Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Philosoft · 10-04-2002, 09:45 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by RJS:


Sorry for the interruption, but I would like to ask a quick question on this general theme. It requires a hypothetical situation, so I am doubtful whether I can get a straight answer, but here it is.

Assume I held an envelope, and inside was the indisputable answer to the following question:

"Is there a loving perfect God with whom I can exist eternally in Heaven?"

What would you want to be inside the envelope -
Yes or No.

Hopefully we can avoid trying to define loving, Heaven, perfect, what would I do in Heaven, etc.

Straight answer: Yes

Not-so-straight answer: Trick question? How is what I want the answer to be of any consequence to what the answer actually is?

Ron Garrett · 10-04-2002, 09:50 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by MrDarwin:
I'm sure several of us are wondering just what he meant when he implied that the gospels do not contradict each other, asked for examples of such contradictions, and then abandoned the discussion upon being offended by Ron Garrett.

I'm still waiting for Vanderzyden to demonstrate to the rest of us (never mind that terribly rude and offensive Ron Garrett for the moment) how the two stories of Judas do not contradict each other, or how two stories that contradict each other do not suggest that one is errant, or what his definition of inerrancy might be to encompass two completely different--some might say contradictory--stories.

Vanderzyden, do you understand that you only succeed in making yourself (and by extension, Christianity) look foolish, if you make such statements and then refuse to follow up on them

Mac:

Maybe if you said "pretty please with sugar on top."

RJS · 10-04-2002, 09:55 AM

Quote:

How is what I want the answer to be of any consequence to what the answer actually is?

Thanks for the straight answer.

I dont think what you "want" the answer to be is of any consequence to the pre-existing answer. It only impacts what you might believe is in the envelope - as you know. Yes I know it cuts both ways - hence the reason for asking.

Ab_Normal · 10-04-2002, 10:00 AM

Actually, Jaime_L said it better than I can, but here goes anyway.

Okay, Vandervorlon, so you said:

Quote:

Is it possible that the athiest merely claims to deny what most see as obvious, and that this denial is actually a rejection of an "egomaniac" god?

To which I said in part:

Quote:

The number of people who agree with a preposition has no bearing on its truth.

Then you responded:

Quote:

That is not what I am saying. If you are going to reply, then please focus on the essence of the question.

I guess I misinterpreted "what most see as obvious" as being an argument by numbers. Let me take another stab at the "essence" of the question: I do not claim to deny the existance of god, I do deny the existance of god.

There, an answer. Happy?

Philosoft · 10-04-2002, 10:02 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by RJS:


I dont think what you "want" the answer to be is of any consequence to the pre-existing answer. It only impacts what you might believe is in the envelope - as you know. Yes I know it cuts both ways - hence the reason for asking.

I strongly disagree. I want what I want and I believe what I believe, but I make a serious effort not to believe what I want. There are many things I want to be true that I cannot believe to be true.

Mageth · 10-04-2002, 10:10 AM

...I make a serious effort not to believe what I want.

Good point. And that's were biblical faith comes in: "Faith is the substance of things hoped for...". I call this "Tinkerbell" belief.

K · 10-04-2002, 10:10 AM

RJS:

I would absolutely want to see what's in the envelope. But even more importantly, I would want everyone the world to see - regardless of what it said.

Here's a follow up question to you. If the answer in the evelope said that there was no God, would you want the rest of the world to know the truth?

RJS · 10-04-2002, 10:15 AM

Quote:

I would absolutely want to see what's in the envelope. But even more importantly, I would want everyone the world to see - regardless of what it said.

Here's a follow up question to you. If the answer in the evelope said that there was no God, would you want the rest of the world to know the truth?

Maybe you misunderstood the initial question (due to poor wording). The question was do you "want" the answer to the question in the envelope to read "Yes" or "No". I still would like your answer. I think Philosoft read it correctly when he said "yes", but maybe not.

On your question - my gut reaction is yes, I would want the world to know the "new truth".

Mageth · 10-04-2002, 10:20 AM

Assume I held an envelope, and inside was the indisputable answer to the following question:

"Is there a loving perfect God with whom I can exist eternally in Heaven?"

What would you want to be inside the envelope -
Yes or No.

Obviously there is no such envelope or indisputable answer. So each of us is left to figure things out on our own.

This gets back to the original topic. As there is no such indisputable answer, why would a theoretical benevolent god choose to condemn (or allow them to condemn themselves, if you like that better) many billions to hell (or separation, or annihilation, if you like one of those better) merely because they, using the faculties god supposedly gave them to examine the evidence god supposedly provided, in all honesty cannot believe in god?

K · 10-04-2002, 10:23 AM

Vanderzyden:

I think you take our discussions of the cruel, egomaniacal, random behavior of God to mean that we harbor some resentment toward Him. That's not the case at all (for me anyway). It is simply a vehicle for showing the absolute impossibility of the existence of a god with the attributes normally assigned Him by Christians. I, myself, have absolutely no animosity toward God. He's ficticious. I resent God as much as I resent the Easter Bunny, Frankenstein, and Jack Frost. Can you see how nonsensical it sounds to many of us when you accuse us of rejecting God?

Ask yourself whether you deny the existence of leprechauns or you are just rejecting them because of their selfish nature. That question has exactly the same meaning for me as the one you posed.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

10-04-2002, 10:10 AM	#216
Mageth Contributor Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Deep in the heart of mother-lovin' Texas Posts: 29,689	...I make a serious effort not to believe what I want. Good point. And that's were biblical faith comes in: "Faith is the substance of things hoped for...". I call this "Tinkerbell" belief.

10-04-2002, 10:10 AM	#217
K Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Chicago Posts: 1,485	RJS: I would absolutely want to see what's in the envelope. But even more importantly, I would want everyone the world to see - regardless of what it said. Here's a follow up question to you. If the answer in the evelope said that there was no God, would you want the rest of the world to know the truth?

10-04-2002, 10:20 AM	#219
Mageth Contributor Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Deep in the heart of mother-lovin' Texas Posts: 29,689	Assume I held an envelope, and inside was the indisputable answer to the following question: "Is there a loving perfect God with whom I can exist eternally in Heaven?" What would you want to be inside the envelope - Yes or No. Obviously there is no such envelope or indisputable answer. So each of us is left to figure things out on our own. This gets back to the original topic. As there is no such indisputable answer, why would a theoretical benevolent god choose to condemn (or allow them to condemn themselves, if you like that better) many billions to hell (or separation, or annihilation, if you like one of those better) merely because they, using the faculties god supposedly gave them to examine the evidence god supposedly provided, in all honesty cannot believe in god?

10-04-2002, 10:23 AM	#220
K Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Chicago Posts: 1,485	Vanderzyden: I think you take our discussions of the cruel, egomaniacal, random behavior of God to mean that we harbor some resentment toward Him. That's not the case at all (for me anyway). It is simply a vehicle for showing the absolute impossibility of the existence of a god with the attributes normally assigned Him by Christians. I, myself, have absolutely no animosity toward God. He's ficticious. I resent God as much as I resent the Easter Bunny, Frankenstein, and Jack Frost. Can you see how nonsensical it sounds to many of us when you accuse us of rejecting God? Ask yourself whether you deny the existence of leprechauns or you are just rejecting them because of their selfish nature. That question has exactly the same meaning for me as the one you posed.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.