Will I go to hell?

[Gorgias]

Well, certainly I would not accept “effects” that cannot be demonstrated to be the work of a non-physical being.

So this supposed non-physical being would have to produce an effect that unambiguously is caused by a non-physical being.

OK… on the surface, that seems reasonable. Yet, it seems to be problematic. Science says that physical effects have physical causes. In other words, wherever there is a physical effect, there are theories as to the physical causes which produced that effect. And, by definition (as I believe you’ve mentioned in this thread, although I’m just going on memory), you go with the most plausible idea, right?

Well, that produces problems. It seems that you’d be OK with an effect that has no possible physical causes. Yet, even the most wildly unlikely physical explanation can be the “most plausible explanation”, right? After all, that was the point of the Dawkins / ‘space alien daddy’ digression, right? Dawkins’ point about space aliens is that even this explanation is more plausible than belief in God! So, it seems to me that the “physical effects” approach isn’t workable, either. Perhaps I’m misunderstanding, but it seems that, even if we were to produce a physical effect that we claim is a demonstration of God’s existence, then the reaction would be “sorry – as long as we can come up with any physical theory, regardless of its plausibility, it will – (de facto!) – be more plausible than an explanation that requires us to believe in a spiritual being.” Am I being too cynical here, or isn’t this really the situation that we’re in?

Now, I could speculate as to what kinds of effects I would create if I were a non-physical being who wanted to convince people that I was real, but before I do that, I have a question for you. What is it that convinced you, personally, that a non-physical being exists?

And yet, the question isn’t “what would you do, in order to prove your existence?”, but rather, “what is sufficient to demonstrate the existence of a non-physical being?”. Nevertheless, I want to get to what is convincing to me, but it would be fruitless at this point, without knowing what you see as the grounds for sufficiency, wouldn’t it be?

So: how do we get to sufficiency? “Effects”, it seems, but we still have a gaping chasm. It seems that you’re saying that only those effects which have no possible physical causes, but it seems that this reasoning cannot hold. Nevertheless, let’s assume that there are some effects that you would allow as sufficient evidence. How can these physical effects be presented to you, such that you’d be willing to accept them? That is, what mode of evidence of an effect be sufficient for you?

(After all, we often talk about “reproducibility” in the sciences, but that cannot hold in this case: after all, reproducibility is all about setting up the same (physical) environment and expecting the same (physical) chain of events. That is irrational in this case, since by definition we can’t ‘set up’ the same ‘environment’ when the spiritual being is part of the system. So, how can we demonstrate that this putative physical effect has, in fact, occurred?)

You keep talking about something “existing” without necessarily manifesting in any way – which doesn’t make any sense, at least not to me – and you seem to disapprove of the idea of that we have to observe something (or its effects) manifesting before we can accept that it’s real. But what other option do we have, apart from gathering information with our senses and judging whether the manifestations we observe are indicative of a being (or that being’s effects)?

This seems reasonable. Since we’re sensory-based creatures, then we want something that can be sensed. Now – what modes of communication of these sensory experiences are you willing to accept?

I’m seriously not trying to “trick” you or anything like that, but it seems to me that your thinking on this issue is rather fuzzy and, in places, approaching what I would call “meaningless.” To say that something exists but that we can’t detect it is totally indistinguishable from saying that it doesn’t exist.

Right. Unless I accept the presence of “effects”. So… we’re still tunneling down into how the production of sufficient effects might work for you…

 

[Gorgias]

Here’s an example of something that I find muddled and bordering on being meaningless.

Even if it’s possible to “have being” without “having physical effects,” how would we ever learn that a being exists without observing physical effects?

I’m struggling to even imagine what you’re talking about here.

Yep; that makes sense. However, I’m just asserting that a spiritual being has no observable physical effects, simply by the fact of their existence. I’m not asserting that a spiritual being cannot produce physical effects, however. If I were, then I’d be stuck – we’d have a chasm that could not be crossed: this would mean that there’d be no way for physical beings and spiritual beings to interact. (More to the point, it would mean that God would, by definition, be unable to create the physical universe.)

So, I am holding my cards close to my vest, at least until we come to an agreement on how one might sufficiently assert physical effects as being caused by spiritual agents. Once we get there, I’ll be making the case that spiritual agents are capable of producing physical effects. (Of course, at this point, I’m only asserting that there aren’t physical effects of spiritual beings that are observable strictly by virtue of their existence. I hope I’m making the distinction clearly…)

 

[NonServiam]

OK… on the surface, that seems reasonable. Yet, it seems to be problematic. Science says that physical effects have physical causes. In other words, wherever there is a physical effect, there are theories as to the physical causes which produced that effect. And, by definition (as I believe you’ve mentioned in this thread, although I’m just going on memory), you go with the most plausible idea, right?

We’re back to the problem of you not making sense. What you’re saying here – if it’s correct that physical effects can only have physical causes – is that it’s impossible for something non-physical to exist, or, at least, to exist in a way that we could distinguish it from nothing.

That means that you must think it’s possible for physical effects to have non-physical causes, but what makes you think this? What physical effects have you observed that you think have non-physical causes, and how do you know?

I’m not trying to be evasive here, but I seriously don’t know what you’re asking. Without a practical example of what you’re talking about, I’m forced to just shrug and think it all just meaningless jabber.

 

[NonServiam]

Just to be clear: what I’m saying is that it’s not a foregone conclusion that the claim you’re making even makes sense. You may in fact be proposing a nonsensical claim, and in that case – if you can’t even clarify what the claim is to the point that it’s comprehensible – you don’t really have a claim to defend.

 

[Gorgias]

We’re back to the problem of you not making sense. What you’re saying here – if it’s correct that physical effects can only have physical causes – is that it’s impossible for something non-physical to exist, or, at least, to exist in a way that we could distinguish it from nothing.

Hmm… well, we were talking about whether it’s possible for non-physical beings to produce physical effects (not have physical properties, mind you, but to produce physical effects). You seemed to be willing to discuss this possibility:

So this supposed non-physical being would have to produce an effect that unambiguously is caused by a non-physical being.

Perhaps I’m moving too fast. Given that I believe that we’re talking about the ability to demonstrate physical effects (produced by spiritual agents), I’ve jumped into playing devil’s advocate. So, let me ask the question, and perhaps my post (above) will then make more sense: You claim that sufficient evidence is viable for demonstrating the existence of God (but you assert that you’ve seen no such evidence to date). Our project here, then, is all about understanding the rules of the game – determining what (if anything) is possible to show you. We’ve talked about physical effects as produced by spiritual beings, and you’ve stated that such an effect would have to be unambiguously attributable to the spiritual agent. My question, then, is this – do you see it as a possibility that there is such an effect? In other words, you’re producing a criterion, but I want to be certain that you’re not, a priori, ruling out the possibility of that criterion ever being able to be met! So, could a physical effect ever be posited as “unambiguously caused by a non-physical being”? How?

(If you answer “no”, then you’re just setting up straw men. If you answer “yes”, then it makes sense to discuss how one might construct such an example…)

 

[NonServiam]

You claim that sufficient evidence is viable for demonstrating the existence of God (but you assert that you’ve seen no such evidence to date).

I say that I would need to acquire sufficient evidence before I accept the claim. But I’m not saying that it’s necessarily possible to produce sufficient evidence for every definition of “God.”

One could define “God” in such a way as to make it a concept indistinguishable from no God, making discussion about it pointless.

If your definition of “God” is a non-physical being that doesn’t manifest in physical reality or interact with physical reality in ways that are distinguishable from nothing, then I remain deeply skeptical whether it would be possible to produce evidence of this.

It almost sounds like you’re saying, “I claim being X exists, and I define X to be a being for which there is no evidence.” If sounds to me as if you’re ruling out all evidence for this being right out of the gate. If that’s not the case, then you need to explain what evidence you think there is for this being.

Please be aware that I’m not limiting this to “God” – I would say the same thing about anythihg defined in this way.

Take, for example, someone who says, “There’s a ghost in my house.” Alright, I’d ask, what do you mean by “ghost”? He replies, “A ghost is a non-physical being. It doesn’t manifest or interact with the physical world in any way.” I would reply, “What do you mean? That doesn’t even make sense. How can you know it’s there if it doesn’t manifest in any way?” And then – if he thought along the lines you do – he’d reply, “What? You mean you’re closed to the possibility? Bah, no wonder you’re a non-ghost believer, you’re just a materialist and you reject my evidence apriori!”

So then I’d say,“No,I haven’t rejected anything. I’m just trying to figure out what you mean. If this ghost doesn’t manifest, what kind of evidence are you relying on?”

And he’d say, “No, no, no! I want to establsih your criteria first! What, are you telling me you reject all criteria a priori? You sneaky materialist with your strawman!”…

Anyway, I could go on, but I think you get my drift. It’s not fair to ask me what it would take to get me to accept a claim when the claim makes no sense.

So at this point, you can either answer my quesiton (what convinced you, personally, that this non-physical being exists?), or we’re done here.

 

[MarcoPolo]

If your definition of “God” is a non-physical being that doesn’t manifest in physical reality or interact with physical reality in ways that are distinguishable from nothing, then I remain deeply skeptical whether it would be possible to produce evidence of this.

May I chime in with a question to this. What is the genesis of a human thought? There are a variety of theories out there, but as far as I can tell, the origin has not been observed or proven in a “scientific” fashion. Would you agree?

 

[Gorgias]

I say that I would need to acquire sufficient evidence before I accept the claim. But I’m not saying that it’s necessarily possible to produce sufficient evidence for every definition of “God.”

One could define “God” in such a way as to make it a concept indistinguishable from no God, making discussion about it pointless.

Right. That makes sense.

If your definition of “God” is a non-physical being that doesn’t manifest in physical reality or interact with physical reality in ways that are distinguishable from nothing, then I remain deeply skeptical whether it would be possible to produce evidence of this.

Yep, I understand what you’re saying. And, just to be clear, I’m not saying that God doesn’t manifest in physical reality, just that God doesn’t have physical properties. I’m trying to get a feel for what you’d accept as (physical) evidence.

It almost sounds like you’re saying, “I claim being X exists, and I define X to be a being for which there is no evidence.”

I see. No, that’s not what I’m saying.

Anyway, I could go on, but I think you get my drift. It’s not fair to ask me what it would take to get me to accept a claim when the claim makes no sense.

Got it. No, I’m claiming that there are physical manifestations that demonstrate God’s existence. But, before we get into particular examples, I want to make sure that the project is ‘do-able’, so to speak. We’re getting there: you said that if there were physical effects that unambiguously were attributable to a spiritual agent, then that would be one way to establish sufficient evidence. I’m not misinterpreting you, am I?

If that’s the case, then I’m trying to make sure that what you’re saying is reasonable. My concern is that, for any physical effect, there’s the ability to posit a physical cause (however implausible). And, if only implausible physical causes exist, then by default you’d accept them over any potential non-physical causes. Is that a reasonable presupposition on my part?

So at this point, you can either answer my quesiton (what convinced you, personally, that this non-physical being exists?), or we’re done here.

Well, I want to make sure that I’m providing data along the lines of things that you’d be willing to accept: that is, I want to make sure that I’m not wasting your time. What value is there in my providing information that, a priori, you refuse to consider? So, I want to make sure I understand what you might be open to considering. I don’t think it’s reasonable to just say “show me your argument or I’m outta here”; if you’re actually trying to get to the truth, it would seem irrational to leave a discussion while the boundaries of the discussion are still being negotiated…

 

[NonServiam]

OK, this is all fair enough.

And, just to be clear, I’m not saying that God doesn’t manifest in physical reality, just that God doesn’t have physical properties. …] I’m claiming that there are physical manifestations that demonstrate God’s existence.

Ok, I hear you.

Well, for starters, I’m not 100% sure what would qualify as a physical manifestation that is unambiguously attributable to a non-physical source. In short, I’m not totally sure what it would look like, and my lack of certainty is consistent with someone who’s never seen such a manifestation.

I’m tempted to give you the old answer that if a non-physical being appeared to everyone on the earth at once and broadcast a message to everone – comprehensible in the language of each person – and then proceeded to declare that he was “God” and perform miracles (such as declaring that he would make it rain and then snow quickly thereafter, and then having the weather create such freak effects, even in climates where that would not be possible naturally)…I would have no problem attributing such effects to God and accepting that God exists.

Sure, I suppose it’s conceivable in that situation that “God” is some sort of hologram created by aliens who are just messing with us, but I think it would be undeniable that something exists that is doing things beyond what we think of as natural, and we could at least call that thing “God” until we learned more about its nature.

I’m not sure that that would demonstrate that this “God” is a non-physical God because – as you’ve eloquently argued already – it may be that “non-physical being” is impossible or a contradiction in terms, or at least not demonstrable to physical beings like us.

Less dramatically, I think that there are measurable physical manifestations that would tell us – if not that there is a non-physical being – that there is some kind of power associated with some God claims. For example, if it could be demonstrated in double-blind experiments that cancer patients prayed for by Catholics (without these patients knowing) recovered at rates far exceeding those of patients prayed for by memebers of other religions (far above what we would expect for chance), then I think it would be unquestionable that there is some power associated with specifically Catholic prayers that is not associated with the prayers of other religions.

This wouldn’t demonstrate the existence of a non-physical being, but it would demonstrate the existence of a kind of power only associated with Catholicism (a possibly non-physical power) that has real effects in the world. It would be one heck of a start toward demonstrating that a God exists, and it would force everyone to start taking the claims of this religion very seriously.

I’ll leave it there for now because those examples give you an idea of manifestations that would at least strongly suggest that such claims are worth considering. And I’ll add that, even if I’m not 100% sure what would convince me that a non-physical being exists, if there is a God (and if he is all-knowing, as many believers claim), then he already knows exactly what it would take to convince me of that claim.

Ok, your turn. What convinced you, and why do you think it’s convincing?

 

[Bonjovie]

Just so we’re clear - God created me without having any use for me. My purpose is to be His plaything - to be toyed with and disposed at a time and manner which He sees fit. To this extent, it matters not whether I believe or not - as God has proven perfectly willing to treat the righteous just the same as the unrighteous.

And this is praiseworthy - correct?

Whatever He made you for, it’s not yours to decide. Plus you cannot judge His actions as praiseworthy or whatever. Simply, you cannot be master of God. Now we are clear.

 

[ASimon]

Whatever He made you for, it’s not yours to decide. Plus you cannot judge His actions as praiseworthy or whatever. Simply, you cannot be master of God. Now we are clear.

But you judge them as praiseworthy, do you not? Or are you pledging your fealty to this God for some other reason? Fear, perhaps? Misguided respect?

Put it this way, if any human being ever asserted the authority over you that this God does, would your response to him be the same? And if not, why not?

 

[wcknight]

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. If I told you that I know what time the school bus leaves, you’d take me at face value. That’s a very ordinary claim, and therefore requires ordinary evidence. In this case my word is enough. If I told you I know what time the bus leaves because the president of the US told me, you’d disbelieve me, and ask for proof (aka evidence). If I could procure that proof, for example with a photo or if I could get other people to confirm my story, then you’d believe me. That’s a fairly extraordinary claim, however if I were to make a claim that’s really out-there - for example, I said that I know what time the bus leaves because I divined it during a seance and a ghost told me, you probably wouldn’t believe me unless I procured extraordinary evidence, maybe by divining some other information, or showing you the ghost.

I’m not sure of the details of the story you mentioned, but without extraordinary evidence I will remain a skeptic of all extraordinary claims.

Why not examine the evidence surroundding the cloak of ST Juan Deigo ? Here is a cloak made of natural fibers. It is over 400 years old and still intact. All other garments of the same material have long since fallen apart. It has an image that can not be reproduced by any means. The image actually ‘floats’ above the fabric. The eye of Mary, when magnified shows a reflection of St Juan Deigo (something that no modern day artist can replicate.

Here is extraordinary physical evidence that had has been scientifically examined, can not be faked or replicated by any means. And it comes with an extradinary story of a man gathering roses in his cloak in the dead of winter and the image forms when he drops his cloak before the bishop. How about them apples or roses !!

Lets face it, you will remain a skeptic, no matter how much evidence you see or hear. Until you see His wounds and feel His scars you will not believe. … BUT you WIll, no one lives forever and when that time comes, it may be far too late.

 

[wcknight]

How about the stigmata of St Padre Pio. He lives with the stimata for almost 50 years. Doctors examined him before and after his death… the day after he died there was no sign whatsoever on his hands or wrist… no scars, not a scratch… yet while he was alive, doctors who examined him said the wound were so deep that they went almost completely through his hands. He died around 1960.

 

[PumpkinSeed]

This seems to be the correct answer, and there’s no real way to get around it. Sure, one can say weak things like, “Only God knows for sure,” or “Maybe you will repent in your last moments…God can work wonders in the heart,” etc., etc., but the real answer to the question is that a non-believer – who has learned all about the religion and who fully understands what the religion teaches about the fate of non-believers – is most likely bound for Hell, a place of pain for all eternity.

The more interesting question, to my mind, is this one: do you think Poseidon deserves that fate? He’s already clearly said that he’s a non-believer because he’s honestly not convinced of the existence of God. Given that situation, do you think he deserves to be in pain forever? (Or, in some revisionist, nicer theologies, do you think he deserves to be shut out of the great reward of Heaven simply because he isn’t convinced of an idea?)

Why or why not do you think this is fair?

If God thinks he deserves it, then I should too considering that Gods opinion is best above all anyways.

Sounds harsh but It’s not like I’m going to go up to God and say “no he doesn’t deserve it, you can’t do that”.

God knows best. More than me, more than you, more than anyone and we need to accept that his judgement is fair and right even if we can’t understand it. Just be happy you aren’t the one who has to judge souls.

 

[Robertanthony]

Why not examine the evidence surroundding the cloak of ST Juan Deigo ? Here is a cloak made of natural fibers. It is over 400 years old and still intact. All other garments of the same material have long since fallen apart. It has an image that can not be reproduced by any means. The image actually ‘floats’ above the fabric. The eye of Mary, when magnified shows a reflection of St Juan Deigo (something that no modern day artist can replicate.

Here is extraordinary physical evidence that had has been scientifically examined, can not be faked or replicated by any means. And it comes with an extradinary story of a man gathering roses in his cloak in the dead of winter and the image forms when he drops his cloak before the bishop. How about them apples or roses !!

Lets face it, you will remain a skeptic, no matter how much evidence you see or hear.** Until you see His wounds and feel His scars you will not believe. … **BUT you WIll, no one lives forever and when that time comes, it may be far too late.

St.Thomas. But it strikes me that Thomas wanted evidence that Jesus was resurrected (i.e. the true son of God), he didn’t want evidence that God exists. NonServiam is not convinced of the existence of God but he doesn’t go so far as to deny it, so, despite his futile protest, that makes him an agnostic. If he’s an atheist, then he denies the existence of God and has to supply evidence just like he requires from us believers. Also, I’m sure if you search people’s souls, you will find that they have made a definite decision for or against the existence of God, it must be a rare occurrence to find someone stay perfectly on the fence for years and years. It might be the case for NonServiam who claims perfect indecision yet perhaps in his being of beings he really thinks God doesn’t exist but doesn’t want to produce his evidence, which can’t be substantial. And choosing the cry of rebellion of God’s archenemy as an username doesn’t tell of an open, humble, sincere soul. God, as revealed by the Scriptures, is after sincerety, contrition.

 

[wcknight]

Speaking unoffically, I think decent folks who can not be convinced that God exists should not be condemned. BUT I think some folks who go out of their way to lead others astray, can be held personnally responsible for the downfall of these other souls, who might otherwise would have become believers.

It is one thing to have personal doubts, it is quite another to mislead others to accept their falsehoods.

The late Great Pope John Paul II said, those who lead upright lives, even though they have not come to believe that Jesus is Lord, will help build the kingdom of Heaven. (at least something to that effect… the exact quote escapes me).

To me, that basically says that God does not condemn decent people.

 

[NonServiam]

It might be the case for NonServiam who claims perfect indecision

I don’t claim “perfect indecision.” I have examined the issue and, after years of study, I have decided that the evidence is not sufficient for me to accept the claim that any gods exist.

Thus, I do not accept any god claim as true, and I am therefore not a believer in any gods. The word for a non-believer (someone who lacks belief in gods, or who is “without-gods”) is an a-theist. That’s how I use the word and how many other atheists use the word. If you use the word differently, then you and I are talking about different kinds of “atheists.” I don’t really care much for labels: if you want to call me an “agnostic,” then knock yourself out. The important point is that I’m a non-believer in all god claims.

I don’t claim that no gods exist, and I could be swayed to believe that gods exist if there were sufficient evidence for it. But I most certainly do not claim to be “on the fence” or in a state of “perfect indecision.”

 

[NonServiam]

In the meanwhile, post #270 is still waiting for my debate buddy to return.

Ok, your turn. What convinced you, and why do you think it’s convincing?

 

[Maryann_C]

Lets face it, you will remain a skeptic, no matter how much evidence you see or hear. Until you see His wounds and feel His scars you will not believe. … BUT you WIll, no one lives forever and when that time comes, it may be far too late.

I am starting to understand why someone in another thread a week or so ago said that the only person who can change your mind is you. Of course that change can be through some Divine intervention right like when Saul got knocked off his Donkey and Jesus spoke directly to him. For non believers who may not have read or heard of this story I suggest you find a Bible and read the tales of the acts of the Apostles especially 1 through 10. After all what harm can come of that right? To you it is just as any bed time make believe story you might read to a child like Little Red Riding Hood. Actually there are alot of good adventure stories in the Bible.

Anyway I challenge you Posiden and NS to read those 10 chapters actually and then I challenge you to find a Catholic store or go online and find what is commonly known as a miraculous medal. Then take that medal and find a priest , *** it to bless it for you. This step may not be absolutely necessary if it is really an abhorrent burden for you. Finally I challenge you to put that medal on a string and wear it around your neck and say ( notice I did not say pray, you can sing it say it in monotone whatever) the Memorare ( you can google it and print it off) once every day for 40 days. You must say it for 40 days that is a key part of the challenge. I won’t even ask you to come back and report anything but you can pm me if you like. If you were to go to a store today and start saying this tomorrow you would be done on the 9th July I believe. If you really can not find a miraculous medal PM me with your address and I will send you one.
So are you up to the challenge of this experiment?

 

[Armor_of_Light]

Hello again NonServiam-

…and I am still looking for this from #243

A claim about God that you thouoghly researched and studied (sources please) and deemed to be insufficient and the basis for insufficiency. Like "I need eggs, butter and cheese for this to be recognized as a cheese omlette (because I recognize the cookbook as a reliable source to tell me about the omlette), and I don’t see the cheese, so it is not a cheese omlette. Something like that? I’ll go fix myself an omlette while you compile your response.

Also…If you investigated fully the claim “God exists” then you must also have investigated fully the claim “God does not exist” and also found that evidence lacking, yes?