Hell exists BECAUSE God loves us!

[Viewscreen]

Hmmm…so I should just trust you in other words? I should have faith in you? Pretty much blind faith at that, since you didn’t answer a single one of my questions… Very interesting. Why would I have faith in you over God? At least God’s Church has answers to questions.

Trust no one. Only yourself and your own feeling of what’s right. What I say may be completely wrong and superfluous. Decide on your own. If you think the Church has answers, go right ahead. I don’t.

My friend, I’m not a bit confused. Let me share a little about myself.

I’ve already tried what you’re suggesting here. I lived that way for years, actually. I forgot about God and tried to free my mind to see that black is the same as white, and that there’s no difference between “wrong” and “right”. I basically did whatever I wanted. And I was miserable. Only now do I see how unhappy it all made me. I’m tired of serving only myself, and I want to serve God. I’m happier now, even when life is hard and even when I feel guilty. We’re trying to reach out to you through your computer and let you know that those “better impulses” you’re talking about are just empty selfishness. I’ve had enough of being a slave to my own impulses. I’m stronger than that now through Christ…I control my impulses, they no longer control me.

As an internet poster once wrote: “cool story, bro.”

 

[Peter_Plato]

Originally Posted by Peter Plato
We intuitively see a difference between 1) deliberated or volitional actions where choices to act otherwise come into play and where outcomes are open and 2) determined ones, where no alternatives are possible.

Perhaps you are turning into a type 2) personality?

If you don’t use it, you lose it… ???

 

[Trurl]

Peter Plato:

Premise 1 is problematic. God only “knows” Joe’s destiny to the extent that Joe decides it. Joe’s destiny is not fixed and therefore not “known” by God when and until Joe actually decides it through his choices. God cannot “know” what does not exist.

That is not what “omniscience” is supposed to be. The official teaching is that “God knows everything, past, present and future”. The biblical support is “I knew you before you were in the womb”. As such there is nothing problematic about “Premise 1”. There is also a huge error in the idea that God’s knowledge is dependent upon Joe’s action: it makes God’s knowledge contingent. And since it is ALSO an official teaching that God is “simple” (that is: has no “parts”) it means that God’s knowledge cannot be separated from God’s essence, therefore God’s essence is contingent - which is a theological absurdity.
Peter Plato:

Furthermore, there may, in fact, be different senses in which God “knows” things. One sense may be the “actualizing” of a possibility. So when God “knows” in this way, God brings it into reality, so to speak. However, another sense of “knowing” (in your premise 1 terms) may be merely a complete awareness of all possibilities for you. He “knows” your destiny because he is acutely aware of “every possibility” for you. He may know all the possibilities and hence “know” your complete destiny in terms of every single possibility for you, but doesn’t “know” (in the sense of make actual) your destiny until you determine it.

A little Molinist “middle knowledge”. That would be a poor “omniscience”. I know the all the possibilities of a future die-toss, does that make me “omniscient”? Come on. If God does not know which one of the numbers will come up before the toss actually happens, then the whole “omniscience” concept is nonsense. (Which, of course, it is. But the church teaches otherwise.)

Very ineffective attempts to wiggle out from the syllogism provided. It is not in Joe’s best interest to be created, if his final destiny is hell. God’s assumed love and benevolence should compel him not to create Joe, if his final destiny will be eternal torture. Yet God creates Joe. Therefore God is not benevolent. Q.E.D. (There is one more way for you to wiggle out of this, but it would be also against the church’s teaching. I will leave it for you as a homework to figure it out.)

 

[mgoforth]

That is not what “omniscience” is supposed to be. The official teaching is that “God knows everything, past, present and future”. The biblical support is “I knew you before you were in the womb”. As such there is nothing problematic about “Premise 1”. There is also a huge error in the idea that God’s knowledge is dependent upon Joe’s action: it makes God’s knowledge contingent. And since it is ALSO an official teaching that God is “simple” (that is: has no “parts”) it means that God’s knowledge cannot be separated from God’s essence, therefore God’s essence is contingent - which is a theological absurdity.

A little Molinist “middle knowledge”. That would be a poor “omniscience”. I know the all the possibilities of a future die-toss, does that make me “omniscient”? Come on. If God does not know which one of the numbers will come up before the toss actually happens, then the whole “omniscience” concept is nonsense. (Which, of course, it is. But the church teaches otherwise.)

Very ineffective attempts to wiggle out from the syllogism provided. It is not in Joe’s best interest to be created, if his final destiny is hell. God’s assumed love and benevolence should compel him not to create Joe, if his final destiny will be eternal torture. Yet God creates Joe. Therefore God is not benevolent. Q.E.D. (There is one more way for you to wiggle out of this, but it would be also against the church’s teaching. I will leave it for you as a homework to figure it out.)

It is in our interest to give us a choice. God does know from eternity that Joe will end up in Hell, but He does nothing to cause Joe to end up in Hell. Creating Joe does not cause Joe to sin, and if you disagree I would invite you to prove that it does.

What you’re saying is not actually that shocking…certainly not a fatal blow to Catholic teaching. The Bible says exactly the same thing, but what you lack is a true understanding of the meaning. Jesus said “The Son of Man will go just as it is written about him. But woe to that man who betrays the Son of Man! It would be better for him if he had not been born.” Matthew 26: 24 So clearly Jesus knew that Judas would betray Him because He had the perspective of seeing it from outside of time. However, Jesus did absolutely nothing to cause Judas to betray Him, in fact He gave Judas several distinct warnings and chances to change his mind. The quote above is one of those warnings. Jesus is saying, “Listen Judas, you’re really not going to like the consequences of betraying me…but I love you enough to give you the choice.” Jesus didn’t want Judas to betray Him, but from outside of time He had already seen it happen. No contradiction whatsoever. Judas used his free will to betray Jesus.

We can’t fully comprehend how predestination and free will are compatible, because our perspective is fully inside time. God’s perspective is fully outside of time. The Catholic Church solves your problem by humbly admitting that such things are a mystery that we will never fully understand. Again, I say that the chief roadblock for atheists is their own pride.

 

[Trurl]

mgoforth:

It is in our interest to give us a choice.

Nonsense. According to the christian view, the best thing that can happen to us is to get to heaven, and the worst thing that can happen is to get to hell. Of course, there is a middle road. Those, who are not created at all will not experience either. As such there are 3 groups:

1. Group “A”: the created, who will end up in heaven
2. Group “B”: the uncreated
3. Group “C”: the created, who will end up in hell

The order of desirability is simple, the best is to be in group “A”, followed by group “B”. The worst is to be in group “C”.

And if God knows certainly that Joe will end up in hell (the ways and means are totally irrelevant here, only the end result counts) then it would be in Joe’s best interest NOT to create him. And since God is assumed to be “loving”; and loving means that God acts in the best interest of “Joe”, you have a clear, unmistakable contradiction - if Joe is created.

mgoforth:

Jesus said “The Son of Man will go just as it is written about him. But woe to that man who betrays the Son of Man! It would be better for him if he had not been born.” Matthew 26: 24

So even Jesus says that it is better to be in group “B”, than in group “C”. Your quote of Jesus supports me, not you. If one cannot get to group “A”, at least one can avoid to get into group “C”.

According to the christian view, God cannot “force” someone into group “A”, but he can certainly put anyone into group “B” - by simply not creating him. And that is what a “loving” God would do.

 

[mgoforth]

…the ways and means are totally irrelevant here, only the end result counts…

I’m sorry…was it not you who originally said, way back in post 186:

You should remember the catholic dogma: “THE END DOES NOT JUSTIFY THE MEANS”. Even if your so-called reasons would be valid (and of course they are sheer baloney), it is the CATHOLIC CHURCH which says: you are WRONG. No outcome, no matter how “wonderful” it might be, can justify the means. Of course you are free to dispute the authority of the church, but it is not advisable for a believer.

Now I’m afraid you’ve contradicted yourself, Trurl. For God, the end does not justify the means…but if Trurl was God, the end would justify the means?? Tsk, tsk…I’m sure you can do much better.

So even Jesus says that it is better to be in group “B”, than in group “C”. Your quote of Jesus supports me, not you. If one cannot get to group “A”, at least one can avoid to get into group “C”.

According to the christian view, God cannot “force” someone into group “A”, but he can certainly put anyone into group “B” - by simply not creating him. And that is what a “loving” God would do.

Let’s examine what the Church teaches about Jesus’ quote:

St Jerome said: “Judas, not withheld by either the first or second warning, perseveres in his treachery; the Lord’s long-suffering nourishes his audacity. Now then his punishment is foretold, that denunciations of wrath may correct where good feeling has no power.”

St Augustine asked: “Can it mean, that it were better for him not to have been born to the Devil, namely, for sin? Or does it mean that it had been good for him not to have been born to Christ at his calling, that he should now become apostate?”

Besides, group “B” is not logically a group at all…because it’s nothing. The lack of something can’t be grouped, only things that exist can be grouped. We could pose all sorts of ridiculous questions along these lines, such as “How many people that could have existed were never created?” Is it 1 billion, 57.3 million, or an infinite number? The question itself is meaningless, because something that doesn’t exist isn’t even something.

The only choice is between group “A” and group “C”. Group “B” is a figment of your imagination…a contradiction in terms.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Nonsense. According to the christian view, the best thing that can happen to us is to get to heaven, and the worst thing that can happen is to get to hell. Of course, there is a middle road. Those, who are not created at all will not experience either. As such there are 3 groups:

1. Group “A”: the created, who will end up in heaven
2. Group “B”: the uncreated
3. Group “C”: the created, who will end up in hell

The order of desirability is simple, the best is to be in group “A”, followed by group “B”. The worst is to be in group “C”.

And if God knows certainly that Joe will end up in hell (the ways and means are totally irrelevant here, only the end result counts) then it would be in Joe’s best interest NOT to create him. And since God is assumed to be “loving”; and loving means that God acts in the best interest of “Joe”, you have a clear, unmistakable contradiction - if Joe is created.

You would like us to gloss over the “ways and means” because they are not “totally irrelevant.” How will God make the determination that Joe in fact will (as an autonomous and self-determining being with free will) end up in hell without Joe to determine that? The only way God could possibly know that little tidbit about Joe’s end result would be to allow Joe to run through the course of his life in order for God to “know” that. The ways and means are therefore very relevant. In your analogy of the dice, the dice would have to get thrown in order to actually know the result in the end.

Our lives could very well be the initial “playing through in God’s mind” of our choices by which God makes his final determination about our eventual “actualization.” But even that deliberation process by God cannot occur without us to fill in the choices we make. In other words, God could not make a preliminary assessment of where we should end up without us to provide the data for the assessment, given that we have free will.

So it could very well be as you claim, except that our lives are the preliminary process by which God is making a determination about us. That would explain the “contingent” nature of our existence. We live in a kind of simulated process by which God is “thinking out” our fate. That still can’t be done without our choices, however.

This goes a long way to explaining Jesus’ words in Matthew 7:23: Then I will tell them plainly, 'I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!’

This sense of ”I never knew you," corresponds quite nicely with the strong sense of God’s knowledge being the efficient cause that actualizes or “brings into being” what is known. So in the case of these “evil doers,” God not knowing them would mean a determination on his part that they won’t exist in the sense of God’s final creation.

So even Jesus says that it is better to be in group “B”, than in group “C”. Your quote of Jesus supports me, not you. If one cannot get to group “A”, at least one can avoid to get into group “C”.

According to the christian view, God cannot “force” someone into group “A”, but he can certainly put anyone into group “B” - by simply not creating him. And that is what a “loving” God would do.

Again, God could not make the determination of whether anyone actually belongs in group B without that person actually going through at least the simulated motions of making choices, given that we are free agents. That process may be precisely what we are going through at this moment.

The question then is, What would the “uncreated” state be of someone who was tentatively created in order to provide the data by which God makes the determination of a final fate?
Then I will tell them plainly, 'I never knew you.

 

[mgoforth]

Our lives could very well be the initial “playing through in God’s mind” of our choices by which God makes his final determination about our eventual “actualization.” But even that deliberation process by God cannot occur without us to fill in the choices we make. In other words, God could not make a preliminary assessment of where we should end up without us to provide the data for the assessment, given that we have free will.

So it could very well be as you claim, except that our lives are the preliminary process by which God is making a determination about us. That would explain the “contingent” nature of our existence. We live in a kind of simulated process by which God is “thinking out” our fate. That still can’t be done without our choices, however.

As a Catholic, I’d have to disagree with this theory. It’s an interesting idea, but we clearly exist, not just in God’s mind but in reality. Descartes already proved that logically. It’s the first thing any sentient creature can know for certain. “I think, therefore I am”.

Besides that, your example also places God inside time, just in a different manner. To say that God needs to run the experiment of our lives to determine what we will do implies two things that can’t be true:

1. God was/is unsure of the outcome before he gives us a chance to decide. That’s false. God is omniscient and has already foreseen our choices from outside time.
2. It implies distinct states of “before” knowledge and “after” knowledge for God. Different states imply a change, and change implies time. Also false. God is eternal and unchanging, and has known our free choices from eternity.

The answer really is as Trurl says…BUT Trurl doesn’t understand his own answer! God knows whether we will end up in Heaven or Hell and it was known when He first created the universe. At the very moment of the Big Bang, it was known. But God also gives us free will, without causing us to choose one way or the other. How does He do this??? I don’t know, and can’t fully know because I don’t exist outside time. It’s a paradox for us, but just the eternal reality for God.

 

[Peter_Plato]

I don’t disagree with you. I was trying to point out the difficulty that Trurl would have with his own premises.

As a Catholic, I’d have to disagree with this theory. It’s an interesting idea, but we clearly exist, not just in God’s mind but in reality. Descartes already proved that logically. It’s the first thing any sentient creature can know for certain. “I think, therefore I am”.

I don’t agree with Descartes. He actually presumes existence (the existence of thinking) in order to conclude existence. Thinking is not prior to existence, it’s the other way around. “I am therefore I think” makes more sense to me. My existence is undeniable, the qualia of my thinking depends on a conscious act of my being.

By Descartes argument, since thinking is prior to existing, then we only exist in our own minds. We exist because we think, thoughts are the substantial ground of existence. So your argument would fail. Descartes did not prove we actually exist. He has shown (if you assume he is right) that we only exist in our own thoughts, let alone God’s thoughts. That is far from proving we have substantial existence. He was clearly wrong. Existence is the ground of our thoughts. We think because we are.

Besides that, your example also places God inside time, just in a different manner. To say that God needs to run the experiment of our lives to determine what we will do implies two things that can’t be true:

Trurl’s depiction presumes God is in time (God knows our fate before he creates us), so I was countering his case using his own premises.

1. God was/is unsure of the outcome before he gives us a chance to decide. That’s false. God is omniscient and has already foreseen our choices from outside time.

“Foresees” is problematic. If God is outside of time, then there is no “fore” that can be applied. As Lewis points out, God merely “sees” our choices from eternity, he doesn’t foresee them.

mgoforth:

It implies distinct states of “before” knowledge and “after” knowledge for God. Different states imply a change, and change implies time. Also false. God is eternal and unchanging, and has known our free choices from eternity.

Correct! So he doesn’t foresee them. This ambiguity is what Trurl relies on to make his case. But as I pointed out, it doesn’t even work if God somehow could foresee our choices because they remain our choices and cannot occur without us.

The answer really is as Trurl says…BUT Trurl doesn’t understand his own answer! God knows whether we will end up in Heaven or Hell and it was known when He first created the universe. At the very moment of the Big Bang, it was known. But God also gives us free will, without causing us to choose one way or the other. How does He do this??? I don’t know, and can’t fully know because I don’t exist outside time. It’s a paradox for us, but just the eternal reality for God.

I would agree. God’s perspective is not ours so we cannot extrapolate from ours to make determinations about what God can or cannot do.

However, I don’t think Trurl’s argument works because there is a logical error in it. God cannot predetermine our fate without us to determine it. Free will precludes that. Part of the problem is that “predetermine” itself implies God is in time and not eternal. He determines our fate eternally as we determine it in time.

 

[norain]

Hell exists to make heaven look good. Now why on earth would heaven need to look good?

Dunno.

 

[mgoforth]

I don’t agree with Descartes. He actually presumes existence (the existence of thinking) in order to conclude existence. Thinking is not prior to existence, it’s the other way around. “I am therefore I think” makes more sense to me. My existence is undeniable, the qualia of my thinking depends on a conscious act of my being.

By Descartes argument, since thinking is prior to existing, then we only exist in our own minds. We exist because we think, thoughts are the substantial ground of existence. So your argument would fail. Descartes did not prove we actually exist. He has shown (if you assume he is right) that we only exist in our own thoughts, let alone God’s thoughts. That is far from proving we have substantial existence. He was clearly wrong. Existence is the ground of our thoughts. We think because we are.

I never read Descartes’ argument to be “thinking causes my existence”. My take is that he was saying, “the fact that I’m able to think proves my existence” The fact that we think is undeniable, because in order to deny it we would first have to think about it. I certainly agree that existence comes first and allows us to think, and Descartes would agree as well.

Trurl’s depiction presumes God is in time (God knows our fate before he creates us), so I was countering his case using his own premises.

Fair enough, I understand now what you were trying to do.

“Foresees” is problematic. If God is outside of time, then there is no “fore” that can be applied. As Lewis points out, God merely “sees” our choices from eternity, he doesn’t foresee them.

Quite correct. He sees them in the “eternal now”. In human terms I think we can say He “foresees” as long as we understand what that really means.

Correct! So he doesn’t foresee them. This ambiguity is what Trurl relies on to make his case. But as I pointed out, it doesn’t even work if God somehow could foresee our choices because they remain our choices and cannot occur without us.

Yes, and although God allows us free reign with our choices, this does not mean He is dependent on our choices in any way. St Thomas Aquinas wrote that God “abandons” some people to Hell by not providing them the same amount of grace He provides to the elect, and I had a real problem with that at first. Seemed way too close to Calvinism. Now I see that from the eternal perspective, God provides everyone with enough grace to get to Heaven, but He doesn’t impose additional graces to the damned, (even though additional graces would indeed help the damned get to Heaven) because the damned don’t desire those graces and don’t choose to ask for them. The offer remains open and that is what we call “sufficient grace”, but sadly God sees from eternity that some will never accept it.

I would agree. God’s perspective is not ours so we cannot extrapolate from ours to make determinations about what God can or cannot do.

However, I don’t think Trurl’s argument works because there is a logical error in it. God cannot predetermine our fate without us to determine it. Free will precludes that. Part of the problem is that “predetermine” itself implies God is in time and not eternal. He determines our fate eternally as we determine it in time.

We’ll always stumble with terms like “predetermine”, because as you say the “pre” implies a before and after. Free will does preclude predetermination from the vantage point of inside time. But doesn’t preclude it from the eternal viewpoint. Your way of saying it in the last sentence is better. God determines our fate but paradoxically doesn’t force it on us. He creates us all as partners in our own salvation.

 

[mgoforth]

Hell exists to make heaven look good. Now why on earth would heaven need to look good?

Dunno.

Because Earth also looks good and can cause us to forget all about God and Heaven. Many are perfectly content to see God as very far away or not real at all, because they’re so focused on our little toys and games here on Earth. :hypno: A child can easily forget to come in for dinner when he’s having fun playing outside, even if it’s his favorite meal. A child will remember a little easier if, in addition to the reward of dinner, he knows that he’ll get a punishment for not coming inside on time.

That can be one useful aspect of Hell, but not the ultimate reason for its existence. It exists because God loves us and desires to give us a free choice in our eternal destination. It is our creation.

 

[norain]

Because Earth also looks good and can cause us to forget all about God and Heaven. Many are perfectly content to see God as very far away or not real at all, because they’re so focused on our little toys and games here on Earth. :hypno: A child can easily forget to come in for dinner when he’s having fun playing outside, even if it’s his favorite meal. A child will remember a little easier if, in addition to the reward of dinner, he knows that he’ll get a punishment for not coming inside on time.

That can be one useful aspect of Hell, but not the ultimate reason for its existence. It exists because God loves us and desires to give us a free choice in our eternal destination. It is our creation.

So heaven vs earth is not good enough? If a child would rather play than have dinner, there’s nothing wrong with the child. It’s dinner that needs to get better.

But hey, that’s just me…

 

[Peter_Plato]

I never read Descartes’ argument to be “thinking causes my existence”. My take is that he was saying, “the fact that I’m able to think proves my existence” The fact that we think is undeniable, because in order to deny it we would first have to think about it. I certainly agree that existence comes first and allows us to think, and Descartes would agree as well.

Yes but Descartes has to assume his own existence as a thinking being in order to consider it proof in some sense that thinking proves his existence. He would have to assume the premise that thoughts presuppose the existence of a thinker before he could conclude therefore “I” exist. His own existence, not just the existence of his thoughts, is assumed in his argument, not proved by it. In effect, the statement is a tautology, at best.

 

[ApologiaSophia]

Ok. let’s give it one more attempt. First, I do not subscribe to any specific school. I only accept logic and reason. No such nonsense as “essence”. Besides, in this case I am going to employ the church’s teaching, which says that there is an absolute moral code. Absolute, of course, means that it is equally applicable to everyone. If it is wrong for humans to commit genocide, then it is wrong for God. The goddess of Justice in the Roman mythology was depicted with a blindfold, indicating that justice must be applied to all, without giving special consideration to some, and it was a very wise symbolism.

Whether you ascribe to a school or not, your position still coheres with the position of a school. Your position basically coheres with Kant. Problem is, you basically side with Kant’s conception of morality (which is flawed) but you reject some of the foundational premises that make the basis for his ideas. You reject the categorical imperative (which is basically one’s essence) and you reject a higher, moral power.

If there is no such nonsense as essence, then there is no such nonsense as morality. You really should read Alasdair MacIntyre’s After Virtue… or at least Spark note it.

What constitutes genocide? If I Use hand sanitizer to kill 99.9% of germs, is that genocide? God sets a time for everyone to die. How can God be guilty of genocide? If that is evil that means evil exist. If evil truly exists then God truly exists. If you disagree just look to Nietzsche, Sartre, Camus. Now if God is not benevolent, but is in fact evil, then why would we, creations He designed to be moral, view evil as evil and good as good? It would be switched if God was malevolent as you say. This is not the case.

You try to make a moral case against God without even having a solid foundation on which you can build your morality.

As long as God is assumed to be benevolent, the obligation is crystal clear. We are biological beings, who do not “value” pain and suffering (except a very few crazy individuals) and it is in our best interest to remove the pain and suffering. Last time I heard, God’s love (agape) is acting in the best interest of the loved ones. Nothing else needs to be said.

It is in our best interest to remove pain and suffering? All the time? How could you know that this is ultimately the case? A lot of people do not value morality. Does that mean it is not in their best interest? We suffer in marriages–even the best of marriages–does this mean that marriage is not in our best interest? It is actually the Christian position that through suffering we identify with Christ and grow in compassion for those who are suffering. To say the least, it builds character and makes you a stronger moral agent. You are being developed on a cosmic scale. It is not in our best interest to remove all
pain and suffering, because some pain and suffering is better for us when worked through.

Why should I attempt to do that? First, it cannot be done. Second, as long as there are no obvious and detrimental secondary effects, it would be futile to try and investigate them.

You concede my point. We argue for God’s existence by what we see. You argue against Him by what you don’t see. Your lack of faith in God’s benevolence in the scenario is only stating that you believe the opposite; that is, that if God exists He must be evil because I cannot possibly tell how the way He does things can lead to a greater good or be good in and of themselves. You’re arguing from ignorance.

The amount of freedom built into the system should be very properly designed. A certain amount of freedom is proper, so that the designer does not have to foresee and program for all the specifics. (Example: a car, which would need no driver, should be given the freedom to choose the proper speed based upon the road (etc…) conditions, but under no circumstances would be given the freedom to drive over the cliff and kill the passengers). To give more freedom, contrary to the specifics of the system (which could destroy the designed outcome) would be the sign of incompetence or lack of caring. Freedom is never “absolute”, there are always limits to what the agents can do. The only point of contention would be: “how much freedom should be given”?

I suppose that would be true for a car with no driver, but most cars are intended to have drivers. No I make a car with a good steering wheel, air bags, give it tires with good traction, and sell it to a driver who happens to be a lousy drive. Furthermore, that driver drives on a road that was poorly constructed by the construction team. Not because their vehicles were bad, but that they too used the vehicles poorly. It is not the fault of the car that you drove over a cliff, it is the fault of the driver (free will). A good car has the ability to go off road if it needs to. Not with the intention of having someone drive it over a cliff, but perhaps they need to go on dirt roads, or park on grass, or drive up to a lake to watch the sunset.

Same with calculators. If I made a perfect calculator, it is the user’s fault for getting the wrong product to the equation.

How much freedom should be given depends on the goal of what has been made. Now we get back to the “essence” and the telos of a human being. Without a proper metaphysics or a proper end vision there can be no ethics, no morality. But you reject both of these concepts, therefore you are holding on to a moral system that you no longer have any sufficient reason to believe in. G.E.M Anscombe wrote on this in Modern Moral Philosophy Either morality exists and a good God exists, or God does not exist and objective morality ceases to exist with Him.

 

[mgoforth]

So heaven vs earth is not good enough? If a child would rather play than have dinner, there’s nothing wrong with the child. It’s dinner that needs to get better.

But hey, that’s just me…

I’m afraid it is just you…and me too. It’s our fallen nature that makes it hard for us to see that Heaven is worth giving up anything or suffering anything in this life. Hell is a little easier for us to understand sometimes, because even with our fallen nature we’re pretty familiar with pain and have a strong desire to avoid it.

 

[mgoforth]

Yes but Descartes has to assume his own existence as a thinking being in order to consider it proof in some sense that thinking proves his existence. He would have to assume the premise that thoughts presuppose the existence of a thinker before he could conclude therefore “I” exist. His own existence, not just the existence of his thoughts, is assumed in his argument, not proved by it. In effect, the statement is a tautology, at best.

We don’t have to assume our existence as a thinking being…thinking proves that it’s absolutely impossible that we could be anything else. What else can think but a thinking being? It’s implicit in the definition of thinking. I guess I’m not seeing the big problem with his argument that you are… Perhaps if you don’t look at it as a sequential series of propositions but take both at the same time?

 

[Peter_Plato]

So heaven vs earth is not good enough? If a child would rather play than have dinner, there’s nothing wrong with the child. It’s dinner that needs to get better.

But hey, that’s just me…

If the child is too tied up with playing they would have no clue that dinner is waiting. Until dinner is actually tasted, the child has no idea how good it is.

It also presumes the child can judge what is good for him/ her at his/ her level of development. Perhaps eating the dinner is precisely what the child needs for the necessary growth to occur in order for s/he to recognize that dinner has an enduring value that exceeds and supports the value of play. Enjoyment of play at least past a temporary duration is not even possible without dinner. So even if the child sees no value in dinner, it does not mean there is none.

 

[norain]

If the child is too tied up with playing they would have no clue that dinner is waiting. Until dinner is actually tasted, the child has no idea how good it is.

It also presumes the child can judge what is good for him/ her at his/ her level of development. Perhaps eating the dinner is precisely what the child needs for the necessary growth to occur in order for s/he to recognize that dinner has an enduring value that exceeds and supports the value of play. Enjoyment of play at least past a temporary duration is not even possible without dinner. So even if the child sees no value in dinner, it does not mean there is none.

Nah, dinner can wait. This is the problem when you think the world is built to require intervention of all sorts. Let him eat when he’s hungry, precisely when he’s hungry. Then dinner is not perceived as a chore (my mom told me I had to), but a banquet, a feast to be looked forward to.

 

[Trurl]

mgoforth:

Now I’m afraid you’ve contradicted yourself, Trurl. For God, the end does not justify the means…but if Trurl was God, the end would justify the means?? Tsk, tsk…I’m sure you can do much better.

You are painfully irrational. This is not a moral dilemma, where we seek “justification” for anything. If you are THAT unable to comprehend the problem, then no wonder that your posts are nonsensical.

1. The point is that Joe’s final destination is hell.
2. It is not in Joe’s best interest to end up there.
3. Supposedly God cannot help Joe, without interfering with Joe’s “free will”. (this is already idiotic, but we can let it pass)
4. God can, however “help” Joe by not creating him.
5. Given the circumstances, that would be in Joe’s best interest.

When you comprehend this, come back. Maybe in a decade, or two.
Peter Plato:

You would like us to gloss over the “ways and means” because they are not “totally irrelevant.” How will God make the determination that Joe in fact will (as an autonomous and self-determining being with free will) end up in hell without Joe to determine that? The only way God could possibly know that little tidbit about Joe’s end result would be to allow Joe to run through the course of his life in order for God to “know” that. The ways and means are therefore very relevant. In your analogy of the dice, the dice would have to get thrown in order to actually know the result in the end.

Since you deny the concept of omniscience, there is no reason to go any further. Of course, in a sense I agree with you. The idea to “know” something that has never existed is sheer baloney. But at this point we left the christian playground. The christian concept of omniscience is that “God knows everything, past, present and future”. My argument was based upon that. See you around later.

ApologiaSophia:

Problem is, you basically side with Kant’s conception of morality…

Where did you get that from? My ethical system is based upon the concept of reciprocity, aka the the “golden rule”. There is no need for any “higher” power, mutual respect is sufficient.

ApologiaSophia:

If there is no such nonsense as essence, then there is no such nonsense as morality.

Sure there is. Morality is simply the collection of written and unwritten rules that describe the socially acceptable behavior is a certain society in a certain timeframe. It is objective (does not depend upon the individuals, but not absolute - it changes from society to society and from time to time).

ApologiaSophia:

It is in our best interest to remove pain and suffering? All the time?

It is definitely in our best interest to remove unnecessary pain and suffering, and definitely in our best interest to remove “fatal errors” - which for a rational materialist would be something that ends in death, and for the irrational theist would be to lose one’s “salvation”… (or is it salivation? I am never really sure… at least salivation is a real phenomenon).

ApologiaSophia:

Either morality exists and a good God exists, or God does not exist and objective morality ceases to exist with Him.

You should say “and ABSOLUTE morality ceases…” and you would be n the right track.

ApologiaSophia:

I suppose that would be true for a car with no driver, but most cars are intended to have drivers.

Only in this day and age. I a few decades the cars will have an electronic brain, which will have a certain amount of freedom which will allow the car to move at optimal speed, but that “freedom” will never allow the car to go over the cliff. As a matter of fact, even today there are cars, which monitor the road and the traffic, and will override the human driver if he would get too close to another car. Unlimited freedom is an idiotic concept for any system, unless the design parameter of the system is to have as much damage, pain and suffering as possible. But only a psychopath would design such a system, who finds pleasure in other beings’ suffering.