Is eternal suffering pointless?

[PRmerger]

It’s called PUNISHMENT. JUSTICE IS GIVING WHAT OTHERS DESERVE. THEY ARE IN HELL BECAUSE THEY DESERVE IT. IT IS JUST. YOU HAVE REJECTED CHRIST AS A NOITALL NOAHIDE … WILL YOU BE THERE AS WELL? :bigyikes::doh2::hypno::

Simmer down, OA. Take off the caps lock.

All of us need to ask if we “will be there as well”. For all have sinned, right? That is, all of us reject Christ at some moments in our life.

 

[Protestor]

Well, yeah. Per your history, when my argument becomes irrefutable in your estimation, you bow out.

Bow out, really, I didn’t bow out of the last thread we were in it just died.

You aren’t off the hook because you proposed angels in this conversation. I am just saying that I don’t care to go further. Your premise is that the idea is kept alive by angels. Defend your premise. You have to present information to even say that this is possible you cannot just say it and poof it is possible. Unless we are working in the world where if you can think it then it is possible

Why would I want to discuss irrefutable/unverifiable premises within an argument. When you need to use these kind of premises, by my estimation, you have reached the end you what you can discuss intellectually.

I’m still thinking about this ideas aren’t things thing. My first grade knowledge of the english language keeps telling me the nouns are people, places, and things. Anyway aren’t all thoughts just electrochemical activity in the brain.

 

[opusAquinas]

Simmer down, OA. Take off the caps lock.

All of us need to ask if we “will be there as well”. For all have sinned, right? That is, all of us reject Christ at some moments in our life.

The caps are to get to the point of something rehashed. Oh right sure presumption yes right… oh yes that’s right I so worried too like this noahide… :extrahappy::coffeeread::newidea::grouphug::kiss4you:

 

[987mk]

He could, but then it wouldn’t be a soul.

(And here, of course, the universe of discourse is for humanity).

Just like he could choose to make a circle with 4 corners…but, then again, it wouldn’t be a circle, would it?

Why does a soul have to be eternal? If a soul is eternal, then that means it never had a beginning? Are you suggesting that all souls have always existed and will always exist?

Why do you insist that God could not will a soul out of existence?

Could God not will everything out of existence?

 

[OneSheep]

Jesus is not “the truth” in my view. A charismatic and influential Rabbi for sure. He had a lot of valuable advice to which I still listen. Every and any one can offer us some good advice and “truth.” Only God himself, however, is pure truth, in my view.

See, there you go again. You and Jesus are pointing in the same direction there.

Now, now, put your wrench down! I do not see human religions as “part of the problem” but rather, “vanity.” We cannot avoid vanity, unfortunately. It is deeply intertwined in our lives. We should seek wisdom, but we cannot blame others for practicing the religion of their parents/culture.

True. Was I holding another one of those stinking wrenches?

I do not believe in proselytism. God is in control of all things and does not require our help. We cannot force others to be wise or to desire truth. I will loudly and forcefully contradict those who preach foolishness and vanity, but I don’t believe God desires me to proselytize others. In other words, if you come to my door handing me pamphlets and “selling” your religion to me, you will be dealing with one tough customer. But, I see no reason to come to your store and tell you what you should be selling instead!

Well, then, you and Pope Francis don’t believe in proselytism. I agree. I was saying that you have a voice that knows that love does not torture, love does not subject another to eternal fire, love forgives. Spreading words of forgiveness is not proselytism, it is creation of a Kingdom where love reigns.

Selfishness and arrogance are the true enemies of humanity and God, in my opinion. To the extent that a religion either encourages or fails to discourage selfishness and arrogance, it can be said to be “part of the problem.” Most religions, though vain and untrue, do not encourage selfishness and vanity. Think of the two world religions most in conflict right now: western consumerism and Islamic fundamentalism. Both encourage selfishness and arrogance, in my opinion. May God deliver us from both!

What does that delivery look like, Pumpkin Cookie? How does it happen?

Indeed, are we to eternally suffer, or can we make our way out? After all, isn’t the concept of eternal suffering one that is fed by an experienced hopelessness?

Great discussion. Glad you are here.

 

[fisherman_carl]

Why does a soul have to be eternal? If a soul is eternal, then that means it never had a beginning? Are you suggesting that all souls have always existed and will always exist?

Why do you insist that God could not will a soul out of existence?

Could God not will everything out of existence?

Human souls are not considered eternal. They are considered immortal. Meaning they have a beginning but no end. They are immortal because as Wisdom 2 states they are created in the image of the eternal God. If you consider the angels they were created immortal and are higher beings. Hell was created for them. Angels can not repent once they have chosen their path. If God doesn’t plan to annihilate the bad angels then why would he annihilate bad humans?

Would annihilation be a deterrent from evil or a motivation to evil for someone who hates God and doesn’t want to exist anyways? If annihilation was all that was needed then why create a hell at all?

 

[pocaracas]

Well, then if you are emphasizing the IF, it’s a rather inutile comment to make.

It’s a straw man.

As such, no one needs to address it since* even you* are not positing that a soul is just as immaterial as ideas or concepts.

As IF you could know any of it for sure, huh?
You may know the CC definition for a soul… but to know for sure that such a “thing” exists and has the properties that the CC claims it to have… well, that’s a whole different ball game, isn’t it?

Would you rather we discuss the definition or the actual real deal?
The definition is what it is… [yoda voice]look it up in a dictionary we can, hmmmm?

IF that definition has some reality into it or just a bunch of wishful thinking… you are totally unable to claim certainty (either way).
That’s why you cop out of any request for that sort of connection with reality. It’s easier to think in terms of what the almighty CC teaches and stick with that.
Well, you know what?.. the CC is composed of people… people just like you… people who are just as unable to know for certain as you and me. Sure, they (and you) believe it to be as defined… sometimes, they (and you) may even refine the definition a bit further - a touch here, a tad there - but the main “thing” remains - immaterial, immeasurable, unknowable - indistinguishable from wishful thinking.

Ever since time immemorial, man has desired to keep living for as long as possible. Heck, we see that desire on most living things out there, so it’s not limited to mankind.
Man has managed to develop an abstract thinking brain, one that allowed him to project hypothetical scenarios… The desire for remaining alive would naturally lead to the scenario where the obvious expiration of the body would be superseded by the continuation of that which is not seen - the immaterial mind, the producer of ideas, the origin of personality… a bunch of things which, after some philosophizing, came to be what the CC now calls the soul.
This is a scenario explaining how the concept for a soul came into being within our human consciousness. It is a reasonable scenario, requiring no more than the building blocks we actually see around us, namely, people. I keep coming back to this “people” detail, because I feel it’s the fulcrum on which all religions stand, and strive to hide.

Once the concept of the soul that outlives the body is created within human minds, it’s a small step to it going on in a better, peaceful restful, plentiful place… it’s also another small step to desire our enemies to not go to such a nice place.
Proto-heaven and proto-hell were created.
Philosophizing among people brings forth the current CC definition for Heaven and Hell.
Philosophizing among other people brings forth other concepts of Heaven and Hell… the Muslim one with all those virgins is also a logical possibility, apparently.

There you go, more people coming up with these notions.
The people from way back then were completely ok with eternal damnation in Hell… Nowadays, as can be seen by some of the posters here (myself excluded for I don’t share the belief) the notion of “eternal suffering” seems too much… too unjust, for the all the love that God is supposed to have for all of mankind. In the olden days, it wasn’t for the whole of mankind… there were nuances… “thou shall not kill”? or “thou shall not murder”? nuances…

Considering all the people, all the philosophers, all the artists, all the creative thinkers out there… is this scenario that far-fetched?

 

[PRmerger]

As IF you could know any of it for sure, huh?
You may know the CC definition for a soul… but to know for sure that such a “thing” exists and has the properties that the CC claims it to have… well, that’s a whole different ball game, isn’t it?

Would you rather we discuss the definition or the actual real deal?
The definition is what it is… [yoda voice]look it up in a dictionary we can, hmmmm?

IF that definition has some reality into it or just a bunch of wishful thinking… you are totally unable to claim certainty (either way).

Absolutely not.

Do you have certainty of the existence of the mind?

 

[PumpkinCookie]

It’s called PUNISHMENT. JUSTICE IS GIVING WHAT OTHERS DESERVE. THEY ARE IN HELL BECAUSE THEY DESERVE IT. IT IS JUST. YOU HAVE REJECTED CHRIST AS A NOITALL NOAHIDE … WILL YOU BE THERE AS WELL? :bigyikes::doh2::hypno::

We’re all sinners my friend, but no one could deserve endless punishment. I fully expect to go to some type of temporary hell both to learn the lessons I’ve failed to learn here and as retribution for all the wrong things I’ve done. I hope and pray that God will resurrect me and allow me to live in the happiness and peace of the World to Come, but if it is my destiny to be annihilated, then I accept it as God’s will.

 

[pocaracas]

Absolutely not.

Do you have certainty of the existence of the mind?

Of my mind, yes… not so sure about anyone else’s… but it’s better to assume that everyone else is similar to me… at least, because they do act the part… well, most of them anyway…

Can we operate under the working assumption that each person possesses a mind?

 

[tonyrey]

Man has managed to develop an abstract thinking brain, one that allowed him to project hypothetical scenarios…

Now there’s a miracle for you - or is it magic? A clever collection of molecules succeeded - all by itself, of course - in making itself capable of abstract thought! Do you have any idea of the method it used to achieve that remarkable feat, taking into account the fact it didn’t know what it was doing? Of course like everything else it could have been the blind Goddess (Chance) who intervened and somehow managed - unwittingly because she never knows what she is doing - to produce hindsight, insight and foresight by a sheer stroke of luck. Or do you have a superior hypothesis? If not your hypothesis happens to be quite worthless and meaningless - like everything else in a universe which just happens to exist:

Garbage in garbage out!

Or, as Lear said, nothing shall come of nothing… Don’t you agree?

 

[pocaracas]

Now there’s a miracle for you - or is it magic?

Most likely, neither!

A clever collection of molecules succeeded - all by itself, of course - in making itself capable of abstract thought! Do you have any idea of the method it used to achieve that remarkable feat, taking into account the fact it didn’t know what it was doing?

Yes… it’s generally called Evolution by Natural Selection… The more “modern” term is Modern Evolutionary Synthesis.
Human abstract thinking isn’t all it does…
Kindness and altruism and care for loved ones also pop out of that… and these are not only found in humans…
One can only guess at how much “abstract” are the thoughts of some animals… Chimps, baboons and others can do it, to some extent…

But maybe you like to think that you’re the special one… the dominant species and all others are light-years away… all others are here to serve… huh?
Go learn something about animal continuity… just because humans have mastered the abstract thought niche, it doesn’t mean they’re the only ones there, and it doesn’t mean that aren’t other niches to exploit.
Abstract thinking is nothing but a survival tool… one which has been terribly misused at times and brilliantly employed at other times.

Of course like everything else it could have been the blind Goddess (Chance) who intervened and somehow managed - unwittingly because she never knows what she is doing - to produce hindsight, insight and foresight by a sheer stroke of luck.

Chance… a word borne out of human ignorance… how fitting you should propose it…
(I know you didn’t propose it, you read it somewhere by someone who was equally ignorant).

Or do you have a superior hypothesis? If not your hypothesis happens to be quite worthless and meaningless - like everything else in a universe which just happens to exist:

Garbage in garbage out!

Or, as Lear said, nothing shall come of nothing… Don’t you agree?

No, I do not agree… define “nothing”.
And tell me… where can we find such “nothing”?

 

[Brendan]

Yes… it’s generally called Evolution by Natural Selection… The more “modern” term is Modern Evolutionary Synthesis.
Human abstract thinking isn’t all it does…

What physics principle allows for that. For example, how does one flow of electrons direct other flows of electrons in an abstract manner.

They do not exhibit such behavior in integrated circuits. The flows are predetermined. For any given set of (name removed by moderator)uts, the output is known.

Other biological functions rely on physics principles. What should abstract thought not do so as well.

 

[opusAquinas]

We’re all sinners my friend, but no one could deserve endless punishment. I fully expect to go to some type of temporary hell both to learn the lessons I’ve failed to learn here and as retribution for all the wrong things I’ve done. I hope and pray that God will resurrect me and allow me to live in the happiness and peace of the World to Come, but if it is my destiny to be annihilated, then I accept it as God’s will.

Those who repent and accept our Lord Jesus Christ will be saved but you who have rejected our Lord are destined for eternal perdition.

 

[pocaracas]

What physics principle allows for that. For example, how does one flow of electrons direct other flows of electrons in an abstract manner.

They do not exhibit such behavior in integrated circuits. The flows are predetermined. For any given set of (name removed by moderator)uts, the output is known.

Other biological functions rely on physics principles. What should abstract thought not do so as well.

Dude, honestly…
Learn just how wrong that question is.
From the bottom.
Physics: nuclei just determine how many electrons are running around them and how strongly they’re attached… Some elements have electrons that flow freely, others, not so much, others are great for bonding with other elements (e.g. carbon).
These create what’s called molecules. There are many many many different molecules in any bacteria.
Molecules come together to form cells. Bacteria are single-cell organisms. They are among the most thriving life forms in the world.
Cells developed, apparently, as a means to protect the precious self-replicating molecules which define the organism. They also provide the self-replicating molecules with materials with which they can proceed with their replicating business.
Cells come together to form tissues… neurons are a collection of tissues.
Multi-cellular organisms have developed because they can harness even more material for self-replication and provide more redundancy, thus protecting the precious self-replicating molecules and allowing them to go on replicating.
Each organism has evolved to keep the self-replicating molecules replicating.

Brains developed first on some sort of fish… millions and millions and millions of years ago. Perhaps as a centralized way of keeping track of where to find food and where to avoid going so as not to get eaten.
Then they just evolved.
And, as far as we can tell, the present day maximum lies in humans.

To require a demonstration of electron flows over hundreds of millions of years of differing organisms and habitats is just… nonsense. Also, beyond the scope of the theory.
Also, neurons don’t operate based on electron flows, like wires. Go learn things.
Try not to show off your ignorance.

You people… sometimes remind me of my aunt when she was telling my grandmother about the “very small” waves that are microwaves and how much harm they do… Then along comes poca to tell them that light waves are even smaller and I don’t see anyone complaining. TV and radio waves are larger than microwaves, and I don’t see anyone complaining. So… what’s wrong with microwaves?
Aunt: Shut up.

 

[tonyrey]

Now there’s a miracle for you - or is it magic?

So mindless molecules just became aware of themselves for no reason whatsoever? Is there any evidence that such an event has occurred on other planets or is it simply an appeal to ignorance? Speculation with no basis in fact?

*A clever collection of molecules succeeded - all by itself, of course - in making itself capable of abstract thought! Do you have any idea of the method it used to achieve that remarkable feat, taking into account the fact it didn’t know what it was doing? *

Yes… it’s generally called Evolution by Natural Selection… The more “modern” term is Modern Evolutionary Synthesis.

Labels are worthless…

Human abstract thinking isn’t all it does…
Kindness and altruism and care for loved ones also pop out of that… and these are not only found in humans…
One can only guess at how much “abstract” are the thoughts of some animals… Chimps, baboons and others can do it, to some extent…

“guess” is the key word! As the result of an unspecified factor a random collection of atomic particles happened to become aware of themselves and other atomic particles, an event that has never been observed in the entire history of the universe. Until such evidence is produced it remains a gratuitous hypothesis based on the discredited metaphysical theory of logical positivism which overlooked the fact that our primary datum and sole certainty is our mental activity which enables us to infer from our perceptions that physical objects exist.

But maybe you like to think that you’re the special one… the dominant species and all others are light-years away… all others are here to serve… huh?

Irrelevant sarcasm which reveals more about your personality than objective reality… All life is valuable but some forms of life are more valuable than others, a fact that cannot be explained if life is a meaningless accident which serves no useful purpose.

Go learn something about animal continuity…

You make yourself sound like a clever teacher admonishing a lazy pupil, thereby violating the forum rule of courtesy and revealing more information about your personality …

…just because humans have mastered the abstract thought niche, it doesn’t mean they’re the only ones there, and it doesn’t mean that aren’t other niches to exploit.

Non sequitur.

Abstract thinking is nothing but a survival tool… one which has been terribly misused at times and brilliantly employed at other times.

If that is the case why does the human race pose the greatest threat to the survival of all life on this planet?

Of course like everything else it could have been the blind Goddess (Chance) who intervened and somehow managed - unwittingly because she never knows what she is doing - to produce hindsight, insight and foresight by a sheer stroke of luck.

Chance… a word borne out of human ignorance… how fitting you should propose it…

(I know you didn’t propose it, you read it somewhere by someone who was equally ignorant).

A superb example of another elementary fallacy: an argumentum ad hominem!

How do justify the theory of physical determinism? Or is it another appeal to ignorance?

Or do you have a superior hypothesis? If not your hypothesis happens to be quite worthless and meaningless - like everything else in a universe which just happens to exist:

Garbage in garbage out!

Or, as Lear said, nothing shall come of nothing… Don’t you agree?

No, I do not agree… define “nothing”.
And tell me… where can we find such “nothing”? What do think exists in a vacuum? More unspecified objects?

In both philosophy and science precision is an indispensable criterion of validity.

 

[pocaracas]

So mindless molecules just became aware of themselves for no reason whatsoever? Is there any evidence that such an event has occurred on other planets or is it simply an appeal to ignorance? Speculation with no basis in fact?

Are you desiring to assert that there was a reason behind the fact that the material that formed the planet Earth also allowed for the formation of living entities and, eventually, of a few that could be aware of themselves? An ulterior motive? A mindful intent?
Oh, boy… do you have evidence for that?
(this would be a good time to avoid mentioning fairy tales… even more if they’re just old fairy tales)

Labels are worthless…

Labels are great for conveying complex ideas in a compact format.
e.g. yogurt; relativity; rainbow; drizzle; software; pollution; quantum mechanics.

“guess” is the key word! As the result of an unspecified factor a random collection of atomic particles happened to become aware of themselves and other atomic particles, an event that has never been observed in the entire history of the universe. Until such evidence is produced it remains a gratuitous hypothesis based on the discredited metaphysical theory of logical positivism which overlooked the fact that our primary datum and sole certainty is our mental activity which enables us to infer from our perceptions that physical objects exist.

And this mental activity is directly connected to brain activity.

As for that “the result of an unspecified factor a random collection of atomic particles happened to become aware of themselves and other atomic particles”, you’re trying to shift any and all burden, by trying to have a model for everything.
Evolution accounts for how biological entities have been seen to develop over time. That leap to “collection of atomic particles” resides in another field of study, another level of detail which is not required for the theory of evolution to operate.
Of course, those particles need to be there and behave as they do, but they’re a given for biology. You don’t need to track each and every single particle… that’s impossible, in practice, and would bring no great insight into the problem.

Irrelevant sarcasm which reveals more about your personality than objective reality… All life is valuable but some forms of life are more valuable than others, a fact that cannot be explained if life is a meaningless accident which serves no useful purpose.

Sarcasm?.. pff you started it, with your hinting that random particles just magically come into a body and become sentient and capable of abstract thinking…

Who imbues a particular life form with value?
I value my own life. I value the lives of the members of my family and friends.
I value many other life forms, but not as much.
I devalue life that feeds off my own, like mosquitoes.

Is there some measure of “life value” that is not the one I attribute?

You make yourself sound like a clever teacher admonishing a lazy pupil, thereby violating the forum rule of courtesy and revealing more information about your personality …

My personality is great… I just find it tiresome to read ignorant things, over and over and over… For someone with almost 20k posts here, you should know very well how fallacious that sentence of “the clever collection of molecules” was… But you didn’t, or else you wouldn’t have written it… so… yeah, “ignorant” is a qualifier that applies to you, in this case.
I tried to teach within the limited format of an online forum. I hope you are no longer as ignorant about that subject. At least enough not to repeat that mistake.

Non sequitur.

Non sequitur??!!
I’m saying something does NOT lead to something else and that’s a non sequitur?!?
Well, DUH!!!

If that is the case why does the human race pose the greatest threat to the survival of all life on this planet?

All?! LOL!
You’re showing your ignorance, again…

[cont’d]

 

[pocaracas]

[cont.]

Chance… a word borne out of human ignorance… how fitting you should propose it…

An ad hominem attacks a person, not an idea.
Here, I was merely pointing out how the person who uttered such an idea was ignorant of the reality, or else that person would not have uttered such non-sense.
An ad-hom requires an actual person, so I can dismiss anything from him based on some other aspect of his persona.
For example: let’s say we’re discussing whether a fetus is a human or not - you bring forth the opinion of doctor Oz, from the tv show, whatever his opinion is. If I dismiss that opinion, on the grounds that Doc Oz has been found guilty of being a sellout to pharmaceutical companies, then I’ll be doing an ad-hom.

In this case, you presented an argument that was originally presented by a non-expert (I know this, because I’ve seen that argument before)… I don’t even know what kind of fallacy that may be… but it seems to have caught on. What does that say about those who reproduce the argument, convinced of its applicability?
And an argument that preys on most person’s automatic anthropomorphism of abstract notions, like evolution… tss tss tss

But, hey… aren’t we all ignorant of something?
Most medicine is based on statistics - clearly a product of (mostly) random experimentation.
Quantum mechanics relies a lot on statistics and probabilities, too… only showing how ignorant we are of the underlying reality. Could it be superstrings? We don’t know, we can’t tell… better to stick with what we can tell, don’t you agree?
And it would work even better if we could avoid falling for the traps of our own fallible minds… good thing someone cataloged them for us, huh?

How do justify the theory of physical determinism? Or is it another appeal to ignorance?

“the theory of physical determinism”? Funny how google only gives me 14 hits for that sentence…
Do you mind explaining that theory?
(in case you’re keeping tab, I’m showing my ignorance about that thing )

What do think exists in a vacuum? More unspecified objects?

In both philosophy and science precision is an indispensable criterion of validity.

What do I think exists in vacuum? I don’t need to think… someone else thought about it for me, did the experiment, had it checked, earned a Nobel Prize and became worldwide famous.
Here, you may learn something: nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/2004/
But, just for a tiny sample, suppose, hypothetically, that I could hold, in my hand, a box with your “nothing” in it… just vacuum. Off the top of my head, I know that a gravitational field is going through there. Lots of different radio waves are passing through, depending on the material of the box. Time is also flowing… The Earth is moving, as I hold the box, so the space inside the box is changing…
So, just on a tiny example, your “nothing” has something in it…which means that it’s not exactly nothing.
Precision… you said it!

 

[Brendan]

Dude, honestly…
Learn just how wrong that question is.
From the bottom.:

You are not getting the question.

We agree that the human brain relies on electron flows between neurons to product thought. But on what physics principle allows for that.

How do flows of electrons product analytic though. Electron flows are either deterministic ( they follow preset paths, or known alterable paths). This is how integrated circuits work.
As I mentioned, for any given set of (name removed by moderator)uts, a known output occurs.

The other means is random, following quantum probabilities

Neither are analytical. For deterministic flows, every thought would be known in advance. Again like an integrated circuit.

For random flows of electrons, every flow would be completely random, and not even a thought at all.

Not only can electron flows not account for analytic thought, it cannot allow for free will

 

[Aloysium]

. . . We agree that the human brain relies on electron flows between neurons to product thought. But on what physics principle allows for that. How do flows of electrons product analytic though. Electron flows are either deterministic ( they follow preset paths, or known alterable paths). This is how integrated circuits work.
As I mentioned, for any given set of (name removed by moderator)uts, a known output occurs. The other means is random, following quantum probabilities . . . Not only can electron flows not account for analytic thought, it cannot allow for free will

I agree, but it’s more complicated than that: There is a shift in Sodium and Potassium ions from inside to outside of the cellular membrane and vice versa, that occurs down the axon (long part of the nerve that connects to other neutrons via dendrites - small branches). The travelling wave of depolarization, the total of which can be measured at the skin surface by an EEG, reaches the synapse or interface between the two cells, where chemical mediators (morphine-like substances, glutamate, adrenaline, dopamine,serotonin, etc, etc) are released to bind to their respective receptors on the other nerve. The sum-total of changes results in a depolarization of the connected cell. This is a summary, and there are intracellular changes going on at the same time.

Clearly, it is only the material aspects of human behaviour that will be understood using solely a physical paradigm.

But, the fact is that we are 100% physical: Change the chemicals you may think more clearly, less clearly; you may hallucinate and imagine all sorts of weird things. Lop off a part and you will lose your words or understanding of where you are.

We are also 100% spiritual: We think, communicate, feel, love; we are individual experiencing time and this entire universe with which we connect. Ultimately, we exist in relation to God, who is the Source and the fulfillment of our existence.

We are a unity of matter and spirit and it is that unity that knows, loves, and moves.