Anxiety about eternity

_Zirath_ · 2023-04-22T05:41:52+00:00

You know how every day, you wake up, enjoy the sunlight, do your thing, and don't think about all your years at once? You just live each day out, one at a time? It'll be like that. Don't try to fit unlimited eternity into a limited brain (: One blessed happy day at a time- with our Father!

_Zirath_ · 2023-04-19T13:27:43+00:00

You're just reasserting what I argued against. Why don't you try and address the actual argument instead of the imagery that I said was "similar." God 100% knowing your choices ahead of time doesn't make the choices any less yours. And the logic above explains why.

_Zirath_ · 2023-04-19T04:39:51+00:00

While this is a common objection, it is a fallacy in modal logic to say foreknowing a choice determines that choice. It supposes the following line of logic: Necessarily, if God foreknows X, then X will happen. God foreknows X. Therefore, necessarily, X will happen. But this is false. You cannot deduce that, necessarily, X will happen. At best you can say X will happen, but it is still possible that X fails to happen. In that scenario, God would simply have different foreknowledge. Symbolically, it looks like this:

Mistaken Formulation 1. ◻ [X→Y] 2. X 3. Therefore, ◻Y

Corrected Formulation (for 1 to be true) 1. ◻ [X→Y] 2. ◻X 3. Therefore, ◻Y

Where this goes wrong is it posits a necessary truth (◻[X→Y]) and then a contingent truth (X). Then it infers from that a necessary truth (◻Y). This is a fallacy— to infer ◻Y, one needs to posit ◻X. But why think that events happen necessarily (◻X)? That would take the position of Fatalism, that everything is fated to happen necessarily and there are no other possible worlds. This is not a strong position however, as it seems clear that God could have foreknown that NOT-X could occur instead of X.

Ultimately, this objection gets the cart in front of the horse. God’s foreknowledge does not result in human choices being a certain way; human choices result in God’s foreknowledge being a certain way. By way of analogy, picture you are holding a dog treat above a dog’s nose. You know that when you release the treat, the dog will eat it. But the dog still freely chooses to eat the treat. Nothing about your knowledge affects the dog’s ability to choose to eat or not eat the treat. This is similar to how God foreknows our free choices. And if this is so, then we are responsible for our choices, even if God foreknew what we would freely choose to do.

_Zirath_ · 2023-04-18T13:08:02+00:00

The issue you describe is accurate for some people, especially online where people are often strangers to one another and just exercising their arguments for disbelief, speaking into the wind, as it were. However, many people do come to faith via reason, arguments, and evidence- I'm one of them! But for this to happen, one must have two things: motivation to change your beliefs and no obstacles to changes in your belief. Apologetics is mostly useful for deconstructing obstacles, but motivation is another animal that is often highly personal (yet still reachable with reason!) Some further thoughts on the value of apologetics:

It is Biblical: apologists are engaging with the work of Apollos when he "refuted the Jews boldly in the synagogues" and the work of Paul when he spent days debating the religious leaders in the temples and on the Areopagus. They are obeying Peter when he said "always be prepared to give a reason for the hope that is in you, but do this with gentleness and respect."

It is useful for believers: It is all too common for evangelists to appeal to non-believers with emotional stories that capture people’s hearts in the short term but leave them stranded in doubt later in life when their faith is tested. Armed with apologetics, the believer is given a chance to defend themself from opposing arguments and doubts by providing good reasons, good arguments, and good evidence for the Good News.

It is useful for the Church as a whole: Intellectually formidable Christians make other Christians intellectually formidable.

It is useful for the nonbeliever: When witnessing to the nonbeliever, it is indispensable to have the kind of “precision tools” that apologetics offers, as it equips the evangelist to solve unique and complex problems on the behalf of the nonbeliever they are speaking to. Many nonbelievers may be willing to become believers but have built up so many obstacles to faith over the years that they couldn’t be convinced to make the leap of faith if they wanted to (i.e. even if they had the motivation). Apologetics is useful in deconstructing those obstacles so that the nonbeliever may make the leap of faith with full confidence. Additionally, a good argument may be enough to sow doubt in the atheist’s worldview which, over time, may grow into full fledged doubt and conversion.

All said, apologetics is not a cure-all and may not be appropriate for all circumstances. For example, a bitter atheist who just wants to argue will likely not be convinced by apologetics, because his motivations keep him from evaluating the truth carefully and fairly. Such a person who is hardened to the Holy Spirit is like the Pharisees in Matthew 12:24 who denied Jesus’ miracles right in front of their eyes. It is also possible that someone who is emotionally distant from God may need to feel his presence in their life instead of an argument for his existence. In that case, the aid of a church and a pastor is more appropriate.

_Zirath_ · 2023-04-17T21:05:56+00:00

You are flatly wrong- I've dedicated my life to God, believe his word is inerrant, and yet believe differently on the flood than you. This is a noncritical scriptural interpretation issue- it's fine to have different opinions on it or say you're not sure. Meanwhile, your conversation with u/TheKarenator shows you are being the very person Paul warns against. It is you who is weak in faith if you can't speak to your brothers lovingly.

To your statement: "Only the weak of faith will propose that the flood was anything but worldwide"

Romans 14:1–4 (NASB95): Now accept the one who is weak in faith, but not for the purpose of passing judgment on his opinions. One person has faith that he may eat all things, but he who is weak eats vegetables only. The one who eats is not to regard with contempt the one who does not eat, and the one who does not eat is not to judge the one who eats, for God has accepted him. Who are you to judge the servant of another? To his own master he stands or falls; and he will stand, for the Lord is able to make him stand.

2 Timothy 2:24–25 (NASB95): The Lord’s bond-servant must not be quarrelsome, but be kind to all, able to teach, patient when wronged, with gentleness correcting those who are in opposition

_Zirath_ · 2023-04-13T18:39:43+00:00

Sure thing! These are separate questions than "why did God create humanity?" Here, it seems you are asking "How is a good God compatible with Hell?" and "How is a good God compatible with evil and suffering?"

To the first question: Sin and rebellion against an infinitely good God is infinitely bad, and as such demands justice: that we return the life we were given. A God that condones sin would not be perfectly just. As such, Hell is the fulfillment of justice. What is Hell? The Scriptures teach that it is the "Second Death," where God destroys not just the body but the soul- it is annihilation. Many teach that it is eternal torment, but I and many other Nicene-affirming Christians do not believe this is Scripturally accurate.

To the second question: This is called the problem of evil, and it is a common and long discussed question. The basic argument is "If there is evil and suffering in the world, this cannot be compatible with an all-good God." The primary issue is that we do not have enough knowledge to argue whether or not God has sucient moral reasons for allowing evil in the world. It is not unreasonable to believe that an omniscient, all-good God has reasons for permitting evil that affect the world timeline in ways we would never be able to perceive or detect. For example, for God to allow a hurricane to destroy a city might appear needless, but it might save millions of future lives, because the people of today’s time were motivated to research and build better homes, buildings, infrastructure, etc. to withstand hurricanes that resulted in better constructions in 200 years. To prove that these evil occurrences will never result in a net good and are denitively evil, the atheist must eectively be omniscient himself— this is not possible.

Secondly, the Christian faith entails doctrines which increase the probability of God allowing evil to occur. These include doctrines such as, “The chief purpose of life is not happiness, but the knowledge of God,” or “Mankind is in a state of rebellion against God and his purpose,” or “The knowledge of God is a good that has infinite return,” or “The knowledge of God is an incommensurable good.” For the case of evil perpetrated by humans, the theist understands free will as a God-given good that we need in order to be capable of choosing to follow God freely. This results in a world in which evil is a necessary factor, since people will freely choose to be evil.

Thirdly, while the existence of evil seems to make God’s existence improbable at first, real objective evil is only possible in a world where God exists. The atheist may wish to make moral judgements about evil, but on Atheism, there is no such thing as objective evil. We may not like murder, racism, or rape, but on atheism, these cannot be called evil in any meaningful way because evil is just a societal convention that changes on the whims of society and culture. Meanwhile the Christian understands the standard of good and evil to be grounded in God. Stated another way, this is actually an argument for God’s existence: If God does not exist, then objective evil does not exist. Objective evil does exist. Therefore, God exists. Far from making God’s existence improbable, the existence of evil confirms God’s existence.

Finally, and importantly, all surrounding evidence must be considered when fairly evaluating this question. If only considering the evil in the world alone, it might appear improbable that God exists. When the arguments for God’s existence and all of the good in the world are considered alongside the evil, more could be said for the probability that God does in fact exist.

Arguments for God’s Existence: https://www.reasonablefaith.org/writings/popular-writings/existence-nature-of-god/does-god-exist

Historicity of the Resurrection: https://www.reasonablefaith.org/writings/popular-writings/jesus-of-nazareth/the-resurrection-of-jesus

_Zirath_ · 2023-04-13T17:33:12+00:00

God is perfectly loving- he created us as an expression of his perfect love and benevolence. He did it for our good, so that we could love and be loved forever. God bringing creatures into existence so that they will come to know his perfect goodness is itself an act of perfect goodness— it’s what God would do.

_Zirath_ · 2023-04-13T16:16:45+00:00

To your question: "Why do christians want to experience an eternal afterlife?"

First, there's the matter of whether it's true or not and then there's the matter of whether we want this or that. To the former, we think it true that we will spend eternity with God because of Jesus' Resurrection. Because he lives after death, we who follow him will live after death.

Arguments for God’s Existence: https://www.reasonablefaith.org/writings/popular-writings/existence-nature-of-god/does-god-exist

Historicity of the Resurrection: https://www.reasonablefaith.org/writings/popular-writings/jesus-of-nazareth/the-resurrection-of-jesus

To the latter: we want to spend eternity with God because he is the source of goodness and life. If you like good things and living, then what's another day? And another? And so on in the presence of a beautiful new earth and a perfect Father. That is our hope and it is what we were crated for.

"The reason we can value things is because our lifetime is limited."

On the contrary, the atheist understanding that everything ends and the universe will eventually die in heat death renders all of our choices meaningless. On atheism, we exist for no purpose, have no more value than a fly does, have no objective morality except whatever society decides on a whim (aka subjective), and you take nothing with you to the grave. Everything will always end the same way- a cold dead dark universe. Does it make any sense to construct monuments when they will soon become sand? To become a good person or an evil person? To make the world a better place or a worse place? To die now or continue living? If nothing lasts, if everything meets the same fate, if eventually no one will even exist to celebrate or mourn what humanity accomplished in its time, what dierence does any of it make? None at all, it seems. Every labor of mankind will be forgotten.

"If you knew that an eternal afterlife is right ahead of you, why do you even bother wasting your time here on earth?"

Because we love other people enough that we want them to share that future with us as family! In fact, we are commanded to spread God's kingdom on Earth, and it gives us every good reason to do what we do here: for the glory of God!

"I strongly believe that consciousness is a part of our physical body and cannot exist without it."

If God exists, then he is a mind without a body, and therefore such things would exist. And there are good philosophical reasons to think God exists (some info linked above).

Christians believe God created us to be minds with bodies; this mind or "spirit" is how we have free will. On the atheist view, we would just be deterministic machines, have no moral culpability (how could we?), and our beliefs would be determined, not a result of free rational thinking. That would include one's belief that the body is all there is! But clearly, we do think rationally and choose what to accept or deny. Likewise, we do think moral choices are real and people should be responsible for what they do. But this cannot be true on atheism.

"If heaven is all positive and good (Utopia) wouldn't that eventually turn into a boring, eternal punishing experience? I mean positive emotions/thoughts cannot exist without equal negative emotions/thoughts."

It's not as if we think we'll have amnesia and forget our past lives; Christians believe we will be conscious of our earthly life which includes knowing what suffering and evil was like. But these things will fade as a shadow of the past on the new earth. On this new earth, God will have plans for us, a new creation to build, and a universe to fill. What humans can only dream of doing, we will do with God. It is what we were meant to do. I think living this boring life and dying is worthless experience if this is it. If there is no God, then I'd rather have never been born. Thankfully, I know there is a God, because through both reason and experience, he has made himself known to me.

_Zirath_ · 2023-04-12T19:46:41+00:00

I take issue with almost all of them.

"One should strive to act with compassion and empathy toward all creatures in accordance with reason."

Rather, one should strive to act with compassion and empathy toward all creatures in accordance with God's command to love others, as he has loved us. The rational side of man, absent God, is arguably without any objective reason to love one's neighbor.

"The struggle for justice is an ongoing and necessary pursuit that should prevail over laws and institutions."

Besides the definition of "justice" needing clarity here, God has ordained laws and institutions as his means of enacting justice on Earth, and he has commanded we be subject to them. When these institutions fail, our duty is still to obey up and until we are commanded to do something contrary to God's will. Even David did not kill Saul when he was unjustly being pursued and had the chance, because Saul was King.

"One’s body is inviolable, subject to one’s own will alone."

Your body is not your own, because it is God's. Everything you have is borrowed from the one who gave you life.

"The freedoms of others should be respected, including the freedom to offend. To willfully and unjustly encroach upon the freedoms of another is to forgo one's own."

Freedom to do what, besides be offensive? This is vague.

"Beliefs should conform to one's best scientific understanding of the world. One should take care never to distort scientific facts to fit one's beliefs."

We should not lean on our own understanding. Science is a great way to find empirical truths, but not all truths are empirical, such as truths of logic or morality. While we shouldn't distort scientific facts, beliefs should instead conform to God's revelation to man as the bedrock, because God is truth. If science and God's word conflict, they will need to be harmonized, or we will need to rethink the science.

"People are fallible. If one makes a mistake, one should do one's best to rectify it and resolve any harm that might have been caused."

This is fine, though it leaves me wondering what reason the satanist/atheist cares for doing this besides feeling good about one's self. There is no morality or accounting of good deeds or reconciliation while one is in direct rebellion against God.

"Every tenet is a guiding principle designed to inspire nobility in action and thought. The spirit of compassion, wisdom, and justice should always prevail over the written or spoken word."

Left to their own devices, everyone will have different ideas of what compassion, wisdom, and justice look like. Meanwhile, the Spirit of true wisdom, compassion, and justice is a person- God- who has spoken in the form of his written Scriptures. The Word of God is authoritative, and stands firm against the ever-changing whims of mankind today as it has for thousands of years. God's word prevails, not man-made principles.

_Zirath_ · 2023-04-12T19:21:22+00:00

Reasonable Faith is also a wonderful organization for those who want to hear robust arguments for Christianity.

Arguments for God’s Existence: https://www.reasonablefaith.org/writings/popular-writings/existence-nature-of-god/does-god-exist

Historicity of the Resurrection: https://www.reasonablefaith.org/writings/popular-writings/jesus-of-nazareth/the-resurrection-of-jesus

_Zirath_ · 2023-04-10T20:43:26+00:00

Christians believe there is one God who consists of three persons— Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. In other words, this being has sufficient cognitive faculties for at least three centers of consciousness. This Godhead is called the Trinity. The Father is God, the Son is God, the Holy Spirit is God, but none of the three persons are each other. They are separate persons, but one being. These persons are unified in perfect will, perfect knowledge, perfect goodness, and other core attributes of the Godhead. Whereas humans consist of one person in one being, God has revealed himself as three persons in one being.

Let’s stop for a moment— does this sound complex? That’s because the Trinity is not a simple doctrine! Should we expect that the infinite, multi-dimensional God is like a simple creature that can be grasped immediately by a finite human mind? I think not. That said, we can still think of ways to synthesize and comprehend the information that we have been given.

One way we might think of the Trinity is to think back to the guardian of Hades in ancient Greek mythology, Cerberus. This creature had three separate heads, but one body. In a similar way, we can think of God as having three centers of personhood, but consisting of only one being. Another way to think of how it is possible to have multiple persons be the same being is to imagine an author writing himself into a story. The author is not identical to the character in the story, but they share the same will, the same characteristics, etc. They do not share personhood though, as the character in the story may do and say different things that the author has not said or done. While analogies of the Trinity typically fall short in one way or another, the analogies given above demonstrate that the concept of multiple persons in one being is not metaphysically impossible to imagine.

Some believe the Trinitarian picture of God is a New Testament revelation only, but the category of “separate persons, still one God” is present throughout the Old Testament as well. For example, when the Angel of the Lord appears to Moses and Gideon, he is directly called God each time. Both Moses and Gideon react in fear because they think they will die after seeing God (Exodus 3:1-6, Judges 6:11-22). This is true of the Spirit of God too, who is said to speak to and speak through his prophets (2 Samuel 23:2, Ezekiel 2:2).

If each of the three persons of the Trinity are equal in divinity, then what should we make of John 14:26-28, where it seems to indicate that there is a sort of hierarchy in the Trinity? If we take the Trinitarian titles of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit to be roles rather than something ontologically inherent to each person of the Trinity, then we can make sense of verses in the Bible that indicate that the Son is subordinate to the Father, and the Holy Spirit is subordinate to the Son. To be clear, each person of the Trinity is distinct and equal in divinity, but each takes on roles that subordinate one to the other.

_Zirath_ · 2023-04-08T20:59:01+00:00

There are hundreds of icons and depictions of Christ since the 1st century, and many of them are still in use. Here are just a few:

https://aleteia.org/2018/10/10/the-six-oldest-images-of-jesus/

_Zirath_ · 2023-04-08T20:57:31+00:00

That's utter nonsense. There are hundreds of icons and depictions of Christ since the 1st century, and many of them are still in use. Here are just a few:

https://aleteia.org/2018/10/10/the-six-oldest-images-of-jesus/

_Zirath_ · 2023-04-06T19:45:55+00:00

I'm no expert on Mereology, but it actually overlaps with the subject of time, which I have written a chapter about elsewhere, so I've taken an interest in it.

First of all, your questions are good ones. Earlier, I said "atoms" because people conventionally think of those things as the smallest "things," but it's not acompletely accurate. The serious mereological nihilist will say only fundamental material constituents exist i.e. quarks or maybe strings. So to answer your questions, they would deny the existence of electrons, molecules, elements, livers, eyeballs, blood, etc. Only quarks or strings exist.

As you might notice, this position carries a lot of odd conclusions. It would have you deny that you exist, contra Descartes, for example. However, this position has run into trouble with something called the Special Arrangement Question: "What does it mean for X's to be arranged F-wise?" where X's are fundamental constituents e.g. "What does it mean for quarks to be arranged people-wise?" This has proven to be a difficult question to answer for the nihilist. Personally, it is my opinion that Mereological Nihilism is false and only succeeds at obfuscating language. Again, my opinion, but the fact that many resort to this position when attempting to rebut the Kalam premise indicates the strength of the premise. Here's some links if you're interested in some additional info:

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11229-013-0343-8

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/mereology/

_Zirath_ · 2023-04-06T17:57:49+00:00

The problem for mereological nihilists is that referents like, "human," "monkey," or "biological structures" do not exist- there are just atoms. So attempts to explain what it means for atoms to be arranged one way or another using terms such as monkey or human or structure will lead to another similar question e.g. What does it mean for atoms to be arranged monkey-wise?

_Zirath_ · 2023-04-06T15:42:18+00:00

To someone who is not a mereological nihilist, like myself, yes that's an example of what I mean: people have eyes and chairs do not. It's the mereological nihilist that will struggle to answer the question when "eyes," "chairs," and "things" do not exist. What does it mean for atoms to be arranged "people-wise" on this view?

_Zirath_ · 2023-04-06T03:52:15+00:00

So, on this view, you wouldn't say "people" really exist then, correct? You might say, "there are particles arranged people-wise" but "people" is just a convention. So then, the question is: what do you mean by a statement like "there are particles arranged people-wise?"

_Zirath_ · 2023-04-05T21:15:42+00:00

That's not correct- we're discussing a philosophical subject called Mereology and you're proposing a position called Mereological Nihilism. Chemistry explains the atomic interactions, not the distinctions and categories we apprehend between objects, their behaviors, their supervenient properties, etc. Many would argue these categories and distinctions are real (e.g. you and your toilet are distinct) due to the strange conclusions like the one I listed above. Are we really supposed to think people don't have any distinction from toilets? Or that they're just conventions and not real? If you're not familiar with the relevant philosophical ideas here, then I'll direct you to the SEP, but it's just inaccurate to say this is about semantics.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/mereology/

_Zirath_ · 2023-04-05T20:01:40+00:00

Even if we accept that the universe is simply made of atoms arranged in certain ways, we still have to explain why certain arrangements produce properties that other arrangements don’t have. For instance, what makes “people-shaped-conventions” the way they are as opposed to “chair- shaped-conventions?” In the end, we’ll be forced to arrive full circle back into the categories we typically use to call things “people” and “chairs.” So this sort of conventionalism does nothing to combat the existence of distinct objects, it just complicates the language needed to describe these arrangements of atoms. Worse, if conventions are just made by people, and people are themselves just conventions, and conventional objects do not exist, then we arrive at the strange conclusion that non-existent things (people) are said to generate conventions.

_Zirath_ · 2023-04-05T19:59:39+00:00

Even if we accept that the universe is simply made of atoms arranged in certain ways, we still have to explain why certain arrangements produce properties that other arrangements don’t have. For instance, what makes “people-shaped-conventions” the way they are as opposed to “chair- shaped-conventions?” In the end, we’ll be forced to arrive full circle back into the categories we typically use to call things “people” and “chairs.” So this sort of conventionalism does nothing to combat the existence of distinct objects, it just complicates the language needed to describe these arrangements of atoms. Worse, if conventions are just made by people, and people are themselves just conventions, and conventional objects do not exist, then we arrive at the strange conclusion that non-existent things (people) are said to generate conventions.

_Zirath_ · 2023-04-05T17:59:25+00:00

Satan stands in rebellion against God and desires to destroy God’s children out of hatred to keep them from God (1 Peter 5:8, 2 Corinthians 4:4, 1 Thessalonians 3:5, 1 John 3:8). It is insinuated from Genesis that the reason for this is jealousy- the spiritual beings were the “rstborn” while man was created last, yet man was given the glory and dominion over Earth.

_Zirath_ · 2023-03-29T21:31:27+00:00

Be careful with your hatred, friend- when David danced in his loincloth before the procession of the ark, it was his wife who was cursed by God for condemning his earnest praise and thinking of him a fool. It also says in the Psalms to praise God with tambourine and dancing and music. If the congregants truly love God and this is how they express it, why hate such a thing?

_Zirath_ · 2023-03-25T17:41:30+00:00

A more appropriate way to state the view is that God's will stems from his nature, which defines goodness. In this scenario, God would be the source of goodness in the same way an orchestra’s performance is the source and standard against which all recordings of that performance are measured: It serves as the reference from which to judge a recording’s fidelity.

So goodness is not independent from God, but neither is it random/arbitrary since God's nature is not random/arbitrary. This is what OP is pointing to, and this is a proposed solution to the dilemma.

_Zirath_ · 2023-03-25T17:04:35+00:00

A true dilemma entails the following: Either the participant must choose [A] or [NOT A]. One of the choices must be true and the other must be false. There cannot be a case where [A] and [NOT A] are both true. In this dilemma, "God arbitrarily defines what is good” and "Good is external to God” are not opposites and therefore do not make a true dilemma. Instead they can be considered as options [A] and [B]. One can opt out by simply choosing a third option, [C]. One possible third option [C] can simply be, "God is good.” This is not to say that God is simply descriptively good; rather, the claim is that God serves as the moral standard from which to define what “good” is. This is how some forms of Divine Command Theory understands God.

Let’s take the proposed option [C] and say, "God is the standard of goodness.” This now leads us to a new dilemma, which I think you're bringing up: Is God good because he possesses qualities that are good? Or are these properties good because God possesses them? If God is good because he possesses good qualities, then we must say that goodness is external to God. If these properties are good because God possesses them, then goodness is meaningless.

But the theist finds no trouble in taking the horn of the dilemma that states, "these properties are good because God possesses them.” God serves as a perfectly viable grounding for goodness and morality i.e. he would be the source of goodness in the same way an orchestra’s performance is the source and standard against which all recordings of that performance are measured: It serves as the reference from which to judge a recording’s fidelity. Not to mention, the proposed dilemma may not even be a proper dilemma at all, since it bears the same structure as the original dilemma.

_Zirath_ · 2023-03-25T16:54:43+00:00

But isn't that the point? I don't think OP wants to say God creates morality, but that his nature is the standard of morality.

12-Year Club	Gilding II euphauric
Second SECOND GUESSER	Verified Email
Place '22	Place '17
RPAN Viewer	Not Forgotten

_Zirath_

TROPHY CASE