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.

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

According to you, God created one place where there is no free will and no evil (Heaven) and another place where there is free will and evil (the physical/natural world)

I never said that!

God created a physical world and a metaphysical world.

In the metaphysical world good and evil are isolated from each other (Heaven and Hell).

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

1. So why not just send the people who are destined for Hell to Heaven as well and just cease their free will?

The cessation of free-will is about the choice between God and evil. Not the free-will between electronic or classical music, for instance.

Both souls in Heaven and Hell doesn't have free-will between God and evil anymore.

Souls go to Heaven or Hell immediately (and automatically) after the "hour of death" (we don't know exactly about the metaphysical process of death like "how much time" it takes. Jews say 11 months and Buddhists 49 days, the Catholic Church only says "hour").

This is called the Particular Judgement and finally someday they will be judged publicly in the Last Judgment.

If free will can be ceased as you claim then no one should be sent to Hell.

Why?

And this is not my claim, I just accepted it. This claim is from Christianity for several centuries. But I suppose you're not familiar with mainstream Christianity, right?

Everyone, both good and bad, should be sent to Heaven and then it's just simply a matter of ceasing their free will and everything will be fine and dandy.

No.

But we hope (and pray) to everybody goes to Heaven. The only beings certain to go to Hell are the demons.

2. So God created one place where there is no free will and no evil (Heaven) and another place where there is free will and evil (the physical/natural world).

Even the spiritual world will have (isolated) evil forever.

This clearly indicates then, that God is both good AND EVIL.

No.

God did not created Hell or evil.

That's Satan creation.

God only created the inevitable possibility of evil just like an architect creates the inevitable possibility of a suicidal jumping from a high balcony. This is called normal risk.

Satan was the first fool to have the idea to jump from the balcony to nihil.

Just because he didn't accept God taking the human nature inside the Godhead.

Satan became the lowest level of existence and Mary the highest level below God. Mary is the nearest being to God. The human nature is totally elevated in Heaven.

Ave Maria!

77

Interpret John 1:1 by John 1:1.

by towerwatchman in

interpret john 1:1 by john 1:1. .

the greek language has the definite article which has approximately thirty variations, is translated into english as “the”, and points to an identifiable personality, someone we have prior knowledge of.

but the greek language has no indefinite article corresponding to the english “a”, or “an”.

John_Mann

I challenge anybody to state it in their own words - and illustrate it - without using specialist language without contradicting themselves or committing heresy.

Three distinct persons sharing the same nature.

Just like past, present and future share the nature of time.

Past is time, present is time and future is time. Past is not present, present is not future and future is not past.

Why only three persons and not four or more?

Because there's only two immanent properties in the God's nature. Intellect and will.

How do we know that?

Because the human nature has only two too and the human nature is an image of God's nature.

The Son proceeds from the Father through intellect and the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son through will.

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 still have not answered my questions.

You can say you don't agree with my answers, right?

Again, evil is inevitable.

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

Now that you've told us all about free will and zero sum could you please answer my questions by providing EXPLICIT and DIRECT answers to the questions asked?

Evil is inevitable if you want free-will.

This world is the best possible world suited to free-willed beings.

Evil is inevitable and necessary in all possible worlds.

Even in an atheistic interpretation of the world.

Evil can only be isolated (and even this is only possible by ceasing free-will). That's why Hell must exist. And that's why there's no free-will in Heaven.

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

Human free-will needs natural laws, total privacy in the mind and a relative hide from God.

Because the presence of God collapses permanently the free-will (there are other things that collapses the free-will too but temporarily, like beauty, for instance).

When you see (in totality) God your very nature is transformed, in a sense you cease to be a human as we know it (no man can see God and live).

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

Why couldn't he do similarly for the physical/natural world?
What's the point of creating a physical/natural world where 1, 2 & 7 exist if there is another dimension in which they don't exist?
What does God get out of having these 2 dimensions of existence which have starkly different characteristics?
If you had the option to create a dimension in which 1, 2 & 7 do not exist versus the option to create a dimension in which 1, 2 & 7 do exist, which option would you chose and why?

Good questions.

First thing is about definition of God.

For my metaphysical (a branch of Philosophy) analysis I always use as definition the first premise (axiom) of the St. Anselm's ontological argument:

- God is something than which nothing greater can be thought.

AFAIK this definition of God is the most simple and elegant and I never found someone, until now, who doesn't accept it. Even Atheists must accept a definition of God in order to deny it. AFAIK this definition is accepted by every theist and atheist.

God is not a Marvel's superhero. He's bound to His very nature. From His nature comes necessary truths that are the same in all possible worlds (even in every dream of everyone) and are independent even from God's will. He can't lie and He can't be evil, for instance, because truth is greater than lie and good is greater than evil.

God using His middle knowledge or scientia media (please read about Molinism) searches all possible worlds from His nature.

Zero sum is an example of a necessary truth. Completeness and consistency is a zero sum, you must choose just one of them (the scientific method takes consistency that's why it can't be universal or complete, for instance). You can't have completeness and consistency at the same time (please read about Gödel's incompleteness).

Free-will and evil is a zero sum too.

How do we know that?

At the point God decided (using His free knowledge. See Molinism) to create free-willed beings bound (even temporarily) in a physical world He searched all possible worlds and He had to choose the best of them because it must be the greatest decision. Free-will is greater than temporary evil. So it's worth to pass through some temporary evil.

This is the best or greatest world possible in a zero sum between free-will and 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

I think I'd already answered them but let's do it again.

1. The evidence would not show beyond all doubt that the diversity of life rested on millions of years of relentless competition, death and destruction. Life would not have been all but wiped out in mass extinctions at least five times in its history.

Why not? CC accepts the ToE and this theory implies death and destruction.

This is how the physical world works. Catholic faith is all about the salvation of the metaphysical soul.

2. The predominant economy in the natural world would not be parasitic and predatory. The world really would show the loving qualities of its maker without having to ignore the majority of the facts.

Our physical bodies and some features of our minds came to existence through natural laws.

Only our immortal soul was made to be an image of God.

3.The bible really would contain prophecies that could be verified using objective historical evidence. It wouldn't be necessary to rip verses out of context and interpret ambiguous phrases to try to make details fit post hoc..

There's historical evidence that the Gospels were written before the destruction of the Temple of Jerusalem.

In these Gospels its destruction was prophecised by Jesus to be occuring during a biblical generation (40 years).

4.The bible would contain useful information that people could not have known at the time it was written.

This is a very subjective statement.

But if you apply statistics then the majority of people says the opposite of this statement. There's statistical evidence against this subjective statement.

5.The ethics of scripture would be enlightening and uplifting without exception. It would condemn things like slavery unambiguously and champion the rights and equality of women. It would not advocate moral evils that need to be explained away with appeals to relativism and special pleading.

This statement is based on Sola Scriptura and is very subjective too.

6.Miracles would really happen - even now in the age of CCTV, smart phones and scientific enquiry. It would require stubbornness rather than healthy skepticism to deny them.

I only accept the Catholic definition of miracle. I believe miracles only happen in a Catholic context. Here are some of them:

- Our Lady of Fatima ( the miracle of the sun)

- Our Lady of Zeitoun

- the Eucharist miracles of Buenos Aires and Lanciano.

7.Natural disasters would not kill millions of earth's inhabitants. The planet would not be designed to destroy life.

Natural disasters are inevitable consequences of natural laws. And natural laws are necessary in a world that harbors free-willed agents limited in a physical world.

8.Prayers would get answered reliably. Confirmation bias would not be necessary. The prayers of believers would have real and observable power.

This is a very subjective statement.

But if you apply statistics then the majority of people says the opposite of this statement. There's statistical evidence against this subjective statement.

9.There is so much more detail I could add to this, but in summary it would be more difficult to reject the claims of christianity than to accept them. It is not too much to expect that this should be so.

(...)

I want to add that there's not a single logical argument to Atheism.

Nothing, nihil...

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

For myself, atheism isn't a belief system like religions or cults.

You're right because Atheism cannot be concluded by logical steps.

It's not a system because it's only one axiom not a set of axioms.

It's just the axiom: no theism.

This axiom like any other is taken to be true through faith.

Atheism is not a logical conclusion but a subjective starting point.

John_Mann

Posts by John_Mann