This is a split board - You can return to the Split List for other boards.

Looking at common apologetics about Hell.

#111countzanderPosted 2/9/2013 6:46:21 AM
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance
---
http://i.imgur.com/k1nGh.jpg
#112Julian_CaesarPosted 2/9/2013 12:02:09 PM
From: DarkContractor | #082
So it's a sin to be amongst sinners now?


Never said it was a sin, just that in terms of the spiritual realm it is impossible for "sin" and God to be in the same place. Thus you can't use "can't be in the presence of sin" as a knock against God's omnipotence because it's no different than the "rock so big" argument...i.e. using contradictory definitions of God to try to disprove His omnipotence.

And I responded, going into detail with it with Silvrio. Even he said in my counterpoints I was being logically consistent. Demonstrate a fallacy, if I'm not.


That's your argument with him, not me. I don't care to read through all of it, to be honest with you, so I'll take your word that you're not being completely irrational about it and drop the whole subject. Fair?

How is it inapplicable? How is hell not torture? How is torture if I don't love him not rape?


Because "rape" implies you had no choice in the process. Whereas according to the Bible, you pretty clearly had a choice whether to accept Him or to accept your own "gods" to supply your ultimate salvation. And when those "gods" lead to their only logical conclusion (eternal death and separation from the only source of "good" in all existence) then it can't be called "rape" in any sense of the word.

Explain your logic. Of course, I have 0 control on what any of the choices in the Hell or Heaven dichtomy are. Again, why not just let our lives continue, in peaceful co-existence but separated? I mean I guess you can say we deserve Hell or whatever, but so do you. It's God's mercy that keeps you from Hell. You did not choose Heaven. So why not give us mercy and just leave us to our own devices, not harming anyone but ourselves? I mean he gave Satan a whole planet for millions of years (or 6000, depending on if you're a fundamentalist or not) in which he's directly tempting people to Hell, permanently hurting their lives.


Just because you can't control which choices are given to you, that in no way excuses you from making those choices according to what you know to be the truth. God is not going to fault you for getting dealt a bad hand in life, He knows all our hearts and circumstances.

Of course I deserve Hell. Jesus took that fate as His own, and overcame it. That's why we call it "being saved."

And I think you have a faulty understanding of salvation. I absolutely chose Jesus as my Lord and Savior; anyone who says free will has no part in salvation is just 100% wrong. We could argue over whether salvation is more about us or God (and of course, it's mostly God), but to say that we did not "accept" or "choose" salvation is what I call the "theologian's escape from responsibility". I don't think it's contradictory to say that salvation is not possible without God empowering us to have faith, while also saying that salvation is not possible unless we decide to accept that faith, to accept God.

So why doesn't God just give us mercy? Well He does, if we would only accept it, but I suppose you mean "regardless of whether we choose it or not". In which case I'll refer you yet again...to the fact that I don't know why God gave us free will. I have my suspicion that He wants us to believe in Him out of love, rather than compulsion, but that's not explained in the Bible so it's nothing more than my opinion.
---
Every day the rest of your life is changed forever.
#113Julian_CaesarPosted 2/9/2013 12:08:54 PM
From: DarkContractor | #082
I'll take your "IDK" as a conceding of the point then. I'm not convinced that God exists, nor that I have free will (I have evidence of neither, afterall). As I said earlier, I take the... severity? of this 'unfairness' as a disproof of an omnibenevolent God. In logical fashion of this contradiction, I then dismiss the Biblical God as legitimate (amongst many reasons). If you want to argue an Occam's razor in the form of a hole in logic in my assessment of Hell's morality, by all means. In the mean time, I'll stick to secular academia.


Well, you really don't have a choice as to whether God exists or that you have free will...because both are spelled out pretty clearly in the Bible. Which, you know, we have to assume in order to assume that Hell exists at all. Meaning that despite your personal feelings on the matter, you're not allowed to simply "not believe them" in a discussion of Biblical Hell, just because you don't like them.

This is the fallacy I was talking about, the one I decided to let pass because I realized you'd talked with someone else about it. But clearly you didn't understand what was going on. You can't dismiss Biblical precepts as "unproven" when discussing Biblical Hell, because you're just cherry-picking truths in order to fit the argument that you want to be true. You're assuming Hell is true in order to show how it "contradicts" things, but then you reject the Biblical truths that make your "contradictions" completely silly. That's called "dishonest argumentation."

Also, you've lost any credibility you once had by calling "Occam's Razor" an argument.

From: DarkContractor | #083
After an impressive history of the origination of many arguments, Francis ends that book with the usual "anything God does is a priori good". Something I've already responded to in my discussion with Silvrio.


Something you didn't understand at all, based on what you've said to me.
---
Every day the rest of your life is changed forever.
#114dkcprjePosted 2/11/2013 10:27:59 AM
From: countzander | #111
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance

Thank you for detailing precisely the fallacy your committing.
---
"...says the guy who thinks a woman consents if she doesn't scream." "In that context, yes. It was consent. Get over it." - Numba1linesmen
#115countzanderPosted 2/11/2013 12:48:07 PM
dkcprje posted...
From: countzander | #111
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance

Thank you for detailing precisely the fallacy your committing.


"There is nothing I'm missing from an omniscient perspective that deprives me of my ability to criticize an omnipotent character. Really nothing. That's not an assertion. That's demonstrable."

"There's no evidence that I'm wrong. Therefore, I'm right." <- argument from ignorance

An omniscient being knows more about the universe than you do. While you can easily make false conclusions based due to incomplete information, God has access to all available information. His actions are more informed than yours.
---
http://i.imgur.com/k1nGh.jpg
#116dkcprjePosted 2/11/2013 12:57:05 PM
From: countzander | #115
There's no evidence that I'm wrong.


WRONG.

I am not saying "there's no evidence I'm wrong, therefore I'm right." I am saying "There is nothing I'm missing from an omniscient perspective that deprives me of my ability to criticize an omnipotent character."

I am not missing anything. I don't need anything. We're not missing evidence. We have everything we need to draw a conclusion!

On the other hand, saying, "You may or may not have all the information, therefore, God is more informed than you" IS argument from ignorance.

So good on you, chap.
---
"...says the guy who thinks a woman consents if she doesn't scream." "In that context, yes. It was consent. Get over it." - Numba1linesmen
#117DarkContractor(Topic Creator)Posted 2/12/2013 7:20:03 AM
lots to respond to, so I'm going to just be hitting the main points posted, or if Julian has a similar point to Silvrio, just respond to them in unison.
From: Julian_Caesar | #112

"Never said it was a sin, just that in terms of the spiritual realm it is impossible for "sin" and God to be in the same place. Thus you can't use "can't be in the presence of sin" as a knock against God's omnipotence because it's no different than the "rock so big" argument...i.e. using contradictory definitions of God to try to disprove His omnipotence."

can you explain how thats a logical contradiction?

"That's your argument with him, not me. I don't care to read through all of it, to be honest with you, so I'll take your word that you're not being completely irrational about it and drop the whole subject. Fair?"

yeah man thats cool, no worries.


"Because "rape" implies you had no choice in the process. Whereas according to the Bible, you pretty clearly had a choice whether to accept Him or to accept your own "gods" to supply your ultimate salvation. And when those "gods" lead to their only logical conclusion (eternal death and separation from the only source of "good" in all existence) then it can't be called "rape" in any sense of the word."

Well seeing as how I never met him before (and genuinely humbly, sincerely begged him to come into my life repeatedly), do I have a choice? Now, if I could see worldly pleasures, false idols, and then Jesus I could make an educated choice. For all I know though the real God could be a God that doesn't demand worship but does demand that I not worship false idols, so I could be worse off.

Anyways, this is ridiuclous. I go rape someone. She says no. I tell her she deserves death and I am her salvation. I make claims of divinity. I mean, c'mon.

"Just because you can't control which choices are given to you, that in no way excuses you from making those choices according to what you know to be the truth. God is not going to fault you for getting dealt a bad hand in life, He knows all our hearts and circumstances.

Of course I deserve Hell. Jesus took that fate as His own, and overcame it. That's why we call it "being saved.""

I don't know any of the Bible to be the truth. Neither do you.

the thing is the standard of punishment is set by God, and so he's completely responsible. He could have easily conceived an alternative punishment, as evidenced by the most corrupt of all the sinners getting an entire planet with billions to tempt against God's plan

"And I think you have a faulty understanding of salvation. I absolutely chose Jesus as my Lord and Savior; anyone who says free will has no part in salvation is just 100% wrong. We could argue over whether salvation is more about us or God (and of course, it's mostly God), but to say that we did not "accept" or "choose" salvation is what I call the "theologian's escape from responsibility". I don't think it's contradictory to say that salvation is not possible without God empowering us to have faith, while also saying that salvation is not possible unless we decide to accept that faith, to accept God.

So why doesn't God just give us mercy? Well He does, if we would only accept it, but I suppose you mean "regardless of whether we choose it or not". In which case I'll refer you yet again...to the fact that I don't know why God gave us free will. I have my suspicion that He wants us to believe in Him out of love, rather than compulsion, but that's not explained in the Bible so it's nothing more than my opinion."

Love would imply a relationship where someone continuously talks to you. Where they occasionally talk to you and do what you want even if they think its a bad idea.
---
An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.
#118DarkContractor(Topic Creator)Posted 2/12/2013 7:20:12 AM
"Well, you really don't have a choice as to whether God exists or that you have free will...because both are spelled out pretty clearly in the Bible. Which, you know, we have to assume in order to assume that Hell exists at all. Meaning that despite your personal feelings on the matter, you're not allowed to simply "not believe them" in a discussion of Biblical Hell, just because you don't like them."

You don't seem to get it. I'm not really concerned about the internal consistency of the Bible. Google "Bible contradictions" and you'll see why. I'm concerned with actually applying the Bible to reality. Let's take Hell. Is there any moral system that agrees with it? Just one, Stalin's. Let's take free will. How does that match up to reality? It doesn't, determinism takes a dump on it. Let's take the existence of God. Any evidence? Just the Bible. What about Moses? Again, just the Bible. What about the resurrection or the miracles? As mentioned in another topic, the arguably most groundbreaking events, ever, and a grandspanking four wrote it down? I can go on and on. I don't assume axioms for ****s and giggles to make "what if" scenarios. I do the scientific thing where I see if they actually hold up, and I follow the evidence even if it's a conclusion I don't like (hence I'm an atheist instead of a Bible school student, now).

"This is the fallacy I was talking about, the one I decided to let pass because I realized you'd talked with someone else about it. But clearly you didn't understand what was going on. You can't dismiss Biblical precepts as "unproven" when discussing Biblical Hell, because you're just cherry-picking truths in order to fit the argument that you want to be true. You're assuming Hell is true in order to show how it "contradicts" things, but then you reject the Biblical truths that make your "contradictions" completely silly. That's called "dishonest argumentation.""

I would say you cherry pick reality to fit your Bible. You pretty much have to in order to actually believe all of it.

"Also, you've lost any credibility you once had by calling "Occam's Razor" an argument."

You guys are the one's making an occam's razors.
---
An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.
#119DarkContractor(Topic Creator)Posted 2/12/2013 7:31:09 AM
"What we are taking from the same text seems to disagree. "

Yes.... we're in disagreement. I think that was established by virtue of us being in a debate.


"It would be impossible for a letter, like James, not to be in its own older manuscripts. That would make it a different letter. I'm too lazy to find a real citation at the moment so here is Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Mark#Ending"

I misunderstood what you said at first, I thought you were saying Mark didn't pop up in older Bible compilations.

I still have a plethora of verses to pick from. What about moving mountains? the healings is a big one. Jesus was ALL about faith-based healing and constantly rewarded confidence in the nt. Maybe if he actually showed up we could have faith.

I think it also shows how little credibility I can give the Bible. You would think if belief of what it says is dependent on where I spend eternity, God could at the very least make sure we all get the right Scripture.

"An axiom is something you assume to be true. Whether it is true in actuality is irrelevant.

1 could be a negative number if you do not have the axioms to make it not so."

I operate on the axiom of what I can observe in reality. Can you come to agreement on that? My purpose with my axioms is clearly explained in a prior post.

"When it says "those who believe" it reads like a prophecy of a specific event, like most of the things Jesus said."

How are you getting that out of those texts? right now, you are saying thats what you get. But right now my interpretation is more valid because I have a demonstrably means of how I got it (taking it literally)

"It's a poetic bit specifically about certain people who felt special for having certain spiritual gifts."

How is it poetic?

"You cannot throw out something you take as an axiom. If you take as an axiom that 1 is a negative integer you have to base your entire mathematical system on that axiom."

Yeah, I can't criticize the Bible. thats unfair, I can only praise it. comparing it to reality? no thats bs,obviously.
---
An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.
#120countzanderPosted 2/12/2013 5:04:46 PM
dkcprje posted...
From: countzander | #115
There's no evidence that I'm wrong.


WRONG.

I am not saying "there's no evidence I'm wrong, therefore I'm right." I am saying "There is nothing I'm missing from an omniscient perspective that deprives me of my ability to criticize an omnipotent character."

I am not missing anything. I don't need anything. We're not missing evidence. We have everything we need to draw a conclusion!

On the other hand, saying, "You may or may not have all the information, therefore, God is more informed than you" IS argument from ignorance.

So good on you, chap.


No, it's still an argument from ignorance. How do you know there's nothing you're missing from an omniscient perspective?
---
http://i.imgur.com/k1nGh.jpg