I am baffled, please explain

[PumpkinCookie]

Nor will I come and threaten to boycott your place of business, lobby the courts to have you fined; nor even allege irreparable (well… at least not fixable by $135,000) emotional harm to me and my like-minded kin just because you happen to disagree on this issue.

Yes, the case to which you allude is truly ridiculous and awful. Religious freedom is one of the greatest accomplishments of our civilization and it needs to be upheld and protected! I think we can agree on that.

 

[tonyrey]

]That is why if you were God you would be prepared to dispense with our lives and the lives of our ancestors to prevent injustice and suffering.

Feelings are irrelevant in a rational discussion.

NOT creating someone is not the same and KILLING someone. Sure, not creating a murderer would “deprive” his HYPOTHETICAL descendants from being born, but there is nothing problematic about this.

Nothing as far as you are concerned because you reject the right to life.

Every time you “fail” in your endeavor to procreate (no matter how “open” you might be), you also “deprive” that possible “someone” and his or her descendants from ever coming into existence. Or if you or your spouse are simply tired, or have a headache, you also “deprive” the possible offsprings from coming into existence. Do you feel bad about it? (And this is not a rhetorical question!)

There is a vast difference between failing to procreate through no fault of one’s own and deliberately preventing the entire human race from existing.

That is why if you were God you would be prepared to dispense with our lives and the lives of our ancestors to prevent injustice and suffering.
There would be others to take their place. And then we would have no injustice and sufferings. I wonder: “why do you think that I or you are SPECIAL”? We are not. If we would not exist, then someone else would exist in our place.

That is what the Nazis, amongst others, thought. We are all dispensable and as soon as we don’t fit their scheme of things off to the gas chamber, after making sure they have grabbed our valuables of course. Your way of eliminating injustice and suffering is to inflict it!

There is already a solution you have ignored. Quite simply the teaching, life and death of a Jewish carpenter. You may dismiss the Resurrection but you would be unwise to reject the other factors and their significance…

Oh, please, that is so lame. I see a lot of pain and suffering, which that “carpenter” could have prevented, but did not. If that is your “better” solution, then there is nothing to talk about.

With His example and message of love for everyone including our enemies the despised carpenter has prevented far more pain and suffering than atheists like Nietzsche, Marx and Schopenhauer have ever done. In fact your negativity has driven countless people to despair and suicide because they realise a Godless universe offers precisely nothing whatsoever of permanent value.

There is plenty to talk about but in your scheme of things it is understandable that you have come to the end of the road. The last word is that you have no solution, only a mockery of heaven which is equivalent to hell and in reality just an evasion of the doom and gloom of eternal oblivion which obliterates all the achievements and masterpieces created by mankind. Once again negativity reigns supreme and the blind Goddess has the last (meaningless) laugh which makes nonsense of any claim to be rational. The “power of reason” disappears into the atomic dust. Garbage, garbage and nothing but garbage from start to finish. Comedia finita est…

 

[Gorgias]

Definition of “counterfactual” as I mean it:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counterfactual_conditional

This term is a creation of 20th century analytic philosophy. Louis de Molina would be unfamiliar with this term, but nonetheless I think it is appropriate and useful for this discussion. You want to use the term “merely possible.”

No – that’s precisely the opposite of what I’m saying. Let’s go back a few pages… PA asserted the following:

The point is that God is supposed to know whatever:

1. happened in the past,
2. happens in the present,
3. will happen in the future, AND
4. whatever could have happened in the past (but never did),
5. could happen in the present (but never does), or
6. could happen in the future (but never will).

If you don’t wish to call this “counterfactual”, present a better word for it.

PA is claiming that #4-#6 is what we refer to as ‘counterfactual’; I (and apparently you, too) disagree. What is ‘counterfactual’ is not merely the things that were possible but did not happen – rather they are the things that, as Hume is quoted in your citation, “where, if the first object had not been, the second never had existed.” In other words, in the ‘merely possible’, the protasis is true but the apodosis is false. (That is what PA presents in #4-#6 above, and mistakenly calls it ‘counterfactual’.) However, counterfactuals deal in statements in which the protasis is false, and as a result, the apodosis also never comes into existence.

I believe that your citation shows that you agree with this analysis: PA’s assertions #4-#6 are not counterfactuals. Now, I’m not claiming that the ‘merely possible’ are beyond a claim of ‘omnipotence’ – in fact, I agree with the citation that PA provided many moons ago: the ‘merely possible’ is part of God’s omnipotence. However, the counterfactuals – that is, the things that are not in existence are not part of God’s omnipotence, since they are logically excluded from the following conjunction of sets: { {those things that exist at any point in time}, {those things that, being contingent on things that exist, may exist} }. What’s not part of this set are the counterfactuals: {those things that, being contingent on things that never existed, themselves never existed}.

For whatever reason, this understanding is something that PA is having trouble grasping, and therefore, our conversation is stalled.

But, inasmuch as we seem to agree on our definitions, then it seems that our conversation can make progress…

Further, would you affirm this proposition?:

“Nothing can be known about that which does not exist.”

Let’s deal with your ‘Santa Claus’ assertion, first. Do we ‘know’ that “Santa Claus lives at the North Pole”? Does this qualify as ‘knowledge’? I would assert that it is knowledge: but, it’s knowledge of the details of a fable – that is, the fable exists, and so, we can know about the story; but, to assert that it’s knowledge about a real person ‘Santa Claus’ is difficult to defend.

By the same token, your quotation gives us the opportunity to enter into a disccusion about epistemology; but, in order to evaluate the truth value of the statement, we would have to agree first on a series of definitions which would ground our discussion. In our present context, it seems to me that ‘omniscience’ extends to that which may be known; it is a statement about real things (and the possibilities that real things experience). It is, however, not a statement about un-real things or the imagined ‘possibilities’ about these non-existent things. To claim that God’s omniscience does not extend to those things which do not exist (and those things which would be contingent on those things), is itself not a ‘limit’ on God or His attributes. Rather, this claim appears to be a simple statement of logic: that which does not exist – or which is not possible, inasmuch as it is contingent on things that do not exist – is not in the domain of the set “what may be known.” To my intuition, we’re talking about things that exist and a function over that set. If we wish to (name removed by moderator)ut the empty set (i.e., something that doesn’t exist) into that function, we get an undefined result. To say that God is disproven, or even limited, in that He does not ‘know’ a result that, by definition, is ‘undefined’, is illogical. Counterfactuals fall into this category, it would seem.

You would consider all the religious (except yours) and fictional literature in the history of humanity to be detailing what precisely if not “knowledge of things that don’t exist?” Is this not really knowledge? Why not? What is it?

LOL! Well played!

I would answer that all untrue and fictional accounts are ‘knowledge’ – not of things that exist, but of accounts that exist. Knowledge of the accounts is well within the realm of knowledge. Attempting to cast these as things that per se exist (and subsequently, attempting to use that assertion to cast aspersions on the notion of the omniscience of God) is a completely different – (and untenable!) – assertion!

If you say no, what counts as knowledge of things that don’t exist, in your opinion?

Again, I think you must first distinguish between things that exist and accounts of things that do not exist.

 

[Aloysium]

. . . For a being who we all agree created a universe (or multi-verses!) with billions of galaxies, trillions of stars, and physical laws we still don’t understand, some of us seem very reluctant to grant that being the ability to see potential futures or “counterfactuals.” If you define “counter-factual” as something that requires a change in the past, I agree, because I don’t believe God breaks his own laws of time and space. . . .

I will have a go at trying to explain how I see this.

Addressing your last point first.
While it seems that all space and time is centred on this precise moment that you are reading this, I will assert that it is not.
The past-present-future is a manifestation of our being physically here at this time, each of us as a being with a rational mind and free will. It is our soul which creates the moment through our bodily participation in the world.
This moment exists in its time, as do all moments, all emerging into existence from the One Source, the Father of all creation.
God does not alter the past, because there is no past but for us who are in a state of transformation in time into who we will ourselves to be for eternity.
God has created us as persons, a unity of body (in time) and soul (outside time); He exists in every moment and in all moments - One.

God knows every hair on your head.
Everything that exists, from the immensity that includes all Galaxy clusters to the infinitesimally smallest, all is brought into existence in the variety forms and transformations that occur over the totality of time from the beginning to the end, by God.
Now with elementary and other objects that behave predictably, there are no alternative universes, so no other possible futures.
With us, we are created in a given environment, with given potentials, to make of our lives what we will.
Within the context of these given factors, our free will determines which of the possible life stories will exist eternally.
Following the will of God we are all destined to be Saints.
But we choose and thus there are many rooms in God’s home; with His grace, even when we fall, the opportunity remains to be with Him in heaven.
Even if to the end we deny Him, we will fulfill His will, in that case in the role of Judas rather than Peter.

Perhaps I have I have difficulty with counterfactuals because that sort of thinking is associated with mental illness: anxiety disorder, obsessions, hypochondriasis, delusions etc.
God is Truth. There is no need for “what ifs” when everything is.
We are who we are and contained in our being a person are our given psychological, physical, sociofamilial circumstances. From this pluripotential state we define ourselves through what we do.
In His eternal vision God is surprised, pleased, horrified, disappointed and amazed at who we are.

 

[geekborj]

Free will is the basic tenet, but the source of this tenet is love. Love can only be authentic if it is made freely and voluntarily.

While God must have known the decision of Adam and Eve beforehand, it is in his benevolence to share it anyway with the human beings. His solution is to give Himself (Jesus Christ) as way to repair the damage done, but note that even the reparation must involve human free will.

Could God have created a different pair, like George and Susie, who would NOT have succumbed to the temptation, and would NOT have chosen to disobey? If every conceivable human pair would have succumbed to the temptation then there is no free will; the fall would have been preordained or predestined. Sounds quite unreasonable. The existence of free will is a basic tenet.

Now if God could have created another human pair, who would not have succumbed to the temptation, then the question is: “why didn’t he do it?”. God is supposed to be free to actualize any state of affairs, which is not logically impossible.

Because God wanted human beings to love authentically as to share His Being to His Creation.

Why did he put them to the test in the first place if he knew that they will fail? What is the point to put someone to a test which will lead to death when the person fails? There are several solutions here: NOT to place that tree there. Or do not command them not to touch it. No command or no tree - no disobedience - no “original sin” - no “fall”. Everyone wins, we would still be in the Garden.

For God there are no unforeseen events, no surprises. The conclusion is very disturbing: God deliberately chose the sequence of events which lead to the “fall”, God wanted us to fall. That is not how a “loving” father behaves. No loving father would put a bowl of poisoned candy (tasting of which leads to death) on the table and command his child not to taste it. A loving father would not place that candy on the table, he would make sure that the candy is inaccessible.

Surviving the test is a human expression of that free will. This is the reason why succumbing to a temptation is never totally free because by succumbing to it, its like getting imprisoned by sin.

If a father “tricks” his children into an act of disobedience with the explicit aim / desire to teach him a lesson, then the test cannot be a “lethal” one. Moreover, the failed test must be followed by an immediate and minor punishment, which must be followed by an unconditional, free pardon. And, of course, the punishment cannot be extended to other ones, least of all to those who have not even born yet.

This is not a “trick” but a test appropriate to the human nature. Asking students to undergo a written exam is not a trick but a kind of evaluation of their true nature according to the mode of expression for the skill or knowledge (that is, written). For human beings, obedience is the primary mode of expression of such free will to love.

There is no need to go one into reconciliation process of God’s self-sacrifice (in the form of Jesus). If there would be no original sin, there would be no need for reconciliation.

So the whole story just does not compute. Unfortunately the concept of original sin is the cornerstone of Christianity. So, there…

I simply don’t get it.

The original sin is indeed a “happy fault” because it has given us an opportunity to share with God’s life in an even more intimate personal way, through Christ the Savior. If one does not grasp the difference of Adam and Eve’s life to the life of a Christian as hoped, it will not make sense. But imagine Adam and Eve as simply conversing with God while Christians in the Resurrection Day will be Judges and like Angels directly having that beatific vision of God as He is! Much much better!

 

[Kurisu35712]

I am getting really tired of this. NOT creating someone is not the same and KILLING someone. Sure, not creating a murderer would “deprive” his HYPOTHETICAL descendants from being born, but there is nothing problematic about this. Every time you “fail” in your endeavor to procreate (no matter how “open” you might be), you also “deprive” that possible “someone” and his or her descendants from ever coming into existence. Or if you or your spouse are simply tired, or have a headache, you also “deprive” the possible offsprings from coming into existence. Do you feel bad about it? (And this is not a rhetorical question!)

Part of the reason many posters have an aversion to your line of thinking isn’t because we’re talking about certain people never coming into existence. It’s because we’re talking about people who already exist being put into a state of nonexistence. Had we never been created, obviously we wouldn’t know that we’d been deprived of existence. However, we do exist, and as a result, the thought of having never existed is functionally no different to having our current existence taken away. We are already here.

It’s different than saying every time a couple fails to conceive a child, that child is deprived of existence. That child, by not having been conceived, does not exist. You cannot make the same argument for a toddler who is eating a bowl of cereal, as they were conceived and are here. Not creating someone is only different from killing someone if they don’t exist yet. If they exist, that sounds like a call for the persons annihilation, regardless whether it was meant as such.

There would be others to take their place. And then we would have no injustice and suffering. I wonder: “why do you think that I or you are SPECIAL”? We are not. If we would not exist, then someone else would exist in our place.

Or, alternately, no one would exist at all. There would be no humans whatsoever, perfect or not. Even if someone were to exist in our place, they would not be “us,” they would be someone else. Even a perfect clone of yourself would not be you, because their experiences and their place in time is not the same as yours. A clone is nothing more than an identical twin who wasn’t born at the same time as you, in my view.

And I disagree with you. We are special, but not because we are necessarily important or because the functions we are able to perform are not able to be done by someone else similarly skilled. We are special because, if nothing else, there is only one “you,” and only you have your specific and individual experiences, thoughts, relationships, beliefs, tendencies, brain cells, neurons, fingerprint, iris pattern, etc. etc. Despite what you may think, the existent human being that is “you” cannot be replaced by another human being. For example, your parents can never have the same relationship with someone else as they do with you, even if you have siblings or an identical twin. Your best friend cannot replace “you,” even if they may be able to form close relationships with other people. Even then, those people are not you, and cannot bring to that relationship the same experience that you would. To say we are not special, and then imply that because of that we are not unique or that we are replaceable by someone who isn’t us is absurd.

 

[Pallas_Athene]

Part of the reason many posters have an aversion to your line of thinking isn’t because we’re talking about certain people never coming into existence.

Why is that a problem? I already explained it to Tony, but he disregarded it (and I am being very charitable here). We - as “we” are here and now are determined (partially, but to a great extent) by our genetic makeup. We are the random result of a specific sperm “winning” the race to the ovum. If a different sperm would been the “winner”, you might be of a different gender than you are now. This is simple “Biology 101”.

If your parents would have decided not to have sex on that specific date and time, “you” would not exist.

It’s because we’re talking about people who already exist being put into a state of nonexistence. Had we never been created, obviously we wouldn’t know that we’d been deprived of existence. However, we do exist, and as a result, the thought of having never existed is functionally no different to having our current existence taken away. We are already here.

That is sheer nonsense. This is a philosophy forum, and there is a very useful concept of “possible world”. In our existing world, you and I exist. In another possible world (when the sperm-race would have had a different result) “we” would not exist. In every possible world there is a different combination of people who exist and who does not.

It is obvious that a different possible world without psychopaths is “preferable” - at the very least as far as the victims are concerned.

It’s different than saying every time a couple fails to conceive a child, that child is deprived of existence.

Not at all. If the parents decide not to have sex on a specific date and time, then they actively “deprive” that hypothetical child of existence - according to Tony’s weird philosophy. Mind you, not just “failed” to conceive, but actively and volitionally refrain from engaging in sex.

Or, alternately, no one would exist at all. There would be no humans whatsoever, perfect or not. Even if someone were to exist in our place, they would not be “us,” they would be someone else.

Yes, that would be a different possible world. Who would care? You would not because you would not even be there to “care”? Anyone else? They would not know what they might have “missed” or “gained”.

If there would be a being who could see all the alternatives and could decide which possible world to actualize is there a problem to solve. Of the infinitely many possible worlds there are infinitely many “sub-worlds” with full free will and no pain and no suffering, and where all the inhabitants would “merit” to be promoted into heaven. If this being would “prefer” that all the humans would be “saved”, then he could choose one of these infinitely many worlds, and everyone would “win”.

 

[tonyrey]

Why is that a problem? I already explained it to Tony, but he disregarded it (and I am being very charitable here). We - as “we” are here and now are determined (partially, but to a great extent) by our genetic makeup. We are the random result of a specific sperm “winning” the race to the ovum. If a different sperm would been the “winner”, you might be of a different gender than you are now. This is simple “Biology 101”.

Simple to the extent that your random origin determines your “rational conclusions”!

If your parents would have decided not to have sex on that specific date and time, “you” would not exist.

Fortunately the blind Goddess is responsible for all human decisions and we don’t have to worry about being responsible for anything. That surely is paradise on earth… At last we are liberated from morality by biology! Long live science and to hell with everything else!

That is sheer nonsense. This is a philosophy forum, and there is a very useful concept of “possible world”. In our existing world, you and I exist. In another possible world (when the sperm-race would have had a different result) “we” would not exist. In every possible world there is a different combination of people who exist and who does not.

A wonderful stratagem for reaching any conclusions that fit in with our scheme of things! No matter how improbable it is, our hypothesis is always the best explanation of the world and its inhabitants. It is an infallible method for determining the nature of the perfect world because it is bound to match our specifications even though to everyone else it seems to defy all the laws of probability. They are obviously still living in the dark ages where superstition is still rife.

It is obvious that a different possible world without psychopaths is “preferable” - at the very least as far as the victims are concerned.

Long live possibilities! They will solve all our problems…

Not at all. If the parents decide not to have sex on a specific date and time, then they actively “deprive” that hypothetical child of existence - according to Tony’s weird philosophy. Mind you, not just “failed” to conceive, but actively and volitionally refrain from engaging in sex.

It is tragic that I am unenlightened and cannot grasp the deep significance of Pallas’s insight into the origin of life but fortunately I’m not to blame - nor is anyone else - because all our thoughts are determined by our genetic makeup and we are the random result of a specific sperm winning the race to the ovum. Let us thank Mistress Fortune for our freedom from responsibility. It is impossible for us to deprive anyone of anything, let alone a child of its life. Long live abortion, suicide, eugenics and euthanasia!

Yes, that would be a different possible world. Who would care? You would not because you would not even be there to “care”? Anyone else? They would not know what they might have “missed” or “gained”.

Supreme indifference must be our watchword and goal. No one is significant and everyone is dispensable. At last we have found the key to happiness and peace of mind. Let us proclaim that ignorance is bliss and far more valuable than knowledge…

If there would be a being who could see all the alternatives and could decide which possible world to actualize is there a problem to solve. Of the infinitely many possible worlds there are infinitely many “sub-worlds” with full free will and no pain and no suffering, and where all the inhabitants would “merit” to be promoted into heaven. If this being would “prefer” that all the humans would be “saved”, then he could choose one of these infinitely many worlds, and everyone would “win”.

Everyone would win for the simple reason that no one would have anything to lose. What is life? For the atheist it is “a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing”. All the infinitely many possible worlds and infinitely many “sub-worlds” are equally worthless and fade into everlasting darkness. “The rest is silence…”

 

[tonyrey]

Part of the reason many posters have an aversion to your line of thinking isn’t because we’re talking about certain people never coming into existence. It’s because we’re talking about people who already exist being put into a state of nonexistence. Had we never been created, obviously we wouldn’t know that we’d been deprived of existence. However, we do exist, and as a result, the thought of having never existed is functionally no different to having our current existence taken away. We are already here.

It’s different than saying every time a couple fails to conceive a child, that child is deprived of existence. That child, by not having been conceived, does not exist. You cannot make the same argument for a toddler who is eating a bowl of cereal, as they were conceived and are here. Not creating someone is only different from killing someone if they don’t exist yet. If they exist, that sounds like a call for the persons annihilation, regardless whether it was meant as such.

Or, alternately, no one would exist at all. There would be no humans whatsoever, perfect or not. Even if someone were to exist in our place, they would not be “us,” they would be someone else. Even a perfect clone of yourself would not be you, because their experiences and their place in time is not the same as yours. A clone is nothing more than an identical twin who wasn’t born at the same time as you, in my view.

And I disagree with you. We are special, but not because we are necessarily important or because the functions we are able to perform are not able to be done by someone else similarly skilled. We are special because, if nothing else, there is only one “you,” and only you have your specific and individual experiences, thoughts, relationships, beliefs, tendencies, brain cells, neurons, fingerprint, iris pattern, etc. etc. Despite what you may think, the existent human being that is “you” cannot be replaced by another human being. For example, your parents can never have the same relationship with someone else as they do with you, even if you have siblings or an identical twin. Your best friend cannot replace “you,” even if they may be able to form close relationships with other people. Even then, those people are not you, and cannot bring to that relationship the same experience that you would. To say we are not special, and then imply that because of that we are not unique or that we are replaceable by someone who isn’t us is absurd.

:clapping: A refreshing response to a weird and woeful waste of intellectual ability which has descended into a “logical” world of unreality.

 

[PumpkinCookie]

I admire your compassion and mercy…How does this sound?

Wow, where to begin? I will be as brief as I am able.

I don’t believe that you genuinely admire my compassion for the souls in hell. I think you believe it is misplaced or ridiculous, based on your other comments. That is OK, we can disagree. I am not motivated principally by compassion though, but rather believe that God is totally good, does not create his own enemies and pretend to struggle against them, and is totally sovereign. The concept of everlasting hell and “Satan” both undermine these fundamental beliefs, so I would like to show that they aren’t consistent.

Regarding the little girl. My intuition is that the criminal should be imprisoned, beaten, and then publicly executed (as long as guilt has been established beyond a reasonable doubt by a fair trial). Upon death, if this person refuses to repent and relishes the evil he has worked, then God will tear him from existence. He will go into the void, never to be seen or heard from again. Utterly wiped out. As if he never was. Everyone will forget and move on. His annihilation will allow healing and justice to prevail totally and completely, forever.
His punishment is final, and everlasting. It is finished. Evil has been totally wiped out. God reigns totally supreme, unchallenged, undisputed, forever.

I do not believe that the new testament accurately represents the teaching of Jesus, and I do not believe everlasting hell is a revelation of God. I am not “worried about our enemies” so much as I don’t want to see the goodness, mercy, and total absolute sovereignty of God denigrated by beliefs that make him seem evil, foolish, ignorant, or weak.

Look around this website. Many people here live in fear that the world is careening out of control, and that “Satan” and demons are taking over. If we don’t clutch our rosaries and say novenas to St. Jude we’re all doomed! So much fear. This fear is the result of a failure to realize that God is totally in control. There is no one to oppose him. This world is exactly how he wants it to be, and it is “for our good” no matter how scary it seems to us. There is no powerful demi-god “Satan” ruling over his own domain of everlasting hell trying to suck everyone down with him, as if God didn’t know or couldn’t do anything about it. How silly! Yes, sin and evil are realities in this world, for God only knows what reason. However, someday, God will put a final and decisive end to it, not sustain and support it forever!

For the same reason I do not believe God will sustain evil forever, I believe he will establish goodness and justice forever. Though the Torah does not seem to explicitly state that the righteous will live forever with God, it has been the opinion of many rabbis and sages that this is the truth. When the Messiah comes he will explain. May he come soon! In the meantime I have hope for the “World to Come.”

Psalm 93:

The Lord has reigned; He has attired Himself with majesty; yea the Lord has attired Himself, He has girded Himself with might. The world also is established that it cannot be moved. Your throne is established of old; You are from everlasting. The rivers have raised, O Lord, the rivers have raised their voice; the rivers have raised their depths. More than the voices of great waters and more than the mightiest breakers of the sea, is the Lord mighty on high. Your testimonies are very faithful to Your house, the dwelling of holiness, O Lord, to the length of days.

 

[PRmerger]

Upon death, if this person refuses to repent and relishes the evil he has worked, then God will tear him from existence. He will go into the void, never to be seen or heard from again. Utterly wiped out. As if he never was.

Do you have any of your OT Scriptural support for this?

Everyone will forget and move on

Wait…what?

Didn’t we have a long discussion on how you eschewed this idea of us forgetting?

“We would no longer be ourselves” if we forget"

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=945738

 

[Gorgias]

Of the infinitely many possible worlds there are infinitely many “sub-worlds” with full free will and no pain and no suffering, and where all the inhabitants would “merit” to be promoted into heaven.

You keep asserting this… but when pressed on the issue, you’ve been unable to mount a convincing defense of this assertion. You may keep attempting to assert it, of course, but as you yourself noted, “this is a philosophy forum”; “sheer nonsense” is inappropriate here.

 

[PRmerger]

Everyone will forget and move on.

I am simply astonished…ASTONISHED…at this new insight you’ve provided here, PC, given this post you made just a few months ago:

Originally posted by PumpkinCookie: (bold mine)
PRMerger,

The problem with the idea that God can just erase the memories we have of particular persons who may be in hell is that some of these memories are connected to other memories we have in an intimate way. Let’s say that my mother is going to go to hell. (God forbid!) In order for God to erase the memory of her, he would also have to make me totally misunderstand the relationship between myself and my father, and my siblings, and anyone else who knew me and my mother. Right? If my father and I were able to make it to heaven, but my mother wasn’t there, then exactly how would we understand our relationship to each other?

It is not so easy to “erase” the memory of an entire human being who is known and loved by other human beings without doing serious violence to those who had relationships with the “erased” human. I would say that this “erasure” would require either massive deception or a kind of spiritual anesthesia. This kind of deception or anesthesia would be so pervasive that I think it would be right to assert that the people in heaven are only tangentially related to the people on earth whom they might have been at one time.

In order to erase my memories of my mother, huge portions of my memory would also have to be erased and thus I would no longer be “myself” in an essential way. I agree that we are not our memories, but our memories are what make us “us” in an essential way. Now, imagine that not only my mother, but tons of people who I knew and loved in life are in eternal hell. What could possibly be left of my memory, and how can we say that I would be “myself” in any meaningful sense?

Your analogy of the boy and his truck fails because it doesn’t illustrate a rejoinder to my assertion. I’m not saying I can’t be happy in heaven without memories of my mother. I’m saying that it is impossible for me to be myself if all memories contingent upon the existence of my mother are erased. Your heaven is filled with a handful of anesthetized, deceived spirits that are only the remains of real, authentic human beings. What a depressing place. Not as horrific as hell, but why would it matter if we go there?

Again, the point you have declined to answer: why would God create a universe so horrible that he would have to erase our memories of it in order for us to be happy?
Does that sound like the work of a “loving father?”

I agree with the assertion that only a sociopath or an utterly selfish and callous person could tolerate the idea that even a single consciousness will experience eternal torment. I also agree with his assertion that (a huge majority of) the people who parrot “belief” in eternal hell don’t actually believe it, because it is most assuredly an insane notion.forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=12928545&postcount=840

So I ask you, PC, why would God create a universe so horrid that He would have to erase our memories in order for us to be happy?

 

[PRmerger]

You keep asserting this… but when pressed on the issue, you’ve been unable to mount a convincing defense of this assertion. You may keep attempting to assert it, of course, but as you yourself noted, “this is a philosophy forum”; “sheer nonsense” is inappropriate here.

Not to mention: where’s the evidence for all of these other universes?

It’s always amusing to me that folks who demand evidence for God’s existence will believe in oh-so-many things without a shred of evidence.

 

[PumpkinCookie]

I am simply astonished…ASTONISHED…at this new insight you’ve provided here, PC, given this post you made just a few months ago:

So I ask you, PC, why would God create a universe so horrid that He would have to erase our memories in order for us to be happy?

“Erasing” is different from “forgetting.” God forcibly erasing our memories of loved ones is different from our forgetting of heinously evil people after a time of healing. Besides, the only people who will arrive at this terrible end are truly evil people (Hitler, Stalin, etc).

Under Catholicism though, there is no reason to suppose any of us will be going to heaven. Everyone is one missed mass, one false belief, one utterance of “fool” against a brother from eternal damnation. It is very likely that many of my own family members and myself are headed there, given Catholicism, and I don’t think we’re unusually evil. Simple, average, decent people are barred from Catholic heaven, in my opinion.

The final result of a life of sin and a refusal to repent is utter destruction. The scriptures are full of statements showing that God will one day totally destroy people like this.

Psalm 92:

How great are Your works, O Lord! Your thoughts are very deep.
A boorish man does not know; neither does a fool understand this.
When the wicked flourish like grass, and all workers of violence blossom, only to be destroyed to eternity. But You remain on high forever, O Lord. For behold Your enemies, O Lord, for behold Your enemies will perish; all workers of violence will scatter.

 

[PRmerger]

“Erasing” is different from “forgetting.” God forcibly erasing our memories of loved ones is different from our forgetting of heinously evil people after a time of healing.

Really? Erasing is different from forgetting?

How so?

And how does one forget? Will God do this, or is it possible to will yourself to forget?

I dunno… it seems counterintuitive to think someone could choose to forget someone, but if you tell us how someone could choose to forget the person who raped her, then I think all counselors would pay you some big bucks for this ability.

Besides, the only people who will arrive at this terrible end are truly evil people (Hitler, Stalin, etc).

What’s with the “etc”?

And how do you know this?

 

[Pallas_Athene]

You keep asserting this… but when pressed on the issue, you’ve been unable to mount a convincing defense of this assertion. You may keep attempting to assert it, of course, but as you yourself noted, “this is a philosophy forum”; “sheer nonsense” is inappropriate here.

You mean it is not obvious to you? Which part don’t you get?

1. That there are infinitely many possible worlds? Start to think along those lines where instead of an oak tree there would be pine tree at a specific location… and continue from that point. Another one, where there is no Ebola virus. Another one where Hitler would have been born as a woman… Use your imagination freely. Any world is possible, except the ones with logical contradictions (like “married bachelors”). And from God’s alleged “omnipotence” it follows that he could actualize any one of them.
2. That among infinitely many possible worlds there are infinitely many with free will and without pain and suffering? (I even gave a non-trivial constructive example in the other thread).
3. Now maybe you wish say that having free will and no atrocities does not merit to get to heaven, and that is truly not something I would wish to try to “prove”.

So I do not need to find new defenses, you already supply the material with God’s omnipotence and omniscience. If only God would also be omnibenevolent, he would choose the one where everyone would be in heaven with him… after all this is what you, the apologists assert that God “wishes” - without any argument, I must add.

 

[PRmerger]

Under Catholicism though, there is no reason to suppose any of us will be going to heaven. Everyone is one missed mass, one false belief, one utterance of “fool” against a brother from eternal damnation.

Sin is a very, very serious thing, so yes, without Christ and His Church there is no reason to suppose any of us will be going to heaven.

But thank goodness (or rather, God!) for His Sacraments!

It is very likely that many of my own family members and myself are headed there, given Catholicism, and I don’t think we’re unusually evil. Simple, average, decent people are barred from Catholic heaven, in my opinion.

It’s odd that you would know more about the state of your family members’ souls than the Church…which doesn’t even reserve for herself the right to judge that.

Yet, for some reason, you seem to know more about their destination regarding “Catholic heaven” than the Catholic Church.

#peculiar

The final result of a life of sin and a refusal to repent is utter destruction. The scriptures are full of statements showing that God will one day totally destroy people like this.

Psalm 92:

Psalm 92 says nothing at all like that.

Any other sources?

 

[PRmerger]

You mean it is not obvious to you? Which part don’t you get?

1. That there are infinitely many possible worlds?

Some evidence for this please. Something that is objective and physical, has been peer-reviewed, and with data that can be duplicated.

 

[PumpkinCookie]

Really? Erasing is different from forgetting?

How so?

And how does one forget? Will God do this, or is it possible to will yourself to forget?

I dunno… it seems counterintuitive to think someone could choose to forget someone, but if you tell us how someone could choose to forget the person who raped her, then I think all counselors would pay you some big bucks for this ability.

What’s with the “etc”?

And how do you know this?

Forgetting occurs naturally when one focuses on something else, like the glory and wonder of the “World to Come” and life with God in peace. “Erasing” is what happens when someone uses the body against the soul by damaging the brain in order to forcibly prevent one from recalling something. This can be done with drugs, surgical instruments, or ghoulish psychological torture of various kinds. Surely God doesn’t do this!

I don’t know how rape victims will be able to heal and forget the evils done to them during life. I would imagine that life in the “World To Come” and the knowledge that the rapist has either repented and been restored or has been “torn from existence” is helpful. As the psalm said the past Sunday at mass “Justice and peace shall kiss.”

OK, I don’t know if Hitler, Stalin, or “etc” will be annihilated. I guess they could have repented. But, God’s law is clear about which offenses are “capital” and jeopardize our eternal lives. Certainly, causing the deaths of millions is one of them!