraments. Think about it. They might not really believe that God does not exist, but at the same time the atheist who is motivated to confess might not really believe that God does exist or have any intellectual satisfaction/proof of it whatsoever.
 
Some good points, but at the same time one-sided. There is no reason to think that the suffering of all who are in hell will be equally immense. There is good reason to think it will be fairly minimal in some cases, it seems to me. Also, Hans Urs von Balthasar believed that we could justifiably *hope *that no one would be damned, and while not really being in agreement with the main currents of the Church’s teaching tradition, I don’t think he can be called heterodox either.

Sartre’s No Exit isn’t exactly ‘orthodox,’ but it isn’t devoid of truth either, I suspect. Hell is other people and we get a pretty good preview of hell by looking at what people do to each other on earth.
I agree with you in that hell probably reflects something similar to Dante’s vision when he wrote The Inferno. From a philosophical perspective, the punishment should fit the crime. This is exactly how I suspect God’s Justice will function. An eye for a eye. So yes, probably different degrees of punishment/rings of hell.

As for your wishful thinking about hell. Meditate on this passage straight from the horse’s mouth.
“Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it.”
Then read this trueletterofoursavior.com/stleonard.htm

Can we hope that hell is empty? Sure, but it’s probably just as ineffective as praying for the salvation of satan.
 
Obvious problem here: the atheist is struggling with a concept already. He doesn’t know if there is any ‘gun’ and believes that if one is included in the God-concept being proposed to him, this inclusion makes the concept intrinsically more difficult to believe. There is no such dynamic of ‘credibility’ for the person being robbed.

You really lost me here. Your claim seems to be completely contrary to Catholic moral teaching, especially when we read your “natural” in the context of the tradition of a natural law approach to ethics.
On your problem with the robber/gun analogy. I would contend that an “intrinsically more difficult” concept to believe pertaining to God, should be believed because of this basis. I guess I agree with Kierkegaard, "If I am capable of grasping God objectively, I do not believe, but precisely because I cannot do this I must believe. "

As for your section objection, I intended that section to be read in the context of secular ethics. The problem with “Natural Law” is that it is no where to be found in nature (See Nietzsche’s Beyond Good and Evil, specifically his condemnation of the stoics who wished to live according to nature). The church teaches that when a lion rips apart a zebra and regurgitates the meat into the mouths of its offspring, that these actions are “morally neutral”. I have difficulty accepting this. Hope that helps.
 
Well, I guess I’ll jump in.

Simply, God could not have forced you into existence because there was simply no “you” to be forced. You were just…made. You had no say in your creation, but creation wasn’t something that was done to you (as being forced into something implies), it was the beginning of you. So technically, you cannot be forced into existence.

God cannot force you into existence, only decide to create you (to actualize a creaturely essence)
 
Lastly, reason and logic dictate that the vast majority of people who came into existence will end up in hell. I could quote verse after verse from the Bible and saint after saint, I just don’t feel like it.
Well, you sure see the “risk level” of existing in this universe as very high then. And are you really willing to believe in a God who allows existence in such a dangerous universe? And if you believe in him, how could you love and worship a God like this??

Your appeal to logic and reason suggests that we should be able to “give an account” of how it came to be that a certain number of people are in hell and a certain number of people are in heaven. God, being omnicient, and being the creator who set all things in motion, necessarily can give an account of how the final outcome came to be. Remember that God has foreknowledge of the final outcome, even as he creates all men. The number of the saved is not random! God created our human will; he knows the inner workings of the heart of every man, having fashioned them himself. So neccessarily God sets in place by his creation of man with free will, a “logic” of salvation.

This logic inheres and flows from the nature of the physical universe, the nature of God, the nature of all spiritual things, such that the logic permeates all things as to have a determining influence on the final outcome, despite the fact that each individuals outcome is choosen all my the individual via free will.

I’m really just trying to come up with a weaker version of what Aquinas says.

For in Summa Part 1, Q23, article 7, Aquinas says…

newadvent.org/summa/1023.htm#article7
h.ttp://ww.w.newadvent.org/summa/1023.htm#article7:
"Therefore we must say that to God the number of the predestined is certain, not only formally, but also materially. It must, however, be observed that the number of the predestined is said to be certain to God, not by reason of His knowledge, because, that is to say, He knows how many will be saved (for in this way the number of drops of rain and the sands of the sea are certain to God); but by reason of His deliberate choice and determination. "
Yes, Aquinas says that the true count of people in heaven vs hell at the end of time is specifically chosen by God by his deliberate choice and determination.

Yes, by reason of his delibrate choice and determination****. Aquinas just uses stronger langauge to describe the “logic” of salvation, I was discussing above.

Now in all this, God still respects our free will, and we all “theoretically” be saved if we so choose. The problem is we dont’ know how difficult salvation really is, because we dont’ know the oods. We DON’T KNOW how many God has predestined. So it is true that to exist invloves a tremendous risk of eternal torture which we will not tolerate if it be our fate. We will languish in flames and worms, in a state of utter agony and misery beyond our worst nightmares.

The glory of heaven does not compensate for the risk of existence, not because heaven isn’t good enough to justify the risk (it is), but because it doesn’t matter how good heaven is if the chances of getting their are small.

Nothing changes the fact that at the end of time there will be a final outcome, and if there is even one person in eternal hell, that person is there, freely perhaps, but on account of conditions, and logic which God put into his creation. This can only be described as a game, a gamble with eternal stakes, taken not by our choice, but thrust on us at the moment of our creation.
Well, I guess I’ll jump in.

Simply, God could not have forced you into existence because there was simply no “you” to be forced. You were just…made. You had no say in your creation, but creation wasn’t something that was done to you (as being forced into something implies), it was the beginning of you. So technically, you cannot be forced into existence.

God cannot force you into existence, only decide to create you (to actualize a creaturely essence)

5. Since believers were created for God and for service to God, we do not belong to ourselves but to God.
6. Since we are property of God, we have no right to wish for non-existence or to wish that we were never born. Had we created ourselves, we would be entitled to that right.
We were forced in the sense that we were created as pieces in God’s game of heaven and hell. The stakes are eternal. We are trapped in a logic and system of salvation with unknown odds. A person can be said “to not exist.” you can logically concieve of my non-existence, or my annilihation. It does not matter that there was no “me” to be forced. the simple fact that I exist (instead of not existing ), without fully understanding the terms of my existence as it was forced upon me, is suffecient to show how unconsiderate God was to do such a thing as create me.

I continue to hope maintain that we are very reasonable to wish that we had never been born, and to take an offer of anhilliation of it were offered to us. Furthermore, I see God as very unjust in logic of salvation he has established, and not worthy of my true love.
 
Hell does not have its compensations.
Your unexplained dogmatism suggests that you have intimate knowledge of hell!
No one will tolerate hell; those in hell are suffering pure torture for all eternity.
Sheer nonsense! Who would opt for pure torture for all eternity? And to suggest that the damned have no choice turns God into a cruel monster devoid of compassion. Either way your argument collapses completely…
OK people seem to be arguing here that existence with the opportunity for eternal life with God is supremely good. And because existence is so good, it is illogical to wish that you had not existed.
And they are dead right!
But I do indeed wish that I had not come into existence.
You haven’t given one good reason why…
People here seem to be saying that choosing God is as simple as choosing what shirt to put on in the morning. Its not like that! Winning heaven requires you to respond to God’s grace many times in your lifetime, all the way up to your natural death, where you must pray for final perseverance, as the devil attacks your ferociously as you near death.
This is a distortion of Catholic teaching. It suggests you’re demanding a life without any responsibility, obligations or effort on your part, i.e. sheer idleness…
Grace and love are not cheap. salvation is a war over you soul.
You obviously expect to have everything for nothing. How unrealistic can you get…
 
Your unexplained dogmatism suggests that you have intimate knowledge of hell!
No. This is what i believe the Church teaches…
Sheer nonsense! Who would opt for pure torture for all eternity? And to suggest that the damned have no choice turns God into a cruel monster devoid of compassion. Either way your argument collapses completely…
Apparently many people willingly choose pure torture. I know it sounds insane and utterly illogical, but I suppose that’s what makes mortal sin, mortal sin.

I no where have argued that the damned have no choice. I have argued the despite everyone having free will, the number of the predestined are directly determined by God. (see my quote from Aquinas in my last post) In this way the risk of hell which is entailed by one’s existence becomes unacceptable for a just God to force on someone.
And they are dead right!
Are you certain of your salvation? Or more importantly, do the damned continue to accept this truth? Do the damned, even if not tolerating their punishments, accept their punishment in hell to such an extent as to suffer it willingly without the desire for annihilation?
This is a distortion of Catholic teaching. It suggests you’re demanding a life without any responsibility, obligations or effort on your part, i.e. sheer idleness…
I don’t object to responsibility, obligations or effort. I do object to a responsibility which bears eternal torture as a continual threat. As an example, I think its horrendous that the Church considers turning to God, out of fear of hell, the first and lowest form of the love of God. There is nothing meritorious about turning to God out of of fear of hell.
You obviously expect to have everything for nothing. How unrealistic can you get…
I don’t want everything, in fact I want nothing (annihilation), but am merely offered (everything if you you beat the odds, or else pure torture for eternity). Why not just give me a life on earth that ends after death? That’s not asking for “everything.” No, God has placed a much bigger bet on my soul than that, an eternal one, and I don’t appreciate it.
 
Well, you sure see the “risk level” of existing in this universe as very high then. And are you really willing to believe in a God who allows existence in such a dangerous universe?
Short answer- Yes, because it’s in my best interest.

Long answer- I agree with everything you said about God’s foreknowledge and Aquinas. There will be a total number of souls created by God. According to the two accounts in the Sermon of St.Leonard we have two separate ratios:

30,000 in hell for every 5 people in heaven => 1 out of 6,000

60,000 in hell for every 3 people in heaven => 1 out of 15,000

I averaged those two accounts and got around 1 person in heaven for every 10,000 in hell. In our depraved age, I expect the ratio to be much much higher, but even these statistics confirm what you are saying.

Mark Twain is credited with saying, “There are three types of lies: lies, damn lies, and statistics.” The above statistics are misleading. Even though the vast majority of Catholics are damned, the vast majority of the damned are not Catholic. God gives special graces that are available to those who are members of his church. These include baptism, confirmation, the eucharist, holy water, the rosary, confession, annointing of the sick, marriage and/or holy orders. These are distinct advantages. Those catholics who take advantage of these graces can easily up their salvation chances to over 70%.

Let’s take an example. If you die in a state of mortal sin, the church teaches you go to hell. The average catholic who goes to confession before mass, is in a state of grace at the start of every new week. Most people should be able to hold out from mortal sin for at least 4 or 5 days. Let’s say that person gives in to mortal sin and entertains lustful thoughts on friday. As long as he doesn’t die on friday or saturday, he’s in good shape. We could even say he’s “odds on to go to heaven, or at least purgatory and then heaven”. He has a 5 out of 7 chance of making it there. When you think about it, that’s pretty good odds. The universe isn’t that dangerous if you are a practicing member of God’s church.

Non-Catholics have only their conscience to live by since God has written his law on their hearts. Therefore, almost all non-catholics are damned.
And if you believe in him, how could you love and worship a God like this??
That’s an easy question. I hate myself and I don’t particularly like other people. If I were God, I would send every last person on the planet to hell, but that’s only because I’m wicked and not all-loving. The only reason I want other people to be saved is because God states that that is his will in the epistles of Timothy. I am God’s servant and respect his will.

In short, I love and worship God because he is so unlike myself. The fact that He is going to save a few wicked sinners,* wills to save all me*n, and is doing so for no particular gain or benefit for himself when all mankind deserves to fry, makes Him worthy of worship and love.
 
Forcing our existence and forcing us to take part in his forced scheme of salvation.
I am truly sorry, you feel you were forced into existence.

Actually, I was forced into being born in America…and because I live here, I’m bound by it’s laws.🙂 America’s forced scheme of salvation ]🙂

I guess, I could always “check out”😛
 
The problem with this is that you HAVEN’T been forced into existence. You’re only forced if you’ve ever implied that you didn’t want God to make you exist. Obviously this is impossible. How can you protest God making you exist before you exist? It’s totally illogical.

What you’re mad about are the circumstances God put you in. But I think he’s put you in the best possible circumstances.

That is of course a whole different debate that we get into more with the problem of evil, but nevertheless you were not “forced” to exist because it’s impossible to protest something you didn’t exist to protest against.
 
Your unexplained dogmatism suggests that you have intimate knowledge of hell!
Then you are mistaken! The Church teaches that our ultimate authority is our conscience.
We go to hell only if we knowingly and deliberately choose to live for ourselves at the expense of others…
Sheer nonsense! Who would opt for pure torture for all eternity? And to suggest that the damned have no choice turns God into a cruel monster devoid of compassion. Either way your argument collapses completely…
Apparently many people willingly choose pure torture.

“Apparently” is the key word. How do you **know ** they “willingly choose pure torture”? Or is it just a surmise on your part?
I know it sounds insane and utterly illogical, but I suppose that’s what makes mortal sin, mortal sin.
It not only sounds insane, it is insane! Mortal sin has nothing to do with insanity. It implies a clear-sighted choice of evil.
Nowhere have I argued that the damned have no choice. I have argued the despite everyone having free will, the number of the predestined are directly determined by God. (see my quote from Aquinas in my last post).
There is direct conflict between the concepts of predestination and free will. If we **choose **our destiny it cannot be predetermined.
In this way the risk of hell which is entailed by one’s existence becomes unacceptable for a just God to force on someone.
Nothing is forced on us by God. The risk is imaginary!
And they are dead right!
Are you certain of your salvation?

Yes! Love casts out fear. I am certain that if I love others to the best of my ability I shall go to heaven. That is all that matters. You are overlooking the fact that God created us out of love, died for us and created us to share His joy. Your notion of God is a cruel, vindictive monster who is intent on our destruction rather than a God who has shared our suffering, temptations and death…
Or more importantly, do the damned continue to accept this truth? Do the damned, even if not tolerating their punishments, accept their punishment in hell to such an extent as to suffer it willingly without the desire for annihilation?
The damned are prepared to tolerate their self-inflicted misery because their lust for power is constantly satisfied by having absolute freedom. We see plenty of evidence of that lust in this world.
This is a distortion of Catholic teaching. It suggests you’re demanding a life without any responsibility, obligations or effort on your part, i.e. sheer idleness…
I don’t object to responsibility, obligations or effort. I do object to a responsibility which bears eternal torture as a continual threat.

The continual threat exists only in your mind. It is impossible to have freedom without responsibility. It is also impossible to have good without evil. Whether you like it or not we all obtain precisely what we deserve. We have nothing to fear and everything to hope for if we live according to the principles of liberty, equality and, above all, fraternity.
As an example, I think it’s horrendous that the Church considers turning to God, out of fear of hell, the first and lowest form of the love of God. There is nothing meritorious about turning to God out of fear of hell.
You are dead right! The Church puts the love of God before the fear of hell but to ignore the possibility of hell is unrealistic. If we are wise we warn children to avoid dangers of every description - including being selfish, lazy, greedy and cruel - because we know they will suffer in the long run…
You obviously expect to have everything for nothing. How unrealistic can you get…
I don’t want everything, in fact I want nothing (annihilation), but am merely offered (everything if you you beat the odds, or else pure torture for eternity).

To want nothing rather than everything is clearly absurd and unjustifiable. The odds exist only in your mind. It is impossible for you to lose if you choose to live with love.
Why not just give me a life on earth that ends after death?
You are weakening! A moment ago you wanted nothing but now you decide that a life on earth is preferable. How do you know you won’t change your mind again when you are approaching death? 🙂 It is when we lose or are about to lose what we have that we realise how valuable it is…
That’s not asking for “everything.” No, God has placed a much bigger bet on my soul than that, an eternal one, and I don’t appreciate it.
God is not a gambler! His love for us is so great He shares His power with us to such an extent we have the option of becoming gods in our own right. Why? Because He knows we can be capable of love only if we are free to choose how to live. Not to appreciate the gift of freedom is to be guilty of ingratitude. Your problem is that you have a negative view of life - like Schopenhauer who remarked that it would be better if life had never existed on this planet. Ironically he wrote extensively about aesthetics and beauty thereby contradicting himself! Why did he bother if life is not worthwhile?
 
40.png
Ignatius:
*Maybe consented at the moment of your conception and forgot!
Your reply is speculation, not proof.
*
Show me the proof that your God exists or admit that he doesn’t!
Your original contention is that God forced you into existence. So you believe that a non-existent Being forced you into existence? That’s not a very coherent argument, I’m afraid you’ve gone off the rails with this one. You’re simply not making any sense.
 
Your original contention is that God forced you into existence. So you believe that a non-existent Being forced you into existence? That’s not a very coherent argument, I’m afraid you’ve gone off the rails with this one. You’re simply not making any sense.
God does not ‘force’ us into existence; He wills us in His mercy. From the Summa Theologica of Saint Thomas Aquinas: “[T]he work of divine justice always presupposes the work of mercy; and is founded thereupon. For nothing is due to creatures, except for something pre-existing in them, or foreknown. Again, if this is due to a creature, it must be due on account of something that precedes. And since we cannot go on to infinity, we must come to something that depends only on the goodness of the divine will–which is the ultimate end. We may say, for instance, that to possess hands is due to man on account of his rational soul; and his rational soul is due to him that he may be man; and his being man is on account of the divine goodness. So in every work of God, viewed at its primary source, there appears mercy.” (STh, I q. 21 a.4)

This was confirmed in Christ’s revelation to Saint Faustina, in entry 300 of her diary: “Mankind will not have peace until it turns with trust to My mercy. … My Heart rejoices in this title of Mercy. Proclaim that mercy is the greatest attribute of God. All the works of My hands are crowned with mercy.”

On the other hand, the Catechism teaches us that God did create us without our consent. Paragraph 1847 quotes Saint Augustine’s 169th Sermon: “God created us without us: but he did not will to save us without us.” (Sermon 169)

Nonetheless, the Council of Trent affirmed that God will grant the necessary graces for the salvation of your soul: “God does not command impossibilities; but by commanding He admonishes you both to do what you can, and to ask for that which is beyond your power, and by His help enables you to do it” (Session 6, Cap. 11).

-Ryan Vilbig
ryan.vilbig@gmail.com
 
Again, when you think about it it’s obvious that God created us without our consent; we did not exist and could not consent.

In the same way, we did not exist and could not dissent.

So we’re arguing about why we didn’t have a choice in a matter it’s impossible to have a choice in.

Then the arguement changed to “God should give me an opt-out clause”. This is a silly arguement as well-why do we think we know what’s best for us? God created all of us because he wanted all of us to join him and experience the Beatific Vision. If he thought our existence could be improved with an opt-out clause, he would have provided it-but he didn’t think that. Since he’s all good AND omniscient that just about settles the matter. We don’t know better than God.

And before you protest that you don’t believe all these things about God, that’s a cop-out answer. We’re discussing the Abrahamic God here, so the qualities of the Abrahamic God are the ones we’re dealing with. If your beef is with a different God, take it up with them. In the same way, if you simply protest that you don’t believe in God, then this whole thread is pointless anyway.
 
If your specific God is real;

Forcing our existence and forcing us to take part in his forced scheme of salvation.
This is what I said:
Then why do you persistently ask us to prove that He exists?
Furthermore, assuming He is real, what is He doing to you that is so bothersome?
If He is not real, who is doing what you perceive is being done?
You failed to answer the question (AGAIN), leading me to believe that you are not here looking for answers. Your question is, on it face, absurd. You don’t believe in God? FINE. You have what you believe is good evidence? FINE. Why are you here? Is it to proselytize us; to share the “good news” of atheism? Or is it to bait us into arguments?

So, yet again, I will ask my questions, and if you are interested in an intellectually honest discussion, then please demonstrate it.
  1. Why do you constantly ask us to prove that God exists?
  2. If God is real (and this means that He is what we say He is: perfect in every way), what is he doing to you? “Forcing you to exist” is hogwash; if He is real, then it is absurd and delusional to reject Him.
  3. If He is not real (as you believe), what is being done to you that prompts the question?
I don’t really expect you to answer these; you’ve demonstrated for a long time now that you are not interested in learning about what we believe. You have time and again been given strong, erudite explanations of various facets of our theology and morality, and all you can say is “Nuh-uh – you don’t have any proof”–completely ignoring the fact that you don’t either.

To sum up: If you are here to bait us, we will pray for you–but it’d be awful nice if you’d stop and go away. If you are here because, as your profile says, you’re an “enquirer” who honestly wants to learn, we will pray for you and welcome you with open arms. But either way: drop the pretense; this thread is, with all due respect, the mark of someone who has a chip on their shoulder and a notion in his head to which he is committed, and no amount of reasoning is going to change his mind because–whaddaya know–he set it up so that nobody could possibly answer the question to his satisfaction.

Peace,
Dante
 
If God is real, God forced me into existence. I didn’t have a choice in the matter.

I’ve been forced into existence, so that I may freely choose to reject him

My forced existence will have me languishing eternally in hell.

If God had not forced me into existence, I wouldn’t be able to reject him and I wouldn’t have to spend eternity suffering in hell.

God sounds rather selfish and cruel to me. Surely non existence would preferable to eternal torment?

Discuss.
I was just informed that athiesm is a banned topic by a poster here. This is after knowing about the “temporary” ban on evolution.

I guess that exposes all their fears in a nutshell.
 
I was just informed that athiesm is a banned topic by a poster here. This is after knowing about the “temporary” ban on evolution.

I guess that exposes all their fears in a nutshell.
Yep, that would be me. Are you really trying to create controversy about that? Come on.

Here’s why they’re actually temporarily banning both topics:

“For the foreseeable future, there shall be no discussion in the Philosophy Forum of evolution or atheism. Anyone who starts such a thread or revives an old thread on those topics will be banned. This ban is planned to be temporary, but there are to be no public or private petitions that the ban be lifted. It will be lifted only when the mod (yours truly) discerns that the atmosphere in this forum has sufficiently cooled.

You could believe what you like about the “real” reason they banned the topics but then you’re just getting into conspiracy theories.

Not to mention, that comment really doesn’t have to do with the original post…
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top