Eternal Damnation

[Borachio]

Link to video.

I can't get over this video. I'm really not sure what he's on about. But it must be something.

 

[warpus]

OK, but believing in non-observable universe / reality is totally unscientific. Science can tell you only about what is observable.

I didn't say that I believe in anything that exists outside of the observable universe.

The point is that we have no idea what exists outside of it - so it is not correct to say that the apparent creation of the observable universe contradicts the law of preservation of energy.

You have to look at the system as a whole - and we aren't, we're just looking at the observable part of it. If you only looked at the Earth you'd conclude that the law of conservation of energy is broken too - but once you realize that energy is coming from the sun - you realize that the law isn't being broken at all.

 

[Puck Nutty]

I thought I was clear when I wrote, that being a sociopath does not mean you are going to do bad things. Most sociopaths, including psychopaths, never actually commit crimes. There are statistical differences between crime rate of psychopaths and non-psychopaths, of course. But similar statistical differences exist between crime rates of males and females (even aside from the fact that males are more likely to be psychopaths). Being a male instead of a female increases your statistical risk of becoming a criminal perhaps even more, than being a psychopathic male instead of a non-psychopathic male.

For example, 93% of all burglars are males and only 7% are females. Perhaps God should have made only one sex ???

There is a genetic factor into crime susceptibility but also other factors, as for example research on adopted sons shows.

Percent of adopted sons who broke the law, in relative to presence of criminals in their biological and adoptive families:

No criminals in biological family and in adoptive family - 13,5%
Criminals in adoptive family but not in biological family - 14,7%
Criminals in biological family but not in adoptive family - 19,6%
Criminals present in both biological & adoptive families - 24,5%

Genetic factor was found to be stronger among sons of thieves, while much weaker among sons of murderers and killers.



Being a sociopath often has also advantages. Many sociopaths are very successful in pursuing their careers and reach high in the social ladder.

The point I was trying to make is that God knows what you are going to do before you are even born. Therefore, God knew I was going to become an Atheist before he created me. He knew Jeffery Dahmer was going to murder and cannibalize people before he created him. He knew that no matter what tests or revelations he provided, the outcome was never going to change.

He knows the outcome beforehand, but still punishes people for going against his will. As El Machinae asked, why create someone you know is going to fail, only to have to condemn them forever?

 

[Domen]

Take two twins without their knowledge, (nor the knowledge of their parents or adopting parents either but that's more difficult), and place one in the care of criminals and the other in the care of a law-abiding family.

https://mctfr.psych.umn.edu/research/UM research.html

Minnesota Study of Twins Reared Apart

In 1979, T.J. Bouchard began to study twins who were separated at birth and raised in different families. We have found that an identical twin reared away from his or her co-twin seems to have about an equal chance of being similar to the co-twin in terms of personality, interests, and attitudes as one who has been reared with his or her co-twin.

This finding leads us to believe that the similarities between twins are due to genes, not environment. Given that the differences between twins reared apart must be due totally to the environment, and givne that these twins are just as similar as twins reared together, we can conclude that the environment, rather than making twins alike, makes them different.

One example of the amazing similarity of twins reared apart is the so-called “Jim twins”. These twins were adopted at the age of four weeks. Both of the adopting couples, unknown to each other, named their son James. Upon reunion of the twins when they were 39 years old, Jim and Jim have learned that:

- Both twins are married to women named Betty and divorced from women named Linda.
- One has named his first son James Alan while the other named his first son James Allan.
- Both twins have an adopted brother whose name is Larry.
- Both named their pet dog "Toy."
- Both had some law-enforcement training and had been a part-time deputy sheriff in Ohio.
- Each did poorly in spelling and well in math.
- Each did carpentry, mechanical drawing, and block lettering.
- Each vacation in Florida in the same three-block-long beach area.
- Both twins began suffering from tension headaches at eighteen, gained ten pounds at the same time, and are six feet tall and 180 pounds.

===========================

The point I was trying to make is that God knows what you are going to do before you are even born.

Nope. Unless you are talking about the Calvinist God. The rest of Christians and Jews have free will granted from God.

The point is that we have no idea what exists outside of it - so it is not correct to say that the apparent creation of the observable universe contradicts the law of preservation of energy. You have to look at the system as a whole - and we aren't, we're just looking at the observable part of it.

Well, God is also not observable. But scientists can look only at the observable part. The rest is a matter of faith / beliefs.

As El Machinae asked, why create someone you know is going to fail, only to have to condemn them forever?

Eternal damnation is perhaps just very long, not really eternal.

 

[Borachio]

I agree that twin studies are remarkably powerful.

I don't know of any which investigate the effects of a criminal environment on twins.

 

[Domen]

Maybe Off-Topic, but it always bothers me why people who are strong proponents of atheism are so often the same people who strongly oppose the existence of any biological / innate genetic differences between peoples, groups of peoples, ethnic groups, races, sexes, etc. The same people who believe everything is inside the brain argue that upbringing > genes. How can you be so naive ??? It must be some kind of an agreed ideological convention, or cheating yourselves in the name of a PC idea. The only way all humans can be equal is through soul in front of God. If God and souls don't exist then there is no equality, other than conventional (like equal rights or equality before the law, which is still partly fictional since when you have more money, you can get a better lawyer, etc.).

 

[Borachio]

First of all I don't consider myself an atheist, nor would I be unwilling to accept the existence of the soul if you presented me with any evidence for it.

The only way all humans can be equal is through soul in front of God. If God and souls don't exist then there is no equality,

And I don't know why you say this. It doesn't seem to logically follow that if God and souls don't exist then there is no equality.

Surely, our equality derives from our intrinsic worth as persons. Not as a result of notions of disembodied consciousness or pan-dimensional beings.

 

[warpus]

Well, God is also not observable. But scientists can look only at the observable part. The rest is a matter of faith / beliefs.

Sure, but either way it's not scientific to say that the universe contradicts conservation of energy laws. We don't know either way.

 

[Domen]

our equality derives from our intrinsic worth as persons.

If a person is nothing more than a collection of cells then what is the source of this intrinsic worth? Of course it is our accepted convention. The Nazis for instance did not accept this convention. Technically many of Nazi criminals did not break any paragraphs, either of international or domestic Nazi German law.

They were sentenced based on natural law, but this law is also a product of our brain cells - apparently.

 

[Borachio]

I'm going to go out on a limb here, and say I believe the Nazis were wrong.

 

[Domen]

And most people, including me, would agree with you. But is it because of some intrinsic definitions of wrongs and rights, or maybe it stems from our Judeo-Christian ethical and moral standards ??? Well, from evolutionary perspective ethnocentric cooperation seems to work best:

http://jasss.soc.surrey.ac.uk/16/3/7.html

https://www.google.pl/search?q=ethn...-8&oe=utf-8&gws_rd=cr&ei=QlzrVIb6A9LTaOGNgoAD

So, we are above evolution when we don't do Nazi-like stuff (we 1 : 0 evolution).

 

[Unicorny]

I suggest reading it again then. We disagree on the concept of sin vs. morals, but my other criticisms are reasonably spelled out. They're independent of each other, even. Each criticism stands on its own. Was your goal discussion or preaching?

Nope.

Well, since you didn't like my last objection, I'll try again. You base your justification on the above presuppositions. But those presuppositions conflict and all cannot be true, therefore any conclusions you draw from them cannot be true.

If we assume that the first one is true, then Hell Fire must be part of the infinity of God and not separate from God. The same would apply to people and their souls. If God is one, infinite and eternal, how can anything exist (or have ever existed) and be separate from God? Moral justification involves how one being acts on or towards another and the consequences of those actions. Since by your own presuppositions, their is only God (singular, eternal and infinite) there is no "other" for him to act upon nor is a separate place of tormented consciousness possible. All would be happening to God within the "mind" of God. If God wants to beat himself up in that way, no justification is necessary.

You want us to discuss "Is Eternal Torment Morally Justified?", but your own foundation undoes your entire argument. For your argument to work, you have to change the nature of God to something akin to: God is True. God is One. Eternal. Separate from his creation which is separate from Hell Fire. This though would give you three realms of existence: God, Creation and torment.

So, based on your presuppositions, since only God exists, their is no moral justification (nor any needed) for God to punish himself through all eternity.

Presuppositions are not up for debate; take'em or leave'em. The concept of infinity is beyond the grasp of finite beings such as us; therefore, I see no point in indulging in a discourse regarding it. Think of an infinite God being infinite in His own dimension and yet separate of His creation - the universe, Hell, Heaven, anything.

Singularities/infinity can exist in higher dimension (beyond the 7th dimension)



Link to video.

Link to video.

 

[Puck Nutty]

Nope. Unless you are talking about the Calvinist God. The rest of Christians and Jews have free will granted from God.

Well, I'm talking about the God we were taught about back in the day. If that's the Calvinist version, then OK. They don't burden 10 year olds with such distinctions and I'll admit that I don't spend much time researching all the various doctrines to know which is which.

Eternal damnation is perhaps just very long, not really eternal.

Still, it's hard to rationalize a fair and loving God with a being who intentionally sets someone up for failure and the punishes them for it, even if for an instant. And believe me, some Christians truly believe this to be the case.

 

[Domen]

who intentionally sets someone up for failure and then punishes them for it

However, I don't think that anyone is set up for failure, some people just have it harder not to fail.

Perhaps their "scale of failure" is different, as well as God takes into account their increased "difficulty level".

And believe me, some Christians truly believe this to be the case.

Well, I guess it is their failure if they believe this to be the case (I think this belief is popular among Calvinists).

 

[Borachio]

Borachio:

No it is not clearer, sorry. You define "material" so broadly that there is really nothing left which is not material, IMO.

Well, I don't know how to make it clearer.

Activity of the brain is a material thing, so all our imaginings are material in as much as they are activities of the brain. But not everything that we imagine is real: it doesn't necessarily correspond to a real thing out there in the world.

A unicorn is immaterial in reality, but our notion of a unicorn is real because it's a physical material activity of the brain. But it's only real in as much as it's an activity in the brain. Similarly for loads of abstract things. Our notion of justice is real since it's also a physical material activity of the brain. But there's no such thing as justice out there in the world. And to suppose that there's something not existing in the world but still existing means that it would (if it existed which I don't think it does, but someone like Plato might say it does) be immaterial.

I'm beginning to doubt whether I'm making any sense, myself, now.

I don't see why you don't understand me. It's just hard materialism, imo.

I'm going to give up now.

 

[Domen]

Presuppositions are not up for debate; take'em or leave'em. The concept of infinity is beyond the grasp of finite beings such as us; therefore, I see no point in indulging in a discourse regarding it. Think of an infinite God being infinite in His own dimension and yet separate of His creation - the universe, Hell, Heaven, anything.

Singularities/infinity can exist in higher dimension (beyond the 7th dimension)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JkxieS-6WuA

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ySBaYMESb8o

I've watched these two videos. So it seems that the Eleventh Dimension cannot exist, as the Tenth Dimension = absolutely everything?

I don't see why you don't understand me. It's just hard materialism, imo.

Well, now I understand you, I'm just not sure if I completely agree with this.

 

[Arakhor]

In the thread I linked, Unicorny explained why believing in a multiverse is less logical than believing in a higher power (like God).

He didn't explain anything of the sort. He gave his reasons (at length) why he thought this was the case, many of which he managed to discredit with his own arguments. He then accused everyone else of intellectual dishonesty for not being convinced.

 

[Borachio]

Well, now I understand you,

That's something of a relief! I was beginning to think I was losing it. More completely than usual.

 

[El_Machinae]

Nope. Unless you are talking about the Calvinist God. The rest of Christians and Jews have free will granted from God.

The OP assumed an omniscient god. Now, like I said, it's hard to square the idea of an omniscient god with Free Will, but we can just say we hand-wave it and accept the premise.

But, this still doesn't create a logical contradiction with the idea of only creating winners. Each person created can still freely choose, it's just that they freely chose the successful route.

Eternal damnation is perhaps just very long, not really eternal.

It might be. It squares with the idea of any transgression being temporary in nature. But there's still the question of "what is the point?". If damnation is long, but followed by annihilation, then there's no intrinsic point to the damnation. No one benefits from the torture. It's positing a god that creates something that doesn't add to the net good.

If a person is nothing more than a collection of cells then what is the source of this intrinsic worth?

Well, there's no intrinsic worth, in many ways. But this doesn't mean worth doesn't exist. Worth exists within the neurons of people. How do you measure worth? Well, you measure it based on how much people want it. The mind values itself. Other people value the mind. There's an irreplacable amount of information contained within every person's mind.

Sure, it's hard to measure, but minds value themselves. The gives them inherent worth, since there's someone who values it.

 

[warpus]

And why shouldn't we value human life and human intelligence? It seems fairly unique as well, at least in this part of the 'verse.