Why is disbelief a sin?

[Hitetlen]

DeFide:

I think you’re reading a little too fast. The article shows:

1. Historicity.
2. Truth of Jesus’ divinity from his resurrection and the ensuing actions of his disciples.
3. Belief in Jesus’ Church and the promises he made regarding it (including its perseverence for all time, and its teaching authority).

Some references in the Bible indeed have historical correctness, but that is a far cry from saying that everything written in the Bible is historically correct. Can you prove with outside references that God really created the universe in six days? Or that the flood really happened? Or that Jesus was really resurrected? Of course not. These are simply parts of an ancient tale.

DeFide:

From that flows infallibility otherwise God is a liar and his teaching Church isn’t teaching His truth.

No from this it follows that the story is just a myth. According to your argument, the Bible must be taken at face value even without asserting that it is God’s word, so you successfully removed every support from this house of cards.

DeFide:

Next, the rules of logic don’t exist without a mind? Really? So before man came on the scene, if A=B and B=C, then A didn’t have to equal C?

That does not follow either. Without a mind to percieve it, such laws simply do not exist. Facts yes, gravity yes, sounds yes; justice, beauty, love, music or logic - no.

 

[Hitetlen]

Sherlock:

Hitetlen,

I haven’t had the time to answer your question adequately ('way back on the last page, post # 34), but I do wish to do so. Having been an atheist myself, I’m interested in how you would respond to arguments that eventually changed my mind. I should point out that it wasn’t one argument but rather the accumulation of arguments.

By the way, you wouldn’t happen to be an Objectivist, would you?

I don’t have time to answer now, but I did want to respond to your post. The idea that the Church was founded by God does NOT “come from the Bible”. The Church predates the Bible, by several centuries actually.

No, I am not a follower of Ayn Rand, even though I am a libertarian (with lower case “L”). If and when you have time, I would be interested in those arguments. No need to rush, I will still be around (most probably).

 

[Hitetlen]

john doran:

because there is no material thing (or set of things) that exists in every possible world. to establish that “the universe” exists in every possible world, you would need to establish that this universe is necessarily existent. but then nothing that doesn’t actually exist is possible. which is absurd.

There is one world that actually exists, the one which we experience every day. The rest is a good theme for a science fiction story, but not for anything else.
john doran:

so you only believe in things that can be demonstrated to be “absolutely certain”?

No, of course not. The level of acceptance varies from case to case. I think it would be a good theme for a new thread.
john doran:

so you only believe things the denial of which lead to logical contradiction? do you have any beliefs at all?

Yes, I have many beliefs, and we can explore them later. However, to demonstrate something of this importance I insist on one of two methods: Either God’s existence must be proven in an empirical fashion, or to prove that the denial of God’s existence leads to logical contradiction.

If you would assert that you found a 100 dollar bill on a crowded sidewalk, I would probably believe you and not demand further proof. However if you insisted that you found the British crown jewels on this sidewalk, I would raise the level of skepticism and demand much more rigorous proof. Does that make sense to you?

 

[Hitetlen]

john doran:

They believe in UFO-s, little green men, alien abductions, etc. and cannot accept that their assertions do not merit even a cursory glance.

that decries the possibility of acceptance based on experimental evidence; what you’re saying here is that there are certain (logically possible) propositions that can legitimately be dismissed as false without appeal to things like experimental and predictive success.

I don’t understand how you got that conclusion, but maybe my wording was not clear enough. I did not put the words “without actual evidence” to the end of the quoted sentence, because it was self-evident (to me).

But maybe even that is not clear enough, so I will try to clarify. Just because a proposition does not lead to a logical contradiction it does not mean that it should be taken seriously and be examined.

For example: I could assert that I have a purple elephant in my garage, which can play a violin. This assertion is not logically contradictory, but you would be perfectly reasonable if you simply discarded it as nonsense without coming and checking if I am correct in my assertion.

Moreover, if I also insisted that this elephant demands of you to donate half of your income to an atheist organization, you would be perfectly correct to demand the most serious empirical proof from me.

 

[adamlsp]

Hitetlen, have you gone through the ontological arguments? They are based on thinking alone. Some are logical, others have holes. If you have, I was just woundering what holes you found.

 

[doomhammer]

Hitetlen:

For example: I could assert that I have a purple elephant in my garage, which can play a violin. This assertion is not logically contradictory, but you would be perfectly reasonable if you simply discarded it as nonsense without coming and checking if I am correct in my assertion.
Moreover, if I also insisted that this elephant demands of you to donate half of your income to an atheist organization, you would be perfectly correct to demand the most serious empirical proof from me.

You like to compare God’s existence to ridiculous facts (the British crown jewels on a sidewalk, a purple elephant in a garage, etc.).
It is logical to conclude that the overwhelming majority of humankind of all ages was stupid enough to believe the absurdity of an existent God.
But we have libertarians and atheists (thank God they don’t suffer this stupid disease named “religion”) to teach us “logic” and “2+2=4”.

 

[hurst]

Hitetlen:

In this context I care about logic, reason and evidence.

Logic says that nothing can come from total nothingness.
Evidence is that there is not total nothingness now.
Reason concludes from the above that there must have never been total nothingness, and that therefore there must have always been something.

Do you have a problem with any of the above?

hurst

 

[hurst]

Hitetlen:

If you mean that the universe came out of “nothing”, that is not true. It came from a singularity.

That it came from a “singularity” is a scientific “fable”, a hypothesis of fantastic proportions with no witnesses, nor the ability to be repeated. That it is accepted by the majority of scientific practitioners is no proof of its veracity, even by your own admission. Even if it were true, we don’t know it is, so perhaps you should say that you “believe” it came from a singularity, since that is what you read in the scientific journals and texts of the day.

But I “believe” the universe and all that is in it was formed by something from nothing, and that we are, in fact, nothing in ourselves. In other words, we have not always been, and are made of something else. We do not keep ourselves in existence. It has been given to us by another. And the materials we are made are themselves not self-existing, for molecules are combinations of atoms, which themselves are composed of smaller particles, etc. We really can’t see where it stops, but since it is manifestly there, we know it is built on something.

Hitetlen:

And since the concept of “time” is not defined outside the context of the universe, it would make no sense to ask: “what was before the Big Bang?” Just like it makes no sense to ask: “what is outside the universe?”.

You speak in terms of the scientific theory. For them, these things make no sense, because they are only thinking in terms of the mathematics and geometry they have devised to represent the universe. They are intellectually bowing down to their theoretical creation.

The fact is, once you buy into the theory as if it were reality, you cut yourself off from any other consideration, since the theory cuts it off. At least, until new information forces a change in the concept. But someone not constrained by that model (upright in heart) can have the common sense to judge such theories and realize that before something blows up, it had not yet blown up. Whether mathematically calculatable “time” was involved does not matter, because such a consideration of “before” is a sequential issue not requiring calculations. Complicating the issue with 4D equations is merely a sleight of hand that nevertheless fails to fool the testimony of our consciousness that says only the current moment is real in nature.

The same for the question about what is outside the “universe”. Only those who have bought into the BB model as if it were the only truth are unable to see anything beyond the model. Such minds have fallen into a pit, and are declaring what they know from their perspective. Fine. But for them to act as if their perspective is the totality of reality shows the truth of the saying that those who value something highly become like what they admire (Ps 113:16). Meanwhile, I believe that the known universe is natural, and that it is contained by something supernatural, something that has always existed by itself and is the basis for anything manifested temporarily in nature.

hurst

 

[hurst]

Hitetlen:

Of all these god-concepts you discard each and every one except one, the God of Christianity. You keep on saying things like the paragraph above, and offer no reason why I should believe it.

Even when Christ was on earth, He expected people to believe Him based on His works and miracles. He also expected us to believe Him based on the fact that He was fulfilling all that was prophesied about Him in the Scriptures (Old Testament of the current Bible).

There are many reasons to believe the God of Christianity. One is that He offers those who are faithful to Him a reward. He sent His Son into the world to reconcile it to Himself and to welcome us into His Kingdom. He says that the world is His, and He will judge between those who do good and evil. He promises a life of eternal glory for those who serve Him well by obeying His commandment to love others and bring Him honor. He wishes to be a Father to us, and not see us condemned by our evil. He wishes to save us from ourselves, which can only be done by living in Him like a branch on a tree. Any branch that breaks off will dry up and be only good for the fire.

So it satisfies our desire for unending glory, for eventual justice and mercy, for a reward for our works, etc.

It satisfies our actual experience in life, where we find that we are broken inside when we become attached to things in this world and do not give totally of ourselves. We find peace in confessing our sins and asking for forgiveness from the priests of the Church. We find strength in the food from Heaven He gives us from the priests. We find consolation in our trials. He rewards our loyalty and obedience, and chastises our disobedience and infidelity in order to draw us back. We fight battles and stand up for His Name. We are not alone in life, and have confidence that we will not be alone after this life, but look forward to the day when we can be totally reunited to Him as a bride longs for her groom.

Hitetlen:

God said “I AM”? Where? In the Bible? Why should I take the Bible seriously?

Why should Americans take their constitution seriously? Is it not because the government goes by it?

The fact of the matter is that the Catholic Church has told us to take the Bible seriously. The Church consists of the Pope and bishops who have received their office from another, and has been passed down beginning from Christ. We have living testimony in the hierarchy of the Church. There are many written documents, also, and the Bible is considered pre-eminent among them. The Bible gets its authority from the Church.

The more pertinent question is: why should you take the Catholic Church seriously?

Hitetlen:

To save time and bandwidth, here is a short version of an old conversation I conducted with many theists:
…
Atheist: Aha, and where did he say that?
Theist: Where? In the Bible, of course.

And the poor dog is chasing its tail until it collapses.

As I said before, we “know” that because the Church tells us, not because the Bible tells us. The Catholic Church is subject to protest, and the Protestants use a verse in the Bible as a means to disregard having to obey the Church. But as you see, it is an illogical position to take, for they disown the very hierarchy that gave them the Bible in the first place.

As for your denial that the Church is infallible, you have no real authority to substantiate that claim. The fact is, the Church has stayed around since it was founded, and nothing, not even its own corrupt members, can bring it down. And it has done this without having to totally change its teachings or organization, as science has, or various governments/kingdoms/surfdoms/tribes/etc. have. There has always been one Pope, with bishops in charge of geographical regions, with priests, who feed and govern the laity.

Hitetlen:

There can be no eternity without time.

Do you even know what you are talking about? Perhaps you speak from the perspective of science, math, or other calculating discipline.

I believe the opposite is true: that there can be no time without there first being an eternity to contain it.

hurst

 

[hurst]

Hitetlen:

The rules of logic are concepts. Without a thinking mind there are no concepts.

Then how do you explain this:
Person A: 1 month old, has no concept of a circle.
Person B: 28 years old, understands concept of a circle

Here, the concept of a circle exists before Person A knows about it. Thus, a concept can exist apart from Person A’s mind thinking it.

Secondly, before anyone thought of the concept, the circle existed in some form in nature. A person sees that and the shape becomes a concept as it is abstracted from the various circular objects one sees: oranges, rocks, moon, etc.

Contrary to your assertion, I believe that the concept of a circle, or any concept for that matter, had to exist before anyone thought of it, and before it could be manifested in nature. In fact, some concepts cannot be manifested in nature (for example, the number 10^200 cannot be physically manifested as a set of objects, because there are not enough particles in the known universe to represent it).

Hitetlen:

But once a thinking mind develops, the rules are the same, because they are self-evident.

But many things are not self-evident. For example, there are theories that mathematicians have spents years to prove. Many things are only realized after certain other things become established. There are certain boolean theorems that are not self-evident to the freshman student.

Even the existence of God is not self-evident. But like other things, it can be determined through the use of our senses and reasoning.

Hitetlen:

Since we exist, therefore the universe exists.

The universe does not depend on the earth or anyone in it. However, a more accurate statement would be that since we exist and have consciousness, we can tell that the universe exists.

And I would go further to say that the reason we exist is so that we can “tell” that God exists and is an awesome God, and does great things, and can even handle giving us free will. With all the evil we do, He must have awesome power to be able to make something good out of our horrendous evil! Surely He Who lives forever would not allow something that would ruin His eternal happiness in Heaven! He would have either never allowed it to happen, or else is only allowing it in order to bring a greater good from it. Isn’t that what we would do?

hurst

 

[hurst]

Hitetlen:

Without a mind to percieve it, such laws simply do not exist. Facts yes, gravity yes, sounds yes; justice, beauty, love, music or logic - no.

They exist, but are not manifested in the life of the one who does not perceive it. Such is the effect of blindness. It has been said that when the mind is blind, then it is in a great darkness worse than the blindness of the eyes.

It takes faith to perceive justice and our free will to be able to love. We participate in these. Indeed, when we refuse, they do not exist in our lives.

We refuse by not believing it should be perceived. Thus, by not believing, we do not open our mind, and we do not perceive them, and thus they do not exist in us, and that, Hitetlen, is why disbelief is a sin that leads to eternal darkness. For they exist supernaturally in God, and we must participate in God in order to remain in eternal light, but disbelief prevents us from experiencing it inside us. And when we pass into the next life, it will not be found in us, and we will be like a dead branch broken off a tree, and only good for the fire. Would you do anything different with a dead branch?

It just so happens that the Savior from God said that he who believes He is from God already has eternal life. In other words, by believing, one is perceiving, and in perceiving it, the living concept exists in the believer, and they can live by it. If they do, then when they die, they will be found as a living branch connected to the living tree, and will be kept and cherished according to the fruit that it brought forth in its life of faith.

When someone decides to believe in the Christian God, they do not instantly become holy, but have taken a first step on a long journey. We must certainly prove ourselves to be worthy of the promises Christ made. And we must realize that there are many false Christians. It is sad, but it is also a fact of life. But we can know a true Christian by their love. And the Church has pointed out those who have proven their lives worthy of imitation. These are called Saints. I find inspiration from lives of the Saints, not lives of bad Christians. We all offend in many ways, so we should be humble and bear with the faults of others.

hurst

 

[Hitetlen]

adamlsp:

Hitetlen, have you gone through the ontological arguments? They are based on thinking alone. Some are logical, others have holes. If you have, I was just woundering what holes you found.

That is also too open ended, to answer it would require much more time than I have on hand. If you would pick the one you find most compelling I would be glad to offer my opinion about it.

 

[Hitetlen]

doomhammer:

You like to compare God’s existence to ridiculous facts (the British crown jewels on a sidewalk, a purple elephant in a garage, etc.).

No I don’t compare God’s existence to anything. I simply argue that there are levels of skepitcism, and some assertions are more believable than others. We all impose a “grading” system - based upon our knowledge and experience - and require a different set of evidence before we accept or reject a claim.

doomhammer:

It is logical to conclude that the overwhelming majority of humankind of all ages was stupid enough to believe the absurdity of an existent God.

We already went through this a few times, and I asked if Santa Claus’s existence is logical to accept, because millions of children will attest to it, and even offer empirical evidence for his existence. Contemplate it, and give me your answer, if you are so inclined. Your argument still suffers from the fallacy of “agrumentum ad numeram”.

doomhammer:

But we have libertarians and atheists (thank God they don’t suffer this stupid disease named “religion”) to teach us “logic” and “2+2=4”.

Congratulations, you were able to squeeze in two fallacies into one short post: “argumentum ad hominem”. I already asked you (politely) if you would give your assessment of your arguing method, after you degraded mine. You are under no obligation to reply, but I would be delighted to see how you view yourself in this respect.Do you see yourself as polite, respectful person?

 

[Hitetlen]

hurst:

Logic says that nothing can come from total nothingness.
Evidence is that there is not total nothingness now.
Reason concludes from the above that there must have never been total nothingness, and that therefore there must have always been something.

Do you have a problem with any of the above?

Yes, I do. The problem is that you employ the concept of time (“can come” - past) and in (“not total nothingness now” - present) etc. The concept of time does not exist outside the universe, there is no such thing as “before” the universe.

Your argument tells me that you percieve the universe something like a big expanding balloon in an even bigger empty room. I understand that it is hard to imagine or to visalize, but there is NO big “room” with the universe “in it”. There is nothing outside the universe, not even “nothing”. It is a hard concept, I know.

 

[Hitetlen]

hurst:

You speak in terms of the scientific theory. For them, these things make no sense, because they are only thinking in terms of the mathematics and geometry they have devised to represent the universe. They are intellectually bowing down to their theoretical creation.

These “devised” concepts fulfill the ultimate requirement, the “proof of the pudding”. They work and that is all there to it. The quantum theory is pure mathematics, but its application fits wonderfully to the observed world (this pudding is edible). It is not something we can “visualize”, all the attempted ways to make it more “user friendly” are deficient in one respect or another. However, just because something cannot be “visualized” it does not detract from it usefulness. In the time of Niels Bohr, the atom “looked like” a miniature Solar system, with the electrons playing the part of the planets. Today it does not “look like” anything.

hurst:

The fact is, once you buy into the theory as if it were reality, you cut yourself off from any other consideration, since the theory cuts it off. At least, until new information forces a change in the concept. But someone not constrained by that model (upright in heart) can have the common sense to judge such theories and realize that before something blows up, it had not yet blown up.

Well at least you realize that science is a self-correcting method, and does not try to keep on outdated ideas, once they have been falsified.

hurst:

Meanwhile, I believe that the known universe is natural, and that it is contained by something supernatural, something that has always existed by itself and is the basis for anything manifested temporarily in nature.

That is your prerogative, but from where I sit, it is simply wishful thinking, with no reality to support it.

 

[Hitetlen]

hurst:

There are many reasons to believe the God of Christianity. One is that He offers those who are faithful to Him a reward. He sent His Son into the world to reconcile it to Himself and to welcome us into His Kingdom.

So one should believe because it is “expedient” to do so, regadless whether it is true or not?

hurst:

He says that the world is His, and He will judge between those who do good and evil. He promises a life of eternal glory for those who serve Him well by obeying His commandment to love others and bring Him honor. He wishes to be a Father to us, and not see us condemned by our evil. He wishes to save us from ourselves, which can only be done by living in Him like a branch on a tree. Any branch that breaks off will dry up and be only good for the fire.

That is the ancient “carrot-and-stick” method. Obey and you will be rewarded, disobey and you will be punished. That is not something I accept as a particularly “moral” approach. I despise it whether it is employed (allegedly) by God, or the mafia. (But I don’t believe that God - if he exists - would lower himself to such strong-arm tactics. It would be way beneath his dignity )

hurst:

So it satisfies our desire for unending glory, for eventual justice and mercy, for a reward for our works, etc.

I don’t crave “unending” glory, actually it makes me shiver. And I want my reward here and now, the only place I know IS real.

hurst:

It satisfies our actual experience in life, where we find that we are broken inside when we become attached to things in this world and do not give totally of ourselves. We find peace in confessing our sins and asking for forgiveness from the priests of the Church. We find strength in the food from Heaven He gives us from the priests. We find consolation in our trials. He rewards our loyalty and obedience, and chastises our disobedience and infidelity in order to draw us back. We fight battles and stand up for His Name. We are not alone in life, and have confidence that we will not be alone after this life, but look forward to the day when we can be totally reunited to Him as a bride longs for her groom.

Of course you realize that attaching all that “good stuff” to your particular religion, you also say that atheists and believers of other faiths are “broken” inside.

hurst:

The fact of the matter is that the Catholic Church has told us to take the Bible seriously. The Church consists of the Pope and bishops who have received their office from another, and has been passed down beginning from Christ. We have living testimony in the hierarchy of the Church. There are many written documents, also, and the Bible is considered pre-eminent among them. The Bible gets its authority from the Church.

That is not convincing. On one hand you attest that we are ALL fallible, “evil” beings, who should throw away our reason, become like children. Now you say that a completely human institution, the Catholic Church, which is composed of these aforementioned fallible and evil humans is somehow “exempt” and merits total trust, even without the support of the Bible.

hurst:

The more pertinent question is: why should you take the Catholic Church seriously?

As I said before, we “know” that because the Church tells us, not because the Bible tells us.

So the Church must be believed, because the Church tells us to believe? That is truly a circular argument.

hurst:

As for your denial that the Church is infallible, you have no real authority to substantiate that claim. The fact is, the Church has stayed around since it was founded, and nothing, not even its own corrupt members, can bring it down. And it has done this without having to totally change its teachings or organization, as science has, or various governments/kingdoms/surfdoms/tribes/etc. have. There has always been one Pope, with bishops in charge of geographical regions, with priests, who feed and govern the laity.

So what of it? The longevity of the Church means nothing. People believed that the Earth was flat for a much longer time than those measly few thousand years. And I am sure you realize that the Catholic Church is losing its prominence, fewer people attend, and they are less fervent in their beliefs. What does that tell you?

hurst:

I believe the opposite is true: that there can be no time without there first being an eternity to contain it.

You certainly can believe what you want. But that is neither here nor there.

 

[marysson]

Hitetlen:

Sorry, that is not convincing at all. The Big Bang is simply the beginning of what we call universe. How it happened, we don’t know. What was the physics like in the first few seconds, we don’t know. But there is no reason to suspect supernatural intervention. That would only be appealing to the “God of the Gaps”.

So let me get this straight…you are willing to accept that everything exploded from nothing before there was time?

 

[Hitetlen]

hurst:

Then how do you explain this:
Person A: 1 month old, has no concept of a circle.
Person B: 28 years old, understands concept of a circle

Here, the concept of a circle exists before Person A knows about it. Thus, a concept can exist apart from Person A’s mind thinking it.

But you see that there is person “B” who understands this concept. I did not say that a concept comes into existence, if EVERYONE understands it. ONE is enough.

hurst:

Secondly, before anyone thought of the concept, the circle existed in some form in nature. A person sees that and the shape becomes a concept as it is abstracted from the various circular objects one sees: oranges, rocks, moon, etc.

A shape like a circle indeed existed, but not the perfect, mathematical curve with no thickness. That is attached to the thinking process.

hurst:

Contrary to your assertion, I believe that the concept of a circle, or any concept for that matter, had to exist before anyone thought of it, and before it could be manifested in nature. In fact, some concepts cannot be manifested in nature (for example, the number 10^200 cannot be physically manifested as a set of objects, because there are not enough particles in the known universe to represent it).

That is the old Platonic concept, which has been discarded ages ago.

hurst:

And I would go further to say that the reason we exist is so that we can “tell” that God exists and is an awesome God, and does great things, and can even handle giving us free will. With all the evil we do, He must have awesome power to be able to make something good out of our horrendous evil! Surely He Who lives forever would not allow something that would ruin His eternal happiness in Heaven! He would have either never allowed it to happen, or else is only allowing it in order to bring a greater good from it. Isn’t that what we would do?

No, I would not have allowed “evil” to exist in the first place.

 

[Hitetlen]

marysson:

So let me get this straight…you are willing to accept that everything exploded from nothing before there was time?

Not “nothing” and did not “explode”, these are just simple metaphores.

 

[john_doran]

Hitetlen:

There is one world that actually exists, the one which we experience every day. The rest is a good theme for a science fiction story, but not for anything else.

i’m not sure if you understand the consequences of this position. if you actually think that it is impossible for the world to have been different than it is (which is what it means to say that this world exists necessarily), then there literally no possible but non-actual states of affairs.

which means that it is false to talk about things that are possible.

which is obviously absurd. do you know of anyone else who believes such a thing?

Hitetlen:

However, to demonstrate something of this importance I insist on one of two methods: Either God’s existence must be proven in an empirical fashion, or to prove that the denial of God’s existence leads to logical contradiction.

can the proposition “Either God’s existence must be proven in an empirical fashion, or to prove that the denial of God’s existence leads to logical contradiction” be proven empirically or shown that its denial leads to logical contradiction?

why would anyone believe such a disjunction?