Board index Heaven and Hell

What we know about heaven and hell

Re: God shouldn't have created those who he knew would rejec

Postby Quack » Wed Apr 10, 2019 9:41 am

Could to elaborate on your second point? I don't see how God not creating those who would reject him affects the free will of those who he actually creates
Quack
 

Re: God shouldn't have created those who he knew would rejec

Postby jimwalton » Wed Apr 10, 2019 9:43 am

If free will is restricted to only what is good, the accepting of God's will and way, and to obedience, then it's not free. I have only one path that I am allowed to follow. When presented with a moral choice, I have no choice—I am forced to choose the good. When deliberating whether to follow God's will or my own, I am restricted from true deliberation because I cannot follow any other path than the one determined for me. If I am constrained to obey, then my obedience is more like coercion into submission rather than anything anyone would call obedience.

If God only created those who would accept Him, then those beings have no choice but to accept Him. There's nothing "free will" about that.
jimwalton
Site Admin
 
Posts: 9103
Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2012 2:28 pm

Re: God shouldn't have created those who he knew would rejec

Postby Quack » Wed Apr 10, 2019 5:47 pm

Let me see if I can get this straight... Let's say God could create two people. He knows Adam will sin but then freely repent, and he knows Eve will freely sin and then freely reject him. So, God does create Adam and doesn't create Eve. Does Eve's nonexistence remove Adam's free will?
Quack
 

Re: God shouldn't have created those who he knew would rejec

Postby jimwalton » Wed Apr 10, 2019 5:47 pm

Good point. Let's think this through. So God can see (and therefore know without determining) who will turn to Him and who will not. So He then creates only the ones who will turn to Him.

Except there's one thing that changes the entire picture. Without all the other people and all the other events that depend on those people, the entire history will change, human interactions will change, and all their experiences will now be different, and so what God "foresaw" in one situation will no longer be the situation at all, because now, due to free will, there may be a completely variant set of people's experiences and responses, so what He foresaw no longer counts. He has to "foresee" again. Now maybe some of those people who "hadn't been created" in the first place would have turned to Him in this new situation, and some of those who "had been created" would now turn against him, so we have to do it again. And again. And again. We have an endless loop of foreseeing that never results in creating anything. It's the Butterfly Effect, and since all of life is dynamic and not static, your proposed scenario can never be reality. That's how it strikes me.
jimwalton
Site Admin
 
Posts: 9103
Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2012 2:28 pm

Re: God shouldn't have created those who he knew would rejec

Postby Axis of Evil » Thu Apr 11, 2019 8:50 am

> we have no basis to presume they are giving us mostly reliable information.

Animals with accurate experiences are more likely to survive.

> At best it's 50-50

Care to support this claim?

> If theism is correct...

You haven't shown it is. If you can assume there's something about God that makes your thoughts accurate, so can I, but without God.

> to reduce a sentence or even commute a sentence when the conditions warrant.

That's not mercy. That's still justice.

> Of course there are, and those options are all on the table.

If people god to hell in any sense, then no, it's not on the table. A god that cared for our well being would do any of the options I mentioned and others to ensure no one suffered after they died.

> If I were your best friend and knew you very well, my knowledge would never make you do anything.

Because you don't know for certain.

> It is not the nature of knowledge to have causative power.

It doesn't make sense for "knowledge" to have a nature, but ignoring this, this is yet another instance of you ignoring the actual problem and just restating the claim.

> I have seen it, that's all.

Could I do otherwise after you had seen it? We are currently in the present and you have this knowledge of what I will choose. What are my options that don't affect your accuracy?
Axis of Evil
 

Re: God shouldn't have created those who he knew would rejec

Postby jimwalton » Thu Apr 11, 2019 8:50 am

> Animals with accurate experiences are more likely to survive.

I already addressed this. I said, "We have to distinguish between perceptions of reality and making abstract truth judgments." Perceptions of reality supplying us with accurate experiences is different than making abstract truth assessments. For example, processing what I just said has nothing to do with survival based on perceptions of accurate experiences.

> Care to support this claim?

Sure. If you read my post, you'll remember I included five quotes from notable atheistic or naturalist scholars. At any given juncture, whether or not I can believe what my brain is telling me is binary: either yes or no. Given that the system of genetic mutation and natural selection is not reliable to provide truth statements or to evaluate abstract truth statements, it's a toss of the coin, hence 50-50.

> "If theism is correct..." You haven't shown it is.

Of course I haven't. That's not the subject at hand, and the examination of such is a different discussion and much lengthier. If you wish to discuss that, I suggest you start another thread.

> If you can assume there's something about God that makes your thoughts accurate, so can I, but without God.

I don't just assume it. The logical and scientific case for the existence of God is much stronger than the case against. if we are inferring the most reasonable conclusion, theism is the more logical explanation.

> That's not mercy. That's still justice.

It's exactly my point that mercy is part of justice. A judicial system without mercy is a shell of what it should be. Justice is more than just a list of crimes and requisite sentences. In consideration of all the factors involved in a case (motive, intent, science, circumstances, what happened, and attitude about it), a good judge has leeway to make a sentence more harsh, more lenient, and across a range of possible durations. The statement I'm refuting is " 'All-just' is not possible along with 'all-merciful'. " My point is that they dovetail perfectly well, and actually necessarily.

> If people god to hell in any sense, then no, it's not on the table.

Then you misunderstand hell. As I said, "I'm assuming you're going by a very restrictive, "traditional" perspective on hell ('one fire fits all') that is simply not biblical and not accurately descriptive of God's action."

> A god that cared for our well being would do any of the options I mentioned and others to ensure no one suffered after they died.

So you think anybody should be able to get away with anything they want, and that's justice???? Hitler? Stalin? Pol Pot? Idi Amin? There's no accountability, and no consequences?

> Could I do otherwise after you had seen it?

If all I have done is travel forward in time to see what you chose, my seeing that doesn't negate your choice. Your "Could I do otherwise after you had seen it?" is a moot and absurd question. You're really asking, "Can I in theory choose differently from what I chose in historical reality?" Since it's your chosen reality that I merely observed, it's absurd to wonder if your chosen reality could be different than your chosen reality.
jimwalton
Site Admin
 
Posts: 9103
Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2012 2:28 pm

Re: God shouldn't have created those who he knew would rejec

Postby Quack » Thu Apr 11, 2019 9:26 am

> So God can see (and therefore know without determining)

Bro you are a breath of fresh air, actually understanding what I'm saying. I love you

> Now maybe some of those people who "hadn't been created" in the first place would have turned to Him in this new situation, and some of those who "had been created" would now turn against him, so we have to do it again.

This makes it seem like people who are saved in the actual world are simply lucky that God put them in the situation they found themselves in, and the unsaved are unlucky. It sounds like you're saying that our choices (even concerning ultimate matters like salvation) are determined by the situations we're in.
Quack
 

Re: God shouldn't have created those who he knew would rejec

Postby jimwalton » Thu Apr 11, 2019 9:27 am

I wouldn't use the word "lucky." But I would agree that our choices are at least partially determined by the situations we're in. We are conjunctions of nature and nurture, volition and environment. In a great wholistic agglomeration, we are free agents operating in a dynamic context. God is always at work, we are always free, and our environment and relationships also have an effect on us.

I believe that God invites all to salvation, but it is truly our choice whether or not to respond. I think that our situations do affect what input we have, how we make our decisions, and what we decide. That's pretty irrefutable, I'm guessing. The girl who grows up in an Islamic culture has very different experiences and perceptions of God than one who grows up in America, which is also different from secular Europe and also different from growing up in Communist China. But God speaks to us where we are, and we have a choice of whether or not to respond to Him. I think it's certain that our choices (and not just religious ones) are determined by the situations we're in.
jimwalton
Site Admin
 
Posts: 9103
Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2012 2:28 pm

Re: God shouldn't have created those who he knew would rejec

Postby Axis of Evil » Thu Apr 11, 2019 3:23 pm

> "We have to distinguish between perceptions of reality and making abstract truth judgments."

We don't. Your example doesn't show the distinction between evaluating perceptions of reality and "abstract truth judgements".

> At any given juncture, whether or not I can believe what my brain is telling me is binary: either yes or no.

This is a profoundly silly thing to say. Just because there are 2 options doesn't mean it's 50/50, nor that 50/50 is the default. You need evidence of this probability.

> I don't just assume it.

Do you presuppose that logic works like I do? If yes, then my point is made. If no, then you presuppose that something else accounts for it. Like other presuppositionalists who reject logical principles being axiomatic you would assert that God is the reason we can know things, right?

> It's exactly my point that mercy is part of justice.

If God let everyone off the hook would that not be more merciful than not?

> Then you misunderstand hell. As I said, "I'm assuming you're going by a very restrictive, "traditional" perspective on hell ('one fire fits all') that is simply not biblical and not accurately descriptive of God's action."

Again, no. I'm not assuming any type of hell other than one where people suffer.

> So you think anybody should be able to get away with anything they want, and that's justice???? Hitler? Stalin? Pol Pot? Idi Amin? There's no accountability, and no consequences?

Are you ignoring the other options I described? A possible consequence could be reincarnation to give them another chance. They could also be sent to heaven anyway and given an opportunity to undeniably see how they f***ed up and have an opportunity to repent. They could be sent to time-loop where they would simply live the same life for eternity.

> it's absurd to wonder if your chosen reality could be different than your chosen reality.

I'll just take this to mean "no, you couldn't choose differently than what was seen". Not being able to choose differently than an action you haven't taken yet (from your perspective at the minimum) is determinism.
Axis of Evil
 

Re: God shouldn't have created those who he knew would rejec

Postby jimwalton » Thu Apr 11, 2019 3:29 pm

> We don't. Your example doesn't show the distinction between evaluating perceptions of reality and "abstract truth judgements".

It's one thing to see a bear too close to me and make an "accurate perception" that I need to act in a certain way or I'm going to die. It's quite another to establish a network of telescopes across the planet to work together to take a snapshot of a black hole. It's one thing to recognize the truth that I need to eat food to survive and also to avoid poisonous food. It's another to contemplate the heliocentricity of the solar system. But if my reasoning power is the result of genetic mutation and natural selection, I have no particular ground to trust the veracity of any thought that comes to my head that has nothing to do with survival. I supported this line of thinking with quotes from five brainiacs.

> This is a profoundly silly thing to say. Just because there are 2 options doesn't mean it's 50/50, nor that 50/50 is the default. You need evidence of this probability.

If there are only two options, and there's no way to discern truth, then which one I choose to believe is a toss of the coin.

> Do you presuppose that logic works like I do? If yes, then my point is made. If no, then you presuppose that something else accounts for it. Like other presuppositionalists who reject logical principles being axiomatic you would assert that God is the reason we can know things, right?

I know that logic works, as you do. You haven't supported your case that evolutionary naturalism can reliably lead you to truthful reasoning. The principal function or purpose of our cognitive faculties is not that of producing true or near true beliefs, but instead that of contributing to survival by getting the body parts in the right place and by perceiving survival and threat properly. What evolution underwrites is only (at most) that our behavior is reasonably adaptive to the circumstances in which our ancestors found themselves, and therefore it doesn’t guarantee true or mostly true beliefs. Our beliefs might be mostly true, but there is no particular reason to think they would be: natural selection is not interested in truth, but in appropriate behavior. Evolution without God gives us reason to doubt two things: (a) that a purpose of our cognitive systems is that of serving us with true beliefs, and (b) that they do, in fact, furnish us with mostly true beliefs. Nietzsche, Nagel, Stroud, Churchland, and Darwin, all nontheists, concur that naturalistic evolution gives every a reason to doubt that human cognitive faculties produce for the most part true beliefs.

> Like other presuppositionalists who reject logical principles being axiomatic you would assert that God is the reason we can know things, right?

I am mostly an evidentialist, but I also understand that every discipline, science included, has to have some presuppositions to function. Necessary scientific presuppositions are things like (1) truth exists, (2) truth can be known, (3) the external world exists, (4) sense perception is basically reliable, (5) nature is intelligible, and such.

I think the reason we can know things is because God, an intelligent source, created us with the ability to reason. Therefore evidence and science are part of how we know what we know.

> If God let everyone off the hook would that not be more merciful than not?

No. If God let everyone off the hook it would not be just. Mercy has a certain place in justice, but mercy doesn't replace justice.

> Again, no. I'm not assuming any type of hell other than one where people suffer.

It depends what kind of suffering you mean. The Bible describes hell as spiritual suffering due to separation from God, and it uses various images to convey that agony: darkness, loneliness, fire, and destruction. The suffering people experience in hell is the result of their own choice to separate from God and all that He is (life, love, mercy, etc.). It's not a physical suffering as if you're being burned for eternity.

> Are you ignoring the other options I described?

You're right that I didn't address them. I will now.

Reincarnation, at least as taught by Hinduism, is the ultimate meaninglessness. Beings circle through an eternal chain of human being, animal, insect, cow—whatever—in search of the almost impossible to grasp golden ring of Nirvana. Each cycle is weighed according to “goodness” as to whether or not one advances upward in the line or downward, but how can one be a good cat or a good bug? And since they are told in life that life and even their station in life is determined by fate (karma), and it cannot be changed (and they shouldn’t try), their theology teaches them they are hopelessly caught in a meaningless string of determined life cycles that they cannot alter, from which they will likely never escape, and therefore, at core, life for most is ultimately meaningless. This is a poor option.

"They could also be sent to heaven anyway and given an opportunity to undeniably see how they f***ed up and have an opportunity to repent." This is actually a possibility. As I have mentioned several times now, possibly you're just looking at hell from a traditional viewpoint and haven't entertained the reality. There are a number of Christians who do not believe in the traditional concept of hell. There are theories about reconcilationism, semi-restorationism, modified eternalism, and annihilationism, all with some kind of scriptural backing. In other words, hell isn't necessarily eternal for all who enter it. It may only be eternal for those who refuse to be reconciled. The idea we hang on to most in the Bible is that God will be fair with people.
jimwalton
Site Admin
 
Posts: 9103
Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2012 2:28 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Heaven and Hell

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest