When God knows a soul goes to hell..

[sin_is_fun]

When God knows a soul is going to go to hell ,why does he still create that soul?Why create that soul ,judge it later and send it to eternal hell?Stopping creation of such souls seems to be a better option.Why does God create souls knowing fully well that it will land up in eternal hell?

[Bugmaster]

I think that God does care about human souls, and that God does interact with human beings. I just don't think God is a person.

Isn't that a contradiction ? How can a non-person care about things ? Caring, as I understand it, is an emotion, and as such it requires a personality of some sort.

No way. Deism is that God created the world and let it function according to the laws that God put out there to control things.

Fair enough; if your God intervenes actively in the Universe, then it is not a Deist God. Sorry for misreading your views.

I don't think that is true. God is fully omnipotent. There is nothing that cannot stop God from accomplishing God's will. Any obstacles that does exist only exists because God choose a decision that as a result implies that God must accept the consequences of that thing.

Again, this seems like a contradiction to me. A truly omnipotent entity would not need to deal with consequences if it didn't feel like it; it could just "miracle them away", as Terry Pratchett might put it. But I do agree with you that the Biblical God is not, in fact, truly omnipotent; he is merely very powerful (and still weaker than your concept of God). I feel that the issue of omnipotence (as well as other "omni-s") is important, however, because there are some cosmological arguments for God's existence that rely on it.

However, I'd be curious to find out how you arrived at the attributes you ascribe to your God (omni-everything, eternal, etc.), since, presumably, you do not view the Bible as an accurate source of information.

I originally came to religion sort of by accident...

I appreciate hearing your story; I'll check out that link when I have a chance. However, you answered a different question than the one I asked. What I meant to ask was, "why do you feel philosophically justified in believing that your God is omni-everything ?", or "what line of reasoning do you use to arrive at the attributes you ascribe to your God ?". It seems to me that your concept of God does not require omni-everything-ness in order to be internally consistent.

I would also like to point out that the kind of God you believe in -- an impersonal, abstract entity with a limited range of powers, who is not interested in constant worship, and does not personally create souls -- is incompatible with mainstream Christianity. The mainstream Christian slogan is, "you have to have a personal relationship with Jesus"; however, I don't see how it's possible to have a relationship with your God; it's just too alien (I have a feeling that C.S.Lewis would support you, though). Furthermore, the Christian god demands constant worhsip, and dervies most of his authority from his status as the primary and immediate creator of all that exists, including souls; your God cannot claim such status.

[Bugmaster]

I know this is QED's show, but I'd like to butt in anyway :-)

No, the mistake is to move from wave function-talk to "wave functions aren't necessary anymore"-talk. I think it is better to stick with wave function-talk at even classical encounters such as microbes and me and you having this discussion.

Why ? Are you saying that a discussion of the decision-making process must necessarily include wave functions, even if we're talking about a microbe ? How is the decision-making process any different from, say, breathing or blood circulation ? We don't need wave functions to understand these processes, and I don't see why decision-making must be categorically different from them.

[Bugmaster]

But, it's not the same. Quantum laws are not material regularities, they are platonic structures that exist "out there" that determine what is possible/probable and what is not possible/probable.

Eeeerrgh... What ? Are you saying that the Uncertainty principle is categorically different from, say, Newtonian Mechanics ? That it operates in the Platonic realm, whereas Newtonian Mechanics operates in the physical realm ? That sounds fairly wrong to me, but maybe I misunderstood your post.

[harvey1]

Eeeerrgh... What ? Are you saying that the Uncertainty principle is categorically different from, say, Newtonian Mechanics ? That it operates in the Platonic realm, whereas Newtonian Mechanics operates in the physical realm ? That sounds fairly wrong to me, but maybe I misunderstood your post.

No. Newtonian mechanics is an approximation to quantum mechanics. It's possible that the uncertainty principle can be more generalized with some yet undiscovered theory, however the uncertainty principle is a theorem in the theory of operators, a derivation of the Cramer-Rao inequality, derivation of the Fourier transform on general locally compact groups, formulation for Fourier integral operators on manifolds, along with other deep mathematical concepts. So, I would argue that the uncertainty principle points to some kind of platonic structure that has deep mathematical significance. Given its importance in explaining the virtual particles, Casimir effect, Hawking radiation, etc., I think we have good reason to believe that the immaterial affects the material.

[harvey1]

I know this is QED's show, but I'd like to butt in anyway

Jump in anytime...

No, the mistake is to move from wave function-talk to "wave functions aren't necessary anymore"-talk. I think it is better to stick with wave function-talk at even classical encounters such as microbes and me and you having this discussion.

Why ? Are you saying that a discussion of the decision-making process must necessarily include wave functions, even if we're talking about a microbe ? How is the decision-making process any different from, say, breathing or blood circulation ? We don't need wave functions to understand these processes, and I don't see why decision-making must be categorically different from them.

I'm not sure whether classical sciences will ever be compelled to consider the implications of quantum cosmology for their models. (Although, it is quite possible that the brain will eventually require psi to describe the processes that occur in the brain.)

However what I was pointing out to QED is that there is metaphysical significance to these wave functions. If they are real (i.e., they "exist"), then I think the concept of a soul can be understood with this concept.

[QED]

I would argue that the uncertainty principle points to some kind of platonic structure that has deep mathematical significance. Given its importance in explaining the virtual particles, Casimir effect, Hawking radiation, etc., I think we have good reason to believe that the immaterial affects the material.

In order to keep things on topic here I've started a new thread where we can discuss this further.

[harvey1]

Isn't that a contradiction ? How can a non-person care about things ? Caring, as I understand it, is an emotion, and as such it requires a personality of some sort.

By saying God is not a person, I don't mean that God is not capable of being personable. I mean rather that God does not have a sequential set of thoughts, which is a criteria that I personally think is necessary to be a person. You cannot be a person and not have thoughts at a specific time relative to your own frame of reference. That wouldn't make sense.

But, I think there is a Cambridge change with respect to God's thoughts. As our relation to God changes, so also God's relation to us changes. As human beings progress spiritually, they approach a higher latitude of God's thoughts, and therefore the care and attention that God gives to human beings also grows.

Again, this seems like a contradiction to me. A truly omnipotent entity would not need to deal with consequences if it didn't feel like it; it could just "miracle them away", as Terry Pratchett might put it.

The problem I have with that is it's fairly easy to show that this leads to absurdity, and therefore the concept is meaningless. For me, when I use the term "omnipotence" I am not referring to a meaningless concept. I'm referring to an attribute of all-powerfulness that distinguishes it from lacking power due to greater powers that exist. There are no greater powers that exist than God. I don't consider logical necessity or physical necessity (i.e., an indirect consequence of logical necessity) to be a "power."

What I meant to ask was, "why do you feel philosophically justified in believing that your God is omni-everything ?", or "what line of reasoning do you use to arrive at the attributes you ascribe to your God ?". It seems to me that your concept of God does not require omni-everything-ness in order to be internally consistent.

My argument for God's omni-ness is due to the special job that God performs with respect to truth. In my view, in order for something to be true, then a truth relation must be satisfied. This particular aspect of the truth relation is a satisfaction relation. In order for the satisfaction relation to obtain, I need the omni-ness of God to meet the conditions of that criteria. For example, in order for a truth relation to be satisfied, there cannot be any knowledge out there that would make the truth relation false. So, I need an all-knowing and all-present God to make sure that is impossible.

I would also like to point out that the kind of God you believe in -- an impersonal, abstract entity with a limited range of powers, who is not interested in constant worship, and does not personally create souls -- is incompatible with mainstream Christianity. The mainstream Christian slogan is, "you have to have a personal relationship with Jesus"; however, I don't see how it's possible to have a relationship with your God; it's just too alien (I have a feeling that C.S.Lewis would support you, though).

Down the at the lower latitudes of God's awareness, you are right. You would be worshipping the laws of physics at the lower levels, and there would not be much warmth coming back at you. However, as we reach out in prayer to high heaven, we connect with God's higher level of consciousness where we call out to God as our Father in Heaven.

Furthermore, the Christian god demands constant worhsip, and dervies most of his authority from his status as the primary and immediate creator of all that exists, including souls; your God cannot claim such status.

But, what does worship actually mean? What is one doing by worshipping God? I think most atheists assume that if such a God existed, then such a God is nothing short of an ego-maniac. However, I think this is incorrect. God, as an omniscient interpreter of truth, seeks to confirm that something is true. That's why I think God instantiates the divine creations. God is seeking out what is eternally true, and therefore needs eternal preservation as "truth." I think truth and meaning have a very close relationship in all of this, and if meaning is found in worshipping of God, then it is true. Therefore, in this sense, it would be important for God to be worshipped since this would be evidence of meaning in the world. God saves that. Literally.

[Bugmaster]

By saying God is not a person, I don't mean that God is not capable of being personable.

What's the difference ?

I mean rather that God does not have a sequential set of thoughts, which is a criteria that I personally think is necessary to be a person. You cannot be a person and not have thoughts at a specific time relative to your own frame of reference. That wouldn't make sense.

I agree, hence my puzzled question above.

But, I think there is a Cambridge change with respect to God's thoughts. As our relation to God changes, so also God's relation to us changes. As human beings progress spiritually, they approach a higher latitude of God's thoughts, and therefore the care and attention that God gives to human beings also grows.

It sounds like you're arguing for a sort of Ascension: as human beings progress spiritually, they become more and more like gods (or, perhaps, like a collective meta-god, EVA-style). Eventually, they will grow spiritual enough to acquire qualities of omni-everythingness, or at least timelessness, at which point they'll be able to communicate with God on a meaningful level.

On the emotional level, I find this view very satisfying; it's certainly a more sensible view of Heaven than angelic choirs with harps. However, on the theological level, I think this view is a bit more shaky.

First of all, the ascended humanity you envision is, once again, quite alien to us. These beings may be enlightened and wise, but they will not be human in any reasonable sense of the word, because (as you pointed out) human beings are persons, with sequential thouhgts, not timeless omniscient entities. Thus, we can speculate about Ascension, but we cannot imagine what it truly would be like, and whether it's a worthy goal at all.

Secondly, this view is, once again, quite un-Christian, and bordering on anti-Christian (heh heh heh). The Biblical God comes down hard on anyone who tries to achieve godhood -- starting with Adam and Eve and the Tower of Babel, and continuing on from there. Even the First Commandment can be seen as an admonition against Ascension. In the Bible, God is supreme, and attempting to achieve a state of being resembling his is a sin.

In fact, your God sounds a lot more Gnostic than Christian; historically, the Gnostic-Christian debate has been framed in terms of crusades :-)

The problem I have with that is it's fairly easy to show that this leads to absurdity, and therefore the concept is meaningless. For me, when I use the term "omnipotence" I am not referring to a meaningless concept. I'm referring to an attribute of all-powerfulness that distinguishes it from lacking power due to greater powers that exist.

Understood, though it's debatable whether God's omnipotence (of the kind you describe) is in itself a logical necessity... But that's another topic.

My argument for God's omni-ness is due to the special job that God performs with respect to truth. In my view, in order for something to be true, then a truth relation must be satisfied.

As you know, I hold a quite different view: truth is just a concept in our heads, and thus we do not need to invent a whole new entity (God) in order to explain it. However, this is a topic for our other thread, or maybe for QED's new thread. Let's get back to theology:

However, as we reach out in prayer to high heaven, we connect with God's higher level of consciousness where we call out to God as our Father in Heaven.

Firstly, how can you be sure you're really connecting with God's consciousness, and not just hallucinating, or exploring your own inner consciousness (or both) ?

But, what does worship actually mean? What is one doing by worshipping God?

This is a very good question. As I -- admittedly, a callous atheist -- see it, mainstream worship includes but is not limited to the following:

* Acknowledgment of God's supremacy over men
* Providing positive feedback to God by means of prayer; specifically
o Praising God when good things happen in life
o Asking God for forgiveness when bad things happen in life
* Thanking God daily for our continued existence
* Engaging in religious rituals, either public (e.g. the Mass) or private (putting your hands together and bowing your head)
* Asking God's advice on matters of daily life (e.g., whom to marry)
* Following at least some of God's commandments; examples include:
o Condemning homosexuals
o Loving thy neighbour
o Restricting one's diet in certain ways
o Abstaining from pre-marital sex (or from all sex entirely)
o Not meddling in things man was not meant to know
o Donating to charity
* In general, dedicating certain actions to God; i.e., performing these actions with the explicit purpose of serving God's will.

I think that this is what most people think of when they hear the word "worship"; particulary, the first part (acknowledging God's supremacy over men). Now, you might tell me that this is not what true worship is like; nonetheless, this is what most people mean by it. Thus, while your views regarding God's nature may be true (assuming God exists at all), I would still argue that they're not compatible with mainstream Christianity.

[Cathar1950]

Bugmaster wrote:

I think that this is what most people think of when they hear the word "worship"; particulary, the first part (acknowledging God's supremacy over men). Now, you might tell me that this is not what true worship is like; nonetheless, this is what most people mean by it. Thus, while your views regarding God's nature may be true (assuming God exists at all), I would still argue that they're not compatible with mainstream Christianity.

I sometimes wonder how much is theology and how much is psychology.
I have troubles with mainstream Christianity. It mostly seems to be an invention of Paul's sometimes troubled mind. What he worked out with his visions may have satisfied him but I am not sure if he left a sane ground to stand on. The virgin birth and a sacrifice and god-man all seem just a little magical. Harvey makes more sense then some of these ideas. Although I am a little confused on the truth issue. It would seem satisfaction could take many forms. The material world may have enough unknown qualities that there is no need to have a God outside nature or separate from creation. It seems much of what we talk about God are ideas of our own creation. I don't deny an objective universe but it seems like our minds recreate it for our use and is also subjective if not imagination. I read of studies where what is going on in the brain when we remember looks a like what goes on when we experience. It all seems to be memory and the experience is just an intense memory.
I love this discussion and wish I have a time machine and an electron accelerator.

[unicorn]

QED: I really don't care if people think I am arrogant. Secondly, my tactic is valid...people learn best when they seek for themselves. If they continue to have questions, they can come back and ask. Sorry if you don't like that, either..

McCulloch: I never said that the bible teaches the theory of relativity, but that it is supported by the theory and vice versa. So, I am glad that you finally agree with me!