S
stewstew03
Guest
So… I’m having trouble following you. Are you saying that there is a God, but that this deity does not resemble the Christian God?
- Status
P
Peter_Plato
Guest
I am guessing your self-refutation was done in jest :ehh:
B
belorg
Guest
No, I am saying that some sort of God cannot be proven to be logically impossible, so I cannot claim absolute certainty about that. But I claim absolute certainty about the non-existence of the Christian God because I can prove that He cannot exist.
B
belorg
Guest
Yes, of course.it was done in jest, but even if it wasn’t, what I said is not self-refuting…“Never have done so” is not a ruling but an observation.
B
belorg
Guest
Well, I would support this ‘opinion’, but that would mean discussing atheism and that’s not allowed around here.
B
belorg
Guest
There are documents and proclamations on one hand and the logical implications of those documents and proclamations on the other hand. I do not think that one document says that God is all loving and another says He is not.
What I do say is that e.g. it is proclaimed that God is all-loving and that contradicts other claims about God, e.g. that there is such a thing as hell.
Now, that’s just one tiny argument against the logical consistency of the Christian God
I could offer lots and lots more but firstly this is not the thread to do this and secondly, it would turn into a discussion about attheism, which is not allowed.
P
PRmerger
Guest
Indeed. For that would be a logical contradiction. Like saying, “God is a married bachelor!”
And the error, then, lies not with the Catholic Church’s statements but with your understanding of them.
As has already been explained, ad nauseum, Hell is God’s LOVE manifested to those who find His Love odious.
Because God is love, he gives us a “place” where we can escape his love, should we despise it.
How much more loving can you get?
B
belorg
Guest
If God truly gives us a “place” where we can escpae His love and we are happy with that, then there is indeed no problem.
The main problem is that Catholic doctrine does not state that those in hell wil be happy there because nobody can be truly happy without God. If that is true, then “giving” a place where we cabn espcape His love" is not a loving things to do, because lovingsoemone entails giving what is in that person’s best interest.
P
Peter_Plato
Guest
What is in that person’s best interest has been given but refused by that person.
B
belorg
Guest
Then a loving God would offer it a second, third… time and do everything possible to make the person understand what’s in his best interest.
And if the person the still does not understand his own best interest, then a loving God would still act on that person’ s best interest.
So, “Hell exist because God loves us” would only be true if hell was in our best interest.
But if hell is in my best interest, why would I even try avoid it?
P
Peter_Plato
Guest
You could claim that referees don’t make rulings either, just observations, but that would be contrary to the very reason for having referees.
“Never have done so,” is an observation, but it is also a ruling about your own behaviour, i.e., that you have never made absolute rulings. Never is an absolute, so you have engaged in an absolute ruling in your very denial of ever making them.
I hope your argument against a Christian God is a little tighter than this.
By the way, an argument against the Christian God is not an argument for atheism, so I don’t see how it would contravene forum rules.
B
belorg
Guest
So, “I have never seen a unicorn” is an absolute ruling?
Much tighter
Maybe it wouldn’t. So maybe I’ll present of few arguments against the Christian God. But in this thread, I’ll stick to just one: a loving God contradicts the existence of hell.(or vice versa)
P
Peter_Plato
Guest
Because you don’t know what your best interests are?
P
PRmerger
Guest
Well, those in hell are happy in their own misery.
Picture a man living in a dumpster, refusing to come out, because he is happy just the way he is, thank you very much.
His pride and belligerent stubbornness keeps him from dining at the banquet that was prepared for him.
But if you ask him if he’s happy eating from the dumpster, he will, naturally, say, “Yes! And get the h** out of my home!”
That’s hell.
P
PRmerger
Guest
Except that you forgot about the Catholic teaching that God is a gentleman, and offers us the Divine Marriage Proposal.
We are free to accept it. Or to refuse it.
God does not force himself upon us.
And, it appears, that while you have an objection to the Catholic teaching, you haven’t demonstrated any logical inconsistency in it.
God is love and there is a hell are not any more inconsistent than it is to say:
I love you but if you don’t love me I will let you go.
No one who understands logic will claim that the above is akin to a square circle argument.
Rather, this would be a square circle argument, if the Catholic Church actually proclaimed it:
God is love and God makes you spend eternity with him, even if you despise him.
That’s logically inconsistent.
P
Peter_Plato
Guest
Rulings are made about things that some agent has control over. Seeing a unicorn is not something you have control over so no ruling can be made, but making an observation about courses of action taken - like making absolute rulings - presumes that a ruling or judgement about the action has previously been made.
If a spectator says, “Jones scored the goal!” that statement could be merely an observation, but it depends upon a prior determination or ruling on who actually scored the goal. If a referee says, “Jones scored the goal,” that is a ruling or determination and not merely an observation. However, the spectator can only make a verifiable observation following the referee’s determination. The observation presupposes the ruling.
Your statement, “I do not make absolute rulings!” could function as an observation, but that depends upon your prior judgement (or ruling) about the nature of your rulings, i.e., they are never absolute. In this case making an observation like, “I never make them!” presumes you, and only you, have ruled or made a judgement about the non-absolute nature of all your past rulings. Otherwise, you could not claim the observation that you never make them is, indeed, true.
Therefore,
is not merely an observation but a claim (* never have done so, i.e., made absolute rulings) verified by a prior determination (I do not make absolute rulings) about the nature of your rulings (i.e., they are never absolute).
Since this is, in itself, making an absolute claim (by your use of the absolute negation, never), you have successfully refuted your own claim that you never make them.
Not tight enough!*
C
clem456
Guest
I have three answers to your contradiction.
1 free will
2 free will
3 free will
Love pre-supposes free will. This reality is self evident, all around you every day.
For example,
Let’s assume you are a married male. Do you want a loving relationship with your wife? If could FORCE your wife to do all the things that show love, would that indeed be love?..if you could FORCE the actions, against her will…Would that be love?
The obvious answer is no, that is not love, that is having a blow-up doll, or a robot, not a realtionship between two persons. The loving relationship between God and a person presupposes a free will. The flesh and blood person across from you is free to love, OR reject you, that is the only way you have love. It is a risk. If she rejects you, she is separated from you then, out of your good graces.
The opposite is dictatorship, it is rape, abuse.
The comparisons to hell are fairly obvious.
P
Peter_Plato
Guest
If your best interest is to actualize yourself, i.e., become your true self, and that can only occur by choices that you make, then God cannot compel you to become you. God makes the best you possible, but it is up to you to actualize or become you.
God has a part for you to play on the “cosmic stage.” He has determined that it is in your best interests to play the part and being omniscient and omnibenevolent, he knows it is the best possible part for you and would make you the most fulfilled and happy. One hitch, that role is so “tailor-made” for you that it is the real and perfect you, but you must “grow into” the role. As you rehearse for the part, you notice that a discord begins to develop between you and the director of the show, God. You have different ideas about how “you” should be played, but these ideas of yours are problematic for others around you. God continues the play, but with a pseudo-you to play your part. You gradually drop out of the play and go off “on your own.” The play goes merrily on and you refuse to take part, preferring your own “pity party” to the real play despite the efforts of the other actors and God to draw you back in.
Should the director (God) simply abandon the real play in order to let you have it your way? Why, if he truly has your best interests in mind, should that ever happen? Why should your will trump God’s? Merely because you want it that way?
S
sophion
Guest
Peter Plato, if you die now are you going to heaven or hell? 
P
PRmerger
Guest
I will answer the Catholic way: we don’t judge ourselves. It is the Lord who judges. I am not aware of anything against myself, but I am not thereby acquitted.Peter Plato, if you die now are you going to heaven or hell?
- Status