Prison is not a punishment... it is a choice!?

[danserr]

Boy, you are persistent, aren’t you? No, God is defined as being the creator of the universe. Even that is only your unsubstantiated contention and this ALLEGED act is not logically worthy of worship.

It’s possible that I’m nearly as stubborn as you.

But, no, you do not get to define the God that you want me to defend. Since I am the one defending reasons to believe in God, (or here, answering the hell objection) then the burden/privilege is on me to define the God that I am defending.

Otherwise, you could simply define God how you want, and then attack that God. At worst, you would be committing a straw man fallacy, at best, you would be refuting the existence of a kind of God that no one believes in anyway.

Of course this has NOTHING to do with the theme of the thread, which is: “Is it reasonable to say that people CHOOSE eternal suffering”. So far there was not reasonable argument to support it.

On the contrary:

We have seen that while it is possible to understand hell in terms of punishment, it is also possible for a Christian to take a natural consequences view of hell. In this case, hell is understood, not so much as punishment, but as the natural consequences of one separating oneself from God. Like a diver who cuts his own breathing tube separates himself from his source of oxygen, a person may also separate himself from God. He does this by sinning against the moral law that God makes known to everyone by means of general revelation. By not repenting this sin, a person separates himself from the source of eternal goodness and joy. The natural consequences of separating himself from the eternal goodness and joy found in God, is eternal misery. This we call hell.

 

[danserr]

Trying to point out that your definition of ‘god’ as ‘creator of the universe’ is totally wrong. You are the one who thought the definition was important enough to mention it, not me.

So mind accurately telling us what DOES make a god a god if not the fact that they are worthy of worship?

To be more specific, not a god, but God, that is the Christian God.

 

[Serious]

But, no, you do not get to define the God that you want me to defend. Since I am the one defending reasons to believe in God, (or here, answering the hell objection) then the burden/privilege is on me to define the God that I am defending.

As I said. You create an arbitrary definiton = God is what is worthy of worship. Who cares?

 

[danserr]

As I said. You create an arbitrary definiton = God is what is worthy of worship. Who cares?

You should if you are going to launch an intelligent attack on that God. As I said:

… Otherwise, you could simply define God how you want, and then attack that God. At worst, you would be committing a straw man fallacy, at best, you would be refuting the existence of a kind of God that no one believes in anyway.

 

[Serious]

You should if you are going to launch an intelligent attack on that God.

Since the definition was already unintelligent, it does not deserve attention.

 

[danserr]

Since the definition was already unintelligent, it does not deserve attention.

Bare assertion.

There is nothing unintelligent or incoherent about saying that God is, by definition, a being worthy of worship.

 

[shoe]

Merriam-Webster defines God as “the Being perfect in power, wisdom, and goodness who is worshipped as creator and ruler of the universe.”

 

[Candide_West]

Trying to point out that your definition of ‘god’ as ‘creator of the universe’ is totally wrong. You are the one who thought the definition was important enough to mention it, not me.

So mind accurately telling us what DOES make a god a god if not the fact that they are worthy of worship?

I’m curious, do you really want to reduce God to “something worthy of worship” this seems like a brutal reduction from some of the other definitions which I’ve seen given on CAF. Especially since it would appear to be entirely subjective - worthy of worship by who? In who’s opinion?

For that matter some people pretty much worship famous people, does that mean that they are automatically theists and consider that their “idol” (I use the term deliberately) is their God?

 

[LilyM]

I’m curious, do you really want to reduce God to “something worthy of worship” this seems like a brutal reduction from some of the other definitions which I’ve seen given on CAF. Especially since it would appear to be entirely subjective - worthy of worship by who? In who’s opinion?

For that matter some people pretty much worship famous people, does that mean that they are automatically theists and consider that their “idol” (I use the term deliberately) is their God?

I don’t mean to imply that the ONLY thing that defines God as God is that He is worthy of worship (unlike those celebrities, who are decidedly UNworthy - important distinction)

But it is a pretty important factor, and encompasses all the reason behind His worthiness - His surpassing goodness, lovability and lovingness, mercy, omnipotence etc etc.

 

[danserr]

I’m curious, do you really want to reduce God to “something worthy of worship” this seems like a brutal reduction from some of the other definitions which I’ve seen given on CAF. Especially since it would appear to be entirely subjective - worthy of worship by who? In who’s opinion?

For that matter some people pretty much worship famous people, does that mean that they are automatically theists and consider that their “idol” (I use the term deliberately) is their God?

Like Lily says, saying that God is a being worthy of worship is not “reducing” him since it includes other qualities as well.

Nor is it subjective. We may not agree precisely on what qualities make one worthy of worship, but that is the role of reason. Since “worthy of worship” is a coherent definition we can take it as a reasonable starting point. We can then make rational arguments that having x or y quality would be proper to such a being. For instance, I suspect that we could agree that a being that would command child rape would not be worthy of worship. Well, so on with other of God’s traits.

(I did shorten that for the sake of convenience, though, I would also say that the name God means “Greatest Conceivable Being,” and is by definition a being worthy of worship, but for convenience now, am going with the “worthy of worship” part).

As to worshiping famous people, this does not take away from the coherence of the concept of God as a being worthy of worship. From the fact that people “worship” celebrities, it does not follow that those celebrities are actually worthy of worship. Second, there is a difference between “worship” and “reverence for excellence,” or mere admiration (hero worship).

This is totally derailing the thread though, maybe we should start another.

I don’t mean to imply that the ONLY thing that defines God as God is that He is worthy of worship (unlike those celebrities, who are decidedly UNworthy - important distinction)

But it is a pretty important factor, and encompasses all the reason behind His worthiness - His surpassing goodness, lovability and lovingness, mercy, omnipotence etc etc.

Right calling God “worthy of worship” and a “greatest conceivable being” encompasses many other traits as well.

 

[Calgar]

Criminals choose to go to prison, don’t they?

In a way, you’re right.

The choice they make to commit crimes that are punished by prison is, in a way, choosing prison.

Good job.

 

[Serious]

In a way, you’re right.

The choice they make to commit crimes that are punished by prison is, in a way, choosing prison.

Good job.

We went through this line of reasoning. When people choose to commit crimes, they intend to get away with it, and very frequently they do. Even if they are caught, they hire lawyers, to help them to get off the hook. (There are a very few exceptions to this, poor, hungry, homeless people who choose a temporary prison sentence for warmth and guaranteed food plus medical care.) But no one would choose prison if the only sentence would be life inside, with torture from the guards.

So, no. In no sense of the word do they make a conscious selection to go into prison.

 

[mwok]

We went through this line of reasoning. When people choose to commit crimes, they intend to get away with it, and very frequently they do. Even if they are caught, they hire lawyers, to help them to get off the hook. (There are a very few exceptions to this, poor, hungry, homeless people who choose a temporary prison sentence for warmth and guaranteed food plus medical care.) But no one would choose prison if the only sentence would be life inside, with torture from the guards.

So, no. In no sense of the word do they make a conscious selection to go into prison.

This line of thinking ignores the consequences put in place by an authority decided by the people the law is intended to protect.

This logic says that people choose to play the lottery and intend to win; ignoring the fact that they also choose the possibility to lose.

 

[LilyM]

This line of thinking ignores the consequences put in place by an authority decided by the people the law is intended to protect.

This logic says that people choose to play the lottery and intend to win; ignoring the fact that they also choose the possibility to lose.

Exactly - by this logic we need to immediately release 99% of all prisoners from jail, since they did not consciously choose to go there.

Can Serious possibly really believe that there is something unfair or unjust, absent some really extraordinary circumstances, about someone actually suffering when they choose to risk that suffering? If there is, I fail to see what.

 

[inocente]

But, no, you do not get to define the God that you want me to defend. Since I am the one defending reasons to believe in God, (or here, answering the hell objection) then the burden/privilege is on me to define the God that I am defending.

I think lines of argument which depend on a definition of God are unlikely to get anywhere.

Suppose two hypothetical people, Dan and Seri. Suppose also that it’s possible for them to consciously decide to believe or not believe.

Dan and Seri have different definitions of God, and hence different understandings of God, making it impossible for them to believe in the same god. Seri can’t then choose to believe in the same god as Dan, since she isn’t even on the same page about who or what that god is.

And without that choice, she can’t in any sense have a choice about hell either. The natural consequence is that she will forever be cut off from Dan’s god, since she doesn’t even understand who that god is.

The little logic problemette is all the above applies in reverse as well: Dan will forever be cut off from Seri’s god. More widely, even other Catholics who don’t have the exact same definition of God as Dan would forever be cut off from Dan’s God.

So I think maybe trying to define God is a road to nowhere.

 

[Serious]

This line of thinking ignores the consequences put in place by an authority decided by the people the law is intended to protect.

Those consequences are not natural, they are artifical. Unlike jumping off from a cliff, where the result is the consequence of the laws of nature. Prison is the result of the laws of society. And it is not unaviodable.

This logic says that people choose to play the lottery and intend to win; ignoring the fact that they also choose the possibility to lose.

The highlighted word is the key. They accept that they might lose, but they do not choose to lose.

Of course all these little analogies are nonsense. There was only one analogy which was pertinent, and it proves MY point. If one chooses to cheat on a spouse, then there is no natural consequence of separation. The spouse has a very good reason to reject the cheater, but it is NOT a natural event. The spouse can forgive the cheater - even if there is no formal request to ask for forgiveness.

Similarly, God COULD forgive, if he wanted to. According to catholicism God judges the people. Hell is the consequence of this judgment. It is not a “natural event”, and it is not the choice of the person.

I am truly amazed that this simple logic is mysterious to you.

 

[Calgar]

When people choose to commit crimes, they intend to get away with it.

So? What they intend is of no consequence. The result is still the same.

they hire lawyers, to help them to get off the hook.

Christians have a great lawyer.

So, no. In no sense of the word do they make a conscious selection to go into prison.

Why do you think it needs to be a conscious selection?

 

[Serious]

So? What they intend is of no consequence. The result is still the same.

No, the result is NOT the same. Not every criminal is caught and even if caught the sentence is not necessarily the same. The prison sentence is not a natural consequence of a crime, just like hell is not a natural consequence of an act. And this is true even if the prison sentence happens to be “just” (though of course hell can never be just).

Why do you think it needs to be a conscious selection?

Wow. The oxymoron of the century: “an unconscious choice”. Don’t try to kill me with laughter.

 

[Serious]

Can Serious possibly really believe that there is something unfair or unjust, absent some really extraordinary circumstances, about someone actually suffering when they choose to risk that suffering? If there is, I fail to see what.

If someone risks injury in an accident by choosing to get into a car - he does not choose that injury and does not choose that accident. I can’t believe that you all are unable to comprehend this.

 

[danserr]

I think lines of argument which depend on a definition of God are unlikely to get anywhere.

Suppose two hypothetical people, Dan and Seri. Suppose also that it’s possible for them to consciously decide to believe or not believe.

Dan and Seri have different definitions of God, and hence different understandings of God, making it impossible for them to believe in the same god. Seri can’t then choose to believe in the same god as Dan, since she isn’t even on the same page about who or what that god is.

And without that choice, she can’t in any sense have a choice about hell either. The natural consequence is that she will forever be cut off from Dan’s god, since she doesn’t even understand who that god is.

The little logic problemette is all the above applies in reverse as well: Dan will forever be cut off from Seri’s god. More widely, even other Catholics who don’t have the exact same definition of God as Dan would forever be cut off from Dan’s God.

So I think maybe trying to define God is a road to nowhere.

Except on Christianity, God makes known his moral commands to everyone on the basis of general revelation, hence no one is without excuse and all do make a choice.

We need to be able to have some understanding of what the word “God” means so that we know what we are talking about and can have a reasonable conversation. The alternative is to use the word without knowing what it means, which would make the word “God” useless.

Second, your example is so far too vague to be persuassive. It is not clear that having different definitions would cut one person or another from God. Maybe Seri believes that the word God means “greatest conceivable being” and Dan thinks the word “God” refers to a person possessing the qualities of omnipotence, omniscence, moral perfection, metaphysical necessity, in-corporeality etc. This would hardly cause one of the other to be cut off from God.

Third, suppose, they did have very different definitions of God. Seri is an educated Christian who thinks that God is a GCB and and Dan is uneducated who just thinks God is really big and strong, but both believe in Jesus and want to follow his commands as revealed in the Bible and come into a loving relationship with him. Again, I see no problem.

Fourth, suppose, Seri is a Christian and Dan has never heard of God at all. Well, Dan will be judged on the basis of his response to general revelation, so thinking of God differently (or maybe not at all, may not hinder his chance at salvation.