Playing Devil Advocate e2: Unfair Judgement

[Linux]

**Premise 1: **Our ontological intrinsic nature is by definition unworthy of heaven both morally and existentially. Our very act of existence is not worthy of existence since it is something mercifully given to us as a gift rather than as something earned or owned. Only that which is good/perfection by nature is worthy of heaven and is thus their eternally and necessarily. No action we ever make by our selves will ever amount to a perfect act of being and thus we cannot be worthy in any sense of heaven or existence. Only God is good, a nature that is not obtainable in regards to own natures.

**Premise 2: **If our natures and actions (our actions are a reflection of our natures) were worthy of existence we would exist necessarily and we would be in heaven necessarily because we have a right, both existentially and morally, to the fullness of existence in so far as being worthy of it.

**Premise3: **If our nature is created unworthy by definition, then it seems unfair to put some unworthy people in hell and some unworthy people in heaven, since that judgment is always and essentially based on an arbitrary and irrelevant distinction between two groups of people that are all unworthy of heaven.

• Its not a Moral distinction since only perfection is worthy of heaven and we are not morally perfect.
• Its not an existential distinction, since none of us are worthy of existence.

Therefore since heaven can’t be earned by good works it would seem malicious to create beings that are unworthy of heaven. No matter what act we make we are undeserving by our very nature. It seems unfair and spiteful to save some and not others because all human actions are our met with the mercy of existence given that our natures are not good by nature and our actions never ontologically amount to perfection. Only perfection in existence is good and thus in heaven by defult.
**
Conclusion:**

1. It conflicts with the concept of Love to save some imperfect people and not other imperfect people because their being saved cannot have anything to do with their intrinsic moral or ontological worth and everything to do with a whim.
2. Its seems even more incredibly spiteful to create a being unworthy of heaven since it is not by my hand that i am born unworthy and so i don’t seem to be in a fair situation insofar as making a decision especially given that we are born we a tendency towards selfishness; hence temptation.
3. Perfection cannot be tempted and so temptation cannot reasonably be considered a fair basis for determining whose worthy and whose not insofar as choice is concerned. Perfection does not choose to be perfect so why judge the imperfect choice. This seems unreasonable.
4. Therefore to say that he gives us grace doesn’t seem a sufficient excuse to put some in heaven and and some in hell because we are never perfect in and of our own nature. It is purely by God’s intrinsic power and nature alone that any of us could be perfect (if that is even ontologically possible, since perfection cannot be created).

Thus the dilemma emerges when mercy is given to one and not the other.

Since a malicious God cannot exist; the Christian God as having the intrinsic nature of love does not exist.

 

[JohnMichaels]

An atheist has the following concerns about
.

Maybe a non-theist? militant anti-theist or a non-denominational or some other non-religious may have concerns about these things. An atheist has none of these concerns

 

[Linux]

Maybe a non-theist? militant anti-theist or a non-denominational or some other non-religious may have concerns about these things. An atheist has none of these concerns

The hypothetical atheist in the OP does.

 

[JohnMichaels]

The hypothetical atheist in the OP does.

Oh, ok then I can see that. Apologies

 

[ventura2323]

An atheist has the following concerns about

**Premise 1: **Our ontological intrinsic nature is by definition unworthy of heaven both morally and existentially. Our very act of existence is not worthy of existence since it is something mercifully given to us as a gift rather than as something earned or owned. Only that which is good/perfection by nature is worthy of heaven and is thus their eternally and necessarily. No action we ever make by our selves will ever amount to a perfect act of being and thus we cannot be worthy in any sense of heaven or existence. Only God is good, a nature that is not obtainable in regards to own natures.

**Premise 2: **If our natures and actions (our actions are a reflection of our natures) were worthy of existence we would exist necessarily and we would be in heaven necessarily because we have a right, both existentially and morally, to the fullness of existence in so far as being worthy of it.

**Premise3: **If our nature is created unworthy by definition, then it seems unfair to put some unworthy people in hell and some unworthy people in heaven, since that judgment is always and essentially based on an arbitrary and irrelevant distinction between two groups of people that are all unworthy of heaven.

• Its not a Moral distinction since only perfection is worthy of heaven and we are not morally perfect.
• Its not an existential distinction, since none of us are worthy of existence.

Therefore since heaven can’t be earned by good works it would seem malicious to create beings that are unworthy of heaven. No matter what act we make we are undeserving by our very nature. It seems unfair and spiteful to save some and not others because all human actions are our met with the mercy of existence given that our natures are not good by nature and our actions never ontologically amount to perfection. Only perfection in existence is good and thus in heaven by defult.
**
Conclusion:**

1. It conflicts with the concept of Love to save some imperfect people and not other imperfect people because their being saved cannot have anything to do with their intrinsic moral or ontological worth and everything to do with a whim.
2. Its seems even more incredibly spiteful to create a being unworthy of heaven since it is not by my hand that i am born unworthy and so i don’t seem to be in a fair situation insofar as making a decision especially given that we are born we a tendency towards selfishness; hence temptation.
3. Perfection cannot be tempted and so temptation cannot reasonably be considered a fair basis for determining whose worthy and whose not insofar as choice is concerned. Perfection does not choose to be perfect so why judge the imperfect choice. This seems unreasonable.
4. Therefore to say that he gives us grace doesn’t seem a sufficient excuse to put some in heaven and and some in hell because we are never perfect in and of our own nature. It is purely by God’s intrinsic power and nature alone that any of us could be perfect (if that is even ontologically possible, since perfection cannot be created).

Thus the dilemma emerges when mercy is given to one and not the other.

Since a malicious God cannot exist; the Christian God as having the intrinsic nature of love does not exist.

Boy are you being misled by satan. God is not malicious, satan plays God and is the malicious.one and only a person that is possessed will make the statements you have made.

 

[Linux]

Boy are you being misled by satan. God is not malicious, satan plays God and is the malicious.one and only a person that is possessed will make the statements you have made.

So according to you only a person possessed by the devil will make a philosophical argument against your belief?

This is an Ad hominem attack.

Next Please…

 

[Petaro]

Your premises are not formally proved and are thus subjective and some would argue just plain wrong. Just two examples - Worth is not based on being earned. Our natures are intrinsically good as created by God.

 

[Linux]

Your premises are not formally proved and are thus subjective and some would argue just plain wrong. Just two examples - Worth is not based on being earned. Our natures are intrinsically good as created by God.

If our natures are intrinsically good, then they are perfect.

 

[empther]

Next please.

Here I am, Linux.

From post 1

Since a malicious God cannot exist; the Christian God as having the intrinsic nature of love does not exist.

Ahah! :extrahappy:
Finally, a clear statement that the poster doesn’t believe in the Christian God.
At last, readers can see where he stands.

Thanks for the info, Linux.

( Of course, he will claim that it was only an academic exercise. But it’s consistent with all his threads and posts for the last year or so. I ain’t buying it. )

 

[ventura2323]

If our natures are intrinsically good, then they are perfect.

I am sorry if you believe that. Do you resent or hate anyone? Do you get angry? Is that perfect? I think not.

 

[zro_x]

I think we need to make a distinction between “undeserving” and “unworthy”. We are certainly undeserving of Heaven, because nothing we can do can help us to achieve it. But to say we are essentially by our nature unworthy of heaven, or even existence itself, is to make a different claim, one that I think is not true.

I think that man, in his ideal state (the garden of Eden) is worthy of heaven, though undeserving of it. It is only original sin that makes us unworthy of heaven, along with our own individual sins. It is our fault, or the fault of general humanity, that we are unworthy of heaven.

An atheist has the following concerns about

**Premise 1: **Our ontological intrinsic nature is by definition unworthy of heaven both morally and existentially. Our very act of existence is not worthy of existence since it is something mercifully given to us as a gift rather than as something earned or owned. Only that which is good/perfection by nature is worthy of heaven and is thus their eternally and necessarily. No action we ever make by our selves will ever amount to a perfect act of being and thus we cannot be worthy in any sense of heaven or existence. Only God is good, a nature that is not obtainable in regards to own natures.

Is there some particular reason here why only things that exist on their own accord are somehow intrinsically worthy of heaven? In my view, God decides who is worthy and who is not.

**Premise 2: **If our natures and actions (our actions are a reflection of our natures) were worthy of existence we would exist necessarily and we would be in heaven necessarily because we have a right, both existentially and morally, to the fullness of existence in so far as being worthy of it.

I think you need to elaborate more on this point as well. Why do “you” think this is the case?

**Premise3: **If our nature is created unworthy by definition, then it seems unfair to put some unworthy people in hell and some unworthy people in heaven, since that judgment is always and essentially based on an arbitrary and irrelevant distinction between two groups of people that are all unworthy of heaven.

This premise, if true, would seem to satisfy your conclusion.

**
2. Its seems even more incredibly spiteful to create a being unworthy of heaven since it is not by my hand that i am born unworthy and so i don’t seem to be in a fair situation insofar as making a decision especially given that we are born we a tendency towards selfishness; hence temptation. **

Let’s suppose that if you begin to exist, you are not only undeserving but also unworthy of heaven by your very nature. If this were true, Would God have the capability to make anyone worthy of heaven, even if he wanted to? If there is some logical rule which necessitates that all those brought into existence are by their nature unworthy of heaven, then it is beyond God’s power to make them that way.

3. Perfection cannot be tempted and so temptation cannot reasonably be considered a fair basis for determining whose worthy and whose not insofar as choice is concerned. Perfection does not choose to be perfect so why judge the imperfect choice. This seems unreasonable.

As I understand it, God is the only being with free will who also must necessarily do good. This is only possible because God is the eternal “form” (for lack of a better word) of love, which nesessitates personhood, free choice, and good will. It is logically beyond God’s power to create contingent beings who have both free will and must always do good.

 

[JohnMichaels]

Ahah! :extrahappy:
Finally, a clear statement that the poster doesn’t believe in the Christian God.
At last, readers can see where he stands.

Thanks for the info, Linux.

( Of course, he will claim that it was only an academic exercise. But it’s consistent with all his threads and posts for the last year or so. I ain’t buying it. )

Funny thing, he already told me it was a hypothetical before you posted that, just got erased is all. Yet, it is a fact. You didn’t see it, no fault can be yours. & in fact I can’t even back up the claim that I asked.
What a strange situation that is

 

[Qoeleth]

Here I am, Linux.

From post 1

Ahah! :extrahappy:
Finally, a clear statement that the poster doesn’t believe in the Christian God.
At last, readers can see where he stands.

Thanks for the info, Linux.

( Of course, he will claim that it was only an academic exercise. But it’s consistent with all his threads and posts for the last year or so. I ain’t buying it. )

It seems to be that our Brother Linux has genuine philosophical questions, and, I think, good ones. Not all of us are priviliged enough to ‘know everything’ about God. Didn’t Jacob, Job, David in the Psalms, all ‘question’ God and even argue with Him?

I think you might have made a mistake, because there seemed to be a smiling face when you assert that he doesn’t believe in the Christian God. I am sure you did not mean to post a smiling face, but did so in error…

 

[Qoeleth]

Linux, the ‘unworthiness’ of human beings is something which is in part a poetic statement and in part a metaphysical one. True, before we existed we were ‘not worthy’ of existence (or punishment, or anything) because we didn’t exist.

It is important to balance the rhetoric of unworthiness (which is favoured by Protestants), by the fact that we are all Creations of God, and Sons of God, and carry within us a spark of Divine Soul. Though, in so far as we have chosen to sin, we deserve punishment (or, purgation), in so far as we are Sons of the Most High and the image and similitude of the Divinity, we are created for perfect Happiness in Heaven.

 

[MPat]

**Premise 1: **Our ontological intrinsic nature is by definition unworthy of heaven both morally and existentially.

Wait. What exactly does “unworthy” mean here? It hasn’t been defined and it is not intuitively clear. Can it be time-dependent? Is it binary, or is it “fuzzy”? Is something either “worthy” or “unworthy”, or are there any other options?

Perhaps you should start with something like “Let’s define the ‘worthiness function’ from the Cartesian product of set of substances and set of time moments to the set with elements ‘worthy’ and ‘unworthy’.”…? And then explain what do “worthy” and “unworthy” mean in this case…?

Our very act of existence is not worthy of existence since it is something mercifully given to us as a gift rather than as something earned or owned.

OK, it doesn’t work if “worthiness” is time-dependent… And it doesn’t work if “worthiness” is not binary. It also implies that “X is worthy of Y” means “It would be unjust if X was not given Y.”. That should have been defined more explicitly, as the lack of clear definition will lead to major problems later.

Anyway, you were talking about being “worthy of heaven” and now you are talking about being “worthy of existence”…

Only that which is good/perfection by nature is worthy of heaven and is thus their eternally and necessarily. No action we ever make by our selves will ever amount to a perfect act of being and thus we cannot be worthy in any sense of heaven or existence. Only God is good, a nature that is not obtainable in regards to own natures.

**Premise 2: **If our natures and actions (our actions are a reflection of our natures) were worthy of existence we would exist necessarily and we would be in heaven necessarily because we have a right, both existentially and morally, to the fullness of existence in so far as being worthy of it.

So, is it assumed that the universe is just…? Anyway, “Premise 2” only seems to restate the “Premise 1”…

**Premise3: **If our nature is created unworthy by definition, then it seems unfair to put some unworthy people in hell and some unworthy people in heaven, since that judgment is always and essentially based on an arbitrary and irrelevant distinction between two groups of people that are all unworthy of heaven.

“If our nature is created unworthy by definition” - unworthy of what? You had “unworthy of heaven” and “unworthy of existence”. There is no premise that those two are equivalent - or even related.

Also, in the previous premises “X is worthy of Y” meant “It would be unjust if X was not given Y.”. Thus “X is unworthy of Y” meant “It would not be unjust if X was not given Y.”. It did not mean “It would be unjust if X was given Y.” and it did not mean “It would be unjust if X was given Y, but X1 was not.”. Under such conditions you are not going to get any injustice in case of “unworthiness”.

Anyway, you are not going to be granted this premise…

• Its not a Moral distinction since only perfection is worthy of heaven and we are not morally perfect.
• Its not an existential distinction, since none of us are worthy of existence.

And now, in effect, we even get an unsupported assumption that not only “worthiness” is binary, but also that no similar non-binary function exists… That is no longer just unsupported or doubtful, but just clearly wrong. It is easy to construct a counterexample (for at this point any of them will do): assign each human a natural number by the order of their birth. The function is not binary, for we have more than two humans. You can also construct similar functions for other substances. And you have yet to demonstrate that even such arbitrary functions are not good enough…

After that the rest of the argument is not that relevant… After all, anything can be “proved” starting from false premises.