Heaven and Hell role reversal

[Foster Zygote]

We are told by believers that we must deny ourselves the pleasures of the flesh in this life in order to earn our reward in the next. So, the way I see it Hell would be the boring place with all the monochrome scenery and harps and boring stuff while heaven would be all booze 'n' drugs 'n' hookers 'n' rock & roll etc.

Comments? =0)

Steven

[ceo_esq]

Could be. I've never understood why some people think Hell (if it existed) would be all booze 'n' drugs 'n' hookers 'n' rock & roll. I wonder if they also think jail must be the place where we can joyride in stolen cars, plunder our companies' pension funds, and rob banks to our hearts' content?

[Bruno Putzeys]

(rather personal interpretation of church history)

Heaven and hell were invented to escape the obvious logical problem: if God is all-powerful and he is all-just, how come there is so much evil in the world? Answer: God will provide justice in the afterlife. Which means he'll provide happiness in afterlife to those who had a miserable life, and misery to those who've made life way too happy for themselves.
Next question is: so what happens when you've had an utterly average life? Answer: avoid having an utterly average life. Make life as horrible for yourself as you possibly can.

[UndercoverElephant]

(rather personal interpretation of church history)

Heaven and hell were invented to escape the obvious logical problem: if God is all-powerful and he is all-just, how come there is so much evil in the world?


Heaven and Hell are not need to escape this problem. All that is needed is free will.

[Dr Adequate]

Heaven and Hell are not need to escape this problem. All that is needed is free will. :notm

[MRC_Hans]

Actually, not all hells are described as fire and brimstone. For instance the hell of Innuits is "the land of hanging heads", where people are simply bored.

And that makes sense: The only torment you could realistically give an immortal soul is eternal boredom. Which would, of course, not be too bad a threat to all us introverts ;).

Hans

[grayman]

Make a note of it: in man's heaven there are no exercises for the intellect, nothing for it to live upon. It would rot there in a year -- rot and stink. Rot and stink -- and at that stage become holy. A blessed thing: for only the holy can stand the joys of that bedlam. - Mark Twain Letters From Earth

[UndercoverElephant]

:notm

OK, free will and the fact the God is not capable of preventing natural disasters. Between them, natural disasters and human evil account for most of the sufferings of the world. God clearly cannot prevent the former and according to Christianity has chosen not to prevent the latter by granting us free will.

[MRC_Hans]

OK, free will and the fact the God is not capable of preventing natural disasters. Between them, natural disasters and human evil account for most of the sufferings of the world. God clearly cannot prevent the former and according to Christianity has chosen not to prevent the latter by granting us free will.Ehr, God is supposed to be omnipotent. So she has chosen not to prevent natural disasters (which, in Cristian cultures, are indeed called "acts of God")

.... And you forgot disease. Disease is the cause of much suffering, and humans are the only ones doing something about it.

Hans

[UndercoverElephant]

Ehr, God is supposed to be omnipotent. So she has chosen not to prevent natural disasters (which, in Cristian cultures, are indeed called "acts of God")


I've had this debate on this forum before. The claim that we have free will and the claim that God can accurately predict natural disasters are logically incompatible. If we have free will, then the future is not exactly predetermined. If the future is not exactly predetermined then even an omniscient God cannot perfectly know the future because the future is logically unknowable. It is no different to an omnipotent God not still not being able to create square circles.


.... And you forgot disease. Disease is the cause of much suffering, and humans are the only ones doing something about it.



OK, given that unless you are a young-earther you also accept that the existence of God is compatible with an evolutionary explanation of the origin of species, you also have to say that God is not in control of diseases.

Most Christians do not believe in a young earth and do not believe that God engineered every species on Earth. Natural disasters and diseases appear to be an unavoidable part of our reality. Human-created evil appears to be avoidable, at least theoretically.

[This Guy]

Could be. I've never understood why some people think Hell (if it existed) would be all booze 'n' drugs 'n' hookers 'n' rock & roll. I wonder if they also think jail must be the place where we can joyride in stolen cars, plunder our companies' pension funds, and rob banks to our hearts' content?

Well, we can only speculate about heaven/hell, or accept the various interpretations of biblical passages dealing with them, since we have no hard evidence to base our understanding on.

Jails on the other hand have a good deal of physical evidence to base opinions on. I would be surprised if anyone thinks a jail would be the place they can joyride in stolen cars, and the other things you mention. I'd be willing to bet that the majority of people believe jails are places you get sent to for being caught doing those things you listed.

Maybe we can get a show of hands? ;)

[Ladewig]

I've had this debate on this forum before. The claim that we have free will and the claim that God can accurately predict natural disasters are logically incompatible. If we have free will, then the future is not exactly predetermined. If the future is not exactly predetermined then even an omniscient God cannot perfectly know the future because the future is logically unknowable. It is no different to an omnipotent God not still not being able to create square circles.



OK, given that unless you are a young-earther you also accept that the existence of God is compatible with an evolutionary explanation of the origin of species, you also have to say that God is not in control of diseases.

Most Christians do not believe in a young earth and do not believe that God engineered every species on Earth. Natural disasters and diseases appear to be an unavoidable part of our reality. Human-created evil appears to be avoidable, at least theoretically.

I can see your point about free will, omniscience, and disease; after all, the likelyhood of catching many diseases depends on the actions of individuals. But natural disasters are not related to human activity and free-will. The recent underwater earthquake in the Indian Ocean was not related to human activity at all. Surely God could have predicted that event, despite the existence of free will.

[Ossai]

JustGeoff
The claim that we have free will and the claim that God can accurately predict natural disasters are logically incompatible. If we have free will, then the future is not exactly predetermined. If the future is not exactly predetermined then even an omniscient God cannot perfectly know the future because the future is logically unknowable. Superman is more powerful than god. Superman can’t predict the future, yet when a natural disaster starts he steps in and does what he can to lessen death, injury and property damage.

It is no different to an omnipotent God not still not being able to create square circles. An omnipotent god could make a square circle.

Ossai

[This Guy]

If we have free will, then the future is not exactly predetermined.

[snipped a lot, to show only the part I'm commenting on]



When I thought such things mattered, my opinion on free will/predestination was that we are free to do what we want. But the all knowing invisible sky man already knows what we are going to do.

So, while we are free to do what we want, HE knows the things we will do and how they will end up. He hasn't set the course, he just knows where we're going, so to speak.

That was my opinion then. Now, I just think I'll have another round ;)

[KingMerv00]

Heaven and Hell are not need to escape this problem. All that is needed is free will.

If God is omnipotent he could prevent suffering AND give us free will.

[KingMerv00]

JustGeoff
Superman is more powerful than god. Superman can’t predict the future, yet when a natural disaster starts he steps in and does what he can to lessen death, injury and property damage.

Heck, HUMANS are more powerful than God in that respect. Doesn't the Almighty have access to doppler radar?

It amuses me how some of the faithful are prepared to reduce God's power. It never occurs to them to reduce God's benevolence.

[gfunkusarelius]

when i was in sundayschool they showed us video that heaven would be full of bikes and cheeseburgers. there were no drugs, but the burgers looked good and it was all you could eat (an angel even pulled one out from behind a tree).

[KingMerv00]

when i was in sundayschool they showed us video that heaven would be full of bikes and cheeseburgers. there were no drugs, but the burgers looked good and it was all you could eat (an angel even pulled one out from behind a tree).

Well, I can't ride a bike anymore and I get tired of cheeseburgers kinda quickly.

[andyandy]

I've had this debate on this forum before. The claim that we have free will and the claim that God can accurately predict natural disasters are logically incompatible. If we have free will, then the future is not exactly predetermined. If the future is not exactly predetermined then even an omniscient God cannot perfectly know the future because the future is logically unknowable. It is no different to an omnipotent God not still not being able to create square circles.



if god is neither omniscient nor omnipotent then why worship him - he's just an extra-terrestrial being......

[Beerina]

OK, free will and the fact the God is not capable of preventing natural disasters. Between them, natural disasters and human evil account for most of the sufferings of the world. God clearly cannot prevent the former and according to Christianity has chosen not to prevent the latter by granting us free will.

Worst of all, it turns out letting people be free to pursue their greedy, capitalist pursuits does a hell of a lot better for the "common man" than two thousand years of preaching "help thy neighbor".

How embarassing for God!

[Beerina]

when i was in sundayschool they showed us video that heaven would be full of bikes and cheeseburgers. there were no drugs, but the burgers looked good and it was all you could eat (an angel even pulled one out from behind a tree).

Presumably they supply free drugs to deal with the trans fatty acids.

[Bruno Putzeys]

Throwing in Free Will only muddies the waters further. It's always the same with believers. They hold an illogical position. To get out of it, they make it so illogical nobody can sort it out (to their satisfaction) and thus they claim victory. Really the theodicy problem is THE nail in theism's coffin and no amount of fuzzification will do much about it.

[drkitten]

I've had this debate on this forum before. The claim that we have free will and the claim that God can accurately predict natural disasters are logically incompatible. If we have free will, then the future is not exactly predetermined. If the future is not exactly predetermined then even an omniscient God cannot perfectly know the future because the future is logically unknowable. It is no different to an omnipotent God not still not being able to create square circles.


It's interesting, though, that our human ability to predict natural disasters demonstrably (and substantially) exceeds that of the supposedly "omniscient" God.

Similarly, our human ability act to mitigate or prevent natural disasters demonstrably (and substantially) exceeds that of the supposedly "omnipotent" God.

We can, for example, predict flooding and issue evacuation warnings. We can issue tornado watches, and predict dangerous heat waves. We're tracking a tropical storm (Beryl) off the Carolina coast right now. and have identified another area of "tropical cyclone formation possible" off the south coast of Mexico. God apparently either can't or won't.

As kingMerv put it -- doesn't God have access to Doppler radar?

[Beleth]

I've had this debate on this forum before. The claim that we have free will and the claim that God can accurately predict natural disasters are logically incompatible. If we have free will, then the future is not exactly predetermined. If the future is not exactly predetermined then even an omniscient God cannot perfectly know the future because the future is logically unknowable. It is no different to an omnipotent God not still not being able to create square circles.
But humans are not omnipotent and therefore there are things beyond our influence. Events in that category can be accurately predicted by a sufficiently-potent and sufficiently-knowledgable God. Natural disasters fall under that category; therefore there is no logical incompatibility.

Natural disasters and diseases appear to be an unavoidable part of our reality. Human-created evil appears to be avoidable, at least theoretically.
Human-created evil is only avoidable by the removal of free will.

[KingMerv00]

Human-created evil is only avoidable by the removal of free will.

Nah. God can do anything.

At the very least, he could make pain not hurt so much.

[UndercoverElephant]

I can see your point about free will, omniscience, and disease; after all, the likelyhood of catching many diseases depends on the actions of individuals. But natural disasters are not related to human activity and free-will. The recent underwater earthquake in the Indian Ocean was not related to human activity at all. Surely God could have predicted that event, despite the existence of free will.

Not exactly. The nature of chaotic systems like two tectonic plates meeting makes it very hard to say what finally causes the rock the give way after 80 years of stasis. There is no direct connection between free will and rock eight miles beneath the surface, so God should have been able to know that there was going to be a big one in the vicinity some time soon. But then we know there is a going to be a big one in the vicinity of Istanbul some time in the next two years. That won't stop 40,000 people from getting killed because nobody knows exactly when it is going to happen.

Free will is only relevant because it is continually resetting the system. It's like 6,000,000,000 pairs of butterfly wings......

[UndercoverElephant]

An omnipotent god could make a square circle.

Ossai

Eh?

A square circle is a logically incoherent concept. It cannot exist. How can God bring into existence something which, by definition, cannot logically exist?

[KingMerv00]

Not exactly. The nature of chaotic systems like two tectonic plates meeting makes it very hard to say what finally causes the rock the give way after 8- years of stasis. There is no direct connection between free will and rock eight miles beneath the surface, so God should have been able to know that there was going to be a big one in the vicinity some time soon. But then we know there is a going to be a big one in the vicinity of Istanbul some time in the next two years. That won't stop 40,000 people from getting killed because nobody knows exactly when it is going to happen.

Free will is only relevant because it is continually resetting the system. It's like 6,000,000,000 pairs of butterfly wings......

Why not just conclude that God doesn't particularly care about us?

ETA: I'm still not getting how free will causes earthquakes.

[KingMerv00]

Eh?

A square circle is a logically incoherent concept. It cannot exist. How can God bring into existence something which, by definition, cannot logically exist?

God can change logic.

[UndercoverElephant]

When I thought such things mattered, my opinion on free will/predestination was that we are free to do what we want. But the all knowing invisible sky man already knows what we are going to do.


But that cannot possibly make sense. If He already knows what you are going to do, how can you possibly do anything else? For Hell to be a just punishment for something you have done, surely there had to some remote chance of you not doing whatever bad thing you did?

[UndercoverElephant]

If God is omnipotent he could prevent suffering AND give us free will.

How? If we have free will then we have the freedom to impose needless suffering on other human beings and there is nothing God can do to stop it. By granting us free will, God voluntarily gives up a degree of omnipotence.

[UndercoverElephant]

Heck, HUMANS are more powerful than God in that respect. Doesn't the Almighty have access to doppler radar?

It amuses me how some of the faithful are prepared to reduce God's power. It never occurs to them to reduce God's benevolence.

God cannot be omnibenevolent in the way many theists believe either. GWB thinks God is on his side. OBL thinks God is on his side. Both of them cannot be completely correct.

[KingMerv00]

How? If we have free will then we have the freedom to impose needless suffering on other human beings and there is nothing God can do to stop it. By granting us free will, God voluntarily gives up a degree of omnipotence.

I don't know how. He is God for Christ's sake. He can do anything. Even the illogical. Why? Because he is God. How? He's God.

It is so much easier simply to believe that if God exists, he is just enjoys the suffering.

[UndercoverElephant]

if god is neither omniscient nor omnipotent then why worship him - he's just an extra-terrestrial being......

Nothing I said makes God non-omniscient or non-omnipotent. Omniscience only means "Knowing everything that is knowable/known." and omnipotence only means "Capable of doing anything logically possible."

Also, I never suggested God wanted to be worshipped. I am not defending Christianity here.

[UndercoverElephant]

Why not just conclude that God doesn't particularly care about us?


Maybe he doesn't. I guess His priority has to be the well-being of the whole above the well-being of each individual being.


ETA: I'm still not getting how free will causes earthquakes.

It doesn't. It just makes the future fundamentally unknowable. A human action could affect the precise timing of an earthquake. Let's say there is a system under tension, like the fault off Indonesia that finally shifted 18 months ago and set off the tsunamis. What decided the precise moment it breaks? Perhaps somewhere along the line somebody set off some explosives in an open-cast copper-mind. Free will can affect this by being the last straw which breaks the camels back, or the abscence of the last straw. Nothing a human could do would change the fact that some time around 18 months ago that fault was going to snap. But human action could (and must) have influenced the precise timing, even if it was very marginal. If there is no free will and hard determinism is true then the precise timing would have been absolutely knowable to any being in possession of the relevant information be it human or God.

[UndercoverElephant]

God can change logic.

I don't agree. Even God is bound by logic.

[UndercoverElephant]

I don't know how. He is God for Christ's sake. He can do anything. Even the illogical. Why? Because he is God. How? He's God.


If God had given me the free will to choose my own actions and I choose to murder somebody for no reason other than enjoy causing misery then God cannot prevent the Geoff-induced misery. He can only prevent it by denying me free will in the first place.

[I less than three logic]

How did free will in a chaotic system affect or prevent God from being able to predict and/or prevent this?
...Next morning the daughter arose, and having prepared breakfast, went to the adjoining room to call her father, and was horrified to find him lying upon his shattered bed, a mutilated corpse. Her screams brought the husband quickly to the bedroom, and an inspection disclosed a ragged opening in the roof, directly over the breast of the unfortunate man, which was torn through as if by a cannon shot, and extending downward through the bedding and floor; other holes showed the direction taken by the deadly missile. Subsequent search revealed the fact that the awful calamity was caused by the fall of a meteoric stone, and the stone itself, pyramidal in shape and weighing twenty pounds and a few ounces, avoirdupois, and stained with blood, was unearthed from a depth of nearly five feet, thus showing the fearful impetus with which it struck the building. The position of the corpse, showed the victim was asleep when stricken, and that death, to him was painless.
http://www.meteoritearticles.com/znp01311879.html

[KingMerv00]

Maybe he doesn't. I guess His priority has to be the well-being of the whole above the well-being of each individual being.

You are missing the point. What makes you think that God cares about humanity at all? Why is goodness assumed?

It doesn't. It just makes the future fundamentally unknowable. A human action could affect the precise timing of an earthquake. Let's say there is a system under tension, like the fault off Indonesia that finally shifted 18 months ago and set off the tsunamis. What decided the precise moment it breaks? Perhaps somewhere along the line somebody set off some explosives in an open-cast copper-mind. Free will can affect this by being the last straw which breaks the camels back, or the abscence of the last straw. Nothing a human could do would change the fact that some time around 18 months ago that fault was going to snap. But human action could (and must) have influenced the precise timing, even if it was very marginal. If there is no free will and hard determinism is true then the precise timing would have been absolutely knowable to any being in possession of the relevant information be it human or God.

I temporarily cede the point for the sake of argument. Why did God create a word where Earthquakes are possible? Why have meteors?

Can God do anything godly?

[KingMerv00]

I don't agree. Even God is bound by logic.

How would you know?

[UndercoverElephant]

You are missing the point. What makes you think that God cares about humanity at all? Why is goodness assumed?


"Goodness" tends to be defined by humans in a very subjective way. What I think is good may not be what you think is good. What is good for me may not be good for you. What is good for OBL is probably bad news for GWB. So ascribing "perfect goodness" to God may be illogical too, unless you define "absolute goodness" and I doubt anyone can do so.


I temporarily cede the point for the sake of argument. Why did God create a word where Earthquakes are possible? Why have meteors?


The Earthquake question has come up before.

Maybe it is impossible to have a life-supporting planet with no Earthquakes. There is in fact a very good reason why there are Earthquakes on Earth and none on Mars or Venus. Our planet has a very odd history. Unlike Mars or Venus, the Earth-Moon system is the result of a collision between two planets. The heavy cores of both planets ended up becoming the Earth, and the moon is composed of the lightest material ejected from the collision. This event has been absolutely critical to the existence of life on Earth because it resulted in the earth having an very very dense core. We have an overabundance of iron and heavy metals, precisely because our planet consists of the heaviest parts of two planets. There are a number of effects of this. One of them is absolutely critical for the existence of living things on this planet. The Earth has a massive Iron-nickel core which provide it with a magnetic field strong enough to deflect most of the harmful solar radiation. If this magnetic field fails (as it does from time to time when the poles reverse) then life on Earth suffers mass-extinctions. If it were to disappear completely, then the Earth could not support life as we know it. So it can be argued that one of the main reasons why Earth supports life and other planets apparently do not is because we have this magnetic field and that the magnetic field only occurs because we have a super-dense core. But the super-dense core is also the root cause of earthquakes. The core of the Earth is kept hot by the nuclear decay of heavy metals like Plutonium and Uranium. The reason the Earth is still geologically active, rather than dead like the moon, mars and venus, is because it has a heavy core laced with radioactive metals. Without the core, we die from solar radiation. With it, Earthquakes and volcanic eruptions cannot be avoided.

Regardless of God, it is impossible to be protected from the solar wind on a planet that is geologically inactive.

[UndercoverElephant]

How would you know?

I'm stupid.

[KingMerv00]

I'm stupid.

No you're not. You seem quite intelligent to me.

The point I'm making is that you can know nothing about God. You can try to make excuses for an invisible, undetectable being but you will always end up grasping at straws. It is the same as asking "How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?"

Sorry if I sound like I am trying to be difficult, I'm not. I am just saying that there is no way to speak authoritatively about God or what his is thinking.

Anyway, the simplier explanation for suffering is an evil or deist god.

[KingMerv00]

"Goodness" tends to be defined by humans in a very subjective way. What I think is good may not be what you think is good. What is good for me may not be good for you. What is good for OBL is probably bad news for GWB. So ascribing "perfect goodness" to God may be illogical too, unless you define "absolute goodness" and I doubt anyone can do so.



The Earthquake question has come up before.

Maybe it is impossible to have a life-supporting planet with no Earthquakes. There is in fact a very good reason why there are Earthquakes on Earth and none on Mars or Venus. Our planet has a very odd history. Unlike Mars or Venus, the Earth-Moon system is the result of a collision between two planets. The heavy cores of both planets ended up becoming the Earth, and the moon is composed of the lightest material ejected from the collision. This event has been absolutely critical to the existence of life on Earth because it resulted in the earth having an very very dense core. We have an overabundance of iron and heavy metals, precisely because our planet consists of the heaviest parts of two planets. There are a number of effects of this. One of them is absolutely critical for the existence of living things on this planet. The Earth has a massive Iron-nickel core which provide it with a magnetic field strong enough to deflect most of the harmful solar radiation. If this magnetic field fails (as it does from time to time when the poles reverse) then life on Earth suffers mass-extinctions. If it were to disappear completely, then the Earth could not support life as we know it. So it can be argued that one of the main reasons why Earth supports life and other planets apparently do not is because we have this magnetic field and that the magnetic field only occurs because we have a super-dense core. But the super-dense core is also the root cause of earthquakes. The core of the Earth is kept hot by the nuclear decay of heavy metals like Plutonium and Uranium. The reason the Earth is still geologically active, rather than dead like the moon, mars and venus, is because it has a heavy core laced with radioactive metals. Without the core, we die from solar radiation. With it, Earthquakes and volcanic eruptions cannot be avoided.

Regardless of God, it is impossible to be protected from the solar wind on a planet that is geologically inactive.

You are too narrow in your thinking. Couldn't God create a universe where the scientific laws were utterly different?

[drkitten]

The Earthquake question has come up before.

Maybe it is impossible to have a life-supporting planet with no Earthquakes.[...] With it, Earthquakes and volcanic eruptions cannot be avoided.

Regardless of God, it is impossible to be protected from the solar wind on a planet that is geologically inactive.

That's simply (and obviously) untrue and hinges on a fundamental misunderstanding of the word "avoided." As was pointed out earlier, humans manage to do a remarkably good job of "avoiding" dangerous situations that cant' be prevented. That's one of the central jobs that weather services provide -- warning people when things are about to get dangerous.

So perhaps the existence of earthquakes is somehow "necessary" (in some logical sense which mere divinity cannot overcome, heh heh). But neither their irregular appearance without warning nor their destructiveness are inherent in the geology. If we could predict earthquakes the way that we can predict hurricanes, the death and devastation -- the "pain" they cause -- could and would be greatly reduced.

[UndercoverElephant]

No you're not. You seem quite intelligent to me.

The point I'm making is that you can know nothing about God. You can try to make excuses for an invisible, undetectable being but you will always end up grasping at straws. It is the same as asking "How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?"


Just for the record, no mediaevil scholars ever debated the angels dancing on a pin question, it is a modern invention designed to make the ancients look stupid. The intelligent ones also knew the Earth was not flat.

I am not making excuses for God. I am trying to argue against self-inconsistent conceptions of God and trying to suggest self-consistent ones instead. Conceptions of God which allow God himself to defy logic are therefore anathema to me.

p.s. I just looked up the word "anathema" to make sure I spelled it right and discovered it meant something I never knew it meant:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anathema


Sorry if I sound like I am trying to be difficult, I'm not. I am just saying that there is no way to speak authoritatively about God or what his is thinking.


I understand that. I don't want to speak authoritatively about God. All I am trying to do is eliminate conceptions of God which are like square circles. Square circles can't exist because they are logically impossible. Definitions/conceptions of God which are also inherently illogical also can't exist. I don't think you have to be an authority on God to make claims like that, though. I think you just have to believe in logic, and I do.


Anyway, the simplier explanation for suffering is an evil or deist god.

I would disagree with the "evil" part of this sentence, but sympathise with the "deist" bit. Yes, in the end, Franko's logical Goddess could do little to help Franko, or anybody else.

[UndercoverElephant]

You are too narrow in your thinking. Couldn't God create a universe where the scientific laws were utterly different?

Yes, the sole limitation is self-consistency. Maybe there are no logically-consistent possible Universes where there is a planet which can support life and also be geologically dead. Maybe this is true even if you are given a free hand regarding the laws of physics.

[UndercoverElephant]

Kitten:


But neither their irregular appearance without warning nor their destructiveness are inherent in the geology. If we could predict earthquakes the way that we can predict hurricanes, the death and devastation -- the "pain" they cause -- could and would be greatly reduced.


Look at the situation in Istanbul. This is the one case on the planet where the geologists know what is going on. There is a fault which is "unzipping". There have been a series of devastating earthquakes along the north anatolian fault. The last one was correctly predicted by geologists and nothing was done about it. They are now quite certain that a major Earthquake is going to hit Istanbul some time in the next 3-5 years. Nothing is being done about it. Thousands of buildings in Istanbul do not meet Turkish building regulations. The Earthquake WILL hit. Geoff predicts the death toll will exceed 50,000 and the quake will occur before 2011. Can I apply for the JREF prize?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Anatolian_Fault_Zone

I don't see the difference between the inevitable Istanbul quake and the flooding of New Orleans. Both were predicted. One has happened, the other will happen soon. Lots of people dead in both cases, regardless of the best efforts of scientists and engineers. It's really about politics and human nature.

[KingMerv00]

Just for the record, no mediaevil scholars ever debated the angels dancing on a pin question, it is a modern invention designed to make the ancients look stupid. The intelligent ones also knew the Earth was not flat.

Not that it is important, but the issue of angels and needles was addressed a little: http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a4_132.html

I'm fairly sure you are right about the flat earth though.

I am not making excuses for God. I am trying to argue against self-inconsistent conceptions of God and trying to suggest self-consistent ones instead. Conceptions of God which allow God himself to defy logic are therefore anathema to me.

I don't know how you can be sure God can't defy logic. You are not familiar with the limits of his powers. "Logic" to you is different than it would be to Him/Her/It. If God invented logic, he might be able to circumvent it. There is just no way to know. Saying that God must follow logic is an assumption made by your mortal mind.

I understand that. I don't want to speak authoritatively about God. All I am trying to do is eliminate conceptions of God which are like square circles. Square circles can't exist because they are logically impossible. Definitions/conceptions of God which are also inherently illogical also can't exist. I don't think you have to be an authority on God to make claims like that, though. I think you just have to believe in logic, and I do.

God is either bound by logic or he is not (or he doesn't exist). Why is a bound God more probable than an unbound God?

I would disagree with the "evil" part of this sentence, but sympathise with the "deist" bit. Yes, in the end, Franko's logical Goddess could do little to help Franko, or anybody else.

Why is a kind God more probable than an evil or deist God?

[KingMerv00]

Yes, the sole limitation is self-consistency. Maybe there are no logically-consistent possible Universes where there is a planet which can support life and also be geologically dead. Maybe this is true even if you are given a free hand regarding the laws of physics.

This is all just "maybes". The are probably thousands of ways to limit human suffering, (perfect immune systems for instance). God just has no imagination.

I'll bet you that if you gave enough engineers enough money and enough time, they could come up with a earthquake/flood/hurricane proof building. I'm sure God in his infinite wisdom could create a planet the same way.

[UndercoverElephant]

Why is a bound God more probable than an unbound God?


Because I am incapable of believing in square circles or logically-inconsistent anythings, and that includes God.



Why is a kind God more probable than an evil or deist God?

The Deist God is probably the most probable.

[UndercoverElephant]

God just has no imagination.


Maybe not, but humans do. And if God can know everything known then he knows everything humans know. So anything we could imagine, He could also be aware of.

Can you imagine a logically-conistent better world than this?

If yes, exactly how?

If you were God, and you could do anything possible to make the world better which was logically consistent with itself, what would you do?



I'll bet you that if you gave enough engineers enough money and enough time, they could come up with a earthquake/flood/hurricane proof building. .

Ah, yes. All we need is a perpetual motion machine and we are sorted. :)

[ImaginalDisc]

How?
He's supposed to be omnipotent. That means ABLE TO DO ANYTHING.

[Beleth]

I don't agree. Even God is bound by logic. Proof that God is bound by logic:
(apologies to those who saw me post this before)


Say God is not bound by logic.
Then God both exists and does not exist.
("How can that be?" you say. "That's illogical!"
"Exactly my point," I say.)

A logical God that exists, exists.
An illogical God that exists, also does not exist.

So God either does not exist, or is bound by logic.

[JamesDillon]

He's supposed to be omnipotent. That means ABLE TO DO ANYTHING.
"Omnipotent" is usually defined among philosophers of religion as "able to do any logically possible thing." I disagree with most of what Geoff says, but he's absolutely right that a theist needn't, and shouldn't, believe that God is capable of making a square circle or of making 2+2=5.

[UndercoverElephant]

So God either does not exist, or is bound by logic.

Agreed.

[KingMerv00]

Because I am incapable of believing in square circles or logically-inconsistent anythings, and that includes God.

I am incapable of understanding quantum physics. That does not make it improbable or even unlikely.

The Deist God is probably the most probable.

Well, that's really the end of the "argument" isn't it? A deist universe looks just like an atheistic one.

[KingMerv00]

Proof that God is bound by logic:
(apologies to those who saw me post this before)


Say God is not bound by logic.
Then God both exists and does not exist.
("How can that be?" you say. "That's illogical!"
"Exactly my point," I say.)

A logical God that exists, exists.
An illogical God that exists, also does not exist.

So God either does not exist, or is bound by logic.

God invented existance. Perhaps you just have a poor understanding of the concept.

[KingMerv00]

"Omnipotent" is usually defined among philosophers of religion as "able to do any logically possible thing." I disagree with most of what Geoff says, but he's absolutely right that a theist needn't, and shouldn't, believe that God is capable of making a square circle or of making 2+2=5.

I don't think he SHOULD believe that God can do the illogical. I am simple saying that there is no way to know His limitations. So there isn't really any point in saying "God can't do x" because it is equally likely that he can.

[Beleth]

God invented existance.
That's a pretty strong statement coming from the person who said "[t]he point I'm making is that you can know nothing about God."

Perhaps you just have a poor understanding of the concept.
Feel free to educate me.

[UndercoverElephant]

I am incapable of understanding quantum physics.


Einstein didn't like it much either.



Well, that's really the end of the "argument" isn't it? A deist universe looks just like an atheistic one.

Obviously you never met Franko.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=62

[This Guy]

But that cannot possibly make sense. If He already knows what you are going to do, how can you possibly do anything else? For Hell to be a just punishment for something you have done, surely there had to some remote chance of you not doing whatever bad thing you did?

Not sure how else to describe it.

But before I try, keep in mind that that opinion was one I held when I believed there was a God. Now that I don't believe there is a god, that opinion doesn't exist in me any longer, so I'm not defending the opinion, just trying to explain the way it made sense to me before :)

Knowing does not equal controlling. Just because god knows what we are going to do, doesn't mean he is in control of what we do. The choices are still ours. He just knows beforehand what those choices will be.

Parents can often predict what our children will do under given conditions. Knowing your child will take the chocolate over the cookie isn't a matter of control, just understanding.

God's knowledge of what we are going to do doesn't make what we do right or wrong. Right is right, and wrong is wrong. The choices are still ours, and a final judgment still valid.

If you believe such things :)

[KingMerv00]

That's a pretty strong statement coming from the person who said "[t]he point I'm making is that you can know nothing about God."

Well for the purposes of this argument I have accepted the existance of God. God is defined as the omnipotent creator of all existance. It is just a starting premise.


Feel free to educate me.

I didn't mean to imply that I had answers. I am also mortal. I just don't think anyone can rationally make the statement "God can't do x" because there is no way assign qualities to God with any certainty. There is no way to conclude anything useful about God really.

[Beleth]

Well for the purposes of this argument I have accepted the existance of God. God is defined as the omnipotent creator of all existance. It is just a starting premise.
Okay then.

It's a longstanding argument, both here and in theologic circles, about just what "omnipotent" means. Most "authorities" (whatever that means in the study of theology) agree that it doesn't mean "absurdly, illogically, powerful"; it just means "more powerful than anything else".

It's not a very satisfying definition, but all other definitions eventually lead to the conclusion that God is absolutely indescribable... which of course theologians are loathe to conclude...