Hell exists BECAUSE God loves us!

[Portofino]

Perhaps not so much a perfectly actualized knowledge, but how about authenticity, sincerity or integrity? In biblical terms this would be purity of heart: an integral oneness with your own true being. Being guileless, in other words. Surely “being yourself” at the deepest possible level should be attainable to everyone but not require perfect knowledge. Could God hold someone responsible for not being “true to yourself?” For abdicating themselves?

It may not be choosing doors, but choosing truth in an existential sense, consistently through time. Being duplicitous or making self-alienating choices may lead to some kind of internal fissure and separation from self and from God.

Thus, hell may not be an inherently objective state, problem or choice, but a deeply and inherently subjective one that stems from objective antecedents or could lead to objective consequences.

Do you grant that such an individual might be “true to himself” without necessarily believing in God or an afterlife–through love of neighbor, for example? Or through fulfilling his God-given talents in a way that is both deeply satisfying to himself, and to others?

Many of the atheists or agnostics on this forum – or elsewhere – do not harbor the particular beliefs of Catholicism (the assumption of Mary, for example, or the virgin birth) based on honest intellectual disagreement. At best – assuming all of the dogmas of the church are true – this could be as morally neutral as a mistake in arithmetic.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Do you grant that such an individual might be “true to himself” without necessarily believing in God or an afterlife–through love of neighbor, for example? Or through fulfilling his God-given talents in a way that is both deeply satisfying to himself, and to others?

Theoretically perhaps. However, that would depend on the sincerity of their resistance to the truth that could lead to belief in God or an afterlife. There is the possibility of self-deception that no one else would be privy to, only God. If God as the ground of being makes undeniable advances in the depths of that individual and these are rationalized away, ignored, or not pursued due to some personal fault then your “what if” loses cogency. Who are we to know? Judge not, lest…

Many of the atheists or agnostics on this forum – or elsewhere – do not harbor the particular beliefs of Catholicism (the assumption of Mary, for example, or the virgin birth) based on honest intellectual disagreement. At best – assuming all of the dogmas of the church are true – this could be as morally neutral as a mistake in arithmetic.

Perhaps, but beliefs are not held in isolation. The reasons that these beliefs may be denied could be linked to other more central and critical beliefs that may not be as morally neutral as you claim. The question again would be: Is this “lack of belief” due to something other than intellectual honesty (self-love, apathy, resistance, etc.) that could be the result of self-deception? Recall that deception would not be deception if there was no one doing the "deceiving” and no one being “deceived.” In this case the same person doing both. How could that be possible unless self-alienation were possible? Perhaps not as morally neutral as a mistake in arithmetic - necessarily.

 

[Trurl]

Well, this is his idea of God. It isn’t the Christian idea of God…

That is undeniable. What I am showing is that the traditional concept of God cannot be correct.

I am simply talking about the metaphysical concept of “action” - which is applicable to all actions (natural or “supernatural”). If the word “action” is to have any meaning, it must be different from “non-action”. (A law of non-contradiction is applied here).

Therefore an action results in some “change”. If there is change, there is the “before” and the “after” - and as such we have some kind of “time”. If that is not supported by the classical definition of God, then this concept of God must be discarded, since it is nonsensical. Whatever God could be, he cannot be a self-cntradictory entity.

The reason isn’t of great use to examine how God works with time; if God is the only creator and master of any universe could exist or can be thought, any kind of time is inferior to God.

If you wish to discard “reason”, then you just entered into the looney bin, where I am not willing to follow you. Logic is also “superior” to God. God is unable to perfrom logically contradictory events. God is also unable to change the past, so time is superior to God… as such the so-called “traditional concept of God” is riddled with self-contradictory, irrational and also illogical ideas. If you wish to believe in such a being, that is your prerogative.

 

[Trurl]

An objectively subjective foundation is not “solid.”

The pressure in a closed container is the result of the haphazard, chaotic, “subjective” Brownian motion of the molecules - yet it is uniform or “objective”.

Nothing you’ve said about morality would deem God immoral.

Since I deny the existence of “absolute” (not to be confused with “objective”) morality, I only say that in the moral system I subscribe to, the activities attributed to God are immoral. But I usually do not like to use the adjective “moral”, since it is used so differently by different people. But in my book to perform, to order or to allow genocide is not the sign of decent, good fellow. If one has the ability to feed the hungry, to cure the sick, to help the ones who need it, and sits on his heavenly throne, uncaring and aloof, that guy does not deserve anything but loathing.

Sure it does. The ability to tell the truth give, along with free will, gives me the ability to lie. I suppose I could be stripped of my free will, but that would forfeit moral agency. I can only act courageously if I could have the option to act fearful.

The problem is that “lying” or cowardice are not necessarily “evil”. By the way, the ability to lie is a biological “problem”. If we had the sense of smell of a rat or a dog, there would be no ability to “lie”, since all our emotions would be on a “public display” all the time.

Question, is your problem with murder and rape or suffering? If Murder existed, and rape existed, but suffering did not would it still be immoral to murder and rape? Or is it only the suffering aspect that makes such activity evil?

For simplicity’s sake I prefer to concentrate on “tangible” problems, like rape, torture and murder. Suffering is more subtle, pain is obvious. Suffering could be considered after the simpler problems are tackled.

The analogy breaks down. We are not talking about select few humans, we are talking about mankind.

On the very contrary, I AM talking ONLY about selected humans. I deny the validity of “one size fits all”. Most people can be trusted to behave in a good, decent manner. I have no problem to grant you and zillions of others (not that I can grant anything ) all the freedom you want, since I can trust you not to misuse it. There is a handful of “bad apples”, whose freedom must be limited. By the way, we do not have the technological wherewithal to predict future misdeeds, but that is not a limitation for God (supposedly). Nevertheless, if and when we get good information about some undesirable act to be committed, we sure jump in and try to prevent it. And no one complains about it.

Ad a monitor cannot prevent human activity in the same way. We are not talking about an external limiting of actions. We are talking about a conceptual termination of the very option or potential itself. So you’re saying that it would be better to terminate the exist of mankind then to give them the option for evil which, ultimately, would only affect mankind. And this would be good?

That is not what I said. See the previous paragraph.

 

[Alberto_Q_CM]

That is undeniable. What I am showing is that the traditional concept of God cannot be correct…

Cannot be correct from the point of view of some human logics.
What we can say about the wave-particle duality? Isn’t it against the non-contradiction law? Also I remember the question of Black Holes, where time, as we know it with our experience (also the time that philosophy considers), change and cannot be said if there is or not. If in the positive sciences there are some problems with the human non-contradiction law, why cannot be problems with philosophical concept of non-contradiction?

I am simply talking about the metaphysical concept of “action” - which is applicable to all actions (natural or “supernatural”). If the word “action” is to have any meaning, it must be different from “non-action”. (A law of non-contradiction is applied here).

Greek metaphysics is of great help for the human reasoning and it has made possible the occidental positive sciences, but also oriental philosophy gives help to it; there, there are also problems with the non-contradiction law, seriously taken from philosophers.

From Wikipedia (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_noncontradiction): as an example:

"Modern logics

Traditionally, in Aristotle’s classical logical calculus, in evaluating any proposition there are only two possible truth values, “true” and “false.” An obvious extension to classical two-valued logic is a many-valued logic for more than two possible values. In logic, a many- or multi-valued logic is a propositional calculus in which there are more than two values. Those most popular in the literature are three-valued (e.g., Łukasiewicz’s and Kleene’s), which accept the values “true”, “false”, and “unknown”, finite-valued with more than three values, and the infinite-valued (e.g. fuzzy logic and probability logic) logics.

Dialetheism

Graham Priest advocates the view that under some conditions, some statements can be both true and false simultaneously, or may be true and false at different times. Applied universally, without specified conditions or axiomatic restrictions, this dialetheism will cause every statement, to explode, to become true. Dialetheism arises from formal logical paradoxes, such as the Liar’s paradox and Russell’s paradox."

Logic is also “superior” to God. God is unable to perfrom logically contradictory events.

From some kind of human point of view it could be so, but as absolute, unquestionable ideas, these assertions have the features of a faith.

 

[Trurl]

Cannot be correct from the point of view of some human logics.

There is no human logic, and divine logic… welll… maybe there is “military logic”… but only as a joke.

What we can say about the wave-particle duality? Isn’t it against the non-contradiction law?

Absolutely not. It simply means that the peceived duality of particle-wave distinction was only a misconception on our part. Reality does not care about our incorrect models.

Also I remember the question of Black Holes, where time, as we know it with our experience (also the time that philosophy considers), change and cannot be said if there is or not.

There is no problem there either. Time is not an independent variable (as the Newtonian physcis assumed) it is a corollary of the STEM (space-time-energy-matter) reality.

If in the positive sciences there are some problems with the human non-contradiction law, why cannot be problems with philosophical concept of non-contradiction?

There are no problems in the natural sciences, there were incorrect models. The funny thing is that in order to discard the laws of logic, you must employ them. Without the law of identity there is no way to speak of anything. If “A” is sometimes “A”, and so,etimes “B”… then there is no way to formulate a coherent proposition. If the law of “non-contradiction” is discarded, there is no such thing as “true” or “false” any more.

"Modern logics

Traditionally, in Aristotle’s classical logical calculus, in evaluating any proposition there are only two possible truth values, “true” and “false.” An obvious extension to classical two-valued logic is a many-valued logic for more than two possible values. In logic, a many- or multi-valued logic is a propositional calculus in which there are more than two values. Those most popular in the literature are three-valued (e.g., Łukasiewicz’s and Kleene’s), which accept the values “true”, “false”, and “unknown”, finite-valued with more than three values, and the infinite-valued (e.g. fuzzy logic and probability logic) logics.

That is not a problem either. The expansion does not deny the original system. It simply understands that some proposions cannot be decided, if they are true or false. Especially if the proposition pertains to the future.

From some kind of human point of view it could be so, but as absolute, unquestionable ideas, these assertions have the features of a faith.

As soon as you “drag” in faith, the conversation becomes irrelevant for me. Even an article of faith cannot be contradictory.

The traditional view of God is loaded with contradictions. It is quite interesting and amusing to contemplate the list of dogmas, and find examples, which simply contradict each other. (One of them says: God is “X”, while the other one says: God is NOT “X”) When I point them out, the answer is always: “those are mysteries”! Very convenient to deny those contradictions and redefine them into mysteries. Of course only a catholic believer will accept such a sleight-of-hand trickery… not even other christians can be fooled by them.

 

[PRmerger]

The example of doors is exactly right. Only the two doors represent good choices and bad choices of our everyday life. For the person enters death in the way he managed life, for the most part.

If the person is uninformed, then he has an obligation to find out the truth before deciding even tho he may not feel like doing so. And if he is misinformed after a careful inquiry, then the bad choice can very well be turning into a good choice since the intention is what makes the act good or bad in the mind of God.

Of course perfect knowledge dosen’t exist except in the mind of God. But there is a reasonable knowledge which, more often than not, can be attained with a little effort. And if this is not available, then our conscience must make the best judgement from the light of other truths.

Just some thoughts.

This ^^: :clapping:

And the fact remains that all of us, who have reasonable (although imperfect), knowledge choose door #2 a multitude of times in our lives.

So the evidence suggests that if we choose door #2 in our present lives, there are those of us who will choose door #2 in our eternal lives.

 

[Trurl]

Its not ends justifies the means.

Your assertion was that it is fine to allow people suffer in order to achieve some greater good. I replied that the catholic teaching says that the end cannot justify the means. In other words, it is NOT permissible to inflict or allow people to suffer, just so that some “good” will come out of it. Observe, it is the catholic church speaking, not me.

I can still watch my child suffer socially or in some other way in order to allow them to figure things out for their self and learn how to deal with or overcome that obstacle.

Only if you step in before an irreversible, fatal error is committed. To allow that child to run off into the traffic, if you can prevent it, would be a highly criminal act, and rightfully so.

Cute saying, but I hope you don’t believe its true.

Not 100%… maybe about 90%.

Are secular American society is uber obsessed with sex.

Pretty much. The original version said: “In America sex is an obsession. Everywhere else it’s a simple fact of life”. (Of course the people in America are obsessed with religion, too.)

Unless you think Monogamy, chastity, modesty, etc are indecent. Unless you refer to contraception or celibacy, but I do not see how that is twisted.

Well, as another joke says: “The opposite of polygamy is monotony”. But, as long as it is a mutual decision, there is nothing wrong with it. As for chastity… well, another joke: “Of all the sexual perversions, the most unnatural one is: chastity”. It is a perversion, but as long as the person decides to live that lifestyle, it is no skin off my nose. But when I see the self-inflicted suffering it brings, then I sure feel sorry that she was brainwashed into such perversion. Modesty is such a broad term, they it is impossible to reflect on it. As contraception goes, it is one of the most despicable and ludicrous teaching of all. There is no good reason that people have to be “open” to procreation each and every time. It is simply lunacy. You left out masurbation… goes hand in hand with contraception. Also the teaching about homosexual relationships. Celibacy is also crazy, but as long as it is freely chosen… it is their own business.

You are correct. That is because I have a foundationally different view of sex and marriage as you do.

I am sure you do.

I agree, but I don’t think it would truly be a benefit if God removed them in the way that you are suggesting. Don’t forget that you are just as much a criminal as anybody else. Last time I checked, there are other immoral actions.

Hmmm… maybe my memory is not what it used to be, but try as I might, I cannot recall ever killing anyone, or even stealing, or committing perjury. I am sure I comitted a bunch of acts you would consider “sinful”, but that is not what I am talking about. So I feel rather confident that I am pretty safe in that regard.

Just to reiterate: I am only talking about acts of violence which are committed with the desire to physically hurt someone else - against their expressed or implicit wish or desire. (If some person wishes to emulate Jesus’ suffering on the cross, and asks to be crucified, I have no problem with it. This happens sometimes in the Philippines. If I would be involved, I might “forget” to take them off… allow them to get reeeeaaaaly close to Jesus. Yes, I know it would be pretty cruel of me.)

 

[PRmerger]

Your assertion was that it is fine to allow people suffer in order to achieve some greater good. I replied that the catholic teaching says that the end cannot justify the means. In other words, it is NOT permissible to inflict or allow people to suffer, just so that some “good” will come out of it. Observe, it is the catholic church speaking, not me.

This is not a correct explication of Catholic teaching, Trurl. While it is indeed true that Catholicism does not proclaim that the ends justify the means, that is quite different from saying, “Therefore, the Church proclaims that it is NOT permissible to inflict or allow people to suffer, just so that some ‘good’ will come out of it.”

To wit: take the analogy of immunizations. We as parents “inflict pain” upon our children in order that some good may come from this.

The Church permits immunizations.

Thus, it is indeed permissible to inflict pain so that good may come.

 

[Alberto_Q_CM]

Time is relative in some way.
Logic is relative in some way.
God, for definition is absolute, but is indemonstrable. Everyone can believe in Him or not. But If one assumes He is God, He can be considered independent from every part of his creation, logic, time, universes… by the believer.

Absolutely not. It simply means that the peceived duality of particle-wave distinction was only a misconception on our part. Reality does not care about our incorrect models.

Why are they incorrect? They function very well for their part. Why are they “a misconception on our part”? Because for a logical (absolute and so divine) law it isn’t possible?

There is no problem there either. Time is not an independent variable (as the Newtonian physcis assumed) it is a corollary of the STEM (space-time-energy-matter) reality.

If action needs time, and time isn’t independent, also action is not that absolute or that sure reality one can think.

I don’t discard logic, I think it is relative.

If the future cannot be known, no one can be sure that our knowledge will be absolutely certain; also about time and logic. So also logic (including non-contradiction law) is relative, it depends by the (relative) time we live in.

As soon as you “drag” in faith, the conversation becomes irrelevant for me.

But everyone of us, living, must have faith in something. Faith in something is indispensable to live. Faith in the fact that I’m living now and in the next seconds, that my home will be there for some time, faith in the fact that things are here and not there for a certain amount of time…
We cannot live without some kind of faith, also only in the things of everyday life. Just because of time.

 

[sophion]

[Simply because God gave you and I the freedom to do anything, even to run away from Him and hide forever.

so what about those Islamic Suicide Bombers. They do it believing they are rushing forward to God. Embracing the Will of God.

That means they really are going to heaven?
[/quote]

 

[PRmerger]

so what about those Islamic Suicide Bombers. They do it believing they are rushing forward to God. Embracing the Will of God.

That means they really are going to heaven?

No.

If you die with mortal sin on your soul you cannot go to heaven.

And murder is a mortal sin.

 

[sophion]

No.

If you die with mortal sin on your soul you cannot go to heaven.

And murder is a mortal sin.

But mortal sin can be forgiven, right?

Those Suicide Bombers, when they end up in hell dont you think they would be saying something like this:

AIEEEEEEEE OH ALLAH WHY ARE YOU PUNISHING ME! I FOLLOWED YOUR WILL! PLEASE FORGIVE ME!!! AIIIIIIEEEEEEEEEE!!!

 

[PRmerger]

But mortal sin can be forgiven, right?

Sure.

Those Suicide Bombers, when they end up in hell dont you think they would be saying something like this:

AIEEEEEEEE OH ALLAH WHY ARE YOU PUNISHING ME! I FOLLOWED YOUR WILL! PLEASE FORGIVE ME!!! AIIIIIIEEEEEEEEEE!!!

If they would only turn and face the light, they would be saved. But they refuse to, forever.

 

[Trurl]

This is not a correct explication of Catholic teaching, Trurl. While it is indeed true that Catholicism does not proclaim that the ends justify the means, that is quite different from saying, “Therefore, the Church proclaims that it is NOT permissible to inflict or allow people to suffer, just so that some ‘good’ will come out of it.”

What is the difference? You mean that sometimes the end justifies the means? So relativism is ok?

Of course the solution is extremely simple. One cannot separate the intent, the means and the end into three separate entities. All three must be considered and a whole. Therefore some ends achieved via certain means form a justifyable sequence, while others do not. Which is relativism at its best, that the church also denies.

Furthermore, if one is obligated to take all tree parts into account, before the act can be examined - and the church DOES teach that, too - then there is no such thing as “intrinisically” evil act. After all “intrinsically” means that regardless of the intent, and regardless of the outcome that “act” itself is “evil”, no matter, what. So, once again the church teaches mutually contradictory concepts… you pick and choose which one you like. Of course the believers deny these contradictions, applying their ability to perform “doublethink”.

You know it is dangerous to give out the “text” to an independent “lector or proofreader”, who is not obliged to swallow whatever the text says, but can look at the whole picture and discover the discrepancies. All of a sudden, the contradictions, inconsistencies come out. The proper way would be to say: “oops, sorry!” and fix them. The “other way” is deny the Moon off the sky, and pretend that the lector is an idiot.

 

[sophion]

Sure.

If they would only turn and face the light, they would be saved. But they refuse to, forever.

you ASSUME that people in hell would be forever defiant.

thats the only way you can justify the injustice of an eternal torture.

sorry, in reality thats not how people think. in reality people learn, people admit mistakes, people accept proof that they could actually see, and people would do anything to survive.

 

[Peter_Plato]

This is not a correct explication of Catholic teaching, Trurl. While it is indeed true that Catholicism does not proclaim that the ends justify the means, that is quite different from saying, “Therefore, the Church proclaims that it is NOT permissible to inflict or allow people to suffer, just so that some ‘good’ will come out of it.”

To wit: take the analogy of immunizations. We as parents “inflict pain” upon our children in order that some good may come from this.

The Church permits immunizations.

Thus, it is indeed permissible to inflict pain so that good may come.

It is interesting how some individuals can interpret or apply Catholic teaching with their own skewed slant in order to justify or argue against a specific perspective.

Let’s say a hypothetical person, who bears no resemblance to anyone posting in this thread (Post #343), claims something like the following:

… catholic teaching says that the end cannot justify the means. In other words, it is NOT permissible to inflict or allow people to suffer, just so that some “good” will come out of it. Observe, it is the catholic church speaking, not me.

Such a claim should cause a multitude of red flags to thrust up before your inconsistency detectors.

A few thoughts, some of which you have alluded to already:

1. It cannot be Catholic Church teaching that the end can never justify the means because that would effectively disconnect means from ends. Providing your children with their needs could not be used as a reason for getting a job since the good end (happy, well fed children) could not be the motivating “why” you should get a job. It would effectively mean that whatever goals in life you had these could not justify any of your actions. What would a good act be then if it were completely detached from the outcome?
2. This “hypothetical” person is using “suffering” as a replacement for “evil.” To say the Church would claim that one should never use an evil means to attain a good is quite a distinct claim from saying that one should never allow suffering to attain a good. Evil is not the same as suffering, although some attempt to make that claim, especially those with a strictly biological view of human nature. Causing suffering is indeed permitted as a means, but willing direct harm (evil) as neither a means nor an end is permitted.
3. The principle of double effect “generally states that, in cases where an agent contemplates conduct that has both good effects and bad effects, the course of conduct selected is ethically permissible only if it is not wrong in itself and if it does not require that one directly intend the bad result.”

In other words it is the case that it is ethically permissible to undertake an action that is not “wrong in itself” but the outcome of possible good outweighs the outcome of possible evil, provided that the evil is not “willed as an end.”

The only way this principle can be used to claim free will is an evil is to make a prior claim that suffering or pain is inherently evil. Clearly it is not. Suffering and pain are emotional responses to circumstances and are informative to the person who is undergoing them. Therefore, not evil in themselves. To inflict suffering on another is only evil in the sense that the suffering inflicted is indicative of real harm done. It is the harm, not the suffering that is indeed evil.

You pointed this out in your example of the vaccine. The vaccine may cause some suffering but it is not inherently harmful and will bring about a good that far outweighs possible evil (harm).

Let’s look at free will in terms of the principle of double effect.

Endowing free will is a course of action taken by God. There is nothing inherently wrong with free will. In fact, if free will is a necessary condition for consciousness and personal identity, indeed it could be a very good thing.

Because free will has only the potential for bringing about evil, and God does not directly will this evil - the far greater good of creating autonomous beings with personal identity is the intended result - it is morally permissible for God to create human beings with free will.

 

[Peter_Plato]

you ASSUME that people in hell would be forever defiant.

thats the only way you can justify the injustice of an eternal torture.

That is the claim. God knows their defiance is entrenched. For everyone else, there is heaven or purgatory (the opportunity to change for as long as it takes).

sorry, in reality thats not how people think. in reality people learn, people admit mistakes, people accept proof that they could actually see, and people would do anything to survive.

There is an allowance for just that: purgatory. On the other hand, God sees through mere stalling tactics that lead nowhere. :sad_yes:

 

[sophion]

On the other hand, God sees through mere stalling tactics that lead nowhere.

even if such insane people exists, why keep tormenting them? why not just put them down like what we do to an injured horse?

 

[Peter_Plato]

even if such insane people exists, why keep tormenting them? why not just put them down like what we do to an injured horse?

Why don’t you put that in the suggestion box?

I suspect that an omniscient and omnibenevolent Being would have considered that already.

Since all this pertains to the ”final things" and ultimately “up to God” I am not sure that basing present actions on this kind of speculation or subscribing to disbelief because of our limited (and potentially errant) perspective is a wise choice of action.