A Good God would not send a decent Atheist to hell.

Exploring the details of Christianity

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
User avatar
marketandchurch
Scholar
Posts: 358
Joined: Wed Apr 10, 2013 12:51 am
Location: The People's Republic Of Portland

A Good God would not send a decent Atheist to hell.

Post #1

Post by marketandchurch »

This was the post that got me banned on Christian Chat:
Then God doesn't care about the goodness and decency of an atheist, a buddhist, etc. And if that is the message you are telling me, then there is no point to being a good person. There is no point of fighting on behalf of the oppressed, as America did, in WWII. The only purpose of fighting the Japanese, and beating back the Nazi's should have been so that we could bring more people to christ...is that what your saying? Should America be sending food and aid to heathens in Haiti? Should America be helping out muslims in disaster relief fallowing a natural disaster, unless it is to bring them to Christ? Is a person's only value to you, there potential to become a convert? They have no humanity beyond that?

You have an old testament my_adonai, and you are to be as obsessed with its obsessions, as you are with the new testament's. And the Old Testament's preoccupation is fighting evil, championing the good, and making a more ethical existence, during this lifetime.

And unless you think Christians alone can make this lifetime a little better, a little less genocidal, with a little less starvation, a little less torture, etc, it is an unethical message to peddle, that a good God would demand goodness, unless one doesn't believe in his son. Then one's goodness is pointless. One might as well not care about not gossiping behind other people's back, destroying someone's dignity in public, sleeping with a coworker's wife, extorting an elderly couple that one was hired to help, raping a pre-pubcescent child, killing another human being because of their skin color, etc, etc, etc.

Apparently, I was challenging people's faith, and was just there to be anti-christian, in saying that a Good God would not send to hell decent people, simply because they do not believe in his Son. I got all sorts of less then appetizing replies, saying I'm screwed for eternity, if I don't accept Jesus. I feel that I am not alone, even within the Christian community, in thinking this as I've heard many catholic priests, and mainstream protestant pastors, while I was growing up, distancing themselves from such a belief. I don't know where people on this forum stand, but I'll put it up for debate:

  • Topic of Debate: A Good God would not send to hell a decent person, simply for not believing in his son.


If you agree with me, and are a Christian, please square your response with the rest of the New Testament. What I'm looking for is scriptural consistency to back up your position, and more importantly, how one will then re-read the entire message of the New Testament, if one wants to hold that position. I say this because I don't want you to drop scripture, simply because it doesn't conform to your own personal beliefs, but I am looking for how one can reinterpret the New testament, if one drops that central tenant, & for the rest of us, impediment, to everlasting life. Is there room for this? Or is the New Testament rigidly in the affirmative about Christ being the only way to heaven? Which is fine. That's their theology, but let's see where this goes.

JohnA
Banned
Banned
Posts: 752
Joined: Fri Sep 13, 2013 5:11 am

Re: A Good God would not send a decent Atheist to hell.

Post #551

Post by JohnA »

Danmark wrote:
JohnA wrote:
As expected, you could not tell me where my points were wrong.

Offering more leaned men than me is:'
sexist
an argument from authority
an argument from population.
Since there is no evidence for a god or any gods existence, your leaned men reasonable conclusions can be concluded as rubbish.

And I based my position that you are not paying attention of your own word use of "believe that". Maybe that was just a bad choice of words by you, but your last post grounded my suspicion into fact.

But it you understand what I mean, then why can't you formulate your OWN response about why you believe that I am wrong? Why offer links and no rebuttal other than "leaned men says I am wrong"? You are wrongly assuming that I am not familiar with these arguments, or have not read the material about this or are not a learned man/woman myself or that my lack of belief is based on this argument from free will. You also say that more learned men that you and I, but then you go and assume it is only me that is misinterpreting the information/data and somehow excuse yourself from misinterpreting the data/information. That tells me: I do not believe, but rather now I know for sure you are not paying attention.

Anything goes for with imaginary gods, surely? But you reject the fact that I am pointing out obvious contradictions. You are most welcome to offer these "leaned men reasonable conclusions" and we can discuss why they are flawed. Just remember, you are at a disadvantage since we both know there are no evidence for any god to exist.
Dear John:
I confess I am puzzled by this response. I can ferret out some of it, but the 'sexist' claim in particular baffles me.

At any rate, I hope I have acknowledged your opinion is one of several classic arguments. It's not that I claim you are 'wrong;' I simply have a different opinion. I've articulated the basis for my opinion.

Anyway, I'm always eager to learn, so please inform me about how I've been sexist so I can remedy that at least. :chick:
Sexist:
I suspect that was just again to do with your choice of words - learned men. Perhaps a better choice would have been learned person (to cater for both men and woman).
"It's not that I claim you are 'wrong;"
Am glad you clarified that as I assumed that was what you implied.
There are only really one argument for this free will / omniscience contradiction, but there are different rationalities how people try and justify it. They are all flawed in my opinion. Am happy to be convinced otherwise, but have not been to date.

You have somewhat stated you basis for your different opinion, but have not convinced me of it. Maybe it is my that lack the understanding, but like you I am open to be convinced.

User avatar
Danmark
Site Supporter
Posts: 12697
Joined: Sun Sep 30, 2012 2:58 am
Location: Seattle
Been thanked: 1 time

Post #552

Post by Danmark »

JohnA wrote:
Nickman wrote: Just because someone can know the future doesn't negate free will. Ive argued for the omniscience = no free will many times. The fact is that being able to see something in a different time doesn't mean that the future has been dictated. A person will ultimately make a decision, God would just be able to see what that decision is. Also, his omniscience could be an amplified version of "counting cards." In black jack, many people can count exactly which card will be next based off of which cards have been played in the past. A deity could employ the same tactic, but to a higher degree. So although it may seem as free will is negated, the deity is just very good at calculation based on behavior. The very free will we call into jeopardy, could be the mechanism with which the deity is able to predict future outcomes.

Even if this is wrong, a deity could still see into the future and not negate free will. If omniscience is even possible to begin with.
Does not matter how good you are counting cards, no one person can predict the next card (unless it is the last card in a deck or decks) in black jack.

If the deity has no "control" over the "free will" options / choices then you dismiss all prophecies and have to admit the deity has no plan in mind. The deity is merely paying dice.
John, there is no deity. Nickman and I agree with that. This is merely an academic exercise re: IF there were an omniscient god. One legitimate argument is that because god merely knows what you are going to do, you have no choice; that your sense of free will is an illusion.
Another legitimate point of view is that mere knowledge is not coercive or constraining. Here's another approach by Sandra LaFave of West Valley College

Free Will and Determinism

In these notes, I will describe three philosophically important positions on the question of free will. They are:

Hard Determinism (usually associated with social scientists such as B. F. Skinner, Freud, and Lorenz; usually rejected by philosophers)

Soft Determinism (Hobbes, Locke, Hume, and many others)

Indeterminism (Kant, Campbell, Taylor, existentialists)

http://instruct.westvalley.edu/lafave/FREE.HTM

This is well trod ground.
The only thing interesting is your basis for claiming 'sexism.'
I can't wait to hear that. :chick:

User avatar
Nickman
Site Supporter
Posts: 5443
Joined: Mon Sep 06, 2010 8:51 am
Location: Idaho
Been thanked: 1 time

Post #553

Post by Nickman »

JohnA wrote:
Nickman wrote: Just because someone can know the future doesn't negate free will. Ive argued for the omniscience = no free will many times. The fact is that being able to see something in a different time doesn't mean that the future has been dictated. A person will ultimately make a decision, God would just be able to see what that decision is. Also, his omniscience could be an amplified version of "counting cards." In black jack, many people can count exactly which card will be next based off of which cards have been played in the past. A deity could employ the same tactic, but to a higher degree. So although it may seem as free will is negated, the deity is just very good at calculation based on behavior. The very free will we call into jeopardy, could be the mechanism with which the deity is able to predict future outcomes.

Even if this is wrong, a deity could still see into the future and not negate free will. If omniscience is even possible to begin with.
Does not matter how good you are counting cards, no one person can predict the next card (unless it is the last card in a deck or decks) in black jack.
People can count cards with such precision that it is illegal in casinos. If they couldn't then casinos wouldn't be vigilant in trying to spot those who do it. Casinos lose money because people are so good at predicting which card is next in a deck consisting of 5 or more decks!
If the deity has no "control" over the "free will" options / choices then you dismiss all prophecies and have to admit the deity has no plan in mind. The deity is merely paying dice.

Remember, I am not saying the deity is "pulling the strings" making me pick option B. I am saying the deity knew in advance that I would pick B, therefore I could never really pick A or C (even though they were valid options).
I understand your argument, but there are many arguments, all which are logical. If a deity were outside of time looking in, he/she could see the beginning from the end.

You could have picked A or C but you didn't. Had you picked A or C, the deity would have known which one you would pick.

Your concept you are arguing from is one that requires a God to be inside of time.

JohnA
Banned
Banned
Posts: 752
Joined: Fri Sep 13, 2013 5:11 am

Post #554

Post by JohnA »

Nickman wrote:
JohnA wrote:
Nickman wrote: Just because someone can know the future doesn't negate free will. Ive argued for the omniscience = no free will many times. The fact is that being able to see something in a different time doesn't mean that the future has been dictated. A person will ultimately make a decision, God would just be able to see what that decision is. Also, his omniscience could be an amplified version of "counting cards." In black jack, many people can count exactly which card will be next based off of which cards have been played in the past. A deity could employ the same tactic, but to a higher degree. So although it may seem as free will is negated, the deity is just very good at calculation based on behavior. The very free will we call into jeopardy, could be the mechanism with which the deity is able to predict future outcomes.

Even if this is wrong, a deity could still see into the future and not negate free will. If omniscience is even possible to begin with.
Does not matter how good you are counting cards, no one person can predict the next card (unless it is the last card in a deck or decks) in black jack.
People can count cards with such precision that it is illegal in casinos. If they couldn't then casinos wouldn't be vigilant in trying to spot those who do it. Casinos lose money because people are so good at predicting which card is next in a deck consisting of 5 or more decks!
If the deity has no "control" over the "free will" options / choices then you dismiss all prophecies and have to admit the deity has no plan in mind. The deity is merely paying dice.

Remember, I am not saying the deity is "pulling the strings" making me pick option B. I am saying the deity knew in advance that I would pick B, therefore I could never really pick A or C (even though they were valid options).
I understand your argument, but there are many arguments, all which are logical. If a deity were outside of time looking in, he/she could see the beginning from the end.

You could have picked A or C but you didn't. Had you picked A or C, the deity would have known which one you would pick.

Your concept you are arguing from is one that requires a God to be inside of time.
I never rejected that people can count cards. What I am saying that no person can predict the exact next card (unless it is the last card in a shuffled deck).

This is my point:
Does not matter how good you are counting cards, no one person can predict the next card (unless it is the last card in a deck or decks) in black jack. The counter will only know what card is not likely (assuming 2 decks) next or what card (assuming 1 deck) will not be next because the counter knows what was played already.
The likelihood of getting the prediction (which card is not next) more accurate will vary, but I fail to understand how they can predict the next card (unless it is the last card in the deck / decks).

Again, there is only one argument, but various justifications to make the argument valid (and no argument to make it valid and sound since there is no evidence for any deities).

And exactly, I could have picked A or C, but since the deity already knew in advanced that I will pick B, options A / C were valid, but not sound options.

How can a deity be outside of time and know what is happening inside time, where is the link between timeless and time? How can the deity do anything as you need time for action/reaction if the deity is outside time? Offering illogical justifications for the contradiction is just admitting the justification itself is illogical.

JohnA
Banned
Banned
Posts: 752
Joined: Fri Sep 13, 2013 5:11 am

Post #555

Post by JohnA »

Danmark wrote:
JohnA wrote:
Nickman wrote: Just because someone can know the future doesn't negate free will. Ive argued for the omniscience = no free will many times. The fact is that being able to see something in a different time doesn't mean that the future has been dictated. A person will ultimately make a decision, God would just be able to see what that decision is. Also, his omniscience could be an amplified version of "counting cards." In black jack, many people can count exactly which card will be next based off of which cards have been played in the past. A deity could employ the same tactic, but to a higher degree. So although it may seem as free will is negated, the deity is just very good at calculation based on behavior. The very free will we call into jeopardy, could be the mechanism with which the deity is able to predict future outcomes.

Even if this is wrong, a deity could still see into the future and not negate free will. If omniscience is even possible to begin with.
Does not matter how good you are counting cards, no one person can predict the next card (unless it is the last card in a deck or decks) in black jack.

If the deity has no "control" over the "free will" options / choices then you dismiss all prophecies and have to admit the deity has no plan in mind. The deity is merely paying dice.
John, there is no deity. Nickman and I agree with that. This is merely an academic exercise re: IF there were an omniscient god. One legitimate argument is that because god merely knows what you are going to do, you have no choice; that your sense of free will is an illusion.
Another legitimate point of view is that mere knowledge is not coercive or constraining. Here's another approach by Sandra LaFave of West Valley College

Free Will and Determinism

In these notes, I will describe three philosophically important positions on the question of free will. They are:

Hard Determinism (usually associated with social scientists such as B. F. Skinner, Freud, and Lorenz; usually rejected by philosophers)

Soft Determinism (Hobbes, Locke, Hume, and many others)

Indeterminism (Kant, Campbell, Taylor, existentialists)

http://instruct.westvalley.edu/lafave/FREE.HTM

This is well trod ground.
The only thing interesting is your basis for claiming 'sexism.'
I can't wait to hear that. :chick:

I answered your sexist thing.

coercive or constraining
Remember, I am not saying the deity is "pulling the strings" making me pick option B. I am saying the deity knew in advance that I would pick B, therefore I could never really pick A or C (even though they were valid options, there were not sound options). Do not confuse the action of picking with the cognitive decision of selecting.

User avatar
Nickman
Site Supporter
Posts: 5443
Joined: Mon Sep 06, 2010 8:51 am
Location: Idaho
Been thanked: 1 time

Post #556

Post by Nickman »

JohnA wrote:
Nickman wrote:
JohnA wrote:
Nickman wrote: Just because someone can know the future doesn't negate free will. Ive argued for the omniscience = no free will many times. The fact is that being able to see something in a different time doesn't mean that the future has been dictated. A person will ultimately make a decision, God would just be able to see what that decision is. Also, his omniscience could be an amplified version of "counting cards." In black jack, many people can count exactly which card will be next based off of which cards have been played in the past. A deity could employ the same tactic, but to a higher degree. So although it may seem as free will is negated, the deity is just very good at calculation based on behavior. The very free will we call into jeopardy, could be the mechanism with which the deity is able to predict future outcomes.

Even if this is wrong, a deity could still see into the future and not negate free will. If omniscience is even possible to begin with.
Does not matter how good you are counting cards, no one person can predict the next card (unless it is the last card in a deck or decks) in black jack.
People can count cards with such precision that it is illegal in casinos. If they couldn't then casinos wouldn't be vigilant in trying to spot those who do it. Casinos lose money because people are so good at predicting which card is next in a deck consisting of 5 or more decks!
If the deity has no "control" over the "free will" options / choices then you dismiss all prophecies and have to admit the deity has no plan in mind. The deity is merely paying dice.

Remember, I am not saying the deity is "pulling the strings" making me pick option B. I am saying the deity knew in advance that I would pick B, therefore I could never really pick A or C (even though they were valid options).
I understand your argument, but there are many arguments, all which are logical. If a deity were outside of time looking in, he/she could see the beginning from the end.

You could have picked A or C but you didn't. Had you picked A or C, the deity would have known which one you would pick.

Your concept you are arguing from is one that requires a God to be inside of time.
I never rejected that people can count cards. What I am saying that no person can predict the exact next card (unless it is the last card in a shuffled deck).

This is my point:
Does not matter how good you are counting cards, no one person can predict the next card (unless it is the last card in a deck or decks) in black jack. The counter will only know what card is not likely (assuming 2 decks) next or what card (assuming 1 deck) will not be next because the counter knows what was played already.
The likelihood of getting the prediction (which card is not next) more accurate will vary, but I fail to understand how they can predict the next card (unless it is the last card in the deck / decks).

Again, there is only one argument, but various justifications to make the argument valid (and no argument to make it valid and sound since there is no evidence for any deities).

And exactly, I could have picked A or C, but since the deity already knew in advanced that I will pick B, options A / C were valid, but not sound options.

How can a deity be outside of time and know what is happening inside time, where is the link between timeless and time? How can the deity do anything as you need time for action/reaction if the deity is outside time? Offering illogical justifications for the contradiction is just admitting the justification itself is illogical.
It has already been pointed out that knowing something is not coersion or dictation. In order to negate free will, you have to have something that hinders it. Knowledge of something doesn't hinder free will.

JohnA
Banned
Banned
Posts: 752
Joined: Fri Sep 13, 2013 5:11 am

Post #557

Post by JohnA »

Nickman wrote:
JohnA wrote:
Nickman wrote:
JohnA wrote:
Nickman wrote: Just because someone can know the future doesn't negate free will. Ive argued for the omniscience = no free will many times. The fact is that being able to see something in a different time doesn't mean that the future has been dictated. A person will ultimately make a decision, God would just be able to see what that decision is. Also, his omniscience could be an amplified version of "counting cards." In black jack, many people can count exactly which card will be next based off of which cards have been played in the past. A deity could employ the same tactic, but to a higher degree. So although it may seem as free will is negated, the deity is just very good at calculation based on behavior. The very free will we call into jeopardy, could be the mechanism with which the deity is able to predict future outcomes.

Even if this is wrong, a deity could still see into the future and not negate free will. If omniscience is even possible to begin with.
Does not matter how good you are counting cards, no one person can predict the next card (unless it is the last card in a deck or decks) in black jack.
People can count cards with such precision that it is illegal in casinos. If they couldn't then casinos wouldn't be vigilant in trying to spot those who do it. Casinos lose money because people are so good at predicting which card is next in a deck consisting of 5 or more decks!
If the deity has no "control" over the "free will" options / choices then you dismiss all prophecies and have to admit the deity has no plan in mind. The deity is merely paying dice.

Remember, I am not saying the deity is "pulling the strings" making me pick option B. I am saying the deity knew in advance that I would pick B, therefore I could never really pick A or C (even though they were valid options).
I understand your argument, but there are many arguments, all which are logical. If a deity were outside of time looking in, he/she could see the beginning from the end.

You could have picked A or C but you didn't. Had you picked A or C, the deity would have known which one you would pick.

Your concept you are arguing from is one that requires a God to be inside of time.
I never rejected that people can count cards. What I am saying that no person can predict the exact next card (unless it is the last card in a shuffled deck).

This is my point:
Does not matter how good you are counting cards, no one person can predict the next card (unless it is the last card in a deck or decks) in black jack. The counter will only know what card is not likely (assuming 2 decks) next or what card (assuming 1 deck) will not be next because the counter knows what was played already.
The likelihood of getting the prediction (which card is not next) more accurate will vary, but I fail to understand how they can predict the next card (unless it is the last card in the deck / decks).

Again, there is only one argument, but various justifications to make the argument valid (and no argument to make it valid and sound since there is no evidence for any deities).

And exactly, I could have picked A or C, but since the deity already knew in advanced that I will pick B, options A / C were valid, but not sound options.

How can a deity be outside of time and know what is happening inside time, where is the link between timeless and time? How can the deity do anything as you need time for action/reaction if the deity is outside time? Offering illogical justifications for the contradiction is just admitting the justification itself is illogical.
It has already been pointed out that knowing something is not coersion or dictation. In order to negate free will, you have to have something that hinders it. Knowledge of something doesn't hinder free will.
You are straw manning me.

coercive or constraining
Remember, I am not saying the deity is "pulling the strings" making me pick option B. I am saying the deity knew in advance that I would pick B, therefore I could never really pick A or C (even though they were valid options, there were not sound options). Do not confuse the action of picking with the cognitive decision of selecting.

You do not need something to hinder it.
If I have a tensed string and let it go, I could calculate how much and how long it will vibrate for without interacting with the string (no coersion or dictation needed).

User avatar
Nickman
Site Supporter
Posts: 5443
Joined: Mon Sep 06, 2010 8:51 am
Location: Idaho
Been thanked: 1 time

Post #558

Post by Nickman »

[Replying to post 554 by JohnA]

It is not a straw man. It is a logical argument. One that we have been trying to point out. You cannot negate free will just by having knowledge of something. You could choose A, B or C and God can know which one you will choose.

JohnA
Banned
Banned
Posts: 752
Joined: Fri Sep 13, 2013 5:11 am

Post #559

Post by JohnA »

Nickman wrote: [Replying to post 554 by JohnA]

It is not a straw man. It is a logical argument. One that we have been trying to point out. You cannot negate free will just by having knowledge of something. You could choose A, B or C and God can know which one you will choose.

The straw man I was referring to was as per my previous post:
You seem to think that I imply for this co-existence issue (human free will/deity omniscience) I am saying the deity needs to dictate / interact with the human or with the human free will. I never said such a thing, hence I reposed my position.
If you did not imply this, then it was my mistake, but then you also confirm that no deity coersion or dictation needed to know human free will options/choices.

You cannot negate free will just by having knowledge of something.
I also wrote that you do not need to hinder something to know (predict) what it will do - tensed string example. So, I fail to see how your " In order to negate free will, you have to have something that hinders it." makes any sense.
You could choose A, B or C and God can know which one you will choose.
Correct, it does not matter which one I pick. The issue is that the deity knew in advance which one I will pick, so how were the other 2 option valid sound options if I could never pick it? (clarification: If I picked the one that the deity did not know I would pick, then surely the deity has no foreknowledge or at least faulty foreknowledge).

myth-one.com
Savant
Posts: 7469
Joined: Wed Aug 09, 2006 4:16 pm
Has thanked: 32 times
Been thanked: 98 times
Contact:

Post #560

Post by myth-one.com »

Nickman wrote:It has already been pointed out that knowing something is not coersion or dictation. In order to negate free will, you have to have something that hinders it. Knowledge of something doesn't hinder free will.
"Knowledge" of the future does.

The future is something unknown.

If even one being knows the future, then everything is known and fixed, and there is no free will.

But that isn't true by definition, thus man and the angels have true free will.

Post Reply