Will I go to hell?

[Dr_of_Grace]

You dont have to, hopefully there have been enough well worded comments here that can speak mercy and grace into your life…

No-one knows who is elect in this life, God can and does work within whoever he wants, even before you can “formally” confess a faith in him. Hence, little children can come to Jesus not yet fully recognising him.

There have always been non-believers and unbelievers and yet remarkably many of them are converted to the worship of Christ.

As well as Faith and Love there is Hope, we are all hoping on your account…

 

[Poseidon]

Au contraire, mon frere! There are plenty of people who worship reason. Your spiritual brother Christopher Hitchens comes to mind, among others.

I too hold reason and science in high esteem. They are the tools given us to discover God’s truth. In many ways the Catholic Church was the midwife of science. Did you know the first genetic scientist was a Catholic monk? I could give you lots of examples of the Catholic faith’s sisterhood with and support of the sciences.

I’m not going to belittle the contribution of many Catholics to science - Copernicus, Mendel, whoever that priest who came up with the big bang was, Galileo, and plenty of others. My point was that faith is not a valid “way of knowing.” As in, if someone tells me that they know something to be true simply because they have “faith” that it is true, I’m not going to be convinced of it. If they can show me evidence (reason and science) and the evidence is compelling, I’ll accept it.

 

[presidentjlh]

You dont have to, hopefully there have been enough well worded comments here that can speak mercy and grace into your life…

No-one knows who is elect in this life, God can and does work within whoever he wants, even before you can “formally” confess a faith in him. Hence, little children can come to Jesus not yet fully recognising him.

There have always been non-believers and unbelievers and yet remarkably many of them are converted to the worship of Christ.

As well as Faith and Love there is Hope, we are all hoping on your account…

Certainly, we cannot say for certain what will happen to him, but, unlike little children, who aren’t fully capable of making their own decisions, Poseidon is old enough to make a conscious choice about this.

Certainly, this does not necessarily preclude him from mercy. It is my heterodoxical opinion that God’s mercy is so unimaginably wonderful that we all be very, very pleasantly surprised at the vast number of individuals in Heaven/Purgatory in relation to the much smaller number of individuals in Hell. Of course, I take it as the precautionary measure that in my case, as I know my own heart and thoughts, God’s Justice will take precedence over His mercy for me, so I can’t just do what I want and hope for the best.

 

[InnocentFortune]

This is entirely backwards. A person who cares about what is true will go where the evidence leads: deciding that you want something to be true and then stirring up your subjective sense of enthusiasm until you feel like it’s true is absolutely not a way to gain insight into reality at all.

But there is really not a lot of evidence either way is there. The “proof” that I can give you about God is about as good as the “proof” that you can give me that existence just happened out of thin air. So really you do make a choice which way you go and you have made yours.

 

[justice99]

You have gotten the answer, what else are you looking for?

 

[JacarandaPurple]

My point was that faith is not a valid “way of knowing.”

Of course it is! It’s just valid for knowing different things than you care to right now. Have you ever been deeply in love, and been loved back? While certain actions and attitudes may prove the person cares for you, you must accept that their feelings are equal to yours on faith. You cannot get inside their heart or mind. They can tell you but that really proves nothing, does it? You must either have faith that the love is there and you can count on it, or else you cannot live in the relationship. Nothing about it is real for you. And only faith can make it real.

 

[Dr_of_Grace]

Certainly, we cannot say for certain what will happen to him, but, unlike little children, who aren’t fully capable of making their own decisions, Poseidon is old enough to make a conscious choice about this.

Certainly, this does not necessarily preclude him from mercy. It is my heterodoxical opinion that God’s mercy is so unimaginably wonderful that we all be very, very pleasantly surprised at the vast number of individuals in Heaven/Purgatory in relation to the much smaller number of individuals in Hell. Of course, I take it as the precautionary measure that in my case, as I know my own heart and thoughts, God’s Justice will take precedence over His mercy for me, so I can’t just do what I want and hope for the best.

I meant of course, that still being alive Poseidon still had oppurtunity to restore his relationship with God.

I am not sure what you mean by God’s justice having precedence over his mercy… our salvation is based on God’s justice being paid for by Jesus in the atonement and us receiving mercy

 

[Brooklyn]

I haven’t chosen anything. I am sincerely unconvinced of claims of this god’s existence (along with claims about the existence of other gods).

You’re equivocating. I am in a position where I don’t see sufficient reason to think that the claims of any religion are true. I’m not saying, “I would never want to spend any time with God! Blecch! What a gross old dude!” I’m saying, “I don’t see sufficient reason to think that this religion – or any other religion, for that matter – is true.”

And your God is prepared to let me suffer forever for having the intellectual honesty to think through my position? I’ll ask you again: what kind of a being would do such a thing?

Why have you chosen the name “NonServiam”? I am assuming you know what it means - “I will not serve” - and where it comes from - it is what Satan said to God and the reason Satan is in hell. You name answers all your questions. Your disdain for a God you say you don’t believe in comes through loud and clear. I can only assume you feel the same disdain for all of us who choose to worship and serve God.

I never wrote any of the things you accuse me of. I have never used any ad hominem attacks. I am merely stating facts - you have chosen to reject God. He has no choice but to reject you. God doesn’t need me and he doesn’t need you. He has freely offered out of his love and mercy to offer us a place in heaven with him for all eternity. The OP laments that he just can’t believe in God. He doesn’t tell us why. Our God tells us that if we seek we will find, if we knock he will answer. I believe God, so I can only assume that you and the OP have never sought God but have instead chosen your unbelief and disdain.

May you someday come to see, for your own sake, just how wrong you are and come to accept the love and mercy that our Great Loving God offers you. May you someday reject the name and the way of life you have chosen, Non Serviam.

 

[NonServiam]

But there is really not a lot of evidence either way is there.

Precisely: and since there is insufficient evidence to support the claim that a god exists, I don’t accept the claim. [It’s similar to the way that I don’t accept claims about Bigfoot due to insufficient evidence to support the claim…please note that I am not comparing your god to Bigfoot…obviously the two claims are very different…I’m comparing the standards of evidence for two claims]

The “proof” that I can give you about God is about as good as the “proof” that you can give me that existence just happened out of thin air.

I don’t believe “existence just happened out of thin air.”

So really you do make a choice which way you go and you have made yours.

I don’t consider my not accepting god claims any more of a choice than my not accepting Bigfoot claims. I didn’t deliberately and willfully sit down and choose not to believe in Bigfoot: there just isn’t sufficient compelling evidence. In a similar way, there isn’t sufficient compelling evidence for the existence of any god, as you yourself indicate when you say that there’s not much “proof.”

 

[NonServiam]

Why have you chosen the name “NonServiam”?

I took it from James Joyce’s works. He took it from religion.

you have chosen to reject God.

See my post above – it’s not a choice.

He has no choice but to reject you.

So the all-powerful, infinite creator of the universe learns that I’m not convinced he exists on the basis that there is insufficient evidence (which even InnocentFortune seems to admit). And his reaction – the only possible action he can take, according to you – is to “reject” me – based not on lack of evidence that I exist (because he clearly must know that I exist), but on what looks like a kind of petty overreaction.

Please note that I am not in the slightest bit criticizing your religion or the god you believe in: I’m criticizing the picture you are painting of your religion and your god.

If I were an all-powerful being and had created the universe, I don’t think I’d give two hoots if people believed I was real, especially if I never provided sufficient evidence to compel belief. And I think my reaction to people “rejecting” me would be to be understanding, forgiving, and all the rest – after all, if I were an infinitely powerful being, I could never – by definition – have “no choice” but to take one action in a given situation.

Our God tells us that if we seek we will find, if we knock he will answer. I believe God, so I can only assume that you and the OP have never sought God but have instead chosen your unbelief and disdain.

You know what they say happens when you assume…

 

[carn]

I
after all, if I were an infinitely powerful being, I could never – by definition – have “no choice” but to take one action in a given situation.

Wrong.

God is not only allknowing and allpowerful, He is also Truth and Love.

A crontradiction is untrue, therefore God cannot choose to make a contradiction come into existance. Therefore He cannot (or would never choose to) create a circle with some points having differing distances from the center.

And because He is Love, certain actions would be a contradiction of His nature and therefore He cannot (or would never choose to) act in such way.

Therefore circumstances are at least theoretically possible in which God has no choice.

 

[Robertanthony]

The problem is that I can’t just start believing in God again. It’s not something I chose, **it’s something that I concluded after a lot of **reading and thought. I can no sooner make myself believe in God than I could make myself believe anything else I believe to be false.

Yeah I was on my deck made with wood coming from trees that God made, enjoying a coffee made with ground roasted coffee beans, again made by God, reading this book, made of paper coming from God-made trees, using my God-given ability to think and reason, enjoying the warmth of the sun and the coolness of the breeze, again provided by God, taking a deep breath (provided by God), I concluded, “There is no God!” To me, atheism is not the existential position of an evolved mind but that of a fool. Even the Bible says so.

Now, as for your question, it depends on how much importance God places on you going from believing in him to not believing in him. Belief in God’s existence on its own is not quite enough to get you to Heaven as Satan’s case illustrates. There is such a thing as natural law and I believe those who strive to follow it, without the direct acknowledged-on-their-part connection to God, I mean God can infuse grace and wisdom whereever he wants to, so those who try to follow it have a very good chance at salvation. I can’t even predict whether it is going to rain for sure in 3 days from now so I don’t assume or presume to know what God will do with you. But it’s clear from the Scriptures that doing God’s will (for non-believers, essentially following the natural law) plays a crucial, essential aspect in one’s salvation.

 

[NonServiam]

Yeah I was on my deck made with wood coming from trees that God made, enjoying a coffee made with ground roasted coffee beans, again made by God, reading this book, made of paper coming from God-made trees, using my God-given ability to think and reason, enjoying the warmth of the sun and the coolness of the breeze, again provided by God, taking a deep breath (provided by God), I concluded, “There is no God!”

That these things were “created by God” is a mere assertion on your part: and since it’s the very question under consideration, making that assertion from the beginning begs the question and creates a circular argument.

 

[Brooklyn]

I took it from James Joyce’s works. He

took it from religion.

See my post above – it’s not a choice.

“Non Serviam” did not originate with James Joyce. It originates with Satan, who said to God “I will not serve.” That is what it means. That is what you have chosen.

So the all-powerful, infinite creator of the universe learns that I’m not convinced he exists on the basis that there is insufficient evidence (which even InnocentFortune seems to admit). And his reaction – the only possible action he can take, according to you – is to “reject” me – based not on lack of evidence that I exist (because he clearly must know that I exist), but on what looks like a kind of petty overreaction.

Again, see Romans 1:18-20. Our God tells us you have no excuse.

 

[Armor_of_Light]

I will never understand the logic of atheists…

They cannot ‘prove’ God does not exist.
We cannot ‘prove’ God exists.

So they believe in something that cannot be proven. Because they are using intellect to explain things.

 

[NonServiam]

“Non Serviam” did not originate with James Joyce.

I’m pretty sure that’s what I said above: “I took it form James Joyce. He took it from religion.” Pay attention to the words in bold.

If you’d like, you can read my name as meaning “I will not serve (beings I don’t believe in because there is not sufficient evidence for their existence).”

You and the OP can deny that all you want, but I believe my Creator.

I don’t think your “Creator” is real because there is insufficient evidence of his existence.

He says he has not hidden himself from man and in fact, has made himself plainly invisible.

Plainly invisible? Well, I would agree with that, certainly.

You’re not criticizing what we believe, just the way we “paint” it?

No, I’m criticizing the way you paint your God. I’ve chatted with believers who believe that there is a God, but they also believe that their God won’t allow people to suffer forever merely for not accepting a claim as true.

I think the way you’re painting your God makes him seem petty.

You wouldn’t give “two hoots” if people rejected you?

First, you’re equivocating on the word “reject.” When atheists like myself don’t accept that any gods are real, we’re not “rejecting” any of these gods in the same sense of the word “reject” that you would use to say that “My son rejected me because he won’t listen to me!”

You seem to think I’m saying something along the lines of “I reject God and I won’t listen to him! Wooo, time to do evil!!!” But in fact, I’m simply saying that I don’t see any good reason to believe any of the claims I’ve ever heard about gods. You can’t conflate the two definitions of “reject” and expect to have a coherent argument.

But second, yes, if I were a god and people rejected me – both people not believing in me and people refusing to follow me – I wouldn’t be so petty that I would get all bent out of shape over it or desire to punish them for it (oops, sorry, or let them suffer as a result of their choice).

Although I don’t have kids yet, when I do have kids, if they choose to “reject” me – for whatever reason – I wwould still love and support them. And if I could save that child from pain, I would – even if he still “rejects” me. I wouldn’t be so wrapped up in my own self-image that I would care about what the kid thinks of me. It’s his life: if he wants to “reject” me and go do something else, then that’s his choice, but I’m always going to love him and do everything in my power to protect him.

I’m certainly not going to build a torture chamber and punish him for all eternity (oh wait, oops…I mean I’m certainly not going to stand idly by and allow him to suffer forever, if there’s something I can do about it).

Sorry, that’s just not how I roll.

 

[NonServiam]

I will never understand the logic of atheists…

They cannot ‘prove’ God does not exist.
We cannot ‘prove’ God exists.

So they believe in something that cannot be proven. Because they are using intellect to explain things.

Strictly speaking, atheism isn’t the belief that no gods exist. It’s the lack of belief in gods.

This isn’t some semantic game.

I can’t prove that there’s no Bigfoot, but I’m still an aBigfootist (someone who doesn’t accept that Bigfoot is real). I don’t go around staunchly believing that there’s no Bigfoot and there could never be a Bigfoot, and I can prove that there’s no Bigfoot, darn it!

It’s just that there’s not sufficient evidence to think that there is a Bigfoot, so I don’t accept that there is a Bigfoot. I’m a non-believer with regards to Bigfoot.

In a similar way, I can’t prove that there’s no God, but I’m still an atheist (someone who doesn’t accept that God is real). I don’t go around staunchly believing that there’s no God and there could never be a God, and I can prove that there’s no God, darn it!

It’s just that there’s not sufficient evidence to think that there is a God, so I don’t accept that there is a God. I’m a non-believer with regards to God.

[Obviously, I’m not trying to compare your God and Bigfoot: I know that the claims are different. I’m comparing the standards of evidence and belief in each case]

Does that make the logic clearer?

 

[Armor_of_Light]

Strictly speaking, atheism isn’t the belief that no gods exist. It’s the lack of belief in gods.

This isn’t some semantic game.

I can’t prove that there’s no Bigfoot, but I’m still an aBigfootist (someone who doesn’t accept that Bigfoot is real). I don’t go around staunchly believing that there’s no Bigfoot and there could never be a Bigfoot, and I can prove that there’s no Bigfoot, darn it!

It’s just that there’s not sufficient evidence to think that there is a Bigfoot, so I don’t accept that there is a Bigfoot. I’m a non-believer with regards to Bigfoot.

In a similar way, I can’t prove that there’s no God, but I’m still an atheist (someone who doesn’t accept that God is real). I don’t go around staunchly believing that there’s no God and there could never be a God, and I can prove that there’s no God, darn it!

It’s just that there’s not sufficient evidence to think that there is a God, so I don’t accept that there is a God. I’m a non-believer with regards to God.

[Obviously, I’m not trying to compare your God and Bigfoot: I know that the claims are different. I’m comparing the standards of evidence and belief in each case]

Does that make the logic clearer?

Well, yes it does. Thank you.

Does the answer about WHY we cannot prove Gods existence make sense to you?

 

[Brooklyn]

I’m pretty sure that’s what I said above: "I took it form James Joyce. He

took it from religion." Pay attention to the words in bold.

If you’d like, you can read my name as meaning “I will not serve (beings I don’t believe in because there is not sufficient evidence for their existence).”

You chose the name that means “I will not serve.” Those are the words that Satan used. As I said, you can say all you want that there is not sufficient evidence to believe in God, but my God says he has done everything to make himself known to you. He says if you reject him, it is because that is what you have chosen, just as your name says.

I don’t think your “Creator” is real because there is insufficient evidence of his existence.

 

[NonServiam]

Does the answer about WHY we cannot prove Gods existence make sense to you?

Could you repeat the answer – then I’ll tell you whether it makes sense.

But, in one sense at least, it doesn’t matter if you have an internally-consistent explanation for the lack of evidence: the fact is that there isn’t sufficient evidence, and in the face of a claim that does not have sufficient evidence, the appropriate thing to do is to not accept the claim. (Assuming, of course, that one is interested in having an accurate understanding of reality)