Would anyone want to really go to heaven?

munsterdevil

I'm going to use the following quote from Mark Twain to answer the original question:

I do not fear death. I had been dead for billions and billions of years before I was born and had not suffered the slightest inconvenience from it.

antiskeptic

munsterdevil wrote: »

I'm going to use the following quote from Mark Twain to answer the original question:

Mark clearly wasn't an empiricist

Stercus Accidit

antiskeptic wrote: »

I only found out Hell exists on the day I found out I'm not going there. Can your logic modify to accomodate?

It already has, ignore the hell bit, look at the benefits I listed.

What you call human, Christianity calls fallen human. Hence the possibility for two types of response to base urges: deny/permit. It isn't humanity that choses base urges, it is sub-humanity (or falleness) that choses so. To be 'saved' is to press the ejector button on the sub-human element of ourselves.

The "sub-human" element as you call it is part and parcel of being human, it defines a person as much as their ability to resist it. A man who controls his urges for whatever reason has made a big part of himself the ability to resist those urges, in their absense, he loses the character trait of self control, again, losing part of himself.

It's not that there will be no choice 'in heaven', it's just that there will be no option to chose between sub-human options.

Sounds like a hell to me.

I don't see how removing flaws in anything results in it not being itself (or even more itself). Is a battered BMW which is repaired, reupholstered and resprayed not more of a BMW rather than less?

Much less. It is then a bmw like any other that came out of the factory, and the car that led a hard life and showed its scars no longer exists, it is now one of many bland bmws, like any other, its personality is gone.

The greedy aspect to yourself is something that you can either come to loathe about yourself. Or it is something you can come to make excuses for (so as to permit it to continue functioning). If coming to loathe then salvation beckons - which will involve you being rid of that aspect of yourself (see BMW analogy)

Low self esteem and self loathing seem to be christian traits alright, original sin? Guilt for natural traits such as desires?

If on the other hand you love your greed (albeith finding it disquieting at times) and don't come to loathe it then the 'you' doing the loving will be Judged. Judged as greedy that is. And as greedy, will be of no use in the Kingdom of God. And so, will be discarded.

Self loathing and insecure need only apply, I prefer the idea of hell.

munsterdevil

antiskeptic wrote: »

Mark clearly wasn't an empiricist

The chances are he was, but clearly you're not:)

aidan24326

Valmont wrote: »

Not unless they have LSD in heaven, which I'm sure they do, given that it's paradise and all that. Why else would God create psycedelic drugs?

By escape I meant escaping completely i.e dying (though of course the LSD might come in handy too!). Here on earth if your life becomes utterly intolerable you at least have the option to end it, you always have that escape clause, and of course we're all going to die at some stage so there's an eventual escape anyway.

But in an eternal afterlife there is no out-clause, no exit door, you'd be trapped inside your own consciousness forever. Only religion could view such a horrible outcome as something to be desired.

antiskeptic wrote: »

I only found out Hell exists on the day I found out I'm not going there.

A totally meaningless soundbite unless you can elaborate.

What you call human, Christianity calls fallen human. Hence the possibility for two types of response to base urges: deny/permit. It isn't humanity that choses base urges, it is sub-humanity (or falleness) that choses so. To be 'saved' is to press the ejector button on the sub-human element of ourselves.

It's not that there will be no choice 'in heaven', it's just that there will be no option to chose between sub-human options.

I don't see how removing flaws in anything results in it not being itself (or even more itself). Is a battered BMW which is repaired, reupholstered and resprayed not more of a BMW rather than less?

The greedy aspect to yourself is something that you can either come to loathe about yourself. Or it is something you can come to make excuses for (so as to permit it to continue functioning). If coming to loathe then salvation beckons - which will involve you being rid of that aspect of yourself (see BMW analogy)

If on the other hand you love your greed (albeith finding it disquieting at times) and don't come to loathe it then the 'you' doing the loving will be Judged. Judged as greedy that is. And as greedy, will be of no use in the Kingdom of God. And so, will be discarded.

If you can't see what ridiculously twisted (un)logic this is then I wager that god will banish you to hell for completely failing to use the faculties he gave you.

robindch

KeithAFC wrote: »

Would you want to sit in heaven with god all 'day' and just talk to him?

Far as I remember, the last time the topic came up on the Other Forum, the general feeling amongst the religious was that you'd show up at the pearly gates recreated at something like your mid-thirties, perfect in mind and limb and thrilled at the prospect of spending eternity singing the praises of god. It was felt that this activity would be sufficiently interesting to sustain indefinitely the spirits of the saved (which suggests that singing is whole lot more interesting and less exhausting than it appears, or else that the saved are easily amused and have vocal chords made of carbon fibre).

Personally, I can't imagine anything duller in the long term than singing paeans of praise to the almighty. It's bad enough for 90 minutes at Landsdowne Road. What must a million years be like? :eek:

antiskeptic

Stercus Accidit wrote: »

It already has, ignore the hell bit, look at the benefits I listed.

Same point. I didn't believe there was a heaven in order to desire to go to it until the day I came to know it existed. I didn't give a monkeys about religion until the day God turned up.

The "sub-human" element as you call it is part and parcel of being human, it defines a person as much as their ability to resist it. A man who controls his urges for whatever reason has made a big part of himself the ability to resist those urges, in their absense, he loses the character trait of self control, again, losing part of himself.

1) In losing part of himself you would agree he is also gaining another part of himself (the ability to live truly according to his nature). Good and evil as postive/negative ideas are just conventions in your worldview - they have no transcendent value.

2) Your view of heaven is predicated on this view of humanity being true. There is no need to continue discussing according to this view - as I am not defending a position based on it.

Sounds like a hell to me.

Christianity says that if you don't want to be shorn of your base tendencies and desires, then 'to Heaven' you surely won't be going. It won't sound like Hell in that case. It will be Hell.

Much less. It is then a bmw like any other that came out of the factory, and the car that led a hard life and showed its scars no longer exists, it is now one of many bland bmws, like any other, its personality is gone.

But how can it be bland when it's one of a kind? And equipped with all the features necessary for it's new journey. You seem to suppose that because The Spirit of St. Louis spanned the Atlantic once that it's suitable for a trip to the Moon?

Low self esteem and self loathing seem to be christian traits alright, original sin? Guilt for natural traits such as desires?Self loathing and insecure need only apply, I prefer the idea of hell.

It's your response to your own greed, selfishness, deceitfulness, spitefulness, hatefulness, malice, lusts .. that will ultimately form your final response to God on the issue of your salvation. Whether you believe in God or not doesn't alter those characteristics being yours nor your responding to them ... and thus God.

If you want to use the device that they are "natural desires" (and so aren't evil in any objective, to-be-held-to-account sense) then by all means use that device. The device doesn't hide the heart behind the response from anyone who matters.

antiskeptic

munsterdevil wrote: »

The chances are he was...

Not on that outing he wasn't.

Stercus Accidit

antiskeptic wrote: »

Same point. I didn't believe there was a heaven in order to desire to go to it until the day I came to know it existed. I didn't give a monkeys about religion until the day God turned up.

Are you saying you met god and that is your point?

1) In losing part of himself you would agree he is also gaining another part of himself (the ability to live truly according to his nature).

No I wouldn't agree and that is my point, the person you are on earth is not the person you will be in heaven, it may as well be someone else.

Good and evil as postive/negative ideas are just conventions in your worldview - they have no transcendent value.2) Your view of heaven is predicated on this view of humanity being true. There is no need to continue discussing according to this view - as I am not defending a position based on it.

What view of humanity, that who we are is defined by all facets of our personality?

Christianity says that if you don't want to be shorn of your base tendencies and desires, then 'to Heaven' you surely won't be going. It won't sound like Hell in that case. It will be Hell.

Will you be free of you lower-human characteristics in hell? As such, some other person is going there, or does that only apply to eternal boredom bliss.

But how can it be bland when it's one of a kind? And equipped with all the features necessary for it's new journey. You seem to suppose that because The Spirit of St. Louis spanned the Atlantic once that it's suitable for a trip to the Moon?

That is a nonsense statement, there is no adequate response to it.

It's your response to your own greed, selfishness, deceitfulness, spitefulness, hatefulness, malice, lusts .. that will ultimately form your final response to God on the issue of your salvation. Whether you believe in God or not doesn't alter those characteristics being yours nor your responding to them ... and thus God.

I havn't seen evidence to support this 'god' of yours existance, as such its existance is irrelevant to me. The crux of my point is that heaven will either be a boring eternal hell in its own right, or the soul that is sent there has no human characteristics at all, which define who you are.

If you want to use the device that they are "natural desires" (and so aren't evil in any objective, to-be-held-to-account sense) then by all means use that device. The device doesn't hide the heart behind the response from anyone who matters.

What do you mean by heart, the organ or the rhetorical device? A human being could not enjoy an eternal bland existance, an altered version could, my point is that that altered version is not the version floundering around on earth worshipping golden cups and disks of stale bread.

GLaDOS

Feck heaven, Valhalla is the place to be

antiskeptic

Stercus Accidit wrote: »

Are you saying you met god and that is your point?

I'm saying that the listed-by-you upsides/downsides to God weren't the reason why I came to believe in God. I believe in God because God turned up. If he hadn't I'd have had no reason to believe in any up/down sides.

No I wouldn't agree and that is my point, the person you are on earth is not the person you will be in heaven, it may as well be someone else.

I think we're talking crossed purposes. You speak of someone living basely as having lost something (self-control) whereas that can also be seen as a gain (living according to their nature)

What view of humanity, that who we are is defined by all facets of our personality?

In the sense that all aspects belong to us equally - yes. As opposed to the Christian view. which sees the base side as a contortion of humanity. A sickness, a disease.

Will you be free of you lower-human characteristics in hell? As such, some other person is going there, or does that only apply to eternal boredom bliss.

In this life we have the ability and freedom to suppress truth. So, when we do something ugly (because we desire ugliness and want that desire satifised) we are able to suppress, to greater or lesser degree, our knowledge that the action was rotten. And that the action stemmed from an ugliness that sits in our own hearts. In Hell (or so the idea goes) a person will be stripped of their upper-human aspect (that which can love, relate, enjoy, create) and be left only with all that is ugly about them. But in this instance, they won't be able to suppress the truth about themselves and will be able to see themselves for what they are: rotten and ugly to the core of their being.

That is a nonsense statement, there is no adequate response to it.

So much for your clone BMW's rolling off the production line then.

I havn't seen evidence to support this 'god' of yours existance, as such its existance is irrelevant to me.

As my point pointed out - it doesn't matter whether you believe in him or not in order for his purposes regarding you to be executed. You don't get to choose whether you will respond to God, you only get to choose what that response will be.

The crux of my point is that heaven will either be a boring eternal hell in its own right, or the soul that is sent there has no human characteristics at all, which define who you are.What do you mean by heart, the organ or the rhetorical device? A human being could not enjoy an eternal bland existance, an altered version could, my point is that that altered version is not the version floundering around on earth worshipping golden cups and disks of stale bread.

Your point remains joined at the hip to the notion that our 'natural tendencies' are natural. And that without them we'd be less than human. And you have to suppose that a Creator capable of producing all you see around you can't easily have plenty more up his sleeve - when what he would have created must (assuming for a moment he exists) produce silence and humility.

I mean, who'd you be (if God existed) to say what and what cannot be). The created telling the Creator what the limitations of the Creator are.

munsterdevil

antiskeptic wrote: »

Not on that outing he wasn't.

Empiricism is concerned with obtaining knowledge from experience, one cannot experience something from before they were born, therefore it would have been impossible for Twain to use empiricism on the subject of before he being born. Unless of course you somehow remember events from before you were born.;)

Stercus Accidit

antiskeptic wrote: »

So much for your clone BMW's rolling off the production line then.

This sums it up really, your previous 'analogy' made no sense, the above makes no sense, the original 'people are cars' (which you started) made no sense.

Tell me without rhetoric or ghastly analogy how the changed person(who gets to heaven) is the same person. A human would go insane with eternity, what goes to heaven of that person that would enjoy it?

antiskeptic

Stercus Accidit wrote: »

Tell me without rhetoric or ghastly analogy how the changed person(who gets to heaven) is the same person.

The person was infected with a spiritual disease called Sin. In heaven they're the same person they were but without the disease. The same but changed.

A human would go insane with eternity, what goes to heaven of that person that would enjoy it?

The person who has come to hate the disease in all it's manifestations (what you call 'natural base desire') desires goodness as nothing else. And since all that is goodness stems from God and God is there, the person naturally desires to be there too. Quite what 'activity' there will be is anyones guess - but given God's creativity and promises there is little sense in worrying about boredom. Indeed, boredom is a notion tied up with time elapsing - which might not be possible if eternity contains no time.

munsterdevil

On the issue of hell and Christianity, if Satan is so keen for humans to commit sin in the world, shouldn't he really dig the "lost souls" who make it to hell? I mean if someone commits murder wouldn't it make more sense for Satan o actually reward that individual rather than make him miserable for eternity?

It's just another contradiction from the belief system that is Christianity and the afterlife.;)

antiskeptic

munsterdevil wrote: »

It's just another contradiction from the belief system that is Christianity and the afterlife.;)

When you lick your Christian theology from the back of a cornflakes packet then 'contradictions' like that are to be expected :cool:

munsterdevil

antiskeptic wrote: »

When you lick your Christian theology from the back of a cornflakes packet then 'contradictions' like that are to be expected :cool:

When you base your belief system around a book that is nearly 2,000 years old and written 60+ years after Jesus was around, you are bound to believe in anything.

Moreover, your comment or theology, does not really explain why Satan would hate souls who have done wrong in their lives, neither does it explain how Satan was allowed to rebel against God in the first place if God is so omnipotent.

irishh_bob

Blikes wrote: »

I don't think it's quite 'sitting around' as we know it here, but i get your point.

Also, Hell isn't a place of fire and brimstone, it's apparently, a complete separation from God.

i can put up with the seperation from god bit but the burning bit does make me sit up and take notice , never did like the sun much let alone being the main course in a neverending barbecue

strobe

I'll let the demon Crowley sum up my thoughts on the matter:

"We'll win, of course," he said. (Aziraphale the Angel)
"You don't want that," said the demon.
"Why not, pray?"
"Listen," said Crowley desperately, "how many musicians do you think your side have got, eh? First grade, I mean."
Aziraphale looked taken aback.
"Well, I should think-" he began.
"Two," said Crowley. "Elgar and Liszt. That's all. We've got the rest. Beethoven, Brahms, all the Bachs, Mozart, the lot. Can you imagine eternity with Elger?"
Aziraphale shut his eyes. "All too easily," he groaned.
"That's it, then," said Crowley, with a gleam of triumph.
He knew Aziraphale's weak spot all right. "No more compact discs. No more Albert Hall. No more Proms. No more Glyndbourne. Just celestial harmonies all day long."
"ineffable," Aziraphale murmured.
"Like eggs without salt, you said. Which reminds me. No salt, no eggs. No gravlax with dill sauce. No fascinating little restraunts where they know you. No Daily Telegraph crossword. No small antique shops. No bookshops, either. No interesting old editions. No" - Crowley scraped the bottom of Aziraphale's barrel of interests - "Regency silver snuffboxes. . ."
"But after we win life will be better!" croaked the angel.
"But it won't be interesting. Look, you know I'm right. You'd be as happy with a harp as I'd be with a pitchfork."
"You know we don't play harps."
"And we don't use pitchforks. I am being rhetorical."
They stared at one another.
Aziraphale spread his elegantly manicured hands.
"My people are more than happy for it to happen, you know. It's what it's all about, you see. The great final test. Flaming swords, the Four Horsemen, seas of blood, the whole tedious business." He shrugged.
"And then Game Over, Insert Coin?" said Crowley.
"Sometimes I find your methods of expression a little difficult to follow."

antiskeptic

munsterdevil wrote: »

Moreover, your comment or theology, does not really explain why Satan would hate souls who have done wrong in their lives,

Satan hates us as well as God. Our sinning offends God and our sinning imperils us before a holy God. Two birds with one sin: us and God

neither does it explain how Satan was allowed to rebel against God in the first place if God is so omnipotent.

Satan being allowed to rebel doesn't affect God's omniopotence?? One can be omnipotent and permit something one finds reprehensible. Especially if it can serve a greater purpose such as being the means whereby we would be equipped with a choice.

God turns men into children of God. Satan was 'but' an angel.

iguana

seamus wrote: »

Sounds like hell to me - one consciousness, who knows *everything*, doing nothing by itself for eternity. How boring would that be?

Sounds like being plugged into the internet. You have a 5 figure number of posts, I think you'd do ok.;)

munsterdevil

antiskeptic wrote: »

Satan hates us as well as God. Our sinning offends God and our sinning imperils us before a holy God. Two birds with one sin: us and God

God hates us? I always thought God loved us! Further, why would god create something in the first place that it hates?

antiskeptic wrote: »

Satan being allowed to rebel doesn't affect God's omniopotence?? One can be omnipotent and permit something one finds reprehensible. Especially if it can serve a greater purpose such as being the means whereby we would be equipped with a choice.

God turns men into children of God. Satan was 'but' an angel.

My point is, why did God create Satan in the first place, I mean if god is so omnipotent shouldn't it have known that Satan was going to rebel, it just seems like a drawn out process that basically entailed God thinking: "This Satan fellow rebelling is actually coming in handy, now Satan can take all the souls I hate, even though I hate the humans that I created, just as much as Satan does"

It all sounds like one big experiment by God in that he created human beings to play it out on Earth, just to see who is going to make it to heaven and Earth, I mean why would such an entity go to the bother of all this. I went over this years ago in my head and it's partially why I became an atheist.

goingpostal

A certain troll, who shall remain nameless, added to my ignore list: priceless. A clean pair of jocks: Heaven. For everything else, there's Mastercard.

antiskeptic

munsterdevil wrote: »

God hates us? I always thought God loved us! Further, why would god create something in the first place that it hates?

Read it as "satan hates us as well as hating God" and re-compute.

My point is, why did God create Satan in the first place, I mean if god is so omnipotent shouldn't it have known that Satan was going to rebel,

Omniscience - knowing all there is to be known - is the attribute you might be referring to. Not that it's all that relevant. Whether God knew what satan would do beforehand doesn't alter the fact that if you want to create a being that can choose, you must also accept they might choose something you'd prefer they didn't choose.

Why did God want to create being that could choose? For his glory ultimately I imagine. To 'expand' the reach of his love.

it just seems like a drawn out process that basically entailed God thinking: "This Satan fellow rebelling is actually coming in handy, now Satan can take all the souls I hate, even though I hate the humans that I created, just as much as Satan does"

As I say, you need to re-work this point in light of the above clarification. Satan does come in handy in that he becomes the counterweight in choice offered man. Man is offered God and all that that entails (let's call that Light) and man is offered without-God and all that that entails (let's call that darkness). Satan and what he represents (darkness, evil, selfishness, etc) is what you get when there is absence of God and what he represents (light, goodness, self-sacrifice).

In choice, you need to be offered something tangible. Satan's influence through Sin is that something tangible.

It all sounds like one big experiment by God in that he created human beings to play it out on Earth, just to see who is going to make it to heaven and Earth, I mean why would such an entity go to the bother of all this. I went over this years ago in my head and it's partially why I became an atheist.

You're not very far off the mark. There is a giant project going on and all the world's the stage on which that project plays out. Experiment wouldn't be the term I'd use however - it implies a kind of disinterested fiddling in the lab to see what happens. Rather, I'd see it as a passionate pregnancy - for one of Gods central aims in all this is to have kids. Some of those fertilized eggs (us) will come to full term and enjoy his fathership forever. Others will be miscarried and rejected. Which it will be is up to us.

checkyabadself

antiskeptic wrote: »

They're not the same person - the person they were was infected with a spiritual disease called Sin. In heaven they're the person they were but without the disease.

Of all the threads I have read here, this post is the most insane, I've ever read. To honestly say and believe the above is to claim something you cannot possibly know. It is shamefully invented and comments like it should be ridiculed rather than respected or entertained.
Its clear that the same poster claims to have met god in a roundabout way and the smugness displayed is infinitely worse than any atheist arrogance, Ive encountered.

Ill respect any believer that claims to not know or have a guess or suppose an ideal version of heaven to me. I draw the line of having a morsel of respect for those who claim to know, with authority, the specifics of the creator and it's whims and that it has spoken to any human.

antiskeptic

checkyabadself wrote: »

Ill respect any believer that claims to not know or have a guess or suppose an ideal version of heaven to me. I draw the line of having a morsel of respect for those who claim to know, with authority, the specifics of the creator and it's whims and that it has spoken to any human.

You seem to be saying that God cannot reveal himself to his creation. Which raises you to a position above God - telling us what it is he may or may not do if he exists.

I'll respect any unbeliever who desists from making what can only be blind faith based statements like that. An unbeliever shouldn't be relying on blind faith for their position - otherwise they are a believer (of the wobbliest kind).

Sam Vimes

antiskeptic wrote: »

You seem to be saying that God cannot reveal himself to his creation. Which raises you to a position above God - telling us what it is he may or may not do if he exists.

I'll respect any unbeliever who desists from making what can only be blind faith based statements like that. An unbeliever shouldn't be relying on blind faith for their position - otherwise they are a believer (of the wobbliest kind).

Many supposed experiences of god are contradictory therefore they cannot all be true experiences. It is not only possible but very common for people to get "false positives" where they are absolutely convinced they have experienced god when they actually haven't.

There is no way for anyone to know how convincing anyone else's supposed experience of god was. They can only know what they experienced and they have nothing to compare it with. With no way to compare one experience to another, there is no way for anyone to determine if their experience is the true one or if it is one of the far greater number of false ones. Just being totally convincing is not enough to determine the truth of an experience because of the existence of so many false positives among people who are equally convinced.

Therefore within this universe it is not possible to have an internal personal experience of god of the type that you supposedly had in such a way that it is possible to tell a true experience from a false one. Your definition of god requires that it this is possible, therefore god as you describe it does not exist

QED :pac:

munsterdevil

antiskeptic wrote: »

Read it as "satan hates us as well as hating God" and re-compute.

Oh right, that's the worst thing about written boards like these, no harm done.

antiskeptic wrote: »

Omniscience - knowing all there is to be known - is the attribute you might be referring to. Not that it's all that relevant. Whether God knew what satan would do beforehand doesn't alter the fact that if you want to create a being that can choose, you must also accept they might choose something you'd prefer they didn't choose.

So what you are saying is God is not omnipotent/perfect

antiskeptic wrote: »

Why did God want to create being that could choose? For his glory ultimately I imagine. To 'expand' the reach of his love.

No, it sounds to me like an entity with a massive ego, "look what I can create, and if you don't do good, you're gonna go to hell"

antiskeptic wrote: »

As I say, you need to re-work this point in light of the above clarification. Satan does come in handy in that he becomes the counterweight in choice offered man. Man is offered God and all that that entails (let's call that Light) and man is offered without-God and all that that entails (let's call that darkness). Satan and what he represents (darkness, evil, selfishness, etc) is what you get when there is absence of God and what he represents (light, goodness, self-sacrifice).

The Biblical God also represents darkness, evil and selfishness, all one need do is to read through the Old Testament, the Book of Exodus in particular.

antiskeptic wrote: »

In choice, you need to be offered something tangible. Satan's influence through Sin is that something tangible.

It is called being human when we sin, it's got nothing to do with some entity called Satan, and therein lies the core of our disagreement.

antiskeptic wrote: »

You're not very far off the mark. There is a giant project going on and all the world's the stage on which that project plays out. Experiment wouldn't be the term I'd use however - it implies a kind of disinterested fiddling in the lab to see what happens. Rather, I'd see it as a passionate pregnancy - for one of Gods central aims in all this is to have kids. Some of those fertilized eggs (us) will come to full term and enjoy his fathership forever. Others will be miscarried and rejected. Which it will be is up to us.

Nope, still sounds like an experiment to me, as I said before, it sounds like this God entity has a massive ego.

antiskeptic

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Many supposed experiences of god are contradictory therefore they cannot all be true experiences.

True. Which says nothing at all about the possibility of a true experience

It is not only possible but very common for people to get "false positives" where they are absolutely convinced they have experienced god when they actually haven't

True. Which say's nothing at all about the possibility of a true positive.

There is no way for anyone to know how convincing anyone else's supposed experience of god was.

I'm not sure what this means. If 'anyone elses' experience was enough to convince 'anyone else' then 'anyone' can know it was at least that convincing for 'anyone else'

They can only know what they experienced and they have nothing to compare it with. With no way to compare one experience to another, there is no way for anyone to determine if their experience is the true one or if it is one of the far greater number of false ones. Just being totally convincing is not enough to determine the truth of an experience because of the existence of so many false positives among people who are equally convinced.

False. You are, in effect, saying that God either:

- cannot reveal himself to us.

- or that if he can, then he must utilise a means of demonstrating the truth of his existance decided upon by you.


You would be forgetting that that your preferred means of arrival-at-truth would be one created by God and that any sense of truth you derive from it occurs for you because God designed it to achieve that end. You would be relying on him and his actions to bring truth to you - in other words. But there is nothing excluding God from providing truth by any number of other means. It only requires that he decides so.

Therefore within this universe it is not possible to have an internal personal experience of god of the type that you supposedly had in such a way that it is possible to tell a true experience from a false one. Your definition of god requires that it this is possible, therefore god as you describe it does not exist

QED :pac:

Hopefully you'll see the error of the claim.

Sam Vimes

antiskeptic wrote: »

False. You are, in effect, saying that God either:

- cannot reveal himself to us.

- or that if he can, then he must utilise a means of demonstrating the truth of his existance decided upon by you.

It's not decided on by me, it's decided on by the nature of the universe. Even god cannot do what is logically impossible, e.g. he cannot create a married bachelor, he cannot create a square with no sides etc etc etc. Even an omnipotent being is constrained by what is logically possible.

In a universe where there are millions false positive experiences and no way to compare experiences to each other, there is no way to separate the false positives from the true positives.

It is logically impossible for god to reveal himself through an entirely internal personal experience in such a way that it is possible to tell a true experience from a false one. He cannot do it any more than he can create a square circle. And if you require that he must be able to do it, this means that this god does not exist. He is a logical impossibility.