Posts by John

496

This is What I Would Need in Order to Believe

by cofty in

sometimes theists challenge atheists about what evidence would be required before they would believe.

various unlikely scenarios are offered in reply.

i have taken the bait myself in the past.. i think the correct answer is much more ordinary.

John_Mann

It's good that you are open to this possibility since, of the millions of the dead, no one has been back to tell us what the afterlife is like and about their conversations with God.

Of course I'm open to the possibility of oblivion.

Actually I don't see other logical options than Catholicism or oblivion.

But in this worldview doesn't matter if you are a Catholic, an atheist or a JW.

And if I really was very confident about this reality I would try to kill myself.

Because life is suffering and I would end in oblivion no matter what.

Evil still exist no matter what you believe and the most logical thing to reduce the experience of evil is going to oblivion.

Why wait?

496

This is What I Would Need in Order to Believe

by cofty in

sometimes theists challenge atheists about what evidence would be required before they would believe.

various unlikely scenarios are offered in reply.

i have taken the bait myself in the past.. i think the correct answer is much more ordinary.

John_Mann

One sure way to know whether this is just my opinion about justice - try telling a court of law that it is your children who should be penalized if you should commit a crime.
Please be sure to let us know the outcome if you should ever find yourself in this situation.

Try to ask if is fair a child inherit the exact financial status, nationality, genes, etc, from their parents and ancestors.

496

This is What I Would Need in Order to Believe

by cofty in

sometimes theists challenge atheists about what evidence would be required before they would believe.

various unlikely scenarios are offered in reply.

i have taken the bait myself in the past.. i think the correct answer is much more ordinary.

John_Mann

The discussion is still going on because John_Mann can't bring himself to confront and come to terms with his mortality.
He needs something to make him feel good about death so he went from believing that he was going to live forever on a Paradise earth to believing that his soul will live on after he dies - he exchanged one venue for another: earth for heaven.
In trying to make himself feel good about death, he tenaciously tries to defend his indefensible alternate faith of Catholicism.

Not only my soul but my body too. Catholics believe the human nature must be in soul and body forever. We're not ghosts in biological machines. And we're not just biological machines.

I believe there are only two options after death: God or oblivion.

I'm not trying to avoid death like a JW. I know everyone is doomed to die. It's a very unpleasant fate but...

My belief is about AFTER death. Not death itself.

If I'm wrong so oblivion is reality and ironically I will never know.

But if I'm right so my belief produces a possibility that's infinitely (literally) worse than oblivion.

That's when I think about the Pascal's wager. It says if you have a very small doubt about the certainty of oblivion it's better to believe in God because there's a possibility of infinite loss.

God must be 100% obvious nonsense and we must have 100% of certain evidence against the existence of God.

So in a psychological way my position can bring something worse than oblivion.

496

This is What I Would Need in Order to Believe

by cofty in

sometimes theists challenge atheists about what evidence would be required before they would believe.

various unlikely scenarios are offered in reply.

i have taken the bait myself in the past.. i think the correct answer is much more ordinary.

John_Mann

You said that god gives each man a soul at the moment of conception.

Yes.

That makes god the causing agent of that soul, not the physical parents.

Yes. The parents being the only causing agents is called traducionism. Of course parents are causing agents too, this process needs sex.

God isn't bound by any law according to which he must abide to give a soul to every fertilized human egg.

He's bound by His nature. He can't lie or be evil, for instance. The nature, the will and the intellect of God/angels/men are very distinct things.

He made a pact with Adam and every descendant of Adam must have a soul.

He has a choice to give it or not give a soul.

Idk.

By causing a soul to exist, god is taking responsability for such soul.

In a sense yes. He must give opportunities to this soul.

If god is the causing agent of the existence of that soul, it is entirely god's responsability that such soul is made to pay for the original sin.

Idk if I understand what you mean.

Because, you know, he chose to create that soul.

He has made a pact.

If, because of the original sin, that human is born defective, or dies in a horrific tsunami, it is entirely god's will.

No.

Because an almighty god could a) decided to not give that human a soul;

Maybe He has no choice.

b) have crated a world where tsunamis didn't exist, because they're entirely not needed for life to exist;

I don't agree. How do you know is possible to exist worlds suitable for free-willed beings in a physical world without natural laws?

c) have created a world where humans would be miraculously protected from natural disasters and genetic defects.

Same thing. How do you know that?

And finally, after injustly subjecting millions of human beings to needless suffering during their physical life, god decides, after a few years, to resign from responsability towards the soul he created by doing nothing to stop that soul from falling into a perpetual state of sentient nihil.
I wonder - is this a god worth believing and worshipping?

I don't agree with your premises so I can't accept your conclusion.

496

This is What I Would Need in Order to Believe

by cofty in

sometimes theists challenge atheists about what evidence would be required before they would believe.

various unlikely scenarios are offered in reply.

i have taken the bait myself in the past.. i think the correct answer is much more ordinary.

John_Mann

Is this still going on?

For 2000 years, day and night, in every corner of this planet.

And considering the concept of symmetry, I think it will go more 2000 years in this world.

496

This is What I Would Need in Order to Believe

by cofty in

sometimes theists challenge atheists about what evidence would be required before they would believe.

various unlikely scenarios are offered in reply.

i have taken the bait myself in the past.. i think the correct answer is much more ordinary.

John_Mann

So, can you specifically tell when it is the unconscious dynamics of your mind at work versus when God is communicating with you?
Can you make a clear distinction between these two things? If so, how exactly are you able to make this distinction?

@deegee

OMG! Please consider my paranormal experience as an ordinary delusion.

Nothing what I'm talking about depends on this personal experience.

There is no justice system in the world that requires innocent children to pay the penalty for a crime committed by their parents.
It certainly isn't justice (divine or otherwise) to condemn not only the criminal to death, but also his offspring who have nothing to do with his crime. It certainly isn't justice if the law which governs societies today wasn’t satisfied with the death of a criminal but came after his offspring and executed them as well for his crime.
If God's creation appears to have a keener sense of justice and empathy than he does, then does that not raise some worrying questions about God's nature?
Why would you want to serve a God like that?

This is just your opinion about justice.

496

This is What I Would Need in Order to Believe

by cofty in

sometimes theists challenge atheists about what evidence would be required before they would believe.

various unlikely scenarios are offered in reply.

i have taken the bait myself in the past.. i think the correct answer is much more ordinary.

John_Mann

I take it that the "worse consequence of sin", as per your defense, would be perpetual, conscient nihl.

Not because is a perpetual state neither because is conscious pursue of nihil. Because there are a lot of people pursuing nihil right now, they try really hard to accept this fate.

But there's a difference between here and Hell.

Here our souls are always nurtured with the presence of God giving us a chance.

In Hell this will cease. And this event will be the worse thing ever and will be fixed forever (in a state with a different time which for us is like an eternal moment).

You say, then, that the consequence of the metaphorical original sin is god not stopping the soul from falling into a default state of perpetual nihl.

True to people living after the crucifixion.

"Salvation", then, is god actively rescueing the soul from nihl, while "doom" is god denying the soul such intervention. Is this your belief?

Almost. The perdition must be intentional after proper discernment.

Lets leave aside the discussion about the existence of a "soul" and for the sake of discussion, assume that it simply exists.

That's the spirit! You finally understood my intention. I just want an intellectual conversation about Christianity. The merit if it's valid or not must be considered personally. But we can verify the logical consistency of the system. Because truth must be self consistent at least.

Let's also forget for a moment that none of what you describe as being your christian belief is backed by the Bible or by the teachings of Jesus or the apostles.

Strange... But let's try.

496

This is What I Would Need in Order to Believe

by cofty in

sometimes theists challenge atheists about what evidence would be required before they would believe.

various unlikely scenarios are offered in reply.

i have taken the bait myself in the past.. i think the correct answer is much more ordinary.

John_Mann

Are you avoiding the question? By all means, grace us with your apologetics of the god that made that man blind from birth. Because either "god did it" (for a number of possible reasons claimed by theistic apologetics) and then god is a moral monster; or then god didn't do it but is powerless or indifferent to stop it and then, why is he a god that merits worshipping?

Regarding the man blind from his birth, God sustains and permits everything that happens, even the (moral and natural evil).

God will sustain and permits the existence of evil forever (in an isolated way: Hell).

The cause of blindness of that man (his name was Celidonius) was not inherited moral evil but natural evil.

God is the only one who can make (greater) good from evil. That's the very point why Jesus said that.

Nobody else can make good from evil. If you start with evil you will continue with evil.

496

This is What I Would Need in Order to Believe

by cofty in

sometimes theists challenge atheists about what evidence would be required before they would believe.

various unlikely scenarios are offered in reply.

i have taken the bait myself in the past.. i think the correct answer is much more ordinary.

John_Mann

Not a good analogy. The god of the Bible made it entirely impossible for someone to escape suffering and death in the physical domain, the only one we can universally verify that exists. While many people find themselves trapped by political situations, they can always attempt to escape and some do it successfully, so it's not an inevitability.

He provided a very simple escape from the worse consequence of the original sin.

You can escape from a tyrannical country but not without some inevitable sacrifice.

Even moving from a house to another in the same street demands some inevitable unpleasant situations.

That's how things work.

496

This is What I Would Need in Order to Believe

by cofty in

sometimes theists challenge atheists about what evidence would be required before they would believe.

various unlikely scenarios are offered in reply.

i have taken the bait myself in the past.. i think the correct answer is much more ordinary.

John_Mann

(You are in contradiction with the Scriptures, then. When asked by his disciples if a man had been born blind because of the sins of his forebearers, Jesus denied that it was so. He also denied that he was blind for something he had done himself. (John 9:1-3) In turn, Jesus suggested that God had si gled out this man to suffer decades of blindness so that he could perform a heal miracle spectacle to awe people. This explanation also makes god look like a moral monster who plays with people's lives and doesn't really care for their suffering.

This is a very controversial event. It's used to defend Calvinism. This is a very very long discussion.

In any case, a god that makes someone pay for the sins of his forebearers is a moral monster who doesn't deserve to be worshipped.

It's not sinS and not all ancestors.

It's a very specific sin regarding the human nature itself committed only by the first souled human couple in a very specific situation (somewhere in Mesopotamia about 6.000 years ago).

The physical Eden is a recent interpretation. The old traditions said the Eden are in the spiritual realm (the paradise that Jesus told to the good thief and/or the Bosom of Abraham. Islam has the same view).

More than our ancestors they were representing the very human nature. Just like an entire country must face the consequences of the acts from their leaders. Even those who didn't vote (or agree with) in the leaders must face the consequences too.

It's not that hard to understand that.

John_Mann

Posts by John_Mann