Arguments against the Afterlife

b318isp wrote: »

Antiskeptic, I have to hand it to you - you have posted some of the strongest arguments to reinforce my opinion that God doesn't exist. The confidence in which you state your knowledge of his thinking and workings in the absence of modesty or charity, let alone a screed of evidence, has really damaged the credibility of your points IMO.

If you are fully confident that the bible is the word of God then you can also be confident that you have to hand ample revelation into his thinking and working. The only obstacle to be considered thereafter is whether or not you are confident that you're interpreting this revelation correctly. It goes without saying that anyone's view is a personal view and it follows that any confidence expressed is subject to that rider. Given that, I'm not sure where it is you think I should insert modesty.

Since my general approach involves dealing with the mechanics of an argument with people who don't believe in God but who too engage in the mechanics of the argument, I'm not sure where you suggest I insert charity?

swampgas wrote: »

So in order to rationalise the fact that your god will torture certain souls for eternity

The souls torture themselves for eternity. They are held captive to the truth about themselves. It's the same ugly truth that's available to everyone now. It's just that then the ability to suppress and deny and evade facing this truth won't be possible.

The truth will be there in all it's ignominious glory. The prison, one of one's own construction.

(for having the temerity to choose to ignore him),

More accurately: for expressing their will unto being without all that God stands for. Nothing more need happen to sustain a hellish environment other than God grant a person their own hearts desire. They don't want what he stands for and so he removes all of himself from the scene.

you have to demonize them, and make them into vile creatures so awful that no normal person would have any pity for them. Sort of blaming the victim a bit, isn't it?

As I pointed out a few posts ago, I'm dealing in argument mechanics. The arguments mechanics says that folk who don't what what God stands for lose that part of them which is made in the image of God. There is no demonising required in order to realise that the remainder will be vile (this, rests on the position that all that is good in us: kindness, creativity, beauty .. is a reflection of Him in whose image we are made).

If God is those things and if a person in Hell loses those things then vile is all she wrote.

To me, the argument you are making is "God is love, so it must be the person in hell's fault for being there", rather than accept the rather uncomfortable alternative that your "loving" god is quite happy to inflict infinite pain on his own creations.

The argument is "God is Gone". And that God is Gone = Hell. And that the only way a person enters Hell is because they refuse God's offer (an offer enabled by love) that they remain with him.

God is wrath. God's wrath expressed is to be gone.

b318isp wrote: »

You're a lot better at the mechanics of an arguement than I, but I find little modesty in being "confident that you have to hand ample revelation into his thinking and working",

It's not immodest to express confidence per se. And in the above case the confidence is absolute. In what way would you suggest I display modesty here particularly?

If (since?) you opine the bible to be to be the absolute word of God and so choose that it is a clear guidance on his workings, then that's a point upon which, IMO, it is uncharitable to condem others who do not share the same trust in it,

It's one thing to be describing the mechanistic side of things to an unbeliever (those mechanics including the condemnation of the unbeliever), quite another to be condemning the unbeliever from the position of supposing myself on the side of what's good (even if a sinner myself) and holding the high moral ground.

In this kind of thread (and I think generally) it is the former I am doing, not the latter. In saying that the unrepentent sinner will be stripped of the image of God and in being so stripped, will be rendered vile, I am taking a emotionally detached position. I'm simply laying out the mechanics of the argument so as to answer the objection (in this case) "but wouldn't you feel empathy for those in Hell?"

The fact that you stated that Adam "pushed the button" is sufficient for me to reject your premise on the basis that I don't believe Genesis to be remotely factual.

Your perogative. I'm a mechanical engineer and tend to be extra-interested in the bible-as-mechanistic. It's like a giant mechanical puzzle. And Adam actual fits pretty well into the works. So I'm happy to go with it.

Also, I personally would find it difficult to state that I had any significant revelation into the workings of an ethereal God who exists to some degree outside our known senses.

The biblical position is that men are born blind. That is to say, there is a sense unknown to men which needs switching on. When it is switched on you see that which you formerly didn't. Namely the presence of God all over the shop.

One more question, and apologies up front if you perceive this as being smart arsed - which it isn't meant to be; is there any indication in the bible of the cut off point for entry into heaven?

"I tell you the truth, today you will be with me in Paradise". Jesus' words to a man on a cross beside him about to tip over the precipice and into eternity. The thief's 'calling on the name of the Lord' (a mode of making the salvation transaction) occurred just before death. His destination was sealed as heaven bound that very day.

I know of no biblical indication that there is any salvation possible to the lost after they die.

You've already indicated that one doesn't need to know of God for to enter heaven

Indeed.

..and that the main principle of judgement is that of the standard or goodness of life that one demonstrated on earth.

Hmmm.

Judgement (as in the day of Judgement) is for the lost only. It's not a trial where a decision is made about whether a person goes to heaven or hell. It's the place where the guilty verdict is proclaimed officially on the already-known-to-be guilty. The point of Judgmement has more to do with vindicating the pronouncement of guilt, where the basis for condemnation is revealed.

The bible indicates that there will be "greater and lesser" in the Kingdom of God (heaven). The earthly good works / refraining from evil of the saved (eg: me) will go to contribute to heavenly position (although it's not good works/refraining from evil which got me saved in the first place.) I would imagine the same thing will apply to Hell: the goodness a lost person did on earth will cause them to occupy a less horrendous Hell. Since I view Hell as a prison predominantly constructed by the persons own sinfulness, it strikes me as making sense that there will be degrees of misery in Hell

Given that all people are likely to sin, at what point is someone deemed to have been sufficiently good to merit entry to heaven; and at what point is a peson deemed sufficiently bad to enter hell - and is there a middle ground or purgatory?

It's a great question and I can say that because I've asked that very same question myself . I've asked it of Roman Catholics in the main. Roman Catholics (as well as all other world religions) believe that your eternal destination is dependent, to one degree or other, on your performance. And so such a question is relevant to those religions

Christianity (the biblically-based sort) is otherwise. The basis of salvation isn't how good/bad you behave. The basis of salvation is (when you strip it right down the the core) about whether or not a rebellion which is currently being waged by you against God - can be destroyed by God. Can God bring you to your knees in surrender? If he can then you will be saved. If he can't (and he is prepared to take "No Surrender" for an answer, he won't use undue force to cause you to surrender this side of the grave) then you will remain lost for eternity.

How good/bad you are play a part in proceedings alright - but not in the sense of your deeds being weighed in a scales which determine whether you go to heaven or hell. Your doing bad is just as useful to God in his attempt to bring you to your knees as your doing good. The interplay between your doing good and evil can be the thing which levers the rebellion out of you.

Believe it or not: the Law (eg: your conscience) wasn't given to you by God in the expectation that you would follow it. It was given to you so that you could know you are a lawbreaker. So that you could know you do wrong. It's an interesting area of discussion (and mechanically fascinating)

But I've a baby to get some food into. And then some sleep..

Helix wrote: »

well if he knows whats going to occur, it means that you have no way of changing anything

If he knows what will occur tomorrow by observing it occuring tomorrow now then of course you have a way of changing what you will do tomorrow. If you decide to stay in bed tomorrow instead of getting up as planned, then that is what God see's happening now.

God only see's now what you choose to do tomorrow. That depends utterly on you.