Would you really like to live forever?

philologos · 07-01-2009 01:51PM

Helix wrote: »

ive brought this up before, but what makes you think these people would want to have a coffee with you in heaven?

As for coffee with Moses, I think he's a cool guy. As for PDN, and BrianCalgary, I'd be glad to

What reason do I have to think this though?

The Bible is quite good in making the case I find:

Matthew 8:11 "I tell you many will come from east and west and will eat with Abraham and Isaac and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven, while the heirs of the Kingdom will be thrown into the outer darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth".

If I can eat with Moses' ancestors the Patriarchs, I'm sure he'd oblige us to a cup of coffee to ask him some questions about the Torah

Infact I think that will be a major part, me asking Biblical figures questions about the Bible, and hopefully finding out some things new in the Kingdom of Heaven.

Dades · 07-01-2009 01:56PM

Jakkass wrote: »

Infact I think that will be a major part, me asking Biblical figures questions about the Bible, and hopefully finding out some things new in the Kingdom of Heaven.

Since none of us heathens will be there, can we give you a list of stuff to ask them for us?

It seems only fair - we're the one's who never shut up with the questions!

philologos · 07-01-2009 01:58PM

Or you could always find a way to heaven yourself and ask God the questions you always wanted to ask Him

rockbeer · 07-01-2009 02:08PM

PDN wrote: »

The Christian belief is that God is infinitely good and that He, and He alone, has existed from all eternity. So, in the context of Christian belief, goodness existed first before there was anything that was less than infinitely good.

Doesn't it follow logically from this statement that in the very act of creation god brought evil (defined as less-than-total-goodness) into being?

So are you saying that he could not have created something that did not have this outcome (thereby implying his capabilities are limited)?

Or that he could have done so, but elected not to (therefore implying that he chose to create evil)?

Or something else entirely?

Splendour · 07-01-2009 02:23PM

CerebralCortex wrote: »

Evidence please?

I cannot give empirical evidence that we are all going to live forever no more than you or anyone else can prove we are not going to live forever.

PDN · 07-01-2009 02:23PM

rockbeer wrote: »

Doesn't it follow logically from this statement that in the very act of creation god brought evil (defined as less-than-total-goodness) into being?

So are you saying that he could not have created something that did not have this outcome (thereby implying his capabilities are limited)?

Or that he could have done so, but elected not to (therefore implying that he chose to create evil)?

Or something else entirely?

If only God is totally good, and if God is by definition uncreated, then He could not create another one of Himself. That would also undermine the entire concept of monotheism. Therefore it can be argued that some measure of evil (defined as less-than-total-goodness) may well be inseparable from the very concept of being created at all.

This would imply that God's capabilities are limited only in the same way as He cannot create a square circle, or create a weight so heavy that He cannot lift it. Omnipotence does not IMHO extend to being able to do things that are logically impossible or mutually contradictory.

The Mad Hatter · 07-01-2009 02:29PM

Splendour wrote: »

I cannot give empirical evidence that we are all going to live forever no more than you or anyone else can prove we are not going to live forever.

Can you give evidence that you are not sitting beside an invisible transgendered septuagenarian?

Asiaprod · 07-01-2009 02:33PM

Dades wrote: »

Since none of us heathens will be there, can we give you a list of stuff to ask them for us?

It seems only fair - we're the one's who never shut up with the questions!

Are you implying they can get Boards.ie in heaven?:)

Zombrex · 07-01-2009 02:39PM

Splendour wrote: »

I cannot give empirical evidence that we are all going to live forever no more than you or anyone else can prove we are not going to live forever.

no, but its relatively easy to give empirical evidence that you ain't going to live for ever. As anyone who has ever seen a brain in a jar can tell you.

Zombrex · 07-01-2009 02:46PM

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

Can you give evidence that you are not sitting beside an invisible transgendered septuagenarian?

There is a town in Idaho call Wallace which lays claim to being at the centre of the universe*

They claim they have a perfectly reasonable set of logic that they used to reach this conclusion, which basically boils down to the argument that no one can prove Wallace, Idaho isn't at the centre of the universe, so they are quite confident of claiming it is. They are perfectly happy to stop claiming it is as soon as someone proves that it isn't.

http://wallace-id.com/centeroftheuniverse.html

For some strange reason conversations on this forum often make me think of Wallace, Idaho.

*perhaps they should read up on latest cosmology, since current understanding is that there either isn't a centre of the universe, or that all points are at the centre of the universe, depending on your perspective of what is a "centre"

robindch · 07-01-2009 02:54PM

PDN wrote: »

if God is by definition uncreated, then He could not create another one of Himself.

It's interesting to note how much of religious logic boils down to propositions of the form:

religious logic wrote:

I define god has having property X. Therefore your argument that not-X is possible is without merit.

Makes rational argument difficult.

PDN · 07-01-2009 03:09PM

robindch wrote: »

It's interesting to note how much of religious logic boils down to propositions of the form:Makes rational argument difficult.

Not really. If our debate in this forum is to have any meaning then we need to use the term 'God' as defined by Christianity, not PDN's definition or Robin's definition. That is why I have discussed God as He is defined in mainstream Christianity.

The argument about evil existing in a universe created by a loving, omnipotent God is an attempt by unbelievers to attack the concept of the Christian God.

If you want to construct arguments about 'God' where God isn't actually eternal and may be created then fair play to you - but you are no longer talking about the Christian God.

If you want to construct arguments, for example, against a Mormon concept of 'God' then you may do so. But don't expect your arguments to be of much interest to those of us who aren't Mormons.

It appears that what some want to do is to redefine 'God' to mean something totally different from what it means in Christianity. Then they construct arguments against this redefined 'God' and think it somehow stands as an argument against Christianity.

Nerin · 07-01-2009 03:11PM

Asiaprod wrote: »

Are you implying they can get Boards.ie in heaven?:)

Wouldn't be heaven without it ^_^

Zombrex · 07-01-2009 03:21PM

PDN wrote: »

If only God is totally good, and if God is by definition uncreated, then He could not create another one of Himself.

That only holds if being uncreated is a required property of a deity. Which I don't see any reason to suggest it is.

For example, a new car doesn't have a previous owner. But not having a previous owner isn't a required property to call something a "car". Your car may not have a previous owner, but my car does, and yours will when you sell it. It wouldn't make sense to say you can't sell your car because it is a requirement of a "car" to have no previous owner.

Because God is uncreated doesn't imply that a god must be uncreated, simply that your god is.

PDN wrote: »

That would also undermine the entire concept of monotheism.

Monotheism is a description of reality, not a constraint on it. If God created another god then "monotheism" would naturally not be an accurate description of reality.

PDN · 07-01-2009 03:37PM

Wicknight wrote: »

Because God is uncreated doesn't imply that a god must be uncreated, simply that your god is.

Indeed, in which case any discussion of a created god isn't referring to our God so it doesn't belong in our forum.

On the way in turn left and follow the road marked 'Spirituality'.

Adios amigo.

Monotheism is a description of reality, not a constraint on it. If God created another god then "monotheism" would naturally not be an accurate description of reality.

Indeed it wouldn't, in which case you would again find yourself in the wrong forum. If you are discussing polytheistic gods then theodicy goes out the window and the Problem of Evil is a problem no longer. We just say, "Sorry mate, not our god, must be someone elses!"

Zombrex · 07-01-2009 04:15PM

PDN wrote: »

Indeed, in which case any discussion of a created god isn't referring to our God so it doesn't belong in our forum.

On the way in turn left and follow the road marked 'Spirituality'.

Adios amigo.

Indeed it wouldn't, in which case you would again find yourself in the wrong forum. If you are discussing polytheistic gods then theodicy goes out the window and the Problem of Evil is a problem no longer. We just say, "Sorry mate, not our god, must be someone elses!"

I'm just pointing out the fault in this logic

then He could not create another one of Himself

He could. Whether or not you believe he has or not (whether you believe monotheism or polytheism or what ever is a model of reality) is up to you and your theological beliefs.

a flawed statement is flawed irrespective of the the forum it is posted in :pac:

PDN · 07-01-2009 05:17PM

Wicknight wrote: »

I'm just pointing out the fault in this logic

then He could not create another one of Himself

He could. Whether or not you believe he has or not (whether you believe monotheism or polytheism or what ever is a model of reality) is up to you and your theological beliefs.

a flawed statement is flawed irrespective of the the forum it is posted in :pac:

Er, no He couldn't.

If He could create another of Himself then He would not be the Christian God. Therefore the whole discussion falls flat.

rockbeer · 07-01-2009 06:42PM

PDN wrote: »

If only God is totally good, and if God is by definition uncreated, then He could not create another one of Himself. That would also undermine the entire concept of monotheism. Therefore it can be argued that some measure of evil (defined as less-than-total-goodness) may well be inseparable from the very concept of being created at all.

So by that reasoning we can conclude that the afterlife - also presumably part of god's creation - will also contain some measure of evil.

philologos · 07-01-2009 07:05PM

Not really rockbeer, it depends what God has intended this world to be. I don't think any of us can really answer that question as it hasn't been revealed. Maybe God has intended the world to be exactly the way it is for a given purpose, and that God has intended for heaven to be exactly the way it is for a differing purpose.

The Mad Hatter · 07-01-2009 10:48PM

Wicknight wrote: »

I'm just pointing out the fault in this logic

then He could not create another one of Himself

He could.

PDN wrote: »

Er, no He couldn't.

Lads, you should go into panto.

PDN · 07-01-2009 10:49PM

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

Lads, you should go into panto.

Be careful, I'M BEHIND YOU!

robindch · 07-01-2009 10:54PM

PDN wrote: »

Be careful, I'M BEHIND YOU!

Not Haggard-style, I hope.

Splendour · 08-01-2009 12:40AM

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

Can you give evidence that you are not sitting beside an invisible transgendered septuagenarian?

Nope.

Zombrex · 08-01-2009 01:32PM

Splendour wrote: »

Nope.

Can you give evidence that a man hole in Wallace, Idaho is not at the centre of the universe?

and if you can't do you think that is a pretty good reason to say it is?

:pac:

Fanny Cradock · 08-01-2009 02:14PM

Wicknight wrote: »

Can you give evidence that a man hole in Wallace, Idaho is not at the centre of the universe?

and if you can't do you think that is a pretty good reason to say it is?

:pac:

Here you go:

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/GR/centre.html

Zombrex · 08-01-2009 03:13PM

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Here you go:

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/GR/centre.html

blah! science! not worth the paper it is printed on.

I prefer to rely on indirect revelation and personal gut instinct. See I read that Wallace, Idaho is at the centre of the universe (in a book no less). So I'm not just making it up myself. Other people believe it too! It also makes perfect sense to me, and my life has improved since I started believing it was. The only way to explain that is that it is the centre of the universe.

I see no reason to let science and stuff like that get in the way of my beliefs. The science is wrong, and clearly has a anti-Wallace bias going on too. I know what is true. I don't need external confirmation of my gut instincts. I feel them. In my heart. In my fingers. In my toes. Little bit in my stomach. Etc etc.

Now, how do I start my own forum ...

BrianCalgary · 08-01-2009 04:39PM

Wicknight wrote: »

blah! science! not worth the paper it is printed on.

I prefer to rely on indirect revelation and personal gut instinct. See I read that Wallace, Idaho is at the centre of the universe (in a book no less). So I'm not just making it up myself. Other people believe it too! It also makes perfect sense to me, and my life has improved since I started believing it was. The only way to explain that is that it is the centre of the universe.

I see no reason to let science and stuff like that get in the way of my beliefs. The science is wrong, and clearly has a anti-Wallace bias going on too. I know what is true. I don't need external confirmation of my gut instincts. I feel them. In my heart. In my fingers. In my toes. Little bit in my stomach. Etc etc.

Now, how do I start my own forum ...

Who wrote the book? What other evidence is there to show that Wallace is teh centre of the universe?

Very very weak shot at making this analogous to Christianity.

Fanny Cradock · 08-01-2009 04:49PM

Wicknight wrote: »

blah! science! not worth the paper it is printed on.

I prefer to rely on indirect revelation and personal gut instinct. See I read that Wallace, Idaho is at the centre of the universe (in a book no less). So I'm not just making it up myself. Other people believe it too! It also makes perfect sense to me, and my life has improved since I started believing it was. The only way to explain that is that it is the centre of the universe.

I see no reason to let science and stuff like that get in the way of my beliefs. The science is wrong, and clearly has a anti-Wallace bias going on too. I know what is true. I don't need external confirmation of my gut instincts. I feel them. In my heart. In my fingers. In my toes. Little bit in my stomach. Etc etc.

Now, how do I start my own forum ...

I like this - no matter what answer is given it results in a platform for you to attack someone's beliefs. May I remind you that science can neither prove nor disprove God's existence, drawing feeble correlations does nothing to change this. Also, please don't imply that Christians are ignoring science. Finally, it would also be appreciated if you could manage to iron out the unnecessary mocking tone you used in the above post.

Zombrex · 08-01-2009 06:11PM

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Finally, it would also be appreciated if you could manage to iron out the unnecessary mocking tone you used in the above post.

Apologies, couldn't resist. I'll refrain from the "mocking tone" in the future

Fanny Cradock · 08-01-2009 06:44PM

Wicknight wrote: »

Apologies, couldn't resist. I'll refrain from the "mocking tone" in the future

Thanks!

Banned for 3 weeks!

(Ah, the old jokes never die)

Would you really like to live forever?

Comments