Let's try this again... Is God Omnipresent?

Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
Let's try this again... Is God Omnipresent?

The last time I asked this question, the thread got hijacked and everyone forgot the original question.

So, let's address it again.  Is God Omnipresent?  If he is, then what is hell?  I was taught (in a protestant upbringing) that hell is the absence of God's presence, and that damnation to hell was God removing his presence from a sinner for eternity.

So, which is it?  Is God omnipresent or not?  One of these options must be true:

1) God is omnipresent, and he is in hell.

2) God is not omnipresent, and so is not in hell.

Theists, make your choice!

If you choose option 1, you must tell me what hell is, since it is not the removal of god's presence.

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


MrRage
Posts: 896
Joined: 2006-12-22
User is offlineOffline
I'm trying to come up with a

I'm trying to come up with a reasonable theistic answer.

Could it be that when they say God is omnipresent, that means omnipresent in our universe? Since Hell is not in our universe, God could actually not be present there.


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
That's the most obvious way

That's the most obvious way to get out of it, but it still causes a dilemma.

If god is not omnipresent in other universes, he's still not omnipresent, AND you've opened up a whole new can of worms by admitting that there are other universes where god is NOT. If that is so, maybe he's just a bratty little kid who's fucking up the universe his daddy god gave him to play with.

Furthermore, if there are other universes where god is NOT, then god is not truthful. Physicists already have figured out that there might be other universes. If we can comprehend this, then our concepts of "everything" or "infinite" include other universes. Since god told man that he is omnipresent, and knew that we would be aware of other universes, and yet he is not in those universes, then god is a liar.

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


zarathustra
atheist
zarathustra's picture
Posts: 1249
Joined: 2006-11-16
User is onlineOnline
Reasonable theistic

Reasonable theistic answer:  "Some things we simply cannot know..."


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
appeal to ignorance =

appeal to ignorance = logical fallacy

 

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


RhadTheGizmo
Theist
Posts: 1191
Joined: 2007-01-31
User is offlineOffline
Reasonable answer in

Reasonable answer in general: "Most things we cannot KNOW.. but we can postulate and act in accordance with those postulations." Smiling


MrRage
Posts: 896
Joined: 2006-12-22
User is offlineOffline
Hambydammit wrote: That's

Hambydammit wrote:

That's the most obvious way to get out of it, but it still causes a dilemma.

If god is not omnipresent in other universes, he's still not omnipresent, AND you've opened up a whole new can of worms by admitting that there are other universes where god is NOT.

I would imagine that Hell is not a universe, but some supernatural place, like heaven is. So the normal "rules" don't apply. But then your right, this opens up a whole can of worms we can not possible solve, because we know nothing about it.

Anyway, I don't want to play "theist advocate" here.


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
;-) Can't say I blame

Eye-wink

Can't say I blame you.

I'm about to go eat, so I'll give away the punch line to the whole thread.

This thread goes with my "Simple Truths" thread.  The punch line is that there's no simple way to answer simple questions about god.

Any attempt to explain any of this leads to some hypothetical land of nihilism, which brings us back around to not knowing anything for sure about god...

Which leads us back to revelation...

Which leads us back to nihilism...

Which leads us to spinning around in circles until we vomit.

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


RhadTheGizmo
Theist
Posts: 1191
Joined: 2007-01-31
User is offlineOffline
Mmm.. vomit. :P

Heh. Then why have the conversation at all? If its right conclusion leads to nowhere?


MrRage
Posts: 896
Joined: 2006-12-22
User is offlineOffline
RhadTheGizmo wrote: Heh.

RhadTheGizmo wrote:
Heh. Then why have the conversation at all? If its right conclusion leads to nowhere?

Because there are so many Christians in the US who claim to know for certain so many things about God.


RhadTheGizmo
Theist
Posts: 1191
Joined: 2007-01-31
User is offlineOffline
So its not so much that

So its not so much that there necessary "irrational" only.. their "certain-ness" bothers you?


MrRage
Posts: 896
Joined: 2006-12-22
User is offlineOffline
RhadTheGizmo wrote: So its

RhadTheGizmo wrote:
So its not so much that there necessary "irrational" only.. their "certain-ness" bothers you?

Yes.

I don't mind if people want to be Christians. It's when they take their faith so seriously they start doing destructive things. Of course I do mind the irrational part, but I can tolerate it.


pby
Theist
Posts: 170
Joined: 2007-02-07
User is offlineOffline
Hambydammit wrote: The

Hambydammit wrote:

The last time I asked this question, the thread got hijacked and everyone forgot the original question.

So, let's address it again.  Is God Omnipresent?  If he is, then what is hell?  I was taught (in a protestant upbringing) that hell is the absence of God's presence, and that damnation to hell was God removing his presence from a sinner for eternity.

So, which is it?  Is God omnipresent or not?  One of these options must be true:

1) God is omnipresent, and he is in hell.

2) God is not omnipresent, and so is not in hell.

Theists, make your choice!

If you choose option 1, you must tell me what hell is, since it is not the removal of god's presence.

 

 

Answer:  Option 3:  Your definition, at least the one that was given to you, of Hell is incorrect (which it is).

The Bible refers to Hell as literal place...Nowhere in Scripture will you find that it is defined as "the absence of God's presence". 

 


MrRage
Posts: 896
Joined: 2006-12-22
User is offlineOffline
pby wrote: The Bible refers

pby wrote:
The Bible refers to Hell as literal place...Nowhere in Scripture will you find that it is defined as "the absence of God's presence".

Of course it doesn't. People just ignore the lake of fire bit, just like they ignore all the other unpleasant bits of the bible, to make Christianity more palatable.


xamination
xamination's picture
Posts: 420
Joined: 2007-02-01
User is offlineOffline
Here's an idea - hell is a

Here's an idea - hell is a place for the damned and Satan, but under the power of God.  That is to say, Satan is allowed to whatever down there, but God could always destroy it if he wished, considering he created it.  He's there, but he lets thing be.

Asking then why God would let such a place exist, I would say that would come back to the Problem of Evil. 

I hope that when the world comes to an end I can breathe a sigh of relief, because there will be so much to look forward to.


zarathustra
atheist
zarathustra's picture
Posts: 1249
Joined: 2006-11-16
User is onlineOnline
Here's an idea - Any play on

Here's an idea - Any play on words will help you dance around inherent contradictions like god's omniprescence and hell (among others).

There are no theists on operating tables.

πππ†
π†††


xamination
xamination's picture
Posts: 420
Joined: 2007-02-01
User is offlineOffline
Quote: Here's an idea - Any

Quote:
Here's an idea - Any play on words will help you dance around inherent contradictions like god's omniprescence and hell (among others).

It's not a contradiction - God could be in Hell, he just wouldn't run it.  And if someone would question the morality of it, he would just point to the rules(die with sin, go to hell, die without, go to heaven). 

I hope that when the world comes to an end I can breathe a sigh of relief, because there will be so much to look forward to.


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
rhad, I didn't admit that

rhad, I didn't admit that your descent into nihilism was inherently valid, I just said I wasn't going to go there because it's rather pointless to engage in the same debate again.  The nihilism defense by definition can't prove or disprove anything, and is only useful as a philosophical exercise, so I'm not interested in going there.

As far as whether or not hell is a real place or not, or whether god "runs it" or chooses not to be present, or whether hell is the absence of god or not... none of these are of particular interest to me, and I'm not going to get into semantic arguments or breaking down each and every fallacy in each of these theories.  My interest is in showing how extensive the mental gymnastics must be to come up with even a poor explanation.

There's a loop here that theists run in...

 1) atheist points out contradiction.

2) theist re-defines, explains away, or ignores contradiction

3) atheist points out that a good god would not make it so hard to believe in him if he truly loved his creation...

4) theist points out that without faith, belief is impossible, and that's the beauty of the whole system.

5) atheist points out that "faith" is illogical, and that this in itself rules out the religion.

6) theist exclaims vehemently that faith is not illogical, then tries to redefine logic such that faith is not illogical.

7) atheist points out that the theist had to use logic to realize that he needed to use logic to prove faith logical but not logical...

Cool theist says that he uses faith, not logic...

9) atheist points out that this is a contradiction.

10) see step 2.

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


pby
Theist
Posts: 170
Joined: 2007-02-07
User is offlineOffline
Hambydammit wrote: rhad, I

Hambydammit wrote:

rhad, I didn't admit that your descent into nihilism was inherently valid, I just said I wasn't going to go there because it's rather pointless to engage in the same debate again.  The nihilism defense by definition can't prove or disprove anything, and is only useful as a philosophical exercise, so I'm not interested in going there.

As far as whether or not hell is a real place or not, or whether god "runs it" or chooses not to be present, or whether hell is the absence of god or not... none of these are of particular interest to me, and I'm not going to get into semantic arguments or breaking down each and every fallacy in each of these theories.  My interest is in showing how extensive the mental gymnastics must be to come up with even a poor explanation.

There's a loop here that theists run in...

 1) atheist points out contradiction.

2) theist re-defines, explains away, or ignores contradiction

3) atheist points out that a good god would not make it so hard to believe in him if he truly loved his creation...

4) theist points out that without faith, belief is impossible, and that's the beauty of the whole system.

5) atheist points out that "faith" is illogical, and that this in itself rules out the religion.

6) theist exclaims vehemently that faith is not illogical, then tries to redefine logic such that faith is not illogical.

7) atheist points out that the theist had to use logic to realize that he needed to use logic to prove faith logical but not logical...

Cool theist says that he uses faith, not logic...

9) atheist points out that this is a contradiction.

10) see step 2.

 

 

Your question is illogical because it contains an incorrect definition for Hell...Are you going to recognize this?


zarathustra
atheist
zarathustra's picture
Posts: 1249
Joined: 2006-11-16
User is onlineOnline
Many a theologian has

Many a theologian has described hell as the abscence of god's prescence, the bible notwithstanding.  Maybe all those who actually believe in hell should get together and settle on a final definition of hell, to avoid any further confusion.  

There are no theists on operating tables.

πππ†
π†††


pby
Theist
Posts: 170
Joined: 2007-02-07
User is offlineOffline
zarathustra wrote: Many a

zarathustra wrote:

Many a theologian has described hell as the abscence of god's prescence, the bible notwithstanding.  Maybe all those who actually believe in hell should get together and settle on a final definition of hell, to avoid any further confusion.  

Christians do not rest their definitions on theologians alone but on the authority of Scripture, first and last (it is an Acts 17:11 thing).

Please cite the Biblical definition for Hell and also specifically cite the "many a theologian" that you referenced.

Clearly, the Biblical definition for Hell does not line up with the definition provided in the question. Perhaps, the unwillingness to recognize this fact stems from the understanding that the premise behind the question is then revealed as a fallacy.


KSMB
Scientist
KSMB's picture
Posts: 702
Joined: 2006-08-03
User is offlineOffline
pby wrote: Christians do

pby wrote:

Christians do not rest their definitions on theologians alone but on the authority of Scripture, first and last (it is an Acts 17:11 thing).

Please cite the Biblical definition for Hell and also specifically cite the "many a theologian" that you referenced.

Clearly, the Biblical definition for Hell does not line up with the definition provided in the question. Perhaps, the unwillingness to recognize this fact stems from the understanding that the premise behind the question is then revealed as a fallacy.

Please give me the bible verses where hell is actually defined. Not where it is mentioned, but where it is defined.


pby
Theist
Posts: 170
Joined: 2007-02-07
User is offlineOffline
KSMB wrote: pby

KSMB wrote:
pby wrote:

Christians do not rest their definitions on theologians alone but on the authority of Scripture, first and last (it is an Acts 17:11 thing).

Please cite the Biblical definition for Hell and also specifically cite the "many a theologian" that you referenced.

Clearly, the Biblical definition for Hell does not line up with the definition provided in the question. Perhaps, the unwillingness to recognize this fact stems from the understanding that the premise behind the question is then revealed as a fallacy.

Please give me the bible verses where hell is actually defined. Not where it is mentioned, but where it is defined.

Answer:  Show me that the Bible defines it the way the questioner defined it?

 

 


KSMB
Scientist
KSMB's picture
Posts: 702
Joined: 2006-08-03
User is offlineOffline
pby wrote: KSMB

pby wrote:
KSMB wrote:
pby wrote:

Christians do not rest their definitions on theologians alone but on the authority of Scripture, first and last (it is an Acts 17:11 thing).

Please cite the Biblical definition for Hell and also specifically cite the "many a theologian" that you referenced.

Clearly, the Biblical definition for Hell does not line up with the definition provided in the question. Perhaps, the unwillingness to recognize this fact stems from the understanding that the premise behind the question is then revealed as a fallacy.

Please give me the bible verses where hell is actually defined. Not where it is mentioned, but where it is defined.

Answer: Show me that the Bible defines it the way the questioner defined it?

What? That's the best you can do? I ask you how you would define it, using the bible.


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
pby, please check your high

pby, please check your high horse at the door.

Did you read my post carefully?  If so, why does it appear that you missed the part where I said that if hell is different than I'm portraying, you should tell me what it is?

To save you some trouble, don't bother unless you have some good backing for what you're saying.  If you don't have some evidence, I'm just going to assume you're saying it because that's what you want to believe to make your little version of god work.

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


M
Theist
Posts: 68
Joined: 2007-02-04
User is offlineOffline
Hambydammit wrote: The

Hambydammit wrote:

The last time I asked this question, the thread got hijacked and everyone forgot the original question.

So, let's address it again. Is God Omnipresent? If he is, then what is hell? I was taught (in a protestant upbringing) that hell is the absence of God's presence, and that damnation to hell was God removing his presence from a sinner for eternity.

So, which is it? Is God omnipresent or not? One of these options must be true:

1) God is omnipresent, and he is in hell.

2) God is not omnipresent, and so is not in hell.

Theists, make your choice!

If you choose option 1, you must tell me what hell is, since it is not the removal of god's presence.

 

Hello. This is my first post on this forum, so please excuse any failed attempts at formatting my replies at this time. I am still getting used to the forum system here.

First and foremost I suggest that we casts to the side the overgeneralizations of Protestants, Theists, and the like. While you may have in fact been brought up under a Protestant Theology you were not in fact brought up under all Protestant Theology, or all of Theism, which does not all conveniently share these simplified views of a place called "Hell" or end time punishment by God. While I will in fact agree that this is the popularized version in modern Christianity (though I will be cautious and exempt Orthodoxy and newly Reformed theologies from this paradigm), this is certainly still not the case among us all.

And while you certainly have made available the option to explain what "Hell" is, it is not apparent within the first list of options out of the two given. I would say it creates a limitation in that it excludes any other views on Hell regarding the duration of it's existance as noted under Christian Conditionalists and Christian Universal Reconcliationists views. I think a third option should be in mind next time you decide to pose these questions.

With that little introduction I suppose I'll leave note of my own beliefs as well as a passage for reflection sake. I am on the fence at the moment between being a Conditionalists or a Universal Reconcilationists. How I came to these conclusions is a matter of a much longer discussion that I do not really want to get into full on this thread, else it may distract from the prime objection at hand (a critique of this particular theology), unless of course the Original Poster (OP) believes this to be the only view point, where then I might have a little more reason to object to such notions.

As for the passage:

Then a third angel followed them, saying with a loud voice, “If anyone worships the beast and his image, and receives his mark on his forehead or on his hand, he himself shall also drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is poured out full strength into the cup of His indignation. He shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels and in the presence of the Lamb. (Revelations 14:9-10).

 

I obtained my Black Belt in History. Don't mess with this Master Historian.


M
Theist
Posts: 68
Joined: 2007-02-04
User is offlineOffline
MrRage wrote: pby

MrRage wrote:
pby wrote:
The Bible refers to Hell as literal place...Nowhere in Scripture will you find that it is defined as "the absence of God's presence".
Of course it doesn't. People just ignore the lake of fire bit, just like they ignore all the other unpleasant bits of the bible, to make Christianity more palatable.

 Who are these "people"? All Christians? Some Christians? Christian advocates? Some Christian advocates?

I obtained my Black Belt in History. Don't mess with this Master Historian.


MrRage
Posts: 896
Joined: 2006-12-22
User is offlineOffline
M wrote: MrRage

M wrote:

MrRage wrote:
pby wrote:
The Bible refers to Hell as literal place...Nowhere in Scripture will you find that it is defined as "the absence of God's presence".
Of course it doesn't. People just ignore the lake of fire bit, just like they ignore all the other unpleasant bits of the bible, to make Christianity more palatable.

Who are these "people"? All Christians? Some Christians? Christian advocates? Some Christian advocates?

Of course, not all Christians. Specifically, the Roman Catholics hold to "hell is the absence of God's presence" doctrine (if I remember correctly).

There are also these "seeker" (i.e. unbelievers who are searching) churches in the US, and I would bet ready money you'll never hear them threatening seekers with hell if they don't convert.

I've also found it in my personal experience with evangelical Christians (Southern Baptists and Evangelical Free) in the US. They might hold the traditional beliefs about hell, but the Old Testament is hardly ever talked about (except a few books like Psalms, Daniel, Genesis). Even Jesus' difficult teachings are hardly mentioned.


M
Theist
Posts: 68
Joined: 2007-02-04
User is offlineOffline
MrRage wrote: M

MrRage wrote:
M wrote:

MrRage wrote:
pby wrote:
The Bible refers to Hell as literal place...Nowhere in Scripture will you find that it is defined as "the absence of God's presence".
Of course it doesn't. People just ignore the lake of fire bit, just like they ignore all the other unpleasant bits of the bible, to make Christianity more palatable.

Who are these "people"? All Christians? Some Christians? Christian advocates? Some Christian advocates?

Of course, not all Christians. Specifically, the Roman Catholics hold to "hell is the absence of God's presence" doctrine (if I remember correctly). There are also these "seeker" (i.e. unbelievers who are searching) churches in the US, and I would bet ready money you'll never hear them threatening seekers with hell if they don't convert. I've also found it in my personal experience with evangelical Christians (Southern Baptists and Evangelical Free) in the US. They might hold the traditional beliefs about hell, but the Old Testament is hardly ever talked about (except a few books like Psalms, Daniel, Genesis). Even Jesus' difficult teachings are hardly mentioned.

 

As I know, the Roman Catholic Church has much freedom regarding their Theological thoughts and not all believers share the same opinions. Only within the higher ranks must a full devotion be met, but other than that excommunication is ususally not enforced unless a Theological position threatens the foundations of the Church order. Hans Kung comes to mind.

And I am aware of the anti-intellectualism within the Evangelical movement, which has spawned such scorn towards Christians in general over the past few centuries; however, I think there need be more appreciation for Christian thought beyond the belief that we all hold to the same principles and theology as the "Jesus Camp" Christians. 

 If you can even consider them Christians...but I suppose that is up for dispute, and I'd rather keep that opinion to myself.

 

I obtained my Black Belt in History. Don't mess with this Master Historian.


MrRage
Posts: 896
Joined: 2006-12-22
User is offlineOffline
M wrote: As I know, the

M wrote:
As I know, the Roman Catholic Church has much freedom regarding their Theological thoughts and not all believers share the same opinions. Only within the higher ranks must a full devotion be met, but other than that excommunication is ususally not enforced unless a Theological position threatens the foundations of the Church order. Hans Kung comes to mind.

I wouldn't be surprised if plenty of Catholics just go a long with the official doctrines. I'm not really knowledgeable about this though, so I'll leave it at that.

M wrote:
And I am aware of the anti-intellectualism within the Evangelical movement, which has spawned such scorn towards Christians in general over the past few centuries; however, I think there need be more appreciation for Christian thought beyond the belief that we all hold to the same principles and theology as the "Jesus Camp" Christians.

There's an element in evangelical Christianity that's very intellectual, and then there are those who aren't. There's wide diversity within the group. You have people as dumb (or maybe deceptive?) as Kent Hovind, and as intelligent as Francis A. Schaeffer.

I think that most of the people I used to attend church with would find Jesus Camp very disturbing.

M wrote:
If you can even consider them Christians...but I suppose that is up for dispute, and I'd rather keep that opinion to myself.

They could say the same things about you. You remember the scene in Jesus Camp where the girl is talking about "dead churches?" So, let's not go there.

Anyway, I'm always interested in what non-evangelicals have to say. I look forward to hearing more from you.


zarathustra
atheist
zarathustra's picture
Posts: 1249
Joined: 2006-11-16
User is onlineOnline
M wrote: First and

M wrote:

First and foremost I suggest that we casts to the side the overgeneralizations of Protestants, Theists, and the like.

"Protestants, Theists, and the like"?

Are Protestants distinct from Theists?  What does "and the like" refer to that is not covered by "Theists"?  Just a little curious, but not very. 

M wrote:

While you may have in fact been brought up under a Protestant Theology you were not in fact brought up under all Protestant Theology, or all of Theism, which does not all conveniently share these simplified views of a place called "Hell" or end time punishment by God.

Is it possible to be brought up under "all of Theism", or even "all Protestant Theology"?  

Why does there appear to be no agreement among christians (and Protestants, Theists and the like) about hell, or god, or anything else in fact?  Indeed, why is there such a profusion of denominations?  Is this what happens when you try to describe something for which no evidence exists?

There are no theists on operating tables.

πππ†
π†††


M
Theist
Posts: 68
Joined: 2007-02-04
User is offlineOffline
MrRage wrote: M wrote: As

MrRage wrote:
M wrote:
As I know, the Roman Catholic Church has much freedom regarding their Theological thoughts and not all believers share the same opinions. Only within the higher ranks must a full devotion be met, but other than that excommunication is ususally not enforced unless a Theological position threatens the foundations of the Church order. Hans Kung comes to mind.
I wouldn't be surprised if plenty of Catholics just go a long with the official doctrines. I'm not really knowledgeable about this though, so I'll leave it at that.
M wrote:
And I am aware of the anti-intellectualism within the Evangelical movement, which has spawned such scorn towards Christians in general over the past few centuries; however, I think there need be more appreciation for Christian thought beyond the belief that we all hold to the same principles and theology as the "Jesus Camp" Christians.
There's an element in evangelical Christianity that's very intellectual, and then there are those who aren't. There's wide diversity within the group. You have people as dumb (or maybe deceptive?) as Kent Hovind, and as intelligent as Francis A. Schaeffer. I think that most of the people I used to attend church with would find Jesus Camp very disturbing.
M wrote:
If you can even consider them Christians...but I suppose that is up for dispute, and I'd rather keep that opinion to myself.
They could say the same things about you. You remember the scene in Jesus Camp where the girl is talking about "dead churches?" So, let's not go there. Anyway, I'm always interested in what non-evangelicals have to say. I look forward to hearing more from you.

 

 

Ahh, yes. Thank you for catching me on that generalization. I don't believe I intended it to be, but I will confess to it for the sake of other readers.  Schaeffer does come to mind, as well as Sire.

 And that is why I also didn't really wish to discuss who was truly not  a Christian or not. While I believe it is obvious for some I cannot casts condemnation on all, especially those in certain groups. I am capable of error obviously.

And I look forward to hearing more from you as well. Much care and a blessing from God. 

I obtained my Black Belt in History. Don't mess with this Master Historian.


M
Theist
Posts: 68
Joined: 2007-02-04
User is offlineOffline
zarathustra wrote: M

zarathustra wrote:
M wrote:

First and foremost I suggest that we casts to the side the overgeneralizations of Protestants, Theists, and the like.

"Protestants, Theists, and the like"?

Are Protestants distinct from Theists? What does "and the like" refer to that is not covered by "Theists"? Just a little curious, but not very.

M wrote:

While you may have in fact been brought up under a Protestant Theology you were not in fact brought up under all Protestant Theology, or all of Theism, which does not all conveniently share these simplified views of a place called "Hell" or end time punishment by God.

Is it possible to be brought up under "all of Theism", or even "all Protestant Theology"?

Why does there appear to be no agreement among christians (and Protestants, Theists and the like) about hell, or god, or anything else in fact? Indeed, why is there such a profusion of denominations? Is this what happens when you try to describe something for which no evidence exists?

 

To answer your first question I was merely making a general remark to the titles she was including in her questionaire. You could very well state "Muslims" and "Spiritualists" in the "and the like" category.

 

As for your second question, it is not possible to be brought up under all Theism, which is what I was hoping for her to catch on to and correct her generalization. 

 Why are there so many opinions among Atheists regarding morality, ethics, politics, and even science (yes, even science, but not exclusively evolution if that's what's on your mind)? Why are there so many different types? Is this what happens when you try to describe the Universe for which no God exists?

 

Note I am not trying to be mean, but that I found your last questions to be a rather petty objection.

 

And are you from EvilBible.com? 

I obtained my Black Belt in History. Don't mess with this Master Historian.


MrRage
Posts: 896
Joined: 2006-12-22
User is offlineOffline
zarathustra wrote: Why does

zarathustra wrote:
Why does there appear to be no agreement among christians (and Protestants, Theists and the like) about hell, or god, or anything else in fact? Indeed, why is there such a profusion of denominations? Is this what happens when you try to describe something for which no evidence exists?

Although there are major divisions within Christianity, not all of it is about essential doctrines. Many of the splits where over church governance, e.g. the Anglican church.


zarathustra
atheist
zarathustra's picture
Posts: 1249
Joined: 2006-11-16
User is onlineOnline
M wrote: Why are there so

M wrote:
Why are there so many opinions among Atheists regarding morality, ethics, politics, and even science (yes, even science, but not exclusively evolution if that's what's on your mind)? Why are there so many different types? Is this what happens when you try to describe the Universe for which no God exists?

 There is no disagreement among atheists about the existence of god, hell, etc., regardless of how you define god, hell, etc.  

 For clarity's sake, science does not admit of "opinions".  There may be multiple, competing scientific theories, but that is always with the understanding that with evidence we can arrive at conclusions by which theories can be discarded which prove false.  By what means would we prove any religious concept false?

 I hadn't realized that Protestants, Theists and the like were all of one opinion in regard to morality, ethics and politics.  Pardon me.

 

There are no theists on operating tables.

πππ†
π†††


M
Theist
Posts: 68
Joined: 2007-02-04
User is offlineOffline
zarathustra wrote: M

zarathustra wrote:

M wrote:
Why are there so many opinions among Atheists regarding morality, ethics, politics, and even science (yes, even science, but not exclusively evolution if that's what's on your mind)? Why are there so many different types? Is this what happens when you try to describe the Universe for which no God exists?

There is no disagreement among atheists about the existence of god, hell, etc., regardless of how you define god, hell, etc.

For clarity's sake, science does not admit of "opinions". There may be multiple, competing scientific theories, but that is always with the understanding that with evidence we can arrive at conclusions by which theories can be discarded which prove false. By what means would we prove any religious concept false?

I hadn't realized that Protestants, Theists and the like were all of one opinion in regard to morality, ethics and politics. Pardon me.

 

 

I never stated we were of the same opinion. I was making a point by stating that pluralism does not make a good objection to a belief system or lack thereof.

 Everyone is going to have different opinions...and there will be those that agree with one another as well. 

I obtained my Black Belt in History. Don't mess with this Master Historian.


w
Posts: 1
Joined: 2007-02-19
User is offlineOffline
Hambydammit wrote:   1)

Hambydammit wrote:

 

1) God is omnipresent, and he is in hell.

 

2) God is not omnipresent, and so is not in hell.

Theists, make your choice!

If you choose option 1, you must tell me what hell is, since it is not the removal of god's presence.

 

 

 

When speaking of "Hell", there are several uses of the word that mean different things depending on the text. I'm assuming you're talking about hellfire type hell, though. This, according to the scriptures, is really more of an event, than it is a static place. It is the lake of fire and it is specifically the presence of God that is it's cause.

 

 

 


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
w, so you choose option

w, so you choose option 1?

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


pby
Theist
Posts: 170
Joined: 2007-02-07
User is offlineOffline
Hambydammit wrote: pby,

Hambydammit wrote:

pby, please check your high horse at the door.

Did you read my post carefully?  If so, why does it appear that you missed the part where I said that if hell is different than I'm portraying, you should tell me what it is?

To save you some trouble, don't bother unless you have some good backing for what you're saying.  If you don't have some evidence, I'm just going to assume you're saying it because that's what you want to believe to make your little version of god work.

 

Answer:  According to Scripture, Hell is:

  • A place of outer darkness
  • A lake of fire
  • A place of weeping and gnashing of teeth
  • Eternal separation from the blessings of God
  • A prison
  • A place of torment where the worm doesn't turn or die

Where do you find that Hell is the absence of the presence of God? What is your citation, other than a vague generalization?

Dr. R.C Sproul, theologian, professor, said this, "To be separated from God for eternity is no great threat to the impenitent person. The ungodly want nothing more than to be separated from God. Their problem in hell will not be separation from God, it will be the presence of God that will torment them. In hell, God will be present in the fullness of His divine wrath. He will be there to exercise His just punishment of the damned. They will know Him as an all-consumin fire."

www.bible-researcher.com/hell6.html

 


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
I did not cite a biblical

I did not cite a biblical source for saying that.  I cited protestant teaching, and then asked the question of theists.

Since hell is a fairy tale, I don't particularly care what people say about it.  The whole point of the post is to allow theists to fall all over their own doctrines, and I'd say so far it's been a good show.

So, anyway... your answer is that god is in hell.  I was hoping to keep a scorecard, but so far you're the only person who's answered definitively.

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


pby
Theist
Posts: 170
Joined: 2007-02-07
User is offlineOffline
Hambydammit wrote: I did

Hambydammit wrote:

I did not cite a biblical source for saying that.  I cited protestant teaching, and then asked the question of theists.

Since hell is a fairy tale, I don't particularly care what people say about it.  The whole point of the post is to allow theists to fall all over their own doctrines, and I'd say so far it's been a good show.

So, anyway... your answer is that god is in hell.  I was hoping to keep a scorecard, but so far you're the only person who's answered definitively.

 

 

Answer:  I cited protestant teaching...It refutes the improper premise in your question. Please specifically cite the protestant teaching that you are referring to.

I certainly did not fall all over myself.

And because you don't properly/Biblically/theologically define Hell, your question is not rational (but illogical...talk about falling all over yourself).

Your lack of proper understanding related to Biblical issues/theology does not make any part of Christian doctrine or the existence of God a fairy tale.

...It just proves that you are ignorant on the subjects that you are questioning.

 

 

 


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
Don't be obtuse. Do you

Don't be obtuse.

Do you really want me to compile a list of churches who teach that hell is the absence of god, just so you can feel like you've been scientific?  All I want is a simple answer to a simple question.

Why are you even concerned that I point out that some people teach that hell is the absence of god?  Can you not see that my post is a question?  Can you not see that I'm allowing you to prove your position? 

Once again you have completely ignored my request that you demonstrate for me the correctness of your position.  If the bible clearly says what hell is, then just give an answer.

Either:

1) God is in hell.

or

2) God is not in hell.

This is the question I'm asking.  Which is it?  If you simply choose 1 or 2, we can stop this quibbling.  I don't even care if you cite a scripture.  Just choose one of the options.

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


pby
Theist
Posts: 170
Joined: 2007-02-07
User is offlineOffline
Hambydammit wrote: Don't

Hambydammit wrote:

Don't be obtuse.

Do you really want me to compile a list of churches who teach that hell is the absence of god, just so you can feel like you've been scientific?  All I want is a simple answer to a simple question.

Why are you even concerned that I point out that some people teach that hell is the absence of god?  Can you not see that my post is a question?  Can you not see that I'm allowing you to prove your position? 

Once again you have completely ignored my request that you demonstrate for me the correctness of your position.  If the bible clearly says what hell is, then just give an answer.

Either:

1) God is in hell.

or

2) God is not in hell.

This is the question I'm asking.  Which is it?  If you simply choose 1 or 2, we can stop this quibbling.  I don't even care if you cite a scripture.  Just choose one of the options.

Answer:  I already answered your question in my above post and you acknowledged it...Why are you asking again (just being obtuse)?

Maybe this will further reinforce:

"If I go up to the heavens, you are there; if I make my bed in the depths, you are there."  Psalm 139:8 

At the very best ,you may have demonstrated that there may be some confusion relative to this issue and, also, that you may have been taught incorrectly in your protestant upbringing...But you certainly have not proved , by any means, that God is not Omnipresent.


pby
Theist
Posts: 170
Joined: 2007-02-07
User is offlineOffline
Hambydammit wrote: I did

Hambydammit wrote:

I did not cite a biblical source for saying that.  I cited protestant teaching, and then asked the question of theists.

Since hell is a fairy tale, I don't particularly care what people say about it.  The whole point of the post is to allow theists to fall all over their own doctrines, and I'd say so far it's been a good show.

So, anyway... your answer is that god is in hell.  I was hoping to keep a scorecard, but so far you're the only person who's answered definitively.

 

 

Answer (rational response):  I think that Dr. C. Matthews, in his book Hell's Terror, puts it succinctly, as well:

"The eternal locality of God's justice is called hell."

www.apuritansmind.com/Tracts%20and%20Writings/Hell'sTerror.htm


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
Thank you for your

Thank you for your answer.

So far the score is

God is in Hell: 2

God is not in Hell: 0

 

Anyone else want to weigh in?

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


pby
Theist
Posts: 170
Joined: 2007-02-07
User is offlineOffline
Hambydammit wrote: Thank

Hambydammit wrote:

Thank you for your answer.

So far the score is

God is in Hell: 2

God is not in Hell: 0

 

Anyone else want to weigh in?

 

It is clear, then...Your question is not a refutation of God's Omnipresence. 

 


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
Go back and review. Nowhere

Go back and review. Nowhere in this thread have I said that I was refuting anything.

Seriously, dude.  I asked a question.  I wanted an answer.  If you see an attempt at refutation, maybe it's your own brain trying to overcome the cognitive dissonance your god belief creates. 

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


pby
Theist
Posts: 170
Joined: 2007-02-07
User is offlineOffline
Hambydammit wrote: rhad, I

Hambydammit wrote:

rhad, I didn't admit that your descent into nihilism was inherently valid, I just said I wasn't going to go there because it's rather pointless to engage in the same debate again.  The nihilism defense by definition can't prove or disprove anything, and is only useful as a philosophical exercise, so I'm not interested in going there.

As far as whether or not hell is a real place or not, or whether god "runs it" or chooses not to be present, or whether hell is the absence of god or not... none of these are of particular interest to me, and I'm not going to get into semantic arguments or breaking down each and every fallacy in each of these theories.  My interest is in showing how extensive the mental gymnastics must be to come up with even a poor explanation.

There's a loop here that theists run in...

 1) atheist points out contradiction.

2) theist re-defines, explains away, or ignores contradiction

3) atheist points out that a good god would not make it so hard to believe in him if he truly loved his creation...

4) theist points out that without faith, belief is impossible, and that's the beauty of the whole system.

5) atheist points out that "faith" is illogical, and that this in itself rules out the religion.

6) theist exclaims vehemently that faith is not illogical, then tries to redefine logic such that faith is not illogical.

7) atheist points out that the theist had to use logic to realize that he needed to use logic to prove faith logical but not logical...

Cool theist says that he uses faith, not logic...

9) atheist points out that this is a contradiction.

10) see step 2.

 

 

Answer (rational response): 

 Like, seriously, Dude!

At your suggestion, I went back and reviewed the thread and I found this quote.

By way of this above-mentioned quote, it is obvious, and easily discerned that , by the Hell question, you were attempting to demonstrate that Christianity is contradictory and illogical and thus ruled out (see steps 1 through 10 in your above-mentioned quote).

It is a clear attempt at refutation...not just the asking of a question for your general knowledge.

You failed. So now you are back-tracking...We understand. 


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
Cold Busted. I tip my hat

Cold Busted.

I tip my hat for you for your reading comprehension skills, and apologize with the tiniest smidgen of shame for forgetting that I had written that.

Since I'd hate for theists to have to answer a quesion when a clear refutation already exists, I have created a new thread without the refutation, and have promised on my honor as a gentleman not to do anything but tally answers.

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


pby
Theist
Posts: 170
Joined: 2007-02-07
User is offlineOffline
Hambydammit wrote: Cold

Hambydammit wrote:

Cold Busted.

I tip my hat for you for your reading comprehension skills, and apologize with the tiniest smidgen of shame for forgetting that I had written that.

Since I'd hate for theists to have to answer a quesion when a clear refutation already exists, I have created a new thread without the refutation, and have promised on my honor as a gentleman not to do anything but tally answers.

 

No problem whatsoever!

Thank you...Have a good one. 

 


American Atheist
American Atheist's picture
Posts: 1331
Joined: 2006-09-03
User is offlineOffline
Has anybody ever seen this

Has anybody ever seen this link before?